Submit your Article

China Foundation for Rural Development (CFRD), earlier known as China Foundation for Poverty Alleviation (CFPA) is the only active Chinese NGO working in Nepal. The NGO started its work in Nepal right after the earthquake of 2015 through an emergency response program. Shristi Kafle spoke with Zou Zhiqiang, director of the Nepal office of CFRD, on various aspects of poverty alleviation measures in Nepal.

Last month marked the ninth year of your organization working in Nepal. How is the experience so far?

When I first arrived in Nepal in 2015, I almost felt like it was my hometown. It was similar to any other Chinese provinces like Yunnan and Sichuan, just across the Himalayas. Before coming here, I worked in mainland China for 15 years and then in Ethiopia and Sudan. All those experiences helped me and my organization to start our journey. CFPA came to Nepal immediately after the devastating earthquake of April 2015. At least 28 people worked here in the beginning for relief and rehabilitation programs, while the international department worked together with the Nepali volunteers. Coincidentally, it was also the 60th year of establishment of diplomatic relations between Nepal and China. Besides immediate support, my job was to do research, planning and share proposals for long run support programs, as we realized that people needed us after the disaster. We didn’t work alone, but coordinated with the Chinese Embassy, over a dozen Chinese NGOs, the United Nations Nepal team, and other international donors. When the disaster emergency response team returned in June, it was only me who stayed back because there were many unfulfilled jobs. Gradually, we focused on other areas of work. There were rough roads too, but overall, with the support of our local partners and love of the general public, it has been a fulfilling experience so far. 

What are the major working areas of CFRD at the moment?

 After 2020, our major focus is on rural development. We changed from CFPA to CFRD. We work on health, education, drinking water and WASH, skill development of youth, women and microfinance, school meal and warm kits distribution, among others. We completed reconstruction of three school buildings destroyed by the earthquake in the Kathmandu valley. Last year, we focused our support to earthquake-affected communities in Jajarkot and Rukum West. Recently, we kicked off the first tea project in Nuwakot for value chain enhancement through Chinese machineries and equipment. We have continued serving nutritious meals to around 10,000 students in 52 schools of Dang, Kathmandu and Lalitpur. These are just a few activities. 

From 2015 to 2023, we have spent $10,350,000 in Nepal, and almost 650,000 people have benefited. As the biggest foundation of its type in China, we focus on agricultural industry development, creation of an internet platform to sell agro products and items to cities, tourist villages, and training the local farmers. All these programs were  successful in China. So we are blending these experiences in Nepal as well. 

How is the Chinese NGO different from other NGOs working in Nepal? 

As an NGO, we do not want people to be dependent upon us. Instead, we believe in providing skills and techniques to locals after which they can support themselves. I see that so many I/NGOs talk about rights, but care less about ground reality and livelihood. For instance, when we talk about women’s rights, it means women should be economically independent. We provide them with practical training, we want women to learn, and make money and live a confident and comfortable life. If they are engaged in any agricultural or skill related product, we provide them training on research, marketing, and how to brand their goods and sell at a higher price. For those who do not have any access to financial institutions, we have supported them with basic things like how to use and save money, and open bank accounts. We work closely with the community. I myself spend more than 120 days a year in the field. This is the major difference. We have partnered with over 20 Chinese donor institutions so far. Besides, we have come up with two books as guidelines for other Chinese NGOs who want to work in Nepal. CFRD doesn’t just work alone, we all want to work together to help more Nepali people.

How is the coordination with the local governments and agencies? What are the challenges?

I would say the major challenge here is geography, which is very uneven and even dangerous in some places. It’s easy to work around Kathmandu and other major cities, but to reach far flung areas, the transportation cost is high. And half a year, works are halted by monsoon and monsoon induced disasters. Besides geography and weather, the bureaucratic process is also difficult. Whenever we submit a proposal, it has to go through many channels, and most of our time is wasted just in waiting. The government keeps changing in Nepal, as do the officials in many departments. 

Sometimes, even a single permit could take three years. It’s comparatively getting better in recent times, as I feel the Social Welfare Council is working efficiently. In terms of working with the local governments, it’s quite easy as they are quick in response and management. Local government is more active than the center. Local representatives are from communities, so they come up with important proposals, which are related to the real needs of people, and the implementation part is satisfactory. But the central system is often changing. In terms of other partners, we worked with some 20 NGOS across the country, and we believe their capacity building is also important. So, we are also assisting in capacity building of local NGOs and staff.

You have visited many districts of Nepal. How do you find the living situation and poverty status of people outside Kathmandu? Is it similar to Chinese society?

I have visited at least 66 districts of Nepal, covering mountain, hill and Tarai region. Based on my experience of working in Nepal for nine years, I find that Nepal’s poverty status is better than China's. Decades ago, when I started work in this program, Chinese people were really poor. There was a lack of arable land and the weather was not favorable. There was a problem with the drinking water facility too. Resettlement was a huge challenge. In Nepal, I find comparatively a better situation. When someone has fertile land, and is provided with seeds, at least he will not sleep hungry. The problem in China was more serious. It’s a different kind of opportunity here. There are new concepts and ideas in agriculture and production, and immediately you can reap benefits out of something. This gives me hope. Last time, under the agro support project, we invited an expert team to conduct soil tests and water tests in some places, and found that everything was organic. In China, it would have been filled with chemicals. Thus, organic products in Nepal have a huge market, and they can be sold at higher rates. In Nepal, everyone has at least something to eat. People do not get nutritious food, enough meat or protein, but they do not sleep hungry. It should be counted as a blessing. 

What are the similarities between the Chinese and Nepali way of working for poverty alleviation and rural development?

Poverty is not just about food and housing, but it also incorporates many other components like safe drinking water, education, and basic health care. Thus, the poverty alleviation measure should be multi-dimensional. There should be a solid long-term strategy. Since 1989 till now, we have worked under the robust guidelines. In terms of the Chinese way of working, there is a strong collaboration from the top to the bottom. For instance, the east team of the country works together with the west team and share their experiences and expertise. There was also a provision that the officers needed to work in another province for three years in order to get their promotion. This is how the teams were mobilized to work in backward regions and at the grassroots level. Each country has its own distinctive national conditions, and the policies should be made accordingly. Nepal might have its own strategy, but it can definitely learn from Chinese anti-poverty experiences.

Jeetendra Dev is a leader of the Nepali Congress. As a senior politician, he closely observes Nepal’s foreign policy and international relations. In this context, ApEx talked with him about the various aspects of Nepal-India relations.

How do you see the current state of Nepal-India relations?

Nepal and India have an age-old historic as well as civilizational relationship. This is the relation of emotion, daily life and shared destiny. We are interlinked with an umbilical cord towards shared destiny. Nowhere in the world could we see such a relationship between the two sovereign countries. On top of that we should never forget that this relation was not made by any government, parties or individuals; rather it was made by civilization, history and by the people itself and this bond is unbreakable.

After this we have the Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1950 and the international border is open as well as there is no passport and visa system. We have deep and fruitful political relations too. We have a wider range of dimensions and paraphernalia of socio-economic cooperation. For this purpose the Indian Aid Mission was set up in 1954 which was later transformed into Indian Cooperation Mission in 1966.

Nepal has been receiving socio-economic support and cooperation through this mission in the sector of connectivity, education, health, power generation, irrigation, flood control, empowerment of government agencies, and various community development projects. 

Overall, Nepal-India socio-economic cooperation is growing day by day and bilateral relationship is strengthening and getting deeper in mutual interest and advantages.

What is the current state of economic collaboration between the two countries ?

First of all, I believe that we are not distinguishing and differentiating between political and economic issues. Political issues should be tackled and resolved through political and diplomatic means and it must not be linked with economic issues. Nepal needs development and prosperity. For this we need investment and friend’s financial support. We cannot move forward without the support of our friends. Our public revenue is low, capital expenditure is low, economic activities are slow, investors are not attracting for investment, donors and friendly countries are becoming suspicious on our policies and dealings, we need employment generation activities to boost up the economy and to be graduated in middle income country in 2026 as well as to achieve SDG goals, among others. So the government and the political parties must bring the economic agenda to the forefront in the interest of the people and the country.

What should be our policy to enhance economic relationships?

It needs political trust and deep understanding between the political leadership of both countries and also the investment friendly environment in Nepal. We should be free from the mentality of skepticism and cynicism. In the present international order, bilateral economic relations can only be strengthened and made vibrant if there is a political trust. We only can garner maximum benefit from Indian economic powerhouse when we feel that India is our number one friend. When we enter this new thought, the whole bilateral scenario will move in a new positive direction.

Why are we failing to attract Indian investment?

As I explained above, I again say that for this, political trust and an investment friendly environment are needed. It is so nice that we are going to hold the Third Investment Summit at the end of April. For this purpose we have amended some Acts through ordinances to create an investment friendly atmosphere in the country. Now we have to strengthen inclusive democracy in the country as well as to bring good governance and maintain excellent relationships with our neighbor as well as other friendly countries.

What are your suggestions for the political parties to redefine bilateral relations in the changing context?

We have to review and reassess our whole political, socio-economic and foreign policies. Nepal needs inclusive and participatory democracy. Nepal should bring its socio-economic agenda on top priority. We need an employment generating economy and good governance. There is a need for a good and clean image of the political leadership.

We have to restructure and reorient our foreign policy. New priority should be drawn. We have to review our neighbor policy. I have the feeling that our India policy is not pragmatic and perfect. We have to keep in mind that India is our next door number one friend. If we take such a policy, the whole bilateral scenario will move to change in a new dimension and new vistas of economic cooperation will open and at the due course of time all our other bilateral unresolved issues will be solved.

Abinash Shrestha has been involved in the fashion industry for the past 12 years. With a Master’s in Business Management, he initially envisioned joining his father’s import and export business. However, his passion for fashion and style proved too strong to ignore. As the proprietor of Ariri Boutique, Shrestha has made a significant mark in the beauty pageant industry, having served as the official stylist for Miss Universe Nepal from 2020 to 2023. Recently, Shrestha was honored with the prestigious Fashion Stylist Award by Dream Search Agency. Ken Subedi converses with Shrestha on various dimensions of fashion.

What inspired you to join the fashion industry?

My friend introduced me to Rihanna in my school days, and I was fascinated by two things: her voice and her fashion sense. It was then that I started decoding and understanding style, sensibility, and began linking people's personalities to how they dress up. The art of comprehending individuals, their fashion choices, and the unique voice reflected through their fashion fascinated me deeply. Hence, from the very early stage, I became involved in fashion shows, beauty pageants, and took on assignments as a stylist for actors, models, and even business personalities. My friend, Nagma Shrestha, Miss Earth 2012, and the first-ever Miss Universe Nepal, has also been a huge inspiration. She helped me navigate the fashion scene and understand the challenges and opportunities. Today, I own Ariri Boutique, which helps people get closer to their style, and we have been running for the past four years.

What do you think of the fashion scene in Nepal?

The fashion scene in Nepal is constantly evolving, and I find it exhilarating. I admire how today’s youngsters know what they want and have realized that fashion can be a means of rebellion against things they don’t believe in while also fostering alliances with causes that truly matter. Fashion serves as a unifier—it’s a language that connects people. However, I personally feel that our fashion is mostly borrowed, and we still need to find our unique voice, that edge that defines us. With our rich culture, textiles, and patterns, we have the potential to revolutionize the fashion industry. But for that, we need to make bold choices—not merely follow trends from elsewhere but market and revolutionize the fashion and style inherent to our culture.

Do you think you need to study fashion to be a fashion designer or stylist?

I studied business management, and here I am today, running a boutique and making a living out of fashion. While having a degree in fashion is beneficial, an understanding of fashion and style is essential. Observing how people react to fashion and style and finding the right balance between creativity and fashion are crucial. It’s also important to engage with diverse individuals, draw inspiration from them, and incorporate their stories into your work. For instance, every time I sketch, I consider the stories of my clients—their love stories, realities, challenges, and their go-getter attitude. These attributes and stories shape my designs.

Is the fashion industry profitable?

Yes, it is, and it will be if you find that unique entry point. For me, I dabble in both traditional and modern fashion. My boutique specializes in both traditional attire, and I don’t shy away from using creative textiles to design modern jackets and skirts. Additionally, I like to diversify and not limit myself to one theme or comfort fashion only. Thus, catering to both women’s and men’s wear. However, the initial days are always challenging. You may have great ideas, but you might not have a market. Hence, it’s essential to connect with people, understand the market, and ask yourself that one hard question, “if this idea doesn’t work, will you have the courage to wake up tomorrow and start anew?” I do that every single day, and for ideas that don’t work, I know tomorrow is a new day, and I will definitely try to make things happen.

Don McLain Gill is a geopolitical analyst, author, and lecturer at the Department of International Studies, De La Salle University in Manila, Philippines. Kamal Dev Bhattarai of ApEx talked with him about the changing geopolitical situation and regionalism. 

How do you see the history of regionalism in South Asia?

Following the Second World War, there has been a significant shift toward the formulation of trade and inter-state relations. As a result, states became eager for a new model that would not only promote and expand trade but would also contribute to peace by establishing international cooperative agreements and institutions to support them. Since the 1960s, there has been a noteworthy increase in regional cooperative projects all over the world. This pushed the developing world to explore the possibilities and opportunities of regional cooperation. However, it was important for states to recognize certain requirements in order to forge an effective regional group. One of these requirements was the need to look outward and limit self-centered interests that may hinder collective goals. However, this seems to be easier said than done, given the variation in every state’s history and priority, which may conflict with regional priorities.

Like elsewhere, the concept of regional cooperation gained attraction and acceptance in South Asia. South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was established in 1985 to enhance and promote intra-regional trade and economic cooperation. Later, South Asian Preferential Trading Arrangement (SAPTA) was signed in 1993. This was then followed by the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) agreement, which came into effect in 2006. However, Despite the enthusiasm brought by the spread of regional cooperation, the results have not been entirely praiseworthy.

While talking about regionalism in this area, SAARC obviously comes at the forefront, but it is in a state of limbo.  Do you see any chance of SAARC’s revival?

 It is crucial to understand that each region consists of its own dynamics and characteristics. Both external and internal factors must be taken into consideration when evaluating the success and effectiveness of regional cooperation. South Asian states have similar geographical, cultural, and societal features that are supposed to create a conducive environment for effective cooperation. Nevertheless, despite such advantageous factors, South Asia is one of the least integrated regions in the world. This can be attributed to both economic and non-economic factors ranging from tariff and non-tariff barriers and lack of comparative advantage to physical connectivity, divergent threat perceptions, and asymmetric power relations. 

Moreover, the evident historic dilemma between India and Pakistan poses a critical challenge for SAARC’s revival. Most especially since Pakistan’s consistent support for terror activities throughout the region serves as a major impediment to attaining a conducive environment for regional growth and cooperation. Moreover, Pakistan’s desire to involve extra-regional powers like China to undermine India’s territorial integrity, security, and sovereignty presents a deep-rooted challenge for the regional organization to come out of.

Can BIMSTEC become an alternative to SAARC?

With the rise of the Indo-Pacific construct, South Asia has become a sub-region to a greater Indo-Pacific. This creates more opportunities for South Asian states to expand the scope and boundaries of cooperation beyond the immediate neighborhood and into the other subregions of the Indo-Pacific. Thus, the utility of interregional frameworks like BIMSTEC must be maximized by its members to explore more opportunities for economic and security cooperation amidst the deadlock faced in SAARC. 

BIMSTEC serves as an important sub-regional arrangement where both South and Southeast Asian states can diversify and strengthen alternative economic options at a time when the Indo-Pacific is facing critical shifts brought by the unfolding US-China power competition. This provides an opportunity for BIMSTEC to regain its significance, given the vital economic and security linkages between Bay of Bengal and the Western Pacific. For South Asian states, this presents an important avenue to offset the strategic losses faced from SAARC and reinvest in alternative inter-regional platforms such as BIMSTEC.

Can countries of this region consider creating another regional bloc?

I believe it is unlikely for South Asian states to devote resources again to establish another regional organization. This contradicts the emerging trend in the Indo-Pacific of forging loose and area-specific arrangements between states that share common interests, concerns, and goals. Such arrangements can be in the form of minilateral groupings. I believe there is more potential for like-minded South Asian states to cooperate on key issue areas of mutual interest and concern through such a framework rather than reinvesting in traditional forms of regional cooperation.

Why did South East Asia succeed in embracing a robust regional body like ASEAN, but South Asia failed to do so?

ASEAN and SAARC are two regional organizations that were formed during the Cold War Era amidst the emerging trend toward regionalism and regional economic cooperation. However, ASEAN's function as a regional bloc is far more successful than that of SAARC. While the former is often considered as the benchmark for regional cooperation in the developing world, the latter is known for being the least integrated region in the world. There are several reasons behind this vast operational gap. Unlike SAARC, ASEAN has invested in enhancing connectivity projects between its member countries. Moreover, ASEAN’s intra-regional trade, despite its limitations, remains quite praiseworthy at 25 percent compared to SAARC, which is barely at five percent. 

However, aside from economic evaluations, it is more important to highlight the geopolitical differences between both organizations. Unlike ASEAN, the power dynamics in SAARC is far more asymmetrical. Moreover, the intersectional historical, cultural, and political dynamics of SAARC members are also significantly different from ASEAN members. The nature of protracted intra-regional conflicts, ongoing land boundary tensions, and cross border terrorism in South Asia is also more complicated than that of Southeast Asia. Thus, these are some of the important factors that need to be acknowledged in better understanding why SAARC continues to trail behind when it comes to regional integration.

How do the major powers like the US and China see regionalism in South Asia?

The US-China power competition centers on either strengthening or revising the established order in the Indo-Pacific. For the past few years, China has been seeking to present an alternative order in the form of the Global Security Initiative, which aims to push its role in Asia at the expense of US leadership. This may lead Beijing to exploit loopholes in key regional organizations to turn it against the West. We have seen attempts from China to turn the BRICS and SCO as anti-West groupings, but it has been unsuccessful. 

Similarly, the US and China are also competing for influence within ASEAN. However, such a scenario is unlikely for SAARC, given the lack of influence the organization has on South Asian politics. Therefore, it is likely for the US and China to directly engage with regional states for the purpose of deepening their respective strategic footprints in the vital sub-region of the Indo-Pacific.