The Legal Regime of Eco-Sensitive Zones in India: Balancing Conservation and Development

The Legal Regime of Eco-Sensitive Zones in India: Balancing Conservation and Development

Introduction

Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs), also known as Ecologically Fragile Areas (EFAs), are areas notified by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Government of India, around Protected Areas such as National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. The primary purpose of declaring ESZs is to create a "shock absorber" or a transition zone from areas of high protection to those involving lesser protection, thereby mitigating the negative impacts of human activities on the fragile ecosystems of Protected Areas (RAJENDRA TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA, 2024; T.PURUSHOTHAMAN v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 2022). This legal article seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis of the concept, legal framework, evolution, and judicial interpretation of ESZs in India, drawing extensively from statutory provisions, governmental guidelines, and significant judicial pronouncements.

The legal underpinning for ESZs primarily flows from the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court of India and the National Green Tribunal (NGT), has played a pivotal role in shaping the ESZ regime, often intervening to ensure effective implementation and to balance the imperatives of conservation with developmental needs and local livelihoods.

Genesis and Evolution of Eco-Sensitive Zones in India

Early Policy Directives and Judicial Impetus

The concept of affording special protection to areas surrounding National Parks and Sanctuaries gained prominence with the adoption of the Wildlife Conservation Strategy, 2002. This strategy envisaged that lands falling within 10 kilometers of the boundaries of National Parks and Sanctuaries should be notified as ESZs under Section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (T.PURUSHOTHAMAN v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 2022). The National Wildlife Action Plan (NWAP) 2002-2016 further emphasized that areas outside the protected area network, often vital ecological corridor links, must be protected to prevent the isolation of biodiversity fragments and should be declared ecologically fragile (Tseten Lepcha Ors v. Union of India Ors, 2017; Centre For Environmental Law, World Wide Fund-India v. Union Of India, 2013).

A significant judicial push came from the Supreme Court. In its order dated December 4, 2006, in Goa Foundation v. Union Of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 460/2004), the Court directed State Governments to submit proposals for the declaration of ESZs around Protected Areas to the MoEF&CC (T.PURUSHOTHAMAN v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 2022; STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. M/S RIDDHI SIDDHI ASSOCIATES, 2024). This directive spurred action from both Central and State governments.

The National Board for Wildlife (NBWL), in its meeting on March 17, 2005, decided that the delineation of ESZs would have to be site-specific and relate to regulation, rather than outright prohibition, of specific activities (Tseten Lepcha Ors v. Union of India Ors, 2017). This marked a shift towards a more nuanced approach to ESZ management.

The MoEF&CC Guidelines of 2011

In response to judicial directives and evolving policy, the MoEF&CC issued "Guidelines for Declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ) around National Park and Wildlife Sanctuaries" on February 9, 2011 (RAJENDRA TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA, 2024). These guidelines provide a framework for the states and union territories regarding the process and procedures to be adopted for declaring ESZs. They reiterate that the purpose of ESZs is to act as "Shock Absorbers" and transition zones, with activities being regulatory rather than prohibitive, unless specified otherwise (RAJENDRA TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA, 2024). The guidelines also underscored that ESZs are not meant to hamper the day-to-day activities of local people but to protect precious forests/Protected Areas from negative impacts and refine the surrounding environment (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India, 2022, Reference Material 6).

Legal Framework for Declaration and Demarcation of ESZs

Statutory Basis and Constitutional Imperatives

The primary statutory authority for declaring ESZs is Section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which empowers the Central Government to take measures for protecting and improving the quality of the environment. This includes restricting areas in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations or processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards (T.PURUSHOTHAMAN v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 2022).

The declaration of ESZs is also supported by constitutional mandates. Article 48-A of the Constitution of India directs the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Article 51-A(g) imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures. The right to a healthy environment is also interpreted as part of the Right to Life under Article 21 (Hospitality Association Of Mudumalai (S) v. In Defence Of Environment And Animals And Others Etc. (S), 2020).

Process of Notification and Determination of Extent

The process generally involves the State Government submitting a proposal to the MoEF&CC for the declaration of an ESZ around a specific Protected Area. This proposal is often formulated with the help of a committee comprising the concerned Wildlife Warden, an ecologist, an official from the Local Self Government, and an official from the Revenue Department (C.G. George v. State Of Kerala, 2019).

The extent of an ESZ is intended to be site-specific and flexible. The MoEF&CC guidelines suggest that the width of the ESZ could go up to 10 kilometers around a Protected Area as a general principle. However, where sensitive corridors, connectivity, and ecologically important patches crucial for landscape linkage exist beyond 10 km, these should also be included. The distribution of an ESZ and the extent of regulation may not be uniform and could be of variable width (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India, 2022, Reference Material 6). For inter-state boundaries, mutual consultation between the concerned State/Union Territory Governments is encouraged (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India, 2022, Reference Material 6).

In a landmark directive, the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India (2022 SCC ONLINE SC 716) mandated a minimum ESZ of one kilometer around all National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries across the country. The Court stated that no permanent structure would be permitted within such ESZs, and mining within a National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary would be completely prohibited. However, it allowed for dilution of this 1 km minimum in overwhelming public interest, subject to the approval of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and the Ministry, and for existing activities to continue with permission if not detrimental.

Crucially, if State Governments fail to submit ESZ proposals or if such proposals are pending final notification, a default 10 km zone from the boundary of the Protected Area is often considered applicable for regulatory purposes, as interpreted by various judicial forums (C.G. George v. State Of Kerala, 2019; Lsc Infratech Ltd. v. Union Of India, 2019; MIRJUM KARBA v. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, 2023; NILESH SURESH CHAVAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH REVENUE DEPARTMENT, 2023).

Purpose and Objectives of Eco-Sensitive Zones

The fundamental purpose of ESZs is to act as a "shock absorber" or a "transition zone" for Protected Areas (T.PURUSHOTHAMAN v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 2022; Tseten Lepcha Ors v. Union of India Ors, 2017; RAJENDRA TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA, 2024). They are intended to protect biodiversity, prevent habitat destruction, and safeguard fragile ecology by creating regulated buffer areas (Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma v. Ministry Of Environment Forests & Climate Change, 2021).

ESZs aim to minimize the adverse impacts of developmental activities on Protected Areas by regulating, rather than entirely prohibiting, human activities in the vicinity (Tseten Lepcha Ors v. Union of India Ors, 2017). The objective is to achieve a balance between environmental conservation and legitimate socio-economic development, ensuring livelihood security for local communities without compromising ecological integrity (C.G. George v. State Of Kerala, 2019; T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India, 2022, Reference Material 6).

Regulation of Activities within Eco-Sensitive Zones

Prohibited, Regulated, and Permitted Activities

The MoEF&CC guidelines and specific ESZ notifications typically categorize activities into prohibited, regulated, and permitted.

The specific list of activities varies from one ESZ notification to another, reflecting the site-specific nature of these zones.

The Role of Zonal Master Plans (ZMPs)

For effective management of ESZs, the preparation of a Zonal Master Plan (ZMP) is often mandated. The ZMP is expected to demarcate existing village settlements, tribal areas, forest types, agricultural areas, fertile lands, green areas, water bodies, heritage sites, slopes, and other ecologically sensitive areas. A key objective of the ZMP is to ensure the restoration of denuded areas, conservation of water bodies, watershed management, groundwater management, and soil and moisture conservation, while also addressing the needs of the local community (Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma v. Ministry Of Environment Forests & Climate Change, 2021, referencing the Mount Abu ESZ Notification). The ZMP typically stipulates that no change of land use from green uses to non-green uses shall be permitted, except for limited conversion of agricultural lands to meet the residential needs of existing local residents with prior State Government approval (Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma v. Ministry Of Environment Forests & Climate Change, 2021).

Judicial Scrutiny and Enforcement of ESZ Norms

Supreme Court's Directives and Interpretations

The Supreme Court of India has been instrumental in the evolution and enforcement of the ESZ regime. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India (2022 SCC ONLINE SC 716), the Court issued comprehensive directives, including the mandatory 1 km default ESZ, prohibition of mining within Protected Areas, and restrictions on permanent structures within ESZs. This judgment reinforced the Public Trust Doctrine, the Precautionary Principle, and the principle of Sustainable Development as guiding tenets for environmental governance. Earlier, in Goa Foundation v. Union Of India (2014), the Court had mandated the establishment of ESZs and imposed caps on mining activities, emphasizing intergenerational equity.

In cases like Hospitality Association Of Mudumalai v. In Defence Of Environment And Animals And Others (2020), the Supreme Court upheld the State's authority to designate elephant corridors and regulate commercial activities therein, often within areas later notified as ESZs, underscoring the Precautionary Principle and constitutional obligations to protect wildlife and the environment.

The National Green Tribunal's Contribution

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has played a significant role in the interpretation and enforcement of ESZ norms. The NGT has consistently held that in the absence of a finally notified ESZ, the 10 km radius from the boundary of a Protected Area will be considered the ESZ for regulatory purposes, particularly for activities requiring environmental clearance or NBWL approval (Lsc Infratech Ltd. v. Union Of India, 2019; MIRJUM KARBA v. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, 2023). The NGT has also adjudicated on the permissibility of various activities within ESZs, often ordering the closure of polluting industries or activities undertaken without requisite approvals (Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action v. Ministry Of Environment, Forest And Climate Change, 2019). It has emphasized the need for ZMPs and proper monitoring mechanisms, sometimes directing the constitution of Monitoring Committees for ESZs (Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma v. Ministry Of Environment Forests & Climate Change, 2021).

Challenges and Future Directions

Despite the legal framework and judicial activism, the implementation of ESZs faces several challenges. Delays in the final notification of ESZ proposals by State and Central Governments remain a concern, leading to uncertainty and reliance on the default 10 km rule (C.G. George v. State Of Kerala, 2019; NILESH SURESH CHAVAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH REVENUE DEPARTMENT, 2023). Effective enforcement of regulations within notified ESZs, including adherence to ZMPs, is crucial and often requires strengthening monitoring mechanisms and institutional capacity.

Balancing developmental pressures, including infrastructure projects and tourism, with conservation objectives within ESZs continues to be a complex task (Gaurav Chhabra v. Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., 2016). Ensuring the scientific accuracy of ESZ demarcation and the meaningful participation of local communities in the planning and management process are also vital for the long-term success of ESZs. Inter-state coordination for ESZs that span across state boundaries requires continuous effort (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India, 2022, Reference Material 6).

The establishment and functioning of robust Monitoring Committees, with diverse representation including experts and local residents, are essential for overseeing compliance and addressing grievances related to ESZ management (Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma v. Ministry Of Environment Forests & Climate Change, 2021).

Conclusion

Eco-Sensitive Zones represent a critical legal and ecological instrument in India's efforts to conserve its rich biodiversity and protect its vulnerable ecosystems. The legal regime governing ESZs has evolved significantly, driven by policy initiatives, legislative action, and, most prominently, judicial interventions. The Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal have consistently underscored the importance of ESZs as buffers and transition zones, mandating their notification and enforcing regulations to prevent environmental degradation around Protected Areas.

While the framework aims to balance conservation with sustainable development and the rights of local communities, challenges in notification, enforcement, and inter-agency coordination persist. The future efficacy of ESZs will depend on timely and scientifically sound demarcation, stringent implementation of Zonal Master Plans, active monitoring, and a continued commitment to the principles of environmental justice and intergenerational equity. The ongoing judicial oversight ensures that ESZs remain a focal point in India’s environmental governance, striving to harmonize human progress with ecological integrity.