Image Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons
As discussed on Madhav Gadgil Report In A Nutshell, after the Gadgil Committee report, the government set up another High-Level Working Group (HLWG) on the Western Ghats under the chairmanship of eminent space scientist and former chairman of Indian Space Research Organisation, K Kasturirangan in 2012. This 10-member working group was constituted to examine the WGEEP report and holistically examine the Gadgil committee report in a multidisciplinary manner.
This committee submitted its report on 15 April 2003. It was put in the public domain and sent to all the stakeholders for comments and responses.
RECOMMENDATIONS
- Instead of the total area of Western Ghats, only 37% (i.e. 60,000 sq. km.) of the total area be brought under ESA (Ecologically Sensitive Area).
- Around 60% of the area of Western Ghats is categorized as a ‘Cultural Landscape’ with human settlements, plantations, and agriculture; whereas the remaining area, which covers around 60,000 square km, should be classified as a ‘Natural Landscape’, which is a biologically diverse area.
- A complete ban on mining, quarrying and sand mining in ESA.
- No thermal power project to be allowed and hydropower projects to be allowed only after a detailed study.
- Red industries, i.e., which are highly polluting, be strictly banned in these areas.
- The report made several pro-farmer recommendations, including the exclusion of inhabited regions and plantations from the purview of ecologically sensitive areas (ESAs).
- The report had said 123 villages fall under the ESA purview.
- Community ownership-based eco-sensitive tourism should be promoted.
- Report suggested hydropower projects and transport-related infrastructure projects to be approved only after Cumulative Impact Assessment.
- Careful planning of railway infrastructure projects to minimize their negative impact on the ecology is needed.
CRITICISM
- The Committee used remote sensing and aerial survey methods for zonal demarcation of land in the Western Ghats. The usage of such techniques, without examining the ground reality, caused many errors in the report.
- The power was vested with the bureaucrats and forest officials and not with the gram sabhas.
- The farmers feared eviction if the recommendations were implemented. Under this report, the mining and quarrying lobbies were allegedly expected to flourish, which would be disastrous for the environment and negatively impact farming.
- The report was considered erroneous in including rubber plantation villages under Eco-Sensitive Area (ESA).
- It included ecologically non-sensitive areas under ESA, and left out many ecologically sensitive areas.
CONCLUSION
The Gadgil and Kasturirangan reports both dealt with conserving the fragile ecosystem of the Western Ghats. While the Gadgil committee was highly environment conservation-centric, the Kasturirangan committee tried to balance conservation and development.
