Gadgil Panel Report and Kerala Floods

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

1. stricter regulation on tourism
2. phasing out of plastics and chemical fertilisers
3. a ban on diversion of forest land into non-forest applications
4. 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