The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has taken steps to guard the eco-sensitive areas of the Western Ghats against activities that may cause harm. These measures have been extended to six Indian states sharing these mountain ranges, namely Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Goa, Maharashtra, and Gujarat. The NGT has specifically instructed these states to avoid granting clearance for ecological destructive procedures. This move comes in light of recent floods in Kerala, which are believed to have been worsened due to ecological disruption.
The Madhav Gadgil-led WGEEP Report
The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP), headed by ecologist Madhav Gadgil, was the first to highlight the ecological importance of the Western Ghats. In 2011, they suggested declaring the entire Western Ghats as Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs), where development would be limited and graded. The panel classified the Western Ghats into three Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZs), with ESZ-1 being of the highest priority and consequently subjected to most developmental restrictions. Moreover, they urged an end to large-scale dam projects in ESZ-1 areas. The report stressed on implementing a bottom-to-top management approach and proposed the creation of a Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA). However, this report stirred controversy due to its perceived lack of alignment with ground realities.
The Kasturirangan Committee
To address the controversies arising from the WGEEP report, the Kasturirangan-led High-Level Working Group was employed. The main focus of this committee was to narrow down the ecological focus area to 37% of the Western Ghats, thus excluding inhabited regions and plantations. They called for a complete ban on mining, quarrying, and sand mining in the ESA. Simultaneously, the committee suggested phasing out existing mining areas within five years or upon the expiry of mining leases. It strictly prohibited highly polluting red industries and disallowed thermal power projects. On the other hand, hydropower projects could proceed on the condition of undergoing detailed study first. The Kasturirangam report was widely accepted, with Kerala being the most vocal opponent.
Way Forward
The situation has evolved into a debate between development and conservation. Political polarisation is unlikely to produce any meaningful results. To address the urgency of the situation, following the recent floods in Kerala, a detailed and scientifically-based analysis is required. Various stakeholders need to reach a consensus, and each concern must receive adequate consideration. In addressing the predicament, a comprehensive view of the implications on forest land, products and services should be taken. Strategies to deal with these implications must be devised with clear objectives for authorities involved. Development that causes destruction should be discouraged. Instead, the focus should be on sustainable development. Any further delay in implementation accelerates the degradation of one of India’s most significant natural resources.
