How seriously does our government take its environment goals?

The move to reduce Kaziranga’s eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) from 10 km to just 1–3 km raises doubts about the government’s commitment to protecting its own natural resources and biodiversity – Attrika Hazarika

On March 25, India amended its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) for the period 2030-2035 under the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. These goals were significant in the context of a grim geopolitical landscape dominated by war, the decline of multilateralism, and the recovery of fossil fuel-based economic activity in industrialised countries.

In the current scenario, climate goals and energy sovereignty are closely connected and mutually dependent. India’s target of 500 GW of renewable energy by 2030 was considered ambitious at the time it was set. As Amitabh Kant notes in his article, “The West Asia war is a warning. “It’s also a window to securing our energy,” he states, “but today, that approach is no longer sufficient.” A revised target of 1500 GW by 2030 is both necessary and achievable. The target is about both climate commitments and energy sovereignty.”

 Ambitious climate objectives focus on reducing GHG emissions and increasing the production of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and green hydrogen, along with the use of cleaner fuels like EVs and CNG, and advanced technologies like BESS and carbon capture, utilisation, and storage. When it comes to creating carbon sinks, India’s forests and wildlife sanctuaries play a vital role, both by absorbing carbon emissions and by providing habitats for the nation’s diverse wildlife and biodiversity. The current goal for carbon sinks by 2035 is set at 3.5–4 billion tonnes of CO?. However, the government’s recent decision to reduce Kaziranga National Park’s animal corridor eco-sensitive zone in Assam from 10 km to 1 km has triggered significant concern among conservationists and environmental activists.

Environmentalists and wildlife organizations are firmly against the reduction of the ecologically sensitive zone. They point out that, during seasonal floods, animals such as rhinos and elephants rely on crossing highways to reach the elevated areas of the southern Karbi Anglong hills. Conservationists caution that decreasing the buffer zone could lead to more commercial development, obstruct critical migration routes, and escalate human-wildlife conflicts.

Recently, a 53-year-old elephant named Joymoti was carried 55 km by the July 2026 floods from Nagaland to Assam and was later airlifted to Vantara in Jamnagar, Gujarat, for specialized treatment. In Assam, several organizations have stepped in to support animal welfare. The Centre for Wildlife Rehabilitation and Conservation has been active for over twenty years and is a collaborative initiative between the Assam government, the Wildlife Trust of India (WTI), and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). Local groups like Elephant Monitors Assam also work to rehabilitate elephants. Elephant Monitors Assam and other local groups actively rehabilitate injured or displaced elephants. In addition, Numaligarh Refinery Limited (NRL) has plans to install 11 monitoring towers in areas frequented by elephants, including Dholagaon, Kaibarta, Bogoriani, Kuruwabahi, Dhuliagaon, Rongbong (5 and 4), Borchapori, Mithamchapori, Ponka Sengamorajan, Hatimorajan, Difalopathar, Bhulaguri, and Kordoiguri. The efforts of these organizations demonstrate that Assam has skilled professionals dedicated to the welfare of animals.

While privatising services can enhance productivity and efficiency, ensuring accountability remains crucial and often uncertain. Critics have deemed the recent announcement regarding the Vantara Foundation’s management of Assam’s wildlife unrealistic, as each wildlife sanctuary possesses its own unique characteristics.

Recently, India’s move toward privatising its natural reserves has attracted considerable attention. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has urged India to “suspend the implementation of the projects on the Great Nicobar and Andaman Islands until a full and independent environmental, economic, social, cultural and spiritual impact study has been completed.” The proposed $10 billion development includes a mega-port, a new city, an international airport, a power station, a military base, an industrial park, and plans for up to 650,000 settlers. If carried out, these changes could severely harm the uncontacted Indigenous communities living on Great Nicobar Island.

According to Caroline Pearce, Director of Survival International, “The UN has now joined the powerful chorus of voices raised against the Great Nicobar project. Independent experts warn that the project will harm the Shompen. No argument about potential economic benefits can justify inflicting a genocide.” She emphasizes that the government must prioritize the welfare of its people and the environment above corporate partnerships.

(The writer is a sustainability professional.)