Kathmandu’s air pollution is widely recognised as a serious health threat, yet reliable information remains difficult for many people to access, and government efforts have failed to satisfy much of the public. Taza Initiative, which has recently expanded to Nepal, hopes to bridge the gap between air quality data, public awareness and policy action. In an interview with Republica’s Sara Pahari, Taza Initiative’s Country Lead Roshani Giri discusses Nepal’s monitoring gaps, weak links between scientific evidence and policymaking, and the need for sustained, data-driven action against air pollution.
Q: Taza Initiative has recently expanded to Nepal. What prompted this move, and what gaps does it hope to address?
A: Taza began as a local initiative in Almaty and is expanding globally this year, with Nepal as its first international destination.
Almaty and Kathmandu share mountainous geography and air pollution challenges. We believe our model, tested in Almaty, can help address Kathmandu’s pollution.
Nepal has around 30 or 31 sophisticated government monitoring stations, while ICIMOD estimates the country needs 200 to 230. Establishing and maintaining that many reference-grade stations would be expensive.
Low-cost sensors can complement existing systems by providing more localised data, though they cannot replace reference-grade stations. Pollution levels recorded at one station may not reflect what people breathe in another neighbourhood.
Our approach has three components: brain, voice and bridge. The brain involves collecting and analysing data on pollution sources and exposure; the voice focuses on public concerns and communication; and the bridge uses evidence to support scientific solutions and policy recommendations.
We want data to inform decisions, not simply raise awareness. Our work in Nepal will be locally led by a Nepali team, and we are here for the long term.
Q: Your survey found that 81.2 percent of respondents considered air pollution hazardous or extremely hazardous to their health, while 94.1 percent of those who monitor air quality rely on indicators such as smell, eye irritation or visibility rather than official data. What explains this gap?
A: The Department of Environment says the government already provides air quality information through its website and dashboard. However, our survey suggests people are not necessarily accessing or using it.
Both can be true: information may be available but not easily accessible.
Air quality is as important to daily decisions as weather forecasts. It should help us decide whether to go outside, let children play outdoors or take an evening walk. Yet people may have to navigate a website and dashboard to obtain it. Information should reach people rather than require them to seek it out.
Kathmandu tops global air pollution chart again
Around 40 percent of respondents knew how to check air quality data, but only 22 percent actually did so. Many rely on social media, while official communication remains heavily dependent on websites.
We want to make air quality information more accessible and useful in everyday decisions.
Q: The survey found that 70.4 percent of respondents were dissatisfied with government efforts to tackle air pollution. Why have existing measures failed to deliver sustained improvements?
A: We have not treated air pollution as the major public health crisis it is. Global Burden of Disease estimates identify it as Nepal’s leading health risk, and the reported annual death toll is alarming.
We have come to accept polluted air as part of urban life. We discuss it when pollution becomes severe and our eyes start burning, but the conversation fades when rain brings relief. Prevention receives less attention than crisis response, even though we know the problem will return.
Another concern is the use of pollution-tax revenue. Nepal collects fuel taxes partly to address pollution’s environmental costs, but the revenue has not consistently gone towards air pollution control, while the Department of Environment faces budget constraints. People pay the tax without necessarily seeing it translated into action.
The government is not staying idle. Air pollution is receiving greater attention, including through real-time monitoring and concessional World Bank loans. But spending alone will not solve the problem. We need scientific evidence, institutional coordination and sustained preventive action.
Q: How will Taza complement organisations such as ICIMOD, which are already working on air quality monitoring and pollution control?
A: We want to connect scientific research with public engagement and policy action.
A monitoring station in Ratnapark cannot necessarily tell someone what is happening in their immediate surroundings elsewhere in Kathmandu. Local pollution sources can create different exposure levels.
We also want to communicate through approaches that resonate with people. Films, cartoons, drama and other creative formats could make messages more memorable than websites or conventional awareness campaigns. People must understand that polluted air should not be accepted as normal.
We will also collect and analyse data, monitor pollution and publish research to identify gaps, effective interventions and necessary policy changes. Our role is to connect scientific evidence, public engagement and policymaking while complementing existing efforts.
Q: The survey covered around 1,200 Kathmandu Valley residents. How representative is the sample, and what limitations should readers consider?
A: We considered gender, age, respondents’ locations and population distribution. The report provides further details on the methodology and participants.
The sample could have been larger, but we believe it provides a representative picture of perceptions of air pollution in the Kathmandu Valley.
The survey was designed to assess people’s perceptions, concerns and responses, not to replace scientific air quality measurements.
Q: The survey found that 98.6 percent of respondents identified vehicle emissions as a major pollution source, while 94.8 percent cited road construction. How will Taza help translate public concern into action?
A: Kathmandu lacks sufficiently detailed data on its vehicle fleet. We need to know how many vehicles use the roads, how many are electric, how many are public or private, and how emissions vary across categories.
This information could help identify vehicles’ contributions to pollution and inform transport policy and traffic management, including measures targeting freight vehicles and other major emitters.
Nepal has made progress in electrifying private vehicles, but public transport needs greater attention. Private cars carry relatively few passengers, while public transport moves many more. Electrifying private vehicles is important, but it cannot replace the transformation of mass transportation.
Individuals can help by avoiding waste burning and maintaining vehicles properly, but structural problems require systemic solutions.
Government policies must also make cleaner choices affordable. Penalising owners of older vehicles may not work if they cannot afford replacements. Financial incentives and concessional loans could help people adopt cleaner technologies. Rather than relying only on fines, the government should provide practical alternatives.
Q: What measurable results would demonstrate Taza’s impact a year from now?
A: Our first priority is to install air quality sensors and identify local partners to maintain them. Installation is relatively straightforward, but maintenance, calibration and data reliability are more challenging.
We must verify the data before sharing it publicly. Once it is reliable, we want to make it accessible without requiring people to visit a dashboard or search for it.
We also plan creative public engagement initiatives that reinforce the message that air pollution is neither normal nor inevitable. Our research should identify gaps in existing interventions and help the government make better policy decisions.
Q: If Kathmandu continues to experience severe air pollution over the next few years, where would you locate the failure—in policy, implementation or enforcement?
A: Problems exist at both the policy and implementation levels. Effective policies must evolve with changing evidence, but Nepal lacks comprehensive source-apportionment data showing precisely how much pollution comes from vehicles, industries and other sources.
Research infrastructure is also limited. Some pollution samples must be sent to laboratories in India or elsewhere, delaying results until the sources and conditions may have changed.
Policies must be reviewed as new evidence emerges. The Kathmandu Valley Air Quality Management Action Plan is under review, while a comprehensive national air quality action plan is still being developed. This matters because pollution extends beyond the Valley, with some other areas experiencing even worse conditions.
Another major gap is the disconnect between researchers and policymakers. Scientific evidence is being produced but does not always inform government decisions.
We need to bring researchers, policymakers and reliable data together to identify problems, determine effective interventions and guide government action. Air pollution is too complex and rapidly changing for policies to remain static for years. We need stronger scientific capacity, better coordination and responses that evolve with the evidence.
