Mentor’s Comment

Wetlands are among India’s most degraded ecological assets despite being critical for water security, flood control, climate resilience, and livelihoods. This topic is important because it brings together environmental governance, federalism, disaster management, and sustainable development, making it highly relevant for GS III.

The article is valuable for aspirants as it goes beyond laws and schemes and highlights why implementation has failed, fragmented institutions, project-based restoration, and neglect of hydrological systems. It introduces the idea of wetlands as national public goods, a strong analytical frame that can be used in mains answers to show conceptual clarity.

Why in the News

World Wetlands Day 2026 renews global attention on wetlands, coinciding with India’s worsening degradation record. Nearly 40% of India’s wetlands have vanished in three decades, and 50% of remaining wetlands show ecological degradation. This marks a sharp contrast with traditional community-managed systems that sustained wetlands for centuries. Despite the presence of regulatory frameworks like the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, degradation continues due to fragmented implementation, project-based restoration, and weak governance. 

Why are wetlands ecologically and economically critical?

1. Hydrological regulation: Supports groundwater recharge, flood buffering, and sediment control through natural flow regimes.
2. Livelihood security: Sustains fishing, grazing, agriculture, and cultural practices across rural and peri-urban landscapes.
3. Climate resilience: Absorbs cyclonic impacts, sea-level rise, and extreme rainfall, especially in coastal zones.
4. Biodiversity conservation: Maintains habitats for migratory birds, aquatic species, and riparian ecosystems.

What has driven large-scale wetland degradation in India?

1. Land-use conversion: Replaces natural wetlands with real estate, roads, and networks, permanently altering hydrology.
2. Encroachment pressures: Intensifies in highly populated regions due to weak land demarcation and enforcement.
3. Hydrological disruption: Dams, embankments, canals, mining, and sand extraction block or divert natural flows.
4. Pollution loading: Converts wetlands into sewage sinks through untreated wastewater and industrial effluents.
5. Groundwater over-extraction: Reduces inflows, accelerates drying, and collapses ecological function.

Why are existing policy frameworks insufficient?

1. Fragmented governance: Distributes responsibility across departments without integrated watershed planning.
2. Weak implementation: Lacks consistent, high-quality execution despite the presence of legal frameworks.
3. Project-centric approach: Focuses on beautification rather than ecological functionality.
4. Data gaps: Suffers from outdated or inaccurate cadastral maps and incomplete inventories.
5. Limited enforcement: Fails to prevent degradation despite notification and regulatory provisions.

How effective are current regulatory instruments?

1. Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017: Provides a legal framework but lacks implementation consistency.
2. National Plan for Conservation of Aquatic Ecosystems (NPCA): Shifts focus to structured planning and outcome-based management but requires stronger monitoring.
3. Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ): Aims to preserve coastal ecological integrity but faces infrastructure-driven dilution.
4. Ramsar designation: Recognises ecological value but remains largely non-binding and incentive-oriented.

Why are urban and coastal wetlands at special risk?

1. Urban runoff absorption: Urban wetlands receive stormwater, sewage, and solid waste, increasing contamination.
2. Flood buffering loss: Degradation converts wetlands into flood-prone zones rather than safety buffers.
3. Coastal vulnerability: Mangroves and lagoons face dual pressures from landward development and rising seas.
4. Disaster exposure: Weakens natural protection against cyclones, storm surges, and shoreline erosion.

What governance failures constrain wetland conservation?

1. Institutional capacity gaps: Limits state-level ability to manage complex hydrological systems.
2. Sectoral silos: Separates water, land, urban planning, and environment decision-making.
3. Limited accountability: Weak monitoring and absence of measurable performance indicators.
4. Community exclusion: Undermines local stewardship and conflict resolution mechanisms.

What pragmatic approaches can be taken?

1. Watershed-scale planning: Ensures conservation beyond isolated wetland boundaries.
2. Functional restoration: Prioritises ecological processes over aesthetic beautification.
3. Demarcation and mapping: Strengthens legal clarity and dispute prevention through updated cadastral records.
4. Infrastructure alignment: Integrates wetland protection into roads, embankments, and drainage planning.
5. Institutional strengthening: Builds national capacity through training, accreditation, and governance reforms.

How can technology strengthen wetland governance?

1. Remote sensing: Enables real-time tracking of encroachment, inundation, and vegetation change.
2. Drones and GIS: Improves mapping accuracy and monitoring frequency.
3. Time-series analytics: Supports early warning and adaptive management strategies
4. Revised NPCA guidelines: Allow science-based monitoring and management plans.

Conclusion

Wetlands cannot survive as isolated conservation projects. Treating them as national public goods demands integrated governance, functional restoration, institutional accountability, and community stewardship. India’s water security and climate resilience depend on this shift.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now