Can Biodiversity Net Gain Transform India’s Development Model?

India often frames development and conservation as enemies. One side builds roads; the other protests. One speaks of GDP; the other of species’ extinction. Biodiversity Net Gain suggests a different imagination. It asks development to become accountable to life itself. And this is not charity. It is a responsibility. Because every bridge, every airport, every industrial park is built on land that once belonged to birds, insects, grasses, fungi, and rivers.

At dawn in many parts of India, a strange arithmetic unfolds. A bulldozer rolls into a patch of scrubland outside a growing city. To an untrained eye, it may seem like empty land, just thorny bushes, scattered rocks, perhaps a seasonal pond. Yet within that patch may live a family of Indian foxes, nesting lapwings, burrowing frogs waiting for the monsoon, and medicinal herbs known only to a village elder. By noon, the land is cleared for a road, a warehouse, or a gated colony. The economic value of the project is recorded in crores. The ecological value often vanishes without calculation. This is the central tension of modern India: how does a nation racing toward infrastructure, energy security, and urban growth account for the silent wealth of its living landscapes?

A concept called Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) offers one possible answer. It asks a deceptively simple question: if development destroys nature, can it be required to leave nature better than before? The idea is not merely about replacing what is lost. It proposes something bolder: that every new project should contribute positively to ecosystems, creating more biodiversity than existed at the start. In a country like India, where biodiversity and human livelihoods are deeply intertwined, this idea carries both promise and peril.

The Arithmetic of Loss

India’s development story is often told through roads, ports, airports, industrial corridors, dams, and smart cities. Yet behind each map of progress lies another map of wetlands drained, forests fragmented, rivers channelised, and grasslands dismissed as “wastelands.” The tragedy is not only in the large forests being cut down. Often, the greatest ecological losses occur in places where people undervalue the conversion of village ponds into real estate, coastal mudflats into ports, rocky outcrops into construction sites, dry grasslands into exotic tree plantations, and mangroves into tourism infrastructure. These are not empty spaces. They are ecological archives, shaped over centuries, supporting pollinators, migratory birds, reptiles, amphibians, and countless invertebrates. India hosts nearly 8% of the world’s recorded biodiversity despite occupying only 2.4% of the Earth’s land area. Four global biodiversity hotspots intersect with its boundaries. This means the country’s development decisions are never merely local. They have planetary consequences.

What Exactly Is Biodiversity Net Gain?

Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) is a planning principle that requires developers to improve overall biodiversity after a project is completed. Instead of only minimising damage, the project must leave ecosystems measurably richer. Suppose a highway cuts through degraded scrubland and removes 20 hectares of habitat. Under BNG, authorities may require the developer not only to restore those 20 hectares but perhaps also to create 25 to 30 hectares of comparable habitat, enhance nearby ecological connectivity, and ensure long-term management. The keyword is ‘measurable’. BNG relies on ecological metrics, such as habitat quality, species richness, connectivity, ecosystem function, and restoration success, to calculate whether there has been a gain. This moves conservation from emotional appeal to ecological accounting. Nature, in this framework, enters the balance sheet.

Why the Idea Matters to India

India is uniquely positioned for such a model because development here often overlaps with biodiversity-rich and human-inhabited landscapes. A solar farm may come up in a desert habitat used by the Great Indian Bustard. A railway line may cross elephant corridors used by the Asian elephant. A port expansion may disturb nesting beaches of the Olive ridley sea turtle. The old model of conservation, protecting a few national parks while sacrificing everything outside, no longer works. Biodiversity survives in tea estates, urban lakes, sacred groves, paddy fields, mangroves, temple tanks, and even abandoned quarries. A BNG framework acknowledges this dispersed reality. It recognises that every landscape has ecological value, not just officially protected forests.

India Already Has the Seeds of BNG

Although India does not yet have a formal national Biodiversity Net Gain law, several existing systems hint at its principles, such as Compensatory Afforestation, Environmental Impact Assessment, and Biodiversity Management Committees. When forest land is diverted for non-forest use, developers must fund afforestation elsewhere under the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority framework. This seems similar to BNG but often falls short. A mature forest is not equivalent to a plantation of eucalyptus or acacia. Ancient ecological interactions cannot be planted like saplings. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change requires many projects to undergo an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to identify likely ecological damage and mitigation measures. Yet EIAs in India often focus on compliance paperwork rather than measurable ecological outcomes. BNG could strengthen this by making post-project ecological improvement mandatory. Under the National Biodiversity Authority framework, local bodies maintain People’s Biodiversity Registers. These institutions could play a powerful role in BNG by documenting baseline biodiversity before projects begin.

Also Read: Manasbal Lake: Preserving Kashmir’s Deepest Freshwater Gem

The Problem with “Green Replacement”

India has a long history of equating ecology with tree planting. Destroy a wetland? Plant trees. Cut the grassland? Plant trees. Mine a hill? Plant trees. This simplistic logic has caused severe ecological mistakes. Grasslands are often wrongly labelled as barren and planted with non-native trees, destroying habitats for species such as blackbuck, the Indian wolf, or Lesser florican. A true BNG model would reject such substitutions. It would insist on ecological equivalence: a wetland must be compensated by a wetland, a grassland by grassland, and a mangrove by mangrove. This may sound obvious, but in policy practice, it is revolutionary.

The Indian Landscape Is Not Empty

One of the greatest conservation misconceptions in India is the category called “wasteland.” Millions of hectares have historically been classified this way. But many so-called wastelands are biodiversity-rich seasonal marshes used by migratory birds, dry scrub supporting reptiles and foxes, rocky plateaus with endemic flowering plants, and grazing commons sustaining pastoral livelihoods. The term itself reflects a colonial mindset that land is valuable only if cultivated or built upon. BNG challenges this idea by demanding baseline ecological surveys. If a land parcel supports rare amphibians, pollinators, or native grasses, it cannot be dismissed as empty. A patch of land becomes a living ledger.

Could BNG Transform Indian Cities?

Perhaps nowhere is the concept more urgently needed than in urban India. Cities such as Hyderabad, Bengaluru, and Chennai are expanding rapidly into lakes, scrublands, and peri-urban agriculture. Urban planners often see biodiversity as ornamental parks, avenue trees, and decorative lawns. But real urban ecosystems include native wetlands, stormwater ponds, bats in old trees, owls in abandoned structures, pollinator corridors, urban reptiles and amphibians. Imagine if every apartment complex in India had to deliver a measurable biodiversity gain, native plant gardens instead of lawns, rainwater-fed wetlands, bird nesting structures, pollinator strips, retention of mature trees, and restoration of urban streams. Cities could become ecological mosaics rather than concrete heat islands.

The Social Question

In India, conservation is never only about wildlife. It is about people. A forest patch may be sacred to a tribal community. A wetland may support fishers. A grassland may sustain nomadic herders. A mangrove may protect a coastal village from cyclones. If a company destroys one ecosystem and restores another 200 km away, has it truly compensated for the loss? Ecologically, perhaps partly. Socially, perhaps not at all. This is one of the sharpest critiques of BNG. It can become a license to destroy local landscapes while claiming distant restoration. Therefore, in India, any BNG framework must integrate community rights, especially under the Forest Rights Act, Panchayat governance, indigenous stewardship, and traditional ecological knowledge. Without this, BNG may become ecological bookkeeping without justice.

The Species That Could Benefit

A carefully designed BNG system could significantly help many Indian species living outside protected areas. Among them are the Indian pangolin, the Fishing cat, the Smooth-coated otter, and the Great Indian Bustard. These species often inhabit agricultural edges, wetlands, scrublands, and river systems where development pressure is high. BNG could make such habitats visible in planning decisions.

The Danger of Metrics Alone

There is a paradox. To protect nature, we try to quantify it. But some things resist numbers. Can the fragrance of a monsoon forest be measured? Can the memory of a sacred grove be offset? Can a 200-year-old banyan hosting hornbills be replaced by ten young saplings? Metrics are necessary for governance, but they can create illusions of equivalence. A restored wetland may look green on paper yet lack amphibians. A planted forest may appear dense but be ecologically sterile. Biodiversity is not only an area; it is a relationship, time, complexity, and memory. India’s ecological traditions understood this deeply. Ancient village tanks, sacred forests, and temple groves were protected not by spreadsheets but by cultural ethics. A modern BNG policy must combine science with that older wisdom.

What India Could Do Next

A meaningful Indian BNG model would need to be rooted in local realities. It should recognise all ecosystems, not just forests, but also wetlands, grasslands, deserts, rocky plateaus, and coastal habitats. It should establish biodiversity baselines for every major project and document species, habitats, and ecosystem services before approval. It should mandate net gain percentages of projects required to achieve at least 10–20% measurable ecological gain. Long-term restoration of audits should be monitored for decades, not merely until project inauguration. Community stewardship: local communities should co-manage restored landscapes and receive benefits. Finally, there should be strictly no-go areas where some habitats should remain off-limits, regardless of offset offers, including critical tiger corridors, high-altitude wetlands, nesting beaches, ancient forests, and endemic rocky plateaus. Certain ecosystems are simply irreplaceable.

Also Read: Money Grows on Trees: The Economics of Forest Conservation

A New Conservation Imagination

India often frames development and conservation as enemies. One side builds roads; the other protests. One speaks of GDP; the other of species’ extinction. Biodiversity Net Gain suggests a different imagination. It asks development to become accountable to life itself. A road need not merely avoid destruction; it could fund wetland restoration. A port could regenerate mangroves. A housing colony could revive ponds. A railway could reconnect fragmented habitats through ecological corridors. This is not charity. It is a responsibility. Because every bridge, every airport, every industrial park is built on land that once belonged to birds, insects, grasses, fungi, and rivers.

The Future Is an Ecological Balance Sheet

National security comes first; however, India stands at a decisive ecological crossroads. It is building faster than ever before, with expressways, green energy parks, industrial corridors, inland waterways, data centres, and urban mega-regions. At the same time, it remains home to extraordinary biological heritage: from the shola forests of the Western Ghats to the coral reefs of the Gulf of Mannar, from the grasslands of the Deccan to the mangroves of Sundarbans. The challenge is no longer whether India should develop. It will.

The question is whether development will continue to borrow from nature without repayment. Biodiversity Net Gain introduces a powerful moral and ecological proposition: every act of construction must become an act of restoration too. In a civilisation that once worshipped rivers, trees, serpents, elephants, and mountains as sacred beings, this idea is not foreign. It is perhaps a modern scientific expression of an older Indian truth that humans do not own the Earth; they inherit it temporarily from all other life. And if we take from that inheritance, we must return more than we borrowed.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author solely. TheRise.co.in neither endorses nor is responsible for them. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.