TOPIC : THE CONFLICT BEHIND ECO-SENSITIVE ZONES

THE CONTEXT: Parasnath hill was caught in a political storm with both the Adivasis and the Jains staking exclusive claims over it. Following this, the Union government classified the area as an eco-sensitive zone and directed the State government to take appropriate action to maintain the sanctity of Sammed Shikhar at Parasnath. Earlier, the Supreme Court’s decision to declare one kilometer around protected forests as ecologically sensitive zones (ESZ) have provoked protests in the country’s different regions. This article will analyse the conflict around the declaration of ESZ and steps that need to be taken to resolve the issue.

DEVELOPMENTS IN PARASNATH RELATED TO ESZ

• Earlier, in April 2015, the then Jharkhand Chief Minister launched a “Parasnath Hill Development Plan” to boost tourism in the Shikharji hills. According to the plan, a helipad, theme park, and tourism reception centre was to be constructed on Parasnath hill.
• In 2019, the State government notified the Parasnath area as a tourist destination, but it was in the year 2023 that members of the Jain community began demonstrations in New Delhi, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra, protesting the proposed development of the site as a tourism hub.
• On January 3, 2023 Sugyeyasagar Maharaj, a septuagenarian Jain priest who was on hunger strike to protest against the development plan, passed away in Jaipur.
• The Union government responded positively to the Jain protests. The Union government modified its 2019 notification and classified the area as an eco-sensitive zone (ESZ).
• MoEFCC directed the State government to strictly enforce the relevant provisions of the Management Plan of the Parasnath Wildlife Sanctuary and to appoint two members from the Jain community and one member from the local tribal community as Permanent Invitees to the committee constituted by the Central government for monitoring the provisions of the ESZ notification under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

ABOUT PARASNATH HILL

• It is a mountain peak located in chotanagpur plateau region in the Giridih district of Jharkhand.
• Parasnath hill is considered sacred by two communities, both Jain and Tribals, that, ironically, differ sharply in diet and customs.
• For jain, it is known as Sammed Shikhar, and It is named after Parshvanath who is the 23^rd jain Tirthankara and is considered as one of the most holy pilgrimage sites for jain community.
• For tribals, the hill is known as Marang Buru which means the great mountain or supreme deity. Santhals and other tribes of the region worship it.

WHAT ARE ECO SENSITIVE ZONES?

• ESZs are effectively insulating layers where humans and nature can be at peace with each other. It is intended to protect ‘protected areas’ as national parks and wildlife sanctuaries by transitioning from an area of lower protection to an area of higher protection.
• It is notified as ecologically fragile zones under Section 3(2)(v) of the Environment Protection Act 1986.
• It is created as “shock absorbers” for the protected areas, to minimize the negative impact on the “fragile ecosystems” by certain nearby human activities.
• As per the National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-2016), issued by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, land within 10 km of the boundaries of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries is to be notified as eco-fragile zones or Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ).
• Protected areas cover 5.26% of India’s land area and are notified under Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972. Surrounding these protected areas is an area of more than 1,11,000 sq. km or 3.4% percent of the country’s land which in effect, falls under the ESZ regime. Governments have notified 341 ESZs in 29 States and five Union territories, while another 85 ESZs are awaiting notification. Protected areas and the ESZs cover 8.66% of India’s land area.
• The MoEFCC guidelines list the activities prohibited in an ESZ, such as commercial mining, sawmills, commercial use of wood, etc., apart from regulated activities like felling of trees. There are permitted activities like ongoing agricultural or horticultural practices, rainwater harvesting, and organic farming.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ECO-SENSITIVE ZONE

Eco-Sensitive Zones play a significant role in balancing the development and environment by preserving biodiversity and conserving indigenous and regulating development activities. Some of the significance of ESZ is mentioned below:

• In-Situ conservation: ESZ helps in in-situ conservation of an endangered species which means conservation of species in its own natural habitat which helps in maintaining the ecological balance.
• Conservation of flora and fauna: ESZ helps conserve flora and fauna of the protected areas as wildlife sanctuaries and national parks and helps minimise deforestation.
• Benefit to Indigenous and local communities: Indigenous and local communities benefited by ESZ demarcation as they can isolate themselves from interference of outsiders.
• Sustainable development: It helps balance environment and development by regulating activities that happen in the area without harming the environment.
• Avoid Human-Wildlife Conflict: Protected areas are based on the core and buffer management model, which minimises human wildlife conflict.
• Protection to tribal rights and livelihoods: ESZ provides protection to tribal rights to preserve their culture, diversity and livelihood which helps in balancing unity and integrity of the nation.

RECENT DEVELOPMENT BY SUPREME COURT

• On June 3, 2022, the Supreme Court said that the MoEFCC guidelines are also to be implemented in the area proposed in the draft notification awaiting finalization and within a 10-km radius of yet-to-be-proposed protected areas. The Court also allowed States to increase or decrease the minimum width of ESZs in the public interest.
• Second, the court vested the powers to ensure compliance with the guidelines with the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) and the Home Secretary of the State/UT. The PCCF was to make a list of all structures within the ESZs and report it to the Supreme Court within three months. This has yet to be done. The court also ordered that no new permanent structure could come up for any purpose within an ESZ.
• This brings us to the reason for the protests in Kerala in 2002, a Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was also constituted to monitor the implementation of the court’s orders and bringing to its attention incidents of non-compliance.
• One of the most significant rulings in the case came in June 2022, when a three-Judge Bench led by Justice L. Nageswara Rao mandated the creation of ecologically sensitive zones of one kilometer around wildlife sanctuaries and national parks. Court, however, observed that a one kilometer-wide ‘no development zone’ might not be feasible in all cases.

ANALYSIS OF SC JUDGEMENT: WHETHER IT IS FEASIBLE OR NOT

IN FAVOUR OF SC JUDGEMENT

●  Inclusive implementation:  This decision nullifies the area-specific ESZ boundary limit around the PAs, as previously announced by the Supreme Court and would apply in all states/UTs where the minimum extent of ESZ is not prescribed. This will led to inclusive implementation in all protected areas.

● Relieve pressure on protected areas:  It will relieve the pressure on protected areas caused by the intensification of mining and linear infrastructure in an unsustainable way. Mining activities in general, whether within or near Protected Areas, have a wide range of environmental consequences. For example, mining imperilled the Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary, Mollem National Park, Bondla WLS, Netravali WLS etc.

●  Forest conservation: The decision can be viewed as a positive step towards forest conservation in India, with the amendments and inclusions that are being discussed. Owing to the pressures of human habitation and infrastructure development projects, the eco-sensitive zones (ESZs) around such protected areas are shrinking and, in some cases, are near zero or absent. This decision will help in regaining the status of ESZ.

● Committee for consultation: Ministry has asked all states to form a committee comprised of the wildlife warden, an ecologist, and a revenue department official from the affected area to recommend the need for an eco-sensitive zone and its size. The panel could also recommend the best methods for managing such zones and broad-based thematic activities to be included in the master plan for the areas that have been classified as prohibited, restricted with safeguards, and permissible.

●  Acts as buffer zone and shock absorber: It will act as the buffer zone between protected areas and urban areas and will also help in minimizing human and wildlife contacts which will help in minimizing damage of lives and property.

●  In situ conservation of wildlife species: This decision will help conserve wildlife species in their original habitat, which will help restore the environment.

AGAINST SC JUDGEMENT

●  Environmentalist concern: Many environmentalists from across the country expressed concern about the template of the Supreme Court judgment, claiming that the ecological perspective was not given due consideration.

●   Rights-negating ‘fortress conservation model’: It has continued India’s colonial forest regime, resulting in a historic injustice. According to Some states such notification did not favor local communities inhabiting the forest boundary. It is also argued that such a binding rule is detrimental to the well-being of tribal communities residing on the edge of forest boundaries for decades and depends exclusively on forest resources for a living.

●   Denying basic infrastructure: New structures that are banned could include electric poles, buildings, walls, roads and bridges. Millions of forest-dwellers living on forest land and on the fringes of forests are the most affected. After being denied forest rights, they are now denied better public infrastructure. The government and the judiciary need to reconcile laws, reaffirm democratic governance, and protect the environment and as well as livelihoods.

●   One size fits all: These guidelines need to have been a location, community and ecology-specific plan, arrived at through people’s informed participation, became a virtually ‘one size fits all’ notification.

●   No proper surveys: Supreme Court has not asked for any physical survey for the buffer zones. The government is moving to dilute the issue in the name of physical surveys.

●  Affect revenue: It is also opposed because activities such as mining and quarrying contribute significantly to the state economy.

● Delay in development activities: Some stakeholders are also unhappy with the proclamation that such regulation will delay development work, particularly the mining activities in and around the protected area, which is a significant source of revenue for the state.

CHALLENGES RELATED TO ESZ IMPLEMENTATION

The recent Supreme Court decision triggered new conflicts among policymakers, environmentalists, and other stakeholders. Some are pleased with it, while others have criticized it. In this regard there are a few challenges associated with it.

• No mandatory rule for establishing ESZ: Due to ideological differences between central and state governments, India just now had a mandatory rule on maintaining the ESZ around its protected area.
• Conflict between centre and state: The subject “forest” for which such regulation is prescribed is kept in the concurrent list of the Indian constitution, on which both the state and central governments can make decisions that lead to conflict of interest.
• Issues in determining boundary: Some stakeholders are also concerned about determining the boundary in the case of marine / aquatic PAs, where identifying the permanent boundary of the national park and sanctuaries is complex due to alteration in original boundaries over time, making ESZ boundary demarcation questionable.
• No provision has been made for reserve forests: There is no provision for reserve forests which also have significant protection values. It is a well-known fact that several of these reserve forests are also undermining pressure, which significantly impacts their original values.

THE WAY FORWARD

Article 51-A (g) says, “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.” Directive principles under the Indian constitution are directed toward the ideals of building a welfare state. In this regard, there is a need to take certain steps to ensure the same regarding determining ESZ.

• Flexible and Area specific approach: This fixed minimum limit of one km for a Sanctuary/NP with a few square kilometers should not be the same as the PAs having an area of hundreds of square kilometers. Such as Okhla Bird Sanctuary in Uttar Pradesh and Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Mumbai, located near urban areas, cannot rationally maintain the ESZ boundary of one km. A flexible and area-specific minimum limit boundary provision is required.
• Identification of the eco-sensitive zones: Mandatory execution of ESZ for each National Park and Sanctuary can be done, but there is a need for proper identification of all the issues related to ESZ.
• Balancing development and environment: While development is necessary, it should not be done at the expense of forest degradation and interest of all the stakeholders have to be balanced.
• Focus on regulation rather than prohibition: It was decided that the delineation of eco-sensitive zones would have to be site-specific and relate to regulation, rather than prohibition, of specific activities. The primary goal was to regulate certain activities near National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries to reduce the negative impacts of such activities on the fragile ecosystems surrounding the protected areas.
• Consultation and Collaboration: Besides that, it should also be taken into consideration that India is a state union, and any decision made by the executive, Judiciary, or legislature will not be widely implemented until it receives unanimous approval from all states. A consultation meeting among all states, the central government, and the judiciary is necessary before the execution of the recent judgment, so that genuine concerns raised by state governments can be appropriately addressed, reducing future conflicts.
• Taking an Indigenous concern into account: Several indigenous communities live in the forest area and implementing this rule will jeopardize their lives, so there is a need for proper amendment to ensure that their lives and livelihoods are not affected.

Thus, it can be understood that the recent judgments were not made in haste but rather based on several facts and conclusions. However, there is a need for a few amendments to ensure inclusiveness.

THE CONCLUSION: India has demonstrated its commitment to environmental preservation in many national and international forums and the Supreme Court’s decision to implement ESZ can be viewed as a positive step towards forest conservation with certain amendments and inclusion as it supports the concept of sustainability.

MAINS QUESTIONS

1.  What are Eco-Sensitive Zones? Discuss their importance and the challenges involved in the declaration of ESZs.
2. The Supreme Court’s decision to implement ESZ around 1 km of protected areas has attracted protest across the country. In this regard, analyse whether it’s a right step in balancing the rights of locals and the protection of the environment.