ESZ: From Notification to Effective Governance

Context

Implementation has become the central challenge: India's Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) policy has entered a decisive phase where the focus has shifted from notification to effective implementation.
While the Union Government is moving towards the final notification of the Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) in the Western Ghats, several States continue to seek rationalisation of the proposed area to accommodate developmental priorities.
Simultaneously, proposed industrial and data-centre projects in ecologically fragile areas around Visakhapatnam, along with the controversy over a municipal waste incinerator inside the Bhagirathi Eco-Sensitive Zone, have revived concerns regarding the governance of environmentally sensitive landscapes.
Governance now matters more than notification: These developments underscore that expanding the legal coverage of ESZs alone is insufficient for effective conservation.
Despite a robust legal framework, delayed Zonal Master Plans (ZMPs), under-resourced Monitoring Committees, fragmented institutional coordination and rising developmental pressures continue to undermine ecological outcomes.
Consequently, the contemporary policy challenge is no longer the creation of ESZ, but ensuring that they function as scientifically managed ecological buffers capable of balancing biodiversity conservation with sustainable development.

What Are Eco-Sensitive Zones and Why Do They Matter?

Ecological Buffers: Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) are ecologically regulated buffer areas notified around National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Their purpose is to minimise external environmental pressures on Protected Areas without altering their legal boundaries.
Transition Landscapes: ESZs function as transition zones between highly protected ecosystems and surrounding human-dominated landscapes.
They recognise that ecological processes–including wildlife movement, watershed protection, pollination, gene flow and nutrient cycling–extend beyond Protected Area boundaries and therefore require landscape-level conservation rather than isolated reserve management.
Differential regulation: Instead of imposing blanket restrictions, ESZs classify activities as prohibited, regulated and permitted/promoted. Commercial mining, stone quarrying and red-category industries are generally prohibited.
Construction, tourism infrastructure, roads and other developmental activities require regulatory approval, while organic farming, horticulture, renewable energy, soil and water conservation and community-based eco-tourism are promoted as environmentally compatible livelihoods.
Landscape Governance: Accordingly, ESZs are not exclusionary conservation zones.
They are landscape-governance instruments designed to integrate biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, local livelihoods and sustainable regional planning while functioning as a "shock absorber" between Protected Areas and intensive human activity.

How Are Eco-Sensitive Zones Governed in India?

Statutory Foundation: The legal basis of ESZs is derived from Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which empowers the Central Government to regulate environmentally sensitive areas and restrict activities likely to adversely affect ecological integrity.
ESZ notifications are issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) based on proposals submitted by State Governments.
Policy Evolution: The Wildlife Conservation Strategy, 2002, adopted by the Indian Board for Wildlife, recommended notifying eco-fragile zones around every National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary to create protective buffers.
Subsequently, the MoEFCC Guidelines (2011) established the operational framework for ESZs, recognising them as "shock absorbers" that facilitate a gradual transition from highly protected ecosystems to areas with lower levels of environmental protection.
Institutional Framework: Implementation follows a cooperative federal model.
State Governments identify and delineate ESZ boundaries after ecological assessment and stakeholder consultation, while the MoEFCC issues draft and final notifications under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Each notified ESZ is administered through a Monitoring Committee, which supervises implementation, reviews regulated activities and oversees compliance with notification conditions.
The Guidelines also mandate preparation of a Zonal Master Plan (ZMP), incorporating a Tourism Master Plan based on carrying-capacity studies, to regulate long-term land use and infrastructure development.
Judicial Reinforcement: The Supreme Court (2022) directed that every National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary should ordinarily have a minimum one-kilometre ESZ, unless an existing notified ESZ extends beyond that distance or a statutory decision prescribes otherwise.
The Court further clarified that pending notification cannot justify ecological degradation and reaffirmed the Public Trust Doctrine, emphasising the State's constitutional obligation to conserve natural resources while pursuing sustainable development.

What Are the Key Challenges in Eco-Sensitive Zone Governance?

Weak Implementation: Although India has significantly expanded the legal coverage of Eco-Sensitive Zones, implementation has not kept pace. According to the Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy (IGNFA)(2025), 442 of 664 Protected Areas have final Eco-Sensitive Zone notifications, 131 have draft notifications and 23 proposals remain under examination.
However, effective implementation remains constrained by under-resourced Monitoring Committees, which often function without dedicated secretariats, ecological experts, technical manpower or adequate financial support.
Further, despite the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Guidelines (2011) requiring every notified Eco-Sensitive Zone to prepare a Zonal Master Plan within two years, widespread delays persist, prompting the Ministry's Expert Committee (2023) to recommend time-bound implementation.
Consequently, land-use regulation, tourism management and infrastructure planning continue to rely on fragmented project-level approvals rather than integrated landscape governance.
Ecological Delineation Is Increasingly Compromised: ESZ boundaries are intended to follow ecological criteria, but growing developmental pressures have increasingly influenced their delineation.
Demands for rationalising Eco-Sensitive Zone and Ecologically Sensitive Area boundaries, including in the Western Ghats, have weakened ecological buffers, while judicial interventions such as the Jamua Ramgarh and Goa Foundation cases have repeatedly compensated for gaps in science-based administrative decision-making.
Development Is Outpacing Ecological Planning: Rapid expansion of industrial corridors, urbanisation, transport infrastructure, tourism, renewable energy and mining has intensified pressure on landscapes surrounding Protected Areas.
Recent debates over projects near Visakhapatnam and the Western Ghats Ecologically Sensitive Area illustrate that conflicts increasingly concern adjoining landscapes rather than protected forests themselves.
Moreover, project-wise environmental clearances inadequately assess cumulative impacts, allowing development to exceed the ecological carrying capacity of fragile ecosystems.
Institutional Coordination Remains Weak: ESZ governance involves the MoEFCC, State Governments, State Board for Wildlife, National Board for Wildlife, Monitoring Committees, Forest Departments, Pollution Control Boards and local authorities.
However, weak coordination, overlapping mandates and limited participation of Gram Panchayats, Urban Local Bodies and Biodiversity Management Committees continue to undermine integrated landscape management and effective compliance.
Regulatory Framework Remains Complex: Variation in Eco-Sensitive Zone notifications, multiple statutory approvals under different environmental laws and weak post-clearance monitoring create regulatory uncertainty and procedural delays.
Consequently, environmental governance remains approval-centric rather than compliance-oriented, reducing the effectiveness of conservation measures.
Tourism Is Expanding Beyond Carrying Capacity: Rapid growth of eco-tourism has increased infrastructure demand, plastic waste, solid waste and untreated sewage in fragile ecosystems.
The Bhagirathi Eco-Sensitive Zone controversy highlights these challenges, while the absence of carrying-capacity studies and Tourism Master Plans in many Eco-Sensitive Zones, despite the MoEFCC Guidelines (2011), continues to undermine sustainable tourism.
Communities Remain Peripheral To Governance: Community participation largely remains confined to the notification stage, while planning and monitoring continue to be dominated by administrative agencies.
Limited benefit-sharing further weakens local support for conservation. Greater involvement of Gram Panchayats, Urban Local Bodies and Biodiversity Management Committees, as recommended by the IGNFA (2025), is essential for strengthening compliance, integrating traditional ecological knowledge and promoting participatory conservation.

How Can Eco-Sensitive Zones Be Made More Effective?

Operationalise Eco-Sensitive Zones Effectively: Complete Zonal Master Plans within prescribed timelines and strengthen Eco-Sensitive Zone Monitoring Committees with dedicated secretariats, ecological experts and adequate financial resources.
Undertake periodic ecological audits to ensure effective implementation rather than mere notification.
Make Delineation Science-Based: Delineate and periodically review Eco-Sensitive Zones using Geographic Information Systems, remote sensing, wildlife corridors, watershed mapping, carrying-capacity and climate vulnerability assessments.
Boundary rationalisation should remain evidence-based while balancing ecological security and sustainable livelihoods.
Adopt Landscape-Based Planning: Integrate Eco-Sensitive Zone objectives into regional land-use and infrastructure planning.
Undertake cumulative impact assessments for major projects and ensure that development around Protected Areas remains within ecological carrying capacity.
Strengthen Multi-Level Environmental Governance: Enhance coordination among the MoEFCC, State Governments, State Board for Wildlife, National Board for Wildlife, Eco-Sensitive Zone Monitoring Committees, Forest Departments and Pollution Control Boards through integrated decision-making.
Establish digital information-sharing platforms to minimise duplication, improve compliance, and strengthen coordinated implementation.
Strengthen Regulatory Certainty: Harmonise Eco-Sensitive Zone notifications, streamline statutory clearances through single-window digital systems and strengthen post-clearance monitoring.
Adopt remote sensing, satellite imagery, drones and periodic ecological audits for continuous compliance.
Keep Tourism Within Ecological Limits: Prepare Tourism Master Plans as part of every Zonal Master Plan, based on scientific carrying-capacity studies, while strengthening waste management, eco-friendly infrastructure and visitor regulation in fragile ecosystems.
Institutionalise Participatory Conservation: Actively involve Gram Panchayats, Urban Local Bodies and Biodiversity Management Committees in preparing and monitoring Zonal Master Plans.
Promote community-based conservation through Payment for Ecosystem Services, eco-tourism revenue sharing, sustainable livelihoods and innovative biodiversity finance (e.g., the Cali Fund for fair benefit-sharing from Digital Sequence Information under the Convention on Biological Diversity).
Adopt the bottom-up governance approach recommended by the Gadgil Committee (Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel) to strengthen community participation and improve long-term conservation outcomes.

UPSC Prelims Connect

Q. In which one among the following categories of protected areas in India are local people not allowed to collect and use the biomass? (2012)

(a) Biosphere Reserves

(b) National Parks

(d) Wildlife Sanctuaries

Ans: (b)

UPSC Mains Connect

Q. “Policy contradictions among various competing sectors and stakeholders have resulted in inadequate ‘protection and prevention of degradation’ to the environment.” Comment with relevant illustrations. (2018)

QuestlinkIAS Practice Questions

Prelims:

Q. With reference to Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs), consider the following statements:

They are notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to regulate activities around Protected Areas without altering their legal boundaries.
The Zonal Master Plan for an ESZ is prepared by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
Commercial mining, stone quarrying and red-category industries are generally prohibited in Eco-Sensitive Zones, whereas activities such as organic farming and community-based eco-tourism are promoted.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only

(b) 1 and 3 only

(d) 1, 2 and 3