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

Civilsdaily

Login

Type: National Parks/WS

  • Zones of worry

    Why in the News

    The seventh draft notification for an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) in the Kerala stretch of the Western Ghats proposes to bring 9,993.7 sq km across 131 villages under the regime. The Kerala government will reiterate a counter position confining the area to 8,590.69 sq km across 98 villages, excluding human habitations and agricultural land. The first draft, based on the report of the High Level Working Group, covered 123 revenue villages and was never finalised, and six further drafts have followed without settling the dispute. The window for filing objections to the seventh draft closed on 25 September. The disagreement is no longer about whether the Ghats need protection. It is about whether an ecologically sensitive line is drawn around ecology or around land use.

    What does the Ecologically Sensitive Area regime restrict?

    1. Purpose of the designation: Those framing the proposals state that the notification is intended to regulate activities that can damage fragile ecosystems, rather than to remove human presence from the landscape.
    2. What the draft prohibits: Mining, quarrying and sand mining are barred in the notified areas.
    3. What the draft leaves untouched: There are no restrictions on the repair, extension or renovation of existing residential houses, or on changes in ownership of land.
    4. The basis of the classification: The zonation rests on ecological sensitivity, the approach proposed by the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel.

    How far apart are the Centre’s draft and Kerala’s counter position?

    1. The area proposed: The seventh draft, issued on 27 July, covers 9,993.7 sq km across 131 villages in Kerala.
    2. The forest and non forest split: Of that area, 9,107 sq km is forest and 886.7 sq km is non forest.
    3. The State’s figure: Kerala will press for 8,590.69 sq km across 98 villages, with the ecologically sensitive areas confined to forests and leased forest plantations.
    4. The principle behind the State’s figure: Kerala argues that inhabited and cultivated landscapes should not be treated in the same manner as forests and other ecologically fragile areas. The demand reflects a position held by successive State governments across the political divide.

    Why do high range residents read the notification as a threat to their land?

    1. Origin of the settlements: The Grow More Food campaign of the erstwhile Travancore administration in the early 1940s encouraged migration into the high ranges. Families moved in to farm, and habitations turned large stretches of the mountains into agricultural landscapes.
    2. Damage done by uncertainty rather than by rules: After 2013 people began cutting down trees for fear they would not be able to use their land later. Farmlands were abandoned and land prices fell.
    3. Effects already visible: The Melukavu panchayat president in Kottayam says the issue has affected access to loans and land transactions, and has told on the marriage prospects of young people in the region.
    4. The ecological rationale questioned: The president of the Rubber Producers’ Society at Edamaruku in Kottayam points out that the nearest forests lie about 30 km to the north and about 50 km to the south of the village proposed for inclusion.
    5. The jurisdictional fear: The chairperson of the Kerala Independent Farmers Association argues that inclusion takes a holding out of the jurisdiction of the State Revenue department and places it with the Central regime, so residents would have to seek Central clearance for almost every activity. The proposal in that reading creates two categories of residents, those inside the ESAs and those outside.

    How did the Gadgil report and the Kasturirangan review set the terms of the dispute?

    1. The original proposal: The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, chaired by Madhav Gadgil, proposed a comprehensive zonation of the Ghats based on ecological sensitivity.
    2. How it was received in the high ranges: The report generated fears that agriculture and development would be restricted, and that existing settlements could eventually face displacement.
    3. The review that followed: The Centre appointed a High Level Working Group chaired by K. Kasturirangan to review the Gadgil recommendations. Environmentalists hold that the group watered down the restrictions.
    4. The first draft and the stalemate after it: The first draft notification, based on the High Level Working Group report, proposed 123 revenue villages in Kerala, mainly in Idukki and Wayanad. Protests prevented a final notification and six more drafts followed.
    5. The State’s own committee: A committee appointed by the State government under Oommen V. Oommen recommended excluding inhabited areas, plantations and agricultural lands through physical verification and field surveys. It also proposed re fixing the ecologically sensitive areas using cadastral maps, which are plot level land records, approved by the Kerala State Biodiversity Board.

    What have conservationists and the panel’s own members said in reply?

    1. The fears called propaganda: The president of the Wayanad Prakruthi Samrakshana Samiti says apprehensions of restrictions on building houses and digging wells are baseless political propaganda pushed by vested interest groups.
    2. Existing law already protects forests: The same view holds that a host of laws, including the Forest Act and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, already protect forests, so classifying forest areas as ESAs adds nothing.
    3. What the Gadgil report asked for: A member of the panel states that the report recommended a shift to organic farming and never opposed farming. It opposed the pollution of water resources through chemical pesticides, called for non polluting industries, and placed no restrictions on local infrastructure development.
    4. Who was to decide: The panel’s approach was to give local communities a decisive role in determining how development should proceed in ecologically sensitive landscapes, in place of a blanket ban on local activity.
    5. The latest draft already concedes ground: The chairman of the State appointed committee notes that the current draft has excluded farmlands and plantations from the ESAs, which leaves the objection directed at fragile rocky land the high range communities do not own.

    How has the dispute reshaped mobilisation and politics in the high ranges?

    1. Idukki as the epicentre: Fifty one villages in Idukki figure in the latest draft, and all the grama sabhas there have passed resolutions urging the Union and State governments to exclude their villages from the regime.
    2. An organised church led agitation: The Idukki Diocese of the Syro Malabar Church has been at the forefront of the anti ESA agitation since 2013, and the High Range Samrakshana Samiti under its patronage has organised protests across the high ranges. The Church’s position is that human habitations and farmlands must be fully excluded.
    3. The electoral consequence: In the 2014 Lok Sabha election the Samiti’s legal adviser, standing as an Independent backed by the Left Democratic Front (LDF), won the Idukki seat, long considered a Congress citadel.
    4. The heritage listing drawn in: The State vice president of the All India Kisan Sabha, the farmers’ wing of the Communist Party of India, has demanded that the Western Ghats be removed from UNESCO World Heritage Site status, which requires more stringent conservation. The counter cited is that UNESCO guidelines themselves require exclusion of an area where a project disrupts the livelihood or daily life of the local population.

    Can protection and settlement be mapped on the same hills?

    1. The question conservationists are asking: For conservationists the central issue is whether human activity in the Western Ghats can continue without weakening ecological safeguards.
    2. The question residents are asking: For residents the distinction between forest and settlement is critical, because their houses, farms and livelihoods are embedded in the same landscape that conservation policy seeks to protect.
    3. The same hills read two ways: The same slopes are treated as a fragile ecological system requiring protection and as a lived landscape of farms, homes and communities built over generations. The disagreement has simmered through more than a decade of committees, consultations and draft notifications.

    Conclusion

    Seven drafts have narrowed the area and settled nothing. The Centre and the State are not arguing about protection; they are arguing about the unit the line is drawn on, and each successive draft has restated that disagreement rather than resolved it. With the objection window now shut, the decision point is whether the Centre finalises the notification on its own mapping or reopens the plot level verification the State’s committee asked for.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[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 Answer: (d)”

  • Research team documents 3,261 flowering plant species in Agasthyamalai reserve

    Why in the News

    A research team at the Jawaharlal Nehru Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute (JNTBGRI), Thiruvananthapuram, has compiled the first comprehensive checklist of the flowering plants of the Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve (ABR). The checklist records 3,261 species, 26 sub species and 28 varieties. It has been published in the journal Plant Science Today. The work reaffirms the global significance of the Western Ghats as a biodiversity hotspot. It also states a claim that follows from the data, that protection of the range requires focussed, region specific strategies rather than a uniform one.

    What does the checklist actually record?

    1. Taxa documented: The team documented 3,261 species, 26 sub species and 28 varieties in the Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve.
    2. Taxonomic spread: Those taxa belong to 1,139 genera across 190 families.
    3. Standing claim it supports: The scale of the reserve’s floral wealth upholds its position as one of the most significant centres of angiosperm diversity and endemism in the Indian subcontinent.
    4. Publication: The checklist has been published in Plant Science Today as the Comprehensive checklist of the flowering plants of the Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve, South India.

    Which families dominate the reserve’s flora?

    1. Fabaceae leads: The legume family Fabaceae is the most species rich in the reserve with 349 taxa.
    2. Rubiaceae: The coffee family Rubiaceae follows with 194 taxa.
    3. Poaceae: The grass family Poaceae records 193 taxa.
    4. Orchidaceae: The orchid family Orchidaceae records 168 taxa, and Paphiopedilum druryi, an orchid endemic to Agasthyamalai, sits within it.

    What does the endemism pattern show?

    1. Share endemic to India: A remarkably high level of endemism was recorded, with 1,018 taxa, or 31.2 per cent of the total, endemic to India.
    2. Narrow range endemics: That figure includes 245 steno endemic taxa, meaning taxa confined to highly specialised habitats within a very small range.
    3. What narrow endemism implies: A taxon restricted to one specialised habitat cannot relocate when that habitat is altered, so the loss of a single slope or stream margin can remove it entirely.

    What do the shared taxa say about the reserve’s biogeography?

    1. Affinity with Sri Lanka: The flora shows a strong biogeographic affinity with Sri Lanka, with the two regions sharing 347 taxa.
    2. Explanations offered: The reasons range from historical land connections during periods of lower sea level, to a shared Gondwanan history, to long term climatic similarities.
    3. A transatlantic element: 102 taxa display affinity with tropical American flora.
    4. How that is explained: That pattern possibly reflects long distance dispersal events, or naturalisation after introduction by humans.

    Why does a region specific checklist matter for conservation?

    1. Baseline for protection: A complete inventory establishes what exists before change is measured, which is the precondition for any claim that a species has been lost.
    2. Fragility of the landscape: The hill systems and vegetation of the reserve constitute a biologically unique yet ecologically fragile landscape.
    3. Administrative spread: The reserve is spread over Keralam and Tamil Nadu, so any protection strategy has to work across two State administrations.
    4. Position among reserves: The ABR is one of four biosphere reserves in south India, which places the checklist within a comparable set rather than as an isolated record.

    Challenges to conserving the Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve

    1. Fragmentation of the habitat: Plantation estates, roads and reservoirs cut continuous forest into blocks and isolate the populations of narrow range plants. Eg. Tea and cardamom estates in the Agasthyamalai landscape sit between the protected blocks of the reserve.
      The Fix: Notify and restore the identified corridor stretches between the reserve’s blocks as eco restoration zones under the State forest working plans.
    2. Invasive species displacement: Introduced plants colonise disturbed ground and crowd out the endemic understorey that the checklist records. Eg. Lantana camara and Mikania micrantha have spread widely through Western Ghats forest margins.
      The Fix: Fund a scheduled removal and native replanting cycle at forest edges, with monitoring keyed to the checklist’s endemic taxa.
    3. Collection pressure on high value taxa: Orchids and medicinal plants with narrow ranges face extraction for horticulture and for the herbal trade. Eg. Paphiopedilum druryi, endemic to Agasthyamalai, has been depleted by collection from the wild.
      The Fix: Place the steno endemic taxa on the State’s restricted collection list and pair it with nursery propagation at JNTBGRI to supply legitimate demand.
    4. Split administration across two States: A single ecological unit managed by two State forest departments produces divergent rules on the same slope. Eg. The reserve is spread over Keralam and Tamil Nadu with separate working plans on each side.
      The Fix: Constitute a standing joint management committee for the reserve with a common monitoring protocol and a shared annual report.
    5. Climate driven upslope shift: Warming pushes montane species upward, and taxa already at the summit ranges have nowhere to move. Eg. Shola grassland systems in the higher Western Ghats are already recording shifts in species composition.
      The Fix: Establish permanent altitudinal monitoring plots along the reserve’s elevation gradient, so range shifts are detected against the new baseline rather than inferred later.

    Conclusion

    The reserve now has a documented floristic baseline where it previously had none. The value of that baseline is that endemism can be located precisely, down to taxa confined to single specialised habitats, which is what makes uniform protection inadequate for this landscape. The finding the checklist leaves unresolved is how two State administrations manage one ecological unit against a single standard. What follows is whether the endemic taxa the list identifies are translated into a protected species schedule and a monitoring cycle.

    Back2Basics: Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve

    1. Designation: It was designated a biosphere reserve in 2001 and was added to the UNESCO World Network of Biosphere Reserves in 2016.
    2. Location: It lies in the southern Western Ghats across Keralam and Tamil Nadu, and takes its name from the Agasthyamalai peak.
    3. Constituent protected areas: It includes Neyyar, Peppara and Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuaries and the Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve.
    4. Cultural association: The Kani tribal community inhabits the landscape and its knowledge of the plant Trichopus zeylanicus produced India’s first benefit sharing arrangement for traditional knowledge.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2019] Which of the following are in Agasthyamala Biosphere Reserve? (a) Neyyar, Peppara and Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuaries; and Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve (b) Mudumalai, Sathyamangalam and Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuaries; and Silent Valley National Park (c) Kaundinya, Gundla Brahme-swaram and Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuaries; and Mukurthi National Park (d) Kawal and Sri Venkateswara Wildlife Sanctuaries; and Nagarjunasagar-Srisailam Tiger Reserve | Answer: (a)”

  • Botswana cheetah released in MP’s Gandhi Sagar park

    Why in the News

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

    What is Project Cheetah?

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

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

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

    What does the Kuno birth signify for the programme?

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

    Challenges to Project Cheetah

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

    Conclusion

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

    Back2Basics: Gandhi Sagar Wildlife Sanctuary

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

    Matching Previous Year Question

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

  • SC committee pulls up Assam government for inaction over mining activity near Kaziranga

    SC committee pulls up Assam government for inaction over mining activity near Kaziranga

    Why in the News

    The Central Empowered Committee (CEC), a body constituted by the Supreme Court to monitor compliance with its forest and wildlife orders, has held that the Assam government did not address mining in and around the Parkup Pahar Range with the seriousness it deserved. The Range is a declared wildlife sanctuary and a vital ecological corridor on the southern boundary of Kaziranga National Park. The finding follows the CEC’s own directions of 30 May 2025 to the Assam Chief Secretary, which required a comprehensive Watershed Drainage Analysis Report and quarterly status reports on action against reported violations. The Supreme Court had already restrained all mining along Kaziranga’s southern boundary by an order of 12 April 2019. The committee’s finding lands amid a separate controversy over a plan to reduce the Eco-Sensitive Zone of Kaziranga National Park, so the State is seeking a narrower buffer while existing court-ordered protections remain unimplemented.

    What is the Central Empowered Committee?

    1. A court appointed compliance body: The CEC was constituted by the Supreme Court to monitor and report on compliance with its orders in forest and wildlife matters, and to examine applications referred to it.
    2. What it produces: It examines complaints and applications, calls for records from State governments, and files reports and recommendations to the Supreme Court on which the Court then acts.
    3. How its directions reach a State: It writes directly to the State Chief Secretary with timelines and required submissions, and treats the absence of a submission as a compliance failure to be reported.

    What did the Right to Information trail reveal?

    1. The application: A Right to Information (RTI) application was filed on 15 June by an environmental activist, seeking details of compliance with those directions.
    2. What was sought: It asked for copies of both submissions the directions had required of the State.
    3. The core document is missing: The CEC’s response of 17 July stated that it did not receive the comprehensive Watershed Drainage Analysis Report.
    4. Partial compliance only: The response said the quarterly status reports had been attached, and it does not show that the watershed exercise the CEC ordered was completed.
    5. The deadline had already passed: The CEC had fixed October 2025 as the deadline for submitting the watershed report.

    What does the earlier record show?

    1. The originating proceeding: The CEC recorded allegations of renewed mining in Parkup Pahar in the same report that carried those directions, filed on “Application No.1592 of 2024”.
    2. The standing court order: The Supreme Court’s order of 12 April 2019 restrained all mining and related activities along the southern boundary of Kaziranga, and throughout the catchments of rivers and streams originating in the Karbi Anglong hills and flowing into the park.
    3. The construction bar: The same order prohibited new construction on private lands forming part of nine identified animal corridors.
    4. Mining continued regardless: On 3 March the CEC wrote to the Assam Chief Secretary noting that mining and related activities had been going on “in some way on one pretext or the other”.
    5. The local authority’s conduct: The same letter recorded that the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (KAAC) was not presenting a holistic picture to the courts. The KAAC administers Karbi Anglong, the district that forms Kaziranga’s southern boundary.
    6. A six year old request remains unanswered: The CEC’s letter of 6 May 2021 specifically asked the State government to communicate the action taken to notify the animal corridors connecting the park, and no response was received. The catchment areas of the streams and rivers originating in the Karbi Anglong hills remain unidentified after more than six years.

    Why does the elephant reserve finding matter?

    1. The area is doubly protected: The Parkup Pahar Range is both a declared wildlife sanctuary and a vital ecological corridor linking the park to the Karbi Anglong hills.
    2. The reserve covers both landscapes: The Karbi Anglong Elephant Reserve covers Karbi Anglong and Kaziranga National Park, so the mining sits inside a notified elephant reserve rather than beside one.
    3. Documented damage: The panel pointed to areas of the reserve ravaged by large-scale mining, and to the death of several elephants due to conflicts with humans.
    4. The leases themselves are questioned: The CEC asked how mining leases around Borjuri could have been sanctioned at all, given that the area forms part of the elephant reserve.
    5. The administering council is faulted directly: The CEC recorded that the KAAC “seems oblivious of all these notifications and is not conscious of the measures that need to be taken to protect the ecology and wildlife of the area”.
    6. The corridor system is the stake: Animal corridors are what allow a population to move between the park and the hills, so an unnotified corridor is legally open to the construction the 2019 order sought to bar.

    Challenges to enforcing the Central Empowered Committee’s directions

    1. The committee has no independent enforcement power: The CEC reports and recommends, and only the Supreme Court can compel a State, so a State that misses a deadline faces no immediate consequence. Eg. The October 2025 watershed report deadline passed without the report and without penalty. Fix. Attach a default consequence to a missed CEC deadline, such as automatic suspension of fresh mineral concessions in the area concerned until the submission is filed.
    2. Autonomous councils sit outside the reporting chain: Sixth Schedule councils administer land and minor minerals in their areas, and directions addressed to the State Chief Secretary do not bind them directly. Eg. The National Green Tribunal’s 2014 ban on rat-hole coal mining in Meghalaya was directed at the State government, while the land it covered is administered by Sixth Schedule district councils. Fix. Make the autonomous council a named respondent in compliance proceedings covering its area, with its own filing obligation.
    3. Corridor notification is discretionary in practice: Corridors are identified in reports and remain unnotified, so no legal restriction attaches to the land inside them. Eg. Nine animal corridors around Kaziranga identified in 2019 remain unnotified. Fix. Set a statutory deadline after identification, on the expiry of which the corridor stands provisionally notified pending State action.
    4. Baseline studies are the first casualty of delay: Watershed and catchment mapping is expensive and slow, and its absence makes every subsequent violation hard to establish. Eg. The catchment areas of streams flowing into the park remain unidentified after more than six years. Fix. Fund catchment mapping from the Compensatory Afforestation Fund and commission it through a central technical agency rather than the defaulting State.
    5. Compliance is monitored through citizen requests: The gap in this case surfaced through a private RTI application rather than through a compliance dashboard. Eg. The missing watershed report was revealed by an activist’s application of 15 June. Fix. Publish CEC directions and their compliance status on a public portal, so a lapsed deadline is visible without an application.

    Conclusion

    The Central Empowered Committee has reiterated that its earlier recommendations remain unimplemented and has asked the Assam government to ensure speedy implementation of all of them, and to immediately notify the nine identified animal corridors. The current status is that the watershed report is outstanding, the corridors are unnotified, and mining leases inside the Karbi Anglong Elephant Reserve remain unexplained. The next milestone is the State’s response on the corridor notification and the watershed exercise, alongside the separate decision on the proposed reduction of Kaziranga’s Eco-Sensitive Zone. The case turns on compliance rather than on the adequacy of the law, since the restraining order and the protected area notifications already exist.

    “[2026] With reference to Madhav National Park, which of the following statements is/are correct?

    1. It was declared a Tiger Reserve in India in 2025.

    2. Sakhya Sagar, which is designated as a Ramsar Site, is situated within this National Park.

    3. Its area is shared between Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 1 and 2

    (c) 2 and 3

    (d) 3 only

  • Supreme Court orders a time bound eviction framework for Agasthyamalai encroachments

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has held that clearing encroachments inside the protected areas of the Agasthyamalai landscape requires a structured, time bound and closely monitored framework. Encroachments have survived decades of directions from the Madras High Court and the top court, so the Court has shifted from ordering eviction to removing the benefits that keep illegal occupation viable. The Court also raised the option of using paramilitary forces to carry out the evictions.

    What is the Central Empowered Committee?

    1. About: The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) is a body that examines forest and wildlife compliance matters and reports its findings and recommendations directly to the Supreme Court.
    2. Mandate in this case: The Court directed it last year to survey the entire Agasthyamalai landscape and identify every non forestry activity running contrary to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
    3. Output: It submitted an interim report carrying division wise findings and recommended a time bound, division wise encroachment eviction plan.

    What did the Central Empowered Committee find on the ground?

    1. Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary: An area of 427.40 hectares stands encroached, with 237.09 hectares caught in litigation. Verified maps of the reserve forest are not available.
    2. Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve: As per official records of 2020, around 4,595 individuals are encroaching upon 5,071.27 hectares of reserved forest land.
    3. Nature of the occupation: The encroachments there are old, with many holdings under permanent cultivation of silk cotton, cardamom and beans.
    4. Structures inside forest land: A total of 116 government and public utility structures have been constructed inside forest lands without prior approval.
    5. Encroachers on the government payroll: A total of 118 individuals listed as encroachers were identified as serving or retired government employees, including personnel from the Army, the Police, the Forest Department and other State departments.
    6. Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve: The total extent of encroachment is 10.16 hectares by 998 families.

    Why does encroachment in Srivilliputhur-Megamalai carry consequences beyond the forest boundary?

    1. Upper catchment function: The Committee recorded the reserve as one of the most ecologically vulnerable areas because it forms the upper catchment of the Vaigai river.
    2. Downstream dependence: The Vaigai is a critical water source for five downstream districts, so degradation of the catchment transfers the cost to users outside the forest.
    3. Permanent cultivation: Standing plantation crops convert a temporary trespass into a settled land use that resists seasonal eviction.
    4. Enforcement record: Despite clear orders from the Madras High Court to remove encroachments, no significant progress has been made so far.

    What did Tamil Nadu offer in its defence?

    1. Detailed affidavit: The State filed an affidavit listing the steps its authorities had already taken against encroachment.
    2. Resistance on the ground: It acknowledged resistance from encroachers as a live obstacle to eviction drives.
    3. Pending litigation: It cited ongoing court cases that block action on specific parcels.
    4. Social profile of encroachers: It stated that many encroachers were landless and drawn from economically weaker sections.
    5. Law and order risk: The Committee separately recorded that law and order problems arose whenever the Forest Department attempted evictions, making a joint effort necessary.

    Can the difficulty of rehabilitation justify indefinite postponement of eviction?

    1. The Court’s acceptance: The Bench accepted that the complexity of the rehabilitation task is real and cannot be understated.
    2. The limit it set: That complexity cannot serve as a perpetual justification for the indefinite postponement of legally mandated eviction and restoration measures.
    3. What the two positions expose: The State’s constraint is genuine and its cost falls on the forest, so every year of delay converts an unlawful occupation into a settled claim.
    4. The shift in remedy: The Court moved from repeating an eviction order that had failed for decades to withdrawing the entitlements that make continued occupation rational.

    What has the Supreme Court directed?

    1. Action against government servants: Disciplinary and legal action must be initiated against all 118 identified government servants found to be encroachers.
    2. Moratorium on state benefits: A blanket moratorium was sought on the extension of welfare schemes, public utilities, transport facilities, electricity supply and infrastructure support within encroached forest areas, so that illegal occupation is neither incentivised nor legitimised.
    3. Freeze on new activity: A complete prohibition was ordered on the approval or commencement of any new non forestry activity within Agasthyamalai.
    4. A monitored framework: The matter requires a structured, time bound and closely monitored framework rather than periodic directions.
    5. Force option: The Court went as far as to suggest using the paramilitary to evict the encroachers and protect the ecologically sensitive region.

    Why has the political economy of eviction defeated three decades of orders?

    1. Benefits without title: Welfare schemes, electricity and transport reaching encroached parcels signalled state acceptance, which is precisely what the moratorium now targets.
    2. Enforcers as beneficiaries: With 118 serving or retired government employees among the encroachers, including Forest Department personnel, the enforcing agency contained a section of the offenders.
    3. Numbers as leverage: Evicting 4,595 individuals in a single reserve converts a forest law question into a mass displacement question that no district administration will initiate alone.
    4. Electoral exposure: The newly formed coalition government in Tamil Nadu faces two major Dravidian parties in the Opposition that are likely to resist an eviction touching thousands of families.
    5. Restoration burden: Beyond eviction, the State carries the task of resettling and rehabilitating the displaced families and restoring the original forest cover.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court has accepted that a repeated eviction order is not a remedy when the State’s own benefit delivery keeps encroachment viable, so it has attacked the incentive rather than only the occupation. The directions now require disciplinary action against 118 government servants, a freeze on welfare and utility extension inside encroached forest, and a prohibition on fresh non forestry activity in Agasthyamalai. The State must now produce a division wise, time bound eviction and restoration plan while simultaneously resettling landless families it has itself described as economically weak. Whether the moratorium survives the political cost of enforcing it is the test the next hearing will apply.

    Protected Area Governance in India

    1. About: A protected area is a legally notified tract managed primarily for the conservation of wildlife and its habitat, with human use restricted by statute rather than by administrative discretion.
    2. Four statutory categories: The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 provides for National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, Conservation Reserves and Community Reserves, each with a different level of permitted human activity.
    3. Scale: India’s protected area network covers a little over 5 percent of the country’s geographical area, while recorded forest cover is close to a fifth of it.
    4. Tiger reserves: A tiger reserve is constituted with a core or Critical Tiger Habitat, kept inviolate, and a buffer zone allowing regulated coexistence.
    5. Diversion control: Any use of forest land for a non forest purpose requires prior central approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which is why the 116 unapproved structures in Agasthyamalai are themselves an offence.
    6. Judicial supervision: Forest governance in India has been supervised continuously by the Supreme Court since the 1996 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad proceedings, which extended statutory forest protection to all land recorded as forest.

    Laws and Rules Governing Forests and Wildlife in India

    1. Indian Forest Act, 1927: Provides for the constitution of reserved forests, protected forests and village forests, and defines forest offences and their penalties.
    2. Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: Establishes protected areas, prohibits hunting of scheduled species and regulates trade in wildlife articles.
    3. 2006 amendment: Created the National Tiger Conservation Authority and the statutory concept of Critical Tiger Habitat.
    4. 2022 amendment: Restructured the species schedules and gave effect to India’s obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
    5. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: Bars the dereservation of reserved forest and the use of forest land for non forest purposes without prior approval of the Union government.
    6. Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 2023: Renamed the 1980 Act and exempted specified categories of land and strategic projects from prior approval.
    7. Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006: Recognises individual and community forest rights of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers and provides the only lawful route for settling occupation claims.
    8. Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016: Governs the use of funds collected as compensatory afforestation and net present value from diverted forest land.
    9. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Provides the umbrella power under which eco sensitive zones around protected areas are notified.

    Key Facts about Protected Areas in India

    1. Project Tiger was launched in 1973 and Project Elephant in 1992.
    2. The National Tiger Conservation Authority and the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau are the two central bodies created under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and its amendments.
    3. Critical Tiger Habitat is notified under Section 38V of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 on the basis of scientific evidence.
    4. The Western Ghats were inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2012 under the natural criteria.
    5. Wildlife Week is observed from 2 to 8 October every year.
    6. India’s biosphere reserves follow the core, buffer and transition zoning of the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme.

    Back2Basics: The Agasthyamalai Landscape

    1. Location: It occupies the southern end of the Western Ghats, straddling the Tamil Nadu and Kerala border, and is named after the Agastyamalai peak.
    2. Designation: The Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve was designated in 2001 and was added to the UNESCO World Network of Biosphere Reserves in 2016.
    3. Protected areas on the Tamil Nadu side: Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve and Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary.
    4. Protected areas on the Kerala side: Neyyar, Peppara and Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuaries.
    5. Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve: Notified in 1988 as Tamil Nadu’s first tiger reserve, it is often called a river sanctuary for the number of streams rising within it.
    6. Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve: Notified in 2021 as Tamil Nadu’s fifth tiger reserve, it forms the upper catchment of the Vaigai river.
    7. Species: The landscape holds the endemic lion tailed macaque, the Nilgiri tahr and the Nilgiri langur, alongside tiger and elephant populations.
    8. Communities: The Kani tribal community lives in the landscape and is associated with the traditional knowledge of the Arogyapacha plant.

    Challenges in Protected Area Management in India

    1. Encroachment and regularisation pressure: Long standing occupation acquires political protection and becomes practically irreversible. e.g. the 427.40 hectares encroached in Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary, of which 237.09 hectares sit in litigation.
    2. Unauthorised construction inside forest land: Public agencies themselves build without the prior approval the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 requires. e.g. the 116 government and public utility structures recorded inside Agasthyamalai forest land.
    3. Linear infrastructure fragmentation: Roads and railway lines cut habitat into blocks and raise animal mortality. e.g. animal deaths on the national highway running through Kaziranga National Park during the annual Brahmaputra floods.
    4. Human wildlife conflict: Crop and life losses on the periphery erode local support for strict protection. e.g. repeated elephant deaths on the Madukkarai railway stretch near Coimbatore.
    5. Rights settlement conflicting with eviction: Claims under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and eviction drives run on separate tracks with no sequencing. e.g. the Supreme Court’s February 2019 order in Wildlife First v Union of India directing eviction of rejected claimants, which was stayed within weeks.
    6. Invasive species: Alien plants suppress native fodder and degrade grazing habitat. e.g. the spread of Lantana camara and Senna spectabilis across Bandipur and Wayanad.
    7. Frontline capacity deficit: Vacancies and weak equipment leave beat level protection thin. e.g. the Forest Department in Agasthyamalai being unable to conduct evictions without a joint force because of law and order risk.

    Way Forward

    1. Division wise time bound plan: Adopt the Committee’s recommendation of a division wise eviction schedule with named officers, fixed dates and monthly reporting to the Court.
    2. Sequence rights settlement before eviction: Complete the disposal of individual and community claims under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 in each division first, so eviction proceeds only against occupation that has no legal basis.
    3. Rehabilitation package before displacement: Notify a resettlement package with alternative land, housing and livelihood support before any eviction of landless families, on the pattern of the voluntary village relocation model used in tiger reserves.
    4. Departmental accountability: Complete disciplinary proceedings against the 118 serving and retired government employees within a fixed period and publish the outcome.
    5. Verified cadastral mapping: Prepare and publish verified maps of the reserve forest boundaries of Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary using satellite imagery, since the absence of maps is itself an enabler of encroachment.
    6. Utility linkage audit: Audit every electricity connection, road and welfare scheme extended into forest parcels and terminate those inside notified boundaries.
    7. Catchment restoration: Fund assisted natural regeneration of the vacated Vaigai upper catchment through the Compensatory Afforestation Fund, with downstream district water users as monitored stakeholders.

    “[2020] Among the following Tiger Reserves, which one has the largest area under “Critical Tiger Habitat”?

    (a) Corbett

    (b) Ranthambore

    (c) Nagarjunsagar-Srisailam

    (d) Sunderbans

  • Why Adivasis are resisting the Ken-Betwa river-linking project

    Why in the News

    Construction on the Daudhan dam across the Ken river in Madhya Pradesh’s Bundelkhand region is advancing while 22 villages in Panna and Chhatarpur districts face displacement. The project is designed to move water to 13 water stressed districts, and the households paying for that transfer are largely Gond Adivasi families whose forest based livelihoods and absence of recorded land title place them outside the compensation package built for the transfer. A protest movement led by Adivasi women has been running since 2022 and drew national attention in April and July 2026.

    What is the Ken Betwa river linking project?

    1. What it does: It transfers water described as surplus from the Ken river to the Betwa river through a canal, for irrigation and drinking water in Bundelkhand.
    2. Approval: The Union Cabinet approved the interlink in 2021.
    3. The canal: A 231 km long canal carries the transferred water between the two rivers.
    4. The dam: The Daudhan dam, built across the Ken inside the Panna landscape, is the main structure of the project.
    5. The beneficiary area: Water stressed districts of Bundelkhand, a region spanning 13 districts across Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.
    6. Its status in policy: It is the first link to be taken up for implementation under the national river interlinking programme.

    What is a patta?

    1. What it is: A document of recorded title or of a recognised right over land, issued by the revenue or forest administration.
    2. Why it decides everything here: Compensation for acquired land is paid per acre of titled land, so a family cultivating or using land without a patta has no claim to that component.

    What is the Forest Advisory Committee?

    1. What it is: The statutory committee under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 that advises the Union government on proposals to divert forest land for non forest use.
    2. Its role here: Its 2017 record carries the detailed project report’s estimate of the tree felling the project requires.

    What is the Chita Aandolan?

    1. What it is: A symbolic pyre protest in which affected villagers lie on funeral pyres to signal that displacement amounts to the end of their life in the place.
    2. Who leads it: It has been led by Adivasi women of the affected villages and has run since 2022.

    What is minor forest produce?

    1. What it is: Non timber produce of plant origin gathered from forests, including mahua flowers, tendu leaves, fruits, resins and seeds.
    2. Why it is the livelihood question: Households in the affected villages meet their cash and food needs by collecting charwa, mahua, tendu leaves and guli golanda, none of which is valued in a land based compensation formula.

    What are the numbers behind the displacement?

    1. Villages submerged: 10 villages, including Daudhan, will be submerged by the reservoir.
    2. Villages displaced for compensatory forest: Because the project falls within the Panna Tiger Reserve, the people of another 12 villages will be displaced to offset the loss of forest area.
    3. Total affected: 22 villages across Panna and Chhatarpur districts in all.
    4. Population at the dam site: Around 700 people live in Daudhan village, next to which construction is under way.
    5. A village outside the submergence zone: Narauli, home to around 300 people and inhabited mostly by the Gond community, sits on a hill outside the submergence zone and faces the same loss of forest access.
    6. Cash compensation: Villagers who were 18 years or older in February 2024 are eligible for Rs 12.5 lakh each.
    7. Land compensation: Rs 5 lakh per acre of acquired land, payable only against titled land.
    8. Tree felling: A 2017 Forest Advisory Committee record carries the detailed project report estimate that 23 lakh trees will be felled. Some experts hold this to be an underestimate.
    9. Forest area submerged: The Daudhan dam submerges about 4,141 hectares of Panna Tiger Reserve land, within a wider rehabilitation process affecting about 1,913 families.

    How has the resistance developed?

    1. Start of the movement: The Chita Aandolan, or symbolic pyre protest, has been running since 2022.
    2. Preventive detention: The leader of the movement was placed under preventive detention in February 2026.
    3. Gathering at the magistrate’s office: About 200 villagers assembled at the sub divisional magistrate’s office demanding his immediate release.
    4. Police account of the escalation: The Superintendent of Police, Chhatarpur, stated that villagers later locked the office and threw stones at revenue officials and at a marriage procession, after which the police used minimum limited force.
    5. April protest: Affected Adivasi families staged a pyre protest in Chhatarpur on 10 April 2026, which brought the movement national attention.
    6. July protest: Villagers again lay on symbolic pyres and began a hunger strike at the Barnar river, with a protest on the banks on 18 July.
    7. Clearance of the site: After 15 days, the police cleared the protest site.
    8. Dialogue that did not occur: The movement’s leader stated that the administration had promised a dialogue with representatives of the Centre, and that no such conversation took place.

    Why was the project approved?

    1. The surplus framing: The Ken is treated as carrying water beyond its basin’s need, and the Betwa basin as deficient, which is the premise the transfer rests on.
    2. The regional case: Bundelkhand is among India’s driest and most impoverished regions and has a long record of drought and distress migration.
    3. The stated purpose: Irrigation and drinking water for the water stressed districts of the region.
    4. The two rivers: The Ken rises in the Vindhyan plateau, flows mainly through Madhya Pradesh and joins the Yamuna at Banda in Uttar Pradesh. The Betwa also rises in the Vindhyas, flows mainly through Uttar Pradesh and meets the Yamuna at Hamirpur.
    5. Why both matter locally: Both rivers run through the same region, so the transfer moves water within Bundelkhand rather than out of it.
    6. The contested premise: The surplus classification is an assessment of basin yield, and it is the step that decides how much displacement is treated as justified.

    Why does monetary compensation fail to reach the affected?

    1. The title requirement: Most Adivasi families in the affected villages do not hold patta land, so the per acre component does not apply to them.
    2. The cut off date: Eligibility for the cash component is fixed by age as on February 2024, which excludes those who reached adulthood after that date.
    3. Forest income is unvalued: Livelihoods built on mahua, charwa, tendu leaves and other forest produce are not converted into any head of compensation.
    4. Non submergence villages: Narauli is not in the submergence zone yet loses the forest that sustains it, a loss the acquisition framework does not recognise.
    5. Standing assets: Trees planted over a lifetime, including mango, ber, kaitha and teak, are counted as forest loss for the project and not as household assets.
    6. Process complaints: Houses in some villages were demolished without adequate notice or compensation, according to the movement’s leader.

    What is being lost beyond land and houses?

    1. Community: Households state that relocation breaks the kinship network in which they live, so the social relations of the village do not travel with the compensation.
    2. Language: Villagers raise the loss of their own dialect in a new settlement as a distinct concern.
    3. Sacred geography: Village deities and sites of worship are tied to the specific location and cannot be relocated with the households.
    4. Birthplace claim: Residents describe the land along the Ken as their janam bhoomi, or place of birth, and treat that as an independent ground of refusal.
    5. Forest as an economy: The forest edge supplies food, cash income and fuel, so its loss is an income shock and not only a cultural one.
    6. The collective demand: The stated position is a forest for their forest, land for their land, water for their water and a village for their village.

    Where does the water security case collide with the displacement cost?

    1. Two legitimate claims: Drinking water and irrigation for 13 water stressed districts is a genuine public purpose. So is the security of tenure of the households inside the submergence zone.
    2. Same region, different people: The transfer moves water within Bundelkhand, so the beneficiaries and the displaced belong to the same drought affected region.
    3. The forest multiplier: Because the reservoir sits inside a tiger reserve, forest loss must be offset, which displaces a second set of 12 villages that the dam itself would not have touched.
    4. Compensation without capacity: A cash package can settle a title based claim. It cannot replace a forest based livelihood or a functioning village.
    5. The dialogue gap: Even where the project moves ahead, an immediate and structured negotiation on resettlement and rehabilitation with an organised community is missing, as the organiser of the Narmada Bachao Andolan has recorded.
    6. Deferred rather than resolved: Building the dam settles the water question and shifts the livelihood question to a resettlement site that has not been defined.

    What has the administrative response been?

    1. Claim of redressal: The District Magistrate of Chhatarpur in April stated that most of the demands raised during the April protests had been addressed.
    2. Silence since: The current District Magistrate and the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Panchayat did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
    3. Revenue department: An email to the Principal Secretary of the Madhya Pradesh Revenue Department, which oversees land acquisition, drew no reply.
    4. Policing of protest: Villagers who went to Chhatarpur and Bijawar to press their demands state that the police responded with lathis.
    5. Official account of force: The Superintendent of Police stated that minimum limited force was used after the office was locked and stones were thrown.
    6. Field level messaging: Households report being told by the village revenue official that their land is going to submerge and that no further claim arises.

    What are the villagers demanding?

    1. April demands, first: A joint survey of land and houses by the administration and the affected families.
    2. April demands, second: Rs 25 lakh in compensation per individual.
    3. April demands, third: Four times the value of the land in compensation.
    4. April demands, fourth: A deadline of April 2026 for settlement of these claims.
    5. July demands, first: Three acres of land granted jointly in the names of the male and the female head of each family.
    6. July demands, second: A village for the displaced village, so that the community is resettled together rather than scattered.
    7. July demands, third: The same April 2026 deadline carried forward.
    8. The organising principle: The shift from cash amounts in April to land and village in July reflects a demand for restitution in kind rather than a higher price.

    Challenges to the Ken Betwa river linking project

    1. Contested surplus assessment: The classification of a river as surplus rests on basin yield estimates that independent hydrologists dispute. e.g. objections filed before the Supreme Court’s Central Empowered Committee on the Ken’s assessed surplus.
    2. Loss inside a protected area: The reservoir submerges core tiger habitat, which no compensatory afforestation reproduces. e.g. about 4,141 hectares of Panna Tiger Reserve land under submergence.
    3. Cumulative pressure on the same landscape: Further projects are cleared in the same corridor while the dam is under construction. e.g. the 1,800 MW Panari pumped storage project cleared on about 411 hectares in the Panna Ranipur corridor in August 2026.
    4. Compensatory afforestation cannot replace old growth: Plantations take decades to deliver the produce and habitat value of a felled forest. e.g. an estimated 23 lakh trees to be felled under the detailed project report.
    5. Forest rights not settled before acquisition: Individual and community claims under forest rights law are often unsettled when land is taken. e.g. Gond families in the affected villages without patta land.
    6. Resettlement site quality: Displaced households are commonly resettled on land without water, forest access or common grazing. e.g. the long unresolved rehabilitation record of the Sardar Sarovar oustees.
    7. Cost and time escalation: Long gestation interlinking works overrun both budget and schedule, which pushes rehabilitation spending to the end. e.g. an approved cost of about Rs 44,605 crore in 2021 with an eight year completion schedule.
    8. Downstream and interstate obligations: Water sharing commitments between Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh determine actual delivery, not the design capacity. e.g. the interstate memorandum of agreement signed on 22 March 2021.

    Conclusion

    The Ken Betwa link moves water within Bundelkhand, and it moves the entire cost of that transfer onto Adivasi households whose form of landholding and forest based income the compensation framework does not recognise. The design question is not the amount of the package but its unit: the villages are asking for land, forest and a resettled village, and the State is offering a per head cash sum against titled acres most of them do not hold. Until forest rights are settled and a defined resettlement site is negotiated with the community as a unit, construction will continue to run ahead of rehabilitation.

    Interlinking of Rivers in India

    1. The idea: Transferring water from basins assessed as surplus to basins assessed as deficient, through a network of storage dams and link canals.
    2. The plan: The National Perspective Plan of 1980 of the Ministry of Irrigation set out the framework for such transfers.
    3. The agency: The National Water Development Agency, set up in 1982, prepares feasibility and detailed project reports for the links.
    4. The scale: The plan identifies 30 links, comprising 16 under the peninsular component and 14 under the Himalayan component.
    5. The judicial push: The Supreme Court in 2012 directed the Union government to implement the interlinking programme in a time bound manner and to constitute a special committee.
    6. The first link: The Ken Betwa link is the first project taken up for implementation under the plan, with a dedicated authority created for it in 2021.
    7. The claimed benefit: Drought proofing, flood moderation, additional irrigated area and hydropower, drawn from moving water between basins with different rainfall regimes.

    Constitutional Framework Governing Water, Land and Forest Rights

    1. Seventh Schedule, State List Entry 17: Places water supply, irrigation, canals, drainage, embankments and water storage with the States, subject to Entry 56.
    2. Seventh Schedule, Union List Entry 56: Allows Parliament to regulate and develop interstate rivers and river valleys in the public interest.
    3. Seventh Schedule, Concurrent List Entry 17A and 17B: Place forests, and the protection of wild animals and birds, on the Concurrent List after the 42nd Amendment.
    4. Article 262: Empowers Parliament to provide for adjudication of interstate river water disputes and to bar the jurisdiction of courts in them.
    5. Article 21: Protects life and personal liberty, read to include the right to livelihood and to a healthy environment.
    6. Article 48A and Article 51A(g): Direct the State to protect the environment and forests, and place a corresponding fundamental duty on every citizen.
    7. Article 244 and the Fifth Schedule: Provide for the administration of Scheduled Areas and the protection of tribal interests, including through the Tribes Advisory Council.
    8. Article 243ZD read with Part IX: Places village level planning with the Panchayats, which is the base for consultation requirements in Scheduled Areas.

    Laws and Rules Governing Displacement, Forests and River Projects

    1. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Governs acquisition, compensation and the rehabilitation entitlements of affected families.
    2. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: Requires prior central approval for diversion of forest land to non forest use, with compensatory afforestation and net present value payments.
    3. Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006: Recognises individual and community rights over forest land and produce for forest dwelling communities.
    4. Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: Governs protected areas, and provides for tiger reserves, critical tiger habitats and the National Tiger Conservation Authority.
    5. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006: Provide the environmental clearance process, including public hearing and appraisal for river valley projects.
    6. Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996: Requires consultation with the Gram Sabha before land acquisition and resettlement in Scheduled Areas.
    7. Inter State River Water Disputes Act, 1956: Provides the tribunal mechanism for adjudicating disputes over interstate river waters.

    Back2Basics: Panna Tiger Reserve

    1. Designation: A tiger reserve, listed in the Places in News record as the protected area within which the Daudhan dam is being built.
    2. Location: Panna and Chhatarpur districts of Madhya Pradesh, on the Vindhyan range in the Bundelkhand region.
    3. Constitution: Panna National Park was notified in 1981 and the area was declared a tiger reserve in 1994 under Project Tiger.
    4. River: The Ken river flows through the reserve and supports its gorges, waterfalls and riverine habitat.
    5. International recognition: It was designated a biosphere reserve and was added to the UNESCO World Network of Biosphere Reserves in 2020.
    6. Conservation record: Tigers became locally extinct in the reserve by 2009, and a reintroduction programme rebuilt the population, treated as a landmark recovery.
    7. Vegetation: Tropical dry deciduous forest with teak and kardhai woodland, interspersed with grassland and plateau.
    8. Fauna: Tiger, leopard, sloth bear, chital, chinkara, sambar and nilgai on land, with gharial, mugger and the Indian vulture along the Ken.
    9. Landscape connectivity: It links to the Nauradehi Wildlife Sanctuary and the Satpura landscape, and the Panna Ranipur corridor extends toward Uttar Pradesh.

    Government Initiatives

    1. Ken Betwa Link Project Authority: The special purpose body created in 2021 to execute the link, with an interstate memorandum of agreement signed on 22 March 2021.
    2. National Perspective Plan and the National Water Development Agency: The 1980 plan and the 1982 agency that prepare and appraise interlinking proposals.
    3. Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana: Consolidates irrigation schemes to expand assured irrigation and improve water use efficiency at the farm level.
    4. Atal Bhujal Yojana: Supports community led groundwater management in water stressed blocks, including in Bundelkhand districts.
    5. Jal Jeevan Mission: Aims at functional household tap connections in rural areas, the drinking water objective the link project is meant to support.
    6. Project Tiger and the National Tiger Conservation Authority: Provide the statutory and funding framework for tiger reserves such as Panna, including village relocation packages.
    7. Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority: Manages funds collected from forest diversion for compensatory afforestation and habitat improvement.

    Key Facts about the Ken Betwa Link Project

    1. Approval and cost: Approved by the Union Cabinet in December 2021 at a cost of about Rs 44,605 crore, with an eight year completion schedule.
    2. The agreement: A memorandum of agreement between the Union government, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh was signed on 22 March 2021, observed as World Water Day.
    3. Annual irrigation: Designed to provide annual irrigation to about 10.62 lakh hectares across the two States.
    4. Drinking water: Designed to supply drinking water to about 62 lakh people.
    5. Power: Includes 103 MW of hydropower and 27 MW of solar capacity.
    6. The dam: The Daudhan dam is about 77 metres high and about 2,031 metres long, with a tunnel system feeding the link canal.
    7. The rivers: The Ken and the Betwa are both tributaries of the Yamuna, joining it at Banda and Hamirpur respectively in Uttar Pradesh.
    8. The region: Bundelkhand covers 13 districts across Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh and is among India’s driest and most impoverished regions.

    Challenges in River Interlinking

    1. Basin surplus is contested science: Surplus and deficit classifications rest on yield estimates that vary with the data series used. e.g. disputes over the assessed surplus of the Ken before appraisal bodies.
    2. Ecological alteration of river regimes: Reduced downstream flow changes sediment transport, fish migration and floodplain recharge. e.g. gharial habitat along the Ken downstream of the Daudhan site.
    3. Forest and protected area loss: Links routinely pass through forests and sanctuaries where diversion cannot be reversed. e.g. submergence of about 4,141 hectares inside the Panna Tiger Reserve.
    4. Displacement and rehabilitation deficits: Resettlement lags construction, so families lose land before they receive an alternative. e.g. the long running rehabilitation disputes of the Sardar Sarovar project on the Narmada.
    5. Interstate political friction: Donor States resist parting with water once a project is under way. e.g. the long deadlock over the Mahanadi and the Godavari Cauvery link proposals.
    6. Cost and time overruns: Multi decade civil works escalate in cost, which squeezes the rehabilitation component first. e.g. the 2021 approved cost of about Rs 44,605 crore for a single link.
    7. Climate uncertainty: Interlinking assumes stable rainfall distribution between basins, which a changing monsoon does not guarantee. e.g. simultaneous drought across both donor and recipient basins in a deficient monsoon year.
    8. Groundwater alternatives neglected: Large transfers draw attention and funds away from cheaper local recharge and watershed options. e.g. traditional Bundelkhand tanks and chandela ponds that remain unrestored.

    Way Forward

    1. Settle forest rights first: Complete recognition of individual and community forest rights under the 2006 Act before any acquisition notification is issued.
    2. Resettle the village as a unit: Provide a single relocation site with forest access, water and common land so that community structure survives the move, as the affected families have demanded.
    3. Compensate the livelihood, not only the acre: Value minor forest produce income and standing trees in the entitlement package for households without titled land.
    4. Institutionalise dialogue: Create a standing negotiation forum between the project authority, the district administration and elected village representatives, with recorded minutes.
    5. Independent hydrological review: Publish and peer review the basin yield assessment on which the surplus classification rests, before further links are appraised.
    6. Fund rehabilitation ahead of construction: Ring fence the rehabilitation and resettlement outlay and release it before submergence rather than after.
    7. Restore local water systems in parallel: Revive tanks, ponds and watershed structures across Bundelkhand so that drought relief does not rest on a single project.
    8. Compensatory afforestation in contiguous blocks: Locate the compensatory forest within the same landscape and monitor survival rates, rather than counting saplings planted.

    “[2017, GS3, 10 marks] Not many years ago, river linking was a concept but it is becoming reality in the country. Discuss the advantages of river linking and its possible impact on the environment.”

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

    Why in the News

    The Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) recommended wildlife clearance for the 1,800 MW Panari Pumped Storage Hydropower Project in the Panna-Ranipur Tiger Corridor, despite concerns that it could fragment a critical wildlife corridor.

    How does a Pumped Storage Hydropower Project (PSH) work?

    • Uses two reservoirs at different elevations.
    • During low electricity demand, water is pumped to the upper reservoir.
    • During peak demand, water is released to generate electricity.
    • Acts as a grid-scale energy storage system for renewable energy.

    What is the Panna-Ranipur Tiger Corridor?

    • Connects Panna Tiger Reserve (Madhya Pradesh) with Ranipur Tiger Reserve (Uttar Pradesh).
    • Facilitates movement of tigers, leopards, and sloth bears.
    • Ensures genetic exchange and healthy wildlife populations.
      • A wildlife corridor is a natural passage connecting fragmented habitats, enabling movement, migration, breeding, and genetic exchange among wildlife populations.

    Why was the Project Cleared?

    • NBWL Standing Committee approved it based on recommendations of:
      • National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA)
      • Wildlife Institute of India (WII)
    • Clearance is subject to mitigation measures.

    Concerns

    • Corridor fragmentation affecting wildlife movement.
    • Increased human-wildlife conflict.
    • Loss of habitat connectivity and genetic diversity.
    • Cumulative impacts of multiple infrastructure projects.

    Mitigation Measures

    • Construction of three 30-metre-wide wildlife overpasses.
    • Relocation of muck dumping and project facilities outside the corridor.
    • Realignment of project infrastructure to reduce habitat disturbance.

    Back2Basics: Panna Tiger Reserve

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

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

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

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court clarified that its ban on mining within a 10 km radius of the Asan Conservation Reserve (a Ramsar Site) applies to all Wetland Conservation Reserves across India unless approved by the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC).

    What is a Conservation Reserve?

    • A protected area category created under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (through the 2002 Amendment).
    • Covers government-owned land adjacent to National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.
    • Protects habitats and wildlife corridors with community participation.

    What is an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ)?

    • A buffer area notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 around National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.
    • Restricts activities such as mining, industries, and large-scale construction to reduce ecological impacts.

    Supreme Court Ruling

    • Extended the 10 km mining restriction to all Wetland Conservation Reserves.
    • Recognized wetlands as a distinct ecologically sensitive category.
    • Mining within the buffer requires approval from the NBWL Standing Committee and MoEFCC.

    Why is the Ruling Significant?

    • Protects wetlands from mining and habitat degradation.
    • Recognizes the importance of catchment areas for wetland health.
    • Ensures uniform protection for wetland conservation reserves across India.

    Challenges

    • Incomplete mapping and notification of wetlands.
    • Encroachment and land-use change.
    • Pollution and eutrophication.
    • Weak enforcement by State Wetland Authorities.
    • Development pressures from mining and infrastructure projects.

    Value Addition

    Ramsar Convention

    • International treaty for the conservation and wise use of wetlands.
    • Adopted in 1971 at Ramsar, Iran.
    • India became a Contracting Party in 1982.

    Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017

    • Regulate conservation and management of notified wetlands.
    • Implemented through State Wetland Authorities.

    Back2Basics

    National Board for Wildlife (NBWL)

    • Statutory body under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
    • Chairperson: Prime Minister.
    • Standing Committee examines projects affecting protected areas.

    Asan Conservation Reserve

    • Location: Dehradun, Uttarakhand.
    • Ramsar Site: Since 2020 (Uttarakhand’s first Ramsar Site).
    • Formed by the Asan Barrage at the confluence of the Asan and Yamuna rivers.
    • Important wintering habitat for migratory birds.

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

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

    Why in the News

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

    Pillars of the Tigers Outside Tiger Reserves (TOTR) initiative

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

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

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

    Conclusion

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

    Back2Basics

    Conservation Status

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

    Tiger Reserves in India

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

    Tiger Population

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

    Project Tiger

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

    National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA)

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

  • Ratle Hydroelectric Project Seeks Extension of Environmental Clearance  

    Why in the News?

    Ratle Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited has sought an extension of Environmental Clearance (EC) for its 850 MW Ratle Hydroelectric Project on the Chenab River, citing delays due to litigation and COVID-19. The proposal is under appraisal by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) of the Union Environment Ministry.

    About the Ratle Hydroelectric Project

    • Capacity: 850 MW
    • Location: Kishtwar district, Jammu and Kashmir
    • River basin: Indus Basin
    • Type of dam: Concrete gravity dam

    Environmental Clearance Timeline

    • Original EC granted: December 2012
    • Initial validity: Up to 2022
    • Extended validity for hydropower projects: Till December 11, 2025
    • Extension sought due to:
      • Court litigations between 2014–2021
      • COVID-19 disruption (April 2020 to March 2021)

    Current Legal Issues

    • Case pending before National Green Tribunal
    • Allegations of illegal muck dumping into the Chenab
    • Petition filed by residents of Thathri
    • Judgment reserved in December 2025

    Prelims Pointers

    • Ratle project is on the Chenab River
    • Falls under the Indus Basin
    • EC validity can exclude court stay and COVID periods
    • Joint venture led by NHPC
    • Under scrutiny of NGT
    [2009] The Dul Hasti Power Station is based on which one of the following rivers? 

    (a) Beas 

    (b) Chenab 

    (c) Ravi 

    (d) Sutlej