As cities like Pokhara take steps toward formalizing their waste management systems, the debate over Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) has emerged as a litmus test for Nepal’s evolving federalism. A recent workshop on Pokhara Metropolitan City’s draft “Waste Management Act 2025” revealed differing views on whether EPR—typically associated with national policy—can be locally operationalized.
EPR, which holds producers responsible for managing the post-consumer life of their products (especially plastics), is now a global standard. Countries like Germany, India, and Rwanda have implemented EPR at the national level to curb plastic pollution and encourage circular economy practices. But can—or should—local governments like Pokhara take the lead?
The legal basis exists. Nepal’s Local Government Operation Act, 2074 and Schedule 8 of the Constitution give municipalities the authority to manage solid waste. Many argue this includes designing mechanisms like localized EPR, particularly when it supports practical needs such as subsidizing the transport of low-value plastics to recyclers or RDF-processing facilities.
However, this position isn’t without contention. Municipal bureaucrats in the workshop raised valid concerns: What happens when local EPR mandates conflict with emerging federal frameworks? Are local governments technically ready to enforce complex compliance regimes? These are fair questions—not roadblocks, but reminders of the need for coordination and capacity-building.
There’s also caution from the private sector. Initially, some recycling businesses feared being penalized under EPR, mistakenly assuming they would be classified as producers. But with clearer definitions and dialogue, they shifted to support EPR—correctly framing recyclers as solution providers, not polluters. This shift highlights a key insight: when EPR is positioned as a co-investment model—not just a regulatory tool—it opens space for partnership.
In fact, the model proposed in Pokhara aims to do just that. Rather than imposing blanket penalties, it seeks producer contributions to a Solid Waste Management Fund, managed locally, to address real logistical and financial gaps in municipal waste transport. Such a fund could directly benefit recyclers, improve collection systems, and reduce landfill dependence.
Still, local innovation must not outpace national clarity. A federal EPR framework, currently in early policy discussions, should set the rules of the game—definitions, reporting standards, and compliance mechanisms. But municipalities need the flexibility to operationalize these within their local context.
Nepal’s transition to federalism was not just about drawing new boundaries. It was about empowering local governments to lead on public services. Waste management is a prime example—visible, urgent, and politically resonant. Pokhara’s initiative deserves support, but also structure.
The way forward is not either/or—it’s both. A hybrid model where federal agencies define the EPR framework, while local governments adapt and execute it, could deliver the best results. International experience shows that centralized EPR works best when it accommodates local realities. Nepal should follow suit.
If we want cleaner cities and a circular economy, we need policy tools like EPR to work where the waste actually piles up: on the ground, in our wards, in our rivers. That means trusting local governments with not just responsibilities—but resources and authority.
EPR is more than a policy acronym. It’s a chance to get accountability, equity, and efficiency right in Nepal’s waste economy. Let’s not waste it.
This blog post, “Rethinking Waste: Why Local Governments Need a Stake in EPR” is written by Bijay K.C., Director of Systems Thinking & Applied Innovation at GD Labs and Research.