Submit your Article

The Kathmandu Metropolitan City (KMC) has restarted collecting waste following an agreement with the residents of Nuwakot district’s Sisdol and Bancharedanda, two sides selected for the disposal of Kathmandu valley’s solid waste. But many reckon it is only a matter of time before Kathmandu’s garbage problem will rear its ugly head again. Pratik Ghimire of ApEx talked to Dhundi Raj Pathak, a geo-environmental engineer and solid waste management expert, to get some insights into the issue. 

Why hasn’t Kathmandu found a sustainable way to manage its solid waste?

Our ‘collect-and-dump’ approach has created a never-ending waste management crisis. Three decades ago, the majority of our solid waste used to be organic and the people of Kathmandu used to make fertilizers from them. It was a sustainable way to manage household waste. Yes, there were hygienic issues as waste materials were being managed at home. But there are ways to manage waste in a more hygienic way, especially by improving and scaling up the technology.

Unfortunately, we stopped that practice and started throwing waste on the road and dumping it in containers for them to be taken to the landfill. The landfill is one of the last components of integrated solid waste management (ISWM), where only residual waste should be disposed of and that too via a scientific and sanitary process. We have been following the wrong waste management approach i.e. shifting a problem from one place to another instead of adopting a sustainable ISWM approach for decades. 

Who do you hold responsible for this state of affairs?

Every one of us. People don’t segregate their waste at home, nor do the local government and private companies collect and transport the segregated waste separately. Similarly, the federal government seems least bothered with the capital city’s waste management problem. None of the government recognizes solid waste management like urban infrastructures and has not made any investment in the treatment and recovery of solid waste over the past three decades. 

Private companies also followed the same path that  municipalities enjoy. They collect waste and dump it at Sisdol without focusing on resource recovery and service improvement. Gokarna, the first landfill for Kathmandu valley, was shut down for various issues. The KMC then designated Sisdol as a temporary landfill site for two years in 2005, with a permanent one proposed at Bancharedanda. The proposed landfill was never completed and the city continued to dump waste at Sisdol. We have overused Sisdol and overstayed our welcome there. That’s why the KMC repeatedly runs into a conflict with the Sisdol residents. 

Is there a more sustainable way to manage our waste? 

Solid waste management is not only a technical issue; it is also a social and managerial issue. We need both soft (capacity-building and behavioral change) and hard (investment in waste treatment and recovery/recycling facilities) interventions. In the past, we did either only soft interventions (campaigns) or we invested in infrastructure, without much planning and study. So we ultimately remained in the same position without finding a sustainable solution.

Moreover, the selection of waste treatment technology and process of waste management we adopt for (technically feasible and economically viable) depends on the amount and types of waste we produce. Different countries do it differently. Compared to more developed countries, we have a different kind of waste. We have more organic waste with high moisture content; they have more dry wastes like plastics, and papers with high calorific value. 

Before the 80s, landfilling was popular but it caused environmental pollution. Also, the rapid urbanization reduced the suitable lands forcing people to seek alternatives. European countries and Japan once used incinerators to reduce the volume of waste and convert the mixed waste to energy through incinerators. But it affected public health and the environment as those machines were the main emitters of cariogenic gasses. 

Since the 90s, those countries shifted their waste management strategies from waste disposal to recycling and recovery of waste as resources which Nepal can follow strictly. However, it doesn’t mean that we no longer need landfill sites.  The fact is if you follow the waste management hierarchy appropriately i.e. reduce, reuse, recycle, and recover, a significant amount of waste can be diverted from landfilling and only residual waste should be sent to the landfill site. What we should do in the first step is segregate the solid waste into biodegradable and non-degradable materials at the source.

Separate collection, transportation, required treatment and recovery is a must for proper waste management. 

The decentralized solution is handy for the small and less urbanized municipality however the centralized solution would be an appropriate solution for the highly populated cities, like Kathmandu where the availability of land for ISWM facilities is very crucial. Large-scale composting to produce fertilizer is the preferred option considering the huge demand for organic fertilizer and the potential for import substitution. As an alternative to recover the resources from organic waste, waste to energy (biogas plant) for treatment of source-segregated biodegradable waste can be established to generate energy in the form of methane gas. This option doesn’t only recover energy from the biodegradable fraction of solid waste but also provides compost fertilizers.

For non-degradable dry waste, increasing the recycling rate is the most preferred option but this requires more investment for infrastructures. Not only for managing massive amounts of solid waste in a sustainable manner but also for making it a profitable business, larger investments and a business vision is important. This is where the competent private sector and investors should step in. The private sector should take care of waste management where the local government should act as a regulatory body.

Do you think we lack good waste-management policies?

I don’t think so. Our plans and policies are up to date. Where we are lacking is in their implementation. It may be because of low vision, willpower, and confidence in leadership. Without a functional institutional arrangement, no policies could be implemented.

It is important that all solid waste management stakeholders should have collective efforts to find a sustainable solution to this problem. As of now, the first two tiers of government have not provided any technical support to municipals which is a major mistake. A competent federal unit is hence required to assist local levels in all aspects of solid waste management, especially in policy formulation and development of guidelines. 

I learned that the new national solid waste management policy was recently approved by the cabinet and now needs the revision of the solid waste management act, 2011 in the context of three tiers of governments as well as to address a new stream of waste. Moreover, we should introduce investment-friendly policies and plans to attract the private sector for this business with a focus on resource recovery and establishing recycling facilities. Extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws should be introduced to make manufacturers responsible for managing the use of single-use and low-grade plastics as they are either expensive to recycle or can’t be recycled at all. 

What do you suggest stakeholders do?

Collection coverage should be largely extended in the local units of Kathmandu valley and safely transport and disposal at the Bancharedanda landfill site by following sanitary landfill operational guidelines should be mandatory. Also, improvement in the collection and transportation systems with the recovery of resources from waste to reduce its amount at landfill should be implemented. For this, the people (waste producers) should segregate waste at sources at least in biodegradable and non-degradable fractions and keep it at the proper place inside their house premises before collecting by respective service providers. 

Biodegradable waste has to be managed at the source through household composting to make fertilizers if possible. The municipality as well as authorized private companies should collect and transport source-segregated waste separately as per the schedule and treat it in the municipal level treatment plants. The federal government should provide the land where the municipality can build and operate waste treatment and recovery/recycling infrastructures in partnership with the private sector. 

If we follow all the procedures, only residual waste (almost 30 percent of total amount) is what remains to be managed at the sanitary landfill site. Simultaneously, the post-closure and land utilization of Sisdol dumping site should be carried out to reduce existing adverse impacts on the public and the environment. 

As for Sisdol residents, the problems they raised are always valid, and their protest is legitimate, but they have been making irrelevant agreements every time. As a result, the real victims are deprived of justice but a few ill-intended so-called victims have received the advantage while the government has made several agreements just for crisis management instead of problem solving. They should ask for a proper operation of the landfill site—one that does not endanger their health and environment. They instead bargain for jobs and physical infrastructure. If the site is managed as per standard, environmental compensation for the affected area should be distributed for the development and income generating activities of local people on priority basis.

A shorter version of this interview was published in the print edition of The Annapurna Express on June 16.

With the government's decision to waive 90 percent customs duty on the import of sanitary pads, domestic manufacturers are worried their sales will be hit. They fear that their customers will gravitate towards foreign brands. Anushka Nepal of ApEx talks to Punit Sarda, the CEO of Jasmine Hygiene, which has been manufacturing sanitary pads, baby diapers, and face masks for the past 15 years, about the effect of this import duty waiver. 

How will this waiver affect the domestic production of sanitary pads? 

One thing we can be sure of is that our market will be flooded with imported goods. People are already reluctant to buy domestic products. With this reduction on import duty, there is a chance that the customers we already had might also shift towards foreign products because of the reduced price. This causes a ripple effect in the production of sanitary pads. When we are not given space in the market, there is no way we will be able to profit, let alone break even. This will make it impossible for the domestic manufacturers like us to sustain. 

Why do you think people are reluctant to buy Nepali products? 

I would pin it down to three things. First is the lack of branding. While multinational companies already have well-established brands, domestic companies are not given the space to place their products. This disparity makes it difficult for domestic companies to stay in the game. Secondly, it is the ‘imported goods are always better’ mentality that all Nepalis grew up with. We blindly believe that the quality of all Nepali products is inferior, without even giving them a try. Yes, I do admit that sometimes the quality of domestic products might not be up to the standard of imported products. Then again, how will domestic manufacturers improve their products if they are forced to bankruptcy? And lastly, I believe that the government itself is not being supportive enough to uplift local businesses. 

What should be done to convince people? 

Local manufacturers should be given a proper space to sell their products in the market. Right now, they don’t even get a properly space to keep their items in stores. And even if they do, it will be because of the profit percent they have increased for the storeowners. This shows how domestic companies are already at loss from the start. Not many of us know the sanitary pads that come from India are not certified, whereas ours are. But this fact gets ignored since branding has played a major role to push the sales number of imported products. Meanwhile, domestic companies are simply not given a proper platform to advertise their products. Customers should be given the opportunity to try both Nepali and foreign products and decide for themselves. But this is not the case in our country. 

What should government do to help local businesses?

The only solution that I see government can do is increase the customs duty, not just on sanitary pads but all simple daily use products. We as a country have become reliant on other countries for everything, even for a product as simple as toothpastes and soaps. These products are simple enough to manufacture within the country and there are companies that have been manufacturing them. But these companies are not getting the platform to sell their goods. Government should create that platform, so that these locally manufactured products can find customers. 

Will this waiver also affect other domestic products other than sanitary pads? 

If a chain has a weak link, there is definitely going to be some sorts of trouble. It causes a ripple effect. While we are continuously being weaker in one part of our production, multinational companies are benefiting from this loss. While we are struggling to sustain our industry, they are getting a chance to improve on their other products. For them, selling their products won’t be a problem since they are already well-established brands. Domestic companies like ours have been put at a disadvantage by this waiver. We might one day lose our customers for baby diapers and face masks as well. 

The CPN (Maoist Center) won 122 mayors and municipal chiefs in the May 13 local elections–16 more than its 2017 tally. The party had contested the elections as part of a five-party alliance alongside the Nepali Congress, CPN (Unified Socialist), Janata Samajbadi Party, and Rastriya Janamorcha. The primary objective of this alliance was to mount a challenge against the CPN-UML with its formidable organizational strength. 

While the Congress emerged as the largest party, the second spot went to the UML. The Maoist Center came a distant third. Whatever the election outcome, top Maoists leaders are of the view that the current five-party alliance should be continued until the parliamentary elections. 

At the same time, talks about a left alliance, particularly between the UML and Maoists, do not die down. In fact, there is a strong sentiment among the second-rung leaders of both the Maoist Center and UML in favor of a left alliance. 

In this context, Kamal Dev Bhattarai of ApEx talked to senior Maoist leader and party chief Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s close confidant Haribol Gajurel. 
How do you evaluate the party’s performance in local elections?  

The five-party alliance was formed to fight the authoritarian bent of the UML, whose leader tried twice to dissolve a  democratically elected parliament. Broadly, the alliance has been successful. The local election was a battle between progressive and regressive forces. The regressive force has been weakened. The Maoists had expected to win around 150 seats but then the alliance didn’t work as planned in some places. 

Will the current alliance endure until the parliamentary elections? 

Regressive elements are trying to undermine the republic and the federal setup. So the continuity of the current left-democratic alliance is necessary in order to rout them.  The five parties are in discussion on how to make the alliance even more fruitful in the parliamentary elections. 

There are rumors of Maoist Chairman Dahal being offered the post of prime minister if he agrees to a left alliance? 

These rumors are aimed at confusing the people. The party’s rank and file is unhappy with the leadership of KP Oli who failed to keep the erstwhile Nepal Communist Party united. As a result, the previous communist government could not stay in power for the full five years. It is also important to consider that Oli’s UML faced a defeat in the recent local-level elections.  

So the offer of premiership to the Maoist party is nothing more than a UML ruse to neutralize the growing resentment within the UML party and divert attention of party leaders and cadres.

So you then see no chances of a left alliance? 

Personally, I don’t, at least not until Oli abandons his regressive and authoritarian bent. Oli has assigned some of his leaders to convince the Maoist party on a left alliance. But there hasn’t been any progress. Right now, the Maoist Center doesn’t see a solid basis for such an alliance. 

But this is not to say that there aren’t leaders inside the Maoist party or the UML who genuinely believe in the sanctity of the left alliance.  

What about reports about China again pressing left parties to come together? 

China is always in favor of left unity in Nepal. By China, I mean the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), not the Chinese government. It is no secret that the CCP wants to see the left forces of Kathmandu working together.

The government has presented a Rs 1.79 trillion budget for the fiscal year 2022-23. Critics say the allocation is bloated, given the country’s precarious economic situation. The ‘populist’ budget has been bought with the one and only intent of pleasing prospective voters, they argue. Is that really the case? ApEx talked to Achyut Wagle, professor of economics at Kathmandu University School of Management. 

What are the positive points of this year’s budget?

The budget is not very ambitious and is largely a ritualistic continuum of the past. It has expanded by less than nine percent from the last fiscal year. The idea of handing over small infrastructure projects to provincial and local levels is in conformity with the spirit of federalism. Its focus, at least in principle, on increasing productivity, particularly in agriculture, is welcome. The scheme to gradually replace cooking gas stoves with electric induction stoves with the objective of increasing the consumption of domestically-produced hydroelectric power is also a welcome proposition. Farmers’ pension scheme and setting up of a separate fund to increase farmers’ access to agricultural loans, if implemented, can help make agriculture more attractive. Incentives for tourism and export promotions were also desirable. ‘Make in Nepal’ and ‘Made in Nepal’ certainly create some branding vibe and opportunity for Nepali products.

When then are its biggest downsides?

The budget certainly has missed the bull’s eye. In 10 and half months of the current fiscal year, only 33 percent of the capital allocation has been spent. Such a trend is also observed in provincial and local governments. This exhibits Nepal’s serious capacity constraint in resource absorption. This has multiple ramifications. The shortage of loanable funds in banks is a major concern. Infrastructure and development activities naturally get curtailed as a result. This, in turn, affects the overall economy. The budget lacks convincing programs to enhance productivity and create enough jobs. On the front of agricultural productivity, lack of availability of cultivable land for commercial scale agriculture has been a big concern that this budget seems to completely ignore. Incentives, subsidies and rewards will be meaningful if there is production. The budget also has failed miserably to take subnational governments on-board in key programs related to boosting trade and productivity.

There is also a criticism that this budget is populist and election-centered. 

In multiparty competitive politics, it is natural for incumbent forces to make all possible effort to woo voters through populist elements in the budget. This government of five-party coalition is no exception. Extended social security schemes and extensive pork-barrel approach in allocation certainly indicate that. 

But this will certainly put pressure on the exchequer as it is an unsustainably deficit budget. The proposed deficit financing of over 30 percent in an allocation of Rs 1.79 trillion is unsustainable, and financing unproductive populist schemes by borrowing is absolutely undesirable. The national debt has already crossed the 38 percent mark of the revised GDP of Rs 4.85 trillion.

Will this budget help overcome the current economic crisis?

This is the saddest part of this budget. Nepali economy is heading towards a crisis primarily for three reasons. The first is the growing trade deficit that needs to be bridged entirely in foreign currency. Real exports are small due to limited value addition on input-imports. The major source of forex is workers’ remittance, which is always volatile. Our big trade deficit is also an indication of import-dependence even for survival. The budget has failed to take up and address these entangled issues. 

The second issue is the dismal state of capital expenditure. A thorough review of the problems and commitment of structural and legal reforms, for instance in facilitating transparent and timely public procurements including at the local government levels, is missing. 

Lastly, the country faces a crisis in fiscal governance at every level of government. This has given rise to pervasive corruption, irregularities and, the most alarmingly, impunity for financial crimes. 

This budget has deliberately missed these key aspects, which could result in further inefficiency and exacerbate the crisis.

What are the budget’s implementation challenges?

The revenue target may not be achieved without serious reforms in revenue administration. As Nepal’s main revenue source is customs duty, it is vital to break the politician-business-bureaucrat nexus to check under-invoicing of imported goods. But this will happen only with strong political will. 

Sourcing international funds to the tune of around Rs 300 billion (in loans and grants) is definitely daunting. Development partners are unlikely to commit new support until parliamentary elections are over. 

The ‘swadeshi’ sloganeering might just turn out to be a fiasco, as it lacks a mechanism of investment in the productive sector. Viable products for the scheme that have both scope and scale have not been identified; moreover, the possible backward linkage to Nepali products is not even duly thought about. 

Labeling the products that don’t even have 20 percent value addition as ‘swadeshi’ is a mockery of the branding endeavor.