Submit your Article

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]

Barbara Kellerman, a lecturer in Public Leadership at the Har­vard Kennedy School and a famous author, recently called for a new approach to leadership studies and practices in an industry worth billions of dollars. Kellerman advocates a scientific approach and in a recent webinar for the International Leadership Association, she decries the fact that “leadership is not treated as a profession or even a vocation but merely as an occupation, taught quickly and casually”.

The industry is also expanding in emerging countries like Nepal with more leadership practitioners and an increasing number of training programs. Recently, Rice University in the US partnered with Leadership Academy Nepal to provide an execu­tive leadership training for CEOs and other senior executives.

But it is also important to think of leadership from a different perspec­tive, as a tool to develop the poten­tial of those at the bottom of society.

In Nepal, there is a small minority of students with access to elite schools who come from financially secure backgrounds, speak good English and have dreams to attend top colleges around the world.

Then there is a vast majority of youths attending public or mediocre private colleges. Among them, there are a few who are always on the lookout for opportunities for self-de­velopment. They should be praised for their effort and willpower to keep exploring. Yet most students in this category are not motivated to face challenges. Nor are they driven by a positive ambition.

And then there is another big cat­egory of youths who do not even think about going to college but rather about finding a precarious job in transport or other ill-regulated sectors. If you live in a constant state of vulnerability, for example, if you belong to a historically marginalized group, if you are a poor woman in a patriarchal society or if you live with disabilities, simply getting by every day could be a challenge. While there are exceptions, the vast major­ity of vulnerable youths are stuck, with constant pressure and fading hope for a better future. There are no easy solutions to turn the tide.

The state, with its three tiers of government, has a duty to offer better options to these youths. The private sector can also do its part by rolling out employability skills. Marginalized youths can defy odds through sheer resilience, strength­ened by their daily struggles. But we might need a different, more purpose-driven leadership, one that inspires, supports and builds the confidence of vulnerable youths.

The case of Dan Theengh, a Jawalakhel-based wheelchair basket­ball champion, is an apt example. If provided with the right tools, youths like Dan can thrive and become role models for others.

Finding a purpose in life is not easy; it might take years of hard work. It also requires consistent sup­port and a set of leadership practices that focus on the strengths rather than the weakness of youths. Lead­ership practices need to be more rig­orous and academically grounded. They should also be supportive of youths who are left behind. These youths can find exciting interests, and they can develop new skills and achieve amazing goals. More youths like Dan are needed for the develop­ment of the country.

A recalibrated mission of lead­ership practices and studies can make a difference. It can be a launch pad for higher social mobility for those youths who are otherwise con­demned to remain at the bottom.

Simone Galimberti is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE, an NGO partnering with youths living with disabilities

[email protected]

 A culture of volunteerism is one of the greatest intangible assets of Nepal. Till now the National Development Volunteering Service (NDVS), a successor of a pan­chayat-era scheme that sent grad­uate students for community work in rural areas, has been successfully offering opportunities to local youth to develop their volunteering skills. Thousands of skilled youth have been engaged in the NDVS, with a strong sense of mission and humble but effective leadership. With the country’s restructuring as a federal state, the modus ope­randi of the NDVS, a program here­tofore run by the National Planning Commission, a strategy and policy making body rather than an imple­menting one, had to change. While many details are still unknown, the NDVS has stopped operating and possibly the Ministry of Youth and Sports is taking over its work.

Even more realistically, the scope, mission and activities of the NDVS will be integrated into the National Youth Council, an autonomous apex body within the ministry in charge of implementing actions and poli­cies supporting self-empowerment of local youth.

With this development, we have an incredible opportunity to bring volunteerism to the mainstream. Yet we need to make sure that the concept of the NDVS, the idea of mobilizing skilled youth for local development, remains not only alive but also gets up-scaled.

We need to think from the per­spective of the federal system, and how each state can promote and facilitate community-led social actions. The new government units, at all levels, can play an important role in engaging youth and other members of the community for social and economic development.

The fact that a central level minis­try is now taking full responsibility for spreading and supporting volun­teering is something positive.

My preferred option would have been to turn the NDVS into a fully autonomous agency as volunteer­ism is something that can be prac­ticed by everybody regardless of age. There are several examples from around the world, including from fully federal states like the US and Australia, where a central body promoting volunteerism cooperates and co-lives with state-based agen­cies in charge of rolling out volun­teering programs in collaboration with the civil society.

Perhaps it is still premature to talk of such a big change in Nepal. We have to make the best of the opportunities arising from having the ministry take charge of volun­teerism. The National Youth Coun­cil, if properly supported by the ministry, could roll out different volunteering schemes that could be co-developed and embraced by state and other government units.

General outlines could be enriched by taking into account local needs, or local government units can be supported technically in devising their own schemes that are backstopped or financially sup­ported by the center.

One such program could be a revi­talization of the activities that until recently were undertaken by the NDVS and which offered a platform of self-development for recently graduated students. Perhaps a prob­lem with the NDVS was a lack of visibility as too many youth were still unaware of the opportunities it offered.

Now with the ministry and the National Youth Council fully in charge, there is greater scope to market and promote volunteerism, a rich and diverse phenomenon that includes both formal and informal ways of helping others or a cause.

It can be carried out through local or international NGOs or even by bilateral partners through their skilled overseas volunteers (think of KOICA, JICA, PEACE CORPS and Australian Aid Volunteers). But also, and this is really important and often neglected, through small, informal initiatives where a mother group, a parent-student associa­tion or a youth club carry out social actions based on local needs.

Recently the Ministry of Youth and Sport in collaboration with United Nation Volunteers called a meeting with all the key volunteering pro­moting agencies in the country. The goal was to understand the contri­bution of volunteerism for the real­ization of the country’s Sustainable Development Goals, assess the num­ber of volunteers engaged at local levels, and measure their impact as well as their working modality.

When all the information is put together, the ministry will roll out a ‘National Situational Analysis’ that will used as a baseline feeding into a 2019 high-level political forum called ‘Empowering People and Ensuring Inclusiveness and Equal­ity’. This will be held regionally in the Asia-Pacific but also globally at the UN Headquarter in New York.

For long, there have been discus­sions about a national network of all agencies, national and international, involved in volunteerism. But it was not possible to run such a network on continuous basis and inclusively.

Perhaps the organizations involved in the situational analysis of volunteerism in Nepal could be the constituent members of such a network under the leadership of the National Youth Council or the Ministry of Youth and Sports.

Doors should also be open for organizations mobilizing volunteers who are in different age brackets, as volunteerism should be inclusive of all, especially those who have few opportunities for self-development or those who have retired but still want to contribute. Hopefully the National Situation Analysis can be used as a launch-pad for discussions leading to a national volunteering strategy. Incorporating and using the institutional memory and exper­tise of what remains of the NDVS would facilitate the process.

The author is a co-founder of ENGAGE, an NGO partnering with youths living with disabilities

With the upcoming Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIM­STEC) Summit in Kathmandu on August 30 and 31, regional coopera­tion will once again be at the center of our national discussion. Yet BIM­STEC, chiefly an economic initiative that links South Asia with South East Asia, is certainly not a forum that has so far brought any substantive gain to any of its members. In con­trast, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is a much stronger institution with a clear vision for the region, at least on paper. Perhaps the new government will inject new energy in promotion of regional integration both with nearby countries as well as those in South East Asia, some of which are far more advanced than Nepal. What is missing right now is the political will to make it happen. But let us talk about SAARC here.

It is true that Indian Prime Minis­ter Narendra Modi at the start of his tenure tried to promote a new vision for South Asia. But the momen­tum was soon lost mainly due to the long-standing bilateral disputes between India and Pakistan. It is to be hoped that the soon-to-be-formed government of Imran Khan in Pakistan will help relaunch the stalled SAARC project.

Besides the obvious step of improving relations between India and Pakistan, two more things are essential if SAARC is to achieve its goal of shared prosperity and development in South Asia: capable leadership of SAARC Secre­tariat and grassroots ownership of regional integration.

By leadership, I am not only refer­ring to determination of national leaders to promote integration. Obviously if the heads of govern­ment of Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives make a concerted effort to reenergize the organiza­tion, perhaps Pakistan and India would have no option but to come on board. But the missing element at leadership level that I am talking about is the fact that SAARC has been run by career diplomats rather than current or former national leaders from the region. This bureaucra­cy-led leadership has many limita­tions irrespective of the goodwill, integrity and competences of the secretary generals in charge of day to day operations.

Imagine the unfolding dynamics if an unequivocally acclaimed pol­itician like Manmohan Singh with his impeccable integrity and proven track record of delivery were to assume leadership of SAARC Secre­tariat. One of secrets of the relative success of the European integration process is that the president of the European Commission, the power­ful executive body of the European Union, has always been a prominent politician of a member country; since 1995 all the presidents of the European Commission have been former prime ministers.

Having a former Head of State or Head of Executive as SAARC head would allow for more frequent inter­actions among regional leaders. Formal diplomatic channels, which are now bogging down SAARC, would be replaced by stronger per­sonal interactions, even of informal nature, among key stakeholders.

I remember a former diplomat of a European Union member country saying that when the prime minister of Italy wants to talk to the German Chancellor, he simply picks up the phone and connects directly with Berlin, without going through any of the formal diplomatic channels. The same could happen at South Asian level.

Having a prominent political leader at the helm of SAARC could inject a new dynamic in the process of regional integration: even more frequent phone calls among lead­ers under the auspices of a strong SAARC Secretary General would make a huge difference.

In relation to the second enabler, grassroots participation, I would focus on the role South Asian youths can play. We need stronger interactions among local youths and the SAARC Secretariat not only to promote short-term exchange programs but also longer-term cross boundaries interactions.

From a regional exchange pro­gram at undergraduate and grad­uate levels modeled around the famous Erasmus program being implemented by the European Union, to volunteering experiences in different countries of the region, there are many ways to involve and engage local youth. This way youths from member states will gain unique life exposures and understanding of the commonalities among South Asian citizens that are all too easily overlooked or forgotten.

The participating youths would turn themselves into ambassadors of a new South Asia, creating a new interest in the project of regional cooperation while also contributing to its strengthening. I guess only a strong political leadership at the SAARC Secretariat could envision and deliver on such symbolic and yet powerful initiatives.

More delicate issues that have stalled the process of regional inte­gration could be set aside and pave the way for novel ideas on develop­ing future generations. It is high time leaders of South Asia brainstormed about their common future and sketched out a new vision to be implemented with small, incremen­tal “win-win”. Giving the youth of the region a chance would be a great start.

The author is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE, an NGO partnering with youths living with disabilities sim­[email protected]

Disability is back on the global development agenda. Hope­fully, rights of people with disabilities will now enter national development plans of developing and emerging countries. This hope stems from a major ini­tiative being undertaken by the Brit­ish Government through its over­seas aid agency, the Government of Kenya and the International Dis­ability Alliance. Disability activists around the world are set to gather in London on July 24 for the Global Disability Summit.

Disability has unfortunately never been the main focus in the overall developmental agenda. Even though experts acknowledge it as import­ant, it has always been considered an “add on”, secondary or in worst cases, not given any attention.

The Summit, with a Civil Society Forum taking place a day earlier, is an opportunity to reset the global development agenda, so that rights of people with disabilities are given priority in the sustainable develop­ment agenda. It will be cohosted by an interesting triad: a govern­ment development agency from the North, a government of the South representing an emerging region like eastern Africa and the global alliance of networks and agencies focused on disabilities.

Nepal will be represented by the Minister for Women, Children & Social Welfare and a group of select activists. They were instrumental last year in ensuring the enactment of the new Disability Rights Act, a groundbreaking document that aligns the country to the Interna­tional Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities and makes Nepal a progressive nation on social inclusion, at least on paper.

In preparation of the global sum­mit, a stakeholder summit was recently organized in Kathmandu. Dozens of activists showcased their achievements and shared their sto­ries. Rarely has such an event been organized in Nepal where social inclusion and disability activists meet. As Shudarson Subedi, the President of the National Federation of Disabled Nepal, highlighted in his opening speech, disability agenda is rarely linked to overall national development agenda. There are pos­itive changes in terms of social inclu­sion in Nepal but disability issues are still neglected. Mainstreaming complex issues like social inclusion of marginalized groups, including people with disabilities, is hard.

Independent, full-fledged pro­grams focusing on disability rights are rare. Even though explanation of such misery is found in the “main­streaming” principle, it is hard to justify it from a practical point of view especially if nothing else hap­pens for the cause.

The national event in Nepal made it clear that there is an incredible group of activists and experts, with tremendous passion and determination working to bring positive changes.

Other positive things are happen­ing too. The Ministry of Education with the support of external devel­opment partners are working on a more inclusive education system. This long term plan, if implemented properly, will allow children with disabilities in integrated schools.

However, more effort is required to make Nepal an inclusive and open society for the disabled. Resources are required to scale up and bold partnerships called for to pro­mote best practices and innovative approaches. Organizations working for the cause of disability must be able to work together, sharing prac­tices and promoting joint initiatives.

Thematic clusters on single issues related to disability and social inclu­sion could be rolled together to create more synergies and achieve scale. It should also promote sus­tainable initiatives to break the usual dependency trap.

If businesses and citizens consider improving lives of the disabled as a personal responsibility, it would play a crucial role in making Nepal a better place for all. External devel­opment partners could play an important role in supporting such an eco-system, rewarding actors who bring tangible results.

The state at all levels have the duty to act and promote the imple­mentation of the new Act, starting with a massive capacity building of local bodies. Elected officers must be considerate of people with dis­abilities and other disadvantaged groups. They must be responsive and accountable to them, as they constitute a considerable voting bloc. Helping the disabled should always be a part of the broader agenda of developing Nepal, where marginalized and vulnerable groups also have a role to play.

Hopefully the Global Disability Summit will help create momentum both internationally and locally.

The author is co-founder of ENGAGE, an NGO partnering with youths living with disabilities.

[email protected]