Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) or Ecologically Fragile Areas (EFAs) are areas notified by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) around Protected Areas (PA), National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, under provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The delineation of ESZ is site specific and relates to regulation rather than prohibition of specific activities.

Significance of ESZS:

• Acts as shock absorber: PAs are based on the core-buffer model of conservation. While core areas have legal status of being a national park, buffer areas don’t have such a status and can be a reserved forest, wildlife sanctuary or tiger reserve. ESZs thus act as a transition zone from areas of high protection to areas of lesser protection and work as shock absorbers around PAs.
• Minimizes harmful impacts of developmental activities: Some activities like movement of commercial vehicles at night, construction of roads etc. are allowed but regulated in ESZs. Therefore, such transition zones minimize adverse impacts of developmental activities around PAs.
• Conserve biodiversity: Areas outside PA network are vital ecological corridor links and require protection to prevent biodiversity fragmentation. ESZs help in conserving biodiversity, reducing forest depletion and man-animal conflict.
• Promote Eco-tourism: ESZs help in in-situ conservation of flora and fauna and promote eco- tourism.
• Bottoms up approach: Respective states, local bodies and experts are involved in deciding the extent of ESZ, permitted activities in it and management of the area.

Challenges associated with ESZS

• Identification of ESZS
  • As per 2011 Guidelines, proposals for ESZ should be prepared by states. However, states hesitate to finalize ESZ as it might hamper finances due to closure of industries and tourism activities. Presence of minerals and resources near PAs further disrupts the identification of ESZS.
  • For PAs around heavily populated urban areas such as Guindy National Park in Chennai, ESZ loses relevance as its limit extends up to a few meters only.
• Lack of consultation: A survey of the implementation of ESZs in the Jim Corbett National park revealed that it is an exclusionary mode of conservation that does not include local communities in consultation process, displaces them and denies them their livelihoods.
• Developmental activities:
  • Activities such as construction of dams, roads, urban and rural infrastructures in ESZs negatively impact the environment and cause habitat destruction.
  • States like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa etc have deliberately kept mining areas out of ESZs, irrespective of its ecological value.
• Insufficient regulation of tourism: There are no policies to regulate tourism. Hotels and mega resorts dominate the area and locals are restricted to low paying jobs. Also, the current guidelines do not put any restriction on the vehicular pollution in the area.

Identifying the importance of ESZs, the Madhav Gadgil committee (2011) had recommended converting the whole Western Ghats into an ESZ. The Kasturirangan committee (2012) had recommended a complete ban on quarrying and sand mining in the ESZs and to demarcate the cultural and natural landscape of the area. In 2018, the Supreme Court ordered MoEFCC to declare an area of 10Km around 21 National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries as ESZs.