KATHMANDU – December 12, 2025 – Nepal’s protected area conservation policies are increasingly favoring large-scale infrastructure and commercial interests at the expense of local communities, according to a new international study published in the journal Earth System Governance.

The study finds that recent policy and legal changes have opened protected areas to projects such as hydropower development, while the economic, safety, and livelihood costs faced by people living near or within conservation areas remain largely unaddressed.

Conducted by researchers from institutions in China, Nepal, and the Netherlands, the study analyzed 111 conservation-related laws and policy documents and included interviews with 19 experts involved in conservation and governance. The authors warn that this policy shift could weaken the social foundations of Nepal’s globally praised conservation achievements.

According to the research, recent measures—including a protected-area land-for-infrastructure working procedure and a Supreme Court decision allowing the Langtang Khola hydropower project—signal a move toward commercially driven, infrastructure-led conservation.

While national policies increasingly highlight the importance of “ecosystem services,” or the benefits nature provides to society, the study notes that the corresponding costs—referred to as “ecosystem disservices”—are largely absent from binding protected area laws. These costs include crop damage, livestock predation, forest fires, disease risks, and restrictions on traditional livelihoods such as stone mining in the Gaurishankar Conservation Area.

The study also highlights a growing safety gap in Nepal’s celebrated tiger conservation success. Although the country has tripled its tiger population, a global conservation milestone, the researchers report that 36 people have been killed by tigers in Bardiya National Park over the past five years. The deaths are attributed to inadequate safety measures and risk mitigation for forest-dependent communities.

Lead author Daya Raj Subedi said existing laws recognize human–wildlife conflict but fail to capture the broader costs borne by communities.

“Recognizing both nature’s benefits and its burdens is essential,” Subedi said. “Integrating these factors into conservation planning would help demonstrate clear net societal gains, not just ecological outcomes.”

Co-author Dr. Prajal Pradhan of the University of Groningen said the findings have implications beyond Nepal.

“The integration of ecosystem benefits and burdens works best when embedded in legally binding laws and designed to protect Indigenous peoples and local communities,” Pradhan said. “Nepal’s experience offers important lessons for countries trying to balance conservation with development pressures.”

The researchers recommend that the Government of Nepal establish a national ecosystem accounting system under the National Statistics Office to formally integrate ecological contributions and community-level costs into economic planning. They also call for revisions to protected area laws to explicitly define and address ecosystem disservices, including stronger risk mitigation and compensation mechanisms for affected communities.

The study concludes that without greater attention to social justice and equity, conservation policies that prioritize infrastructure development risk eroding community support for biodiversity protection.

The article, titled “Ecosystem (dis)services matter for conservation policies: Insights from Nepal,” was published in Earth System Governance in 2025.