“Policy contradictions among various competing sectors and stakeholders have resulted in inadequate ‘protection and prevention of degradation’ to environment.” Comment with relevant illustrations.
Approach · directive: “comment”
What it asks · Show, with examples, how conflicting policies on growth and conservation, and among ministries and interests, weaken environmental protection.
It asks 2 things — answer each
- Comment: agree, with reasons, that contradictions among sectoral policies and stakeholders weaken environmental 'protection and prevention of degradation'
- Illustrate with relevant examples (Western Ghats, Niyamgiri, farm subsidies, compensatory afforestation) and indicate the fix
Open with · Article 48A commits the State to environmental protection, yet mining, energy, farm and infrastructure policies often pull the other way, and the environment loses.
Cover
- Growth versus conservation: fast-track clearances for mines, highways and power sit uneasily with forest, wildlife and coastal (CRZ) safeguards.
- Centre versus States: all affected States opposed the Gadgil panel on the Western Ghats; the Kasturirangan group (2013) cut the proposed ESA to about 37 per cent.
- Rights versus diversion: the Forest Rights Act, 2006 gives Gram Sabhas a central role; in Niyamgiri (2013) the Supreme Court left the bauxite decision to them.
- Farm subsidies versus water: cheap power, fertiliser subsidies and assured procurement of water-intensive crops can deplete groundwater.
- Fragmented institutions and missing costs: overlapping mandates, thin monitoring; CAMPA Act, 2016 afforestation may not replace natural forest.
- Way forward: strategic environmental assessment of sector plans, an independent regulator, community consent and enforced polluter-pays.
Close with · Building ecological limits into every sector's plan is how India can meet SDG 15: to protect, restore and sustainably use terrestrial ecosystems and halt biodiversity loss.
Add value (verified)
- Article 48A places a directive on the State to safeguard the environment, forests and wildlife.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024) - Legislative Department ↗“The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.”
- The Kasturirangan High-Level Working Group (2013) put the biologically rich area at roughly 37 per cent of the Western Ghats (about 60,000 sq km) and proposed it as the Ecologically Sensitive Area.Report of the High Level Working Group on Western Ghats, Vol. I - Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change ↗“Of the natural landscape, the biologically rich area, with some measure of contiguity is roughly 37 per cent of the Western Ghats which is about 60,000 km2.”
- The same report: the Gadgil report on the Western Ghats was opposed by all the affected States.Only 37 pc of Western Ghats ecologically sensitive: report - Indian Express (national newspaper), 17 April 2013, via India Environment Portal ↗“The Gadgil report, which was opposed by all the affected states”
- SDG 15 aims to protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, manage forests sustainably and halt biodiversity loss.Goal 15 - United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Sustainable Development ↗“Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity lo”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2018, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 226words · Minimalist IAS
Article 48A directs the State to 'protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life'. Yet mining, energy, farm and infrastructure policies often pull the other way, and the environment loses.
How competing policies weaken protection
- Growth versus conservation: fast-track clearances for mines, highways and power sit uneasily with forest, wildlife and Coastal Regulation Zone safeguards.
- Centre versus States: all affected States opposed the Gadgil panel; the Kasturirangan group (2013) cut the Western Ghats' proposed ecologically sensitive area to about 37 per cent.
- Rights versus diversion: the Forest Rights Act, 2006 gives Gram Sabhas a central role; in Niyamgiri (2013) the Supreme Court left the bauxite decision to them.
- Farm subsidies versus water: cheap power and assured procurement of water-intensive crops can drive groundwater depletion.
- Fragmented institutions: ministries, pollution control boards and States hold overlapping mandates with thin monitoring.
- Missing costs: plantations raised under the CAMPA Act, 2016 may not replace lost natural forest.
| Policy goal | Competing goal | Illustration |
|---|---|---|
| Mineral revenue | Tribal forest rights | Niyamgiri, 2013 |
| Ghats development | Ecological safety | Gadgil vs Kasturirangan |
| Farm output | Groundwater | Subsidised power |
Way forward
- Policy coherence: strategic environmental assessment of sector plans, an independent regulator, community consent and enforced polluter-pays.
Building ecological limits into every sector's plan is how India can meet SDG 15: to protect, restore and sustainably use terrestrial ecosystems and halt biodiversity loss.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
