After many
debates and judicial as well as bureaucratic process, High Level Working Group
(HLWG) constituted under the chairmanship of, ex- ISRO chief and member of
planning commission, Dr. K. Kasturirangan to evaluate Western Ghats Ecology
Expert Panel (WGEEP) report submitted its report to MoEF on 17th of
April 2013. The very first and striking difference is that, unlike WGEEP
report, HLWG report was immediately put in public domain by the MoEF on its
website and the process of requesting comments from stakeholders commenced as
well (30th April 2013 to 20th May 2013) (Link). WGEEP report was
brought in the public domain only after the MoEF was pulled up by Chief
Information Commissioner and Honorable Delhi High Court in 2011[1][2]. This article tries to
evaluate the differences of opinions, agreement points as well as stand-alone
impressions of both these reports in an attempt to demystify both reports.
The mandate-
WGEEP: By
the MoEF order of 4th March 2010, WGEEP was constituted under the
chairmanship of, Dr. Madhav Gadgil: eminent ecologist and ex-member National
Advisory Council (NAC). The committee was given the mandate of
- · To assess the current status of ecology of the Western Ghats region.
- · To demarcate areas within the Western Ghats Region which need to be notified as ecologically sensitive and to recommend for notification 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, recommendations of the National Board for Wildlife and consult all concerned State Governments.
- · To make recommendations for the conservation, protection and rejuvenation of the Western Ghats Region following a comprehensive consultation process involving people and Governments of all the concerned States.
- · To suggest measures for effective implementation of the notifications issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests declaring specific areas in the Western Ghats Region as eco-sensitive zones under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
- · To recommend the modalities for the establishment of Western Ghats Ecology Authority under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 which will be a professional body to manage the ecology of the region and to ensure its sustainable development with the support of all concerned states.
HLWG: 17th
August 2012 mandate delivered by MoEF to HLWG with following TOR-
- · Examine the WGEEP Report in a holistic and multidisciplinary fashion in the light of responses received from the concerned Governments of States, Central Ministries and Stakeholders, keeping in view the following matters: (a) sustainability of equitable economic and social growth in the region while preserving the precious biodiversity, wildlife, flora and fauna and preventing their further losses; (b) ensuring the rights, needs and developmental aspirations of local and indigenous people, tribal, forest dwellers and most disadvantaged sections of the local communities while balancing equitable economic and social growth with sustainable development and environmental integrity; (c) the effects and impacts of climate change on the ecology of Western Ghats region, (d) the implication of recognizing some sites in Western Ghats as world heritage sites in the conservation and sustainable development in Western Ghats and (e) the constitutional implications of Centre –State relations with respect to conservation and sustainable development in Western Ghats;
- · to interact with the representatives of the Six States of Western Ghats region and other stakeholders, particularly environmentalists and conservation specialists;
- · to suggest to the Government for further course of action on WGEEP Report;
- · any other relevant matter that may be referred to it by the Central Government; and
- · Submission of Action Plan to implement WGEEP Report in the most effective and holistic manner.
Actual body
of synthesis and respective arguments-
Defining ESAs
WGEEP faced an
uphill task of first defining and delineating the Western Ghats area using the
available satellite and topographic images. From the literature review both the
committees have cited and even by taking a look at scientific disagreements on
the issue of defining Western Ghats region, it becomes clear that there is
indeed an ambiguity involved in defining the Western Ghats region (Ref). Having
headed an institution like ISRO, Dr. Kasturirangan led committee scored more on
this front compared to Gadgil committee. WGEEP had nonetheless arrived at a
scientific methodology to define and delineate the Western Ghats and
subsequently the ESAs falling under it. The method of evaluation has been
published by Current Science (Dr. Madhav Gadgil, 2011) . For all the
practical purposes, the committee sounded a note of caution on this delineation
and recommended that the proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WEGA) should
look at this.
HLWG,
after reviewing WGEEP methodology, made a sharp observation that WGEEP did not
follow its methodology completely and there are discrepancies still remaining
in the work. 3
Differences
in defining ESAs: Unlike WGEEP which proposed three tired approach in
assigning the areas of Western Ghats under ESA, HLWG – with the help of
specialized LISS-III satellite images worked out new terminology i.e Cultural
Landscape and Natural Landscape. All the recommendations of HLWG concern
themselves only with natural landscape. Based on the satellite imagery and
their own parameters of evaluation, the committee said that there is 68,249 sq.
km of area (41% of delineated area of Western Ghats) that falls under natural
landscape out of which 59,940 sq. km area (37% of Western Ghats) was determined
as Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA). The committee identified 4,156 villages
as ESA. WGEEP for all its practical limitations it claims, used Taluka as a
basic unit for identifying ecologically sensitive area while HLWG, with high
resolution imagery at its disposal, used village level specification while
delineating natural land-scape as well as ESA. ESAs identified by HLWG also
include Protected Areas (PA) and world Heritage Sites (WHS). Although the HLWG
identified 1,64,280 sq. km area falling under Western Ghats which was higher
than the same identified by WGEEP (1,29,037 sq. km), due to classification of
Natural and cultural landscapes, HLWG ends up identifying less area as Ecologically
Sensitive Area than WGEEP. WGEEP recommended differential sets of guidelines
for respective Ecologically Sensitive category.
Public participation envisaged in both reports: MoEF did not translate the WGEEP report in regional languages and failed to ensure its wide spread. This was despite the fact that DR. Gadgil repeatedly requested for this and on more than one occasions, did so himself. Because of keeping the report only in English, the possibility of getting comments from poorer and weaker sections, who don’t have any internet access but whose livelihoods are intricately linked with Western Ghats ecology, was ruled out even before the whole exercise began. There was also huge political influence in rejecting WGEEP reports because of the fear that its implementation would harm their economic interests (DNA India, 2012). Elected representatives like Narayan Rane and Nilesh Rane, displayed hoardings and banners in Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts of Maharashtra saying “Let’s sink the WGEEP report because it harms our economic interests” in their campaigns to rule out the WGEEP report. The author seen such banners himself while travelling to Sindhudurg district. In Goa as well, mining lobby was working hard during late 2012 to oppose WGEEP report fearing the economic losses. Against this back-drop, one must understand the comments evaluated by HLWG.
HLWG has
presented a bird’s-eye view of the comments received on WGEEP report pre and post-constitution
of HLWG. 1,750 responses were received by MoEF before HLWG was even constituted
while 145 were received after its inception. The ones who are NOT in favor of some
of the WGEEP recommendations dominate the charts. The committee says there are
81% of the responses received before the constitution of the committee
expressed concerns about different aspects of WGEEP report. However, while
classifying responses under two broad heads as “in favor” and “not in favor”
the committee used completely different sets of parameters of evaluation. For
example, among the comments, committee identified i. zoning methodology, ii.
Lote parshuram issue, iii. Mining in Goa, iv. WGEA constitution V. Mining in
Goa etc. as parameters for classifying comments as NOT in favor while
identifying the comments received IN FAVOR, the committee used totally
different sets of parameters viz. i. translation of the WGEEP report, ii.
Gundia HEP, iii. General comments in favor etc. There is no reference if there
have been some cross currents among two types of comments, meaning if a
stakeholder might not be in favor of zoning methodology adopted by WGEEP but
might find translation of WGEEP in local languages as an acceptable point. Such
types of classification and evaluation has no rational basis
Coming back to
WGEEP, the committee recommended several sector-wise recommendations for
ecologically sensitive areas. The recommendations are prohibitory and
regulatory in nature which focus on maintaining green, GMO free, non-polluting,
and ecologically safe environment in the Western Ghats zones. The panel bans
land-use transfers from forest to any other kinds of human interventions, red
and orange type of industries, mega hydro-electric projects, hill station
development and mining in ecologically sensitive area (ESA). On the regulatory
part, the committee recommends strict implementation of various environment
related acts, cumulative impact assessment instead of stand-alone environmental
impact assessment of individual projects, off-grid small (10 MW) hydropower
projects with height of wall less than 3m are permitted in ESZ I (10 m of wall
height and 20-25 MW in ESA II). Recommendations delivered by WGEEP especially
regarding water and related issues are summarized in a table mentioned below.
Sector
|
Recommendations
|
||
ESZ 1
|
ESZ 2
|
ESZ 3
|
|
Water
|
Decentralized water resources
management plans at Local Self Government level Protect high altitude valley
swamps and water bodies. Catchment area treatment plans of hydroelectric and
major irrigation projects should be taken up to improve their life span.
Improve river flows and water quality by scientific riparian management
programs involving community participation Water conservation measures should
be adopted through suitable technology up gradation and public awareness
programs inter-basin diversions of rivers in the Western Ghats should not be
allowed
|
||
Fishery
|
Strictly control use of dynamite and other explosives to kill fish;
provide fish ladders at all reservoirs Introduce incentive payments as
‚conservation service charges‛ for maintenance of indigenous fish species in
tanks under control of Biodiversity Management Committees or Fishermen’s
co-operatives; monitor and control trade in aquarium fishes with the help of
Biodiversity Management Committees
|
||
Hydropower Projects
|
Allow run of the river schemes with
maximum height of 3 m permissible which would serve local energy needs of
tribal/ local communities / plantation colonies subject to consent of gram
sabha and all clearances from WGEA, SEA and DECs No forest clearance or
stream diversion for new projects Run of the river schemes not allowed in
first order or second order streams Promote small scale, micro and pico
hydropower systems, that are people owned & managed and are off grid New
small hydropower projects (10 MW and below) are permissible
|
Small bandharas permissible for local
and tribal community use / local self- government use No new dams above 15 m
or new thermal plants permissible New hydro projects between 10- 25 MW (up to
10 m ht) permissible All project categories subject to very strict clearance
and compliance conditions through SEA and DECs of WGEA Have run off the river
hydropower projects but after cumulative impact study of the river basin is
done
|
Large Power plants are allowed subject
to strict environmental regulations including 1. Cumulative impact assessment
studies 2. Carrying capacity studies 3. Minimum forest clearance (norms to be
set by WGEA) 4. based on assessment of flows required for downstream needs
including the ecological needs of the river For already existing dams
reservoir operations to be rescheduled for allowing more water downstream
|
No diversion of streams/ rivers allowed
for any power projects and if already existing, to be stopped immediately
Catchment area treatment in a phased manner following watershed principles;
continuous non-compliance of clearance conditions for three years would
entail decommissioning of existing projects Dams and thermal projects that
have crossed their viable life span (for dams the threshold is 30–50 years)
to be decommissioned in phased manner All project categories to be jointly
operated by LSGs and Power Boards with strict monitoring for compliance under
DECs
|
|||
On the other
hand, recommendations given by HLWG are also of prohibitory as well as
regulatory nature regarding ESA. It prohibits mining, red industries, thermal
power plants, and building/ township programs of area 20,000 sq. m and above
within ESA. It also recommends creating 10 km buffer zone out-side ESA
developmental activities of which shall be subjected to EIA. Prior-informed
consent of gram-sabhas in ESA has also been made mandatory which would go
long-way as far as development in tune with local aspirations is concerned.
Instead of recommending a blanket ban on hydro-power projects in ESAs, the
group suggests following conditions before granting clearance
·
Uninterrupted ecological flow at
least 30 per cent level of the rivers flow in lean season till a comprehensive
study establishes individual baselines.
·
After a cumulative study which
assesses the impact of each project on the flow pattern of the rivers and
forest and biodiversity loss.
·
Ensuring that the minimum
distance between projects is maintained at 3 km and that not more than 50 per
cent of the river basin is affected at any time.
It
also recommends orange industries in ESA to be operated with ensuring minimum
ecological damage and brining Wind-mill power plants in the purview of EIA
regime. However, the Group is silent about constitution of Western Ghats
Ecology Authority. The only mention about WEGA in this report could be found when
the Group brushed the proposal aside by citing reservations about it from state
governments. While stressing on the need to empower the existing regulatory
mechanisms and environmental law enforcement authorities, the Group
conveniently neglects that it was because of such limitations, MoEF set WGEEP for
Western Ghats to recommend about such authority.
As
far as financial arrangements are concerned, the suggestive measures include
creation of dedicated funds for conservation, liberty to states to convert some
part of their debt owed towards Union Government into activities which promote
green and sustainable initiatives etc. These measures are typically
quasi-federal in nature which grants more financial power to Union government
and less to the state governments and local governing bodies. The proposed fund
for Western Ghats development and other measures to incentivize green growth
focus particularly on capacity building to tackle challenges posed by climate
change and global warming.
Special
cases-
About
the issue of Mining in Goa, one can find the agreements in both the committee
reports. After Shah Committee and WGEEP report were submitted, the issue of
misuse of mining allocations and illegal mining came to forefront which
prompted MoEF minister Jayanthi Natarajan suspended environmental clearance to
all the mining leases in Goa. HLWG, while recommending that all the existing
mines in ESA be phased out in next five years or by their expiry date (whichever
is earlier), it also sounded a note of caution that since the matter is pending
before Honorable Supreme Court of India, Group’s comments would be uncalled
for. WGEEP had considered abundant data from various sources and stakeholders
before commenting on the issue. This is something that HLWG lacks in their
analysis. While commenting about rampant Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg, both the
committees went back to checking the status based on their respective sets of
recommendations and then made suggestions. Therefore, inherent difference in
their general recommendations creeps-in on this issue too. For example, the
WGEEP recommended complete ban on such mining in ESZ while HLWG identified that
there are three kinds of regions in those districts viz. A. within the Western
Ghats and within the ESA, B. Area outside the ESA but within Western Ghats and
C. Area outside Western Ghats. The group identified that the mining should be
prohibited in ESA. All the developmental activities around 10 km from ESA would
be applicable under environmental clearance of EIA notification. While in the
remaining area (that outside ESA but within the Western Ghats and outside
Western Ghats), the group recommends normal environmental and forest processes
to be applicable. However, it also empowers MoEF to take a review of
environmental damage of such projects in those two districts and take necessary
policy review if the situation deems fit.
As
far as Athirappilai and Gundia hydropower projects are concerned, WGEEP had
been categorically opposed to the projects citing not just the proposed
environmental impacts but also the technical flaws the project designing bear.
Apart from that, WGEEP rejected such types of hydropower plants in ESZ-I. On
the other hand, HLWG, without any justification, concedes that the need of such
power plants in Karnataka and Kerala’s electricity demand can’t be ruled out.
It suggests respective state governments to revisit the designing aspects, ecological
flow of the river, water availability downstream, prepare a mitigation plans
for impending environmental damages and then make fresh proposal for
environmental clearance. It is noteworthy that HLWG stops short of defining
what constitutes i. environmentally sound mitigation plan and, ii. Permissible
thresholds for granting environmental clearance to such categories of projects.
Leaving these terms open for interpretation might set bad precedents for many
such projects to come up.
Quotes
and conclusions-
While
talking in Lokabhumukh Pani Dhoran Manch meeting held at 2nd May
2013, Dr. Gadgil said that the HLWG report ignores all the key recommendations
suggested by WGEEP. He also remarked that the one informal dinner talk which he
held with Dr. Kasturirangan has been held as an official discussion with the
Group. He was also unhappy about the way HLWG ignores the demand for
participatory environmental planning, brushes aside the issue of bio-diversity
management committees and entrusts nature conservation only to the forest
department without proper engagement with affected masses. Environmental
activist Dr. Vishwambhar Chowdhari joked that the HLWG report seems to have
done most of its work “remotely” without meeting with all the stakeholders and
particularly residents and non-political groups. However, it would be
interesting to see how state and central government would proceed on the issues
like LAVASA when HLWG has categorized the villages in Mulshi under ESA and
recommended a complete ban on such land-use transfers in ESA.
Both the reports have many
things in agreement, disagreement and points of their own. At some aspects it
is easy to compare them but largely, both the reports have their individual
credentials. No doubt that HLWG has had an access to superior technology, however,
when it comes to recommendations, it appears to have fallen to the populist
demands by political lobby. Remote sensing and satellite imagery are part of
evaluation of the environmental situation in Western Ghats but not the whole
picture. The economic activities in Western Ghats certainly need a set of
governance mechanisms which empower native residents, conserve fresh-water
bio-diversity and observe the regulations under various environmental law regimes.
HLWG appears very weak compared to WGEEP with respect to evaluation of the
situation.
DNA India. (2012, December 4). Narayan Rane slams
Madhav Gadgil's ecological report on Western Ghats. Retrieved from DNA
India:
http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/1773570/report-narayan-rane-slams-madhav-gadgil-s-ecological-report-on-western-ghats
Dr. Madhav Gadgil, R. D. (2011). Mapping
Ecologically Significant and Sensitive Areas of Western Ghats: Proposed
Protocols and Methodology. Current Science.
