What Lubra can teach Nepal about climate-induced migration and resettlement

Climate-induced migration means people move because climate-related hazards or changing conditions make livelihoods and daily life harder. Resettlement usually means moving and rebuilding in a safer location, sometimes through organised planning. Both change where people live. Adapting in place means reducing risk while remaining in the existing community and maintaining local connections.

Lubra shows that these paths can overlap. After floods, some residents adapted where they were, while others moved uphill. Some could imagine relocating later but still wanted links with Lubra. People who moved kept connections through farming, livelihoods and community relationships. Their choices were not simply staying or leaving.

The article presents movement as a range of responses. Communities may remain, move locally, diversify work, migrate temporarily or relocate permanently. Decisions depend on hazards, resources, land rights, social ties, livelihoods and cultural values. Successful adaptation must therefore protect both physical safety and meaningful connections to place.

Lubra is a small, ancient settlement in Mustang, Nepal. It stands at about 2,950 metres and is home to one of Nepal’s remaining Bon communities. Only around 40 people remain across nine households. Its age and small population make each environmental and demographic change especially significant.

The village is approximately 800 years old. Residents described a major shift in flood frequency. Floods once occurred every three to five years, but during the past decade they have happened almost every year. The Lubra River, also called Panda Khola, swells during the monsoon and carries sediment, cobbles and large boulders across the valley.

Repeated flooding is changing the settlement itself. Sediment has raised the riverbed by about 12 metres over the last decade. The river is moving closer to homes and infrastructure while burying farmland. Lubra’s future therefore involves both immediate safety concerns and the longer challenge of preserving a small community’s relationship with place.

Lubra residents are observing several connected climate changes. They described warmer winters, reduced snowfall and rainfall patterns that are shifting. These are not distant trends for them. They are changes experienced directly in fields, water sources and daily routines.

River behaviour has also become more dangerous. During the monsoon, the narrow Lubra River can expand across the valley. It carries sediment, cobbles and large boulders, then leaves sediment behind after floods. Residents said flooding has become almost annual, compared with once every three to five years in the past. The riverbed has risen about 12 metres over the last decade.

Together, these changes increase pressure on farming, water access, homes and infrastructure. Less snow and altered rainfall can affect seasonal water conditions, while more frequent floods bury farmland and reshape the settlement. Residents’ observations provide detailed, place-based evidence that complements technical climate assessments and hazard maps.

The 2021 monsoon showed how climate hazards can damage both material resources and cultural life. Flooding damaged homes and infrastructure. It also swept away farmland, apple trees and objects that held cultural significance. The losses affected housing, livelihoods, food production and heritage at the same time.

Three families left temporarily and sheltered elsewhere for three months. They later rebuilt their homes uphill, where the risk was lower. Other residents adapted in place. This response was not a simple mass departure. It combined temporary displacement, local relocation and continued residence in the village.

The aftermath illustrates why resettlement involves more than constructing safer houses. Families still needed connections to farmland, livelihoods and community life. Those who moved remained tied to Lubra. Future responses must address physical safety while also considering land ownership, cultural places, social relationships and the community’s long-term ability to remain connected to its landscape.

Climate-exposed communities do not face only a stay-or-leave decision. They can adapt in place by changing practices or protecting infrastructure. They can move locally to safer ground, diversify livelihoods, or migrate temporarily while keeping homes and relationships in the original community. Permanent relocation is another possibility, but it is not the only response.

Lubra demonstrates this range. Some residents remained and adapted where they lived. Others moved uphill as flood danger increased. After the 2021 monsoon, three families sheltered elsewhere for three months before rebuilding uphill. Residents who moved still maintained ties through farming, livelihoods and community relationships. Some could imagine relocating in the future but wanted to stay connected to Lubra.

These choices are shaped by more than hazard exposure. Resources, land rights, work, social networks and cultural values all matter. Planning should therefore support flexible options rather than assume one solution fits everyone. A successful response may combine local movement, temporary migration and adaptation in place over time.

Relocation can reduce exposure to floods while leaving other forms of vulnerability unresolved. Families need secure rights to land, access to livelihoods and reliable community support. They also need places where cultural, spiritual and social life can continue. A safer house alone cannot provide these conditions.

In Lubra, some families lost or saw farmland buried by floods, yet the land remained registered in their names. They could still owe land taxes on unusable fields. Some new house plots lacked Lalpurja, the official ownership certificate. Land is also allocated through Gola Pratha, a locally recognised system without formal legal recognition. These problems can make supposedly safer settlement insecure.

Moving may further separate people from the monastery, sacred artefacts, farmland, memory-filled landscapes and intergenerational ties that shape Bon identity. Future relocation plans must address ownership, land-use rights, livelihoods and cultural continuity alongside infrastructure. Otherwise, families may escape physical danger but lose the foundations of a meaningful home.

Climate adaptation works best when technical evidence and local knowledge are combined. Hazard maps, engineering studies and infrastructure plans can identify exposure and guide safer construction. Indigenous and local knowledge adds understanding of seasonal patterns, livelihoods, cultural places and social relationships. It shows what a risk assessment may miss: which land matters, how people use it and what makes relocation acceptable.

Lubra residents described warmer winters, less snowfall, shifting rainfall and changing river behaviour from generations of experience. They linked these changes to fields, water sources and daily life. Their knowledge also reveals why moving is difficult. The monastery, farmland, sacred objects, homes and landscape all support community identity.

Future adaptation should treat residents as knowledge holders, not just recipients of outside plans. Projects should combine measurements with community priorities. They must consider land rights, customary systems such as Gola Pratha, livelihoods and cultural continuity. This approach can produce responses that are safer, fairer and more likely to last.