<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/2022111015114/636d058b9c7e80680e0a5f12jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="1000"/><figcaption>Then Health Minister Hridayesh Tripathi receiving the first batch of 348,000 doses of Covishield AstraZeneca vaccines from the UN Resident Coordinator in Nepal Sara Beysolow Nyanti in March. The remaining 1.92 million doses promised by COVAX never arrived. Photo: UN</figcaption></figure>As a previously unknown mystery disease caused by the novel coronavirus struck Planet Earth in the winter of 2019-20, public health officials and the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended universal mask wearing, physical distancing, lockdowns and travel restrictions, while awaiting the arrival of preventive vaccines and effective therapies.On two sides of the Atlantic, two contrasting approaches emerged to tackle what came to be known as the Covid-19 pandemic.On the one hand, there was the erratic and eccentric Donald Trump (seconded by his Brazilian buddy Jair Bolsonaro) who denied the seriousness of the pandemic or peddled his “genius” discovery of miscellaneous medications and magical cures like injecting disinfectants into human body or irradiating patients’ bodies with UV light.Blaming China and WHO was Trump’s fallback position to hide his own policy failures. But he also invested billions of dollars to bankroll several American pharmaceutical companies to speed up the production of Covid vaccines through his Operation Warp Speed.Consistent with his ‘America First’ priority, the vaccines were meant primarily for Americans, of course, though any leftovers could be sold or given away to friendly countries abroad depending on the MAGA Leader’s mood and magnanimity.On the other side of the Atlantic, at the urging of the WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom, many European leaders took a seemingly more enlightened global approach. Recognising that “no one is safe until everyone is safe”, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and their fellow Nordic counterparts declared that they would eschew “vaccine nationalism” and embrace the concept of a Covid vaccine as a ‘global public good’ to be made available equitably to all countries. The United Nations, the developing world, civil society organisations and celebrities welcomed this enlightened approach.Encouraged by this idealistic vision, WHO launched a clumsily worded but ambitious ‘Access to Covid-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator’ that would speed up the development, production, and equitable access to Covid-19 tests, treatment, and vaccines. The ACT Accelerator brought together a grand alliance of governments, scientists, businesses, civil society, and philanthropists, including the Gates Foundation, GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, the Global Fund, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the World Bank, Unicef.It was a who’s who of the global health partnership. The most important ‘pillar’ of the ACT Accelerator was the ‘COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access’, abbreviated as <a href="https://www.who.int/initiatives/act-accelerator/covax" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">COVAX</a>.COVAX is hosted and administered by GAVI, and its main vaccine procurement and delivery partner is Unicef. A high-level COVAX Coordinating Mechanism with representation of a cross-section of its partners and multiple technical groups is responsible for ensuring equitable allocation and access to Covid-19 vaccines worldwide.Participating in COVAX are two groups of countries: the fully self-financing high-income countries (HICs), and nearly 100 low and middle-income countries (LMICs) that generally rely on donor funding to receive some vaccines, but can also purchase some more with their own resources.A mechanism called the Advance Market Commitment (AMC) through which GAVI guarantees the purchase of a large quantity of vaccines to incentivise manufacturers to produce doses and sell them at an affordable price. Initially, the donors were expected to capitalise on the COVAX facility with a contribution of $9 billion to purchase and distribute 2 billion doses of vaccines to meet the needs of some 20% of high-risk groups in participating countries, including frontline health workers and senior citizens.Launched with much fanfare in April 2020, long before there were any viable vaccines, COVAX was hailed as a futuristic model of enlightened international cooperation to ensure that vaccine development and delivery would progress at ‘a speed, scale, and access never before seen in human history’.<img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/2022111015114/636d058e9c7e80680e0a5f13jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1226" height="678">Realpolitik of vaccine nationalismWhile most poorer countries <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/when-will-nepals-covid-vaccine-turn-come/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">patiently waited for COVAX to be fully-functional</a>, most richer countries, particularly the G-7 and EU members, decided to jump the queue and cut bilateral deals for their own citizens. Not to be left behind in the competition for public relations and profits, China, India and Russia, the three major vaccine producers outside Western Europe and the US, engaged in carefully orchestrated ‘<a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/jabs-and-jab-nots/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">vaccine diplomacy</a>’ to bolster their image of solidarity with LMICs.COVAX remained under-funded and unable to compete with the HICs that quickly reserved huge quantities of vaccines directly from the manufacturers, often exceeding their actual requirements. By August 2020, the Trump administration had signed seven bilateral deals with six companies for more than 800 million doses, enough to vaccinate 140% of its population.The Biden administration substantially increased this. The EU was not far behind in reserving half a billion doses secured through two deals. The UK signed five bilateral deals for 270 million doses, equivalent to 225% of its population. Canada was at the head of the class reserving four times more vaccines than the total requirement for its population.These bilateral deals severely undercut COVAX’s ambition of becoming the global coordinator of vaccine procurement, allocation and distribution. By the time it managed to secure the $8.3 billion it needed to procure and deliver the promised vaccines to 92 poorer countries in June 2021, manufacturers had no more vaccines to sell, as practically all their production was contractually committed to the HICs.COVAX was caught in a Catch-22. Whereas initially it did not have enough money to buy the vaccines, now it has the money but there are no vaccines in the market. Besides HICs hoarding a huge cache of excess vaccines, two other problems are responsible for the global vaccine shortage.The huge <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/first-signs-of-the-second-wave/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">second wave</a> of Covid infection in India in the Spring of 2021 led it to ban the export of the AstraZeneca Covishield vaccine manufactured by the Serum Institute of India (SII). This was a huge shock and disappointment for both COVAX and most lower-income countries like Nepal. They were counting on SII, the world’s largest vaccine producer, to be their main supplier.<a style="font-size: 15px; letter-spacing: 0.01em;" href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/south-asias-vaccine-geopolitics/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">South Asia's vaccine geopolitics</a>, Christopher TanBut an even bigger and more systemic problem is the unwillingness of a handful of Big Pharma to give up their exclusive patent rights to produce life-saving vaccines and medications. Although the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) provides for waiving patent rights in the case of life-saving medicines and vaccines, in public health emergencies like global pandemics, most HICs have refused to grant such waivers.President Biden did express a willingness to consider waiving the intellectual property rights for Covid  vaccines. But the same European leaders who loudly proclaimed Covid vaccines as ‘global public goods’, have stubbornly and hypocritically resisted waiving the IP rights of their pharmaceutical companies.The hypocrisy is compounded because billions of dollars, euros and pounds of public funds were given to private Big Pharma companies to accelerate research and development of new vaccines for which they now claim exclusive patent rights to maximise profits for their private shareholders.The G-7 charade There were high hopes that the G-7 Summit of the world’s richest democratic countries in Cornwall in June 2021 would lead to a breakthrough in Covid response, revive COVAX and accelerate delivery of vaccines to developing countries. While the absence of an arrogant and unpredictable Trump created an atmosphere of congenial camaraderie at the G-7, its outcome was long in lofty rhetoric but woefully short in concrete and urgent action to tackle the global pandemic.The IMF had estimated that an investment of $55 billion now would not only save the lives and protect the health of millions, but would help revive the world economy and yield a return of $9 trillion by 2025. Sadly, the G-7 accounting for 60% of the world’s economy did not pledge even 6% of the investment recommended by the IMF.The G-7 commitment to donate less than one billion doses of the surplus vaccine they have hoarded, and that too over an extended period stretching well into mid-2022, was a huge disappointment in the face of a dramatic surge of newer and deadlier Covid variants <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/we-knew-the-tsunami-was-approaching/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ravaging countries like Nepal</a>, much of Southeast Asia and the African continent.COVAX estimates that it needs 2 billion doses in 2021 to reach the most vulnerable 20% of people in the developing world, and 11 billion doses to reach herd immunity by 2022. Alas, if current trends continue, if TRIPS patent waiver is not granted and technology transfer not facilitated to vastly increase and diversify vaccine production in many more countries, it might take decades before people in LMICs can expect to reach herd immunity.<img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/2022111015114/636d05919c7e80680e0a5f14jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1220" height="664">The People's Vaccine Alliance estimates that, at the current rate, low-income countries could take 57 years to fully vaccinate their populations, whereas G-7 countries are likely to reach that milestone in the next 6 months.Contrary to the mantra of ‘vaccine equity’ chanted ad nauseum at the UN, at WHO, and at COVAX, the action and inaction of the G-7 actually promote vaccine nationalism. As the Secretary-General of the UN and Director-General of WHO have pointed out, vaccine nationalism in rich countries (and more recently in India) are perpetuating a two-tier world. Of the 2.1 billion Covid-19 vaccine doses administered worldwide so far, only 4% were provided to poorer countries by COVAX.As UN Secretary-General António Guterres has noted poignantly, “Today, ten countries have administered 75% of all COVID-19 vaccines, but, in poor countries, health workers and people with underlying conditions cannot access them. This is not only manifestly unjust, it is also self-defeating.”COVAX and an unequal world COVAX has been criticised harshly for making tall promises but failing to deliver. As a bold and nascent initiative, it is going through teething problems, and has made some mistakes and miscalculations. GAVI that administers COVAX, made some early compromises on its egalitarian founding principles by agreeing to certain double standards applied to the HICs vs LMICs.For example, it allowed donor countries like the UK and Canada to pick and choose which vaccines they preferred to fund or purchase for themselves through COVAX rather than requiring their funding to be co-mingled as part of COVAX’s funding pool for all countries and products.There was some consternation when the UK and Canada managed to purchase through COVAX fairly large quantities of their chosen vaccines, despite the fact that they had already procured plenty of vaccines through direct bilateral contracts with several vaccine manufacturers, even as COVAX was struggling to deliver minimal quantities of vaccines for LMICs.Canada managed to procure through COVAX 1.6 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine while Nepal (a country of similar population size) only received 348,000 doses. An added irony is that some of those AZ vaccines in Canada remain unused and are on the verge of expiry, whereas 1.4 million senior citizens in Nepal are desperately waiting for their second jab of the AZ vaccine.Some of these examples go to show that notwithstanding the lofty principles underlying the enlightened concept of COVAX, we still live in a world where, as the old saying goes, ‘one who pays the piper calls the tune’. On a larger scale, a similar situation prevails at the United Nations, where the principle of ‘sovereign equality of all member states’ is rendered meaningless by five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council, and a handful of other influential donors.Despite such shortcomings, the UN, COVAX and other initiatives are important building blocks towards a fairer world of greater human solidarity. Imperfect as they are, humanity is better off with such organisations striving to harness the power of partnership and solidarity than a dog-eat-dog world driven solely by narrow national or other parochial interests.Some of the weaknesses and hypocrisy seen in the early functioning of COVAX are not the result of its model being wrong, but because some of its key sponsors not playing by agreed rules.<img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/2022111015114/636d05949c7e80680e0a5f15jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1442" height="588">In a world of sovereign nation-states, leaders have a legitimate responsibility to protect their own populations first. Hence vaccine nationalism is understandable and should have been built into the design of initiatives like COVAX from the start -- although pursuing vaccine equity must be its ultimate objective.Without putting all our eggs in the COVAX basket, and while exploring all other options to meet our urgent vaccine needs, it is in the interest of countries like Nepal to help build a more robust COVAX to help the world better cope with future pandemics.<a href="http://www.kulgautam.org/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.kulgautam.org/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1625197419711000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFM7lv53rOVMJQdg4WABZK4M09vvw">Kul Chandra Gautam</a>, a Nepali diplomat, is a former Assistant Secretary-General of the UN and Deputy Executive Director of Unicef. He is also the author of Global Citizen from Gulmi: My Journey from the Hills of Nepal to the Halls of the United Nations. He was also a board member of GAVI.

original

674x448

610x380

500x500

400x266

400x240

400x203

301x200

1250x600

1084x550

Hope, hyperbole and hypocrisy of COVAX

<figure><img width="623" height="426" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/2022111011110/636ccc0d9c7e80680e08bbffjpeg.jpg" alt=""/><figcaption>Meeting Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in Yangon in 1998.</figcaption></figure>The 1 February 2021 coup d’état by Myanmar’s military (Tatmadaw), has been widely condemned by all the world’s democratic leaders, human rights activists and genuine <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/kathmandu-remembers-aung-san-suu-kyi/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">friends of the people of Myanmar</a> around the globe. In an unusual manner for the world’s top diplomat, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has gone so far as to urge the world community to make sure that Myanmar’s military coup fails. 
Like many other world leaders, he urged the military leadership to respect the will of the people of Myanmar as expressed in the 8 November 2020 general elections that gave Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) Party a resounding 83 % of the popular vote. Guterres called the reversal of those elections “absolutely unacceptable”.
Notwithstanding the Secretary-General’s strong call, the most powerful organ of the UN, the Security Council, issued a mild statement that failed to condemn the coup because of strong objection by China, a veto-wielding member of the Council with significant economic interests in Myanmar. Reflecting the Beijing government’s views, China’s state news agency Xinhua referred to the military coup simply as a “major Cabinet reshuffle”.
Given the potential veto by China and Russia (both permanent members of the Security Council that sell huge quantities of arms to Tatmadaw), it is unlikely that the Council will muster the courage or the unanimity needed to intervene or impose stern sanctions against the military junta.
However, even an indirect condemnation of the coup and a call for restoration of democratic institutions and respect for people’s human rights sends a clear signal of solidarity of the international community to the people of Myanmar to fight for their rights.
Donald Trump’s impact
The ostensible reason for the Tatmadaw’s putsch is their objection to apparent electoral irregularities in the November 2020 elections in which the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) suffered a humiliating defeat.
Coincidentally, the Tatmadaw’s charges of massive electoral fraud in Myanmar sound very similar to those of the former US President Donald Trump’s discredited claims of similar electoral fraud in the US presidential election. Indeed, the Trump administration’s cuddling of authoritarian regimes may have given some encouragement to the Burmese junta.
The junta was certainly aware that its power grab would be condemned by the new Biden administration in the US, the European Union and other democratic governments, and human rights groups around the world. But knowing it can count on strong support of China and Russia, and tacit approval or acquiescence of its ASEAN neighbors and India too, seems to have given it the confidence that it can afford to withstand the opprobrium by the rest of the world.
The fact that Aung San Suu Kyi’s international stature has greatly diminished in recent years was probably another factor in the military’s calculation to dare to overthrow her.
However, it is difficult to fathom what Tatmadaw’s long-term calculations and strategy are. For an army that is despised by a large majority of the people of Myanmar, because of its decades of oppression and corruption that has gravely retarded the country’s development, it already enjoys a very favorable position under the current power-sharing arrangement with Suu Kyi.
It can appoint 25 percent of the members of parliament. It controls three of the most powerful government ministries in charge of national security. It is allowed to carry out very lucrative business ventures that has made many army generals among the richest people in the country.
The current power-sharing arrangement is such that if the elected government fails, the blame would go largely to its leader Aung San Suu Kyi, but if it succeeds the Tatmadaw too could claim some credit and brag that the Myanmar model of power-sharing works!
It is, therefore, baffling to figure out why the military would give up such a sweet-heart deal in pursuit of an uncertain future knowing that the putsch would push the country into the ranks of a pariah regime once again.
The speculation is that either the Tatmadaw leadership was fearful of the NLD government clipping its current prerogatives by attempting to amend the army-imposed constitution or more likely the top General Min Aung Hlaing’s inflated personal ambitions led him to make this pre-emptive strike.
Outfoxing each other 
A decade ago, Tatmadaw and Aung San Suu Kyi negotiated a power-sharing deal. After Suu Kyi’s NLD Party scored a sweeping victory in the 2015 elections, Myanmar became the democratic darling of the world. It heralded the end of Myanmar’s international isolation, the blossoming of a relatively free media, as well as an explosion of social media.
Young Burmese flocked to the Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, followed by their elders soon afterwards. Tourism started flourishing. Foreign investment, particularly from neighboring ASEAN countries, and especially, China boomed.
International media and NGOs, banned during the military regime, flocked to Myanmar. And UN agencies severely constrained by highly restricted mandate and shortage of funding because of sanctions against the military regime by Western donors got a new lease of life and expanded their operations.
But the euphoria of Myanmar’s transition away from military rule to a seemingly liberal democracy was premature and exaggerated. It was more wishful and hopeful than the ground realities justified.
In the power-sharing deal she entered with Tatmadaw in 2011, Suu Kyi tentatively accepted the 2008 Constitution drafted by the military with a view to perpetuating its dominance on all key issues of “national security” under the garb of a pro-forma electoral democracy.
With her confidence in securing overwhelming election victory, Suu Kyi’s calculation was that she will be able to outfox the Tatmadaw and amend the constitution to weaken or eliminate the military’s power, and strengthen genuine democracy.
But it appears that the Tatmadaw actually outfoxed Suu Kyi. It even got her, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, to condone the military’s ethnic cleansing and genocidal oppression of the Rohingya Muslims and to cuddle Burman Buddhist xenophobia.
To the consternation of the international community, but continuing adulation of the ethnic Burman population, it turned out that as a politician Suu Kyi and Tatmadaw shared many common Bamar ethno-nationalist sentiments and deeply held prejudices against most non-Bamar ethnic communities, particularly the Rohingya Muslims, questioning their status as equal and patriotic citizens of Myanmar.
Forming and Spurning the Kofi Annan Commission 
Stung by international criticism of Tatmadaw’s brutal oppression of the Rohingyas, and as a face-saving gesture, in 2016 Suu Kyi formed an international Advisory Commission on Rakhine State headed by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to propose measures to ensure the social and economic well-being of both the Buddhist, the Muslim and other ethnic communities in Myanmar’s conflict-ravaged regions.
In my view, this Commission came up with the best possible recommendations and a roadmap for not only Rakhine state but to ensure a sustainable, democratic, prosperous and equitable multi-ethnic future for all of Myanmar. But Suu Kyi essentially cold-shouldered Annan’s recommendations, perhaps fearing that the military would never accept them.
Inspired and disappointed by Suu Kyi
As a senior UNICEF official in the 1990s and 2000s, I had the opportunity to meet and interact with Suu Kyi as well as several senior Burmese military leaders, including the seemingly progressive General Thein Sein when he was the powerful Secretary-1 of the State Peace and Development Committee (SPDC) who later became Prime Minister and the first “elected” “civilian” President of Myanmar. He was the one who negotiated the power sharing deal with Suu Kyi in 2010.
I recall Suu Kyi, being an articulate and inspiring personality. Very strong-minded and stubborn at times, she presented herself as a staunch defender of democracy and human rights in Myanmar and globally. Her advocacy of a Gandhian non-violent civil disobedience and her reputation as a Mandela-like prisoner of conscience over a prolonged period, led to her winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991.
But like many of her previous admirers, including her fellow Nobel Prize laureates, I became deeply disappointed by her politically-calculated alliance with the military when she defended the indefensible ethnic cleansing of Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslim community at the International Court of Justice in the Hague.
Although Suu Kyi’s international stature as an icon of democracy and human rights has suffered irredeemably, she continues to be immensely popular domestically. If anybody can potentially tame Myanmar’s powerful Tatmadaw, it still continues to be Aung San Suu Kyi, given both her undiminished domestic popularity and her father General Aung San’s nationalist credentials and legacy.
Thus, despite all her flaws, I believe the international community has no choice but to support the restoration of democratic process in Myanmar led, in the near-term, by Suu Kyi and her NLD party.
The possible ways forward 
However, in the longer term, both the people of Myanmar and the international community ought to internalize three important lessons from the Burmese conundrum of the past six decades: a) not to rely on the leadership of one individual, no matter how charismatic, b) the necessity of delegitimizing the privileged political role of Myanmar’s military, and c) looking beyond the necessary restoration of electoral democracy to a laser-like focus on tackling a range of issues that have perpetuated poverty, inequality and violent conflicts in this immensely resource-rich country that remains one of the poorest in the region.
Nobody believes the military’s promise that it will organize new elections in a year’s time and hand-over power to a newly-elected government. If free and fair elections are held, the military and its puppet party, the USDP, are likely to fare even worse than in the November 2020 general elections.
The junta maybe able to prolong its rule in the short-term by organizing sham elections and increased repression, but the durability of such a regime is questionable. We are already beginning to see the sprouting of a courageous campaign of civil disobedience in various forms, which is only likely to accelerate over time.
We can expect Tatmadaw to unleash harsh repression using all the tools and tricks in the authoritarians’ toolbox, starting with shutting down the internet and the social media. But there is no conceivable scenario under which the Tatmadaw can solve Myanmar’s entrenched problems and endear itself to a restive population.
In this day and age, harsh repression alone cannot ensure political stability. Even the military regime’s backers like China and most of the ASEAN countries that treasure political stability over democratic norms, are likely to abandon their active or tacit support of the junta, once they realize that a regime deeply despised by the populace and incapable of delivering sustainable development cannot ensure lasting stability and tranquility.
It is clear that the military has grossly misjudged the mood of the Burmese youth. Having tasted democracy and an open society during the past decade, Myanmar’s digitally savvy youth, like those of many other countries, are now so well-connected with their counterparts around the world, so well aware of their rights and their potential, so determined to pursue a prosperous future, that they will find many creative ways to outfox the military’s shenanigans.
Among the best proposals for a way forward is a solemn appeal by a wise and thoughtful religious leader, Cardinal Charles Maung Bo, Archbishop of Yangon, President of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conference, and a Co-President of Religions for Peace International.
He made a strong case for “demilitarizing Myanmar”, warning even before the latest coup: “History teaches us, diplomats and peacemakers know, that there is never going to be a military solution to a political conflict. Pursuing military solutions leads only to endless war and endless misery”.
Following the coup, the Cardinal issued an urgent message addressed to the people of Myanmar; its civilian leaders, including Aung San Suu Kyi; to the Myanmar military, and the international community.
The message calls for the people to stay calm, avoid violence, but pursue their goals peacefully. The Bishop chastises the military for its empty promises and urges the junta to respect people’s rights as expressed through their elected representatives, writers, activists, and especially Myanmar’s youth. He urges Suu Kyi and the NLD leaders to continue dialogue and with Tatmadaw to overcome the new challenges created by the latest coup.
To the International community, the Bishop cautions how sanctions in the past brought few results, and to avoid measures that risk collapsing the economy and throwing millions into poverty.
I tend to agree with the Bishop that general sanctions are a blunt instrument that hurt ordinary people while the rich and the powerful find many ways to evade them. However, I believe there is room and need for tough but very specifically and narrowly targeted sanctions against the key perpetrators and enforcers of the military putsch and their business interests, while meticulously sparing the ordinary people.
The international community would be wise to follow the Burmese historian Thant Myint-U’s advice to avoid a narrow focus on political change and help ensure the protection of ordinary people’s lives and livelihoods as part of any international action to thwart the military coup.
“Myanmar needs a fresh path to democracy” he says, “Free and fair elections (and respect for the results) are essential. But also essential is the transformation of a society shaped by decades of dictatorship, international isolation, brutal armed conflict, racial and religious discrimination, extreme poverty and widening inequality”.
In a world struggling to recover from the ravages of the COVID pandemic, and many other epochal crises, the plight of the people of Myanmar may not get the full attention it deserves. But let us hope that the sentiments of global solidarity will inspire them to regain their inalienable human rights and dignity.
<a href="http://www.kulgautam.org">Kul Chandra Gautam</a>, a Nepali diplomat, is a former Assistant Secretary-General of the UN and Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF. He is also the author of the recently-published "Global Citizen from Gulmi: My Journey from the Hills of Nepal to the Halls of the United Nations"
By arrangement with Inter Press Service (IPS)

Post-Coup Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi and the Way Forward

<img width="1398" height="932" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109181148/636be8a79c7e80680e087872jpeg.jpg" alt=""/>When it comes to international environmental diplomacy, America has a chequered past. It stood at the forefront of the international battle to fix the ozone hole and has shaped many key international agreements.Sadly, US positions are not always built on solid political ground at home. Twice, in the climate change process, this has led to the United States forging an agreement, only to then walk away. This happened with the 1997 Kyoto Protocol which then Vice-President Gore flew to Japan to sign in the full knowledge that a Republican dominated Senate would never ratify the deal. It happened again five years ago, with former President Obama closing that landmark deal (and John Kerry signing at the UN), only for President Trump to tear it up a few weeks later.With such a background the international community is a little nervous when a new Democrat administration takes the helm laden with robust statements and bold promises, as President-elect Biden is doing now. But, as is so often the case, the prodigal son will get the benefit of the doubt (again) and for good reason!Let’s look at what those reasons are. No-one would argue the fact that the United States are a political powerhouse and an economic superpower. This makes having the US in the climate action tent critically important. But why? Is this about political posturing, or is there something more?When the Biden administration chooses to take an ambitious lead on climate action, the world is wise to take heed. Clear signals from politicians on where the new administration plans to go, have an enormous power in the market. An example. Wind and solar energy made it to where they are today in a hostile economic environment where the playing field was everything but level.Environmental cost is not internalised and fossil fuels are still subsidised to a huge degree. What helped to push wind and solar to the current competitive strength is the hope that, in the long term, things will change and new (climate) challenges be recognised, thus creating a viable market for these technologies.If you are building things (powerplants, factories or refineries) with a technical lifetime of 40 years, you do well to think about how friendly or hostile the operating environment is likely to be over that time period. So a political statement sends strong market signals. Especially if it comes from a superpower and even more so when others are pointing in the same direction.How the market responds to political signals has ramifications around the globe. Our economy is now truly global. This means that when key market players take a course, set an standard or make demands on their suppliers, this resonates around the world. The EU agreeing auto standards with European manufactures immediately sets a trend that Japan and Korea must follow because the European market is so big. American companies like Wall Mart have hundreds of thousands of suppliers around the world. So a direction taken at a corporate HQ is delivered-on in pretty much every country on our planet. The standards the US and other major players set become imperatives, or things you choose to ignore at your own peril.Another important point is that climate action has increasingly become a race to the top that is driven by innovation. Innovators smell a climate market and they are rushing to seize the opportunities. Opportunities around electric vehicles, energy efficiency, clean technologies, low-asset business models, you name it. America has long stood at the forefront of discovery and innovation. Many of the key technologies we apply today have at least part of their roots in America. So the signals politicians send and how the corporate community responds, creates an innovation catalyst that will transform business opportunities both in the US and around the world.America’s proud history in working together with other nations, providing them with the finance, technology and capacity support they need in order to climate proof their energy systems, industry and infrastructure. Reducing emissions in the economic powerhouses of today is obviously critical. But with much of future economic growth and population increase of the future set to happen in Africa and Southeast Asia, we need to fix the future, not only the past.Five years after the Paris Climate Accord was reached, the international process is now in full implementation mode. The purpose of the negotiations will be to ensure that countries individually are delivering what they have promised and that the collective impact of their efforts is enough to keep global temperature increase below the agreed level.The United States returning to the international process at this time is critical to ensuring that especially the major players show leadership, both at home and abroad. At the end of the day, ensuring this happens is in the US’s own interest for a number of reasons. First because the US has in recent years always considered action by others, especially China, as a precondition for its own engagement. Second because bold global action will ensure all nations pull their weight toward a common goal. Third because that global action will create the opportunities for the innovation economy of the future President-elect Biden is seeking to deliver, as opposed to the manufacturing economy of the past.The model outgoing President Trump held up is what should make America great again.<img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109181148/636be8aa9c7e80680e087873jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="112" height="115">Yvo de Boer is President of the Gold Standard Foundation and former Secretary of the UN Climate Convention. By arrangement with <a href="http://www.ipsnews.net/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.ipsnews.net&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1608449441391000&amp;usg=AFQjCNG3H42XxR35yQ0oIbFhDn1UnMaTag">Inter Press Service.</a>

The right climate for Joe Biden

<img width="1398" height="932" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109191120/636bef9a4b0ad905ca02efbbjpeg.jpg" alt=""/>When it comes to international environmental diplomacy, America has a chequered past. It stood at the forefront of the international battle to fix the ozone hole and has shaped many key international agreements.Sadly, US positions are not always built on solid political ground at home. Twice, in the climate change process, this has led to the United States forging an agreement, only to then walk away. This happened with the 1997 Kyoto Protocol which then Vice-President Gore flew to Japan to sign in the full knowledge that a Republican dominated Senate would never ratify the deal. It happened again five years ago, with former President Obama closing that landmark deal (and John Kerry signing at the UN), only for President Trump to tear it up a few weeks later.With such a background the international community is a little nervous when a new Democrat administration takes the helm laden with robust statements and bold promises, as President-elect Biden is doing now. But, as is so often the case, the prodigal son will get the benefit of the doubt (again) and for good reason!Let’s look at what those reasons are. No-one would argue the fact that the United States are a political powerhouse and an economic superpower. This makes having the US in the climate action tent critically important. But why? Is this about political posturing, or is there something more?When the Biden administration chooses to take an ambitious lead on climate action, the world is wise to take heed. Clear signals from politicians on where the new administration plans to go, have an enormous power in the market. An example. Wind and solar energy made it to where they are today in a hostile economic environment where the playing field was everything but level.Environmental cost is not internalised and fossil fuels are still subsidised to a huge degree. What helped to push wind and solar to the current competitive strength is the hope that, in the long term, things will change and new (climate) challenges be recognised, thus creating a viable market for these technologies.If you are building things (powerplants, factories or refineries) with a technical lifetime of 40 years, you do well to think about how friendly or hostile the operating environment is likely to be over that time period. So a political statement sends strong market signals. Especially if it comes from a superpower and even more so when others are pointing in the same direction.How the market responds to political signals has ramifications around the globe. Our economy is now truly global. This means that when key market players take a course, set an standard or make demands on their suppliers, this resonates around the world. The EU agreeing auto standards with European manufactures immediately sets a trend that Japan and Korea must follow because the European market is so big. American companies like Wall Mart have hundreds of thousands of suppliers around the world. So a direction taken at a corporate HQ is delivered-on in pretty much every country on our planet. The standards the US and other major players set become imperatives, or things you choose to ignore at your own peril.Another important point is that climate action has increasingly become a race to the top that is driven by innovation. Innovators smell a climate market and they are rushing to seize the opportunities. Opportunities around electric vehicles, energy efficiency, clean technologies, low-asset business models, you name it. America has long stood at the forefront of discovery and innovation. Many of the key technologies we apply today have at least part of their roots in America. So the signals politicians send and how the corporate community responds, creates an innovation catalyst that will transform business opportunities both in the US and around the world.America’s proud history in working together with other nations, providing them with the finance, technology and capacity support they need in order to climate proof their energy systems, industry and infrastructure. Reducing emissions in the economic powerhouses of today is obviously critical. But with much of future economic growth and population increase of the future set to happen in Africa and Southeast Asia, we need to fix the future, not only the past.Five years after the Paris Climate Accord was reached, the international process is now in full implementation mode. The purpose of the negotiations will be to ensure that countries individually are delivering what they have promised and that the collective impact of their efforts is enough to keep global temperature increase below the agreed level.The United States returning to the international process at this time is critical to ensuring that especially the major players show leadership, both at home and abroad. At the end of the day, ensuring this happens is in the US’s own interest for a number of reasons. First because the US has in recent years always considered action by others, especially China, as a precondition for its own engagement. Second because bold global action will ensure all nations pull their weight toward a common goal. Third because that global action will create the opportunities for the innovation economy of the future President-elect Biden is seeking to deliver, as opposed to the manufacturing economy of the past.The model outgoing President Trump held up is what should make America great again.<img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109191120/636bef9d4b0ad905ca02efbcjpeg.jpg" alt="" width="112" height="115">Yvo de Boer is President of the Gold Standard Foundation and former Secretary of the UN Climate Convention. By arrangement with <a href="http://www.ipsnews.net/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.ipsnews.net&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1608449441391000&amp;usg=AFQjCNG3H42XxR35yQ0oIbFhDn1UnMaTag">Inter Press Service.</a>

Imagine a high-end fair trade tea brand from Nepal that has done everything right, with ethical sourcing practices and international certifications. It has built a loyal base of socially conscious, premium customers in an export market and focuses on quality over quantity. Then one day, a government in the export market introduces a new ‘listing criteria’ that requires exporting a certain amount of tea to at least three countries in the past five years. But this was never a numbers game, it was about a niche market of socially responsible tea lovers.&nbsp; Suddenly, fair trade tea companies are restricted from exporting tea to that country.&nbsp; Pretty unfair for the company, for consumers, for the tea sector. More importantly, for tea farmers and families benefiting from fair standards. The overseas labour industry is facing a similar risk as recruiters, including those that have adopted ethical standards, may soon be barred from finding workers for Malaysia.&nbsp; On 27 October, the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent letters to five countries including Nepal, Bangladesh, Burma, Pakistan and India to ‘rationalise the number of licensed private recruitment agencies permitted to facilitate recruitment and placement of workers to Malaysia’.  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20251030141040_050274dddc6cf10224b0ad9283eec7b3bc3c0acd650543a808a8ea473ecf40db.jpg" data-media-id="editor_0" data-image-id="20251030141040_050274dddc6cf10224b0ad9283eec7b3bc3c0acd650543a808a8ea473ecf40db" data-rendition-name="original" width="961" height="1135" loading="lazy" alt="Malaysia recruitment"> </figure>  The letter includes 10 criteria for private recruiting agencies including at least five years of operating experience, deployment of 3,000 workers in the past three years of operation, &nbsp;experience sending workers to at least three countries, a 10,000 sq m office maintained for three years, valid licenses and good conduct certificates, five employer testimonials, and operating their own training and accommodation centres. Two conditions stand out as potentially harmful to Nepal’s ethical recruitment movement. First, although the letter cites a minimum of 3,000 workers, it says three years in the heading and five in the body text. A big enough difference to affect a significant number of recruiters from making the cut, but problematic regardless.&nbsp; Second, the requirement to send workers to at least three countries disproportionately impacts responsible recruiters in Nepal and elsewhere. Turning the selection of workers into a numbers game is dehumanising. Responsible &nbsp;recruiters deprioritise volume, focus on quality of jobs even when business sustainability comes under threat as ethical opportunities that do not require workers to pay any feed and ensure greater transparency are difficult to come by. Sending workers is further impacted by a series of external shocks. For example, in the Malaysian context Nepal banned emigration to Malaysia for two years followed by the Covid pandemic, and then Malaysia’s decision to stop the intake of foreign workers for the last two years.  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20251030141040_b1b88b3ae2e94c6bc077529ac6f2a4e380a385ee9a22219edfed25067c9d25a1.jpg" data-media-id="editor_1" data-image-id="20251030141040_b1b88b3ae2e94c6bc077529ac6f2a4e380a385ee9a22219edfed25067c9d25a1" data-rendition-name="original" width="595" height="841" loading="lazy" alt="Malaysia recruitment"> </figure>   <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20251030141040_2cf252908d18aaf09c875002eef2d92ab45897a56b560addd2dc02311725c8a7.jpg" data-media-id="editor_2" data-image-id="20251030141040_2cf252908d18aaf09c875002eef2d92ab45897a56b560addd2dc02311725c8a7" data-rendition-name="original" width="590" height="238" loading="lazy" alt="Malaysia recruitment"> </figure>  Many ethical recruiters have focused on Malaysia because it is a more common labour market for responsible recruitment than other destinations like the Gulf. There is no credible justification to why responsible recruiters well regarded by scores of Malaysia-based multinational companies and with decades of experience should be ‘disqualified’ for not diversifying. Finding jobs for Nepalis in new markets is difficult given fierce competition, challenges &nbsp;identifying companies which follow the employer-pays principle, lack of networks and shortcomings in marketing strategies. These factors hit responsible recruiters harder because profit-motivated employers are often unwilling to cover the costs and fees associated with workers’ recruitment.&nbsp; “The volume of deployment does not determine a recruiter’s capability or the quality of services provided,” says Sujit Shrestha of the Nepal Association of Foreign Employment Agencies (NAFEA). Nepal recently scrapped the licensing renewal requirement that mandated sending at least 100 workers a year as it was impractical. The new Malaysian criteria is similar in nature, he added. The ball is now in Nepal’s court at a time when the interim government does not even have designated heads in the Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of Labour, Employment Employment and Social Security. When rumours about the Malaysian action started circulating, NAFEA had raised the issue, but was assured that this was not an attempt to set up a syndicate.  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20251030141044_83c8a174ef116603f747d1cd254c4d353e8b855a41fb99feec54e701f5fc4c3f.jpg" data-media-id="editor_3" data-image-id="20251030141044_83c8a174ef116603f747d1cd254c4d353e8b855a41fb99feec54e701f5fc4c3f" data-rendition-name="original" width="3456" height="5184" loading="lazy" alt="Malaysia recruitment"> </figure>  How will governments and recruiters in other origin countries now respond? There is precedence from Bangladesh. Dhaka-based journalist at the Daily Star, Porimol Palma who says, “Earlier, the Malaysian authorities had selected 101 Bangladeshi recruiters unilaterally, despite Bangladesh’s call for a syndicate-free recruitment mechanism.” Between 2022-2024, 450,000 Bangladeshis were recruited under this system with workers paying between $4,500 and $6,000, even though the legal limit was $750. Palma attributes part of the high fees workers had to pay were for commissions or bribes to recruitment syndicates. Adrian Pereira heads the North South Initiative in Malaysia says: “The criteria seems a bit fishy, as they do not appear to address the actual problems in the the recruitment of foreign workers. Some of the criteria seem to encourage a system of monopoly or syndicate rather than a rights-based approach. Every government has the right to set criteria for recruiters, but conventions and ILO (International Labour Organization) standards on recruitment exist. It looks like we’re back to square one.”&nbsp; Whether migrant origin countries including Bangladesh and Nepal accept the terms sent without reservations or push back in good faith remains to be seen. In an ideal world, a collective stance should put workers’ needs and welfare at the centre. How rational is the proposed ‘rationalising strategy’? What aspects of it are promising to curb recruitment abuse and what merits serious reconsideration?&nbsp; Even if the move from the Malaysian side is well-intentioned to address rampant malpractices migrant workers face, Nepal should deliberate on the conditions set, the collateral damage especially on the responsible actors and small but capable recruiters. Alternate options that might serve everyone better before rushing to respond with a chosen list by 15 November. If the proposal is accepted, how would it be done in a transparent and accountable way? It is noteworthy that Indonesia was not listed even though it has the most workers in Malaysia among the 16 countries that send migrants to Malaysia.&nbsp; The Responsible Business Alliance (RBA), the ILO, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and certification programs like On the Level (OTL) also need to use their leverage to ensure that recruiters, including those they have trained or certified on ethical recruitment principles, are not penalised.&nbsp; This is more than just about protecting the ethical recruitment movement, but raising even more basic questions: Who can legally be a recruiter in Nepal? There are already obligations like hefty security deposit and minimum office requirements. But requirements to have building facilities with ‘accommodations’ or ‘testing centres’ are not among them. There are 1,150 plus players in Nepal’s recruitment sector, with a few hundred engaged in the Malaysian market. A unilateral selection criteria could risk foul play, or lead to unintended, unfavourable consequences. To be sure, overseas recruitment in Nepal is known for ‘settings’, corruption, dog-eat-dog competition, and collusion. The profiteering is out of control, often at the expense of workers. But the solution does not lie in stifling the industry with criteria like deployment volume, building worker accommodations or expanding office floors.&nbsp; The focus should instead be on enforcing rules and laws in both countries that govern the industry, and the Malaysian labour agreement that has not been renewed since October 2023.&nbsp; Meddling in the industry in ways that harms fair competition and ethical actors means workers suffer. The only issue that should be taking precedence is: how will Malaysia’s 10-point criteria and planned arrangement affect migrant workers? We have seen how for identical Malaysia-based jobs, one worker might pay zero while another pays up to Rs400,000, depending on the employer and recruiter. It is unclear if the 10-point selection criteria rewards the responsible employers and recruiters.&nbsp; As a longstanding host country for Nepali migrants, Malaysia deserves credit for nurturing the small but growing ethical recruitment industry here. Export-oriented companies in Malaysia need responsible recruitment partners and have mentored recruiters to strengthen their practices and move away from worker-paid models.&nbsp; The business case for ethical recruitment standards has led many recruiters in Nepal to pivot with many now in various stages of transition from traditional to hybrid or purely ethical practices. This progress needs to be acknowledged and built upon.&nbsp; Large, well-networked recruiters with large physical assets and high volume of workers seem to be the winners of Malaysia’s 10-point criteria after two years of waiting for the Malaysian market to reopen. Responsible recruiters endure long periods of minimal or no deployments that threatens their survival. The letter now sitting on the desk of the interim government in Nepal deepens the concern: rather than just failing to recognise or reward responsible recruiters, does the international recruitment market actually punish them? Upasana Khadka heads Migration Lab, a social enterprise aimed at making migration outcomes better for workers and their families. Labour Mobility is a regular column in Nepali Times.

Who gets to recruit for Malaysia?

With the holidays over and elections only four months away, Nepal’s interim government led by Prime Minister Sushila Karki is trying to get down to brass tacks. But it is not easy.
On Wednesday, Karki held the first three-way meeting between GenZ representatives, political parties and the government. Despite some acrimony, there was near unanimity about creating the environment for elections on 5 March. 
Only the UML is holding out, still not taking responsibility for the 8 September massacre, and calling for the reinstatement of Parliament. GenZ delegates poured their wrath on the unrepentant UML, but were themselves talking at cross purposes on the demand for a directly-elected executive. 
Karki was on the defensive, her exasperation spilling over: “How do we undo the damage done by corruption, exploitation, and discrimination over the last 35 years in a single month?” 
She is reported to have added, “There is a tendency to not allow this government to work, and then turn around to criticise it for not achieving anything. We are trying our best, and will fulfil our goal of elections no matter what.” 
The Wednesday meeting does seem to have turned the attention of old parties towards elections, and spurred the GenZ and others with political ambition to form parties.
With the deadline for party registration looming, several like-minded individuals and collectives are coalescing, or trying to. The Election Commission is already reviewing applications from more than a dozen new political parties. 
Kathmandu Mayor Balen Shah has held talks with RSP members, but his popularity on social media is not matched by public visibility and accessibility. Intriguingly, Shah and his supporters on social media have been publicly asking for the resignation of Home Minister Om Aryal for not arresting members of the UML-NC government for the 8 September killings. Aryal used to be Mayor Shah’s legal adviser.
Sudan Gurung of GenZ, ex-RSP Sumana Shrestha, and Energy Minister Kulman Ghising are all shopping for existing or new political parties to join. 
The RSP with its alternative anti-corruption agenda would be the logical choice, but there is a question mark over the role of its head Rabi Lamichhane, who is back in jail on charges of embezzlement.
LARGER CABINET
This week, Karki expanded her Cabinet for the third time by inducting Sudha Sharma Gautam as Minister for Health and activist Bablu Gupta as the Minister for Youth and Sports. 
Recommended by GenZ members, Gupta, 28, is the youngest Minister in Karki’s team. But, as has become the norm with this electoral government, two other controversial nominations fell through. Khagendra Sunar was dropped as Minister for Labour because of several ongoing criminal charges, including for assault and inflammatory speech. And Ganapati Lal Shrestha for Minister of Land Management declined at the last moment after he was not given the Tourism and Culture portfolio as preferred. 
Critics say there is a lack of due diligence on the part of Karki’s advisers in selecting candidates. Last month, Sangeeta Mishra who was nominated for Health Minister was dropped after it turned out that she was under investigation at the CIAA. However, Kulman Ghising also had complaints filed at the anti-corruption body, but was still given three portfolios. 
Then the nomination of Tashi Lhazom was withdrawn after an online controversy over her citizenship. There was also outrage on social media about Mishra and Lhazom being singled out for their ethnicity and gender.
Internal leaks making her choices prematurely public has made Karki’s team overcautious about Cabinet expansion. It is also distracting her from her main goal — to hold credible elections by striking a balance between the political parties and GenZ groups.
After a preliminary hearing on 16 writ petitions against the House dissolution and appointment of new government, the Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to issue an interim order.
“The formation of the government is unconstitutional, and a government formed unconstitutionally is not allowed to make any decisions, until the final hearing,” stated advocate Surendra Bhandari. 
The UML, still smarting from the September protests, is trying to put a spanner in the works of the election government. The GenZ, meanwhile, still do not have a consensus over fundamental demands prior to elections. Combined, these two factors portend a precarious future.

Future imperfect

<a href="https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/news/dhm-forecasts-above-average-rainfall-and-temperatures-for-2025-monsoon-28-10.html">This year, </a>Madhes Province received less rainfall than was forecast by the &nbsp;Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM), reducing groundwater recharge of shallow aquifers which are the lifeline for domestic use and irrigation.&nbsp; The crisis was serious enough for the government to officially declare a drought emergency during the monsoon, with the province declared a '<a href="https://kathmandupost.com/national/2025/07/23/cabinet-declares-madhesh-province-a-disaster-crisis-zone?">disaster-hit zone</a>' in July.&nbsp; The monsoon scarcity hit farmers hardest, a majority of whom depend on rainfall for agriculture. Data from Dhanusa’s <a href="https://add.madhesh.gov.np/noticefiles/%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8-%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%87%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8B-%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A3-%E0%A5%A4-1752227917.pdf">Agriculture Development Directorate</a> shows that only 33% paddy plantation was completed by mid July, in comparison to <a href="https://kathmandupost.com/money/2024/07/31/fastest-transplantation-rate-sows-hope-for-bumper-paddy-harvest?">92% planting the same time last year</a>. Only 49% of agricultural land in Nepal is irrigated — farmers in the rest of the arable land rely on rainfall, private wells and groundwater extraction. During the dry seasons and droughts, water insufficient groundwater recharge worsens the water crisis.&nbsp; Nearly 88% of households depend on groundwater in Madhes Province which has about 100,780 shallow tube wells and 60,660 deep tube wells. But in recent times, the tube wells and hand pumps have dried up every year.&nbsp; This shortage disproportionately impacts low income families and small-scale farmers, who have no other alternative to irrigate their land. And because paddy accounts for up to 7% of Nepal’s economy, Madhes’ water crisis is not confined to within the province, but has serious implications on the national economy.&nbsp; Underground water Groundwater extraction for irrigation began in the <a href="https://jvs-nwp.org.np/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Water-Nepal-A-historical-Perspective.pdf">1970s, </a>shallow and deep tube wells for irrigation were introduced with support from development partners. By the 2021 agriculture census, <a href="https://agricensusnepal.gov.np/upload_file/files/post/1731650149_1221316497_Agriculture%20Census%202021_District%20Summary%20Report_by%20Province.pdf">groundwater irrigated land had increased </a>to 41.7%, up from &nbsp;<a href="https://agricensusnepal.gov.np/upload_file/files/post/1694250757_1312300734_National%20Sample%20Census%20of%20Agriculture%202021_22%20(National%20Report).indd.pdf">29.8% in 2011.</a>&nbsp; A lack of strong policies and regulation to monitor unchecked extraction has meant that with the exception of some parts of Kathmandu Valley, domestic users, subsistence and commercial farmers, restaurants, hotels and industries across Nepal can draw any quantity of groundwater from desired depths and location. While the dependence on drilling for water has risen due to limited expansion of surface water infrastructure, there has been little attention to groundwater recharge. This competing use of groundwater threatens the fundamental right to drinking water.&nbsp; The ecologically sensitive Chure and Bhawar watershed play a crucial role in groundwater recharge. However, deforestation and indiscriminate riverbed mining has severely reduced its recharge potential over the years. In addition, widespread monoculture plantation of fast-growing non-native eucalyptus trees, replacing native sissoo and sal trees has compounded the crisis. Eucalyptus, a water intensive species indigenous to Australia, was introduced in the Bhawar region in 1978 for supplying wood. The Tarai’s recurring water crisis is not only climatic. Years of fragmented planning, inadequate budget allocation for groundwater management, as well as limited intra- and inter-government policies and coordination have contributed to the disaster just as much as droughts and floods caused by changing weather patterns. The United Nations said decades ago disasters are not natural, and they occur when we fail to prepare.&nbsp; Groundwater management is <a href="https://www.opmcm.gov.np/download/%e0%a4%86%e0%a4%af%e0%a5%8b%e0%a4%9c%e0%a4%a8%e0%a4%be-%e0%a4%b5%e0%a4%b0%e0%a5%8d%e0%a4%97%e0%a5%80%e0%a4%95%e0%a4%b0%e0%a4%a3%e0%a4%95%e0%a5%8b-%e0%a4%86%e0%a4%a7%e0%a4%be%e0%a4%b0-%e0%a4%a4/?wpdmdl=8990&amp;refresh=683b8df54ffef1748733429">the shared responsibility of federal, provincial and local</a> governments, but there is a lack of <a href="https://www.iwmi.org/blogs/stakeholders-in-nepal-work-together-to-enhance-collective-action-for-municipal-groundwater-management/">integrated planning, &nbsp;budgeting, data sharing</a>, and collective action for groundwater extraction and recharge.&nbsp; Sustainable groundwater use in the plains requires inclusive and equitable practices that combine water science-informed interventions with a long-term cross-disciplinary approach.&nbsp; Groundwater is mainly available either in shallow unconfined aquifers that are close to the surface and directly linked to rainfall and rivers, and deep confined aquifers between semi permeable or impermeable ground layers. Locating and mapping such aquifers would help us find what depth they lie at, how much water they hold, what we can do to recharge them and how much time recharging would take—enabling sustainable use of groundwater. Construction of surface water projects such as the Sun Kosi Marine Diversion Multipurpose Project, which serves a dual purpose of expanding irrigation and recharging groundwater, must be expedited.  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20251027071020_a9442084bc412998d3e7417cf0d057cae8a2b98f5e47ac1a8cc0630612ff2a55.jpg" data-media-id="editor_9" data-image-id="20251027071020_a9442084bc412998d3e7417cf0d057cae8a2b98f5e47ac1a8cc0630612ff2a55" data-rendition-name="original" width="1778" height="1000" loading="lazy" alt="Mitigating the Madhes water crisis NT"> <figcaption>Photo: ONION FILMS / IWMI</figcaption> </figure>  Such infrastructure have a conjunctive use recognised by the National Irrigation Master Plan 2019 and the National Irrigation Policy 2023, wherein farmers can rely on canals for irrigation during monsoon and groundwater during dry seasons.&nbsp; Nature-based solutions such as rainwater harvesting, managed aquifer recharge techniques, restoration of wetlands and retention ponds, and floodwater reservoirs, particularly in ecologically sensitive regions like the Chure Bhaban, should be explored. &nbsp; The management of green water — the water stored in soil and vegetation — is equally as critical as that of blue water (rivers, canals, and groundwater). Green water is lost through evapotranspiration, which contributes to nearly half of the rainfall on land. Deforestation, soil degradation, poor land use practices, and loss of wetlands contribute to the disruption of the evapotranspiration cycle, affecting rainfall patterns and groundwater recharge. Solutions Rising temperatures compound this situation by increasing evapotranspiration. Soil water conservation, vegetation cover, wetland restoration, and nature friendly land use practices must therefore be prioritised. Water-efficient technologies and practices including drip irrigation use of sprinklers, mulching, and soil fertility improvement should be scaled up.&nbsp; At the same time, we must promote irrigation techniques and technologies along with crop choices and cropping patterns that give more yield per drop of water so that food production and water conservation go hand in hand. &nbsp; The government provides subsidised electricity for irrigation starting at Rs2.3/unit, some local governments are even supplying power for free. While such subsidies support farmers and increase productivity, &nbsp;it also poses serious risk of over extraction of groundwater.&nbsp; Flat subsidies in electricity or solar irrigation must be replaced by targeted subsidies in order to balance domestic and agricultural needs with ecological conservation. The 2015 <a href="https://kvwsmb.gov.np/public/uploads/board_act_&amp;_rules/rule-1.pdf">directive for groundwater licensing</a> developed per the Drinking Water Management Board Act 2006 for Kathmandu valley prohibits groundwater extraction from shallow aquifers for commercial and industrial uses. The directive also has provisions for licensing, and renewals, and mandates for license holders to contribute to groundwater recharge. The Madhes needs similar context-specific policies to address its groundwater crisis and safeguard water rights. Shallow aquifers in the region should be prioritised for domestic use while <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-3889-1_11">deep aquifers, which are still underutilised, should be tapped</a> in a sustainable manner for commercial, industrial and large scale irrigation and drinking water projects.&nbsp; While <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-dynamics/articles/10.3389/fhumd.2023.1181734/full">technical solutions</a> are important, they are not enough to solve Madhes’ water crisis. Nepal’s Constitution and the Local Governance Operation Act 2017 empower local governments for water management in their constituencies. But beyond the letter of the law, local units require community tailored groundwater policies, regular groundwater monitoring and up-to-date data, and investment in local recharge initiatives such as retention ponds, restoration of wetlands, and rainwater harvesting. Coordination between all three tiers of government is crucial, particularly among agencies that pertain to drinking water, water resources, irrigation, agriculture, land use, environment, climate change, and urban development. &nbsp; Heeding indigenous knowledge will be crucial to understanding the water crisis in Madhes and initiating solutions that will fit the context and needs of the region. Local engagement in groundwater monitoring can help to create self -aware, accountable, cost effective and participatory groundwater management practices.&nbsp; To ensure water security in Madhes, we thus need inclusive governance, coherent policies, active engagement of citizens, integration of local and indigenous knowledge and a principle of equity that puts people at the centre. &nbsp; Sumitra KC, a policy and governance researcher in natural resources management, is the National Researcher at the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Nepal. Manohara Khadka, PhD, an expert in natural resources management, gender equality, and social inclusion, is the Country Representative of IWMI, Nepal.

Mitigating the Madhes water crisis

Nepal’s cricket team first beat powerhouse West Indies in two out of three matches in September, the first time it won a match and then a series against a test-playing nation.&nbsp; Then the Rhinos played six qualifiers in Oman for the 2026 T20 World Cup which is being held in India and Sri Lanka from 7 February to 8 March next year. The national team qualified comfortably with two games to spare, and won all six matches anyway. In the three months before the World Cup, cricketers will play the second season of the Nepal Premier League from 17 November to 13 December.&nbsp; After a hugely successful first season, steady upgrades have been made. The flood-lit Tribhuvan University Cricket Ground has been fitted with 15,000 seats, even though this takes away from the festival-like atmosphere of fans on their feet on the grassy slope.&nbsp; Last season, matches began at noon and three in the afternoon. Late-evening matches in winter under flood lights will increase attendance and viewership.&nbsp; There is also now technology that will display how far a six was hit and how fast a ball was bowled. Foreign players who will play in the league include Chris Lynn, D’arcy Short, Ravi Bopara, and Sohail Tanvir, all good ex-international players that people have heard of.  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20251101031128_9db0830fb65d0743e3d36cc4b4473e61d750789028a130f5dff8a619307b0215.jpg" data-media-id="editor_0" data-image-id="20251101031128_9db0830fb65d0743e3d36cc4b4473e61d750789028a130f5dff8a619307b0215" data-rendition-name="original" width="1365" height="1803" loading="lazy" alt="Nepal cricket"> <figcaption>Aasif Sheikh drives through the covers on his way to 69 off 41 vs Samoa.</figcaption> </figure>  But the most important point of the Nepal Premier League will be to prepare and experiment for the World Cup, which starts less than two months after the NPL ends. Team Nepal will be extra eager to play well, given that the matches are happening in South Asia and Nepali fans can make the trip.&nbsp; Head coach Stuart Law will be watching each NPL match keenly, to gain more insight into how to best use his current starters.&nbsp; As each of the eight teams are only allowed a maximum of four foreign players in their starting eleven, Law and Nepali fans will also be scouting new talent who will be hungry to emerge and prove themselves to earn a place in the World Cup Squad.&nbsp; ALL-ROUNDERS One of the most unusual features of the current Nepali squad is how many all-rounders there are. Kushal Bhurtel, Rohit Paudel, Kushal Malla, Gulshan Jha, and Dipendra Singh Airee are all regular starters, and they all bat and bowl. Opener Aasif Sheikh is also the wicketkeeper.&nbsp; Airee, of course, is also an excellent fielder. In the first five games of the qualifiers, he got a record five runouts with direct hits, and was on a roll with a run in every single game. This depth means that almost always seven players bowl for Nepal, and the wealth of options keeps the opponent batting order guessing, but it may create hesitancy within the team in tough situations against stronger teams.&nbsp; Countries at the top level of the sport tend to have more specialists. Perhaps Stuart Law might want to tell Bhurtel to really focus on his batting, or Airee to hone his bowling, which seems to be their strengths. The team would be better off with them performing one aspect consistently well than being hit or miss with both. &nbsp;  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20251101031128_c30fdbab65736ea728f2f94fa121d2169e4d3627194ce1fe9de26eebdb3fc5b3.jpg" data-media-id="editor_1" data-image-id="20251101031128_c30fdbab65736ea728f2f94fa121d2169e4d3627194ce1fe9de26eebdb3fc5b3" data-rendition-name="original" width="957" height="1269" loading="lazy" alt="Nepal cricket"> <figcaption>Lalit Rajbhansi with tricky left arm spin, 3/13 vs Samoa.</figcaption> </figure>  POWERPLAYS The Nepali team likes batting first. It chased only against Japan, but they struggle to put up really competitive scores of say, above 170 unless two batsmen do really well.&nbsp; In the second match against the West Indies, Aasif Sheikh’s 68 and Sundeep Jora’s 63 set up Nepal at 173/6. Against Samoa, Aasif Sheikh had 69 and Airee had 53, before Lokesh Bam’s fierce 39 off 12 featuring 4 sixes set up 211/4.&nbsp; Besides these games, Nepal tends to score up to 150 batting first. To the experienced teams that Nepal will face at the world cup, this is not at all an intimidating score. One reason is that Nepal just cannot seem to get going in the first six powerplay overs, when there are limited fielders on the boundaries.&nbsp; A solution to this might be to promote Gulshan Jha up the order. Although Jha has also been an excellent batter in the end overs, using him at three or four might help set up a more productive powerplay and bigger scores. He should try it out with the Karnali Yaks.&nbsp; Despite all the controversy that comes with Sandip Lamichhane, and his strange decision to sit out the West Indies series minutes before the first match started, his output with the ball is undeniable.&nbsp;  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20251101031128_453d54ce627367c537d459c38d260d8aca1d56949c49c8023de582f3e72bb678.jpg" data-media-id="editor_2" data-image-id="20251101031128_453d54ce627367c537d459c38d260d8aca1d56949c49c8023de582f3e72bb678" data-rendition-name="original" width="1499" height="1000" loading="lazy" alt="Nepal cricket"> <figcaption>Nepalis turn out to support the team vs Samoa at Al Ameret Stadium in Oman.</figcaption> </figure>  He took wickets in each of the six qualifiers, most notably five vital ones in the match against Qatar that Nepal won by five runs. Lamichhane also gives away very few runs, which cuts some of the more part-time bowlers some slack.&nbsp; Airee is also economical, and his 3/22 was vital in the one-run win against the UAE. Together with Lamichhane the duo constricted the opposition in the middle overs. Veteran Sompal Kami has not been as productive with the ball, and gave away a lot of runs in the series against the West Indies.&nbsp; This is a weakness, because Kami does not contribute with the bat much. While his experience is valuable to ground the young Nepali team, Stuart Law should look out for fast bowlers during the NPL to help balance out quality spinners.&nbsp; One of the most impressive and professional parts of Nepal’s winning streak has been the attention to detail. The players have been generally excellent in the field, giving away very few runs due to wides or no balls. They had three run outs against the UAE and two against Qatar and Japan and in the first game against the West Indies.&nbsp; The fielders seem much calmer and focused when executing difficult catches, a welcome change from past complacency. This attention to detail makes the difference in narrow games and keeps morale high.&nbsp; The Nepali team has performed well, but besides the narrowly-beaten UAE, all the matches were against teams ranked lower in the world T20 rankings. And the series against the West Indies was against a weakened team. In the world cup, Nepal will be facing much stronger teams and will lack the element of surprise it had in the 2024 World Cup.&nbsp; If Nepal wants to keep improving, it now has to be able to dominate teams like Kuwait and Oman. It also should set up more series with associate nations like Scotland, Ireland, Namibia and The Netherlands. This will help accurately gauge the team’s progress and expose its weaknesses.

world-politics

Hope, hyperbole and hypocrisy of COVAX

Post-Coup Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi and the Way Forward

The right climate for Joe Biden

The right climate for Joe Biden

Who gets to recruit for Malaysia?

Future imperfect

Mitigating the Madhes water crisis

Nepal’s prospects at World Cup 2026