Recently, the Wayanad tragedy in India has shaken the nation to its core. On July 30, after days of heavy rain in Kerala, two landslides struck Wayanad, resulting in 221 deaths and 206 individuals reported 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 explore the complexities surrounding ESZs. First, it provides a detailed analysis of the concept of ESZs. Then, it examines 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 concept 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, categorizing various activities into three groups - 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.
However, many states oppose the 10 km rule, citing its detrimental effects on development and agriculture, as observed in Kerala. This resistance illustrates the challenges of enforcing environmental laws and highlights the consequences of state inaction and poor governance. The complex and cumbersome nature of environmental law provisions often hampers the effective implementation of ESZs, which are essential for environmental protection.
In the case of Goa Foundation v. Union of India, the SC ruled to restrict mining activities within 1 km of national parks and sanctuaries. However, 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.
Acknowledging state resistance, 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. It also prohibited permanent construction within the zone and required 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 along with subsequent interlocutory petition [para 50 and 51] in 2024 have sparked discussions about ESZ demarcation around Pobitora Wildlife Sanctuary. The MoEFCC has issued guidelines mandating that activities near parks require approval if no ESZs are notified, despite the Ministry's assertion that uniform 10 km ESZs are impractical. Thus, the practical implementation of ESZ remains a significant challenge for governments moving forward.
Filling the Gaps: Redefining Eco-Sensitive Zones Through Scientific Precision and Legal Flexibility
The challenges related to the demarcation of ESZs seem to overshadow the noble intention of environmental preservation. Numerous orders and judgments have failed to address the implementation quandary of ESZs. Additionally, there exists no statutory provision compelling the proper maintenance of ESZs. Various factors limit the effectiveness of ESZ demarcation including, state opposition, concerns about socio-economic consequences, and issues arising from the application of a standardized approach. Therefore, it is essential to discuss plausible solutions to these challenges.
The 10 km rule propounded in the Wildlife Conservation Strategy, as well as the 1 km minimum limit established by the Supreme Court in June 2022, requires reconsideration. The primary issue with these rules is their uniform application. By demarcating ESZs as a fixed distance of 10 km or 1 km from the center of a national park or sanctuary, critical local conditions may be overlooked. For instance, on one side of a 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 these rules is questionable, as demonstrated by cases in Kerala, urban fringes around Okhla Bird Sanctuary in Uttar Pradesh, and Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Mumbai. These examples highlight the need for a more adaptable approach, as socio-economic factors also govern these regions. Furthermore, the rigid implementation of the rules often involves multiple government agencies, leading to bureaucratic delays and conflicting regulations. For instance, private landowners may possess property rights that conflict with conservation laws, while government or community land might be subject to separate regulations. Such discrepancies create a jurisdictional overlap, where different authorities have competing claims regarding land use and protection, ultimately delaying implementation.
Given these challenges, it is suggested that governments adopt geospatial methods that utilize a species-centred approach, breaking the barrier of hard boundaries. If ESZ demarcation extends beyond state borders, 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 uses niche modeling to predict species distribution based on environmental variables and recorded occurrences. This approach aims to maintain habitat sustainability and incorporates various co-variates, inter alia land cover, altitude, and distance. Considering the fragmentation and management restrictions, habitat suitability maps for specific species can be represented in the ESZs, accounting for seasonal habitat changes. This approach is particularly useful for protected areas in India that focus on a specific species but have yet to declare their ESZ. The flexibility and species-specific nature allow this method to be more nuanced and effective and should be amplified in ‘not-notified’ regions considering its advantages.
Geo-spatial methods, such as Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems (“GIS”), offer numerous 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.
For instance, geospatial methods have been employed to predict suitable habitats for swamp deer in Jhilmil Jheel Conservation Reserve. These methods were used to identify the population of swamp deer, coupled with the information as to where they could possibly inhabit undisturbed. A similar approach could 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 would allow for the demarcation of ESZs without hindering anthropogenic activities, simultaneously maintaining the tranquility 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.
Furthermore, clear legislative instruments are needed, such as specific legislation governing the demarcation of ESZs, a defined timeline for state submissions, and legal frameworks to manage conflicts between environmental protection and development. One potential measure could involve incorporating GIS into the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Section 3 of this act empowers the Central Government to undertake necessary actions for 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 highlighted the conflict between ecological concerns and socio-economic factors. In light of the tragic incident in Wayanad, the issue of ESZ has resurfaced, underscoring the urgent need for appropriate implementation to protect nature’s bounty. Despite existing guidelines and numerous judicial directions, challenges persist, primarily due to the rigid interpretation of the 10 km rule and the tensions between ecological preservation and local development requirements.
In enforcing environmental and wildlife laws, authorities often overlook the rights of forest communities. 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 enhance the effectiveness of ESZs, site-specific management strategies based on geospatial techniques and species-oriented modeling systems should be implemented with better interstate cooperation and elevated involvement of the stakeholders, especially at the grassroots level. ESZs can play a vital role in preserving biological diversity, achieving sustainable land planning, and enhancing climate resistance. Further, legislative measures such as the incorporation of GIS into the Environment (Protection) Act are also the need of the hour.
In the testing times of ecological deterioration, it remains to be seen how the government will systematically implement this promising concept of ESZ. 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 imperatives.
Comments