Chief ministers renew old demands, seek fresh cooperation after nine years of federal Nepal

Nepal’s chief ministers are renewing demands for the powers and legal framework needed to make provincial government work. Their priorities include police integration, civil service management, fiscal resources, administrative authority and laws governing shared responsibilities. They also want federal laws covering education, forests and natural resources. These demands matter because provinces have constitutional duties but say they lack matching authority, staff and money.

The Pokhara conference produced a 17-point demand list in 2023. It covered police integration, civil service management, lawmaking, fiscal transfers and natural resources. Since then, the federal government has only partly addressed driving licences. Provinces gained authority to print them, but only at a federal-designated printing press.

The Biratnagar conference is renewing these demands while proposing stronger cooperation among provinces. Chief ministers say they will continue pressing the federal government. The central challenge is no longer identifying problems, but implementing earlier commitments and enacting the laws required for federalism to function.

Federalism is a system in which government authority is constitutionally shared between a national government and subnational governments. Nepal’s federal government handles matters assigned to the centre, while provincial governments exercise responsibilities assigned to them by the constitution. The arrangement matters because provinces are meant to make decisions and deliver services closer to their communities.

In practice, Nepal’s provinces say the division is incomplete. Their constitutional responsibilities include public security and development, but they lack control over police, civil servants and some administrative powers. They also depend on laws and fiscal arrangements shaped at the federal level. The constitution assigns duties, but those duties do not always come with usable authority.

This gap has become the main problem after nearly nine years of provincial government. Chief ministers want federal laws and resources that match provincial responsibilities. Without them, provincial governments say they cannot fully exercise constitutional powers or deliver services effectively, raising questions about how Nepal’s federal structure operates.

Nepal has seven provinces. Provincial governments were established nearly nine years before the Biratnagar conference held on October 13–14, 2026. This period is long enough for provinces to identify recurring institutional problems, but the article shows that several foundational issues remain unresolved.

The chief ministers first met together on September 6–7, 2018. All seven provinces were represented at that gathering, although most provinces had not yet been named. Later meetings in Pokhara and Hetauda repeated concerns about police integration, civil service management, laws and money.

The length of provincial experience makes the continuing delays significant. The chief ministers have already made joint commitments and submitted demands, but implementation has fallen short. At Biratnagar, they are again seeking federal action while proposing closer cooperation among provinces to address shared problems.

Police integration and civil service control are essential because provincial responsibilities require people and institutions to carry them out. The article identifies public security and development as provincial responsibilities. Without provincial police authority, provinces cannot fully manage security work. Without control over civil servants, they struggle to administer programmes, implement decisions and deliver services.

The problem is not simply a lack of effort. Chief ministers say federal laws governing provincial police and administration have been delayed. Chet Narayan Acharya said the federal government must transfer administrative powers guaranteed to provinces by the constitution. The article also identifies the Federal Civil Service Act and related administrative authority as longstanding demands.

This creates a structural gap: provinces are judged on outcomes while key machinery remains outside their control. The chief ministers argue that federal action on police integration, civil service management and legislation is necessary for provinces to use their constitutional powers effectively and meet public needs.

Constitutional responsibilities are meaningful only when governments have the tools to act. If provinces lack laws, administrative staff and fiscal resources, they cannot fully design, manage or fund services and development work. Delays also create uncertainty over who has authority to make decisions, weakening accountability for results.

Surendra Raj Pandey said provincial governments were criticised for poor delivery despite lacking necessary powers. He pointed to driving licences as an example: provinces received authority to print them, but only at a printing press designated by the federal government. This was the only Pokhara demand addressed, and even that response was partial.

The current result is a persistent implementation gap. Provinces have identified their problems and made commitments, but federal laws and transfers remain incomplete. Chief ministers are pressing again at Biratnagar, while seeking stronger provincial cooperation. Until authority and resources match responsibilities, the same service and development concerns are likely to return.

Earlier meetings produced commitments because the provinces shared the same institutional problems and could agree on common demands. The Pokhara conference issued a 17-point list covering police integration, civil service management, lawmaking, fiscal transfers and natural resources. Hetauda followed with a nine-point declaration after participants concluded that earlier decisions had not been implemented.

The mechanism behind the limited progress was not disagreement among chief ministers. Rather, many demands required federal laws, transfers of authority or federal action. The article says only driving-licence authority was addressed after Pokhara, and even that power remained restricted to a federally designated printing press. Police, civil service and other legal issues remained unsettled.

As a result, the same issues returned at Biratnagar in 2026. The conferences identified problems, but implementation fell short. The new test is whether the federal government and provinces can turn repeated commitments into laws, administrative transfers and resources, while provinces cooperate more closely among themselves.

Fiscal transfers determine whether provinces can pay for the responsibilities assigned to them. A province may have authority to plan services or development, but it cannot act effectively without predictable financial resources. Control over natural resources matters for a similar reason: it affects who can make decisions about valuable assets and who receives the resulting benefits.

The Pokhara demands explicitly included fiscal transfers and the use of natural resources. They also covered lawmaking and shared powers, showing that money cannot be separated from legal authority. If federal arrangements control transfers or resource decisions too tightly, provincial governments have less room to set priorities and implement plans.

The article does not provide amounts or a detailed revenue-sharing formula. It does show that the demands remained unresolved and returned at Biratnagar. Chief ministers are therefore seeking stronger federal action and greater cooperation among provinces. Their broader argument is that constitutional responsibilities require corresponding resources and powers.