Across Nepal’s Terai, Inner Madhesh and hill regions, temperatures are rising and rainfall patterns are becoming increasingly erratic. This year, meteorologists have predicted below-average rainfall and above-average temperatures, with precipitation likely to arrive in short, intense and localised bursts. These changing conditions have created what many now describe as Nepal’s annual “wildfire season”.
Forest fires have already begun appearing across different parts of the country. What was once considered a seasonal risk has evolved into a recurring national disaster with far-reaching environmental, social and economic consequences. Yet Nepal’s approach to wildfire management remains largely reactive. Most attention is devoted to controlling fires after they break out, while far less effort is invested in reducing risks before ignition occurs.
This imbalance needs to change.
The country’s wildfire strategy continues to revolve around emergency response: purchasing firefighting equipment, training personnel and deploying resources once fires start spreading. While such measures are necessary, they address symptoms rather than causes. The more fundamental question is why wildfires are becoming more frequent and severe, and what can be done to prevent them from occurring in the first place.
Prevention is not only more effective than response; it is also significantly less expensive. The labour, resources and time required to reduce fire risks through forest management are far lower than the costs of controlling active fires and recovering from their aftermath. Yet prevention remains the weakest component of Nepal’s wildfire policy.
One reason is that the country has gradually abandoned many of the traditional forest-management practices that helped communities coexist with fire risks for generations. Indigenous knowledge systems that once guided forest stewardship have faded from public discourse and policymaking. In their place, Nepal has increasingly adopted a response-oriented approach that often overlooks local realities and available resources.
Environmental researcher Dr Uttam Babu Shrestha argues that Nepal's wildfire challenge, although serious, remains manageable. Unlike countries such as Australia or the United States, Nepal does not face large-scale megafires that require costly aerial suppression systems. Instead, he argues, the country already possesses valuable traditional knowledge and community-based practices that can significantly reduce fire risks if properly revived and implemented.
Procedure to be developed for using helicopters in wildfire con...
His assessment highlights an important reality: Nepal does not necessarily need expensive technological solutions. What it needs is a renewed commitment to forest management practices that work with nature rather than against it.
The urgency of that shift is becoming increasingly apparent. Rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, erratic rainfall and other climate-related stresses have heightened wildfire risks across the country. Government assessments have identified 13 districts as highly vulnerable to forest fires and another 11 as vulnerable. In practice, however, wildfire impacts are now being felt in nearly every region of Nepal.
Lumbini Province faces the highest wildfire risk, followed by Sudurpaschim and Karnali. The danger begins during the dry winter months and peaks between mid-Phalgun and mid-Jestha, when forests become particularly susceptible to ignition and rapid fire spread.
The consequences extend far beyond burned vegetation. Wildfires damage biodiversity, degrade watersheds, destroy wildlife habitats, threaten human settlements, undermine tourism and affect agricultural productivity. Yet Nepal still lacks a comprehensive assessment of the economic, environmental and social costs of these fires. Without understanding the full scale of the losses, policymakers risk underestimating the urgency of prevention.
Human behaviour remains the single largest contributor to the problem. According to forestry expert Sudip Chhatkuli, approximately 64 percent of forest fires are intentionally set, while another 32 percent result from negligence or accidents. Only a small percentage are attributed to unknown causes. These figures suggest that most wildfires are preventable.
They also reveal a deeper challenge: declining public awareness and weakening community ownership of forests.
For decades, Nepal's community forestry model was celebrated internationally for empowering local users to manage forest resources sustainably. Today, however, growing migration, changing livelihoods and declining participation in conservation activities have weakened some of those community structures. As a result, many traditional practices that once reduced fire risks are disappearing.
Reviving these practices should become a national priority.
In recent years, many of these traditional approaches have been reintroduced under the broader framework of nature-based solutions. These include protecting water sources, restoring streams, constructing ponds in and around forests, maintaining fire lines, removing combustible forest litter, producing compost from collected biomass, and planting species that help retain soil moisture.The control and management of invasive species are equally important.
Such interventions offer multiple benefits. They reduce wildfire risks while simultaneously improving water conservation, supporting biodiversity, and strengthening local livelihoods. Most importantly, they can be implemented using local knowledge, local materials and community participation.
Several organisations are already demonstrating the potential of these approaches. The PunarUtthan Programme, led by Lutheran World Relief, is conducting action research on nature-based solutions for wildfire management. Among its initiatives are efforts to increase moisture retention in forests by protecting water sources and constructing small ponds in fire-prone areas. The programme has reportedly identified dozens of locally adaptable interventions that could strengthen wildfire resilience across Nepal.
These initiatives offer valuable lessons, but isolated projects alone will not solve the problem. Nepal needs a coordinated national strategy that places prevention at the centre of wildfire management.
At present, wildfire governance remains fragmented. Federal, provincial and local governments, community forest user groups, security agencies, civil society organisations and development partners are all involved in wildfire control. However, coordination among these actors remains weak. Without stronger collaboration, many interventions risk remaining piecemeal and ineffective.
A more integrated approach is needed—one that combines policy reform, community engagement, scientific research and indigenous knowledge. Governments at all levels should strengthen public awareness programmes, encourage youth participation in forest conservation and create policies that make sustainable forest management economically beneficial for local communities.
Preparedness must become as important as response.
As nature-based solutions expert Dr Narayan Gyawali observes, Nepal often becomes highly active during rescue and relief operations while paying insufficient attention to preparedness before disasters occur. Wildfire management suffers from the same weakness. Unless the country invests more seriously in prevention, each wildfire season will continue to bring avoidable losses.
Ultimately, Nepal's most effective wildfire-control strategy may not lie in expensive equipment or imported technologies. It lies in rediscovering and strengthening the knowledge, practices and stewardship traditions that communities have long used to manage forests sustainably.
Climate change may be intensifying wildfire risks, but many of the solutions already exist within Nepal's landscapes and communities. The challenge now is whether policymakers are willing to recognise them, invest in them and make prevention—not response—the foundation of the country's wildfire strategy.
