Just a decade ago, it would have been difficult to imagine such a solemn ritual to honour the glacier, to lament the loss of much of its ice. Yet the changes are undeniable. Yala Glacier is disappearing.
On a winter morning in Nepal’s Terai region (southern lowland belt), the air hangs heavy and grey as harvested fields crackle and haze settles over homes and highways. For those living in it, this is more than seasonal haze; it is a public health threat. During crop-harvesting seasons, particularly paddy and wheat, crop residue burning (CRB) significantly worsens air quality across Nepal’s Terai. Satellite observations and ground-level monitoring data show that the open burning of crop residue is a major source of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and black carbon across the Indo-Gangetic Plains, affecting human health, biodiversity, and natural resources.
Satellite image of Nepal and adjoining India (Dec–Jan 2025), showing red dots marking wildfires and post-harvest stubble burning. | Source: NASA Firms
Despite growing concern, weak policy attention, low public awareness, and the absence of a sustainable market for crop residues allow CRB to continue. This persistence is often misinterpreted as farmer resistance. Preliminary findings from our 2024 assessment suggest that the widespread use of combine harvesters has increased residue burning, particularly of paddy and wheat residues. Similarly, Bajracharya et al. (2021)1 linked increased burning to weak residue supply chains and expanding use of combine harvesters. Nearly 90% of paddy and wheat fields in key production districts of Lumbini Province, such as Nawalparasi, Rupandehi, and Kapilvastu, are now harvested using combined harvesters.
While combine harvesters reduce labour shortages and post-harvest losses, they leave large amounts of loose straw in fields. This straw is labour-intensive and costly to collect, yet unsuitable for livestock feed, leading to large-scale residue burning.
“Burning is not our preference”, says Shanta Khanal Neupane, a women farmers’ representative from Rupandehi district. “It is simply the only choice that works within the time and resources we have.”
Her words echo across the Terai. Burning is less a decision than a constraint. Burning remains the quickest and most convenient way to clear and prepare the field for the next cultivation, while farmers are not fully aware of the serious environmental and health consequences, including soil degradation, which they consider to be improving soil health. Other drivers include the closure of the Bhrikuti Paper Industry in Nawalparasi, the decline in livestock farming, and weak residue markets, all of which have reduced demand for crop residues. The loss of these demands has further reduced viable utilisation of residues, reinforcing open burning as the default option.
Structural drivers behind persistent burning
Several structural shifts have narrowed farmers’ choices. Agricultural mechanisation has increased residue volumes, while shorter crop turnaround times limit options for labour-intensive manual removal or in-situ management of crop residue due to limited access to appropriate machinery. Traditional uses of residues, particularly as livestock feed, are declining, and local markets for residues remain unorganised or non-existent. Storage constraints, labour shortages, rising wage costs, and limited access to appropriate machinery further constrain farmers’ decision-making, especially during peak agricultural periods.
“Mechanisation has increased, but farmers still lack machinery to manage growing residue volumes”, explains Hasana Shrestha, Environmental Inspector at the Department of Environment, Nepal, working on environmental regulation. Without appropriate machinery like a straw chopper, raker, bale, or other in-situ incorporation machinery, by the time the residue accumulates, time runs out.
“Farmers understand the problem. But managing residues requires capital, time, and equipment that most cannot afford”, adds Ananda Khanal, Executive Director of Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FNCCI).
Women, smallholder farmers, and marginalised communities often shoulder the unpaid burden of residue management, making alternatives harder to adopt. Surya Neupane, Proprietor of Shree Mata Manakamana Traders, Nepal, emphasised, “Women-led households often bear the most burden of residue management, but with the right systems in place, they could also be the main beneficiaries.”
Same thoughts resonate beyond the border. Gurkeerat Sekhon, Founder of Blue Jacket Engineers, in Punjab, India, and an expert in crop residue management, shared a similar perspective: “Women and marginalised people are the most affected, but also the most vocal supporters of the crop residue management campaign.”
Misconceptions that keep the fire burning
Misconceptions also continue to reinforce the routine practice of burning. These misconceptions are particularly persistent among marginalised groups, including tenant farmers, women, and informal agricultural workers, who often face limited access to information, training, and decision-making power. Factors such as labour intensity, time constraints, and restricted control over household resources further reduce farmers' ability to adopt alternative practices.
Jeet Bahadur Chand, Senior Agriculture Engineer at the National Agriculture Modernization Project, Nepal, added, “Many farmers still believe burning improves soil fertility, and without consistent enforcement and awareness raising, there is little to discourage the practice,” pointing to the combined challenge of behaviour, belief, and weak implementation.
Without addressing both knowledge gaps and structural barriers, efforts to reduce burning will remain limited.
Bridging the farms and industries through dialogue
Against this backdrop, the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), in collaboration with the National Farmers Group Federation (NFGF), Nepal, convened a multi-stakeholder consultation in Lumbini in December 2025. The consultation explored how crop residues could become an economic resource through market-linked approaches.
The consultation was complemented by targeted interviews with local governments, farmer organisations, women’s cooperatives, biomass-using industries, and private entrepreneurs with experience in residue-based energy systems. Across these conversations, a consistent message emerged: burning is a system-level outcome.
“We are expected to raise awareness, but awareness alone does not stop residue burning when farmers have no alternatives”, says Deepak Acharya, Manager at Community Information Network, Nepal, highlighted a structural limitation from the media side: “Without visible solutions or clear policy direction, media coverage remains limited to describing the problem rather than amplifying what works.”
“We are interested in cleaner biomass fuels, including pellets”, Shiva Raj Bhandari from Yasoda Foods Pvt Ltd., Nepal, explained, “But supply is inconsistent, moisture levels vary, and policy signals are unclear. These risks affect investment decisions.”
Farmers, particularly women and smallholders in rural areas, expressed a parallel concern: “If residues are collected on time and there is a clear price, open burning will stop on its own.”
Participants stressed the need for place-based approaches linking practices with infrastructure, industry demand, and inclusive policies. The participants highlighted the importance of crop residue-related policies, clear incentives, and private-sector engagement in crop residue management, and mainstreaming key stakeholders such as farmers, cooperatives, industries, government, and technical partners to scale interventions.
Value-added pathways beyond burning
Alternatives to open field burning can deliver both environmental and economic benefits. These include composting, mulching, bioenergy generation (pellets, briquettes, and biomass), animal feed processing, mushroom cultivation, biochar, and industrial raw material use (such as packaging boards).
These approaches can improve soil health, support cleaner energy, and generate income. However, scaling these alternatives requires reliable supply chains, aggregation infrastructure, and industry compatibility.
In the absence of coordinated investment and supportive policy frameworks, these requirements risk becoming barriers rather than enablers. “Any residue-based solution works only when the supply chain works”, says Shiva Raj Bhandari and emphasised, “Without aggregation and quality control, industries will default to fuels they already know”.
Inclusion is foundational
The discussions at Lumbini underscored a simple truth: technical solutions fail when they ignore the realities of those who generate and handle residues.
Smallholder women farmers’ groups highlighted the physical and safety risks associated with handling and storing residues near homes. At the same time, cooperatives emphasised the importance of transparent pricing and clear contracts to ensure trust and participation. Farmers, women's groups, marginalised communities, and cooperatives engage in the value chain inclusively under the business model, with active group- or cooperative-led approaches, where actors participate as suppliers and are organised within the value chain for long-term viability.
At the same time, private-sector actors acknowledged their own limitations. “We want to work with farmers, but as an industry we still haven’t been able to offer opportunities at the scale that is needed”, said Amir Khadka from National Vision Multipurpose Agro and Bio Farm, Dang, Nepal, which processes maize stalks, paddy straw, and wheat straw into animal feed, biomass pellets, and compost.
government agencies, and the media sector. | Photo: Jitendra Raj Bajracharya/ICIMOD
From enforcement to enabling systems
Participants noted that bans without alternatives place unfair pressure on farmers. In contrast, organised value chains linking farms, aggregators, industries, and local governments can sustainably shift incentives.
“We cannot rely on penalties alone”, emphasised Hasana Shrestha “A carrot approach, creating benefits and alternatives, will be far more effective than punishment”.
Sagar Dhakal, Agriculture Extension Director, Ministry of Agriculture, Lumbini Province, Nepal, summarised the shift clearly: “Adding value to residues creates alternatives to burning”.
After an exchange on strategic and effective solutions, local governments expressed interest in supporting the allocation of land for aggregation centres and facilitating coordination among actors.
From insight to action
Based on the consultation outcomes, municipalities such as Palhinandan and Ramgram in Nawalparasi district, Nepal, present promising conditions for piloting integrated crop residue management approaches. These areas combine high availability of residue, proximity to biomass-using industries, active cooperatives, and local government engagement.
Kamala Gurung, Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) Specialist focal for Action Area: Air, ICIMOD, puts it well, “Crop residue management is most effective when farmers, especially women and smallholder farmers, are involved as burning takes place in their own fields. The issue should be addressed not only as an environmental priority, but also as an economic opportunity”.
Reducing CRB requires coordinated action. This includes residue diversity and quantification assessment, baseline monitoring of emissions, mapping of residue supply chains and stakeholders, continued evidence generation on costs and benefits, policy alignment and strengthened institutional capacity.
Amir Khadka cautioned, “It is not that policies do not exist; our biggest issue is that they are not clearly defined, which makes long-term investment risky”.
With coordinated action, Nepal can address crop residue burning while advancing cleaner air, resilient livelihoods, and inclusive bio-based value chains. The solution lies in treating crop residue not as waste, but as a valuable resource.
1 Bajracharya, SB, Mishra A, and Maharjan A, (2021), "Determinants of crop residue burning practice in the Terai region of Nepal." PLoS One 16(7): e0253939. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253939.9.