The Government of Nepal has declared Chhayanath National Park in Mugum Karmarong Rural Municipality, Mugu. Covering about 906 square kilometers, the new park was carved out from the Dolpa section of the 3,555 sq. km Shey–Phoksundo National Park. With this, the total number of national parks in Nepal has reached 13.

According to government officials, the move will make access to park services easier for locals. Residents of Dolpu previously had to walk nearly a week to reach the Shey–Phoksundo headquarters in Dolpa. With the new administration office inside Mugu, services will be more accessible, said the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation.

Experts Question the Move

But conservationists and analysts are questioning the necessity of splitting an existing park. Was such a step needed? Critics argue the government has added nothing new except increasing the administrative burden, without conducting proper studies or holding discussions with locals and stakeholders.

Does the state even have the budget and manpower to run another park? Why was this decision made specifically in the home district of the minister? Many are questioning the secrecy behind the move, noting that consultations were not held with locals who have long expressed dissatisfaction with the park. Establishing a new national park instead of a simple sector office seems to signal deeper political interests.

Was a Separate Park Justified?

Nepal has achieved significant success in conservation in the past. Rara National Park was established in Mugu in 1976, and Shey–Phoksundo National Park in 1984. In 2010, Banke National Park was declared to strengthen conservation in western Tarai.

But Chhayanath is different. It was not created to expand conservation areas, but rather by slicing an existing protected zone. Shey–Phoksundo is vital for snow leopards, Himalayan tahr, and other high-altitude species. Splitting it into two administrations risks creating duplication, inefficiency, and conflict.

Instead of strengthening conservation, this division could turn into an expensive administrative and political recruitment center. Moreover, no integrated plan has been discussed yet to ensure coordination between the two parks, which until now operated as one.

A Costly Burden

Running a national park is expensive. Offices, security posts, patrol vehicles, communication systems, and community development programs all require funding. By law, 30–50% of park revenue must be invested in buffer zones. Yet, the Ministry of Forests and Environment receives less than 1% of the national budget (about NPR 18.6 billion in FY 2081/82). With this, it already struggles to manage 12 national parks, 6 conservation areas, 1 wildlife reserve, and 1 hunting reserve. Adding another park could become a financial “white elephant.”

Tourism in Mugu remains minimal. Entry fees—NPR 3,000 for foreigners, 1,500 for SAARC nationals, and 25 for Nepalis—are unlikely to generate significant revenue. Data on past tourist visits suggest income from Chhayanath National Park will be negligible. This means the park will rely heavily on state funds and donors, turning it into more of a political platform than a conservation boon.

Minister Shahi, however, insists no new staff will be recruited. “We will operate with the same workforce. There will be no immediate financial burden,” he maintains.

Manpower Shortage

Nepal’s parks already face acute shortages of rangers, veterinarians, and technical staff. In vast areas like Shey–Phoksundo, patrol posts are far apart, making management difficult. With the existing workforce already overstretched, it is unclear how resources will cover a new administration.

The government has not released any staffing plan for Chhayanath. Park spokesperson Bed Kumar Dhakal said employees would simply be transferred from Shey–Phoksundo. But if that happens, experts warn, both parks will be weakened. Staff divided between two administrations may not be able to effectively serve either.

Political Interests in Play

The decision to divide an existing park has also sparked political controversy. Minister of Forests and Environment, Ain Bahadur Shahi Thakuri, is himself an elected lawmaker from Mugu-1.

Announcing a new national park in his home district—without detailed study or budget allocation—has been criticized by former park chiefs as political showmanship. One retired chief remarked: “This is shameful. There was no need to split an existing park into two. A sector office would have been enough. This decision only fulfills a political agenda.”

Nepal has earned global praise for conservation achievements—from doubling its tiger population to protecting more than 20% of its territory. But experts caution: declaring new parks is easy, managing them is hard.

They warn that this decision, presented as a service to locals, may actually weaken Nepal’s conservation legacy—serving political interests at the cost of nature.