Renowned ecologist Madhav Gadgil passed away at 83 in Pune, leaving a profound environmental legacy. His pivotal role as chair of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) stands out among his many contributions. Despite the rejection of the panel’s report by the then government, Gadgil tirelessly advocated for the protection of the fragile Western Ghats against unregulated development. Over the years, the report’s warnings and recommendations have resurfaced in public discourse, particularly following landslides and ecological disasters in the region, highlighting its lasting relevance.
The Western Ghats, spanning from Gujarat to Kerala and Tamil Nadu, serve as the water tower of peninsular India. Major rivers, such as the Cauvery, Godavari, Krishna, Periyar, and Netravathi, originate in this region. It is recognized as a global biodiversity hotspot, home to numerous species that are endemic and found nowhere else on the planet.
In March 2010, the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) was established in response to the ecological sensitivity of the region, its complex geography, and the increasing threats posed by climate change and unregulated development. The panel's formation was catalyzed by a 2010 meeting of the Save Western Ghats movement in the Nilgiris, which was attended by then Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh. The WGEEP was tasked with assessing the ecology of the Western Ghats, identifying ecologically sensitive areas, and proposing mechanisms for conservation and sustainable development.
The Gadgil panel submitted its draft report in March 2011 and the final version in August of the same year. However, the report was not publicly released and was instead shared with the state governments for their feedback. Environmental groups challenged this lack of transparency through RTI applications. Following intervention by the Chief Information Commissioner, the report was finally made public in May 2012.
Gadgil defended the report as promoting inclusive development, suggesting that its proposals should be presented before Gram Sabhas to foster a participatory approach to conservation and development.
The report encountered significant opposition, particularly from Kerala and Maharashtra. Maharashtra criticized the proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority as a redundant structure to existing institutions. Kerala expressed concerns that declaring extensive areas as ecologically sensitive would adversely affect agriculture and livelihoods in districts like Idukki and Wayanad. Political leaders and the Catholic Church warned of potential economic disruption and displacement of local communities.
In response to the widespread opposition, the Environment Ministry established a High-Level Working Group in 2012 under space scientist K. Kasturirangan to reassess the recommendations. The 2013 report proposed designating approximately 56,825 sq km of the Western Ghats as ecologically sensitive. While it supported restrictions on mining and large developments, it took a more focused approach than the Gadgil panel.
Despite the issuance of six draft ESA notifications by the Centre, disagreements with states persist, with ongoing efforts to finalize the boundaries led by a committee chaired by former Director General of Forests Sanjay Kumar.
Q1. What was the main focus of the Gadgil Report?
Answer: The Gadgil Report primarily focused on identifying and designating ecologically sensitive areas within the Western Ghats, emphasizing the need for sustainable development and conservation strategies to protect this vital ecosystem.
Q2. Why was the Gadgil Report controversial?
Answer: The report faced significant political opposition, particularly from state governments that feared economic repercussions and disruption to local livelihoods due to its recommendations for extensive ecological protections.
Q3. What are some key recommendations of the Gadgil Report?
Answer: Key recommendations included designating the entire Western Ghats as an Ecologically Sensitive Area, implementing three-tier sensitivity zoning, and establishing a dedicated authority for environmental governance.
Q4. How did the Kasturirangan Panel differ from the Gadgil Report?
Answer: The Kasturirangan Panel proposed a more limited designation of ecologically sensitive areas, targeting specific villages, which made its recommendations more administratively feasible compared to the Gadgil Report's broader approach.
Q5. What is the current status of the Gadgil Report's recommendations?
Answer: Despite the issuance of draft ESA notifications, there remains a policy deadlock as disagreements between the central government and states continue, delaying the implementation of the Gadgil Report's recommendations.
Kutos : AI Assistant!
