On the morning of August 26, 2026, a catastrophic event struck the Bhotekoshi-Trishuli river basin, triggering devastating floods and mudslides. Downstream communities and everything in the flood's path were swept away. The scale of the destruction and the losses suffered by affected communities have been heartbreaking to witness.
As of September 14, nearly 1,400 people had been confirmed dead and thousands remained missing. Settlements, bridges, roads, hydropower facilities and other critical infrastructure were destroyed across Rasuwa, Nuwakot, Dhading and other downstream areas. But the human suffering cannot be captured by numbers alone. Families are mourning loved ones, thousands are waiting for news of relatives who remain unaccounted for, and communities face the enormous task of rebuilding their lives.
Against this backdrop, Prime Minister Balendra Shah's decision to attend the 81st United Nations General Assembly in New York is both timely and necessary. At a moment when Nepal is confronting one of the most devastating disasters in its recent history, the country needs its highest political leadership to tell the world what happened, what its people have lost, and why a country that contributes negligibly to global greenhouse-gas emissions is facing increasingly severe climate and mountain-related risks.
The Prime Minister's presence matters. It can bring the vulnerability of mountain ecosystems and communities to the centre of international attention and help Nepal seek greater support for recovery and resilience. The stories of those affected deserve to be heard.
But stories that move the world are not necessarily enough to move negotiations. At international negotiating tables, sympathy must eventually be translated into evidence, quantified losses, scientific attribution, credible methodologies and clearly defined financing needs. Nepal may be able to capture global attention and sympathy through the Bhotekoshi-Trishuli flood, but if it wants to hold the international community accountable and secure meaningful support for climate-related loss and damage, it must do the necessary homework to substantiate its case.
This is where Nepal can draw an important lesson from Pakistan.
SHIFT for Our Planet: Youths urge authorities to make climate j...
Following Pakistan's catastrophic floods in 2022, the country did not rely solely on political appeals or images of devastation. It undertook a comprehensive Post-Disaster Needs Assessment and transformed the findings into its Resilient Recovery, Rehabilitation, Reconstruction and Resilience Framework (4RF), identifying priorities, financing requirements and implementation arrangements. The framework became the basis for international engagement, and international partners pledged billions of dollars in support. The Geneva conference alone generated commitments of roughly $10.9 billion toward the 4RF.
Nepal should likewise focus on translating this catastrophe into a robust and evidence-based case and hold the global community accountable for providing adequate and timely grant-based support for recovery and resilience.
In the immediate aftermath of the flood, preliminary figures have naturally emerged from government agencies, researchers and other institutions. These assessments are essential for emergency response and early planning. However, they should not become Nepal's final international negotiating evidence.
The government should urgently initiate a comprehensive and credible assessment. It should clearly demonstrate both economic and non-economic loss and damage, as well as recovery and reconstruction needs. Such an assessment would provide a robust basis for understanding the full scale of the disaster rather than relying on preliminary estimates produced in the immediate aftermath.
Nepal has a legitimate and compelling climate-justice argument. However, the processes that triggered the Bhotekoshi-Trishuli flood must also be investigated using rigorous scientific methods. What role did global warming, extreme precipitation, changing glacial environments, geological instability and other factors play? To what extent did climate change increase the probability or intensity of the event?
Nepal should therefore establish urgent collaboration with leading international and regional scientific institutions, including the IPCC, the World Meteorological Organization, leading universities and research centres, to develop globally credible climate-attribution and risk assessments capable of withstanding scrutiny from governments, scientists and climate-finance institutions.
The Prime Minister should also remind the world that the Bhotekoshi-Trishuli flood is part of a wider pattern. Nepal has experienced devastating disasters in Melamchi, Thame, Kanchanpur, Ilam and elsewhere. The 2021 Melamchi flood caused enormous destruction, while the 2024 glacial lake outburst flood severely affected Thame. Even before this year's catastrophe, the Bhotekoshi basin experienced another deadly flood in July 2025.
What was once considered abnormal is becoming the new normal in Nepal. These events demonstrate why Nepal's international argument cannot be limited to a single disaster. It must also highlight the growing risks facing the Himalaya, its ecosystems and its communities, as well as the enormous development costs imposed by repeated climate shocks.
The August 26 disaster may be unprecedented in scale, but it should not be treated as an isolated event. As global warming continues to destabilise mountain and glacial environments, Nepal must prepare for the possibility that such disasters will not be the last.
The Prime Minister's participation in the UNGA should therefore go beyond a one-off event and become the beginning of a sustained diplomatic campaign. Nepal should consider inviting the UN Secretary-General to visit the disaster-affected areas. Such a visit would carry enormous diplomatic and political significance. It would allow the UN's highest representative to witness the destruction firsthand, listen to affected communities and amplify Nepal's climate-justice message on the global stage.
Nepal should also consider inviting senior representatives from the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage, the Green Climate Fund and other relevant international financing institutions to visit the affected areas and engage directly with communities and government agencies. International financing institutions need to see not only the devastation but also the scale of Nepal's financing needs and the types of investments required to reduce future risks. Such engagement could help climate-finance institutions better understand the need for access mechanisms that are flexible, simple, rapid and effective.
Nepal's international engagement should therefore bring together three elements: political visibility, scientific credibility and financial mobilisation.
The Prime Minister's visit should mark the beginning of Nepal's broader international climate diplomacy on mountains and mountain communities. New York can provide the political platform, while COP31 can provide an important negotiating space. Nepal should use these global platforms to advance the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities and advocate for greater grant-based financing for vulnerable mountain countries.
At the regional level, Nepal should take the lead in calling for transboundary sharing of real-time hydrometeorological information, joint monitoring of glaciers and glacial lakes, coordinated risk assessments and interoperable early-warning systems.
The Bhotekoshi-Trishuli tragedy has shown the world how devastating climate risks can be. The Prime Minister should carry that message to New York. Nepal has every reason to demand climate justice, but to make that demand effective, it must back its case with rigorous evidence.
The author is a researcher with nearly a decade of experience in the field of climate change.
