- Nepal’s National Planning Commission granted “national priority” status to a controversial cable car project in the Annapurna Conservation Area, despite pending legal challenges and environmental concerns.
- The decision has been criticized for lacking legal grounds and potentially violating a Supreme Court ruling that invalidated a law allowing infrastructure projects inside protected areas.
- Legal experts warn that the decision could be in contempt of court, as the full text of the Supreme Court’s ruling on protected area infrastructure is still pending.
KATHMANDU — A brewing controversy over private cable car projects in Nepal’s hills has taken a new turn after the country’s planning commission quietly gave “national priority” status to a venture in the Annapurnas, despite pending legal verdicts and environmental concerns.
The decision, criticized for lacking a legal basis, comes amid escalating tensions between protesters and the government in eastern Nepal’s Mukkumlung (Pathibhara) region, where another cable car project being developed by the same business group has drawn opposition from Indigenous Limbu communities.
“The planning commission decision lacks legal basis as it cites laws that are irrelevant to the issue,” legal expert Dilraj Khanal told Mongabay. “Also, it could even amount to contempt of court as the issue is sub-judice.”
The Sikles Annapurna Cable Car project, spearheaded by businessman Chandra Prasad Dhakal’s IME Group, would run 6.5 kilometers (4 miles) through the Annapurna Conservation Area, a region that’s home to wildlife including Nepal’s national bird, the Himalayan monal (Lophophorus impejanus). With “national priority” status, it becomes easier for the developers to seek permission to fell trees, Khanal said.
The commission’s controversial decision comes in the wake of a Supreme Court decision that annulled an amendment to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act allowing projects of national priority to be built inside protected areas, a no-go zone for such activities.
“It seems that the National Planning Commission was either unaware of the decision or disregarded it completely,” said veteran lawyer Padam Bahadur Shrestha, who took the project to court over environmental concerns.
Had the law been upheld by the Supreme Court, the planning commission’s decision would have the backing of the law, Khanal said. However, that wasn’t the case.
Nepal has 12 national parks, a wildlife reserve, a hunting reserve, six conservation areas and 13 buffer zones. These extend from the lowland Terai Arc to the high Himalayas, covering nearly a quarter of the country’s total land area. While local communities were displaced to establish national parks in the southern lowlands, people continue to live inside some national parks and conservation areas, such as Annapurna and Sagarmatha (Everest), famous worldwide for their scenic trekking routes.
The timing of the decision has intensified scrutiny of Sikles cable car project, which carries a hefty price tag of 6.9 billion rupees (about $50 million). Nepal’s 2019 Forest Act allows the government to provide forest land to private developers of national priority projects. The requirement was lax even before the Forest Act was introduced, allowing projects such as the Pathibhara cable car to get forest land, which falls outside protected areas, even without being categorized as a national priority project.
The new law struck down by the Supreme Court also introduced the provision to allow national priority projects to acquire land in protected areas. But that provision is no longer valid following the historic court verdict, Khanal said.
According to the project’s environmental impact assessment documents released for public discussion, the project would cover 28 hectares (69 acres) in Madi municipality. Plans outline a lower station spanning nearly 7.5 hectares (18.4 acres), a mid-station covering 2 hectares (5 acres), and an upper station covering about 5.8 hectares (14.2 acres). Tower construction would commandeer an additional 12.8 hectares (31.5 acres). According to the EIA report, a total of 1,134 trees and 2,667 other plants need to be cut to make way for the project.
The planning commission said its decision was passed in response to a request by the Ministry of General Administration and Federal Affairs, seeking national priority status to use forest land. However, it didn’t disclose whether the request was made before or after the verdict was passed in the case of infrastructure in protected areas.
This development coincides with renewed negotiations between protesters and government officials regarding another IME Group project in Pathibhara. The company has already established operational cable cars in Chandragiri on the outskirts of Kathmandu and Nawalparasi, marking an aggressive expansion into Nepal’s tourism infrastructure sector.
While the Annapurna region hasn’t witnessed large-scale protests like those in Pathibhara, environmental advocates have mounted legal challenges. A writ petition filed by lawyer Padam Shrestha contests the project’s environmental impact assessment, which he characterizes as replete with errors.
“The NPC decision is suspicious as it comes with the case sub-judice and final full text verdict pending,” Shrestha said, suggesting the timing could constitute contempt of court.
Although the Supreme Court rejected Shrestha’s petition, a mandamus order is expected once the full text is released. Khanal noted that as the court finalizes the full text of the ruling on infrastructure in protected areas, the judges in the Sikles cable car case may be waiting for it so that they can use it as a precedent before issuing their own verdict.
The Supreme Court’s recent invalidation of legal provisions permitting cable cars in protected areas has created a regulatory void, said Hari Bahadra Acharya, spokesperson for the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation.
When asked about these concerns, a spokesperson for the National Planning Commission downplayed the significance of their decision, characterizing it as merely “providing pointers to the ministry.” Dibakar Luitel, assistant spokesperson at the commission, said he was unaware of the pending court case.
When Mongabay contacted Rabilal Pantha, secretary at the Ministry of General Administration and Federal Affairs, he said he was unaware of the recommendation as it was made before his appointment to the position.
Banner Image: A cable car in operation in Nepal. Image by Bhaskar Pyakurel via Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0).
Abhaya Raj Joshi is a staff writer for Nepal at Mongabay. Find him on 𝕏 @arj272
In Nepal, a cable car in a sacred forest sparks swift, and controversial, direct action
Still no sweet spot in 2024 for Nepal in balancing conservation & development
