To balance ecology & development, Centre mulls relaxing rules for eco-sensitive zones

The Union Environment Ministry is likely to review guidelines for eco-sensitive zones (ESZs) to make them more localised and ensure that development is not hindered in these areas.

ESZs are areas around national parks and wildlife sanctuaries that act as a buffer to the forest areas so that wildlife habitats remain undisturbed. Activities like mining and stone-crushing are banned in these areas, while agriculture and installation of renewable energy infrastructure are allowed but with restrictions.

According to the minutes of a recent meeting of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL), members discussed that activities that are beneficial in one region may pose ecological risks in another.

Representatives from states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh informed the panel that mining, highways, railways, housing and tourism were among the major sectors that were affected due to the ESZ guidelines.

The NBWL members said regulation of projects involving renewable energy, tourism or housing should not be uniform but vary depending on ecological sensitivity of the region.

NBWL Member Secretary Anjan Kumar Mohanty suggested that the ESZ guidelines may be reviewed to provide better ecological safeguards.

“Activities that are beneficial in one region may pose ecological risks in another. The enforcement process should involve consultations with stakeholders, including state governments, relevant ministries, environmental experts and the ESZ division. A formal inter-ministerial consultation process will be followed to solicit views from all departments before finalising any changes to the guidelines,” he added.

Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav suggested that a note on the revision of guidelines may also be circulated to various ministries, while suggestions might be invited from states.

Yadav stressed the need for strict protection in core areas, especially origin points of tributaries and critical water resources.

However, he also cited the example of Himachal Pradesh, where 65 percent of the state’s area already has “protected status”. He said further imposition of rigid ESZ norms could hinder local development in the state.

The minister said, “Core areas are vital for maintaining ecological balance, but extending a blanket 10-km ESZ to all protected areas, irrespective of ecological and geographical conditions, will not serve the intended purpose.”

“Meanwhile, in highly urbanised landscapes such as Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Mumbai, enforcing such an ESZ creates significant challenges,” he added.

He asserted that ESZ rules should not be uniform across the country, but adapted according to the specific ecological and socio-economic realities of each region.

NBWL member HS Singh said during the preparation of Zonal Master Plan of ESZ in Gujarat, he had suggested prohibition of sand-mining activities around National Park up to three km and regulating it in the subsequent area.

“However, the notification mentioned complete prohibition of mining activities within the notified ESZ. Thus, the guidelines for preparation of ESZ proposals require amendments,” he said.

Amitabh Gautam, Chief Wildlife Warden of Himachal Pradesh, said that due to the inclusion of certain activities in the prohibited and regulated list, a significant number of local communities were being affected adversely by the notification of ESZs.

“Unlike the declaration of Protected Areas, where settlement of rights is carried out and relief is provided, no compensation or relief has been provided in the case of ESZs. The restrictions imposed — including prohibition of industries, mining, and other commercial activities — are resulting in hardships to the affected population,” Gautam told the committee.