Core Demand of the Question
- Differences between Gadgil and Kasturirangan Panels in Western Ghats conservation
- Conflicts and challenges in balancing ecological protection with development and livelihoods
- Long-term approaches for sustainable conservation that reconcile environmental and socio-economic needs
|
Answer
Introduction
The Western Ghats, a 1,500-km long biodiversity hotspot, has long been a site of tension between ecological preservation and developmental pressures. The Gadgil Panel (2011) proposed comprehensive protection of 1,29,037 sq km as ecologically sensitive areas (ESAs), emphasizing ecological purism. In contrast, the Kasturirangan Panel (2013) adopted a developmental pragmatism approach. It expanded the baseline study area to 1,64,280 sq km, classifying 60% as cultural landscape and isolating 40% (~60,000 sq km) as natural landscape. This has been refined in the 2024–2026 draft notifications to 56,825.7 sq km of binding ESA.
UPSC Online Coaching
Gadgil vs Kasturirangan: Key Differences
- Ecological purism vs developmental pragmatism : Gadgil emphasized strict ESA coverage with heavy restrictions on mining, large constructions, and commercial activity while Kasturirangan recognized the “cultural landscape” (60% of the Ghats) as human-dominated, reducing ESA coverage and allowing continued agricultural and plantation activities.
- Stakeholder inclusion : Gadgil’s recommendations were criticised by states for insufficient consideration of local livelihoods. While Kasturirangan incorporated state feedback, allowing phased ESA notifications and proposing financial incentives for conservation.
Eg: Kerala reduced 1,000 sq km from ESA draft to exclude villages in Cardamom Hills.
- Degree of restrictiveness : Gadgil recommended almost blanket restrictions on human activity across the Ghats, including plantations, agriculture, and settlements. While Kasturirangan allowed certain activities in the “cultural landscape,” making regulations more pragmatic for populated and cultivated areas.
- Implementation feasibility : Gadgil’s recommendations were considered difficult to implement due to the high number of affected villages and economic activities while Kasturirangan focused on phased notifications, prioritizing high-biodiversity “natural landscape” areas first to make enforcement more manageable.
Challenges in Implementation
- State-level disagreements : Karnataka and Kerala continue to dispute ESA boundaries, delaying final notification. To bypass a 12-year pan-state deadlock, the MoEFCC is executing a phased, state-wise finalization framework ahead of the July 2026 draft expiry, notifying compliant states (Gujarat, Goa, Maharashtra) first while the Sanjay Kumar Expert Committee (2022–2026) reconciles holdouts (Kerala, Karnataka).
Eg: Maharashtra sought exclusion of 378 villages for industry and mining.
- Urbanisation and economic pressures : High population density, plantations, and cash crops necessitate compromise between ecological and livelihood objectives.
- Civil society and grassroots concerns : Protests in Goa, Kerala, Karnataka, and Maharashtra highlight the tension between conservation and local economic interests.
Way Forward
- Phased and flexible ESA demarcation : Notify ecologically sensitive areas state-wise, allowing adaptive management.
- Financial and livelihood incentives : Implement payments for ecosystem services to compensate local communities for conservation efforts.
Eg: Kasturirangan recommended grants-in-aid for protecting natural resources.
- Participatory governance : Including state governments, local communities, and scientific experts in decision-making and resolving the statutory friction between the centralization of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the decentralized rights guaranteed under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, by making Gram Sabha consent mandatory for local green micro-zoning.
- Strengthen monitoring and enforcement : Use satellite imagery, GIS, and periodic audits to ensure compliance without stalling development.
Click to Know UPSC Offline Courses
Conclusion
The transition from Gadgil’s ecological purism to Kasturirangan’s developmental pragmatism reflects the need to balance biodiversity conservation with human livelihoods. Sustainable management of the Western Ghats requires adaptive policies, stakeholder engagement, financial incentives, and robust monitoring, ensuring long-term ecological and socio-economic resilience.
June 26, 2026
