**ESZ Guidelines Revision: **
Latest Development (2025)
- SC-NBWL recommends revising 2011 ESZ guidelines to make them:
- Region-specific (replace blanket 10-km rule)
- Balanced (ecological protection + socio-economic needs)
- Trigger: State concerns over "one-size-fits-all" approach hindering development & conservation.
Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Purpose | "Shock absorbers" for Protected Areas (PAs); transition zones (high → low protection) |
| Legal Basis | Notified under Env (Protection) Act, 1986 (MoEFCC) |
| 2011 Guidelines | Indicative 10-km ESZ around PAs; activity classification (Permitted/Regulated/Prohibited) |
| Current Status | 347 ESZs notified (as of 2024) |
Why Revise ESZ Norms?
- Ecological Irrationality:
- 10-km rule unworkable for urban parks (e.g., Sanjay Gandhi NP, Mumbai) and hill states (Himachal: 65% forest cover).
- Socio-Economic Pressures:
- Himachal: Livelihood impacts from commercial restrictions.
- Kerala: Fear of new sanctuary declarations due to ESZ curbs.
- Emerging Gaps:
- Renewable projects (solar/wind): Threaten wildlife corridors.
- Marine PAs: Land-centric norms ineffective (e.g., Gulf of Kutch, Sundarbans).
- Compliance Failures:
- States not monitoring project conditions (mining/roads in ESZs).
- Penalty: Defaulting states’ proposals may be rejected by NBWL.
Revised Framework Directions
- Site-Specific ESZs: Based on ecological sensitivity, population density, and development needs.
- Stricter Compliance: State Chief Wildlife Wardens to submit project compliance reports.
- International Consultations: Align with global best practices.
- Activity Reclassification: Review "regulated" status for green projects (e.g., renewables).
Previous Year Questions
- Prelims 2019: Q. Eco-Sensitive Zones are notified under which Act?
Ans: Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Mains 2021 (GS-III): "How do ESZs contribute to biodiversity conservation? Discuss challenges in their implementation."