From Compliance to Credibility: What May Strengthen Environmental Assessment Outcomes in Nepal?

Nepal's environmental assessment framework has been in place for nearly three decades, evolving through various regulatory updates and now operating under the Environment Protection Act 2019. This system has developed a structured process for screening, assessing, and approving projects, giving the appearance of a robust and embedded institutional mechanism across different sectors.

However, a critical question remains largely unexamined: what has the system learned about itself, and has this learning occurred in a structured manner? Without a comprehensive review of how environmental assessment outcomes impact project design and performance, and how project implementation, in turn, informs future assessments, the process risks being reduced to a mere compliance function. This lack of feedback loops makes it difficult to discern between a system that is merely functioning and one that is actively evolving with a clear purpose.

This article does not aim to provide a definitive diagnosis of the system's performance. Instead, it offers reflections on how the environmental assessment system in Nepal could operate more effectively. The focus is placed on two key areas that directly shape the quality and accountability of the process: the technical review mechanism and the broader professional environment in which environmental assessments are practiced.

The technical review is central to any environmental assessment system, serving as the point where analytical work is scrutinized, assumptions are challenged, and the credibility of findings is evaluated. In Nepal, review committees composed of ministry officials and subject matter experts are responsible for decision support and quality assurance. Yet, opportunities exist to enhance this process. The absence of clearly defined terms of reference for reviewers can lead to reliance on individual judgment, resulting in variability in the scope and depth of feedback provided. Furthermore, the composition of review committees, often based on institutional representation, does not always guarantee that the expertise available matches the specific requirements of a given project. This can limit the potential for iterative clarification and technical dialogue, constraining the review process's ability to function collaboratively.