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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: India Environmental Policy/Body

  • Fear revisits residents of Western Ghats

    Why in the News

    The Centre has issued its seventh draft notification proposing to declare 56,825.7 sq km of the Western Ghats an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA). Of that, 29,668 sq km spread across 1,449 villages in ten Karnataka districts falls in the State. Hundreds of farmers in the Malnad region have marched against the draft, and their central demand is not that the notification be dropped. They want the Karnataka government to conduct a physical survey of the land and to exclude human settlements and cultivated areas from the proposed ESA boundary. The tension is that the people most opposed to the notification already live under forest restrictions that deny them roads, schools, electricity and clear title, and they read the ESA as freezing those unsettled claims permanently.

    What is an Ecologically Sensitive Area?

    1. The legal basis: An ESA is an area notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, within which specified activities are prohibited, restricted or made subject to closer scrutiny.
    2. How it is created: The Centre issues a draft notification proposing the boundary and the restrictions, and allows a fixed period for objections before a final notification can issue. The seventh draft allows 60 days.
    3. What it is not: An ESA is a land use regime layered over existing ownership, so it does not by itself transfer land or extinguish a title.

    How did the Western Ghats ESA proposal originate?

    1. A march, not a ministry: On 1 November 1987 two groups of scientists, ecologists, environmentalists and activists began walking simultaneously from Navapur in Maharashtra’s Dhule district and from Kanyakumari in Tamil Nadu towards a common meeting point in Goa, documenting the ecological condition of the landscape along the route.
    2. The Goa conference: The effort culminated in a conference in Goa in February 1988, where the ecologist Madhav Gadgil of the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru chaired the technical session on the region’s ecological status.
    3. The demand for an expert panel: The group stayed active through a 1998 yatra and meetings in 2009 and on 18 February 2010 at the Keystone Foundation in Kotagiri, Nilgiris, where the then Union Minister for Environment and Forests was asked to constitute an expert panel on the Western Ghats.
    4. The panel: On 4 March 2010 the Ministry of Environment and Forests set up the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) under Gadgil, with nine non-government and five official members, to assess the ecological status of the Ghats, demarcate areas to be notified as ecologically sensitive, and recommend conservation measures through wide consultation.

    What did the WGEEP recommend, and how was its report handled?

    1. A people-oriented model: The report went beyond regulation to propose science-based incentives, including financial rewards for individual farmers and payments for ecosystem services to communities. It cited the Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme, under which farmers were paid retrospectively for verified increases in soil carbon on regeneratively managed farmland.
    2. The restrictions it proposed: These included a complete ban on mining and sand extraction with existing operations phased out within five years or on expiry of lease, restrictions on housing and construction projects exceeding 20,000 sq m, a ban on all “red category” highly polluting industries with existing units to close or relocate within five years, encouragement of organic farming, and closer scrutiny of other development activities.
    3. The report was withheld for months: The panel submitted its final report on 31 August 2011. The Ministry resisted disclosure through repeated applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and an order of the Central Information Commission, and approached the Delhi High Court seeking a stay, before uploading the report on its website on 23 May 2012.
    4. Every State government objected: All the States concerned, including Karnataka and Kerala, opposed the recommendations, and elected representatives particularly in Kerala argued they would severely disrupt local livelihoods.

    What did the Kasturirangan High-Level Working Group change?

    1. Why it was constituted: Taking the criticism of the WGEEP report into account, the Union Ministry set up a High-Level Working Group (HLWG) under K. Kasturirangan to prepare a “workable and implementable” report on conserving the Western Ghats.
    2. What it recommended: The panel visited several places, including Sakleshpur in Hassan district, and submitted its report on 15 April 2013. It recommended that about 37 per cent of the Western Ghats, 59,940 sq km forming a continuous band of natural vegetation stretching roughly 1,500 km across six States, be declared an ESA. Karnataka accounted for the largest share, around 20,668 sq km.
    3. The objection from the earlier panel: Gadgil objected strongly in an open letter, stating that the WGEEP had proposed a graded, participatory approach with a major role for grassroots input.
    4. What the letter said the HLWG did instead: It had effectively partitioned the landscape, with roughly a third to be protected by “funds and guards” as natural landscape and the remaining two-thirds labelled cultural landscape and left open to development.

    What does the seventh draft propose for Karnataka?

    1. Seven drafts, none finalised: The Ministry has issued seven draft notifications since 2014. All six earlier drafts were opposed by the States concerned, and residents of the affected regions filed numerous objections against them.
    2. The Karnataka share: The 29,668 sq km proposed in the State is spread across 1,449 villages in Belagavi, Chamarajanagar, Chikkamagaluru, Dakshina Kannada, Hassan, Kodagu, Mysuru, Shivamogga, Udupi and Uttara Kannada districts.
    3. The instrument has not changed: The draft still rests on the boundary the HLWG proposed, which is why the objection filed against it is the same objection filed against the six drafts before it.

    What are the Malnad protests demanding?

    1. The march: On 29 August hundreds of farmers from Hosanagara taluk in Shivamogga district marched about nine kilometres from the Ganesha temple in Karanagiri to Hosanagara town, and farmers across Shivamogga and neighbouring Malnad districts are planning similar protests.
    2. The demand has narrowed: The central demand is a physical survey of the land by the State government and the exclusion of human settlements and cultivated areas from the proposed boundary.
    3. The Kerala model they cite: Kerala reduced its proposed ESA area from 13,108 sq km to 9,937 sq km, comprising 9,107 sq km of forest and 886.7 sq km of non-forest land, after conducting a physical survey. That reduction of more than 3,000 sq km has since been incorporated into the revised notification.
    4. The organising vehicle: A large section of farmers has been brought together under the banner of the Western Ghats Raitha Sahakari Vedike, which has launched a website with a tool to help the public file objections online.
    5. The shift in position: The organisation is not opposing the notification outright this time, and is instead demanding that the State government follow the Kerala model to minimise the impact.

    How has the Karnataka political establishment responded?

    1. The stated concerns: The Member of Parliament from Shivamogga, who joined the protest marches, said restrictions on township projects and the push for organic farming were the primary concerns in the Malnad region.
    2. The plantation economy’s objection: Many farmers in Shivamogga, Uttara Kannada, Chikkamagaluru and Kodagu who grow plantation crops such as coffee and areca use chemical fertilizers to protect their crops from disease, and ask how plantations are to be protected if such inputs are restricted. Restrictions on house construction are the second stated objection.
    3. A legislative airing: The Karnataka Cabinet announced on 3 September 2026 a three-day special session of the legislature from 21 September to discuss drought, which will also take up a detailed discussion on the Kasturirangan report. The Chief Minister agreed to convene it after leaders across parties urged a physical survey, and the decision was welcomed across party lines.
    4. The State’s declared position: The Minister for School Education, who is also in charge of Shivamogga district, has said the State government will oppose the draft notification. A former Minister and Congress leader burnt a copy of the Kasturirangan report at a press conference in Tirthahalli.

    Why is the fear about existing forest rules rather than the ESA?

    1. A displaced village still without power: Uralagallu in Sagar taluk of Shivamogga district houses families displaced by the Linganamakki dam across the Sharavathi river in the 1960s. The village has roughly 50 to 56 families and a population of 150 to 200, with no proper road, school or primary health centre, its nearest bus stop about 10 km away, and no ambulance visit in recent years. It still has no electricity, because the Forest Department has repeatedly denied clearance for road and power-supply works.
    2. Children leave the village to study: A majority of parents there send their children to hostels or to relatives’ homes early. One resident’s two children stay about 50 km away at Mavinagundi, and villagers walk 10 km to Kanuru to catch a bus.
    3. Roads are blocked in conflict-prone stretches: At Byrapura in N.R. Pura taluk of Chikkamagaluru district, schoolchildren recently encountered a leopard on their way home, and stayed away from school for several days. Parents say a proper road would allow safer transport, and forest regulations continue to block it.
    4. Even the local government has no title: In Karimane village of Hosanagara taluk, large parts of the settlement including the gram panchayat building stand on forest land, leaving the panchayat office without an official khata, or title, and the community in administrative limbo.
    5. Unsettled claims are the real anxiety: Bagair hukum, or unauthorised, cultivators and people displaced by dam projects are yet to receive the compensatory land promised to them under existing rules, and they fear that an ESA in force would leave those claims unresolved indefinitely.

    What is the case for the notification?

    1. The rejected report is held to be the better one: Several environmentalists argue that the Kasturirangan report was a “diluted version” of the WGEEP report, which they consider better suited to conserving the Ghats with active local participation.
    2. The argument surfaces only after a disaster: Whenever landslips or flash floods strike Kerala or Kodagu, environmentalists blame policymakers for ignoring the WGEEP recommendations. The debate typically subsides within days, as routine concerns over access, amenities, roads and electricity take over.
    3. Much of the proposed area is already forest: An environmentalist based in Sagar taluk states that a major portion of the area proposed for the ESA in Karnataka is already notified forest, that the remainder is small, and that there should be no opposition to including it.
    4. The restrictions are said to be misread: The same view holds that people with vested interests are misleading the public with false information about the restrictions, that ordinary people have no reason to fear a ban on mining or on red-category industries, and that the push for organic farming benefits everyone.

    Challenges to the Western Ghats ESA notification

    1. A draft that never becomes a notification produces neither protection nor certainty: Each draft lapses and is reissued, so landowners cannot plan and the ecologically sensitive designation has no legal force in the interim. Eg. The proposal has now run through more than a decade of successive drafts without a single final notification issuing.
      The Fix: Fix a statutory outer limit within which a draft issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 must be finalised or formally withdrawn.
    2. ESA status does not stop the land use changes that do the most damage: Large hydel, transmission and road projects are cleared through separate forest and wildlife clearance processes that an ESA notification does not displace. Eg. The Athirappilly hydel project in Kerala’s Chalakudy basin has been proposed and revived repeatedly in a stretch the ecology panel placed in its highest sensitivity zone.
      The Fix: Write the prohibition on new hydel and mining leases into the notification itself, rather than leaving each project to a case-by-case clearance.
    3. Forest rights claims in the same landscape are unsettled: Restricting land use before individual and community claims are decided converts a pending claim into a permanent denial. Eg. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 requires gram sabha verification of every claim, and recognition remains incomplete across the Western Ghats States.
      The Fix: Settle pending claims before the final notification takes effect, and attach the gram sabha resolution to the boundary record for each village.
    4. Tighter protection without habitat management raises human-wildlife conflict: Restricting access and infrastructure inside a landscape does nothing about crop raiding and encounters on the forest edge, which is what residents experience daily. Eg. Kodagu and Hassan districts record repeated elephant crop damage and human casualties, and conflict compensation in Karnataka runs among the highest in the country.
      The Fix: Fund a dedicated conflict mitigation line inside the ESA framework, covering barriers, rapid response teams and time-bound ex gratia payment.

    Conclusion

    The dispute is no longer about whether the Western Ghats need protection. It is about who verifies the boundary, and on what evidence. A line drawn from remote sensing and contested for over a decade has delivered neither conservation on the ground nor certainty for the people living inside it, and each reissued draft resets the argument to where it began. The question that decides the outcome is whether Karnataka answers this draft with a completed ground survey or with another objection.

    Back2Basics: Western Ghats

    1. What it is: The Western Ghats is a chain of hills running parallel to India’s western coast, older than the Himalaya, and it intercepts the south-west monsoon to produce the heavy orographic rainfall of the west coast.
    2. Global recognition: It is one of the world’s recognised biodiversity hotspots, a designation given to regions with exceptional endemism and severe habitat loss.
    3. World Heritage status: UNESCO inscribed a serial property of 39 sites across the Western Ghats on the World Heritage List in 2012.
    4. Why endemism matters here: A large share of its amphibians, fish and flowering plants are found nowhere else, and species such as the lion-tailed macaque and the Nilgiri tahr are restricted to this range.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “Gadgil Committee Report’ and ‘Kasturirangan Committee Report’, sometimes seen in the news, are related to (a) constitutional reforms (b) Ganga Action Plan (c) linking of rivers (d) protection of Western Ghats”

  • National Biodiversity Authority disburses Rs. 5.68 Crore in Access and Benefit Sharing funds

    National Biodiversity Authority disburses Rs. 5.68 Crore in Access and Benefit Sharing funds

    Why in the News

    The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) disbursed Rs. 5.68 crore in Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) funds.

    Core facts

    1. Disbursing body: The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) released the funds.
    2. Amount: The verified headline figure is Rs. 5.68 crore, drawn from the release title.
    3. Mechanism: ABS returns a share of the commercial gains from biological resources to the communities and institutions that conserve them.
    4. Unverified detail: The recipient states, institutions and the per beneficiary split stated in the release body could not be verified this run. PRID 2304759.

    Static Context

    1. Biological Diversity Act, 2002: It gives effect to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). It created a three tier structure.
    2. Three tier structure: The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) sits at the national level. State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs) sit at the state level. Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) sit at the local body level.
    3. Access and Benefit Sharing: The principle flows from the Nagoya Protocol of 2010, a supplementary agreement to the CBD on fair and equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resources.
    4. Biopiracy check: The NBA regulates access to Indian biological resources by foreign entities. It clears Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) applications based on Indian biological material.
    5. 2023 amendment: The Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act, 2023 eased compliance for codified traditional knowledge and registered practitioners of Indian systems of medicine.

    Prelims angle

    The three tier NBA, SBB and BMC structure, the BMC role in ABS and the levy of collection fees, the Nagoya Protocol link, and the NBA gatekeeping of IPR applications are the testable static hooks.

    Mains angle

    GS Paper 3 (conservation, biodiversity governance). A question can assess whether the ABS mechanism delivers real incentives for community level conservation.

    “[2023] Consider the following statements:

    1. In India, the Biodiversity Management Committees are key to the realization of the objectives of the Nagoya Protocol.

    2. The Biodiversity Management Committees have important functions in determining access and benefit sharing, including the power to levy collection fees on the access of biological resources within its jurisdiction.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) Both 1 and 2

    (d) Neither 1 nor 2

    “[2012] How does the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) help in protecting the Indian agriculture?

    1. NBA checks the biopiracy and protects the indigenous and traditional genetic resources.

    2. NBA directly monitors and supervises the scientific research on genetic modification of crop plants.

    3. Application for Intellectual Property Rights related to genetic/biological resources cannot be made without approval of NBA.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 Only

    (b) 2 and 3 only

    (c) 1 and 3 only

    (d) 1, 2 and 3

  • NGT seeks Centre’s response on change in floodplain rules

    NGT seeks Centre’s response on change in floodplain rules

    Why in the News

    The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has issued notice to the Centre on a petition challenging an amendment to the rules governing the Ganga’s floodplains. The Jal Shakti Ministry issued the amendment earlier this month. It removed the “construction-free zone” tag on the Ganga’s floodplains. It also redefined what counts as a floodplain, replacing a single protected belt with three graded bands. The contest is over whether narrowing the protected area corrects a legal defect in the original rules or opens land that a hundred years of flood records show the river still claims.

    What is the River Ganga (Rejuvenation, Protection and Management) Authorities Order, 2016?

    1. A governance structure, not a pollution standard: The Order was notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to create a single chain of command for the Ganga. It replaced a scatter of separate authorities with one tiered structure.
    2. Five tiers from the Centre to the district: It set up the National Ganga Council, an Empowered Task Force, the National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG), State Ganga Committees and District Ganga Committees. The Council is chaired by the Prime Minister and the Task Force by the Union Jal Shakti Minister.
    3. NMCG holds the enforcement powers: The Order gave NMCG the standing of an authority able to issue binding directions to any person or body on the Ganga and its tributaries. Its directions carry the force of directions under the 1986 Act.
    4. It closed the floodplain to construction: The Order tagged the Ganga’s floodplains a construction-free zone. It fixed the extent of that floodplain largely by the once-in-100-year flood line.

    What is a floodplain and how is one delineated?

    1. A floodplain is the river’s own land: It is the flat ground beside a river channel that the river inundates when discharge exceeds the channel’s capacity, and it absorbs flood volume and recharges groundwater.
    2. Delineation uses a flood return period: A one-in-100-year flood is a discharge with a one per cent chance of being equalled or exceeded in any single year, and the line it reaches marks the outer edge of the mapped floodplain.

    What exactly does the amendment change?

    1. The active floodplain shrinks to a five-year line: The “active floodplain” is now the area inundated by a flood with a one-in-five-year return period. The 2016 line ran to the once-in-100-year flood.
    2. A regulatory zone replaces the ban on the middle belt: Land flooded once in five to 25 years falls into a “regulatory zone” where activity is permitted subject to conditions rather than prohibited.
    3. A warning zone covers the outer belt: Land flooded once in 25 to 100 years falls into a “warning zone”, the weakest of the three categories.
    4. NMCG notified the change: The amendment was notified by the Ministry’s National Mission for Clean Ganga and was reported on 11 August. The construction-free zone tag was dropped in the same instrument.

    Why does the petitioner say the change is unlawful?

    1. An environmentalist filed the challenge: The petition was filed by environmentalist Amit Kumar, who is not a State or a statutory body.
    2. The no-construction zone was altered without a fresh basis: The petition argues that the amendment alters the no-construction zone set out in the 2016 order. It says the “active floodplain” has been wrongly pegged to a one-in-five-year flood.
    3. The change contradicts settled orders: The petition contends that the amendment runs counter to earlier rulings of the Tribunal and of the High Courts. Those rulings had treated the floodplain as protected land.
    4. The route was an executive notification: The 2016 Order was made under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and has been amended by executive notification, without any legislative examination of the narrowed definition.

    Is a graded floodplain regime a legal correction or a dilution of protection?

    1. The government calls it a technical repair: A government official explained the change as “correcting a legal inconsistency” in the original order. A blanket construction-free tag over a 100-year flood line was internally inconsistent with the graded controls used elsewhere in river regulation.
    2. Graded zoning is the standard engineering practice: Flood plain zoning worldwide separates a prohibited core from regulated and warning belts, because a single prohibition over the full 100-year belt is unenforceable in a densely settled basin.
    3. The graded regime converts prohibition into permission: Most of the land between the five-year and the 100-year line moves from a ban to a conditional clearance. Discretion at the clearance stage replaces a rule that needed no discretion.
    4. Flood risk does not follow the average: A five-year line describes the routine flood, not the damaging one, and structures built between the five-year and 100-year line are exposed precisely in the years that matter.

    What does the Tribunal’s refusal to stay the amendment mean on the ground?

    1. The amendment remains in force during the challenge: The Tribunal did not stay the amendment, so the narrowed definition governs every clearance decision taken until the case is decided.
    2. The hearing produced notice, not relief: A Bench of the Chairperson and an Expert Member heard the matter on 19 August. It directed the Union government and other respondents to file their replies.
    3. The next date is two months away: The case has been listed for 27 October. Construction permitted in the interval will be complete or under way by then.
    4. Approvals granted meanwhile are hard to unwind: A structure raised on the strength of a valid clearance acquires equities that a later order rarely disturbs. Demolition after the fact is the remedy the Tribunal has historically been most reluctant to grant.

    Challenges to floodplain regulation in India

    1. India has no floodplain zoning law: A Model Flood Plain Zoning Bill was circulated to the States in 1975 and only a handful enacted it, so the country regulates floodplains through orders and court directions rather than statute. Eg. Manipur, Rajasthan and Uttarakhand enacted versions of the model bill. The large basin States did not. Fix. Enact a central framework law under Entry 56 of the Union List for inter-State rivers, leaving intra-State reaches to State legislation.
    2. Land is a State subject and floodplains are valuable: State governments resist zoning because the floodplain is often the last unbuilt land inside a growing city. Eg. Delhi’s Yamuna floodplain hosts a bus depot, a metro depot and event grounds built after clearances that were later questioned. Fix. Compensate States for foregone land value through a dedicated flood risk reduction transfer, so protection stops being a pure fiscal loss.
    3. Flood hazard maps are outdated or missing: Zoning cannot be enforced without a current, surveyed inundation line, and most basins are mapped on decades-old records. Eg. The Central Water Commission’s flood atlas work covers only part of the flood-prone area of 40 million hectares. Fix. Mandate a satellite-based inundation remapping cycle every five years, with the maps published as the legal basis for zoning.
    4. Definitions conflict across agencies: Revenue records, irrigation departments and pollution boards each use a different boundary for the same riverbank, so an approval from one is defended against an objection from another. Eg. Riverbed land recorded as revenue land in State records is routinely leased for farming and then built upon. Fix. Fix one notified inundation line per reach as binding on every department, with revenue entries corrected to match it.
    5. Enforcement rests on understaffed boards: State pollution control boards carry the monitoring duty without field staff to patrol hundreds of kilometres of riverbank. Eg. The Tribunal has repeatedly pulled up State boards for filing identical status reports without site inspection. Fix. Transfer routine floodplain patrolling to district administrations with a published monthly encroachment return.
    6. Rules change faster than the river: A protected belt created by executive order can be narrowed by another executive order, so investment and enforcement both discount the rule’s durability. Eg. The construction-free zone survived nine years before this amendment removed it. Fix. Require that any dilution of a notified ecological limit be preceded by a published scientific justification and a public objection window.

    Conclusion

    The Ganga’s floodplain has been redefined from a single protected belt fixed at the 100-year flood line to three graded bands whose innermost core is set at a five-year flood. The amendment stands notified and unstayed, so it governs clearances now. The Union government and other respondents must file replies before the National Green Tribunal. The Tribunal has listed the matter for 27 October. Whether the change is a legal repair or a dilution will be settled at that hearing, and until then the narrowed line is the operative law.

    “[2016] Which of the following are the key features of ‘National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA)’?

    1. River basin is the unit of planning and management.

    2. It spearheads the river conservation efforts at the national level.

    3. One of the Chief Ministers of the States through which the Ganga flows becomes the Chairman of NGRBA on rotation basis.

    Select the correct answer using the code given below.

    (a) 1 and 2 only

    (b) 2 and 3 only

    (c) 1 and 3 only

    (d) 1, 2 and 3

  • Has the Supreme Court drifted from its environmental legacy?

    Why in the News

    A recent reflection has revisited the Supreme Court’s four-decade legacy of environmental jurisprudence. This raises questions over whether recent rulings are departing from its established environmental doctrines.

    What are the core doctrines of Indian environmental law?

    1. Absolute liability: An enterprise engaged in a hazardous activity is fully liable for harm, established after the Bhopal disaster.
    2. Polluter pays principle: The cost of pollution and remediation falls on the polluter.
    3. Precautionary principle: Lack of scientific certainty is no reason to defer measures against environmental harm.
    4. Public trust doctrine: The state holds natural resources as a trustee for the public.

    Where do these doctrines come from constitutionally?

    1. Article 48A: Directs the state to protect and improve the environment.
    2. Article 51A(g): Makes environmental protection a fundamental duty of citizens.
    3. 42nd Amendment, 1976: Inserted both provisions into the Constitution.
    4. Article 21: Read to include the right to a clean environment.

    What is the tension?

    1. Development pull: Recent rulings are read as leaning toward clearing infrastructure over precaution.
    2. Amnesty concern: Environmental amnesty for past violations is questioned as inconsistent with the polluter pays principle.
    3. Consistency critique: The Court is charged with applying its own doctrines unevenly across cases.

    Conclusion

    The central claim is that the Court built strong environmental doctrine but now applies it inconsistently. What remains unresolved is whether the Court restores precaution as the default in development disputes.

    Back2Basics

    Foundational Context: environmental jurisprudence in India

    1. Judicial origin: Much of Indian environmental law is judge-made through public interest litigation.
    2. Landmark cases: M.C. Mehta cases, Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum, and the Bhopal litigation shaped the doctrines.
    3. Sustainable development: The Court fused environmental protection with development as a constitutional balance.
    4. Expansion of Article 21: The Supreme Court progressively interpreted the right to life to include the right to a clean, healthy and pollution-free environment

    Landmark Cases

    1. M.C. Mehta cases: Developed principles of environmental liability and protection.
    2. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996): Recognised the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle as essential features of sustainable development.
    3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak, 1987): Established the doctrine of absolute liability.
    4. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997): Strengthened the public trust doctrine.

    PYQ Relevance

    “[2010] Sustainable development is described as the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In this perspective, inherently the concept of sustainable development is intertwined with which of the following concepts?

    (a) Social Justice and Empowerment

    (b) Inclusive Growth

    (c) Globalization

    (d) Carrying capacity

  • Western Ghats Eco-Sensitive Area notification remains deadlocked

    Why in News

    1. The Union Environment Ministry’s expert committee on Western Ghats Ecologically Sensitive Areas has had its tenure extended to July 2027.
    2. The 2024 draft notification covering 56,825 sq km remains unresolved across six states.

    Key Highlights

    1. Panel extension: Expert committee tenure extended to July 2027.
    2. Draft notification scope: 2024 draft notification covers 56,825 sq km across six states.
    3. Background dispute: The unresolved notification continues the divergence between the Gadgil Committee Report and the Kasturirangan Committee Report on how much of the Western Ghats should fall under Eco-Sensitive Area status.

    What is an Eco-Sensitive Area (ESA)?

    • Ecologically fragile areas notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
    • Act as “shock absorbers” around protected ecosystems by regulating developmental activities.
    • Aim to balance environmental conservation with sustainable development.

    Gadgil Committee vs Kasturirangan Committee

    Gadgil Committee (Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, 2011)

    • Recommended about 64% of the Western Ghats as ESA.
    • Favoured strict conservation with a bottom-up, community-led approach.
    • Proposed a ban on mining, quarrying and highly polluting industries in sensitive zones.
    • Emphasised Gram Sabha participation in environmental governance.

    Kasturirangan Committee (High-Level Working Group, 2013)

    • Recommended about 37% of the Western Ghats (around 59,940 sq km) as ESA.
    • Used satellite imagery to identify ecologically sensitive landscapes.
    • Allowed greater flexibility for agriculture and human settlements.
    • Focused on balancing ecological protection with economic development.

    Significance of the Western Ghats

    • One of the world’s eight hottest biodiversity hotspots.
    • Recognised as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
    • Origin of major peninsular rivers including Godavari, Krishna, Kaveri and Periyar.
    • Plays a crucial role in regulating the South-West Monsoon.
    • Supports rich biodiversity with a high proportion of endemic flora and fauna.
    • Provides vital ecosystem services, including water security and climate regulation.

    [2016] ‘Gadgil Committee Report’ and ‘Kasturirangan Committee Report’, sometimes seen in the news, are related to

    (a) constitutional reforms

    (b) Ganga Action Plan

    (c) linking of rivers

    (d) protection of Western Ghats

    “[2014] With reference to ‘Eco-Sensitive Zones’, which of the following statements is/are correct?

    1. Eco-Sensitive Zones are the areas that are declared under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

    2. The purpose of the declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zones is to prohibit all kinds of human activities in those zones except agriculture.

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) Both 1 and 2

    (d) Neither 1 nor 2

  • Consider the following statements

    Consider the following statements :
    Once the Central Governmnent notifies an area as a ‘Community Reserve’
    1. The Chief Wildlife Warden of the State becomes the governing authority of such forest
    2. Hunting is not allowed in such area
    3. People of such area are allowed to collect non-timber forest produce
    4. People of such area are allowed traditional agricultural practices
    How many of the above statements are correct?

  • [5th June 2026] The Hindu OpED: Funding India’s climate future, a trillion-dollar question

    PYQ Relevance[UPSC 2022] Describe the major outcomes of the 26th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP26) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). What are the commitments made by India in this conference?Linkage: The PYQ tests understanding of India’s climate commitments and the policy mechanisms required to achieve them. The PYQ asks about India’s climate targets, while the article explains the climate-finance architecture needed to fund and implement those targets.

    Mentor’s Comment

    India’s climate finance challenge has come into sharp focus on World Environment Day amid striking estimates that the country requires nearly ₹162.5 trillion (about $2.5 trillion) by 2030 to meet its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), and around $10.1 trillion to achieve net-zero emissions by 2070. The issue has gained significance because India is no longer merely discussing climate action but is now confronting the financing architecture required to implement it at scale.

    Why is India’s climate finance requirement unprecedented?

    1. NDC Financing Requirement: India requires nearly ₹162.5 trillion (around $2.5 trillion) by 2030 to achieve its Nationally Determined Contributions.
    2. Net-Zero Financing Need: Achieving net-zero emissions by 2070 requires approximately $10.1 trillion.
    3. Scale of Challenge: The estimated requirement is nearly three times India’s current GDP.
    4. Investment Imperative: Climate finance must support mitigation, adaptation, resilient infrastructure, and low-carbon development simultaneously.

    How large is the financing gap in key emitting sectors?

    1. Sectoral Concentration: Steel, cement, power, and road transport account for more than half of India’s carbon emissions.
    2. Additional Capital Need: These four sectors alone require an additional $467 billion between 2022 and 2030.
    3. Annual Requirement: Equivalent to roughly $54 billion annually.
    4. GDP Share: Represents nearly 1.3% of GDP annually.
    5. Economic Viability Constraint: Green steel and green cement remain commercially challenging without policy support and regulatory incentives.
    6. Private Sector Limitation: Large-scale private investment remains difficult without de-risking mechanisms.

    Why is international climate finance insufficient?

    1. Developing Country Requirement: Developing economies require nearly $5-6 trillion for climate action by 2030.
    2. Unfulfilled Commitment: Developed countries promised $100 billion annually under climate finance commitments but failed to consistently meet the target.
    3. Baku NCQG Commitment: The New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) commits approximately $300 billion annually by 2035.
    4. Adequacy Concern: India considers this commitment insufficient relative to actual financing needs.
    5. RBI Assessment: RBI estimates India requires additional annual investment of at least 2.5% of GDP for green financing until 2030.
    6. Domestic Mobilisation Necessity: Most climate finance will need to be raised within India rather than relying on external support.

    What progress has India already made in climate finance?

    1. Green Debt Mobilisation: India issued $55.9 billion in green, social, sustainability, and sustainability-linked debt by the end of 2024.
    2. Rapid Growth: Represents a 186% increase since 2021.
    3. Green Bond Dominance: Green debt constituted approximately 83% of total sustainable debt issuance.
    4. Sectoral Allocation: Most funds flowed into clean energy and transport sectors.
    5. Sovereign Green Bonds: Government-issued sovereign green bonds worth approximately ₹477 billion helped establish market benchmarks.
    6. Investor Confidence: Sovereign issuance improved credibility and attracted long-term investors.

    Why is institutional architecture more important than funding availability?

    1. Instrument Availability: Green bonds, sovereign green bonds, blended finance, transition finance instruments, and Infrastructure Investment Trusts (InvITs) already exist.
    2. Missing Ecosystem: Absence of taxonomy, guarantee mechanisms, liquidity support, and regulatory incentives constrains deployment.
    3. Cost Differential: Green projects often face higher financing costs than conventional projects.
    4. Capital Deployment Challenge: The principal bottleneck lies in directing capital efficiently toward climate priorities.
    5. Institutional Deficit: Finance exists but deployment architecture remains underdeveloped.

    How has the RBI emerged as a major climate-finance regulator?

    1. Climate Risk Directions: RBI issued Climate Finance and Management of Climate Risks Directions for commercial banks and Small Finance Banks in 2025.
    2. Risk Integration: Requires climate risks to be integrated into lending and risk-management practices.
    3. Priority Sector Lending Recognition: Eligible green activities can qualify under Priority Sector Lending (PSL).
    4. Sovereign Green Bond Recognition: Investments in sovereign green bonds receive regulatory recognition.
    5. Financial Mainstreaming: Climate considerations are being embedded into core banking operations.

    Why is Priority Sector Lending becoming a climate-finance lever?

    1. PSL Scale: Banks must ensure approximately ₹4,000 crore of PSL lending for every ₹10,000 crore of loans.
    2. Credit Reallocation Potential: Enables large-scale redirection of credit toward green sectors.
    3. Regulatory Leverage: Provides a powerful mechanism to channel finance into climate-sensitive activities.
    4. Adaptation Financing Opportunity: Climate adaptation projects can be incorporated into PSL frameworks.

    What additional regulatory reforms has the RBI proposed?

    1. Green Bond Collateralisation: Proposal to accept sovereign green bonds as collateral with greater flexibility.
    2. Reserve Requirement Adjustments: Scope for modifying reserve requirements to support green credit.
    3. Differentiated Capital Requirements: Lower capital requirements for green lending and higher requirements for carbon-intensive lending.
    4. Climate Risk Pricing: Encourages incorporation of climate risks into financial decision-making.
    5. Climate Stress Testing: Supports comprehensive climate stress-testing frameworks for banks.
    6. Regulatory Sandbox: Sustainable finance initiatives have been included within RBI’s regulatory sandbox.
    7. Climate Risk Information System: Development of systems for climate-related financial risk assessment.

    Why is a Climate Finance Taxonomy critical?

    1. Definition Standardisation: Establishes a legal and technical definition of what qualifies as “green”.
    2. Investor Confidence: Enables verification of sustainable investments.
    3. Greenwashing Prevention: Reduces misleading sustainability claims.
    4. PSL Classification Support: Improves classification of green activities under banking regulations.
    5. International Compatibility: Facilitates participation of global investors.
    6. Policy Foundation: Forms the basis of the broader climate-finance ecosystem.

    How can blended finance unlock private capital?

    1. Blended Finance Model: Uses public or concessional capital to de-risk private investment.
    2. Capital Mobilisation Effect: A first-loss guarantee of $100 million can unlock $500 million to $1 billion in private investment.
    3. Target Sectors: Solar energy, offshore wind, green hydrogen, climate-resilient agriculture, and resilient infrastructure.
    4. Risk Absorption: Public finance absorbs initial losses that private investors are unwilling to bear.
    5. Investment Multiplier: Generates substantially larger private-sector participation.

    Why is climate adaptation finance the most neglected area?

    1. Adaptation Deficit: Climate adaptation receives significantly less attention than mitigation.
    2. State-Level Responsibility: Adaptation programmes are largely implemented by states.
    3. Examples of Adaptation: Drought-proofing in Vidarbha and spring rejuvenation in Himalayan regions.
    4. State Capacity Constraint: States often lack borrowing power and institutional capacity to access international climate finance.
    5. Federal Finance Gap: Climate finance architecture remains insufficiently aligned with India’s federal structure.

    What reforms are necessary to close India’s climate finance gap?

    1. Climate Finance Taxonomy
      1. Classification Framework: Finalises nationally accepted definitions of green activities.
      2. Investment Clarity: Facilitates investment flows and prevents greenwashing
    2. RBI-Led Green Finance Regulation
      1. Capital Incentives: Introduces differentiated capital requirements.
      2. Mandatory Stress Testing: Embeds climate risk assessment into banking supervision.
      3. Expanded PSL: Includes climate adaptation alongside mitigation.
    3. State Climate Finance Facility
      1. Sub-National Financing: Enables states and municipalities to access green finance.
      2. Institutional Support: Utilises Union Government, NABARD, and international sources.
    4. Expansion of Sovereign Green Bonds
      1. Market Deepening: Strengthens domestic green bond markets.
      2. Foreign Capital Attraction: Encourages long-term international investment.
      3. SLR Integration: Embeds sovereign green bonds within statutory liquidity frameworks.

    Conclusion

    As the UNEP notes, the world faces a climate emergency but also a financing opportunity. For India to achieve its NDC targets by 2030 and net-zero by 2070, the challenge is not merely raising capital but building institutions that can channel finance at scale. A robust climate-finance architecture will be critical to translating ambition into action and ensuring sustainable growth.

  • Which one of the following Union Ministries implements the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

    Which one of the following Union Ministries implements the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety ?

  • In India, who is the Chairman of the National Water Resources Council

    In India, who is the Chairman of the National Water Resources Council ?

  • Where is the headquarters of Animal Welfare Board of India located

    Where is the headquarters of Animal Welfare Board of India located ?