Gadgil Report and Kasturirangan Report on

Western Ghats
Filed under: Current Affairs Notes, Environment Notes and tagged with: UPSC Mains General
Studies Paper 3 (GS3) and last updated on May 24th, 2016 at 12:02 pm.

Enroll now and get more than 50% discount on ClearIAS Prelims 2017 Test Series!

Environment being one of the favorite areas for UPSC, it is necessary to analyse the details of
recent hot topics or controversies. Gadgil report and Kasturirangan report related with Western
Ghats hence deserves much attention for UPSC Prelims, Mains and Interview. This post is longer
than most of our previous articles, but read till the end to get your basics right. Also, there are
comments on a lighter note. No offence intended. This article performs the cumbersome
background digging operation into the controversial Madhav Gadgil committe and
Kasturirangan committee reports and our only aim is to reduce the work load of UPSC aspirants.
Please note that this is not a research paper.

Western Ghats : Importance

Western Ghats is an extensive region spanning over six States, 44 districts and 142 taluks. It is
the home of many endangered plants and animals. Western Ghats host Indias richest wilderness
in 13 national parks and several sanctuaries. Recognised by UNESCO as one of the worlds eight
most important biodiversity hotspots, these forested hills are also source to numerous rivers,
including Godavari, Krishna and Cauvery. Western Ghats acts as a huge water tank supplying
water to six states. Now there are many leakages and there is water shortage. All the rivers are
running dry now. And wherever there is water, it is highly polluted. Western Ghats needs high
attention in the sustainability aspect of whole India and especially South India. Ministry of
Environment and Forests of India set up in March 2010 an expert panel (Gadgil commission) to
find a strategy for conserving these Ghats.

Madhav Gadgil Committe Report on Western Ghats

Gadgil Commission, an environmental research commission is named after its
chairman Madhav Gadgil. The commission is formally known as Western Ghats Ecology
Expert Panel (WGEEP). The commission submitted the report to the Government of India on
31 August 2011.

Gadgil Committee Recommendations:

Gadgil committee had eminent ecologists and their report too reflected that. The report was
labelled favorable to environment and environmentalists and not development (or illegal mining

). Remember, there is a never-ending debate between environment and development; its

tough to balance both without compromising the other. Any way, lets come back to Gadgil
Report highlights.

1. The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) designated the entire hill range as an
Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA).
2. The panel, in its report, has classified the 142 taluks in the Western Ghats boundary into
Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1, 2 and 3.
3. ESZ-1 being of high priority, almost all developmental activities (mining, thermal power
plants etc) were restricted in it.
4. 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, it said.
5. 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.
6. 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.

Criticisms of Madhav Gadgil Report

The major criticism faced by Gagdil Committee report was that it was more environment-
friendly and not in tune with the ground realities.
Recommendations were sited as impractical to implement.
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. States insist
that protection can be given under existing laws.
Gadgil report doesnt give solution for revenue losses due to implementation of its
recommendations.
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.
And the most important : 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.

Darker side and Hidden Agenda:

Ministry of environment and forests kept the Gadgil report in safe custody for eight months with
them. It was not available for public discussion as expected by Gadgil committee
members. People asked for a copy, but the ministry said it could not be given. When an RTI
petition was filed, it was not given. Then the matter is taken to the Delhi high court and only
when the court passed an order, the ministry released the report!

Also read: Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and India

The court ordered that all the reports should be put on web sites. Now its there in the ministry
website and for those who want to read the 522 page report, the link for the same is : Madhav
Gadgil Committe report. As many mafias created fear among the people that the Gadgil report is
anti-farmer and anti-people, people burnt the Gadgil Committee report and the effigy of the well-
known environmentalist, Madhav Gadgil. The problem was that most people had not read it.
(Who bothers to read a 522 page report, that too in English, uh!;-) ). So, the mining lobby took
advantage of this aspect and misled the people. They convinced the people against the report in
their favour. The lobby told the people that the report was against farmers and they would have
to leave the area. People got really worried. And it is in this background that another committee
was appointed to study Gadgil Report, review and suggest measures for implementation. The
name of the committee was Kasturirangan committee.

Kasturirangan committee on Western Ghats

As said earlier, the Kasturirangan committe was consituted to examine the WGEEP report. The
committee is often called HLWG it denotes the 10 member high-level working group
(HLWG), headed by Kasturirangan.

(PS: When you finish the 522 page Gadgil Report, you can read the Kasturirangan report here

).

Kasturirangan committee Report 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 under Kasturirangan report.
Complete ban on mining, quarrying and sand mining in ESA.
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).
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.

Criticisms of Kasturirangan committee Report

1. 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.
2. The power is vested with the bureaucrats and forest officials and not with gram sabhas.
3. 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.
4. 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!
5. Kasturirangan report included ecologically non-sensitive areas under ESA, and left out
many ecologically sensitive areas!

Also read: Environment Presentation #5: Biodiversity Conservation and Climate Change
Mitigation: Indian Efforts

Comparison of Gadgil Report and Kasturirangan Report

 When ever we study environment,
the evergreen topic of debate is between environment and development. It is tough to achieve a
perfect balance. 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.

Gadgils Western Ghats (Western Ghats landscape across 1,29,037 sq km.) is smaller than that
of Kasturirangans (Western Ghats landscape, according to Kasturirangan is 1,64,280 sq
km). Gadgil report marked out 60 percent of the Western Ghats as the highest-priority
Ecologically Sensitive Zone (ESZ -1). Kasturirangan report marks only 37 percent area (but
considers wider Western Ghat boundaries) as ESA. Gadgils report proposed to declare this
entire landscape as ESA, creating three ESZs within it. He prescribed that the existing
sanctuaries and ESZ-1 would together cover 60 percent of this landscape. The 25 percent lowest
priority areas would be marked as ESZ-3 to allow all developmental activities with precautions.
The remaining 15 percent area would become ESZ-2. For example, while no mining would be
allowed within ESZ- 1, existing mines could continue in ESZ-2 with a moratorium on new
licences. In ESZ-3, new mines could come up. The Kasturirangan panel, on the other hand,
adopted the criteria followed by the Western Ghats Development Programme of the Planning
Commission and identified 188 talukas as its Western Ghats landscape, which worked out to
1,64,280 sq km. He marked 37 percent of this stretch as ESA where hazardous industries,
thermal plants or mines would not be allowed. In effect, the restriction level of Kasturirangans
ESA corresponds to that of Gadgils ESZ-1. Now, according to the Gadgil report, the ESZ-1
areas add up to approximately 77,000 sq km (60 percent of 1,29,037 sq km). Kasturirangans
ESA, on the other hand, accounts for around 60,000 sq km (37 percent of 1,64,280 sq km). That
is a reduction of 17,000 sq km in the top priority segment. (Source : Western Ghats Tehelka).

Another committe to study Kasturi rangan report! Oh !

Please, No!
Yes, Oommen V Oommen Committee : As people turned violent and started protests, Oomman
Chandy, Chief Minister of Kerala set up an expert committee (the chairman has same first name
as CM, did you see that; though he made life of UPSC aspirants difficult by appointing another
committee, he made things a little easy by selecting a chairman whose first name is same as his,
so that UPSC aspirants can remember : To the notice of all future committees and commissions!

). 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 satellite survey to determine EFL and even plantations and
estates were included in it!
3. It also recommended to stop 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 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.

Also read: India's Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV): Everything you need to know

Why people turned violent?

No, not after the 3rd committee! But even before that! Farmer were worried of Gadgil report,
fearing their eviction. They fear the same of Kasturirangan report too. By this time UPSC
aspirants should have realised that no report can satisfy all! Though there are many who treat
Kasturirangan report as a more practical report, the truth is that Gadgil report was not anti-
farmer. Also people had misconceptions on Ecologically Fragile Lands (EFL) and Ecologically
Sensitive Areas (ESA). Both of them were different concepts under different lawsthe first under
forest department and the latter under the district administration and pollution control board. And
remember that protests often are not due to love towards environment, but often because of fear
of eviction or loss of livelihood. 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.

Current situation and updates

Ministry of Environment had enough reports (Gadgil and Kasturirangan; Ooman committee was
state-level), but still they didnt take any action. The reports were neither available in the public
domain nor the opinion of states were asked. So guess who intervened by this time? None other
than the National Green Tribunal (NGT)! 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]

1. Gadgil Report TOI

2. Kasturirangan report FirstPost.

The Kasturirangan panel had submitted its report to the Ministry on April 15, 2013. (Finally) 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. Going with the recommendations of the high-level panel that was
headed by Mr. Kasturirangan, the Ministry has decided to declare the ESA over 37% of the
Western Ghats under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. With the central government
deciding to implement the Kasturirangan Committee report on the Western Ghats, there were
several protests in Kerala. Even those who opposed the Gadgil Committee report now want it in
place of the Kasturirangan Committee report. People now fear that due to illegal mining they
would get evicted indirectly. Going against the recommendation of the Environment Secretary,
the Minister retained the criteria to leave areas with high-density of population out of this
regulated zones ambit. The high-level panel had recommended that the hill tracts with high
population densities be kept out of the ESA ambit. The MoEF recently came out with the order,
and according to directions under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, bars
mining in ecologically fragile areas (EFA not to be confused with ESA), setting up of thermal
plants and restricts buildings to less than 20,000 sq ft in 123 villages mentioned in the K.
Kasturirangan report of the state.