Sustainability is key in buffer zone debate
Almost nine years after the massive agitations against the Madhav Gadgil Panel report, the high ranges of Kerala are simmering with tension and anger. A June 2022 Supreme Court order making it mandatory to have at least one kilometre of Ecologically Sensitive Zone around protected forests is the trigger this time. As mandated by the apex court, the state government has conducted a satellite survey to identify artificial structures around each of the 22 protected areas. Farmers, led by the Catholic Church, have erupted in protest against the survey as they feel this would ultimately lead to eviction from their lands.
The state government, which has so far been receptive towards the concerns raised by the farmers, has made it clear that the satellite survey report would be revised after going through all the complaints received and rectifying the defects if any. Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan convened a high-level meeting, after which it was decided to publish a buffer-zone map to facilitate the public to come up with suggestions and opinions. The deadline for filing complaints has been extended, with an assurance that a field survey, as demanded by the agitators, would be carried out. Taking a cue from neighbouring states, Kerala is also considering the possibility of maintaining one kilometre of a buffer zone around protected forests while opting for a zero-buffer zone in thickly populated areas.
The church argues that applying the same yardsticks for every state is a bad idea as it will negatively affect a densely populated state like Kerala. There is merit in that argument, but the protestors should desist from creating unnecessary insecurities in the inhabitants’ minds. While the government should address farmers’ genuine concerns, its efforts should not come at the expense of environmental conservation. Kerala, which witnessed two devastating floods in the recent past and reports landslides every rainy season, should always keep the fragility of the land as the focal point. The church, spearheading the agitation, should adopt a more responsible approach and refrain from making provocative remarks, which would only precipitate the situation. Development at the cost of nature would prove detrimental to man in the long run. In the interest of sustainability, which is the need of the hour, political parties and communities should stick together, leaving vested interests aside.