Nepal could become BRICS-South Asia connectivity bridge

Today, Chinese President Xi Jinping landed in New Delhi for the two-day BRICS summit, the acronym was coined from the initials of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC). South Africa joined as a full member in 2011, turning BRIC into BRICS.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping are meeting together on the same platform for the first time in 10 years for the 18th summit of the BRICS, and at a time, when the world is witnessing a war in Ukraine and Iran.
Currently, BRICS has 11 full members: Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE became full members in 2024, while Indonesia became a full member in 2025.
Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda, Uzbekistan and Vietnam are the 10 Partner Countries in the group. With the expansion of BRICS, around 30 other countries have also expressed interest in joining the group.
For the two-day summit in New Delhi, influential world leaders from 21 countries and few outreach invitees and other participating representative are in New Delhi, where they will discuss on key global issues including global governance, multilateralism, trade and investment, technology, food and energy security, healthcare, disaster resilience and critical supply chains.
Held under India’s BRICS chairmanship this year, the summit’s main theme is ‘Building for Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation and Sustainability’.
On the first day of the summit, a closed-door session among BRICS member states will be held on ‘Inclusive Global Governance and Strengthening Multilateralism.’ The leaders will then visit the ‘Bharat Innovates’ exhibition at the Bharat Mandapam. The first day’s program will conclude with a joint tree-planting ceremony and a dinner hosted by the host Indian Prime Minister Modi.
On the second day, tomorrow, Prime Minister Modi will welcome representatives of 10 Partner Countries, along with leaders of the BRICS member states, to an open session. The session, titled ‘Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation and Sustainability: Shaping the Future for Inclusive Global Growth,’ will be attended by representatives from Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.

What is BRICS for Nepal?
As the global geopolitical architecture fractures, giving way to a multipolar order, Nepal finds itself standing at a delicate yet defining juncture. For decades, the nation’s foreign policy mantra has been one of ‘amity with all,’ often translated into a cautious balancing act between its two massive neighbors. However, the expansion of BRICS, first agreed at Johannesburg in 2023 and subsequently bringing Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Indonesia into the group signals a tectonic shift in the Global South's economic consolidation. For Nepal, this is not merely a spectator sport. It is an invitation to re-evaluate its strategic leverage. The question is no longer ‘if’ Nepal should engage, but ‘how’.
The answer lies not in traditional diplomacy alone, but in the aggressive commercialization of our geography. Hydropower must cease to be viewed merely as an export commodity – megawatts (MW) sold to India – and must instead be rebranded as the bedrock of a regional clean-energy architecture. This is the economic bridge Nepal must build to float its candidacy for a ‘BRICS Partner Country’ status.
The logic is geopolitical as much as it is economic. BRICS is increasingly focused on energy security, financial cooperation, local-currency settlement and diversification of cross-border payment mechanisms. By pitching a ‘Regional Clean-Energy Platform,’ Nepal positions itself as the green battery for a bloc that includes the world's largest energy consumers (China and India) and ambitious new players looking for sustainable investment avenues.
Nepal’s proposition to BRICS should be audacious yet pragmatic: a trilateral clean-energy corridor linking Nepal's generation capacity with Indian and Bangladeshi markets that utilizes Nepal’s hydropower to stabilize the region's renewable transition. Nepal possesses the technical potential to generate over 40,000 MW. By framing this potential as a solution to the region's carbon deficits and energy intermittency, Nepal moves from being a landlocked nation to a ‘land-linked’ energy hub.
This platform could serve as the prerequisite for BRICS engagement. It signals to major powers like Moscow and Beijing, and even New Delhi, that Kathmandu is bringing tangible assets to the table, not just a strategic location. It transforms hydropower into a diplomatic instrument, a currency that can help Nepal receive a seat at the high table of the Global South.
Formal membership in BRICS brings with it the weight of geopolitical signaling that might currently be too heavy for Kathmandu's delicate balancing act. However, the newly created ‘Partner Country’ category – created in October 2024 Kazan summit – offers the perfect stratagem. Partner country status would give Nepal a formal platform for participation in BRICS consultations, while creating a diplomatic pathway to seek closer engagement with the New Development Bank (NDB) and other BRICS institutions. NDB financing, however, would require separate eligibility and institutional approval.
For Nepal, the pathway to this status must be paved with the hydro-power diplomacy mentioned above. Nepal must argue that the Himalayas are not just a border, but a shared ecological and economic resource that requires a transnational management framework. A BRICS Partner Country status provides the institutional backing to manage this resource without the conditionalities often imposed by Western financial institutions.
Thus, Nepal should not approach BRICS merely as a country seeking a membership but as a Partner Country offering a regional solution like ‘Himalayan Resilience Corridor Initiative (HRCI)’ and ‘Himalayan Climate, Glacier and Disaster Resilience Centre (HCGDRC)’. The first one could be a physical infrastructure and economic corridor, whereas HCGDRC could act as knowledge, monitoring and early-warning institution.
When Nepal becomes a Partner Country, it could formally propose the ‘Himalayan Resilience Corridor Initiative (HRCI)’ and ‘Himalayan Climate, Glacier and Disaster Resilience Centre (HCGDRC)’, which would be the crown jewel of the Nepal-BRICS framework, moving beyond simple energy trade to a comprehensive climate-security paradigm.
Though, BRICS already has energy, climate, infrastructure and disaster-risk agendas, Nepal could connect these existing BRICS priorities through HRCI, which could be envisioned as a multi-modal corridor integrating three critical pillars; Energy Grid Interconnectivity, Climate Adaptation Infrastructure and Green Hydrogen and Ecological Logistics.
Energy Grid Interconnectivity could be a high-voltage transmission backbone linking Nepal’s generation hubs with the load centers in India and Bangladesh – though Bangladesh is not yet the member of BRICS but aspires to become one and a member of BRICS-backed NDB – potentially extending northwards, financed by BRICS capital. Similarly, Climate Adaptation Infrastructure could utilize BRICS technology and funding to combat glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs) and basin management. It will frame the Himalayas as a ‘Resilience’ asset, appealing to the climate-vulnerable nations within the BRICS sphere.
Likewise, Green Hydrogen and Ecological Logistics could help develop green hydrogen industries powered by seasonal hydro-surplus and establishing eco-friendly logistics routes that complement the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and India’s Act East policy, effectively turning Nepal into a transit lubricant for the region.
To make this a reality, the policymakers in Singha Durbar must pivot from reactive aid-rationing to proactive economic statecraft. The HRCI should be pitched not as a Nepali project, but as a BRICS project ‘hosted’ in Nepal. It serves the interests of China by securing its southern ecological flank and benefits India by providing renewable energy and disaster mitigation.
Furthermore, the HRCI offers an alternative narrative to the ‘debt trap,’ discourse. By structuring this under the BRICS framework – specifically aiming for NDB financing – Nepal can diversify its portfolio, ensuring that its infrastructure development is backed by a coalition of emerging economies rather than a single bilateral lender.
The waters of the Himalayas have flowed for millennia, sustaining civilizations below. It is time Nepal stopped viewing these rivers solely as resources to be tapped, but as currency to be traded on the geopolitical market. By floating the idea of a ‘Clean-Energy Platform’ and subsequently formalizing the ‘Himalayan Resilience Corridor Initiative’, Nepal can do more than just join BRICS; it can define its own relevance in a new world order.
Likewise, a BRICS-supported ‘Himalayan Climate, Glacier and Disaster Resilience Centre (HCGDRC)’ bringing the institutions together from Nepal, India, China, Bangladesh, Brazil, South Africa, and other BRICS partners could work in various areas including glacier monitoring, glacial lake monitoring, landslide monitoring, flood forecasting, seismic monitoring, satellite observation, AI-based disaster prediction, early warning systems, hydrological modelling and emergency communication. The objective of the Centre would be to move from post-disaster response to predictive resilience, which is also one of the key lessons from August 26 Bhotekoshi-Trishuli flash flood. Such a proposal would build on BRICS's existing work on climate change, disaster-risk reduction, energy cooperation and early-warning systems.
The bridge is ready to be built. The materials are our geography and our ambition. All that remains is the political will to lay the foundation.

(First published in nepalkhabar.com -- https://en.nepalkhabar.com/news/detail/19786/)

Nepal must move from climate diplomacy to climate litigation, but with proof, not in haste

Prime Minister Balendra Shah (Balen) is set to travel to New York for the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). The visit comes amid intense pressure in the aftermath of the Bhotekoshi-Trishuli River basin flash floods, a disaster that has claimed thousands of lives and left thousands more missing.
Though the UNGA is scheduled to begin on September 8, the high-level general debate will begin on September 22. And the visit of PM Shah is not only going to the first out of country official visit as he has not made a foreign visit since taking charge on March 27, but also will mark the shift in diplomacy as he is going to voice the concern of Nepal’s story of climate disaster despite Nepal’s less or no contribution to global carbon emission.
For decades, Nepal has gone to the world’s climate conferences or UNGA with the same message: we are among the countries most exposed to climate change, yet we have contributed almost nothing to the problem.
The message is true. But it is also no longer enough.
Nepal’s latest Himalayan catastrophe – as named ‘Himalayan Tsunami’ by some of the global media – has made the limits of conventional climate diplomacy brutally clear. The August 26 glacier-related disaster along the Nepal-China border has killed hundreds, left more than 5,000 still missing and inflicted extraordinary damage on infrastructure and livelihoods. Rescue operations have continued amid destroyed roads, bridges and hydropower facilities. Government’s preliminary estimates put reconstruction and rehabilitation needs at roughly $4 billion to $5 billion – close to a tenth of the country’s economy – while the latest reported assessment puts direct losses at about $2.56 billion.
The figures itself explains that this is not simply another natural disaster.
Scientists increasingly understand that a warming climate is destabilizing glaciers, permafrost and mountain slopes, increasing the risks of avalanches, glacial lake outburst floods, landslides and cascading disasters across the Hindu Kush Himalaya. Recent research on Nepal also finds that some extreme rainfall and heat events have become substantially more likely because of anthropogenic climate change.
Nepal therefore faces a strategic choice.
It can continue asking the international community for greater climate finance, stronger adaptation support and solidarity. Or it can begin asking a more difficult question: Who should pay for the losses that climate change is imposing on countries that did little to cause it?
The answer requires Nepal to move from climate diplomacy to compensation diplomacy, and eventually, where the legal and scientific evidence permits, to climate litigation.
This is not a call for confrontation. It is a call for a different conception of climate justice.
For years, Nepal has presented itself primarily as a vulnerable country. That identity has helped bring international attention and some financial support. But vulnerability without enforceable claims can easily become a permanent political condition: the vulnerable ask, the powerful promise, and the money arrives slowly, conditionally or inadequately.
Nepal should now become more than a country seeking assistance.
It should become a country asserting a claim.
The distinction matters.
The international climate regime has already recognized the principle of loss and damage. The creation of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage marked an important institutional development. Yet establishing a fund is not the same as ensuring that countries suffering irreversible climate-related losses receive adequate compensation.
Nepal should therefore stop treating loss and damage as another development-finance programme.
It is a question of justice.
Consider the arithmetic. Nepal builds a road, bridge or hydropower plant with scarce domestic resources or borrowed money. And one fine day, a climate-amplified disaster destroys it. The government then borrows again to rebuild. If another disaster follows, it borrows once more.
At what point does climate change become a debt crisis?
This is the hidden economic cost of climate change for vulnerable developing countries like Nepal. Climate disasters do not merely destroy assets. They destroy the fiscal space needed to build new ones.
Nepal cannot indefinitely finance climate losses through domestic taxation and sovereign borrowing.
Nor should it.
The first step toward changing this equation is deceptively simple: Nepal must start keeping the bill.
The country needs a national Loss and Damage Account that records, systematically and scientifically, the economic consequences of climate-related disasters.
That account should go far beyond destroyed roads and buildings. It should measure lost agricultural output, electricity generation, tourism revenues, employment, household assets, public revenue, migration, displacement, ecosystem services and the long-term effects on human capital.
It should also distinguish between the immediate physical damage and the wider economic losses that unfold over years.
Most importantly, Nepal needs to invest in attribution science.
International climate diplomacy increasingly depends on the ability to establish whether and to what extent a particular event has been influenced by anthropogenic climate change. A recent study on Nepal specifically argues that stronger attribution studies, better data systems and improved institutional coordination would strengthen the country's ability to access international loss-and-damage finance.
This is where Nepal's climate policy must become much more sophisticated.
Emotion can establish moral urgency.
But evidence establishes a claim.
Thus, Nepal should adopt the second step that is compensation diplomacy.
Nepal should build a coalition of countries facing comparable circumstances: least-developed countries, mountain states, small island states and other climate-vulnerable developing economies.
But the objective should change.
Instead of repeatedly asking wealthy countries to increase voluntary assistance, Nepal should push for predictable, accessible and adequate mechanisms for financing unavoidable climate losses.
That could include grants rather than loans, concessional reconstruction finance, debt suspension following major climate disasters, debt restructuring, disaster clauses in sovereign borrowing and automatic financing triggered by objectively measured climate events.
This would not be charity.
It would be an attempt to distribute an increasingly globalized risk more fairly.
Nepal's argument should also be grounded in the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Every country shares responsibility for addressing climate change, but historical contributions to atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and national capacities to respond are profoundly unequal.
The country that contributed least cannot reasonably be expected to bear the entire cost of consequences produced by a global system it did little to create.
But diplomacy has limits.
That is where litigation enters.
Climate litigation should not be understood as Nepal's first resort. Nor should it become a theatrical exercise in naming and shaming major emitters.
It should be treated as a strategic instrument.
Nepal should establish a high-level Climate Litigation Task Force comprising international lawyers, climate scientists, economists, diplomats and constitutional and environmental law experts. Its first mandate should not be to file a lawsuit. It should be to determine whether a legally credible case exists.
What duties do states owe to countries exposed to climate-related harm?
What does international environmental law require regarding transboundary harm?
Can historical emissions be legally connected to specific categories of loss?
How should causation be established?
Can states claim remedies for climate-related harm through existing international judicial or quasi-judicial mechanisms?
These are difficult questions. The fact that they are difficult is precisely why Nepal should begin studying them now.
The objective is not necessarily to win a courtroom battle tomorrow.
The objective is to change the negotiating position today.
A country that possesses a credible legal strategy negotiates differently from a country that possesses only a moral appeal.
Nepal should understand this as leverage.
If a legal route is eventually found, it could be pursued. If it is not, the legal research would still strengthen Nepal's position in international negotiations by clarifying rights, obligations and evidentiary standards.
There is another dimension to this strategy.
Nepal should stop presenting the Himalayas merely as a fragile ecosystem in need of protection. The Himalayas should be understood as a global climate asset.
The region's glaciers and snowfields underpin water systems serving enormous populations across Asia. The stability of the Himalayan cryosphere matters not only to Nepal but to agriculture, energy, water security and human settlements far beyond its borders.
If the world considers Himalayan stability a global public good, the costs of protecting it cannot reasonably be assigned entirely to Himalayan countries.
Nepal should therefore propose an international Himalayan Climate Resilience and Loss and Damage Facility, financed through multilateral climate institutions and designed specifically for mountain risks.
“Such an initiative would finance glacier monitoring, early-warning systems, resilient infrastructure, scientific research and, crucially, unavoidable losses,” geologist Shree Kamal Dwevedi argues, adding that it would turn Nepal's vulnerability into diplomatic leverage.
But there is an important caveat. “Nepal must not turn climate litigation into a geopolitical weapon against either of its neighbors.”
The recent disaster occurred in a sensitive transboundary Himalayan environment. Questions about glacier instability, early-warning data, infrastructure and disaster information sharing deserve serious investigation. But attribution must not be confused with political accusation.
A serious climate claim requires evidence.
Nepal must therefore invest in precisely that evidence: satellite monitoring, glacier and permafrost research, hydrological data, hazard mapping, event attribution and transparent disaster accounting, he adds.
In future climate diplomacy, data will be power.
Nepal's diplomats should be able to arrive at international negotiations not merely with photographs of destroyed villages, but with a quantified claim, a scientific attribution assessment, an economic model and a legal memorandum.
That would change the conversation.
The country's message would no longer be: We are poor and vulnerable. Please help us.
It would become: We have suffered measurable losses from a global climate crisis. Here is the evidence. Here is the economic cost. Here is the legal basis for responsibility. Here is what a fair international response should look like.
That is the difference between aid-seeking diplomacy and rights-based diplomacy.
Nepal should also recognize that climate litigation is not necessarily about suing fossil-fuel companies or industrialized states for every disaster. The legal landscape is too complex for such simplistic claims. The more credible path may involve strategic litigation, advisory opinions, international legal interpretation and domestic legal action that establishes duties of prevention, disclosure, adaptation and protection.
The point is to create accountability where conventional diplomacy has failed to do so.
Nepal has been patient.
It has participated in climate negotiations. It has adopted national plans. It has pledged ambitious environmental goals. It has repeatedly highlighted the vulnerability of the Himalayas. Yet the gap between climate promises and climate finance remains enormous. Nepal estimates that implementing its adaptation priorities and climate commitments will require tens of billions of dollars.
The country cannot continue financing an international climate crisis from its own limited fiscal resources.
The August 26 disaster should therefore become a turning point.
Nepal needs a national Climate Justice and Compensation Strategy with five pillars: systematic loss-and-damage accounting, scientific attribution, compensation diplomacy, legal preparedness and strategic litigation.
The shift is conceptual as much as institutional.
Climate diplomacy asks the world to listen.
Compensation diplomacy asks the world to contribute.
Climate litigation asks the world to answer.
Nepal should be prepared for all three.
The Himalayas are warning us that the climate crisis is no longer a distant environmental problem. It is a question of national solvency, human security and international justice.
Nepal did not create this crisis.
But Nepal is paying for it.
The time has come to send the bill back to the world.
And PM Balendra Shah is expected to do the same in the 81st UNGA !!!
(Frist published in nepalkhabar.com -- https://en.nepalkhabar.com/news/detail/19696/)

भोटेकोसी विपद्ले बदल्यो कूटनीति– जलवायु ऋण होइन, अब क्षतिपूर्ति

बुधबार प्रतिनिधि सभाले जलवायु परिवर्तनबाट नेपालमा सिर्जित हानिनोक्सानी र राष्ट्रिय सुरक्षा चुनौतीलाई अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय स्तरमा अझ बलियो रूपमा उठाउन सरकारको ध्यानाकर्षण गराएको छ। भदौ १० गते भोटेकोसी र त्रिशूली नदी बेसिनमा गएको विनाशकारी बाढीले रसुवा, नुवाकोट र धादिङलगायत क्षेत्रमा भएको विनाशको सन्दर्भमा प्रतिनिधि सभाले विशेष प्रस्ताव पारित गरेको हो।
उक्त अवसरमा सभामुख डोलप्रसाद अर्यालले नेपालले अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय समुदायसमक्ष जलवायु न्यायको मुद्दा प्रभावकारी रूपमा उठाउनुपर्ने पनि बताए।
यससँगै जलवायु परिवर्तनबाट भएको हानिनोक्सानीबारे नेपालले आफ्नो आवाज स्पष्ट र बलियो बनाउने बाटो खुलेको छ। यसका साथै जलवायु परिवर्तनबाट उत्पन्न जोखिम अब वातावरणीय समस्या मात्र नभई राष्ट्रिय सुरक्षा चुनौतीको रूपमा नेपालले अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय स्तरमा स्थापित गर्न सहज पनि भएको छ। किनकि मानवसिर्जित तापक्रम वृद्धिका कारण हिमनदी र हिमतालमा परिवर्तन, हिमपहिरोको जोखिम वृद्धि तथा असामान्य वर्षाका घटना बढिरहेको सन्दर्भमा विपद् आइसकेपछि राहत तथा पुनर्निर्माणमा केन्द्रित हुने भन्दा हिमताल र हिमनदीको नियमित अध्ययन, अनुगमन तथा पूर्वतयारीलाई प्राथमिकता दिने कार्यमा नेपाल गम्भीर हुनुपर्ने अवस्था छ।
प्रतिनिधि सभाले बुधबार पारित गरेको प्रस्तावले नेपालको जलवायु कूटनीतिका अब कतातिर जान्छ भन्ने पनि संकेत गरेको छ। यसअघि भदौ १५ गते पनि नेपालका जनताको नामबाट विश्व बैंकलाई एउटा पत्र लेखिएको छ।
पत्रमा लेखिएको छः हामीलाई थप जलवायु ऋण होइन, ऐक्यबद्धता चाहिएको छ। हामीलाई जलवायु ऋण होइन, अनुदान चाहिएको छ।
पत्रमा भदौ १० गते भोटेकोसी र त्रिशूली नदी बेसिनमा गएको विनाशकारी बाढी तथा पहिरोको राहत र पुनरुत्थानका लागि विश्व बैंकले नेपाललाई प्रस्ताव गरेको सहुलियतपूर्ण वित्तपोषणप्रति गहिरो चासो र साथै आपत्ति पनि प्रकट गरिएको छ।
‘यो कुनै सामान्य प्राकृतिक प्रकोप होइन, यो स्पष्ट रूपमा जलवायु संकटको बोझ हो। जसलाई नेपालले हरेक वर्ष सामना गर्दै आएको छ। जसले हाम्रा समुदाय, जीवन र जीविकोपार्जनलाई तहसनहस पारेको छ। हामीले हरेक वर्ष अर्बौं अमेरिकी डलर बराबरको आर्थिक र सहन नसकिने गैर–आर्थिक क्षति बेहोर्नुपरेको छ र यस्तो अवस्थामा पनि विश्व बैंक जस्ता अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय वित्तीय संस्थाहरूले नेपालको ऋणको बोझ थपेर जवाफ दिइरहेका छन्। यो स्पष्ट रूपमा मानवताविरुद्धको अपराध हो,’ पत्रमा भनिएको छ।
नेपालले आफूले नगरेको गल्तीको कारण निम्तिएको विनाशमा विश्व बैंकले ऋणको बोझ बोकाउन खोज्नु मानवता विरुद्धको अपराध हो भनेर विश्व बैंक समूहका अध्यक्ष तथा कार्यकारी निर्देशकहरूलाई सम्बोधन गरेर लेखिएको पत्रको बोधार्थ नेपालका प्रधानमन्त्री, अर्थ मन्त्रालय, नेपाल सरकार तथा विश्व बैंक नेपाल देशीय कार्यालयका नाममा पनि दिइएको छ।
पत्रमा अगाडि लखिएको छ, ‘बाढी गएलगत्तै विश्व बैंकले आफ्नो विपद्–वित्तपोषण संयन्त्रमार्फत नेपालको आपतकालीन प्रतिक्रियाको लागि करिब २५ अर्ब नेपाली रुपैयाँ परिचालन गर्न सकिने जनाएको छ। तर, विश्व बैंकको यो सहुलियतपूर्ण वित्तपोषण हो, अनुदान होइन। हामीले नगरेको गल्तीको लागि हामीलाई नै ऋण दिने अनि हामीसँग ब्याज लिने यस्तो व्यवस्था अर्थात् सहुलियतपूर्ण ऋण पनि ऋण नै हो र ऋण भनेको जलवायु न्याय होइन।’
जलवायु परिवर्तनका कारण हुने ठूला प्राकृतिक प्रकोपहरूसँग लड्न र त्यसबाट भएको क्षतिपूर्ति वा पुनःनिर्माणका लागि विकासोन्मुख राष्ट्रहरूलाई आर्थिक सहयोग गर्न स्थापित हानिनोक्सानी कोषको संक्रमणकालीन समितिका अनुसार नयाँ कोष र वित्तपोषण व्यवस्था अन्तर्गत हानि र नोक्सानीलाई सम्बोधन गर्ने सहयोगले विकासशील देशहरूको विकासका प्रयासलाई थप कुण्ठित गर्ने गरी उनीहरूको ऋणको बोझ बढाउने काम गर्नु हुँदैन।
किनकि नेपाल हरितगृह ग्यास उत्सर्जनमा सबैभन्दा कम योगदान गर्ने मुलुकमध्ये भएपनि विश्वका सबैभन्दा बढी जोखिममा पर्ने देशहरूमा पर्छ। तसर्थ, पत्रमा उल्लेख छ, ‘जलवायु संकटबाट उम्कन नेपाललाई ऋण तिर्न बाध्य पार्नु अत्यन्तै अन्यायपूर्ण छ र हामी विश्व बैंकलाई बाढी प्रतिक्रिया र पुनरुत्थानका लागि प्रस्ताव गरिएको ऋणलाई अनुदानमा परिणत गर्न माग गर्दछौं।’
नेपालमा बाढी आउँछ, पहिरो जान्छ, हिमताल फुट्छ, हिमपहिरो खस्छ। मानिस मर्छन्, बस्ती बग्छन्, सडक र पुल भत्किन्छन्, जलविद्युत् आयोजना क्षतिग्रस्त हुन्छन्। केही दिन राज्य संयन्त्र सक्रिय हुन्छ। राहत घोषणा हुन्छ। अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय समुदायले पनि समवेदना व्यक्त गर्छ। तर, नेपाल सरकार विश्व बैंकसँग ऋण लिएर पुनर्निर्माण तथा पुनस्र्थापनाको काम गर्छ। यो क्रम अब रोकिनु पर्छ। किनकि हिमालमा भइरहेको परिवर्तनलाई अब नयाँ ऋण दिने बहानाको रुपमा हेर्न मिल्दैन।
पत्रमा अगाडि लेखिएको छ, ‘तसर्थ, हामी विश्व बैंकलाई नेपालको बाढी प्रतिक्रिया र पुनरुत्थानका लागि प्रस्तावित वित्तपोषणलाई ऋणबाट अनुदानमा तुरुन्तै परिणत गर्न, तात्कालिक प्रतिक्रिया र पुनरुत्थानका लागि दिइने सबै सहयोगले सार्वभौम ऋणको बोझ नबढाउने कुरा सुनिश्चित गर्न, हानि र नोक्सानी कोषमा पहुँच पाउन नेपाललाई सहयोग गर्न र प्रस्तावित वित्तपोषणमा पूर्ण पारदर्शिता प्रदान गर्न आह्वान गर्दछौं।’
‘हामी (नेपालका जनता) नेपाल सरकारलाई हामीसँग दृढतापूर्वक उभिन र विश्व बैंकको नयाँ ऋण प्रस्तावलाई स्पष्ट रूपमा अस्वीकार गर्न तथा समुदायको चिहानमाथि, मानवता विरुद्धको अपराध नगर्न आह्वान गर्दछौं। नेपालले विश्व बैंक र अन्य अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय वित्तीय संस्थाहरूलाई विपद् प्रतिक्रिया, पुनरुत्थान र पुनर्निर्माणका लागि ऋण होइन, अनुदान उपलब्ध गराउन माग गर्नुपर्छ,’ पत्रमा लेखिएको छ।
भदौ १० गते बिहान लाङटाङ–लिरुङ क्षेत्रको करिब ५ हजार २०० मिटर उचाइबाट खसेको हिम, बरफ, चट्टान र गेग्रानको विशाल पिण्डले तलको ल्हेन्दे खोलामा पुगेपछि भयावह बाढीको रूप लियो। हालसम्म उपलब्ध प्रारम्भिक आकलनअनुसार ठूलो मात्रामा गेग्रानसहितको लेदो नदी एकैपटक गडगडाएर भोटेकोसी–त्रिशूली करिडोरतर्फ फैलियो। अनि यो प्रकोपको विनाशले केही घण्टामै बस्ती, सडक, पुल, ऊर्जा संरचना र व्यापारिक सम्पर्कलाई तहसनहस पार्‍यो।
यस्तो अनपेक्षित र प्रलयकारी विपत्तिका कारण सयौं स्वदेशी तथा विदेशी नागरिकहरूले मृत्युवरण गर्न पुगेका छन् भने हजारौं मानिसहरू अझैसम्म हराईरहेका छन्। बाढीका कारण खर्बौँ रुपैयाँ बराबरको भौतिक सम्पत्ति क्षति भएको छ। दर्जनौं पक्की पुल बगेका छन्। करिब ९०० मेगावाटका एक दर्जनभन्दा बढी जलविद्युत आयोजनाहरू प्रभावित भएका छन्। पचासौं किलोमिटर सडकहरू, हजारौं घर तथा व्यापारिक भवनहरूका साथै हजारौं हेक्टर खेतीयोग्य जमिनमा पूर्ण तथा आंशिक क्षति भएको छ।
साथै, शिक्षा, स्वास्थ्य, सार्वजनिक सेवा लगायतका सरकारी संरचनाहरू ध्वस्त भएका छन्। बाढीले भौतिक तथा मानविय क्षति पुर्‍याउनुका साथै हजारौं वर्षदेखिको नदी किनाराको मानव सभ्यता समेत तहसनहस पारेको छ।
परम्परागत मनसुनी बाढीमा वर्षा, नदीको सतह र पानीको बहावका आधारमा केही समय पूर्वसूचना दिन सकिन्छ। तर हिमाली ढलानबाट अचानक ठूलो परिमाणमा बरफ, चट्टान र गेग्रान तल खस्दा त्यसले सिर्जना गर्ने बाढीको प्रकृति तथा गति फरक हुन्छ। यस्तो घटनामा पूर्वसूचनाका लागि उपलब्ध समय अत्यन्त छोटो हुन सक्छ।
यसले नेपाललाई एउटा कठोर पाठ दिएको छः हामीसँग बाढीको पूर्वसूचना प्रणाली भए पनि त्यो हिमालबाट अचानक उत्पन्न हुने उच्च गतिको बाढीका लागि अझै अपर्याप्त छ। त्यसैले अब प्रश्न उद्धार र राहतको मात्र होइन। प्रश्न जोखिमको पुनर्मूल्यांकनको हो।
विपद्पछि हाम्रो पहिलो प्रतिक्रिया भत्किएको सडक र पुल बनाउनु हो। तर जुन ठाउँमा जोखिमको स्वरूप नै बदलिइसकेको छ, त्यही ठाउँमा पुरानै संरचना फेरि बनाउनु पुनर्निर्माण होइन, अर्को विपदलाई निम्तो हुन्छ।
अब पुनर्निर्माणको प्रश्न ‘कति खर्च लाग्छ?’ मात्र होइन, ‘कहाँ र कस्तो पूर्वाधार बनाउने?’ भन्ने हो। किनकि जलवायु परिवर्तनले जोखिम बढाइरहेको अवस्थामा विगतका बाढीको तथ्यांक मात्र हेरेर भविष्यको पूर्वाधार डिजाइन गर्न सकिँदैन।
अझ यो भन्दा ठूलो प्रश्न नेपालको अर्थतन्त्रसँग जोडिएको छ।
विश्वलाई नै थाहा छ, नेपालको विश्वव्यापी हरितगृह ग्यास उत्सर्जनमा योगदान ०.१ प्रतिशत मात्र अर्थात् नगण्य छ। तर जलवायुजन्य जोखिमको सबैभन्दा अग्रपंक्तिमा नेपाल नै छ। हिमनदीको तीव्र परिवर्तन, हिमतालको जोखिम, पहिरो, बाढी र मौसमको चरम परिवर्तनीय घटनाले नेपालको पूर्वाधार, कृषि, ऊर्जा, पर्यटन र जीविकोपार्जनमा प्रत्यक्ष असर पारिरहेको छ।
यहीँनेर प्रतिनिधि सभाले बुधबार पारित गरेको तथा नेपालका जनताको नामबाट विश्व बैंकलाई लेखिएको पत्रमा उठाइएको मुलप्रश्न, ‘अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय जलवायु न्याय’को सन्दर्भ आउँछ। विश्वका सबै देशले समान मात्रामा कार्बन उत्सर्जन गर्दैनन्। सबैको ऐतिहासिक जिम्मेवारी पनि समान छैन। र जलवायुजन्य क्षति सामना गर्ने आर्थिक क्षमता पनि सबैको समान छैन।
‘साझा तर विभेदित उत्तरदायित्व’को सिद्धान्त यही असमानतालाई स्वीकार गर्ने अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय जलवायु व्यवस्थाको महत्वपूर्ण आधार हो। समस्या के हो भने यो सिद्धान्त त स्वीकार गरिएको छ, तर त्यसअनुसारको आर्थिक उत्तरदायित्व अझै पर्याप्त रूपमा कार्यान्वयन गरिएको छैन। त्यसैले, नेपालले यही अन्तरलाई अब आफ्नो कूटनीतिक एजेन्डा बनाउनुपर्छ।
वर्षौंदेखि नेपालले विश्वलाई भनिरहेको छ, ‘हामी जलवायु परिवर्तनका कारण जोखिममा छौं, हामीलाई जलवायु वित्त चाहिन्छ, हिमालय बचाउनुपर्छ।’ विश्वले सुन्दै पनि आएको छ तर यसपटक नराम्रोसँग देखियो पनि। त्यसैले अब भाष्य बदल्ने समय आएको छ।
जलवायु कूटनीति अब पर्याप्त छैन। जलवायु मुद्दासम्बन्धी कानुनी सम्भावनासमेत गम्भीरतापूर्वक अध्ययन गरेर नेपालले क्षतिपूर्ति कूटनीति सुरु गर्नुपछ। तर, यसमा सावधानी पनि अपनाउनु पर्छ। यो कुनै देशविरुद्धको क्षणिक आक्रोश होइन। यो अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय कानुन, वैज्ञानिक प्रमाण र जलवायु न्यायलाई आर्थिक उत्तरदायित्वसँग जोड्ने रणनीति हो। सबैभन्दा पहिले नेपालले आफ्नो क्षतिको दस्तावेजीकरण गरेर प्रमाण तयार गर्नुपर्छ।
प्रत्येक ठूलो जलवायुजन्य विपद्को प्रत्यक्ष र अप्रत्यक्ष क्षतिको लेखाजोखा हुनुपर्छ। सडक र पुल मात्र होइन, कृषि उत्पादन, ऊर्जा उत्पादन, पर्यटन, रोजगारी, विस्थापन, शिक्षा, सामाजिक संरचना, सार्वजनिक ऋण र स्थानीय अर्थतन्त्रमा परेको प्रभावसमेत गणना गर्नुपर्छ।
कुन घटना सामान्य प्राकृतिक प्रक्रियाको परिणाम हो? कुन जोखिम जलवायु परिवर्तनले बढाएको हो? तापक्रम वृद्धि, हिमनदीको अवस्था, हिमतालको अस्थिरता र चरम मौसमबीचको सम्बन्ध कति बलियो छ? यस्ता प्रश्नको वैज्ञानिक उत्तरबिना अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय क्षतिपूर्तिको दाबी कमजोर हुन्छ। त्यसैले नेपालले जलवायु कारण निर्धारणसम्बन्धी अध्ययनमा लगानी गर्नुपर्छ। कूटनीतिमा भावनाले सहानुभूति त प्राप्त गर्न सकिन्छ तर दाबी गर्न प्रमाण चाहिन्छ।
नेपालले हरेक ठूलो विपद्पछि प्रस्तुत गर्न सकिने वैज्ञानिक र आर्थिक ‘क्षतिपूर्ति दाबीसम्बन्धी दस्तावेज’ तयार गरेर हानि तथा नोक्सानीलाई नेपालको जलवायु कूटनीतिको मुलमुद्दा बनाउनुपर्छ। र संयुक्त राष्ट्रसंघीय जलवायु प्रक्रियामा हानि तथा नोक्सानी सम्बन्धी वित्तीय संयन्त्रबाट नेपालले लाभ लिन सक्ने गरी आफ्नो संस्थागत क्षमता निर्माण गर्नुपर्छ।
अनि, जलवायु वित्तलाई नयाँ परियोजना वा ऋण प्राप्त गर्ने अवसरका रूपमा मात्र पनि हेर्नु हुँदैन। भूगर्भविद् श्रीकमल द्विवेदीका अनुसार त्यो वित्त जलवायुजन्य प्रकोप न्यूनीकरणमा लगाउनु पर्छ। अन्यथा फेरि नीति निर्माणका नाममा दुरुपयोग हुने खतरा छ। नेपालले हतारमा यसलाई राजनीतिक मुद्दा बनाइहाल्ने भन्दा पनि अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय कानुनविद्, जलवायु वैज्ञानिक, अर्थशास्त्री, कूटनीतिज्ञ र विश्वविद्यालयहरूलाई समेटेर जलवायु कानुनी कार्यदल गठन गर्नु आवश्यक भएको उनको तर्क छ।
यो कार्यदलले कानुनी दायित्व, वैज्ञानिक कारण निर्धारण र आर्थिक क्षतिको सम्बन्ध स्थापित गरेपछि नेपालले अदालतमा नजाने निर्णय नै गरे पनि विश्वसनीय कानुनी रणनीति आफैंमा एउटा कूटनीतिक शक्ति बन्छ। अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय वार्तामा शक्ति केवल ठूलो अर्थतन्त्रबाट मात्र आउँदैन। प्रमाण, कानुनी तयारी र वैकल्पिक रणनीतिबाट पनि आउँछ।
द्विवेदीका अनुसार हिमनदी र हिमताल निगरानी, पूर्वसूचना प्रणाली, जलवायु अनुसन्धान, जोखिमयुक्त पूर्वाधारको पुनर्निर्माण, समुदायको पुनर्स्थापना र अपरिहार्य हानि तथा नोक्सानीको वित्तीय सम्बोधनसम्म यसको दायरा फैलाएर अझ चीन र भारतसँगको कूटनीतिक सम्बन्धलाई पनि जलवायु सुरक्षाको दृष्टिले पुनः परिभाषित गर्नु आजको आवश्कता हो।
हिमालका नदी, हिमनदी, हिमताल र पहिरोले राजनीतिक सीमा चिन्दैनन्। त्यसैले वास्तविक समयमा सूचना आदानप्रदान, हिमनदी तथा हिमताल निगरानी, नदी बेसिन व्यवस्थापन, पूर्वसूचना र सीमापार अनुसन्धानका लागि नयाँ क्षेत्रीय संयन्त्र आवश्यक छ। विशेषतः उत्तरी हिमाली क्षेत्रमा उत्पन्न जोखिम केही घण्टामै नेपाली बस्तीलाई सोत्तर पार्न सक्ने यसै घटनाबाट प्रमाणित भइसकेको छ।
अनि जलवायु कूटनीति अब वातावरण मन्त्रालयको मात्र विषय रहन सक्दैन। यो अर्थ मन्त्रालय, परराष्ट्र मन्त्रालय, ऊर्जा, भौतिक पूर्वाधार, पर्यटन, कृषि र राष्ट्रिय सुरक्षाको विषय पनि हो। नेपालले अब अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय जलवायु सम्मेलनमा केवल ‘हामी जोखिममा छौं’ भन्नु भन्दा आफ्नो क्षतिको हिसाबकिताब स्पष्टरुपमा प्रस्तुत गर्नुपर्छ। यस्तै, अब अनुकूलन वित्त माग्नु मात्र पनि पर्याप्त छैन। हानि तथा नोक्सानीको दाबी गर्नुपर्छ। नेपाल सहानुभूति खोज्ने देश होइन, अब जलवायु न्यायको दाबीकर्ताका रूपमा उभिनुपर्छ। र बुधबारको प्रतिनिधि सभाले सरकारलाई दिएको निर्देशन पनि यही हो।
‘हामी गरिब छौं, सहयोग गरिदिनुहोस्’ भन्ने भाष्यबाट अब नेपालले ‘हामी जलवायु संकटको अग्रपंक्तिमा छौं, यसको असमान लागत बाँडिनुपर्छ’ भन्ने भाष्य बनाउनतिर लाग्नुपर्छ।
र, ‘राहत चाहियो’ बाट ‘हानि तथा नोक्सानीका लागि वित्त चाहियो’ भन्नेतर्फ जानुपर्छ।
अनि, ‘परियोजना चाहियो’ बाट ‘दीर्घकालीन जलवायु उत्थानशील विकासका लागि वित्त चाहियो’ भन्नेतर्फ जानुपर्छ।
र, सबैभन्दा महत्वपूर्ण, ‘विपद् प्राकृतिक हो’ भन्ने पुरानो सोचबाट ‘जलवायु परिवर्तनले जोखिम बढाएको छ र त्यसको लागत पनि न्यायपूर्ण रूपमा बाँडिनुपर्छ’ भन्ने नयाँ यथार्थतर्फ जानुपर्छ।
अनि नेपालका जनताको नामबाट विश्व बैंकलाई पठाइएको पत्रमा लेखिएझैंः
हामीलाई थप जलवायु ऋण होइन, ऐक्यबद्धता चाहिएको छ।
हामीलाई जलवायु ऋण होइन, अनुदान चाहिएको छ।
अनि जलबायु न्याय चाहिएको छ।
हिमालले चेतावनी दिएको धेरै भयो।
अब नेपालले त्यो चेतावनीलाई सुस्तरी होइन, अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय मञ्चमा सुनिनेगरी उठाउनु पर्छ।

(First published in Nepalkhabar.com - https://nepalkhabar.com/opinion/285837-2026-9-3-10-56-25)