Submit your Article

Over the years, the use of chemical pesticides in Nepal has increased so notably that it has raised serious concerns about human health and environmental sustainability. From residues in the food we eat to the degradation of soil health and biodiversity loss, the long-term consequences of excessive pesticide use are becoming harder to ignore. In Nepal, where agriculture remains the primary livelihood for around 60 percent of the population, the dependence on synthetic chemicals is not just a farming issue; it is a public health and environmental crisis in the making. 

Climate change has led to the emergence of new pests and the expansion of pest habitats, causing farmers to rely more heavily on chemical pesticides to protect their crops. While effective in the short term, the widespread and often unregulated use of synthetic pesticides triggers long-term consequences. These include the development of pest resistance, contamination of soil and water resources, accumulation of toxic residues in food, and alarming impacts on human health and biodiversity. Children, pregnant women, and farm workers are particularly vulnerable to pesticide exposure, with studies linking prolonged contact to respiratory issues, hormonal disruptions, and even cancer. 

Recent studies have shown that vegetables in Nepal often contain pesticide residues exceeding the maximum residue limits (MRLs), rendering them unsafe for human consumption. 

The increasing import of chemical pesticides over recent years highlight Nepal's growing reliance on synthetic pest control measures. As in the fiscal year 2023/24 alone, the country imported 1,664 active ingredient (a.i.) tons of chemical pesticides (PQPMC, 2025). The rising trend reflects an urgent need to question the sustainability and safety of our current pest management practices. 

In the face of these growing challenges, biopesticides present a promising and necessary alternative. Derived from natural organisms or substances like bacteria, fungi, viruses, and botanical extracts, biopesticides control pests without causing harm to the environment, human health, or beneficial organisms. Unlike synthetic pesticides, they are biodegradable, target-specific, and less likely to cause pest resistance. 

Common examples of biopesticides include Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which controls caterpillars; neem-based formulations for a broad spectrum of pests; Trichoderma species that act against fungal pathogens; and Jholmal, a locally prepared bio-mixture made from cow/buffalo urine, dung, botanicals, and beneficial microorganisms for pest and disease management, and is currently being promoted in Nepal. These eco-friendly options not only help protect crops effectively but also support soil health, pollinator survival, and long-term agricultural sustainability. 

Biopesticides are no longer just something used by the organic farmers as a choice; they are now essential for mainstream agriculture, especially in the face of climate and health challenges. As climate change continues to alter pest dynamics, and as chemical residues threaten public health, a shift toward safer alternatives is not just desirable but urgent. The adoption of biopesticides supports multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), SDG 15 (Life on Land) and SDG 13 (Climate Action). Nepal’s smallholder farmers, who are already facing the brunt of climate impacts, can benefit from locally available and low-cost biopesticide options like Jholmal, which enhance both resilience and productivity. 

Despite their proven benefits, the widespread adoption of biopesticides in Nepal faces several challenges. A major barrier is the lack of awareness and technical knowledge among farmers, many of whom are unfamiliar with how biopesticides work, how to apply them effectively, or how they differ from conventional pesticides. In addition, biopesticides are often not readily available in rural markets, and when they are, they tend to be more expensive or perceived as less effective due to slower action. Limited private sector involvement and insufficient government incentives have also contributed to a weak supply chain and low investment in local production. Without strong institutional support and market linkages, the transition from chemical to biological pest management remains slow and fragmented. 

To accelerate the transition toward sustainable pest management, a coordinated and multi-stakeholder approach is essential. First, government policies should actively promote biopesticides by including them in subsidy schemes. Investment in research and local production of bio-based inputs should be prioritized, enabling farmers to access affordable and effective products tailored to Nepal’s diverse agroecological zones. Extension services must be reoriented to include biopesticide training through farmer field schools, demonstration plots, and digital platforms. The private sector, too, has a critical role to play in developing, distributing, and marketing biopesticides, especially when incentivized through public–private partnerships. Finally, awareness campaigns targeting farmers, consumers, and policymakers can help shift perceptions and generate demand for safe, sustainable pest control solutions.

The overuse of chemical pesticides is not just an agricultural concern; it is a public health, environmental, and sustainability crisis. Thus, biopesticides offer a safer and more sustainable way to manage pests without damaging our soil, food, or ecosystems. If we want safe food and a clean environment, we must act now. With the right support from the government, private sector, and awareness among farmers and consumers, biopesticides can become a powerful solution against pest management.  The future of farming lies not in fighting nature, but working with it. By adopting biopesticides today, Nepal can cultivate a healthier tomorrow; for its land, its farmers, and its people.

The author holds Master's degree in Agricultural Economics and is currently working as a research intern at the International Water Management Institute (IWMI)

The 70th anniversary of the establishment of bilateral relationships between Nepal and China is an important milestone for both nations but it is obvious to say that Nepal has been benefitting the most from this relationship.

Over the years, Nepal proved to be a reliable and trusted partner for Beijing and it is worthy to observe that Kathmandu was able to forge a strong relationship with China without putting its own strategic interests in jeopardy. Co-habiting a space hemmed between India and China, while it can bring multiple advantages, can also be a tricky endeavor.

Balancing off different interests and trade-offs between New Delhi and Beijing requires high skills in navigating foreign diplomacy without forgetting in the equation, the role of the United States that, with the exception of the incumbent administration in Washington, has also been a strong and important partner for Kathmandu.

Thanks also to the presence of different communist parties in the country, Beijing has been able to assert its influence and it is remarkable how swiftly China has been capable of boosting not only its development assistance but also its soft power in Nepal.

I often read mesmerizing reports from reporters invited to China to observe firsthand and then report and explain back home the huge improvements in the lives of Chinese citizens over the last 30 years, enhancements that have been accompanied by a turbo state-led capitalism that supported China’s rise. I have a huge admiration for China’s history and ancient civilization while as someone who grew up in the West, I have also a critical view of certain policies and positions taken by Beijing.

I never expected China to turn itself into a democracy but at the same time, I do not have an uncritical view of some of its approaches related to human rights and freedom of expression. Yet I always had a strong desire to try to understand the nuances of certain policies because in politics as well as in governance, we cannot simplify everything through “white and black” lenses and this is particularly true for a complex country like China.

Because understanding the ways the Chinese Communist Party works and the multilayered governance structure of its political and administrative systems are complex endeavors that require a lot of expertise.

In short, observing and trying to make sense of what is happening in China is indeed a fascinating thing and I do believe that the West should make a much bigger effort at grasping the nuances of China’s political system.

Nepal, despite its links with India, has managed, quite successfully, at building important bridges with China. At the same time, even in relation to the Road and Belt Initiative, Beijing’s flagship global program, Nepal has been able to push back with due respect and smartness. At the same time, the civil society of Nepal has been able to forge stronger relationships with peers in China and slowly a stronger knowledge of the country is emerging and this is a good thing.

Yet, I do feel that members of the press corps and activists should also develop a more holistic understanding of China. I never believed that a paradise on Earth exists, a nation capable of embodying perfection in all its spheres of life where no problems exist. This not only applies to China but also Europe, Australia or the United States of America or any other nation.

As a European, I can be proud of our democratic credentials and freedom of speech I can enjoy back home. I can also certainly assert that the EU has also been struggling with double standards and I wish the Europeans could always walk the talk in matters of upholding human rights domestically but also in their foreign policies. So, I do not take it easily to criticize the second biggest power on Earth, especially when China has been doing a lot for the nation that has been hosting me for many years.

Yet, as Nepal’s consciousness of India has matured over the years because the citizens of the former know very well the mindset, culture, politics and foreign policies of the latter, I do believe that slowly a more “complete” view of China will emerge.

From Beijing’s perspective, this inevitable evolution of views is not necessarily a negative thing because real partnerships require the space also to vent some criticisms or simply different perspectives. As China might sometimes vent its frustrations toward Kathmandu, it is normal that Nepal can be in a position to question certain policies and positions taken by Beijing, not out of disrespect, but simply out of sincere and trustworthy commitment to make the bilateral relationship stronger. This would happen because the rapport between the two will be enhanced when the interests of the smaller partner are better addressed and the latter becomes more assertive.

Nepal learned how to navigate its relationships with its south neighbor, developing a sense of self-confidence in also pushing back whenever needed. At the end of the day, such a level of candid approach might annoy New Delhi but at the end of the day, India knows that the relationships are stronger when both parties feel comfortable at expressing each other even if the positions are different.

Eventually, the same would happen with the northern neighbor. This would represent a new level of relationships between China and Nepal that, rather than being one-sided, are more mutually beneficial because they are more balanced.

Finally, I want to take an appreciative view of what China has been doing for Nepal. With the exception of the Ring Road work that I believe has been poorly designed (see the number of lethal accidents that have occurred so far since the revamped partial motorway has opened from Koteshwar to Kalanki), China has been playing a huge and very generous role in supporting Nepal.

I recently read of plans that China will build a bone marrow transplantation facility at the BP Koirala Memorial Cancer Hospital in Bharatpur, Chitwan.

There are also discussions on important expansions at Civil Service Hospital in Kathmandu, a hospital entirely built by China that, since its start of operations, has already seen important upgrades. These are key infrastructure projects for Nepal, very tangible initiatives at direct benefit of local peoples. At the same time as Nepal is proceeding to graduate from the category of least developed nations, would it not also be essential for Kathmandu to start doing something to help China? I do understand that this might look like a ridiculous proposition but instead I do believe that Nepal is about to reach the point where it can also show gratitude to its northern neighbor.

As Kathmandu tries to learn more about the almost unimaginable improvements in the lives of Chinese people and how Beijing has been prioritizing the right to development, Nepal can also show its templates and success stories. For example, how the nation halved its poverty and levels of social exclusions and how its political system, despite its own issues like instability and corruption, proved to be indispensable for such progress. Nepal could also do much more in promoting its culture and way of dealing with internal problems and differences and why not establish an exchange program where hundreds of Chinese students come here to learn about the country?

If millions of Chinese students have flocked to the USA, why not have some of them also learn Nepal’s way to development and prosperity? Frankly speaking, the university system in Nepal, while having its own share of challenges, also counts with some best practices. Higher education is just one area where Nepal could do something to reciprocate China’s generosity.  Without a doubt, there are many other areas where Nepal can do its bits to show that it is not taking China’s generosity for granted.

Senior leader of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) and member of House of Representatives, Pashupati Shumsher Rana, remains one of Nepal’s most prominent voices advocating for the restoration of a ceremonial monarchy. In conversation with Kamal Dev Bhattarai & Pratik Ghimire, he reflects on the current state and future of the royalist movement, the challenges within his party, and the broader political landscape. From his critique of the government’s governance and integrity to his insights on foreign policy, Nepal’s geopolitical balancing act, and relations with global powers, Rana offers his kind of perspective. Rana says it has always been his desire that this country should prosper, that its people should be able to get what they’ve always deserved. “And for that, my life, my abilities, my everything is committed to that,” he says whatever he can do for the people and the country, this is what he’ll always do. Excerpts:

Why has the royalist movement become weak?

I think the movement to restore an ornamental monarchy is something that is a part of not only our party’s expression but for a wide sector of the public. To maintain any movement of this kind, you need persistence. You need effort of every kind. You need finance. You need a wide spectrum of people coming in and sustaining a movement of this kind. And I think we’re all working towards that. On the first day of the movement, we had nearly 200,000 people out in the streets. But sustaining such a movement is extremely difficult. We’re working on ways and means on how to get it going again and our beliefs continue. We believe that if there is an ornamental monarchy on the model of the British one, not powerful, not capable, but giving dignity and glamour to the country, that would be something that’s worth doing.

Some people with extremist views were also in the royalist movement. Do you think  their involvement affected the movement? 

That part of the story, I mean what they do is up to them. We believe that there should be a peaceful movement, that it should be successful on the means of in the modes of democratic dignity. You cannot have a wild movement. You cannot have one that has no limits, that carries destruction in its weight and all that. We have beliefs and we hope and we’re working hard towards creating and sustaining such a movement. 

Where do you see the future of the royalist movement? 

This doesn’t succeed at one go. You have to keep on trying. And gathering such a group of such large numbers and people and keeping them in Kathmandu is a very difficult task. But the party is working on it. We are trying to build as much support as we can and I think we will achieve it one day. 

We saw many youths at the royalist movement but those who are leading the group are of the older generation. Do you think integrating youths in the leadership may help in sustaining the movement? 

The central committee of our party has, in the last three, four months, appointed nearly 20 people below 40 and we are trying to address the concerns of the youth in every way possible. We believe that the future belongs to young people. So we will move forward to gathering as much of the youth as we can.

We see many conflicts inside RPP. What’s your take on this?

In a party which is alive, you will find some degree of dissension. If you look at the CPN-UML, an extraordinary situation, the former president, the person who was president twice, has come back and is trying to create dissension there. And in Nepali Congress, there has always been dissension. And there’s dissension within the CPN (Maoist Center) too. In a party which is vibrant, you will have differences. And the ability to tolerate and manage dissent is something that the leadership must exercise. 

Many parties have already started to aim for the upcoming general election. How is your party preparing?

We’re working hard towards it and I think first of all we have to manage our general conference which is within six months and after that we’ll do full out. You know the preparation of the general conference also, you have to have membership up to the ward level and it automatically creates the situation. But by the time of the election, there must be totally new momentum. We cannot remain at the size that we are. We have to increase it in every possible way. 

Are you going to fight for party president in the general conference?

No, I’m not. 

Are there any chances or talks going on to unite the like-minded parties like yours? 

The Rastriya Prajatantra Party is trying to carry with it all forces that support our ideals. To what extent will succeed in uniting which particular groups remains to be seen. 

How do you evaluate the performance of the current government? 

In short, it’s not up to the mark. You know if you look at the present government or any similar government run by the large parties, the trouble is they don’t have the required efficiency and of all the value of honesty. If within your objectives, you say you do this for the people, you do that for the people, you would achieve these great development goals, but at the core the large parties are more interested in collecting money than anything else. And this country, which has extraordinary possibilities, it is after all in hydropower alone we have magnificent possibilities. In irrigation we have enormous possibilities. Tourism, I think this is the most beautiful country in the world. 

We haven’t been able to advertise it adequately. That’s the only reason it doesn’t grow. And as far as cash crops, Nepal has abundant possibilities.

So it’s a question of exercising the art of government with skill and with honesty so that your objectives towards the people and the country can be realized in reality. But at this stage, I’m disappointed to say that the larger parties are not coming up to those standards and the country is not going where it should.

You have been a long time student of diplomacy and foreign policy. You have also led the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the past. How do you see the challenges of Nepal’s foreign policy right now? 

I think the main challenge for Nepal is that our geography doesn’t change. Whether you talk about the period of Prithivi Narayan Shah or at the time of Jung Badur Rana or during democratic period or in republican days, the basic and fundamental fact is that we are a country with a vast. The second largest power in the world, like China on one side, and India growing at a fantastic rate on the other. And the balancing of the two. So that Nepal’s sovereignty can keep on existing and become strong, as well as developing the country, means you have to balance between the two. And then, on a broader front, there is of course America, the most powerful country in the world. So, if you do not know how to manage the policies vis-à-vis these great powers, then the possibilities that are within Nepal cannot grow. 

In this Donald Trump’s tariff era, how do you see the future of Nepal-US  bilateral relationship? 

Well, whether you like Trump or not, he’s the President of the United States of America, the most powerful country in the world. So you have to deal with that reality and the nature of the person that he is. The fundamental national interests of America do not change whoever runs it. And to be able to balance those national interests along with our national interest is a challenge that we have to perform. 

Prime Minister KP Oli’s long-awaited visit to India now seems likely. Experts say Nepal–India relations have been strained. How do you view the current state of Nepal–India relations?

There do seem to be difficulties, but the Prime Minister has been invited to India. And how he deals and how his government deals is up to them. But the classic fact that Nepal has to deal with is we are between these two great countries and they obviously have their own interests. Nobody’s going to love us because we’re a beautiful country or something like that. Every country carries its policies according to its interest and we must manage our interests vis-à-vis India, vis-a-vis China, vis-a-vis the United States of America with the skill that our forefathers maintained when they contained this country. 

Even at that time, when the British Empire was an empire on which the sun never set, even at that point, Nepal succeeded in maintaining its independence, its cultural integrity. You know, those are the skills. Whether you talk about Prithivi Narayan Shah, whether you talk about Jung Bahadur Rana, whether you can talk about BP Koirala, those are the skills that are required.

In this interconnected and interdependent world, trade is a powerful engine of economic growth. It can significantly contribute to the socio-economic development of Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs), like others. But, despite their huge trade potential, LLDCs account for just over one percent of global trade in goods. And this imbalance stems not from a lack of ambition or effort, but from structural barriers. LLDCs face a complex web of challenges, including lack of direct access to the seas, high transit costs, poor infrastructure, long and uncertain transit routes, limited market access, over-reliance on a narrow range of primary commodities, vulnerability to global shocks and climate change-induced disasters.

As a result, their economies remain underdeveloped and vulnerable. In this context, this Program of Action has come with concrete measures for turning landlocked countries into land-linked ones by building infrastructures, investing in smart trade corridors, developing transport and logistics industries, digitalizing trade and customs processes, promoting trade of ICT products and services, deepening regional integration and fostering meaningful partnerships.

With sincere implementation of these measures, LLDCs can harness their trade potentials for inclusive and sustainable development. For this, we need to strengthen cooperation and partnership at bilateral, regional and multilateral levels. We must deliver on the promise to double the share of LLDCs in global trade, expand their service exports, and foster more diversified and resilient economies. We need to implement this Program of Action to bring prosperity to more than 570m people living in LLDCs.

Trade and transit rights of the LLDCs are a moral responsibility of all. They need greater solidarity, enhanced financial and technological support, as well as fair and equitable trade opportunities. Collective push for fairer trade terms and transit regimes is urgent. LLDCs must not be left behind in the global trading system. The Sevilla Commitment, which we adopted in June this year, also recognizes the LLDC program of action and expresses the strong commitment to its full and effective implementation. In this context, this roundtable is instrumental to remind us all for urgent actions with renewed commitment and global solidarity.  

For LLDCs, sustainable infrastructure, seamless connectivity, and unrestricted transit are not optional. They are a lifeline. Indeed, they form the backbone of economic transformation. And, they are essential for our competitiveness. Our progress continues to be hindered by a lack of sea access, remoteness from global markets, high trade costs, delayed transit, limited connectivity, and fragile infrastructure. This is the best forum to discuss these challenges and its innovative solutions. 

To overcome these structural challenges and vulnerabilities, we must invest in integrated and climate-resilient infrastructure that connects regions. We must harness digital technologies to unlock new opportunities. We must create seamless transit systems that are reliable, efficient, and predictable. We need to simplify, harmonize and modernize customs procedures.

‘Prosperous Nepal, Happy Nepali’ is the aspiration of Nepali people. To fulfill this aspiration, Nepal has prioritized sustainable infrastructure, improved connectivity, and seamless transit systems for durable and accelerated economic growth. We are actively expanding and reinforcing cross-border linkages to ensure smooth and uninterrupted transit and trade.

Nepal is committed to deepening partnership with its neighboring countries and beyond in the spirit of economic cooperation, regional integration and shared progress. The Awaza Program of Action recognizes that sustainable infrastructure, robust connectivity, and seamless transit are essential pillars of growth, resilience, and hope in LLDCs.

As we enter the next decade of action, let us renew our collective determination to connect LLDCs—physically, digitally, and economically—to global opportunities. Let us focus on infrastructure, connectivity, and transit as urgent imperatives for equity, inclusion, and shared progress. Let us deliver on the promise. Let us build a future where no states are left behind.