What a regional climate agreement for the Himalayas should contain

The mechanism is a proposed regional arrangement to help Himalayan countries respond together to climate change and protect the mountain system. Prime Minister Balendra Shah presented it at the UN General Assembly on September 24. Its wider purpose would be environmentally sustainable development and renewed livelihoods for Himalayan communities.

It could support scientific cooperation on climate change, biodiversity, forests, hydropower and infrastructure. It could also improve information sharing, early warnings, mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer and cross-border communication. These functions matter because the Himalayas provide water, food, forests and renewable energy to people across the region.

The author calls the proposal a welcome beginning but says a mechanism alone rests on goodwill. A legal agreement among Nepal, India and China would give it a firmer foundation. The proposed arrangement could begin in the central Himalaya, then expand eastward and westward as cooperation develops.

Nepal, India and China are the three proposed leaders of the Himalayan Climate Resilience Mechanism. Their cooperation matters because the Himalayas form one connected environmental system, while climate risks, ecosystems and livelihoods cross national borders.

The author argues that cooperation based only on goodwill is fragile. When relations between countries cool, goodwill may disappear first. A regional legal agreement would establish shared duties and principles that continue beyond changing political moods. It could also guide information sharing, early warnings, environmental safeguards and coordinated development.

The agreement would be based on international climate and biodiversity law, customary law and emerging forest principles. It would promote due diligence, meaning states should take appropriate measures to prevent serious environmental harm beyond their borders. The author also points to the International Court of Justice’s 2025 advisory opinion as an important influence on the proposed framework.

Three countries are at the center of the proposed arrangement: Nepal, India and China. The article presents them as the states that should lead the Himalayan Climate Resilience Mechanism and build a shared regional legal framework.

The proposed coverage need not be fixed immediately across the entire mountain system. Participating states could first define and cooperate in the central Himalaya. They could begin with climate change, then gradually add biodiversity, forests, hydropower, infrastructure and other connected subjects.

The arrangement could later expand toward the eastern and western Himalaya and their zones of influence. The article says the Himalayan system’s boundary must be delimited through meaningful dialogue among participating states. This step-by-step approach would allow cooperation to grow while recognizing the range’s ecological, geomorphological and livelihood connections.

The proposed agreement should cover climate change, biodiversity conservation, sustainable forest management, hydropower and infrastructure development. These subjects are connected because development choices can affect ecosystems, water, energy, forests and communities across borders.

For example, the agreement could require decisions to follow the best available scientific information. It could promote topography-sensitive land use, ecosystem protection and responsible sharing of eco-bio resources. It could also support mitigation, adaptation and technology transfer. Due diligence would require states to take appropriate precautions against serious environmental harm beyond their borders.

The wider objective is environmentally sustainable development and the rejuvenation of Himalayan livelihoods. Human rights, harmony with nature, inter-generational equity and climate justice should be treated as essential parts of that objective. The states could begin with climate change, then add other subjects step by step as regional cooperation develops.

If Himalayan states fail to cooperate, people and ecosystems may lose the benefits of shared information, early warning and coordinated prevention. The article links the Himalayas to food, forests, water and renewable energy for mountain residents, downstream populations and adjoining regions.

A concrete risk is weaker preparation for mountain hazards. Without information sharing, states would have less support for prevention, early warning, mitigation and adaptation. If domestic laws allow serious damage to travel across borders, one country’s activities could harm ecosystems and communities elsewhere. The article identifies due diligence as the core safeguard.

The consequences would extend beyond environmental damage. Disrupted ecosystem services could affect livelihoods, while harm to Himalayan landscapes could undermine their ecological and aesthetic values. Regional cooperation can strengthen cross-border communication and connectivity. A legal agreement would make these responsibilities more durable than goodwill alone.

Richer or more technologically capable countries should carry greater responsibilities because Himalayan states differ greatly in physical size, population, economies, industries and technology. Treating every country as if it had identical capacity would not produce fair climate governance.

The principle is called common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities, or CBDRCC. It means every state shares concern for protecting the Himalayas, but duties should reflect capacity and contribution. The article says the International Court of Justice calls on states with greater emissions and greater economic and technological strength to take the lead.

This principle does not create a permanent ranking. The court said the distinction between developed and developing states is not static. A country recognized as developing in the 1990s may later prosper into a developed one. Scientific information should guide each state’s due diligence and precautionary measures.

Black carbon is a dark carbon-rich particle produced by incomplete combustion. Snow albedo is the snow’s reflectivity: bright snow reflects much incoming sunlight. The article focuses on the connection between these two features in the Himalayan environment.

When black carbon settles on Himalayan snow, it reduces the snow’s albedo. The darker surface absorbs more solar energy instead of reflecting as much of it. That added absorption enhances snowmelt. In simple terms, soot makes snow less reflective and therefore more vulnerable to warming from sunlight.

The article says the possibility of establishing a causal link between emissions and black carbon on Himalayan snow supports including the polluter pays principle in a regional regime. It also says states already accept precautionary and polluter pays principles in law or judicial practice, including Nepal, South Asia and China.