19 April 2024 – The Indian Express

Protection of Great Indian Bustards

What exactly is the Great Indian Bustard, sometimes known as GIB?

• The Great Indian Bustard, also known as Ardeotis nigriceps, is the state bird of Rajasthan and is widely regarded as the most endangered bird species by the Indian government.
• When it comes to grassland species, it is considered the flagship species because it exemplifies the health of the grassland environment. The majority of its inhabitants are located in the states of Rajasthan and Gujarat. The states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh all have very small populations.

The status of protection:

• Critically Endangered is the entry on the Red List of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
• The Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
• Appendix I of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS)
• A number of factors, including but not limited to collisions and electrocutions with power transmission lines, hunting (which is still common in Pakistan), habitat loss and alteration as a result of broad agricultural expansion, and other factors, pose a persistent threat to the species.
• The GIBs are a species that reproduces very slowly. In addition to laying a few eggs, they are responsible for the care of chicks for almost an entire year. After around three to four years, the GIB fully matures.

Worries Regarding India:

• Both the grassland habitat in the Cholistan desert, where the GIBs were slaughtered, and the ecosystem in Rajasthan’s Desert National Park (DNP), where the GIB’s sole remaining wild population is situated, are strikingly similar to one another.
• The DNP is located in close proximity to the cities of Jaisalmer and Barmer, and it functions as a component of the vast Thar desert. The Great Indian Bustard’s natural habitat was specifically designated as a national park in 1981 so that it could be preserved.
• Because the province of Rajasthan shares its international border with the provinces of Sindh and Punjab in Pakistan, the birds will be an easy target for the poachers who are armed with firearms in those regions.
• The hunting of the uncommon bird would not only result in a significant decrease in the number of GIBs in India, but it will also have an impact on the ecosystem of the desert.

Various provisions of the Constitution pertaining to the preservation of wildlife:

• In accordance with the provisions of Article 48A of the Constitution, the State is obligated to make every effort to preserve and enhance the environment, as well as to look after the forests and wildlife of the nation.
• Clause (g) of Article 51A states that it is the responsibility of every citizen of India to safeguard and improve the natural environment, which includes forests, lakes, rivers, and animals, and to have compassion for living creatures. They are also required to show compassion for the environment.
• Article 21 of the Constitution, in addition to protecting the rights of humans, gives protection to life. The term “life” has been given a broader definition, and any disturbance from the fundamental environment, which encompasses all forms of life, including animal life, that are essential for human life, is considered to be within the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution.

What recent developments have occurred with regard to GIBs?

• Located in the states of Rajasthan and Gujarat, the Great Indian Bustard is a species that is in a state of critical endangered status. While this is going on, both states have a large amount of potential for the growth of wind and solar electricity. In 2019, a group of persons with a strong commitment to public service (petitioners) initiated a public interest litigation in an effort to preserve the bustard endangered species.
• During this interim period, they attempted to obtain an order that would prohibit the development of more solar and wind energy infrastructure, as well as the installation of overhead electricity transmission lines that are connected to these resources. These power lines were a hazard, according to their argument, and they were the cause of the deaths of the bustards because of the frequent accidents with the lines.

The Supreme Court has issued a blanket ban:

• Within the scope of its decision, the Supreme Court imposed a blanket prohibition on the installation of overhead electricity lines across a region that encompassed 99,000 square kilometres. This ban extended to regions that were designated as priority and potential sites for bustard conservation. In addition, the court issued an order mandating the undergrounding of all existing electrical lines, including both high and low voltage lines.

The Government of India has raised an objection:

• With reference to India’s international climate responsibilities regarding the transition to non-fossil fuels and the reduction of carbon emissions, the government filed a challenge against this purchase. Specifically, it maintained that the blanket prohibition was issued for a considerably greater area than the actual area in which the bustard resides.
• In addition, it was emphasised that this region had a significant amount of the nation’s potential for wind and solar energy. Additionally, it contended that undergrounding electrical lines was an extremely difficult task to accomplish. Last but not least, it believed that additional reasons, such as poaching, the deterioration of habitat, and predation, were responsible for the decrease in the bustard population.

Order Recall by the Supreme Court:

• During the case of M.K. Ranjitsinh versus Union of India, which took place in 2021, the Supreme Court of India issued a verdict on March 21, 2024, in which it modified the earlier order and recalled the blanket prohibition on transmission lines. Scientific specialists were entrusted with the responsibility of recalibrating the order.
• Towards this purpose, it established a committee of experts to, among other things, determine whether or not it would be possible to bury power lines below and to determine what steps could be taken to save bustard. Before the Court can make its final decision, this committee is needed to deliver its report by July 2024. After then, the Court will make its conclusion.

In the case of M.K. Ranjitsinh versus the Union of India, what are the many implications of the Supreme Court’s order?

• Using Environmental Jurisprudence to Expand the Contours of Environmental Law:
• In addition to the frequently cited polluter pay principle, precautionary principle, and public trust doctrine, the Supreme Court has enlarged the scope of environmental law to include the more expansive areas of climate justice, environmental inequities, and gender justice.

Protecting the Rights of the Environment:

• In this judgement, the court went beyond this binary and attempted to address some of the contentious issues from both a constitutional and international legal perspective and principles. For a long time, environmental disputes have been viewed through the narrow lens of a debate that focused on the “environment versus development” debate.
• Although there are some concerns regarding the judgment’s excessive focus on the advantages of renewable energy, it is, in many respects, a precedent-setting document – both on a national and a global scale – and it is likely to be an effective instrument for securing environmental justice in a world that is becoming increasingly hotter and drier.

Human Rights and the Impact of Climate Change:

• First of its kind, the Supreme Court took advantage of this chance to acknowledge the existence of a right to protection from the negative effects of climate change. Article 14 of the Constitution of India recognises the right to equality, while Article 21 of the Constitution recognises the right to life. It was noted that the right is recognised by both of these articles.
• In the beginning, the Court began by providing an explanation of the danger that the effects of climate change pose to the enjoyment of the right to life. Furthermore, it brought to light the fact that the disproportionate vulnerability to these impacts poses a challenge to the right to equality of the individuals who are impacted.”
• As a conclusion to this discussion, the Court came to the conclusion that the origin of the right can be traced back to a conjunctive reading of judicial jurisprudence on Articles 21 and 14, as well as India’s climate change action and international commitments, and the scientific consensus on the negative effects of climate change.

Need to Get Away from Power Plants That Are Powered by Coal:

• While taking into consideration the arguments presented by the government of the Union, the court brought attention to the primary reason why it is necessary to switch from coal to solar energy:
• A shift towards solar energy is required in order to improve energy security and self-sufficiency while simultaneously reducing environmental consequences. This is because India is expected to account for twenty-five percent of the rise in global energy consumption over the next twenty years. If this is not done, it may lead to an increase in reliance on coal and oil, which would result in costs to both the economy and the environment.

Legislation Regarding Climate Change and Climate-Related Lies:

• Taking into consideration the absence of particular domestic law to address climate change, the judgement makes a note of this fact. In this particular instance, India’s domestic legislation has not yet been amended to incorporate the country’s international obligations and commitments.
• The judge took note of the numerous lawsuits that have been filed around the world in relation to climate change. In particular, the court took note of the decision that was handed down by the Dutch Supreme Court in the case of State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation. This decision acknowledged that climate change has an effect not only on the right to life, but also on the right to private and family life.
• The decision that was made by the Committee on Rights of the Child in the case of Sacchi et al. v. Argentina et al., in which it was said that “while climate change necessitates a global response, individual states retain accountability for their actions or inactions concerning climate change and their contribution to its effects.”

Because of the Concerns Regarding GIBs, the Previous Order Was Revoked:

• A disproportionate amount of weight is placed on the advantages of renewable energy sources.
• The primary cause for concern is the excessive focus placed on the advantages of renewable energy, without taking into account the social and environmental issues that are brought about by the aggressive promotion of renewable energy on a broad scale. As can be seen in the dangers that are posed to GIBs, there is no question that renewable energy does not appear to be completely free from its fair share of environmental and social issues.
• First and foremost, the acquisition of land, the limitation of access to land for indigenous communities, and the consumption of water are all components of large-scale renewable energy. In addition, the whole life cycle analysis will demonstrate that there are significant problems associated with the extraction (of lithium) as well as the use of solar panels.

An Approach That Is Fragmented for Projects Involving Renewable Energy:

• There is still no requirement for any kind of environmental and social impact assessment to be carried out for renewable energy projects that comprise hundreds of acres, and these projects are often not subject to environmental legislation. Despite the fact that several states do require consent in accordance with the Air Act of 1981 and the Water Act of 1974, the process is nevertheless insufficient, ad hoc, and fragmented.
• As a result, there has been pushback from the general people against the unrestrained and unregulated expansion of renewable energy. For this reason, it is of the utmost importance to keep in mind that not everything is green when it comes to green energy. This was made abundantly clear in the example of the dangers that solar power transmission cables posed to renewable energy buildings (GIBs).

Finding Your Way Through the ‘Balancing’ Conundrum:

• Regarding the removal of the general prohibition on new overhead transmission in areas that are considered to be “priority,” “potential,” and “additionally important,” the court was of the opinion that “there is no basis for a general prohibition in regard to the installation of transmission lines for the distribution of solar power in an area that is approximately 99,000 square kilometres.”
• However, despite the fact that it was in agreement with the reasons for not having a general prohibition, the Supreme Court was forced to shift its focus from the typical discussion between the environment and development to the dilemma of the environment versus conservation for the very first time for the first time.
• The conservation of the GIB, on the one hand, and the conservation of the environment as a whole, on the other hand, are both equally important aims. In order to achieve a balance between these two goals, it is necessary to take a holistic strategy that does not sacrifice either of the two goals at the altar of the other. The delicate equilibrium that exists between the two goals must not be disrupted in any way.

The delegation of authority to the expert committee:

• It is the responsibility of the expert committee to ascertain the size, feasibility, and scope of the overhead and subterranean electric wires that are located in the areas that have been designated as priority areas. In addition, it has been given the authority to suggest any additional actions that are necessary in order to improve the procedures that are taken to defend the GIB. This may include locating and adding appropriate sites that are located beyond the priority zones that have been defined, if it is determined that doing so is essential for the preservation of the species.

An Absence of Clarification Regarding the Right:

• It is important to note that the Court acknowledged the existence of the right, but it provided no additional explanation of it. An additional point that was brought to light was the need of articulation. On the other hand, it did not attempt to carry out that mission. It is arguable that the Court’s decision to not articulate the right and instead only recognise it is considered to be a departure from the customary approach that it follows in environmental matters.
• An extensive portion of Indian environmental law has been formed as a result of the decisions made by the Supreme Court in matters involving public interest. It has transferred, recognised, and codified environmental rights and legal ideas in a number of different situations.

What are the many points of view that need to be taken into consideration in order to make the decision more proactive and inclusive?

• Maintaining a Balance Between Climate Action and the Protection of Biodiversity:
• Reducing the negative effects that renewable energy projects have on the bustard was the primary concern that was at stake in this situation. Conservationists have pointed out that the judgement touches the root of the problem by offering two options that are in direct opposition to one another: either saving biodiversity or enabling climate action to mitigate its effects. In other words, it portrays the protection of biodiversity and the action necessary to address climate change as competing options.
• In addition, the acknowledgment of the right is contextualised within this strategy, which paired the protection of biodiversity with the implementation of climate mitigation measures. As a result, the right that has been established is limited to the protection of human interests against climate change, which can be minimised by synchronising the protection of biodiversity and climate action.
• Taking the ‘Just Transition Framework’ into consideration in both letter and spirit:
• Moving forward, the use of a different strategy might eliminate the need to deal with this dilemma. Utilising the just transition framework is the strategy that is being taken here. The goal of this approach, which is currently being implemented in climate cases all over the world, is to make the transition to a low-carbon economy more equitable and inclusive. In particular, it acts in the best interests of those who are most adversely affected by transitions of this kind.
• A number of different groups fall under this category, including workers, vulnerable communities, and small and medium-sized businesses. Utilising the just transitions framework is a good technique to take in situations where the fundamental problem is comparable to the one that is being discussed here.
• In that it makes it possible to defend underrepresented interests, such as the bustard in this particular instance, which are being threatened by slow carbon transition programmes, such as solar energy in this particular instance.

In order to facilitate climate action that is both inclusive and equitable:

• This presents a great chance for the court to make use of the just transition framework and facilitate climate action that is both inclusive and equitable. Given that the final decision of the Court is still pending, this is an excellent opportunity. In spite of the fact that a right against climate change has been acknowledged, it has not yet been stated.
• Consequently, this offers a fruitful environment for the beginning of a discussion on the subject matter of the right, which presents an opportunity to make it both inclusive and efficient. On the other hand, this burden is one that is shared.
• Individuals who provide content to rights by participating (indirectly or directly) in the process of their recognition, articulation, and enforcement are not just the state but also activists, litigants, and academics. This responsibility lies not only on the state but also on these individuals.

Taking a Multi-Pronged Approach to the Problem:

Alive to a Wide Range of Rights and Interests Regarding Climate Change:

• To begin, it is essential to exclude the possibility of climate action and the protection of biodiversity being seen in isolation from one another. Instead, it can be used to make a case for climate action that is accommodating, which means that climate action that takes into account a variety of rights and interests.
• In the second place, India needs to make an effort to facilitate the expression of climate rights that are more reflexive. Consequently, the utilisation of it in climate litigation has the potential to guarantee that the articulation and enforcement of climate rights are attentive to the interests of non-human nature and contribute to the advancement of ecological justice.
• Third, this case will be one of the first just transition litigations to take into consideration a non-human interest if the just transition framework is employed in the ultimate conclusion that the Court makes.
• There is only one other case that pertains to defending the interests of the non-human environment among the just transition litigations that are now being litigated around the world. As a result, the current case will be a leading contender in the litigation of this kind. In principle, it will make a contribution to broadening the scope of the concept of a just transition to include considerations that go beyond human interests.

What measures are being taken to ensure the preservation of the GIB?

Programme for the Recovery of Species:

• Under the Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats programme of the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change (MoEFCC), it is maintained as part of the species recovery programme.
• In 2015, the Centre had launched the GIB species recovery programme. Under this, the WII and Rajasthan forest department jointly set up breeding centres where GIB eggs harvested from the wild were incubated artificially.

Firefly Bird Diverters:

• Firefly bird diverters are flaps installed on power lines. They work as- (reflector-like structures strung on power cables) – for bird species like the GIB. Birds can spot them from a distance of about 50 meters and change their path of flight to avoid collision with power lines.
• The Supreme Court has mandated the chief secretaries of Rajasthan and Gujarat to install bird diverters in priority areas. It has also asked them to assess the total length of transmission lines that need to go underground in the two states.

Artificial Hatching:

• The conservation breeding programme started in 2019 by collecting eggs from the wild and artificially hatching them. The first chick hatched on 21st June 2019, and was named ‘Uno’. Eight more chicks were hatched that year and raised and monitored. A total of 29 GIBs have been housed in the two breeding centres in Rajasthan.

National Bustard Recovery Plans:

• The Government of India has developed a comprehensive Conservation Plan for Great Indian Bustards to coordinate and guide conservation efforts across multiple states.

Conservation Breeding Facility:

• MoEF&CC, the Rajasthan government and the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) have also established a conservation breeding facility in Desert National Park at Jaisalmer in June 2019.

Project Great Indian Bustard:

• It has been launched by the Rajasthan government to construct breeding enclosures for the species and develop infrastructure to reduce human pressure on its habitats.
• In his notable work, The Idea of Justice (2009), Amartya Sen argues that a theory of justice must include ways of ‘reducing injustice and advancing justice’. Chief Justice, in a way, amalgamates the two ideas and recognises that citizens will remain unfree unless they are ‘free from the adverse impact of climate change’ and climate specific legislation, litigations focused on climate change and a shift from coal to cleaner energy are crucial, not only from the environmental perspective, but also in furthering human rights and reducing inequality.
• One can hope that the judgment will help shape law, policy and action in way that ensures that not only are citizens free from the adverse impact of climate change, but even the last remaining GIB can fly free without being entangled in power lines.