Rebuilding climate-damaged infrastructure in the same place can rebuild the same risk
WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS
A Communications Sustainability comment examines repeated climate-related damage to Nepali hydropower, including the Rasuwagadhi project, and argues that project-specific licenses, long power-purchase agreements and debt structures can create 'coordinate lock-in': rebuilding at the same intake or alignment remains institutionally easier than relocating after hazard exposure becomes obvious. The authors point to cases where repaired infrastructure was again damaged.
WHY IT MATTERS / OUR READ
The counter-signal is against treating resilience as an engineering upgrade alone. If contracts, licenses and finance fix a project to a hazardous coordinate, better concrete or protective works can leave the core exposure unchanged. Climate adaptation therefore has to include the institutional ability to move, redesign or retire infrastructure—not only harden it.
CAVEATS / UNCERTAINTY
This is a commentary based on two cases and public reporting rather than a comparative causal study or full review of project contracts. The authors explicitly do not claim that lock-in is the sole cause of repeated loss or that every hydropower project faces the same constraint.
SOURCE
Communications Sustainability
View original evidence ↗
A Nepal-focused analysis argues that licenses, power contracts and project finance can lock hydropower projects back into hazard-prone sites even after destructive events reveal the vulnerability.
Read the Wild Lands assessment →