The Bureaucratic Maze: Why Development Projects in Nepal Face Endless Delays

The primary objective of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) in Nepal is to identify and manage the impacts of development projects on the environment, society, and economy. These assessments are conducted to understand how projects affect forests, water, soil, biodiversity, and air. According to the Environment Protection Act, 2076 and Environment Protection Rules, 2077, IEE or EIA is mandatory for projects of a certain scale and nature.

Development without IEE and EIA is blind, and conservation without development is incomplete. Therefore, these studies are conducted to maintain a balance. However, in practice, the IEE and EIA process is considered a major cause of delays in development work due to its cumbersome, time-consuming, and multi-layered nature. In most cases, there is unnecessary delay due to the long time taken from report preparation to approval, lack of coordination between various agencies, and the absence of clear, time-bound procedures.

Complexity After Environmental Impact Assessment Approval

There is a common understanding that tree felling becomes easy once the EIA is approved. However, reality is more complex. Practical experience shows that even after the EIA is approved, the process for obtaining permission for forest area utilization and tree felling is extremely complex, multi-layered, and time-consuming.

Multi-layered Process for Tree Felling Permission

The process for tree felling permission in a national pride project proceeds in stages. Initially, the project submits a proposal for forest area utilization and tree felling permission based on the approved EIA to the parent department, involving three levels: Section Officer, Under Secretary, and Project Chief. The department then sends the file to the parent ministry, where it must pass through at least four levels (Section Officer, Under Secretary, Deputy Director General, Director General). If necessary, opinions from the legal and accounts branches are sought, and the file moves back and forth through official orders.

The file is then sent from the ministry to the Ministry of Forests, where the process proceeds through at least four levels (from the Secretary's order through Section Officer, Under Secretary, Joint Secretary, to the Secretary). If legal advice is requested, additional steps are included. The Ministry of Forests sends the file to the Department of Forests, where the process is repeated through four levels (from the Director General's order through Section Officer, Under Secretary, Joint Secretary, and Director General). The Department of Forests sends it to the Division Forest Office of the project district to verify the necessary details, where four more levels are passed.

Finally, the Division Forest Office corresponds with the Sub-Division, involving two levels. In the above steps alone (excluding official orders), there are at least 21 instances of notes and signature processes to be completed. Then, the forest area and number of trees are verified on-site according to the EIA. Additionally, approved recommendations from the Community Forest Users Group are collected, which is a very time-consuming and complex process in itself. The Sub-Division sends this recommendation to the Division.

Additional Approval and Implementation Process

Once all details are reconciled, the file is sent again from the Sub-Division to the Division, from the Division to the Department of Forests, through the Ministry of Forests to the Council of Ministers, during which at least 16 additional approval levels must be completed (excluding official orders). Even after receiving approval from the Council of Ministers, the process does not end. The file returns through the Ministry of Forests to the Department of Forests. The project must provide compensatory land equal to the forest area required, or if that is not possible, deposit funds into the Forest Development Fund with proof that compensatory land is unavailable; this process is also complex and time-consuming. Then, an agreement with various conditions is signed between the Department of Forests and the project, and it is sent to the Division Forest Office through the Provincial Forest Directorate for implementation. Finally, technical and managerial tasks such as tree counting, marking, felling, log yard management, volume verification, and handover must be completed. Behind a seemingly simple "tree felling permission" lies such a long, complex, and time-consuming process.

Psychological Pressure on Technical Personnel

A serious but often overlooked aspect of all these processes is the mental state of the technical personnel. The situation an engineer faces is not just a technical challenge—it is a mix of administrative, social, and psychological pressure. In this context, one engineer shares: "Running to various levels of offices to move the file forward, getting reminders through local representatives, and being treated as if my own work is for personal gain—this is not just a process, it feels like professional humiliation." The irony is that even if there is a delay in passing through such a complex process, there is no extension of the deadline, no order for a change in the scope of work, but the pressure to finish the work on time remains. Such a situation carries a high risk of increasing mental fatigue, frustration, and discouragement among technical personnel.

International Practices

Let us look at some international practices. In India, the forest clearance process is divided into Stage 1 and Stage 2. Many states have adopted a single-window system, aiming to provide initial approval within 60-90 days. In Singapore, a fully coordinated pre-construction approval system is implemented, and most approvals are completed within 14-30 days.

Australia has a system based on clear guidelines, timelines, and accountability, where many assessment processes aim to be completed within 40-60 days. In the UK, there is an integrated system for planning permission and environmental approval, where small and medium projects are approved within about 8 weeks (56 days). Bhutan has a system based on a "high value but low impact" policy, where the process is relatively fast and predictable due to clear guidelines, a small but effective bureaucracy, and high inter-agency trust. In New Zealand, environmental approval and land use permits are integrated under the Resource Management Act 1991. Public consultation is organized, and most decisions are made within 20-60 working days. These examples show that the main thing is not just for the process to be short, but for it to be clear, time-bound, and accountable.

Potential Paths for Reform

The following points are extremely important for reform in Nepal. It is necessary to implement a single-window system where all approvals are provided from a single electronic platform. There should be a provision to provide approval within the deadline by setting legal time limits for each stage. The development and use of an electronic monitoring system that can track files in real-time is essential. Work can be accelerated by creating pre-approved templates with standard mitigation measures. Inter-agency coordination should be strengthened by establishing regular coordination mechanisms. An accountability mechanism that assigns clear responsibility for delays should be developed. It is necessary to empower the sector level by delegating authority to the provincial and division levels. Finally, social and community improvement programs should be implemented to simplify community processes.

Conclusion

The problem is not just in the forest, nor is it just in the law—the problem lies in the process, coordination, preparation, and work culture. As of today, EIA approval is not the end of the work, but merely the beginning of another complex journey. Therefore, if we do not simplify the process, set deadlines, and clarify responsibilities, development will always remain limited to paper.

Final Question:

If we want development, are we ready to change the process?

(The author is a Master's graduate in Environmental Engineering from Pulchowk Campus.)