Submit your Article

A ruling party taskforce has recommended substantial amendment of MCC accord. Is this possible?

Officially, we are yet to get the taskforce document. Based on media reports of the comments made by leaders, what I can say is that the comments are not substantial. You have to understand that the amendment process is long and difficult. Among other things, it has been said that the MCC compact violates Nepal’s constitution, which is not true. A communique to this effect has already been exchanged. We are not sure if the taskforce got that communique. There are other communiques, too, over other points. Some of the MCC points can be clarified if they are unclear. If there is a need for further clarification, an exchange of letters would be the shortest route.

Do you think the opposition to the MCC is ideological? Many ruling party leaders continue to see the US and all projects under it as ‘imperialist’. 

I don’t think so. What I would say is that some people have spoken against it on ideological grounds based on fake news and disinformation about the MCC. There are apparently around 500 websites disseminating fake news about the MCC compact. They say there is the MCC in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is wrong. There is no MCC project in the countries with American troops. The contents of fringe online media and social media show some bias. But mainstream political leaders are mostly in favor of maintaining cordial ties with the US.

How do you tackle the persistent perception that the MCC is part of US military strategy?

There are two issues here. First, as the MCC is time-bound, we do not have time to wait for such perceptions to die down. Once we start building the power transmission lines, towers and sub-stations, people will see our actual work. Seeing is believing. When people see the work, they will know that it is not military. As soon as parliamentary ratification and other conditions are met, we will go for speedy implementation. People will gradually understand what the MCC is all about. Similarly, not everyone can understand the 78-page long MCC compact document that was prepared by lawyers. These are international-standard documents and adhere to international norms. Unfortunately, some people are commenting on it without even reading the document or properly understanding the terms and conditions.

What are the important deadlines related to the MCC compact?

We have to understand that nothing lasts forever. We have fixed 30 June 2020 as the date of the accord’s entry into force. If we fail to meet that deadline, there will be credibility issue. So, June 30 is a critical date. Nepal government has dispatched a letter assuring that the compact will come into force after June 30. Non-compliance means violation of this commitment.

There could be further discussions, but it is beyond my jurisdiction to say what will happen after that date. But at the current rate, we could miss the deadline. The fiscal year of US government ends September-October. If the MCC is not endorsed before that, there will be uncertainty.

Even if the MCC and Nepal government agree on deadline extension, the US Congress can transfer unspent money to other heads. They could also withdraw the unspent budget. So it is a risky path. As it is, we have already lost five months, which in turn has greatly affected the morale of our staff.

Again, given the limited time, is there a chance of substantial changes in the compact?

It would not be difficult to explain some points through letters of clarification. For a substantial change, it should first land at the MCC board that includes the US Secretary of State. It would be difficult to justify the amendment to him because the compact was signed after sufficient discussion between the two sides. So it is better to finalize it through clarification letters.

There are also questions in Nepal about the need for parliamentary ratification of the MCC compact.

The rationale behind parliamentary ratification is to give legal status to the compact. There could be legal obstacles, and problems could arise, for instance while felling trees. Domestic procurement laws could be attracted. But we do not work as per the procurement law of Nepal. We follow MCC procurement guidelines. Therefore, the compact should be given the status of law for smooth project implementation. In case of conflict, the compact is implemented in line with section 7.1 of the agreement. On the interpretation of this provision, legal opinion was sought. Nepal government settled for a parliamentary approval through simple majority after legal consultations.  

Many people including senior NCP leaders are of the view that the US should clarify that the MCC is not a part of the Indo-Pacific Strategy.

It is up to the American government to say whether it is part of the IPS. What I have been repeatedly saying that the IPS is not an alliance. It is rather related to US foreign policy that covers areas from Indian Ocean to Pacific Ocean. It is about democracy, development, and defense. It is a policy document. In some policies we could align with the US and we can be partners. We can object to other policies that are not appropriate for us. We have that right. Nepal follows Panchasheel and America has its own policy. We the have power and capacity to pick and choose. So does it matter if it is a part of the IPS?  If China says tomorrow that everything that comes from China is under BRI, what would be our position? What will we do if the Indians say something similar?

The country should choose which path to pursue. The compact document has not mentioned anything about the IPS, so I do not understand what type of amendment we seek. Let us just follow what is written in the official documents that we have signed. We have to look at our relation with the US in the past 70 years.  We have to take decisions in a rational way.

Sri Lanka recently decided to reject a similar MCC grant. This has also fueled suspicions here.

Nepal and Sri Lanka have distinct political histories. From 2007-2009, Sri Lanka faced an ethnic civil war. Thousands of people were killed. There was international objection over extrajudicial and civilian killings. The UN and western governments took strong positions. They dragged many top Lankan army officials into war crimes. If you have followed recent news out of Sri Lanka, this had a direct bearing on the proposed MCC grant.

The MCC in Sri Lanka is related to road improvement and land management. Land management was aimed at digitalizing data and adopting new methodology. A section of people portrayed it as a data secrecy issue and termed it objectionable. However, the Sri Lankan government has not taken a firm decision that it would not receive the MCC grant. The current government is a transitional one as parliamentary election is due in December. The cases of Sri Lanka and Nepal are entirely different, and the position of Nepali leaders is not akin to those of Sri Lankans.

If there is no parliamentary approval, what could be the implications?

On the part of Nepal, there would be serious damage as the Nepal Electricity Authority has signed several Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) that are contingent on the construction of the Gorakhpur-Butwal transmission line under the MCC compact. The PPAs will be affected if the transmission line is not built. The proposed transmission line under the MCC can carry up to 3,000 MW electricity. The power sector in Nepal will take years to recover if this is not implemented. 

Next, the World Bank, JICA, Asian Development Bank and other international organizations visit our office and consult us about the transmission line. They synchronize their transmission lines accordingly. If the compact is not endorsed, it will affect their projects as well. It will give a message that doing projects in Nepal is difficult. It will be a big setback for the country as well as all foreign companies that are investing in Nepal’s hydropower. It would be difficult for us to even convene investment summits.

Nepal and the US have a 70-year history of cooperation. The US was the first country to support Nepal’s bid for UN membership. The MCC compact entails the biggest grant the US has provided to Nepal. It took more than five years to sign the project. I think no country should reject this. It is already signed, the design is ready, the office is already there, and the staff is working. It is not good to create disputes now.

Q. What one thing annoys you the most?
A. Fake behavior.
Q. Do you have a song that reminds you of a relationship?
A. I used to sing “Chahana sakkiyo, bahana sakkiyo” a lot with my childhood friend Sneha. That song reminds me of how she guided and encouraged me to sing.
Q. Have you ever tried something you knew you were really bad at?
A. I was really bad at singing, but I tried.
Q. What fashion trend do you just not get?
A. I don’t keep up with the fashion trends but pairing a blazer with biker shorts is a big no!
Q. On a scale of 1 to 10 how “cool” are you?
A. I’m very cool. So 10 on 10!
Q. What is your best attribute?
A. I can manipulate people in a good way.
Q. Describe yourself as a teenager in three words.
A. Competitive, funny and bright.
Q. If you could be from any other decade (or era), which would it be?
A. I wouldn’t want to go to any other decade.
Q. New clothes or new phone?
A. New phone!
Q. Name a book you read that positively shaped you.
A. Not a big time reader but I really enjoyed Buddhisagar’s “Karnali Blues” for the friendship portrayed
in it.

Our politicians see the constitu­tion only from a power perspective. All our constitutions from 1948 till date have been misused to make certain politicians powerful. Those constitutions were promulgated to serve certain interests, not the people. For the first time in Nepal’s political history, a participatory approach was adopted when the country promulgated the constitu­tion in 2015 through the Constituent Assembly. But even then, certain people sought to fulfill their own interests, disregarding larger public interest.

Now, the issue of amendment has come up. Opposition parties, mainly Madhes-based ones, and Dalits have grievances with the new constitu­tion. However, we are yet to start a detailed study on what kind of con­stitution amendment is required. This is because our constitution has not completed even a single elec­toral cycle. Laws are yet to be made in line with it. Even the formulated laws are beset with problems.

As the constitution is still new, it is immature to talk about amendment. In an emergency, an amendment could be necessary. But this is not the case now. The talk of consti­tution amendment has surfaced only to make a certain leader prime minister. One can become prime minister only through political backing, not constitution amend­ment. Parties should not choose this wrong path.

There were also attempts to get the consent of the Madhes-based parties to the amendment process with the promise of incorporating their agenda.

Actually, the force which is back­ing this agenda thinks that once the agenda is tabled in the parliament, Prachanda and Bam Dev Gautam will lose their control over it. In this scenario, the force can fulfill its interest. Look at our recent history. The first CA was dissolved without delivering a constitution. The sec­ond CA promulgated a new con­stitution due to a strong position taken by then Prime Minister Sushil Koirala. Otherwise, there was no possibility of the new constitution. The missing constitution was only giving opportunistic elements more space. We certainly have issues of Madhesi, Janajati and Dalit people, but there is a need for a national per­spective on how to address them.

Will it be justified to give Nation­al Assembly power to elect prime minister?

Let’s look back to the time KP Oli became prime minister. Politics was heated then. He somehow got the coveted post, but it was difficult for him to put the house in order. There are two houses in the parliament, and both have similar powers about making laws. But why does only the lower house have the right to form government?

There are certain constitution­al principles behind it. The House of Representatives is larger than the National Assembly. It is more inclusive, and more diverse too. More important, the House of Representatives has powers over money bills and committee systems which are formed under various themes. The leader of the largest party in the lower house stakes the claim for prime minister. I do not think the House of Representatives would agree to tie up its hands and legs by allowing the National Assembly to pick a prime minis­ter. The people who are pushing the amendment have not thought this through.

What do you think was at the heart of the constitution amend­ment demand?

It is an anti-government strategy. It does not address public expecta­tion. Some forces want to disturb the current political stability. Such an amendment proposal cannot be tabled as it could invite unexpected upheaval in national politics. Even if required, there should be adequate discussion among stakeholders. All parties should be involved. The NCP leaders are ready for an amend­ment because someone is mislead­ing them about the outcome. Nepal has a big potential for a consolidated democratic system. There are forc­es that do not like it. They helped initiate the Maoist insurgency. The same forces are trying to scuttle consolidated development in Nepal.

Are you hinting at internal or external forces?

There are both internal and external forces behind it. In certain aspects, the current government is different from the previous ones. India did not support us when we promulgated the constitution. But we had an assertive government which told foreign powers that Nepal will promulgate a new consti­tution, no matter what. KP Sharma Oli received popular votes in 2017 elections due to his strong stand against the Indian blockade. So long as he stays, the same forces will con­tinue to play. The Oli government has also made departure in relation with China. It has given a message to the international community that a second or third power is not needed in Nepal. Some elements do not like this. Obviously, Indian interest always influences things here.

Is such abuse of the constitution common in South Asia?

In weaker countries, it is difficult to explain the constitution on the basis of its worth. Nepal is much better off in this regard. In India, we saw Prime Minister Modi amend the charter and decide Kashmir’s fate without a thought about the Kash­miri people. India is a federal coun­try, but it is concerned more with security than power devolution in Kashmir. There are many constitu­tional issues in Pakistan and Arabian countries. In those countries, consti­tutions have little meaning. We can see similar tendencies in East Asia and South East Asia. Our problem is related more to geopolitics than the constitution. If Nepal is allowed to function independently, we will be better off. We can consolidate constitutionalism.

How do you evaluate the process of constitution implementation in Nepal over the past four years?

First, the constitution was pro­mulgated amid much political ten­sion. But we have made progress and achieved stability. The forces that challenged the constitution have joined mainstream politics now. This is positive. Second, our goal is not only political change but also transformation: we wanted to qualitatively change our political culture in line with the new con­stitution. But we are yet to make laws to implement constitutional provisions.

Another important issue is good governance which is a day-to-day affair. But when we think of long-term, we have to make our vital state institutions vibrant. We have to for­mulate laws and procedures in order to make this constitution strong.

On constitution implementa­tion, we have a mixed experience. On stability, we are in a safe posi­tion. But there are some weak­nesses in formulating laws. One example is the recent media bills. The government has not had a positive outlook on the media. On governance, we have to deal with corruption and build institutions. In general there is no threat to the constitution. But many agendas related to transformation are yet to be addressed. Each provision of the constitution should be imple­mented. Remaining laws should be formulated.

Some say the new Nepali consti­tution too will fail, just like its predecessors. How can you say there is no threat to it?

The biggest threat to the constitu­tion is lack of national unity. Nation­al unity will create an environment for the constitution’s stability. To maintain national unity, we have to ensure justice for all, at least on fundamental issues. There were foreign interests in our past con­stitutions. They failed for the same reason. Nepali people were barred from having their say when big decisions were made. For example, Nepali people were not asked to vote whether they wanted a republican system or a monarchy. We could have gone for federal structure by amending the 1990 constitution, but we took a more risky path.

There are claims that the government is trying to weaken key state institutions.

On the issue of National Human Rights Commission, yes. The NHRC was formed with a view that it should be out of government influ­ence. Now, an amendment bill has been registered which states that the NHRC could recommend the gov­ernment to take action on human rights violation cases. But such rec­ommendation can be implemented only with the consent of the attor­ney general, the prime minister’s legal advisor. This shows the gov­ernment has a dismal outlook on human rights. But there are also reports that the government is think­ing of withdrawing such problematic provisions.

Does the parliament pose any kind of threat to the current gov­ernment?

Till date, the government was under no threat from the par­liament. But now that threat is increasing. This is a challenge not only for the government but also for the stability of Nepal, as well as for the new constitution. While exercising political and con­stitutional powers, PM Oli should accommodate the concerns of all parties. The PM should strictly control wrong activities where gov­ernment ministers are involved, including corruption. This will help not only the government but the entire country. We certainly don’t want a repeat of the vicious circle of political instability we witnessed in the 1990s

The World Bank Group has been supporting Nepal in multiple areas including infrastructure development, public finance management, human resource development and others. The Bank currently has 16 IDA-supported projects with a total commitment of $2.23 billion. Pushpa Raj Acharya of APEX caught up with Faris H. Hadad-Zervos, World Bank Country Manager for Nepal, to learn about the Bank's partnership with the government, its efforts in promoting economic growth, and suggestions for attracting FDI, among others. Excerpts:

The World Bank Group has projected 6.5 percent growth for this fiscal. Looking at the scenario till mid-term of the current fiscal, are you still upbeat about high growth?

In terms of the World Bank's analysis, the growth continues to be strong in this fiscal. In last fiscal, we have witnessed 7.1 percent growth. We are expecting 6.5 percent growth in current fiscal. Obviously, there are lots of things that have been happening over the recent period. Global growth estimate is concerned with the current global health issue. It may impact tourism, trade, and industrial sector across the globe. We have to see how it plays out. These are the things that are exogenous, they are beyond the control of Nepal. Nepal can take policy actions to maximize growth. In view of the situation, we see growth in Nepal is driven by agriculture and services sector. We see there is a lot of work happening on the fiscal side to expand the sources of growth. There have been efforts which need to continue to bring private sector investment. We are optimistic that growth remains strong.

You mean Nepal will achieve sound growth not only in this fiscal but also in the medium-term as the World Bank has predicted before?

Over the medium term, we expect average growth to be around 6.5 percent. Growth will be driven by services. We are hoping and we continue to hope that the tourism sector is going to be important. Visit Nepal 2020, which the World Bank is supporting, is an important initiative. We are very optimistic that the global health issue will not take a toll on this. Nepal is doing a lot of things to increase tourism and it should pay off. We expect that growth continues to be robust. Irrespective of what happens, this remains a window of opportunity for Nepal to continue deep reforms particularly to bring private investment and help them with infrastructure and creating jobs in the country.

Slowdown in tourist inflow from China along with coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, slump in paddy production, and deteriorating private investment are considered major factors affecting growth in this fiscal. In view of this situation, how can we be optimistic?

The storyline for Nepal's development is: Nepal has to diversify its base. We did have good monsoon last year and remittances are being transformed into productive use. We have long been saying that remittances should not just fuel imports, they should also fuel investment in the country. We also talked about the importance of congenial environment for FDI that creates jobs in different sectors. Similarly, scaling-up tourism will continually help to get large number of tourists. It's not only about the number of tourists, but how much they spend is important. The country is developing other forms of services and to enhance Nepal's export potential. Before the recent dialogue on coronavirus, there was a lot of discussion on how to enhance productivity in Nepal and increase exports. Currently, there is some concern on global economy and tourism. In fact, it’s a pressing issue now. The dominant strategy is to look at other sources to diversify economy. We can expect that tourism can go up or down in a particular year due to various circumstances but the policy should be consistent. We are upbeat with the efforts to diversify economy. We have seen major foreign direct investment (FDI) transaction in Upper Trishuli-1. The 216-megawatt power plant is a large-scale FDI. Such large-scale investment is important. But Nepal’s economic salvation comes from small and medium enterprises (SMEs), not just these big foreign-investments.

Do you believe that the FDI threshold should be minimized?

Absolutely. The minimum threshold of US $500,000 prevents the entry of FDI where it is most needed: the SMEs. This sector needs both financial and technical input from other countries.

Let's look at the economy of China and India, where the situation is 'precarious'. How does it affect Nepal’s economy?

The world is interconnected. Nepal is not only connected with its neighbors, but also with the source market from where remittances come: the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) and Malaysia. Due to this interconnectivity, Nepal is likely to see some effect. The thing about the economic solution is 'irrespective'. People and nation work not only when you are in good situation, they work even more when you are in a 'precarious situation'. Nepal will continue to work well. But diversification is important. It comes down to the ability of Nepali to be able to engage investors, including non-Nepalis, across different sectors. It is very common in a deep economy to have various sectors. Often, we talk about advanced economies: let's take the example of Germany. When we talk about Germany, people automatically start thinking about Mercedes Benz and large-scale industries. But very few people recognize that Germany is propelled largely by SMEs and that is the heart and soul of the German economy. I think focusing also on SMEs, giving them opportunities—access to finance, access international investment and expertise—is going to be very critical for Nepal.

While talking about attracting investment, the Ease of Doing Business Report, 2020 of the World Bank ranks Nepal in the first half of the countries, which have better business environment. How can Nepal capitalize on this improved ranking?

What Nepal has done last year to improve its ranking from 110^th to 94^th was quite positive and extraordinary. It was actually a record for Nepal to have some considerable policy reforms. Nepal has not any record of policy reform in the history of doing business in facilitating construction permits, ease in getting credits, trading across borders, and enforcing contracts. Whoever has worked on it should be congratulated. Nepal has entered into a healthy Doing Business race and is competing for foreign investment. To compete, the country has to be ahead of the game. Nepal has now moved to the top 94, but there is still a lot to go. To move up the ranking this year too, Nepal has started new set of policy reforms. The trick with the Doing Business is: Once the country starts moving up, moving down is not an option. So, the trick is how to continue being upgraded. There are other 93 countries ahead of Nepal that are competing to retain their positions. Nepal has very positive story and it has made re-strike. But that does not matter when it comes to foreign investment. Foreign investors look at Nepal vis-à-vis other countries. I used to be the country manager of Malaysia before, which is in the top 20. I had also worked in the same region, Singapore, which is the most competent country. Private sector investors are demanding more reforms there, despite being in the top rank. This is why reform is a continuous process. It never ends.

Nepal has achieved an average of 4.5 percent growth in the last decade. Since the promulgation of constitution, Nepal has a new structure and there is a stable government in place. This is considered opportune time for Nepal to overcome the structural constraints of the economy to move forward. What would you like to suggest how the country can capitalize this situation?

Nepal has a democratically-elected government, and the people of Nepal are in search of their economic destiny. It is not for the World Bank to tell them. We would like to offer advice from our experience or what we learned from working in different countries. The main story is to create an environment in Nepal where Nepalis can self-realize their economic ambition for growth and share prosperity of the country. I know this sounds little philosophical but it is very important. Nepal should create a situation where Nepalis with ideas can access resources and infrastructure. They need to be able finance the ideas. By tapping international expertise, well-trained and capable Nepalis can actually fulfill the idea. The major objective of the economic policy should be to create an equal level-playing field. Rules of the game should be predictable and transparent, allowing young Nepali women and men to achieve their goals. Once you create an ecosystem, it will take care of itself. This is what international experience has shown. Now there is an opportunity to make growth in Nepal that is not only driven by the central valley but actually through the seven corners of the country. Nepal has an ability to reset or reboot the system, even the Karnali, Sudurpaschim, Gandaki or Bagmati or wherever people have access to the same opportunity. 

Absorption capacity of foreign aid is another long-time debate in Nepal. Utilization of net available funding from the multilateral development partners is critical to bridge yawning infrastructure gap. Do you think that low absorption capacity reflects the inefficiency of project execution?

The government's absorptive capacity for public investment is certainly critical priority. The government will be the first entity that can tell about things to focus. This is not only an issue of spending money, it is also an issue of providing services to the population. If you don't do the project, you are not achieving your development objective. Having said that, we have witnessed improvement in disbursement ratio of bank-financed projects. Despite that, there needs to be considerable acceleration on this. For delivery, the government should provide incentives. High turnover of project chiefs results in lack of action. The government should make the project officials accountable through incentives.

Secondly, it is important to look at the public procurement regulation. We have seen series of revisions in this fiscal. To really look deeply into the public procurement regulation that actually tackles the issue of incentives of both the public and private sector.

Recently, the World Bank Group has approved credit worth of $120 million for the YETI project. There is widespread impression that it is revamped version of Prime Minister Employment Program (PMEP). The program was already controversial for their last-minute spending at the fiscal end. How would you like to assure that the fund will not be misused?

The YETI project stands for Youth Employment Transformation Initiative, the title itself tells what this project is and what it is not. This project is being led by the Ministry of Labor, Employment, and Social Security. The project itself was set up to work closely with various initiatives including Prime Minister Employment Program (PMEP) and others. The YETI project is about creating management information system. It is not about job creation. In fact, it is fundamentally data project related to the private sector. Data is the most important thing for Nepal for transparency, for effectiveness, productivity and accountability and everything. Data is important to know where the priorities are and whether you are doing a good job or not. For citizens to know what their government is doing, and for the private sector to operate, data is needed.

Recently, the World Bank has carried out Federalism Capacity Needs Assessment (FCNA). What are the gaps you found and what would you like to opine on fiscal sustainability of federalism?

FCNA was a historic moment. Two federal ministers (finance minister and federal affairs and general administration minister), five of the chief ministers, and other representatives have talked about FCNA. It was not only the federalism capacity, it was also about a roadmap. It is the first time that we have managed to sit together and talk. As a result of that, we are now actually working with the central, provincial and local governments. The FCNA was done in consultation with 115 palikas. We can go to the 7 provinces and operationalize it. It is very understandable that we don't have data. Again, considering Nepal's two-year-old transition into federalism, we cannot expect everything to exist. We have to be patient. The FCNA was meant to kick start a process of constant dialogue and feedback.

World Bank-funded projects are moving at a snail’s pace. How can those be pushed up?

Obliviously, given to the aspiration of the Nepali people, it is very clear that we need to move as fast as we can possibly go. Even if we achieve our maximum velocity, we need to move faster. As far as our concern, we can never go fast enough. But there is huge room for acceleration. However, I would not say, probably, not accurate to say 'snail pace'. The disbursement rates of World Bank finance projects in the South Asia region and Nepal is one of the higher performing ones. It’s actually moving relatively well. It may not be the fastest as we wanted, but definitely not at a snail's pace. If we look at the Kamala-Dhalkebar-Pathlaiya road, in four months, it went from the concept to having a DPR. It is moving quite quickly. Kathmandu-Naubise-Mugling was also agreed just few months ago. Now we are expecting to go to the board within this fiscal year. ICD Chobhar is very important. Our goal is not to do things fast but to do it right. ICD Chobhar was in the process of moving forward. There were some grievances and concerns from the community. For the World Bank, we take this extreme seriously. The issue or any concerns of the community around the development projects financed by us really get a lot of attention. They are taken seriously. This is why we actually needed slow this down, the government decided to slow this down. The government formed two-tier grievances redressal mechanism and issued a public notice to gather public grievances. Now the grievances also had to be reviewed and final decision shared with the communities. Kabeli 'A' project is closed for us and the government has not requested for renewal. The idea is not to do things quickly, but to do them right to make sure that they reaches the Nepali citizen.

In its recent report, the World Bank Group has highlighted huge gap in infrastructure sector in Nepal and talked about attracting private sector investment to bridge the gap. Despite PPP (public private partnership) policy, the private sector is not willing to invest in infrastructure. Against this backdrop, the government can encourage private sector through viability gap funding (VGF). What is your take on this?

We know the gap is massive as Nepal is willing to achieve a status of middle-income country by 2030. It needs to quadruple its infrastructure investment. To do that, the government does not have enough resources. This is why it is important to have the private sector. In my observation, the number one priority for Nepal is ecosystem, just create the field. Put the laws/regulations in place, and make them credible. Laws themselves are necessary but insufficient. Laws/regulation should be clear and transparent, they must be investors-friendly. That provide clear message to the investors where Nepal stands on this. This will provide assurance this will not require the interpretation of the specific civil servant and that must be codified in good practice. It is important for the government to create the ecosystem, create the lines, protect the people, and predict the rights of investors as well consumers. Beyond that, let the private sector do what it does best.