General Studies 2023 GS Paper III 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Comment

Q17

Comment on the National Wetland Conservation Programme initiated by the Government of India and name a few India's wetlands of international importance included in the Ramsar Sites. (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

भारत सरकार द्वारा शुरू किए गए राष्ट्रीय आर्द्रभूमि संरक्षण कार्यक्रम पर टिप्पणी कीजिए और रामसर स्थलों में शामिल अंतर्राष्ट्रीय महत्व की भारत की कुछ आर्द्रभूमियों के नाम लिखिए। (उत्तर 250 शब्दों में दीजिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 General Studies questions

Directive word: Comment

This question asks you to comment. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'comment' requires a balanced, opinionated assessment of the National Wetland Conservation Programme rather than mere description—candidates must identify achievements, gaps, and contextual relevance. Structure should begin with a brief introduction defining wetlands and their ecological significance, followed by a critical body evaluating programme objectives, implementation mechanisms, and challenges, then naming Ramsar sites with geographic spread, and conclude with forward-looking suggestions or a nuanced overall assessment.

Key points expected

  • Definition of wetlands and their ecosystem services (biodiversity, water purification, flood control, carbon sequestration) as context for the programme's necessity
  • Key features of NWCP: objectives (conservation, sustainable use), coverage (notified wetlands), institutional framework (MoEFCC, State Wetland Authorities), and integration with Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules 2017
  • Critical assessment of programme effectiveness: achievements (increased Ramsar sites from 26 to 80+), limitations (implementation gaps, encroachment, pollution, lack of comprehensive inventory)
  • Naming at least 4-5 Ramsar sites across diverse regions: e.g., Sundarbans (West Bengal), Keoladeo (Rajasthan), Chilika (Odisha), Loktak (Manipur), Wular (J&K), Nalsarovar (Gujarat), Vembanad-Kol (Kerala)
  • Specific challenges: urban encroachment (East Kolkata Wetlands), agricultural conversion, hydrological alterations, climate change impacts on wetland hydrology
  • Way forward: strengthening wetland authorities, community participation, wise use framework, integration with AMRUT/Smart Cities, and climate adaptation strategies

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%3Demonstrates clear grasp that 'comment' requires evaluative judgment—presents both strengths and limitations of NWCP with balanced critique, avoids pure description, and maintains analytical stance throughoutPartially understands 'comment'—mixes description with mild evaluation, or treats it as 'describe' with superficial critique added as afterthought; lacks sustained analytical voiceMisinterprets directive as pure description or enumeration; no evaluative element, or confuses with 'examine'/'analyse' without forming judgments on programme effectiveness
Content depth & accuracy20%3Accurately covers NWCP evolution (1987 onwards), Wetlands Rules 2010/2017, institutional architecture, and specific challenges; precise on Ramsar criteria and site characteristics; no factual errors on coverage or datesBasic coverage of programme with minor inaccuracies (e.g., outdated Ramsar numbers, confused institutional roles); superficial on implementation gaps; some correct Ramsar sites namedSignificant factual errors (wrong ministry, pre-2017 framework only, incorrect Ramsar site locations); confuses NWCP with other programmes; omits institutional or legal dimensions entirely
Structure & flow20%3Logical progression: context → programme evaluation → Ramsar examples → challenges → conclusion; smooth transitions, thematic coherence within 250 words, no abrupt jumps between NWCP and Ramsar sectionsRecognizable structure but uneven weightage—either overlong on Ramsar list or programme description; some disjointed paragraphs; conclusion feels tacked onNo discernible structure; random information dump; Ramsar sites scattered without purpose; missing introduction or conclusion; poor paragraphing affecting readability
Examples / case-law / data20%34-5 Ramsar sites with geographic diversity and specific significance (e.g., Chilika for Irrawaddy dolphins, Loktak for phumdis); references current statistics (80+ Ramsar sites, 4.6 lakh ha coverage); cites specific threats to named wetlands2-3 Ramsar sites listed without geographic spread or significance; generic mention of 'Sundarbans and Bharatpur'; no current data or specific threat illustrationFewer than 2 sites, or incorrect/non-Ramsar sites named; no data on coverage or trends; examples completely absent or irrelevant to Indian context
Conclusion & analytical edge20%3Synthesizes critique into forward-looking recommendations (mainstreaming wetlands in SDGs, climate resilience, community stewardship); or offers nuanced verdict on programme's transformative potential versus implementation reality; memorable closing insightGeneric conclusion restating importance of wetlands; routine suggestions without specificity; no synthesis of preceding analysis; predictable 'government should do more' endingNo conclusion or abrupt ending; purely descriptive final paragraph; contradictory to body content; misses opportunity for policy insight or contemporary relevance (e.g., wetland cities recognition, urban wetland restoration)

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from General Studies 2023 GS Paper III