Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

GS Paper: GS3-18.Conservation, Environmental Pollution and Degradation, Environmental Impact Assessment.

  • Conservation, compensation: Tackling Himachal monkey menace

    Why in the News

    A 63 year old woman in Shimla has died of injuries, including spinal damage, sustained when a pack of rhesus macaques attacked her on the roof of her house. The death has returned attention to the legal position of the species. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 had listed the rhesus macaque as a protected species under Part I of Schedule II. The Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2022 removed it from that listing. The contest now is that responsibility has passed from State forest departments to urban local bodies without the funds, the trained staff or the compensation cover moving with it.

    What changed for the rhesus macaque after the 2022 amendment?

    1. Loss of protected status: The 2022 amendment removed the rhesus macaque from Part I of Schedule II of the parent Act, ending its treatment as a protected species.
    2. Transfer of responsibility: The Chief Wildlife Warden of Himachal Pradesh has stated that State forest departments are no longer responsible for the monkey menace.
    3. Reclassification in practice: A monkey is now treated like a stray animal, which places it within the purview of civic bodies rather than of the wildlife administration.
    4. Central funding stopped: State forest departments earlier received funds from the Centre to control the monkey menace, and that flow ended once the species ceased to be protected.

    Why are urban local bodies not equipped to take this on?

    1. Absence of funds: A senior Indian Forest Service officer has identified the lack of funds as the first reason urban local bodies such as the Shimla Municipal Corporation are not fully competent to handle the task independently.
    2. No trained manpower: The second stated reason is the absence of expertise and trained manpower to capture monkeys and to sterilise the captured animals.
    3. Capacity is still being built: The Shimla Municipal Commissioner has stated that the corporation is in the process of training its manpower on how to capture monkeys, and takes the assistance of the forest department when a situation arises.
    4. Assistance is now priced: The forest department continues to intervene largely in and around forest areas and charges urban local bodies for capture and sterilisation, at a cost of Rs 700 per monkey sterilised.

    What do the population and incidence numbers show?

    1. A falling population: Official numbers show Himachal Pradesh’s estimated rhesus macaque population fell from 3,17,512 in 2004 to 2,26,086 in 2013, and then to 1,36,443 in 2019 to 2020.
    2. Sterilisation as the stated cause: The State forest department attributes much of that decline to sustained sterilisation, having sterilised 1,86,448 monkeys between 2006 and March 2024.
    3. Conflict has not fallen with numbers: Shimla Municipal Corporation officials record 50 to 55 cases of monkey attack every month in the city.

    Why has compensation become the sharper grievance?

    1. Existing entitlements: Under the Himachal Pradesh wildlife compensation policy cited by officials, severe monkey attack injuries attract Rs 75,000, permanent disability Rs 1 lakh and death Rs 4 lakh.
    2. Delisting closes the door: Since the rhesus macaque is no longer covered by the Act, officials have indicated that the deceased woman’s family is unlikely to qualify under this framework.
    3. The demand on the ground: A Shimla based non governmental organisation has protested outside the Municipal Commissioner’s office demanding compensation of Rs 5 lakh for the deceased woman.
    4. A parallel demand on behaviour: The same protest demanded stricter action against those found feeding monkeys in Shimla.

    Why is the vermin versus protected species question still unsettled?

    1. Opinion is divided: A wildlife expert has recorded that opinion remains split on whether monkeys should be treated as vermin or as a protected animal, despite rapid population growth.
    2. Human behaviour drives the conflict: Public feeding of wild animals, including monkeys, forces animals out of the forest in search of easy food, which locates the cause of conflict outside the species itself.
    3. Delisting answers only the legal question: Removing protection settles who is liable and does not settle whether culling, sterilisation or behaviour control is the correct instrument.

    Challenges to managing human macaque conflict after delisting

    1. Mismatch between mandate and capacity: Responsibility now sits with municipal bodies that have neither wildlife budgets nor trained handlers, while the expertise stays in a department that is no longer accountable for the outcome. Eg. Shimla Municipal Corporation must pay the forest department Rs 700 an animal for a service it cannot perform itself.
      The Fix: Fund a standing joint capture and sterilisation cell staffed by the forest department and paid for from the municipal budget, so the mandate and the skill sit in one unit.
    2. Compensation vanishes with protected status: A State compensation policy keyed to species listed under the Act leaves victims of a delisted species with no claim, even where the injury is identical. Eg. The Shimla family faces a death under a schedule that no longer covers the animal responsible.
      The Fix: Rewrite the State compensation policy to key entitlement to the injury and the location rather than to the schedule the animal sits in.
    3. Sterilisation without an exit point: A programme that runs for two decades without a stated target population becomes a permanent budget line rather than a solution. Eg. 1,86,448 monkeys were sterilised between 2006 and March 2024 while attack incidence in Shimla stayed at 50 to 55 cases a month.
      The Fix: Set a district level target population with published annual monitoring, so the programme is measured against conflict incidence rather than against animals processed.
    4. Food subsidy from human waste: Open garbage and religious and recreational feeding supply a reliable calorie source that sustains urban troop numbers regardless of sterilisation. Eg. Shimla’s hill slope waste collection points and temple precincts draw troops into residential areas.
      The Fix: Enforce monkey proof waste containment along the affected wards and prosecute feeding under municipal bye laws with a stated penalty.
    5. Vermin declarations are politically fraught and short lived: Section 62 of the parent Act allows the Centre to declare a species vermin for a limited period in a specified area, and such notifications draw litigation and lapse without resolving the problem. Eg. Himachal Pradesh’s earlier vermin notification for rhesus macaques was repeatedly renewed and then allowed to lapse.
      The Fix: Replace episodic vermin notifications with a standing conflict management plan that fixes responsibility, funding and compensation irrespective of the species’ schedule.

    Conclusion

    The 2022 delisting shifted the rhesus macaque from a conservation problem to a municipal nuisance without shifting the money, the staff or the compensation cover to match. The result is a hill town recording 50 to 55 attacks a month with no department fully answerable for either prevention or redress. The status question that remains open is whether responsibility is returned to the forest department with funding, or left with civic bodies and financed properly. The next marker is whether Himachal Pradesh amends its wildlife compensation policy to cover injuries caused by species the Act no longer lists.

    Back2Basics: Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972

    1. Purpose: It is the central law providing for the protection of wild animals and plants and for the establishment of protected areas such as national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.
    2. Schedule structure after 2022: The 2022 amendment reduced the schedules, with Schedule I covering species receiving the highest protection, Schedule II covering species with lesser protection, Schedule III covering plants and Schedule IV listing species regulated under CITES.
    3. Vermin provision: Section 62 allows the Centre to declare a wild animal other than one in Schedule I to be vermin for a specified area and period, which removes protection for that duration.
    4. Administration: Each State has a Chief Wildlife Warden who exercises the Act’s powers over hunting permissions, captivity and the management of protected areas.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2024] Consider the following statements: Statement-I: The Indian Flying Fox is placed under the “vermin” category in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Statement-II: The Indian Flying Fox feeds on the blood of other animals. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements? (a) Both statement I and Statement II are correct and statement II explains statement I (b) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I (c) Staement- I is correct , but Statement II is incorrect* (d) Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct”

  • Nepal’s climate call is a test for India

    Why in the News

    Nepal has moved from seeking relief after disaster to claiming climate justice and financial liability following catastrophic flash floods. Kathmandu has appealed to the UN backed Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage and called on developed countries to deliver compensation and concessional climate finance. It has separately pressed regional neighbours, including China and India, for cooperation on preparedness, data sharing and resilience. Nepal has clarified that it is not seeking damages from any single country, and its Prime Minister will take the case to the UN General Assembly on September 24. The tension for India is that accepting liability invites identical claims against it, while refusing outright cedes ground in the Himalayas to China.

    What is the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage?

    1. Purpose: It is a dedicated climate finance fund created to address irreparable climate impacts that neither mitigation nor adaptation can prevent.
    2. What loss and damage covers: It covers harm that has already occurred and cannot be reversed, such as land lost to sea level rise or settlements destroyed by a flood, as distinct from the cost of cutting emissions or of building defences in advance.
    3. Standing limitation: Its capital reserves remain a small fraction of actual reconstruction costs in affected countries.

    What has changed in Nepal’s ask?

    1. From relief to liability: For decades India acted as a friendly first responder when cloudbursts, landslides or flash floods struck Nepal, and that ad hoc relief paradigm has been replaced by a framework of climate justice and financial liability.
    2. Claim on the developed world: Kathmandu has asked developed countries to deliver compensation and concessional climate finance for the damage recorded.
    3. Ask directed at neighbours: It has pressed regional neighbours on preparedness, data sharing and resilience rather than on cash transfers.
    4. No named respondent: Nepal has stated it is not seeking damages from any single country, and the expectation placed on its neighbours is nonetheless unmistakable.
    5. Escalation to a global forum: The Nepalese Prime Minister will carry the case to the UN General Assembly on September 24, which moves a bilateral question into a multilateral setting.

    Why do existing global mechanisms fail a fast moving disaster?

    1. Approval cycles outrun the hazard: A $49.9 million project designed to protect vulnerable Nepalese communities from glacial lake outburst floods, meaning sudden floods released when a lake dammed by ice or moraine breaches, sat in the Green Climate Fund (GCF) pipeline for over seven years, and the waters had already broken by the time bureaucratic approvals cleared.
    2. Capital is not to scale: The Loss and Damage Fund’s reserves are a drop in the ocean against the actual costs of the damage it is meant to address.
    3. Reconstruction bill for Nepal: Nepal faces a reconstruction bill of nearly 10 per cent of its GDP, which no existing multilateral window is sized to meet.
    4. Design mismatch: Global climate finance mechanisms are built for planned projects and are unsuited to fast moving, compounding ecological disasters.

    Why is Nepal’s claim an uncomfortable precedent for India?

    1. India’s own emissions position: India’s per capita emissions remain low and its historical contribution to global warming is minimal compared with the West.
    2. India is itself a victim: India is a climate change affected country in its own right, which is the basis of its negotiating position against the Global North.
    3. Liability is reciprocal: Accepting direct liability or paying explicit climate damages would expose India to similar claims from other countries.
    4. Loss of leverage: The same admission would weaken India’s leverage in demanding finance from the Global North, since it would concede the principle it has used against developed countries.
    5. CBDR turned inward: Downstream and mountain nations are applying the Common But Differentiated Responsibilities principle locally, arguing that adjacent high emitting economic engines share an immediate physical footprint in their backyard.

    What does India lose by refusing?

    1. Geopolitical cost of an evasive reply: Rejecting Kathmandu’s appeals carries a geopolitical cost that no amount of disaster relief offsets.
    2. Chinese climate outreach: China is stepping up its climate and green outreach across the Himalayas, so a vacuum is filled rather than left open.
    3. Public opinion in Nepal: An evasive response could turn Nepal’s people away from India and give Beijing more room to operate.
    4. Exposure through infrastructure: India’s emissions footprint and its infrastructure investments are tied to the fragile ecology of the Third Pole, so it cannot rely on global support alone.

    What would a regional alternative look like?

    1. South Asian Resilience and Insurance Facility: India should champion a facility that delivers the substance of loss and damage funding without the fault based compensation terminology that triggers liability claims.
    2. Payout on a trigger, not on a finding: Operating as a rapid payout insurance pool, it would release funds upon satellite detection of threshold climate triggers, bypassing diplomatic wrangling and producing predictable finance for both Nepalese reconstruction and annual Indian disaster allocations.
    3. Existing institutional routes: The facility can be built through the New Development Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), BIMSTEC or a proposed Third Pole Compact rather than through a new treaty.
    4. Resilience first project design: Part of the funds for joint infrastructure projects should be directed to an adaptation fund for climate proof local works, safer slopes and mountain livelihoods.
    5. Early warning as a shared asset: India’s space capabilities should be used to create a real time, open access early warning system for the Himalayan belt.
    6. Co owned monitoring data: Sharing glacial lake outburst flood monitoring and lake volume tracking with Nepalese agencies converts tactical intelligence into a shared regional security asset.

    Challenges to a South Asian Resilience and Insurance Facility

    1. Basis risk in trigger based payouts: A payout fired by a satellite measured threshold can miss real damage that falls below the trigger, leaving the worst hit unpaid. Eg. Under India’s own Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, weather index based settlements have repeatedly diverged from assessed crop loss on the ground.
      The Fix: Pair the index trigger with a rapid ground verification window that releases a supplementary tranche where measured damage exceeds the index payout.
    2. Capitalisation depends on one contributor: A regional pool in which India is the dominant underwriter becomes an aid programme in insurance clothing and carries the same political weight it was meant to avoid. Eg. The SAARC Development Fund has remained thinly capitalised and largely inactive for the same reason.
      The Fix: Anchor the corpus in the New Development Bank and the AIIB with graduated member premiums, so no single state’s contribution determines solvency.
    3. Regional bodies are blocked by politics: A facility housed in a South Asian institution inherits that institution’s paralysis. Eg. No SAARC summit has been held since the 2014 Kathmandu summit.
      The Fix: Build it under BIMSTEC, which excludes the bilateral dispute that has frozen SAARC, and keep membership open to later accession.
    4. Data sharing is treated as strategic: Hydrological and glacial data in the Himalayas is handled as security information rather than as a public good, which defeats early warning. Eg. China suspended hydrological data sharing with India on the Brahmaputra during the 2017 Doklam standoff.
      The Fix: Route Himalayan lake and river data through an open access civilian platform with automatic publication, so supply does not turn on the state of relations.
    5. Insurance does not fund what is already lost: A payout pool covers future events and leaves the existing reconstruction bill untouched. Eg. Nepal’s current bill of nearly 10 per cent of GDP arises from floods that have already occurred.
      The Fix: Add a concessional reconstruction window alongside the insurance pool, so past damage and future risk are financed through separate instruments.

    Conclusion

    Nepal has converted a relief relationship into a claim of entitlement, and that reframing will not be withdrawn. India’s interest lies in supplying the money and the warning systems while refusing the vocabulary of fault, because the vocabulary is what travels to the next claimant. Whether New Delhi can build that distinction into an institution rather than assert it in a speech is the open question. The immediate marker is the position India takes when the Nepalese case reaches the UN General Assembly on September 24.

    What is climate finance under the UNFCCC?

    1. About: Climate finance is the flow of funds from public and private sources to developing countries to meet the costs of responding to climate change under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
    2. Rationale: It exists because the states least responsible for accumulated emissions face the largest relative costs, which is the operating logic of the Common But Differentiated Responsibilities principle.
    3. The three streams it is divided into: Mitigation finance pays to cut emissions, adaptation finance pays to build defences against impacts that are coming, and loss and damage finance pays for harm that has already occurred and cannot be reversed.
    4. Current headline commitments: COP30 called for tripling adaptation finance to US$120 billion annually by 2035 within a broader US$1.3 trillion climate finance pathway, and adopted the Baku to Belem Roadmap for 2026 to 2028 to expand grants and non debt finance for vulnerable countries.

    Key Concerns Regarding Climate Finance

    1. Delivery lags pledges: Headline sums announced at negotiations are not matched by disbursement, and the gap is widest for adaptation.
    2. Debt rather than grants: A large share arrives as loans, which adds to the debt burden of the very countries the finance is meant to protect.
    3. Scale against need: The pledged global goal of about $300 billion a year from developed nations is far below assessed requirements, with NITI Aayog alone estimating that India needs $5.2 trillion by 2050.
    4. Definitional looseness: There is no agreed accounting standard for what counts as climate finance, so existing development aid is relabelled and counted twice.

    Government Initiatives on Climate Finance and Resilience

    1. National Adaptation Fund for Climate Change (NAFCC): It funds climate resilient projects in agriculture, water, forestry and coastal management for States facing adaptation costs.
    2. State Action Plans on Climate Change (SAPCC): 34 States and Union Territories have prepared these plans, which align local development planning with national climate goals under the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC).
    3. Sovereign Green Bonds: The Union government issues these to diversify climate finance sources and lower the cost of capital for long gestation green projects.
    4. National Disaster Response Fund and State Disaster Response Fund: These carry the domestic fiscal response to disaster relief and recovery, which is the channel any regional facility would have to work alongside.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2015] Which of the following statements regarding ‘Green Climate Fund’ is/are correct? (1) It is intended to assist the developing countries in adaptation and mitigation practices to counter climate change. (2) It is founded under the aegis of UNEP, OECD, Asian Development Bank and World Bank. Select the correct answer using the code given below. (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 | Answer: (a)”

  • Botswana cheetah released in MP’s Gandhi Sagar park

    Why in the News

    The Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister has released CCB-2, a female cheetah brought to India from Botswana, into Gandhi Sagar Wildlife Sanctuary on the boundary of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. Gandhi Sagar became the country’s second cheetah habitat in April 2025, when two male cheetahs, Pawak and Prabhas, were moved there from Kuno National Park. The release follows the birth of four cubs at Kuno on 18 September to an India born female, the first cheetahs of a second generation born on Indian soil. The tension is that Project Cheetah is now producing animals inside India faster than it is establishing sites able to hold and breed them, and the cheetahs already moved to the second site have not reproduced there.

    What is Project Cheetah?

    1. About: Project Cheetah is the programme to reintroduce the cheetah to India by importing animals from Africa, the species having been declared extinct in the country in 1952.
    2. Who runs it: It is administered by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change through the National Tiger Conservation Authority, with the Wildlife Institute of India as technical partner.
    3. The imports so far: Eight cheetahs were brought from Namibia in September 2022 and twelve from South Africa in February 2023, with Kuno National Park as the first release site.
    4. Why more than one site: The programme’s action plan requires multiple release sites, because a single population in one park carries the full risk of disease, prey failure and territorial conflict.

    What does the CCB-2 release change at Gandhi Sagar?

    1. The animal and the move: CCB-2 is around three years old and was relocated from Kuno National Park in the Gwalior and Chambal region of Madhya Pradesh.
    2. The site’s population: Her arrival takes Gandhi Sagar to four cheetahs, two males and two females.
    3. The breeding objective: Wildlife officials expect her to start a new family at the site, because the female already there has not mated with either of the two resident males.
    4. What a working second site would mean: A second breeding site converts the programme from a single park holding every animal into a landscape with more than one viable population.

    What does the Kuno birth signify for the programme?

    1. The litter: An India born female, KGP12, gave birth to four cubs at Kuno on 18 September.
    2. Second generation born in India: KGP12 was herself born in India to a cheetah brought from South Africa, which makes her cubs part of a second generation born on Indian soil.
    3. The population count: The latest births took India’s total cheetah population to 56.
    4. Why generation depth matters: A population reproducing across two generations inside the country no longer depends on continued imports to sustain its numbers.

    Challenges to Project Cheetah

    1. The prey base has to exist before the animal arrives: A release site needs a stocked ungulate population before a cheetah is introduced, and building one takes years of protection and supplementation. Eg. Chital were translocated into Kuno from other reserves to raise prey density ahead of the first release in 2022.
      The Fix: Fix a measured prey density threshold for each site and make meeting it a precondition for any further release.
    2. Enclosure survival is not wild survival: Animals held in soft release bomas and large fenced enclosures are managed rather than free ranging, so survival figures recorded inside them do not test the reintroduction. Eg. Several Kuno cheetahs were returned to enclosures after wandering out of the park into surrounding farmland.
      The Fix: Publish the share of the population that has completed a full year free ranging outside enclosures as the programme’s headline metric.
    3. Mortality from conditions the source population never faced: Indian monsoon humidity produced infection under radio collars, a failure mode absent in the African range. Eg. Cheetahs at Kuno died in 2023 from septicaemia arising beneath satellite collars during the wet season.
      The Fix: Standardise a monsoon collar protocol with scheduled removal and veterinary inspection through the wet months.
    4. Conflict at the boundary of a small park: A cheetah ranges far beyond a sanctuary’s notified area, so animals enter village land where compensation and local tolerance decide whether they survive. Eg. Kuno cheetahs have repeatedly moved into farmland in Sheopur district and been recaptured.
      The Fix: Extend a dedicated compensation and rapid response scheme across every village in the dispersal belt of each release site.
    5. One state carries the whole programme: Both release sites lie in Madhya Pradesh and in the same Chambal basin, so a disease outbreak or a drought in that landscape reaches the entire Indian population. Eg. The cheetah conservation breeding centre approved at the Banni grasslands in Gujarat remains outside the active release plan.
      The Fix: Bring a release site outside Madhya Pradesh into the plan on a fixed timeline rather than as a future option.

    Conclusion

    Project Cheetah has passed the point at which its success is measured by arrivals. A population that has now bred to a second generation inside the country is no longer an import programme, it is a management problem, and the binding constraint has shifted from securing animals to securing landscapes that can hold them. What to watch is whether the pair at Gandhi Sagar produces a litter in the coming season, because a second site that holds cheetahs without breeding them extends the programme’s footprint without reducing its concentration of risk.

    Back2Basics: Gandhi Sagar Wildlife Sanctuary

    1. Designation and location: Gandhi Sagar Wildlife Sanctuary was notified in 1974 and spreads across the Mandsaur and Neemuch districts of Madhya Pradesh.
    2. River and reservoir: It lies along the Chambal river and adjoins the Gandhi Sagar dam reservoir, which forms part of its boundary.
    3. Terrain: The habitat is open savanna type grassland over rocky ground with dry deciduous scrub, which is the terrain the cheetah hunts in.
    4. Contiguity across the border: It adjoins the Bhainsrodgarh Wildlife Sanctuary in Rajasthan, which gives the two states a shared dispersal landscape.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “Recently there was a proposal to translocate some of the lions from their natural habitat in Gujarat to which one of the following sites? (a) Corbett National Park (b) Kuno Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (c) Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary (d) Sariska National Park”

  • Urban demand is reorganising global wildlife trafficking web

    Why in the News

    Five critically endangered baby orangutans, each around a year old, have been recovered from a forest in Odisha, roughly 2,000 km from their natural range in the rainforests of Borneo and Sumatra. The animals showed no fear of humans, which indicates they had been held in captivity for a period before the recovery. India’s Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) has been asked to investigate how they entered the country and who held them. The recovery coincides with a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that combined thirty years of confiscation records with spatial network analysis and found that urban centres, rather than source habitats, are now the demand nexuses of the wildlife trade. The tension is that enforcement is built around seizures at the point of recovery, while the network that produced the consignment is organised around a city thousands of kilometres away.

    What does the Odisha recovery reveal about the route?

    1. Condition at recovery: The five apes were found on 8 September with limited mobility, huddled together and feeding from a container, and are now being monitored at a zoo in Bhubaneswar.
    2. Evidence of captivity: The complete absence of fear of humans indicates the animals had been kept in captivity for a while, according to the chief executive of the Wildlife Trust of India.
    3. A prohibited trade with a market price: The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) prohibits commercial trade in orangutans, and they are nonetheless sold routinely as exotic pets at up to Rs 20 lakh each.
    4. Not the first instance: Two baby orangutans were found abandoned near the Assam and Mizoram border in 2022.
    5. What remains unknown: The route taken, whether by sea, air or road, the identity of those who captured and smuggled the animals, and the identity of the intended collectors are all still open.

    How was the trafficking network mapped?

    1. The dataset: The study integrated thirty years of confiscation data with spatial network analysis to reconstruct trade routes end to end.
    2. The species studied: It traced the movement of Mexico’s parrots from biodiverse habitats to urban centres around the world.
    3. A transferable method: The same approach can be adapted to map other complex illicit networks, including the trafficking of timber, marine life, drugs and weapons.
    4. What it offers enforcement elsewhere: The reconstruction provides clues to criminal networks in parts of the world that hold no comparable confiscation record of their own.

    What does the shift of demand to cities do to the trade?

    1. Cities as the demand nexus: Urban centres are now the nexuses of demand, and that demand is reorganising the global trafficking network rather than merely feeding it.
    2. Distance between habitat and seizure: For many commonly traded species, confiscations occurred hundreds of kilometres from native habitats, frequently in major cities such as Mexico City.
    3. Extinction risk from trade alone: No less than half of Mexico’s native parrot species are directly threatened by the illegal wildlife trade, which elevates their risk of extinction.
    4. Selective poaching: Poachers consistently targeted charismatic and high value species at unsustainable rates, particularly macaws and Amazon parrots.

    Where does wildlife trafficking converge with organised crime?

    1. Shared logistics with narcotics: Drug cartels in Mexico run illegal logging operations, sharing transport logistics and laundering illicit timber alongside narcotics.
    2. Scale of the enterprise: The illegal wildlife trade comprises global, multibillion dollar criminal enterprises rather than a set of opportunistic local offences.
    3. A public health dimension: The trade threatens biodiversity and elevates the risk of zoonotic disease transfer and emergence.
    4. Why these networks resist mapping: The networks are complex, adaptive and largely invisible, which makes them difficult to map, to track and to disrupt.

    What does this mean for India’s own trafficking profile?

    1. Most smuggled groups: Primates, turtles and lizards are the species most smuggled into India.
    2. Principal route: The movement runs primarily through land routes between India and Myanmar.
    3. How the network behaves: The criminal network reconfigures itself to safeguard the business, so a disrupted route is replaced rather than closed.
    4. The enforcement gap: The lacunae in understanding the mechanisms that feed these networks obstruct law enforcement, which is why a seizure rarely reaches the network behind it.

    Challenges to curbing wildlife trafficking

    1. Seizure based enforcement measures the wrong thing: A confiscation records the failure of one consignment, not the disruption of a network, so a rising seizure count is fully consistent with a growing trade. Eg. The Wildlife Crime Control Bureau runs periodic pan India drives such as Operation Save Kurma for turtles and Operation Lesknow for lesser known species, built around recovery rather than prosecution of the network.
      The Fix: Require every confiscation to open a parallel financial investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, so a recovery starts a case rather than closing one.
    2. Penalties are set against the offence, not the market: Statutory punishment is fixed by schedule while the return is fixed by the buyer, so the expected cost of detection stays below the commercial value of the animal. Eg. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 prescribes imprisonment of up to seven years for a Schedule I offence.
      The Fix: Add a proceeds linked fine calculated on the traded value of the specimen, imposed in addition to the statutory term.
    3. Exotic species sit outside domestic schedules: The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 protects species listed in its own schedules, and a foreign species such as an orangutan historically fell outside that list. Eg. The Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2022 added a schedule for CITES listed specimens precisely because the earlier schedules did not reach them.
      The Fix: Make registration of every live exotic specimen mandatory against a traceable identifier, so possession without a record is itself the offence.
    4. Detection capacity sits at the wrong points: Customs and forest staff are posted at ports and protected areas while the demand nexus is an urban household, so a consignment is intercepted only while in transit. Eg. The Wildlife Crime Control Bureau operates through a small set of regional, sub regional and border units for the entire country.
      The Fix: Extend enforcement to the demand side by requiring online marketplaces and pet traders to verify a legal acquisition record before listing any exotic specimen.

    Conclusion

    The unit of the wildlife trade has moved. It is no longer the forest the animal came from, it is the city that ordered it, and a network organised around demand will not be broken by enforcement organised around habitat. What the confiscation study offers is not another inventory of losses but a method, since the same records that currently close a case can be read as a map of where a network is thin. What stays unresolved is that the authority to act on such a map sits with forest and customs enforcement, while the vulnerability it identifies lies in urban markets that no wildlife agency polices.

    Back2Basics: CITES

    1. What it is: The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora is an agreement between governments regulating trade in listed species across national borders.
    2. Origin: It was drafted in 1973 and entered into force in 1975, and its Secretariat is administered by the United Nations Environment Programme.
    3. How it lists species: Appendix I bars commercial international trade in species threatened with extinction, Appendix II regulates trade in species that could become threatened, and Appendix III covers species a member country asks others to help protect.
    4. Legal character: It is legally binding on the States that have joined it, and it does not take the place of national laws, which each party has to enact to give the convention effect.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “With reference to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which of the following statements is/are correct? (1) IUCN is an organ of the United Nations and CITES is an international agreement between governments. (2) IUCN runs thousands of field projects around the world to better manage natural environments. (3) CITES is legally binding on the States that have joined it, but this Convention does not take the place of national laws. Select the correct answer using the code given below. (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3”

  • To curb farm fires, Govt readies stiff ‘red entry’ rules in revenue records

    Why in the News

    The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has published a draft of the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas (Imposition, Collection and Utilization of Environmental Compensation for Stubble Burning) Rules, 2026. It specifies for the first time how long a red entry against a farmer’s land in the revenue record stays valid. The entry runs for 15 months from the date of the incident, and extends by a further 15 months where burning recurs or where the environmental compensation imposed is not paid. The parent Rules were notified in 2023 and carried the red entry provision without fixing its duration. A red entry makes it difficult for a farmer to raise a loan or mortgage the land, so the penalty operates through access to credit rather than through a fine alone. Farm unions have opposed the system since it was introduced, and the parliamentary standing committee on subordinate legislation has recommended a route out of it for farmers who change practice.

    What is a red entry in revenue records?

    1. The instrument: A red entry is an adverse remark recorded against a specific land parcel in the State’s revenue record, the register that establishes ownership and cultivation rights over that parcel.
    2. How it penalises: Lenders and registering authorities read the revenue record before sanctioning a loan or accepting land as security, so an adverse remark restricts credit and mortgage without any separate order being passed.
    3. What triggers it: It is made against land on which a stubble burning incident is detected, alongside the environmental compensation imposed on the basis of the size of the holding.
    4. Who maintains it: State revenue officials make and remove the entry, so a central air quality rule is enforced through a State land administration record.

    What has the draft changed?

    1. Validity fixed: The red entry is valid for 15 months from the date of the incident, which the 2023 Rules did not state.
    2. Expiry conditions: It expires where no subsequent stubble burning incident is found on that land. It also expires where the environmental compensation imposed has been deposited.
    3. Extension conditions: Where there is a subsequent incident on that land, or where the compensation imposed is not paid, the validity extends for a further 15 months.
    4. Compensation amounts untouched: The draft does not alter the compensation itself, which continues to be set by the size of the land holding.
    5. Use of the money: Compensation collected is to be spent on crop diversification programmes, biomass utilisation, research and development in crop residue management, and subsidies for residue management technology.
    6. The process ahead: The draft was published on 16 September with a two month window for objections and suggestions, so the change will not operate before the coming paddy harvest ends.

    Why does stubble burning persist in the sowing window?

    1. The cropping calendar: Farmers in Punjab, Haryana, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh sow wheat between mid September and early December, and burning clears the paddy residue in the short gap between the two crops.
    2. The pollution share: Crop residue burning contributes up to 35 percent of the pollutants in Delhi and the National Capital Region on some days.
    3. Cost of the alternative: The Bharatiya Kisan Union (Dakaunda) has asked for financial assistance for paddy stubble management in place of penalties, on the position that the machinery and its running cost fall on the farmer.
    4. Reach of the penalty: The union’s stated position is that the pollution problem cannot be settled by force, and it records that red entries made earlier were removed after protest and petitioning.

    How has the red entry worked across the States?

    1. Punjab: Farm unions there have raised grievances about loans, subsidies and the mortgaging of land arising from red entries.
    2. Haryana: In districts such as Kurukshetra, authorities have said the red entry will be made on the Meri Fasal Mera Byora portal, the State’s crop and farmer registration platform.
    3. The portal ban: A farmer marked on that portal is barred from it for two years, which removes access to the benefits of all agricultural schemes routed through it.
    4. The committee’s recommendation: In a February 2025 report, the parliamentary standing committee on subordinate legislation recommended an incentive based removal system, allowing early removal for farmers who take up sustainable farming practices or government supported stubble management programmes.

    Challenges to the red entry system

    1. Detection rests on satellite fire counts: Burning is identified from remote sensing passes that cross at fixed times of day, so a fire lit outside the pass window is not recorded and the penalty falls unevenly across farmers doing the same thing. Eg. Daily fire counts for Punjab and Haryana are compiled from the afternoon overpasses of polar orbiting satellites carrying moderate resolution imaging sensors.
      The Fix: Pair satellite detection with geotagged field verification by revenue staff before an entry is recorded against a parcel.
    2. The penalty attaches to the land, not the burner: The remark sits on the parcel, so a tenant’s act marks the owner’s title and the owner has no simple route to contest it. Eg. A large share of paddy land in Punjab is cultivated under informal tenancy that never enters the revenue register.
      The Fix: Record the cultivator’s identity alongside the entry and provide a time bound appeal to the district collector.
    3. Residue machinery reaches the larger holding first: Equipment such as the Happy Seeder and the Super Straw Management System is priced beyond a small holding, and the custom hiring centres that rent it out are unevenly spread. Eg. The Crop Residue Management scheme routes subsidised machinery through cooperative societies and custom hiring centres whose village level coverage varies widely.
      The Fix: Guarantee machinery availability by village for the two week window between harvest and sowing, with the hiring charge met from the compensation fund.
    4. Paddy straw has no standing buyer: High silica content and low fodder value mean paddy straw, unlike wheat straw, has no ready market, so burning remains the cheapest disposal route. Eg. Biomass power plants and compressed biogas units in Punjab absorb only a fraction of the paddy straw generated each season.
      The Fix: Fix an assured offtake price for straw delivered to biomass and compressed biogas plants, funded from the environmental compensation already collected.
    5. The enforcing government is not the government that gains: State revenue staff record the entry and face the same farming community on land, water and procurement, while the air quality benefit accrues to Delhi. Eg. Punjab and Haryana supply the bulk of the fire counts on which the Commission acts, and neither State is the one whose air the measure is designed to clean.
      The Fix: Fund a dedicated central verification and enforcement cadre for the sowing window, reporting its detections publicly rather than through the State revenue chain.

    Conclusion

    The draft settles how long the penalty lasts without settling what the penalty is for. A remark that blocks borrowing punishes the farmer as a debtor, while the machinery, the offtake and the alternative crop that would actually end the burning all require the farmer to be able to borrow. The comment window closes after the coming paddy harvest, so this season will run under the existing position. The point to watch is whether the final Rules carry a route out of the entry for a farmer who changes practice, since that is the one proposal on the table that ties removal to behaviour rather than to the passage of time.

    Back2Basics: Commission for Air Quality Management in NCR and Adjoining Areas

    1. What it is: A statutory body for better coordination, research, identification and resolution of problems relating to air quality in the National Capital Region and adjoining areas.
    2. Legal basis: It was constituted under the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act, 2021, and it replaced the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority.
    3. Jurisdiction: It covers Delhi and the areas of Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh falling in the National Capital Region and adjoining areas, and its directions prevail over those of the State pollution control boards on air quality.
    4. Powers: It issues binding directions, imposes environmental compensation and operates measures such as the Graded Response Action Plan, and appeals against its orders lie to the National Green Tribunal.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2021, GS3, 10] Describe the key points of the revised Global Air Quality Guidelines (AQGs) recently released by the World Health Organisation (WHO). How are these different from its last update in 2005? What changes in India’s National Clean Air Programme are required to achieve these revised standards?”

  • Orangutans in Odisha: The laws governing animal trade and repatriation

    Why in the News

    The Odisha Forest department has rescued five baby orangutans, a critically endangered animal, from a forest in Balasore district. Orangutans are native to the rainforests of Indonesia and Malaysia, and the animals found in Odisha are suspected to be from Sumatra. All three orangutan species are listed under Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which restricts their movement to non commercial purposes. The tension is that a suspected commercial trafficking case creates an obligation to secure the animals’ welfare but no obligation to return them. The case also marks a shift that wildlife crime control experts have repeatedly flagged, that India is no longer only a transit route but is itself fuelling demand for exotic pets.

    What is CITES?

    1. Regulation rather than prohibition: International trade in wildlife, their body parts and trophies is not prohibited, and the treaty instead regulates it strictly. Its aim is that cross border trade in wildlife and plants is legal, sustainable and traceable without harming survival in the wild.
    2. How it operates: It is essentially a licensing system that places checks and controls on the import, export and re export of live animals and plants, wildlife body parts and trophies.
    3. The three appendices: Controls run through an exhaustive CITES species list divided into three appendices, and the appendix a species sits in determines the level of protection it is accorded.
    4. Coverage: The treaty protects around 6,700 animal species, comprising 339 mammals, 159 birds, 113 reptiles, 24 amphibians, 26 fish and 69 invertebrates.

    What does Appendix I listing mean for the orangutans?

    1. The Appendix I threshold: Appendix I lists species that face the threat of extinction.
    2. What trade remains permitted: Such species can be traded only with valid permits, provided the specimens are captive bred and the purpose is conservation.
    3. Contested allowances: Trade permitted for some charismatic species includes elephant ivory, rhino horn, elephant and lion trophy hunting, and crocodile skin.
    4. The three orangutan species: The Bornean, Sumatran and Tapanuli orangutans are all Appendix I listed, so their movement is confined to research, transfers between recognised zoos and breeding projects.
    5. The alleged breach: The Odisha animals appear to have been traded for commercial purposes, which would place the consignment in violation of the treaty.

    How does Indian law connect to the treaty?

    1. Treaty membership: CITES came into force in 1975 and India became a party to it in 1976.
    2. The harmonising amendment: The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was amended in 2022 to harmonise it with the treaty. The amendment added a Schedule covering CITES listed species.
    3. What the amended Act requires: It calls for consultation with the country of export for the animal’s return. Where return is not possible it provides for the animal’s welfare at a recognised zoo or rescue centre.

    Does India have to send the orangutans back?

    1. No obligation to return: The treaty does not make it obligatory to return confiscated animals to the wild.
    2. Survival comes first: The first task facing enforcement agencies is the survival of the trafficked animals.
    3. Who decides: The management authority implementing the treaty’s provisions, here the Environment Ministry, is recommended to consult the scientific authorities and, where possible, the state of export or origin before taking a call on repatriation.
    4. Who pays: Where repatriation is feasible it has to be carried out at the expense of the state of origin. Where it is not feasible the animal goes to a rescue centre or such other place as the management authority deems appropriate.
    5. Indonesia’s approach: Indonesia’s Ministry of Forestry has reached out to Indian authorities and is preparing technical requirements for repatriation if investigations confirm the animals came from there.
    6. Informed receipt: The confiscating authority must ensure that recipient states are aware of the impacts of a repatriation before it happens.

    Why is repatriation difficult in practice?

    1. Establishing origin: A repatriation requires the country of origin to be established, the protocols to be followed and the legal tangles to be resolved first.
    2. Animal health through the process: Maintaining the health of confiscated animals across that period is the hardest part of it.
    3. Consignments change hands: Wildlife consignments pass through multiple holders and geographies, which makes a return to the wild rarely feasible.
    4. Captive bred specimens: Many species in this trade are captive bred and carry no known geographic origin at all.
    5. Origin is not the same as habitat: The place of origin is frequently not the range or the habitat where the species is found in the wild.
    6. Airport seizures work differently: Most seizures at airports are returned immediately to the place of origin, under the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) guidelines of July 2025.

    What does India’s exotic pet trade now look like?

    1. From transit route to demand market: The appeal of unique and unusual pets is driving rising trade in exotic wildlife within India rather than only through it.
    2. Two routes: Seizures indicate overland movement through the North East’s borders with Bangladesh and Myanmar, and movement by air through the international airports at Chennai, Bengaluru and Mumbai.
    3. Trade beyond the treaty list: Indians are acquiring many CITES listed species, and there is also a large trade in species that carry no CITES listing at all.
    4. What the amnesty revealed: A voluntary disclosure scheme in 2021 drew 43,693 applications for amnesty from 30 States and Union Territories, on data obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Lemurs, kangaroos and rhinoceros iguanas were among the species declared.
    5. How a typical seizure looks: Consignments intercepted at airports, sea ports and land border posts usually carry multiple animals in bulk, with small mammals, reptiles and amphibians stuffed into gunny sacks, small cages or plastic boxes.
    6. Why Odisha is atypical: A rescue of five animals from a forested area does not fit that pattern. Eg. Authorities in Mizoram’s Champhai district near the Myanmar border seized 468 animals from six or seven different species in May 2022.

    Challenges to enforcing CITES in India

    1. Exotic species sat outside Indian law until 2022: Foreign species held in India had no schedule under domestic wildlife law, so possession itself could not be penalised. Eg. The 2021 scheme offered voluntary amnesty to holders rather than prosecution.
      The Fix: Require registration and microchipping of every CITES listed exotic animal in private possession, with periodic physical verification.
    2. Porous land borders: The North East’s forested international borders are hard to police against small consignments moved on foot. Eg. Cross border movement along the India Myanmar border has long been governed by a special regime for border residents.
      The Fix: Station Wildlife Crime Control Bureau officers alongside customs at the main land border posts rather than only at international airports.
    3. Welfare during custody: Recognised rescue and holding facilities are scarce, so confiscated animals die before any decision on their future is taken. Eg. Trafficked reptiles and small mammals arrive dehydrated and injured after transport in sacks and boxes.
      The Fix: Designate and fund a national network of rescue centres with species specific quarantine capacity.
    4. Demand generated online: Listings on social media normalise exotic pet ownership and create buyers faster than enforcement can identify sellers. Eg. Data drawn from social media and seizures shows Indian buyers acquiring many treaty listed species.
      The Fix: Place exotic wildlife listings under a takedown obligation for online intermediaries, with mandatory reporting to the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau.
    5. The treaty list does not cover the whole trade: CITES controls reach only species in its appendices, so a large part of the exotic pet trade is lawful to import. Eg. Many small reptiles and amphibians sold as pets carry no listing under the treaty.
      The Fix: Extend the domestic Schedule to species assessed as threatened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) even where CITES does not list them.

    Conclusion

    The case sits at the point where a rescue turns into a legal question with no default answer. The treaty and the amended Act both supply a procedure and neither supplies an outcome, so the decision rests on what can be established about origin and on what the animals can survive. The unresolved part is the demand side, because enforcement acts on consignments while the market pulling them in keeps growing. The immediate marker is whether the consultation between the Environment Ministry and Indonesia’s Ministry of Forestry ends in a repatriation or in placement at a domestic rescue centre.

    Back2Basics: Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972

    1. Purpose: It provides for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants, and for the regulation of hunting and of trade in wildlife and its derivatives.
    2. Protected areas: It is the statutory basis for national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, conservation reserves and community reserves.
    3. Institutions: It provides for the National Board for Wild Life and the State Boards for Wild Life, and it is the Act under which the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau functions.
    4. Schedules after 2022: The 2022 amendment reduced the schedules of protected species to four, the fourth of which covers specimens listed in the appendices of CITES.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2015] With reference to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which of the following statements is/are correct? (1) IUCN is an organ of the United Nations and CITES is an international agreement between governments. (2) IUCN runs thousands of field projects around the world to better manage natural environments. (3) CITES is legally binding on the States that have joined it, but this Convention does not take the place of national laws. Select the correct answer using the code given below. (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 Answer: (b)”

  • Rs 2.5 cr as carbon credits: In a first, farmers reap harvest of good practices

    Why in the News

    Farmers in India have received carbon credit payments for improved agricultural practices for the first time. About 2,500 farmers, roughly 1,400 of them in Punjab and the rest in Haryana, were paid for practices that cut greenhouse gas emissions and retain carbon in the soil. The payment is attributed to verified credits rather than to the acreage a farmer holds, which is what separates it from an area based subsidy. The programme puts a price on practice change that regulation and penalties have tried to compel for years, and whether that price is large enough to hold the change in place is now the open question.

    How does an agricultural carbon credit work?

    1. The unit: A carbon credit represents one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent either kept out of the atmosphere or stored, and it is sold to a buyer seeking to offset its own emissions.
    2. What generates it on a farm: Credits arise from a documented change in practice that lowers emissions or raises carbon held in the soil, measured against what the farmer would otherwise have done.
    3. Payment basis: The payout follows the number of verified credits attributed to a farmer, not the area cultivated, so two farmers with the same holding can be paid differently.

    Which practices earned the credits?

    1. Direct seeded rice: Sowing paddy directly into the field instead of transplanting seedlings into puddled soil cuts water use and the methane released from flooded fields.
    2. Zero and reduced tillage: Disturbing the soil less keeps carbon stored in it rather than releasing it on ploughing.
    3. Residue management: Handling paddy straw instead of burning it removes a direct emission source and returns organic matter to the soil.
    4. Efficient fertiliser use: Applying nitrogen to soil test recommendations cuts nitrous oxide release from over application.
    5. Why these fit Punjab: All four are directly relevant to the rice and wheat based cropping system that dominates the State.

    How were the claims verified?

    1. Remote sensing: Satellite and remote sensing systems monitor fields and detect residue burning across the season.
    2. Geo-fencing: A digital boundary drawn around a registered field ties the observed activity to the specific farmer claiming the credit.
    3. Soil sampling: Sampling assesses changes in soil properties, including soil organic carbon, which is the stock the credit claims to have raised.
    4. Institutional backing: The programme runs with technical guidance from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), and the ICAR-Agricultural Technology Application Research Institute (ATARI), Ludhiana has a memorandum of understanding with the agri-technology firm operating it.
    5. The stated role of the public institution: Its function is to educate farmers and to ensure practices are documented and verified through field evidence and technology.

    What did farmers actually receive?

    1. The aggregate: Over 50,000 carbon credits were generated across thousands of acres, with payments totalling around Rs 2.50 crore.
    2. The individual range: Farmers received between about Rs 3,000 and Rs 15,000 each.
    3. Payments track practice history, not size: A farmer with about 13 acres in Bathinda who stopped burning paddy residue seven to eight years ago received Rs 5,700, while two others in the same village received Rs 19,000 and Rs 14,000.
    4. Larger holdings, moderate payouts: A farmer cultivating about 20 acres near Jagraon received Rs 6,070 and one farming about 90 acres in Sirsa using ex-situ residue management received Rs 12,000.
    5. The floor: Two farmers, in Ludhiana and in Sirsa, received Rs 3,000 each, and an 8.5 acre farmer in Bathinda using soil testing and recommended fertiliser received Rs 9,075.
    6. Design as a continuing process: The programme is structured as a recurring payment for continued adoption rather than a one time transfer.

    What is the wider policy context this sits in?

    1. Origins: The programme was initiated by an agri-technology firm in 2019, so the first payouts follow six years of building the practice and verification base.
    2. Farm fires have already fallen: Punjab recorded a decline in farm fire incidents from over 83,000 in 2020 to fewer than 5,000 in 2025, according to ICAR.
    3. A parallel State scheme exists: Punjab has paid farmers since August 2024 for raising and maintaining trees on agricultural land under an agroforestry based carbon credit programme.
    4. Its terms differ: Under that scheme farmers must maintain trees for at least five years, with the carbon benefit linked to tree growth and the subsequent use of the wood in paper, furniture and plywood.
    5. The multilateral layer: The recent BRICS Summit in New Delhi adopted a declaration establishing a BRICS Network of Centres of Excellence on Agroecology and Regenerative Agriculture for Climate Resilience and Productivity, and a BRICS Network on Digital Agriculture.

    Challenges to farm carbon credit programmes

    1. Price volatility in the voluntary market: Payments depend on voluntary market prices for credits, which move with corporate offset demand rather than with farm economics. Eg. Voluntary carbon credit prices fell sharply after 2023 as buyers questioned offset quality.
      The Fix: Contract a floor price with farmers for the full crop cycle rather than passing through spot credit prices.
    2. Additionality: A farmer already following the practice is paid for abatement that would have happened anyway, which produces no new emission reduction. Eg. Several payouts went to farmers who had not burnt paddy residue for five to eight years.
      The Fix: Set the baseline against district level practice adoption rather than against the individual farmer’s own past.
    3. Soil carbon measurement: Soil organic carbon changes slowly and varies within a single field, so the sampling design decides the credit count. Eg. Gains from zero tillage can take several seasons before they register above sampling error.
      The Fix: Fix a permanent monitoring grid per cluster and re-measure at set intervals before credits are issued.
    4. Permanence: Carbon stored in soil returns to the atmosphere the moment the farmer resumes deep tillage or burning. Eg. One season of deep ploughing can release carbon accumulated over years of zero tillage.
      The Fix: Hold back a share of each payout in a buffer pool released only after repeated years of verified compliance.
    5. Switching costs exceed the payment: The sums are small against the machinery and the yield risk that practice change requires. Eg. Direct seeded rice needs a seed drill and far tighter weed control than transplanted paddy.
      The Fix: Stack the credit payment on top of State machinery subsidy so the two together cover the cost of switching.
    6. Coverage: A few thousand farmers in two States is a fraction of the rice and wheat belt the practices are meant to change. Eg. Punjab alone has over ten lakh operational holdings.
      The Fix: Aggregate smallholders through Farmer Producer Organisations so they clear the minimum volume verification requires.

    Conclusion

    The significance of this payout is not its size but its direction. Public policy on residue burning has worked through penalties and machinery subsidy, and this is the first time the same behaviour has been rewarded through a market. What remains unsettled is whether the reward survives a bad credit price year or a season when direct seeded rice underperforms, because a farmer who switched for the money will switch back for the same reason. Watch whether the second round of payments reaches farmers outside the Punjab and Haryana pilot and whether a floor price is written into the contracts.

    Back2Basics

    1. Indian Council of Agricultural Research: An autonomous body under the Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE), Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, established in 1929.
    2. Mandate: It coordinates, guides and manages agricultural research and education across horticulture, fisheries and animal sciences.
    3. Field network: It runs Krishi Vigyan Kendras at district level and the Agricultural Technology Application Research Institutes that coordinate them zonally.
    4. Scale: It is among the largest national agricultural research systems in the world, with institutes and All India Coordinated Research Projects across crops and regions.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “Regarding “carbon credits’’, which one of the following statements is not correct?”

  • Hog in the limelight

    Why in the News

    The Assam government has praised a captive breeding programme for lifting the State’s pygmy hog population over the last three decades. The species was believed extinct by the mid twentieth century, and a few individuals rediscovered in 1971 prompted the conservation effort that the Pygmy Hog Conservation Programme formalised in 1995. The recovery in captivity has outpaced the recovery of the habitat. Numbers held in breeding centres can be raised on a schedule, while the alluvial floodplain grasslands the species needs in the wild continue to fragment, which is what decides whether released animals survive.

    What is the pygmy hog?

    1. Sole surviving species of its genus: The pygmy hog is the only living species of the genus Porcula and the world’s smallest wild suid (a member of the pig family).
    2. Grassland dependence: It relies on dense grassland to feed, to conceal itself and to reproduce, so it cannot persist where tall cover is removed.
    3. Range: Its surviving distribution is confined to the alluvial floodplain grasslands of Assam.

    Why does the pygmy hog work as an indicator species?

    1. Distress signals habitat degradation: Decline in an animal that lives inside dense grassland is read directly as degradation of the floodplain that produces that grassland.
    2. Protection carries other species with it: Securing the grassland the pygmy hog needs also extends protection to the Bengal florican, the hispid hare, the hog deer and the greater one horned rhinoceros.
    3. The unit of conservation is the ecosystem: Survival in the wild depends on the survival of a specific ecosystem rather than on the numbers held in any one facility.

    How was the species brought back from presumed extinction?

    1. The original cause of decline: Floodplains were converted for farms, tea plantations and flood control infrastructure, then degraded by invasive plants and altered flood cycles, with unscientific burning of grasslands fragmenting what remained.
    2. Rediscovery and programme: A few individuals found in 1971 prompted an early conservation effort, and the current work descends from the Pygmy Hog Conservation Programme begun in 1995.
    3. The measured gain: Captive breeding raised the pygmy hog population in Assam 32-fold over the last three decades.
    4. What breeding from a small stock demands: Conservationists must track pedigree, follow biosafety protocols because suids are highly susceptible to swine diseases, and condition individuals before release.

    Why is the recovery still not secure?

    1. Numbers remain small: The Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust records some 250 individuals in early 2025.
    2. Counting is unreliable: The animals are difficult to spot and count, so how many exist in the wild cannot be stated with confidence.
    3. One natural population is left: The last surviving natural population sits in the Panbari grasslands area of Manas National Park.
    4. Insurance is not a guarantee: Captive individuals form the insurance group against loss in the wild, and the long term evolutionary fitness of that group is not assured.

    Challenges to pygmy hog recovery

    1. Genetic bottleneck: Breeding from a small founder stock accumulates harmful gene variants and holds genetic diversity low. Eg. Researchers working on the programme flag both as limits on the captive group’s long term fitness.
      The Fix: Manage the captive population as a single studbook with planned pairings and periodic exchange between breeding centres.
    2. Disease susceptibility: Pigs carry high susceptibility to swine diseases, so one outbreak can erase decades of breeding in a single season. Eg. African swine fever outbreaks in Assam from 2020 killed domestic pigs across multiple districts.
      The Fix: Hold breeding stock at physically separated centres under enforced biosafety protocols rather than at one site.
    3. Fire used as grassland management: Widespread dry season burning carried out to ‘save’ grasslands destroys the dense cover the species feeds and breeds in. Eg. Fires set across whole grassland blocks remove the tall cover in a single sweep.
      The Fix: Move to mosaic burning on a rotation that leaves unburnt refuge patches in every season.
    4. Woody encroachment: Suppressing ecological processes altogether allows trees and shrubs to convert grassland into woodland. Eg. Embankments and flood control works on the Brahmaputra floodplain have cut the natural flooding that renews grassland.
      The Fix: Restore periodic flooding and controlled disturbance so grassland succession is held in check.
    5. Habitat fragmentation: Protected grasslands survive as disconnected blocks, so released animals cannot disperse or recolonise adjoining areas. Eg. Fragmentation of protected grassland in Rupahi and Kanchanbari separates the sites Assam is relying on for release.
      The Fix: Reconnect the fragments and restore buffer zones around Manas and Orang National Parks and the Sonai Rupai Wildlife Sanctuary.
    6. Invasive plants: Introduced species change grassland structure and displace the native grasses the species depends on. Eg. Invasive growth has spread through degraded floodplain grassland alongside altered flood cycles.
      The Fix: Fund sustained mechanical removal at release sites as a recurring operation rather than a one time clearance drive.

    Conclusion

    Assam plans to raise the wild pygmy hog population to 300 by 2040. That target is a grassland target rather than a breeding target. Captive numbers can be scaled inside a facility, and the constraint sits outside it, in whether protected grassland is reconnected and buffer zones around the northern Assam parks are restored fast enough to receive the animals. Watch whether grassland restoration is funded as a standing operation, because the breeding side of the programme has already shown what it can deliver on its own.

    Back2Basics

    1. Manas National Park: Located in Assam along the foothills of the Bhutan Himalaya, on the Manas river, a tributary of the Brahmaputra.
    2. Designations: It is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, a tiger reserve, an elephant reserve and a biosphere reserve.
    3. Contiguity: It adjoins the Royal Manas National Park in Bhutan, forming a transboundary conservation landscape.
    4. Species: It holds the last natural pygmy hog population and is also known for the Bengal florican, the hispid hare and the golden langur.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “Consider the following : 1.Star tortoise 2.Monitor lizard 3.Pygmy hog 4.Spider monkey Which of the above are naturally found in India?”

  • India to host the World Circular Economy Forum 2026 [MENTION]

    Why in News

    India will host the World Circular Economy Forum (WCEF) 2026 at Gandhinagar from 15 to 18 September 2026. The theme is “Circular Economy: Transition for People and Prosperity”.

    Static Context

    A circular economy keeps materials in use through reuse, repair, refurbishment and recycling, which cuts raw material inputs, waste and greenhouse gas emissions. The WCEF is convened by the Finnish Innovation Fund (Sitra) with partners. The Indian host is the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). India’s related domestic instruments include Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) rules for plastic, electronic and battery waste, and the mission on resource efficiency. This item is a MENTION because the forum begins after this run. Its exam value is the circular economy concept and the fact that India hosts the WCEF.

    Prelims angle

    Link the circular economy to reduced raw material use, reduced waste and lower emissions. Associate EPR with waste categories. Note India as the WCEF 2026 host at Gandhinagar.

    Mains angle

    GS3, environment and resource efficiency. Frame the circular economy as a route to decoupling growth from material and emission intensity, and India’s positioning as a convening venue on sustainability.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2025] Consider the following statements:
    Statement I: Circular economy reduces the emissions of greenhouse gases.
    Statement II: Circular economy reduces the use of raw materials as inputs.
    Statement III: Circular economy reduces wastage in the production process.
    Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
    (a) Both Statement II and Statement III are correct and both of them explain Statement I
    (b) Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement I explains Statement II
    (c) Only one of the Statements II and III is correct and that explains Statement I
    (d) Neither Statement II nor Statement III is correct
    Answer: (a)”

    PIB Link

    https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2309702&reg=3&lang=1

  • Kottayam residents mobilise against Centre’s ESA proposal

    Why in the News

    The Centre’s seventh draft notification on Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs) in the Western Ghats, issued on 27 July, has entered the closing fortnight of its 60 day objection window, with two weeks left for filing objections and suggestions. Four villages in the high ranges of Kottayam district in Kerala, Koottikkal, Melukavu, Poonjar Thekkekkara and Teekoy, all in the Poonjar Assembly constituency, are on the proposed ESA map, and the proposal is estimated to affect around 70,000 people. Opposition has already moved past petitions, with the Koottikkal local body convening special grama sabhas in all 14 wards and passing a council resolution detailing its objections. The contest is between a conservation boundary drawn at the level of the Ghats as a whole and settler households whose plantations sit inside it.

    What is an Ecologically Sensitive Area?

    1. Ecologically Sensitive Area: An Ecologically Sensitive Area is a zone notified by the Union government in which specified activities are prohibited or regulated because of the area’s ecological value.
    2. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: The notification is issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which lets the Centre restrict industries, operations and processes in an area on environmental grounds.
    3. What notification changes on the ground: Land inside the zone continues in private ownership, and it is the permissible use of that land that is narrowed.
    4. Why a draft matters procedurally: A draft notification opens a statutory window for objections and suggestions before the final notification is issued, and the boundary can move in that window.

    Which areas are proposed and who does the boundary affect?

    1. The four villages named: Koottikkal, Melukavu, Poonjar Thekkekkara and Teekoy have been included in the draft notification.
    2. Poonjar Assembly constituency: All four are in the Poonjar Assembly constituency in Kottayam district.
    3. The population estimate: The proposal is estimated to affect around 70,000 people, mostly settler families in the high ranges.
    4. Seventh draft notification in the series: This is the seventh draft notification on Western Ghats ESAs, so the boundary has been redrawn repeatedly without a final settlement.

    Why does the boundary matter to these villages?

    1. Agriculture is the economic base: Agriculture is the backbone of these high range villages, with rubber, cardamom, coffee, pepper, coconut and banana among the major crops.
    2. The fear is about permissible use: Residents hold that bringing their land under the ESA could impose restrictions on plantations.
    3. Development works in the villages: Residents also fear that essential development activities in the villages would be hampered.

    How has the objection been organised?

    1. The local body went beyond petitions: The Koottikkal local body convened special grama sabhas in all 14 wards and held an urgent council meeting.
    2. A formal resolution was passed: The council passed a resolution detailing its objections, and the resolution will be forwarded to the State and Union governments.
    3. The campaign is broad based: Residents, local bodies and various organisations including the Catholic church have stepped up the campaign against the move.
    4. The political channel is in use: The Government Chief Whip has stated that all possible steps would be taken to secure the exclusion of the villages, that the settlers’ concerns have been presented to the Chief Minister, and that interactions continue to mobilise observations of farmer collectives.

    Challenges to the Western Ghats Ecologically Sensitive Area notification

    1. The boundary has never been settled: Seven draft notifications over more than a decade mean no final legal position exists, so neither conservation nor land use planning can proceed on a fixed map. Eg. The present draft was issued on 27 July and is the seventh in the series.
      The Fix: Fix a statutory outer date for finalisation after the objection window closes, so a draft cannot be reissued indefinitely in place of a decision.
    2. The unit of demarcation is the village, not the forest: Drawing the zone on revenue village boundaries pulls in cultivated and settled land along with the ecologically sensitive tract. Eg. The four Kottayam villages carry rubber, cardamom and coffee plantations inside the proposed zone.
      The Fix: Demarcate on satellite verified land use at the survey plot level, so plantations and habitations are separated from natural forest before the boundary is drawn.
    3. Objections are filed individually against a technical map: A settler household is asked to contest a boundary drawn from remote sensing data without access to the underlying basis. Eg. The Koottikkal local body had to convene grama sabhas in all 14 wards to assemble its objections.
      The Fix: Publish the plot level basis for each village’s inclusion alongside the draft, so an objection can be argued on the record rather than as a general protest.
    4. Restriction is announced without a compensation route: A notification narrows permissible use of privately held land and carries no attached payment for the value foregone. Eg. Plantation crops in the high ranges are the single income source for settler households in the proposed zone.
      The Fix: Attach an ecosystem services payment schedule to the final notification, so land kept under restricted use earns a recurring transfer rather than only a prohibition.
    5. The zone is notified by the Centre and administered by the State: Enforcement, land records and local body consent all sit with the State, while the boundary is a Union decision. Eg. The Koottikkal resolution is being forwarded to both the State and the Union governments because neither alone can settle it.
      The Fix: Require a recorded State government response on each local body resolution before the final notification issues, so the objection is disposed of rather than absorbed.

    Conclusion

    The window closes in two weeks and the boundary in the draft is still the operative proposal. What the Kottayam mobilisation establishes is that the objection is now institutional rather than individual, since a local body resolution carries a claim that the Union government has to dispose of on the record. The status is that four villages remain on the map, the resolution is on its way to both governments, and the next milestone is the close of the objection window followed by the Centre’s decision on whether an eighth draft or a final notification issues.

    Back2Basics: Western Ghats

    1. Mountain chain along the western coast: A mountain chain running roughly parallel to India’s western coast, older than the Himalaya, spanning Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
    2. Biodiversity hotspot status: It is one of the world’s recognised biodiversity hotspots and a UNESCO World Heritage Site, with high levels of endemic species.
    3. Monsoon interception and peninsular rivers: It intercepts the southwest monsoon and feeds the peninsular river systems that the southern States depend on.
    4. Overlap with settlement and plantations: Large parts of the range carry dense human settlement, plantations and mining, so ecological demarcation and existing land use overlap directly.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2022] Which one of the following has been constituted under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 ? (a) Central Water Commission (b) Central Ground Water Board (c) Central Ground Water Authority (d) National Water Development Agency ANSWER: (c)”