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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Environment

  • 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friendly first responder when cloudbursts, landslides or flash floods struck Nepal, and that ad hoc relief paradigm has been replaced by a framework of climate justice and financial liability.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)”

  • Ethanol vision needs a feedstock reality check

    Why in the News

    The price of sugar has risen as part of the normal cycle in sugar output, at a point when ethanol production is being pushed to reduce crude oil imports. Sugarcane is one of the three feedstocks for ethanol, and the price rise has opened the broader question of whether the blending target will put pressure on crop supplies generally. About 45% of India’s ethanol now comes from maize and a further 20% to 25% from rice, with the balance produced from sugar based feedstock. E20, the blending of 20% ethanol into petrol, has been made mandatory, which fixes the demand rather than leaving it to the relative price of the feedstock. The tension is that the cheapest and highest yielding feedstock is also the base of India’s cattle and poultry feed, and its output cannot be raised quickly because genetically modified seed is not permitted for maize.

    What is the E20 ethanol blending mandate?

    1. About: E20 is petrol blended with 20% ethanol by volume, supplied under the Ethanol Blended Petrol Programme run by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.
    2. Why it exists: Blending substitutes a domestically produced fuel for imported crude, which reduces both the oil import bill and the foreign exchange spent on it.
    3. How the ethanol is bought: Oil marketing companies procure ethanol from distilleries at administered prices fixed separately for each feedstock route, so the mix responds to policy pricing rather than to the fuel market.
    4. The target date: The 20% blending target was advanced to the 2025 to 2026 ethanol supply year from the original timeline of 2030.

    What decides India’s ethanol feedstock mix?

    1. Current shares: Around 45% of ethanol is produced from maize and 20% to 25% from rice, with sugar based feedstock supplying the balance.
    2. Yield per tonne: One tonne of maize yields 380 to 400 litres of ethanol, one tonne of rice yields 370 to 385 litres, and one tonne of sugarcane yields 220 to 280 litres.
    3. Cost per tonne: Maize costs around Rs 20,000 to Rs 21,000 per tonne, rice around Rs 38,000 to Rs 39,000, and sugar approximately Rs 37,000, which places maize first on cost as well as on yield.
    4. Availability: Availability also favours maize, so producers prefer it on all three counts and it stands highest in the pecking order.
    5. The rice supply was a one time disposal: Excess stocks held by the Food Corporation of India (FCI), the central agency that procures and stores foodgrain, were of low quality and were sold into the market, which was sound as a disposal but cannot be the feedstock strategy going forward.

    Who else is competing for India’s maize?

    1. Households: Household consumption accounts for a small part of total maize demand.
    2. Cattle and poultry feed: Maize supports cattle and poultry and accounts for 60% of the total feed requirement.
    3. Industrial starch: Industrial use draws maize for the production of starch.
    4. Ethanol as the fourth claim: Ethanol now becomes a fourth source of demand on the same domestic output.

    Why can maize output not simply be expanded?

    1. The seed restriction: Production using genetically modified variety seeds is not permitted for maize, so output growth has to come from existing domestic seeds.
    2. Demand is fixed by notification: A mandatory E20 blend raises ethanol demand on a schedule the crop cycle cannot respond to.
    3. Price pass through: Higher demand raises maize prices, and that increase trickles through to the prices of dairy, meat and related products.
    4. The proposal on the table: One solution is to permit genetically modified seed for maize grown solely for ethanol production, which separates the fuel use from the food and feed chain.

    What does the water accounting show?

    1. Water per kilogram: Maize takes 500 to 900 litres of water per kg, sugarcane takes 1,500 to 2,500 litres and rice takes 2,000 to 3,500 litres.
    2. The implication for the mix: On water use alone, more maize and less rice and sugarcane should be diverted to ethanol.
    3. Incremental output still costs water: Additional maize output adds to the pressure on water resources even though maize is the least water intensive of the three.
    4. A competing claim on the same supply: The parallel push to build data centres adds another heavy consumer of both power and water, which makes water supply a general constraint on the economy rather than an ethanol specific one.

    Challenges to the ethanol blending programme

    1. The blend reduces vehicle efficiency: Ethanol carries lower energy density than petrol, so a higher blend delivers fewer kilometres from the same volume of fuel. Eg. Efficiency losses of roughly 2% to 6% have been reported for vehicles not calibrated for a 20% blend.
      The Fix: Mandate a published efficiency rating for every vehicle model at the E20 blend, so the import saving and the mileage cost are visible together.
    2. Capacity is being built against a single target year: Grain based distillery capacity added on the strength of a mandatory blend has no alternative market if the target is later revised. Eg. Grain based routes displaced sugarcane as the dominant ethanol feedstock within a few supply years.
      The Fix: Publish a rolling five year feedstock and capacity plan so investment tracks a stated trajectory rather than one target year.
    3. The older fleet is not compatible: Vehicles built before blend compatible components were standardised face corrosion in fuel lines and seals at higher ethanol shares. Eg. Vehicles manufactured before 2023 were not designed to be E20 compliant.
      The Fix: Require retail outlets to stock a lower blend grade alongside E20 until the pre compliance fleet retires.
    4. Food and fuel draw on the same procurement system: The agency that holds foodgrain for the public distribution system also supplies grain to distilleries, so a poor crop year forces a choice between the ration and the blend. Eg. Rice released for ethanol has been drawn from central stocks built for food security.
      The Fix: Fix a statutory buffer floor below which no grain may be released for ethanol, published before each supply year.

    Conclusion

    The ethanol programme is being run as an energy policy while its binding constraint sits in agriculture. Neither of the two things that would let maize output grow, approval of genetically modified seed and additional water, lies within the remit of the ministry that sets the blending target, and a mandate creates neither. What is unresolved is that a fuel target fixed by notification meets a crop supply that responds only to seed technology and rainfall, and the adjustment between the two will appear first in feed and dairy prices rather than at the pump.

    Government Initiatives for Biofuels in India

    1. National Policy on Biofuels, 2018: The policy classifies biofuels into first, second and third generation categories and widens the permitted feedstock base to include damaged foodgrain and surplus grain.
    2. Ethanol Interest Subvention Scheme: The Centre supports new and expanded distilleries through soft loans carrying a 6% interest subvention on the borrowing.
    3. Pradhan Mantri JI-VAN Yojana: It funds commercial scale second generation ethanol plants that use crop residue instead of food grain as feedstock.
    4. Sustainable Alternative Towards Affordable Transportation (SATAT): This initiative of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas promotes Compressed Bio Gas produced from agricultural and municipal waste for use as a transport fuel.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “Consider the following statements: Statement I: Of the two major ethanol producers in the world, i.e., Brazil and the United States of America, the former produces more ethanol than the latter. Statement II: Unlike in the United States of America, where corn is the principal feedstock for ethanol production, sugarcane is the principal feedstock for ethanol production in Brazil. 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) Statement I is correct but Statement II is not correct (d) Statement I is not correct but Statement II is correct”

  • 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?”

  • What lies beyond India’s E20 push

    Why in the News

    India has scaled up the E20 petrol blend this year as crude prices rose following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. A written reply to the Lok Sabha by the Road Transport and Highways Minister has conceded that E20 reduces fuel economy by “2% to 6% depending on vehicle category and vintage”, citing a joint study by the Automotive Research Association of India, the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers and Indian Oil Corporation Limited. The blend was introduced in 2023 on three stated claims: savings for the consumer, lower carbon emissions, and foreign exchange savings. All three rest on mileage holding steady, and the admitted loss in mileage puts each of them in question.

    What is the E20 blend?

    1. Composition: A litre of E20 petrol is 80% motor gasoline and 20% anhydrous ethanol (ethanol with water removed, so it mixes with petrol without separating).
    2. Rollout: Public sector oil marketing companies began selling E20 at select outlets in February 2023, and supply has since widened across the country.
    3. Energy content: Ethanol releases less energy per litre burnt than pure gasoline, so a litre of E20 carries a vehicle a shorter distance than a litre of the earlier E10 blend.

    Why has E20 been pushed now, and on what claims?

    1. Crude price trigger: The scale up followed rising crude prices after American action against Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz in response.
    2. Three stated benefits: The case for the blend rests on cheaper fuel for households, lower carbon emissions per kilometre, and a smaller oil import bill.
    3. The admitted qualifier: The government’s own position records a fuel economy loss of 2% to 6%, varying with vehicle category and vintage.
    4. Engine damage is unquantified: Owners of vehicles of 2022 vintage and earlier report mileage loss beyond 6% along with damage to engines and fuel tanks, and the scale of that damage cannot be measured from available data.

    Has E20 saved Indian households money?

    1. The savings claim: A higher ethanol share substitutes a cheaper input for expensive crude, which is argued to lower the household fuel bill and hold inflation down.
    2. What the claim omits: The claim prices the input and ignores the distance travelled per litre, which is what a household actually pays for.
    3. The arithmetic at the pump: E20 was introduced while keeping the pump price unchanged from E10. A car averaging 15 km per litre on E10 with a 6% mileage loss needs 1.06 litres for the same 15 km, so Rs 106 buys what Rs 100 previously covered.
    4. The aggregate burden: An investigation by The Reporters Collective estimates that Indian consumers spent an additional Rs 88,234 crore over three years because of the mileage loss, with the burden rising every year.
    5. Alternative price instruments exist: Holding pump prices down when crude rises can be done through indirect tax policy in the short run, without shifting the cost onto mileage.

    Do carbon emissions actually fall with E20?

    1. Lower carbon per litre: E20 embodies less carbon per litre than E10, at 2.23 kgCO2 per litre against 2.32 kgCO2 per litre, drawn from United States Environmental Protection Agency figures.
    2. Mileage cancels the gain: More litres burnt for the same distance offsets the lower carbon content of each litre.
    3. The break even point is 4%: Emissions fall only where the mileage loss is under 4%. Across the 4% to 6% range the Minister himself stated, emissions rise rather than fall.
    4. The excess at 6%: A 6% mileage loss produces 2.37 kgCO2 against 2.32 kgCO2 for 15 km travelled, an excess of about 50 gCO2.
    5. The fleet mix decides the average: Newer vehicles built for E20 lose less mileage and emit less, older vehicles emit more, so emissions per kilometre across the country depend on the weight of each vintage on the road.

    What does ethanol blending do to foreign exchange and to crops?

    1. The forex logic: Oil is a large share of the import bill, so any substitution away from crude does save foreign exchange.
    2. Mileage offsets part of it: A fall in mileage raises the volume of fuel consumed, which cancels part of the import saving.
    3. Feedstock is diverted from food: Sugarcane and maize are the two main sources of ethanol, so blending targets translate into crop diversion and into a long term adjustment in what is grown.
    4. The sugar consequence: Exports were banned in 2023 and again this year as ethanol diversion pushed up domestic demand, cutting dollar earnings from sugar exports.
    5. The maize consequence: Maize export earnings fell sharply over the last two years as its share in ethanol production rose, and India became a net importer of maize last year.
    6. The trade channel closes the loop: A demand and production mismatch in an agricultural commodity is settled through higher prices, through trade management, or both. Lower exports and higher imports are themselves a loss of foreign exchange.

    Challenges to the E20 blend

    1. Legacy fleet incompatibility: Vehicles built before E20 compatibility norms carry the sharpest mileage loss and face corrosion risk in fuel lines and seals. Eg. Cars and motorcycles of 2022 vintage and earlier run on the same blend with no alternative offered at the pump.
      The Fix: Keep E10 available at fuel outlets so owners of older vehicles can buy the blend their engine was built for.
    2. Feedstock concentration: Ethanol supply rests on two water and land intensive crops, so a blending target transmits directly into cropping choices. Eg. Sugarcane in Maharashtra draws heavily on irrigation in water stressed districts.
      The Fix: Scale second generation ethanol from crop residue and other non food feedstock so blending stops competing with the food chain.
    3. Absence of consumer choice: A single blend at the pump removes the buyer’s ability to weigh a mileage loss against a price. Eg. The Chief Economic Adviser has argued that consumers should at least be given a choice between E10 and E20.
      The Fix: Require outlets above a set throughput to dispense both blends.
    4. Unused fiscal instrument: Excise duty on petrol can absorb a crude price spike, which is the task the blend has instead been asked to perform. Eg. Central duty relief was used to hold pump prices down until recent State elections were over.
      The Fix: Set a rule based countercyclical excise band so duty falls automatically once crude crosses a stated threshold.
    5. Transport demand left untouched: Blending changes what a vehicle burns and not how many vehicle kilometres are travelled, so total fuel use and pollution keep rising. Eg. Vehicle registrations in large Indian cities continue to grow faster than public transport capacity.
      The Fix: Build reliable subsidised public transport with last mile connectivity, alongside cycling and walking infrastructure.

    Conclusion

    The blend is settled policy and the fleet running on it is not. Two questions remain open. The first is whether a household gets to choose the blend its engine was designed for, rather than absorbing the mileage loss silently at an unchanged pump price. The second is whether ethanol demand can be met without pulling sugarcane and maize out of the food and export chain. Watch the feedstock mix reported for the next Ethanol Supply Year (the twelve month period over which ethanol supply contracts to oil marketing companies are counted) and whether E10 stays on sale.

    Back2Basics

    1. Ethanol Blended Petrol Programme: Administered by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, it requires oil marketing companies to sell petrol blended with ethanol to cut crude imports and support sugar and grain producers.
    2. National Policy on Biofuels, 2018: It set the blending pathway and was amended in 2022 to advance the 20% ethanol blending target to the Ethanol Supply Year 2025-26 from 2030.
    3. Permitted feedstock: The policy widened eligible raw material beyond sugarcane molasses to sugarcane juice, damaged foodgrain, surplus rice and maize.
    4. Second generation ethanol: Produced from crop residue and other lignocellulosic waste rather than from food crops, it is supported through the Pradhan Mantri JI-VAN Yojana.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “Consider the following statements: Statement I: Of the two major ethanol producers in the world, i.e., Brazil and the United States of America, the former produces more ethanol than the latter. Statement II: Unlike in the United States of America, where corn is the principal feedstock for ethanol production, sugarcane is the principal feedstock for ethanol production in Brazil. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?”

  • 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