The loss of fish biodiversity is often attributed to fishing activities, but are they truly the main drivers of this crisis? In Nepal, while small-scale fishers face restrictions from policy implementers, large-scale environmental disruptions such as dam construction and riverbed excavation continue to cause severe habitat destruction. These activities degrade aquatic ecosystems by destroying natural habitats, altering water flow, and disrupting fish migration routes, leading to drastic declines in fish populations. Despite this, small-scale fishers – who rely on traditional and often sustainable fishing practices – are unfairly blamed and subjected to restrictive policies, while large-scale industrial activities continue unchecked.

Is this because dam construction and riverbed excavation generate significant revenue for the government, making them less scrutinized? If so, what about the sustainability of the livelihoods of fishers who rely on fishing to support their families, manage their households, and fund their children’s education? Shouldn’t policies aim to balance economic gains with social and environmental responsibility?

Rather than punishing small fishers, the government must explore ways to find common ground between conservation efforts and the rights of fishing communities. Sustainable river management should prioritize both ecological health and the well-being of local communities. If we are to safeguard our rivers, we must advocate for responsible development that does not sacrifice the livelihoods of those who have depended on these waters for generations. Is it truly impossible to create policies that ensure both biodiversity conservation and the survival of traditional fishing communities?