Report on the Impact of Nepalese Floods on Infrastructure and Sustainable Development

Recent flooding events in Nepal have exposed critical vulnerabilities in the nation’s infrastructure, underscoring the urgent need to integrate climate resilience and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into all future development and rebuilding efforts. The destruction of key energy and transport assets highlights significant setbacks to achieving several SDGs, including those related to energy, economic growth, and sustainable communities.

Impact Assessment of the Bhotekoshi River Floods

The flooding of the Bhotekoshi River in July resulted in severe human, economic, and infrastructural losses, directly challenging Nepal’s progress toward key sustainable development targets.

Human and Economic Toll

The disaster’s immediate effects have severely impacted local livelihoods and the national economy, undermining efforts toward SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

• Fatalities: Nine people were killed in the initial flood on July 8.
• Economic Disruption: The destruction of the Sino-Nepal Friendship Bridge has halted cross-border trade with China, estimated at $724 million annually.
• Livelihood Impact: Workers, hotel operators, laborers, and truck drivers who depend on cross-border commerce have lost their primary source of income, exacerbating economic precarity in a region still recovering from the 2015 earthquake.

Damage to Critical Infrastructure

The floods caused extensive damage to essential infrastructure, directly impacting SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure).

1. Energy Infrastructure: Ten hydropower facilities, including three under construction, were damaged. The combined capacity of these facilities is sufficient to power approximately 600,000 homes, representing a significant blow to the nation’s clean energy supply.
2. Transport Infrastructure: The main bridge connecting Nepal to China was destroyed, isolating the region and crippling a vital trade corridor. The cost to rebuild this bridge after the 2015 earthquake was $68 million, indicating the substantial financial burden of reconstruction.
3. Trade and Logistics: An inland container depot being built to support growing trade was also damaged, further impeding economic development goals.

Climate Vulnerability and the Imperative for Sustainable Rebuilding

The incident serves as a stark reminder of Nepal’s vulnerability to climate change and the necessity of adopting a new paradigm for infrastructure development rooted in resilience and sustainability, in line with SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 13 (Climate Action).

A New Reality of Climate Risk

Experts note that the Himalayan region is warming faster than the global average, leading to an increased frequency of extreme weather events. This new climate reality invalidates historical risk assessment models. As stated by hydrologist John Pomeroy, “The statistics of the past no longer apply for the future,” meaning that infrastructure planning must now account for future risks that are significantly higher than in the past.

Expert Recommendations for Resilient Development

To prevent recurring disasters and ensure long-term sustainability, a strategic shift in planning and rebuilding is required. Key recommendations include:

• Adopt Multi-Hazard Risk Assessments: Planners must move beyond single-threat assessments (e.g., earthquakes) to a multi-hazard framework that includes extreme flooding and other climate-related risks.
• Invest in Climate Adaptation: A greater portion of climate investment must be directed toward adaptation and building resilient infrastructure, not just mitigation. The Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI) notes that $124 billion of Nepal’s infrastructure is vulnerable to climate-driven disasters.
• Strategic Relocation and Smart Rebuilding: Rebuilding in the same disaster-prone locations is a “poor decision.” Future projects must be sited and designed to withstand projected climate extremes.

Financial Implications and the Path Forward

The economic case for investing in resilience is clear. Proactive investment in climate-proof infrastructure can prevent billions of dollars in future losses and requires robust international cooperation as outlined in SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

The Economic Case for Resilience

In 2024, Asia experienced 167 disasters resulting in over $32 billion in losses. According to CDRI, investing a relatively small amount in resilience now can prevent enormous future damages. These disasters are “wake-up calls” that highlight the financial necessity of integrating climate adaptation into national planning.

Global Cooperation and Funding

Addressing this challenge requires global partnership. While mechanisms like the UN’s Climate Loss and Damage Fund (currently holding $348 million) and loans from the World Bank and Asian Development Bank exist, the available capital is a fraction of what is needed to cover economic damages from climate change. Enhanced international support is critical for vulnerable nations like Nepal to build the resilient infrastructure required to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy – The article directly mentions that floods damaged 10 hydropower facilities, which are a source of clean energy. This impacts energy availability and infrastructure.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth – The destruction of the main bridge and a container depot has brought trade to a “standstill,” affecting the livelihoods of workers, hotel operators, laborers, and truck drivers, thereby impacting economic growth and decent work.
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure – The core theme of the article is the vulnerability of infrastructure (hydropower dams, bridges, roads, container depots) to climate-related disasters and the urgent need to build “quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure.”
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities – The article discusses the impact of disasters on human settlements, including the death of nine people and the economic losses in the Rasuwa region. It highlights the need to make communities more resilient to disasters.
• SDG 13: Climate Action – The article explicitly links the floods and landslides in Nepal to a “warming planet” and “human-caused climate change.” It emphasizes the need to strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

   • Target 7.1: By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services. The damage to hydropower facilities, which “could power 600,000 South Asian homes,” directly threatens the reliability of energy services in the region.

2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • Target 8.1: Sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances. The article notes that “$724 million worth of trade with China is conducted over the bridge each year, and that has come to a standstill,” which directly hinders sustained economic growth.
   • Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all. The article states that the disaster has “severely affected workers, hotel operators, laborers, and truck drivers who rely on cross-border trade for their livelihoods.”

3. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

   • Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being. The article’s central argument is the need for “smart rebuilding” and “climate-resilient infrastructure” after floods destroyed a key bridge and hydropower dams.
   • Target 9.a: Facilitate sustainable and resilient infrastructure development in developing countries. The article discusses the challenges Nepal faces in rebuilding and the need for new risk assessment frameworks to guide future construction.

4. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • Target 11.5: By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters. The article explicitly mentions the flooding “killed nine people” and caused significant economic damage, such as the destruction of a bridge that cost “$68 million to rebuild” after a previous disaster.
   • Target 11.b: By 2030, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters. The call from experts for “smart planning and rebuilding,” installing “early warning systems,” and developing a “multi-hazard risk assessment framework” directly relates to this target.

5. SDG 13: Climate Action

   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries. The entire article serves as a case study for this target, highlighting how Nepal’s vulnerability to “heavy rains, floods and landslides” is increasing due to climate change and the critical need to adapt.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For Target 11.5 & 13.1

   • Indicator 11.5.1 / 13.1.2 (Number of deaths, missing persons and directly affected persons attributed to disasters): The article provides a direct metric by stating the flood “killed nine people” and “severely affected workers, hotel operators, laborers, and truck drivers.”
   • Indicator 11.5.2 (Direct economic loss attributed to disasters): The article provides several financial figures that serve as indicators of economic loss: the “$68 million” cost to rebuild the bridge after the 2015 earthquake, the halt of “$724 million worth of trade,” and the broader context of “$32 billion” in disaster losses across Asia in 2024.

2. For Target 9.1

   • Indicator (Damage to critical infrastructure): The article specifies the damage to “10 damaged hydropower facilities,” the “main bridge connecting the country to China,” and an “inland container depot.” The condition and functionality of such infrastructure are key indicators of resilience.

3. For Target 7.1

   • Indicator (Disruption of energy supply): The potential impact on energy access is quantified by the statement that the damaged hydropower facilities have a “combined capacity that could power 600,000 South Asian homes.” This can be used as a measure of the disruption to energy services.

4. For Target 11.b & 13.1

   • Indicator 13.1.1 (Number of countries with national and local disaster risk reduction strategies): The article implies a gap in Nepal’s current strategies by noting that environmental impact assessments “don’t adequately factor in the risks of floods.” The development of the mentioned “multi-hazard risk assessment framework” would be a positive measure for this indicator.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: apnews.com