For decades Nepal has been celebrated as a global conservation success story. National parks have helped populations of tigers, rhinos and other endangered wildlife recover, while protected areas now cover nearly a quarter of the country. Yet conservationists increasingly argue that the next phase of protecting nature will depend less on expanding parks than on recognising the people who have long lived alongside them.

The argument emerged from a roundtable discussion in Lalitpur on Friday, where around 40 researchers, conservationists, academics and civil society representatives gathered to debate the future of Nepal's biodiversity. The event, titled "Nepal's Conservation at a Crossroads: What Next?", was organised by the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) Nepal with support from the National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC).

Participants argued that biodiversity conservation cannot succeed without integrating indigenous peoples' traditional knowledge, livelihoods and cultural practices into environmental policies. They said existing laws and programmes often overlook local communities, while poor coordination among Nepal's three tiers of government has weakened implementation of conservation policies.

The discussion reflected a broader debate playing out across the world: whether conservation should prioritise strict protection of landscapes or embrace approaches that recognise communities as stewards of nature rather than threats to it.

Prakash Kumar Paudel, president of SCB Nepal, said conservation challenges in Nepal are inherently multidisciplinary and require cooperation across scientific, social and policy sectors. He argued that policymakers have paid insufficient attention to the relationship between forests, local communities and human-wildlife conflict, leaving important social dimensions out of conservation planning.

Uttam Babu Shrestha, founding director of the Global Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies Nepal, criticised what he described as the criminalisation of indigenous communities' traditional practices while large infrastructure projects continue to receive government approval. Conservation strategies, he argued, should distinguish between activities that genuinely threaten ecosystems and long-standing cultural practices that have coexisted with nature for generations.

Former Lumbini Province forestry secretary Pashupatinath Koirala called for stronger evidence-based policymaking, saying Nepal needs more research to evaluate whether existing models—including buffer zones and protected areas—are achieving their intended ecological and social outcomes.

The consensus emerging from the discussion was that Nepal's conservation achievements are real but may prove difficult to sustain unless future policies move beyond protecting landscapes to empowering the communities that inhabit them. As climate change, infrastructure development and competing land-use pressures intensify, participants argued that conservation will depend as much on governance and inclusion as on ecological science.