Kaziranga's Eco-Sensitive Zone Width in Focus Amid Proposed Changes
2-minute summary
The Assam government plans to request the Central government to reduce the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) buffer around Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve to a minimum of 1 km, down from the default 10 km. Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma argued that a wider ESZ would severely restrict civic and urban development in adjacent towns like Bokakhat and Kaliabor. ESZs, established under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, act as 'shock absorbers' to transition between high-protection and low-protection areas. They regulate human activities by categorizing them into prohibited (e.g., commercial mining, polluting industries), regulated (e.g., tree felling, hotels), and permitted (e.g., eco-friendly agriculture). While the default ESZ width is 10 km, states can propose site-specific variations. Conservationists have raised concerns that shrinking the buffer zone around Kaziranga could exacerbate human-wildlife conflict and threaten critical wildlife corridors, highlighting the ongoing tension between infrastructure development and ecological preservation.
Why it's in the news
The Assam government announced its intention to approach the Centre to shrink the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) around Kaziranga National Park to a minimum of 1 km instead of the default 10 km, citing the need to protect urban and civic growth in surrounding towns.
Background and context
Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) or Ecologically Fragile Areas (EFAs) are areas notified by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) around Protected Areas, National Parks, and Wildlife Sanctuaries. The concept was formalized in 2002 when the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) adopted a resolution to declare buffer zones under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. In 2011, the MoEFCC issued guidelines specifying a default width of 10 km, which could be extended if sensitive corridors exist. The primary objective of an ESZ is to act as a 'shock absorber' for protected ecosystems by regulating human activities. However, local communities and state governments often oppose wide ESZs, citing restrictions on infrastructure, land-use changes, and local livelihood activities. This has led to ongoing legal and administrative negotiations between state governments, the Centre, and the judiciary regarding the demarcation of site-specific ESZ boundaries.
Constitutional provisions
- Article 48A — Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) directing the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife.
- Article 51A(g) — Fundamental Duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife.
Committees and reports
- National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-2016) — Laid down the policy framework for establishing Eco-Sensitive Zones as buffer areas around national parks and sanctuaries.
Government schemes
- Guidelines for Declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zones — Prescribes the 10 km default buffer zone and categorizes activities into prohibited, regulated, and permitted.
International organisations
- Ramsar Convention on Wetlands — Deepor Beel, referenced in the article as a precedent for site-specific ESZ relaxation, is a designated Ramsar Site of international importance.
Mains practice: What are Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs)? Discuss their significance as 'shock absorbers' and analyze the challenges in balancing ecological conservation with local developmental aspirations.
Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) are transition areas declared around National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. They act as 'shock absorbers' to transition from areas of high protection to those of lesser protection.
**Significance of ESZs as 'Shock Absorbers':**
• **Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict:** By acting as buffer zones, they prevent direct interface between wildlife and intensive human settlements.
• **Ecological Connectivity:** They protect vital migratory corridors and contiguous forest patches, ensuring genetic flow among wildlife populations.
• **In-situ Conservation:** They regulate developmental pressures like mining, heavy industries, and commercial tourism that threaten fragile ecosystems.
• **Promoting Sustainable Livelihoods:** By permitting eco-friendly agriculture and rainwater harvesting, they foster co-existence rather than displacement.
**Challenges in Balancing Conservation and Development:**
• **Infrastructural and Civic Constraints:** States often argue that a default 10 km ESZ halts urban expansion, road widening, and civic amenities, as seen in Assam's demand for Kaziranga.
• **Livelihood and Land-Use Restrictions:** Regulating activities like tree felling and hotel construction impacts local tourism-dependent economies and land values.
• **Top-Down Implementation:** Local communities often view ESZ declarations as exclusionary, leading to protests due to a lack of participatory planning.
• **Federal Friction:** Differences between state developmental agendas and central environmental mandates (MoEFCC) lead to delays in finalizing site-specific notifications.
**Conclusion:**
To resolve this conflict, a rigid 'one-size-fits-all' approach must be replaced with scientific, site-specific zoning. Engaging local communities through eco-development committees and utilizing green technologies can help achieve the dual goals of ecological integrity and sustainable development.
Prelims practice questions
Q1. With reference to Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) in India, consider the following statements: 1. They are statutory areas declared under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. 2. Commercial mining and sawmills are completely prohibited activities within these zones. 3. Ongoing agricultural and horticultural practices by local communities are permitted activities. Which of the statements given above are correct?
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
Answer: B. Statement 1 is incorrect because ESZs are declared under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, not the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Statements 2 and 3 are correct as commercial mining is prohibited, while eco-friendly agriculture is permitted.
Q2. Deepor Beel, recently in the news regarding Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) notifications, is a prominent Ramsar site located in which of the following states?
- Manipur
- Meghalaya
- Arunachal Pradesh
- Assam
Answer: D. Deepor Beel is a permanent freshwater lake and a Ramsar site located on the south-western edge of Guwahati, Assam.
Q3. Which of the following bodies adopted the resolution in 2002 to declare buffer zones (Eco-Sensitive Zones) around protected areas in India?
- National Green Tribunal
- Central Pollution Control Board
- Animal Welfare Board of India
- National Board for Wildlife
Answer: D. The National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) adopted a resolution in 2002 to declare buffer zones around protected areas under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Revision flashcards
- Under which legislation are Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) declared in India? The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (not the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972).
- What is the default width of an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) around a protected area as per MoEFCC guidelines? Up to 10 kilometers, though it can be extended or reduced based on site-specific ecological sensitivity.
- Name three activities that are strictly prohibited within an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ). Commercial mining, sawmills, polluting industries, and major hydroelectric projects.
- What role does the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) play in the context of ESZs? It adopted the 2002 resolution to establish buffer zones around protected areas to act as 'shock absorbers'.
- Why is Deepor Beel ecologically significant, and where is it located? It is a Ramsar wetland site and bird sanctuary located in Assam, facing high biotic pressure from urban expansion.