As climate change accelerates across the Himalaya, Nepal stands at a crossroads. From melting glaciers to erratic monsoons, and from rising flood risks to prolonged droughts, climate-induced challenges are no longer distant; they are being today's realities. According to the Nepal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment (2021) report, between 1971 and 2019, climate-induced disasters resulted in an annual average of 647 fatalities and financial losses totaling NPR 2,778 million each year. Over 80% of national property damage is attributed to such hazards. Extreme climate events have become the new normal. These trends demand the need for robust climate resilience strategies.

Although Nepal contributes less than 0.05% of global greenhouse gas emissions, its geographical and socioeconomic profile renders it disproportionately vulnerable to climate change. Increasing temperatures have accelerated glacial retreat and intensified hydro-meteorological extremes, threatening food security, water availability, and livelihoods.

In response, the Government of Nepal has enacted multiple climate policy instruments, including the National Climate Change Policy (2019), successive Nationally Determined Contributions (recently NDC 3.0), the National Adaptation Plan (NAP; 2021-2050), Local Adaptation Plans of Action (LAPAs), and the Long-term Strategy for Net-zero Emissions. Budgetary and financial instruments, such as the Climate Change Budget Code and the Climate Change Financial Framework (CCFF), complement these policy measures. These frameworks are important steps forward and reflect national commitment; however, policies alone do not build resilience. Real change requires functional systems, empowered human resources, and accountable institutions, especially at the local level.

In many municipalities, capacity to assess risks, design adaptation plans, or implement actions remains limited. Capacity-building has traditionally focused on short-term trainings and seminars led by external consultants. While helpful in the short run, these efforts rarely result in sustained institutional change.

Significant investments have been made in capacity development by both national and international actors; however, many initiatives remain fragmented, short-term, and dependent on external support. They focus on outputs, like workshops and reports, rather than outcomes such as institutional learning, leadership, and local ownership. Consequently, many local governments and communities are unprepared for climate threats, and project results often vanish after completion. Capacity building should always focus on sustaining change from the implemented project.

A major hurdle is poor coordination. Capacity-building activities are often carried out without synergy, by ministries, NGOs, donors, or academia, without shared frameworks or institutional memory. This leads to duplication, gap, and inefficiency. Nepal lacks a fully functional, inter-ministerial platform for climate coordination, which weakens its resilience architecture.

True capacity building requires more than a transfer of knowledge. It demands sustained investment in institutions, relationships, and tools that empower local actors to learn, adapt, and lead. It must be embedded in the political, social, and cultural context of each region. Effective capacity emerges when local institutions take ownership of their adaptation pathways, supported by governance structures that are flexible and responsive. Institutional capacity spans human resources, leadership, coordination, accountability, and innovation.

Recent consultations at the provincial level reveal persistent gaps in both human and institutional capacities. These include shortages of trained personnel, inadequate access to climate data, limited decision-support systems, and insufficient funding. Awareness of how to mainstream climate risks into development plans also remains low. Local governments, under the federal system, are expected to lead on climate adaptation, but remain under-resourced and unclear about their mandates.

Some promising shifts are underway. Development partners and civil society organizations are strengthening climate change sections in provinces, integrating gender equality and social inclusion into local planning, and piloting climate finance mechanisms. Academic institutions and think tanks are bridging gaps between climate science and policy by producing data, assessments, and tools.

Despite this momentum, deep-seated barriers remain. Chief among them is the fragmented nature of institutional responsibilities. Climate resilience touches multiple sectors, agriculture, water, energy, health, and infrastructure. Yet, mandates and operations across ministries and tiers of government are often disconnected. This fragmentation not only creates redundancies, but also dilutes accountability and wastes scarce resources.

Although policy oversight and coordination structures exist, such as the Environment Protection and Climate Change National Council, Interministerial Climate Change Coordination Committee, Provincial Climate Change Coordination Committees, their mandates are often unclear, and their actions lack follow-through. This highlights the need for integrated, cross-sectoral, and multi-level governance systems capable of responding to the complex and interconnected nature of climate change.

Achieving climate resilience necessitates a shift from isolated, project-based interventions toward systemic, long-term capacity development. Capacity development should be seen as a process of learning, adapting, and institutional transformation, not only the transfer of skills or tools. The process must be iterative, adaptive, and rooted in local priorities and realities.

To strengthen climate resilience in Nepal, three strategic shifts in capacity development are recommended. First, there is a need to institutionalize learning by moving beyond isolated training events toward continuous learning processes, such as mentoring, peer-to-peer exchanges, and platforms that preserve institutional memory. Second, capacity building must prioritize co-creation of solutions, empowering subnational actors to identify their own priorities and design context-specific strategies, with external actors playing supportive, facilitative roles. Third, it is inevitable to enhance coordination across sectors and governance levels to ensure policy coherence, operational efficiency, and maximized resource utilization.

Financing remains a critical constraint to long-term capacity building. The NAP (2021-2050) estimates a financial requirement of USD 47.4 billion for its implementation, but Nepal can self-fund only USD 1.5 billion, resulting in a significant funding gap of USD 45.9 billion. The existing annual allocation of approximately USD 0.5 billion covers merely 20% of the required resources. Climate finance is growing globally, but Nepal's local governments often lack the systems and skills to access or manage such funds.

To enhance access to and management of climate finance, technical assistance for proposal development, transparent resource allocation mechanisms, and strengthened fiduciary systems are essential. Programs like the National Climate Change Support Programme (NCCSP), which channel resources directly to local governments, provide scalable models.

Human capital must not be overlooked. Investing in climate education, leadership development, and technical career pathways, especially for women, youth, and marginalized groups, is vital. These communities are most at risk, but are often excluded from decision-making.

Strong leadership is also essential from local to national levels. Leaders must promote transparency, innovation, and collaboration. Without accountable governance and citizen participation, institutional resilience cannot flourish.

Nepal has established a comprehensive climate policy foundation; however, translating policy into practice requires targeted investments in institutional frameworks, human resource development, and adaptive governance.

A transition from fragmented, short-term capacity-building models to integrated, system-wide approaches is imperative. By institutionalizing learning, promoting inclusive solution co-creation, and enhancing intersectoral coordination, Nepal can advance its position as a regional model in climate resilience.

Building climate resilience extends beyond disaster response; it entails equipping communities and institutions to anticipate, plan, and adapt to an evolving climate regime. Urgent, decisive action is essential to ensure the long-term sustainability and security of Nepal's social and ecological systems.

Dr. Thakuri is an Associate Professor at the Central Department of Environmental Science, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal.