Lives at Risk in a Changing Climate: Government Must Deliver Accountability, Not Warnings Alone

The monsoon has once again become a test of life and governance in Nepal. Forecasts of heavy to extremely heavy rainfall, warnings of floods and landslides, road closures, restrictions on night-time travel and instructions to relocate vulnerable settlements reveal the seriousness of the present situation.

Rain is not merely a source of disaster for Nepal. It sustains agriculture, drinking-water supplies, hydropower generation and natural ecosystems. But as the timing, intensity and geographical distribution of rainfall become increasingly irregular, its life-giving role is being transformed into a destructive threat.

Intense rainfall after prolonged dry periods, landslides in areas once considered relatively safe, sudden surges in rivers and streams, and urban flooding after only a few hours of rain can no longer be treated as exceptional events.

It would not be scientifically appropriate to attribute every individual flood, landslide or rainfall event directly to climate change. However, long-term increases in temperature, erratic precipitation, extreme heat, drought, river flooding, landslides and changes in Himalayan glaciers and water systems are clearly altering Nepal’s risk landscape.

Climate change is therefore not merely an environmental issue. It is a national challenge involving food security, public health, employment, housing, education, transport, energy and social justice.

The poorest communities face the greatest burden. Families living along riverbanks, on unstable slopes, in fragile houses or in unplanned settlements often have no safe alternative housing, savings, insurance or access to land.

Farmers lose crops. Labourers lose work. Students cannot reach schools. Patients struggle to access health facilities. Road disruptions increase the cost of food and essential goods. Women, children, older people, persons with disabilities, Indigenous communities and residents of remote regions face disproportionate risks.

Relief after a disaster is necessary, but it cannot fully compensate for lives lost, displaced families, destroyed farmland or damaged local economies.

Nepal contributes only a very small share of global greenhouse-gas emissions, yet it remains highly vulnerable to climate change. Without adequate investment in adaptation and resilience, climate-related damage could significantly weaken the country’s economy in the coming decades.

Investment in climate resilience must therefore not be treated as an additional expense. It is preventive investment designed to reduce future human and economic losses.

Natural hazards are also being made more destructive by human negligence. Roads carved into fragile hills without proper environmental assessment, uncontrolled excavation, river encroachment, deforestation, wetland destruction and urban expansion without drainage systems are turning ordinary weather events into major disasters.

It is unacceptable to create risks in the name of development and later dismiss the resulting destruction as a purely natural calamity.

The right to live in a clean and healthy environment is constitutionally guaranteed. Nepal’s environmental and disaster-management laws assign clear responsibilities to federal, provincial and local governments for pollution control, environmental assessment, risk reduction, preparedness, rescue, relief, rehabilitation and safe relocation.

Nepal does not lack policies. It has a national climate change policy, adaptation plans, disaster-preparedness frameworks and nationally determined climate commitments.

The central problem is the widening gap between policy and practice.

There is little value in promising resilience in official documents while failing to prioritise vulnerable roads, settlements, rivers, farms and public infrastructure in national and local budgets.

The government’s first responsibility is to transform early warnings into a system that actually saves lives.

A weather warning issued by a central department must not remain limited to district headquarters, government websites or social media. It must reach every household in vulnerable areas through mobile messages, radio, sirens, schools, health workers, local languages and community networks.

Warnings must also be supported by safe shelters, transport, food, drinking water, medicine and evacuation arrangements. Information without practical protection is insufficient.

The second responsibility is to make climate and disaster-risk assessment mandatory for every development project.

Roads, bridges, hydropower plants, schools, hospitals and settlements can no longer be designed solely on the basis of historical rainfall averages. Infrastructure planning must account for future extreme rainfall, changing river flows, landslide zones and rising temperatures.

The third responsibility is to provide local governments with more than instructions. They require adequate budgets, trained technical personnel, equipment and authority.

Local governments are usually the first institutions expected to respond when disaster strikes. Yet many municipalities and rural municipalities still lack risk maps, trained rescue teams, emergency shelters, essential machinery and reliable data.

Central meetings and directives cannot substitute for local capacity.

The fourth responsibility is to expand social protection for farmers, labourers and low-income families directly affected by climate change.

Weather-based agricultural insurance, climate-resilient seeds, irrigation, water conservation, safe storage, alternative income opportunities, public-health protection and transparent compensation systems must be strengthened.

The true measure of a responsible state is not how visibly it distributes relief after disaster, but how effectively it protects communities before disaster occurs.

Transparency in climate finance is equally essential. The public must know how much climate-related funding has been received, which institution received it, where it was spent, who benefited and whether the investment actually reduced risk.

If the climate crisis is reduced to a source of projects, foreign travel and consultancy contracts, the country will lose not only public trust but also its future security.

Today’s heavy rainfall may stop within a few days. Blocked roads may reopen and daily life may appear to return to normal. But the climate threat will not disappear.

The government must break the cycle of becoming active only after the monsoon begins, issuing warnings after risks intensify and distributing relief after lives and property have already been lost.

Climate change is not the responsibility of the weather department alone. It is a test of governance, development policy and public accountability—from the Prime Minister’s Office to the smallest ward office.

Issuing warnings is only the beginning of the government’s duty. Protecting people’s lives, livelihoods and future is its real responsibility.