What is the issue?
- The recent floods of catastrophic dimensions have ravaged the state of Kerala.
- This has proved the rejection of Gadgil panel report to be a costly error for people and environment.
What was the Gadgil Panel on?
- About 8 years ago, the Centre constituted the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP).
- It is a 14-member panel under the chairmanship of noted ecologist Madhav Gadgil.
- It was tasked to look into measures to arrest the ecological devastation from human activities in the Western Ghats.
- The 1600-km-long mountain range of Western Ghats is a fragile ecosystem.
- It is regarded as one of the eight ‘hottest’ biodiversity hotspots in the world.
- Kerala accounts for nearly 18% of the biodiversity-rich Western Ghats.
- The Gadgil panel submitted its report in 2011.
What are the key recommendations?
- The Gadgil Committee divided the Western Ghats into three ecologically sensitive zones (ESZ).
- These are the highest (ESZ1), high (ESZ2) and moderate sensitivity (ESZ3) zones.
- This is in addition to the Protected Areas managed under acts such as the Wildlife Protection Act.
- It suggested that ESZ1 and ESZ2 would be largely ‘no-gone’ zones.
- So mining, polluting industries as well as large-scale development activities, including new railway lines are restricted.
- It also objected to new dams, thermal power stations or massive windmill farms or new townships in ESZ1.
- The panel however gave importance to the local communities and gram sabhas.
- They were given a larger say in deciding on matters relating to the ecology of these regions.
- It also called for
- stricter regulation on tourism
- phasing out of plastics and chemical fertilisers
- a ban on diversion of forest land into non-forest applications
- a ban on conversion of public lands into private lands
What happened next?
- The Gadgil panel report was rejected by the then Union Environment Minister.
- The report was also unacceptable to any of the six Western Ghats States.
- These included Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Goa, Maharashtra and Gujarat as well as Pondicherry (UT).
- A year later, the government appointed a new committee under the chairmanship of K Kasturirangan.
- It was tasked to “examine” the WGEEP report.
What were the changes made?
- The Kasturirangan committee did away with the graded approach in terms of ecological sensitivity.
- It rather divided the Western Ghats into cultural lands (where there are currently human settlements) and natural lands.
- It recommended declaring cultural lands into ecologically sensitive area (ESA).
- This spanned around 60,000 sq-km or 37% of the total area.
- Recently, the Environment Ministry notified an area of around 56,000 sq km in the Western Ghats as ESA.
- In Kerala, the Kasturirangan committee had proposed an area of 13,000 sq km as ESA.
- But under pressure from the Kerala government, the notified area was brought down to less than 10,000 sq km.
Why was the Gadgil panel report rejected?
- The Gadgil panel faced stiff resistance from all political parties, particularly in Kerala.
- It was primarily because of the involvement of private land.
- A large part of the ecologically sensitive zones belonged to private citizens.
- Attempts to introduce social control over the use of private land have often been challenged.
- The restrictions may not have much of an impact on people.
- But they are often instigated, by groups with vested interests, to oppose such moves.
- Popular resistance thus increases the political considerations in implementing such regulations.
What are its implications?
- Nearly 40% of the granite quarries in Kerala in 2014-15 were located in ecologically sensitive areas.
- Significantly, a quarter of them were in the Gadgil committee-earmarked extremely sensitive ESZ1.
- These are notably some of the regions which have been devastated by the recent floods.
- The present disaster caused by heavy rainfall in Kerala could not have been completely avoided.
- But its severity could have significantly been reduced, if not for the rejection of WGEEP's proposed zoning.
- If the measures to protect the fragile environment were in place, man-made factors would not have worsened the impact.
- Development in the State in the last several years had materially compromised its ability to deal with a disaster of this proportion.
What is the way ahead?
- The Western Ghats States need to reconsider their stand in view of the recent calamity.
- The "environment vs development and livelihoods" debate should not be used to shield vested interests.
- A different governance regime, as suggested by the Gadgil panel, may be required to administer the Western Ghats.
- However, Kasturirangan panel's observation that results are better achieved through incentives than policing is valid.
- Indeed, the challenge is to set up decentralised, participatory institutions to manage hilly regions and river basins.
- The Centre should urge the States to accept the best in both the reports.
- It should not entertain any further reduction of ecologically sensitive areas, for nature's and hence people's sake.
Source: BusinessLine