Buffer zones of national parks and sanctuaries

The legal definition of Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ) plays the crucial role in the conservation of the environment and biodiversity in the buffer zones around protected areas. Conservation of the buffer zone is a challenging task due to rising demand for infrastructure development and growing anthropogenic activities. The Supreme Court’s reiteration of its ban on mining activities inside as well as within a 1-km radius of protected areas, irrespective of the stretches of ESZ, is a landmark judgement. As mining activities lead to the loss of forest cover, the SC judgement will ensure a legal regime to prevent ecological destruction within 1 km of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. The SC directive has huge significance for ecologically fragile biodiversity in the northeast region. The apex court has modified its previous judgement and order, which made it mandatory to notify ESZ within a 1-km radius around protected areas, and clarified that the directive will not be applicable in respect of ESZ that have already been notified or whose proposals have already been received by the Ministry of Environment, Forestry, and Climate Change (MoEF&CC). Relaxation by the SC in respect of notified areas of the ESZ will allow regulated activities in the buffer zone. Communities living in ESZ areas and on the fringes of protected areas ensuring strict adherence to notified regulations and prohibitions will be critical to achieving the objective of ESZ serving as absorbers of environmental shocks. Environmental, forest, and wildlife clearances by the National Board of Wildlife for projects and activities in ESZ are to be taken up in conformity with the standing MoEF&CC office memorandum. In respect of notified ESZ areas, prohibited activities are not allowed, and in respect of regulated activities, prior environmental clearance is required. In respect of areas falling outside the protected areas of which have not yet been notified or are in the proposal stage, prior environmental clearance is mandatory for activities covered in the EIA Notification, 2006, and prior forest clearance is required only if the project involves forest land for non-forestry use and clearance by the NBWL in respect of projects and activities within 10 km of the protected area boundary. The apex court accepted the view of the Standing Committee of the NBWL that uniform guidelines may not be possible in respect of each wildlife sanctuary or national park for maintaining the respective ESZ. Delineation of the ESZ boundary as well as a 1-km radius around the protected areas with clear markings will make it easier for forest authorities and local administration to enforce the regulation and prohibition. Building awareness among people living in the buffer zone and within the stipulated radius of the protected areas about the regulated and prohibited activities is the key to preventing activities that are detrimental to the conservation of the buffer zone. The modification of the previous order by the SC regarding areas under ESZ is expected to remove the confusion in respect of protected areas, the ESZ notification of which has already been issued. The message needs to percolate among the residents of buffer zones that ESZ notification does not lead to displacement, loss of livelihoods, or hampering of day-to-day activities to remove any misgivings among them about notifying the ESZ areas.

Till date, final notifications have been issued in respect of 474 protected areas, whereas draught notifications have been issued in respect of 102 protected areas, and 73 proposals are pending. The SC notes in the judgement that it has been the consistent view of the apex court that the mining activities within an area of one kilometre of the boundary of the protected areas will be hazardous for wildlife. Expediting the process of issuing the final notification in respect of all protected areas has become an urgent necessity to prevent ecological destruction in the buffer zones. Conservation of biodiversity in the buffer zone can reduce conflict between animals in protected areas ranging along connected corridors and humans residing in the ESZ areas. This can be possible only when the MoEF&CC and state environment and forest departments undertake regular reviews of the ecological status of ESZ and the enforcement of SC directives and take strong action against violations. Protected areas being also rich in natural resources, the mining lobby mounts pressure on dilution of the ESZ regulations and prohibition. Government ensuring that the ease of doing business to boost production of coal and crude oil does not lead to overlooking the enforcement of conservation norms in the buffer zones, more particularly in Assam and other north-eastern states with fragile ecology. Rampant and illegal coal mining is destroying pristine forest and biodiversity in the region, and ecological disasters like the Baghjan blowout and fire keep reminding all stakeholders in forest conservation, including indigenous communities, that further delay in enforcement of regulations and prohibition in the buffer zones of protected areas will push the entire region to a point of no return.