Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a globally used and accepted environmental management and planning tool (United Nations Environment Programme, 2018, p.2). The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) defines EIA as “the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and commitments made.” 

The EIA system was first introduced in the United States through the National Environmental Policy Act (Fischer et al., 2023, p.181). Following this act, many countries started their EIA system. Today, EIA for a project is legally required in 187 out of 195 countries that are officially recognized by the United Nations (Fishcher et al., 2023, p.181). Under the National Conservation Strategy Implementation Project (1994), the National Planning Commission of Nepal collaborated with the International Union for Conservation of Nature to develop the first National EIA Guidelines. Later, the Nepal government enacted the Environment Protection Act (EPA) and Environment Protection Regulations (EPR) in 1997 to create a legal framework for EIA (Bhatt, 2023, p.989). After Nepal became a federal democratic republic state in 2015, EPA and EPR 1997 were replaced by EPA 2019 and EPR 2020 respectively (Bhatt, 2023, p.989). 

According to EPR 2020, there are three types of Environmental Assessment (EA) in Nepal. They are Brief Environmental Study (BES), Initial Environmental Examination (IEE), and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Based on the sector and scale of an infrastructure project, any one type of EA must be conducted. Generally, an EIA report is prepared for a large-scale infrastructure project that needs to be approved by the Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) of Nepal. Schedule 3 of EPR 2020 categorizes the EIA projects into 12 different sectors.

Challenges of the EIA System in Nepal

Kamijo(2022) pointed out that the two major issues of the EIA system in developing countries are public participation and monitoring (p.13480). These two issues also exist in the Nepalese EIA system. In addition, the low-quality EIA report is another critical contemporary issue in Nepal. This section briefly discusses the three major challenges of the EIA system in Nepal.

1. Low-Quality EIA Reports

In Nepal,  an independent private consultancy firm prepares an EIA report on behalf of a project proponent. The Schedule 13 of EPR 2020 highlights the specialist who can prepare the EIA report in Nepal. It also requires a minimum team of 5 specialists to prepare an EIA report. The specialists have to prepare the EIA report according to the format prescribed by schedule 12 of EPR 2020.

There are a few factors that lead to the low-quality EIA reports. First, Joshi (2017) pointed out that there is a thriving practice of copying and pasting in EIA reports (p.8). The EIA report of  $3.45 Billion Nijgadh Airport has the content copied and pasted from another EIA report prepared for the hydropower project (“Apex court”, 2022; Joshi, 2022). If an EIA report of such a massive project is prepared with utter negligence, we can imagine the quality of EIA reports prepared for other small and medium-scale projects.

Second, EIA reports in Nepal are prone to faulty information. For instance, the EIA report of the Sangu Khola Hydropower project claimed the project area is home to fishing cats, but the environmental experts argued that fishing cats cannot survive in that area’s climate (Kantipur TV HD, 2021). Batu Krishna Uprety, former joint secretary at MoFE, argued that the preparation of EIA reports by non-practitioners or individuals who have no experience and knowledge about EIA is the main reason for the underquality of the EIA report in Nepal (Kantipur TV HD, 2021). To add up, Conservationist Raju Acharya argued that project proponents conduct EIA from fresh college graduates to save money (Joshi, 2022). This has also led to low-quality EIA reports.

Third, Shree Govind Shah, an Environmental Planning and Policy Analyst, pointed out that the chapter on alternative analysis is overlooked in EIA reports (Kantipur TV HD, 2021). He added the alternative analysis which should present a detailed analysis of available alternatives to the proposed project is completely ignored by providing a few lines of explanation. Shah (2019) argued that EIA is conducted late in the project development cycle in Nepal and often after finalizing the location and design of the project.  

The sole responsibility of the low-quality report falls under the consultancy. Section 6 of EPA 2019 highlights that the government can blacklist the consultancy firms for up to 5 years if their EIA reports do not meet the determined standard and quality. We have recently filed a Right to Information (RTI) application at MoFE asking the number of consultancies that have been blacklisted by the ministry so far.

2. Lack of Meaningful Public Participation

Public participation is one of the critical parts of the EIA process. In Nepal, public participation occurs from the beginning of the EIA process. The public can provide opinions and suggestions in writing during the preparation of the scoping document. Then, they can participate in the public hearing where they can express their opinions and suggestions verbally. Post public hearing, they can again offer further opinions and suggestions in writing. Lastly, the public can submit their opinions and suggestions after reviewing the draft EIA report before the MoFE approves it. In this way, EPR 2020 ensures public engagement in the multiple stages of the EIA decision-making. Public participation allows local people to take part in the decisions that directly affect them. Stewart and Sinclair (2007) pointed out the 8 key elements that make public participation meaningful. They are:

I ) Transparent

The public participation process should be transparent on how the input of the public is used in the EIA decision-making. In the case of Nepal, opinions and suggestions of the public are incorporated in the EIA reports. Also, EPR 2020 clearly explains how the public can participate in the EIA process. Therefore, public participation seems to be transparent in Nepal.

II) Influence

The public should have confidence that their opinions and suggestions will be heard and they could also influence the proponent’s decisions (Stewart & Sinclair, 2007, p.168). It is difficult to gauge whether the Nepalese public has such confidence or not.

III) Fair Notice and Time

There should be fair notice and time for public participation. Schedules 4 and 9 of EPR 2020 prescribe the format of the public notice which is fair. Regarding the time, it is clearly unfair in Nepal. The public has just 7 days to send their opinions and suggestions in writing. During those 7 days, they have to form a group, learn about the potential impacts of the proposed project, form their opinions, write a letter, and deliver the letter to the consultancy. It looks quite unfeasible.

IV) Inclusiveness and Adequate Representation

Recently, MoFE proposed an amendment to section 6 of EPR 2020 which deals with inclusiveness and adequate representation. Initially, it required the participation of the project-affected local people, representatives of the local government, and the forest consumer committee in the public hearing. The amendment now requires the participation of tribal communities, Dalit, Madhesi, and underprivileged people in the public hearing. This shows that public participation is becoming more inclusive and representative in Nepal. However, women are still underrepresented in public hearings.

V) Fair and Open Dialogue

There should be a two-way flow of fair and open dialogue between the public and proponents. In Nepal, such dialogue exists only during the public hearing. There should be a good facilitator in the public hearing who makes the participants comfortable to express their views. It is difficult to comment on this without participating in the EIA public hearing in Nepal.

VI) Multiple and Appropriate Methods

Meaningful public participation allows the public to participate in multiple and appropriate ways. There should be multiple methods of participation such as surveys, open houses, and advisory committees that would give the public more opportunities to present their opinions and suggestions. In Nepal, the public can participate only through writing or public hearings.

VII) Adequate and Accessible Information

The information related to the proposed project should be adequate and easily accessible to the public. EPR 2020 requires the proponent to publish the public notice in public places and in national daily newspapers. In this digital age, the newspaper readership is at a historically low level. Similarly, MoFE uploads the draft EIA on its website for public review. It is important to question whether the local people have enough literacy to visit MoFE’s website, read over 100 pages of technical EIA reports, and also give their opinions in writing. Therefore, the information related to the proposed project is certainly not easily accessible to the public in Nepal.

VIII) Informed Participation

The public should be informed to make their participation meaningful. There are no efforts from either governmental or nongovernmental levels in Nepal to educate the public about the potential environmental consequences of a proposed project. In fact, it will be easier for the proponent if the public is less informed. There is a clear conflict of interest in the case of information flow.

Based on these 8 parameters, we can conclude that Nepal lacks meaningful public participation. To back this up, Munch-Peterson (2017) studied public participation in three large-scale hydropower projects and found that public participation has very limited or no influence on the EIA decision-making process in Nepal. Recently, there was a lawsuit against Sangrila Urja Private Limited for forging signatures of local people for the EIA report (Hyolmo & Abulu, 2024). It even included the name of children as a participant in the public hearing. Hollywood actor Leonardo DiCaprio posted about this issue on his instagram account on June 18, 2024 which made a global headline. This raises a serious question: how can we make public participation meaningful? First, there should be some legal changes at the governmental level such as allowing more than 7 days to present public opinions and suggestions, requiring an additional accessible method of public participation, and allowing additional media for public notice. Second, Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) can increase public participation in the EIA process by organizing the local people (Kamijo, 2022, p.13477). NGOs can go to the project area when the proponents release a public notice in the national daily newspaper. They can inform the local people about their rights, inform them of the potential environmental consequences of the proposed project, help them formulate their views, and assist them in putting their opinions and suggestions in writing. This will make the information more accessible, participants more informed, and public participation more meaningful.

3. Ineffective Self-Monitoring

The third major challenge of the EIA system in Nepal is ineffective self-monitoring. The EIA report consists of a chapter on the anticipated environmental impact of the proposed project and the mitigation measures to deal with those impacts. The project needs to be monitored regularly to check if the proponent is implementing those mitigation measures or not. 

Section 45 of EPR 2020 requires self-monitoring by the project proponent every 6 months and submitting the report to the concerned ministries. If non-compliance is found, the proponent will receive an order to comply with mitigation measures mentioned in the EIA report from the concerned ministry. If the proponent ignores the order, they can be charged up to 15 million NPR. In addition, the project will be halted and the proponent will be blacklisted for 1 year up to 5 years.

Under the South Asia Sub Regional Economic Cooperation (SASEC) Road Improvement Program, the Ministry of Physical Infrastructure and Transport (MoPIT) of Nepal prepared the EIA report of the Narayanghat-Butwal (115km) Road Expansion plan for the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The EIA mentions that the fugitive dust emission will be considerable during the construction phase of the project (MoPIT, 2016, p.106). They said that emission controls will be installed and Nepal’s Ambient Air Quality Standards and WHO Air Quality Guidelines will be followed (p.106). As mitigation measures, they promised to spray water on road surfaces to keep them moist for dust control (p.106). In reality, these mitigation measures are not implemented. The local people are living with severe air pollution.  According to EPR 2020, MoPIT must submit a self-monitoring report every 6 months to MoPE. Even though there is a clear non-compliance, there hasn't been any action against MoPIT. This clearly shows that self-monitoring is ineffective. The proponents are less likely to submit the monitoring report with any non-compliance issues even though they exist.

The concerned ministries can inspect the project if deemed necessary. They are required to make the inspection report publicly available. Out of 237 approved projects EIAs, the Department of Environment (DoE) has inspected only 12 projects (Joshi, 2017, p.7). This shows the undercapacity of the ministry for inspection. Under such a situation, non-compliance by proponents is highly likely to be ignored.  The ministries or departments should increase the size of project inspecting staff to deal with this issue.

Conclusion

EIA is a critical tool to achieve sustainable development. It shouldn't be perceived as a hindrance to development. All the stakeholders should work closely to deal with the three major challenges that we found in the Nepalese EIA system. The challenges include lower-quality EIA reports, lack of meaningful public participation, and ineffective self-monitoring. The private consultancy firms should be brought under strict scrutiny and must be held accountable to produce high-quality EIA reports. Similarly, the government and public sector must work hand-in-hand to make public participation meaningful. Lastly, investment in capacity building of the regulators can only ensure the effectiveness of EIA in Nepal, and therefore, must be considered seriously.