The notification of Eco-Sensitive Zones around protected areas seeks to balance conservation and development. Critically examine this approach...
Question
The notification of Eco-Sensitive Zones around protected areas seeks to balance conservation and development. Critically examine this approach with reference to the Western Ghats. (15 marks 250 Words)
Model Answer
The notification of Eco-Sensitive Zones around protected areas seeks to balance conservation and development. Critically examine this approach with reference to the Western Ghats. (15 marks 250 Words)
Paper
GS III
Subject
Bio-diversity, Environment
Syllabus as Per Notification
Conservation, Environmental Pollution and Degradation, Environmental Impact Assessment.
Topic
Eco-Sensitive Zones under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Approach:
Introduction
Introduce by defining Eco-Sensitive Zones/Eco-Sensitive Areas.
Body
Explain the Need for ESZs in the Western Ghats
How notification of Eco-Sensitive Zones around protected areas seeks to balance conservation and development
Evolution from Gadgil Committee to Kasturirangan Committee
Regulatory framework balancing conservation and livelihoods
Prohibition and Phasing out, Protected activities, Phased Approach
Judicial Backing
Global Commitments
Challenges to implement ESZs around Protected Areas
Explain the challenges such as State Opposition and Economic Concerns, Data and Demarcation Issues, Ecological limitations of fragmented protection, Political and Institutional Hurdles, Development vs Conservation Dilemma and Disaster-Prone Risks from Human Intervention.
Way forward:
Suggest Way forward for above challenges such as Financial Incentives for States, Actual Physical Verification, Strengthening Community Engagement, Integrated Approach and Landscape-Level Conservation.
Conclusion
Conclude by suggesting ESZ framework needs to be pragmatic to reconcile conservation with development through graded regulation rather than blanket prohibitions.
Context
Western Ghats in Three States (Gujarat, Goa and Maharashtra) to be declared as Eco-Sensitive Zones to protect one of India’s richest biodiversity hotspots.
Introduction
Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs)/Eco-Sensitive Areas (ESAs) are notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 as buffer zones around protected areas where human activities are regulated to safeguard fragile ecosystems while permitting sustainable development. In the ecologically significant Western Ghats, the ESA framework represents an attempt to reconcile environmental conservation with the developmental aspirations of local communities and states.
Body
Need for ESZs in the Western Ghats
Conservation of Biodiversity
The Western Ghats, a 1,500-km mountain chain along India’s western coast, are one of the world’s eight “Hottest biodiversity hotspots” and a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
They host over 325 globally threatened species, including rare flora and fauna such as the Lion-tailed Macaque, Nilgiri Tahr, Malabar Giant Squirrel, and unique plants like the Neelakurinji flower, making them a globally significant biodiversity hotspot.
The Ghats also regulate monsoon rainfall and serve as the origin of major rivers like the Krishna, Godavari, and Cauvery, linking their ecological stability to water security across peninsular India.
Prevention of Ecological Degradation
Increasing pressures from mining, deforestation, plantations, and urbanisation threaten this fragile ecosystem.
Wayanad landslides (2024) which killed over 200 people, Highlights the dangers of unscientific development in eco-sensitive zones.
Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) designation helps regulate land-use change, reduce human–wildlife conflict, and prevent further ecological damage.
Policy and Expert Recommendations
Both the Gadgil Committee (2011) and Kasturirangan Committee (2013) advocated zoning-based conservation with differentiated regulation.
The IUCN World Heritage Outlook (2020) rated the Western Ghats of “significant concern,” citing fragmentation and climate change, underscoring urgent ESZ implementation.
How notification of Eco-Sensitive Zones around protected areas seeks to balance conservation and development
Evolution from Gadgil Committee to Kasturirangan Committee
The The Madhav Gadgil Committee recommended declaring 75% of the Western Ghats (129,037 sq km) as ESA with strict restrictions.
Facing strong state resistance, the Kasturirangan Committee adopted a graded approach, classifying natural landscapes (40%) for stricter protection and cultural landscapes (60%) with human activity.
This recalibration reduced ESA coverage to 37% of the Ghats, with the current draft notification covering 56,825.7 sq km.
Regulatory framework balancing conservation and livelihoods
The proposed ESA notification aims to balance conservation and livelihoods through a graded regulatory framework.
Prohibition and Phasing out: It prohibits new mining, quarrying, thermal power plants, red-category industries, and large construction projects, while mandating the phasing out of existing mines within five years.
Protected activities: At the same time, agriculture, plantations (coffee, tea, rubber, cardamom, spices), and less polluting activities remain unaffected, with organic farming and sustainable livelihoods actively encouraged.
Phased Approach: Recognising difficulties in achieving consensus across six states, the Centre has adopted a phased approach:
Maharashtra, Goa, and Gujarat have agreed, Tamil Nadu is close to compliance, while Kerala and Karnataka continue to resist.
This pragmatic shift from earlier uniform notifications reflects an effort to reconcile ecological protection with socio-economic realities.
Judicial Backing
In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2022) case, Supreme Court mandated a 1 km ESZ around all protected areas to safeguard biodiversity.
States like Kerala and Karnataka opposed blanket restrictions, leading the Supreme Court to clarify ESZs must be area-specific, while still banning mining within 1 km.
Global Commitments
ESZs align with India’s obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity and UNESCO World Heritage Outlook, emphasizing biodiversity conservation while balancing sustainable development needs like eco-tourism, plantations, and agriculture.
Challenges to implement ESZs around Protected Areas
State Opposition and Economic Concerns
Karnataka (largest ESA share: 20,668 sq km) opposes inclusion of agricultural lands and plantations, citing livelihood impacts.
Kerala sought reduction by excluding 31 villages in Idukki and Wayanad, arguing plantations and inhabited areas were wrongly classified.
Fear of Economic Stagnation: States argue that the blanket "no-go" for red-category industries and mining will permanently stall industrial growth.
Data and Demarcation Issues
Satellite-based mapping has misclassified plantations (cardamom, coffee, pepper) as Natural forests, creating mistrust.
The Kasturirangan Committee itself admitted limitations of remote sensing in distinguishing understory plantations from natural forests.
Kerala’s Idukki and Wayanad districts protested inclusion of plantation villages in ESA, arguing livelihoods were wrongly threatened.
Ecological limitations of fragmented protection
ESZs cover only areas around Protected Areas, leaving biodiversity-rich corridors outside regulation.
Example: Silent Valley National Park (Kerala) is protected, but adjoining buffer forests face quarrying and road expansion, fragmenting habitats.
This results in “island conservation”, which undermines species migration, such as Elephant corridors in Karnataka and Kerala disrupted by plantations and highways.
Political and Institutional Hurdles:
ESA notification has faced six draft revisions since 2014, with the latest valid until July 2026, this uncertainty harms both conservation efforts and investment confidence.
Despite reconciliation efforts by the Sanjay Kumar Expert Committee (2022), Karnataka and Kerala (seeking reduction from 9,993 to 8,805 sq km) continue to resist.
Development vs Conservation Dilemma in ESZs
Permitted projects creates “Half-Measure” Problem as ESZs still allow hydropower projects, road widening, and commercial plantations despite Ecological issues being raised.
Example: Athirappilly Hydropower Project (Kerala) threatened river ecosystems but remained under consideration.
ESZ declaration restricts housing, agriculture, and infrastructure, creating friction between ecological security and livelihood needs.
Disaster-Prone Risks from Human Intervention
Unregulated development in ESZs due to Human Interventions increases landslide, flood, and drought vulnerability.
Poorly planned projects amplify climate change impacts, making Western Ghats more disaster-prone.
Example: 2024 Wayanad landslides proves that delaying ESZ implementation to prioritize development actually destroys development.
Way forward
Financial Incentives for States
The Kasturirangan panel suggested grants-in-aid, and the Sanjay Kumar Committee (2022–26) explored Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) to reward conservation, while offsetting Developmental Losses.
Example: Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) funds turn “Conservation Cost” into a “Development Opportunity” by supporting afforestation and ecological restoration.
Actual Physical Verification
The Kerala State Biodiversity Board (KSBB) has initiated cadastral-level mapping and ground verification of ESA villages to correct errors in satellite-based demarcation to ensure plantations (cardamom, coffee, pepper) are not misclassified as forests.
Strengthening Community Engagement
Community-led conservation in the Western Ghats like Pachgaon village (Maharashtra) bamboo management under Forest Rights Act, Kerala’s Kadar tribe reviving hornbill populations, shows how conservation can coexist with livelihood benefits.
Integrated Approach
Zonal Master Plans under ESZs integrate tourism, heritage, and livelihoods.
Example: Bhagirathi ESZ Master Plan (Uttarakhand) combines watershed development, eco-tourism, and agriculture and the Swadesh Darshan 2.0 scheme promotes eco-tourism with carrying-capacity checks, EV mobility, and plastic-free zones.
Landscape-Level Conservation
The Rainforest Alliance Project (2022–27) in Karnataka’s Ghats restores degraded land, trains farmers in agroforestry, and supports sustainable coffee/spice cultivation.
The Nature Conservation Foundation (NCF) also revives rainforest fragments in coffee estates, fostering coexistence between people and wildlife.
Conclusion
ESA framework seeks to balance conservation and development through graded regulation rather than blanket bans. It strengthens biodiversity protection and reduces disaster risks but faces challenges of dilution, demarcation disputes, state resistance, and weak enforcement. As the Gadgil Committee observed, “Development without conservation is short-sighted, and conservation without development is impractical.” Success lies in participatory, landscape-based governance integrating ecology with inclusive growth.