Climate change and security in Nepal: Pilot intervention

Solution details

Main beneficiaries & outcomes

Local communities, Government, poorest communities, indigenous people.

Planning and implementation

The project is designed and implemented by the United Nations Environment Programme, in a partnership with the European Union. In the delivery of the project, UNEP works hand in hand with the German think-tank Adelphi on analysis, advocacy, and capacity development. At national and community levels in Nepal and Sudan, the project is implemented through Practical Action, in close collaboration with local, state, and national authorities.

Finance

The project is financed with USD 600,000 supported by the European Union’s Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace.

Innovation

The key innovation aspect in the intervention was combining climate adaptation measures and peacebuilding approaches to strengthen resilience to climate-related security risks in target communities.

Performance evaluation

Yes, an initial round of field evaluation has been conducted. This entailed data collection conducted in February 2021, including testimony collected through interviews and focus group discussions with project beneficiaries and other key stakeholders as well as results from a household survey. The indicators were measured with field data.

The criteria taken into account include:

(A) Socioeconomic status
(B) Improved communication, participation and access to local government decision making
(C) Natural capital (climate impacts, conservation, access and benefit-sharing of natural resources)
(D) Human capital (livelihoods, migration)
(E) Financial capital (cooperation, banking, saving controlling)
(F) Social capital (identity, groups, trust, ethnicity, business, local governments, migrants)
(G) Physical capital (infrastructure, geo-protection)

Finally, the project has organized a series of events and consultations to present the tools and methodologies developed through the project, share emerging results from the pilot projects, hear feedback and discuss opportunities for uptake, as well as gaps and needs related to integrated analysis and programming on the ground. EU practitioners constitute a primary audience for the project’s good practices, training, tools, and methodologies. As the EU accelerates its own work on building resilience to climate-related security risks, dedicated consultations have been organized (in June 2021) with relevant EU actors in the field.

Long term project sustainability and maintenance

The project has many different mechanisms to ensure the sustainability of activities. When it comes to infrastructure, including water management (irrigation, water pumping), these were built after a conflict assessment and based on actual demand of climate vulnerable people, the management of the infrastructure is done through community-based organizations (CBOs) formed upon existing local initiatives. These CBOs ensure inclusive benefit-sharing among stakeholders, established a fund and conserve the infrastructure. Similarly, other CBOs are formed around the management of forests and land, which are essential natural resources in the Karnali River Valley. These organizations endorse and implement plans together with local actors (rural and municipal governments, and local NGOs). The CBOs are committed to look for effective operation, governance, and conflict resolution in the long run. The sustainability of the action is therefore ensured upon project closure.

Other activities included the institutionalization of a market with strong coordination among actors (farmers, traders, bankers), as well as development and access to market to those enterprises developed by local communities after offseason livelihood diversification training.

To highlight, at the peacebuilding level, many communities established dispute resolution mechanisms which were strengthened through capacity building as part of innovative climate and natural resources governance practices.

Capacities for design and implementation

Knowledge

The design of the project’s climate change adaptation and resilience building interventions were based on a two-year assessment of the area and the knowledge and customary relations of the local population. This was coupled with the latest scientific literature on climate security and best practices originated from previous environmental peacebuilding projects.

Technology

Technology capacities played a major role. The project has based its intervention on the use of technology since its inception. The area was mapped accordingly to understand the environmental and climate-related security risks as part of the baseline assessment. That data was complemented with qualitative data obtained from household surveys, focus group discussions, and key informant interviews, which were coded and assessed using a mixed-methods approach. Earth observation and local data were triangulated to inform the design and implementation of the intervention.

Political / Legal

The project reviewed Nepal’s national policies and guidelines related to agriculture, disaster response, and sustainable development, and provided concrete recommendations for enhancing resilience to climate-related security risks. For example, in 2019, the project reviewed the draft national climate change policy and incorporated key considerations for peace and security, such as the recognition of loss and damage and investments in early warning systems. In 2020, the project also contributed to Nepal’s National Determined Contributions, which as a result, integrated considerations linked to loss and damage as well as gender and social inclusion.

At the local level, in the Karnali River Valley, it was clear that there was a lack of rural and municipal planning and the project, based on the work of the local communities through their CBOs, developed a set of plans that were later included in local policies. For example, the Janaki government prepared a Local Adaptation Plan of Action (LAPA) and Municipality level Water Use Management Plan (WUMP), and similarly did the Rajapur and Geruwa municipalities.

Institutional

Communities received regular visits and training sessions from government representatives with expertise in animal health and agricultural techniques to support project interventions, such as capacity building of newly established animal veterinary centres or the distribution of drought-tolerant vegetable seeds. In some cases, community members reported that activities related to the project represented the first time they interacted with local government.

Additionally, marginalized communities have been traditionally excluded from public services and decision making. Hence the project established inclusive Community Disaster and Climate Resilience Committees (CDCRC). This program facilitated dialogues between government and local communities over disputed land, and  community needs are recognized in their governance.

Overall the coordination was good, notwithstanding the changes in the different levels of government as a result of the various political transitions held during the development of the project. This is a critical lesson learned when working in post-conflict contexts, where government officials have major turnover and, as a result, sometimes it becomes complex to build lasting relationships with the government.

Socio-cultural

The CDCRC together with a committee formed by the Geruwa River flood victims launched a public campaign to advocate for more just treatment by the municipality for those who had lost their land and facilitated a constructive dialogue between park authorities and the community. The process resulted in a decision by the Geruwa Rural Municipality to reduce the land tax for flood victims by 75 percent and in January 2021, a plan was approved to construct a dam along the border of the National Park.

Outlook & Scalability

Barriers and adverse effects

The high turnover of Government officials may have been the greatest barrier experienced. However, the strong connection of the local implementing teams with the government helped mitigate the issues related to turnover. In terms of natural resources and climate, the greatest limitations were related to land governance between communities and local authorities. In this line, the community-based organizations improved their dispute resolution skills and substantially reduced or fully addressed most of the conflicts over natural resources. It is to expect no side effects to these solutions since it was addressed by the communities themselves, and they have the skills to continue managing such barriers.

Transformation and future outlook

The project has made positive contributions towards three peacebuilding and climate change adaptation objectives:

1. Improved relationships as a result of conflict-sensitive climate adaptation and resilience-building measures
2. Strengthened capacity of communities to mediate disputes and prevent conflict through more inclusive natural resource-related governance mechanisms
3. Post-conflict economic recovery enhanced for vulnerable or marginalised groups through the provision of climate-resilient livelihoods

Potential for upscaling and replication

The impacts of climate change in Nepal, and their complex implications for peace and security, argue for urgent action on developing a shared understanding of key linkages and a common risk reduction, mitigation, and prevention agenda for the country. Opportunities and entry points for action exist across the policy and programming realms, and at national, sub-national, and local levels, building on the measures already taken by the Government of Nepal to build resilience to impacts of climate change, as well as existing programming by UN and other international partners on climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, natural resource management, conflict prevention, and peacebuilding.

Early experiences from this project suggest that it is possible and desirable to work towards scaling up efforts to integrate conflict sensitivity and social cohesion objectives into climate change adaptation investments. These have already shown promising results in some areas of the country, which can be scaled (adapting for context) through multi-stakeholder partnerships across Nepal, building on successful early experiences in areas such as the Karnali River Basin. However, it is critical to note that upscaled initiatives must remain cognizant of the contextual needs at the local level and design policies and programmes appropriately, avoiding generalization of assumptions and dynamics or wrongly extrapolating learnings from one project to another. Local understanding must be taken into consideration for national-level planning.

Finally

Contacts of key institutional partners involved with the solution planning and implementation

Albert Martinez

Climate Security Analyst / Programme Management Support

Environmental Security Unit, Ecosystems Division

United Nations Environment Programme

International Environment House, Geneva