7 years on, Similipal eco-sensitive zone notification remains pending; Centre blames Odisha for delays

An eco-sensitive zone, or ESZ, is a buffer around a protected area. It can extend up to 10 km beyond the protected boundary. Its purpose is to keep activities outside the protected area from harming wildlife and habitats. The article specifically describes ESZs as places where commercial activities are restricted.

Around Similipal, the proposed notification also involved mining controls. Odisha proposed restrictions on mining within 1 km of the protected area and regulation of mining beyond that distance. This shows how an ESZ can control activities close to forests while setting rules for nearby areas.

The Similipal ESZ has not yet received final notification. The Centre says complete information is still needed before scrutiny, public objections, expert consideration and legal vetting can happen. Until then, the proposed restrictions are not final under this notification process.

What remains pending is the final notification declaring an eco-sensitive zone around the Similipal Tiger Reserve and Hadgarh Wildlife Sanctuary. A final notification would formally establish the proposed buffer and its restrictions. The delay matters because the draft process has continued through revisions, consultations and requests for more information.

The first draft notification was issued on January 29, 2019. It was later examined by an expert committee, which identified discrepancies in the protected area’s extent and requested maps, village lists, core and buffer details, and public consultation reports. Odisha later asked that publication and finalisation be paused.

The Centre says the process cannot move forward without complete information from Odisha. The ministry received an updated proposal on October 5, 2023, after National Tiger Conservation Authority concurrence, but says further required details remain outstanding. The final notification therefore remains unresolved seven years after the draft.

The Centre says Odisha has not supplied three sets of information needed to continue the ESZ notification process. These details include the ESZ proposal in Microsoft Word format, the minimum and maximum proposed extent in every direction, and justification where the proposed extent is zero.

The state was also asked to provide the latest gazette notifications for the protected area and tiger reserve. These documents and measurements would help the ministry examine the proposal accurately. The ministry said the information had not been furnished when it sought the details again.

The Centre says it sent another request on July 17, 2025, followed by reminders on February 13, 2026, and September 18. Its affidavit says complete information is required for scrutiny, consideration of objections and suggestions, expert review, legal vetting and final publication. Without it, the process cannot be bypassed.

Odisha asked for the ESZ proposal to be put on hold after public representatives raised objections. The state also wanted to revise the proposal through consultation with the National Tiger Conservation Authority, or NTCA. This pause changed the original path toward publication and finalisation.

The expert committee had already identified discrepancies in the protected area’s extent in June 2019. It requested core and buffer details, properly demarcated maps, an updated village list and public consultation reports. In September, Odisha proposed mining restrictions within 1 km and regulation beyond that distance. The committee recommended finalisation subject to additional requirements.

At its March 2020 meeting, the committee was told about Odisha’s request to pause the process. The ministry later received an updated proposal on October 5, 2023, after NTCA concurrence, for re-publication. The final notification still awaits further information and procedural steps.

The Environment Ministry’s assessment found that 29 of India’s 58 tiger reserves had notified eco-sensitive zones. That is exactly half of the country’s tiger reserves. An ESZ gives formal effect to a buffer framework where commercial activities are restricted around protected areas.

The remaining 29 tiger reserves had not completed notification. They were still in different phases of the final ESZ notification process. Similipal was among the reserves whose process remained unresolved, with its draft notification issued in 2019 but final notification still pending.

The figure shows that Similipal’s delay is part of a wider national pattern, although the article specifically attributes its delay to missing information from Odisha. The Centre says the process requires scrutiny, public objections and suggestions, expert consideration and legal vetting before final publication. Progress therefore depends on completing those steps.

If the ESZ is finally notified, commercial activities around Similipal could face formal restrictions. The article identifies mining as a central issue. Such rules would create a regulated buffer outside the protected area, rather than leaving the proposal at the draft stage.

In September 2019, Odisha proposed restrictions on mining within 1 km of the protected area and regulation of mining beyond 1 km. The expert committee recommended finalising the draft subject to additional requirements. This proposal shows the intended mechanism: tighter controls closest to the protected area, with regulation extending farther out.

The exact final rules are not settled because the notification remains pending. The Centre says Odisha must provide missing information before scrutiny, objections, expert consideration and legal vetting. Until that process ends, the proposed mining controls and other commercial restrictions cannot be treated as final under this ESZ proposal.

Governments create buffer zones to protect wildlife habitats from pressures outside a protected area. An ESZ extends that protection into surrounding areas by restricting commercial activities. This matters because protected forests are connected to nearby land, villages and economic activity. The article identifies the buffer and its restrictions, while the broader balancing purpose is established conservation practice.

Similipal offers a concrete example. Odisha proposed restricting mining within 1 km of the protected area and regulating mining beyond that distance. The approach uses stronger controls closest to wildlife habitat and allows the wider area to be managed through rules. Public consultations and objections are part of the process.

The balance is not complete because the final notification is still pending. The Centre says Odisha must provide missing information before scrutiny, expert consideration and legal vetting. Once those steps occur, the rules could clarify how conservation and nearby commercial activity are managed.