India’s eco-sensitive zones: Notified, filed, and forgotten
A recent report examined the implementation gap in India's Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) — buffer areas around national parks and wildlife sanctuaries — finding that notification of an ESZ frequently does not translate into functional ecological protection on the ground.
Case studies from Hyderabad's protected areas (KBR National Park, Mrugavani National Park, and Harina Vanasthali Wildlife Sanctuary) illustrate how ESZ boundaries are often drawn around existing infrastructure like ring roads rather than based on ecological assessment, and how ESZ declarations are deferred indefinitely.
Zonal Management Committees, meant to govern activity within ESZs, were found to be either unformed or functioning "in name only" — without dedicated budgets or a secretariat.
Consequences documented include untreated sewage and stormwater entering park boundaries, traffic noise suppressing bird populations, and stray animals from adjoining areas preying on wildlife inside sanctuaries.
The report recommended ecological baseline studies before notification, mandatory Zonal Management Plans within a fixed timeframe, adequately empowered Zonal Management Committees, and integration of ESZ restrictions into state urban Master Plans.
Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) — Legal and Conceptual Basis
An Eco-Sensitive Zone is a buffer/transition area declared around a National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary to regulate — not prohibit — human activity, so that developmental pressure at the periphery does not degrade the protected area itself. ESZs do not have their own dedicated statute; their legal basis lies in the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 — specifically Sections 3(2)(v) and 5, read with Rule 5(1) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 — which empower the Central Government to restrict the location and operation of industries and processes in ecologically fragile areas. The term "Eco-Sensitive Zone" itself does not appear in the 1986 Act; it developed through executive guidelines and judicial directions.
The report's finding — that ESZs exist on paper but lack functioning governance — points to a persistent gap between the Supreme Court's demarcation mandate and the administrative machinery (Zonal Management Plans and Committees) needed to actually enforce ESZ restrictions.
Zonal Master Plans and Zonal Management Committees
Once an ESZ is notified under the Environment (Protection) Act framework, the notification is meant to be operationalised through a Zonal Master Plan (ZMP) prepared by the state government in consultation with local communities, which lays down permissible land use, infrastructure norms, and mitigation measures specific to that ESZ. Implementation and monitoring are meant to rest with a Zonal Management Committee headed by the District Collector/District Magistrate, as prescribed in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) ESZ guidelines.
Key Details
- MoEFCC guidelines (2011, revised subsequently) require the ZMP to be prepared within two years of final ESZ notification
- Zonal Management Committees are supposed to include representatives of the forest department, local self-government, and other line departments — but the report found many exist without a budget or secretariat, i.e., without operational capacity
- Because forest department jurisdiction legally ends at the protected area boundary, ESZ areas fall under general revenue/municipal administration unless the ZMP and Committee actively assert ESZ-specific restrictions
The Hyderabad case studies (KBR National Park's ESZ shaped around an existing ring road; Mrugavani's ESZ declaration left pending; Harina Vanasthali's ESZ not yet notified despite an adjoining municipal dump) are presented as illustrations of this administrative vacuum rather than isolated local failures.
Protected Area Categories — National Park vs Wildlife Sanctuary
Under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, National Parks (Section 35) and Wildlife Sanctuaries (Section 26A) are both protected area categories but differ in the degree of permitted human activity. In a National Park, no human activity is normally permitted except what is allowed by the Chief Wildlife Warden in the interest of wildlife, and grazing/private rights are generally not allowed to continue. In a Wildlife Sanctuary, certain regulated human activities (e.g., limited grazing, collection of forest produce) may continue if they do not harm wildlife. ESZs apply as a peripheral buffer around both categories.
Key Details
- KBR National Park, Mrugavani National Park, and Harina Vanasthali Wildlife Sanctuary (all near Hyderabad, Telangana) are protected under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
- The Act also provides for Tiger Reserves (Section 38V, inserted by the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 2006) with a mandatory core-buffer structure — a distinct and separate concept from the general ESZ buffer applicable to National Parks/Sanctuaries
- Declaring a Sanctuary requires settlement of rights under Sections 19-26 of the Act before final notification — a separate process from ESZ notification around it
The report's urban case studies show how rapid city growth around protected areas (ring roads, waste disposal sites) creates ESZ enforcement challenges specific to urban-fringe National Parks and Sanctuaries, distinct from the more commonly discussed rural/forest ESZ conflicts (e.g., around tiger reserves).
- Legal basis of ESZs: Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Sections 3(2)(v) and 5, with Rule 5(1) of the 1986 Rules
- Conceptual origin of the 10 km guideline: National Wildlife Action Plan, 2002-2016
- Supreme Court minimum ESZ mandate (T.N. Godavarman proceedings): 1 km around every protected area, ordered June 3, 2022; modified 2023 for site-specific flexibility
- KBR National Park area: approximately 390 hectares (Hyderabad, Telangana)
- Zonal Master Plans are required to be prepared within 2 years of final ESZ notification (per MoEFCC guidelines)
- Governing statute for National Parks/Sanctuaries: Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (Sections 35 and 26A respectively)