State vs Nature

Nepal’s Supreme Court has summoned the President Chure Terai Madhesh Conservation Development Board and the National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC) in a public interest litigation case against the amendment of the 1973 National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act.

The Constitutional Bench comprising Chief Justice Bishowambhar Prasad Shrestha, as Justices Prakash Man Singh Raut, Sapana Pradhan Malla, Prakash Kumar Dhungana and Kumar Regmi ordered representatives of the two institutions to appear in court for a hearing on the writ petition.

In July, President Ramchandra Paudel authenticated a Bill passed hurriedly and secretively by the new NC-UML coalition in both Houses to amend provisions in the 1973 Act to allow investment in infrastructure and projects inside protected areas.

Read more: Protecting protected areas from infrastructure, Sonia Awale

Senior advocates Prakash Mani Sharma, Dilraj Khanal and Padam Bahadur Shrestha filed a writ in the Supreme Court demanding that the amendments be declared null and void because the amendments added in Section 5A of the Act were against Nepal’s own conservation commitments, and obligations under international biodiversity pacts of which Nepal is a signatory.

The petitioners argue that the amendments were introduced through an investment bill by the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supplies instead of the Ministry of Forests and Environment, and would throw off the careful balance between environmental protection and development in Nepal.

There is a danger Nepal’s internationally-recognised successes in doubling forest cover in 25 years to 46% of area mainly because of community forestry, tripling the tiger population, and biodiversity protection will be rolled back, they say. The amendment is reportedly being pushed by politicians and their powerful business cronies with support from some international consultants.

Read also: Protecting Nepal’s parks by saving buffer zones, Teri D Allendorf

The writ petition also argues that the fragmentation of the authority and integrity of protected areas will directly contribute to irreversible ecological damage, harming local livelihoods and heighten inequity. 

The petitioners claim that the amendment poses not only an unfair restriction on the right of Nepali citizens to live in a clean and healthy environment, but directly interferes with human-nature coexistence.

As it is, forest protection is the only climate target pledged by Nepal’s leaders at international conferences that the country has actually met. Another investigation shows that illegal logging and timber smuggling is rampant mainly in three Tarai districts bordering India where forest cover is said to have declined by half in past decades. 

In particular, section 5A of the Act, which has provisions related to prohibited activities within national parks and reserves, now includes an added clause which will essentially allow the government to designate 'non-sensitive' areas within these protected zones, enabling private sector investment in resorts, cable cars, railways and other infrastructure. 

Some international credit agencies and investors argue that Nepal’s economy and local communities must benefit from the country’s conservation successes, and the best way is to allow carefully calibrated investment in national parks, conservation areas, and community forests.

Read also: Conservation vs Conservatives, Maheshwor Acharya

That may work in countries where politicians are accountable and the rule of law prevails, but with Nepal’s current level of corruption and governance failure, handing over nature to big business is a recipe for disaster.

Examples abound of recent cut-and-paste environmental impact assessment (EIA) reports presented by the government for the proposed international airport in Nijgad and hydropower projects in ecologically and culturally fragile Himalayan valleys. 

Nepal was relatively successful in addressing the humans vs nature challenge by balancing the needs of local people with national parks. 

Now we have entered a new era of state vs nature.