Research On Eco-Tourism And Criminal Liability In Nepal
1. Legal Framework in Nepal
Constitutional Provisions
Article 30: Right to a clean and healthy environment.
Article 51(g) & 51(l): State policies promoting sustainable development and environmentally friendly tourism.
Key Statutes
National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1973: Protects wildlife, forests, and prohibits illegal tourism infrastructure in protected areas.
Forest Act, 1993: Regulates forest use and prevents illegal deforestation, which may occur due to tourism projects.
Environment Protection Act, 1997: Penalizes pollution and unsustainable activities impacting ecosystems.
Tourism-related regulations: Require licensing for lodges, trekking, and resorts in sensitive ecological areas.
Criminal Liability
Illegal construction, environmental degradation, wildlife trafficking, or violation of protected-area laws can lead to criminal charges, including imprisonment, fines, and revocation of licenses.
Tourism operators may also face civil/regulatory liability for non-compliance.
2. Detailed Case Studies
Case 1: Illegal Lodges in Chitwan National Park (2014)
Facts: Several jungle lodges inside Chitwan National Park were accused of operating without permits and harming the park’s wildlife.
Legal Issue: Violation of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and Environment Protection Rules.
Decision: Supreme Court quashed a writ petition seeking to renew the lodges’ lease agreements, but highlighted the responsibility of operators to avoid ecological harm.
Significance: Tourism businesses in protected areas face liability for environmental degradation even if procedural leases exist.
Case 2: Wildlife Crime – Lodge Involvement in Rhino Horn Trafficking (2009)
Facts: A lodge operator in the Himalaya region was found possessing a rhino horn illegally.
Legal Issue: Violation of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act provisions on endangered species.
Decision: Operator was convicted and penalized, highlighting direct criminal liability.
Significance: Eco-tourism businesses involved in wildlife crimes face severe criminal consequences; such crimes undermine the credibility of eco-tourism.
Case 3: Illegal Tourism Infrastructure along Sunkoshi River
Facts: Lodges and rafting camps were built along the Sunkoshi River in a conservation zone without environmental clearance. Sewage and waste were discharged into the river, affecting fish habitat.
Legal Issue: Violation of Environment Protection Act, Forest Act, and protected-area regulations.
Decision: Authorities issued fines and notices for removal; operators faced potential criminal prosecution for environmental harm.
Significance: Illustrates liability arising from eco-tourism activities in riverine and ecologically sensitive zones.
Case 4: Supreme Court Ruling on Protected Area Infrastructure (2025)
Facts: A legislative amendment allowed hotels, resorts, and other infrastructure in national parks and protected areas. A public interest petition challenged this.
Legal Issue: Conflict between infrastructure development for tourism and environmental protection rights under the Constitution.
Decision: Supreme Court annulled the law, reinforcing that protected-area development cannot compromise environmental rights.
Significance: Even government-sanctioned tourism development can create legal liability if it threatens ecosystems; eco-tourism operators must comply with strict environmental standards.
Case 5: Eco-Trekking Lodges in Annapurna Conservation Area
Facts: Several trekking lodges were constructed in conservation zones without approval, leading to complaints about deforestation and waste management issues.
Legal Issue: Violation of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and Environment Protection Act.
Decision: Local authorities ordered closure and demolition; operators faced potential fines and criminal liability.
Significance: Highlights the importance of regulatory compliance and community monitoring in eco-tourism operations.
Case 6: Private Wildlife Collection and Eco-Tourism (2023)
Facts: Private collectors possessed wildlife trophies and endangered species in connection with eco-tourism safaris.
Legal Issue: Illegal possession and trade of protected species under NPWCA.
Decision: Supreme Court directed confiscation of illegally possessed wildlife items and uniform enforcement of laws.
Significance: Tourism operators facilitating wildlife trade can be criminally liable; eco-tourism integrity depends on compliance with wildlife protection laws.
3. Key Takeaways
Criminal liability arises when eco-tourism operators violate protected-area laws, wildlife conservation rules, or environmental regulations.
Regulatory liability is also significant: fines, closure, or revocation of licenses for illegal eco-tourism activities.
Courts actively enforce environmental rights, striking down laws or policies that endanger ecosystems.
Wildlife crimes connected to eco-tourism carry severe penalties.
Sustainable operations and proper licensing are essential to avoid legal consequences.
RELATED Blog
0 comments