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.

Q. 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. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

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.

(~325 words)

Sources: 1. Cabinet approves three multitracking projects covering 19 Districts across Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana — PIB, 5 May 2026 — ₹23,437 crore, ~901 km, 60 MTPA, 4,161 villages/83 lakh population, Ranthambore and Kuno access, existing-alignment 3rd/4th lines, PM Gati Shakti planning 2. National Rail Plan (NRP) for India – 2030 — PIB — freight modal share target of 45% from ~27% 3. Cabinet approves multi-tracking projects benefitting Karnataka, Telangana, Bihar & Assam and a new line in Kutch — PIB — reduced logistics cost and lower dependence on oil imports as stated project benefits 4. Eco-Friendly Measures to Mitigate Impacts of Linear Infrastructure on Wildlife — Wildlife Institute of India (MoEFCC) — habitat fragmentation from roads/railways/powerlines and standard mitigation measures 5. National Logistics Policy, 2022 — PIB — objective of reducing logistics costs and improving efficiency