Nepal is a diverse nation with over 60 ethnic communities, many of whom are Indigenous. These communities have maintained unique cultures, traditions, and relationships with nature for centuries. But as development projects expand, particularly in hydropower, roads, and infrastructure, the rights of these communities are increasingly under threat. At the centre of this, we need to focus on the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).

FPIC is recognized under international frameworks, especially the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and ILO Convention No. 169, both of which Nepal has committed to. These instruments protect the right of Indigenous Peoples to be consulted and give or withhold consent before development projects affect their lands, territories, or resources. However, in Nepal most of the projects move forward without their consent- compensation for encroaching their ancestral land is delayed or denied, and environmental impacts are ignored.

What is FPIC? 
Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is a key principle that protects the rights of Indigenous Peoples. It means communities have the right to say “yes” or “no” to any project or decision that affects their land, resources, culture, or way of life. This consent must be free from pressure or manipulation, prior to the start of any project, and informed with all necessary facts shared in a language and way the community understands.

FPIC is a process, not a one-time event which must be conducted in a culturally appropriate, inclusive, and transparent manner. It is not just a slogan. It is a legal and moral requirement grounded in Article 32 of UNDRIP, ILO Convention No. 169 and other international treaties and conventions. It ensures that Indigenous communities can decide whether and how a development project happens in their territory. FPIC is essential because many Indigenous communities depend on the land not only for food and shelter but also for cultural identity and spiritual well-being. Without genuine consent, development projects become a source of dispossession, marginalization, and conflict- along with serious violation of human rights.

Nepal’s Constitutional and Legal Framework
Nepal’s 2015 Constitution provides vague protections for Indigenous Peoples, including rights to autonomy, traditional knowledge, and participation in state mechanisms. Similarly, domestic law still lacks specific procedures to implement FPIC or recognize customary land rights. Although Nepal is a signatory to ILO Convention No. 169, implementation remains weak. Article 6 of the Convention requires that Indigenous Peoples be consulted “with the objective of achieving agreement or consent.” But in Nepal, consultation is only formalistic. Many government agencies view Indigenous concerns as obstacles to progress rather than as rights to be respected.

The Supreme Court's Intervention

The Kathmandu Roads Expansion case became a milestone for Indigenous and civil rights in Nepal. In this case, 47 people sued the government for expanding roadways without compensation. The Supreme Court of Nepal ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that infrastructure development must balance with civil rights, environmental protection, and cultural preservation.

This decision reinforced the idea that development without justice is unconstitutional. It recognized the principle of rights-based development, where affected communities must be consulted and compensated. The court emphasized the importance of protecting archaeological sites and minimizing environmental harm that closely align with FPIC and ILO 169. 

But in the case of Marsyangdi Corridor, despite the massive impact on private property, forest, and water resources, many families were not compensated. The 220 kV Marsyangdi Corridor transmission line project, cuts through the land of several Indigenous groups. Environmental assessments were rushed, and community voices were barely acknowledged. The project exemplifies the gap between paper promises and ground reality. The developers created an Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP), but many argue it was done to satisfy donor requirements rather than to ensure community participation. While the project claimed to follow FPIC, affected locals say the process was neither free nor informed. The project has affected land, disrupted local ecosystems, and undermined sacred sites. Women, who play key roles in resource management and cultural preservation, were especially sidelined during consultations.

In another case of Soravag Poultry Farm in Morang. A poultry farm named Soravag was accused of polluting air and water in the lands of Indigenous groups like the Shanthal, Urau, Gangai, and Rajbamshi. The community reported foul odors, blocked access to clean water, and health hazards caused by the waste management practices of the poultry operation. The project moved forward without an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or proper community consultation. Again, FPIC was completely ignored.

Despite complaints to local authorities, no meaningful action was taken, reflecting how weak enforcement mechanisms continue to harm Indigenous livelihoods and ecosystems. Similar problems have been reported in the Budhiganga Hydropower Project (Achham and Bajura), Indigenous Thakuri and Dalit families reported displacement without proper compensation. And, the Tanahu Hydropower Project, delays in environmental clearance and alleged neglect of FPIC for Magar communities.

Climate Change and Development Pressure
Climate change is reshaping the way we use land, water, and natural resources in Nepal. Rising temperatures, erratic rainfall, and melting glaciers have increased the risk of floods, landslides, and droughts, especially in Indigenous territories that are closely tied to nature. In response, the government and private sector are pushing large-scale development projects like hydropower plants, transmission lines, and road construction in the name of climate adaptation and green growth. However, these projects often enter Indigenous lands without respecting Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), causing environmental harm and displacing communities that have lived sustainably for generations.

Development projects aimed at addressing climate change can end up worsening the very vulnerabilities they claim to fix. Indigenous Peoples, who have long protected forests, rivers, and biodiversity, are losing access to their resources due to dams, deforestation, and land grabs. This not only destroys livelihoods but also erases traditional ecological knowledge that could offer real solutions to the climate crisis. When projects move forward without consultation, they violate Indigenous rights and create long-term conflicts. True climate resilience must centre on Indigenous leadership, respect local knowledge systems, and ensure that development does not come at the cost of cultural and environmental survival.

Impact on Traditional Culture of Indigenous Communities

Development projects and climate change are putting deep pressure on the traditional culture of Indigenous communities in Nepal. Sacred rivers are being dammed, ancestral lands are being taken without consent, and forests, seen as spiritual and cultural homes are being destroyed. When communities lose their land, they don’t just lose a place to live or farm; they lose the foundation of their cultural identity, stories, rituals, and way of life. For many Indigenous groups, land is not property, it’s life itself. Displacement and environmental destruction lead to the erosion of languages, customs, festivals, and spiritual practices tied to the land.

Younger generations grow up disconnected from their roots, unable to perform the rituals or speak the languages of their ancestors. Ceremonial sites get submerged by dams or bulldozed for roads. Traditional livelihoods like shifting agriculture, herbal medicine, fishing, or forest gathering are replaced by wage labour or forced migration. When development ignores culture, it risks turning Indigenous Peoples into strangers in their own land.

Challenges in Enforcing FPIC and ILO 169 in Nepal
Despite being a party to ILO Convention 169, Nepal lacks clear national guidelines on how to implement it. Government agencies often lack training, and developers focus on completing paperwork rather than building genuine relationships with local communities. Indigenous groups are underrepresented in decision-making bodies. When they protest, they are sometimes labeled anti-development or manipulated through divide-and-rule tactics. Meanwhile, many international lenders rely too heavily on self-reporting from developers.

What needs to be done?
The Nepal government needs to establish an independent grievance redress mechanism for affected Indigenous communities. Recognize and register customary land rights of Indigenous Peoples to give them legal standing. Establish the mechanism to involve Indigenous women and youth in all levels of consultation and decision-making. Strengthen environmental assessments to include Indigenous knowledge and impacts beyond physical infrastructure.

To create a fairer and more just development process in Nepal, several steps are essential. Thus, making FPIC legally binding in national law with clear procedures and penalties for violations as well as training local and provincial governments on ILO 169, UNDRIP, and rights-based approaches to development is equally important.

Conclusion
Indigenous Peoples in Nepal are not anti-development. They simply want to participate in shaping their futures. Projects like Upper Trishuli-1, Marsyangdi Corridor, and Soravag Poultry Farm show that ignoring Indigenous rights leads to injustice and long-term conflict. Respecting FPIC, implementing ILO Convention 169, and listening to Indigenous voices are not just moral imperatives, they are smart, sustainable development practices. Therefore, Nepal must treat its Indigenous Peoples not as obstacles but as partners in progress.