Submit your Article

On June 25, Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina inaugurated the Padma Bridge, a 6.15-km multipurpose bridge over the Padma River. The country’s largest-ever infrastructure project, completed at $3.5bn, was built with internal resources and is the new symbol of Bangla national pride. Australia’s Snowy Mountain Engineering Corporation (SMEC) Holdings had played the roles of consultants and overseers of the mega-project. Kamal Dev Bhattarai of ApEx talked to Uma Maheswaran, chief operating officer of SMEC.

What is the significance of the Padma Bridge? 

The Padma Bridge is the largest and one of the most ambitious mega infrastructure projects in Bangladesh’s history. It establishes direct railroad connectivity across the mighty Padma River, enhancing the connectivity of southwestern cities. SMEC and our local subsidiary ACE played crucial roles in the Padma Bridge project from the design and feasibility stage to implementation.

SMEC and ACE were part of the design and feasibility study back in 2009. Since 2014, ACE along with a consortium of Korea Expressway Corporation have been supervising construction. The Padma Multipurpose Bridge Project is a symbol of national pride for Bangladesh and SMEC-ACE is honored to be a part of this project.

How can it contribute to regional connectivity? 

Padma Bridge is part of Trans-Asian Railway Network, which will contribute to greater connectivity and trade among Asian countries. The bridge will also pave the way for creating a new route in the network.

What were the key challenges you faced while working on this project? 

The Covid-19 outbreak posed a huge challenge in execution and procurement. There were several technical challenges as well, including the high scour in the river. The construction of 3m-diameter steel tubular raking piles, which had to be up to 125 meters long, are the largest of their kind in the world, and the task was quite difficult. Special heavy hydraulic hammers had to be procured.

How was the fund managed? Who were the key financers? 

The Government of Bangladesh solely financed the project. The total project cost BDT 301,930 million ($3.5bn), with the state-owned Agrani Bank Limited providing the financial backup for bridge construction.

What lessons can other countries of South Asia learn from this, as they struggle with their own mega projects? 

There are several key stakeholders who work together on the single goal of making a mega-infrastructure project successful. Our client Bangladesh Bridge Authority (BBA) played a significant role in managing all stakeholders effectively, and in addition, there was strong monitoring from the government’s Cabinet team led by the prime minister. Even during Covid-19 pandemic, the whole team stayed inside the project facility for two years without taking a leave. This kind of strong commitment of each individual involved is what it takes to make mega-projects like Padma Bridge a success.

Nepal formed the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), a transitional justice body to investigate war-era crimes and human rights abuses, in 2014. But there has since been little progress in transitional justice. Political leaders’ lack of the willingness to investigate war-time cases is one reason the commission has failed to work properly. Kamal Dev Bhattarai speaks with Ganesh Datta Bhatta, the commission chairperson.

Can you update us on the commission’s progress thus far? 

There is a perception that the commission hasn’t been able to deal with war-time cases. This isn’t true. Despite legal hurdles and resource-crunch, we have made good progress in investigating cases. So far, we have gotten around 64,000 complaints from conflict victims, and we have completed preliminary investigations in around 4,000 cases. Similarly, we have kept 3,000 cases on hold for lack of evidence. Putting cases on hold is not our priority, but our laws don’t permit us to go ahead without solid evidence to establish crime. Doing so is not easy. For that, there should be consensus among five commission members, and the complainants must be informed as well. If needed, we also have to listen to their views on our decision. We have also started detailed investigation of individual cases.  In total, we have to probe nine types of cases. Likewise, we have provided identity cards to 600 war victims; a court order has since halted the process. We have also recommended compensation for them.  

What hurdles are keeping the commission from working effectively? 

The first is lack of human resources to investigate cases. We have received 64,000 complaints and investigating each case is a long and time-consuming process that calls for skilled human resources as well as robust infrastructure. But we have hardly a dozen staff. Frequent transfer of commission employees is another problem. I am sorry to say there is no government support for us. The Covid-19 pandemic also affected our works for nearly two years. To expedite things, we have to set up offices in all seven provinces, and their numbers have to be increased in line with the volume of complaints. But the government and political parties are not being accountable to conflict victims. They fear if the commission is empowered, they could be summoned on war-era crimes and rights violations. 

Are there other issues hampering progress as well? 

Initially, we formulated ambitious laws and regulations, and took a process-loaded approach. It takes a long time to conclude a single case so we cannot produce an instant result. Similarly, successive governments failed to exercise the desired sensitivity while making appointments to the commission. People who have sound knowledge of laws and Nepal’s peace process should have been appointed, which didn’t happen. The misguided appointment process seriously hampered the commission’s work. Only capable people should be appointed in the commission. 

What about the Supreme Court’s order to amend the transitional justice act? 

The Supreme Court, international community and conflict victims are all demanding that the Enforced Disappearances Inquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act 2014 be amended at the earliest. But the political leadership has shown no interest in this. Without amending the laws, the commission cannot work effectively. There are also other issues that need to be addressed urgently. As the investigation process takes a long time, there should be an interim relief package for conflict victims. This gives the message that the state is positive about addressing their concerns. Similarly, the compensation sum of Rs 300,000 must be raised. 

How closely is the commission working with the Ministry of Law and Justice? 

It is unfortunate that seldom has the ministry cooperated with us. Whenever a new law minister is appointed, he or she doesn’t consult us. They get their information and feedback from bureaucrats. Incumbent Law Minister Govinda Bandi is trying to take a radical approach to transitional justice. The law minister and political leaders are saying that they want to complete the remaining tasks in six months to one year. Such statements don’t help. So, striking the right balance among the stakeholders is going to be difficult. The law minister is undermining the commission by giving an impression that it is the ministry’s task to take the transitional justice process to its logical end. He is bypassing the commission at every step. 

We at the commission still want to give him the benefit of the doubt when he says that he can conclude the transitional justice process within a year. But, realistically, the process will take another three to five years, and that too if the commission is fully empowered and allowed to work without a hitch.

“Take something as simple as being referred to as ‘sir’ in work emails. Our society expects only men to be in positions of power,”

The World Trade Organization’s 12th Ministerial Conference (June 12-16) recently concluded in Geneva, Switzerland. The WTO is the only global international body that sets the rules of trade between countries. Minister for Industry, Commerce and Supplies Dilendra Prasad Badu had led the Nepali delegation to the conference. Kamal Dev Bhattarai caught up with him. 

What major agendas did Nepal raise at the conference? 

Nepal is a member of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) group in the WTO. We have a plan of elevating to a ‘developing country’ status by 2026. The interactions that took place at this conference were substantive. We were able to put forth our position firmly. For smooth and irreversible graduation, I emphasized the need for continuation of all international support measures, particularly duty- and quota-free market access, special and differential treatment, preferential rules of origin, service waiver, aid for trade, and flexibilities in the implementation of multilateral trade rules and commitments. However, the issue of giving LDCs a transitional period even after their graduation remains contentious. 

Besides, Nepal also raised the issue of food security, among other urgent ones. Since a let-up in the covid pandemic, in line with other economies, Nepal's economy has also regained some momentum. However, it’s getting hard to reposition the country’s economy to the pre-pandemic level, mainly due to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which has impacted the price of petroleum products. The key challenges for Nepal’s economy continue to be widening trade deficit, depleting foreign currency reserves, and poor industrial development.

What challenges will Nepal face after graduating from the LDC status? 

Graduation offers us both opportunities and challenges. It brings challenges due to loss of some exemptions and flexibilities. At this critical juncture, we have urged international forums, especially the WTO, the UN and other multilateral funding agencies to ensure adequate transitional support to facilitate smooth, irreversible and sustainable graduation. 

The challenges posed by unforeseen crises have reversed our past development achievements, while weakening our ability to achieve SDGs (sustainable development goals) by 2030. Graduating from the LDC status is our common objective as not a single country in this category wishes to remain there forever. Sooner or later, we all want to graduate.

The LDCs are strongly pushing for a reform of the WTO. What is Nepal’s position on this? 

At the WTO’s 12th Ministerial Conference, I strongly pitched for all members to stand in favor of reform to make this organization true to its purposes and objectives. But each member country has a different view on the modality of the reform. 

In our view, the process should be member-driven, and the LDCs should not be saddled with additional obligations.

Bilateral engagements are equally important to enhance our exports. Did you hold any bilateral talks at the sidelines of the conference? 

Along with multilateral arrangements via the WTO, we have to adjust many issues through bilateral means. I held bilateral talks with trade ministers of some countries. For instance, I met India’s Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal to discuss a range of bilateral issues. I also held talks with my Bangladeshi counterpart.

India recently banned the export of wheat, which could exacerbate Nepal’s food insecurity. Did you raise the issue with your Indian counterpart? 

I held an extensive dialogue on a range of issues with minister Goyal. I told him that India’s decision to ban the export of wheat and sugar is a cause for concern for us. He assured me that its neighboring countries are exempt from India’s policy of restricting export. 

He even made a commitment that there would be no food crisis in Nepal. I also raised other trade and commerce-related issues with Minister Goyal, including the challenges faced by Nepali industries, particularly concerning exports. He said that any bilateral problems between India and Nepal could be resolved through consultations. He has asked Nepal to come up with a document clearly outlining its problems with exports.

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.