COMMENTARY

March 15, 2014 vol xlIX no 11 EPW Economic & Political Weekly12

Conservation and Development in the Western GhatsA Tale of Two Committees and More

Kanchan Chopra

Kanchan Chopra (kanchanc136@gmail.com) is former director, Institute of Economic Growth and Member, High Level Working Group on the Western Ghats, 2012-13.

The Ministry of Environment and Forests by its hasty order of 20 December 2013 has set in motion events that go against the recommendations of the Western Ghats Ecology Experts Panel and the High Level Working Group. Decisions with respect to the Western Ghats – 39 sites within which now have the World Heritage tag and are the repository of unique biodiversity rich regions – will now go back into the hands of individual state governments, driven by their own short-term economic and electoral interests.

The Western Ghats, traversing over six states, are in the limelight lately in the context of the reports

of two committees on their ecology and economy.1 This article aims to examine the unfolding scenario following in particular the responses of civil society, local populations, industry, govern-ments and other stakeholders to the two reports.

It is generally agreed that ecologically sensitive areas (ESAs), including those in the Western Ghats, need to be protected at all costs, as some would say. After all, the mountain range is the repository of one of the most ecologically diversifi ed landscapes and home to 39 World Herit-age sites, apart from being the source of several rivers of the south. We claim we care about what we leave as a legacy for the future. Successive pieces of legisla-tion in the last 20 years have endorsed such an understanding. We argue in international forums about the responsi-bility of the richer nations in the current impasse with respect to global climate change. Domestically too, the motiva-tion to conserve at the cost of reckless development exists in several quarters. And this is undoubtedly the motivation behind the desire to use a slate of policy instruments introduced by the central government to conserve so-called “eco-logically sensitive areas”, known also in the literature as “no-go” areas or as “in-violate areas”. Over the years, commit-tees of experts have also been constitut-ed to examine the issue and offer sug-gestions. The Sen Committee report way back in September 2000 had been man-dated to “identify parameters for desig-nating ecologically sensitive areas”. As recently as 2012, the report of the Com-mittee on Inviolate Forest Areas had

been submitted to the Ministry of E nvironment and Forests (MOEF). Its mandate was to “formulate broad para-metres for identifi cation of inviolate forest areas”. The latter was set up by the MOEF in pursuance of the directive of the group of ministers (GOM) on 20 Sep-tember 2011 that identifi ed pristine forest areas where mining would cause irreversible damage and so these locales should be barred from any kind of non-forest activity.

It was in this vein that the Western Ghats Ecology Experts Panel (WGEEP) was set up by the MOEF in March 2010. It was a panel of experts, chaired by Madhav Gadgil, with the following mandate:

(i) To assess the current status of ecology of the Western Ghats region.(ii) To demarcate areas within the Western Ghats Region which need to be notifi ed as ecologically sensitive and to recommend for notifi cation of such areas as ecologically sensitive zones under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. In doing so, the Panel shall review the existing reports such as the Mohan Ram Committee Report, Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decisions, recommenda-tions of the National Board for Wildlife and consult all concerned State Governments.(iii) To make recommendations for the conservation, protection and rejuvenation of the Western Ghats Region following a comprehensive consultation process invol-ving people and Governments of all the concerned States.(iv) To suggest measures for effective imple-mentation of the notifi cations issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Envi-ronment and Forests declaring specifi c areas in the Western Ghats region as eco-sensitive zones under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.(v) To recommend the modalities for the establishment of Western Ghats Ecology Authority under the Environment (Protec-tion) Act, 1986 which will be a professional body to manage the ecology of the region and to ensure its sustainable d evelopment with the support of all concerned states.

It is worth noting here that the terms of reference already referred to “a com-prehensive consultation process invol-ving people and the governments of the fi ve states” and the panel was asked to recommend the “modalities of the establishment of the Western Ghats

COMMENTARY

Economic & Political Weekly EPW March 15, 2014 vol xlIX no 11 13

Ecology Authority under the Environ-ment Protection Act (1986).”

Muddying the WatersOne would assume that these were to be the cornerstones of the policy to follow. The committee, after due diligence, sub-mitted its report on 31 August 2011. But it was made public in May 2012 only af-ter a high court injunction asking for the same.2 The reasons for this can only be conjectured. Perhaps some of its recom-mendations tilted towards conservation and local-level decision-making had not found favour with the powers that be. Be that as it may, the undue delay in mak-ing the report public had already mud-died the waters. Over 1,700 responses were received by the ministry when the WGEEP report was put on its website.

The parleys among decision-makers then resulted in the setting up of a High Level Working Group (HLWG) under the chairmanship of K Kasturirangan. The MOEF put it thus,

Taking into account the comments and sug-gestions made by different stakeholders including State Governments and Central Ministries on WGEEP Report, the MoEF con-stituted a High Level Working Group (HLWG) to suggest an all-round and holistic ap-proach for sustainable and equitable devel-opment while keeping in focus the preserva-tion and conservation of ecological systems in Western Ghats.

It must be noted that the HLWG (popu-larly referred to as the Kasturirangan Committee) had been mandated to examine the implementation of the Gadgil Committee report with a view to wholistic development. It submitted its report in April 2013. It was to be expect-ed that in view of its mandate it would have viewed the implementation of the WGEEP report based on economic reality and constitutional imperatives.

In essence, the HLWG report recom-mendations were built on four pillars:(1) Identifying ESAs and asking for their notifi cation across the Western Ghats. (2) Recommending restrictions and a complete ban on some economic activities in the ESAs. Development projects to be undertaken with the concurrence of the gram sabhas in these ESAs. (3) Incenti-vising green growth in the Western Ghats. (4) Moving towards constitutional changes

in centre-state relations that will support the above.

As expected, there were differences between the WGEEP and the HLWG re-ports. The latter deviated in respect of the delineation of the ESAs. There was widespread discussion of the fact that the Kasturirangan Committee had limit-ed the ESAs within the Western Ghats to 37% of the total area, as against about 64% in the WGEEP. The report main-tained that this fi gure was arrived at by the HLWG after a detailed geospatial analysis for identifi cation of ESAs at a fi ne resolution of 24 m with village as the unit.3 Further, it had distinguished between natural and cultural land-scapes and limited the ESAs to natural landscapes. It also recommended that “villages falling under ESA will be in-volved in decision making on the future projects. All projects will require prior-informed consent and no objection from the Gram Sabha of the village. The pro-vision for prior informed consent under the Forest Rights Act will also be strictly enforced.” However, in the so-called “cultural areas” individual rights to land, both agricultural and plantation were to be respected. In these areas, a set of economic incentives were to be set in place for movement towards green growth and sustainable agriculture.

Additionally, the HLWG took note of the environmentally-friendly practices in coffee plantations in Kodagu and else-where. Taking into account this harmony between people and nature in parts of the Western Ghats, the HLWG recom-mended policies to incentivise green growth that promotes sustainable and equitable development across the West-ern Ghats region. It emphasised that the future lies in working on green growth strategies that build on the natural endowment of the Western Ghats region to create a vibrant economy, while pre-serving, conserving and rejuvenating the ecology.

The HLWG report outlines “incentives to individuals, communities and state governments” which would help in moving towards environmentally sound development. It does not leave every-thing to local level decision-making bodies but outlines some positive steps

towards incentivisation of environmen-tally sound growth and watershed-based development. It also points towards steps to r esult in convergence of rural development and conservation, point-ing also to a report from the Ministry of Rural D evelopment on this issue.

It argues for creation of mechanisms for states to come together to negotiate for “debt for nature” swaps, whereby part of the outstanding debt of a state government is swapped for new initia-tives by it to protect its natural resources. Further, a part of these payments would be retained by the state governments and a part used to fi nance local conser-vation trusts at the village/panchayat level (as in several countries).

In other words, the report envisages a moving together of the fi ve state governments in pursuance of some com-mon goals in relation to the Western Ghats. It points out that the prevailing understanding of “economic planning” does not extend to an area-based “ecological planning” and recommends that one way forward is to consider extending e ntry 20 on economic plan-ning in the concurrent list and intro-duce an appropriate entry 20A to ensure that development projects and activities are undertaken within an overarching ecological framework.

The HLWG report, after demarcating the area under ESAs in the Western Ghats, recommends a complete ban on mining, quarrying and sand mining, “red” category industry thermal power projects and large urban developments in the ESA. Some activities such as hydropower projects and wind energy projects are to be permitted subject to conditions such as cumulative environ-mental assessment. These constitute then the costs of conservation. If the

available at

Oxford Bookstore-MumbaiApeejay House

3, Dinshaw Vacha RoadMumbai 400 020

Ph: 66364477

COMMENTARY

March 15, 2014 vol xlIX no 11 EPW Economic & Political Weekly14

Western Ghats is indeed to be protected for the future, this is about the mini-mum that we have to be prepared to do after notifying the ESAs: some will claim it is too little.

It is instructive and painful to note that almost all government, civil society and media attention has been focused on the identifi cation of ESAs and the bans imposed therein. Also, there was criticism from both sides of the spec-trum of stakeholders.

To begin with, restive voices in civil society immediately claimed that the case for conservation had been compro-mised, both with regard to the extent of the ESAs and the primacy of local-level decision-making. It completely over-looked the recommendation that gram sabhas were to be the drivers of develop-ment in ESAs.

State governments responded on the restrictions and bans on some activities within ESAs. These, predictably, related to industries and urban development projects. The restrictions were dubbed as “anti-development”. And this, when all the report was asking for was an al-ternative paradigm of development for some parts of the Western Ghats.

Ministry’s Unseemly Haste

The government repeated its act of silence for a considerable period of time. In November 2013, almost eight months after its submission, the MOEF accepted the report “in principle” and decided to go ahead with the implementation of its recommendations. However, in unseemly haste, the MOEF through an order issued on 20 December 2013 stated that a fi nal decision would be taken only after con-sultation with the states (due presuma-bly to a change in leadership at the high-est level). It is understood that individu-al state ministers are now busy getting approvals for projects.

Decisions with respect to the Western Ghats, 39 sites within which now have the World Heritage tag and the reposi-tory of unique biodiversity rich regions will now go back into the hands of indi-vidual state governments, driven by their own short-term economic and electoral interests. This goes against the recommendations of both the WGEEP

and the HLWG. The WGEEP had asked for a Western Ghats Ecology Authority and the HLWG had argued at length for the centre and the states to take coordi-nated action to deal with issues relating to the Western Ghats. To quote the HLWG report

On recommendations relating to fi nan-cial arrangements and incentivising green growth in Western Ghats region, co-ordinat-ed action needs to be taken by MoEF, Plan-ning Commission and Ministry of Finance. In particular, the 14th Finance Commission should be persuaded to provide suffi cient al-location of funds to the States in the Western Ghats for forest and environment conserva-tion. Further, as recommended above, the Planning Commission should strengthen the implementation of Western Ghats Develop-ment Programme.

Thoughtful Conservation?

Meanwhile, people in the region are rightly concerned about the uncertainty confronting their future. Several areas reported agitations based on the per-ception that local livelihoods would be a ffected by the implementation of the HLWG report. A large part of this con-cern is based on misinformation: but the tos and fros at the central level con-tribute to the confusion. One cannot help concluding that these u-turns in policy framing and execution are at the

behest of vested interests in industry and elsewhere.

The question that inevitably arises can be posed as follows: Is a movement towards thoughtful conservation and development possible? Are we as a na-tion at all willing to implement policies that ask for some degree of restraint in the exploitation of our natural resourc-es? Or are we going to pursue a pattern of development which concentrates on the maximisation of present gains of the privileged few to the detriment of the interests of vulnerable people and eco-logically fragile areas?

Notes

1 The reports, both submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) are: Western Ghats Ecology Experts Panel (WGEEP), chaired by Madhav Gadgil in 2011 and the High Level Working Group Report (HLWG) chaired by K Kasturirangan in 2013.

2 To quote from the high court injunction “It has further been directed that the WGEEP report be placed on the website of the Ministry of E nvironment and Forest (MoEF) before 10.05.2012. A further direction has been issued to the (MoEF) to publish all reports of commis-sions, special committees or panels within 30 days of receiving the same, unless it is felt that any part of such report is exempted under the provisions of Section 8(1) and Section 9 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Further direc-tions have been issued in this regard.”

3 IRS LISS III derived spatial layers on vegeta-tion type and landscape-level indices (with a fi ne spatial resolution of 24 m) were used as the basis for identifi cation of ecologically sensitive areas (ESAs).

EPW E-books

Select EPW books are now available as e-books in Kindle and iBook (Apple) formats.

The titles are

1. Village Society (ED. SURINDER JODHKA)

(http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CS62AAW ; https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/village-society/id640486715?mt=11)

2. Environment, Technology and Development (ED. ROHAN D’SOUZA)

(http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CS624E4 ; https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/environment-technology-development/

id641419331?mt=11)

3. Windows of Opportunity: Memoirs of an Economic Adviser (BY K S KRISHNASWAMY)

(http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CS622GY ; https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/windows-of-opportunity/id640490173?mt=11)

Please visit the respective sites for prices of the e-books. More titles will be added gradually.