Measuring climate impact on culture and heritage

Nepal has already received the monthly average of precipitation for August in the first two weeks of the month. This year’s monsoon has so far killed nearly 200 people in landslides and floods across the country.

On 16 August, a flash debris flow from a suspected glacial collapse damaged half the village of Thame in the Everest region. All this comes after a full scale national emergency due to record-breaking wildfires in March and April that ravaged the country’s forests.

Climate breakdown was partly the culprit in most of these calamities. The impacts of climate change are increasing, both in frequency and magnitude, outpacing slow progress in mitigating its causes, and in building resilience.

The conversation around loss and damage due to the climate crisis is becoming ever so important for vulnerable countries like Nepal. However, despite COP28 in Dubai last year seeing a historic agreement on a ‘Loss and Damage Fund’, the idea that climate-induced destruction can in practice be compensated still seems far-fetched. 

The Fund is still in its early stages and few details are known as its operational elements are being worked on. The World Bank is the interim host of the fund for four years, and as of March $661 million had been pledged. This is negligible compared to what is required, with calculations by the Loss & Damage Collaboration estimating a need for $671bn annually by 2030. 

It is important that the foundation to operationalise the fund be laid soon with stable funding sources. A resource allocation system with guidance on eligibility needs to be devised, and questions on who, how and for what countries can access funds remains crucial.

Within the ‘for what’ conversation, climate-induced loss and damage can have both economic losses such as the loss of infrastructure (which are easy to quantify) and non-economic losses such as loss of biodiversity and cultural heritage (which are difficult to quantify). One must also note that tangible economic assets such as buildings, monuments, archaeological sites can also hold intangible values.

After the Thame flood this week, the little coverage the incident has received still focuses on the economic losses and possible fatalities. These are important, but what about non-economic loss of the rich history and heritage of the village that lies on the ancient Khumbu-Tibet trade route across the Nangpa La? Artefacts passed on from generations in families carry indigenous knowledge and wisdom, the memories and spirituality associated with infrastructure have formed the lived experiences of the Sherpa people.

These aspects are as important as economic ones, especially because they are rooted in the core ideas and norms that shape our communities and inspire collective aspiration to achieve climate justice.

The importance of incorporating cultural and societal aspects when we talk about the non-economic impacts of climate loss and damage is uncontested. However, despite the recognition of the significance of non-economic losses, they have been under-represented in climate negotiations as well as in climate research. How do we quantify these losses and compensate for them?

It is true that doing so is not straightforward, but it is a false premise that such losses cannot be quantified. Rather, we must first admit that we have not come up with and agreed on ways to put an economic value to them. 

Environmental economists have for long devised models and frameworks to put a price on environmental goods such as clean air, water and access to nature. And yet, the global community is far from putting a right price on nature and quantifying nature loss as an economic loss. 

It is naïve to think we cannot put a price on culture and heritage. There has always been a market for expensive arts and artefacts, and there is enough precedence on pricing non-tangible assets.

In an abstract sense, putting a price on any asset is derived from its utility. It is important to build on existing knowledge as well as ideate innovative ways to price non-tangible cultural and heritage loss, and incorporate that in the Loss and Damage Fund. This should be a key agenda item both for its secretariat as well as global climate negotiators, researchers, grassroot organisations, and development partners.

The question and challenge, however, is not just to incorporate these things in the Loss and Damage fund. The premise of loss and damage rests on the fact that something has already been lost. After all, flow of finance cannot be the substitute for loss of culture and heritage. 

The important question is what can we do to prevent such loss, and preserve culture and heritage from the climate crisis before they are lost? This requires integration of culture and heritage components in the design of climate mitigation and adaptation projects and policies. Working with indigenous communities, religious leaders and faith groups, and civil society will be critical in achieving this. 

In a recent trip to Lahore, I was told that it is almost impossible to elicit behavioural change to climate action in certain areas of Pakistan without working closely with the imams and mosques. Religion plays an important aspect in many of the world’s climate vulnerable communities, and needs to be incorporated in climate action.

Needless to say, measuring the climate impact on culture and heritage must go beyond climate loss and damage and be an integral component of any climate intervention.

This should also be a priority for Nepal whose culture, history and tradition is closely linked to the lived environment and nature. Forests with cultural significance to local communities, shrines and important pilgrimage are located along the confluence of holy rivers, and the Himalaya holds profound cultural and religious significance to Hinduism, Buddhism, Bon and other faiths.

We must act now to ensure that we preserve and are compensated for climate loss and damage of not just physical infrastructure but also the intangible heritage that is often left out of broader financial calculations.  

Rastra Raj Bhandari is a co-founder and fellow at the Himalayan Water Project, where he leads the research on climate finance opportunities for the Himalaya. He contributes regularly to Nepali Times on climate change.