Author: Sreya S, a student at The National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi
Abstract
This article examines the Kasturirangan and Gadgil reports on the Western Ghats, two major assessments aimed at preserving the ecological balance of this critical region. The Gadgil Committee, established in 2010, focused on creating extensive Eco-Sensitive Zones and stringent environmental protections but faced criticism for being overly restrictive and impractical. In response to the lack of acceptance of Gadgil’s recommendations, the Kasturirangan Committee was formed in 2012 to reassess the proposals with a balanced approach, integrating feedback from various stakeholders. The Kasturirangan Report suggested a more nuanced designation of Eco-Sensitive Areas, balancing conservation with development needs. Both reports highlight the Western Ghats’ global ecological significance, including its role in biodiversity, hydrology, and climate regulation. Despite their valuable contributions, both reports received criticism for their methodologies and recommendations. Effective policy-making for the Western Ghats requires careful consideration of scientific data, stakeholder input, and a balanced approach to conservation and development.
Introduction
The Kasturirangan and Gadgil Report on the Western Ghats are two distinct assessments provided by different committees formed by the Government to safeguard and maintain the ecological balance of the Western Ghats. The Kasturirangan Committee, a High Working Group on Western Ghats, was established in August 2012. Meanwhile, the Gadgil Committee, or the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP), was set up in 2010 under the leadership of Madhav Gadgil.
The Gadgil Committee was assigned the task of examining the ecological status of the Western Ghats and identifying regions to be designated as Eco-Sensitive Zones under the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986. The Kasturirangan Committee was formed to review the Gadgil Committee’s report in a comprehensive and multidisciplinary way, taking into account feedback from various stakeholders.
The Western Ghats
The Western Ghats are a mountain range that extends parallel to India’s western coast, traversing several states: Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala. Spanning an area of 140,000 square kilometers and stretching approximately 1,600 kilometers, this range is largely continuous, with only a brief 39-kilometer gap at the Palghat Pass. The Western Ghats are globally recognized for their significant biodiversity, high levels of endemism, and considerable value in geology, culture, and aesthetics. Research suggests that the range was formed by a major fault running parallel to the western coast, extending from Cape Comorin to the Gulf of Cambay. This fault predates the formation of the Himalayas. The Western Ghats act as a natural barrier to the western branch of the South-West Monsoon, resulting in substantial rainfall on their western slopes. Recognized as one of the world’s eight most critical biodiversity hotspots, the Western Ghats support a diverse range of flora and fauna. They are home to over seven types of vegetation, more than 1,740 species of flowering plants, 400 bird species, and an additional 400 animal species.
The Significance of the Western Ghats
According to the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF), the Western Ghats are crucial for their hydrological and watershed functions. Approximately 245 million people depend on the rivers originating from this region for their water supply. Consequently, the water and soil of the Western Ghats are essential for sustaining the livelihoods of millions. The significance of the Western Ghats is multi-dimensional. Geomorphologically, it is notable for being formed prior to the Himalayas. Additionally, it is regarded as an ‘evolutionary ecotone,’ embodying theories of biological evolution from both India and Africa. The Western Ghats also influence monsoon patterns throughout the country by serving as a barrier to the Arabian Sea branch of the South West Monsoon winds. They significantly impact both the bio-physical and ecological processes across the entire Indian peninsula.
The Western Ghats are home to an immense variety of flora and fauna, with many species unique to the region. Of the 650 tree species present, over 350 are endemic. Additionally, 65% of the 179 amphibian species, 62% of the 157 reptile species, and 53% of the 219 fish species found here are endemic. The region also shelters several endangered species, including the Nilgiri Langur, Lion-Tailed Macaque, and Nilgiri Tahr.
Recognizing their significance, the Western Ghats are protected by various Indian laws, including the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972, the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, and the Indian Forest Act of 1927.
The Gadgil Committee Report
The Madhav Gadgil Committee was established by the Ministry of Environment, Government of India, through an executive order in 2010. Officially named the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP), the committee was responsible for rejuvenating, preserving, and protecting the Western Ghats region by engaging with all relevant stakeholders. Additionally, it was tasked with recommending the establishment of the Western Ghats Ecology Authority, a professional body intended to oversee the management of the region’s ecology.
Gadgil Committee’s Recommendations
The Gadgil Report designated the entire Western Ghats hill range as an Eco-Sensitive Zone. It recommended implementing a moratorium on granting environmental clearances for new mining operations in Eco-Sensitive Zones 1 and 2. The report called for a complete phase-out of mining in Eco-Sensitive Zone 1 within five years, the elimination of chemical pesticides in both Eco-Sensitive Zones 1 and 2 within eight years, and the cessation of plastic bag use in the region within three years.
It also proposed banning new coal-based power plants and other industries classified as red and orange in Eco-Sensitive Zones 1 and 2. Existing red and orange industries should convert to zero-emission technologies by 2016. Additionally, the establishment of a Social Audit Mechanism was recommended to monitor progress. The committee categorized the 142 Taluks adjacent to the Western Ghats into three Eco-Sensitive Zones: 1, 2, and 3.
The Gadgil Report proposed a complete prohibition on the use of Genetically Modified Crops throughout the Western Ghats. It also recommended that no new construction projects, including dams, railway lines, major roads, hill stations, or special economic zones, be initiated in Eco-Sensitive Zones 1 and 2. Additionally, it suggested that land in these zones should not be converted from forest to non-forest use or from public to private ownership.
The report advocated for the creation of the Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA) as a statutory body under the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986. It called for a shift from the existing top-down environmental governance system to a bottom-up approach, beginning at the Gram Panchayat level. Furthermore, the Gadgil Report recommended implementing measures to regulate tourism within the region.
Criticism of the Gadgil Committee Report
The Gadgil Committee report faced substantial criticism for being perceived as excessively pro-environment and anti-development. One major point of contention was that many of the report’s recommendations were deemed impractical and challenging to implement. Critics argued that covering the entire Western Ghats under Eco-Sensitive Zone status could significantly disrupt the energy and development needs of the six states involved.
Another significant criticism was directed at the proposal to establish a new statutory body, the Western Ghats Ecological Authority (WGEA). Many felt that existing laws and agencies were already equipped to manage the ecological concerns of the region, making the creation of a new authority unnecessary. Additionally, the report was criticized for not addressing the potential revenue loss that could arise from its recommendations.
The recommendation to ban new dam construction in the Western Ghats was also a point of contention. Critics argued that such a ban could negatively impact the power sector, especially in light of the rising energy demands of the nation. Similarly, the mining industry was highly critical of the report’s blanket ban on new mining activities, fearing it would lead to significant economic consequences.
Lastly, farmers in Kerala expressed deep concern over the potential loss of their livelihoods if the recommendations of the Gadgil report were implemented. This apprehension highlighted the broader socio-economic impacts of the proposed measures.
The Kasturirangan Commitee Report
Since none of the six states involved accepted the Gadgil Committee report, the Government established a new High-Level Working Group on the Western Ghats in 2012, chaired by Kasturirangan. The primary goal of this committee was to thoroughly review the Gadgil report in a comprehensive and interdisciplinary manner, taking into account feedback from all stakeholders. The Kasturirangan Committee submitted its report on April 15, 2013. The report was made publicly available and distributed to all stakeholders for their comments and responses.
Recommendations by the Kasturirangan Committee
The Kasturirangan Report recommended that only 37% of the Western Ghats be designated as an Eco-Sensitive Area (ESA). It classified approximately 60% of the region as a ‘Cultural Landscape,’ which includes areas with human settlements, plantations, and agricultural activities. The remaining 60,000 square kilometers were proposed to be designated as a ‘Natural Landscape,’ known for its biological diversity.
The report advised banning mining, quarrying, thermal power plants, township projects, and other ‘red industries’ within the Eco-Sensitive Area (ESA). For ongoing mining operations in the ESA, it is recommended that they cease within five years or upon the expiration of their lease, whichever comes first. Additionally, hydroelectric power projects should be permitted only in areas where a standard ecological flow of 30% is maintained, and restricted elsewhere. The report also called for a cumulative impact assessment for hydropower projects.
To mitigate environmental damage, the Kasturirangan Report suggested that ‘orange category’ industries, such as food processing, adopt process and production techniques that minimize their ecological impact. It advocated for promoting community-based eco-sensitive tourism and recommended that transport-related infrastructure projects be approved only after a cumulative impact assessment. Furthermore, it emphasized the need for careful planning of railway infrastructure projects to reduce their negative effects on the ecology.
Criticism of the Kasturirangan Committee’s Report
The Kasturirangan Report faced several criticisms. One major concern was that the division of the Western Ghats into different zones was based on aerial data and remote sensing, rather than comprehensive ground assessments. This methodology led to several inaccuracies and errors at the local level, affecting the effectiveness of the recommendations. Another significant criticism was directed at the suggested bottom-up approach, which was deemed impractical by some. Critics argued that real power often resides with forest officials and bureaucrats rather than local communities, making it challenging to implement the proposed changes effectively.
Farmers were particularly concerned about the potential for eviction if the recommendations were put into practice. This fear stemmed from worries about the impact of the proposed measures on their livelihoods and land use. Environmentalists also expressed apprehension that the report might inadvertently provide miners with more leeway, potentially resulting in environmental harm. There was a concern that the recommendations could lead to increased mining activities and subsequent damage to the ecosystem.
Additionally, the report faced criticism for including villages with rubber plantations within the Eco-Sensitive Area (ESA). Critics felt this inclusion was erroneous and did not accurately reflect the ecological significance of these areas.
Lastly, some sensitive areas were not included under the Eco-Sensitive Area (ESA), leading to concerns that the report overlooked regions that required protection. This omission was seen as a gap in the report’s recommendations regarding environmental conservation.
Way Ahead
Experts should carefully consider feedback, suggestions, and concerns from various stakeholders, and conduct thorough scientific studies. Building broad consensus among different groups is crucial. Recommendations from these reports should be openly discussed at the grassroots level to ensure transparency and inclusiveness. It is essential to raise public awareness and correct any misinformation. Achieving a balance between environmental conservation and developmental needs is necessary to address both ecological and economic priorities effectively.
Conclusion
Both the Gadgil and Kasturirangan reports addressed the need to conserve the fragile ecosystem of the Western Ghats. The Gadgil committee was strongly focused on environmental conservation, while the Kasturirangan committee aimed to strike a balance between conservation and development. Despite their differing approaches, both reports faced significant criticism. To create effective policies for the protection of the Western Ghats, it is important to evaluate both reports through a scientific lens and engage in thorough discussions and deliberations with all stakeholders. This collaborative approach will help ensure that policies are well-informed and balanced, addressing both ecological and developmental needs.
FAQS
What were the primary goals of the Gadgil and Kasturirangan Committees?
The Gadgil Committee aimed to assess the ecological status of the Western Ghats and recommend areas for designation as Eco-Sensitive Zones to protect the environment. The Kasturirangan Committee was formed to review and refine the Gadgil Report, striving to balance ecological conservation with developmental needs while incorporating feedback from various stakeholders.
What were the major recommendations of the Gadgil Committee Report?
The Gadgil Report recommended designating the entire Western Ghats as an Eco-Sensitive Zone, banning new mining operations and coal-based power plants in certain areas, phasing out chemical pesticides, and prohibiting new construction projects in designated Eco-Sensitive Zones. It also suggested establishing the Western Ghats Ecology Authority for better management and adopting a bottom-up approach to environmental governance.
How did the Kasturirangan Committee’s recommendations differ from those of the Gadgil Committee?
The Kasturirangan Report proposed designating only 37% of the Western Ghats as Eco-Sensitive Areas, while the remaining areas were classified as ‘Cultural Landscape’ or ‘Natural Landscape.’ It allowed for some development in these regions, provided environmental safeguards were in place. The report recommended targeted environmental protections, such as restrictions on mining and power projects, while also promoting eco-sensitive tourism and better planning for infrastructure.
What criticisms did the Gadgil Committee Report face?
The Gadgil Report was criticized for being too restrictive and impractical, potentially disrupting regional development and energy needs. Critics also objected to the proposed establishment of the Western Ghats Ecology Authority, arguing that existing agencies were sufficient. The blanket bans on new mining and dam construction were seen as potentially detrimental to the economy and energy sector, and concerns were raised about the socioeconomic impact on local farmers.
What were the main criticisms of the Kasturirangan Committee Report?
The Kasturirangan Report was criticized for relying on aerial data and remote sensing instead of ground assessments, which led to inaccuracies. Critics also questioned the feasibility of its bottom-up approach, noting that real power often lies with officials rather than local communities. Additional criticisms included the inclusion of rubber plantation villages in Eco-Sensitive Areas and the exclusion of some sensitive regions from protection.
