Environment & Climate2 Nov 2026 · about 6 min

Indigenous climate activist Pema Wangmo Lama on flood recovery, loans and who gets to say no to hydropower

The brief

Pema Wangmo Lama is an Indigenous climate activist from Nepal’s Mugum community. She has followed United Nations climate talks since the 2015 Paris Agreement and represented Nepal at COP17, the biodiversity conference in Yerevan. She brings concerns about disaster recovery, hydropower, biodiversity, and climate finance. She says Indigenous peoples need meaningful decision-making power, while recovery should support communities rather than infrastructure or energy exports. In upper Rasuwa’s Amachhodingmo Rural Municipality, displaced people were moved to Sundarijal. The government only recently recognised their location as a temporary shelter. Lama says this shows how response systems overlook communities and traditional livelihoods. She also questions hydropower labeled clean when Indigenous territories bear the risks. The loss-and-damage fund’s first round received proposals above $2 billion, while pledges remained far lower. She warns that funding gaps could limit meaningful, community-led recovery.

Who is Pema Wangmo Lama, and what concerns from Nepal’s Indigenous communities is she bringing to international climate and biodiversity negotiations?

She brings concerns about disaster recovery, hydropower, biodiversity, and climate finance. She says Indigenous peoples need meaningful decision-making power, while recovery should support communities rather than infrastructure or energy exports.

In upper Rasuwa’s Amachhodingmo Rural Municipality, displaced people were moved to Sundarijal. The government only recently recognised their location as a temporary shelter. Lama says this shows how response systems overlook communities and traditional livelihoods. She also questions hydropower labeled clean when Indigenous territories bear the risks. The loss-and-damage fund’s first round received proposals above $2 billion, while pledges remained far lower. She warns that funding gaps could limit meaningful, community-led recovery.

What is hydropower, and why is it described as “clean energy” even when its dams and infrastructure can create risks for nearby communities?

Hydropower generates electricity by directing moving or falling water through turbines, often behind dams. It is called “clean energy” because it produces electricity without directly burning coal, oil or gas. However, “clean” describes emissions, not every social, ecological or safety consequence.

In Nepal, Indigenous communities protested hydropower projects before the disaster, saying risk assessments overlooked threats to their territories. Dam construction can alter rivers, occupy land, and disrupt homes, livelihoods, and cultural ties. Electricity may then be prioritised for export, while nearby communities bear the risks.

After the disaster, Lama argued general recovery funds should rebuild communities, not damaged hydropower plants. She says safeguards near hydropower projects rarely work in practice. Going forward, projects need meaningful Indigenous participation and assessments that address community risks, not only electricity production.

What happened to communities in upper Rasuwa, and why does Lama say Nepal’s recovery efforts focus too much on infrastructure rather than people’s homes, livelihoods and cultures?

In upper Rasuwa, disaster-displaced people were moved to Sundarijal, but their settlement lacked official recognition until recently. This matters because unrecognised families can remain invisible to emergency systems and miss timely support. Without recognition, authorities may plan for structures rather than people needing protection, services and a route home.

Lama says recovery is too infrastructure-centred when success means rebuilding roads, houses and schools. But people may still be unable to return home or resume traditional livelihoods. Indigenous communities connect their territories with livelihoods, cultures and identity, so physical repairs alone cannot restore their lives.

Early response also showed the gap: major disaster organisations had received no communication from affected areas. That made the disaster’s scale difficult to assess and complicated coordinated action. Recovery should identify displaced communities, recognise their living arrangements, and rebuild livelihoods alongside infrastructure. For Indigenous residents, this also means protecting cultural ties and participation in territorial decisions.

How large is the gap between requests to the Loss and Damage Fund and the money available to it?

The Loss and Damage Fund helps countries respond to climate disasters linked to climate change. Its importance depends on whether promised money matches the needs communities face.

In its first funding round, proposals worth more than $2 billion were submitted. However, available pledges remained far lower, creating a substantial shortfall. The source does not provide the exact amount available, so the precise gap cannot be calculated.

This mismatch raises concerns about whether the Fund can respond quickly and fairly. The Fund also took considerable time to become operational. Similar problems affected the earlier $100 billion annual climate-finance pledge, which went unmet for years. A newer goal seeks $300 billion annually by 2035, alongside efforts to mobilise $1.3 trillion.

Why do Indigenous communities object to some hydropower projects, and what are environmental and social impact assessments supposed to protect them from?

Indigenous communities object when hydropower projects place their territories, safety, livelihoods, and cultural ties at risk. They question “clean energy” when local people carry the dangers while electricity exports take priority. Environmental and social impact assessments should identify these harms before construction, reduce them, and ensure affected communities can influence decisions.

In Nepal, Indigenous communities protested hydropower projects even before the recent disaster. They said risk assessments had not adequately considered threats to their territories, showing how technical reviews can miss lived experience. Lama also says safeguards for Indigenous people near projects rarely work in practice.

That matters during recovery too: general disaster funds should rebuild communities, not simply damaged hydropower plants. Nepal’s response remains infrastructure-focused, although returning home and restoring traditional livelihoods are equally important. Meaningful consultation and community consent would make assessments more than paperwork.

How are concessional loans different from grants, and why does Lama’s coalition argue that loans are a poor response to disaster recovery?

Concessional loans are borrowed money offered on easier terms, such as lower interest or longer repayment periods. Grants are funds that do not need repayment. After a disaster, Lama’s coalition says loans can leave affected communities and Nepal owing more, while recovery money should support people directly.

Her coalition, People’s Movement for Climate Justice, delivered a letter to World Bank Nepal on October 16 opposing concessional loans for disaster recovery. Its concern is that funding may prioritize infrastructure, including damaged hydropower plants, instead of displaced families, homes, and traditional livelihoods. A loan still creates debt, even when its terms are softer.

That matters because Nepal is seeking climate finance while questions remain over who receives it and how much reaches communities. Lama argues general recovery funds should rebuild communities, not simply infrastructure. The coalition therefore opposes loans for disaster recovery and supports money that does not increase survivors’ financial burdens.

What does free, prior and informed consent mean, and how could it give Indigenous peoples meaningful power to accept or reject development projects on their territories?

Free, prior and informed consent means Indigenous peoples receive clear information before a project begins, without pressure, and can agree or refuse. It treats consent as a decision-making right, not a meeting held after plans are settled.

Applied to a hydropower project in Nepal, communities would learn its risks, benefits, alternatives and effects on territory and livelihoods before approval. They could say no or set conditions. Their consent would be required, not assumed, when decisions affect homes, cultures and traditional livelihoods.

In practice, Lama says Indigenous communities protested hydropower projects before the disaster, while risk assessments missed threats to their territories. She also says safeguards near projects rarely work. Meaningful power requires early, independent information and genuine negotiations. It also requires a binding decision process, alongside recovery funds that rebuild communities rather than damaged plants.

This brief was written by AI from the original reporting and checked by other models. Names, figures and quotes come from the source; read it for full context.