- Chief ministers of Nepal’s seven provinces issued the Koshi Declaration, demanding the federal government implement constitutional powers regarding police and civil service management.
- Persistent delays in police adjustment, administrative legislation, and fiscal transfers continue to hinder the autonomy and effective service delivery of provincial governments.
- The conference urged the federal government to establish clear timelines for resource transfers while calling on provinces to improve budget execution and transparency.
- Leaders emphasized that federalism’s success requires moving from repeated political demands to measurable results and clear intergovernmental coordination for citizen benefit.
Biratnagar, Nepal: Chief ministers from Nepal’s seven provinces have again urged the federal government to implement the powers granted to them by the Constitution, highlighting persistent delays in police adjustment, civil service management, fiscal transfers and federal legislation.
A two-day inter-provincial chief ministers’ conference in Biratnagar issued the Koshi Declaration 2083, renewing demands that provincial governments have raised for years. Similar concerns were voiced at a conference in Pokhara three years ago and at a subsequent meeting in Hetauda. The lack of substantial progress suggests that Nepal’s federalism debate has moved slowly from constitutional commitments to practical implementation.
The repeated demands expose a central weakness in Nepal’s federal system: provincial governments are responsible for delivering services and implementing policies, but they say they still lack some of the legal authority, personnel and financial resources needed to do so effectively.
Yet the responsibility does not rest with the federal government alone. Provincial governments must also demonstrate that they are using their existing powers and budgets effectively. The central question is no longer simply whether authority has been transferred, but whether all levels of government are fulfilling their responsibilities and delivering results for citizens.
Constitutional Powers, Practical Limitations
Nepal’s Constitution establishes three levels of government and divides their powers through Articles 56 and 57 and Schedules 5 to 9. Schedule 6 assigns provincial governments exclusive authority over areas including provincial police administration, provincial civil service and provincial-level roads. Other schedules define responsibilities shared between or among the different levels of government.
Articles 162 and 197 provide for provincial executive and legislative powers, while Article 232 calls for relations among the three levels to be based on cooperation, coexistence and coordination.
These provisions establish the constitutional basis for provincial autonomy. But the exercise of that autonomy depends on supporting legislation, functioning administrative structures and predictable funding.
When those arrangements remain incomplete, provincial governments can struggle to implement their own policies. Delays also blur accountability: provinces may blame the federal government for failing to transfer authority, while citizens remain uncertain about which government is responsible for poor services.
Resolving this problem requires a clearer division of responsibilities, timely legislation and mechanisms to hold each level of government accountable for its performance.
Police Adjustment: Authority Without Full Control
Police adjustment remains one of the clearest examples of the gap between constitutional powers and implementation. The Constitution places provincial police administration within provincial jurisdiction, but the management of personnel, organisational structures and responsibilities between federal and provincial forces remains a major concern.
The Koshi Declaration calls for the completion of police adjustment, the transfer of relevant infrastructure and records, and a clear division of duties in areas such as criminal investigations, public security and traffic management.
Without an agreed operational framework, provincial governments cannot fully exercise their authority over policing. But transferring personnel and facilities alone would not resolve the problem. Provincial forces also need adequate funding, training, equipment and clear lines of command.
The federal government needs to establish a workable framework and complete the required transfers. Provincial governments, meanwhile, must demonstrate that they can manage police administration professionally and transparently.
Civil Service Delays Weaken Provincial Administration
Uncertainty over civil service legislation and personnel management has created another obstacle. Provincial governments need sufficient staff and clear authority over their deployment to implement budgets, run programmes and provide public services.
When staffing arrangements, transfers and administrative responsibilities remain unclear, provincial plans can be delayed and service delivery weakened. Political leaders may announce programmes, but those commitments have limited value without the personnel needed to carry them out.
Federal legislation is necessary to clarify the respective roles of federal and provincial governments. But legal changes must also be accompanied by transparent recruitment, personnel management and performance evaluation.
Provincial governments should not use staff shortages as a blanket explanation for weak performance. They must also make better use of available employees, improve administrative efficiency and publish evidence of progress in service delivery.
Fiscal Autonomy and Accountability
Funding is equally important to provincial autonomy. The Koshi Declaration calls for fiscal equalisation grants to be transferred without cuts, a fairer distribution of revenue from natural resources and grants that reflect provincial spending needs and revenue capacity.
Article 60 of the Constitution provides the basis for revenue sharing and fiscal transfers. Equalisation grants are intended to help governments with different revenue bases meet their responsibilities. Delays or reductions can disrupt provincial plans, while conditional grants can limit the flexibility to direct spending towards local priorities.
The federal government must ensure that funding arrangements are predictable and consistent with the responsibilities assigned to provincial governments. Devolving duties without adequate resources would leave provinces accountable for services they lack the means to provide.
However, greater fiscal autonomy must come with stronger financial accountability. Provincial governments need to explain how much revenue they raise themselves, whether they spend allocated budgets effectively and what public benefits result from that expenditure. More funding will not automatically improve services if planning, procurement and implementation remain weak.
The challenge is to ensure that provinces receive sufficient resources while improving their capacity to use public money efficiently.
Federal Laws and Intergovernmental Coordination
Delays in federal legislation have also left uncertainty over some shared responsibilities. Where federal and provincial laws are not aligned, disputes over jurisdiction can delay decisions and complicate implementation.
The transition to federalism requires more than dividing powers on paper. It involves reorganising administrative structures, assigning personnel, transferring resources and clarifying decision-making authority. Political disagreements and overlapping responsibilities among government agencies can slow that process.
The federal government must identify outstanding legislation and establish clear deadlines for its enactment. Provincial governments should also strengthen their legislative capacity and coordinate their positions on shared issues.
The proposed Inter-Provincial Chief Ministers’ Partnership Forum could help the seven provinces present common demands and monitor progress. Its effectiveness, however, will depend on whether it produces specific proposals, secures commitments from the federal government and follows up on implementation.
From Repeated Demands to Measurable Results
The Biratnagar conference has once again placed the unfinished business of federalism on the political agenda. The chief ministers plan to present the declaration’s conclusions to the prime minister, but another round of discussions will mean little unless it leads to concrete decisions.
The federal government should set out a time-bound plan for police adjustment, civil service legislation, fiscal transfers and other outstanding issues. Each commitment should identify the responsible agency, the steps required and a deadline for completion. Progress should be made public so that provincial governments and citizens can assess whether promises are being kept.
Provincial governments must meet their side of the bargain by improving budget execution, strengthening internal revenue collection, maintaining financial discipline and measuring the quality of public services. They should also distinguish between problems caused by federal delays and shortcomings within their own administration.
Three years of repeated demands show that conferences and declarations alone cannot resolve the problems facing federalism. The test is whether constitutional powers are matched by the laws, resources and administrative capacity needed to exercise them—and whether governments at every level are held accountable for the results.
For citizens, the success of federalism will ultimately depend less on disputes over jurisdiction than on whether public services improve, development projects are completed and governments respond to local needs. The next phase must therefore focus on implementation rather than another repetition of the same commitments.
