Past events have shown that the international community may commit only half of the amount needed, while only half of that commitment may ultimately be received
The visit of Premier Balen Shah to the United States to address the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) next week has raised eyebrows among climate-change enthusiasts around the globe.
PM Shah's visit has essentially two objectives. The first is to draw global attention to the damage inflicted on Nepal by the mega Bhotekoshi tsunami. The second is to seek support from the international community for reconstruction, following the generous contributions made by the world community for relief and rescue activities in the aftermath of the disaster.
Shah, a civil engineer-turned-rapper, is known for his starkly contrasting character. He became a political superstar almost overnight after securing a two-thirds majority for his party, almost single-handedly. This happened at a time when the constitution based on proportional representation was considered an obstacle to securing even a simple majority in national elections, resulting in several coalition governments in the past.
However, his controversial statements, one after another – such as his claim that Nepal has encroached on Indian territory, and, more recently, his assertion that there is no technology capable of rescuing people trapped inside hydropower tunnels filled with debris – have seriously dented his image. This is particularly significant because several people were rescued in a smaller but similar incident in Chamoli, India, five years ago, while two people were rescued in Nepal recently. It is no wonder, then, that some people are concerned that the PM could make a similarly disastrous statement at the UN General Assembly.
Shah faces the challenge of making a mark from the UNGA podium, which has been dominated in recent years by eye-catching speeches from speakers such as Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary-General; Mia Mottley, the Prime Minister of Barbados; and Gaston Browne, the Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, on climate change. While Guterres warned that the era of "global boiling" had arrived, Mottley portrayed climate change as a matter of life, death, and economic justice for small island developing nations. Browne, in turn, advocated climate justice and demanded that major carbon-emitting nations compensate vulnerable coastal and island nations for the losses and damage they suffer.
Shah has the rare opportunity to represent not only Himalayan nations such as Nepal and Bhutan but also downstream countries such as India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and others. Their water security will be seriously affected if glacial lakes burst one after another. He should begin by thanking Guterres and Mottley in general, and Browne in particular, for their advocacy of climate justice and compensation for loss and damage. This would spare him from making similarly harsh statements that might not be well received by many countries. He should then invite developed nations to help vulnerable countries such as Nepal and honour their commitment to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
Past events have shown that the international community may commit only half of the amount needed, while only half of that commitment may ultimately be received because of bureaucratic and other hurdles. Assistance is often channelled through lending agencies such as the World Bank rather than provided directly to governments. When Pakistan sought $18 billion after the disastrous floods of 2022, only about $8 billion was committed, of which less than half of the pledged amount was delivered. Similarly, Nepal received only about half of the $4.4 billion committed after the 2015 earthquake. In both cases, assistance consisted of relatively small grants and substantial loans.
Apart from the main event, interactions on the sidelines of the UNGA could be equally fruitful. The Prime Minister should be able to present innovative approaches to tackling the problem in the future. These could include redefining development as disaster-resilient activity. He could float the idea of declaring a National Decade of Disaster Reduction, emulating the United Nations campaign to declare the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction in the 1990s. That campaign dramatically reduced the number of casualties, in addition to giving birth to the Hyogo Framework for Action and, later, the Sendai Framework.
He could also talk about financial restructuring by allocating more than 50 percent of the annual development budget to disaster resilience and the remaining portion to new development, at least for a decade. Moreover, as an engineer, he could advocate the use of climate-resilient materials such as stone, mud, timber, and, more prominently, bamboo for constructing temporary and permanent shelters that reflect vernacular architecture, as he has done with bus stops in Kathmandu.
The government faces a Herculean task, as settlements need to be moved immediately to the midlands, as our ancestors practised. Had we shifted settlements to higher terraces after the Bhotekoshi flood last year, the damage might not have been so astronomical. This could be achieved by exchanging government forest land in the midlands for privately owned land in the lowlands, accompanied by extensive tree planting to avoid environmentally detrimental deforestation.
As for road transport, a combination of tunnels and ropeways, which was tried in 1922 but later abandoned, needs to be revived in place of surface transport that requires heavy maintenance.
The country cannot wait for external assistance, as it will take a long time to arrive. It must undertake the emergency task of shifting settlements upstream immediately. In view of the Thame disaster of 2025, the Bhotekoshi disaster of 2026, and now this Himalayan tsunami, a similar disaster may soon occur in another river gorge, going by the law of averages. If it does, we could face a bigger Himalayan tsunami than the present one. We therefore have to begin preparations this very moment.