End of our forests

Examining a matter relating to the environmental clearance granted to an industrial unit within 10 km of the Dadra and Nagar Haveli Wildlife sanctuary, a Supreme Court bench recently expressed surprise that the 10-km Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) has been reduced by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to 100 metres and observed that such a narrow buffer around Protected Areas (PA) would lead to their destruction. The bench added that the reduction appears to be arbitrary and they would like to examine its validity.

The then Indian Board for Wildlife resolved in its “Wildlife Conservation Strategy 2002” that a 10 km-wide strip around PAs (national parks and wildlife sanctuaries) be notified as Eco-Sensitive Zone under section 3(V) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and rule 5 and sub-rule (VIII) and (IX) of the Environment (Protection) Rules.

In 2005, the National Board for Wildlife modified this resolution, saying that the ESZ would be for regulating certain activities and prohibiting very few activities, such as commercial mining, felling of trees, setting up of sawmills, setting up of polluting industries, etc.

The MoEF sent a guideline to states in December 2011 that the proposal for ESZs around Protected Areas should be expedited, providing lists of activities to be permitted, regulated or completely prohibited. Accordingly, the width of the ESZ can be decided by holding public consultation on a case-to-case basis, the guideline said.

During the same period, the field director of the Bandipur National Park B G Hosmath, with the help of public representatives, held consultations with people and succeeded in sending a proposal of an ESZ around this national park where the width varied from 3.3 km to 7 km.

As Bandipur is a Tiger Reserve, the ESZ was made coterminous with the buffer zone. The proposal was approved and the Union ministry for the first time notified an Eco-Sensitive Zone around a national park in Karnataka. It was a herculean task to do the same for the other 34 Protected Areas in the state.

The Karnataka government constituted a cabinet subcommittee which held consultations with public representatives and finalised ESZ proposals for many Protected Areas in 2014-15.

In seven PAs (Cauvery, Kudremukh, Mukambika, Someshwar, Talacauvery, Brahmagiri and Pushpagiri), Hosmath succeeded in keeping a 1 km width for ESZ, while the width in the remaining PAs was brought down to 100 metres. The case of Anshi Dandeli was deplorable, where Supa reservoir was included in the ESZ and width along the remaining perimeter of PA was brought down to zero.

The condition of other Protected Areas across the country was similar, and many ESZs were notified and width varied from 100 metres to 2 km.

The Wildlife Action Plan 2002-16 indicated that areas outside the PA network are often vital ecological corridor links and must be protected to prevent isolation of fragments of biodiversity, which are likely to be threatened in the long run. It is in this context that the ESZ is important. Ecological integrity of the landscape is guaranteed when we have a wider ESZ.

Grim repercussions

What are the consequences of not prohibiting certain activities in the ESZ? Take the example of Kodagu district, which provides catchment for the Cauvery river, the lifeline of people of not only Karnataka but also of neighbouring Tamil Nadu. The total geographical area of the district is nearly 41,000 sq km, of which notified forests cover approximately 17,000 sq km. It is a hilly district, once covered with wonderful forests everywhere.

As only 40% of the original district area was reserved, some of the remaining lands were allotted to individuals for coffee cultivation. The district has three sanctuaries, namely Talacauvery, Brahmagiri and Pushpagiri Wildlife Sanctuaries.

If ESZ for all three sanctuaries were notified for 10 km from their periphery, cutting off trees, especially naturally grown trees, would have been prohibited and we would have secured better integrity of the Cauvery catchment area. The summer flow of the streams from these forests would not have depleted and there would have been some inflow of water in the reservoirs even during the lean season.

But the timber merchant lobby in Kodagu has been quite active for more than 40 years and is responsible for the loss of tree-cover from non-forest land. The Revenue department had the authority to determine the rights of an individual over tree growth and the Forest department granted permissions to cut these trees under the Karnataka (Preservation) of Trees Act.

Neither department bothered about conservation of the Cauvery catchment area and allowed indiscriminate felling of trees. The French Institute of Pondicherry has interpreted satellite imagery of the district at different points in time and it has concluded that the district has lost nearly 30% tree-cover in 40 years.

The loss of tree-cover has also resulted in degradation of the habitat for wild animals, which has caused increased human-elephant conflict. It is not only Cauvery, the west-flowing Payaswini river went dry during the last two or three summers and brought misery to the people of Sullia and Puttur taluks. A similar fate has befallen Tunga and Bhadra in Chikkamagaluru.

Following a petition by the Cauvery Sena in Kodagu, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has ordered that no tree can be cut in Karnataka unless 10 trees are planted to compensate. The owners of plantations that have matured are agitated against the order.

Of course, the Forest department has started granting them permissions for felling, after recovering from them money for planting 10 trees. But this is untenable. The moratorium on felling of naturally growing trees, especially in the catchment of rivers, should continue.

(The writer is a retired principal chief conservator of forests, Karnataka)