The Himalayas, a critical global ecological and hydrological system, face escalating climate change impacts inextricably linked with the regions complex and often contentious geopolitics. This paper undertakes a comparative analysis of Indias and Nepals climate policies within this sensitive region, examining how geopolitical considerations influence their divergent strategies. It argues that while both nations confront shared threats, their responses are fundamentally shaped by differences in national scale, institutional capacity, development status, strategic priorities, and historical emissions profiles. India's approach emphasizes a dual focus on mitigation and adaptation, reflecting its regional power aspirations and larger economic base. In contrast, Nepal, as a highly vulnerable Least Developed Country with minimal historical emissions, understandably prioritizes adaptation, community resilience, and international support. The paper contends that policy comparison is significantly challenged by these national disparities, data asymmetries, conflicting strategic interests, and the delicate nature of bilateral relations, all set against a backdrop of broader regional power dynamics. Consequently, while comparative insights are valuable for building regional climate resilience, the paper concludes that the current geopolitical landscape and inherent methodological complexities demand nuanced, context-sensitive approaches. Effective transboundary cooperation and evidence-based policymaking, essential for the long-term sustainability of this fragile mountain system and its dependent populations, require a deep acknowledgement of these intricate realities rather than oversimplified comparisons.
Gulshani et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: