Balancing Development and Biodiversity: India’s Clean Energy Dilemma
India’s Supreme Court recently revisited its stance on protecting endangered bird species, balancing the urgency of clean energy development with the need to conserve biodiversity. This article explores the legal and environmental implications, referencing the precautionary principle and global conventions, while emphasizing the impact on critically endangered species like the Great Indian Bustard. With economic and climate priorities in play, the situation reflects the ongoing struggle between development and ecological preservation.
Balancing Clean Energy with Biodiversity Conservation
India is currently grappling with a complex dilemma—how to balance the need for clean energy development while safeguarding its rich biodiversity. A recent Supreme Court ruling has brought this issue to the forefront, shedding light on the conflict between human advancement and environmental preservation. At the heart of this debate lies the fate of two critically endangered bird species—the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and the Lesser Florican.
Supreme Court’s Verdict: A Turning Point for Conservation?
In March 2024, India’s Supreme Court faced the tough task of choosing between mitigating climate change impacts and conserving biodiversity. The court acknowledged people’s right to protection against the adverse effects of the climate crisis under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. It also recalled its previous directive that banned overhead transmission lines in certain priority areas in Rajasthan and Gujarat to protect these endangered species.
The court established an expert committee to assess the feasibility of converting overhead transmission lines to underground systems. However, the ruling came under scrutiny when the prohibition on overhead lines was lifted before the committee’s report was finalized. This move has raised concerns about prioritizing anthropocentric development over critical biodiversity preservation.
The Precautionary Principle: A Missed Opportunity?
The decision appears to stray from the precautionary principle established in environmental jurisprudence. The 2004 MC Mehta judgment had highlighted the importance of prioritizing environmental protection when there is a potential risk of serious or irreversible damage. This principle was reaffirmed during the Rio Conference of 1992, stating that scientific uncertainty should not be a reason for delaying measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Despite this, the recent ruling seems to lean towards economic interests, disregarding the precautionary principle that safeguards entities like the Great Indian Bustard, which has been reduced to just 50-249 mature individuals according to BirdLife International. Environmental advocates argue that the principle should have been applied until the committee’s findings were fully examined.
Shifting Priorities: Climate Crisis Over Biodiversity?
The March 2024 judgment marks a departure from the Supreme Court’s earlier stance on prioritizing biodiversity conservation. In a 2020 judgment regarding elephant corridors, the court upheld the need to limit commercial activities in protected areas. Yet, the recent ruling places greater emphasis on human rights, particularly the right to protection against climate impacts, over the rights of endangered species.
International climate conventions and national climate commitments have been cited to justify this shift. While the urgency of climate action is undeniable, the neglect of biodiversity-related conventions in the judgment suggests a narrow focus that undermines the interconnectedness of environmental issues.
Biodiversity at Stake: The Great Indian Bustard’s Plight
The Great Indian Bustard, one of the heaviest flying birds, is critically endangered due to habitat fragmentation and collisions with power lines. The bird’s plight is emblematic of the broader struggle to balance ecological preservation with developmental aspirations. The Supreme Court’s ruling, however, does not prescribe preventive measures to safeguard the GIB’s dwindling habitats, potentially jeopardizing conservation efforts.
In contrast, the 2020 ruling emphasized the state’s responsibility in conserving endangered species, referencing Articles 21, 47, 48-A, and 51-A(g) of the Constitution, which outline the nation’s duty to protect the environment. The latest decision, while acknowledging these provisions, pivots towards safeguarding human rights from climate impacts instead.
India’s National Environment Policy: Are Priorities Shifting?
India’s National Environment Policy (NEP) of 2006 identifies certain “Entities with Incomparable Values” (EIVs), which include unique species like the Great Indian Bustard. The policy asserts that traditional economic evaluations should not apply to EIVs, emphasizing that their conservation should be prioritized without considering immediate economic benefits.
The Supreme Court’s judgment, however, seems to overlook this aspect of the NEP, choosing to focus on economic development and clean energy advancement instead. Critics argue that this approach could set a worrying precedent, undermining the very foundations of India’s environmental policies.
The Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities
At the heart of this conflict is the principle of “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities” (CBDRRC), which has been a cornerstone of India’s climate strategy. This principle acknowledges the historical responsibility of developed nations for the climate crisis and calls for differentiated obligations based on each country’s capacity and developmental status.
While India’s push for clean energy is aligned with its climate commitments, experts urge caution when it comes to projects that may harm endangered species. Without stringent adherence to the precautionary principle, the country risks compromising its biodiversity for short-term gains.
The Path Forward: Finding a Balance
The challenge now is to find a middle ground where development and environmental protection can coexist. As the Supreme Court’s expert committee continues its work, the need for a balanced, eco-centric approach becomes even more pressing. Converting overhead lines to underground systems may be a costly endeavor, but it could be essential to prevent further fragmentation of the GIB’s habitat.
India’s developmental journey must be guided by a long-term vision that values its natural heritage as much as its economic growth. Only by integrating biodiversity considerations into its climate strategy can the country truly achieve sustainable development.
Also Read: How Powerful Can Hurricanes Become?