As the globe hurtles toward a climate tipping point, the discourse on climate change has rightly focused on rising temperatures, environmental disasters, and human displacement. Yet amidst these loud alarms, the cries of another set of victims are barely heard—the vanishing species and collapsing ecosystems that form the biodiversity of our planet.

India, one of the 17 megadiverse countries in the world, is witnessing an alarming rate of species extinction and habitat loss. The situation demands not just environmental awareness, but urgent legal reform that aligns biodiversity protection with climate change mitigation.

Climate Change and Biodiversity: A Vicious Cycle

Biodiversity loss and climate change are twin crises that mutually reinforce each other. Climate disruptions—rising temperatures, erratic rainfall, glacial melt, and sea-level rise—alter natural habitats, often rendering them inhospitable to endemic flora and fauna.

Coral reefs bleach, mangroves shrink, and forest ecosystems shift, causing species to migrate, adapt, or die out. According to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), around 1 million species globally face extinction, many within decades, due to human activities exacerbated by climate change.

In India, emblematic species like the Great Indian Bustard and the Himalayan Snow Leopard are silently retreating from ecosystems they once defined. Wetlands are drying, forest corridors are fragmented, and oceanic ecosystems are warming beyond survival limits. Biodiversity is not just collateral damage—it is a critical casualty of climate change.

India’s Legal Landscape: Fragmented and Inadequate

India’s legal framework for biodiversity protection is largely governed by the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. While these laws offer a robust structure in theory, they are often rendered toothless in the face of climate-induced degradation.

The Wildlife Protection Act, though vital, focuses predominantly on poaching and protected areas, failing to account for how climate change is shifting species’ habitats beyond their traditional ranges.

Similarly, the Forest Conservation Act focuses on land-use change rather than ecosystem resilience. The Biological Diversity Act, despite its intent to ensure equitable access and benefit-sharing, lacks a climate resilience framework, and climate-induced threats to biodiversity are not explicitly recognised in its provisions.

Moreover, the National Biodiversity Action Plan (NBAP) and State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs) remain underfunded and under-implemented. There is no binding climate-biodiversity impact assessment mechanism in most environmental clearance procedures. In effect, legal and institutional systems are playing catch-up with the fast-evolving environmental realities.

Judicial Interventions: A Ray of Hope

Despite legislative inertia, Indian courts have increasingly stepped in to bridge the gap between law and ecological reality. The Supreme Court in Centre for Environmental Law v. Union of India (2013) recognized the “eco-centric” approach, asserting that nature has its own intrinsic rights, independent of human utility. Similarly, in the landmark T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India case, the Court expanded the interpretation of forests and ecosystems, mandating protection beyond statutory definitions.

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), established under the NGT Act, 2010, has played a pivotal role in biodiversity conservation, often linking environmental degradation with climate threats. In Save Mon Region Federation v. Union of India (2012), the NGT quashed environmental clearance for a hydroelectric project in Arunachal Pradesh due to potential threats to endemic species and local ecology.

However, judicial pronouncements alone cannot replace comprehensive statutory reform. Biodiversity conservation must be mainstreamed into climate governance, not treated as an isolated concern.

The Case for Legal Reform: Toward a Climate-Biodiversity Code

What India needs today is a consolidated, climate-integrated biodiversity law that addresses the new realities of ecological loss. This reform must:

Recognise climate change as a biodiversity threat in law – Legislation must include climate vulnerability as a core criterion for identifying endangered species and ecosystems.

Mandate Climate-Biodiversity Impact Assessments (CBIA) – Environmental clearance procedures should include CBIA as a legal requirement for all infrastructure and development projects.

Protect Climate-Resilient Corridors – Legal recognition and protection of migratory corridors and climate refugia for species adaptation are essential.

Institutional Empowerment of Biodiversity Boards – SBBs and Biodiversity Management Committees must be equipped with legal teeth, financial support, and scientific capacity to monitor climate-induced biodiversity threats.

Community-Led Legal Mechanisms – Indigenous and local communities must be empowered through legal recognition of their conservation practices and ecological knowledge, ensuring a rights-based approach under laws like the Forest Rights Act, 2006.

Integrate International Commitments – India must align its domestic laws with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (COP15) and the Paris Climate Agreement, making them judicially enforceable where feasible.

Conclusion: A Legal Voice for the Voiceless

Biodiversity cannot defend itself in court. Forests do not file petitions. Species do not have legal standing unless we, as a society and legal community, advocate for their survival through law.

As India marches ahead in its development goals and climate ambitions, we must ensure that biodiversity protection is not a footnote in climate policy but its core foundation.

Law must evolve to recognize that the extinction of a species is not merely an ecological event—it is a moral, legal, and intergenerational failure.

Protecting biodiversity is no longer an act of charity—it is a climate imperative. If we are to ensure a just, resilient, and sustainable future, our laws must speak for the silent victims of our warming world.

Source link : View Article