Gadgil & his Report

Madhav Gadgil is an eminent Indian ecologist. He was assigned to prepare a report on Western Ghats
and was the head of Western Ghats Ecological Expert Panel(WGEEP).

The commission submitted the report to the Government of India on 31 August 2011. The report
emphasized that “the Western Ghats is a biological treasure trove that is endangered, and it needs to
be protected and regenerated, indeed celebrated for its enormous wealth of endemic species and
natural beauty”

GADGIL REPORT…

In 2010, the Government appointed the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel(WGEEP) which was
headed by Madhav Gadgil. The Commission submitted the report to the Government of India on 31
August 2011. The report divided WG into 3 zones based on ecological sensitivity(ESZ1, ESZ2 ,
ESZ3) and considered 1370000 sq. km as ecologically sensitive areas.

RECOMMENDATIONS……

 Establishment of Western Ghats Authority

 Water resource conservation plans

 No new power plants in the sensitive zones

 Organic agricultural practices

 Ban plastic within 3 years

 Roads and constructions only after study of environmental consequences

 To stop illegal mining in the western ghats area immediately & not to give permissions for
new mine zones in Z1 &Z2

 Red and orange industries not to be allowed in Z1 and Z2

Gadgil committee had eminent ecologists and their report too reflected that. The report was labelled
favorable to environment and environmentalists and not development. The Western Ghats Ecology
Expert Panel (WGEEP) designated the entire hill range as an Ecologically Sensitive Areaa (ESA).
The panel, in its report, has classified the 142 taluks in the Western Ghats boundary into Ecologically
Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1, 2 and 3. ESZ-1 being of high priority, almost all developmental activities
(mining, thermal power plants etc) were restricted in it
Gadgil report recommended that “no new dams based on large-scale storage be permitted in
Ecologically Sensitive Zone 1. Since both the Athirappilly of Kerala and Gundia of Karnataka hydel
project sites fall in Ecologically Sensitive Zone 1, these projects should not be accorded
environmental clearance

Gadgil Committee report specifies that the present system of governance of the environment should
be changed. It asked for bottom to top approach (right from Gram sabhas) rather than a top to bottom
approach. It also asked for decentralization and more powers to local authorities. The commission
recommended constitution of a Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA), as a statutory authority
under the Ministry of Environment and Forests, with the powers under Section 3 of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986.

Criticism of Gadgil Report

The major criticism faced by the Gadgil Committee report was that it was more environment-friendly
and not in tune with the ground realities. The recommendations put forward by the Report were sited
as impractical to implement. Also, the Gadgil report has asked for complete eco-sensitive cover for
Western Ghats which hamper different states on energy and development fronts.

There was criticism against the constitution of a new body called WGEA. The States insisted that
protection can be given under existing law. The Gadgil report doesn’t give solution for revenue losses
due to implementation of its recommendations. The Gadgil report is against dams in Western Ghats,
which is a crucial blow on the ailing power sector. Considering the growing energy needs of India,
critics argue that this recommendation cannot be taken.

KASTURIRANGAN REPORT

Dr. Kasturi Rangan was the former ISRO Chairman. He is an expert in Nuclear Sciences and was one
of scientific advisers to the then PM of India. He assigned to analyze the WGEEP Report and to give
guidelines to the govt. and to formulate an implementable action plan. Through his action plan, he
removed cash crop plantations & agricultural fields from the ESZ and remarked 37% (60000sq km) as
ESZ

RECOMMENDATIONS

 Banned development of any township or construction over 20000 sq. km in ESZ

 Complete ban of mining and quarrying activities

 banned red category industries (including thermal power plants)

 Hydroelectric projects can be initiated obeying terms and condition.

 The report recommended that instead of the total area of Western Ghats, only 37% (i.e.
60,000 sq. km.) of the total area be brought under ESA under Kasturirangan report. It
proposed a complete ban on mining, quarrying and sand mining in ESA. The report
distinguished between cultural (58% occupied in Western Ghats by it like human settlements,
agricultural fields and plantations) and natural landscape (90% of it should come under ESA
according to committee). Furthermore, current mining areas in the ESA should be phased out
within the next five years, or at the time of expiry of mining lease, whichever is earlier.

 No thermal power be allowed and hydropower projects be allowed only after detailed study.

 Red industries i.e. which are highly polluting be strictly banned in these areas.

 Kasturirangan report on Western Ghats has made several pro-farmer recommendations,

including the exclusion of inhabited regions and plantations from the purview of ecologically
sensitive areas (ESAs).

 The Kasturirangan report had said 123 villages fall under the ESA purview.

CRITICISM OF THE KASTURIRANGAN REPORT :

 The Kasturirangan panel used remote sensing and aerial survey methods for zonal
demarcation of land in Western Ghats. The usage of such techniques, without examining the
ground reality, has caused many errors in the report.

 The power is vested with the bureaucrats and forest officials and not with gram sabhas.

 Many fear that the farmers would get evicted if the Kasturirangan Committee report is
implemented. Under this report, the mining and quarrying lobbies is expected to flourish.

 When these lobbies and tourism flourish, it will be disastrous for the environment. There will
be water shortage, there will be pollution. Finally, farmers will have to quit the area. They
will not be able to do farming there.

 The use of “erroneous method” had caused inclusion of many villages under Ecologically
Sensitive Areas (ESA) though there were only rubber plantations and no forest land! The
Kasturirangan report only included ecologically non-sensitive areas under ESA, and left out
many ecologically sensitive areas
 GADGIL KASTHURIRANGAN

 Entire WG should be considered as ESZ  Removed cash crops,agricultural lands

and settlements from ESZ

 Created three categories of protection  Made the distinction between what it

regimes and listed activities. called cultural landscape and natural
landscape

 137000 hectares should be awarded the  60,000 hectares should be awarded as

status of ESZ ESZ

 Ban pesticide use and genetically  Report Impose restrictions on what it

modified crops called highly interventionist and
environmentally damaging activities in
the ESZ

 had recommended a national-level  argued for strengthening the existing

authority, with counterparts at the state framework of environmental clearances
and district levels and setting up of a state-of-the-art
monitoring agency.

 Decommissioning of Hydro Power  Gradual shift from agricultural land to

Projects. natural forests

 All mining and red-category industry

 hydropower projects, the panel set tough
(including thermal power), and buildings
conditions to ensure adequate flow in
over 20,000 square metres would be
rivers and distance between projects.
completely banned
 Arguments in favour of WGEEP

Extend of area fixed as natural area by HLWG does not conform to the National Forest
Policy according to which the minimum forest cover required to be maintained in hilly areas
is 66%.WGEEP considers the recommendations of Government bodies and the Pronab Sen
Committee specify several criteria on the basis of which the entire Western Ghats qualifies as
Ecologically Sensitive. Pronab Sen Committee recommends to declare an area as ESA, is
presence of endemic species which would cover the entire geographical extent of the Western
Ghats. WGEEP has divided ESA based on Biodiversity,Cultural, Geological, Historical,
Climatic conditions especially quantum of rainfall and the number of rainy days, risk of
landslide, and stakeholders' view.The ESA proposed by the HLWG is based mainly on the
distribution of flora. WGEEP has taken on board both flora and fauna, with details
such as their rarity, endemism, abundance.ESA proposed by the HLWG does not reflect
the landscape approach for conservation and development. It does not serve the purpose of
biodiversity conservation.

 WGEEP considered two main parameters

o Altitude

o Vegetation

Even with this scientific approach, WGEEP concludes that further discussion is required to fix
the borders of Western Ghats But for HLWG,its decision is final.Protection of the ecological
integrity of the Western Ghats is a must for the life of the people in six States who are depending
on its resources. The resolution used by the WGEEP for coarse grid zoning is 30 meter and that
by the HLWG is 24 meter which is not substantially different. It is our culture and tradition to
preserve the sacred groves which are present in the cultural land area. HLWG has not even cared
about the protection of these culturally important remnant forest patches within the Cultural
landscape.Activities that could be undertaken in each zone are given separately in WGEEP with
controls and limitations Freshwater biodiversity is even under greater threat than forest
biodiversity. WGEEP perspective considers this properly, including in its specific consideration
of riverine forests, whereas the HLWG just ignores it.HLWG has failed to understand that
WGEEP recommendations are tentative and that the final decision on demarcating the zones and,
the activities to be undertaken in each of them has to be taken by Grama Sabhas.WGEEP
recommends that even sites for construction should avoid canals, wetlands, biodiversity pockets.
HLWG does not mention these at all, thereby appears to have attached no importance to these life
support systems.HLWG allows mining and quarrying in 63% of the Western Ghats and the
restrictions come only for 37% of the area. WGEEP emphasizes more on solar power which,
 certainly, is the most environment – friendly alternative for power. WGEEP has suggested
measures for water conservation and, how decentralized the water distribution system should be.
WGEEP restricts roads and railway lines to areas where they are very essential, whereas HLWG
does not propose any restrictions. Anybody could, according to HLWG, construct buildings up to
but below 20,000 m2 (2, 15,000 sq. feet) inside the ESA and there are no restrictions outside the
ESA, apart from the existing guidelines.This report suggested that 37% of land should come
under natural landscape need to be protected rest should be open to the development. Clearly
WGEEP ignores the factors like livelihood and potential economic options. HLWG approach is
more practical and will avoid future unnecessary issues. It’s a hand in hand approach considering
Environmental development and economic growth. HLWG also emphasized on strong regulatory
authority. They also said, rather than avoiding economic option we can reinforce to move them
towards more greener and sustainable practices. This report was also concerned about already
modified and privately owned areas.

DIFFERENECE

There is a never-ending debate between environment and development; it’s tough to balance both
without compromising the other. —The same happened with both these reports. If Gadgil report laid
too much importance to environment, Kasturirangan report was biased towards development. Kasturi
rangan report was criticized by many as that it provided loopholes for mining, which if allowed would
turn detrimental for environment, in long term will affect development too. Kasturirangan report got
the tag as anti-environmental soon after its release. But this report was tagged anti-development too
by many who fear that their livelihood and interests will be affected. —The Gadgil panel had
recommended a national-level authority, with counterparts at the state and district levels. The
Kasturirangan panel argued for strengthening the existing framework of environmental clearances and
setting up of a state-of-the-art monitoring agency. — The main concern in the Gadgil report is water.
Most of the river lies outside the 37% described by the Kasturirangan report, leaving them
unprotected from pollution and sand mining. —The Gadgil Committee report adversely affects the
various mafia. When the Gadgil Committee report was first made public, there were a lot of protests
against it from the sand mining and quarrying lobbies in Goa. Many mafias created fear among
farmers in Kerala that the Gadgil report is against them, and that they will lose livelihood if its
recommendations are implemented

COURSE OF ACTION

The MoEF faced intense pressure from state governments.The State govt argued that the adoption of
the Gadgil committee report would curb all development activities. Though the Ministry of
Environment had enough reports (Gadgil and Kasturirangan; Ooman committee was state-level),they
still didn’t take any action. The reports were neither available in the public domain nor the opinion of
states were asked. Then a bench headed by NGT Chairperson Justice Swatanter Kumar imposed a fine
of Rs 25,000 on the ministry for failing to file its final report on recommendations of two panels set
up to study environmental sensitivity and ecological significance of the Western Ghats, saying better
standards were expected from it [Oct1, 2013]. On April 15, 2013 the Kasturirangan panel submitted
its report to the Ministry. It was put in public domain and also disseminated to all stakeholders
including the six Western Ghats states including Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Goa, Kerala and
Tamil Nadu for feedback and comments.

THE IMPACT

The farmers were worried that the implementation of the Gadgil report will lead to their eviction.
They fear the same of Kasturirangan report too. Though there are many who treat Kasturirangan
report as a more practical report were different concepts under different laws–the first under forest
department and the latter under the district administration and pollution control board. The protests
often were not due to love towards environment, but often because of fear of eviction or loss of
livelihood. The centre issued an office order in November 2013 directing immediate implementation
of five proposals in the Kasturirangan report. This was the immediate provocation for the agitation.
Later, the central government sought the opinion of the five states in implementing the report.
Dialogues were still on and the government had asked the state governments to submit their views on
the report.On November 13, the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) directed six
states, including Kerala, spanning the Western Ghats, to ban environment-damaging activities in
villages identified as ecologically-sensitive areas by the Kasturiangan Committee. These
environment-damaging activities include mining, quarrying, construction of thermal plants and red-
category (highly-polluting) industries and construction of buildings spread over more than 2,000 sq
metre and townships spanning more than 50 hectares

Oommen V Oommen Committee

As people turned violent and started protests, Oommen Chandy, the then Chief Minister of Kerala set
up an expert committee.The expert committee, appointed by the Kerala government, to study
the Kasturirangan report in detail submitted its report to chief minister Oommen Chandy (CM).
Recommendations of Oommen V Oommen Committee

1. The committee recommended the government to make changes in the clauses

of Environmentally Fragile Land (EFL) in the Western Ghats.
2. The Oommen Committee reported that serious lapses happened in determining the EFL areas.
The committee adopted a satellite survey to determine EFL and even plantations and estates
were included in it!
3. It also recommended stopping land acquisition proceedings according to the Kasturirangan
committee report.
4. The panel has made several pro-farmer recommendations, including the exclusion of inhabited
regions and plantations from the purview of ecologically sensitive areas (ESAs). The
Kasturirangan report had said 123 villages fall under the ESA purview.
5. The state-level panel said a field survey should be held in places that the Madhav Gadgil and
Kasturirangan reports have identified as ESAs to demarcate forest land and human settlements.
After examining the population density of these areas, human settlements should be exempted
from the category of ESAs.
6. It also said farmers should not be stopped from rearing hybrid varieties of milking animals and
suggested that the grace period is given to shift to organic farming be extended from five years
to 10 years.
7. The report said forest areas should be fenced to prevent the animals straying into it.