Biodiversity decline persists despite expansion of protected areas, letter to Centre warns

By A Representative 

A representation submitted to the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has raised serious concerns over what it describes as the rapid erosion of ecological safeguards within India’s legally protected areas, citing recent global research and the proposed approval of a major pumped storage project inside a wildlife sanctuary in Karnataka.

In a letter dated December 18, 2025, addressed to Union Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change Bhupender Yadav and Minister of State Kirti Vardhan Singh, and copied to the Prime Minister, power and climate policy analyst Shankar Sharma drew attention to a recent international study reported by Down To Earth that questions the effectiveness of expanding protected areas in halting biodiversity loss. The study warns that while the global coverage of protected areas has increased, biodiversity continues to decline within many such sites, raising concerns that policy targets are prioritising numerical expansion over actual ecological outcomes.

Referring to the Indian context, the letter argues that the situation is particularly worrying, with authorities continuing to clear development projects even within wildlife sanctuaries and eco-sensitive zones. While official narratives often highlight the creation of new protected areas, the submission contends that these gains are undermined by frequent diversions of forest land, allegedly approved without adequate assessment of ecological necessity or alternatives.

The representation highlights data indicating that India lost more than 120,000 hectares of primary forest between 2014 and 2019, a figure said to be nearly 36 percent higher than losses recorded between 2009 and 2013. It also points to reports that over 500 projects in protected areas and eco-sensitive zones were cleared by the National Board for Wildlife between June 2014 and May 2018. According to the letter, India’s total forest and tree cover now stands at about 22 percent of its land area, significantly below the National Forest Policy target of 33 percent, a gap the author says is unlikely to be bridged if current clearance trends continue.

Against this backdrop, the letter expresses strong opposition to the in-principle approval accorded to a proposed 2,000 MW pumped storage project in the Sharavathi Lion-Tailed Macaque Sanctuary in Karnataka, a region within the Western Ghats, which is recognised as a global biodiversity hotspot. The project received clearance during the 84th meeting of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife. The submission argues that approving large infrastructure projects within sanctuaries represents a serious threat to wildlife habitats, endangered species and freshwater ecosystems.

The letter contrasts the rationale often given for permitting small projects inside protected areas—such as water pipelines or communication towers, which are justified as having no viable alternatives—with what it terms the “irrational and irresponsible” approval of a large pumped storage project despite the availability of alternative energy storage solutions such as battery energy storage systems. It also claims that the Sharavathi project has faced widespread public opposition, including objections from officials within the state forest department and concerns raised by Indian Forest Service officers associated with the Union ministry.

The author questions the strength of the ministry’s commitment to environmental protection in light of the Sharavathi proposal and two other pumped storage projects planned in Karnataka. He urges the Union government to reject all three projects and to undertake a comprehensive review of pumped storage proposals in river valleys across the country, taking into account less ecologically damaging alternatives.

The representation concludes with an appeal for a more precautionary and science-based approach to development decisions within protected areas, warning that continued deforestation and habitat fragmentation could have long-term consequences for biodiversity, water security and the overall well-being of communities dependent on healthy ecosystems.