Who is responsible for including habitations in buffer zone? Jairam or Pinarayi?

 The political blame game stoked by the June 3 Supreme Court verdict that wanted ecologically sensitive zones (ESZs) of at least one kilometre around protected areas refuses to die down.

During the last day of the ongoing Assembly session on Thursday, both the LDF and the UDF accused each other of creating a situation that has now threatened the future of thousands of farmers, traders and families living along the forest fringes of Kerala.

The arguments were staged during the adjournment motion on the issue moved by Congress MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan. His basic contention was that the LDF government's refusal to withdraw its October, 2019, order that included even human habitations within the proposed 0-1 kilometre ESZ would defeat Kerala's case before the Supreme Court.

Law minister P Rajeeve said that the '0 kilometre' clause was included to avoid human habitations. "After we issued the notification, the public was heard and our recommendations were revised to exempt all human habitations," the minister said. Since the '0 km' clause was in the 2019 notification, the minister argued that it was not necessary to withdraw the 2019 order. "We have filed the review petition in the Supreme Court by acting within the the 2019 order," Rajeeve said.

Mathew Kuzhalnadan argued that the 2019 notification had complicated the issue. He said the UDF draft notification issued in 2015 based on a Cabinet decision in 2013 had recommended the exemption of all human habitations from the buffer zone.

He said this notification lapsed because the LDF government failed to furnish certain clarifications sought by the Centre in 2016. "But when it got the chance to restate Kerala's case, the LDF government went ahead and included habitations also within buffer zones citing the ecological devastation caused by the 2018 floods," Kuzhalnadan said.

Even earlier, the Congress had levelled the charge that the Supreme Court's June 3 order was based on the LDF government's notification.

The law minister said the buffer zone was fixed as 10 km during the Congres-led UPA regime, when Jairam Ramesh was minister. "I was MP then. We had then told Jairam Ramesh that 10 km was unacceptable for Kerala," Rajeeve, a former Rajya Sabha MP said. "The Supreme Court verdict was based on the guidelines issued by the UPA Government," he said.

Opposition Leader V D Satheesan said that former union environment minister Prakash Javadekar had told the Parliament in 2021 that buffer zones were based on the recommendations made by state governments.

He also said that the review petition filed by the LDF government did not reflect political will either. "Instead of emphasising Kerala's forest cover, the highest in the country, the review petition speaks of encroachments. This will only weaken our case," Satheesan said.

He also said it was evident that the new government position that wants all habitations exempted had come only after the Supreme Court's June 3 verdict. He said that this would render the government's intent very vague. "Therefore, it is very important that the 2019 order is officially withdrawn," Satheesan said.

Rajeeve argued that the mention of encroachments in the review petition would only strengthen Kerala's case. He said the Supreme Court had earlier regularised many pre-1977 encroachments, some of which come within one kilometre of the boundaries of protected areas. "However, the apex court's latest order insisting on a one-km buffer zone contradicts it's earlier order. We were only trying to point this out," Rajeeve said.