The Nepali government, in violation of a Supreme Court order, national regulations, and the legally binding international Convention on Biological Diversity, is set to deforest an ecologically essential forest, Nijgadh. To justify its agenda, it has claimed as its goal the construction of an international airport, a claim that exists on shaky grounds given that no investor exists and the only partnership it cited, with Zurich Airport International, was discovered to be non-existent. This amounts to perhaps the largest organised ecological crime in the country in recent times, being perpetuated by its own political leadership.

Not only is Nijgadh an important wildlife corridor that connects India and Nepal, its deforestation would also make floods deadlier, endanger water resources and agriculture, increase human-wildlife conflict, disrupt trans-boundary ecosystem services, cause inter-generational climate injustice, disregard social equity, remove a major carbon sink, and harm and undo the gains made by previously established conservation areas. In short, it would result in the exact opposite of your stated collective commitments.

And yet, you have not acknowledged, let alone mentioned, a plan to save Nijgadh.

When international funding dictates so much of what happens in countries in the Global South, especially “model” countries like Nepal, the funding must be accountable not only to those in the recipient nations taking it to the streets to protect our forests and ecology, but also to taxpayers back home whose money is being distributed in such a way that it enables and greenwashes the perpetrators who are looking to profit from exploiting our natural resources like forests. Without accountability, the hundreds of millions of dollars in funding are not only futile, but also reckless greenwashing.

Why is Nepal being given unconditional financial assistance to conserve the Tarai Arc Landscape (TAL) and Chure regions when it’s the country’s own political leadership that is actively working to profit by destroying both the TAL and Chure regions?

How did the World Bank sign an agreement to make $45 million available to Nepal till 2025 for Emission Reduction based on TAL when the Nepali government is planning to clear over 8,000 hectares of forest there? Additionally, it was with the initial help of the World Bank that the area, where China is currently drilling, was indefinitely opened for petroleum exploration.

Likewise, the World Bank just gave Nepal $17.9 million in loans for sustainable forestry in the country's Province 2, while Nepal is actively planning to deforest Nijgadh in that very province.

On paper everyone at the table agrees saving, rather than destroying, Nijgadh offers infinitely more intergenerational benefits to local communities, the country, and the planet, as outlined in reports and documents produced by your own offices and the Nepal government. 

We, too, agree: not only must we save Nijgadh, but we also have an opportunity to make it a model for conservation, the type of conservation that supports mutually-beneficial relationships between humans and non-humans, provides sustenance and economic benefits to its people while giving other species additional protected space, creates new green infrastructure for wildlife crossings and new low-carbon jobs and development in research, and so forth. 

Those at the table cannot continue to operate as if the critical Nijgadh forest is not under imminent threat of being lost.

We demand that you take urgent steps to Save Nijgadh by COP26.