Answer:

The recent landslides in Wayanad, Kerala, caused by heavy monsoon rains, have led to severe damage, displacing thousands and destroying entire villages. This disaster has renewed focus on the need for sustainable ecological practices and the implementation of recommendations by the Gadgil and Kasturirangan Committees to prevent such tragedies in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats.

Key Proposals of Gadgil Committee and Their Shortcomings:

• Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZs): The Gadgil Committee designated the entire Western Ghats as an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA), classified into three zones (ESZ 1, 2, and 3), with ESZ 1 being the most fragile.
  • Shortcoming: The broad classification was seen as impractical and met with resistance from local communities who feared the restrictions would harm their livelihoods.
    For example: Farmers in Kerala protested, fearing that strict regulations would harm their agricultural activities and lead to loss of income.
• Ban on Certain Activities: A complete ban on mining, quarrying, and thermal power plants in ESZ 1.
  • Shortcoming: Critics argued that such stringent measures would severely impact local economies and halt necessary development projects.
    For example: The ban on the Athirappilly hydel project was opposed due to concerns over potential energy shortages and economic impacts.
• Local Governance: Empower local self-governments for environmental conservation, advocating for a bottom-up approach to governance.
  • Shortcoming: Many local bodies lacked the capacity and resources to effectively manage and implement environmental conservation measures.
    For example: Many Gram Sabhas lacked the technical expertise and financial resources needed to manage and protect environmental areas.
• Western Ghats Ecology Authority: Establish a statutory Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA) under the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
  • Shortcoming: The creation of a new bureaucratic body was seen as redundant and overlapping with existing authorities, leading to resistance from state governments.
    For example: Governments of Maharashtra and Karnataka raised concerns about the overlap of jurisdiction and potential bureaucratic inefficiencies.
• Land Use Restrictions: Restrict changes in land use, particularly preventing the conversion of forest land to non-forest uses in ESZ 1.
  • Shortcoming: This proposal faced significant opposition from agricultural communities who feared displacement and loss of livelihood.
    For example: Protests erupted among settler-farmers in the high ranges of Kerala, fearing that land-use restrictions would lead to forced evictions.
• Tourism Regulation: Regulate tourism to ensure it remains environmentally sustainable and does not disrupt the region’s ecological balance.
  • Shortcoming: The tourism industry viewed these regulations as overly restrictive, potentially harming the local economy dependent on tourism.
    For example: Tourism operators in Goa and Kerala opposed the restrictions, arguing that they would lead to significant economic losses.

Key Proposals of Kasturirangan Committee and Their Shortcomings

• Reduced ESZ Area: Only 37% of the Western Ghats to be classified as ESA, focusing on more precise areas.
  • Shortcoming: Critics argued that the reduced area would not be sufficient to protect the fragile ecosystem.
    For example: Environmentalists in Kerala claimed that significant ecologically sensitive areas were left out of protection zones.
• Ban on High-Polluting Industries: Ban on red-category industries in ESAs to reduce environmental degradation.
  • Shortcoming: Implementation faced challenges due to existing industrial infrastructure and economic dependencies.
    For example: Industrial sectors in Maharashtra resisted the ban, citing economic hardships and job losses.
• Use of Technology: Utilise remote sensing and aerial surveys for zonal demarcation.
  • Shortcoming: Remote sensing methods were criticised for inaccuracies and not considering ground realities.
    For example: Errors in mapping in Tamil Nadu led to the incorrect classification of areas, causing disputes.
• Hydropower Projects: Allow hydropower projects only after detailed environmental studies.
  • Shortcoming: Delays in project approvals due to lengthy and complex study requirements.
  • Example: The Gundia hydel project in Karnataka faced significant delays due to extensive environmental assessments.
• Focus on Natural Landscapes: Distinguish between cultural and natural landscapes, protecting 90% of natural landscapes.
  • Shortcoming: Ambiguity in definitions led to confusion and implementation issues.
    For example: Misclassification of rubber plantations as natural landscapes in Kerala created conflicts.
• Community Involvement: Involve local communities in conservation efforts, emphasising participatory governance.
  • Shortcoming: Lack of clear guidelines on the extent of community involvement led to inconsistent implementation.
  • Example: Limited participation from local communities in conservation projects.

Challenges in Implementation:

• Political Resistance: Political opposition at state and local levels hindered the adoption of recommendations.
  For example: Karnataka delayed the implementation of recommendations due to political pressure from local leaders.
• Economic Interests: Conflicts with local economic activities such as mining and agriculture created significant barriers.
  For example: Goa’s mining lobby strongly opposed restrictions, arguing that it would devastate the local economy.
• Insufficient Resources: Lack of financial and human resources for effective implementation and monitoring.
  For example: Kerala struggled to fund and implement comprehensive monitoring systems due to budget constraints.
• Public Opposition: Local communities feared displacement and loss of livelihood, leading to protests and resistance.
  For example: Wayanad farmers protested against land-use restrictions fearing eviction and loss of agricultural land.
• Legal Challenges: Ongoing legal battles delayed the implementation of recommendations.
  For example: Industries in Maharashtra filed court cases against environmental restrictions, leading to prolonged legal disputes. 
• Coordination Issues: Coordination between central and state governments was often lacking, causing delays.
  For example: Policy harmonisation issues between MoEFCC and state environmental departments slowed down the process.

Potential of Committees in Preventing Ecological Disasters in the Western Ghats:

• Promoting Sustainable Development: The Gadgil and Kasturirangan Committees advocate for balanced development that integrates environmental conservation with economic activities, ensuring long-term sustainability.
  For example: The implementation of eco-sensitive zones (ESZs) can prevent excessive deforestation and land degradation, reducing the risk of landslides and floods in regions like Kerala and Karnataka.
• Protecting Biodiversity: These committees emphasise the protection of biodiversity hotspots, which are crucial for maintaining ecological balance and preventing environmental degradation.
  For example: Conservation measures in the Western Ghats, which house unique flora and fauna, can safeguard endemic species and their habitats, mitigating the impact of ecological disturbances.
• Climate Change Mitigation: The recommendations focus on climate change mitigation through forest conservation and sustainable land-use practices, reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
  For example: By preserving forest cover and promoting afforestation, the committees’ guidelines help enhance carbon sequestration, contributing to climate change mitigation efforts in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra.
• Building Resilience Against Natural Disasters: Strengthening ecological systems and infrastructure increases resilience against natural disasters like floods and landslides, reducing their frequency and impact.
  For example: Improved watershed management and soil conservation techniques can minimise the impact of heavy monsoons in regions like Wayanad, preventing soil erosion and landslides.
• Fostering Community Participation: Involving local communities in conservation efforts fosters a sense of ownership and responsibility, ensuring better implementation and adherence to environmental guidelines.
  For example: Community-led conservation projects in Goa and Kerala have successfully involved local stakeholders in protecting ecologically sensitive areas, enhancing the effectiveness of environmental policies. 

Implementing the recommendations of the Gadgil and Kasturirangan Committees can transform the Western Ghats into a model of sustainable development. These measures promise to mitigate ecological disasters, preserve biodiversity, and foster community resilience. Embracing these frameworks will align India with global sustainability goals, ensuring the long-term protection and prosperity of this vital ecological region.

DOWNLOAD PDF