From Catastrophe to Conundrum: Analysing the Proposition of Eco-Sensitive Zones in India Introduction
Introduction
Recently, the Wayanad tragedy in India has shaken the nation to its core. Two landslides struck Wayanad on July 30 after days of heavy rain in Kerala, resulting in 221 deaths and 206 missing, according to official reports. In its aftermath, the Central Government, on July 31, issued a draft notification to delineate around 57,000 square kilometres of Western Ghats as an ‘Ecologically-Sensitive Zone’ (“ESZ”). In this context, this article aims to study the quandary of ESZs. The article, firstly, presents a detailed analysis of the concept of ESZs. Further, the article studies their importance, and how the process of demarcation has become perplexing with time. Additionally, the article explores the reasons behind the want of action by the state despite multiple orders/clarifications by the court. The article concludes with a summary, the way forward, and some alternatives that can simplify the process of demarcation of ESZs for moving forward and ahead.
Ecologically Sensitive Zones: Navigating the Implementation Quandary
Ecologically Sensitive/Fragile Zones, defined under National Environment Policy 2006, hold an integral position in the environmental strive of current times because of their wildlife, natural values, and landscape. With an aim to create buffer zones around protected areas to protect the biological integrity of such areas where the eco-system gets adversely strained under climatic and anthropogenic factors, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (“MoEFCC”) holds the power to declare such areas as ESZs.
The notion of ESZs was conceived in 2002, accompanied by the adoption of the Wildlife Conservation Strategy which envisaged that “lands falling within 10 kilometres (“km”) of the boundaries of national parks and sanctuaries should be notified as eco-fragile zones”. The benchmark of 10 km was selected as it is considered to be the central value of the log-transformed range of dispersal distances, highlighting the change in species every 10 km in the Indian territory. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s (“SC”) order in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, which prohibited mining activity within the general radius of 10 km from protected areas, was the seminal step in acknowledging the significance of ESZs since it prohibited anthropological activities around a protected area. In 2011, the MoEFCC issued the guidelines for declaring ESZs, which delineated numerous activities into three categories – Regulated, Promoted, and Prohibited. The activities were classified based on the varying types of activities by stakeholders and the potential severity of their environmental impact.
Most states object to the 10 km rule on the basis of its effect on development and life in states including that mentioned by Kerala about restrictions on agricultural activity. This resistance shows why it is difficult to put into effect the environmental laws and some of the consequences resulting from the absence of states’ compliance and good governance. Thus, it exemplifies the ‘complicated and unwieldy development’ of some environmental law provisions as a result of the State’s inaction. The ESZs stand as a significant measure to protect the environment, but challenges such as ambiguous, lengthy definitions of the demarcation process and states’ inaction have surfaced.
In the case of Goa Foundation v. Union of India, the SC held that there would be a restriction on mining activities within 1 km of national parks and sanctuaries. Since the judgment did not specify the areas to be delineated as ESZs, it did not provide any relevant solution to the labyrinth of demarcation. The Union Government submitted to the SC, in its 2018 order [para 27], that there are, in summation, 662 National Parks & Sanctuaries, and there is progress in 641 of them, however, it is imperative to note that there has been no proposal on the table for the MoEFCC by the State for the remaining 21 National Parks & Sanctuaries even after multiple court orders. This continues to pose a significant obstacle to achieving thorough and integrated environmental management.
Taking note of the resistance from the states, the SC, in its 2022 order [para 2], accepted the 2011 guidelines, which marked a significant development towards the demarcation of ESZs by establishing a minimum threshold of 1 km buffer zone around National Parks and Sanctuaries. Further, it banned permanent construction within the zone, affecting 160 villages and requiring farmers to seek permission from the principal chief conservator of forests. The SC revised the order, making it flexible and recognizing variations in ecological structure and socio-economic contexts across the country. The revision and subsequent interlocutory petition [para 50 and 51] in 2024 have sparked discussions about ESZ demarcation around Pobitora Wildlife Sanctuary. The MoEFCC has issued guidelines requiring activities near parks to get approval if no ESZs are notified, despite the Ministry’s argument that uniform 10 km ESZs are impractical. The practical implementation became a predicament for the governments to move forward in demarcating ESZs.
Filling the Gaps: Redefining Eco-Sensitive Zones Through Scientific Precision and Legal Flexibility
The issues related to the demarcation of ESZs seem to overshadow the noble intention of maintaining the environment. A plethora of orders and judgments have failed to address the implementation quandary of ESZs. Further, there exists no statutory provision compelling the proper maintenance of ESZs. There is a range of challenges that limit the effectiveness of the proposition such as, the state’s opposition, the doubts concerning socio-economic consequences, and the issues related to the standardized approach application. Thus, there is a need to discuss the plausible solutions to this quandary.
The 10 km rule propounded in the Wildlife Conservation Strategy, or the 1 km minimum limit set by the Supreme Court in June 2022, needs to be reconsidered. The problem with these rules for demarcating ESZs is that they are applied in a uniform manner. If ESZs are demarcated as a fixed distance of 10 km or 1 km from the center of a national park or sanctuary, they may overlook the critical local conditions. For instance, on one side of the protected area, there could be a higher human population, leading to significant disruptions, if strict restrictions are applied. Therefore, the demarcation process must allow for flexibility, taking into account the unique ecological and socio-economic factors of each area, rather than applying a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach.
The uniform implementation of the rule is questionable, as evident in cases of Kerala, urban fringes around Okhla Bird Sanctuary in Uttar Pradesh, and Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Mumbai. These examples indicate that different regions demand a more flexible rather than rigid approach towards change since other factors such as socio-economic ecology also govern such areas. Furthermore, the rigid implementation of the rule often involves multiple government agencies, leading to bureaucratic delays and conflicting regulations. For instance, private landowners may have property rights that conflict with conservation laws, while government or community land might be subject to separate regulations. These discrepancies create a jurisdictional overlap, where different authorities have competing claims over how the land should be used or protected leading to delays in implementation.
In light of the implementation hurdle in the demarcation of ESZs, it is suggested that the governments should apply the geospatial methods, whose species-centred approach breaks the barrier of hard boundaries. If the demarcation of ESZs goes beyond the border of a particular state, inter-state coordination would become a stupendous task to do, resulting in conflicts between states. However, the geospatial methods resolve this issue by employing the scientific concept of ‘maximum entropy’, which inherits the niche modelling by predicting the species distribution from the probability of occurrence of the species within a particular area based on the environmental variables and recorded locations. The methods are aimed at maintaining habitat sustainability. It involves different co-variates including, inter alia land cover, altitude, and distance. Considering the fragmentation and management restrictions, the habitat suitability map of a particular species is represented in the ESZs. They also incorporate the variables based on the suitability of habitats during the changes in seasons. This approach is particularly useful for protected areas in India that focus on a particular species but have not yet declared their ESZs. However, it should be amplified in ‘not-notified’ regions, considering its advantageous role. The flexibility and species-specific nature allow this method to be more nuanced and effective.
Geo-spatial methods, like Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems (“GIS”), provide many benefits. They allow for the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data about large areas, populations, topography, and land use. This is done using various instruments, methods, and programs designed to gather, store, organize, and display geographic information. These tools are important in many fields including urban planning, environmental protection, farming, and calamity preparedness.
The geospatial methods were employed to predict suitable habitat for swamp deer in Jhilmil Jheel Conservation Reserve. The methods were used to find the population of swamp deer, coupled with the information as to where they could possibly inhabit undisturbed. Something similar can be applied in other protected areas to demarcate ESZs, by collecting and analysing the information regarding the human population such as their activities and jobs. This can be done to demarcate ESZs without hindering anthropological activities, simultaneously maintaining the tranquillity of flora and fauna. The suggested geospatial methods thus, relatively provide enormous advantages for the delivery of more flexible, accurate, and species-differential conservation schemes. This would address the concern of the states in demarcating ESZs simultaneously, fulfilling its aim, i.e., to protect the biological species.
The government also requires clear legislative instruments such as a specific piece of legislation regulating the demarcation of ESZs, a definite timeline for submissions by the states, and legal regulation of the conflict between environmental protection and development. One such measure could be the incorporation of GIS in the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, whose Section 3 empowers the Central Government to do such acts that may be necessary for the purpose of protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment. Under this provision, the centre should incorporate in the legislation the use of geospatial methods such as Remote Sensing and GIS for delimitation of ESZs so that more flexible and species-centred measures can be adopted for the better conservation of biological species supported by scientific shreds of evidence.
Concluding Remarks
The demarcation of ESZs has been an issue where the conflict between ecological concern and socioeconomic factors comes out vividly. Tying up to the tragic incident at Wayanad, the ESZs issue has once again come to the forefront demanding the need to implement the same appropriately to protect nature’s bounty. Despite the guidelines and the numerous judicial directions, the issues persist, mainly because of the strictly interpreted 10 km rule and the problems connected with the preservation of the ecology and the local development requirements.
In enforcing environmental and wildlife laws, authorities often overlook forest communities’ rights. It is important to align environmental goals such as Sustainable Development Goal 15 (Life on Land) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution with strengthening ESZs and protecting livelihoods. To improve the performance of ESZ, site-specific management strategies based on geospatial techniques and species-orientated modelling systems should be implemented with better interstate cooperation and elevated involvement of the stakeholders especially at the grassroots level. ESZs can be used to preserve biological diversity, achieve sustainable land planning, and increase climate resistance. Further, legislative measures such as the incorporation of GIS in the Environment (Protection) Act are also the need of the hour.
In the testing times of ecological deterioration, one needs to see how the government will systematically implement this promising notion of ESZs. By addressing these aspects, India can move towards a more effective and balanced approach to ESZ implementation, ensuring better protection of its rich biodiversity while considering the needs of local communities and development imperative
Author: Yash Sharan, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or IP & Legal Filing
