Centre seeks to relax eco-zone norms as states flag development hurdles

Business Standard

10-07-2025

The standing committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SC-NBWL) has proposed revising guidelines for eco-sensitive zones (ESZs) around protected areas. The aim is to adopt a more 'flexible' and 'site-specific' model that balances conservation needs with local socio-economic realities, news agency PTI reported on July 11.
ESZs serve as protective buffers around forests, national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, restricting activities such as mining, construction and industrial operations. Regulated farming, eco-tourism and renewable energy use are typically allowed.
The SC-NBWL has recommended a comprehensive review of current ESZ guidelines, with consultations planned involving state governments, environmental experts and various ministries. A formal inter-ministerial discussion is also expected before finalising any changes.
'Strict protection must be ensured for core areas, especially those that are the origin points of tributaries and critical water resources,' Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav is quoted as saying at a SC-NBWL meeting on June 26. 'However, extending a blanket 10-kilometre ESZ to all protected areas, irrespective of local ecological and geographical conditions, would not serve the intended purpose,' he said.
He pointed to locations such as Asola, Sukhna, Hastinapur sanctuaries, and Sanjay Gandhi National Park, where uniform rules have led to 'significant challenges'.
'In states like Himachal Pradesh, where approximately 65 per cent of the land is already under forest or protected status, a rigid imposition of ESZ norms could hinder local development, without proportional ecological gains,' Yadav added. He called for ESZ rules that reflect regional conditions.
Following the meeting, the committee instructed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to draft a detailed note, to be reviewed by the ESZ and wildlife divisions. Final recommendations will be submitted to the committee.
NBWL member H S Singh, who initiated the agenda item, said that states often interpret ESZ guidelines as fixed mandates. Referring to Gujarat's zonal master plan (ZMP), he said: 'I recommended prohibition of sand mining up to three kilometres around a national park and regulation beyond that. However, the notification mentioned complete prohibition of mining activities within a notified ESZ.' He called for a revision of ESZ proposal guidelines.
States raise objections
Officials and members from various states also raised concerns over the unintended effects of blanket ESZ provisions.
The Chief Wildlife Warden (CWLW) of Himachal Pradesh said while ZMPs are being prepared for many sanctuaries, restrictions on industries and commercial activities are causing hardships to locals. He pointed out that unlike protected areas, ESZs offer no compensation for lost rights. 'As we move forward with the preparation of ZMPs, these issues are expected to become more pronounced,' he said.
The CWLW of Karnataka objected to the automatic imposition of a default 10-kilometre ESZ after declaring a new sanctuary. He proposed a two-year transition period during which existing activities could continue, giving time for relocation or phasing out prohibited operations. He also recommended stakeholder consultations before final notifications are issued.
The CWLW of Tamil Nadu said the default ESZ rule discourages the creation of new protected areas. 'Many such proposed notifications are being deferred or scaled down due to anticipated issues arising from ESZ restrictions. A more flexible and site-specific ESZ framework is essential to encourage conservation, without creating unintended hardships,' he said.
NBWL member R Sukumar added that imposing a 10-kilometre ESZ around a one-square-kilometre bird sanctuary 'is meaningless'.
The Director of the Wildlife Institute of India noted that current ESZ rules mainly apply to terrestrial ecosystems and are often unsuitable for marine environments.
The CWLW of Kerala said a proposal to declare 150 sq. km of land near Silent Valley National Park as sanctuary was rejected by the State Board for Wildlife, fearing automatic enforcement of default ESZ norms.