Nepal should not measure the success of its post-flood recovery by how quickly it replaces the roads, bridges and hydropower plants that were destroyed. It should measure success by whether those systems are safer when the next disaster comes.
The question is becoming unavoidable.
Nepal is seeking roughly $5 billion in international assistance for the initial phase of reconstruction after the catastrophic late-August floods. The government plans to present its case to international financial institutions and donor governments, framing the disaster as an issue of climate justice.
That argument has merit.
Nepal contributes little to global greenhouse-gas emissions but is highly exposed to a warming Himalayan environment. The recent disaster destroyed or damaged homes, roads, bridges and hydropower infrastructure on a scale that will put enormous pressure on a country whose annual national budget is far smaller than the reconstruction bill.
But climate justice cannot become another phrase that disappears once the emergency appeal is over.
Nepal needs money, but money alone is not a recovery strategy.
The first priority must be getting food, medicine and shelter to people who need them. The Nepal Army has already begun using drones to deliver essential supplies to communities cut off by destroyed roads and bridges. Four Chinese-donated drones are reportedly making multiple deliveries a day.
The lesson is obvious: Nepal cannot build its future around the assumption that yesterday's infrastructure will survive tomorrow's disaster.
Roads need better risk assessment. Bridges need stronger contingency planning. Hydropower projects need to account for changing mountain conditions. Settlements in vulnerable river corridors need better warning systems and evacuation plans.
And the country needs something even more basic: better information before disaster strikes.
People cannot evacuate from a threat they do not know is coming.
The diaspora should be part of this conversation too.
Millions of Nepalis live outside the country. They send money home, support relatives after disasters and increasingly provide technical expertise, fundraising and international connections. The recent flood has again shown how quickly Nepalis abroad mobilise when families at home are in danger.
But diaspora solidarity should not become a substitute for government preparedness.
Nepal should instead create a transparent mechanism through which diaspora organisations, international donors, development agencies and the government can contribute to a clearly defined resilience programme.
Every dollar should have a destination.
Every major project should have a public progress record.
And reconstruction should be designed around future risk rather than simply replacing what was lost.
There is also a warning from elsewhere in South Asia. Reuters reported that Pakistan received billions of dollars in pledges after its 2022 floods, but much of the promised assistance was slow to materialise or was directed toward purposes other than direct reconstruction. Nepal should learn from that experience before it signs away another recovery plan.
This is where Nepal's climate-justice argument must become more ambitious.
The country should not approach international partners simply saying: we suffered, please help us rebuild.
It should say: we suffered, and we want to build a model for Himalayan resilience that protects people, infrastructure and the regional economy.
That means asking for grants where possible, concessional financing where necessary, technical assistance, early-warning technology, climate-risk mapping and long-term support for adaptation.
It also means Nepal accepting responsibility for what it can control.
Climate change may be global. Poor land-use decisions, weak enforcement, unsafe construction and inadequate preparedness are domestic problems.
Nepal cannot ask the world to pay for every failure of governance.
The international community has a responsibility to help vulnerable countries. Nepal has an equal responsibility to make sure that help produces a safer country.
The next bridge should not simply replace the old bridge.
The next hydropower project should not simply restore lost generating capacity.
The next reconstruction programme should not simply recreate yesterday.
Nepal has an opportunity, forced upon it by tragedy, to build differently. It should not waste it.
