- Public criticism of the government’s conservation policies is becoming more muted due to fears of professional repercussions, such as obstructed permits and funding cuts, especially for NGOs reliant on government cooperation.
- The debate over natural resource exploitation versus conservation has become increasingly politicized, with economic arguments clashing with ecological concerns.
- Conservationists attempt to influence policies through private meetings with officials, but these efforts are often insufficient. They also urge the media to scrutinize government decisions more effectively.
KATHMANDU — When Nepal’s government approved a controversial measure at the start of the year to permit hydropower development inside protected areas, there was an uproar in the conservation community — but a largely muted one.
While many privately expressed their discontent, only a few people and organizations publicly criticized the move, despite its potential to undermine the country’s hard-won conservation gains.
“It is difficult for us to openly criticize the government even when we know its actions could have negative consequences,” said Shiva Raj Bhatta, senior adviser to WWF Nepal. This sentiment was echoed by several other senior executives in the NGO conservation sector, researchers, and conservationists who spoke to Mongabay over the past year. They noted that publicly criticizing the government has become increasingly difficult as the issues related to who benefits from natural resources and who pays the costs have become politicized.
Nepal is home to 12 national parks, a wildlife reserve, a hunting reserve, six conservation areas, and 13 buffer zones, covering nearly a quarter of the country’s total land area, according to the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation. It also hosts several iconic and threatened species such as Bengal tigers (Panthera tigris) and greater one-horned rhinos (Rhinoceros unicornis). Similarly, around 40% of the country’s land area is now covered by forests, up from around 20% in the 1990s, thanks mostly to the implementation of community-prepared management plans.
In recent years, the politicization of natural resources has become more pronounced. Top political leaders frequently argue that large tracts of protected land and forests are economically unproductive, and advocate for their commercial exploitation. This viewpoint clashes with the conservation community’s efforts to preserve biodiversity and maintain ecological balance. However, the latter say they feel increasingly unable to speak up freely. Publicly opposing government policies could jeopardize their work and careers, they say, yet remaining silent risks the very conservation gains they have worked so hard to achieve.
For example, when the former environment minister proposed allowing foreign trophy hunters to cull “problem tigers,” the conservation community largely remained silent. The fear of reprisal and the potential loss of government support for ongoing projects led to a muted response within the conservation community.
“We need government permission for almost anything ranging from fieldwork to securing grants and for research,” said a researcher who asked not to be named so as not to draw government attention. “If people in power feel threatened, they have so many red tapes up their sleeves, they can create a lot of obstacles.” This could include delaying or denying permits to work inside national parks, pressuring colleagues to distance themselves from dissenters, or cutting off government funding for their work.
Such actions could also impact the work of international NGOs, which must report to their head offices abroad. Consequently, these head offices often discourage their staff from criticizing government actions.
“We receive a lot of calls from foreign missions and diplomats asking us about where we stand on issues related to government action in conservation,” said another prominent NGO leader. “It’s difficult for us to take a stand against the government as we don’t want to jeopardize our ties with them.”
This lack of public criticism has created an environment where the government feels at ease taking actions that could harm long-term conservation efforts, critics say. The government is now working on regulations to allow hotels and adventure sports such as mountain biking and motorboating inside national parks
Despite these challenges, some conservationists continue to engage with the government behind closed doors. They attempt to influence policy decisions through private meetings and discussions, hoping to steer the government toward more sustainable practices. However, the effectiveness of these efforts is often limited, as evidenced by the recent amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Protection Act and other controversial policies.
“We do talk to the government and at times tell them that the path they have chosen is wrong,” said Bhatta, adding these conversations typically occur behind closed doors. He said some gains have been made through such discussions and exchanges.
“It is also the duty of the media to take up the issues and ask the government hard questions,” another researcher said. “But the media itself is going through a transition and if the experts in the field don’t provide insights to the journalists, how are they to understand the context and ramifications of important government decisions related to conservation?”
Abhaya Raj Joshi is a staff writer for Nepal at Mongabay. Find him on 𝕏 @arj272
Banner image: A mahout guides an elephant on the fringes of Chitwan National Park in Nepal. Image by Abhaya Raj Joshi
Activists blame policy failures over climate change for Nepal Terai’s water crisis
Credits
