: The fresh litigation over the demarcation of Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESA) in Kerala has cast a shadow on the ground truthing exercise carried out by panchayat-level committees and raised questions about the compromises adopted by the previous United Democratic Front (UDF) government to keep the lid on the gathering unrest in the high ranges.
On Friday, a Division Bench of the High Court had directed the Union government to file an affidavit stating whether encroached forestland had been excluded from ESAs in the modified proposal made by the State.
The directive was based on a petition, which alleged that 3,200 sq km of encroached forestland had been excluded from the ESA.
The High Level Working Group headed by K. Kasturirangan had earmarked 13,108 sq km in 123 villages as ESA in Kerala. Following widespread protests in the high-range districts, the State government appointed a panel headed by Kerala State Biodiversity Board (KSBB) chairman Oommen V. Oommen to revise the extent of ESAs.
Later, panchayat-level committees were constituted for a ground truthing exercise to fine-tune the demarcation of ESAs by the panel. The decision to discard the ESA mapping by the Forest Department and sub-divide forestland to earmark the non-ESA portion had drawn strong criticism from environmentalists who felt that it would pose a setback to the legal battle to take back forestland from encroachers.
Officials involved in the revised demarcation exercise say the failure to complete the resurvey in the high ranges was largely responsible for the concerns raised by environmental activists.
“With no proper land records and in the face of stiff resistance from settler farmers, the officials involved in the ground truthing exercise were left with little option but to show the non-ESA portion as sub-divisions of forestland,” points out K.P. Laladhas, former Member Secretary, KSBB.
“We had anticipated litigation on the issue.” He feels that a fresh review of the non-ESA portion would help to sort out the issues before the final notification.
Dr. Oommen said the panchayat-level committees were solely responsible for the ground truthing exercise. “Our role was limited to coordinating the exercise and collating the data.”
