- Nepal’s Supreme Court struck down a 2024 law permitting infrastructure in protected areas in January 2025, but the government continues to approve such projects as the full ruling remains unpublished.
- Despite the ruling, the government approved the 57.6 billion rupee ($416 million), 81-kilometer (50.3-mile) Muktinath cable car touted as the world’s longest line, which will pass through the Annapurna Conservation Area, raising concerns about environmental and cultural impacts.
- The government has also signaled interest in opening up protected areas to private investment, including commercial extraction of timber, gravel and stones.
KATHMANDU — Nearly five months after Nepal’s Supreme Court struck down a law allowing infrastructure development inside protected areas, the government continues to push for such projects as the court delays releasing the full text of the ruling.
The government has taken this opportunity to push through controversial projects such as the proposed 81-kilometer (50.3-mile) Muktinath cable car, touted as the world’s longest, opening hotels inside restricted areas and allowing the extraction of construction materials such as sand, gravel and wood from national parks.
“This shows that the government is not accountable to the people,” said senior lawyer and campaigner Prakash Mani Sharma. He added that the government’s actions are against the verdict issued by the court in January.
The verdict by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court scrapped a controversial 2024 law that permitted infrastructure projects in protected areas if they fell outside vaguely defined “highly sensitive zones.” Petitioners, including Sharma, Padam Bahadur Shrestha, Dilraj Khanal and Sanjay Adhikari, argued that the law undermined decades of conservation progress made in the country and also contradicted the Constitution and international treaties to which the state is party.
Supreme Court Judge Sapana Pradhan Malla, concurring with the majority, wrote that protected areas must be preserved for future generations and warned against seeing development and environmental protection as mutually exclusive.
Yet, as the court delays publishing its full decision, major infrastructure proposals continue to be processed. On June 5, the Investment Board Nepal (IBN), chaired by Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, approved a massive 57.6 billion rupee (approximately $416 million) investment for the Muktinath Cable Car Project. Proposed by Muktinath Darshan Pvt. Ltd. under a build-own-operate-transfer, or BOOT, model, the project will stretch from Seraphant (Birethanti-Nayapul) in Parba to Muktinath in Mustang, with seven stations and six high-altitude stops running through the Annapurna Conservation Area.
A committee led by IBN CEO Sushil Gyewali will negotiate the final project development agreement. Proponents claim the project will boost local tourism to one of Hinduism’s holiest sites in the Himalayas and create jobs. Critics say it threatens the ecological and spiritual sanctity of the area, revered by Hindus and Buddhists alike. Arun Kumar Subedi, one of the key promoters of the project, told Nepal Show, a local media outlet, that as the cable car is solely meant for transportation purposes, it doesn’t violate the ethos of the conservation area. He added that his company won’t build any other infrastructure such as hotels or resorts along with the cable car line.
Another controversial project is the Sikles Annapurna Cable Car, proposed by Sikles Annapurna Cable Car Pvt. Ltd. in Madi Rural Municipality, Kaski. The cable car will run 6.5 km (4 mi) and has received environmental clearance and plans to build 30 towers, operate 60 gondolas carrying up to 6,000 passengers per day at a cost of 6.9 billion rupees (about $50 million).
According to the environmental impact assessment, 3,801 trees and poles, including rhododendron and other native species, will be cut down for the project. While the company promises replantation and claims the cable car will promote eco-tourism, critics say it undermines the conservation ethos of the Annapurna Conservation Area, one of the world’s most celebrated protected zones.
The legal standing of the project is, however, a bit different. A separate writ petition filed by senior lawyer Padam Bahadur Shrestha challenges the project. While the court’s website says Judges Sapana Pradhan Malla and Balkrishna Dhakal quashed the petition, they decided to issue a mandamus in the name of the defendants. “We haven’t received any details on the verdict,” Shrestha said. “We expect the full text of the infrastructure in protected areas case to be released first, and then the Sikles Annapurna Cable Car case would follow suit,” he added.
As Justice Pradhan is working on the full text of both verdicts, she could set some principles on balancing development and conservation in the broader case and apply it to the second case, other lawyers following the case told Mongabay.
Nepal has 12 national parks, one wildlife reserve, one hunting reserve and six conservation areas spread across the lowland Terai Arc, home to Bengal tigers (Panthera tigris tigris), to the Himalayan highlands, home to elusive snow leopards (P. uncia). While local communities were displaced to create parks in the Terai, highland communities still live in areas such as Sagarmatha (Everest), Manaslu and Annapurna. These communities face severe restrictions on infrastructure, energy access and livelihood options.
Meanwhile, Nepal’s Finance Minister Bishnu Paudel, in his presentation for the 2025-26 national budget, hinted at opening protected areas to private investment, citing tourism development inside national parks and reserves. Just ahead of the presentation, the government revealed a work plan to implement the recommendations of the high-level economic reform commission, endorsing the idea of commercial extraction of timber, gravel and stones from protected areas, further alarming conservationists.
This is part of a larger trend, as protected areas are becoming the last frontier for unchecked infrastructure expansion, Sharma said. Due to this, the government and private sector reap the profits but communities bear the costs, he added. He called for the precautionary principle and the principle of intergenerational equity to guide all decision-making.
Shrestha said he hopes such principles are recognized in the Supreme Court verdicts and that they ensure the government doesn’t deviate from its commitments.
When Mongabay contacted Achyut Kuikel, spokesperson for the Supreme Court, for comments on the two verdicts, he said he would get back with further information, but hasn’t done so until the time of publication.
Banner image: Marigolds at a trekking route in Annapurna Conservation Area. Image by Phil Parsons via Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).
Credits
