Environmental Reports or Just a Formality? Nepal’s Compliance Crisis in Infrastructure Projects In Nepal, environmental assessment reports are supposed to help guide responsible development. But in reality, they often feel more like rituals—something done just to check a box. Despite having strong environmental laws, many infrastructure projects ignore these rules once they get approval. Reports are rushed, monitoring is weak, and real environmental concerns are sidelined. This growing gap between policy and practice has created a serious compliance crisis. Environmental safeguards are being treated as paperwork, not as essential protections. If Nepal wants to develop sustainably, it needs to move beyond the formality and take environmental compliance seriously—starting from the very first report.

Nepal’s Environmental Assessments: Why They Often Fail—and What Needs to Change

Nepal, like many developing countries, is at a turning point. It’s aiming for major progress in areas like hydropower, road building, irrigation, and city expansion. But at the same time, it needs to protect its fragile environment and rich biodiversity.

To balance development with environmental protection, Nepal uses tools like Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), Initial Environmental Examinations (IEE), and Brief Environmental Studies (BES). These tools are supposed to ensure that projects don’t harm the environment.

But in reality, these assessments are often treated as mere formalities. Once a project is approved, little attention is paid to the environmental commitments made on paper. This results in serious environmental damage and social problems.

Poor-Quality Reports and Misuse

Many environmental assessment reports are rushed and done poorly—sometimes even before proper site visits are made. These reports are often written to favor the project developers rather than reflect the real environmental situation. As a result, the reports are filled with vague predictions, outdated or fake data, and copied-and-pasted mitigation plans that are rarely implemented.

Rather than guiding sustainable development, these documents are often just used to get legal approval.

Strong Laws, Weak Implementation

Nepal does have modern environmental laws—like the Environment Protection Act (2076 BS) and the Environment Protection Rules (2077 BS)—which require an EIA, IEE, or BES for any project likely to cause significant environmental impact. These laws also include penalties for non-compliance.

However, the reality is different. These penalties are rarely enforced. There are no detailed, sector-specific guidelines or centralized systems to track whether projects are following environmental rules. As a result, monitoring and enforcement are inconsistent or non-existent.

Environmental Professionals Are Sidelined

Another major problem is the weak position of environmental professionals within the government. The Ministry of Forests and Environment (MoFE) leads environmental governance at the federal level, but in provinces, environmental units often fall under forest departments. Local governments usually treat environmental issues as low-priority.

This structure puts too much focus on forestry and ignores broader environmental concerns like pollution, waste management, and climate change. Environmental officers often lack authority, resources, and respect. They are sometimes hired only because donors require them, and are excluded from key decisions.

One professional summed it up painfully:

“You are here just for formality. Don’t make it difficult,” a contractor said during a site visit. “I stood there, representing the environment—but felt like a statue.”

Adding to the problem, there is no separate Environmental Officer service in the Public Service Commission. Without a clear career path, many skilled professionals avoid or leave the field.

Donor and Contractor Pressures

Large infrastructure projects in Nepal often involve international donors and contractors. Donors do require environmental safeguards—but in practice, the focus is usually on staying on schedule and releasing funds. Contractors often see environmental requirements as unnecessary burdens and cut corners whenever they can.

Reports sent to donors are often overly positive and don’t reflect what’s actually happening. This “report just to get approval” mindset undermines the entire purpose of environmental assessments.

Communities Are Left Out

People living near development projects are the ones most affected by environmental problems, yet they’re rarely included in monitoring. Public consultations are often just formalities. After the project starts, locals are ignored.

If communities were properly trained and involved, they could play a key role in holding projects accountable. But this would require real commitment from the government and developers—something that’s currently lacking.

A Culture of “Ticking the Box”

At the heart of all these issues is a damaging culture: doing the bare minimum to get approvals without caring about actual implementation. Environmental assessments are treated like paperwork to check off, not as essential tools for sustainable development.

There are no rewards for doing things right, and no serious consequences for doing them wrong. Environmental commitments are not linked to project progress, funding, or contractor performance.

---

What Needs to Change: Key Recommendations

1. Create a dedicated environmental civil service
   The Public Service Commission should introduce a separate track for Environmental Officers with defined roles, career progression, and leadership positions.

2. Strengthen monitoring and enforcement
   Set up a centralized monitoring system with real-time data, standard reporting formats, and alerts for non-compliance. Provincial and local units need more staff, funding, and technical skills.

3. Restructure institutions
   Environmental offices should not be under forest departments. They should be independent and directly accountable to environmental authorities at every government level.

4. Make independent audits mandatory
   Require third-party environmental audits for large or sensitive projects. These audits should be public and reviewed by a national council.

5. Include communities in monitoring
   Train local user groups, provide them with tools to report problems, and set up platforms for complaints. Their involvement will increase accountability.

6. Align donor rules with national laws
   Donor agencies must follow Nepali environmental laws and support local capacity-building. Projects that fail to comply should face funding consequences.

7. Tie compliance to funding
   Don’t release project funds unless environmental promises are met. Poor performance should lead to penalties or even project suspension.

8. Train everyone involved
   Organize regular training for government officials, contractors, and environmental officers to improve their understanding of the laws and the importance of compliance.

---

Final Thoughts

Nepal already has good environmental laws and skilled professionals. But the system doesn’t support them. Right now, project developers are allowed to bypass environmental responsibilities without real consequences.

Until assessment reports are prepared with honesty and scientific accuracy—and until enforcement becomes real, not symbolic—there won’t be meaningful progress.

If Nepal wants to truly achieve sustainable development, it must strengthen its institutions, respect its professionals, and demand accountability. Environmental assessments must become more than just documents—they must become tools for real change. The time to act is now, before the damage becomes permanent.