A sound shakes the Nepalbut it’s not that of a tiger in the jungle. The voice of the prime minister rises, KP Sharma Oliwhich calls into question an important environmental goal achieved by the country: having tripled the tiger population in the last 15 years. “Too many”, thunders Oli, worried about the increase in attacks on humans. But is it really a problem of “excess” of felines, or rather of land management? While the debate has been open, Nepal finds itself at a crossroads: How to reconcile the conservation of biodiversity with the development needs and safety of communities?
Nepal has been celebrated around the world for unexpectedly increasing the number of wild tigers, increased from approximately 121 in 2010 to over 350 in 2022. According to some government data, the Asian country even managed to reach 355 specimens. These results, achieved thanks to serrati controls against poaching and extensive reforestation workhave placed Nepal at the forefront of the international conservation landscape.
Likewise, Nepal’s forest cover has almost doubled, rising to 44% over the course of a few decades and helping to host not only tigers, but also rhinos, elephants, antelopes and many other animals that are part of a very rich ecosystem.
Yet, not everyone rejoices in the face of these results. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has repeatedly expressed his doubts, claiming that the big cat population is now beyond what Nepal can manage. “In such a small country, we have more than 350 tigers…” he said last December. According to Oli, the ideal number should be around 150 tigers, so as to reduce the risk of attacks on communities and damage to livestock.
The official figures speak of one forty victims and fifteen injured from 2019 to 2023but some local organizations argue that the real numbers would be higher. To limit dangerous encounters, Oli even put forward the proposal of sending Nepal’s tigers abroad, calling it a form of ‘diplomacy’ which could also favor relations with other countries.
The phenomenon of Human-tiger conflicts are often concentrated in so-called “buffer zones”areas close to national parks where local communities obtain wood, fodder and water, and contain livestock grazing. Furthermore, the “forest corridors” which connect reserves and national parks, despite being fundamental for the mobility of tigers and other species, represent a critical point of contact: when animals move outside protected areas in search of food, clashes with people increase.
According to some experts, to effectively manage big cats it would be necessary to expand protected areas and guarantee a solid prey base. “Ideally, each tiger should be in the vicinity of around 500 prey animals,” the tiger biologist told the BBC Ullas Karanthinsisting on the idea that the priority is the creation of suitable habitats rather than the forced reduction of cats.
Oli’s statements are part of a broader context of political pressure on the environmental sector: the Nepalese government has already authorized the construction of large infrastructures in previously protected areas, such as hydroelectric plants and hotels, sparking protests from environmentalists, indigenous communities and lawyers.
The prime minister himself did not fail to cast doubt on the levels of forest cover, judging the current 44% excessive and hoping for a decrease to 30%. This is a position that conflicts with the international commitments made by Nepal, praised for its strategy of defending biodiversity and involving local communities in land protection.
Despite growing discontent over the attacks, the majority of people living on the forest fringes have nevertheless contributed to Nepal’s inclusion among the “World Restoration Flagship” of the United Nations. The recognition rewards the initiative of Terai Arc Landscapea cross-border area between India and Nepal, where “66,800 hectares of forest have been brought back to lifetripling the tiger population and providing livelihoods for nearly 500,000 families.”
This project, based on cooperation and shared management between government, community and environmental groups, demonstrates how nature protection can generate economic and social benefits. The Terai Arc Landscape, but also concrete proof of the “people and nature together” approach, considered essential to address the global challenges related to climate change.
While on the one hand Prime Minister Oli is putting the brakes on tiger population growth and reforestation, on the other hand the Supreme Court is considering a petition against the recent changes that allow build large-scale infrastructure in protected areas. The final ruling, which was expected at the end of 2024 but then postponed, could mark a turning point in the direction of the country’s environmental policy.
Meanwhile, conservation success in Nepal continues to inspire, although undermined by the increase in attacks and land use advancing on corridors and buffer zones. Oli’s proposal to give away tigers abroad remains uncertain, as does the real solution to ensure that humans and felines learn to coexist safely. But one thing is clear: the extraordinary rebirth of the tiger and Nepalese forests has opened up a scenario of complex challenges, in which ecology and economic interest clash in an increasingly bitter debate.
In 2024, KP Sharma Oli himself summed up the evolution of this landscape with a phrase that sparked further controversy: “Fewer tigers, fewer forests”. The question that now resonates among environmentalists and communities is whether reducing the number of big cats and reducing forest cover can really represent the right strategy for sustainable development. The game remains open, and Nepal, despite itself, has become the living symbol of a difficult balance between environmental protection and economic growth.
Tiger conservation and sustainable forest management projects in Nepal, such as the Terai Arc Landscape initiative, have demonstrated a positive impact not only on biodiversity, but also on the well-being of local communities. The protection of forests and wildlife has generated job opportunities, improved air and water quality and helped mitigate the effects of climate change.