Waste management in Nepal is not just a problem today. It is an issue that has been at the center of continuous political and social debate for decades.

From the traditional leaders of the Panchayat period to today's alternative leadership representatives, 'Balen' put waste management on the agenda, but they could not convert it into long-term policies and institutional solutions. Despite repeated commitments to 'clean cities', 'healthy environment', and 'sustainable development' in every era and despite being on the political agenda for decades, why did the expected improvement not happen in practice? The question remains unanswered even today.

The era of the 'Ba' generation: Understanding limited to cleanliness

During the Panchayat period, waste management was basically understood as a matter of cleanliness. Cleaning the streets, picking up garbage and throwing it outside the city - that was all that was considered management. At that time, urbanization was limited, the population was low, and the consumption culture was not as intense as it is today. Since the amount of plastic, packaging materials, and industrial waste was low, the problem did not seem serious.

That is why waste management did not become an integral part of long-term policies, environmental strategies, or urban planning. The focus of the political leadership remained on roads, buildings, and other physical infrastructure. The awareness that waste could become a structural crisis of the future could not be institutionalized at that time.

Multi-party system: Agenda established, no continuity 

With the advent of the multi-party system after 2046, waste management gradually began to be established as a political agenda. It began to be mentioned in policies and programs by linking it with environmental protection, public health, and urban development. International commitment, activism of NGOs, and growing environmental awareness also brought this issue to the forefront.

However, the political instability seen during this period - frequent changes of government, instability of coalitions, and short-term thinking - became the biggest obstacle to long-term planning and implementation of waste management. The tendency of another government to not continue a program started by one government prevented it from becoming a long-term plan. Thus, waste management was seen as an 'important but troublesome' issue, from which there was little immediate political benefit.

Republic and federalism: Rights came, capacity did not come

After the establishment of the republic and especially after the implementation of the federal structure, waste management gained legal and constitutional recognition. The local level was given clear rights and responsibilities. From this stage, waste management became the main agenda of the local elections. Candidates for mayor, deputy mayor and ward chairmen started promising a ‘waste-free city’. However, in practice, the necessary technology, skilled manpower, budget and institutional capacity along with the rights did not reach the local level adequately. Many municipalities remained limited to waste collection and transportation. The problem became more complex due to the lack of a clear plan for scientific processing, recycling and safe final disposal of waste after collection.

The practice of shifting the problem

The waste management of the Kathmandu Valley is the most glaring example of this problem. Looking at the journey from Gokarna to Sisdol and from Sisdol to Bancharedanda via Okharpouwa, it seems that every government and leadership has announced a ‘long-term solution’. However, in practice, the solution was limited to the practice of shifting the problem from one place to another.

While constructing the landfill site, the issues of health, environmental risks and compensation of the local community could not be addressed in a timely manner. As a result, local protests intensified, sometimes garbage trucks would stop, sometimes garbage would pile up in the city. This not only raised questions about the weakness of waste management, but also about the decision-making capacity and credibility of the state.

The rise of Balen: Willpower and limits

Against this backdrop of despair, Balen Shah emerged in Kathmandu Metropolitan City. As an independent candidate, he tried to move waste management out of the announcement and towards implementation. Steps such as fining those who litter on the streets, tightening the contract system, and taking action against unorganized structures sent a message that immediate improvement is possible if there is willpower.

However, it also exposed another reality – waste management is not a matter that can be solved by the courage or willpower of a single mayor alone. Structural challenges such as the bancharedanda, the lack of connection with the central government, legal boundaries, and the complexity of the division of labor show that this problem is fundamentally systemic, not a matter of individual leadership capacity.

The institutional vacuum

The Waste Management Center was responsible for providing technical assistance to the local level, setting standards, and developing a long-term system. However, due to political inaction and administrative conflicts, this institution has become inactive in practice. As a result, municipalities have been left without a clear direction and leadership in waste management.

Although waste is being collected, no concrete system for scientific processing, recycling, and safe management exists. The most worrying issue is that in the absence of a center, waste management practices have not been able to properly consider important dimensions such as ‘GHG’ emissions, climate change, and long-term environmental impacts. Why has this not worked despite being a political agenda?

1. Lack of political priority: The fascination with visible development

Waste management is a long-term, continuous, and management-oriented task, the results of which are not clear in a single day or a single term. Therefore, most leaders prioritize roads, bridges, buildings, and other large physical structures, because there is an immediate political gain. Investment in waste management is linked to public health, environment and improvement in living standards, the returns of which are only seen gradually. As a result, this issue is given low priority in budgeting, decision-making and implementation.

2. Lack of policy clarity: Many slogans, few plans

Although slogans like ‘garbage-free city’ and ‘clean metropolis’ are attractive, most of them lack a clear policy and roadmap to put these slogans into practice. A clear plan is required for waste collection, classification, processing, reuse and final management. However, at many local levels, a plan is not prepared before the slogan and announcement. Who will do what? Within what time frame? How much budget is required? How to monitor? Lack of clarity on these issues leads to confusion at the implementation stage of the program.

3. Administrative weakness: Gap between decision and implementation

Waste management requires a high level of coordination between all stakeholders, ministries, local bodies, environment departments, health bodies, private contractors and local communities. However, due to lack of effective coordination between these relevant bodies, delays, tendency to evade responsibility, financial shortage, lack of technical manpower and weak monitoring system, decisions have not been implemented in practice. This administrative gap has become the main reason for the failure of waste management.

4. Lack of public participation: The idea that the government is the only responsibility

Active participation of citizens is indispensable for successful management. However, in Nepal, the idea that waste management is the only responsibility of the government is still strong. The culture of separating waste at home, reducing plastic use and recycling has not yet been developed. Even though some local levels have started waste separation campaigns, citizens' trust has waned due to weaknesses in final management. Government efforts alone cannot give sustainable results.

Waste management is an area that requires long-term policies and continuity. However, the old trend of changing policies, plans and priorities with the change of leadership still continues. Many plans remain incomplete due to lack of ownership of programs started by the previous leadership. And everyone loses time, budget and public trust.

The way forward

From ‘Ba’ to ‘Balen’, waste management is a positive sign that it has been on the political agenda continuously. However, it is now imperative to take it beyond slogans and move towards structural reforms. It should be developed as a basic public service and system. It is necessary to emphasize a clear division of labor between the federal, provincial and local levels, active participation of the private sector and communities, and change in citizen behavior.