Infrastructure projects that traverse ecologically sensitive zones such as national parks present a dilemma between development and conservation. Discuss with suitable examples from the railway sector.

Ecologically sensitive zones — national parks, sanctuaries and their buffer areas — often lie along the very corridors India's rail network must expand through. The CCEA's May 2026 approval of three multitracking projects worth ₹23,437 crore, adding ~901 km and improving access to Ranthambore and Kuno National Parks, captures this tension sharply [1].

The development imperative

• Capacity ahead of demand: the National Rail Plan 2030 seeks to raise rail's freight modal share from ~27% to 45%, which is impossible without capacity augmentation on congested trunk routes [2].
• Economic gains: the three approved lines add roughly 60 MTPA of freight capacity and support logistics cost reduction, a core aim of the National Logistics Policy, 2022 [1][5].
• Equity: connectivity for about 4,161 villages and 83 lakh people, plus pilgrimage and eco-tourism access, delivers welfare benefits in lagging districts [1].

The conservation cost

• Fragmentation and mortality: linear intrusions sever wildlife corridors and cause animal deaths, prompting the Wildlife Institute of India's guidance on eco-friendly mitigation for roads, railways and powerlines [4].
• Secondary pressure: easier access to parks such as Kuno raises visitor footfall and edge-effect stress on habitat.
• Procedural friction: statutory clearances under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and forest laws, alongside land acquisition under the LARR Act, 2013 across six states, threaten the 2030-31 completion timeline.

Reconciling the two

• Rail itself is the greener mode — modal shift from road cuts CO₂ emissions and oil import dependence [3].
• These are 3rd and 4th lines on existing alignments, not greenfield corridors, limiting fresh habitat loss [1].
• PM Gati Shakti integrated planning permits early ecological screening, with underpasses, overpasses and ramp fencing as standard mitigation [1][4].

The dilemma is therefore one of sequencing and design, not of irreconcilable goals. Aligning projects through prior ecological assessment, science-based mitigation and transparent stakeholder consultation allows India to meet both its logistics ambitions and its constitutional duty under Article 48A, advancing SDG-9 and SDG-15 together.