Submit your Article

What a gulf exists between the Federal Government’s aims to promote Nepal as an international hub for information technology and the existing state of play of regulating Artificial Intelligence in the country. Regardless of official declarations, policies and budget speeches focused on harnessing the IT sector, the country’s quest to, first, make sense, then regulate and finally leverage the unfolding AI revolution is still in its infancy.

Amid this scenario, the very first official policy document on AI, technically a concept paper coming from the Federal Government, might offer the much-needed blueprint upon which new policies and legislations can be drafted. If Nepal really wants to attract investors in the field of IT, then it needs to really get it right the way it is going to regulate artificial intelligence. The fact that the country is already a late comer in understanding how to regulate the former could be seen as an advantage if the government acts swiftly.

It needs to leap, jumping with decisiveness by quickly taking advantage of and internalizing the learning and experiences from those trailblazing nations that, in the last few years, have been breaking ground in terms of AI regulations. To do so, it is equally indispensable to work in partnership with experts from the civil society and the international community.

To review the latest developments and take stock of what is happening in this complex but fascinating area of policy making, I got in touch with two persons involved in the discussions around AI, Santosh Sigdel and Aakriti Kharel, executive director at Digital Rights Nepal and digital media specialist at UNESCO Nepal Office, respectively.

“The adoption of the Concept Paper on the Application and Practice of Artificial Intelligence by the government of Nepal is a welcome development. Key aspects of this paper include the prioritization of developing AI laws and policies, such as the AI Policy Framework, National AI Strategy, Data Protection Framework, AI Governance Structure, AI standardization, and the promotion of AI literacy” shares Sigdel to me via e-mail.

Indeed, a very comprehensive framework is what is required. Let’s not forget that AI could offer humanity some of the best ways to leverage progress for the common good but, we know very well, that the opposite is also very realistically possible. Unchecked and unregulated, AI can become a devastatingly effective tool against humanity.

Sigdel is crystal clear on the downsides of the AI revolution and we should not live under the illusion that a still developing nation like Nepal will be immune from them. “As AI technologies become more integrated into daily life, it is crucial for citizens to understand these technologies to benefit from their advantages and mitigate potential risks. AI intersects with human rights in significant ways, impacting not only digital rights but also other fundamental rights. AI systems can collect and analyze vast amounts of personal data, raising privacy concerns,” he shared.

Think about discrimination and inequalities, two elements that are still very much embedded in society. “AI has the potential to either mitigate or exacerbate existing inequalities and biases. If not carefully designed and implemented, AI systems can perpetuate and even amplify biases present in training data, leading to discriminatory outcomes in critical areas such as law enforcement and access to public services,” Sigdel adds.

The risks are so high that the United Nations has been at the forefront, pressing for a global discussion around the ethics of AI. The Secretary-General of the UN, Antonio Guterres, even established an AI Advisory Board in October last year and the upcoming Summit of the Future in September, probably Guterres’ most ambitious undertaking since taking the helm of the UN since 2017, will try to hammer out an agreement on a Global Digital Compact that also will include aspects related to AI governance.

Within the UN system, UNESCO has been at the forefront of the conversation. “Nepal recognizes the significant impact of AI and is actively working on its ethical development” Kharel shares with me. “The UNESCO Recommendation on AI Ethics, adopted globally in 2021, serves as a vital guide for Nepal. This framework emphasizes human rights, transparency, fairness and human oversight in AI systems—values that align with Nepal’s focus on data privacy and ethical practices” she adds.

Positively, the Concept Note that was recently launched in a major event in Kathmandu is detailed enough to potentially pave the way for the Federal Government and the Parliament to take real and tangible actions.

According to the note, Nepal might have its own specialized AI agency. “The consideration of establishing a dedicated and specialized nodal agency to promote the use, application, regulation and governance of AI, as well as the encouragement of self-regulation, is positive,” Sigdel explains in his response. Will such a recommendation be acted upon?

We also need to ensure that any future policy making process related to AI is open and inclusive approach. These are two essential features for AI’s development. Sigdel strongly supports this view. “The process of AI policy-making should be open, transparent, consultative and participatory. The government should ensure the participation of all major stakeholders, including civil society, in the AI policy-making process.” “Civil society organizations should also be vigilant of the policy-making processes to ensure that diverse perspectives, including those of marginalized and vulnerable groups, are considered. This helps in addressing potential biases and ensuring inclusive AI practices,” he explains.

Kharel also guided me through what UNESCO has been doing to help the complex policy making cycle as much open as possible. “In Nov 2023, UNESCO and the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MoCIT) together with the Kathmandu University and Digital Rights Nepal organized the Multistakeholder Dialogue on AI Governance.” “The event brought together government officials, civil society, academia, and tech leaders to discuss AI policy. While Nepal’s specific AI regulations are still in progress, discussions highlight an application-based approach that prioritizes data privacy, responsible development and protection for vulnerable populations,” she adds.

While there is an urgency for Nepal to follow through the policy-related recommendations of the Concept Note, we cannot ignore the basics, among other concerns: Digital and media literacy.

“One key recommendation on AI Ethics is for member-states to invest in and promote digital and media literacy to strengthen critical thinking and understanding of AI systems, thereby countering misinformation and hate speech. UNESCO recognizes the risk of AI spreading misinformation, especially in Nepal,” the UNESCO expert tells me.

So, at the end of the day, it should not only be about regulations of the AI sector in order to generate incomes for the country. No doubt that a strong policy framework based on the best policies available, starting from the EU AI Act and then adjusted to local context, is going to be instrumental to truly make Nepal an IT hub. But the implications of AI’s use and spread are much broader and certainly cross-cutting along the whole spectrum of policy-making.  

“UNESCO has been at the forefront conducting awareness-raising dialogues on information integrity, engaging with youth and civil society on media and information literacy, enhancing capacity of female journalists on digital safety, collaborated with local governments to integrate media literacy in school curricula, trained judges on international standards of human rights and freedom of expression in AI contexts”. The private sector has a self-interest in helping Nepal come up with a strong AI policy framework with clear guardrails. 

Kharel explained that UNESCO also encourages tech companies to adopt ethical AI guidelines to prevent hate speech and misinformation.

Can Nepal win the AI challenge? The stakes are very high. This is something that a resolute and determined Prime Minister like KP Oli can tackle head-on if he wants. Yet Oli also needs to thread through it carefully. The broader society must be engaged and involved. Oli would be dead wrong if he acted too fast and too furious.

Amid a myriad of problems, will AI become one of the PM’s priorities? Will he bother to listen to relevant experts? Will he embrace a fast-paced yet balanced approach to regulate and harness its positive potential for the development of Nepal, while minimizing the risks associated with it?

There is almost no day without some alarmistic and potentially catastrophic news about the impact of climate change and biodiversity loss.

The latest was the discovery of a new tipping point for ice sheets in Antarctica, meaning that there is very substantial evidence that future sea level rise can be much higher than what scientists are anticipating so far.

As we know, Nepal is also one of the epicenters of climate vulnerabilities.

The risks of huge and devastating disasters and other calamities related to climate warming are becoming a real possibility with unimaginable consequences.

Just a few days of incessant rains around the country have already caused the loss of 13 lives and we are only at the beginning of the monsoon.

The state, at its all levels, federal, provincial and local, must lead but we know that alone, these public entities entrusted by the people with governing and vital decision-making powers, are unable to do whatever it takes to tackle climate change head on.

I strongly believe that it is paramount to create new and innovative pathways of citizens’ participation to discuss bold measures to avoid the unthinkable. Youths should be leading this effort and we need to create spaces for debating and discussion.

Recently, on the occasion of World Environment Day (June 5), a big gathering was held to discuss recycling and climate action.

Organized by a consortium of private and public entities, including the Confederation of Nepalese Industries (CNI), National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the Waste Management and Climate Change conference brought together more than 700 people.

Mansingh Aidee, a public health professional, president of Gopka Youth Club and a member of the 2023 cohort of the US Embassy Youth Council, had the opportunity to attend.

I met him as part of involvement with The Good Leadership, a new initiative that tries to enable students and young professionals to excel in some key policy making.

Mansingh is part of The Good Leadership’s Community of Practitioners on Climate Action, a platform that has been turned by him and his team mates into the “Planet Pulse Campaign” whose focus is on promoting and creating momentum on One Health, SDGs and Climate Science.

I asked him to elaborate on the conference and according to Mansingh, the event was a rich experience, full of insights.

He generously shared for this column some of the key quotes from the participants.

Some of them are stark warnings while some others are calls for action. All shared a common understanding that we are really dealing with complex challenges.

For example, Minister for Forest and Environment, Nawal Kishor Sah Sudi, shared: "I encourage mayors of all metropolises and municipalities to come together to find a common solution for waste management. It’s time we all ‘walked the talk'."

National Assembly Chairperson Narayan Dahal focused instead on the essentiality of multi-stakeholders’ partnerships.

“It is inadequate for a district, a province or a country alone to prevent climate change, so the whole community must make a joint commitment. Nepal must adopt environment-friendly development processes. This is the responsibility of the government as well as all concerned stakeholders”.

Member of Parliament Uday Rana came up with a stark statement instead: “By 2050, our GDP will lose 2.2 percent annually if we are not careful about climate change”.

Chiribabu Maharjan, Mayor, Lalitpur Metropolitan City, highlighted issues related to bureaucratic red tapes and lack of collaboration.

“We wanted to start our own alternate landfill in a no-man’s land to manage Lalitpur’s waste instead of sending waste to Banchere Dada and had allocated funds to do so. But the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal stopped us from doing so. Also, the mayors of Kathmandu Valley have not reached a consensus on an integrated waste management solution. Now the ball is in the Prime Minister’s court as the mayors have briefed him about the problem”, he said.

These quotes do offer a view of the challenges facing Nepal’s elected officials, real conundrums, really hard situations to deal with but then how to turn words into deeds?

Moreover, hearing the challenges from the politicians is not enough. What do young professionals like Mansingh think?

What is his own view about what should be done, according to him, to change the status quo?

“Fixing local governments and the way they operate is paramount,” he shared with me, adding: “As a young public health professional and a climate change advocate, I am hopeful about the role of local governments in combating climate change and preserving biodiversity. Local governments are positioned and have full authority to implement tailored solutions that directly address the environmental needs of their communities independently. By leveraging local knowledge and resources, they can create impactful, sustainable initiatives at their levels”.

However, he himself recognizes how hard it is to get things done in the public sector.

“The challenge lies in implementing existing policies effectively,” he explains.

Then Mansingh elaborated a multifaceted approach. These are generic principles but they are at the foundations of effective multi partnership solutions

Strong leadership: “Local leaders must prioritize climate action and biodiversity preservation, integrating them into their core agenda. This involves setting strategic and achievable targets, allocating adequate resources, and ensuring transparency and accountability,” Mansingh highlighted.

Youth at the forefront: “Engaging the community and youth is crucial. Public participation in policy-making processes ensures that initiatives are relevant and supported. Education campaigns can raise awareness on the benefits of climate action and biodiversity conservation, fostering a culture of environmental stewardship,” he further explained to me.

Collaboration and People, Public, and Private Partnerships: “Finally”, he added, “we need collaboration between government, private sectors, non-profits and academic institutions that can drive innovation and resource-sharing. Such partnerships can lead to the development of effective strategies and the pooling of resources needed for large-scale projects”.

Mansingh really believes that youths can play a huge role in holding governments of different levels accountable. Here is his blueprint for action that builds on the above principles.

1)      Education and awareness: Capacity enhancement sessions to youths about climate policies and their importance so that they can lead awareness campaigns and inclusion in educational curricula and amplify the advocacy to empower young people to become informed advocates.

2)      Grassroots movements: Youth-led organizations and movements can mobilize communities and create pressure for political action. Social media and digital platforms are powerful tools for organizing and amplifying voices.

3)      Partnerships with NGOs/CSOs and other partners: Collaborating with established environmental and public health NGOs can provide youths with resources, mentorship and a platform to influence policy.

“By fostering an engaged, informed and active youth population, we hope to have a resilient movement that holds all levels of government accountable and drives meaningful climate action and biodiversity preservation” was Mansingh’s last key message in our conversation.

Indeed, finding innovative and meaningful (rather than tokenistic) opportunities to engage youths on a consistent basis should be an imperative for policy makers.

Actually, engagement should just be the beginning of a new spectrum of policy making that is centered on youths.

The final end of this framework must elevate young citizens of the country in a position to take real decisions. In short, this means that youths should have some power.

And the focus should be on all youths, also those from vulnerable backgrounds and this is a huge challenge itself that we need to solve.

And by the way, we do not need to wait for the next World Environment Day to bring stakeholders together. As important as the Waste Management and Climate Change conference was, more value for money, effective ways can be found to bring people together.

Can an academician from South America, who just retired this month after 30 years of teaching at Yale, be useful in proposing an alternative view of federalism in Nepal? 

Walter Mignolo, for 30 years a professor at Yale, is one of the most foremost theorists on decoloniality, a concept much broader than decolonization. At its foundations, decoloniality is about getting rid of the structure of powers that are still shaped and controlled by the same hegemonic forces that were the drivers of colonization. 

As we know, over the last few years, there has been a lot of noise about amending the constitution that Nepal adapted in 2015. The regressive forces are asking for a return of a centralized state under the emblem of the monarchy and return of Hinduism as the official state religion. 

The forces obstructing the enforcement of federalism are driven by an attitude or mindset that rows against devolution of powers to local levels. Pushing back, there are those who have, essentially, embraced federalism but want to twist it, making it more effective. 

There are also forces like the Rastriya Swatantra Party that want to dramatically reshape the federal structure by curtailing the power of provinces. The most common-sense position is one centered on implementing the current provisions as they stand. Amid this complex and sensitive debate, we often forget to hear the voices of indigenous nationalities of the country. It is here that Mignolo’s ideas come to the fore. 

I asked RK Tamang, an indigenous rights activist and a strong follower of Mignolo’s ideas, how the concept of “decoloniality” can be turned around in the context of Nepal. His answer: “Making Nepal a plurinational state”.

“This constitution failed to address the aspirations of indigenous nationalities, which have been fighting for a plurinational state for long”, he explained to me. Indigenous people represent the largest part of the population and because of the unequal power relations that still prevail in the country, most of their voices and concerns remain disregarded. A large, though not the whole section of indigenous people of Nepal, consider themselves as members of different indigenous nationalities.

The National Foundation for Development of Indigenous Nationalities (NFDIN) Act defines “indigenous nationalities (Adivasi Janajati) as distinct communities having their own mother tongues, traditional cultures, written and unwritten histories, traditional homeland and geographical areas, plus egalitarian social structures. One of the major confusions about empowering indigenous nationalities is related to the often-misunderstood concept of ethnic federalism that is perceived as a dangerous tool that could disintegrate the nation.

Yet at the core of the aspirations of indigenous nationalities is the concept of a plurinational state. There is still a lot of theoretical and conceptual work that must be addressed and there are still several open questions on how indigenous nationalities can be shaped up and organized and guaranteed their statehood. According to Tamang, indigenous nationalities have been facing internal colonization for centuries and are stateless nations and despite the abrogation of monarchy and the creation of a more inclusive federal polity, the structure of power has not changed. “The state-bearing nations promulgated the new constitution in 2015, surpassing the stateless indigenous nations, which legitimized the coloniality in the federal democratic republic of Nepal”, he told me in an interview.  

First his perspective, those indigenous activists calling for a recognition of their nationalities do so within the framework of a present Nepal. None of them is calling for a breakup of Nepal as a state. It means that the concept of indigenous nationalities, while recognizing their traditions and practices belonging to different ethnic groups, is not exclusive in nature but inclusive, rather. “All groups, including those who have been historically on the top of Hindu hierarchy, have an equal role to play” Tamang explains to me. In short, no one is excluded.

All citizens are equal, so even citizens not belonging to indigenous natalities, like Chettri, Madhesis and Brahmin will have full rights like anyone else. This is a major key point: No one is calling for a dissolution of Nepal as a state but rather there is a call for restructuring the present Hindu hierarchy into social engineering based on national sovereignty. “Within a plurinational state, nations will exercise their power according to a new constitution based on the concept of shared sovereignty,” he added. Importantly and essentially, both in theory and practice. 

The plurinational state will guarantee two aspects of stateless nations: First self-governance and second self-determination of their future. Let’s not forget that self-determination is already a key cornerstone of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People of which Nepal is a signatory. Importantly, we cannot simplify and generalize self-determination with independence. State-bearing nations have to revendate the state in order to end colonialism, given Mignolo’s maxim that coloniality is “not over but it’s all over”. 

Plurinational democracy will revendate the democracy to the stateless nations, and based on it, the plurinational state will revendicate the state as the decolonial state. “If the Nepali state-bearing nation fails to satisfy both past grievances of the Indigenous nationalities and future aspirations for greater self-determination, the political flux will prolong, and Nepal will fail to develop in the 21st century as well” Tamang believes. In short, Tamang proposes for Nepal to allow political autonomy that reflects the historical and cultural presence of the main ethnic groups living in the area. There is still a lot to discuss about what this means in practice. One of the key points being proposed is the fact that traditional rules and forms of governance belonging to Indigenous nationalities should be, somehow, in place. 

Again, it is important to clarify that such embracement of Indigenous governance system does not create a new hierarchy of power where those belonging to indigenous groups or as Tamang prefers to refer to them as nations, have equal powers and privileges as the state-bearing nations have today. Another theoretical framework at the base of the concept of plurinational is provided by Professor Michael Keating who wrote a magistral book in 2000 titled “Plurinational Democracy: Stateless Nations in a post-sovereignty era”.

At the core of its work, there is the idea that there is no just one concept of sovereignty that is self-perpetuating and imposed upon the people. “I have used the term ‘post-sovereignty’ not to indicate a world without any principles of authority and legitimacy, but to indicate that sovereignty in its traditional sense, in which it is identified exclusively with the independent state, is no more. Rather there are multiple sites of ‘sovereign’, in the sense of original authority”, Prof Keating writes. 

One major caveat is that the book mostly refers to western settings, specifically efforts to transform central states into plurinational entities. The focus is, for example, on Canada, Belgium, Spain and Italy. So, transferring the ideas of plurinational states in a diverse country like Nepal is another level of challenge, especially where ethnic and cultural groups are vastly intermingled. 

Imagine an area where indigenous populations have a clear and undeniable historic presence. There, some customary laws could be adopted if they are aligned with key foundational values and principles of human rights. 

Some indigenous forms of governance could also be implemented as long as they are respectful of the rights of those not belonging to the indigenous group, who is, numerically speaking, more predominant. Such a system could hardly do away with the existing model of liberal democracy based on political parties even though deliberative democracy could offer an answer to accommodating different groups and perspectives. The same deliberative democracy model could be used in urban settings where it is almost impossible to even conceptualize the indigenous nationality model. Yet, for example, in the case of the Kathmandu Valley, where Newari culture has been for centuries the only one on the ground, some accommodations of traditional and customary laws could be imagined.

I have severe doubts and reservations on the modality of reshaping Nepal based on indigenous nationalities. Yet it is important to understand a point of view that has been neglected for so long. Ultimately, listening to the concerns and demands of indigenous activists willing to reshape the governance of Nepal without dismantling it is a worthy thing. The journey toward creating a functional model of local governance co-existing with modern legislations that also include human rights is not going to be easy. 

All in all, I believe that it is essential to make an effort and try to answer the following question: Can Nepal imagine re-building its core structure from an indigenous perspective?

A research recently published by Christopher K Colley for the Stimson Center, an American think tank, nudged me to contemplate doing something I have never done before: Write a piece on foreign policy centered on Nepal from the perspective of Beijing. 

The paper, The Emerging Great Game Chinese, Indian and American Engagement in South Asia, is interesting, though not much in terms of its quite narrow and limited recommendations on how the USA can better counter the existing regional dynamics over the region. 

Instead, it is of great value for its fairly balanced analysis of what China, India and the USA have been doing (or not doing) in order to assert their positions in Kathmandu and Dhaka. 

Colley, an assistant professor of International Security Studies at the United States Air War College, highlights how ably China has been capable of outpowering its two big rivals in Nepal.

At the same time, the author, quite correctly, underscores that it has not been entirely all smooth sailing for Beijing. 

China has been overtly perceived to favor the leftist parties, which recently formed a new coalition, a tactic that can often backfire.

Indeed, the political instability in Kathmandu and the overall volatility of national politics is at least partially induced by the same game that Beijing learned so ably from other foreign powers jockeying for influence in Nepal. 

And it is a sort of chain reaction: As China steps up its game, more push backs and initiatives are put in place by its rivals to offset its increasingly more vocal foreign policy in Nepal. 

But connectivity and infrastructure are the elements that have been so central to Beijing’s approach to both Nepal and Bangladesh (and by extension to the entire world) and that have been distinguishing it from other big players. 

We need to give credit to Beijing that the Belt and Road Initiative is certainly very ambitious, perhaps even too much. 

Symbolically speaking, the BRI has been extremely important because it offered a clear vision of a future based on connectivity and with it comes a very clear and eye-catching narrative. 

No matter the confusion attached to the BRI, what really counts is that the Chinese were able to portray it as a game-changer initiative that is still unmatched by other geopolitical rivals. 

At the same time, though, concrete results and benefits on this front, as Colley explains, are mostly still to be seen on the ground in both nations. 

In this regard, it is still remarkable that Kathmandu and Beijing have not signed the implementation framework of the BRI as yet.  

India has been trying with its Look East Policy but, beyond the fact that it has never been focused on Nepal, the initiative is more like a strategy rather than a concrete, tangible initiative like the BRI.

The EU Global Gateway Initiative not only was designed very lately and it is still in its infancy, it’s still very far from being relevant and certainly did not make a mark in Nepal 

The USA does not have any infrastructure programs in the region. Unless we consider the highly complex and possibly impractical India-Middle East-Europe-Economic Corridor (IMEC) signed last year during the India G20, it is a joint venture with the European Union and seven other countries. 

Considering the unrivaled level of connectivity projects China aims to build in Nepal, Beijing should do a much better job in terms of outreach. 

Students, civil society and think tanks in Nepal should be engaged to better explain not only the BRI but also the more recently launched Global Civilization Initiative that still remains a mystery for many observers. 

This public outreach will probably be met with similar attempts by the USA and India while I am not entirely confident that the EU can be up to playing this game. 

China could also get out of its comfort zone and explain its human rights approach.

It knows, in advance, that the primacy of economic rights, a cornerstone of China’s official policies, can be relatively well received here but with some caveats. 

On the one hand, the Chinese model of top-down governance centered on effectiveness of policies and quick delivery of results can easily find admirers in Nepal, a country plagued by ineffective governance. 

On the other hand, in a nation that fought tooth and tooth for its freedoms in its decades-long quest for democracy, not once but multiple times, the same argument of the primacy of economic rights over political and civil liberties won’t go very far nor persuade the majority. 

Even a much more proactive PR and public engagement with the citizenry of the country won’t be enough. 

Such activities should also be matched by what really matters: A change in substance in China’s overall approach to Nepal and by extension, in the way it traditionally deals with developing nations around the world. 

It is now crystal clear that the Nepali side has been quite skillful at pushing back in terms of terms and conditions that Beijing has been offering for the BRI projects.

A country like Nepal, often portrayed as a weak nation, has been doing a masterful job at asserting its own strategic interest in its relationships with China.

So, if China really wants a breakthrough with Kathmandu, it has to show a much higher level of flexibility on how the BRI can be rolled out. 

It needs to accept the key terms, quite reasonable if you think about it, that Nepal is demanding: Grants and very nominal interest rates on the loans that it needs to take. 

Beijing should be much more effective and persuasive at explaining how it can really be transformative for Nepal to have a direct railways connection with its southern borders.  

Considering the staggering sums involved and the sheer complexity of the undertaking, it is obvious that Kathmandu does not want to incur huge debts.

Could Nepal offer China a new template on how to deal with the world, a much less rigid one and more attuned to the needs of the recipient nations? 

The Dragon Boat race on the occasion of the Chinese New Year was a big boost for the image of China in the country.

Yet it is not nearly enough to dispel some of the concerns that many harbor toward Beijing. 

It would not be surprising if an increasing number of people in Nepal start showing some annoyance toward China using the same heavy-handed approach that New Delhi has been, for so long, accused of. 

For sure, Nepal does not need neither big brothers nor big sisters. 

It needs reliable partners that, while overtly and covertly pursuing their strategic interests, also allow Nepal to play the same game by maximizing its own national priorities.

This means to be okay with the fact that Kathmandu might also and, very respectfully, say “no” to them as they do not align with its core interests . 

Accepting this new reality means that Nepal is growing and moving steadfastly toward becoming a developed nation, a country that is not afraid of exerting its own sovereign interests. 

It will also imply that its core partners have been effective at fulfilling what should be their primary mission in Nepal: Helping the nation to stand more confidently and more ambitiously on its own feet. 

The author writes about politics, human rights and development in Nepal and the Asia-Pacific

We often think of climate change in terms of floodings, landslides, erratic rain patterns and their immediate after-effects, the devastations that these phenomena are causing among local populations.

Less attention is given on longer term consequences of climate warming. A recent report, a joint initiative of UNESCAP, UNDP and ADB, is offering a very sober reminder of the impacts of changed climate patterns in the agricultural sector, showing how hard local communities in the Asia-Pacific are hit.

The 2024 ESCAP-ADB-UNDP SDG Partnership Report, titled “People and Planet: Addressing the Interlinked Challenges of Climate Change, Poverty”, is a detailed analysis on the causes and effects of climate change in the livelihoods of millions of people living in rural areas.

Linking climate with strengthened agriculture and sustainable food production and doing a much better job at the “integration of food systems and food security into disaster risk reduction”, are keys not only to enhance people’s adaptability to the changes forced on them by a warmer, more polluted planet.

It is also instrumental to overcome poverty and zero hunger, two foundational aspects of the Agenda 2030. As the name of the report suggests, the changes needed all come down to having partnerships and collaborations but it also about institutional collaborations and stronger forms of governance.

Recently, news circulated that an expert dialogue on “Mountain, People and Climate” will be held in Kathmandu from May 22 to 23.

Per the report, the initiative will be led by the Ministry of Forest and Environment with the focus on promoting new partnerships and collaborations.

It is also aimed, according to Maheshwor Dhakal, joint secretary at MoFE, at “allowing the governments, stakeholders in mountain countries, to better understand mountain climate concerns and solutions, share expertise and experiences, and enable synergies”.

This is what we need. The challenges are so huge and solutions are available but complex and require novel thinking. In short, a new approach is needed. The partnership report identifies areas of action like sustainable agricultural practices, grassroots entrepreneurship and nature-based solutions in creating jobs at local level.

In practice, it highlights how “critical (it) is to ensure that new employment generated from transitioning to a economy is green and decent, supporting a just transition and contributing to poverty and hunger alleviation”. Together with social protection schemes, effective as cushions but extremely expensive and difficult to design, the entire Asia-Pacific region has the expertise and capacities.

There are also plenty of best practices on how local villages proactively engage in climate adaptive solutions because, essentially, locals often hold the key to effective actions.

They might not be clamorous but they can make the difference as when farmers adopt more and better organic practices or when they embrace the opportunities of renewable sources of power. But each of these solutions face complex dynamics in their implementation.

On the one hand, it is also about financial resources and expertise and guidance. On the other, it is really about innovating in the way decisions are made. That’s why the expert dialogue next month is going to be paramount but, at the same time, it’s also important to set some expectations. 

First and foremost, it should not be just a “one-off” initiative.

The event instead should lead to a roadmap of more consultations and not only among experts. While it remains crucial to have dialogues among experts and on this aspect, such platforms should be linked with existing (at least on the paper) consultative mechanisms that the Federal Government has already established even if rarely activated in a substantial way.

For example, bodies like the Climate Change Council and Climate Change Coordination Committee must be not only re-activated but re-booted and re-designed as truly consultative bodies, institutions that take engaging and involving non state actors seriously. But even a much stronger coordination among civil servants and experts from the civil society and private sector won’t suffice. What is required is a level of discussions that not only trickle down to the grassroots.

Certainly, it would help to extend conversation on climate mitigation and adaptations to the local levels, extending the scope of debate. A brilliant research paper by Prakriti Resource Center, published in 2019, offers a four-pillar framework to localize climate action in Nepal.

Within this approach, the research identifies policy level coordination and coherence are paramount and underlines how traditional top-down measures are bottlenecks to localize climate mitigation and adaptation. The challenges are so daunting in Nepal and elsewhere in the region.

In the specific case of Nepal, local governments are neither consulted nor involved enough and this is a finding corroborated also by the work done by the researchers at the above-mentioned center. We really need a fresh re-start and seriously, think what and how localizing climate action can work and be effective.

Going beyond the jargon, moreover, when we talk about coordination, how should it unfold? How can we ensure that coordination does not only entail policy and legislation centered-discussions but rather coordination that, to start with, should involve and engage local people.

Not many fully understand that the Agenda 2030 and its SDGs offer a great opportunity at empowering citizens by enabling them to be part of the decision-making. Ensuring wide, open and transparent consultation across all the levels of the multi-governance system that Nepal is creating would be, in a sense, a first milestone toward real participation that is based on people being able to deliberate.

Deploying more sustainable agriculture practices, creating conditions for establishing resilient job markets in rural areas especially by having more women in economically productive roles and having better education and skills development systems, is not just a matter of expertise, policy and money.

It is also a matter of allowing people to be part of the conversation and possibly have a real, meaningful agency, a voice to decide. In a recent event organized by the Institute for Strategic and Socio-Economic Research on April 16, Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal spoke of the centrality of good governance.

“Engaging citizens in decision making fosters transparency and accountability, which are essential pillars of good governance” he said. “It is crucial to adapt governance mechanisms to mitigate environmental risks” the PM added. He talked about government’s efforts to include and involve people.

According to the Partnership 2024 Report, one of the key enablers for successfully winning the challenges of climate warming in the rural areas of the whole Asia-Pacific, harnessing the power of local agricultural practices and ensuring food security across the board is “institutional capacity building”.

It is explained as “developing the capacity of institutions for climate-risk assessment and governance is vital for effective public decision-making at all levels”. “Effective policymaking requires coordination across different levels of government and must include all relevant stakeholders, including the private sector, civil society organizations, financial institutions and international organizations”, the report elaborates.

The publication also emphasizes how an ADB project, the Community Resilience Partnership Program (CRPP), is trying to “increase the participation of women in decision-making processes which in turn leads to more effective and inclusive resilience strategies”. But how viable on the long term such kind of financial support is going to be? What about local ownership? A proposal: Can we, finally, let the people decide what all these jargons mean in practice in the fight against climate warming?

Can Nepal truly empower its citizens in a bottom-up form of federalism that is truly inclusive and transformative? Moreover, it is really high time that PM Dahal started backing up his visionary rhetoric with real ground-breaking governance actions. Perhaps a policy and experts dialogue to be held next month in Kathmandu could start paving the way for these answers to be addressed by those who should really be in charge, the citizens.

As Nepal is soon going to approach the milestone of graduating from the list of Least Developed Countries (LDCs), there is an urgency to develop a comprehensive foreign policy that goes beyond the traditional approach of the so-called “yam between two boulders”.

Frankly speaking, I always struggled to understand the intrinsic meaning of the reasoning behind it.

Why should a nation like Nepal that, objectively speaking, is not a tiny geographical spot on the global map, reduce itself to a binary thinking that is dictated by an over reference towards India and China?

Perhaps in the past, this thinking could have been justified.

In the realm of geopolitics and international relations, there is no room for naïveté and it is impossible for a country like Nepal not to take into consideration the strategic interest of its two gigantic neighbors.

But this isn’t the last time that Nepal forged its own strategic interests beyond those of China, India or the United States of America.

But what would take for Nepal to be able to formulate a future forward, confident foreign policy?

The spirit of amity and cooperation with all the nations is a key pillar of the country’s foreign policy.

Together with the successful (though not fully completed) transition from the civil conflict, and the creation of a federal democracy, this internationalist attitude, should represent the “north star” of Nepal’s foreign policy.

Moreover, Nepal’s incredible diversity in cultures and traditions, magnificent landscapes and cordial nature of its people could also help its ways to project itself to the world.

But how to concretely leverage these sacrosanct principles and unique endowed features of the country rhetoric?

Nepal will soon do away with the “least” developed nation label that, from the marketing and branding point of view, has been disastrous, especially if you want to bring in international investors.

This development will require a reset in the way foreign policy is framed because, between now and the next few years, Nepal will have a unique opportunity to rebrand itself and not only in terms of being an attractive investment destination.

Perhaps, reminding ourselves that foreign policy is a mirror of national politics and the way of governing a nation, could be a way to start a reflection on the links between national and foreign policies.

If national politics changes for the better and becomes more transparent and effective, then the foreign policy of the nation can, consequently, also get more strategic and ambitious so that, finally, Nepal could get rid of “yam between two boulders” thinking.

Foreign policy should be instrumental in this phase of national development but a lot will depend on how politicians perform and behave at home.

The country is trying to turn from being a net recipient of international aid to being a net recipient of foreign investments.

A vision, albeit not yet perfect, is being formulated in this regard.

There is an overarching aspiration to attract business even though, for this to happen, it might mean doing away with some convenient “double standards” like the existing limitations in the shares that a foreign investor can own.

In addition, being successful at attracting investments won’t only depend on running a successful summit or in putting in place better rules that incentivise investors.

Instead, what will count will be creating a favorable investor climate thanks to better policies that enhance good governance in the realm of the economy, including serious interventions in the fight against cartels and corruption.

In addition, unless the country manages its delivery of services better, especially in the field of education and health, it will hardly succeed at becoming an investors’ magnet.

For example, there have been discussions about Nepal becoming a medical or educational hub.

Knowing the quality of the expertise and knowhow within the country, I am confident that it is possible.

There are already enough best practices and the more the country attracts back its citizens who had decided to emigrate in places like Australia and the USA, the better.

It would be even conceivable to imagine, in the near future, “Nepal Educational Expos” around the world with the best national educational institutions attracting students, starting from continents that the country has never, so far, even remotely imagined engaging with.

But can Nepal become such a hub without the right foundations?

Fixing its foundations, improving its education system at the grassroots and raising the current level of public education would be instrumental in promoting a “whole of nation” approach rather than few best practices amid a sea of mediocrity or worse.

What about starting to think about the first ever investment-focused mission of a Nepali Prime Minister to emerging nations in Central Asia or even to Africa and Latin America?

An official state delegation could discuss bilateral cooperation, including investments and the selling of some of the country’s unique proposition, tourism and of course its education and health institutions.

A substantial effort at enhancing good governance would, consequently, also be instrumental in propelling a foreign policy capable of shaping a new narrative.

The story of a country with many imperfections and unsolved challenges but also a nation that is ambitious and attempting at building a more just and developed society that can attract high human capital investments rather than low-cost manufacturing.

Good governance could also enable and facilitate innovative policy and contributions that Nepal can offer to the world, all ideas that its diplomacy could amplify and promote.

If you read the speeches of every single Prime Minister in the international forums, it is always the same leitmotif, starting from the usual (though correct) story that the country is among the most at risk of climate warming.

It is not that Nepal must stop bringing forward its legitimate grievances but it can do this differently with practical propositions, from adaptation to climate financing.

These are just some examples where Nepal could contribute not as a “bagger” but as promoter of solutions to some of the key global challenges.

But we need a non-partisan foreign policy vision of at least five years, a very pragmatic document that does not waste time in pleasing the neighborhood or other super powers but rather is purposefully fit to serve the nation’s new development aspirations.

Formulating this vision document will compel the policy-makers to truly align national priorities with its foreign policy ones.

This would help Nepal start thinking and not only in terms of foreign policy, from the perspective of being a middle-income nation even if it is, at the moment, just an aspiring one.

But it remains essential to fix the governance first.

The nation needs to really turn its mediocre at the best governance into a “good” one so that it can be in a position to truly assert its own interests, no matter what others might expect from it.

This is a real chance for Nepal to reach the point of thinking beyond what its powerful neighbors want and need from it.

Otherwise, we will continue to read about this absurd but sadly true story that Nepal is just a “yam between two boulders”.

The author is the co-founder of ENGAGE and The Good Leadership. Views are personal

As the federal government mulls yet another nationwide lockdown, let us take a moment to reflect on those who have suffered the most from the previous complete or partial lockdowns: not the big business owners, not their employees, or most people who enjoyed their chats and walk during the lockdown.

Those most affected are citizens who were suffering from the vicious consequences of pervasive and structural inequalities even before the lockdown: daily wagers who are the backbone of the national economy, even if their contributions are not officially counted.

Amid repetitive warnings from the World Health Organizations that the fight against this virus is far from over, including strong admonitions that a second waves of infections are probably just few months away, it is worth noting that Nepal has not even reached the peak of the outbreak. The worst is yet to come.

In this increasingly complex scenario, the decision makers have a tough choice: should they keep the economy open, give more respite to ailing workers and enterprises or should they considering enforcing a strict lockdown again? The stakes could not be higher: either let people risk their lives with a disease that is hard to tackle or allow many others to suffer from the lockdown’s economic impact. Perhaps it could be helpful to reformulate this dilemma from a vulnerability perspective.

Should policymakers allow the most vulnerable segments of the population to die from the pandemic? Or should their lives be jeopardized by getting them back to work in order to revive the beleaguered economy?

The way we answer these two questions is important. How many people working in the formal economy will literally lose their jobs if the work and movement restrictions are re-imposed? How many businesses could sacrifice some of their income and yet survive with a different business model that leverages on line, smart work? What can the State do to soften the hard impact on these corporations? How much fiscal space is there for the government in this emergency? Can resources otherwise allocated be diverted to corona-control? What can big donors do in such a situation?

A country like Sweden that took a very liberal approach to the lockdown paid a high price. Singapore, after enforcing a so called “circuit breaker” lockdown, a necessity after haphazardly easing up restrictions, is now back on business despite suffering a high daily per capita infections. The secret to this approach is to impose very strong regulations, expecting the citizens to strictly follow them out of a sense of civic responsibility.

Qatar, quite impacted in terms of number of persons infected in relation to its overall population, imposed draconian rules.

In addition all these countries have the resources and the knowhow of an efficient health system that is capable of dealing with severe outbreaks. Yet the leaders there are aware that even their best hospitals may not cope well in case of severe community outbreaks.  

Can Nepal follow suit and enforce a strong compliance system? Can the government mobilize private hospitals in case infections rise further? Are the private hospitals ready for that?

Many are going to lose something or the other in these circumstances. A progressive and far-sighted government should decide who is going to lose the most: those who are vulnerable and marginalized or the better off, including the roaring middle class?

While the latter deserve special consideration in terms of economic relief in the form of stimulus packages, the former are those at most risk no matter what the government decides.

Galimberti is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE, an NGO partnering with youths to promote social inclusion in Nepal. He can be reached at [email protected]

 In her address to the World Eco­nomic Forum in Davos in Janu­ary, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced the need for her government “to address the societal well-being of our nation, not just the economic well-being”. This week, the New Zealand government presented its first “Wellbeing Bud­get”, a progressive document that has the potential to inspire other countries, including Nepal, which also presented its annual budget this week.

As trailblazing as it was, Ardern and her Finance Minister Grant Robertson took inspiration from different studies and experiences, including works by economists Jospeh E. Stiglitz, Amartya Sen and Jean Paul Fitoussi who, in the middle of the 2008 financial crisis, led a commission to study possible alternatives to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a yardstick to assess people’s economic and social progress.

Ardern asked herself three questions: Is the “Wellbeing Budget” intergenerational, positively impacting future generations? Does it go beyond the narrow definition of success and take into account other aspects of life? Does it bring government agencies to work closer for achieving common goals?

Considered for many years as an economic “rock star” thanks to the previous center-right governments that created successful pathways for businesses to grow and prosper, now the challenge PM Ardern is taking head on is to turn New Zealand into a “rock star” for the well-being of its citizens. While economic indicators have been extremely good for many years, quite a few New Zealanders were falling behind, with youths, especially those from the Maori community and immigrants from South Pacific nations, hit particularly hard. The country also has high rates of homelessness and suicide. In short, many have been left behind despite New Zealand’s overall economic prosperity.

The “Wellbeing Budget” has set five priorities: transitioning to a sustainable economy, improving mental health, boosting innovation, lifting disadvantaged youth, and reducing child poverty. What is interesting is the process that led to the selection of these priorities.

I am talking not just about standard consultations, but a scientific approach based on a Living Standard Framework, with a baseline of around 60 indicators with complex spider graphs able to analyze and project whether selected population groups are likely to experience high levels of well-being. To be honest, it is complex and it not surprising that it has faced criticism.

The LSE, divided into three sections—Our People, Our Country, and Our Future—identifies four capitals (human, social, natural and financial/physical) that must be addressed to meet the aspirations of the citizens of New Zealand.

In a recent pre-budget speech addressing the concerns of the business community, Ardern said that “while economic growth is important—and something we will continue to pursue—it alone does not guarantee improvements to New Zealanders’ living standards”. In another pre-budget speech, Finance Minister Robertson affirmed that “Yes, we need prosperity, but we also need to care about how we sustain and maintain that and who gets to share in it”.

What is striking is not only the powerful moral rationale, but also the idea of bringing together all the ministries to change the status quo and achieve clear outcomes, each related to the five policy priorities. Going beyond a sectoral approach, getting various ministries to work together on multiple interlinked goals is crucial. In New Zealand, they call this “whole-of-government approach” and it means, in Robertson’ s words, “stepping out of the silos of agencies and working together to assess, develop and implement initiatives to improve wellbeing.”

Nepal is in a unique phase. It now has an ambitious constitution that is reinventing the way the government is run. New mechanisms and rules related to the basic functioning of the three tiers of government are being formulated. There is probably the need to identify key policy areas and invest in them strategically.

Many Nepalis die each year in road accidents. No matter how many committees have been set up, the frequency of accidents seems to be increasing. On education, while it is good that the concerned ministry wants model community schools around the country, the overall resources allocated to such a key sector are being trimmed. Important social security schemes have been launched, but implementation is patchy at best and really messy in some cases.

The right to free healthcare is still not guaranteed, with poor implementation of already weak policies that are supposed to provide free services to the neediest. The country was great at reducing the infant mortality rate, but it is failing its citizens in other health areas. (Part of the blame goes to the donors.)

The federal and provincial governments should put ego aside and agree, through talks, on key issues that could truly translate into reality the slogan of “Prosperous Nepal, Happy Nepalis”.

We should not forget that for Robertson, New Zealander’s Finance Minister, “Wellbeing means people living lives of purpose, balance and meaning to them, and having the capabilities to do so”.

Nepal needs an aspirational, while at the same time, realistic budget with well thought out and well-structured initiatives and programs. While identifying major issues to be addressed strategically over the next fiscal year may have been challenging, the bigger challenge will be to muster the consistency and grit to pursue budgetary goals.

The author is Co-Founder of ENGAGE, an NGO partnering with youths living with disabilities.

[email protected]