Don’t meddle with forest buffer zones

In a welcome move, the Karnataka government has decided to notify Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ) or buffer areas for six protected forests, namely, Kappatagudda, Bukkapatna, Kammasandra, Nagarahole and the Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary. However, in a contradictory decision, a cabinet sub-committee has proposed allowing construction within 1 km of protected forests. With this, the construction of houses, resorts and hotels, and the setting up of windmills to generate power, will be possible along forest boundaries. The committee, headed by Forest Minister Eshwar Khandre, had extensively debated the consequences of setting up windmills—birds usually die in turbine collisions—but has nevertheless gone ahead with the decision. Technically, the government is not in the wrong as the decision is within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court.

In June 2023, the court had mandated a buffer zone of 1 km around protected forests where no development work could take place. However, following a review petition filed by the Centre, the court modified its order in April this year, lifting the blanket ban. Many states, particularly Kerala, had argued that the ban would severely impact the livelihood of villagers living in the buffer zone for generations. The court, observing that its earlier order was not implementable, had said that it would make it impossible for a villager to construct or renovate his house, and the government to take up construction of schools and public health centres. Unfortunately, the court also permitted “various projects of national and strategic importance” like highways in the buffer zone, while also observing that the guidelines issued by the Centre on protecting ESZs had enough safeguards.

A buffer zone plays an important role in conservation as it protects forests and wildlife from negative human intervention. Buffer zone management involves striking a balance between ecological concerns and the interests of the original inhabitants. Permitting unbridled commercial activity will not only adversely impact conservation but also eventually pave the way for the encroachment of forests. There are already several instances of forest areas being grabbed by commercial establishments like resorts. The decision will only sound the death knell for our already dwindling forests and expose the government to the charge that it is acting under pressure from vested interests. As forest minister, Khandre should not have been a party to such a decision as his first priority is to protect the ecology and environment of the state.