INTRODUCTION
In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court has instructed all the states to demarcate a 1-km Eco-Sensitive Zone from the delimited boundaries of all protected forest lands, national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. The decision was made in response to a petition filed for sheltering the forest lands in the Nilgiris district of Tamil Nadu. In due course, the scope of the petition was expanded to protect all the natural resources spread across the country.
BACKGROUND
According to the National Wildlife Action Plan of the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change, areas within 10 kilometers of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries should be designated as Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) under the Environmental (Protection) Act of 1986.
In pursuance of this, the Centre had prescribed a 10-kilometre area while coming out with the guidelines. However, the Supreme Court was conscious of the fact that a uniform ESZ for all national parks and sanctuaries would not be practical because of certain unique cases such as close proximity to metropolitan cities; for example, the Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Mumbai and the Guindy National Park in Chennai. Hence, in such cases, even if the ESZ was below 10 km but more than the prescribed 1 km limit, the Court ordered that such boundary shall prevail.
The motive behind declaring certain areas around national parks, forests and sanctuaries as ESZs is to create a buffer zone for the protected areas, which would help in transitioning from areas of high protection to those which require lesser protection.
WHY DO WE NEED ECO-SENSITIVE ZONES?
ESZs are required to minimise the impact of the rapid urbanisation and other developmental activities occurring in the country. Additionally, they support in-situ conservation, which entails preserving all species, especially wild and endangered species, in their natural environment and habitat. Eco-sensitive zones also lessen the loss of forests and avoid conflicts between humans and animals. Moreover, the protected areas are based on the buffer model of management, which helps protect the local communities as well.
THE CASE IN QUESTION
Conservationists and foresters will surely be familiar with the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., also referred to as the ‘Forest Case’ in India. This landmark case by the Supreme Court to conserve forests in India was initiated by T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad in September 1995. He was worried seeing the destruction of the wooded areas in Gudalur in the Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu and observing the inadequacy of the state in protecting these regions from deforestation by illegal timber operations, he filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court. A bench led by Chief Justice J.S Verma on December 12, 1996 passed a path-breaking order instructing tree-felling and non-forestry activity in forests across the country to be stopped. It was through this judgement that the definition of ‘forests’ was changed, and all areas with natural forests, regardless of who owns them, were given protection. This case started the journey which led to the conceptualization of Eco-Sensitive Zones and other forest preservation activities.
CHALLENGES TO THE ESZ
Eco-Sensitive Zones face a few challenges with regard to their implementation and regulation. For instance, climate change stresses the ESZ's land, water, and ecosystem by causing things like flooding and forest fires. With the increasing interest in eco-tourism among travellers, regions around protected areas are being cleared by means of deforestation and displacement of the locals to cater to this burgeoning demand. There is obvious pressure on the protected areas to keep up with this sudden change due to the rise in industrialization and growing population. In the ESZ, projects like building roads, dams, and other urban and rural infrastructure cause interference and have a negative effect on the environment, and disturb the ecological system.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s recent order declaring all places within 1 kilometre around ‘protected areas’ as eco-sensitive zones has drawn criticism for a number of reasons. Numerous environmentalists and policy activists argue that the order lacks a scientific basis and fails to address topographical features which differ from case to case. Furthermore, historical monuments, low-income housing colonies and areas which are economically useful like river plains are likely to surround protected areas which essentially makes ESZ inefficient by narrowing its scope. With climate change spreading its destructive effects in all corners of the world, all pockets that home biodiversity are eco-sensitive zones. The government should actively promote conservation methods and raise public awareness about resource overexploitation. All things considered, the Supreme Court’s judgement is a welcome step towards improving the dire environmental predicament in the country.
References
This Editorial Column is authored by Richa Maria and Himani Khullar, first year students at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law
Comments