Ecological federalism: Transcending man-made borders
India’s environmental governance framework has historically been constrained by a rigid adherence to political and administrative demarcations. By privileging anthropogenic jurisdictions over the ecological continuities that sustain the subcontinent, the prevailing system departs from a foundational principle of environmental governance: development within one jurisdiction must not externalize ecological harm beyond its point of origin. Yet, in practice, the dominance of state-centric political boundaries over invisible ecological continua has almost normalised such externalisation.
The Union government often justifies centralized project approvals in the name of national growth, strategic necessity, or economic modernization. However, at times, legitimate ecological and inter-state concerns have been underemphasized or overridden, with macroeconomic priorities taking precedence over landscape-level sustainability considerations. Consequently, the environmental consequences of large-scale infrastructure, extractive, and energy projects seldom remain confined to the territories in which they are approved. Their costs are dispersed across ecologically sensitive regions and resource-dependent communities that hardly have any role in shaping those decisions. For example, air pollutants traverse state boundaries; rivers carry contaminants downstream; deforestation alters rainfall distribution and groundwater recharge patterns across regions; and river modifications disrupt basin-wide hydrological dynamics.
The experience of the Aravalli Range offers a particularly compelling illustration of a policy gap and institutional shortcoming. Extending across multiple states in north-western India, the Aravallis constitute one of the world’s oldest fold mountain systems and perform indispensable ecological functions. They facilitate groundwater recharge, act as a natural barrier against desertification advancing from the Thar Desert, moderate regional climatic conditions, and sustain a critical green buffer for the National Capital Region (NCR). Despite this trans boundary significance, the range has often been administered through narrow, state-specific regulatory approaches rather than as a unified ecological landscape.
Mining interests, aggressive real estate expansion, and unregulated land-use change have advanced with insufficient regard for the range’s long-term integrity. Particularly concerning are recent attempts to redefine the range through restrictive technical criteria, such as the “100-metre height” threshold, which risk diluting existing protections and significantly reducing the spatial ambit of environmental safeguards. Such recalibrations, clearly divorced from ecological logic, render ancient and interconnected landscapes vulnerable to incremental and potentially irreversible degradation. Research by the Central Arid Zone Research Institute indicates that desertification pressures are breaching the Aravalli barrier and advancing toward the Indo-Gangetic plain at an estimated rate of approximately 0.5 kilometres per year. Simultaneously, unauthorised land conversion and mining approvals granted without incorporating landscape-level ecological metrics, such as fragmentation indices, have disrupted biodiversity corridors and impaired ecosystem processes.
Vegetation loss driven by extractive activities and infrastructure expansion has intensified regional heat waves, reduced hydrological recharge, and diminished air-purification capacity. Assessments by the Central Ground Water Board identify the Aravallis as the principal recharge zone for the over-exploited aquifers of the NCR. With groundwater levels in several districts reportedly declining by nearly one metre annually, the continued impairment of recharge processes poses a direct threat to the socio-economic stability of urban and peri-urban populations.
Given the profound socio-political, economic, and ecological ramifications of the current governance model, it is imperative to reassess the management of the Aravalli Range within the framework of cooperative federalism and long-term ecological security. Global precedents offer a viable roadmap for this transition, demonstrating how trans boundary ecosystems can be preserved through institutionalized mechanisms of shared responsibility.
The restoration of the Rhine River provides a powerful example. In the mid-twentieth century, industrial expansion in upstream countries severely polluted downstream stretches, particularly affecting the Dutch delta. In response, riparian states strengthened cooperation through the International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine. This framework institutionalised subsidiarity, equitable cost-sharing, harmonized discharge standards, and joint financing of wastewater management infrastructure. Through sustained collaboration, the Rhine transitioned from one of Europe’s most polluted rivers into a global model of basin-level ecological recovery.
A comparable federal template exists in Australia’s management of the Murray-Darling Basin. Recognizing that fragmented state-level governance was ecologically untenable, the federal government established basin-wide planning mechanisms and enforced scientifically determined Sustainable Diversion Limits. Substantial public investment in irrigation modernisation, water-efficiency improvements, and ecological restoration ensured that, while individual states retained administrative authority, their decisions remained bounded by a centrally controlled ecologically defined ceiling.
The Catskill Watershed in the United States demonstrates the economic rationality of conservation. Confronted with deteriorating water quality, New York City chose to invest in upstream forest and agricultural land protection rather than construct a multi-billion-dollar filtration plant. By compensating landowners for maintaining ecological integrity and financing watershed protection programs, the city secured high-quality drinking water at a fraction of the projected infrastructural cost. Conservation, in this instance, proved fiscally prudent as well as environmentally sound.
Further insight emerges from Central Asia’s cooperative management of the Chu River and the Talas River following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. When upstream Kyrgyzstan faced disproportionate maintenance costs for dams that primarily benefited downstream Kazakhstan, the two nations negotiated a cost-sharing agreement. Kazakhstan agreed to compensate its neighbour for operational expenses and foregone development opportunities, thereby formalising the recognition that hydrological infrastructure and ecosystem services can be managed to generate cross-border economic benefits.
India’s federal architecture must internalize comparable principles in addressing the Aravalli crisis. The range functions as an integrated landscape in which watersheds, wildlife corridors, groundwater recharge zones, and climatic buffers operate as an interconnected continuum across ridgelines and valleys. When protection is fragmented by man-made state borders or altitude thresholds, ecological functionality is compromised. Conservation must therefore be reconceptualised not as a discretionary expenditure borne by individual states, but as a federal public service that safeguards environmental security for millions.
At present, Aravalli states lack a formal framework for ecosystem-service apportionment or a robust mechanism for inter-state accountability. To rectify this institutional vacuum, India should implement an Inter-State Payment for Ecosystem Services mechanism. Under such a model, states that forgo revenue to preserve forests and recharge zones would receive compensation from the Union government and beneficiary states. Conversely, an Ecological Compensatory Levy could be imposed where extractive activities or forest fragmentation produce measurable downstream harm. Translating ecological loss into fiscal liability would realign incentives and internalise costs that are currently externalised.
Disputes over ecological damage claims could be adjudicated by an empowered federal clearing house, while standardised valuation methodologies could be formulated by a specialised technical authority, potentially housed within an expert wing of the National Capital Region Planning Board.
A federally monitored “Aravalli Recovery Fund” should also be established to finance restoration and ecological rehabilitation. Its corpus could be built by pooling 50% of District Mineral Foundation resources from Aravalli districts; levying ecosystem service cess on infrastructure -including highways, real estate, and hospitality ventures operating within the range; imposing legacy liabilities on states and entities that have historically profited from its degradation; and recovering the accumulated ecological debt. A system of “green devolution” could also be introduced to reward states that demonstrably preserve trans boundary wildlife corridors and watershed integrity.
The Aravalli crisis is emblematic of a broader national governance challenge. Smog episodes in Delhi, recurrent flooding in peninsular river basins, water stress in inter-state river systems, and coastal salinity intrusion collectively underscore the reality that political boundaries rarely coincide with ecological processes. To address these systemic failures, India must transition from managing territory to governing ecological functionality. Planning and regulation should be anchored in biomes, watersheds, and ecosystem boundaries rather than confined to administrative limits. For a nation characterised by immense biodiversity and climatic variance, ecological federalism is no longer aspirational; it is a fundamental necessity. The future of the Aravalli Range will test India’s capacity to recalibrate its federal architecture in recognition of environmental interdependence. Protecting this ancient mountain chain is not merely an act of conserving hills and forests; it is a decisive step toward redefining governance for an era in which ecological security and national stability are inextricably linked.
The authors are Former PCCFs of U.P. and Maharashtra; views are personal
