One of the main misconceptions I’ve encountered in my work in ocean conservation and policy is the idea that only coastal areas are impacted by the ocean. People often think, ‘I don’t live near the coast, so ocean issues don’t affect me.’ But that’s simply not true.

Climate impacts on the ocean—like sea level rise and pollution—affect all of us, not just coastal communities. These changes influence the economy, water availability for agriculture, food security, and even national security, particularly in relation to strategic military zones.

So yes, ocean issues are everyone’s issues. Just like with climate change, there’s this false sense of distance—people assume it’s happening ‘over there,’ and they’re fine ‘over here.’ But in reality, we’re all connected to and impacted by what happens in the ocean.

One of the things that’s been done really well in India is civil society participation. We have a strong network of NGOs, community organizations, and individual advocates who are raising awareness, gathering public support through petitions, and providing crucial evidence for courts to deliberate on. This has been especially important in cases handled by the National Green Tribunal.

However, what continues to be a major challenge is enforcement. Even when judgments are passed, the implementation and follow-up are often lacking. While some enforcement mechanisms do exist, they’re not rigorously monitored or consistently applied on the ground.

This gap is largely due to the complexity and influence of local politics, which often hinder proper enforcement. It’s a bit like the UN—strong recommendations are made, but whether they’re actually followed is another matter. That’s a huge gap. 

Additionally, doctrines like the public trust principle, polluter pays, and intergenerational equity—many of which originate from major international agreements like the Paris Agreement or the Kyoto Protocol—may not form the sole legal basis for a case, but they are increasingly used to strengthen climate litigation.

For example, the polluter pays principle is now cited in almost every pollution-related case in India. It’s become a formalized part of legal reasoning, used consistently to reinforce arguments in court. From my perspective, these principles are essential, even if they're often considered supplementary rather than central pillars of a case. Hopefully, in the coming decades, we’ll see them evolve into foundational legal norms.

I find this topic really compelling because I work directly in the space where climate policies and environmental laws intersect with actual community harm. There are several constitutional provisions that enable this kind of work—like the right to life and the right to clean air, both of which can be invoked in cases of human rights violations tied to environmental issues.

One case I really wanted to highlight is MK Ranjit Singh vs. Union of India, also known as the Great Indian Bustard case. The judgment came out in May 2024, so it’s very recent. The Great Indian Bustard is a large, critically endangered bird, and the case revolved around its remaining habitats being impacted by large-scale solar and wind projects. Although these projects are typically seen as pro-environment or pro-climate, they were built in areas where these birds lived, and the overhead power lines led to a dramatic increase in bird deaths, pushing the species even closer to extinction.

The petitioners argued that climate solutions can’t come at the cost of ecological destruction. And the Supreme Court agreed—they won the case.

To me, what makes this case especially important for climate justice is that it forces us to ask: Can climate action truly be just if it overlooks local ecosystems, endangered species, or communities? Just because something is labeled ‘pro-environment’ doesn’t automatically make it just. I think this gray area is where we need to focus—because exploring it can help us translate global climate policies more effectively into local contexts. I'm really interested in how this interplay will evolve.

It’s definitely something we can do. As I mentioned earlier, there are three pillars to making a strong climate case: laws, storytelling, and climate data. That third pillar—robust climate data—is crucial to ensuring that action happens on the ground. Especially when that data is regional and locally collected from NGOs and community climate databases, it becomes much more powerful in strengthening our case.

This kind of data is also essential for accessing mechanisms like the Loss and Damage Fund—an international fund supported by various countries at the COP level. That’s where international alliances become really important. For instance, Bangladesh successfully secured funding from this mechanism at the last COP. It’s not a small amount—it’s a significant sum that, if used strategically, can make a major impact on adaptation efforts.

But to access that support, you have to prove that real loss and damage have occurred. That’s where localized climate data comes in—it provides the evidence needed to make a compelling case, secure the funding, and use it effectively to strengthen a country’s climate resilience.