đź’ĄJoin UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Environment

  • New study finds global warming is accelerating, with the 1.5 degree Celsius breach projected by 2030

    Why in the News

    A study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters reports evidence that global warming is accelerating, not merely continuing. After removing natural noise from five temperature datasets, the authors find the last decade warmed faster than any previous decade on record, and project the 1.5 degree Celsius threshold being breached by 2030.

    What is the 1.5 degree Celsius threshold?

    1. Paris target: Under the Paris Agreement, 2015, countries agreed to hold warming well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
    2. Why 1.5 matters: Beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius, risks of extreme heat, sea level rise, and ecosystem collapse rise sharply, making it the central guardrail of climate policy.

    What are aerosols and the masking effect?

    1. Aerosols: Aerosols are tiny particles from sources such as burning fossil fuels that reflect sunlight and exert a cooling effect on the atmosphere.
    2. Unmasking: As pollution controls cut aerosols, their cooling effect fades and the full warming from greenhouse gases is felt, an effect the study describes as a disappearing cooling mask.

    Why is measuring acceleration difficult?

    1. Noisy temperatures: Global temperatures fluctuate year to year because of natural factors like volcanic eruptions and changes in solar activity.
    2. Masked trend: These events can temporarily hide the underlying human caused warming, making it hard to prove the rate itself is rising.

    How did the study establish acceleration?

    1. Multiple datasets: The authors analysed five major global temperature datasets to avoid relying on any single record.
    2. Statistical subtraction: They used statistical methods to remove the influence of volcanic and solar noise, isolating the human driven trend.
    3. High confidence: After removing the noise, they were more than 98% certain the jump in warming rate was real rather than a short lived fluctuation, dating the change to around 2015.

    Why does the faster pace matter?

    1. Shrinking timeline: Under the earlier, slower rate, the world expected more time before breaching 1.5 degrees Celsius, and the accelerated pace brings the breach forward to 2030.
    2. Twin drivers: Greenhouse gas emissions remain the primary cause, while falling aerosol pollution adds to the acceleration.

    Challenges to limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius

    1. Continued emissions growth: Global carbon dioxide emissions remain near record highs, driven by fossil fuel use in power, industry, and transport.
    2. Aerosol paradox: Cutting air pollution saves lives but removes a cooling effect, accelerating near term warming.
    3. Shrinking carbon budget: The remaining budget consistent with 1.5 degrees Celsius is small and shrinks with every year of high emissions.
    4. Slow energy transition: Renewable growth has not yet displaced fossil fuels fast enough to cut absolute emissions.
    5. Feedback loops: Melting ice, thawing permafrost, and forest loss release additional carbon and reduce reflectivity, reinforcing warming.
    6. Finance and equity gaps: Developing countries lack the finance and technology transfer needed to decarbonise while meeting development needs.

    Conclusion

    The study reframes the problem from steady warming to an accelerating one, advancing the likely 1.5 degree Celsius breach to 2030. The central unresolved issue is that cleaning the air removes a cooling shield, so only deep and sustained cuts in greenhouse gases can slow the pace.

    Back2Basics: Paris Agreement

    1. Adopted: 2015 at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21), entering into force in 2016.
    2. Convening body: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
    3. Core goal: Limit warming well below 2 degrees Celsius, pursuing 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre industrial levels.
    4. Mechanism: Nationally Determined Contributions, updated every five years, with a global stocktake to assess collective progress.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2022, GS3, 15 marks] Discuss global warming and mention its effects on the global climate. Explain the control measures to bring down the level of greenhouse gases which cause global warming, in the light of the Kyoto Protocol, 1997.”

  • National Board for Wildlife clears the Panari hydropower project in the Panna Ranipur tiger corridor

    Why in the News

    The Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife recommended clearance for the 1,800 MW Panari pumped storage hydropower project on 411.48 hectares of forest inside the Panna Ranipur tiger corridor. The approval came despite a Forest Department officer’s warning that the project sits on a continuously used wildlife path and is likely to block the corridor.

    How does a pumped storage hydropower project work?

    1. Two reservoir design: A pumped storage project uses an upper and a lower reservoir connected through a powerhouse, storing energy as water held at height.
    2. Store and generate cycle: Surplus grid electricity pumps water to the upper reservoir during low demand, and the water is released down to generate power during peak demand.

    What is the Panna Ranipur tiger corridor?

    1. Connecting habitat: The corridor links forests around Panna Tiger Reserve across Satna and Panna districts in Madhya Pradesh to the Ranipur Tiger Reserve in Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh.
    2. Function: It allows tigers, leopards, and bears to disperse between reserves, maintaining genetic exchange and viable populations.

    Who cleared the project, and on what inputs?

    1. Standing Committee of the NBWL: The National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) is the apex statutory wildlife body chaired by the Prime Minister, and its Standing Committee approves projects that divert land inside protected areas and corridors.
    2. Advisory inputs: It relied on a January site inspection by the Environment Ministry, the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), and the Wildlife Institute of India (WII).

    Why did field officers oppose the clearance?

    1. Continuous wildlife movement: The Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) recorded that the site sees continuous, unhindered movement of tigers, leopards, and bears.
    2. Corridor blockage: The officer warned the project is likely to block the corridor, with no alternative pathway for wildlife dispersal.
    3. Higher stakes after Ken Betwa: Wildlife movement in the corridor had risen because of the Ken Betwa river linking project, raising the cost of any obstruction.

    Why did the committee recommend clearance anyway?

    1. Mitigation over refusal: The WII Director stated the project would have significant implications for habitat connectivity, but that these could be reduced through scientifically designed mitigation.
    2. NTCA concurrence: The NTCA Member Secretary recommended approval subject to the committee’s report and mitigation measures.
    3. Acknowledged reservations: The committee noted the field officers’ reservations about corridor fragmentation, yet cleared the project.

    What mitigation riders were imposed?

    1. Wildlife overpasses: Three 30 metre wide wildlife overpasses are to be built across the Baghain River, which wildlife uses frequently.
    2. Relocation of works: Muck dumping and job facility areas are to be moved out of the tiger corridor, and one muck dump realigned to avoid a new forest road.

    Challenges to tiger corridor conservation in India

    1. No statutory protection for corridors: Tiger corridors lack a dedicated legal category, so they are protected only indirectly through reserve and forest rules.
    2. Linear infrastructure fragmentation: Roads, railways, canals, and transmission lines repeatedly cut across corridors and sever movement.
    3. Mitigation uncertainty: Overpasses and underpasses do not guarantee use by wildlife, and their effectiveness is hard to verify over time.
    4. Cumulative impact blind spots: Projects are cleared one at a time, ignoring the combined effect of multiple diversions on a single corridor.
    5. Human wildlife conflict: Blocked corridors push tigers into farmland and settlements, escalating conflict and retaliatory killing.
    6. Genetic isolation: Loss of connectivity leaves small reserve populations inbred and vulnerable to local extinction.

    Conclusion

    The clearance shows corridor conservation being managed through mitigation riders rather than avoidance, even where field officers flag likely fragmentation. Whether the corridor survives now depends on the overpasses being built and actually used, which past projects have rarely demonstrated.

    Back2Basics: Panna Tiger Reserve

    1. Designation: Tiger reserve and UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, in Madhya Pradesh.
    2. Location: Panna and Chhatarpur districts, on the Vindhyan ranges along the Ken River.
    3. Distinction: Site of a successful tiger reintroduction after its tiger population was lost around 2009.
    4. Linked project: Adjoins the Ken Betwa river linking project, India’s first interlinking of rivers.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2020] Among the following Tiger Reserves, which one has the largest area under ‘Critical Tiger Habitat’?
    (a) Corbett
    (b) Ranthambore
    (c) Nagarjunsagar-Srisailam
    (d) Sunderbans
    Answer: (c)”

  • Supreme Court extends the 10 km mining buffer to all wetland conservation reserves

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court orally clarified that its ban on mining within a 10 km radius of the Asan wetland conservation reserve, a Ramsar site in Uttarakhand, applies to every wetland conservation reserve across the country. The clarification treats wetlands as a distinct protected category and extends the buffer logic so far associated with national parks and sanctuaries to wetland reserves nationwide.

    What is a conservation reserve?

    1. Statutory category: A conservation reserve is a protected area category created by the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 through its 2002 amendment, covering State owned land adjacent to national parks and sanctuaries.
    2. Purpose: It protects landscapes and habitat corridors that link established protected areas, managed with community participation rather than exclusion.

    What is an eco sensitive zone?

    1. Buffer around protected areas: An eco sensitive zone (ESZ) is a regulated buffer notified around national parks and sanctuaries under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, where activities like mining are prohibited or restricted.
    2. Function: It acts as a shock absorber, preventing high impact activity right at a protected area’s boundary.

    Who constitutes the National Board for Wildlife?

    1. Apex statutory body: The National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) is the highest statutory body for wildlife conservation, chaired by the Prime Minister and constituted under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
    2. Clearance role: Its Standing Committee clears projects affecting protected areas, and its permission is required for mining within the wetland buffer.

    Why did the Court extend the Asan order nationwide?

    1. Parity across wetlands: The Court reasoned that protection given to one wetland reserve cannot be confined to a single State, and must apply wherever a community or wetland conservation reserve exists.
    2. Wetlands as a distinct category: The Bench observed that wetlands fall in a different category, justifying uniform treatment rather than State by State variation.
    3. Origin in the Asan order: On 14 February 2024, the Court had barred mining within 10 km of the Asan reserve without permission from the Standing Committee of the NBWL and the Environment Ministry.
    4. Trigger: Himachal Pradesh had argued the restriction should not bind it, prompting the Court to settle the question for all wetland reserves.

    How does this differ from the buffer regime for national parks and sanctuaries?

    1. Extending an existing logic: Buffer zones were historically notified around parks and sanctuaries, and Himachal Pradesh argued wetlands needed no such external buffer.
    2. Court’s departure: The Court rejected that argument and applied the eco sensitive buffer principle to wetland reserves, recognising their ecological sensitivity.
    3. Catchment sensitivity: Wetlands depend on flows from a wider catchment, so activity well outside the reserve boundary can still degrade the water body.

    Challenges to wetland conservation in India

    1. Weak enforcement: The Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 rely on State Wetland Authorities that are often understaffed and slow to demarcate wetlands.
    2. Incomplete inventory: A large share of India’s wetlands remain unmapped and without formal notification, leaving them outside legal protection.
    3. Encroachment and land use change: Urban expansion, construction, and conversion to agriculture steadily shrink wetland area, especially around cities.
    4. Pollution loading: Untreated sewage, industrial effluent, and solid waste degrade water quality and trigger eutrophication.
    5. Competing development pressure: Mining, real estate, and infrastructure projects create constant pressure to reclassify or divert wetland land.
    6. Catchment neglect: Protection rules often ignore the wider catchment and groundwater linkages that sustain a wetland’s hydrology.

    Conclusion

    The ruling establishes wetlands as a protected category deserving the same buffer discipline applied to parks and sanctuaries. Its effect now depends on States mapping and notifying their wetlands, since a buffer around a wetland that is never notified protects nothing.

    Back2Basics: Asan Conservation Reserve

    1. Designation category: Conservation reserve and Ramsar site, designated a Ramsar site in 2020.
    2. Location: Dehradun district, Uttarakhand, at the confluence of the Asan and Yamuna rivers.
    3. Feature: A man made wetland formed by the Asan Barrage, a major wintering ground for migratory waterbirds.
    4. Significance: Uttarakhand’s first Ramsar site, important for species such as the red crested pochard and ruddy shelduck.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2019] Consider the following statements:
    1. Under Ramsar Convention, it is mandatory on the part of the Government of India to protect and conserve all the wetlands in the territory of India.
    2. The Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 were framed by the Government of India based on the recommendations of Ramsar Convention.
    3. The Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 also encompass the drainage area or catchment regions of the wetlands as determined by the authority.
    (a) 1 and 2 only
    (b) 2 and 3 only
    (c) 3 only
    (d) 1, 2 and 3
    Answer: (c)”

  • Climate whiplash, fire clouds: factors fuelling Europe’s wildfires

    Why in the News?

    Severe wildfires have swept across Greece, France, Spain, Portugal and Italy, driven by climate whiplash, pyrocumulonimbus (pyroCb) clouds, and prolonged heatwaves, highlighting the growing impact of climate change.

    Key Concepts

    Climate Whiplash

    • Rapid shift between extreme wet and dry conditions.
    • Wet periods promote vegetation growth, while subsequent heatwaves dry it into highly flammable fuel.

    Pyrocumulonimbus (pyroCb) Clouds

    • Fire-generated thunderstorm clouds formed by intense wildfire heat.
    • Can reach the stratosphere, generate lightning and strong winds, creating new fires.

    Sixth-Generation Wildfires

    • Extremely intense wildfires driven by heatwaves and prolonged drought.
    • Difficult to control using conventional firefighting methods.

    Why are Europe’s Wildfires Becoming More Severe?

    • Climate whiplash increases fuel availability.
    • PyroCb clouds spread fires through lightning and erratic winds.
    • Rural land abandonment has increased combustible vegetation.
    • Rising temperatures and prolonged droughts intensify fire conditions.

    Impacts

    • Loss of lives, forests and biodiversity.
    • Declining air quality across large regions.
    • Increased carbon dioxide (COâ‚‚) emissions, accelerating climate change.
    • Annual economic losses of about €2.5 billion in the European Union (EU).

    [2026] Consider the following statements with reference to India’s response to climate change:

    I. India’s LT-LEDS is a crucial tool for achieving net-zero emissions by 2070.

    II. India’s BUR-4 (Dec 2024) recorded ~8% decrease in GHG emissions in 2020 over 2019.

    III. Climate-resilient development necessarily depends on quick and short-term achievement of emission reduction targets.

    Which of the following relationships is/are correct?

    1. Statement I is empirically supported by statement II

    2. Statement III contradicts the approach implicit in statement I

    3. Statement I and statement III together establish the premise of long-term sustainability

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 1 and 2

    (c) 2 and 3

    (d) 3 only

  • India’s next conservation challenge lies beyond protected areas

    Why in the News

    An argument is being made that India’s conservation model, centered on isolated protected areas, is no longer sufficient. As development corridors fragment habitats, the next challenge is protecting connectivity through ecological corridors and area-based measures outside formal parks, in line with global biodiversity commitments.

    What is Protected-Area-Only Conservation Model?

    1. The Protected-Area-Only (PA-only) model is a traditional conservation strategy focused on creating and managing geographically defined zones such as national parks and nature reserves where human activity is strictly limited or prohibited to preserve biodiversity.
    2. Key elements include strict legal boundaries, top-down enforcement, and the exclusion of everyday resource extraction.

    Core Characteristics

    1. Spatial segregation: Separates nature preservation zones from human-dominated landscapes like farms or cities.
    2. Strict regulation: Limits or bans resource use, hunting, grazing, and permanent human settlement inside borders.
    3. Top-down control: Relies heavily on government oversight, rangers, and legal penalties to prevent habitat damage

    What are Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs)?

    1. Meaning: Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) are areas outside formal protected areas that still deliver long-term biodiversity conservation.
    2. Difference from protected areas: They are not designated national parks or sanctuaries, but community lands, corridors or managed areas that sustain species.
    3. Global basis: OECMs are recognised under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as a route to expand effective conservation area.

    Why is the protected-area-only model insufficient?

    1. Habitat fragmentation: Infrastructure such as the Delhi-Dehradun Economic Corridor cuts through and isolates wildlife habitats.
    2. Island effect: Isolated parks trap populations, reducing genetic exchange and long-term viability.
    3. Corridor need: Landscapes such as Pench-Seoni show that connectivity between reserves is as vital as the reserves themselves.

    What must the new approach include?

    1. Ecological corridors: Legally recognised corridors linking protected areas would let species move and populations mix.
    2. National Conservation Estate: A wider conservation estate would bring corridors and OECMs into a coherent framework.
    3. CBD alignment: Meeting India’s biodiversity-area commitments under the CBD requires counting effective conservation beyond parks.

    Conclusion

    Conservation confined to isolated protected areas cannot survive large-scale habitat fragmentation. The central need is connectivity, through ecological corridors, OECMs and a National Conservation Estate. Aligning this with CBD commitments is how India can protect biodiversity beyond park boundaries.

    Back2Basics

    Landscape-Based Conservation

    Definition:
    Landscape-based conservation is an integrated approach that conserves biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecological connectivity across entire landscapes, including Protected Areas, forests, farmlands, rivers, wildlife corridors, and human settlements, while balancing conservation with sustainable livelihoods.

    Key Features

    1. Conserves entire ecosystems, not just isolated Protected Areas.
    2. Maintains ecological connectivity through wildlife corridors.
    3. Integrates local communities into conservation.
    4. Promotes sustainable land-use in agriculture, forestry, and infrastructure.
    5. Improves climate resilience by enabling species movement and adaptation.

    Why is it needed?

    1. Wildlife frequently moves outside Protected Areas.
    2. Prevents habitat fragmentation.
    3. Addresses climate change by allowing range shifts.
    4. Balances conservation with development and livelihoods.

    Examples

    1. Western Ghats Landscape: Eco-Sensitive Areas and corridor-based conservation.
    2. Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Connects Mudumalai, Bandipur, Nagarhole, Wayanad, and Sathyamangalam.
    3. Kaziranga-Karbi Anglong Landscape: Critical elephant and rhino corridor.
    4. Terai Arc Landscape (India-Nepal): Cross-border conservation for tigers, elephants, and rhinos.

    Global Recognition

    1. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (2022): Encourages conservation through Protected Areas + Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs).
    2. IUCN: Promotes connectivity conservation and integrated landscape management.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2014] With reference to ‘Global Environment Facility’, which of the following statements is/are correct?

    (a) It serves as financial mechanism for ‘Convention on Biological Diversity’ and ‘United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’. (b) It undertakes scientific research on environmental issues at global level. (c) It is an agency under OECD to facilitate the transfer of technology and funds to underdeveloped countries with specific aim to protect their environment. (d) Both (a) and (b).

    Answer: (a)”

  • India confirmed as a global lepidoptera hotspot

    Why in the News?

    A Zoological Survey of India catalogue, published in the journal Zootaxa, records 13,703 species of butterflies and moths in India, about 8.25% of the world total. The finding reinforces India’s standing among the world’s megadiverse nations and provides a baseline for insect conservation.

    What does the catalogue record?

    1. Total species: India hosts 13,703 lepidoptera species, comprising 1,417 butterflies and 12,286 moths.
    2. Global share: This is about 8.25% of all butterfly and moth species worldwide.
    3. Source: The catalogue was compiled by the Zoological Survey of India (ZSI) and published in the taxonomic journal Zootaxa.

    Why is this significant?

    1. Megadiverse status: The count reinforces India’s position as one of the world’s megadiverse countries.
    2. Baseline data: A comprehensive species list provides a baseline against which future losses or discoveries can be measured.
    3. Ecological role: Butterflies and moths are pollinators and prey species, so their diversity signals ecosystem health.

    What is Lepidoptera?

    1. It is the order of butterflies, a large biological order that includes insects such as moths, and skippers.
    2. With about 180,000 species worldwide, it is the second largest order in the insect kingdom after the beetles (Coleoptera).

    Why does lepidoptera diversity matter for conservation?

    1. Pollination service: Many butterfly and moth species pollinate wild and cultivated plants.
    2. Food web link: They sustain populations of birds, spiders and wasps that feed on them.
    3. Indicator species: Their sensitivity to habitat change makes them useful indicators of environmental stress.

    Conclusion

    The ZSI catalogue documents India’s exceptional lepidoptera diversity and its megadiverse status. The species baseline is a foundation for tracking ecosystem health. Butterflies and moths matter because they anchor pollination and food webs across habitats.

    Back2Basics:

    Zoological Survey of India (ZSI)

    1. Establishment: Founded in 1916 as the premier taxonomic research organisation for animal life in India.
    2. Ministry: Functions under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
    3. Headquarters: Kolkata.
    4. Mandate: Survey, exploration and documentation of India’s faunal diversity.

    PYQ Relevance

    [2017] Due to some reasons, if there is a huge fall in the population of species of butterflies, what could be its likely consequence/consequences?

    1. Pollination of some plants could be adversely affected. 2. There could be a drastic increase in the fungal infections of some cultivated plants. 3. It could lead to a fall in the population of some species of wasps, spiders and birds.

    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: (c)

  • [1st August 2026] The Hindu OpED: Western Ghats conservation with science and dialogue

    PYQ Relevance
    [UPSC 2024] What role do environmental NGOs and activists play in influencing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) outcomes for major projects in India? Cite four examples with all important details.
    Linkage: The PYQ tests environmental governance, conservation, and stakeholder participation in ecological decision-making. The Western Ghats ESA debate revolves around environmental regulation, Centre-State coordination, and balancing conservation with local livelihoods.

    Mentor’s Comment

    In July 2026, the fifth draft notification on the Western Ghats Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) lapsed, and the Union Environment Ministry extended the expert panel’s tenure by another year. The extension exposes an unresolved conflict between the ecological imperative to protect the Western Ghats’ biodiversity and continued state-level resistance rooted in livelihood and political concerns. Karnataka’s experience illustrates the depth of the trust deficit between conservation authorities and local communities.

    What is The Western Ghats Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA)?

    1. It is a proposed 56,825.7 sq. km protected zone across six Indian states aimed at safeguarding a vital global biodiversity hotspot from destructive industrial and commercial activities.

    Key Features of the ESA Proposal

    1. Geographical Spread: Spans 56,825.7 sq. km across Karnataka (20,668 sq. km), Maharashtra, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Goa, and Gujarat.
    2. Prohibited Activities: A complete ban on commercial mining, stone quarrying, sand mining, new thermal power plants, highly polluting red-category industries, and large-scale construction.
    3. Safe Activities: Farming, traditional plantations, and day-to-day local livelihoods remain fully protected and unaffected

    Why has consensus on the Western Ghats ESA eluded the Centre and States for over a decade?

    1. WGEEP overreach and rollback: The Gadgil-led Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel recommended ESA status for 142 talukas across 44 districts; state opposition triggered the Kasturirangan-led review, which cut the proposed coverage to 37% of the Western Ghats.
    2. Repeated dilution without resolution: Five draft notifications were issued between 2015 and 2026 without the Centre and States reaching consensus, and each has lapsed in turn. The Union Environment Ministry has reissued, for the seventh time in over a decade, its draft notification proposing an ecologically sensitive area (ESA) across the Western Ghats.
    3. Shift to piecemeal negotiation: A phased or State-wise finalisation clause introduced in the 2024 draft notification signals the Centre’s move away from a single uniform notification.
    4. Uneven state responses: Gujarat and Goa appear to have agreed to finalisation, Maharashtra has sought a fresh review, and discussions with Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu remain ongoing.
    5. Continued institutional deferral: The expert panel headed by Sanjay Kumar has had its tenure extended by a year after the fifth notification’s expiry, keeping the process open-ended.

    Why does Karnataka continue to resist the ESA notification despite the ecological stakes?

    1. Scale of exposure: Karnataka has 10 Western Ghats districts, home to 23.4% of the State’s population, with 20,668 square kilometres identified for ESA declaration.
    2. Political continuity of opposition: Successive Karnataka governments, regardless of party, have opposed the proposal citing its impact on agriculture, plantations, mining and infrastructure.
    3. Rehabilitation ambivalence: Some residents near the Kali Tiger Reserve and Kudremukh National Park have accepted or considered rehabilitation packages, while others expect eventual relocation as village populations decline.
    4. Forest rights friction: Villages with granted forest rights still face restrictions on minor forest produce collection and agriculture, and non-tribal long-term residents have had forest rights claims rejected, including near the Balahalli Reserved Forest.
    5. Selective local support for regulation: Local officials and some communities support restricting environmentally harmful activities such as stone quarrying and unplanned tourism projects, including proposed forest ropeways, showing local opposition is not universal.

    Does reliance on satellite imagery undermine the legitimacy of the ESA demarcation process?

    1. Satellite misclassification concern: Stakeholders across the study districts said satellite imagery cannot distinguish plantation crops such as arecanut, shade-grown coffee, rubber and coconut from natural forest cover.
    2. Absence of ground verification: No committee has physically visited the affected villages, reinforcing the perception of a top-down process.
    3. Historical carryover of restrictions: Communities report facing similar restrictions whenever an area was declared protected even before the WGEEP was constituted, deepening scepticism toward new notifications.
    4. Unaddressed misinformation: Many residents believe buffer zones extend 10 kilometres from core areas and fear eviction, a fear the administration has not addressed through direct engagement.

    Should ecological imperatives override state and local resistance, or does doing so merely shift the conservation burden onto vulnerable communities?

    1. Transboundary ecology argument: Ecological systems do not respect administrative boundaries, so continued delay allows degradation to proceed while States retain control over ecologically critical land.
    2. Political will without local trust: The Union government’s push to finalise the notification reflects conservation intent but bypasses the trust deficit created by a non-transparent demarcation process.
    3. Indigenous communities as omission: The ESA framework has not explicitly included indigenous forest-dwelling communities, whose sustainable practices could support conservation rather than being treated as encroachment.
    4. Risk of biocultural loss: Excluding these communities as legitimate stakeholders risks losing not only their livelihoods but the biocultural diversity their presence sustains.

    Conclusion

    The Western Ghats ESA notification remains suspended not for lack of scientific consensus on ecological sensitivity, but because federal politics and a top-down survey methodology have failed to build local trust. Ecological systems transcend administrative boundaries, making further delay costly, yet the livelihood concerns of forest-dependent and agrarian communities cannot be dismissed as mere obstruction. Resolution requires ground-truthing beyond satellite imagery and the explicit inclusion of indigenous communities as conservation partners rather than regulatory subjects.

    Back2Basics

    Gadgil Committee and Kasturirangan Committee

    Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (Gadgil Committee) and the High-Level Working Group (Kasturirangan Committee) are two official groups appointed by the Indian government to protect the environment and manage development in the Western Ghats. While Gadgil’s report aimed to declare the entire hill region as sensitive, Kasturirangan’s report reduced that protected area to 37%.

    Gadgil Committee (2011)

    1. Coverage: Labeled 100% of the Western Ghats as an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA), split into three strict zones.
    2. Rules: Banned new large dams, mining, and polluting industries in top zones.
    3. Style: Demanded local, bottom-up governance through village bodies (Gram Sabhas).

    Kasturirangan Committee (2013)

    1. Coverage: Labeled only 37% (about 60,000 square kilometers) of the Western Ghats as sensitive.
    2. Rules: Banned mining, quarrying, and thermal power plants in sensitive zones, but allowed some regulated development.
    3. Style: Left human settlements and plantations out of protected zones to support local farmers and people

  • SC sets ‘public interest’ test on retrospective green nod

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court, in a ruling delivered on 29 July, quashed the Centre’s 2021 Office Memorandum (OM) that had allowed projects built without prior approval to seek regularisation. It also held that a narrowly tailored amnesty scheme may still be permitted through a statutory notification if justified by public interest. This reopens the question of whether this closes the door on regularising environmental violations or gives them a narrower but still real legal opening.

    What is a post facto environmental clearance?

    1. Definition: A post facto, or ex post facto, environmental clearance (EC) is an approval granted after a project has already commenced construction or operations, reversing the sequence the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regime otherwise requires.
    2. Underlying principle: India’s EIA regime rests on the precautionary principle, which requires ecological appraisal before construction begins rather than after damage may already be irreversible.

    What is the difference between an Office Memorandum and a statutory notification?

    1. Office Memorandum: An OM is an administrative instruction issued by a ministry or department. It does not carry the force of law.
    2. Statutory notification: A notification is issued under authority granted by a statute, in this case the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and is published in the official Gazette, giving it legal force an OM lacks.

    How has the Supreme Court’s position on retrospective clearances evolved?

    1. Common Cause v. Union of India (2017): The Court held that mining projects requiring clearance could not commence before appraisal, calling retrospective clearances completely alien to environmental jurisprudence.
    2. Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Rohit Prajapati (2020): The Court reiterated that ex post facto clearance undermines the precautionary principle by letting proponents commence activity first and seek approval later, though it imposed penalties instead of ordering closure for long operating units.
    3. Electrosteel Steels Ltd v. Union of India (2021): The Court held that ex post facto clearances could be granted in exceptional circumstances to protect livelihoods and the economy, opening space for the OM that followed the same year.
    4. Pahwa Plastics v. Dastak (2022): The Court took a more pragmatic approach, holding that closure is not always the right remedy where regulatory uncertainty existed and compliance remained achievable.
    5. Vanashakti v. Union of India (May 2025 and November 2025): A Bench struck down both the 2017 notification and the 2021 OM, ruling ex post facto clearances impermissible in any form. Following review petitions by the Centre and industry bodies, a three judge Bench recalled this ruling by a two to one majority six months later, holding it needed fresh adjudication.
    6. 29 July 2026 ruling: A Bench led by the Chief Justice of India quashed the 2021 OM but upheld the 2017 notification, holding that any future post facto clearance can only be granted through a statutory notification, not an administrative order.

    What does the 29 July ruling establish?

    1. Quashed instrument: The Court set aside the 2021 OM that had created a standing procedure for regularising violation cases, calling it a continuing or perpetual regime rather than a one time exception.
    2. Retained instrument: The March 2017 notification, offering a one time six month disclosure window, was not invalidated.
    3. Legal basis required: Any future post facto clearance mechanism must be issued as a statutory notification under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, not as an OM.
    4. Public interest test: The government must show that the public interest served is sufficiently compelling, that any relaxation is strictly necessary, and that environmental costs have been weighed against anticipated benefits, converting open ended discretion into a narrowly circumscribed exception.

    Does the ruling protect the precautionary principle or launder violations into a fee?

    1. Fig leaf reading: One reading holds that the distinction between an OM and a statutory notification is a procedural label rather than a substantive safeguard. This is because the government can still notify the same regularisation scheme through the correct instrument.
    2. Amnesty analogy rejected: The Court reasoned that governments may frame environmental amnesty schemes the way they frame tax or building default amnesties. This is a comparison critics say cannot be transposed onto projects that cut into forests and floodplains. This is because ecological damage propagates through interconnected plant, animal, human and microbial systems rather than resetting to zero on payment of a fee.
    3. Decriminalisation overlap: The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, and its 2026 amendments removed imprisonment for environmental violations. This leaves only monetary penalties. So, now a regularised violation now costs a well capitalised developer a budgeted fine rather than a criminal risk.
    4. Counter view: The opposing reading holds that the ruling is consistent with two decades of jurisprudence reading a healthy environment into the right to life, and that the recognised flexibility could legitimately apply to national defence projects, healthcare facilities in underserved areas, or connectivity in remote regions.
    5. Scale of existing exceptions: More than 100 projects, including coal, iron and bauxite mines, a greenfield airport, distilleries, steel and cement plants, and hospitals, had already received ex post facto clearance under the 2017 to 2021 regime. This shows how large scale the exception has become in practice.

    What are the challenges to enforcing the public interest test for post facto clearance?

    1. Definition creep: Public interest is not statutorily defined for this purpose, leaving room for the term to be stretched to cover commercially driven projects as much as genuinely urgent public needs.
    2. Monitoring capacity: State environmental authorities, expert appraisal committees and pollution boards have historically detected violations only after construction is complete, showing weak upfront monitoring that a narrower legal test alone will not fix.
    3. Litigation burden: Every future statutory amnesty scheme will likely face fresh litigation testing whether it is genuinely narrowly tailored, adding years of uncertainty for project proponents and affected communities alike.
    4. Weakened deterrence: With imprisonment removed under the Jan Vishwas amendments, monetary penalties alone may not deter developers who can treat the fine as a routine cost of doing business.
    5. Climate exposure: Infrastructure regularised without adequate ecological assessment faces greater exposure to extreme weather events, as seen in monsoon damage to projects built without proper environmental safeguards.

    Conclusion

    The ruling ends open ended administrative regularisation under the 2021 OM, restoring the requirement that any future post facto clearance carry the force of a statutory notification tested against public interest, necessity and proportionality. It does not resolve whether that test can hold against a decriminalised penalty regime in which environmental violation carries only a monetary cost. The government’s next statutory amnesty scheme, if it frames one, will show whether this order narrows the exception in practice or simply relabels the same regularisation regime in more careful legal language.

    Back2Basics:

    EIA Notification, 2006

    1. Issuing authority: Notified in 2006 by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
    2. Core requirement: Mandates prior environmental clearance before construction or expansion begins for listed categories of projects such as mining, thermal power and infrastructure.
    3. Categorisation: Projects fall into Category A, needing central level clearance, and Category B, needing state level clearance through State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities.
    4. Process stages: Screening, scoping, public consultation and appraisal precede the grant of clearance.
    5. Subsequent dilution: A March 2017 notification and a July 2021 OM introduced routes for post facto clearance, which the Supreme Court has since narrowed.

    The precautionary principle:

    1. It is a core rule in environmental law requiring authorities to take preventive action against serious or irreversible environmental harm, even when there is no full scientific certainty.
    2. Key aspects include shifting the burden of proof to project developers, prioritizing safety over delay, and focusing on proactive governance.
    3. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996): The landmark ruling where the Supreme Court formally integrated the precautionary principle and the polluter-pays principle into Indian jurisprudence.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] How does the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2020 differ from the existing EIA Notification, 2006?

    Linkage: The PYQ tests understanding of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) framework in India. The article examines EIA implementation in light of the precautionary principle established in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum (1996).

  • SC restricts ‘retrospective’ green clearances

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court on 29 July 2026 quashed, with prospective effect, the Centre’s 2021 Office Memorandum (OM) that allowed ex post facto environmental clearances for projects built without prior approval. It held that the government cannot alter the mandatory environmental clearance regime through a mere administrative instruction. The ruling closes a route that had let project proponents regularise unauthorised construction through a recurring “amnesty,” while leaving open a narrow exception issued through proper notification.

    What did the 2021 Office Memorandum allow, and why did the court strike it down?

    1. What the OM did: The 2021 OM created a standard operating procedure allowing perpetual, recurring ex post facto environmental clearance for projects undertaken without prior environmental clearance under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
    2. Why it failed the legal test: The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, held that the OM was “an administrative order” that “envisages a perpetual regime” and “supplants an earlier delegated legislation through an administrative instruction, which is impermissible in law.”
    3. No selection criteria: The OM applied indiscriminately to all permissible projects without laying down an intelligible differentia connecting selection to “supervening public interest,” making it disproportionate and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
    4. Weakened deterrence: The decriminalisation of the offence of breaching the prior clearance regime through the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 compounded the problem, since violators earlier faced up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine, before the offence became a civil liability.

    What can the government still do to grant retrospective clearance?

    1. Narrow exception preserved: The Court held the Centre retains power under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to issue an appropriate, narrowly tailored amnesty notification in supervening public interest, as an exception to the 2006 notification, but not through an administrative memorandum.
    2. Selection requirement: Any future amnesty scheme must make a distinct, reasoned selection of projects, tested against proportionality and public interest, rather than covering all non-compliant projects uniformly.
    3. Accountability demand: The Court ordered that future amnesty schemes must provide effective deterrent measures against individual public servants, including disciplinary action and personal liability, wherever the state or its own instrumentalities violate the prior clearance regime.

    What happens to projects that already received clearance under the quashed OM?

    1. Prospective effect only: The Court quashed the 2021 OM prospectively, to avoid disrupting ongoing projects including the AIIMS Medical College and Hospital building in Odisha, the Centre of Excellence for Cancer Diseases in Tamil Nadu, Vijayapura Airport in Karnataka, and various medical colleges, slum rehabilitation and irrigation projects.
    2. Existing clearances remain valid: Retrospective clearances already granted under the 2017 notification and the 2021 OM remain valid unless individually challenged in accordance with law.
    3. Litigation history: The ruling follows a back-and-forth: a May 2025 Division Bench judgment called such clearances a “gross illegality,” a November 2025 larger Bench recalled that ruling citing the “devastating effect” on public projects worth thousands of crores, and the present July 2026 judgment on review petitions restores the stricter position on the OM specifically.

    Does closing the OM route resolve the tension between environmental compliance and project continuity?

    1. Unresolved incentive: Because existing ex post facto clearances remain valid unless individually challenged, project proponents that already built without clearance retain the benefit of past regularisation, even as the route for future violators is closed.
    2. Enforcement gap remains: With the 2023 Jan Vishwas Act having decriminalised breaches of the prior clearance regime, the deterrent effect of closing the administrative amnesty route depends on how strictly future violations are now penalised as civil liabilities.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court has closed the administrative route for open-ended retrospective environmental clearance while preserving a narrow, notification-based exception for genuine public interest cases. Whether this actually curbs future violations depends on how strictly the Centre applies the “narrowly tailored” and “intelligible differentia” tests the Court has now set, and whether civil penalties under the Jan Vishwas Act carry enough deterrent weight.

    Back2Basics:

    Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

    1. Enactment: The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was enacted after the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy, giving the Central government overarching powers to protect and improve the environment.
    2. EIA notification: The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, issued under Section 3 of this Act, mandates prior environmental clearance for specified categories of projects before construction begins.
    3. Jan Vishwas Act, 2023: This Act decriminalised minor offences across 42 laws, including converting the penalty for breaching the prior environmental clearance requirement from imprisonment to a civil liability.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] How does the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2020 differ from the existing EIA Notification, 2006?

    Linkage: The PYQ examines India’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework and the legal requirements governing environmental clearances. The article builds on the PYQ by analysing the Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate open-ended ex post facto environmental clearances, reinforcing prior approval as the cornerstone of the EIA regime.

  • “Tigers Outside Tiger Reserves” initiative targets the 35 to 40% of India’s tigers living outside protected areas

    Why in the News

    The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change’s (MoEFCC) new “Tigers Outside Tiger Reserves” (TOTR) initiative addresses the 35 to 40% of India’s tiger population living outside formally protected areas. It is built on two pillars, conflict reduction and community coexistence, across 40 forest divisions in nine states.

    Pillars of the Tigers Outside Tiger Reserves (TOTR) initiative

    1. Conflict reduction: The first pillar focuses on reducing human-tiger conflict incidents in forest divisions where tigers range outside the boundaries of formally notified reserves.
    2. Community coexistence: The second pillar builds mechanisms for local communities to coexist with tigers present in shared, non-reserve landscapes, rather than treating their presence as purely a conservation enforcement problem.
    3. Coverage: The initiative spans 40 forest divisions across nine states, reflecting the geographic spread of India’s tiger population beyond reserve boundaries.

    Why does India need a policy specifically for tigers outside reserves?

    1. Population share at stake: With 35 to 40% of India’s tiger population living outside protected areas, conservation policy focused only on reserve boundaries misses a large share of the actual tiger population.
    2. Corridor dependence: Tigers outside reserves typically use forest corridors connecting reserves, and conflict in these corridors threatens the genetic connectivity between reserve populations.
    3. Land use pressure: Non-reserve forest divisions face agricultural and settlement pressure that formally protected reserves do not, making conflict management here structurally harder than inside a reserve.

    Conclusion

    1. The Tigers Outside Tiger Reserves initiative extends India’s tiger conservation focus beyond reserve boundaries to the corridors and shared landscapes where a large share of the tiger population actually lives. Its success will depend on whether conflict reduction and community coexistence measures can be sustained in areas without a reserve’s formal protection status.

    Back2Basics

    Conservation Status

    • IUCN Red List: Endangered (EN)
    • Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: Schedule I species (highest level of legal protection).
    • CITES: Appendix I.

    Tiger Reserves in India

    • Total Tiger Reserves: 58 (under the National Tiger Conservation Authority).
    • Largest Tiger Reserve: Nagarjunsagar Srisailam Tiger Reserve (Andhra Pradesh & Telangana).
    • Smallest Tiger Reserve: Bor Tiger Reserve (Maharashtra).
    • State with the most Tiger Reserves: Madhya Pradesh (9).
    • Latest Tiger Reserve: Madhav Tiger Reserve (Madhya Pradesh), notified in 2025.

    Tiger Population

    • India’s tiger population increased from 1,411 (2006) to 3,682 (2022), reflecting the success of sustained conservation efforts under Project Tiger and landscape-based protection.
    • India is home to over 70% of the world’s wild tiger population, making it the global stronghold for tiger conservation.

    Project Tiger

    • Launched in 1973 by the Government of India to ensure a viable population of tigers in their natural habitats through habitat protection, anti-poaching measures, scientific monitoring, and community participation.

    National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA)

    • The NTCA is a statutory body established under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (through the 2006 amendment) under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
    • It formulates policies and standards for tiger conservation, oversees the management of Tiger Reserves, approves reserve notifications, and monitors implementation of Project Tiger across the country.