In a recent development, Nepal's National Planning Commission has designated a cable car project in the Annapurna Conservation Area as a "national priority," despite ongoing legal challenges and environmental concerns. This decision has sparked criticism from legal experts and environmental advocates who argue that it may violate a Supreme Court ruling and lack proper legal grounds. The controversy highlights the tension between development and conservation efforts in Nepal's protected areas.

Details of the Controversial Decision

In the heart of the majestic Himalayas, amidst the serene landscapes of the Annapurna region, a new chapter in Nepal’s infrastructure development has unfolded. The National Planning Commission recently bestowed “national priority” status on a cable car project spearheaded by businessman Chandra Prasad Dhakal's IME Group. This ambitious venture aims to stretch 6.5 kilometers through the Annapurna Conservation Area, a sanctuary renowned for its biodiversity and cultural significance. However, this designation has been met with significant opposition due to pending legal cases and concerns about environmental impact.

The timing of the commission’s decision is particularly contentious, coming shortly after the Supreme Court annulled an amendment to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. This amendment had previously allowed infrastructure projects within protected areas. Legal experts warn that the commission’s move could be seen as contempt of court, especially since the full text of the Supreme Court’s ruling on protected area infrastructure remains pending. Veteran lawyer Padam Bahadur Shrestha, who has taken the project to court over environmental concerns, expressed skepticism about the commission’s awareness or disregard of the court’s decision.

The project's environmental impact assessment (EIA) documents reveal plans to cover 28 hectares in Madi municipality, including stations and tower construction. A total of 1,134 trees and 2,667 other plants would need to be cut down to accommodate the project. Critics argue that this could disrupt local ecosystems and wildlife habitats, including those of Nepal’s national bird, the Himalayan monal.

Despite the controversy, the planning commission maintains that its decision was made in response to a request from the Ministry of General Administration and Federal Affairs. However, it has not clarified whether this request was made before or after the Supreme Court’s verdict. Meanwhile, renewed negotiations are underway regarding another IME Group project in Pathibhara, where protests have erupted over similar concerns.

While the Annapurna region has not seen large-scale protests like those in Pathibhara, environmental advocates have mounted legal challenges. Lawyer Padam Shrestha has filed a writ petition contesting the project’s EIA, citing numerous errors. He suggests that the timing of the NPC decision, while the case is still sub-judice, could constitute contempt of court.

Perspectives and Implications

This controversial decision underscores the delicate balance between economic development and environmental conservation in Nepal. On one hand, proponents argue that such projects can boost tourism and stimulate local economies. On the other hand, critics emphasize the potential long-term damage to fragile ecosystems and the rights of indigenous communities living within these protected areas.

As the Supreme Court finalizes its ruling on infrastructure in protected areas, the fate of the Sikles cable car project remains uncertain. Environmental advocates urge caution, calling for thorough assessments and transparent decision-making processes. Ultimately, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of sustainable development practices that respect both nature and the rule of law.