<p class="bodytext">The Supreme Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC)’s recommendation to withdraw a 2020 notification which diluted the eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) around the Bannerghatta National Park (BNP) is not merely an administrative reversal; it is an ecological necessity. The notification had brought down the total area under the ESZ, from 268.96 sq km to 168.84 sq km, removing protection from about 100 sq km of the buffer zone. By seeking the restoration of the wider ESZ that was proposed in the 2016 draft, the Committee has reaffirmed a basic principle of conservation: buffers exist to protect core ecosystems from precisely the kind of pressures that Bengaluru is now exerting. The BNP, together with three wildlife sanctuaries in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, forms a contiguous forest complex of about 3,000 sq km. It harbours about 100 elephants seasonally and has three corridors that connect the Karadikkal-Madeshwara, Tali-Bilikal, and Bilikal-Jowlagiri ranges. The rollback led to resorts, stone mining, and farmland conversion. What was once a transitional landscape meant to absorb urban shockwaves turned into conflict zones, pitting wildlife against human settlements.</p>.CEC report: Resorts, roads cut into Bannerghatta’s elephant corridors.<p class="bodytext">Restoring the buffer zone will, no doubt, be an arduous task. Over the years, several structures have come up in the zone, often with official clearances. Demolitions will inevitably raise humanitarian concerns, particularly for the small landholders who acted in good faith. Yet the tension between compassion and compliance cannot be resolved by ignoring the law. Regularising illegality sets a dangerous precedent and shifts the long-term ecological cost onto society at large, specifically those who bear the brunt of human-wildlife conflict. The CEC report is also likely to place some of the proposed infrastructure projects under scrutiny.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Compensatory afforestation has been offered as a panacea, but it is a poor substitute. Planting trees on degraded land elsewhere, often as monoculture, does not recreate the site-specific ecological functions of Bannerghatta’s buffer. Elephant corridors, once lost, cannot be replanted like saplings. Fences, trenches, and other measures funded through compensatory schemes are reactive attempts to confine wildlife after their living space has been taken away. The central panel is right in holding that proximity to urban development cannot justify curtailing ecologically critical areas. Restoring the ESZ will be disruptive, but continued dilution will have irreversible consequences. Karnataka has repeatedly attempted to redraw eco-sensitive boundaries around other forests, and the Bannerghatta case should serve as a clear warning against such short-sighted, regressive interventions. Growth cannot come at the cost of ecological collapse.</p>
<p class="bodytext">The Supreme Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC)’s recommendation to withdraw a 2020 notification which diluted the eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) around the Bannerghatta National Park (BNP) is not merely an administrative reversal; it is an ecological necessity. The notification had brought down the total area under the ESZ, from 268.96 sq km to 168.84 sq km, removing protection from about 100 sq km of the buffer zone. By seeking the restoration of the wider ESZ that was proposed in the 2016 draft, the Committee has reaffirmed a basic principle of conservation: buffers exist to protect core ecosystems from precisely the kind of pressures that Bengaluru is now exerting. The BNP, together with three wildlife sanctuaries in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, forms a contiguous forest complex of about 3,000 sq km. It harbours about 100 elephants seasonally and has three corridors that connect the Karadikkal-Madeshwara, Tali-Bilikal, and Bilikal-Jowlagiri ranges. The rollback led to resorts, stone mining, and farmland conversion. What was once a transitional landscape meant to absorb urban shockwaves turned into conflict zones, pitting wildlife against human settlements.</p>.CEC report: Resorts, roads cut into Bannerghatta’s elephant corridors.<p class="bodytext">Restoring the buffer zone will, no doubt, be an arduous task. Over the years, several structures have come up in the zone, often with official clearances. Demolitions will inevitably raise humanitarian concerns, particularly for the small landholders who acted in good faith. Yet the tension between compassion and compliance cannot be resolved by ignoring the law. Regularising illegality sets a dangerous precedent and shifts the long-term ecological cost onto society at large, specifically those who bear the brunt of human-wildlife conflict. The CEC report is also likely to place some of the proposed infrastructure projects under scrutiny.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Compensatory afforestation has been offered as a panacea, but it is a poor substitute. Planting trees on degraded land elsewhere, often as monoculture, does not recreate the site-specific ecological functions of Bannerghatta’s buffer. Elephant corridors, once lost, cannot be replanted like saplings. Fences, trenches, and other measures funded through compensatory schemes are reactive attempts to confine wildlife after their living space has been taken away. The central panel is right in holding that proximity to urban development cannot justify curtailing ecologically critical areas. Restoring the ESZ will be disruptive, but continued dilution will have irreversible consequences. Karnataka has repeatedly attempted to redraw eco-sensitive boundaries around other forests, and the Bannerghatta case should serve as a clear warning against such short-sighted, regressive interventions. Growth cannot come at the cost of ecological collapse.</p>
