Chief ministers unite to press federal government on devolution

The proposed Interprovincial Chief Ministers’ Partnership Forum would give Nepal’s seven provincial leaders a permanent way to work together. Its purpose is to move beyond occasional meetings and create a shared structure for advancing provincial powers and cooperation. The chief ministers agreed to establish it during a two-day conference in Biratnagar.

The forum would oversee the commitments in the Koshi Declaration-2026. It would monitor progress, promote cooperation on development projects, and coordinate the provinces’ demands to the federal government. The leaders also agreed to hold chief minister-level meetings at least once a year to review results.

The forum’s influence will depend on follow-through. Its agenda includes police adjustment, civil service management, fiscal transfers, interprovincial projects, and removal of trade barriers. These goals still require federal legislation, administrative action, and funding, so coordination alone will not complete devolution.

All seven of Nepal’s provinces are seeking a clearer and more workable federal system. They want powers promised by the constitution to be transferred fully, rather than remaining with the federal government. Their shared concerns cover policing, civil servants, fiscal autonomy, legislation, and responsibility for development.

The provinces want provincial police services, including personnel, infrastructure, property, records, and equipment. They also seek larger and more predictable equalisation grants, fewer conditional grants, and funding for unfinished projects transferred from the federal government. They want authority to approve investments above Rs6 billion in sectors under their exclusive jurisdiction.

The declaration also seeks fair revenue and royalty sharing from hydropower, forests, mines and minerals, river materials, and forest products. The provinces propose considering conservation work and affected communities. They also plan joint work on roads, connectivity, agriculture, tourism, energy, river basins, and disaster management.

Devolution is the transfer of authority, responsibilities, and resources from a central government to provincial and local governments. It is meant to let decisions be made closer to communities while keeping some national responsibilities with the federal government. Nepal’s constitution establishes this federal arrangement across federal, provincial, and local levels.

The article gives policing and public security as a clear example: they fall under provincial governments’ exclusive powers under Schedule 6. Provinces are also expected to exercise constitutional responsibilities through their administrations, budgets, and development work. Local governments have chief administrative officers whose management is part of the dispute.

The system remains incomplete because responsibilities are not always clearly divided, legislation is delayed, and administrative structures have not been transferred. The chief ministers want federal laws, staff arrangements, funding, and institutions that match the constitutional distribution of powers. Without those steps, constitutional authority remains difficult to use.

Police control matters because provinces are constitutionally responsible for policing and public security under Schedule 6. If they must maintain law and order, they need the operational capacity to do so. Legal authority without staff, facilities, records, or equipment leaves provincial governments unable to perform that responsibility effectively.

The chief ministers specifically called for the transfer of police personnel, infrastructure, property, records, and equipment. These resources form the working system behind public security. Personnel provide the service, while buildings, information, assets, and equipment support daily operations and local responses.

The article says the required federal laws and institutional arrangements remain incomplete. The provinces therefore want police adjustment and the establishment of provincial police services. Until the federal government completes the legal and administrative transfer, public-security responsibilities may remain divided in practice, even though the constitution assigns them to provincial governments.

Equalisation grants are transfers intended to account for differences in provincial expenditure needs and revenue capacity. Conditional grants are funds tied to specified purposes or projects. The article does not provide a technical formula, but it shows how the two systems affect provincial freedom over budgets.

The provinces want the federal government to release equalisation grants in full and stop cutting allocations during or near the end of a fiscal year. They also seek larger equalisation grants based on spending needs and revenue capacity. At the same time, they want conditional grants reduced gradually, especially when they finance federal projects overlapping provincial responsibilities.

Predictable equalisation funding would help provinces plan services and allocate money according to local priorities. Fewer conditions would give them more flexibility. The declaration also demands funding for unfinished projects transferred from the federal government, because budget shortages have left some responsibilities without adequate resources.

Failure to transfer powers, civil servants, and funding would leave Nepal’s federal system working on paper but weak in daily life. Provinces could be responsible for public security without police personnel or equipment. Unclear authority over officials could also slow decisions and make administration less accountable.

Development projects could remain unfinished or become duplicated. The declaration points to federal projects overlapping provincial responsibilities and to projects transferred without enough money. Unpredictable grants would make it harder to plan roads, agriculture, tourism, energy, disaster management, and other services. Local governments could also face uncertainty over their chief administrative officers.

The article does not predict specific outcomes, but it identifies the risks directly: incomplete devolution, limited fiscal autonomy, delayed administration, and inadequate resources undermine provincial governments. The consequences could persist unless federal laws, police arrangements, civil-service rules, and reliable funding are put in place.

The article identifies several reasons for the incomplete system: unclear responsibilities, delayed legislation, difficulties managing civil servants, limited fiscal autonomy, and delays in transferring administrative structures. These problems prevent provinces from exercising constitutional powers effectively. The federal government has not yet completed the laws and institutions needed to support the constitutional design.

The chief ministers want federal laws and administrative actions on several fronts. They call for provincial police services and the transfer of police personnel, infrastructure, property, records, and equipment. They also seek a Federal Civil Service Act that respects provincial powers and settles management of provincial chief secretaries, and local chief administrative officers.

Implementation also requires full and predictable equalisation grants, fewer conditional grants, funding for unfinished transferred projects, and fair revenue sharing. The declaration sets a common agenda, but progress depends on federal legislation, administrative action, and funding. The new joint forum will monitor these demands and promote cooperation.