Why is Kaziranga’s Eco-Sensitive Zone in focus? | Explained

The controversy surrounding Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma's proposal to reduce the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) around Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve from the default 10 km to a minimum of 1 km has ignited a critical debate on conservation versus development in India. To understand this issue, we must first establish the background. Kaziranga, a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1985, spans approximately 430 sq km across Golaghat, Nagaon, and Sonitpur districts of Assam. It hosts the world's largest population of the Indian one-horned rhinoceros (over 2,600 as per the 2022 census), along with tigers, elephants, wild water buffalo, and swamp deer. The park's ecological significance is immense, serving as a critical biodiversity hotspot in the Indo-Burma region. The concept of Eco-Sensitive Zones originated from the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which empowers the Central Government to restrict industrial and developmental activities near protected areas. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) typically notifies ESZs up to 10 km around national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, though the extent can vary based on site-specific ecological sensitivity. In June 2022, the Supreme Court, in the case of *T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India*, mandated that every protected forest, national park, and wildlife sanctuary must have an ESZ of at least 1 km, directing states to propose such zones within six months. This judgment was a landmark in environmental jurisprudence, reinforcing the 'precautionary principle' and 'polluter pays principle' under Article 21 (Right to Life) and Article 48A (Directive Principle for environmental protection) of the Constitution. The key stakeholders in this controversy are multi-layered. The Assam government, led by CM Sarma, argues that a 10 km ESZ would displace thousands of people living in over 200 villages around Kaziranga, affecting livelihoods, agriculture, and infrastructure development. Local communities, particularly tea garden workers and farmers, fear restrictions on land use, construction, and traditional practices. Conversely, environmentalists, wildlife biologists, and organizations like WWF-India and Aaranyak warn that a 1 km buffer is ecologically insufficient. Kaziranga's animals, especially elephants and tigers, rely on corridors connecting to Karbi Anglong hills during annual floods. The NH-37 (now NH-715) already fragments this landscape; a narrow ESZ could accelerate habitat loss, increase human-wildlife conflict (already claiming 10-15 human lives annually), and enable mining, stone quarrying, and commercial expansion near the park boundary. The significance for India extends beyond Assam. This case tests the balance between Article 21 (including the right to a healthy environment) and Article 19(1)(g) (freedom of trade and occupation), alongside Directive Principles under Articles 48A and 51A(g). It reflects a broader governance challenge: how to implement the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, harmoniously. Internationally, India's commitment under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Global Biodiversity Framework (2022) to protect 30% of land by 2030 ('30x30 target') is at stake. Kaziranga's status as a World Heritage Site also invokes UNESCO's Operational Guidelines, which require effective buffer zones. Future implications are profound. If the 1 km ESZ is notified, it may set a precedent for other states to seek similar reductions, undermining the Supreme Court's 2022 directive. The National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) and the Standing Committee of the NBWL will play a pivotal role in reviewing the proposal. Meanwhile, the Centre must ensure that the final notification aligns with both the Court's order and ecological science. For aspirants, this case exemplifies the tension between 'ease of doing business' and 'ecological security' — a recurring theme in UPSC GS Paper III (Environment, Disaster Management) and GS Paper II (Governance, Federalism). It also highlights the role of judicial activism in environmental governance, making it essential for essay writing and interview preparation.