Author: Shradha Khadka
With each passing year, as the climate crisis intensifies globally, the conversations encompass solutions beyond emissions targets or rising sea levels, and talk more about equality, because let’s face it; the wrath of climate change strikes all equally around the world, and while its’ instigators don’t share the same accountability, its impacts are felt quiet differently by different nations. If we look at developing nations like Nepal, what truly determines the aftermath of these climate shocks is not just the intensity of the event, but the capacity of the people to adapt, mitigate and recover from the damages. That capacity, which is heavily rooted in the socio-economic status, access to resources, historical marginalization, and government responses, varies widely in the homogenous grounds of the federal Nepal.
Then who are the ones most responsible for the crisis? Who are most at risk? And who decide on conceptualizing and implementing the solution?
This is the realm of Climate Justice, a relatively new and lesser talked about concept and framework that shifts and localizes the climate conversations from technocratic and scientific planning to ethical accountability of leaders and nations. It highlights the play of power structures, historical responsibility, and inequalities in both causes and consequences of climate change.
The philosophical roots of Climate Justice
Diving into the philosophical grounds of Climate Justice, the utilitarian approaches majorly favor actions that maximize the overall well-being of individuals and groups, by directing resources to areas that can reduce the most emissions. At the same time, the egalitarian perspectives and cosmopolitanism argue for reducing disparities and prioritizing the vulnerable communities over sheer carbon emission in data and advocate that national borders shouldn’t matter when thinking about justice, as all humans are equally entitled to protection from climate harm (Harris, 2020; Zhao, 2023). Additionally, there are also ideas that value economic growth, asking whether a just and sustainable world is even possible under capitalist development models that run on expansion of industries, growing consumption and ingestion of fossil fuel.
For Nepal though, these debates are not just ideas narrated by the Global North, rather they are real questions that shape how climate governance is formed and executed while allocating budgets, localizing plans and policies and protecting the local communities. A growing body of global climate justice literature already highlights that the scenarios of Global South are underrepresented in both academic and policy circles, while much of the knowledge and strategies promoted globally are shaped by the North, where emissions are high, but they are well cushioned for the climate shocks (Ngcamu, 2023).
It is significant to understand that Nepal, like many countries in the South, often adopts global frameworks without questioning their fit in accordance with the values and context. As a result, climate plans in these countries mirror international buzzwords like resilience, green growth, nature-based solutions, without actually adapting them to the realities of the local realities of caste, gender, geography, language or even the federal governance structure.
Climate Justice lens and practices in Nepal
While Nepal’s federal structure promote decentralization and localization of resources and policies, the reality is that the most vulnerable and marginalized groups are often sidelined in the governance spaces. Especially considering the country’s diverse geographies and socio-political histories, the practilaties require a shift towards an equality or justice-oriented lens to assess how climate responses are designed, implemented, and experienced.
In this matter, the concept of Procedural justice, which concerns inclusive and meaningful participation in decision-making processes, remains limited in Nepal, particularly leaving out the needs of the marginalized groups like the Dalits, women and youth. Here, the idea of Distributive justice also raises further concerns because, although Nepal is entitled to receiving international climate funds, its allocation tends to prioritize visible, infrastructure-based interventions in accessible regions, often omitting the remote and highly vulnerable areas and unequally distributing the benefits and supports connected to climate actions.
Among the recent discourse and practices, the importance of Reparational justice also make sense in countries like Nepal, who contribute minimally to the global emissions yet face disproportionate and quiet drastic impacts. This includes not only financial reparations through mechanisms such as “loss and damage,” but also structural reforms in global finance and trade that encourage dependency and ecological extractions. Alongside, the policies and plans must be informed by intergenerational climate justice perspectives, that recognize the moral and ethical responsibility of the preceding generations to safeguard ecological integrity, social equity, and adaptive capacity for future generations.
Why must Nepal talk about Climate Justice?
From the present scenarios and discourse, it is already gathered that Nepal stands at a crucial turning point in the course of climate change and climate actions, and how Nepal chooses to respond or receive will determine not just environmental outcomes, but also social impacts at the central and local levels.
If Nepal continues to follow generic, externally driven interventions, and global models of development, the instigators and keepers of injustices will continue to deepen. However, if Nepal embraces climate justice as a framework in governance and policy making, rooted in equity, participation, and heritage, it can foster a sustainable and climate-resilient future for the Nepalis and Nepal’s natural resources.
This however, requires a fundamental shift in how climate justice is conceptualized and operationalized in the local contexts, as after all, it is the grassroots that are the most impacted by climate shocks. It is therefore essential to translate the language of climate justice into locally grounded terms, enabling communities to engage with it in meaningful and accessible ways going beyond the technical and Global North- determined buzzwords. Equally important, is the recognition and integration of traditional knowledge systems and ecological practices that have sustained communities across Nepal’s history and diverse landscapes.
On the global front, Nepal must continue to advocate for reparations and equity, from systems and actors that have profited from its natural resources, such as forests, hydropower, and carbon sequestration capacities, while contributing disproportionately to the climate crisis. Climate justice, therefore, is not an add-on to climate policy or a sideline matter, it is an ethical, political, and structural cornerstone upon which climate actions are to be conceived, implemented, and evaluated. More importantly, to make this shift meaningful and lasting, there is an urgent need to invest in generating context-specific data and grounded evidences that can inform more just, accountable, and effective climate interventions at global, regional as well as local levels.
References:
Harris, P. (2020). Ethics and Global Environmental Policy: Cosmopolitan conceptions of Climate Change. Environmental Science, Philosophy, Political Science.
Zhao, X. (2023). A Comparison of Theories Related to Climate Justice. International Journal of Frontiers in Sociology.
Author Introduction
Shradha Khadka is a dedicated researcher and policy analyst with a strong track record of translating research into actionable insights. With education and work experience spanning Nepal, Germany, and the United States, she has collaborated with grass root communities, government stakeholders, donor communities and academia to bridge research and policy. Her expertise lies in policy analysis, qualitative research, and strategic communication through impactful research and publications.
The views and opinions expressed in the piece above are solely those of the original author(s) and contributor(s). They do not necessarily represent the views of Governance Monitoring Centre Nepal and/or Centre for Social Change.
