Western Ghats landslides: Gadgil panel sounded alarm, but states did not hear it

The devastating landslides in Kerala’s Wayanad which have wiped out settlements and killed over 200 people, have rekindled the debate on the need to demarcate and protect the ecologically sensitive pockets of the fragile Western Ghats along the six states it runs through.

However, recommendations in this regard given by the Gadgil Committee 13 years ago, are yet to be implemented amid opposition from the Kerala and Karnataka governments.

Why is Western Ghats sensitive?

The Western Ghats snakes through 44 districts and 142 taluks across the states of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. A biodiversity hotspot, it is home to several endangered species of plants and animals and boasts of 13 national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.

With the hills of Western Ghats feeding perennial rivers such as the Godavari, Krishna and Cauvery, dams have been built across the rivers for several hydroelectric and irrigation projects. Popular tourist spots like Ooty, Mahabaleshwar, Lonavala, Khandala, Munnar, Ponmudi, and Wayanad are nestled in the hills of the Western Ghats.

Why is Kerala's Western Ghats prone to landslides?

Experts attribute the recurring landslides in the Western Ghats, especially in Kerala to extreme rainfall, inability of vegetation to hold on to soil, and rise in construction activities.

A research paper published by Springer in 2021 said all the landslide hotspots in Kerala were concentrated in the Western Ghats, especially in Idukki, Ernakulam, Kottayam, Wayanad, Kozhikode and Malappuram districts. The study said that 59 per cent of the landslides occurred in areas with plantations.

Scientists say many of these plantations are rubber trees which are known for their inability to hold the soil together.

Others have also ascribed the frequent occurrence of landslides to construction activities in the ecologically fragile areas.

What is the Gadgil Committee?

The Gadgil Committee or the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) was an environment research committee named after its chairman, Madhav Gadgil, an eminent ecologist.

It was constituted by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests in March 2010 to devise a strategy to conserve the Western Ghats.

What did the Gadgil Committee report say?

In its report submitted to the central government, on August 31, 2011, the committee had made a series of controversial recommendations including declaring 75 per cent or 129,037 sq km area of the Western Ghat area as an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) and formation of the Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA).

Classifying the 142 taluks the Western Ghats runs through as Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZs) 1, 2 and 3, the panel recommended a ban on all developmental activities like mining and operation of thermal power plants in the ESZ-1 areas.

The panel had suggested phasing out of mining from ESZ-1s in the next five years; phasing out of chemical pesticides in ESZ-1 and ESZ-2 within five to eight years; and phasing out of plastic bags in the next three years.

The report recommended the government not to allow construction of new dams based on large-scale storage in ESZ-1 and deny environment clearances to hydel projects in Athirappilly in Kerala and Gundia in Karnataka.

It had recommended a mandate for red and orange category industries to switch to zero pollution in ESZ-1 and 2 by 2016 and for them to be operated only under an effective social audit mechanism.

The report suggested a ban on genetically modified crops too.

The report suggested decentralisation of power to invest more authority in local leaders.

The panel also recommended the formation of WEGA, a statutory authority under the Ministry of Environment and Forests, with powers under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

The committee also suggested the government regulate tourism in the area to ensure that it remains environmentally sustainable and does not meddle with the ecological balance of the region.

Why did the report face objections?

The report didn’t elicit positive response from the concerned states with Kerala and Karnataka vehemently opposing the committee's recommendations and calling them unfeasible.

The main criticism against the report was that it allegedly failed to strike a balance between conservation and development and was more biased towards conserving the environment.

States argued that the recommendation to designate a massive chunk of the Western Ghats as an eco-sensitive area would hinder energy and development projects.

State governments also opposed the formation of WGEA, stating that protection can be provided under existing laws too.

The report was also flayed for not giving a solution to tackle the revenue losses that states will face if the committee’s recommendations are followed.

Why was Kasturirangan Committee formed?

After none of the six states agreed to the recommendations of the Gadgil Committee, the government in August 2012 formed a high-level working group on Western Ghats, under scientist K Kasturirangan to examine the previous report.

What were its recommendations?

The Kasturirangan Committee classified 60 per cent of the Western Ghats as a cultural landscape that encompasses human settlements, agriculture and plantations and the rest as natural landscape with 37 per cent of ‘biologically rich area’.

Striking a chord with local inhabitants, the committee proposed 37 per cent (or 60,000 sq km) of the total area of Western Ghats – what it called the ‘biologically rich area’ – to be declared as ESA.

It proposed a blanket ban on mining, quarrying, and on setting up red category industries and thermal power projects in the area.

The report suggested that infrastructural projects on forest and wildlife must be assessed properly before being cleared.

The committee recommended the setting up of hydroelectric power projects only at places where there has been a standard ecological flow of 30 per cent.

The panel also suggested a cumulative assessment for hydro-electric power projects in India.

The committee also stressed on eco-friendly tourism through community ownership.

Could following Gadgil panel report have averted Wayanad tragedy?

The report had recommended Sulthan Bathery, Vythiri and Mananthavadi n Kerala’s Wayanad to be categoried as ESZ-1, designating them to be highly risk-prone areas with high level of ecological sensitivity.

The report had also designated Perinthalmanna and Tirur taluks in Malappuram district as ESZ-2.

In fact, the Gadgil Committee report had cautioned against anti-environmental activities in Meppadi in Vythiri taluk, situated around 2-3 km from Mundakkai and Chooralmala where the landslides happened.

Meppadi was among the 18 ESZ identified by the committee in Kerala.

What’s the status on ESAs now?

The Union Ministry of Environment and Forests in 2018 issued a draft notification on ESAs along the Western Ghats.

While states including Kerala had opposed the proposals in the draft, the ministry recently informed state MPs in Parliament that some states have requested for modifications in the eco-sensitive areas demarcated in the draft notification.

According to Kirti Vardhan Singh, Minister of State for Environment, the latest draft of the notification proposes 37 per cent of the Western Ghats to be notified as ESA.

“In order to address the issues raised by the state governments, the ministry constituted a committee to re-examine the suggestions of the six state governments in a holistic manner, keeping in view the conservation aspects of the disaster-prone pristine ecosystem, and the rights, privileges, needs and developmental aspirations of the region. The concerns of the state governments, including Kerala and Karnataka, are deliberated by the committee and based on the recommendations of the said committee; the draft notification is finalised,” Singh told the Parliament, referring to the formation of the Kasturirangan Committee.

The draft was issued on October 3, 2018, but its validity was extended in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Here is what the 2018 document recommends:

Complete ban on mining, quarrying and sand mining.

Phasing out of all existing mines within five years from the date of the final notification being issued or the expiry of the existing mining lease, whichever is earlier.

Ban on new thermal power projects or on expansion of existing plants.

Ban on new or expansion of polluting industries as specified by the Central Pollution Control Board or State Pollution Control Board.