Submit your Article

As consumers, we all have experienced instances of being misled or cheated. Fortunately, we now have a dedicated avenue for seeking justice: the Consumer Court. 

The government of Nepal published a notice in the Gazette on Feb 10, announcing the formation of such a court in the Kathmandu Valley, which will begin hearing the cases from March 15. Such courts are yet to take shape in other parts of the country, though Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2018 allows relevant authorities to establish consumer courts across the country.  

In 2022, the Supreme Court’s division bench of Justices Bam Kumar Shrestha and Nahkul Subedi, in the case filed by Forum for the Protection of Consumer Rights, directed the government to establish consumer courts in all provinces to uphold consumer’s rights and interests and curb unfair trade practices. 

Three years into the top court ruling and nearly six years after the enactment of the Act, 2018, the government has decided to partially implement the legal mandates by constituting a Consumer Court in the capital city. Against this backdrop, let’s have a look at the legal arrangements under the 2018 Act, a specialized legislation designed to safeguard the interest of buyers.   

Consumer Court 

The law envisages that the Consumer Court shall consist of a Chairperson, a government-designated district judge, and two gazetted second class officers. One of these officers must be from the judicial service, while the other may be selected from the administrative service at the discretion of the government. The decisions of the Consumer Court can be challenged before the concerned High Court within 35 days.

Rights of consumers

Article 44 of the Constitution of Nepal grants every consumer the right to obtain quality goods and services. The government has enacted “Consumer Protection Act, 2018” to translate the constitutional mandates into action. This law intends to provide remedy to the aggrieved consumers, secure their rights and address their concerns. 

Section 3 of the Act guarantees rights to every consumer to have quality goods and services. Clause-2 confers extensive rights to consumers, including the right to have accessible reach over goods and services, right to select quality goods and services at competitive prices and the right to know the details of products such as price, quantity and purity. 

This respect, the consumers have the right to know about the composition of the product, the distributor, manufacturer and among other details as to the product. Along with this, the consumers have the right to initiate legal action against unfair trade practices. They could claim compensation against the loss caused by the goods and services.

Government role 

As per Section 4(1), the government shall keep an eye on details of the product such as quality, maximum retail price, label and advertisement for the protection of consumer rights.

The Ministry of Industry has been conferred with a plethora of powers, including that of formulating policy as to goods or services' standard, price and accessibility; framing plan of action to fight against “unfair trade practices” and initiating a regular analysis of goods and services consumed in the country. 

The “Consumer Protection Council” led by the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Supplies plays an instrumental role in making policies on the matters incidental to the rights of consumers.

There appears to be a “Central Market Monitoring Committee” under the coordination of the Secretary, Ministry of Industry. This Committee has been entrusted with the power to ensure “protection of the rights and interests of the consumers or for making coordination among the bodies involved in the monitoring or inspection of the supply system.” This Committee dispenses many functions, including that of identifying the shortage of goods or services in market; to monitor and supervise the “Supply System”, to make recommendation for “market monitoring”, to maintain coordination in the function of the “Market Monitoring Team” and “Local Monitoring Committee” or to form committees or subcommittees or to set up “Consumer Information Centre. The “Market Monitoring Committee” could be established at provincial levels [Section 27].

Duty of manufacturers 

The manufacturer would have to use labels in their products by displaying the credentials like the name and address of the manufacturer, composition, weight and quantity, batch number, date of manufacture, expiry date, guarantee and warranty details. 

The information about the products produced from Nepal should be written in Nepali or English. The products without label should not be sold or distributed in Nepal [Section 6(4)]. However, the unpacked agricultural produce or fruits could be sold in the open market without a label. But, the vegetables and fruits which are for export need to be labelled. 

Also, the manufacturers have a duty to manufacture quality goods and services. They should refrain themselves from producing sub-standard products. The service providers should maintain transparency.

Unfair trade practices

Under Section 16, the Act provides that no person shall do or cause to do any form of “unfair trade practice”. The goods and services providers or any person should not hide information as to the label, price and other details and fix a new one to charge more than the actual retail price. The advertisement should not be made false or misleading.

The substandard goods should not be re-labelled for deception purposes. The creation of artificial shortage of goods, hoarding has been banned by this law under Section 16. The goods which are not good for consumption should not be sold or made available to consumers. Section 18 outlaws the sale or distribution of the substandard goods. 

The government of Nepal has been empowered to determine the list of essential food and other goods or services by notification in gazette [Section 19]. This respect, the law remains centralized. This law suggests that the employees of the Centre, Province or local bodies could be designated as Inspectors.  

Way forward 

Protecting and promoting consumerism is a challenging task unless there is awareness among buyers (Caveat Emptor) and accountability among sellers and service providers (Caveat Venditor). The establishment of institutional mechanisms, the formation of consumer courts across the country and the strict enforcement of law and order are essential to effectively realize the mandates of the consumer protection laws.

The state has made a positive step toward advancing consumerism by establishing a dedicated court, initially in Kathmandu. For true progress in consumer rights, the government, people, manufacturers, sellers, service providers and all stakeholders must stand on the same page. After all, Nepal deserves a robust system and society that upholds the rights of its consumers.

The US presidency is widely respected for its authority and global influence, given the nation’s military strength, economic leadership and role in promoting democracy. However, the past decade has been a pivotal period for American democracy and its core values. Donald Trump’s presidency ignited a powerful political movement, deepening political divisions. He strategically expanded his influence using misinformation, conspiracy theories, personal attacks, financial resources and nationalist rhetoric. His targets extended beyond political opponents to include government institutions, the judiciary, the legislature, foreign allies, the press, international organizations and the business community

Many analysts describe Trump’s Republican Party as an authoritarian populist movement seeking to centralize power within the presidency. Concerns have grown both domestically and internationally about whether Trump aligns with fascist ideology. While the debate over whether he is a fascist leader continues, he undeniably exhibits several fascist characteristics. At the very least, Trump is an ultranationalist and a populist.

According to Merriam-Webster, “Fascism is a populist political philosophy, movement or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual, is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader and is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and forcible suppression of opposition.” Trump’s rise to power relied on populist rhetoric, framing the political system, media and foreign policy as corrupt and dominated by left-wing elites. His administration attacked foreign allies, institutions, political opponents and immigrant communities, reflecting an authoritarian governance style. His "America First" agenda frequently sought to diminish the influence of sovereign nations, including US allies. For example, Trump referred to Canada as the "51st state" and called its Prime Minister a "governor," which many saw as an attempt to intimidate a foreign leader. Domestically, he aligned with billionaires like Elon Musk, leveraging their influence to undermine government agencies and threaten federal employees.

The Council on Foreign Relations outlines five stages through which fascism rises to power: emerging from public disillusionment, establishing legitimacy as a political movement, gaining power through right-wing partnerships, using power to dominate institutions and implementing radical reforms. Trump has demonstrated all five stages in his pursuit of power. He capitalized on public dissatisfaction with war, economic disparity, immigration, bureaucracy and media bias. He also discredited the US judicial system, particularly when facing criminal indictments, portraying his legal troubles as political persecution. His ability to harness these grievances reshaped the Republican Party into a populist right-wing movement.

Many Republican leaders have avoided acknowledging key issues such as the January 6 insurrection, the legitimacy of the 2020 election and international conflicts like those in Ukraine and Gaza, reinforcing Trump’s influence over the party. He has also shown a willingness to collaborate with authoritarian and right-wing leaders worldwide, signaling a preference for figures who challenge democratic norms. His alignment with wealthy elites and tech giants reflects a tendency to prioritize the interests of billionaires over working-class Americans. For instance, he advocated for tax cuts benefiting the wealthy while proposing reductions in social security and medicare that disproportionately affect lower-income Americans. His partnerships with corporate leaders, particularly in the tech sector, allowed him to push for deregulation and policies that benefit the elite while weakening protections for the general public—hallmarks of authoritarian economic control.

Trump repeatedly sought to dominate institutions, including the judiciary. He openly disregarded court rulings that went against his interests and expressed a desire to reshape government structures to serve his agenda. Trump’s push for radical reforms, often benefiting his donors and allies, demonstrates his intent to consolidate power beyond legal norms. While the extent of his success remains uncertain, he has shown a clear willingness to challenge democratic systems and test the boundaries of his authority.

While Trump may not fully succeed in becoming a fascist leader, he undeniably embraces fascist characteristics and has implemented policies that reflect authoritarian tendencies. Before the 2020 election, Cornell University professor Isabel Hull argued that Trump was “not principled enough to be a fascist” and labeled him a “nativist-populist.” However, since then, Trump has intensified his ultra-nationalist and populist approach.

His desire to suppress opposition—though limited by American democratic norms—manifests in policies targeting immigrants, political adversaries and critics. While he may not be able to completely dismantle democracy, his leadership has undeniably pushed the US toward authoritarianism. The American people may ultimately prevent Trump from achieving full-fledged fascism, but his political movement has already demonstrated alarming authoritarian tendencies that cannot be ignored.

Donald Trump’s presidency has significantly reshaped American politics, fostering a populist movement that challenges democratic norms and institutions. While the debate over whether he is a fascist leader continues, he undeniably exhibits key fascist characteristics, including ultranationalism, authoritarian rhetoric and efforts to consolidate power. His attacks on political opponents, government institutions, the judiciary, the media and foreign allies align with historical patterns of authoritarianism. By capitalizing on public grievances, forming alliances with right-wing elites, and pushing policies that favor the wealthy while undermining democratic institutions, Trump has shifted American governance toward an increasingly authoritarian trajectory. Although the US system of checks and balances has constrained his power, his influence continues to grow, posing an ongoing challenge to the resilience of American democracy.

For over 2600 years, Gautam Buddha’s moral principles have emphasized non-violence and respect for all living beings, recognizing all flora and fauna as sentient and capable of suffering. This ethos of compassion still influences Nepal’s cultural and spiritual approach to wildlife. However, modernization, habitat encroachment, climate change and anthropogenic pressures have escalated human-wildlife conflicts (HWC). As landscapes shrink, peaceful coexistence demands blending traditional ecological wisdom with science-based strategies. Achieving this harmonious balance honors Buddhism philosophy while ensuring ecological sustainability.

History: Harmony to conflict

For millennia, human societies coexisted with wildlife in a delicate balance. According to Fabrice Teletchea’s book ‘Animal Domestication (2018)’, early modern humans (Homo sapiens) emerged approximately 200,000 years ago, depended on hunting wild animals and gathering plants for survival. This dynamic began to shift around 12,000 years ago with the advent of agriculture in regions (Fertile Crescent, China and Mesoamerica). The domestication of plants and animals, coupled with agricultural expansion, progressively confined wildlife to fragmented habitats. As agrarian societies displaced hunter-gatherer communities, human-wildlife interactions (HWI) evolved from coexistence to competition.

This transition further accelerated with industrialization and urbanization. A peer-reviewed study, published in Biological Reviews, estimates that since 1500, up to 13 percent of known species—approximately 150,000 to 260,000—may have already gone extinct. This alarming loss termed “biological annihilation” is directly linked to human activities. Historical records by the Smithsonian Institute highlight species like dodo (1690), Labrador duck (1870), Tasmanian tiger (1936), Hawaii chaff flower (1962) and Golden toad (1989), all driven to extinction by anthropogenic pressures.

HWCs in Nepal

Nepal’s HWC trajectory closely mirrors global patterns. The establishment of 12 national parks and several conservation areas including Chitwan and Bardiya National Parks initially provided wildlife with critical refuge. However, these protected areas also created conflict hotspots along their buffer zones, where human settlements and agricultural lands directly border wildlife habitats.

A 2016 PLOS One Journal study documented 463 conflict incidents resulting in human injury or death caused by large mammals between 2010 and 2014. Between 2000 and 2020, Nepal recorded 1139 cases of wildlife mortality and 887 human fatalities linked to HWCs. Notably, thousands of people and their properties in the Tarai regions were affected by elephant-related conflicts alone, underscoring the gravity of the issue.

HWC refers to harmful encounters where wildlife threatens human safety, livelihoods or cultural values, often triggering retaliatory actions. HWI is a neutral term covering positive, negative or benign forms of contact. Coexistence, however, is a balanced state where humans and wildlife share space with tolerable impacts, supported by adaptive management, cultural acceptance and mutual benefits.

Nepal offers an ideal case for better understanding these dynamics. Rapid, unplanned urbanization and intensified agriculture have escalated competition for habitat and resources. Protected areas, surrounded by settlements, have led to wildlife frequently venturing into croplands and communities, heightening conflict potential.

HWC, alongside zoonotic diseases, poses significant public health risks. With 75 percent of emerging infectious diseases being zoonotic and 70 percent originating from wildlife, addressing these challenges is crucial. Deforestation, habitat fragmentation and wildlife trade create “spillover hotspots,” enabling pathogens to circulate in the wildlife-livestock-humans interface.

Forest-edge communities face heightened risks from diseases like brucellosis, leptospirosis, leishmaniasis, rabies, tuberculosis and anthrax. Wildlife are equally vulnerable to ‘reverse spillover’ reported canine distemper virus and tuberculosis in Nepal’s wild species.

Covid-19 pandemic and other outbreaks (Mpox, Ebola) highlighted the global consequences of poorly managed HWI, underscoring the urgency of integrating public health into conservation strategies to mitigate such risks.

Climate change exacerbates these risks by altering species distributions, habitat and migration patterns. Shifting temperature and precipitation disrupt wildlife foraging and breeding, pushing into human-dominated landscapes for searching for food and water. Concurrent habitat degradation reduces natural food supplies, intensifying crop raiding and livestock predation. Nepal, a biodiversity hotspot, is vulnerable to these cascading effects. The keystone species loss and ecosystem disruptions jeopardize the ecology essential for wildlife and local livelihoods.

Policy landscape

Nepal’s policy response has evolved to resolve the HWC interconnected challenges, zoonotic diseases and biodiversity loss. Adoption of ‘One Health Strategy 2019’ and ‘National Wildlife Health Action Plan 2023-2032’ aim to strengthen wildlife disease surveillance, conservation medicine, and inter-agency coordination. These policies establish a framework for managing risks at the human-animal-environment interface through an interdisciplinary lens.

However, challenges remain in implementation, including fragmented disease surveillance within protected areas and limited diagnostic capacity. Institutional silos among conservation, veterinary and public health authorities hinder real-time data sharing and coordinated responses. This impedes Nepal’s ability to proactively manage health threats at the interface.

Empowering local communities in buffer zones as frontline stakeholders is key to managing HWC. Residents, bearing the brunt of HWC, possess invaluable traditional ecological knowledge, including indigenous practices like crop guarding, seasonal land-use rotation and wildlife behavior interpretation. Strategies such as electric fences, predator-proof corrals and planting wildlife-unpalatable crops (peppermint) are effective. However, science-based, species-specific and landscape-specific conflict management strategies are recommended for more sustainable solutions.

Community-managed buffer zones around Chitwan National Park demonstrate how conservation can be economically beneficial through eco-tourism. Such incentives foster stewardship, transforming wildlife from threats to valued assets.

To shift from reactive conflict management to proactive coexistence, Nepal must invest in wildlife health surveillance, community resilience and economic incentives such as compensation schemes and eco-tourism revenue-sharing. This transition needs interdisciplinary collaboration, community awareness and effective policy into action.

Integrating the Buddhist philosophy, which emphasizes respect for all living beings and their freedom from suffering, can foster behavioral changes transforming HWC into opportunities for coexistence.

Foreign aid is resource assistance provided by developed countries or international institutions to support the economic, social and political development of developing nations. Ideally, it should boost economic growth, improve people’s well-being, offer grants or low-interest rates, and address long-term capital needs. The disbursement of foreign aid to least developed countries began after the Second World War. 

Foreign aid has played a crucial role in supporting Nepal’s development efforts since the early 1950s. Given Nepal’s structural bottlenecks, large fiscal and external deficits, and significant imbalance between saving and investment ratios, foreign aid has been instrumental in sustaining the economy. Nepal has received foreign aid through various channels; however, while Nepal relies heavily on foreign assistance, concerns are growing over its increasing dependence on loans. 

Foreign aid has become a hot topic, especially following the abrupt freeze and potential shutdown of USAID under the Trump administration. Unlike the UK’s gradual shift from traditional aid to private-sector investment, the sudden United States decision has left many projects in limbo and raised concerns over Nepal’s heavy reliance on external support. Over 300 NGOs, consultancy and nonprofit companies are affected by the decision. Given this dependency, there is growing apprehension that other donor nations might adopt similar abrupt measures in the future. In response, Nepal must explore strategies to mitigate these risks.

Understanding Nepal’s foreign aid landscape 

Nepal’s foreign aid landscape consists of various aid partners supporting the country through different aid modalities. Nepal receives foreign aid in the form of multilateral aid, bilateral aid, technical assistance and humanitarian aid. 

The total commitment for foreign aid in FY 2023/24 was $2,504m, with total disbursement accounting to $1,576m. Multilateral donor organizations contributed the largest share, accounting for 60-65 percent of the total disbursements. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) was the largest aid provider, committing $868m, followed by the World Bank, European Union (EU), and the United Nation (UN). 

The United States is the largest bilateral foreign aid donor to Nepal, followed by China and India. The United States has provided substantial grants totaling approximately $1.607bn between 2010 and 2022, making it the top contributor. China comes in second, with grants of around $1.042bn, while India is the third-largest donor, contributing approximately $994m. The United Kingdom and Japan also play a significant role in foreign aid to Nepal.

In FY 2023/24, the highest sectoral aid commitment was in the energy sector, with 27.71 percent, followed by infrastructural development at 19.61 percent. Agriculture received 16.43 percent, while budgetary support accounted for 16.36 percent. Climate finance stood at 9.05 percent, the economic sector received 6.62 percent, and the social sector got 2.51 percent.

The energy sector focuses on hydropower and electricity infrastructure, while Infrastructure includes roads, bridges, and urban projects. Agriculture supports irrigation and modern farming, and budgetary support provides direct financial aid for government policies. Climate finance funds disaster resilience and renewable energy, whereas the economic sector boosts banking, SMEs, and trade. Lastly, the social sector covers education, healthcare, and welfare programs.

Nepal’s government has set a target of receiving approximately $2.05bn in foreign assistance in FY 2024/25, comprising $397m in grants and a significant $1.65bn in loans.

In FY 2010/11, grants accounted for 57 percent of foreign aid, while loans made up 24.30 percent. The grants declined to 49.64 percent by FY 2015/2016 with loans rising to 34.89 percent.This trend intensified in 2020/21, the grants hit record low with 21.49 percent and loans increased with 66.88 percent. The grants for FY 2023/24 make up only 39.67 percent of total aid, while loans account for substantial 60.33 percent.

Over the past decade, loans have grown at a much faster rate than grants. This growing reliance on loans presents a concerning shift for Nepali’s economic future. While loans can provide immediate funding for development projects, they come with long-term repayment obligations that may strain Nepal’s fiscal capacity. This pattern mirrors the debt burden seen in other countries that have heavily relied on loans for development. For instance, Sri Lanka’s economic crisis that stemmed from debt, declining foreign reserves, import reliance, and policy missteps. 

Challenges in aid utilization

According to the Ministry of Finance, external aid, including concessional loans and grants, have been utilized to stabilize inflationary pressures, which may inadvertently slow economic growth, intensifying issues like unemployment, poverty, and inequality problems. As an offshoot, Nepal risks falling behind in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and raising concern about increasing debt and reliance on external aid due to the rapid increase in loans. Nepal introduced its Foreign Aid Policy in 2009, aimed at enhancing the country’s ownership and ensuring that donor support aligns with government priorities. However, Nepal’s aid absorptive capacity has been found to be poor. Nepal’s limited capacity to effectively utilize foreign aid stems from several key challenges.

• Complex public procurement act: The intricate procedures mandated by the Public Procurement Act add layers of complexity, leading to delays in project initiation and execution. Post-earthquake reconstruction was slow, with international aid agencies facing year-long delays in project approvals due to weak institutional capacity and poor coordination. 
• Prolonged bureaucratic procedures: Extended bureaucratic processes in project approval and implementation slow down the utilization of foreign aid. The Melamchi Water Supply Project (2000–2021) struggled with political interference, contractor disputes, and financial irregularities.
• Administrative inefficiencies: The Pokhara International Airport, funded by Chinese loans, faced operational challenges post-completion. Operational inefficiencies within governmental agencies contribute to the sluggish deployment of aid resources.
• Inadequate infrastructure: The country’s underdeveloped infrastructure hampers the efficient implementation of aid-funded projects.

Additionally, the priorities and interests of donors can affect the alignment of aid with national needs. Aid conditions may limit the government’s autonomy in project implementation, making foreign aid less aligned with national interests. Furthermore, political instability and the prolonged political transitions have adversely affected the mobilization of foreign aid. These challenges collectively hinder Nepal’s ability to fully benefit from foreign assistance, impacting the country's development trajectory.

Lessons from the world 

Foreign aid has been a remarkable success in some countries of the world.  The aid is effective in countries where it is accompanied by sensible economic policies.

For instance, Uganda in the 1990s transformed its economy when aid coupled with their policy reforms. The government embraced economic liberalization, improved financial management, and tackled corruption, ensuring funds were used productively. Botswana in the 1960s, used aid wisely, focusing on infrastructure, education, and healthcare. The government ensured transparency, managed funds responsibly, and avoided dependency. 

We can see that aid wasn’t a crutch but a tool to support its well-planned policies, leading to long-term growth. Foreign aid has also failed at times, raising corruption and poor policies. In Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo), decades of aid brought no progress as Mobutu Sese Seko, President of DRC, accumulated a vast fortune abroad. 

The illustrations demonstrate that without effective governance, proper planning, and stringent oversight, foreign aid can fail to achieve its intended objective. 

Aid optimization for future 

As Nepal nears graduation from Least Developed Country (LDC) status in 2026, a smooth transition from aid dependency to investment-driven growth becomes crucial. With this graduation, Nepal will lose access to concessional loans (below one percent), development grants, preferential trade benefits, and targeted assistance, making it more imperative to focus on attracting private investment

While tools like the Aid Management Platform (AMP) can improve transparency and donor coordination, experiences from countries like Tanzania, Uganda, and Cambodia have shown that while some progress is often hindered by governance challenges, donor cooperation issues, and data accuracy concerns.

This raises an important question for Nepal: should the focus shift more towards reducing reliance on foreign aid, or should the emphasis be on strengthening the effectiveness of existing aid structures? Perhaps it’s not an either/or situation, but a balanced approach that tackles both—ensuring that foreign aid is used more effectively while also promoting sustainable, long-term development strategies. It’s a complex but necessary conversation as Nepal navigates its transition away from aid dependency.