Federalism’s Unfulfilled Climate Promise: The Role of Provincial Governments in Nepal
Nepal’s transition to federalism has created new opportunities for provincial governments to contribute to climate adaptation, mitigation, and climate-resilient development. Summarising a recent Regional and Federal Studies article, and drawing on policy and literature reviews and stakeholder interviews, Popular Gentle, Ranjan Bhatta, Sarina Lama, Jony Mainaly, and Tek Narayan Maraseni use a Political Economy Analysis approach to examine the roles, capacities, opportunities, and constraints of provincial governments within Nepal’s multilevel climate governance system. It finds that provinces are strategically positioned to coordinate climate action across sectors, local jurisdictions, and ecological landscapes, but that their potential is constrained by centralized decision-making, unclear institutional mandates, weak coordination, and limited technical and financial capacity. Realizing the evident promise of federal climate governance will therefore require greater provincial autonomy, improved access to climate finance, stronger institutional capacity, and more coherent collaboration among federal, provincial, and local governments.
The Paris Agreement and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) increasingly recognize the important role of subnational governments in addressing climate change. While national governments establish overarching climate policies and commitments, provincial and local governments are often responsible for implementing climate actions on the ground. This is particularly relevant in federal countries such as Nepal, where authority and responsibilities are distributed across multiple levels of government. Despite growing international attention to decentralized climate governance, limited research has examined how Nepal’s federal structure shapes climate action at the provincial level.
This study explores roles, capacities, opportunities, and constraints of Nepal’s provincial governments in climate governance. Using a Political Economy Analysis (PEA) approach, the research draws on a review of international and national climate policies and literature, as well as in-depth interviews with key stakeholders involved in climate and development processes. The findings provide important insights into how provincial governments can contribute to climate adaptation and mitigation while highlighting the institutional and political challenges that currently limit their effectiveness.
Nepal’s transition to federalism began with the promulgation of the Constitution of Nepal in 2015, which transformed the country into a federal democratic republic. The Constitution established a three-tier governance system consisting of a federal government, seven provincial governments, and 753 local governments. This restructuring created new opportunities for decentralized decision-making and development planning. However, climate governance under this federal arrangement remains relatively underexplored, particularly in terms of how authority, incentives, and institutional capacity influence climate action across different levels of government.
The findings reveal that provincial governments are strategically positioned to play a critical role in climate governance. As mid-level institutions situated between federal and local governments, provinces possess potential to natural resource management, environmental protection, infrastructure development, agriculture, forestry, and water resources. These sectors are central to both climate adaptation and climate mitigation efforts. Provinces also occupy a unique spatial scale that enables them to address environmental and climate challenges across landscapes, watersheds, and ecosystems that extend beyond the jurisdiction of individual local governments.
The research suggests that provincial governments have significant but largely underutilized potential to promote climate-resilient development. Their proximity to local realities enables them to design and implement context-specific climate interventions that respond to the diverse ecological, social, and economic conditions found across Nepal. This capacity is particularly important given the country’s varied geography and climate vulnerabilities, which require tailored rather than uniform policy responses.
Despite these opportunities, provincial governments face a range of institutional, political, and resource-related challenges. One of the most significant constraints is the persistence of centralized policymaking and decision-making processes. Although federalism has formally devolved authority, climate governance remains heavily influenced by federal institutions. Provincial governments often have limited autonomy in policy formulation and implementation, reducing their ability to respond effectively to local climate priorities.
Institutional overlaps and unclear mandates further complicate climate governance. Responsibilities related to climate change, environmental management, and natural resources are often shared across different levels of government, creating confusion and duplication of efforts. Weak coordination mechanisms among federal, provincial, and local governments can lead to fragmented approaches and reduce the effectiveness of climate interventions.
Another major challenge is the limited technical, financial, and human capacity available at the provincial level. Many provinces lack specialized climate expertise, sufficient staffing, and reliable financial resources to design, implement, and monitor climate programs. Access to climate finance remains particularly constrained, limiting the ability of provinces to undertake large-scale adaptation and mitigation initiatives. Stakeholders interviewed during the research emphasized that provinces frequently depend on federal support for both financial resources and technical guidance.
The study also identifies a prevailing techno-bureaucratic and hazard-centric approach to climate governance. Climate change is often addressed primarily through disaster risk reduction and technical interventions rather than through integrated development planning. This approach can restrict collaboration across sectors and administrative boundaries, making it difficult to address the complex and interconnected drivers of climate vulnerability. Effective climate governance requires broader engagement across sectors such as agriculture, infrastructure, energy, water management, and economic development.
Based on these findings, the research highlights four key policy implications. First, there is a need to institutionalize a genuinely decentralized governance approach that empowers provincial governments with adequate authority, predictable resources, and technical capacity. Strengthening provincial leadership is particularly important in sectors where provinces have significant responsibilities, including forestry, agriculture, and water resource management.
Second, greater coherence between national climate policies and provincial development priorities is essential. Aligning climate objectives across different levels of government can reduce institutional fragmentation and improve policy implementation. Stronger coordination mechanisms can help ensure that climate policies are effectively translated into local action while supporting national climate commitments.
Third, improving provincial access to climate finance is critical. This will require transparent resource allocation systems, flexible fiscal mechanisms, and accountable financial management practices that enable provinces to take ownership of climate initiatives. Enhanced financial autonomy can strengthen provincial capacity to plan and implement long-term climate programs that respond to local needs and priorities.
Fourth, addressing socio-political barriers to decentralization is necessary for effective climate governance. Entrenched institutional interests, administrative resistance, and competing political priorities can undermine efforts to devolve authority and resources. Building trust, collaboration, and shared accountability among federal, provincial, and local governments will be crucial for strengthening multilevel climate governance.
The study also points to several areas that require further research. While it provides a comprehensive assessment of provincial climate governance, it does not fully examine the diverse contextual conditions across Nepal’s provinces that may influence climate action. Future research could explore how geographic, economic, political, and social differences shape provincial responses to climate change. Similarly, a deeper examination of the political dynamics influencing the implementation of devolved responsibilities would improve understanding of the opportunities and limitations of federal climate governance. More detailed analysis of climate finance mechanisms and institutional capacity gaps would also provide valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners.
Overall, the research concludes that federalism has created important opportunities for advancing climate governance in Nepal. Provincial governments possess significant constitutional mandates and strategic advantages for implementing climate action, yet their potential remains only partially realized. Effective climate governance will depend on stronger provincial institutions, enhanced technical and financial capacity, and meaningful collaboration across all levels of government.
As Nepal continues to pursue national development priorities such as hydropower expansion, agricultural modernization, tourism growth, and infrastructure development, integrating climate considerations into planning and decision-making will become increasingly important. The findings underscore that climate-resilient development requires not only formal decentralization of authority but also adequate resources, institutional capacity, and context-specific knowledge. Strengthening provincial climate governance can help Nepal build resilience to climate risks while supporting sustainable and inclusive development outcomes for vulnerable communities across the country.
---
Popular Gentle is a development and climate policy professional specializing in climate change adaptation, resilience, environmental governance, and sustainable development. With experience in research, policy engagement, and project management, he works to bridge research, policy, and practice to advance decentralized climate-resilient development and support inclusive, sustainable outcomes for vulnerable communities.
Ranjan Bhatta is a Green Civil Engineer with research interests in climate-resilient infrastructure and governance. As a Senior Climate Action Officer at The Asia Foundation, he works at the intersection of climate action, governance, and sustainable development. His expertise includes governance and accountability, local government strengthening, public sector reform, and multi-stakeholder engagement.
Sarina Lama is a development professional specializing in climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and governance, with extensive experience supporting resilience-building initiatives and policy engagement in Nepal.
Jony Mainaly is a seasoned lawyer with over a decade of academic, research, and practice-based experience in climate and natural resource governance, law, and policy. She holds an LL.M. from Duke University School of Law, earned through the prestigious Fulbright Scholarship. Her expertise spans legal research, policy analysis, and advisory work on climate governance and natural resource management.
Tek Narayan Maraseni is a Professor at the University of Southern Queensland and an internationally recognized scholar in climate change, natural resource management, carbon accounting, and sustainable development. With extensive experience in research, teaching, and policy engagement, he has made significant contributions to advancing knowledge on climate change mitigation and adaptation, sustainable land use, forest governance, environmental policy, and carbon management.
---
Note: this blog represents the views of the authors, and not those of Regional & Federal Studies, the Centre on Constitutional Change, or the University of Edinburgh. The research was conducted with partial funding support from UKAID and with the technical support of The Asia Foundation (TAF). However, the contents of this article do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the UK Government or The Asia Foundation. It summarises this article from RFS.
Image credit: Ace vision trek-s via Wikimedia Commons. CC BY SA 4.0.
