The Centre constituted the 14-member Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) in 2010 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 Gadgil panel report (2011) had recommended controls on mineral extraction and mining. It recommended against building new large-scale dams and inter-basin diversions of rivers.

Body:

Key recommendations:

• The Gadgil Committee divided the Western Ghats into three ecologically sensitive zones (ESZ) 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-go’ zones implying 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, where they were given a larger say in deciding on matters relating to the ecology of these regions.
• No more new hill stations, no change of land-use from forest to non-forest use, or public to private ownership and no more inter-basin diversions of rivers in the Western Ghats
• 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.

The Gadgil Panel report was rejected by the then Union Environment Minister and was also unacceptable to any of the six Western Ghats States. The recommendations, which have been ignored by state governments, are back in focus as the states face monsoon fury with floods and landslides killing hundreds across Kerala, Karnataka and Maharashtra.

Implications of rejection of report:

• Most of the rivers in the Western Ghats are either dammed or diverted. West-flowing rivers have been virtually made into east-flowing rivers by violating all natural laws.
• Kerala has a total 5,924 quarries, an average of six quarries per panchayat, of which 3,332 are in the ecologically sensitive zones identified by Gadgil.
• The vibrations from these blasts are shaking the hills. Sound waves go fastest in diamonds, and the next in granites. The density variations arising out of quarrying are destroying millennia-old forests in the Western Ghats
• Most sites where landslides took place, in fact, fall into the zones which would otherwise have been marked ecologically sensitive, had the key recommendations of the report been adopted.
• Referring to the region, as the “Protector of the Indian Peninsula”, the report had raised alarm on the rapid erosion of natural capital for man-made capital in the Western Ghats, which has led to “excessive, unnecessary environmental damage”.
• Both the Athirappally project in Kerala and Gundia hydel project in Karnataka fall in ESZ1 zone, these projects should not be accorded environmental clearance.
• There is premature silting up of reservoirs due to the massive encroachment and deforestation of catchments consequent to dam construction. Idukki dam is a classic case wherein the entire catchment was encroached along with dam construction
• The large-scale shift to cultivation of soil-eroding monoculture plantations of tea, coffee, cardamom, rubber, banana, pineapple and timber on steep slopes, leading to increased surface run-off and low seepage deep into the soil.
• Land-use changes mapped by Kerala Forest Research Institute shows Wayanad has lost a forest cover of 1086 square km, an area larger than all of Delhi.
• The fragmentation of forests is also reflected in human-animal conflict that has been on a rise.
• Wayanad has also witnessed a change in temperature of 2-3 degrees, that otherwise happens over centuries, over a short span of years

Way forward:

• 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.

Conclusion:

A policy shift is urgently warranted curtailing the environmentally disastrous practices and switching over to a more sustainable farming approach in the Western Ghats. Decommissioning of dams and thermal projects that have crossed their viable life span of 30-50 years in a phased manner is need of the hour.