Dec 282016

Lead envoy of Least Developed Countries bloc and chief advisor assess whether the COP22 talks last month offer hope dangerous warming will be stopped

(Pic: UNFCCC/Flickr)

(Pic: UNFCCC/Flickr)

By Tosi Mpanu-Mpanu and Manjeet Dhakal

The Paris Agreement entering into force in record time, just eleven months after its adoption, framed the Marrakech Climate Conference.

Resource-constrained and vulnerable countries like ours – the least developed countries – do not have the luxury of time to continue negotiations and implementation at a slow pace.

Climate change related events are already causing loss of life and property, with accelerating impacts at home, affecting our fellow delegates between each subsequent round of climate talks.

We looked to Marrakech to give implementation momentum and to ensure that global businesses and political leaders remain engaged and willing to contribute in the fight against climate change and to fully implement the Paris Agreement.

The climate talks made progress on several issues important to the least developed countries (LDCs).

One of those is capacity building – helping to ensure that vulnerable countries have the institutional capacity to implement the Paris Agreement and mobilise actions at the country level.

The Paris Committee on Capacity Building (PCCB) established in Paris is now operational and its first meeting in May next year should be able to make substantive progress to start implementing its activities planned for 2016-2020.

Marrakech was also able to lay the foundation for the major international work stream related to loss and damage. 

Even if we limit warming to 1.5C, we know that our people will be dealing with the impacts of climate change that go beyond their ability to adapt.

Therefore, having a strong international framework is essential to ensuring that there are adequate resources and capacities available to deal with these problems.

This was a very hard fought element of the Paris Agreement, and now the institutional basis needs to be built so that this becomes more than words on paper.

Marrakech approved the indicative framework for activities on loss and damage for the next five years and reached agreement on a regular review of the Warsaw International Loss and Damage mechanism to further enhance and strengthen it.


The “Marrakech action proclamation for our climate and sustainable development,” endorsed at the climate talks, sets the tone for Paris Agreement implementation.

The proclamation that is inspirational highlights the importance of moving forward as a united global community in urgently addressing climate change, calling for solidarity amongst all to mobilise efforts and resources towards implementation and actions.

Beside formal negotiations, the Marrakech conference saw key concrete outcomes that included a number of ambitious initiatives, bringing together diverse stakeholders with the aim to increase climate action before 2020.

The ‘Marrakech partnership for global climate action‘ aims to catalyse and support climate action before 2020 through the joint effort of government and non-government initiatives and by increasing flows of finance, technology and capacity building.

There is much to be done through scaling up support and investment in climate solutions before 2020 to lay a foundation to swiftly move towards post-2020 actions.

Vulnerable countries also launched ambitious initiatives during the climate talks.

The Global Partnership on Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency brings together five regional renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives from Africa, small island developing states (SIDS) and least developed countries (LDCs), as well as collaboration with central American countries.

The Partnership aims to bring renewable energy to 1.3 billion people who currently lack adequate access to energy.


The LDC Renewable energy and energy efficiency initiative (REEEI) for Sustainable Development, also launched in Marrakech, is part of that partnership.

It aims to boost renewable energy in LDCs while promoting energy efficiency, recognising the crucial role that energy plays in rural development, industrialisation and the provision of services.

A number of LDCs who are part of the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF) have also committed to 100 percent domestic renewable energy production by 2050, taking into consideration national circumstances and working together to end energy poverty and protect water and food security.

The decision in Marrakech calling for an acceleration of the work on development of the rule-set of the Paris Agreement is certainly a positive move.

Unfortunately, however, this does ensure the finalisation of work in developing the rule-set for implementation of the Paris Agreement next year, as called by LDCs.

The Marrakech decision relating to the implementation of the Paris Agreement agrees to review progress on the implementation of the work programme under the Paris Agreement in 2017 and finalise the rule-set by COP24 in 2018.

LDCs were of a view that among further work needed in the rule-making process, some work strands can be completed sooner than others.

Nevertheless, the Marrakech decisions have now stalled the final decision making of all the rule-making activities until the end of 2018.

Slow progress

The negotiations since Paris have still not entered the intensive technical discussion mode on a number of issues that were mandated by the Paris outcome. This needs to happen with urgency and energy from the next sessions in 2017 for the full Paris rule-set to be adopted in 2018.

Unfortunately Marrakesh dealt mainly with procedural issues aimed at mapping out a work programme in 2017 for different elements of the rule-set.

Whether it was about defining the nature of countries’ future nationally determined contributions (NDCs) – containing action plans and emission reduction pledges that have to be communicated every five years – or designing the architecture of the transparency and accounting system – so that we all know what each country is doing with equal clarity, the talks moved slowly.

This is hardly the result that one would have expected after a year of intense exchanges of views on these matters.  It is very disappointing that the only result is one calling for further submissions and schedule of workshops.

Such outcomes are very difficult to communicate to people back home who are eagerly waiting to see progress on implementation and actions.

Mobilising finance to assist vulnerable countries with adapting to climate change impacts is the key enabler for promoting implementation and action. Climate finance was high on the agenda in Marrakech, as we expected.

While most developing countries have also submitted plans to limit their emissions in their intended or final NDCs under the Paris Agreement, many have also noted the need for support in order to carry out their commitments.

Some preliminary estimates of the total amount of finance required for developing countries to implement their NDCs exceed $4 trillion USD. Given that only half of developing countries provided estimated costs in their NDCs, the real figure is likely to be much higher.

All this stresses the urgency of NDC implementation and that finance is key to unlocking the much greater ambition required to limit temperature increase to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels and to foster climate resilience and low carbon development.

Marrakech should have reached a milestone in building further clarity on the roadmap for reaching the US$100 billion goal for annual climate finance and scaling up the mobilisation of support before and after 2020.

But COP22 was not able make concrete decisions on finance matters and agreed only to continue the discussions in further subsequent sessions and workshops.

The outcome from the Marrakech did not get to the point of further clarifying the methodologies on how developed countries provided their roadmap on how to reach the $100 billion, nor did it initiate a discussion on how to set a new goal prior to 2025 based which was a mandate from Paris.

The roadmap that developed countries launched in October 2016 shows that there is a great imbalance between adaptation and mitigation finance- even with a pledge to double adaptation finance by 2020 it will be only represent 20% of total climate finance.

Still, we saw a ray of hope on the sidelines of the negotiations, when the Green Climate Fund (GCF) announced it will fund two LDCs (Liberia and Nepal) to prepare their medium and long term adaptation plans (NAPs) through the fund’s new and expedited procedure – the first countries to receive such support.

Also we are grateful for recent pledge made to the LDC Fund that will be used to finance projects that were already submitted.

In LDC Fund, still there are additional 35 projects, worth USD 231.4 million, that are technically cleared and waiting for support have yet to be funded. We look forward for additional contributions for the full implementation of short term (NAPA) and longer term (NAPs) adaptation needs.

1.5 to stay alive

Science tells us that beyond temperature increases of 1.5C, the future of our planet stands on increasingly thin ice. It is imperative for communities across the world that governments take seriously the legally binding long-term 1.5°C temperature limit in the Paris Agreement.

We heard many, including northern non-governmental organisations, describe this as an “aspirational goal”. It is not.

The Paris Agreement is legally binding, and its long-term temperature goal binds all countries to continually update the ambition of their actions to ultimately meet this goal.

The necessary, upward spiralling of actions and commitments to cut emissions to zero by around mid-century is both fair and proportionate to the challenge rising before us. It is vital and not something that can be merely seen as aspirational.

While international political progress over the past year has been significant, countries are still far from implementing actions on the scale required to steer the planet away from dangerous climate change and achieve the goals that have been set under the Paris Agreement.

For developing countries, and in particular the LDCs, it is important to continue working towards a strong and fair international response to climate change, to protect poor and vulnerable communities across the world and safeguard the planet for future generations.

Even though 2018 will be the time for final decision making to endorse the remaining work on finalising the Paris Agreement rule-set, there is much that can and needs be done in 2017.

The workshops and roundtables scheduled throughout 2017 and two formal negotiating sessions must achieve more than calling for the next round of meetings and submissions.

It is very important that as much as possible is done in 2017, as 2018 will be very busy with the Facilitative Dialogue which is focused on the aggregate level of mitigation ambition being put forward by governments in relation to the 1.5C limit in the Paris Agreement, supported by a special-purpose IPCC report on 1.5C, due in September of that year.

The LDC Group at the UN climate change negotiations will be led by Ethiopia for the year 2017 and 2018. Ethiopia has led by example with mobilisation of tremendous efforts at home in promoting climate action and particularly initiatives on renewable energy.

The LDC Group will continue to engage in future subsequent negotiating sessions in a constructive manner and leading by example.

We do not have the luxury of time to continue negotiations without concrete outcomes and we look forward to these outcomes serving the expectations of the poor and vulnerable back home.

LDCs returned home from Marrakech with mixed feelings, but with a confident expectation that the international process will steer towards recognising the urgency of climate action for the planet and its people.

Tosi Mpanu-Mpanu is the Chair of the the least developed countries (LDCs) Group at UN Climate Change negotiations.  Manjeet Dhakal is Advisor to the Chair of the LDC Group

Continue reading »

Dec 232015

The article was published on the Nagarik daily (23 Dec, 2015)

कोपनहेगन सम्मेलनपश्चात धर्मराएको संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघीय वार्ता प्रक्रियामा छ वर्षपश्चात नयाँ आयाम देखापरेको छ । संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघअन्तर्गत भइरहेका छलफलबाट पृथ्वीमा भइरहेको तापक्रम वृद्धि र त्यसका असर समाधान गर्ने उपाय जटिल बन्दै गइरहेको अवस्थामा पेरिस सम्मेलनले सकारात्मक आशा जगाएको छ । यसमा आयोजक राष्ट्र फ्रान्सले अपनाएको पारदर्शी नीति र कूटनीतिक परिपक्वतालाई सराहना गर्नैपर्छ । यसो भनिरहँदा यो सहमति आफँैमा पूर्ण भने छैन । यसमा व्याख्या गरिएका अवधारणा र नियमित गर्नुपर्ने केही प्रावधानको कार्यान्वयनले नै यो सहमतिको प्रभावकारिता या सफलता मापन गर्नेछन् । त्यसैले पेरिस कति सफल रह्यो भन्ने विषय भविष्यमा विश्लेषण गर्दै जानुपर्छ ।

तापक्रम वृद्धिमा नियन्त्रण

औद्योगिकीकरणपश्चात वायुमण्डलमा हरित गृह ग्यासको अधिक उत्सर्जन भएकाले हालसम्म पृथ्वीको औसत तापक्रम लगभग ०.८५ डिग्री सेल्सियसले वृद्धि भइसकेको छ । बढ्दो तापक्रमलाई २ डिग्री सेल्सियसभन्दा कममा सीमित गर्न यसअघि सहमति भएको भए तापनि यस पटक सो सहमतिबाट अघि बढ्दै तापक्रम वृद्धिलाई २ डिग्रीभन्दा निकै कम गरी १.५ डिग्री सेल्सियससम्ममा सीमित गर्न राष्ट्र सहमत भएका छन् । यसका लागि विकसित राष्ट्रहरुको अग्रसरतामा बाँकी सम्पूर्ण राष्ट्रले हरित गृह ग्यास उत्सर्जन कम गर्ने योजना नियमितरूपमा बुझाउँदै जानुपर्नेछ । यसरी बुझाइएको योजनाहरुको प्रभावकारिताका साथै विकासोन्मुख देशहरुले प्राप्त गर्ने सहयोगको अवस्थाबारे प्रत्येक पाँच वर्षमा समीक्षा गरी थप अग्रसरता लिन सूचित गरिने विषय पेरिस सहमतिका प्रावधानमा उल्लेख छ ।

को बढी जिम्मेवार ?

नयाँ सहमतिमा जानका लागि पेरिस सम्मेलनले झेल्नुपरेको अर्को जटिल विषय भनेको विकसित र रत गतिमा विकास भइरहेका विकासोन्मुख देशमध्ये कसले कति जिम्मेवारी लिने भन्ने थियो । हाल भारत र चीन सबैभन्दा अधिक हरित गृह उत्सर्जन गर्ने देशहरुको सूचीमा अग्रस्थानमा पर्छन् । वर्तमान अवस्थामा विकसित देशहरुले भन्दा विकासोन्मुख देशहरुले गर्ने कुल हरित गृह ग्यास उत्सर्जन धेरै छ । तर पनि विगतमा भएको उत्सर्जनको विश्लेषण गर्ने हो भने अझै पनि विकसित देशहरु धेरै जिम्मेवार रहेको अवस्था छ । Continue reading »

Jan 222014

The article was published on the Nagarik News (22 Jan, 2014)

विश्व वातावरण संरक्षण र दिगो विकासका लागि भएका पहलमध्ये मुख्यतः सन् १९९२ मा ब्राजिलको रियो दि जेनिरियोमा भएको पृथ्वी सम्मेलनबाट पारित जलवायु परिवर्तनसम्बन्धी संयुक्त राष्ट्रसंघीय खाका महासन्धिको मुख्य उद्देश्य विश्व उष्णीकरणमा प्रमुख भूमिका रहेको मानव सृजित हरित गृह ग्यास (अर्थात् समग्रमा कार्बन) उत्सर्जनमा कटौती गर्नु थियो।

महासन्धिमा उल्लेख भएअनुसार हरित गृह ग्यासको उत्सर्जन घटाउने प्रमुख जिम्मेवारी विकसित राष्ट्रहरुको हुनेछ भने विकासोन्मुख राष्ट्रहरुका हकमा भने अर्थ र प्रविधि सहयोग प्राप्त गरेको खण्डमा मात्र यस्ता उत्सर्जन घटाउने क्रियाकलापमा संलग्न हुनेछन् भनिएको छ। महासन्धिमा सिद्धान्ततः कार्वन उत्सर्जन घटाउने भनिए तापनि कसले र कति मात्रामा घटाउने भन्नेबारे पछि हुने सहमतिहरुमा उल्लेख हुने भनिएको थियो। फलस्वरूप सन् १९९७ मा जापानको क्योटो सहरमा भएको महासन्धिका पक्ष राष्ट्रहरुको तेस्रो सम्मेलनमा क्योटो प्रोटोकल पारित भयो। यो अनुमोदन गरेका विकसित राष्ट्रले पहिलो प्रतिबद्धता अवधि अनुरूप सन् २००८ देखि २०१२ सम्ममा सन् १९९० मा उनीहरुले गरेकोे उत्सर्जनभन्दा औसत५ प्रतिशतले कमी ल्याउने प्रतिबद्धता जनाएका थिए। गत वर्ष कतारको दोहामा भएको महासन्धिका पक्ष राष्ट्रहरुको अठारौं सम्मेलनले यो प्रोटोकोलका प्रावधानलाई अर्को आठ वर्षका लागि थप गर्दै दोस्रो प्रतिबद्धता अवधिमा सन् २०१३ देखि २०२० सम्म ती राष्ट्रले औसत् १८ प्रतिशतले कार्वन उत्सर्जन घटाउनुपर्ने निर्णय गर्‍यो।

क्योटो प्रोटोकलका प्रावधान केही ठीक रहे तापनि यसले अधिकतम् कार्वन उत्सर्जन गर्ने राष्ट्रहरुलाई समेट्न नसक्नु, समग्रमा कार्वन उत्सर्जन घटाउन खासै योगदान नहुनु र उत्सर्जन घटाउने प्रतिबद्धता गरेका राष्ट्रले प्रतिबद्धता पूरा गर्न बाध्यकारी प्रावधान नहुनु यसका कमजोरी रहे। फलस्वरूप दोस्रो प्रतिबद्धता अवधिमा उत्सर्जन अलि बढी प्रतिशतले घटाउने भनिए तापनि त्यसको खासै अर्थ रहेन। तत्कालीन अवस्थामा अधिकतम् उत्सर्जन गर्ने राष्ट्र जस्तै– अमेरिकाले क्योटो प्रोटोकल कहिल्यै अनुमोदन गरेन भने हाल अधिकतम् उत्सर्जन गर्ने चीन र भारत जस्ता द्रुत गतिमा विकास भइरहेका राष्ट्र यो प्रोटोकलको दायरामा पर्दैनन्। यो प्रोटोकलको यस्तो असफलतासँगं गत वर्ष जापान, रुस र क्यानडाले समेत यसबाट हात झिकेका छन्। यी क्रियाकलापको प्रत्यक्ष असर कार्वनको बजारमा देखियो जुन लगभग तहसनहस स्थितिमा छ।

क्योटो प्रोटोकलका यिनै कमजोरी सम्ााधान गर्दै महासन्धिको उद्देश्य पूर्णरूपमा पालना गर्ने हेतुले सन् २०११ म्ाा दक्षिण अफ्रिकाको डर्वान सहरमा भएको सम्मेलनबाट नयाँ सहमतिका लागि नयाँ थालनी गरियो। जसअनुरूप सन् २०१५ मा हुने महासन्धिका पक्ष राष्ट्रहरुको २१ औं सम्मेलनले नयाँ सहमति गरी त्यसको कार्यान्वयन सन् २०२० बाट लागु हुने निर्णय गरियो। नयाँ हुने भनिएको सहमति सम्पूर्ण राष्ट्रलाई मान्य हुनेछ भनिए तापनि Continue reading »

Apr 092013

This article was published on The Republica (9 April, 2013) 

A number of western news wires and climate pundits seem to be euphoric over the ‘declaration’ of some of the poorest countries to cut emissions of Green House Gases to tackle runaway climate change. We will soon know whether the group of least developed countries (LDCs) actually made the commitment, and if it is worth such a wide coverage, but let us first examine whether such a move from the LDCs will have any significance.

Scientific evidences suggest that the world is on the path to becoming 4 °C warmer within this century. It has already been verified that warming above 1.5 °C will cause serious threats to the development and even survival of communities in the most underprivileged parts of the world. A recent report by World Bank said, “A world in which warming reaches 4°C above preindustrial levels would be one of unprecedented heat waves, severe drought, and major floods in many regions, with serious impacts on human systems, ecosystems, and associated services.” But developed countries, which are primarily responsible for, and have the ability to avert, this catastrophe, remain nonchalant.

Twenty plus years have passed since negotiations started among the countries under United Nations to find ways to keep the temperatures rise under safe limits so as to stabilize the climate. In recent years, with countries like China, Brazil, South Africa and India catching up with the United States and European countries not only in economic development but also in Green House Gas emission, a debate over who should take the lead in reducing emissions has been started. The negotiating parties are at loggerheads, with developed countries unwilling to take actions without emerging economies agreeing to binding emission cuts, while emerging economies cite the historical responsibility of developed countries. Forced to remain in the sidelines, LDCs and small island developing states (SIDS) urged developing nations to take note of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC) acknowledged in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The 49 LDCs representing 12 percent of the world’s population are responsible for only four percent of global emissions, but are the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Continue reading »

Sep 232012

This article was published on Climate Action Network Int’l Voice Blog 

Bangkok CC Conference (photo: ENB, IISD)

It has been nearly three years since I started following the climate change negotiations. I first attended the UN Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC) intersessional meeting in Barcelona organized just before Fifteenth Conference of Parties (COP15), a well-known Copenhagen climate summit. After that, I got selected as a Southern Capacity Building Fellow of CAN International for two years (2010 and 2011). Southern Capacity Building Program is more about strengthening capacity of civil society members from developing countries on climate change negotiation. I attended every COP and intersessions during 2010 and 2011 as a fellow.

After having some experience at the grassroots level and this short engagement in the UNFCCC process, I find it very challenging to link the expectations of communities with the progress of ongoing negotiations. Last week, after attending the Bangkok intersession, I faced a similar situation- having to update the communities within my country about the current state of negotiation. The Bangkok intersession was about exchanging of ideas on key issues to build on Durban decisions and finding ways to bring one of the Ad-hoc working groups to conclusion. This is not easy to convey to the grassroots people, who were waiting for action, not discussion.

Furthermore, the Bangkok session focused on how to raise ambition and strengthen international cooperation while finding ways to frame the Ad-hoc Working Group on Durban Platform (ADP) to deal with what will be implemented by 2020. Similarly, Ad-hoc Working Group-Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and Ad-hoc Working Group – Long Term Action (LCA) were focused on fulfilling specific mandates from COP 17 and to resolve outstanding issues to ensure the successful completion of the group’s work in COP18. In reality, this makes little sense to the communities. Continue reading »

Jul 172011

Regardless of whatever the outcome were Copenhagen was successful in making a historical gathering of a large number of participants among the UNFCCC COPs. In freezing Copenhagen streets, people from around the world demonstrated and urged world leaders to limit developed country emissions and to compensate their past actions. But a small group of powerful people inside the Bella Centre betrayed everyone by letting us down and to compromising our future. At that point, I remember a slogan hung up during climate negotiation “Don’t negotiate with our future”. Science has already proven that human activity is the cause of the climate change problem through increased emissions of greenhouse gases in recent decades. This situation is similar to the situation where I have to pay the debt of my grandfather and my grandchildren will be taking even more burdens in the future. So, I just wonder what kind of world we are really planning to build?

Youth interventions at UNFCCC meeting always excite me. They often start it with, “My name is _ _ and I am XX years of age and I will be YY years old in 2050”. I have noticed timid expression with discomfort Continue reading »

Jun 152011

Blogging from Bonn Climate Talk

Cancun set an excellent example how the outstanding leadership of a host country could effectively shape the discourse. With the Cancun Agreement as an output on the table, many issues need further discussion and more political willingness. As a follow-up for next year, discussion started from Bangkok on last April. Agenda became main agenda for Bangkok Climate Talk. The week long discussing went around only discussing agendas of Ad-hoc Working Groups and finally succeeded. Now we are at Bonn, Germany climate capital, where world meets every year to talk about climate.

I feel really embarrass and discomfort to open up this story of Bonn Meeting. We discussed on agenda for Subsidiary Bodies (SBs) on first week and are now discussing on where the next meeting should be held. Now let’s go one my one: first on the agenda and on the next meeting issues. This would be best agenda to discuss.

One of the reasons to open-up the discussion on the agenda was because of some new proposals from some countries such as water resources, blue carbon, agriculture, and the rights of nature and ecosystems. Finally, parties agreed to work on the understanding that consultations would continue.

Papua New Guinea attempt to push Blue Carbon in an agenda by introducing it as an effective solution to reduce atmospheric CO2 by conserving water plants which dubbed carbon sequestration more effectively (up to 100 Continue reading »

Jun 122011

Brazil’s second largest city, Rio de Janeiro, witnessed the first ever gathering of environmental campaigners/caretakers and produced an international environmental treaty (UNFCCC) with an objective to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference in 1992. After one and half decades, the discourse took new dimensions in Bali, developing a new road map as a two-year process of finalizing a binding agreement in 2009 in Copenhagen. But brushing aside this huge expectation, Copenhagen only produced a weak political statement titled the ‘Copenhagen accord.’ The summit could not pave a way forward for this global issue.

The road from Copenhagen to Cancun, in 2010, was also not that easy.  Cancun set an excellent example how the outstanding leadership of a host country could effectively shape the discourse. It was a well known fact that many issues were still on the table that are still unresolved, need further discussion and more political willingness.

To my surprise, these climate discourses always opt for places/countries that start with an interesting first letter. Copenhagen was followed by three meetings in Bonn and semi-final at China’s beautiful city Tianjin. Cancun was another important milestone that was also able to keep up trust on UN process. It was then followed by Bangkok and now at Bonn, both the climate capitals of Asia and Europe, respectively. One of the issues that needs resolution here is where will the next intersessional will be held. My opinion is to follow the ritual so go for places that start with initials B, C or D! But of course not Copenhagen!

Now on the way to the match in Durban, termed the “African COP,” many issues Continue reading »

Feb 052011

 Published on: Sano Paila 02

For the quintillionth time, I’ve heard the senior negotiators saying that the real negotiations happen at mid night and decisions are taken after many people go to sleep. So my curiosity-saturated self decided to stay overnight during negotiations to observe what actually happens at night.Picture source:

I confess of my limited knowledge and understanding of issues during my participation in COP15 at Copenhagen. At that time, it was very difficult for me to trace the ongoing discussion on technology transfer. The meeting on the first day of the second week went quite long and all my colleagues had already left the venue. Because I was so resolute (and dare I say, excited) about experiencing the late night negotiations LIVE, I reluctantly ignored other tempting invitations for dinner and such outside the Bella center (the UNFCCC venue). The late night meeting ended without any conclusion, and it was then that I realized that it was already 3 am in the morning. As it was very cold outside, I decided to spend the remaining few hours until dawn inside the Bella Center, and thus, landed on a sofa. I didn’t have a clue when my eyelids evaded me and I fell asleep.

I was deep into my dreams when I was trudged back to reality by a stern voice of a tall dark UN security personnel, who, rather ruthlessly, reminded me that I had violated the security regulations by sleeping inside the UN premises. I wanted to reply back, respond, say something. But my half-sleepy, weary self was only waiting for him to disappear so that I could rest my eyes again. The same scene repeated for about three times, one can only imagine how irritated the security personnel had become at that moment! But before he came to wake me up for fourth time, I forced my sleepy fatigued self to stand up and rush for coffee machine!

Oct 082010

Published on Climate Change and Nepal Blog thoughts during the Tianjin (China) Climate Discussion….. manjeet blogging from Tianjin

Culturally in Nepali society parents find the better-half for their adult son and daughter, my family included. This practice may seem unrealistic awkward and, surprising for the people of other society, but it has been working successfully for many years, what’s more  the rate of divorce is lower in our traditional society than that of in other societies. This custom of finding spouse, by parents, who are totally unknown to us until the first night after marriage that usually gifts happy-married life. Let us imagine a girl or a boy whom you have never met or even never imagined before to whom you are supposed to spend your whole life. However, no problem! We tell it a fast start process; here is the story in UNFCCC version.

Parents will look for their son/daughter-in-law, to whom we ever know. However, it works and is in going well until these days; moreover, we say it is “fast start” process. Imagine, a girl or a boy you ever had not met, but you are supposed to bear whole life with him/her. Continue reading »