SC-NBWL Seeks Review of ESZ Guidelines: A Tipping Point for India’s Eco-Sensitive Zones?

A New Turn in Environmental Governance

In a move that has sparked nationwide debate, the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SC-NBWL) has sought a review of the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) guidelines, which were mandated by the Supreme Court of India in June 2022. These zones, designed as protective buffers around national parks and sanctuaries, are central to India’s biodiversity strategy. But the recent call for reconsideration reflects the growing tension between conservation imperatives and development pressures, particularly in densely populated and agriculturally intensive regions.

What Are ESZ Guidelines?

Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) are areas notified around protected areas (PAs) like national parks and wildlife sanctuaries under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. Their aim is to create a "shock absorber" for the protected ecosystem, restricting high-impact human activities and allowing only regulated development.

In June 2022, the Supreme Court mandated a minimum 1-km ESZ around every protected area—whether previously notified or not. This ruling was meant to standardize environmental protection but also brought significant concerns from states and local communities.

Why is the SC-NBWL calling for a review?

The SC-NBWL, India’s top statutory body for wildlife conservation policy advice, has raised critical concerns over the blanket approach adopted by the Supreme Court’s guidelines. Its call for a review stems from

Ground-Level Implementation Challenges

• Many states, especially in the Western Ghats, Himalayan belt, and northeast India, are densely populated with villages and agriculture near PAs.

• Enforcing a uniform 1-km ESZ could lead to forced eviction, land-use restrictions, and livelihood loss for millions.

Lack of Flexibility

• SC-NBWL argues for site-specific ESZ norms, tailored to ecological sensitivity, population density, and socio-economic conditions.

• Blanket rules undermine the "participatory conservation model" that India has long followed.

Delayed Infrastructure & Development

• Projects such as roads, schools, hospitals, and irrigation in proximity to PAs have faced delays or cancellations due to strict ESZ norms.

• States like Kerala, Uttarakhand, and Goa have appealed for exemptions or recalibration of guidelines.

Ecological vs Socio-Economic Debate

Conservationists' Stand

Environmentalists argue that the Supreme Court's ruling is crucial for safeguarding biodiversity, especially in light of

• Rising human-wildlife conflict,

• Illegal encroachments,

• Habitat fragmentation.

They believe relaxing the norms could open the floodgates for real estate, mining, and unsustainable tourism.

States & Local Communities' Concerns

On the flip side, state governments and local farmers emphasize

• Loss of livelihood and access to land or forest produce,

• No clarity on compensatory mechanisms,

• Ambiguity in implementation affects both rural communities and urban development.

What Does the Law Say?

The Supreme Court's 2022 judgment was based on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking protection for fragile ecosystems. Key provisions include:

• 1-km buffer from PA boundary as minimum ESZ

• Prohibition of new permanent structures,

• No mining, commercial felling, or major construction within these zones.

• Already notified ESZs with smaller boundaries would remain valid.

However, the judgment did permit states to seek exemptions if they presented valid ecological and demographic justifications.

Possible Outcomes of the Review

If the review is accepted and guidelines are relaxed or decentralized, India could see:

• Greater autonomy for state wildlife boards and local forest departments,

• Reduced tension between conservation goals and human needs,

• More community-based conservation models, especially in tribal and forest-fringe areas.

However, if not managed with strict safeguards, it could also lead to

• Increased encroachment near PAs,

• Compromised wildlife corridors and migratory routes,

• Rise in unregulated development in fragile ecological zones.

Conflict with FRA & Forest Rights

One of the biggest critiques of the uniform ESZ rule is its overlap and conflict with the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006:

• Many Scheduled Tribes and forest-dwelling communities have legal rights under FRA, including rights to cultivate, reside, and collect forest produce.

• The rigid ESZ buffer may override these rights, particularly if land is reclassified as a no-development zone without proper consultation or rehabilitation.

This legal conflict between environmental law and tribal rights law has triggered constitutional and human rights concerns.

Diverse State-Level Responses

The implementation of ESZ norms has seen high variance across states:

• Kerala: Formed a high-level committee to identify areas where a 1-km buffer cannot be implemented due to population density. Strong local protests in Wayanad and Idukki.

• Goa: Sought reduction in ESZ around sanctuaries like Mollem and Bhagwan Mahaveer due to infrastructure needs.

• Madhya Pradesh & Rajasthan: Raised concerns over tourism and eco-tourism investments getting stalled.

• Northeast States: Flagged issues where ESZ coverage overlaps with traditional community forests and shifting cultivation (jhum).

Impact on Climate Resilience Efforts

Ironically, while the SC’s ESZ guidelines were intended for environmental protection, many climate policy experts argue the move could undermine India’s community-led climate resilience:

• Forest-dependent communities are often the first line of defense against forest fires, illegal felling, and poaching.

• Disempowering them or relocating them under ESZ restrictions could result in the loss of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) critical for biodiversity conservation and disaster mitigation.

Delays in Project Clearances and Financial Impacts

Many central and state government projects—such as rural electrification, water treatment plants, border roads, and even disaster shelters—require wildlife clearance if they fall in ESZ zones.

• Post the 2022 ruling, the project approval timeline has increased, sometimes up to 12–18 months.

• States report financial penalties due to delays in foreign-aided infrastructure work, especially in border and tribal regions.

This has led to increased pressure on the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to provide faster clearances or carve out exceptions.

Wildlife Corridors & Connectivity Plans Ignored

Experts have raised a major flaw in the 1-km blanket rule: it ignores ecological connectivity and wildlife movement corridors.

• Some wildlife corridors extend beyond 1 km and need wider buffers.

• In other regions, animals have already adapted to human-modified landscapes.

A site-specific scientific zoning model, such as the one used in the Western Ghats Ecologically Sensitive Areas project (WG-ESA), is considered more effective. The SC-NBWL is reportedly advocating such a corridor- and data-based zoning method.

Draft Amendments & Legal Future

Sources within the MoEFCC have hinted at draft proposals to:

• Allow state-specific exemptions for certain development projects within the ESZ.

• Introduce flexible buffers based on geospatial mapping and biodiversity significance rather than rigid physical boundaries.

Global Comparison & India’s Position

Globally, buffer zones are a common conservation strategy but rarely enforced uniformly.

• Brazil’s Amazon buffer zones vary depending on Indigenous ownership, forest density, and ecological risk.

• South Africa’s protected areas follow a zoning matrix where community lands are regulated differently from mining or commercial zones.

India, by proposing a review, is aligning more closely with international models of dynamic zoning and inclusive conservation.

A Path Forward: Balancing Ecology and Equity

The SC-NBWL’s appeal is not a retreat from conservation but a call for realistic, inclusive, and context-aware governance. Moving forward, India needs

• Revised ESZ guidelines based on GIS mapping, ecological sensitivity index, and socio-economic data.

• Stronger role for Gram Sabhas and tribal communities in decision-making,

• Policy harmonization between the environment ministry, state governments, and judiciary.

The SC-NBWL’s push for revisiting ESZ guidelines marks a critical inflection point in India’s conservation journey. As India aspires to be a biodiversity superpower while also driving infrastructure growth, the future of ESZ policy must reflect ground realities without diluting ecological commitments. A nuanced, data-driven, and participatory approach is not just necessary—it is the only sustainable way forward.

FAQs

Q1. What is the SC-NBWL?

• The Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife is a statutory body under India’s Wildlife Protection Act that approves or rejects activities in protected areas.

Q2. What are the restrictions in ESZs?

• Typically, ESZs prohibit mining, deforestation, large-scale infrastructure, and any activity that harms wildlife or ecosystems.

Q3. Will the 1-km ESZ guideline still apply?

• Currently, yes. But states may seek exemption with ecological and demographic justifications, and the SC-NBWL is pushing for a broader review.

Q4. Who is most affected by ESZ guidelines?

• Rural communities, farmers, forest dwellers, and states with dense populations near protected areas.

Fuel our creativity with a cup of coffee! ☕️❤️❤️❤️