Guwahati: The Assam Environmental NGO Forum (AENF), a platform of conservation organisations working at the grassroots, has raised objections to the Assam government’s proposal to notify a one-kilometre Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) around Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve (KNPTR).
The controversy follows Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma‘s statement that the state government plans to approach the Centre for an ESZ of around one kilometre.
The government has argued that the existing 10-km default buffer creates difficulties for infrastructure and development activities in areas surrounding the park.
The state government has also maintained that a uniform 10-km restriction could affect local communities and development activities. The proposal has received support from some communities around Kaziranga, who have cited restrictions on housing, livelihoods and local development.
However, conservation groups have raised concerns about the possible ecological impact of reducing the ESZ. The AENF held a public discussion on the issue at the Gauhati Press Club recently.
“After almost two decades of the SC directive, the Assam government recently announced its proposal for a one km Eco Sensitive Zone for Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve (KNPTR). The proposal for one km from the default 10 km shrinking 90 per cent of the existing buffer of KNPTR has come as a shocker to conservationists and concerned citizens. It is feared that this decision will have severe and detrimental effect specially on long ranging mega faunas including iconic species like the elephant, rhino and tiger. Public perception aligns the proposal as a handout to big business rather than conservation of wildlife or welfare of local people. Moreover, while the MOEFCC has a clear set of standard guidelines on Prohibited Activities, Regulated or Controlled Activities and Permitted Activities within the ESZ, it was found that a section of people has been indulging in rumor-mongering twisting the ESZ guidelines in this case,” said Mubina Akhtar, coordinator of AENF.
The forum said the existing 10-km zone continues to operate as the default arrangement until a site-specific notification is finalised. It argued that reducing the buffer to one kilometre would significantly reduce the area subject to environmental regulation.
The AENF also warned that a reduction in the protective buffer could put wildlife corridors, seasonal migration routes and the wider Kaziranga-Karbi Anglong landscape under greater ecological pressure.
“Wildlife regularly moves outside protected boundaries of KNPTR, particularly during seasonal floods, seeking higher ground in the Karbi Anglong hills. These areas are critical for animals escaping floodwaters. Further fragmentation of these critical habitats could increase human-wildlife conflict while restricting natural animal movement. Ecological importance of land outside the park boundary cannot be assessed simply on the basis of administrative demarcations,” Akhtar said.
She referred to efforts by the Assam Forest Department to secure adjoining hilly areas on the Karbi Anglong side as wildlife refuge and corridor areas. She said administrative complications, boundary issues and questions surrounding local land rights had complicated the process, leaving gaps in protection amid increasing pressure from infrastructure projects, hotels and mining.
The AENF also raised concerns about the growth of hospitality infrastructure, resorts, mining, stone quarrying and other commercial activities around the Kaziranga landscape. It said these activities had contributed to habitat fragmentation and disruption of wildlife movement routes, and argued that stronger ecological safeguards were needed.
The forum also referred to the proposed luxury hotel project at Hathikuli Inglay Pothar, which it said had become a major point of contention because of its location near the Kaziranga-Karbi Anglong landscape. It called for greater scrutiny of development proposals in ecologically sensitive areas.
The AENF said tourism development should not come at the cost of wildlife corridors, natural habitats and long-term ecological stability.
“Overexploitation of natural resources seriously impacts wildlife, forests, the functioning of rivers and streams and left us with more losses than earnings,” said Akhtar.
The forum questioned the manner in which the proposed ESZ was being discussed and called for decisions on the issue to be based on scientific assessments and expert recommendations. It also called on the State Board for Wildlife and conservation experts to examine the proposal before it is advanced.
According to the AENF, any final decision should consider ecological connectivity, flood-related wildlife movement and the cumulative impact of human activity around Kaziranga.