After the Flood: IWMI Researcher Says Nepal Must Rethink Mountain Resilience

After the Flood: IWMI Researcher Says Nepal Must Rethink Resilience in a Changing Himalaya

In a blog published on 29 October 2026, Santosh Nepal of the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) argues that repeated floods in Nepal‘s mountains reveal why the country must rethink resilience. He writes from Kathmandu, where he is a researcher on water resources and climate change. His central question goes beyond disaster preparedness: what does resilience mean when the physical foundations on which development depends are themselves changing?

Two floods in 46 days

On 26 August 2026, a massive rock and glacier avalanche in the Langtang mountain in central Nepal triggered a destructive debris flow and flood along the Bhotekoshi–Trishuli corridor. The disaster destroyed settlements, roads, bridges and other critical infrastructure, and severely disrupted connectivity between Nepal and China. Then, on 11 October, just 46 days later, another flash flood struck the Budhi Gandaki River in Gorkha, about 40 km west of the first disaster.

The scale of loss is large. Research institute ODI reports that the August flood killed more than 1,450 people and caused $2.7 billion in damage, with recovery needs exceeding $4.8 billion. Reposted versions of the IWMI blog say that more than 1,450 people have reportedly died and 5,200 remain unaccounted for. These figures are reported estimates, and readers should check them against official Nepal government updates.

Hydropower in the path of the flood

One detail stands out in the blog. The August flood reportedly damaged 13 hydropower projects with a combined capacity of 760 MW. Nepal has invested heavily in hydropower as a foundation for its energy transition and economic future. That makes the flood a test of the country’s development model as well as its disaster response, since the infrastructure meant to power growth sits in the same valleys exposed to glacier and rock hazards.

What the author is calling for

The blog does not argue against building. It says Nepal will continue to need roads, hydropower, settlements and other infrastructure to support development, and that early warning is fundamental, since better monitoring, forecasting and communication can save lives. Instead, the argument is that rebuilding what was lost is not enough.

The author calls for reconsidering where and how Nepal builds, and for a more integrated approach to planning that links disaster risk to decisions about river systems, settlements, transport, hydropower, ecosystems, livelihoods and climate finance. In plain terms, a road, a hydropower plant or a village should be sited and designed with the changing mountain environment in mind, not only the flood record of past decades.

Background: recovery and compensation

Other analysts have pointed to the same gaps. ODI says Nepal has invested significantly in monitoring glacial-lake outburst floods, but the August flood showed the need to broaden that effort through earth observation, wider hazard monitoring, risk communication and transboundary data-sharing. It adds that Nepal has requested $20 million in climate-related flood compensation from the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage, and that international compensation has so far gone undelivered.

IWMI’s long partnership with Nepal

IWMI has worked with Nepal for decades. At a dialogue in early October titled “Water Security in a Changing Himalaya,” which also marked four decades of IWMI’s partnership with Nepal, IWMI Director General Mark Smith described water as a connector across food, energy, health and ecosystems, and IWMI’s Nepal representative Manohara Khadka called for partnership and collective action. A senior water ministry official urged continuity in planning, saying tools and skills developed through partnerships should stay within government systems after projects end. The flood blog was co-credited to Khadka and Aayush Niroula alongside the author.

Why it matters beyond Nepal

Glacier and rock-slope hazards are not unique to one country. The Himalaya runs through several nations, and floods that start in one place can damage infrastructure and trade routes in another, as the August event showed by cutting links between Nepal and China. That is why ODI’s call for transboundary data-sharing matters: warnings are more useful when countries exchange information early.

The blog also fits a wider global debate. Climate-vulnerable countries argue that rich emitters should pay for loss and damage, while experts say funds alone will not prevent the next disaster unless planning changes. Nepal’s case puts both arguments side by side.

What to watch next

Three questions will shape the recovery. First, how quickly the government can expand monitoring beyond glacial lakes to a wider range of mountain hazards. Second, whether hydropower and road projects are reviewed against new hazard maps. Third, whether pledged climate finance actually reaches affected communities. The IWMI blog does not claim these questions have answers yet, but it argues they should be asked before reconstruction locks in old risks.

Conclusion

IWMI’s message is that Nepal’s floods are a warning about how development is planned in a changing Himalaya. Early warning remains essential, but the blog says it must be paired with decisions about where infrastructure goes and how risk is shared across sectors. With two major floods in under two months and recovery needs far above current support, the next phase of rebuilding will show whether resilience becomes a planning principle or stays a slogan.

Source: IWMI, “After the flood,” by Santosh Nepal, 29 October 2026 (iwmi.org); ODI, “After the flood: supporting recovery, reconstruction and resilience in Nepal,” 12 October 2026; Spotlight Nepal, 5 October 2026.