The Nepal Himalaya carries a deep historical and cultural sense of balance between humans and nature. The hills, mountains, rivers, stones, trees, and soil are gods for the local and indigenous people. Planting trees such as bar (Ficus benghalensis), pipal (Ficus religiosa), and tulsi (holy basil, Ocimum sanctum) has a religious significance. Wild animals and birds such as lions, snakes, peacocks and even mice are not merely fauna but an integral part of spirituality and symbolism. Research shows that Nepal is the most nature-connected nation in the world. Yet the relentless pursuit of modernity is gradually eroding this connection with nature and disrupting human–nature relationships. In the rush toward development and prosperity, Nepal’s environment is entering a period of great precarity. The expansion of roads, cable cars, and hydropower infrastructure in this fragile mountainous landscape is not only degrading its natural beauty but also significantly disrupting local ecologies and people’s historical relations.

As in many parts of the world, modernity has reinforced neoliberal principles that treat nature as an economic asset. The use of market-based instruments to conserve and consume nature has changed how nature is understood, managed, and valued. In Nepal’s mainstream conservation policy and discourse, nature is perceived as a ‘global common’ and ‘a commodity’ to serve economic goals. Ironically, the concerns of local people and the rights of indigenous communities are subordinated to neoliberal conservation priorities.

Both the federal and local governments have been promoting neoliberal approaches that either focus on the state’s interest in generating revenue through the commodification of nature or accommodate global conservation interests. Examples of these include tourism and ecotourism operated in community forests, national parks, conservation areas, and hunting reserves. State and non-state actors who believe in a market-based approach are pushing for strategies to turn nature into tradable assets to earn revenue and accumulate conservation funds. These ideas are largely rooted in high modernist traditions and neoliberal reasoning that tend to reorder and often divide human and nature relations based on technical simplifications.

In Nepal, the establishment of tourism parks with synthetic replicas of nature (e.g., concrete trees, statues of animals and fruits), construction of view towers on the top of the hills and concrete trails along the ridges of landscape are some examples of high modernity through which the government (both federal and local) intends to promote (eco-) tourism for prosperity. However, these schemes are anti-ecological, high modernist, and many have already failed to meet the intended ecological and societal goals in a number of places. The case of a peacock park constructed in Dolakha illustrates how such an approach leads to a serious tragedy for both society and nature.

In the first week of November 2025, as part of my PhD research, I was in Dolakha to understand changing human–wildlife (nature) relations, along with other colleagues from the Southasia Institute of Advanced Studies (SIAS). This story emerged during fieldwork, typifying how the state’s ambitious attempt to transform nature into a commodity has failed, resulting in the loss of a significant amount of public funds (tax money) and the destruction of local ecologies.

The ‘Peacock Park’ is in Biruwa village of Bhimeshwor Municipality, a farming village perched along a sloping ridge offering panoramic views of terraced fields that move downhill towards the Tamakoshi River. The area presents a perfect example of a varying landscape—including forests, agriculture, and settlements—located adjacent to a pine forest which is part of the Sitakunda Community Forest. Peacocks and monkeys are the two major wildlife species found in the forests, but their relations with the local farmers are not harmonious. From the farmers’ perspective, monkeys and peacocks are their main wild enemies. They reported that monkeys and peacocks frequently raid and destroy their crops.

The Lamosangu–Ramechhap/Jiri Road cuts through Biruwa village. While passing Kiratichhap Chowk, a big gate labelled ‘Peacock Park’ can be seen. The park covers approximately 2.54 hectares (about 50 ropani) of land. It was built at a cost of about 5 million Nepali rupees with funds allocated from the municipal budget in the fiscal years between 2017 and 2019 under the development scheme ‘One Ward, One Park’.

An earthen road has been constructed to the main park area. Upon entering the gate, three pairs of concrete peacocks can be seen standing on artificial tree logs. If you continue further uphill, a large empty wire-mesh enclosure can be seen. A few metres away from the enclosure, there are other structures: an empty water reservoir, abandoned toilets, and a small building which seemed to be a ticket counter and a resting place. All these structures are now useless, and the surroundings are covered with naturally regenerated weeds.

According to a female farmer, initially, four peacocks that had been raised in a private home were brought and kept in the enclosure. There was a plan to add more peacocks, but the peacocks were killed a couple of days later by a mongoose that entered the enclosure through a hole. The logic behind this effort was to create an attractive and natural tourism space for visitors willing to pay to watch peacocks dancing, foraging, and playing while spreading their colourful feathers. At the same time, the scheme aimed to conserve peacocks and reduce the crop damage caused by them.

Farmers supported the initiative, hoping it would reduce damage to their crops from peacocks. Unfortunately, it neither saved the peacocks nor solved the crop damage issue, and also failed to generate revenue. Instead, it caused the loss of a significant amount of money and destroyed the area's existing biodiversity. ‘Many pine trees were cut down, and the field was cleared to build the peacock park, but now the area is covered with seto banmara [Chromolaena odorata],’ said a man who used to graze his goats there. This invasive weed has flourished in the freshly exposed soil following the clearing of the land for park construction and has continued to spread.

This story represents just one case. Yet, creating concrete trees and other artificial structures has become a growing trend in different parts of the country. Paradoxically, naturally grown trees have been cleared to instal artificial ones in many places. For instance, it has become common to remove traditional chautaras and build ‘modern’ resting structures. This growing practice of creating ‘synthetic nature’ in the name of progress raises fundamental questions about the logic of contemporary approaches to nature and development.

American geographer Kathleen McAfee (1999) eloquently argues that the intention and act of ‘selling nature to save’ creates a serious ecological problem and significantly destabilises human-nature relations. Do we really need to establish parks with concrete replicas of animals and trees in places where rich biodiversity already exists? What ideologies and forms of expertise lead to the emergence of such strategies? These questions provoke a critical perspective on how nature is imagined and approached under the influence of modernity and neoliberalism. In his influential book, Seeing Like a State, American political scientist and anthropologist James Scott maintains that the high modernist scheme is underpinned by the belief that technical expertise and reasonings are the solution to modern society, but they often fail because of technocratic plans on complex socio-ecological realities.

Despite Nepal’s rich natural landscape, flora, and fauna, modernity has driven people’s aspirations to create spectacles by reproducing synthetic nature, constructing wildlife enclosures, and commodifying them for economic prosperity. This is a much broader issue than merely a debate about planning failure and reflects how high modernism is intertwined with the neoliberal ideology of nature. In this case, the idea of establishing a peacock park as an instrument of ecotourism appears to have been inspired by neoliberal thinking that seeks to commodify nature for economic gain rather than simply conserve it. Municipal authorities assumed that the same strategies could be replicated in other forest areas. However, the initiative failed and became counterproductive for both nature and society. Ultimately, it has led to a significant socio-ecological tragedy. Such an approach neither supports nature conservation nor enhances natural aesthetics; instead, it destroys local ecologies and disrupts human–nature relations in the long run.