In Nepal, criticizing government conservation policies is becoming harder
(Kathmandu)
Abhaya Raj Joshi, Mongabay
July 30, 2024
See link
https://news.mongabay.com/2024/07/in-nepal-criticizing-government-conservation-policies-is-becoming-harder/
for photos.
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.”
Mining in Lalitpur, Nepal. Roads constructed along riverbanks further
disturb habitats and contribute to pollution and habitat destruction. Image
by Abhaya Raj Joshi/Mongabay.
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?”
https://news.mongabay.com/2024/07/in-nepal-criticizing-government-conservation-policies-is-becoming-harder/
In Nepal, criticizing government conservation policies is becoming harder
(Kathmandu)
Abhaya Raj Joshi, Mongabay
July 30, 2024
See link
<https://news.mongabay.com/2024/07/in-nepal-criticizing-government-conservation-policies-is-becoming-harder/>
for photos.
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.”
Mining in Lalitpur, Nepal. Roads constructed along riverbanks further
disturb habitats and contribute to pollution and habitat destruction. Image
by Abhaya Raj Joshi/Mongabay.
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?”
https://news.mongabay.com/2024/07/in-nepal-criticizing-government-conservation-policies-is-becoming-harder/