National Trading of Nature Corporation?

Nepal’s growing conflict between humans and monkeys has once again sparked a controversial policy debate. The National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC), the country’s most powerful conservation body, has recommended culling and exporting rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) for biomedical use as a solution. However, the proposal has raised serious concerns as it mirrors a policy previously struck down by the Supreme Court — yet makes no mention of that legal history, involves no consultation with affected farming communities, and offers no new or original approach.

This is not the first time Nepal's conservation establishment has attempted to put a price tag on the country's wild macaques. It is, at minimum, the third. Those of us with long memories — or access to court records — have seen exactly how this story unfolds.

A History the Younger Generation Never Knew

The story begins not with a crisis but with a policy — quietly passed without Cabinet approval during the autocratic interregnum of King Gyanendra. In August 2003, the government issued the Wild Animal Farming, Breeding and Research Policy, opening the door to rhesus monkey farming and export. The timing was not coincidental. US research institutions — including leading primate research centres — had already been in quiet negotiations with Nepali counterparts for years before the policy existed.

Subsequent documentation by researchers and animal welfare advocates later revealed that blood samples and DNA profiling of free-ranging Nepalese macaques had been collected without proper permits, in clear violation of national law. A US-funded programme focused on rhesus breeding and export operated between 2004 and 2009, indicating that Nepal’s monkeys had effectively entered international research pipelines even before the policy gained public visibility.

The campaign to stop this — Stop Monkey Business — mobilised civil society, animal welfare organisations, international groups, and legal experts. In 2009, a Public Interest Litigation was filed in the Supreme Court of Nepal on behalf of Roots & Shoots Nepal, naming the Government of Nepal, the Ministry of Forest and Land Conservation, the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, and both breeding centres as respondents. The petition argued that, under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2029, which defines hunting to include capture, torture, or displacement, licensing monkey breeding for export was both illegal and ethically indefensible.

In early 2010, the Supreme Court issued a show-cause order, effectively forcing the government to defend a position that proved untenable under its own legal framework. The government eventually backed down.

The breeding centre that had already begun operations was then ordered to release its captive monkeys. In what can only be described as an act of institutional negligence, the animals were released indiscriminately into Shivapuri National Park — a habitat entirely unsuited to an abrupt influx of captive-conditioned monkeys. A further legal challenge was filed against this reckless move.

The entire episode — secret negotiations, unauthorised biological sampling, a policy introduced without Cabinet approval, judicial intervention, and the irresponsible release of animals into a national park — forms the foundational chapter of Nepal’s monkey policy history. It should be essential reading for anyone now proposing to revisit similar ideas.

The Supreme Court Has Already Spoken — Twice

What the 2025 policy recommendation conspicuously ignores is not just the 2010 macaque precedent. The Supreme Court of Nepal has also ruled decisively on the broader question of culling as a population management strategy — this time in relation to stray dogs.

In that case, animal welfare organisations documented widespread killing of dogs by municipalities across the country, including the use of banned toxic substances and inhumane methods. The petition drew on international public health findings, including those of global health bodies, which have consistently shown that culling does not effectively control animal populations or the spread of diseases such as rabies.

The Supreme Court ruled against systematic culling and directed authorities to adopt humane, scientific, and sustainable approaches, including vaccination, sterilisation, and community-based management.

This ruling established more than a procedural guideline — it articulated a clear legal and ethical principle: removing animals, whether by culling, poisoning, or export, without addressing the underlying ecological and behavioural causes of their population or actions, does not solve the problem.

It is, instead, an acceptance of the problem as permanent — a decision to repeatedly treat symptoms while ignoring root causes. It is management by reaction rather than by understanding.

An institution of NTNC’s stature cannot reasonably claim ignorance of this legal precedent. To proceed as though it does not exist is not an oversight; it is a deliberate choice.

Culling addresses neither why animals exist in those numbers nor why their behaviour has changed. It is management theatre — accepting the problem as fate and investing resources in its effects rather than its causes.

The Problem Is Real. The Proposed Solutions Are Not.

There is no dispute about the severity of human-macaque conflict in Nepal. It is real, widespread, and intensifying.

A recent nationwide survey covering nearly 2,000 farming households across dozens of municipalities found that an overwhelming majority identified rhesus macaques as their primary agricultural pest. Annual crop losses have been estimated in the tens of millions of rupees, with maize suffering the most significant damage, followed by paddy, wheat, millet, cardamom, and citrus crops.

For more than two decades, farmers have borne these losses, while compensation mechanisms have remained underfunded, inconsistent, and often inaccessible.

Rhesus macaques are among the most adaptable primates. As forests are degraded and natural food sources decline, and as human environments provide easy access to nutrition through unprotected crops, waste, and direct feeding, their behaviour changes. They become bolder, more dependent on human-dominated landscapes, and more concentrated in conflict zones.

The animals causing damage are not simply “excess” populations to be removed. They are the product of long-term ecological disruption, human-induced food availability, and the decline of natural predators.

Removing individual animals without addressing these drivers leads to a well-documented outcome: the remaining population continues the same behaviour, new animals move into the vacated space, and the conflict persists. The issue was never merely the number of animals; it was always the conditions shaping their behaviour.

What Creative Solutions Look Like — and Why They Were Blocked

More than a decade ago, a comprehensive intervention was proposed for a village in Nuwakot District, where macaque-related crop loss and human conflict had been escalating for years. The proposal was built on a simple premise: lasting solutions must address causes, not just symptoms.

It combined detailed baseline research — including community surveys, population assessments, land-use mapping, and behavioural observation — with a layered set of humane interventions. These included sterilisation to manage population growth, habitat enrichment through planting food sources in forest areas, buffer zones between farms and forests using deterrent vegetation, and clearly defined community protocols for acceptable and unacceptable responses.

The proposal also incorporated behavioural deterrence techniques. Among them was the use of safe, veterinary-supervised compounds that create temporary discomfort, conditioning animals to avoid specific locations.

Most notably, it included Conditioned Taste Aversion (CTA), a scientifically tested method used in multiple countries to mitigate wildlife conflict. This approach allows animals to associate certain foods or locations with mild, temporary discomfort, leading them to avoid those areas in the future without causing lasting harm.

Despite its scientific grounding and international precedent, permission to pilot such methods in Nepal was never granted. Institutional mechanisms for approving innovative, non-lethal approaches remain either weak or functionally absent.

Meanwhile, the same policy space continues to entertain solutions that have already been challenged legally and questioned scientifically.

The NTNC Question and the Tiger Silence

NTNC occupies a uniquely powerful position within Nepal’s conservation framework. It manages key conservation areas, holds government mandates, and maintains partnerships with international organisations. Its influence over wildlife policy is substantial.

This is precisely why its silence on certain issues is as telling as its advocacy on others.

Nepal’s success in increasing its tiger population has been widely celebrated. However, the expansion of tigers into buffer zones and community forests has also resulted in rising human casualties and economic losses in affected regions such as Bardiya and Banke.

Communities have faced fatal attacks, injuries, and significant livelihood disruption. Yet, despite its central role in conservation efforts, NTNC has not articulated responses proportionate to the scale of this crisis.

Its silence on tigers stands in stark contrast to its assertive position on macaques — raising legitimate questions about institutional priorities and the interests being served.

The Civil Society Burden — and Its Limits

Nepal’s civil society has repeatedly stepped in where institutional responses have fallen short. With limited resources, it has challenged questionable policies, exposed regulatory failures, documented human and ecological impacts, and sought judicial intervention.

The earlier Supreme Court rulings were grounded in existing law and fundamental principles of environmental governance. Yet, years later, similar proposals continue to resurface, suggesting a troubling gap in institutional memory and accountability.

The rhesus macaque occupies a complex position in Nepal’s social and ecological landscape. It is deeply embedded in cultural and religious traditions, particularly in temple ecosystems such as Swayambhu and Pashupatinath, while also playing an important ecological role across forest corridors. At the same time, it is a growing source of hardship for rural communities.

Any meaningful policy response must acknowledge both realities.

What is needed is a shift toward solutions that address root causes — habitat degradation, human-driven food sources, agricultural encroachment, and ecological imbalance — and translate that understanding into practical interventions. These include sterilisation programmes, behavioural deterrence techniques, buffer zone management, crop adaptation strategies, fair and efficient compensation systems, and the long-delayed approval of scientifically grounded pilot projects.

Until such leadership emerges from within Nepal’s established conservation institutions, civil society will continue to do what it has long done: challenge policies, document evidence, seek accountability, and resist efforts that reduce both wildlife and vulnerable communities to expendable variables in a flawed system.

The author is the Founder and Executive Director of the Burhan Community Regeneration and Conservation Foundation (BCRCF) and a recipient of the Future for Nature Award 2015. He filed a Public Interest Litigation in Nepal's Supreme Court in 2009 challenging the licensing of rhesus macaque breeding and export, a writ petition against the indiscriminate release of captive monkeys into Shivapuri National Park, and a further writ petition on dog culling on behalf of the Jane Goodall Institute Nepal.