GS Paper 3 · 18 August 2026

Kaziranga Eco-Sensitive Zone: Assam's Push to Reduce Buffer from 10 km to 1 km Raises Conservation Concerns

Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has indicated that the width of the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) around Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve may be fixed at a minimum of 1 km instead of the default 10 km. This follows the Supreme Court's 2022 direction that a mandatory ESZ of at least 1 km be maintained around protected areas, with states allowed to notify wider zones. The proposal has triggered controversy, with conservationists warning that a narrow buffer will weaken wildlife corridors, increase human-animal conflict and undermine biodiversity protection in a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The issue also raises questions about the balance between development near protected areas and environmental safeguards.

Why UPSC cares

Primary GS-3: Environment, Conservation, Biodiversity. Connects to Eco-Sensitive Zones under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Supreme Court orders on ESZs, wildlife conservation and human-wildlife conflict. Secondary GS-2: Centre-state roles in environment governance. Static reference: Shankar IAS Environment Chapter on Protected Area Network and Eco-Sensitive Zones.

How to study this story

The Kaziranga ESZ debate is not really about one park. It is a test of how India operationalises the Supreme Court's 2022 direction that every protected area must have at least a 1 km Eco-Sensitive Zone. The Court set a floor, not a ceiling. States may notify wider zones, but the political incentive is to stay at the floor. Assam's push to reduce the buffer from the default 10 km to 1 km shows how a judicial safeguard can be converted into a development-friendly minimum. For the examiner, this is a case study in regulatory dilution. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 empowers the Centre to notify ESZs, but the actual notification is a state-driven process. The Centre issues draft notifications; states negotiate boundaries. When a state wants a narrower zone, the Centre rarely overrules it. This is the governance gap the question will probe. Prelims will test the legal basis: ESZs are notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, not the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The Supreme Court's 2022 order is a judicial mandate, not a statutory provision. Mains will ask why a UNESCO World Heritage Site needs a buffer larger than 1 km. The answer lies in wildlife corridors. Kaziranga's rhinos and tigers move beyond the park boundary, especially during floods. A 1 km buffer may not protect dispersal routes or prevent encroachment. The controversy also raises the Centre-state dimension: environment is a concurrent subject, but land use is a state subject. The state's development agenda collides with national conservation obligations. A good answer will avoid treating this as a simple conservation-versus-development binary. It will examine the institutional design of ESZ regulation, the role of the Supreme Court in setting minimum standards, and the absence of a statutory framework for buffer zones. The Kaziranga case is likely to appear as a factual anchor in a broader question on ESZ effectiveness.

The larger paper context

GS-3 items today are all about environmental and public health governance. Chromium contamination in Uttar Pradesh groundwater and the Kaziranga ESZ controversy both involve the tension between industrial or developmental pressures and regulatory safeguards. The Bihar stampede is a disaster management failure that could have been prevented with better crowd control. The examiner will look for your ability to link these to statutory frameworks and institutional weaknesses.

Probable question

Why is Assam pushing to reduce the Kaziranga ESZ from 10 km to 1 km, and what are the conservation risks? How does the Supreme Court's 2022 order frame the legal debate?

Quick practice check

Q1
Consider the following statements regarding Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) in India: 1. The Supreme Court in 2022 directed that a minimum ESZ of 1 km be maintained around all protected areas. 2. ESZs are notified under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. 3. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 empowers the Central Government to notify ESZs. Which of the statements given above are correct?
1. 1 and 2 only
2. 1 and 3 only
3. 2 and 3 only
4. 1, 2 and 3
Show answer
Correct answer: 1 and 3 only
Statement 1 is correct: the Supreme Court's 2022 direction mandated a minimum ESZ of 1 km around protected areas. Statement 2 is incorrect: ESZs are notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, not the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Statement 3 is correct: the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 provides the legal basis for ESZ notification and regulation. Hence, only statements 1 and 3 are correct.
Q2
The recent controversy over the Kaziranga Eco-Sensitive Zone primarily involves:
1. A proposal to increase the ESZ width from 1 km to 10 km
2. A proposal to reduce the ESZ width from the default 10 km to 1 km
3. A demand to denotify Kaziranga as a Tiger Reserve
4. A dispute over the UNESCO World Heritage Site status of Kaziranga
Show answer
Correct answer: A proposal to reduce the ESZ width from the default 10 km to 1 km
The Assam Chief Minister indicated that the ESZ width around Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve may be fixed at a minimum of 1 km instead of the default 10 km. This reduction has raised conservation concerns regarding wildlife corridors and human-animal conflict.