No politics please in Kerala nature vs development debate
Development at the cost of the environment has become the norm. No wonder then that the decision to declare 1,546 sq km of land around 22 wildlife sanctuaries in Kerala as buffer zones, with limited human activities, has sparked an uproar, and the debate has naturally assumed political overtones, what with Assembly elections just around the corner.
Earmarking of eco-sensitive zones (buffer zones) will impact mining, tourism and industrial activities around these forests and also lead to the imposition of new restrictions on people living on forest fringes. While the Congress-led opposition UDF was quick to raise its voice against the move and make common cause with those impacted by the development, the BJP-led Centre claimed the notification was based on the recommendation from the state and the CPM-led Kerala government, on its part, sent a revised proposal, substantially shrinking the buffer zones.
What this means is that the crucial development versus nature discussion has been overshadowed by political noise. Kerala is already paying a heavy price for the rampant destruction of nature that has been going on in the name of development. Forests, hills and water bodies are being encroached upon and destroyed to set up homes, raise crops and build resorts, with the development here often being driven by greed, not need. The recurring floods and landslides, and increasing incidents of human-wildlife conflict are an outcome of this unbalanced growth.
Last month, a tourist was trampled to death by an elephant at an illegal forest resort in Wayanad. In the last two years, 35 people have died in elephant attacks across the state. At least 11 wild jumbos died in 2020 due to human activities. In Wayanad alone, around 300 resorts are operating on forest fringes, and most of them are illegal.
This being the state of affairs, what Kerala needs is strict enforcement of forest rules. There is no doubt that the concerns of the affected people should be addressed, but it should be done in a way that doesn’t lead to further destruction of nature. Reasonable relaxations can be allowed but nothing more. Importantly, politics cannot be allowed to guide the course of the nature versus development debate.