Green Infrastructure: Building Resilient and Sustainable Cities in the Face of Climate ChangeGreen infrastructure
Written by Bhumika Rani student at Amity University Jharkhand Abstract The rapidly rising temperatures have accelerated the effects of climate Change. Green infrastructure (GI) has become a viable and affordable Solution to these problems, incorporating natural systems into the urban Fabric. This essay examines the concept, significance, components, and our potential contributions to the proper shaping of green infrastructure, as well as its alignment with the main Sustainable Development Goals. While it may seem challenging to implement such changes, data shows that green Infrastructure is essential for improving urban resilience, promoting Ecological health, and shaping sustainable cities. Given the increasing Uncertainty of our environmental future, the conclusion of this essay Emphasizes the necessity of adopting GI methods. Introduction Green infrastructure refers to a network of natural and semi-natural Systems that help in the management of rainwater, reduce urban heat, Support biodiversity, and provide a healthier surrounding, which not only Mitigates environmental impacts but also offers other benefits like Enhancement of public health and economic advances. The study and Implementation of green infrastructure will be the steps that pave our way Towards a more sustainable and inclusive future. According to NOAA’s 2023 Annual Climate Report, the combined land and ocean temperature has Increased at an average rate of 0.11° Fahrenheit (0.06° Celsius) per decade Since 1850, or about 2° F in total. The rate of warming since 1982 is more Than three times as fast: 0.36° F (0.20° C) per decade. These alarming numbers highlight the rate at which we are accelerating toward global warming, not only rising temperatures, but also air and water pollution, biodiversity loss, and many such issues are a sign that taking immediate action is the need of the hour. Green infrastructure comes as the right solution to these problems, as the traditional ‘grey’ infrastructure seems to be inadequate in several situations, whose consequences are not just faced by humans, but by our whole ecosystem. Significance of GI Green Infrastructure is crucial in today’s world, as is the importance of studying it. Understanding GI helps design cities and develop solutions like urban cooling, flood control, and carbon sequestration. Understanding GI reveals how green spaces improve public well-being and help in urban planning and policy making, which encourages innovation and green jobs. There is great importance of GI as it not only helps us to tackle environmental issues but also has economic and social benefits. GI mainly helps in reducing pollution as it filters out air and water pollution, manages storm water by providing permeable surfaces like green roofs and rain gardens, and enhances biodiversity by serving as habitats for wildlife, which promotes ecological balance. Along with this, it is cost-effective compared to traditional “grey” infrastructure and also boosts property value by making the neighbourhood attractive. The green surroundings offer people improved mental health and encourage them for physical activities , ensuring their overall well-being. Components of Green Infrastructure Many components of GI work together to create a connected and multifunctional landscape that benefits both the environment and people. It consists of Green Spaces like parks, community gardens, and urban forests that’s provides cooling and purification of air as well as supports local food production; Vegetated Systems like Green Roofs, green walls, rain gardens and bios wale that helps in purifying air and directing storm water; Tree canopy and permeable surfaces along streets and park That help reducing urban heat and willows water to seep into the ground; Wetlands and water bodies likes ponds, lakes, and rivers to maintain Ground water levels and green corridors and networks that connects parks And open spaces which will supports wildlife movement. Green Infrastructure’s Role in Climate Change Adaptation Green infrastructure causes a huge impact on communities’ ability to Adapt to climate change. Trees, green roofs, and various forms of Vegetation help in reducing urban heat through shading and evapotranspiration. Their soils capture carbon, contributing to adaptation to climate change, and they also contribute to reducing the risk of floods When intense rainfall and storms occur, making it an effective rainwater Management aid. The implications of green infrastructure enhance the Overall quality of water and air and assist wildlife in naturally adapting to Changing conditions. In conclusion, it can be stated that green infrastructure serves as a Nature-based solution that enhances communities’ capacity to cope with The effects of a rapidly changing climate while ensuring the health, Economy, and well-being of other species. Global Examples of Green Infrastructure Green Infrastructure has shown how effective it is by serving several Functions like urban cooling, flood control, and biodiversity enhancement, And these could be seen globally. In New York City, USA, GI initiatives Include multiple rain gardens and green roofs, which help manage sewer Overflow and urban heat while improving air quality. In Singapore, the “Gardens by the Bay” features vertical gardens, Green roofs, and a network of parks, exemplifying the integration of ecology With architecture. Likewise, London’s Green Grid links woodlands, parks, And wetlands throughout the city, effectively managing storm water and Promoting urban cooling. Several such worldwide examples of GI include Denmark’s Climate-Resilient Neighbourhoods, which handle extreme rainfall and reduce floods. Melbourne’s expanded tree canopy, to tackle climate change. The Netherlands’ multipurpose public spaces, like Playgrounds that also serve as water retention areas, help in rainwater management. Green Infrastructure’s connection to the SDGs The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) advocate for Environmental protection, social well-being, and economic sustainability, Which is deeply connected to the concept of Green Infrastructure. There are 17 key Global Goals for sustainable development as identified by the SDGs. SDG 3, titled Good Health and Well-Being, emphasises that Green spaces enhance both mental and physical health. SDG 6, which Pertains to Clean Water and Sanitation, recognises that green Infrastructure such as wetlands, bios wales, and permeable pavements Effectively filter pollutants, thereby aiding in storm water management and Improving water quality. SDG 7, which states Affordable and Clean Energy, And GI highlights that green roofs and walls contribute to improved energy Efficiency by decreasing urban heat. SDG 9,
The Consent Illusion: Tribal Autonomy and the Failure of Participatory Governance in India
Written by Akhil Yadav student at Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar. Introduction India’s constitutional safeguards grant self-governance to tribal citizens in the Fifth Schedule and the PESA Act of 1996. Close to three decades after PESA took effect, the gap between constitutional promise and ground reality is a testament to a constitutional failure in its very essence. This blog tries to analyze how well-intentioned legal frameworks generated an illusion of consent without ever posing a threat to actual tribal self-determination. Tribal participatory governance theory is based on the premise that the natives must get actual power to decide about their lives and resources. Practice has always led to what could be described as a “consent illusion” rather than actual decision-making authority in the form of actual choices. Constitutional Engineering and PESA’s Potential The Fifth Schedule of the Indian Constitution regulates tribal regions in ten states, and PESA was passed in 1996 to extend panchayati raj provisions to Scheduled Areas with adaptations which accorded weightage to tribal culture. PESA was a deviation from the top-down model of development, vowing to place tribal people at the center of decision-making. Theoretical foundations of PESA are in three basic principles: strengthening Gram Sabhas as part of the institutions of governance with decision-making authority over natural resources, recognition of traditional institutions and customary law, and provision of mechanisms for conservation of culture. The act grants statutory rights of consultation to Gram Sabhas in the event of projects affecting tribal people and minor forest produce and water bodies. Implementation Failure: The Reality Gap Even with progressive provisions, PESA implementation has been characterized by grave issues that reflect structural inadequacies. The most rudimentary one is the dearth of congruence between legal provisions and administrative practice. The state governments have been hesitant to decentralize significant powers to the tribal people, especially in the issue of resource management and developmental activities. Bureaucratic resistance has also manifested itself as delayed action, institutional duplicity creating parallel structures that go around the Gram Sabha, and the creation of independent development bodies that function outside the tribal institutions. This side-stepping is an indication of institutional biases that treat tribal societies as hindrances to development, and not as co-operators in governance. Capacity building is also a problem. PESA assumes that tribal citizens will be able to rapidly develop technical and administrative capacity to perform high-level government activities. However, decades of underdevelopment have deprived most of the people of human resources to interact with modern administrative machinery. The Illusion of Consent in Practice Illusion of consent is defined as the case where procedural mechanisms of consultation exist but devoid of material engagement of the community or where consent is elicited through coercion or shallow exchange of information. Tribal developmental programs of the region always invoke consent of the community in terms of Gram Sabha resolutions, but problems expose consultations that are carried out without meaningful exchange of information or with involvement of small groups instead of grassroots community-level debate. Conventional decision-making in the mainstream based on conventional tribal consensus rests on consensus-making with a requirement of extensive deliberation and broad consensus. Formal requirements under PESA are, however, read in the context of majoritarian democracy, and the majority vote constitutes valid consent. This tension between conventional consensus-making and formalism opens up room for manipulation. Power asymmetries between external entities and tribal communities create the illusion of consent. During state agency or corporation-tribal community negotiations, the negotiations were always going to be unequal with external entities possessing more resources and communities not having independent expertise. Ground Realities: Hasdeo Arand and Niyamgiri Chhattisgarh’s Hasdeo Arand forest, almost 170,000 hectares in area, is one of India’s largest remaining forest blocks and the home to a number of Adivasi groups, such as the Gonds and the Oraons. Even after the Forest Rights Act (FRA) and PESA, there have been charges that sanction to Hasdeo Arand mining projects were forged. A 2024 investigation by the Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribes Commission discovered permissions to mining in the Parsa block issued on the basis of forged documents, in vindication of long-time claims by residents that their sanction was neither sought nor given. It was the same with Odisha’s Niyamgiri Hills, which are sacred to the Dongria Kondh tribe. The hills were a location of indigenous protest against Vedanta Resources’ bauxite mine. In a historic 2013 judgment, India’s Supreme Court upheld the rights of the Dongria Kondh and declared that any mine proposal in the region must be vetted by local Gram Sabhas. All twelve villages consulted later rejected the mine project, voting unanimously against it, thereby stopping the project in its tracks. All these examples underscore the imperative need for participatory government and compliance with legal requirements to safeguard indigenous rights. The Challenge of Implementing Forest Rights Act The 2006 Forest Rights Act, following in the steps of PESA, provides yet another lens through which to view participatory governance problems. While the act provides rights to the community over the forest and increases tribal authority over forest resources, implementation of the act has been persistently thwarted by opposition from forest departments. In Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, for instance, forest departments have used bureaucratic strategies to slow down recognition of community forest rights, keeping the process under central control. This resistance signals institutional cultures that view tribal communities as a threat to forest conservation, rather than able custodians of forest ecosystems. Where rights in community forests have been conferred, the experience has been positive. Tribal communities in some areas of Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh have shown good forest management, balancing traditional conservation practices with the most advanced monitoring technology. These are exceptions, not norms, and the distance between policy promise and performance in implementation delivery is wide. The Double Displacement Dilemma: Displaced from Land, Excluded from Power Tribal land displacement is always a second-order act of bodily displacement it is frequently a process of gradual dispossession. What the tribal people experience is double displacement: the first, spatial, and material is dispossession from their homelands;
Environment and Sustainable Development policy : Pathways to a Greenery Future Endeavour
Written by Faijul Islam, Lecturer of Law, Prime University of Bangladesh Introduction The 21st century stands at a critical juncture of success where humanity’s survival and prosperity depend heavily on how we treat the environment in different ways. Environmental degradation, climate change,environmental justice and resource depletion are pressing issues confronting global society for many times.So Sustainable development emerges as the most viable approach to balance economic growth with ecological preservation for the future . This blog explores the intricate relationship between the environment and sustainable development with intergenerational equity with the legal frameworks governing this nexus and the future path for achieving a harmonious balance between human progress and optimistic nature. Understanding Sustainable Development The concept of sustainable development delves global recognition through the 1987 Brundtland Report which defined it as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs with their ability .”[1] Sustainable development emphasizes a balance among three core pillars: economic growth, social inclusion and environmental protection at a same time. While economic development has historically been prioritized by human Being unchecked industrialization has led to severe environmental consequences including deforestation, pollution,famine and biodiversity loss. Sustainable development reorients economic planning to consider log way ecological and social consequences at the end. Environmental Challenges to Sustainability Global environmental challenges are multifaceted and interconnected issues nowadays. Climate change is arguably the most significant threat with rising temperatures, melting glaciers,sea level rising and extreme weather events already impacting millions worldwide drastically . The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has emphasized that global warming must be limited to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels to avoid catastrophic outcomes severally .[2] Other pressing issues include: Air and water pollution which compromise public health issues and depend on ecosystem integrity. Loss of biodiversity weakening the resilience of natural eco systems Unsustainable land use contributing to soil degradation and desertification of the green measures Plastic pollution, posing threats to marine life and food safety measures These issues necessitate an integrated approach combining science, policy, and law. International Legal Frameworks on Environment and Development International environmental law has evolved to address sustainability through conventions,Avenue, treaties, and soft law instruments. Key international frameworks include: These agreements reflect the growing recognition that environmental issues are transboundary and require collective global nominal action. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) In 2015, the United Nations adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Among them Goal 13 (Climate Action), Goal 14 (Life Below Water), and Goal 15 (Life on Land) directly address environmental sustainability for the common future .[7] These goals promote policies such as reducing carbon footprints from the universe, protecting ecosystems, saving greenery and promoting renewable energy. The SDGs also recognize the interdependence of environmental sustainability with poverty eradication by protecting gender equality, and good governance. Principles of Environmental Law Supporting Sustainability Several key legal principles underpin sustainable environmental governance: The Precautionary Principle: Preventive action should be taken when environmental harm is suspected even in the absence of full scientific credible of certainty.[8] Polluter Pays Principle: Those responsible for pollution should bear the costs of managing it to prevent damage to human health or the environment legacy.[9] Intergenerational Equity: Present generations also must conserve the environment for future generations.[10] Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR): Acknowledges different capacities and responsibilities of countries in addressing global environmental degradation that directly involved in the man made created probl.[11] These principles are embedded in both international and domestic laws and guide decision-making processes in sustainable development. National Environmental Legislation and Sustainable Policies Many countries have incorporated sustainable development into national law as per their norms. For example: India’s Constitution, under Article 48A and Article 51A(g) mandates the state and citizens to protect and improve the environment by various means.[12] The United States enforces the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which requires environmental assessments for federal development projects.[13] Bangladesh made vulnerable to climate change has adopted the Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (BCCSAP) to align development with environmental resilience project [14] National governments play a crucial role in implementing sustainability by integrating environmental impact assessments (EIAs), regulating emissions prevented and promoting clean technology movement. Role of Judiciary in Promoting Environmental Justice Our Courts worldwide have played a proactive role in environmental protection measures. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Indian Supreme Court expanded their intention to prove the scope of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution to include the right to a healthy environment.[15] Similarly, in Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands, a Dutch court ordered the meaning of development relating to the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions, citing obligations under international law and human rights principles.[16] Promoting Judicial activism and public interest litigation have become effective tools in holding governments accountable for environmental protection and sustainable development movement Corporate Responsibility and Green Economy Businesses are also key players in the sustainability agenda involvement . They made initiative on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) mandates are increasingly incorporating environmental stewardship.These Concepts such as Environmental, Social,Practical and Governance (ESG) metrics guide sustainable investment. The green economy emphasizes economic growth with minimal environmental impact on society promoting sectors such as renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and green infrastructure for development .By this way Governments incentivize green business models through tax benefits, subsidies in agriculture and public-private partnerships. Technological Innovation and Sustainability Technological innovation is a critical in transitioning to sustainable development for the future. Renewable energy technologies (solar, wind, hydro), electric vehicles, and sustainable agriculture practices are revolutionizing these resources which we should use. Digital tools, such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS), remote sensing system , and blockchain that enhance transparency and efficiency in making environmental governance. However, the digital divide must be addressed to ensure equitable assessment to access to sustainable technologies across developing countries. Challenges to Achieving Sustainable Development Despite global efforts, several challenges persist: Lack of political will and short-term economic considerations will priorities often undermine long-term environmental
Coding the Climate: Digital Colonialism in Global Environmental Governance
Written by Sanya Darakhshan Kishwar, Assistant Professor & Sakkcham Singh Parmaar student at Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University Abstract This paper explores how digital colonialism reshapes global climate policy by concentrating environmental data and technological control in the hands of powerful tech-corporations. It critiques the marginalisation of indigenous knowledge systems and sovereignty, revealing how digital infrastructures perpetuate historical inequities under the guise of sustainability and innovation. Keywords: Digital Colonialism, Climate Governance, Environmental Data Sovereignty, Indigenous Knowledge Systems. In the digitally interlinked world that we live in, technological innovations and interventions are intrinsic to guiding climate policies and actions. However, with digital progress, there is a parallel emergence of the dangerous trend of “digital colonialism”. Digital colonialism seeks to reconfigure global environmental governance by handing over critical ecological data to dominant tech-corporations, often relegating indigenous knowledge and people in the process. The emergence of digital colonialism is indicative of the fact that, only a few multinational technology corporations seem to hold the power and control over environmental data and technologies. A good example is that of Amazon’s “ Climate Pledge” to reach net-zero carbon emissions by the year 2040 through investments in renewable energy projects and sustainable business practices. Though laudable, the projects have been vehemently criticised for perpetuating colonialism by involving the extraction of natural resources from tribal lands or the building of renewable infrastructure without any commitment to safeguarding indigenous rights and their knowledge systems. Such failures continue a long-standing pattern of marginalisation that ignores the dignity and command over environmental stewardship by indigenous peoples, who by all means are the principal custodians of biodiversity and climate resilience.Examples like these demonstrate how historical inequities continue to be perpetuated in the garb of climate policy and action. These corporations monopolise important climate data that form the basis of monitoring and mitigation as well as adaptation strategies. In the longer run, they go on to influence monumental climate policies almost exclusively inclined towards a west-centric approach. Resultantly, this suppresses the voices of indigenous and local communities that have for centuries sustainably stewarded the ecosystems. This new form of colonialism calls for critical reflection since digital technologies have insinuated themselves into environmental governance at various levels, from data collection and storage to policy formulation, often cementing already existing inequalities in power, race, and geography. Therefore, the authors attempt to examine how digital colonialism shapes global climate governance by concentrating environmental data and technological power in corporate hands, marginalising indigenous knowledge systems, and perpetuating historical inequities under the guise of sustainability. Non-consideration of indigenous practices in the design and deployment of Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’)-based forest monitoring tools could lead to misinterpretations of environmental dynamics and unintended consequences, including the criminalisation of certain customary land and forest management practices. The marginalisation of indigenous perspectives in the development of AI and algorithmic systems reflects a broader pattern of technological design rooted in Global North epistemologies. This dynamic perpetuates a form of digital neo-colonialism; wherein environmental surveillance technologies reinforce existing power imbalances and further erode indigenous knowledge systems and land stewardship practices. For instance, India’s ambitious Smart City projects epitomise the digital colonialism dilemmas in urban and environmental planning. Particularly in Mumbai’s Aarey Colony, infrastructure development aimed at technological modernisation has trespassed on adivasi (tribal) lands leading to displacement and disruption of traditional lifestyles deeply intertwined with ecological well-being. These projects have fashioned themselves on high-level climate models and data analytics, which have hardly fitted the local ecological contexts and indigenous knowledge systems. Consequently, the adivasi communities find their rights over land and natural resources degraded, entirely sidelined in climate adaptation and sustainability frameworks that prioritise technology-led modernisation over culturally and environmentally grounded approaches. This, in turn leads to exclusionary urban policies that marginalise those most dependent upon and knowledgeable of natural ecosystems, drawing further attention to the dissonance between technocratic climate governance and indigenous environmental justice. Similarly, in Kenya, advanced AI-based tools such as M-Situ are deployed to track illegal logging through detection of the chainsaw, fire, and disturbances to the forest. It provides an agency for real-time engagement with the most activities threatening the forests and thus allows swift alerts to forest rangers for effective intervention. However, while high-tech, this approach, more often than not, ignores traditional ecological knowledge, such as controlled burning, which is important for the therapeutic conservation of forest health, biodiversity, and fire control. India and Kenya serve as compelling case studies from the Global South, where digital colonialism intersects with climate governance. Both countries showcase ambitious technological interventions in environmental management, yet reveal how such innovations often marginalise indigenous communities, raising critical questions about data sovereignty, equity, and the neo-colonial dynamics of digital development as well as echoing the need for addressing gaps in the existing legal and policy frameworks. There is a pressing need to address the legal and policy gaps that allow digital colonialism to persist unchallenged. This includes developing regulatory frameworks that are responsive to the sociotechnical complexities of AI and that centre the rights and knowledge systems of historically marginalised communities. The innovative technological solutions displayed at the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (‘COP28’) were almost extravagantly hailed as corporate-led responses to the challenge posed by climate change. The most high-profile example was Microsoft’s “Planetary Computer,” which would aggregate large volumes of environmental data and facilitate all sorts of sustainable efforts via AI-dependent cloud computing. Although such platforms offer robust analytical capability to a user, the pre-eminence raises issues about data governance, ownership, and inclusivity, which have become increasingly serious. Placing environmental data in unaccountable corporate systems risks digital colonialism, excluding indigenous voices and reinforcing global inequities without consent, transparency, or benefit-sharing frameworks. In opposition to these models, generations of indigenous Latin Americans have relied on Buen Vivir for a more collective, holistic view of what it means to manage the environment and sovereignty over data. Buen Vivir embodies all the indigenous philosophies that recognise the necessary balance between welfare and the interrelationship with nature, in terms of collectivising the ownership
Digging Responsibly: The Legal Side of Sustainable Mining
Written by Keshav Agarwal student at Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar Introduction: Can mining fuel progress without wounding the planet? In India, mining powers essentials such as the electricity, steel, smartphones, roads. India, with 95 minerals, is a global mining leader, exporting resources like iron ore, bauxite, chromite, and copper. But behind this industrial might there lies a stark reality: vanishing forests, polluted rivers, displaced communities, and a deepening gender divide. As one of the top five mineral producers by volume, India stands at a crossway. Sure, mining drives GDP and growth—but at what cost? This blog dives into the legal frameworks, sustainability efforts, corporate responsibilities, and social-environmental challenges shaping India’s mining future. The question now isn’t about how much can be mined, but about how responsibly it’s done. Legal and Policy Framework: Building the Foundation for Sustainable Mining The mining industry employs about one million workers, or 4% of India’s workforce. It is governed by numerous central and state laws, mainly the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMRD), and the Mines Act, 1952. The MMRD regulates the sector under a unified national framework, while the Mines Act focuses on health, safety, and operational standards. While the MMRD Act (1957) provides a unified legal framework, the Mines Act (1952) sets health and safety standards.” Several key environmental laws also play a significant role in regulating mining activities. For instance, the Environment Protection Act of 1986 aims to prevent and control pollution while ensuring the maintenance and restoration of environmental quality, including water resources affected by mining operations. Similarly, the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 restricts the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes, thereby placing limits on mining in ecologically sensitive areas. But, the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997) emphasized the urgent need for implementation over mere statutory existence. Furthermore, “The National Mineral Policy, 2019” which aims to ensure that minerals, as vital natural resources, are explored, extracted, and managed in alignment with national economic goals. It outlines that it’s the state’s role as a trustee of mineral wealth for advocating for fair and transparent allocation, environmental sustainability, stakeholder participation, and equitable benefit-sharing with affected communities. India has no shortage of sustainability-related laws and regulations. However, their effectiveness is frequently undermined by weak implementation and enforcement mechanisms. Regulatory agencies often lack the resources or autonomy needed to monitor compliance consistently, and penalties for violations are either minimal or poorly enforced. As a result, many companies full-fill only the formal requirements—filing reports or obtaining clearances—without making meaningful changes to reduce their environmental and social impact. Laws achieve lasting impact only when compliance goes beyond box-ticking and becomes a matter of internalized values and proactive practice. Corporate Social Responsibility in Mining: Doing Good or Doing the Minimum? Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in India’s mining sector is a legal obligation, but whether it translates into real, lasting impact is a different question altogether. Under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Companies (Corporate Social Responsibility Policy) Rules, 2014, companies above a certain threshold are mandated to spend at least 2% of their average net profits over the previous three years on CSR activities. Mining PSUs like Coal India Ltd. (CIL) have set geographical parameters for this spending, such as allocating 80% of their CSR funds within 25 km of project sites and the remaining 20% within the states they operate in. However, studies reveal that in practice, CSR often takes the form of short-lived, surface-level interventions such as installing water tanks, distributing school kits, building clinics , projects that look good on paper but offer little lasting value once a mine shut down. Most mining companies do not integrate CSR into the overall mine lifecycle, resulting in community support that fades when operations cease. This disjoint becomes especially harmful for vulnerable populations—indigenous groups, women, and informal workers, who are often left with polluted lands and few economic alternatives. True CSR should be rooted in system-building: vocational training, micro-enterprise support, mobile health care, and education that lasts beyond mining activity. For instance, initiatives like those at Tata Steel’s Noamundi mine, where CSR aligns with mine closure and environmental restoration goals, show what’s possible when community development is embedded into core business planning. What ultimately matters is that the CSR must shift from being a compliance checkbox to a strategy for long-term, inclusive development, which could be made possible by several practical steps and legal reforms such as Mandating impact assessments and audits , Linking CSR to mine closure planning, promoting pooled CSR funds , and strengthening monitoring mechanisms. Waste Management: What Happens to All That Dirt? “It might come as a surprise, but in 2015, India recorded the highest number of pollution-related deaths globally.” According to The Lancet, 2.51 million lives were lost due to polluted air, water, and soil which is nearly 28% of global pollution deaths. According to the State of Global Air 2019 report, children born in South Asia today face a potential reduction in life expectancy by up to 2.5 years solely due to exposure to air pollution. Consider the mining industry, not just the familiar image of trucks transporting coal or iron ore, but the often-overlooked environmental consequence: for every tonne of mineral extracted, several tonnes of hazardous waste are generated and left behind, over a billion tonnes each year in India alone, this waste isn’t harmless. We’re talking over burden, tailings, slag, sludge, and dust, all dumped dangerously close to villages and water sources, untreated. So, what can we do? Innovations like geopolymer concrete, sedimentation tanks, and bioremediation show promise but lack widespread adoption. Some companies like Tata Steel are testing these innovations. But unless these become the norm we’re just putting a Band-Aid on a growing crisis which was as also stated in the case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), where the Supreme Court advocated for the “polluter pays” principle, but implementation remains inconsistent. It’s time mining got a sustainability
Green Hydrogen and the Single Bidding Zone Dilemma: Can India and the European Union Align for a Sustainable Future?
Written by Priyanshu Gupta student at National Law Institute University, Bhopal. Introduction Transitioning to a hydrogen-driven economy is increasingly viewed as a critical step toward achieving global decarbonization goals and addressing climate change. Green hydrogen (“GH2”), produced using renewable energy sources, has emerged as a key solution for reducing emissions in sectors that are particularly challenging to decarbonize, such as steel and iron manufacturing, fertilizers, oil refineries, and transportation. Additionally, for industries like aviation and shipping, which face limited alternatives to fossil fuels, GH2 represents one of the most viable pathways to sustainability. This has led to a growing global focus on advancing green hydrogen technologies and integrating them into energy systems. India, in line with its commitment to achieving net-zero emissions by 2070, has adopted a comprehensive approach to energy transformation. Among its strategies, the promotion of GH2 and its derivatives, such as Green Ammonia (“GNH3”), stands out as a significant initiative. Supported by policy measures at both the central and state levels, GH2 is produced primarily through water electrolysis powered by renewable energy and, in some cases, through biomass gasification. These efforts align with India’s broader objectives of reducing reliance on fossil fuels and expanding the use of clean energy in its domestic grid and industrial processes. This article examines the regulatory landscape surrounding GH2 in India, focusing on the challenges posed by the European Union’s (“EU”) directives on green hydrogen production and export. By analysing these restrictions, this article aims to provide an overview of their potential impact on India’s ambitions in the global green hydrogen market and the challenges they may pose to the country’s efforts to become a leading exporter of renewable hydrogen. Regulatory Landscape Surrounding Green Hydrogen in India India’s regulatory framework for green hydrogen (GH2) is rapidly evolving, driven by a series of strategic initiatives aimed at positioning the country as a global leader in clean energy. The Green Hydrogen Policy, launched in 2022, is the foundation of these efforts, introducing measures such as land allotment within renewable energy parks for GH2 and Green Ammonia (GNH3) manufacturing to reduce transmission losses and costs. To further strengthen this vision, the government launched the National Green Hydrogen Mission (NGHM) in January 2023. The NGHM’s goal is to make India a hub for GH2 production, usage, and export, with a target of adding 125 GW of renewable energy capacity by 2030. This aligns with India’s broader aim of achieving 500 GW of non-fossil fuel-based energy. A crucial regulatory initiative is the Green Hydrogen Certification Scheme of India (GHCI), developed by the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE). The GHCI aims to enhance transparency and accountability in GH2 production by certifying the origin and emission intensity of hydrogen produced. The certification will include a Guarantee of Origin (GO) label, detailing the project and environmental impact. The European Union’s Regulatory Framework for Green Hydrogen The European Union, through its European Green Deal and the REPowerEU plan, has adopted an ambitious agenda aimed at addressing climate change and reducing its reliance on fossil fuel imports from Russia. Central to these efforts is the goal of producing 10 million tonnes of renewable hydrogen domestically and importing an additional 10 million tonnes from third countries by 2030. To ensure a consistent and standardized approach to the definition of “renewable hydrogen,” the EU has amended the Renewable Energy Directive (2018/2001) (RED II) with the introduction of a Delegated Act (DA) under Article 27. This DA provides a detailed Union-wide methodology that outlines the conditions under which hydrogen can be classified as renewable. In addition to the DA on Article 27, a further delegated act under Article 28, has been introduced to establish the methodology for assessing the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions savings associated with renewable hydrogen. The act mandates that renewable hydrogen must achieve a minimum of 70% GHG emissions reductions relative to conventional hydrogen production methods. A key feature of the RED II read with the DA is the principle of additionality which requires that the electricity used in hydrogen production must come from new renewable energy projects (like solar or wind farms) that were not already supplying power to the grid. The intent is to avoid diverting existing green electricity away from other sectors and to ensure that hydrogen production contributes to an actual increase in renewable capacity. Further, the regulation also demands geographical correlation, meaning that the renewable energy used to produce hydrogen must be generated within the same geographical region or power grid zone as the hydrogen production facility. This ensures that the green power used is physically capable of reaching the electrolyser without relying on long-distance transmission or grid balancing from non-renewable sources. The Dilemma of the Bidding Zone between the EU and India with respect to Green Hydrogen A significant compatibility issue arises from the application of European sustainability criteria for renewable hydrogen, particularly the concepts of geographical correlation and bidding zones, to third countries like India. This dilemma is rooted in the fundamental differences between the electricity systems and market designs of the EU and other nations. The European regulatory framework for renewable hydrogen production is closely linked to the concept of bidding zones as they function within the European electricity market. Applying these specific rules, which were developed based on the structure and dynamics of the European grid, creates uncertainties for Indian green hydrogen projects targeting the EU market. The core of the dilemma is determining how the EU’s concept of bidding zones should be interpreted and applied in a different national context like India’s to ensure compliance with the DA’s objectives. Bidding zones in the European electricity market In the European Union, bidding zones serve as crucial structural elements of the electricity market. As defined by European Regulation 2019/943, a bidding zone is “the largest geographical area within which market participants are able to exchange energy without capacity allocation”. These zones are primarily established to reflect structural congestion present in the European transmission grid. The integration of bidding zones into the criteria for