From kvriksh@VSNL.COM Mon Jun  9 18:58:16 2003
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 12:50:13 +0530
From: kvriksh 
To: nathistory-india@Princeton.EDU
Subject: Fw: Article on Ecologically Sensitive Areas

    [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.  ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

Subject: Article on Ecologically Sensitive Areas

>From the latest issue of the
FRONTLINE, June 20, 2003

A CONSERVATION STRATEGY

BY
Manju Menon & Kanchi Kohli

The use of the concept of Ecologically Sensitive Areas/Ecologically Fragile
Areas together with the Environment (Protection) Act is gradually gaining
recognition as a strategy for the conservation and sustainable development
of sensitive areas.

THE legislative framework in India has attempted to create several legal
spaces for the protection of fragile ecosystems. Unfortunately, many of
these legal spaces remain far removed from the possibilities of use by
concerned citizens on account of their complicated language and
presentation. Inaccessibility to legislation is also a big impediment. It is
crucial that these legal spaces for conservation are demystified and the
skills of using them are shared with communities and environmental groups.
Slowly but effectively, this process has begun, and today a number of groups
that work on environmental issues make optimum use of the available legal
spaces.
One example is the use of Section 3(2)v of the Environment (Protection) Act
(EPA), 1986, and Section 5(1) of the Environment (Protection) Rules (EPR),
1986. These clauses give the Central government the power to restrict
"industries, operations, or processes or class of industries" on "the basis
of considerations like the biological diversity of an area". The government
and non-governmental sectors have used these clauses to highlight the
sensitivity of a region and thus grant it a special status, "to protect and
improve quality of the environment". In the more recent instances, these
areas have been called Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs) or Ecologically
Fragile Areas (EFAs).
ONE of the earliest recorded instances of the effective use of these clauses
was in 1989, as seen in the categorisation of industrial activity in Doon
Valley in Uttaranchal. The notification first specified that any mining,
tourism and grazing activity and other types of land use can be taken up in
the valley only after the management plans were drawn up by the State
departments concerned and these were approved by the Central government. It
categorised industries as Red, Green and Orange on the basis of the extent
of pollution they may cause and its impact on the valley.
The same year, Murud-Janjira in Maharashtra was notified under the same
clause. The objective was to protect the fragile coastal ecology and the
historical heritage of Murud-Janjira, which is the site of the palace of the
Nawab of Murud; the Janjira caves; and the fort of Janjira built by the
Siddis. Constructed on the sea, the massive fort is of immense historical
importance. The notification prohibited the location of industries in
certain areas along the coast. This was a crucial measure for the region's
protection as the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification had not been
issued then.
In 1991, the CRZ notification was issued, with the same clauses as in the
EPA. This move marked a radical change in the use of these clauses as the
entire coastline of India was brought within the sweep of one notification,
while earlier, small pockets were considered separately.
On June 30, 1991, Dahanu taluk in Maharashtra was declared an EFA. The
notification in that case had a set of guidelines for locating industries.
The Maharashtra government was directed to prepare a Master Plan or a
Regional Plan for the taluk. There were a few other restrictions on
industrial expansion, including a 25-km buffer zone around the outer
boundary of the taluk which is to be free of industries.
In 1992, it was the turn of a stretch of the Aravalli mountain ranges in
Rajasthan and Haryana. The notification came in response to demands from the
local people and environmentalists to prohibit the mining activity that
caused massive environmental degradation in the northern Aravallis. The
Aravallis, the natural physical barrier between the Thar desert and the rest
of the country, had to be granted protection in order to curb the
detrimental impact of mining. The Central government prohibited a number of
processes and operations, except with its prior permission.
In northeastern India, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas proposed a
petroleum refinery at Numaligarh, on the eastern side of the Kaziranga
National Park (KNP) in Assam. The park is home to three-fourths of the
global population of the one-horned rhinoceros and the largest single
concentration of endangered wild animals such as the swamp deer, the wild
buffalo, elephants, tigers and Gangetic dolphins. A notification issued in
1996 declared an area of 15 sq km around the Numaligarh refinery a "No
Development Zone" in order to limit the pollution levels.
Four years later, in late 2000, the Union Ministry of Environment and
Forests (MoEF) proposed a notification to protect the unique environment of
the Himalayas. The proposed notification put forward certain restrictions
and conditions for all future activities in order to "ensure environmentally
sound development of hill towns... in the areas in the Himalayan region."
The notification emphasised location planning in urban areas in the hills,
rainwater harvesting and stable hill roads, all to protect the environment
and people of these regions.
In the subsequent years, a sustained campaign by environmentalists resulted
in the declaration of Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani (2001) and Matheran (2002) in
Maharashtra as ESAs. Both these areas had been experiencing the impact of
large-scale, unplanned tourism and related development. In both cases, the
Supreme Court ordered, among other things, the preparation of a zonal master
plan for the area, by the State government, and the appointment of a
monitoring committee.
For the last four years, a group of non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
and academics have been carrying on a campaign to have a 7,350-sq km stretch
of the Western Ghats covering parts of north Karnataka, Goa and south
Maharashtra declared as the Sahyadri Ecologically Sensitive Area (SESA). The
boundaries have been defined and the proposal, as per a specified format,
has been presented to the MoEF.
ESAs have the potential to become one of the most innovative and effective
manifestations of the EPA/EPR. In 2000, ESAs got a formal status when a
comprehensive set of guidelines laying down parameters and criteria for
declaring ESAs was approved. A committee constituted by the MoEF put
together detailed criteria based on which an area can be declared
ecologically sensitive. These criteria are species based (endemism, rarity,
and so on), ecosystem based (sacred groves, frontier forests, and so on) and
geomorphological-feature-based (uninhabited islands, points of origin of
rivers, and so on).
Declaring an area an ESA allows for planning by taking into account the
livelihoods of the people living in and around such an area. The planning
and management of an area notified as an ESA can include the effective
participation of local communities. The notification can be based on local
needs and priorities on the one hand and sustainable use of natural
resources on the other.

The concept also takes into account the fact that protection of the
environment sometimes cannot be within regional and State boundaries, as was
demonstrated by the CRZ notification.
There are several other advantages that ESA status offers:
1. The notification can allow for planned development and land-use for that
particular area. Thus industrial and developmental activities can be
regulated on the basis of local priorities.
2. It extends to any kind of ecosystem, such as coasts, forests, plains and
islands.
3. It allows for the formation of committees at the level of districts and
taluks, with representation to local people besides researchers and members
of the agencies concerned to look into the enforcement of the notification.
One example of this is the Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Authority
(DTEPA),
4. All other provisions under the EPA, including the Environment Impact
Assessment notification, Hazardous Waste Handling Rules, Siting Rules, and
so on are still applicable (wherever relevant) to an ESA/EFA.
5. In relation to biosphere reserves, ESAs seem to be more effective in
ensuring protection as they have recognition within the legal framework as
against the former, which does not have legal backing. The guidelines of the
MoEF on biosphere reserves mainly focus on scientific research and the
monitoring of the biodiversity in the region.

The concept of an ecologically sensitive area is gaining support also from
other processes and conservation efforts. For example, the committee for
drafting a national wildlife action plan has recommended that an area of 10
to 25 sq km around protected areas, biosphere reserves and heritage sites be
considered ESAs. The Final Wildlife Action Plan also contains some relevant
recommendations.
AS of today, there is little monitoring of the implementation of many of
these notifications. Also, modifications are being proposed for a few.
Groups and individuals working on coastal issues are disturbed by the string
of amendments to the CRZ notification. In the case of Dahanu, there was news
of the Central government seeking to disband the DTEPA, the quasi-judicial
body constituted under the directive of the Supreme Court. This is despite,
or probably because of, the fact that the DTEPA prevented a fuel gas plant,
a port and other such projects that would have been disastrous to the
ecological security of the region.
The declaration of an area as an ESA/EFA should not be viewed as being
against the objectives of protection (in case the ESA is inclusive of
national parks or sanctuaries) under, say, the Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972 (WLPA). The focus of an ESA is on restricting industrial and
developmental processes, while the Forest Conservation Act lays down rules
to prevent or allow the diversion of forest areas and the WLPA seeks to
protect species of animals or plants and ecosystems which perform functions
such as maintaining the micro-climate, water catchments and so on.
Therefore, the declaration of an area as ESA could supplement the protection
granted to the area by other laws or systems.
The use of the concept of ESA/EFA together with the EPA is gradually gaining
popularity and is being recognised as an important strategy for the
conservation and sustainable development of sensitive and fragile areas. The
role of citizens and NGOs as catalysts in this process is essential. There
are issues of non-implementation of these clauses and notifications as there
are with any other rule. But ultimate success or failure will depend largely
on how effectively they are understood and planned for as well as the manner
in which the powers and implementation responsibilities are shared among the
people who have stakes in protecting the ecology of a region.
Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail