The Supreme Court’s intervention in the case of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) emphasizes the urgent need for balancing renewable energy projects with wildlife conservation. The court’s directives, such as predator-proof fencing, controlled grazing, and the installation of bird diverters on power lines, are commendable steps towards mitigating the risk of bird fatalities. However, these measures, while necessary, also highlight a critical aspect of conservation: the need for innovative, holistic strategies that go beyond traditional methods.
In the quest for sustainable development, India stands at a crossroads, balancing the imperatives of economic growth and environmental preservation. A notable manifestation of this struggle is found in the plight of the GIB, a majestic bird teetering on the brink of extinction. The GIB’s decline is not just a loss of biodiversity but a clarion call to reassess our development strategies. One of the biggest threats to the GIB has been the proliferation of overhead power lines, crucial for India’s ambitious renewable energy goals. These lines, while instrumental in reducing India’s carbon footprint and fulfilling its commitments under international environmental law, including the Paris Agreement’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under Art. 4, which are efforts by each country to reduce national emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. India’s NDCs include a commitment to increase the share of non-fossil-based power generation capacity to 40% by 2030, a goal that necessitates the expansion of renewable energy infrastructure such as solar and wind power. The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), another key piece of international environmental legislation, could provide a framework for resolving such conflicts. The CBD, particularly through its Aichi Biodiversity Targets, emphasizes the protection of species and habitats and the sustainable management of ecosystems. Balancing India’s commitments under the Paris Agreement with its obligations under the CBD is crucial for ensuring that efforts to mitigate climate change do not come at the expense of biodiversity.
Returning to the GIB, lacking frontal vision, is particularly prone to collision with these lines. The Court’s intervention in mandating measures like the installation of bird diverters and underground cables in GIB habitats reflects a nuanced understanding of the ‘ecocentric’ approach, a concept deeply rooted in environmental jurisprudence. This approach, focusing on the intrinsic value of all forms of life, echoes the principles of sustainable development and intergenerational equity enshrined in various international environmental agreements. However, beyond legal mandates, there lies an unconventional yet potentially transformative solution: regulated hunting. While this might seem counterintuitive, controlled hunting, under strict regulatory frameworks, can play a vital role in wildlife management. It is a practice that has seen success in various parts of the world, contributing to the conservation of species and their habitats. Regulated hunting can generate significant revenue, which can be reinvested into conservation efforts. This includes habitat restoration, research, and anti-poaching initiatives. In the case of the GIB, funds raised through regulated hunting of other, more populous species could finance the costly measures required to protect the bird, such as the undergrounding of power lines and the establishment of predator-proof breeding areas. Moreover, regulated hunting can help manage the population of certain wildlife species, ensuring a balanced ecosystem. This can indirectly benefit the GIB by controlling the population of species that might compete with or prey upon the GIB or its eggs.
Regulated hunting has been used in India as a conservation tool, though its application is limited and often surrounded by stringent legal and ethical considerations. One notable example is the management of deer populations in certain regions. Overpopulation of deer in some areas led to ecological imbalances, affecting other species and vegetation. Regulated hunting, under strict supervision, helped in controlling these populations, thereby restoring the ecological balance, and benefiting other species, including endangered ones. Another case is the management of wild boar populations. In areas where these animals were overpopulated, they caused significant damage to crops and vegetation, leading to conflicts with local communities. Controlled hunting, in this case, not only helped in managing the boar population but also in mitigating human-wildlife conflicts, indirectly supporting conservation efforts by aligning local community interests with wildlife management. These instances demonstrate how regulated hunting, when implemented with careful consideration of ecological balance and local community involvement, can contribute positively to conservation efforts in India. However, it’s crucial to note that such practices are always subject to rigorous legal frameworks and ethical debates, ensuring that they align with the broader goals of wildlife conservation and sustainability.
The conversation around the GIB is not just about the survival of a species but about the kind of world we want to live in and leave behind. It is about finding harmony between our developmental aspirations and our environmental responsibilities. As India strides towards a sustainable future, it must embrace innovative and holistic strategies that ensure the coexistence of progress and conservation. In this delicate balance lies the promise of a sustainable and equitable world.
