BENGALURU: With three MPs of Bengaluru extending full support to retaining the 2016 Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) proposal for Bannerghatta National Park, environmental organisations have written to the additional chief secretary, Forests and Ecology Department, to retain the original proposal of 268.84 sqkm area.
Activists, NGOs and forest officials say that the 2018 draft notification is impractical and defeats the very purpose of having an ESZ around the Park. Significantly, in the 2018 draft notification, some key parcels of land, which are part of an elephant corridor connecting Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary in Karnataka to the South and North Cauvery Sanctuary in Tamil Nadu, have been shockingly left out.
The forest department’s claims of ‘Safe Zone of 1km’ giving all protection, falls flat as this zone can only restrict mining activities but cannot put a stop to construction and industrial activities, which are flourishing just outside the Park. The 2018 draft notification, with 168.84 sqkm ESZ area, and 400 metres to 1km, goes against the fundamental principle and objective of constituting an ESZ around protected areas in the country.
Expressing complete support for retaining an ESZ of 268.84 sq kilometers, Bengaluru MP P C Mohan has stated, "I have already written to Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar, asking for protection of Bannerghatta from vested interests. I will pursue this issue with the CM and the Centre, against the state’s proposal to reduce the ESZ area as this will allow more commercial development around the ESZ area. The protection of Bannerghatta’s buffer zone is very crucial as it will reduce our ecological footprint, heat island effect, rising pollution and psychological stress among citizens."
A forest official added, “In the 2016 proposal, an entire village was taken as ESZ while as per 2018 draft notification, many villages will have to be divided haphazardly, if this is accepted. It cuts many villages and survey numbers into two bits and fails to provide any protection to the National Park. If the entire village comes under ESZ, it is easier to implement the order as many activities are prohibited; some are regulated while some are allowed.”
The buffer area should be shock-proof and provide protection to the park, adds another official. “As it is, the Park’s boundary is shrinking, it’s broken in some places while some people have encroached land by building apartment complexes, bottling plants, resorts and what not. And the ‘Safe Zone’ they are talking about will only restrict mining within 1km, but cannot stop resorts, hotels, buildings, roads coming up – that too just 400 metres from the national park. Imagine the disturbances to wildlife and the resulting chaos.”
Vijay Nishanth, urban conservationist, adds, “We have written to the ACS and hope he takes the right decision as the 2018 draft notification defeats the very purpose of having an ESZ which is less than 1km. The stoppage of stone quarrying has shown positive results, with elephant herds peacefully back at the water holes. This itself must demonstrate and continue the state government’s commitment for the conservation of a national park that acts as a lung space for Bengaluru and its population.”
Further, activists add that with the Karnataka Housing Board coming up with 6,000 houses in the Surya City expansion project just next to the National Park, what kind of protection can be given to Bannerghatta, unless a proper ESZ is drawn and implemented.