Why it is vital to broaden conservation framing beyond protected areas
Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- Nepal aims to expand protected areas to 30 percent of its land by 2030, aligning with global biodiversity targets.
- Conservationists are eager to increase protection, especially in mid-hills, but face challenges beyond traditional protected areas.
- Critics warn that a narrow focus on protected areas risks overlooking environmental degradation from development and can marginalize local communities.
Nepal is considering expanding its protected land area from the current 23 percent to 30 percent by 2030, a move aligned with the KunmingโMontreal Global Biodiversity Framework's 30x30 target. This global goal, adopted at the Convention on Biological Diversity's COP15, has garnered significant attention, with conservation advocates in Nepal expressing excitement about strengthening biodiversity and ecosystem protection, particularly in the under-protected mid-hills.
Conservationists have long argued for increased protection, exploring less controversial methods like forest conservation areas and wildlife corridors when establishing new protected areas proved difficult. The new global targets provide a stronger rationale and potential for financial resources to address Nepal's escalating environmental crisis. Degrading forests, declining soil quality, loss of agrobiodiversity, water scarcity, and air pollution all highlight the urgent need for landscape-level conservation.
However, modern conservation practices carry inherent risks. For decades, conservation efforts in Nepal have been narrowly focused on protected areas and iconic species like tigers and rhinos. This approach has concentrated attention on specific forest landscapes while leaving vast areas vulnerable to extractive development. Consequently, the environmental impacts of infrastructure projects, urbanization, mining, and intensive agriculture often go unaddressed, as long as protected areas serve as visible symbols of conservation success.
Furthermore, centralized conservation planning has frequently marginalized local actors and their traditional knowledge. Many communities have faced eviction or forced resettlement, with restricted access to vital livelihood resources. This has strained nature-society relations, creating tension and hostility. The paradox today is that those most dependent on a well-conserved environment often appear to resist conservation efforts, while the broader environmental impacts of development continue to escalate.
Originally published by Kathmandu Post. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.