CEC member visits Bannerghatta National Park, interacts with farmers

The visit of a Central Empowered Committee (CEC) member to Bannerghatta National Park, amidst a petition challenging the reduction of its Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ), brings to the forefront a critical conflict between development aspirations and environmental conservation in India. This issue is not isolated to Bannerghatta but reflects a nationwide debate on how to balance economic growth with the protection of invaluable biodiversity.

**Background Context: The Concept of Eco-Sensitive Zones**

Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) are areas notified by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The primary objective behind declaring ESZs is to create a 'shock absorber' or a transitional zone around Protected Areas (PAs) like National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. These zones are intended to regulate and manage activities to minimize the negative impacts of urbanization and industrialization on the fragile ecosystems within the PAs. The activities in ESZs are categorized into prohibited, regulated, and permitted, aiming to reduce human-wildlife conflict and preserve ecological integrity. The idea gained significant traction following Supreme Court directives, emphasizing the need for such buffer zones to protect wildlife habitats.

**The Bannerghatta Controversy: A Case of Reduced Protection**

Bannerghatta National Park, located near Bengaluru in Karnataka, is a vital ecological lung for the bustling metropolis and a significant habitat for diverse flora and fauna, including a substantial elephant population. The current controversy stems from a notification that reduced the existing ESZ around the park. Environmentalists and concerned citizens argue that this reduction is arbitrary and excludes ecologically critical areas, particularly established elephant corridors. Elephant corridors are crucial linear patches of forest that allow elephants to move between larger habitats, ensuring genetic diversity and reducing human-elephant conflict. Their protection is paramount for the long-term survival of Asian elephants in India, a Schedule I species under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

**Key Stakeholders Involved**

Several key players are involved in this complex issue. The **Central Empowered Committee (CEC)**, a statutory body constituted by the Supreme Court, plays a crucial advisory role in matters of forest and environmental protection. Its visit signifies the gravity of the allegations. The **Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC)** is the primary policy-making body responsible for notifying ESZs. The **Karnataka State Government** is a significant stakeholder, balancing development projects with conservation mandates. **Local farmers and communities** residing near the park are directly impacted by ESZ regulations, often facing restrictions on their livelihoods, leading to legitimate concerns. Finally, **environmental activists and petitioners** act as watchdogs, bringing these issues to the attention of courts and the public, advocating for stricter conservation measures. Most importantly, the **wildlife**, particularly the elephants, are the silent stakeholders whose survival hinges on effective ESZ management.

**Why This Matters for India: A Broader Perspective**

This issue holds immense significance for India. Firstly, it highlights the ongoing challenge of **balancing development with environmental protection**. Rapid urbanization and infrastructure projects often clash with conservation needs, forcing difficult policy choices. Secondly, the protection of **elephant corridors** is vital for India's commitment to wildlife conservation. India is home to a significant portion of the world's Asian elephant population, and their corridors are lifelines. Their fragmentation due to reduced ESZs can lead to increased human-elephant conflict, crop damage, and loss of human and animal lives. Thirdly, it underscores the importance of **environmental governance and judicial oversight**. The CEC's involvement and the petition itself demonstrate the role of independent bodies and civil society in holding the executive accountable. Constitutionally, Article 48A mandates the State to 'endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country', while Article 51A(g) imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to 'protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures'. This case directly tests the implementation of these constitutional mandates.

**Historical Context and Future Implications**

The concept of ESZs evolved from the need to regulate activities around PAs, a realization that gained momentum after the landmark Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Over the years, various expert committees, like the Gadgil Committee and Kasturirangan Committee for the Western Ghats, have emphasized the need for robust buffer zones. The Supreme Court has also intervened multiple times, directing states to notify ESZs. The future implications of this specific case are profound. A favorable outcome for the petitioners could set a significant precedent, reinforcing the importance of scientific assessment over political expediency in ESZ declarations. It could also lead to a review of ESZ policies nationwide, ensuring that critical habitats like elephant corridors are adequately protected. Conversely, a decision favoring the reduction could embolden similar attempts across other PAs, potentially jeopardizing India's rich biodiversity. This case will undoubtedly contribute to the ongoing national discourse on sustainable development, judicial activism in environmental matters, and the effectiveness of India's environmental protection framework.