THE THIRD POLE IS MELTING: A CALL FROM THE HIMALAYAS FOR A FAST-TRACK LOSS AND DAMAGE DEAL

In July 2025, another glacial outburst flood devastated communities in Nepal’s Rasuwa district. A supraglacial lake burst, killing at least nine people, destroying a major bridge, stopping trade, and sweeping away hydropower infrastructure [1]. This is not a once in a generation disaster, it’s an accelerating, climate-driven reality. As world leaders come together in the Amazon for COP30, they must remember: the climate crisis is not only a problem for low-lying coasts, it is also a mountain crisis.

At COP28, nations made a historic pledge: the activation of the Loss and Damage Fund, designed to help countries facing irreversible climate harms. But promises are not enough. For Nepal and other highly vulnerable mountain nations, COP30 must turn that promise into a lifeline.

The High Stakes of Glacial Loss and Damage in Nepal

Nepal is not a bystander in the climate crisis, it is one of its most vulnerable frontiers.The Himalayas are warming rapidly, and Nepal’s glaciers are melting 65% faster between 2011–2020 compared to the previous decade [2]. According to hydrological risk assessments, many Himalayan glacial lakes are unstable, and their outbursts can release enormous volumes of water [3]. Infact, the UNDP’s “Community-based Flood and Glacial Lake Outburst Risk Reduction Project” notes that 1,466 glacial lakes exist in Nepal, with 21 classified as potentially dangerous, and 6 in the high-risk category [4]. Indeed, since the 1970s, Nepal has recorded dozens of GLOFs [5].

These growing hazards don’t just threaten landscapes, they impose enormous economic and social costs. A single event can kill citizens, wipe out decades of infrastructure development, and destroy the cultural heritage of communities. According to ICIMOD / UNDP data, Nepal loses on average USD 17.24 million (~NPR 2,099 million) each year due to extreme climate events [6].

What makes these losses even more unjust is that Nepal has contributed almost nothing to the problem. Nepal contributes less than 0.1% of global emissions, yet we are facing billions of dollars in infrastructure damage, irreversible loss of lives, and the destruction of cultural heritage.[7]

Even slower, gradual changes, like glacial retreat, threaten long term water security, agriculture, and hydropower. Indigenous and marginalized communities are often the first to suffer, despite contributing almost nothing to global emissions.

Addressing the Adaptation Question

Some critics argue Nepal should simply strengthen adaptation measures, building early warning systems and reinforcing glacial lake moraines.

A clearer response is this:

Adaptation is crucial, and Nepal is already doing this. But there is a limit. How do you 'adapt' to a wall of water tearing down a valley? The Loss and Damage Fund is for when adaptation is no longer enough. It is the safety net for when prevention fails. It is for rebuilding lives and infrastructure after the unthinkable happens. The damage to infrastructure is immense, destroying bridges, roads, hydropower plants, and agricultural land. The cost of rebuilding and installing early warning systems is far beyond Nepal's national budget. For Nepal, a functioning Loss and Damage Fund isn't a luxury; it's a fundamental component of its national climate resilience strategy.

Why Nepal’s Mountain Crisis Should Be a COP30 Priority

1. Fast-Track Access for Highly Vulnerable Mountain Nations

Mountain nations like Nepal face unique, urgent climate risks including glacier melt, glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs), and landslides. Yet in global climate finance mechanisms, they have to compete with many bigger countries that are not as vulnerable. The Loss and Damage Fund needs a dedicated “window” or fast-track process for highly vulnerable mountain countries. This ensures that nations on the front lines of cryosphere collapse can access funds quickly and reliably, rather than waiting through bureaucratic delays. For mountain communities particularly indigenous and marginalized groups who contribute the least to global emissions , access must be direct and easy. A streamlined, direct-access modality would allow local governments and civil society to apply for and receive funding without getting stuck in complicated bureaucracy. For example, a community identified by ICIMOD as being in the path of a high-risk glacial lake should be able to access funds for an early-warning system before the lake bursts, not years after the paperwork is filed.

2. Proactive Prevention, Not Just Disaster Relief

The Fund must be used to prevent disasters, not just respond to them. In Nepal, there are already projects to lower water levels in high-risk glacial lakes, reinforce lake dams, build riverbank protections, and restore ecosystems [7]. Scaling these efforts through the Loss and Damage Fund through siphoning water from dangerous lakes, constructing protective infrastructure (like check dams and gabion walls), and strengthening early-warning systems would protect lives, infrastructure, and ecosystems before catastrophe strikes.

Addressing the Adaptation Question

Some critics argue Nepal should simply strengthen adaptation measures, building early warning systems and reinforcing glacial lake moraines.

A clearer response is this:

Adaptation is crucial, and Nepal is already doing this. But there is a limit. How do you 'adapt' to a wall of water tearing down a valley? The Loss and Damage Fund is for when adaptation is no longer enough. It is the safety net for when prevention fails. It is for rebuilding lives and infrastructure after the unthinkable happens. The damage to infrastructure is immense, destroying bridges, roads, hydropower plants, and agricultural land. The cost of rebuilding and installing early warning systems is far beyond Nepal's national budget. For Nepal, a functioning Loss and Damage Fund isn't a luxury; it's a fundamental component of its national climate resilience strategy.

A call from Himalayas

The venue for COP30 (the Amazon) and the Himalayas, both are critical, fragile ecosystems on the front lines of a crisis. As world leaders meet in one vulnerable region, they must not forget the plight of another. For Nepal, success at COP30 will not be measured in vague promises, but in a tangible, funded, and accessible mechanism that helps its people survive the climate-driven disasters that are already at their doorstep.

References

1. Dialogue Earth. (2025, July 2). Tiny glacial lakes in the Himalayas pose unexpected flooding threats. Dialogue Earth. https://dialogue.earth/en/climate/tiny-glacial-lakes-in-the-himalayas-pose-unexpected-flooding-threats/

2. Kathmandu Post. (2025, March 29). Nepal’s glaciers are retreating faster than ever. The Kathmandu Post. https://kathmandupost.com/climate-environment/2025/03/29/nepal-s-glaciers-are-retreating-faster-than-ever

3. ICIMOD, & United Nations Development Programme. (n.d.). Report by ICIMOD and UNDP identifies potentially dangerous glacial lakes in river basins of Nepal. UNDP Adaptation. https://www.adaptation-undp.org/report-icimod-and-undp-identifies-potentially-dangerous-glacial-lakes-river-basins-nepal-tibet

4. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD). (2025). Everest region a hotspot of cryosphere-linked hazards: ICIMOD’s new study on Nepal’s 2024 Thame flood confirms. ICIMOD. https://www.icimod.org/everest-region-a-hotspot-of-cryosphere-linked-hazards-icimods-new-study-on-nepals-2024-thame-flood-confirms/

5. PreventionWeb. (2025). Tiny glacial lakes in the Himalayas pose unexpected flooding threats. PreventionWeb. https://www.preventionweb.net/news/tiny-glacial-lakes-himalayas-pose-unexpected-flooding-threats

6. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2017). Community-based flood and glacial lake outburst risk reduction project: Nepal. UNDP.

7. Emission Index. (2024, July 16). Greenhouse gas emissions in Nepal. Emission Index. https://www.emission-index.com/countries/nepal