E-Paper
Centre discusses voluntary relocation of people from critical biodiversity rich areas
A large number of protected areas have human habitations within their critical habitats which should be freed from increasing biotic pressure for successful breeding of the wildlife, the meeting agenda said
The Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL) is likely to have discussed critical wildlife issues, such as voluntary relocation of people from critical biodiversity rich areas, buffer zones or in designated wildlife corridor areas; and guidelines for infrastructure development in and around wetlands located within protected areas and their notified eco-sensitive zones, during its meeting on August 19.
The issue of formulating guidelines for infrastructural development in and around wetlands located within protected areas and their designated eco-sensitive zones is also under contemplation, according to the agenda for SCNBWL’s 85th meeting, available on the Union environment ministry’s Parivesh website.
To facilitate for the same, an in-house committee has been constituted. The committee has convened its initial meeting, and a draft outline of the proposed guidelines has been prepared and placed for SCNBWL’s consideration.
The draft guidelines state that these guidelines will apply to all new infrastructure projects proposed within or in proximity to wetlands located in protected areas and their notified eco-sensitive zones, and the operation and maintenance of existing infrastructure in such areas. The general principles guiding these guidelines include: precautionary principle shall be applied, whereby in the absence of complete scientific certainty, any action with the potential to cause significant harm to the wetland ecosystem shall be avoided; avoidance will be prioritised over mitigation; and the ecological character of wetlands shall be preserved, including the maintenance of their natural hydrology, water quality, biodiversity, and habitat connectivity, among others.
The do’s for new projects include undertaking a comprehensive inventory and GIS-based mapping of all wetlands within the protected areas and record them in the management plan; physically demarcate core wetland zones, buffer zones, and catchment boundaries; limit permanent construction in core wetland zones to essential wildlife or habitat management works approved by the competent authority; conduct a detailed ecological and hydrological Impact Assessment (EHIA) for all proposals in wetland buffer zones; and retain natural drainage patterns and ensure unobstructed inflow and outflow regimes among others. The guidelines recommend use of low-impact construction methodologies such as stilted or floating structures, boardwalks, and permeable surfaces etc. Locate septic systems, fuel storage, and waste facilities outside the buffer zone.
The don’ts include no construction should without prior ecological and hydrological assessment; avoid siting or designs that degrade, fragment, or alter the ecological character of wetlands; do not obstruct, divert, or channelise natural water flows; avoid excessive built-up footprint or visually intrusive structures; prohibit construction during peak breeding or migration seasons among others. The guidelines, however, do not state what kind of infrastructure may come up around wetlands.
The protected area manager/wildlife warden shall serve as the nodal authority for enforcement of these guidelines. Wetland health indicators shall be incorporated into annual monitoring schedules. Annual compliance reports on all infrastructure within wetland buffer zones shall be submitted to the chief wildlife warden and State Board for Wildlife. Violations shall be subject to action under applicable provisions of law, it has added.
In another major development, the Centre is considering extending the policy of voluntary relocation applicable for critical habitat of tiger reserves to critical biodiversity rich areas or in buffer zone or in designated wildlife corridor areas. This is mainly because of increasing biotic pressures in these areas.
“A large number of Protected Areas have human habitations within their critical habitats which should be freed from increasing biotic pressure for successful breeding of the wildlife. The current policy allows for the voluntary relocation of villages from protected areas, such as tiger reserves, generally located within the core areas of these reserves, there is no such provision for communities residing in critical biodiversity rich areas or in buffer zone or in designated wildlife corridor areas generate multiple benefits to local communities and wildlife,” the agenda said.
Wildlife corridors are critical for landscape conservation plans as corridor fragmentation may disrupt critical migratory paths for wildlife. Wildlife corridors allow for genetic exchange between different populations and reduce the risk of inbreeding, but these corridors often overlap with areas of human settlement, the agenda added.
Decisions on these key agenda items will be available in the minutes of the meeting, once published.
“How can there be any Infrastructure Project within a protected area?.The nature of infrastructure projects needs to be clarified. Are the Wildlife and protected areas being opened? And for what kind of infrastructure? That needs to be defined first,” said Anand Arya, birder and conservationist.
