Submit your Article

When envisioning pollution, the stark image of towering cylindrical structures belching dark, noxious smoke into the sky often comes to mind—a reality frequently seen in Nepal’s urban landscapes. This portrayal isn't far from the truth, especially with the prevalence of brick kilns, primarily concentrated in the Tarai region and urban centers like the Kathmandu Valley.

Bricks are an indispensable element in construction and various infrastructure projects. The brick industry is burgeoning due to escalating demand from the expanding urban populace and the reconstruction efforts following earthquakes. As per reports by World bank in 2020, Nepal has approximately 1,600 brick kilns that churn out a staggering 5bn bricks annually. Unfortunately, these kilns also pose a severe environmental threat, contributing substantially to pollution. They release about 1.80m tons of carbon dioxide, 302,200 tons of carbon monoxide, 23,300 tons of particulate matter, 15,500 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 6,000 tons of black carbon into the atmosphere.

The impact, however, extends beyond air pollution, sparking concerns about its impact on soil quality and the crops cultivated therein. The fly ash, a byproduct of brick kilns, disperses as an ash slurry onto nearby lands, water bodies, and vegetation, inevitably diminishing soil fertility and reducing crop productivity. 

Moreover, the geographic positioning of brick kilns poses an additional problem. They’re often situated in the midst of highly productive agricultural lands due to their necessity for quality clayey, silty, and loamy soil, resulting in the extraction of fertile topsoil for brick production, rendering the land even less productive.

The loss of soil fertility presents a significant threat to sustainable agriculture. The soil’s pH plays a crucial role in nutrient availability for crops, ideally ranging between 6.5 and 7.5. However, the proximity of brick kilns causes soil acidification due to coal burning and the release of substantial amounts of sulfur dioxide gas, which, upon combining with water, creates sulfuric acid, lowering the pH. Furthermore, the soil's capacity to retain water diminishes, degrading its quality, while organic carbon, pivotal for soil structure, aeration, water retention, and nutrient supply to plants, also declines in the land near the brick kiln than at the far distance from the various research study conducted in South Asia. The bedrock of crop development hinges on the presence of essential nutrients, notably Nitrogen. However, the emissions discharged from brick kilns disrupt the nitrogen cycle, fluctuating the soil nitrification process. This disruption results in a drastic decline in soil fertility and nutrient levels.

Concurrently, a major concern emerges from the toxicity stemming from heavy metal contamination, particularly arsenic, mercury, chromium, and iron. These metals degrade soil quality, significantly diminishing microbial diversity, and ultimately undermining the overall soil health.

The repercussions extend beyond soil degradation, exerting a direct impact on crops. Depositions such as fly ash, sulfur dioxide, and nitrous oxide settle on leaves, reducing the interception of incident light and causing the clogging of stomata. In addition, heavy metal deposition—cadmium, mercury, and lead—has been detected in crops in close proximity to brick kilns, rendering them hazardous for human consumption.

Advocating for the mitigation of brick kiln emissions and their impact on agricultural lands, especially during the peak brick production period from November to May, is imperative due to the heightened intensity of emissions during this time. This period witnessed a surge in brick production to meet the escalating demand for construction materials, exacerbating the environmental and agricultural implications. It is crucial to address this issue now to safeguard Nepal's agricultural landscape and ensure the well-being of its farming communities amidst this crucial production phase. In the context of Nepal, scant research has delved into the impact of brick kiln emissions on agricultural soil quality, and none have scrutinized the impact on crops. Most studies have concentrated solely on the environmental impact of brick kiln emissions, primarily within the Kathmandu Valley, thereby leaving a conspicuous void. Assessing the current hazardous levels in soil quality and heavy metal concentrations in surface soil, assessing their deleterious impacts on crops, and formulating a comprehensive mitigation strategy are areas to dwell upon in future. Acknowledging the far-reaching impact of brick kiln emissions, strict regulation, meticulous monitoring, and further research are imperative to quantify their impact on agricultural crops and soils. Policymakers must act decisively to regulate the establishment of brick kiln industries for conservation of agricultural lands. The need for policy-level development cannot be overstated in ensuring the protection and sustenance of Nepal’s agricultural landscape.

The agriculture sector, the backbone of the Nepali economy for eons, has been receiving less attention than it deserves. The industrial sector has not been flourishing, either. The private sector is mainly involved in risk-free and unproductive ventures such as real estate and auto business sectors whereas the public sector remains mired in corruption, bribery and smuggling scandals. 

Thanks to the lack of stability, the economy has not even taken off with potential economic sectors capable of boosting the economy unexploited. Reeling under unemployment, an increasing number of people have been leaving the country over the years.  

It can be surmised that a majority of the 0.75m people, who left the country in the fiscal 2022-23, did so in search of employment opportunities. Their destinations included countries in the Middle East such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Israel, and Malaysia, Japan and South Korea in East Asia. 

According to estimates, about 50,000 Nepali people migrate to developed countries annually for permanent residence. In 2023, 1.6m people flew abroad for different purposes, including for permanent settlement in developed countries like the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada. In 2022, according to the Immigration Department, 71,000 people flew out of the country for permanent residence. 

The migration of Nepalis to the United States started in the 20th century. In the beginning, the outmigration was nominal. For the first time in  1974, Nepali living in the US were categorized under a separate ethnic group with the recognition of 56 people as Nepali Americans, a marked shift from the practice of putting Nepalis under the Other Asians category.

Despite a surge in the number of migrants, not even 100 Nepalis used to migrate to the global superpower and economic powerhouse annually until 1996, the year Diversified visa (DV) program was launched in Nepal. Since then, an increasing number of Nepali people have been migrating annually for permanent settlement in the US.

According to  the Pew Research Center, the population of Nepali Americans in 2019 was 198,000, which reached 206,000 in 2020, marking a 4 percent increase in the Nepali population in the US. 

Among them, 78,000 are living in different metropolitan cities of America. Dallas is home to 15,000 Nepali Americans, followed by New York (12,000), Washington (10,000), San Francisco (7,000), Baltimore (7,000), Boston (6,000), Atlanta (5,000), Pittsburgh (5,000), Acron (5,000) and Chicago (5,000).

Nepalis with modest means dream of leading prosperous lives in America. While some are indeed growing rich, a majority of Nepali Americans remain under deprivation. The annual median income (which divides the people in two equal parts on the basis of income distribution above and below median income) of Nepali Americans is  $55,000, far less than the annual median income of all Asian Americans ($85,800) and the median income of all Americans ($68,000). 

Seventeen percent of Nepali Americans are living under economic deprivation, holding low-paying jobs. The percentage of Nepali Americans living below the poverty line is more  than the percentage of Asian Americans (10 percent) and of all Americans (11 percent) below the line. What’s more, only 33 percent of Nepali Americans have their own occupancy, while others are living in rented accommodations. Only 22 percent of Nepali Americans are college graduates against 30 percent Asian Americans. A majority of Nepali Americans are living in relative poverty, near poverty and absolute poverty.

The ‘community forest’ initiative stands as one of Nepal’s most touted conservation development endeavors. Nepal devised the ‘Hariyo Ban Nepal Ko Dhan’ (Forest as national wealth) slogan in the yesteryears with a target of having at least 43 percent forest cover. However, propagators of the campaign say Nepal’s forest dwindled to 40 percent from 45 percent in the 1960s in just 15 years after the nationalization of private forests in 1956. This decline led to the introduction of the ‘community forestry program’ in 1987, transferring forest management responsibilities to local communities. Today, more than 16,186 forest user groups are affiliated with the Federation of Community Forestry Users Nepal, which speaks volumes about the success of the program.

 The program’s underlying motive was to elevate the proportion of forested land in the country by any means necessary. This singular focus led to widespread endorsement and implementation of the project across Nepali society with governmental support, with little room for alternative perspectives. The project’s community-centric name further obscured potential downsides even though the program was implemented without adequate consultation with rural Nepali communities.

 In official rhetoric, community forest was presented as a catalyst for sustainable development of local communities. It promised not just employment opportunities but also income generation through the sale of forest products like herbs and wood. The initiative envisaged forest users groups as autonomous community organizations to manage daily operations and generate resources for various community needs, including drinking water schemes, loans for indigenous people, public infrastructure, road construction and school management, among others. However, the implementation of the program predominantly focused on increasing forest cover. The intricate dynamics of rural livelihoods dependent on forests was largely overlooked.

 When the program was introduced, villages in hilly areas of Nepal were primarily agrarian communities. These communities believed in self-sufficiency in food production. Market dependence for staple food items, especially grains, was frowned upon during those days. Even households with significant cash earnings prioritized subsistence farming for survival. Villagers traditionally stored surplus grains to weather potential crises like droughts, which ensured community resilience and food sovereignty. This helped Nepal become a net exporter of food until the early 1980s.

 Recent researches show that Nepal transitioned to a net importer of food, particularly cereals, from the early 1980s onwards. This shift, many say, is linked to the implementation of new forest policies under the banner of community forest.  Previously, forests were freely accessible to all and they contributed to vibrant rural economies centered around animal husbandry and organic farming. As it was the only available occupation in rural areas, the younger generation participated in subsistence farming.

 Theoretically, there was room for local involvement in the organizational structure of the community forest program. However, the structure was designed in such a way that inadvertently favored control by a select group of local elites. While there were provisions for marginalized communities, particularly women, to participate actively in the program, the nature of duties assigned to members often prevented genuine people dependent on forests from active engagement. As a result, the poorest and most vulnerable members were overlooked while forming management committees. The program’s structure provided an avenue for local elites to assume leadership positions within forest user groups fostering a nexus between local leaders and government authorities. This collaboration was facilitated by the government’s objective to increase forest cover, influenced by Western ideologies, and its need for local partners to execute the initiative. Lately it was understood that the then western donors helped for this project for carbon trading so that they offer token money to countries like Nepal against the saved timbers, which otherwise could be used by locals as firewood for cooking. However, taking forest dwellers away from the jungle products have diverted village livelihood from eco-friendly sustainable life with renewable energy sources i.e. firewood to LPG gas.   

During those days, communication channels were limited to government-owned media outlets, which were accessible to only a fraction of rural households. This made it easier for authorities and the local elites to introduce new initiatives with minimal resistance from the local communities. Village dynamics also facilitated the implementation process, as the endorsement of a few influential male members would be sufficient to rally community support in those days. The attraction of leadership roles within the community forest framework, coupled with the program’s preservation-centric approach, favored those who already possessed land and trees, primarily the locally affluent. Those reliant on forest resources for their daily sustenance consequently found themselves relegated to the sidelines.

The policy of preserving forests by denying access to local communities was a flawed idea as forests are home to numerous renewable resources crucial for both communities’ sustenance and forests’ health. Regular forest management practices such as clipping and trimming could have facilitated faster forest growth, aligning with the intended objectives of the community forest initiative. Some communities did envision allowing villagers to utilize forest products. But it was not sufficient to meet the needs of the local population.

 The program’s structure was focused more on increasing forest cover rather than addressing the immediate needs of people dependent on forests. This initially led to a conflict between management objectives of the programs and the livelihoods of local communities. Despite the program’s punitive measures against collection of forest resources, many villagers, especially women and children, were forced to risk fines and harassment to gather firewood and fodder. The lack of accessible media platforms and social support networks left victims of this flawed policy powerless to voice their grievances. This suppression of traditional livelihood practices forced communities to depend on external resources, which gradually undermined their self-sufficiency.

The government prioritized road construction as a symbol of progress and modernity in later years. Road expansion enhanced connectivity significantly but also facilitated people’s access to external markets. This made a detrimental impact on local production and self-reliance. The easy availability of imported goods amid erosion of traditional farming practices exacerbated Nepal’s reliance on imported food, which led to a staggering increase in food imports over the years. This situation has proven beneficial for market fundamentalists but it has affected those advocating for a sustainable, eco-friendly and self-reliant economy. Nepal’s food imports were nominal until 2001. By the year 2021, the food import bill had surged by a staggering 78 times. This has highlighted a concerning trend of increased dependency on external food sources.

The author is associate professor of Political Sociology at Kathmandu University

If you were to envision an ideal punishment system what would its components be? Penal system is an important measure, a component of the broader system that ensures the wheels of justice are in motion.  A robust punishment system is integral in turning justice from a vain ideal to a pragmatic reality but with time, it is also important to change the modality and the very aim of the punishment system itself. As important as it is to ensure that justice is done to the victims, it is equally important to be prudent in the reform and rehabilitation of the perpetrator. 

A much-needed solution to the prison problem? 

In Nepal, the prevailing mode of our penal system has relied on financial sanctions and incarceration.  As per the Prison Reform International, financial sanctions such as fines are prone to criminalizing poverty and further over-representation of an impoverished minority. In provisions where the person can either pay fines or face incarceration people who are pushed into crimes because of poverty have no choice but to face incarceration and their jail term that further jeopardizes their economic status thus, even though sentencing is done-it is not a rehabilitative measure. Thus, it is important to acknowledge that financial sanctions have a disproportionate effect and often, may confer an adverse effect to the rehabilitative intent of the criminal justice system. 

This puts out a question on the efficacy of our incarceration system. The recidivism rate is ever so higher in the year 2019, as per a report by the Kathmandu Post the crime rate too had increased by 40 percent. Similarly, the physical infrastructures of our incarceration systems are exhausted beyond their capacity. A report presented by The Prison International  showed that Nepalese prisons were occupied and exhausted beyond their capacity as the occupancy rate was 153 percent. The budget for prison is scant as it is and when the designated resources are already in a state of severe scarcity in the prisons, such undercutting is bound to compromise the living condition standards in prisons. Whereas, increasing the funding causes an unnecessary exhaustion of the state’s economic resources at the expense of its taxpayers—so in this scenario, an alternative sentencing measure can be the economically efficient and effective measure to the problems our penal system is riddled with. The state of internal mismanagement along with plethora of problems such as drug use inside prison have riddled our prison system with a plethora of problems making it a brewing ground for chaos. 

But is incarceration the only norm when it comes to punishing the offenders? It is necessary to debunk these assumptions on the incarceration system by facts not mere assumptions and necessary frameworks are required for a penal system that is effective and just to both victims of the crime and conscious of tenants of rehabilitative and restorative justice.  

Sentencing policies: Incentives or sanction based? 

A way to connect sentencing policies with community is by incentivizing community integration i.e., rather than modes of imprisonment and confinement the justice system has to rely on a mode of incentives and rewards so that the rehabilitative intent of the criminal justice system can transform into a practical reality. Policies on sentencing have advanced community-based approaches in contrast to conventional modalities of punishment that inform a pragmatic and theoretical basis as to why community-based sentencing ought to be prioritized. The Criminal Offenses Sentencing and Executing Act, 2074 governs provisions regarding sentencing modalities—the very act in its preamble lucidly puts that the legislation has been provisioned for the intent of creating a just, peaceful and safe society. The very act in its section 13 (d) and (e) lay out two of the primary principles behind punishment. On one hand it emphasizes that the intent of punishment is to rehabilitate and assist to improve and the consecutive section e. emphasizes on keeping the offender astray or separate from the society thus, it puts out a preventive and a rehabilitative intent.

The emphasis on policies that focus on the role of communities in rehabilitation and restoration by incentivizing community integration as a correctional measure is a step for making our punishment system more efficient and humane. In Nepal, the Criminal Offences Sentencing and Execution Act, has envisioned the provision for community service for offenses with up to six months of imprisonment. The act has embraced a modern reform to our criminal justice system by envisioning provision for open prison, parole and probation. Despite the provision of the act, the system of parole has been implemented from 18 Oct 2023 and it is also to be taken to note that parole is not an absolute right-it is a privilege extended to prisoners who meet the conditions prescribed. As per the department of prison some 1,600 prisoners are eligible for parole which indicates a positive policy measure on the part of the government to address the overcrowding issue of prison.

Although, alternative sentencing practices mark a reformist approach to conventional sentencing modalities that emphasize sanctions as opposed to incentive and a more holistic goal that aims to punish the perpetrators whilst being prudent of their necessity to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society. However, alternative sentencing too has to make place for victim centric justice and should be a measure to promote the common good as opposed to the interest of certain political kittas and their aides. Prisons, fines or other alternative modalities should be perceived as correctional facilities and measures rather than an inescapable oblivion and sentencing term should be a journey of redemption as opposed to an institutional purgatory. 

The author is pursuing BA LLB at Kathmandu School of Law