Older than the mighty Himalayas and flanking the Western front of peninsular India, the Western Ghats, also called the Sahyadris, were recently inscribed in the coveted UNESCO world heritage site list. The inscription came during the 36th session of the World Heritage Committee (WHC) in St Petersburg, Russia, where 39 sites dotting the Ghats landscape were given heritage status. While environmentalists are hailing and celebrating UNESCO’s decision as a big boost for recognition of conservation efforts in India, not everyone seems pleased in what is usually considered a badge of honour. There are reservations within the state governments, particularly Karnataka, that the tag will impede industrial activity in the mineral-rich region, and everything from mining to dams and power projects may be hampered. Environmentalists are rubbishing these concerns as baseless and misinformed, saying the importance of natural heritage must be recognised and the sites inscribed are already protected areas and are no-go zones for any non-forest activity.
But what has really added fuel to fire in an already acrimonious conservation vs development debate is the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report, or the Gadgil committee report, whose recommendations are under consideration of the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF). The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel was constituted by the MoEF in February 2010 under the chairmanship of noted environmental expert Prof Madhav Gadgil. The report identifies several eco-sensitive zones in the region and recommends that they should be declared no-go areas. In its wide array of recommendations, the panel has also called for scrapping of Karnataka’s Gundia and Kerala’s Athirapally hydro-projects, and gradual phasing out of mining activities in ecologically sensitive areas of Goa by 2016.
After being rejected in the past, India’s hopes of getting the heritage tag were again in jeopardy at the latest session of the WHC, as the UN panel recommended that the WGEEP report be inculcated in the Centre’s plans for the Ghats. However, India was able to negotiate and lobby with the 21-member committee to get the inscription. Wildlife Institute of India (WII) dean VB Mathur, who was a part of the Indian delegation to St Petersburg, tells FE, “We argued that the scope of these 39 sites and the Gadgil committee report are completely different as these 39 sites are already protected areas, while the Gadgil committee’s brief was to give an overall assessment of the Western Ghats. So in effect, the Gadgil committee report doesn’t really concern the proposed sites as they are already protected by the government. The second argument was that while UNESCO can advise, it can’t dictate a sovereign state and something like this can’t be put as a precondition to the inscription.” India was eventually able to convince most of the 21 member nations and saw the inscription through.
But few saw reason to celebrate. Karnataka forest minister CP Yogeshwar came out strongly against the inscriptions and said despite the state government opposing the proposal, the Centre went ahead with it. The Karnataka government’s argument is that the inscription will impede development and be a hindrance. And though there has been no major voice from the industry yet, there are murmurs about the mining industry in particular having serious concerns over the tag. Fears largely centre around additional legislations and frameworks that might be brought in after the UNESCO decision. There are also concerns that since the inscription will invite more international scrutiny in the region, industrial projects might face a tough time in getting environmental clearances.
However, officials in the MoEF say such concerns are unwarranted. “There shouldn’t be any reservation within the industry or among the states with regard to the inscription. It also needs to be understood that the Gadgil committee report and the UNESCO inscription are two completely different things. Since the 39 sites are already protected, there shall not be a need for any new legislation or framework with regard to them,” says a senior MoEF official, on condition of anonymity. Mathur echoes the view, adding that lack of information and misinformation regarding the matter is adding to the confusion. “The cumulative area of the sites which have received the world heritage status is roughly 8,000 sq km, which is just 5% of the total area of the Western Ghats. That’s all that the inscription is related to. So anyone who says that it will stall development is misinformed, as this 5% is already a no-development zone. The inscription says nothing about the remaining 95% of the Western Ghats, which is open to development,” he says.
The Centre, meanwhile, has decided to form a high-level committee to review the recommendations of the WGEEP report. Environment minister Jayanthi Natarajan has said that the new panel would have representatives from relevant ministries along with her own ministry, the six states of Western Ghats, and independent experts. ?We have received a lot of comments from stakeholders on the WGEEP report. Now the new panel will look at the recommendations to review the whole thing. It requires consultations with states, which we will do,? she has said. However, Gadgil has been critical of this move by the Centre, calling it “inappropriate”.
“No expert panel can claim to have the capacity to make specific recommendations and we don’t claim to know everything either. But whatever inputs are required, should come from the local communities and not another set of experts. I’m confident that no expert will disagree with the report. It’s ridiculous and the government shouldn’t do this,” Gadgil told FE.
Also reacting strongly against terming the report “anti-development”, he says, “Often what is to be developed and the idea of development is imposed by the government and can be against the environment and wishes of the local communities. What is dubbed as development can at times be disruptive. States need to carefully go through and analyse the report as it contains extensive discussions on development.” Gadgil has also been pushing for detailed consultations with local communities with regard to the report to take it further. “I’m willing and would be happy to accept any rejection that comes directly from the locals. However, if the states or New Delhi impose their decision on the report as well, then that defies the very logic and the motivation and intention of the report. They should understand that it won’t be the right thing to do,” he adds.
While MoEF officials as well as other experts are refraining from comment on the merits of the WGEEP report, MoEF officials say Gadgil has no reason to be upset over the constitution of a committee to look into the recommendations. “It’s too early to say anything about the scope and manner of implementation of the WGEEP report. But there’s nothing wrong in constituting a committee to review the report and it’s just one of the many tools at the disposal of the government to make informed decisions,” says a senior MoEF official.
The clamour from the six affected states is not helping things, with Kerala and Karnataka in particular having objections to the exhaustive recommendations of the report.
Karnataka on the warpath
For over a year now, Karnataka has been opposing the inclusion of ten sites within its boundaries of the Western Ghats in the UNESCO World Heritage List. The state cites concerns that the heritage tag would hamper social welfare activity in the region, besides impacting livelihood of the local people. With the state government sticking to its stand and environmentalists rallying for the UNESCO tag, the debate has only grown louder.
About 60% of the entire area of the Western Ghats lies in Karnataka, which is also home to a thriving plantation industry, primarily coffee and areca nut. Iron ore mining by state-run KIOCL Ltd in the ghats was stopped in 2005 following a Supreme Court directive. A decade-old plan by the government to build a power plant in an ecologically sensitive zone at Gundia is still hanging fire.
In addition to these concerns, state forest minister CP Yogeshwar last week said that any hindrance to development work in the region may also increase anti-social activities, given that some districts in the Western Ghats already face a naxalite problem. The counter-view is that the increased awareness and tourism would reduce illegal activities.
This situation would not have arisen if the Centre had held extensive consultations with the state government before recommending the inclusion of the Ghats in the list, feels Ananth Hegde Ashishar, chairman of Karnataka’s Western Ghats Task Force, which has the task of developing policies and programmes for conservation and sustainable development of the region. ?Its (state government’s) doubts should have been cleared. There should have been more discussions and consultations involving people’s representatives,? says Ashishar, adding that the task force has welcomed the inclusion of the Ghats as a world heritage site. ?There are two extreme views on both sides regarding this. One, that there is danger in getting the tag, the other is that it alone only can help protection. That is not good.?
?Once the Ghats are declared a world heritage site, UNESCO will provide the funds. This money will not come to the government, but to environmentalists who are greedy for that money. They are not interested in protection,? portends KG Bopaiah, a legislator from Kodagu, a hilly district known for its forests and coffee plantations. Bopaiah, also the speaker of Karnataka’s Legislative Assembly, adds that traditional conservation techniques in Kodagu have ensured protection of the `Devara Kaadu’, or sacred groves, for years until they were handed over to the state’s forest department. “There is no industry in Kodagu except agriculture. How will people live?,? questions Bopaiah, referring to the recommendations by the Gadgil committee on commercial crops in the region ?The first and foremost thing is that our politicians and bureaucracy need to understand the concept. There is nothing wrong in having a tag that will help us,? says Prof TV Ramachandra of the Centre of Ecological Sciences at the Indian Institute of Science, and who is also a member of the Western Ghats Task Force. Ramachandra, who prepared a report on the possible impact of the Gundia project for the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, says people who are talking about conservation are not against development of the region. ?This heritage tag will also highlight the linkages of human culture with ecology and landscape management,? he says, adding, ?Essentially it helps in enhancing the livelihood prospects of the local people. It won’t enhance any naxalite activity.?
Please don?t preach, says Kerala
Kerala has the highest number of sites (19 out of 39) that comprise the Western Ghats, but the state is not exactly in a celebratory mood. The Kerala government has already said it is impractical to implement the recommendations of the WGEEP, and has even sought the intervention of the Prime Minister over the issue. “The environment ministry has been requested to do away with the proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority, for the state government to take appropriate conservation measures on its own,? Kerala chief minister Oommen Chandy has said.
“Winning the UN’s world heritage tag for biodiversity is a bit like preaching to somebody who has already converted,” adds V Gopinath, chief wildlife warden, Kerala. Of the 19 sites, 10 sites are already notified as protected areas, including national parks and tiger reserves. The remaining are either reserve forests or interior forest areas. All the protected areas and reserve forests are governed by the Wildlife Protection Act and the Forest Conservation Act. “It would be business as usual in these areas,” says KB Ganesh Kumar, state forest minister, adding, ?There will be no change in the land-use pattern; the plantations in these sites will remain unchanged. Ecotourism activities currently underway would also go on.”
However, a mixed reaction emanates from industry and tourism circles. “Though we are all for any conservation activity, any policy that would put the squeeze on power availability would be a matter of concern to captains of the industry,” says VK Mathews, chairman, CII Kerala region. “For a state that is deep in a flurry of industrial infrastructure-building with major projects like a bullet train, Kochi Metro and Vizhinjam ICT, the demand for power is skyrocketing. Any kind of restrictions on electricity generation is worrying,” he says, referring to the Madhav Gadgil panel’s axe that has fallen on Kerala’s Athirapally hydro-project.
The Athirapally waterfalls have been a sore point between the MoEF and Kerala government for a long time. From 1994, the state is facing a dilemma whether to go for the 163-mw hydro-electric project at the waterfall or give in to the conservation concerns of “Important Bird Area” (IBA) status that International Bird Association had accorded to the Athirapally area. Kerala power minister Aryadan Mohammed unequivocally argues that dropping the Athirapally hydro-electric project, just as the state is on the verge of a global investor conclave, “Emerging Kerala”, would be damaging to investor confidence in the state.
Further, a report by an organisation called Centre for Consumer Education says implementation of the Gadgil report would be harmful to 93 taluks and 978 villages in Kerala and that Gadgil forbids any agriculture activity in terrain with more than 30% slope.
The tourism sector is relatively the only community that’s optimistic over the new status for biodiversity sites in Kerala. Jose Dominic, who heads the CGH group of hotels in Kerala, says, “The world heritage tag could be an effective marketing tool for tourism if utilised imaginatively. Players in the tourism industry should also be sensitive to the vulnerability of fauna and flora in the ecologically fragile spots.” Conservation has been translating to a tourism surge in Neyyar, Peppara, Chinnar and Shendurney sanctuaries, the forest ranges of Kulathupuzha and Palode, and the forest divisions of Achencoil, Ranni and Konni.
State forest minister Ganesh Kumar, whose first reaction was to welcome the heritage tag, later added carefully that protecting the ecologically sensitive area would be a herculean task that called for huge funds ?in consideration of the “developmental and population pressures on the mountains?.
At the same time, Kerala is unlikely to walk the warpath against the UN heritage tag with Karnataka.
Maharashtra on the middle path
Unlike Kerala and Karnataka, Maharashtra has been a little subdued on the matter. The state has four sites that would fall into heritage site category and most of it is already protected as reserved and wildlife areas. However, parts of the Gadgil panel report have not been accepted by the Maharashtra government. The state government also filed an affidavit recently in this regard in the Bombay High Court.
The panel report says Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts have been seriously impacted, both environmentally and socially, by a number of mining, power projects and polluting industries. The panel has recommended that no new environmental clearances should be given for mining in ESZ1 and 2 and all mining should be phased out from ESZ 1 by 2016. Also, continuation of existing mining in ESZ2 should be under strict regulation.
?We do not agree to all the recommendations made by the report,? says a senior official in the state environment department, who did not wish to be quoted. ?There are only pockets in these regions which have been termed as ecologically sensitive areas. To have a blanket ban on setting up industries in the entire area is something we are not in favour of,? he added. Also, the methodology of zoning has not been accepted by the government.
?It will not be right to stall development in the entire taluka or district when there are only pockets that have been recommended for such status,? says another official. As per the Gadgil panel report, there are 32 talukas of Maharashtra included in ESZ1, with maximum restrictions, reads the affidavit filed in the Bombay High Court. ?Karnataka and Kerala have only 26 and 15 talukas, respectively, in ESZ1. Maharashtra would be most adversely affected. The recommendations of the report are not practical and do not take into consideration local needs,? it says.
In addition, the state government in the affidavit has opposed recommendations against setting up of new thermal power station, wind power projects, restrictions on diversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural, which will mean no new sub stations or grid lines in the region. Also, the state says prohibition on new railway lines, roads, etc, would hamper linkages to power plants and connectivity to important economic centres from these projects.
The state government feels the proposed WGEA’s area of functioning would clash with existing environment agencies. ?Such a heavy bureaucratic set up would lead to bottlenecks in getting clearances for various projects even though they are otherwise permissible,? it adds.
With inputs from Sajan Kumar, Jyotsna Bhatnagar