Environmentalists in Bengaluru who rallied to protect the buffer zone of Bannerghatta National Park are hopeful of retaining the entire 268.96 km as an eco-sensitive zone (ESZ). The development comes after communication (dated August 20) between the Director of the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and the head of the Karnataka Forest Department came to light.
The communication, accessed by TNM, states: “Recently, while finalizing the ESZ notification, references received in the Ministry requesting retaining ESZ area to 268 96 sq km in view of the elephant corridors and the likely impact of reduced area on the overall ecology of the region In the light of the above, the state government is requested to consider the proposal and examine the possibility of retaining the original proposal for the purpose of declaration of ESZ.”
In 2018, the union government and the state government proposed to reduce the ESZ to only 168.64 sq km, much to the dismay of nature lovers. Following the communication, activists who are part of the umbrella group, Save Bannerghatta, want the state government to retain the original proposal.
“Now that we know the Centre also does not want this to happen, we want the state government to endorse the recommendation without any delay. This is for the future of Bengaluru and the future generation. We all know that the restoration of ESZ will protect the little nature that is left. We urge the state government to redo a survey of the damage done due to illegal mining and penalise the errant companies,” says Vijay Nishanth, who previously met Union Minister Harsh Vardhan on the same issue.
According to Supreme Court guidelines and other laws, mining or industrial operations cannot take place in an ESZ, as it disturbs wildlife and increases the risk of man-animal conflict.
“Ultimately, the decision has to be taken by the political class. Only a cabinet sub-committee is authorised to take decisions. We are only called for explaining the matter. We will discuss this as well as the letter from the union government with the Forest Minister. With the current dispensation we have to see how they react,” a source in the Karnataka Forest Department told TNM.
When the state and union governments made the proposal in 2018, activists had complained that the changes to the ESZ were being made in the interest of mining and real estate companies, who were set to be the biggest beneficiaries if the ESZ was to be reduced.
Their demand was endorsed by Bengaluru-based MPs Rajeev Chandrasekhar who raised the issue in Rajya Sabha, and PC Mohan as well.
While the Centre’s draft notification was published on November 5, 2018, the same was endorsed in March 2019 in a state-centre meeting during the 33rd ESZ Expert Committee meeting.
The talk of reducing the buffer zone triggered many campaigns by various eco groups, and even spurred a coalition of Resident Welfare Associations to take up the matter. They had also planned to take the matter to court if the governments did not pay heed to their demand.
Importance of the buffer zone
An IISc study conducted by leading scientist TV Ramachandra in 2015 had stated that the present buffer zones are biologically and hydrologically sensitive zones. Mining in the area would create bottlenecks for animals, which meant that they can’t move around in their natural habitat and would eventually lead to man-animal conflicts and poaching.
Another study by the Indian Institute of Human Settlements said that preservation of this ESZ was important in protecting the city from becoming a heat island.
Recently, a study led by renowned wildlife biologist Sanjay Gubbi, in partnership with the Forest Department, found that there were 40 leopards in the forest, which is much higher than what is usually found in a reserve area of this size.
One of their findings was that the northwestern part of Bannerghatta is connected to 3,250 acres of deemed forests— Gullalligudda, BM Kaaval, UM Kaaval and the Roerich Estate. These four deemed forests altogether form 5,375 acres of good wildlife habitat, which the researchers recommended to be notified as a Conservation Reserve.
Gubbi’s study recommended they should be notified as a Conservation Reserve which would act as a buffer between Bannerghatta National Park and human habitation, hence reducing human-wildlife conflict in addition to protecting watersheds.