How is Kathmandu's waste management structured?

 Kathmandu's waste management is a complex system involving both formal and informal actors, often operating with limited infrastructure and facing significant socioeconomic challenges. The structure is characterized by a mix of official mandates and ground-level realities.

1. Formal Waste Management System The primary responsibility for solid waste management (SWM) in Kathmandu lies with local governments, particularly the Kathmandu Metropolitan City (KMC).

• Government Bodies and Policies: The Ministry of Urban Development (MOUD) is now the central authority for SWM, having recently taken over jurisdiction from the Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration. The Solid Waste Management Act of 2011 and the Solid Waste Management National Policy of 2022 provide a framework for SWM, emphasizing waste reduction, environmental protection, and the role of federal units. There is also a push for public-private partnerships (PPP) in the sector.
• Capacity and Limitations: Despite legislative frameworks, KMC and other municipalities often struggle with inadequate funding, technical limitations, and insufficient human resources. They primarily focus on waste collection and disposal, with limited infrastructure for segregation, recycling, or composting. This is partly due to the dissolution of the Solid Waste Management Technical Support Centre (SWMTSC) in 2018, which previously offered technical support.
• Waste Collection and Disposal: KMC manages household waste in some sections of the city, often relying on traditional methods like door-to-door collection by tricycles or roadside collection. Waste is typically transported to transfer stations, where segregation is often minimal, especially in metropolitan-run facilities. The ultimate disposal site for Kathmandu Valley's waste is the Sisdole landfill, which is severely over capacity and faces frequent local protests due to environmental and health concerns. A new landfill in Banchare Danda is under construction but has been significantly delayed. Open dumping and burning remain common practices, exacerbating pollution and public health risks.
• Lack of Data and Recognition: The formal system lacks up-to-date and reliable data on waste generation, composition, and collection rates, hindering effective planning and policy formulation.

2. Informal Waste Management Sector The informal waste sector is an indispensable part of waste management in Kathmandu, filling critical gaps left by formal municipal services.

• Actors and Roles: This sector comprises waste pickers (often called "scavengers"), itinerant waste buyers (IWBs), and scrap dealers (referred to as "Kabaad" or "Kabadiwala"). They primarily focus on collecting, sorting, and recovering valuable recyclable materials like plastics, metals, and paper.
  • Waste pickers directly collect from streets, bins, transfer stations, and landfill sites.
  • Itinerant waste buyers purchase dry recyclables door-to-door from households and institutions.
  • Scrap dealers form a multi-tiered network (small, medium, large scale) that buys from pickers and buyers, further segregates, and then sells to recycling industries in Nepal or, often, illegally to India.
• Contributions: The informal sector significantly contributes to reducing waste sent to landfills, thus prolonging landfill life and lessening environmental impact. They are responsible for recovering a substantial portion of recyclables (estimated at 15% of household waste treated and 25-30% of recyclables from total waste). This saves the national economy significant money (estimated at NPR 371 million annually in 2003) and supplies raw materials to industries.

3. Interplay and Challenges in Integration Despite their vital contributions, informal waste pickers and the informal sector as a whole face numerous challenges and a complex, often strained, relationship with formal authorities.

• Lack of Formal Recognition: The informal sector generally lacks legislative recognition in Nepal's SWM Act 2011, and their contributions are not formally acknowledged by the government. This leads to their exclusion from policy discussions and development programs.
• Socioeconomic Vulnerabilities:
  • Poverty and Migration: Many informal waste pickers are poor, illiterate, and migrants (from Nepal's Terai region or India), using waste picking as a survival strategy.
  • Hazardous Working Conditions: They work in extremely unsanitary and dangerous environments (landfills, transfer stations, scrap centers) with exposure to toxic substances, sharp objects, and medical waste. They often lack proper protective equipment. This results in frequent injuries and chronic health issues like respiratory diseases.
  • Low and Unstable Income: Earnings are low and fluctuate based on market demand, making financial stability difficult. They are vulnerable to exploitation, sometimes paid unfairly by middlemen or scrap dealers.
  • Social Stigma and Discrimination: Waste pickers face profound social stigma, misbehavior, and humiliation from the public and officials, often linked to their perceived low social status, caste, and gender.
• Ambiguous Relationships and Lack of Partnerships:
  • The relationship between municipal authorities and the informal sector is unclear and uncertain, often operating in parallel rather than collaboratively.
  • KMC tends to avoid or neglect the informal sector, viewing them as "illegal" rather than potential partners. This is partly due to a focus on regulation and taxation rather than inclusion.
  • While some private waste management companies formally registered as businesses exist, they often operate without specific legal contracts from KMC, creating an ambiguous "informal-formal" status. These companies often partner informally with informal waste workers for segregation.
  • Some NGOs and social enterprises are actively supporting waste pickers by providing training, health benefits, and attempts at formalization, but these efforts are often one-sided and lack sustained government backing.
  • Most informal waste pickers remain unorganized, lacking member-based cooperatives or associations, which limits their collective bargaining power for better working conditions and formal recognition.
• Threat of Displacement: The government's pursuit of a modern, mechanized waste management system, often through large-scale Public-Private Partnerships with transnational corporations, poses a significant threat to the livelihoods of existing informal waste workers, potentially displacing them without adequate inclusion plans.

In essence, Kathmandu's waste management is a fragmented system where a formal government struggles with capacity and policy implementation, while a vital, yet unrecognized and vulnerable, informal sector handles a significant portion of waste recovery and recycling. The lack of integration, clear policy, and supportive infrastructure creates ongoing socioeconomic challenges for those at the forefront of waste management.