report of the western ghats ecology expert panel

Report of the Western Ghats 

Ecology Expert Panel 

Part I 

Submitted to 

The Ministry of Environment and Forests, 

Government of India 

31 August 2011

Report of the WGEEP 2011 

Cover Design: 

Courtesy - Kerala State Biodiversity Board 

ii

Report of the WGEEP 

Panel Members 

Prof. Madhav Gadgil 

Shri B.J. Krishnan 

Dr. K.N. Ganeshaiah 

Dr. V.S. Vijayan 

Prof. (Ms.) Renee Borges 

Prof. R. Sukumar 

Dr. Ligia Noronha 

Ms Vidya S. Nayak 

Dr. D. K. Subramaniam 

Dr. R.V. Varma 

Chairman, Kerala State Biodiversity Board 

Chairman 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member (ex-officio) 

Chairman, National Biodiversity Authority 

(NBA) 

Prof S.P. Gautam 

Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board 

(CPCB) 

Dr. R.R. Navalgund 

Director, Space Application Centre (SAC) 

Dr. G.V. Subrahmanyam 

Advisor (RE), Ministry of Environment & 

Forests, Government of India, New Delhi 




Member-Secretary (ex-officio) 

iii


Preface 

India is remarkable for the deep and abiding concern demonstrated by its people and its 

successive Central, State and local Governments towards halting the rapid pace of 

degradation of the environment. Our country has been a pioneer in the area of integrating 

the needs of development with the desire to protect the environment, as reflected in the 

emphasis on sustainable development as a key feature of the development strategy of the 

nation since the Fourth Five Year Plan of the country in the early 1970s. The constitution of 

the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel by the Ministry of Environment and Forests of the 

Government of India is yet another reflection of the seriousness with which our country 

views these significant challenges. 

The Western Ghats are naturally an important focus of sustainable development efforts. The 

protector of the Indian peninsula, the mother of the Godavari, Krishna, Netravathi, Kaveri, 

Kunthi, Vaigai and a myriad other rivers, Kalidasa likens the Western Ghats to a 

charming maiden; Agastyamalai is her head, Annamalai and Nilgiri the breasts, her hips 

the broad ranges of Kanara and Goa, her legs the northern Sahyadris. Once the lady was 

adorned by a sari of rich green hues; today her mantle lies in shreds and tatters. It has 

been torn asunder by the greed of the elite and gnawed at by the poor, striving to eke out a 

subsistence. This is a great tragedy, for this hill range is the backbone of the ecology and 

economy of south India. 

Yet, on the positive side, the Western Ghats region has some of the highest levels of 

literacy in the country, and a high level of environmental awareness. Democratic 

institutions are well entrenched, and Kerala leads the country in capacity building and 

empowering of Panchayat Raj Institutions. Goa has recently concluded a very interesting 

exercise, Regional Plan 2021, of taking inputs from Gram Sabhas in deciding on land use 

policies. Evidently, the Western Ghats constitutes an appropriate region of the country to 

attempt to make the transition towards an inclusive, caring and environment-friendly 

mode of development. 

It is therefore with tremendous enthusiasm that the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel has 

approached its appointed task. The Panel embarked upon the assignment through a multipronged 

strategy which included (i) compilation of all readily available and accessible 

information on the Western Ghats, (ii) development of a geospatial database on ecological 

sensitivity for the entire Western Ghats region which would provide a multi-criteria decision 

support system for demarcation of ecologically sensitive areas, and (iii) comprehensive 

consultations with principal stakeholders which included civil society groups, government 

officials, and peoples’ representatives, ranging from members of Gram Panchayats and Zilla 

Parishads to MLAs and MPs. 

It is noteworthy that in all these endeavors special effort was made to have wide-ranging 

discussions with complete transparency. All the information generated by the Panel 

including the geospatial database is publicity available through a dedicated website created 

for the Panel. 

During the course of the last one and half years, Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel has 

had fourteen Panel meetings wherein the Panel deliberated at length on various issues 

related to the Western Ghats region. The detailed minutes of all these meetings are available 

on the Ministry’s website. These meeting were interspersed with brainstorming sessions, 

public consultations and field visits. The central stream of thought was to develop a sound 

v


scientific methodology/basis for arriving at decisions, with these decisions deliberated upon 

by adopting a participatory approach. 

The report embodies among other things (i) categorization of the Western Ghats into three 

zones of varied ecological sensitivity, based upon careful analysis done by WGEEP, (ii) 

broad sectoral guidelines for each of these zones, and (iii) a broad framework for 

establishment of the Western Ghats Ecology Authority. 

In this endeavor, the Panel has utilized the expertise of a number of people and 

organizations to whom the panel expresses its gratitude. The Panel thanks the Ministry of 

Environment and Forests, Government of India, for giving it this unique opportunity to be 

part of a very significant initiative directed at conserving the natural heritage of the Western 

Ghats – a global biodiversity hotspot. 


Chairman 

Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel 

vi


Acknowledgements 

The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) acknowledges the valuable inputs 

provided by the Hon. Ministers for Environment and Forests, GoI, several Ministers of State 

Governments, and the Members of Parliament of the Western Ghats region. 

The WGEEP acknowledges the help and cooperation provided by the State Environment 

and Forest Departments, as well as other departments including Rural Development and 

Panchayat Raj, and institutions such as KILA and KFRI of various Western Ghats States viz. 

Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. 

The WGEEP acknowledges the members of all the civil society groups who have interacted 

and shared their invaluable experience and information with the Panel. Many of them have 

played an important role in evolving policy and management formulations for the 

ecologically sensitive zones. Individual names of the members and the civil society groups 

appear at relevant places in the Annexures. 

The WGEEP acknowledges with great pleasure the warmth with which people at the grassroots 

welcomed it and shared their understanding, perceptions and concerns. 

The WGEEP acknowledges the significant and critical inputs provided by Shri Sanjay 

Upadhyay, Advocate, Supreme Court and Managing Partner, ELDF, regarding the 

modalities for setting up the proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority. 

Most importantly, the Western Ghats Ecology Expert panel puts on record its gratitude to 

Dr. S.N. Prasad and its deep appreciation of his effort in preparing the geospatial database 

for arriving at ecological sensitivity levels for the whole Western Ghats region. This 

database is the basis for defining the proposed ecologically sensitive zones across the 

Western Ghats. 

The Panel would also like to acknowledge the following persons for their invaluable help 

and assistance in accessing the data and information required for the geospatial database 

used by WGEEP: 

1. Mr Kiran, Arundhati Das, V Srinivasan and Dr Jagdish Krishnaswamy of ATREE 

(Habitat-related information for parts of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil 

Nadu) 

2. Mr Ravindra Bhalla of FERAL and Mr Bhaskar Acharya of CEPF 

3. Dr R J R Daniels of Care Earth (point locations of mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians 

and fishes) 

4. Dr K A Subramanian, ZSI (point locations of Odonata) 

5. Prof R Sukumar (elephant corridors) 

6. Dr K N Ganeshiah (Western Ghats boundary) 

7. Dr P S Roy (habitat information and shapefiles for Gujarat and Maharashtra) 

8. Dr Bharucha and Dr Shamita of BVIEER, Pune, and Dr Jay Samant and his colleagues 

from DEVRAAI, Kolhapur (data on parts of Maharashtra) 

9. Dr K S Rajan Open Source Geospatial Foundation – India chapter and IIIT, Hyderabad 

(geospatial statistical analyses) 

vii


10. Dr P V K Nair, KFRI (analyses for Kerala) 

11. Mr Santosh Gaikwad, Mr Siva Krishna, Mr Ravi Kumar, Ch. Appalachari, and Mr Sai 

Prasad of SACON for their invaluable and dogged GIS work 

12. Ms Amruta Joglekar of Garware College, Pune, for able support in the work of the Panel 

for its Maharashtra segment. 

The Panel acknowledges the efficient support provided by Ms. Geetha Gadgakar, Centre for 

Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, in convening the Panel meetings 

and brainstorming sessions, and by Ms. Saroj Nair, The Energy and Resources Institute, 

(TERI) New Delhi with the formatting of the report. Special thanks to Ms Shaily Kedia of 

TERI, for research support at various points. 

The WGEEP acknowledges the whole-hearted support provided by the Ministry of 

Environment and Forests, Government of India, and its officers. In particular we wish to 

acknowledge the unstinting and enthusiastic support provided by Dr Amit Love (Deputy 

Director, MoEF). 

viii


Table of Contents 

PREFACE .......................................................................................................................................... V 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................................... VII 

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... XI 

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................... XII 

LIST OF BOXES .......................................................................................................................... XIII 

LIST OF A NNEXURES ............................................................................................................ XIV 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... XV 

REPORT OF THE PANEL – PART I .................................................................................................. 1 

1. Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1 

2. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2 

3. Mandate of the Panel ....................................................................................................... 3 

4. Organization of the report .............................................................................................. 4 

5. Activities undertaken ...................................................................................................... 5 

6. Boundaries of the Western Ghats .................................................................................. 5 

7. The Setting ........................................................................................................................ 8 

8. Develop sustainably – conserve thoughtfully ........................................................... 13 

9. Ecologically Sensitive Zones ........................................................................................ 16 

9.1 Western Ghats Database ............................................................................................ 17 

10. ESZ assignment .............................................................................................................. 20 

11. Existing ESZs: Lessons Learnt ...................................................................................... 27 

12. Buffering Protected Areas ............................................................................................. 37 

12.1 Bhimashankar Wild Life Sanctuary ....................................................................... 39 

12.2 A people-oriented process to ESZ delimitation ......................................................... 40 

13. Proposed guidelines/summary recommendations for sector-wise activities ...... 41 

13.1 Regional Plans and ESZs ...................................................................................... 47 

14. Western Ghats Ecology Authority ............................................................................... 49 

14.1 The Legal Framework ............................................................................................. 52 

15. Athirappilly and Gundia Hydel projects .................................................................... 58 

15.1 The Athirappilly Project ........................................................................................ 58 

15.2 Gundia hydroelectric project .................................................................................. 65 

16. Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts ............................................................................. 71 

16.1 Assignment of levels of ecological sensitivity ........................................................ 71 

16.2 Deficit in environmental governance ..................................................................... 71 

16.3 Recommendations .................................................................................................. 74 

ix


17. Mining in Goa ................................................................................................................. 76 

17.1 Status and Trends .................................................................................................. 76 

17.2 Footprints of mining .............................................................................................. 77 

17.3 Governance Issues .................................................................................................. 81 

17.4 Recommendations .................................................................................................. 84 

Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 86 

Appendix 1: Methodology employed in generating and interpreting the Western Ghats 

Database and assigning ESZs .................................................................................... 86 

Appendix 2: Proposed assignment of various Western Ghats Talukas to ESZ1, ESZ2 and 

ESZ3 ........................................................................................................................... 92 

Appendix 3: Proposed ESZ1, and ESZ2 assignment of various Western Ghats talukas for 

which less than 50% area is within the Western Ghats boundary............................. 95 

Appendix 4 : Current Science Paper ................................................................................ 97 

References ............................................................................................................................ 146 

x


List of Tables 

Table 1 Geographical attributes of the Western Ghats ................................................................... 8 

Table 2 Specific proposals for new Ecologically Sensitive Localities (ESL) ............................... 19 

Table 3 Proposed assignment of various Western Ghats districts to ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 .. 25 

Table 4 Proposed ESZ1, and ESZ2 assignment of various talukas for which less than 50% 

area is within Western Ghats boundary................................................................................. 25 

Table 5 Proposals for Ecologically Sensitive Localities (ESL) in Sindhudurg District ............. 26 

Table 6 Proposed guidelines and summary recommendations for sector-wise activities ....... 41 

Table 7 Salient features of the proposed Gundia Hydroelectric project ................................... 66 

Table 8 Survey Responses to mining activity ................................................................................ 84 

xi


List of Figures 

Figure 1 Western Ghats Boundary ................................................................................................... 7 

Figures 2–7 Depicting PAs and ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 ................................................................. 22 

Figure 8 Production of Iron ore in Goa (1992-2009) ...................................................................... 77 

Figure 9 Mining leases in Goa ......................................................................................................... 78 

Figure 10 Sedimentation of river beds and estuaries .................................................................... 79 

Figure 11 Overburden dumps close to waterbodies ..................................................................... 79 

xii


List of Boxes 

Box 1: Development by Exclusion: Lote MIDC and pollution of Dabhol creek ...................... 14 

Box 2: Conservation by Exclusion: Soligas of BRT hills.............................................................. 15 

Box 3: Adaptive Co-management .................................................................................................. 15 

Box 4: Mapping Ecologically Significant and Sensitive Areas of the Western Ghats: Proposed 

Protocols and Methodology ..................................................................................................... 18 

Box 5: A grass-roots level initiative ............................................................................................... 26 

Box 6: Extracts from resolution of Gram Sabha of village Talkat, Taluka Dodamarg, District 

Sindhudurg (translated from Marathi)................................................................................... 27 

Box 7: Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority ........................................................ 29 

Box 8: Mahabaleshwar Panchgani Eco-Sensitive Zone .............................................................. 31 

Box 9: A summary of feedback from citizens in Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani ESZ ................. 35 

Box 10: Kolhapur Wild Life Division’s proposed management rules for Ecologically 

Sensitive Zones around Protected Areas ............................................................................... 38 

Box 11: Regional Plans and the WGEA ......................................................................................... 48 

Box 12: PILs in mining in Goa ........................................................................................................ 83 

xiii


List of Annexures 

Annexures A: Establishment of Expert Panel on Western Ghats .............................................. 110 

Annexure B: Commissioned Papers ............................................................................................. 115 

Annexure C : Brainstorming Sessions ........................................................................................... 122 

Annexure D: Consultations with Government Officials ............................................................ 128 

Annexure E: Public Consultations/ Roundtable/ Consultations with Civil Society Groups . 131 

Annexure F: Field Visits .................................................................................................................. 144 

xiv


List of Abbreviations 

ATREE 

BMC 

BVIEER 

CCF 

CEA 

CEC 

CEIA 

CES 

CETP 

CFR 

CPSS 

CRDS 

CPCB 

CZMA 

DCR 

DEC 

DEVRAAI 

DP 

DEC 

DPC(s) 

DPDC 

DPR 

DRP 

DTEPA 

DTP 

EAC 

EPA 

Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment 

Biodiversity Management Committee 

Bharati Vidyapeeth Institute of Environmental Education and Research 

Chief Conservator of Forests 

Central Electricity Authority 

Central Empowered Committee 

Comprehensive Environment Impact Assessment 

Centre for Ecological Sciences 

Common effluent treatment plant 

Community Forest Resources 

Chalakudy Puzha Samrakshana Samithi 

Chalakudy River Diversion Scheme 

Central Pollution Control Board 

Coastal Zone Management Authority 

Development Control Regulations 

District Ecology Committees 

Development Research, Awareness & Action Institute 

Development Plan 

District Ecological Committee 

District Planning Committee (s) 

District Planning and Development Council 

Detailed Project Report 

District Regional Plans 

Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority 

Director of Town Planning 

Environment Appraisal Committee 

Environment Protection Act 

xv


EPR 

ESA 

ESL 

ESZ 

EVI 

FGD 

FRA 

FSI 

GAP 

GGGJDC 

GHEP 

GMO 

GMOEA 

GOK 

GoM 

GRIHA 

GRP 

HEP 

HLMC 

HT 

IBWL 

JNNURM 

KFRI 

KMDA 

KPCL 

KSBB 

KSEB 

KSSP 

Environment (Protection) Rules 

Ecologically Sensitive Area 

Ecologically Sensitive Locality 

Ecologically Sensitive Zone 

Enhanced Vegetation Index 

Flue gas desulfurizer 

Forest Rights Act 

Floor Space Index 

Good Agricultural Practice 

Goa Government’s Golden Jubilee Development Council 

Gundia Hydro-Electric Project 

Genetically modified organisms 

Goa Mineral Exporters Association 

Government of Karnataka 

Government of Maharashtra 

Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment 

Goa Regional Plan 

Hydro Electric Project 

High Level Monitoring Committee 

high tension 

Indian Board of Wild Life 

Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission 

Kerala Forest Research institute 

Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority 

Karnataka Power Corporation Limited 

Kerala State Biodiversity Board 

Kerala State Electricity Board 

Kerala Sastra Sahithya Parishath 

xvi


LSG 

MAHASESA 

MMDR 

MCD 

MCM 

MCR 

MFD 

MGNREGA 

MIDC 

MMDR 

MODIS 

MoEF 

MoTA 

MPC 

MPESZ 

MPT 

MTDC 

NCAER 

NCF 

NDVI 

NEERI 

NIO 

OGC 

PA(s) 

PCCF 

PESA 

PIL 

PPP 

Local Self Governments 

Maharashtra Sahyadri Ecologically Sensitive Area 

Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act. 

Municipal Corporation Districts 

Million cubic metres 

Mineral Concession Rules. 

Maharashtra Forest Department 

The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation 

Minerals and Metals (Development and Regulation) 

Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer 

Ministry of Environment and Forests 

Ministry of Tribal Affairs 

Metropolitan Planning Committee 

Mahabaleshwar Panchgani Ecological Sensitive Zone 

Mormugao Port Trust 

Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation 

National Council of Applied Economic Research 

Nature Conservation Foundation 

Normalized Differential Vegetation Index 

National Environmental Engineering Research Institute 

National Institute of Oceanography 

Open Geospatial Standards 

Protected Area(s) 

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (India) 

Panchayat Extension to the Scheduled Areas Act 

Public Interest Litigation 

Public Private Partnership 

xvii


PRI 

PWD 

RRC 

RTI 

SAM 

SEZ 

SPCB 

SRTM 

SRUDPA 

STPs 

TBGRI 

TERI 

TIFF 

ULB 

UNESCO 

VP(s) 

WAPCOS 

WG 

WGEA 

WGEEP 

WGMCMP 

WLS 

ZASI 

ZMP 

ZP 

Panchayat Raj Institution 

Public Works Department 

River Research Centre 

Right To Information 

Spatial analyses in Macro Ecology 

Special Economic Zones 

State Pollution Control Board 

Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission 

State Regional and Urban Development Planning Acts 

Sewage Treatment Plants 

Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute 

The Energy and Resources Institute 

Tagged Image File Format 

Urban Local Body 

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization 

Village Panchayat(s) 

Water and Power Consultancy Services 

Western Ghats 

Western Ghats Ecology Authority 


Western Ghats Master Conservation and Management Plan 

Wild Life Sanctuary 

Zoning Atlas for Siting of Industries 

Zonal Master Plan 

Zilla Parishad 

xviii


Report of the Panel – Part I 

1. Summary 

On the basis of careful and extensive compilation of information, and wide-ranging field 

visits, consultations and analysis, the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) has 

designated the entire Western Ghats as an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) and, assigned 

three levels of Ecological Sensitivity to different regions of it. These are termed as 

Ecologically Sensitive Zone 1 (ESZ1), Ecologically Sensitive Zone 2 (ESZ2) and Ecologically 

Sensitive Zone 3 (ESZ3). A number of specific proposals received by the Panel from 

individual Gram Panchayats as well as NGOs from different parts of the Western Ghats are 

referred to as Ecologically Sensitive Localities (ESL). 

The database employs square grids of ~ 9 km x 9 km that do not correspond either to natural 

features such as watersheds, or administrative units such as village or taluka boundaries. It 

will clearly be desirable to put in place a system of zonation that jointly considers microwatersheds 

and village boundaries to decide on specific limits of ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3, as 

well as to arrive at a locality specific management plan. This would be a task that will have 

to be initiated by the Western Ghats Ecology Authority through a broad-based participatory 

process when it is put in place. However, as a first step, we suggest the Ministry of 

Environment and Forests provisionally notify the initial limits of ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 

based on WGEEP analysis. This may be most appropriately done at Taluka/Block level. With 

this in view, we have gone ahead and assigned ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 levels to all the 142 

talukas within the Western Ghats boundary. The assigned ESZ level to the taluka is that 

ESZ that covers the largest fraction of the taluka. In the case of Goa, 1 minute x 1 minute 

grids were used and the zones across talukas were defined based on ecological 

significance of grids. 

WGEEP advocates a graded or layered approach, with regulatory as well as promotional 

measures appropriately fine-tuned to local ecological and social contexts within the broad 

framework of ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3. While we advocate this fine-tuning through a 

participatory process going down to gram sabhas, it is appropriate to provide a broad set of 

guidelines as a starting point. WGEEP has attempted to arrive at such a set of broad guidelines 

for the various sectors on the basis of extensive consultations with officials, experts, 

civil society groups and citizens at large. 

WGEEP recommends that no new dams based on large scale storage be permitted in 

Ecologically Sensitive Zone 1 as defined by the Panel. Since both the Athirappilly and 

Gundia hydel project sites fall in Ecologically Sensitive Zone 1, these projects should not be 

accorded environmental clearance. 

For the state of Goa, WGEEP recommends an indefinite moratorium on new environmental 

clearances for mining in Ecologically Sensitive Zones 1 and 2, a phasing out of mining in 

Ecologically Sensitive Zone 1 by 2016 and continuation of existing mining in Ecologically 

Sensitive Zone 2 under strict regulation with an effective system of social audit. The 

moratorium on new clearances in ESZ2 can be revisited as and when the situation improves 

and when a comprehensive study on the impact of mining on the ecology, environment, 

human health, and biodiversity by a competent multidisciplinary team, working along with 

people’s institutions, has been concluded. 

The Panel has been asked to suggest an appropriate course of further development of 

mining, power production and polluting industries in Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts of


Maharashtra. Only portions of these districts are covered by the Western Ghats, and for 

which WGEEP has completed assignment of Ecologically Sensitive Zones and provided 

guidelines for sectors. For these Western Ghats regions of the district, the Panel recommends 

an indefinite moratorium on new environmental clearances for mining in Ecologically 

Sensitive Zones 1 and 2, a phasing out of mining in Ecologically Sensitive Zone 1 by 2016 

and continuation of existing mining in Ecologically Sensitive Zone 2 under strict regulation 

with an effective system of social audit. It also recommends that in Ecologically Sensitive 

Zones 1 and 2, no new polluting (red and orange category) industries, which would include 

coal-based power plants, should be permitted to be established; the existing red and orange 

category industries should be asked to switch to zero pollution by 2016, again with an 

effective system of social audit. 

WGEEP has not undertaken any extensive compilation of pertinent information and 

assignment of levels of ecological sensitivity to the plains and coastal portions of Ratnagiri 

and Sindhudurg districts falling outside the Western Ghats. Nevertheless, the limited 

investigations of the Panel in these plains and coastal tracts suggest that these are under 

severe environmental and social stress, and it is essential that a careful Cumulative Impact 

Analysis of various development activities in these tracts, ideally in conjunction with Raigad 

district of Maharashtra and the state of Goa, must be immediately undertaken, preferably 

under the leadership of the National Institute of Oceanography, Goa. The Panel 

recommends that the current moratorium on new environmental clearances for mining, and 

red and orange category polluting industries and power plants in the plains and coastal 

tracts of Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts should be extended till satisfactory completion 

of a Carrying Capacity analysis for these districts. The moratorium may then be reviewed in 

light of the findings of the study. 

The Panel believes that immediate steps must be taken to address the issue of a serious 

deficit in environmental governance all over the Western Ghats tract. The Panel is impressed 

both by levels of environmental awareness and commitment of citizens towards the cause of 

the environment, and their helplessness in the face of their marginalization in the current 

system of governance. The Panel urges the Ministry of Environment and Forests to take a 

number of critical steps to involve citizens. These would include: pro-active and sympathetic 

implementation of the provisions of the Community Forest Resources of the Forest Rights 

Act, establishment of fully empowered Biodiversity Management Committees in all local 

bodies, promotion of programmes on the pattern of ‘Conservation of biodiversity rich areas 

of Udumbanchola taluka’ formulated by the Kerala State Biodiversity Board, a radical 

reform of Environmental Impact Analysis and Clearance processes, pro-active disclosure of 

all information of public interest interpreted in the broadest possible sense, a revival of the 

Paryavaran Vahini programme, and institution of a social audit process for all 

environmental issues on the model of that for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural 

Employment Guarantee Act in Andhra Pradesh. 

2. Introduction 

“When ascending, and on gaining the summit of any of these passes (in the Western Ghats), the 

scenery which everywhere presents itself is of the grandest kind. Some idea of it may be formed by 

imagining mountains succeeding mountains, three or four thousand feet high, covered with trees, 

except in places where the huge, black, barren rocks are so solid as to prevent the hardiest shrub from 

finding root in their clefts. The verdure about the Ghats to the southward of Poona is perpetual, but 

during the rainy season, especially towards the latter part of it, when the torrents are pouring from 

the sides of the mountains, the effect is greatly heightened by the extreme luxuriance of vegetation”. 

- Grant Duff (1826) History of Marathas, Vol. 1 

2


Describing King Raghu's conquest of the four corners of India, Kalidasa likens the mountain 

range of Western Ghats to a comely young maiden, her head near Kanyakumari, Anaimalais 

and Nilgiris her breasts, Goa her hips, and her feet near river Tapi. All over the world, such 

mountains, endowed as they are with high levels of environmental heterogeneity, are 

treasure troves of natural diversity. Thus, in the Western Ghats the annual rainfall ranges 

from as much as 8000 mm in the southwestern corner of the upper Nilgiris to a mere 500 

mm in the Moyar gorge just 30 km to its east. In contrast, the annual rainfall spans a range of 

no more than 1000 mm over hundreds of kilometers across the Deccan plateau. Mountains 

also create isolated habitats far away from other similar habitats, promoting local speciation. 

Hence distinct species of the flowering plant Rhododendron and the mountain tahr goat 

Hemitragus occur on the higher reaches of the Western Ghats and Himalayas, with a large 

gap in the distribution of these genera in between. Moreover, mountains, being less 

hospitable to human occupation, retain much larger areas under natural or semi-natural 

biological communities. This is why the Western Ghats and the Eastern Himalayas are today 

the most significant repositories of India's biodiversity. Amongst them, the Western Ghats 

scores over the Eastern Himalayas in harbouring a larger number of species restricted to 

India alone. Not only are the Western Ghats and Eastern Himalayas biological treasure 

troves, they are also two of the world's biodiversity hot spots, a hot spot being a 

biodiversity-rich area that is also under a high degree of threat. 

3. Mandate of the Panel 

In view of the environmental sensitivity and ecological significance of the Western Ghats 

region and the complex interstate nature of its geography, as well as possible impacts of 

climate change on this region, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of 

India, constituted, by an order dated 4 March 2010, a Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel 

(WGEEP) (Appendix A ). 

The Panel was asked to perform the following functions: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

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. 

3


(vi) 

(vii) 

To deal with any other relevant environment and ecological issues pertaining to 

Western Ghats Region, including those which may be referred to it by the Central 

Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests. 

The Ministry has subsequently asked the Panel to include in its mandate (a) the 

entire stretch of Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts, including the coastal region, and 

to specifically examine the (b) Gundia and (c) Athirappilly Hydroelectric projects. (d) 

recommendations with regard to the moratorium on new mining licenses in Goa. 

4. Organization of the report 

This report is divided in two Parts, Part I and Part II. Part I is the main report of the WGEEP 

which deals with all the terms of reference while Part II contains elaborate discussion on 

current status of ecology of Western Ghats and specific detailed write ups on various sectors 

such as Land Use and Human Settlements, Water resources, Agriculture (including 

Horticulture and Plantations), Forestry and Biodiversity, Industry – organized, Mining, 

Power and Energy, Tourism, Transport and Communication, Education, Science and 

Technology and Information Management on which the recommendations of the Panel 

made in the main report were based. 

Section 1 of this Part I summarizes the issues dealt with in Part I. Section 2 provides an 

introduction; Section 3 deals with the mandate; Section 4 explains the organization of the 

report; Section 5 deals with the activities undertaken, Section 6 deals with the boundaries of 

the Western Ghats region, Section 7 deals with the overall setting of the Western Ghats and 

Section 8 outlines an inclusive approach to conservation / development issues that WGEEP 

believes should guide further development when the Western Ghats Ecology Authority 

(WGEA) has been put in place. Sections 9 and 10 discuss the concept of ecologically sensitive 

areas / zones, outline the development of a Western Ghats Database employed to demarcate 

ecologically sensitive zones and lay out the specific proposals of WGEEP for areas within the 

Western Ghats Region which need to be notified as ecologically sensitive zones 1, 2 and 3 

under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Section 11 reviews the current pattern of 

management of ecologically sensitive areas / zones and reviews our experiences with the 

establishment and management of existing ecologically sensitive areas / zones. Section 12 

goes on to review the experience of as yet nascent proposals of establishing ecologically 

sensitive areas / zones around Protected Areas of Western Ghats. Section 13 outlines an 

inclusive approach to conservation / development issues that WGEEP believes should guide 

further development of ecologically sensitive areas / zones in the Western Ghats and 

proposes a series of guidelines for regulation of activities that may potentially have 

environmentally adverse impacts as well as promotion of activities that may potentially 

have environmentally positive impacts in ecologically sensitive areas / zones 1, 2, and 3 in 

the Western Ghats. Section 14 puts forward our proposals for the establishment, 

composition and functioning of the Western Ghats Ecology Authority in the Centre and 

associated state level Western Ghats Ecology Authorities as well as District Ecology 

Committees. Section 15 provides reviews and recommendations of WGEEP with respect to 

Athirappilly and Gundia Hydroelectric projects. Section 16 provides a review of the 

prevalent situation in, and recommendations of WGEEP with respect to Ratnagiri and 

Sindhudurg districts. Finally, Section 17 provides a review of the prevalent situation in and 

recommendations of WGEEP with respect to mining leases in Goa. The appendices, 

annexures and references conclude Part I of this Report. 

4


5. Activities undertaken 

WGEEP initiated its activities on March 30, 2010 with a meeting in Bengaluru. It has 

subsequently held a total of 14 Panel meetings, concluding with a meeting on 16-17 August 

2011 at Bengaluru. It obtained extensive inputs from the civil society as also Government 

agencies and technical experts with the help of a series of 42 Commissioned papers, 7 

brainstorming sessions, 1 Expert Consultative Meeting, 8 consultations with Government 

agencies and 40 consultations with civil society groups, and 14 field visits. In addition, 

extensive inputs were obtained from both Government agencies and civil society groups in 

Goa through the involvement of two members of WGEEP, Madhav Gadgil and Ligia 

Noronha as members of Goa Government’s Golden Jubilee Development Council. WGEEP 

also set up a public website to obtain civil society inputs. Further details of these activities 

are provided in Appendices B- F. 

The mandate of WGEEP poses a number of scientific challenges. It calls for a comprehensive 

understanding of the current status and ongoing changes in the ecology of this extensive 

region covering approximately 129037 sq km, with a special focus on the implications of 

manifold human interventions. A great deal of information on these issues is available; 

however, the information is of variable quality and reliability, is often not properly 

referenced spatially, and is poorly organized. Thus, for example, the on-going exercise of the 

Goa Regional Plan 2021 undertook the tasks of compilation of manifold data scattered with 

different State Governmental agencies that had never been brought together in one place, 

and organizing it spatially on a Google Earth image platform. This is something that is 

readily possible today for the entire Western Ghats tract, and WGEEP decided to initiate 

such an exercise. Indeed the Pronab Sen Committee had strongly recommended that such an 

exercise be immediately undertaken for the whole country, as early as 2000. WGEEP has 

made an appropriate beginning, albeit fully a decade later. 

A key mandate of WGEEP is to demarcate areas within the Western Ghats Region which 

need to be notified as ecologically sensitive zones under the Environment (Protection) Act, 

1986. WGEEP hopes to anchor this on empirical facts with the help of the database that is 

together for this purpose. An appropriate scientific methodology has been developed for 

this purpose, and published in the January 25, 2011 issue of the journal Current Science 

soliciting feedback from the public (Appendix 4). 

6. Boundaries of the Western Ghats 

Given its mandate, WGEEP has attempted to define the Western Ghats from an 

environmental view-point. The term Western Ghats refers to the practically unbroken hill 

chain (with the exception of the Palakkad Gap) or escarpment running roughly in a northsouth 

direction, for about 1500 km parallel to the Arabian sea coast, from the river Tapi 

(about 21 0 16’ N) down to just short of Kanyakumari (about 8 0 19’ N) at the tip of the Indian 

peninsula. In some accounts the term Western Ghats or Sahyadris is restricted only to the 

western escarpment of the Peninsular Plateau from the Tapi southwards to the region of 

Kodagu, (about 12 degrees N) while the higher mountain ranges further south, including the 

Nilgiris, the Anamalais, the Cardamom hills and the Agasthyamalai range, being referred to 

as a distinct geological entity named as the Southern Block (Mani 1974). For our purposes 

we use the term Western Ghats in the broader sense to include the entire tract of hills from 

the Tapi to Kanyakumari. 

5


One issue that has to be resolved while defining the boundaries of the Western Ghats is its 

eastern limits in relation to what has been geographically termed as the Eastern Ghats. There 

have, however, been few attempts to accurately define the borders of these Ghats and hence 

the boundaries still remain elusive. The Western Ghats also have a number of eastern and 

western spurs, particularly in Maharashtra and Tamilnadu, making it difficult to define a 

precise boundary. Several institutions both at national (e.g. National Remote Sensing 

Agency) and international (e.g. Birdlife International, Conservation International) levels, 

have tried to define the boundaries, usually in the context of their biodiversity survey and 

conservation programmes, but these do not tally . Clearly the lack of consensus among these 

attempts could be because the drivers used for defining the boundaries are either not always 

defined or are not agreed upon. 

For the purpose of defining the boundary of the Western Ghats, we used altitude and forest 

area or vegetation as drivers defining the boundaries. Our operational definition for the 

`Ghats’ therefore is forest area above a certain altitude. Accordingly we demarcated the 

eastern edge by identifying the forested areas that are above 500 m; the rationale for this cut 

off followed from the digital data which showed that, in general, 500m constitutes the 

elevation at which the Western Ghats rise discretely from the Deccan plateau. For the 

western edge, we used a cut off of forested areas at 150 m and above as the Ghats fall more 

steeply down to the coastline as compared to the eastern side of the Ghats 1 . We also found 

that whenever the forested areas at elevations of more than 150m drop directly into the 

ocean or within a distance of 1km of the coastline, it was difficult to define the coast. Hence, 

in such situations (as in parts of Maharashtra), the coastline itself was considered as the 

western edge of the Ghats. We used the land-use map developed by Forest Survey of India 

to demarcate forested areas, and GTOPO30 (Global 30 Arc-Second Elevation Data Set) for 

altitude details at 1 x 1 km resolution. The boundaries were defined by overlaying these two 

datasets and following the criteria defined above. We also used the annual cumulative NDVI 

(normalized differential vegetation index) values as a surrogate for vegetation or forest 

cover 2 but eventually found that the Forest Survey of India’s map per se was sufficient for 

the purpose. 

It is generally agreed upon in the scientific literature that the southern-most and westernmost 

extent of the Eastern Ghats is the hill range in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu known as 

the Biligirirangans (Mani 1974). The meeting place of the Western Ghats (the Nilgiris) and 

the Eastern Ghats (Biligirirangans) is the Moyar river valley between the Sigur plateau and 

the Talamalai plateau at a much lower elevation (250 m) between the two hill ranges. There 

is however both topographic and forest contiguity between the two ranges of the Nilgiris 

and the Biligirirangans making it difficult to mark a clear geographic boundary. The region 

between the Nilgiris and the Biligirirangans thus constitutes important habitat contiguity for 

several floral and faunal elements and, hence, it would be prudent to include the latter hill 

range within the ambit of the proposed Western Ghats Authority that aims to conserve the 

ecology of the Ghats. 

We thus propose that the Biligirirangan range of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, running in a 

north-south direction for about 150 km, be included within the boundaries of the Western 

Ghats for the purposes of the Western Ghats Authority. A clear boundary has to be 

identified for the eastern boundary of the Biligirirangans and we propose the following 

1 

This cutoff to decide on the boundary needs to be revisited as it is an approximation. 

2 

NDVI is a Normalized Differential Vegetation Index computed as a ratio of (NIR-RED) to (NIR + RED), where 

NIR and RED are near infrared and red bands respectively. It characterizes the vegetation cover in an area. 

6


unambiguous administrative boundary that also corresponds to a topographic boundary. 

For the northern part of the Biligirirangans in Karnataka the boundary would be the 

boundary of the Chamrajnagar Forest Division that precisely abuts the highway from 

Kollegal to Satyamangalam in the east. For the southern part of the Biligirirangans in Tamil 

Nadu, we propose the eastern boundary of the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve that incorporates a 

part of the Satyamangalam Forest Division and also abuts to its east the Kollegal- 

Satyamangalam highway. 

As per these boundaries, the Western Ghats stretches to a length of 1490 km from Tapi 

Valley in the north to Kanyakumari in south. (Figure 1) With an area of approximately 

129037 sq km, it stretches to a width of 210 km in Tamilnadu and narrows to as small as 48 

km in Maharashtra (leaving the Palghat gap). We must however admit that the Western 

Ghats Ecology Authority, when put in place, will have to take another look at the 

boundaries we suggest, since we have not been able to find the time to examine and refine 

these with enough care. For example, we noticed too late for correction that important areas 

such as Dapoli and Guhagar in Ratnagiri District, and secondary ranges of the Western 

Ghats in Thane and Raigad districts such as Tungareshwar, Manor, Tansa, Vaitarna, Prabal 

etc have been excluded. Table 1 provides the geographical attributes of the Western Ghats. 

Figure 1 Western Ghats Boundary 

7


Table 1 Geographical attributes of the Western Ghats 

Attributes of the Western Ghats 

Northern limit 

Eastern limit 

Total area 

End-to-end length 

Min width 

Max width 

8 0 19’ 8‛ - 21 0 16’ 24‛ (N) 

72 0 56’ 24‛ - 78 0 19’ 40‛ (E) 

129037 sq km 

1490 km 

48 km 

210 km 

Thus defined, Western Ghats do not correspond exactly to particular administrative units 

such as districts and talukas. The district boundaries do not, by and large, coincide with 

limits of Western Ghats, except in a few cases such as Kodagu, Nilgiris, Wynaad and Idukki. 

The majority of districts also include either West Coast or Western Peninsular tract regions 

along with Western Ghats areas. 

Western Ghats as an administrative entity was therefore first visualized only in the context 

of Regional Planning exercises, beginning with a report prepared by the Town and Country 

Planning Organization, Delhi in the 1960s. This report delineated the Western Ghats at 

Taluka level, and became the basis of the Planning Commission’s Western Ghats 

Development Programme(WGDP) initiated in 1974-75 across 132 talukas. 3 This serves as 

the basis of disbursement of Central Government assistance. However, it must be noted that 

this administrative definition has no implications in terms of environmental regulation. 

Since talukas do constitute a reasonable administrative unit for defining the Western Ghats, 

WGEEP proposes that talukas be the focus for our further discussion. 

7. The Setting 

The hill chain of the Western Ghats, a treasure trove of biodiversity and the water tower of 

Peninsular India, runs parallel to the West coast of India from the river Tapi in the north to 

Kanyakumari in the south. The Ghats descend steeply to the coastal plains on the west, but 

merge rather gently through a series of hills with the Deccan plateau. Geologically the Ghats 

fall into two sections. North of the river Kali is the Deccan trap country of relatively fragile 

rocks and flat hill tops. The hills do not rise much beyond 1500 m in this tract. South of Kali 

is the region of Precambrian archean crystalline rocks which are much harder. The hills tend 

to be rounded and rise to 2000 m or more. 

The Western Ghats force the moisture laden winds coming off the Arabian Sea to rise and 

receive in consequence heavy precipitation of 2000 mm or more a year. To the lee of the 

Ghats is a region of rain shadow; and the eastern slopes of the Ghats are much drier than 

3 

The WGDP is currently being implemented in 171 talukas of Western Ghats viz. Maharashtra (63 

taluka), Karnataka (40 talukas), Kerala (32 talukas), Tamil Nadu (33 talukas) and Goa (3 ) talukas) as 

some of the original talukas have been sub-divided. Source: 

http://planningcommission.nic.in/aboutus/committee/wrkgrp11/tg11_hillarea.pdf accessed in August 

2011 

8


the Western face. The rainfall is heavier to the south and extends over 8–9 months a year; it 

is lower and restricted to 4 months of the south-west monsoon in the northern parts of the 


Given this rainfall regime, the western slopes of the Ghats have a natural cover of evergreen 

forest, which changes to moist and then dry deciduous types as one comes to the eastern 

slopes. The vegetation reaches its highest diversity towards the southern tip in Kerala with 

its high statured, rich tropical rain forests. The commercially most important species, teak, 

however, grows best in tracts of more moderate rainfall where the natural vegetation is of 

the moist deciduous type. 

The Western Ghats are second only to the Eastern Himalaya as a treasure trove of biological 

diversity in India. Originally recognized as among the several global ‚hotspots of 

biodiversity‛, the Western Ghats along with its geographical extension in the wet zone of Sri 

Lanka are now also considered one of the eight ‚hottest hot spots‛ of biodiversity (Myers et 

al. 2000). At the same time, the high human population density and major transformation of 

the landscape since the mid-18 th century also emphasize the urgency of conservation of the 

Ghats and sustainable use of its resources. A study in the southern region, comprising the 

states of Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, showed that between 1920–1990 about 40% of 

the original vegetation cover was lost or converted to another form of land use (Menon and 

Bawa 1997). It is estimated that not more than about 7% of the area of the Western Ghats is 

presently under primary vegetation cover, though a much larger area is under secondary 

forest or some form of tree cover. Nearly 15% of the Ghats is also under the Protected Area 

system. 

The great topographic heterogeneity (from sea level to 2695 m at its highest point, the 

Anaimudi peak) and a strong rainfall gradient (annual precipitation of 700 cm along west-facing slopes) combine to give rise to a tremendous 

diversity of life forms and vegetation types, including tropical wet evergreen forest, 

montane stunted evergreen forest (shola) and grassland, lateritic plateaus, moist deciduous 

and dry deciduous forest, dry thorn forests, and grassland. Many of these are critical 

habitats for plants and animals: for instance, the lateritic plateaus of Maharashtra harbour 

unique floral elements as well as provide seasonal foraging grounds for large mammals such 

as gaur; the shola forests and grasslands of the southern Western Ghats are unique as well as 

highly vulnerable to future climate change; the riparian vegetation along the numerous east 

and west-flowing rivers and streams of the Ghats shelter high levels of plant and animal 

diversity in addition to acting as corridors, while the relict lowland dipterocarp forests and 

Mysristica swamps to the west are highly threatened. 

The importance of the Western Ghats in terms of its biodiversity can be seen from the 

known inventory of its plant and animal groups, and the levels of endemism in these taxa 

(Gunawardene et al. 2007). Nearly 4000 species of flowering plants or about 27% of the 

country’s total species are known from the Ghats. Of 645 species of evergreen trees (>10 cm 

dbh), about 56% is endemic to the Ghats. Among the lower plant groups, the diversity of 

bryophytes is impressive with 850-1000 species; of these 682 species are mosses with 28% 

endemics and 280 species are liverworts with 43% endemics. 

Among the invertebrate groups, about 350 (20% endemic) species of ants, 330 (11% endemic) 

species of butterflies, 174 (40% endemic) species of odonates (dragonflies and damselflies), 

and 269 (76% endemic) species of mollusks (land snails) have been described from this 

region. The known fish fauna of the Ghats is 288 species with 41% of these being endemic to 

the region. The Western Ghats are particularly notable for its amphibian fauna with about 

9


220 species of which 78% are endemic; the recent discovery of a new genus of frog, 

Nasikabactrachus sahyadrensis, with Indo-Madagscan affinity, in the southern Western Ghats 

affirms the importance of the region in harbouring these ancient Gondwanan lineages. 

Similarly, the Ghats are unique in its caecilian diversity harbouring 16 of the country’s 20 

known species, with all 16 species being endemic. Of the 225 described species of reptiles, 

62% are endemic; special mention must be made of the primitively burrowing snakes of the 

family Uropeltidae that are mostly restricted to the southern hills of the Western Ghats. 

Over 500 species of birds and 120 species of mammals are also known from this region. The 

Western Ghats region harbours the largest global populations of the Asian elephant, and 

possibly of other mammals such as tiger, dhole, and gaur. The Western Ghats also harbour a 

number of wild relatives of cultivated plants, including pepper, cardamom, mango, jackfruit 

and plantain. This biological wealth has paid rich dividends over the years. In fact, the tract 

was famous for its wild produce of pepper, cardamom, sandal and ivory. 

This diversity has been in continual decline over the last century and more especially in 

recent decades, with many biological communities and types being almost totally eliminated. 

It is, however, notable that some of the age-old conservation practices, such as 

maintenance of sacred groves, sacred ponds and river stretches, as well as protection of 

sacred species such as many primates and peafowl, continue to effectively protect many 

elements of biodiversity to this day. In addition, recent decades have seen other significant 

measures being initiated to conserve some of this fast vanishing biological diversity with the 

constitution of Wildlife Sanctuaries, National Parks and Tiger Reserves. These measures 

have led to a welcome increase in populations of many wild animals. Regrettably this has 

also exacerbated man–wildlife conflict. 

The traditional land use in the Ghats has been paddy cultivation in the valleys, 

supplemented by cultivation of millets and legumes on the hill slopes. Hill slope 

agriculture used to be largely of the shifting slash-and-burn type, but this has gradually 

been changed to cultivation of terraces. The traditional horticultural crops were arecanut 

on the hills and coconut on the coast, along with mango and jackfruit. Cattle and buffalo 

were maintained in great numbers wherever the natural vegetation was deciduous forest, 

but these were largely absent in tracts of evergreen vegetation. 

A number of horticultural and tuber crops were introduced to this region through 

European influence. Prominent amongst these are tea, coffee, rubber, cashew, tapioca and 

potato. Pepper and cardamom, which are native to the evergreen forests of the Western 

Ghats were also taken up as plantation crops on a more extensive scale in modern times. 

Many of the newer plantations were taken up by clear felling natural evergreen forests 

tracts which till then had predominantly tribal populations. 

The most important forest produce of the Ghats in earlier times were cardamom, pepper and 

ivory although teak wood had been exported from the west coast ports even in medieval 

times. The earliest forest plantations recorded were the teakwood plantations raised by the 

Angres, Maratha naval chiefs of Shivaji in the 17th Century. Exploitation of timber on a large 

scale, however, started only with the British. The evergreen forests were extracted for 

railway sleepers and deciduous forests were progressively replaced by teak plantations. As 

this demand picked up, forests which were till then largely managed by Village 

Communities were bifurcated into forests on village common lands and state-owned 

Reserved Forests. The community held grazing lands and forests cover extensive areas in 

many parts of the Western Ghats, as do privately held forest lands to a lesser extent. These 

lands have been considerably overexploited and degraded in recent decades. 

10


The demands on reserved forests peaked between 1950–1980 with an explosion of forestbased 

industries such as paper, plywood, polyfibres and matchwood. Although these 

demands were expected to be met through sustainable harvests, this did not materialize 

and the forests were overexploited. The response was a switch to ‚aggressive‛ from 

‚conservation‛ forestry with large-scale clear felling of natural forests and plantation of 

exotic species such as eucalyptus and Acacia auriculiformis. Many of the eucalyptus 

plantations failed because of various diseases. Consequently, harvests from Reserved 

Forests have slowly tapered off after the 1980’s with the industry turning to import of 

pulp, pulpwood and timber from abroad. There have been other competing demands on 

reserved forest lands as well, especially for cultivation and river valley projects. 

Collection of forest produce such as pepper, cardamom, ivory, honey, wax, myrobalan has 

gone on for a long time in the Western Ghats. The bamboos and reeds of the Ghat forests 

have also supported extensive basket weaving. There have been shipyards on the west 

coast using the timber of the hills for a very long time, as also artisans making wooden 

toys. There has been substantial decline in many of these activities with depletion of 

resources like honey and bamboo, and complete ban on use of ivory. 

Several industries were started in the early decades before independence, primarily to 

utilize the forest resources of the Western Ghats. These have included saw mills, brick 

and tile, paper, polyfibre, matchwood, plywood, and tanning. A few other industries 

have sprung up based on the mineral resources of the hills such as the steel works at 

Bhadravati. By and large, these industries have grown beyond the capacity of the 

Western Ghats forest resource base to sustain them, and are now depending on imports 

or wood resources produced on farmland. 

The bulk of the rains of Peninsular India fall on the Western Ghats from which originate 

Krishna, Godavari and Kaveri, the three major rivers of the Southern Peninsula, as well as 

many shorter west flowing rivers of the west coast. Traditionally these water resources were 

used to irrigate the valleys under paddy and arecanut on the hills with construction of small 

ponds and channels. Beginning with the British times, however, many major river valley 

projects have been executed, either to irrigate the drier tracts to the east or to generate power 

by taking advantage of the steep slopes to the west. These have rapidly proliferated since 

independence and today cover almost every river valley in certain regions such as that 

stretching from Mumbai to Kolhapur in Maharashtra. In recent years these reservoirs have 

also become the locus of development of resorts and hill stations like Amby Valley and 

Lavasa. In another more recent development, wind mills are being set up in large numbers 

on the crestline of the Ghats with steep roads up the hill slopes leading to substantial 

negative impacts on ecology and water resources. 

The Western Ghats are rich in iron, manganese and bauxite ores in parts of their ranges. 

These are being extracted on a large scale and exported in ore form, especially from Goa. 

With a steep increase in iron ore prices and demand for lower grade ores, mining activities 

have grown rapidly and often in violation of all laws, resulting in serious environmental 

damage and social disruption. 

Several centres of pilgrimage have traditionally attracted many visitors to the Western 

Ghats, prominent amongst these being Sabarimalai in Kerala, Madeveshwaramalai in 

Karnataka and Mahabaleshwar in Maharashtra. A number of other tourist centres have 

sprung up in modern times. The best known are Ooty in the Nilgiris and the Thekkady 

Wildlife Sanctuary in Kerala. Recent decades have seen a boom in building of second 

holiday homes, tourist resorts housed in plantations and new hill stations. 

11


Transport and communication has been difficult in the Western Ghats because of the hilly 

terrain, heavy rains, washing off of roads and thick forests. In fact, the strength of the 

Maratha empire founded by Shivaji rested on the strategic advantages of an inaccessible 

terrain. Transport and communications really began to reach deeper into the Western Ghats 

only in British times. A spurt was given to the development of these facilities after 

independence when major river valley and mining projects brought development of 

extensive transport and communication facilities in their wake. Recent decades have seen a 

rapid spurt in growth of roads as well as railway lines across the Ghats with resultant 

disruption of connectivity between natural habitats. 

The Western Ghats have always been sparsely populated compared to the adjoining plains, 

because of the difficult terrain and widely prevalent incidence of malaria. The coastal plains 

under paddy and coconut have supported far denser populations while the Deccan plateau 

to the east had intermediate levels of population density. The settlements on the Ghats have 

been of small sizes and scattered; the bigger towns all falling on the eastern side on the 

banks of major rivers, or on the west coast at river mouths, where they served as ports. With 

rapid increase in means of communication and transport, emergence of a large wealthy 

middle class and availability of powerful earth-moving machinery, the Western Ghats are 

beginning to be urbanized with a proliferation of holiday homes and resorts. These tend to 

be accompanied by a total decimation of natural biological communities and displacement 

of local people. 

The people of the Western Ghats traditionally depended heavily on natural vegetation for 

meeting their requirement of shelter, fodder and fuel. They also derived much nutrition 

from hunted meat; consequently their quality of life has rapidly eroded in recent decades 

with the depletion of natural vegetation and extermination of wild animals. The major gain 

for the people from the view point of a better life has been the eradication of diseases, 

especially malaria, and the development of better means of transport and communication. 

Modern health and educational facilities have : percolated little to the hills except in the State 

of Kerala where there has been remarkable progress, accompanied by a substantial fall in 

the rate of population growth. 

The Western Ghats has a large tribal population only in a few pockets such as the Dangs 

and Thane districts north of Mumbai and Wynaad and Nilgiris tracts. The Nilgiris 

harbour the only truly stone age hunting gathering tribe of Peninsular India, the 

Cholanaikas. The tribals have borne the brunt of the degradation of the Western Ghats 

environment and have received little of the benefits of development. Vested interests 

have also blocked the implementation of acts such as PESA and FRA that were meant to 

give them a better deal. 

By and large the Western Ghats have been subjected to a rapid erosion of natural capital 

with the building up of man-made capital, regrettably imposing excessive, unnecessary 

environmental damage in the process, accompanied by a degradation of social capital as 

well. Yet, on the positive side, the Western Ghats region has some of the highest levels of 

literacy in the country, and a high level of environmental awareness. The democratic 




policies. Evidently, the Western Ghats is an appropriate region of the country to attempt 

to make the transition towards an inclusive, caring and environment-friendly mode of 

development. 

12


8. Develop sustainably – conserve thoughtfully 

Many stakeholders have suggested that, apart from the context of provision of Central 

financial assistance for plan schemes, the Western Ghats Region should have a regulatory 

content of a go- no go nature; that certain activities would be banned within the limits of the 

Western Ghats, but fully permitted outside these limits. WGEEP would like to submit that 

we should move away from such formulae that impart inflexibility to development 

processes. To take a very simple example, the norm for the size of agricultural holding in 

which a farm house may be constructed is 2 acres throughout the state of Maharashtra. But 

in the hilly terrain of Mahabaleshwar, one of the existing ESAs of Western Ghats, 80% of 

farmers hold less than 2 acres of land. All of them have therefore been forced to stay in 

small, overcrowded houses in Gaothans, which have not been permitted to grow over the 

last 60 years, despite substantial increase in their populations. Farmers of Mahabaleshwar 

have therefore been requesting that the threshold for permission for a farm house be 

appropriately changed in their locality, to no avail. They feel particularly frustrated to see 

considerable construction activity of bungalows for the rich and hotels going on without 

much difficulty, while they see no signs of relief for themselves. 

Indeed, what we see around the Western Ghats and the rest of the country may be termed 

‚Development by Exclusion‛ hand in hand with ‚Conservation by Exclusion‛. Despite the 

73 rd and 74 th Amendments to the Constitution that have devolved powers of making 

decisions relating to development to Panchayat Raj Institutions and Nagarpalikas, all 

development decisions are being thrust on the people. For instance, in Ratnagiri district 

several Gram Panchayats, and Panchayat Samitis, including the Ratnagiri Taluka Panchayat 

Samiti, have specifically passed resolutions relating to environmental issues that are also 

being completely ignored by the State Government. Box 1 presents a specific case of such 

‚Development by Exclusion‛ in the context of development of a chemical industry in the 

same district. 

13


Box 1: Development by Exclusion: Lote MIDC and pollution of Dabhol creek 

The experience the world over is that people, and not government or industry, have led movements 

to protect the environment. It is therefore important that people be vigorously inducted into 

protecting, managing, and monitoring the environment. In this context, the Ministry of 

Environment and Forests had an excellent scheme of district-level Paryavaran Vahinis. Under this 

scheme concerned citizens were conferred authority to monitor environmental degradation such as 

pollution and deforestation, and report to the District Collector, who would then enquire into the 

matter. The programme was very effective in districts like Dakshin Kannada during the 1990’s and 

the Steering Committee for Environment and Forests for the 11 th Five Year Plan had strongly 

recommended that as part of the effort to promote partnerships, the 11 th Plan should revive the 

programme of district-level Paryavaran Vahinis to promote a broadly participatory process of 

environmental monitoring and management. During the meeting with Government of Maharshtra 

officials in Mumbai on 30 th September, 2010, Madhav Gadgil (MG) therefore enquired if there were 

any on-going programmes of involving the people in environmental monitoring in Ratnagiri- 

Sindhudurg districts. MG was informed that a similar function was being performed by a Ratnagiri 

District Environment Committee chaired by the Ratnagiri District Collector (which, it eventually 

turned out, did not exist at all), and additionally there was a very active ‘Lote Abhyas Gat’ attached 

to Lote MIDC, a chemical industries complex. 

MG immediately contacted Ratnagiri District Collector, as well as the Lote Abhyas Gat with the 

help of Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board. On 5th October 2010 ,MG had a meeting with 

the Lote Abhyas Gat, and a field visit to the Common Effluent Treatment Plant and some 

surrounding areas, as well as visits to Dabhol creek and discussions with many community 

members. It is notable that contrary to information provided by authorities in the meeting in 

Mumbai, the Abhyas Gat has been totally inactive, with no meetings over more than two years. In 

spite of their demand, a representative of Kotavale village that has suffered maximally from 

pollution is not included in the Abhyas Gat. It was revealed that the CETP cannot handle the 

quantity of effluent it is receiving, and its functioning is highly defective. MG saw large overflows 

of untreated effluent from the plant going into streams serving Kotavale village. Since the situation 

is not being brought under control, the Sarpanch of Kotavale attempted to commit suicide by 

drinking the polluted stream water. He was rushed to Mumbai and saved, but there has been no 

abatement of pollution affecting Kotavale. People also reported that solid toxic sludge from 

industries was mixed with soil and dumped in the Ghat area. It is understood that many industries 

at Lote are pumping toxic waste into ground water through bore wells. Apparently, three such cases 

were brought to light, but there has been no action. Very recently, some unidentified party has 

dumped toxic wastes via a tanker in the Boraj Dam which is the water supply of Khed town. The 

town water supply had to be stopped for several weeks, but nobody has been brought to book. 

There has been significant decline in fish landings from Dabhol creek due to Lote chemical 

pollution, and severe loss of employment opportunities for members of fishing communities. With 

all these problems persisting all that the Pollution Control Board has done seems to be to transfer 

the Lote office to Chiplun, rendering any chances of effective action even more remote than before. 

Not only are people not being active partners in the process of development, but their civil rights of 

protesting against excessive pollution levels, certainly well above legal limits, are being 

systematically suppressed. There had never been any violent agitation in Ratnagiri district till an 

activist protesting Jaitapur project was killed by a jeep, allegedly belonging to the Nuclear Power 

Corporation and driven by a police constable in early 2011. Yet the District Collector had 

promulgated Bombay Police Act 1951 Sec, 37(1)(3), prohibiting public gathering of more than five 

people for as many as 191 days between 28.08.07 to 21.10.09 to suppress protests against 

unacceptable levels of pollution, particularly from Lote MIDC. 

It is reported that this industrial complex employs 11,000 people; while the local fishermen claim 

that the resultant pollution has rendered 20,000 people from their community jobless. With all these 

persistent and unrectified problems, we were informed by an MIDC officer that they are planning to 

set up a new Petrochemical MIDC area nearby on 550Ha. 

The Indian society has rich traditions of nature conservation, and some of the best preserved 

remnants of indigenous vegetation of Western Ghats are in the form of Sacred Groves. Yet 

the official conservation efforts in the form of Protected Areas are being pursued on the 

assumption that it is the local people who are primarily responsible for loss of biodiversity 

and the highest priority should be given to excluding them. See Box 2 for such an example. 

It is also notable that the Forestry establishment is the only wing of the Government that 

14


refuses to work with the Panchayat Raj Institutions, with the trivial exception of the Social 

Forestry wing. 

Box 2: Conservation by Exclusion: Soligas of BRT hills 

BRT hills are a forest covered range in Karnataka to the east of the Nilgiris. It is the traditional 

homeland of Soliga tribals, who earlier practised hunting-gathering and shifting cultivation. They 

have protected a large sacred grove, harbouring a magnificent Michelia champaka tree. When this 

area was declared a Wild Life Sanctuary, Soligas could no longer hunt or practice shifting 

cultivation. So gathering of honey, medicinal plants and amla (Phyllanthus emblica) became the 

mainstay of their subsistence. A voluntary organization, Vivekananda Girijana Kalyana Kendra, 

has organized them effectively and helped set up a system of regulated collection, processing and 

marketing of forest produce. A scientific institution, ATREE, has been engaged in a study of the 

Soliga forest produce collection practices and their impact on resource stocks. They have come to 

the conclusion that these practices are entirely sustainable. The Soliga earnings had also improved 

because of their own processing industry. Most regrettably, the Forest Department has banned all 

collection of forest produce for marketing, forcing Soligas into destitution. 

It is now widely accepted that development plans should not be cast in a rigid framework, 

but ought to be tailored to prevalent locality and time-specific conditions with full 

participation of local communities, a process that has been termed adaptive co-management. 

What should be ‘go’ and what should be ‘no go’ development options ought then to be 

decided on a case-by-case basis, in tune with the specific environmental and socio-economic 

context, and aspirations of the local communities. Such a system of adaptive co-management 

would marry conservation to development, and not treat them as separate, incompatible 

objectives. See Box 3 for a discussion of this approach. 

Box 3: Adaptive Co-management 

Adaptive co-management is an emerging approach for governance of social-ecological systems. 

Novelty of adaptive co-management comes from combining the iterative learning dimension of 

adaptive management and the linkage dimension of collaborative management in which rights 

and responsibilities are jointly shared. Complementarities among concepts of collaboration and 

adaptive management encourage an approach to governance that encompasses complexity and 

cross-scale linkages, and the process of dynamic learning. Adaptive co-management thus offers 

considerable appeal in light of the complex systems view. In this regard, adaptive co-management 

has been described as an emergent and self-organizing process facilitated by rules and incentives 

of higher levels, with the potential to foster more robust social-ecological systems. Key features of 

adaptive co-management include: 

• A focus on learning-by-doing 

• Synthesis of different knowledge systems 

• Collaboration and power-sharing among community, regional and national levels 

• Management flexibility 

These features can promote an evolving, place-specific governance approach in which strategies 

are sensitive to feedback (both social and ecological) and oriented towards system resilience and 

sustainability. Such strategies include dialogue among interested groups and actors (local– 

national), the development of complex, redundant and layered institutions, and a combination of 

institutional types, designs and strategies that facilitate experimentation and learning through 

change. Other important themes in adaptive co-management include improving evaluation of 

process and outcomes, additional emphasis on power, the role of social capital, and meaningful 

interactions and trust building as the basis for governance in social-ecological systems. 

Yet we are today stuck in a system that forcibly divorces conservation from development. It 

ends up creating a dichotomy so that our policies at once promote reckless development in 

15


certain areas, and thoughtless conservation in other areas. In the process we constitute 

islands of biodiversity (and social exclusion) – the so-called Protected Areas (PAs) – in an 

ocean of ecological devastation outside of these PAs. As we will explore below in some 

detail, our insistence on ‚not a blade of grass shall be removed from PAs‛ is as 

inappropriate as complete disregard for pollution control laws outside of PAs. WGEEP 

would like to propose that we should instead attempt to develop a model of conservation 

and development compatible with each other encompassing the whole of the Western Ghats 

region, to replace the prevailing ‚Develop recklessly – conserve thoughtlessly‛ pattern with 

one of ‚Develop sustainably – conserve thoughtfully‛. The fine-tuning of development– 

conservation practices to local context that this calls for would require full involvement of 

local communities. To sum up, WGEEP advocates a layered, nuanced, participatory 

approach, so that boundaries will not be discontinuities and therefore will not be of undue 

significance. Hence, while we will, of course, talk of the boundaries of the Western Ghats, 

we plead that the pattern of adaptive co-management that we propose may also be applied 

to regions beyond these boundaries. 

9. Ecologically Sensitive Zones 

Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 (EPA) gives power to the Union Ministry 

of Environment and Forests to take all measures that it feels is necessary for protecting and 

improving the quality of the environment and to prevent and control environmental 

pollution. To meet this objective the Central Government can restrict areas in which any 

industries, operations or processes, or class of industries, operations or processes shall not be 

carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards. [Sec. 3(2) (v)] 

Section 5(I) of the Environment (Protection) Rules 1986 (EPR) states that the Central 

Government can prohibit or restrict the location of industries and carrying out certain 

operations or processes on the basis of considerations like the biological diversity of an area 

(clause v), maximum allowable limits of concentration of pollutants for an area (clause ii), 

environmentally compatible land use (clause vi), or proximity to Protected Areas (clause 

viii). 

These provisions were invoked in 1989 in the context of Murud-Janjira, a coastal village of 

Maharashtra. Subsequently, the term ‘Ecologically Fragile Area’ was used for the first time 

in 1991 in the context of Dahanu Taluka in coastal Maharashtra. This has been followed by 

declaration of a number of other areas such as the Mahabaleshwar- Panchgani and Matheran 

hills in the Maharashtra Western Ghats as Ecologically Sensitive Zones / Areas. So far, these 

Ecologically Sensitive Zones / Areas have been established either as a result of initiatives of 

some civil society organizations wishing to protect a particularly vulnerable and significant 

area, or as a consequence of a resolution of the Indian Board for Wildlife in 2002 to protect 

areas up to ten kilometres from the boundaries of Protected Areas, namely Wildlife 

Sanctuaries and National Parks. 

Over the years, a variety of terms such as Ecologically Sensitive/ Ecologically Fragile/ 

Ecosensitive/ Ecofragile Zones/ Areas have been used in the context of programmes relating 

to Ecologically Sensitive Zones and Areas. It is obviously useful to introduce some standard 

terminology and definitions. WGEEP will therefore use the term ‘Ecologically Sensitive 

Area’ while referring to extensive tracts and ‘Ecologically Sensitive Zone’ while referring to 

specific zones within the extended ‘Ecologically Sensitive Area’ for which a particular set of 

regulatory/ promotional activities have been proposed. 

16


The Pronab Sen Committee set up in 2000 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests 

proposed a series of species, ecosystem and geo-morphology based parameters to decide 

upon ecologically sensitive areas in India. The Sen Committee’s foremost criterion for 

identification of an ESA is endemism, and the Committee proposed that the area of 

occurrence of every endemic species needs to be protected in its entirety. The Western 

Ghats harbours well over two thousand endemic species of flowering plants, fish, frogs, 

birds and mammals amongst the better known groups of organisms, and no doubt 

thousands more amongst less studied groups including insects. Amongst themselves these 

endemics would cover the entire geographical extent of the Western Ghats and all 

conceivable habitats, including many disturbed ones such as roadsides. The Western Ghats 

region thus qualifies as an ESA under several other, primary as also auxiliary, criteria 

proposed by the Pronab Sen committee. WGEEP fully endorses the conclusion that follows 

this set of criteria for the identification of an ESA, and recommends that the entire Western 

Ghats tract should be considered as an Ecologically Sensitive Area. 

However, a uniform set of regulations cannot, obviously, be promulgated under the EPA for 

this entire region. Hence, WGEEP recommends the adoption of a graded or layered 

approach, and suggests that the entire Western Ghats be characterized as comprising (1) 

Regions of highest sensitivity or Ecologically Sensitive Zone 1 (ESZ1), (2) Regions of high 

sensitivity or ESZ2, and the remaining (3) Regions of moderate sensitivity or ESZ3. These 

will be complementary to areas already declared as Protected Areas, which will continue to 

be managed under regulations prescribed by pertinent acts such as the Wildlife Protection 

Act. Thus, WGEEP has come up with four colour maps spanning the entire Western Ghats 

depicting PAs, and ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3. 

9.1 Western Ghats Database 

Such an assignment of ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 can be done on two bases; namely (1) The 

existing Protected Area network and (2) systematic mapping and recording of base-line data 

as recommended by the Sen Committee. Indeed, as early as 2000, the Sen committee had 

called for systematically mapping and recording base-line data for the entire country, as also 

to design and operationalize a comprehensive monitoring programme and network, 

involving not only government agencies but also other institutions, universities, NGOs, and 

individuals, particularly those living in pertinent areas. This challenge was taken up by 

WGEEP, and considerable progress made in the exercise of development of a spatial 

database, for over 2200 grids of 5’x 5’ or roughly 9 km x 9 km through compilation of all 

readily available information on topography, land cover and occurrence of biodiversity 

elements. The rationale and methodology followed has been widely exposed to scientific 

scrutiny through publication of a detailed exposition in Current Science, India’s leading 

scientific journal, in January 2011(Gadgil, M. et al. 2011). Box 4 briefly summarises the 

methodology followed. The detailed methodology followed in the development of this 

database is explained in Section 20. The WGEEP database is complemented by development 

of similar, more detailed, information bases by BVIEER, Pune and DEVRAAI, Kolhapur. 

17


Box 4: Mapping Ecologically Significant and Sensitive Areas of the Western Ghats: 

Proposed Protocols and Methodology 

(Abstract of Gadgil et al (2011): Current Science) 

One of the objectives assigned for the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) of the 

Ministry of Environment and Forestry, GOI, was to identify the Ecologically Sensitive Areas 

(ESAs) along Western Ghats, and thence to suggest regulatory procedures to conserve them. 

However the panel came to realize that globally there is no consensus either on the criteria to 

define ESAs or, on an adaptable methodology to identify them. Therefore defining and developing 

a methodology became an important first step before the panel could map the ESAs. This paper 

reports the outcome of a series of discussions and consultations held by the panel for a consensus 

on defining and mapping ESAs. The purpose of this paper is two-fold: first, to invoke discussion 

and suggestions from a wider section of experts, on the conceptual and methodological details 

arrived at by the WGEEP; second to promote the methodology as a generic procedure for mapping 

ESAs in other significant bio-rich areas within and outside the country. 

We propose below a set of these attributes with the criteria to be used for each of them and then 

provide a methodological process to combine and use these criteria in demarcating ESA especially 

for a large area such as the Western Ghats. 

1. Biological attributes: We propose that demarcation of an ESA shall consider the following 

components of biological and cultural uniqueness and richness : 

a. Biodiversity richness: Richness in diversity at all taxonomic groups and hierarchies. 

b. Species Rarity: Rarity of population size, distribution and also rarity in taxonomic 

representation. 

c. Habitat Richness: Spatial heterogeneity of landscape elements 

d. Productivity: Total biomass productivity 

e. Estimate of biological/ecological resilience: Representation of the plesio-vegetation 

f. Cultural and Historical Significance: Evolutionary–historical value and cultural–historical 

value of the area 

2. Geo-climatic layers attributes: These include the range of layers that assess the innate or natural 

vulnerability of the area. Obviously features such as slope, aspect, altitude, precipitation etc shall 

be used under the following two component attributes: 

a. Topographic Features: Slope, altitude, aspect etc., 

b. Climatic Features: Precipitation, number of wet days etc.,. 

c. Hazard vulnerability: Natural hazards such as landslides and fires. 

3. Stake Holders Valuation: It is important to invite the opinion of the public and local bodies 

especially the Zilla Panchayats, village level political bodies and also other civil societies to enlist 

the areas that they feel ecologically and environmentally sensitive and use these as important 

attributes. 

(As the Methodology described in Section 20 indicates, we could not compile the full set of data 

indicated above, nor have we been able to cover all the criteria proposed by the Pronab Sen 

committee, primarily due to lack of time.) 

Admittedly there still are serious lacunae. In particular, the database is yet to incorporate 

considerations of habitat continuity, other than in the special case of elephant corridors. It is 

also weak in terms of information on streams, rivers and other wetlands, as well as ground 

water, and further careful work is needed to identify, protect and sustainably manage 

aquatic habitats and water resources. Since our focus is on hill areas, this database also 

leaves out of consideration of issues of significance for the west coast and coastal plains, 

such as mangrove forests and khajan lands. Nevertheless, we now have, for the first time in 

the country, a comprehensive, spatially-referenced database on a series of important 

ecological parameters, transparently available in the public domain that can serve as the 

18


basis of a systematic delineation of different levels of ecological significance/ sensitivity for a 

sizeable region. 

WGEEP, of course, realizes that ecological sensitivity is not merely a scientific, but very 

much a human concern. In particular, a great deal of locality-specific understanding of what 

has been happening and what is desirable, is simply not part of any scientific databases and 

resides with local communities. WGEEP therefore invited all concerned people and 

institutions to share their own perceptions as to what specific areas on the Western Ghats 

should be identified as being ‘Ecologically Sensitive Areas’, why they feel so, and what set of 

regulations tailored to the needs of the locality should be put in place if the area were to be 

formally declared as being ecologically sensitive. 

In response, we have received a number of specific proposals from individual Gram 

Panchayats as well as NGOs from different parts of the Western Ghats. Two of these are 

particularly noteworthy, (a) Gramsabha resolutions from a single cluster of 25 villages from 

Savantwadi and Dodamarg talukas of Sindhudurg district that they wish their areas to be 

constituted as ESAs, and (b) careful proposal for a ‚Maharashtra Sahyadri Ecologically 

Sensitive Area‛ by DEVRAAI, an NGO from Kolhapur drawing on extensive research 

conducted at Shivaji University. The proponents of these proposals have used the term 

Ecologically Sensitive Area in the currently prevalent sense, before WGEEP had decided to 

treat the entire Western Ghats region as an Ecologically Sensitive Area with different levels 

of ecologically sensitive zones. The proposals received by the WGEEP are referred to by the 

Panel as ‚Ecologically Sensitive Localities‛ to differentiate from its proposal to constitute 

the entire Western Ghats region as an Ecologically Sensitive Area. Table 2 lists specific 

proposals received from civil society for designation of new Ecologically Sensitive Localities. 

(ESL) 

While the Panel is specifying ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 grids and talukas for immediate action, 

it is not specifying any specific action for the localities listed in Table 2. This is for three 

reasons: Firstly, because it was not possible to demarcate the boundaries which essentially 

require intensive field work, secondly, it was not possible to arrive at well-designed 

administrative mechanism to deal with them, and thirdly, because there may be many other 

deserving sites in the Western Ghats to be so designated and the Panel was not able to 

undertake a process of properly identifying them given the time constraints. 

Table 2 Specific proposals for new Ecologically Sensitive Localities (ESL) 

ESLs 

Maharashtra 

• Lonavla-Khandala 

• Maharashtra Sahyadri 

• Cluster of 25 villages from Savantwadi and Dodamarg talukas 

• ESAs surrounding Protected Areas 

Goa 

• Sahyadri 


Karnataka 

• Sahyadri 

• Kodachadri 

• Kodagu 


19


ESLs 

Tamil Nadu 

• Valparai 


• Kodaikanal 

• Nilgiri District 

Kerala 

• Mandakol 

• Panathadi 

• Paithal Mala 

• Brahmagiri-Thirunelli 

• Wayanad 

• Banasura-Kuttiyadi 

• Nilumbur-Mepadi 

• Silent Valley- New Amarambalam 

• Siruvani 

• Nelliampathy 

• Peechi-Vazhani 

• Athirappilly-Vazhachal 

• Pooyamkutty Munnar 

• Cardamom Hills 

• Periyar 

• Kulathupuzha 

• Agasthya Mala 


10. ESZ assignment 

WGEEP proposes that the 2200 odd grids spanning the entire Western Ghats be assigned to 

(1) Protected Areas, namely, existing Wild Life Sanctuaries and National Parks, and (2) ESZ1 

(3) ESZ2 and (4) ESZ3 on the basis of composite scores of ecological significance derived 

from the database generated by WGEEP. Since a long-standing effort has gone into 

identification of Protected Areas and they represent both social and ecological values, we 

propose that grids with scores at the level of Protected Areas and above within the same 

state be assigned to ESZ1 category, with the proviso that the total area under PAs and ESZ1 

be limited to 60% to balance the development needs of states. We propose that ~25% of 

grids with scores at the lower end be assigned to ESZ3 category, and the balance to ESZ2. 

This implies a decision to treat ~75% of the grids as belonging to PAs, ESZ1 or ESZ2. Our 

national goal is to maintain 66% of area under forest cover in all hill tracts. Given that the 

Western Ghats is a hill region of special significance, we decided that it was appropriate to 

aim at 75% being treated as areas of high or highest significance. In view of the strong 

north–south ecological gradient over the Western Ghats, one cannot really treat the Gujarat 

Dangs and Kerala Ashambu hills on the same footing. Therefore, this exercise has been 

undertaken separately for each state. In states where the boundary of the Western Ghats 

coincides or is very close to coastal areas, the WGEEP has left out a width of 1.5 km from the 

coast from the delimitation exercise to acknowledge the fact that the scoring exercise did not 

reflect coastal ecological values and sensitivities. 

20


To sum up: 

1. Western Ghats regions of each state are treated separately. 

2. Existing Protected Areas are treated as a fourth separate category. 

3. ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 status is assigned only to grids outside existing Protected Areas. 

4. ESZ1 status is assigned only to such grids as have a score at least equaling, or higher 

than the lowest scoring grids falling within existing Protected Areas. 

5. Detailed information such as localities of origin of rivers, laterite plateaus, and localities 

where local communities have expressed a strong interest in conservation can be used to 

decide on demarcation of ecologically sensitive localities 

6. The extent of existing Protected Areas plus ESZ1will not normally exceed 60% of the 

total area. 

7. The extent of area covered by existing Protected Areas plus ESZ1 and ESZ2 together will 

be around 75%. 

8. The extent of ESZ3 will normally be around 25% of the total area. 

Figures 2–7 give the State-wise colour maps depicting PAs and ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 for all 

the grids covering the Western Ghats region. Please note that in Figure 2, Kanakapura taluka 

does not fall within the boundaries of the Western Ghats and in Figure 7, Denkanikota and 

Bhavani taluka do not fall within the boundaries of the Ghats. 

21


Figure 2 

Figure 3 

Figures 2–7 Depicting PAs and ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 

22


Figure 4 

Figure 5 

23


Figure 6 

Figure 7 

24


The database employs square grids of 5 minutes x 5 minute or grids ~9 km x 9 km that do 

not correspond either to natural features such as watersheds, or administrative units such as 

village or taluka boundaries. It will be clearly be desirable to put in place a system of 

zonation that jointly considers micro-watersheds and village boundaries to decide on 

specific limits of ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3, as well as to arrive at a locality-specific management 

plan. This would be a task that will have to be initiated by the Western Ghats Ecology 

Authority through a broad-based participatory process when WGEA is put in place. 

However, as a first step, we suggest the Ministry of Environment and Forests provisionally 

notify the initial limits of ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 based on WGEEP analysis. This may be most 

appropriately done at Taluka/ Block level. With this in view, we have gone ahead and 

assigned ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 levels to all the 134 4 talukas of Western Ghats. The assigned 

level to the taluka is the ESZ that covers the largest fraction of the taluka. 

Tables 3 and 4 provide a summary listing of taluka assignments for all states except Goa. 

Appendix 2 and 3 at the end of the document provide detailed district and taluka lists. 

Table 3 Proposed assignment of various Western Ghats districts to ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 

State No of Districts in 

the WG 

No of Talukas 

assigned to ESZ1 

No Talukas 


No Talukas 


Gujarat 3 1 1 1 

Maharashtra 10 32 4 14 

Goa 2 NA NA NA 

Karnataka 11 26 5 12 

Kerala 12 15 2 8 

Tamil 6 9 2 2 

Nadu* 

Totals 44 83 14 37 

* Based on the reorganization of districts and talukas, this will change 

Table 3 above covers only talukas with 50% or more of their area included within the 

Western Ghats boundary. There are, however, grids that have been assigned either ESZ1 or 

ESZ2 status that fall in talukas not included in Table 3. Table 4 lists such talukas. In the 

case of Goa, 1 minute x 1 minute grids were used, and the zoning was done at the level of 

grids of ecological significance and not extended to talukas given Goa’s size (see Appendix 

1). These zones will have to be harmonized with Goa’s ongoing process of ecological 

sensitive zoning under the Regional Plan 2021. 

Table 4 Proposed ESZ1, and ESZ2 assignment of various talukas for which less than 50% 

area is within Western Ghats boundary 

State 

No of Districts in 

the WG 

No of Talukas 


No Talukas assigned 

to ESZ2 

Gujarat 2 - 4 

Maharashtra 11 6 23 

Goa - - - 

Karnataka 15 1 22 

Kerala 9 2 16 

Tamil Nadu* - - - 

* See Appendix 2 and 3 

4 

Eight talukas of Goa in the Western Ghat region have not been included in this table. 

25


The Western Ghats Ecology Authority would also have to identify the Gram Panchayats that 

are covered in this fashion and initiate a broad-based participatory process to decide on 

specific limits of ESZ1 and ESZ2, as well as to arrive at a locality-specific management plan. 

Box 5 refers to one such grass-root initiative. Table 5 provides the names of 25 villages in 

Sindhudurg district whose Gram Sabhas have submitted resolutions requesting that their 

Panchayat areas should be constituted as Ecologically Sensitive Localities (ESL). Box 6 

contains an extract of one such resolution. 

Box 5: A grass-roots level initiative 

A total of 25 Gram Sabhas from Sindhudurg district have passed resolutions requesting that their 

Panchayat areas be designated as ecologically sensitive areas. Of course, WGEEP is not in a 

position to verify exactly what transpired during these Gram Sabha meetings, and whether the 

meetings were conducted following proper procedures. Nevertheless field visits to several of these 

villages suggested that the resolutions have strong popular support. Notably several other Gram 

Panchayats in the region have passed resolutions to the contrary, namely, that they do not wish 

their Gram Panchayat areas to be constituted as ecologically sensitive areas. On further discussion, 

it turns out that people are trying to balance two evils. They feel that if their Gram Panchayat areas 

are constituted as ecologically sensitive areas, it would reduce the threat of completely unwelcome 

mining activities. At the same time they are afraid that if their Gram Panchayat areas are 

constituted as ecologically sensitive areas, they will come under the stranglehold of the Forest 

Department, which is also unwelcome. This is a classic example of the syndrome of development 

by exclusion, and conservation also by exclusion that plagues us today. Only when we put in its 

place inclusive development as well as inclusive conservation, will we be able to move in the 

direction of environmentally sustainable and people-friendly development. WGEEP would like to 

plead that we must take this route. In any event, it is notable that all the 25 Gram Panchayats that 

have sent in resolutions asking for their areas to be declared as ecologically sensitive areas 

constitute a single compact cluster that falls in the region designated as ESZ1 on the basis of 

DEVRAAI’s carefully compiled database. 

Table 5 Proposals for Ecologically Sensitive Localities (ESL) in Sindhudurg District 

Taluka 

Dodamarg 

Savantwadi 

Names of villages 

Fukeri, Kolzar, Kumbral, Sasoli, Kalne, Ugade, Zolambe, Talkat, Bhike- 

Konal, Dharpi 

Kesari, Dabhil, Asaniye, Padve-Majgaon, Udeli, Degve, Bhalawal, 

Sarmale, Otavane, Fansavade, Tamboli, Konshi, Nangar Tas, Nevali, 

Padve 

26


Box 6: Extracts from resolution of Gram Sabha of village Talkat, Taluka Dodamarg, 

District Sindhudurg (translated from Marathi) 

It is necessary to consider the following things for conservation of forest, and development of the 

village: 

Watershed development programme: Though we have perennial streams as a water source for 

village, it is important to plan methods for efficient use of these resources. In summer, orchards do 

not get enough water due to lack of planning. It is possible to build nala bunds and small dams for 

water storage. Government officials have made preliminary observations and conducted 

background investigations in the village. That’s why it is very important to prioritise watershed 

development. Each wadi in the village is in need of this. 

Perennial streams are present in the Western Ghats ridges in the village. It is possible to build mini 

hydel projects for power generation on these streams. There is need to study this possibility. It is 

needed to improve the present condition of cashewnut and arecanut orchards. In the areas where 

forest and enough water sources for horticulture are not present, we can develop agroforestry 

dependent on rainwater. We require training and funds from the government for this. 

At present we don’t have a plant nursery. We can develop one indigenous plant nursery for the 

above-mentioned agroforestry. Some self-help groups will get income from this. 

Village tourism: Traditional houses, orchards and greenery in our village attract tourists. Our 

people from Mumbai (whose native place is Talkat) come here along with their city friends. There 

is scope to develop the village as a tourist place. 

Human–Wildlife conflict: Location of Talkat village is near to the forest. Orchards are surrounded 

by forest. The forest area in the village is blessed with rich wildlife as it is a part of the forest 

between Amboli-Tillari. We are living with this wildlife for many years. But these days we are 

facing nuisance from monkeys, sambar, elephant and leopards. While preparing a development 

plan we have to consider this issue. We do like to live with wildlife. 

This is what we think. Government and villagers should work on the development plan of our 

Ecologically Sensitive Area. We are ready to do it. Because projects like mining are hazardous for 

our life as well as will destroy our income source. Instead of such projects we would like to have 

our village located in an Ecologically Sensitive Area. 

11. Existing ESZs: Lessons Learnt 

The Pronab Sen Committee did not evolve a methodology for regulating the nature and 

extent of human activity in designated Ecologically Sensitive Zones/ Areas, a task that was 

addressed later by the Ministry of Environment and Forests itself. For this purpose, the 

MoEF has put in place a centralized system grounded in regulating land use employing the 

provisions of Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. After receiving an ESA 

proposal, the MoEF prepares the ESA notification and calls for responses from the public 

and the concerned state government. Since land is a state subject, the state government is 

then asked to prepare a Regional Development Plan that will provide for appropriate use of 

land as visualized in the Ecologically Sensitive Zone/ Area notification. The state 

governments, in turn, finalize the Regional Development Plan after calling for public inputs. 

To oversee the implementation, MoEF constitutes a High Level Monitoring Committee 

(HLMC), in most cases without any local representation. 

While the constitution of such ESZ /ESAs has had many positive consequences, there are 

also serious flaws in the system. The most serious problem is that the system depends 

heavily on bureaucratic regulation. With little or no meaningful participation by the local 

community, and given the absence of bureaucratic transparency and lack of accountability, 

this breeds corruption. The result is that the weaker sections suffer harassment and 

extortion, while the wealthy and the powerful successfully flout the regulations, leading to 

tremendous local resentment. 

27


There are four ESZs constituted in the state of Maharashtra, namely, Murud-Janjira, Dahanu 

Taluka, Matheran and Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani. The experience has been that both the 

Central and State Government authorities tend to act slowly and hesitantly in the necessary 

follow-up. For instance, in the case of the Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority 

(DTEPA), the Authority was constituted for an initial period of one year vide Notification 

dated 19-12-1996 and thereafter the Ministry started granting extensions piecemeal, first for 

a period of two months, next for a period of three months, thereafter for a period of six 

months. The Ministry was requested to make this Authority one of a permanent nature from 

the perspective of the efficiency of the monitoring function of the Authority. However, the 

Ministry granted extensions for the period of six months from November–December1999 

onwards, until the Courts intervened once more. It is only such Court interventions that 

have ensured that DTEPA is armed by powers to issue directions under Section 5 and for 

taking measures with respect to the matters referred to in Clauses (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), 

(x) and (xii) of Sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 

In contrast, the Mahabaleshwar-Panchagani High Level Monitoring Committee has 

continued to suffer seriously through lack of continuity, as also due to lack of adequate 

powers. WGEEP has had extensive dialogue with current Mahabaleshwar-Panchagani 

HLMC members and other activists, as also field visits and discussions with a cross-section 

of local community members, and a picture of very mixed reactions emerges. 

Unfortunately, there was no HLMC in place at all for a period of years from 2002–2005. 

While under the current Chairmanship of Shri Dev Mehta, the HLMC has tried to reach out 

to people and solve their problems, this did not happen earlier. So people have a strong 

impression that the ESZ is a regime imposed from outside and that it is a regime focused on 

rigid bureaucratic controls that are subverted by corrupt officials to harass and extort. 

WGEEP has received written petitions complaining that a farmer is obliged to pay a bribe of 

Rs 20,000 to get permission to dig a bore well on his farm. Mahabaleshwar-Panchagani 

region has large populations of Scheduled Tribes and traditional forest dwellers. Hence, it 

was imperative that the Forest Rights Act should have been implemented in these areas in 

its true spirit five years ago. Nothing has been done in this regard, and it appears that this is 

to facilitate extortion. People complain of very old paths to their villages being disrupted by 

trenches dug by the Forest Department, and Madhav Gadgil has personally inspected some 

of these. Allegedly, the trenches are then filled on payment of bribes, to be dug again some 

time later. The apparent lack of local support for the ESZ is also reflected in the report that at 

one time activists of the Bombay Environmental Action Group could visit Matheran, one of 

the ESZs promoted by them, only under police protection (Kapoor, M: K Kohli and M 

Menon, 2009 ). 

Boxes 7, 8 and 9 summarize these experiences. 

28


Box 7: Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority 

The Hon. Supreme Court in disposing of the Writ Petition No. 231 of 1994, ordered as under:- 

‚that continuous monitoring at the level of the State Government and also by some independent 

Statutory Authority is necessary to protect the ecologically fragile Dahanu Taluka. The State 

Government is under an obligation to implement Town / Regional Plan as approved by Government of 

India subject to the conditions imposed in official memorandum dated 6 th March, 1996, by Govt. of 

India, and directed the State of Maharashtra to execute the said Plan, subject to conditions and also two 

notifications issued by Government of India, Dated 19-2-1991 (CRZ Notification) and Notification 

Dated 20-6-1991 pertaining to Dahanu area. The State Government shall also take into consideration 

and implement all the Recommendations of NEERI, as reproduced in the said Judgment.‛ 

The said Writ Petition is transferred to the Bombay High Court to monitor is still pending. The Writ 

Petition No. is 981/1998. 

Also the Hon. Supreme Court directed the Central Government to constitute an Authority under 

Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection), Act, 1986 and also confer on the said Authority all the 

powers necessary to protect the ecologically fragile Dahanu Taluka and to control pollution in the said 

Area. The Authority shall be headed by a Retired High Court Judge and it may have other Members 

with expertise in the field of Hydrology, Oceanography, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology, Environment 

Engineering, Developmental and Environment Planning and Information Technology, to be appointed 

by Central Government. The Central Government shall confer on the said Authority all the powers to 

issue directions under Section 5 and for taking measures with respect to the matters referred to in 

Clauses (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x) and (xii) of Sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment 


The Central Government shall constitute the Authority before 20 th December, 1996. The Authority so 

constituted by the Central Government shall consider and implement the ‚Precautionary Principle‛ 

and ‚Polluter Pays Principle‛. The Authority shall also consider and implement the Recommendations 

of NEERI and implement the two Notifications dated 19-2-1991 (CRZ Notification) and Dated 20-6- 

1991 (Dahanu Notification), Regional Plan for the Dahanu Taluka , Development Plan for Dahanu 

Town etc. 

Accordingly, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi, vide Notification bearing 

No,.S.O.884 (E), dated 19-12-1996 has constituted the Authority called as ‚Dahanu Taluka Environment 

Protection Authority‛. 

Initially the DTEPA was constituted for the period of one year vide Notification dated 19-12-1996 up to 

18 th Dec. 1997 and thereafter the Ministry started granting extensions piecemeal, first for the period of 

two months, for the period of three months, thereafter for the period of six months. The Ministry was 

requested to make this Authority of permanent nature for discharging efficiently the monitoring 

function of the Authority. However, the Ministry granted extensions for the period of six months from 

Nov–Dec1999 onwards. Thereafter, an application was filed before the Supreme court bearing No. 

I.A.Nos. 2 & 3 in Writ Petition No. (Civil) No.231/1994, by the Ministry, and Supreme Court vide 

Order dated 09/09/2002 extended the period of this Authority ‚until further Orders‛ of the Supreme 

Court and the Ministry issued Notification No.S.O.1211(E), dated 18 th Nov. 2002, granting extension 

‚Until further orders‛. 

It may be noted that the authority has one member representing civil society, an NGO representative. 

This position has been vacant for the last 16 months. 

Special features of the Authority 

The Meetings of the Authority are open meetings and the discussions on the questions take 

place in the presence of the citizens of the area, activists, as well as the Officers of the 

concerned Government Departments and of the Project Agencies. All the complaints received 

by the DTEPA are considered and discussed in the meeting itself, after hearing all sides with 

the people from the area being present. This is a ‘Public Consultation’ in the true sense. The 

decisions are taken in the presence of all and their implementation is also followed regularly. 

So far all the decisions are unanimous. About 70 to 100 local people attend the Meetings of 

DTEPA and their problems/complaints are resolved regularly by the Authority. 

A unique criterion laid down by the Authority is the Social Cost of the Project. The Officers 

in-charge of the Projects are directed to compensate the people of the area, who are likely to 

be affected, by providing some social amenities, such as Samaj Mandir, Cement Bandharas, 

Bus Stand Sheds, Gymnasium, Cemetery, Bore wells, Mobile Van for Kasa Hospital, Trauma 

29


Centres, Soil Erosion Bunds etc. The Authority is happy to report that the project owners, as well as 

the general public co-operates in the development of such social amenities. 

The Right to Good Environment is treated as part and parcel of Article 21 of the Constitution i.e. 

Right to Life. Therefore, care is being taken of the people living in the vicinity. In order to judge the 

effect of emission from the Thermal Power Plant and other industries on the environment or ecology, 

even physical health check up surveys are taken by the authorities concerned and in this the project 

owners as well as social clubs and the public of the area helped the DTEPA. In this process the 

Authority carried out health surveys and has conducted medical examinations /check ups of the 

women and the children of the area, as well as the persons employed in the Buffer and Balloon 

Industries etc. Therefore, the ecology and the environment, whose well being is the right of the 

people, guaranteed under section 51 of the Constitution of India, is protected by doing such surveys, 

so that remedies can be determined, which can then be implemented. 

This Authority adopted the new concepts of ‚Pre-afforestation‛ and ‚Pre-habilitation‛ keeping in 

view the said Right to Protection of Life. Government agencies always say that the lands for this 

purpose are already earmarked; then it is better to follow this principle, because compensatory 

afforestation and rehabilitation is absolutely necessary. 

The doctrine of Public Trust as laid down by the Father of the Nation, is now accepted by the 

Supreme Court of United States of America, as well as the Supreme Court of India. Meaning 

thereby, that the State or the Government is a Trustee and not the owner of the National Resources. 

Therefore, it is the duty of the State to use the same for the Public Good. The expression used is, ‚to 

reallocate the resources for public use, rather than self interest of private parties‛. 

The Supreme Court vide Order dated 31st October, 1996 did not dispose of the Writ Petition, but 

transferred it to the Bombay High Court and directed it ‚to monitor the whole matter‛, and to deal 

with the polluting and obnoxious industries, operating in Dahanu Taluka, in accordance with the 

Law, keeping in view the Town/Regional Plan, Government of India Notifications and the NEERI 

Report. Because of this, it was easy for this Authority to deal with the problems. Unfortunately, the 

power plant is practically in the sea and it uses coal. Therefore, installation of an FGD plant was 

absolutely necessary. Another problem is of fly ash, which requires serious consideration..The plant 

is under vigilance of the Authority and 70% fly ash is utilized, according to the RIL report. The 

mechanism of dealing with the balance fly ash is still under discussion. 

30


Box 8: Mahabaleshwar Panchgani Eco-Sensitive Zone 

Presented by D. Mehta – Chairman HLMC, Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani ESZ 

A Brief Background of Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani Region 'Eco Sensitive Zone' 

Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani region is a popular tourist hill station; the only one of its kind in the 

Northern Western Ghats. However, the region also has a rich natural heritage, and is the origin of 

the Krishna and Koyna rivers. The region faces a severe threat from booming tourism and its 

fallout, like illegal settlements, illegal hotels, illegal deforestation, solid waste pollution, traffic 

congestion, etc. 

In order to contain these harmful consequences of uncontrolled development in the 

Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani region, a notification was issued by the Ministry of Environment 

and Forests in January 2001 whereby the region was declared as an 'Eco-sensitive Zone' covering 

an area of 123.96 sq kms. Controlled, sustainable development and protection to ecologically 

sensitive areas within the region was envisaged under this notification. 

The importance of the Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani Eco Sensitive Zone (MPESZ) has increased, 

among other things, due to the recent judgment given by the Krishna Water Disputes tribunal. 

Since Krishna and Koyna are the major rivers which will affect the area upstream of the Almatti 

dam, practically every year during the monsoons, regulating and managing the head waters of 

these two rivers has acquired a special significance. 

The Dhom and Balkawadi Dams on the Krishna and the reservoir on the Koyna will have to be 

managed and regulated carefully in order to avoid or at least minimize flooding of areas 

upstream of the Almatti dam. Therefore, the entire ecologically sensitive zone of Mahabaleshwar 

and Panchgani which receives the head waters of these rivers will have to be conserved as flood 

regulating catchments, among other things. 

Mahabaleshwar receives up to 8000 mm of rain during the monsoon, which is absorbed by the 

forests on the nine plateaus and on the slopes and ledges of the MPESZ. Due to the impact of 

climate change, both weather and rainfall patterns have changed significantly. 

The ecological and river basin significance notwithstanding, this region also has to cater for over 

10 lakh tourists who converge on this hill resort every year and have to be provided with basic 

amenities and tourist facilities of high standards. 

The resident population, which hosts these tourists also, have specific needs and requirements 

which need to be fulfilled. 

Experience of working in the HLMC of the Mahabaleshwar Panchgani eco-sensitive zone 

The High Level Monitoring Committee (HLMC) appointed by the Ministry of Environment and 

Forests has been trying to achieve these objectives since its initial appointment in 2002 to 2005 and 

then later from 2008 to 2012. 

Important decisions taken during the recent period include; 

Proactive and Development oriented decisions: 

1. Regional Plan 

The HLMC scrutinized the entire regional plan and submitted its detailed report containing a 

vision statement, aims and objective, and important additions and modifications, to the Ministry 

of Environment and Forests (MoEF), GoI. The HLMC report was fully accepted. The Regional 

Plan inclusive of HLMC report [Zonal Master Plan] has been approved by the MoEF and has been 

sent to the Government of Maharashtra (GoM) for final notification. 

The HLMC appointed a sub-committee headed by Mr. David Cardoz to survey the waterfalls and 

sources of streams in the Zone in March 2010. Sources of streams and twelve waterfalls have been 

surveyed, identified and are now included in the Zonal Master Plan. Similarly, the rationalization 

of boundaries of a buffer zone around the ESZ is being studied by Prof. Jay Samant and Prof. 

Vijay Paranjpye. On completion of the study appropriate recommendations will be made to the 

Government. 

31


2 Tourism Master Plan 

The Terms of Reference for the Tourism Master Plan have been finalized by the HLMC and 

given to the Maharastra tourism development corporation, MTDC. However, the MTDC has 

not yet prepared the Tourism Master Plan, which will have to be a crucial part of the Zonal 

Master Plan. 

3 Development Plans 

Guidelines for the finalisation of the Development Plans for the Panchgani and Mahabaleshwar 

Townships have been given to the Director of Town Planning (DTP) (GoM). These 

Development Plans (DPs) when completed by the DTP and approved by MoEF will be treated 

as the Sub-zonal Master Plans. 

4 Institutes for Climate Change 

A decision has been taken to set up a Climate Change Institute in Mahabaleshwar which will be 

using advanced techniques and equipment for monitoring meteorological changes on a short 

term as well as long term basis. This institute will be located within the premises of the 

Meteorological Department located at Mahabaleshwar. 

5 New Gaothans – (Village settlements) 

Twelve villages within the ESZ were facing major administrative and developmental problems 

because of the pending final declaration as Gaothans by the GoM. The HLMC has during its last 

meeting advised the Collector Satara to start approving applications for housing in proposed 

Gaothan areas and the ADTP was requested to incorporate the changes in the Zonal Master Plan 

accordingly. 

It is expected that this decision will greatly ease the provision of basic facilities like connecting 

roads to these villages. 

6 Environment Awareness 

An awareness program has been launched and printed material in Marathi and English, CDs, 

films etc. have been distributed/ are being distributed to schools, guides, hoteliers, gram 

panchayats, and govt. offices etc. who interface with public regularly. A website will be set up 

to exclusively deal with HLMC matters. Two interpretation centres in Mahabaleshwar and 

Panchgani have been set up. More interpretation centres within the Region are being set up. 

Seminars for school children, teachers, principals and guides were organised to explain SEZ and 

to understand their responses. 

7 Involvement of local residents 

To interact closely with local citizens, meetings are held prior to every HLMC meeting with the 

following existing groups: 

Local administrative staff, 

School teachers, voluntary groups, activists and stakeholders like: 

Hoteliers Association, 

Taxi and horse owners Associations, 

Association of strawberry growers, 

Association of guides, tour operators and adventure clubs, 

Association of shop keepers and merchants. 

All relevant information about the provisions of the ESZ, along with the historical, 

geographical, and biological and heritage-related information is made available to such groups 

and concerned citizens. These informal meetings helped the HLMC in understanding local 

difficulties and suggestions, many of which are reflected in its decisions. 

We are actively encouraging formation of NGOs of local people for better interaction. 

8 Encouraging Eco-tourism 

The HLMC has indicated to all agencies and stakeholders that there will have to be a major shift 

from leisure and conventional tourism to ecological, cultural and agro-tourism, etc. Meetings 

with guides have been held in this connection and for whom a training workshop is being 

organized. In order to divert tourist flow towards nature trails, horse rides, and hiking trails, 

maps have been prepared with the help of the Hoteliers Association. 

Regulatory and Restrictive Decisions 

The HLMC had been approached with a proposal for a Ropeway Project across the Venna Lake. 

After several meetings and deliberations the HLMC has decided not to approve it, since it 

would not be permissible under the Ropeways Act, GoM, and since it is harmful to the MPESZ. 

An Amusement Park was set up at Panchgani without following the correct procedures, and 

32


without obtaining permissions from the HLMC or the MoEF and not consistent with the ESZ 

criteria. The HLMC is trying to minimize the damage due to the Amusement Park and has 

directed the agency to carry out certain corrective measures. The proposed Zonal Master Plan 

(RP) has ensured that no such undesirable development takes place in future. 

In order to curb unauthorized constructions, and the misuse of FSI, a decision has been taken to 

provide electric connections and other civic amenities only for approved development plans/ 

projects. The Bed and Breakfast concept which was being widely misused has been frozen 

temporarily till new guidelines contained in the ZMP are notified. 

It was observed that a large number of mega-sized hoardings were being illegally put up, 

thereby blocking the natural and man-made heritage sites. A decision was taken to remove all 

unauthorized hoardings. The PWD has recently removed 58 such hoardings. Similar actions 

will be continued by other departments as well. 

Collector Satara, Member Secretary of the HLMC, has initiated a drive to disallow plastic bags 

below 50 microns thickness and the local Municipal authorities and agencies have also been 

asked to do the same. The local authorities were advised to increase the quantum of fines for 

this infraction to act as a more effective deterrent. The larger establishments like hotels and 

residential schools have agreed to the procurement of bulk supply of milk and drinking water 

in order to reduce the use and disposal of plastic bags. Small entrepreneurs have been 

encouraged to produce paper, cloth and jute bags. 

Work in Progress 

The GoM has approved funds for Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) at both Mahabaleshwar and 

Panchgani, however the work being done is very slow and unsatisfactory and in the case of 

Panchgani, the implementation has been unsatisfactory and incorrect. The Municipal Councils 

are being monitored and have been asked to report to the HLMC on a monthly basis. 

The HLMC has proposed the preparation of a roads and traffic management plan. Vehicles 

using alternative energy and a reliable public transportation system within the MPESZ will be 

the principal elements of this plan. 

The HLMC has been working on plans and procedure for converting the ESZ into an organic 

farming zone. The successful example set by the Himachal Pradesh Government will be taken 

as the basis for this purpose. Issues such as eliminating plastics in organic farming will be dealt 

with in consultation with the local farming community 

Suggestions for making the HLMC more effective: 

A. Suggestions specific to Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani ESZ (MPESZ) 

1 The ‘forest alike areas’ surveyed as per Supreme Court orders are to be treated as deemed 

forests. HLMC has requested MoEF to give specific instructions to the state government as 

to how permissions for development on such identified spots should be given, keeping in 

mind the fact that those who protected forests on their plot should not be penalized and 

they should at least get the FSI normally available on such a plot without getting into the 

long procedure of approaching MoEF with a management plan. HLMC should be given 

powers to consider all applications pertaining to such plots to avoid hardship to owners. 

2 The Zonal Master Plan (ZMP) would not be complete unless maps of forest surveys are 

integrated into the plan. In order not to delay final publication of ZMP, it is suggested that 

such maps could be put on to websites to begin with. Subsequently certified maps can be 

made available in the offices of the Tahsildar, chief officers, Forest Department, Collector 

and the interpretation centres. 

3 The State Tourism Department was mandated to prepare the tourism master plan which is 

to be treated as a subzonal plan, after approval by MoEF and Ministry of Tourism, GOI. 

Despite the lapse of 8 years, work has not begun and the matter needs to be taken up at the 

highest level of state government. 

4 For want of budgetary provisions, the HLMC is unable to appoint consultants for various 

measures like the transport and traffic plan, conservation and awareness drives etc. The 

MoEF should direct the state government to provide funds specifically to the HLMC for this 

purpose. In addition MoEF can consider giving matching grants. It would be a nice idea to 

start with at least 1% of the District Planning and Development Council (DPDC) budget. 

Moreover, the funds from the Krishna Valley Action Plan and Hill Area Development Plan, 

etc., should be utilised for projects which enhance the eco-sensitivity of the ESZ. 

B. General suggestions for all HLMCs. 

1 Composition and tenure: The tenure of 2 years is too short for the HLMC to complete its 

task. It is suggested that the tenure should be at least 3–5 years. 

33


The representation of non-official members should be increased to include experts in the 

fields of biodiversity, geophysics, hydrology, socio-economics, as well as local representatives 

preferably through an NGO. Since tourism is one of the engines of growth in hill areas, an 

expert on eco-tourism should also be included. It would be appropriate in the MPESZ to 

make the Managing Director (MD) of the Krishna Valley Development Corporation a 

member of the HLMC. 

The HLMC need not be too large and some government offices could be excluded e.g. 

Director of Municipal administration who is not concerned with ecological issues. Similarly 

the Secretary of Environment is unable to attend and is always represented through the 

Pollution Control Board who are members in any case. 

2 Powers to take punitive actions: Powers under section 5 of EPA (1986) should be given to the 

HLMC to take quick and effective action against offenders. 

The recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) in I.A No. 659 and 669 of 

2001 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 at page 9, para ii) are as follows- 

‚The Monitoring Committee set-up under the notification has been given powers only under section 19 

of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to file complaints. Power u/s 5 and 10 of the said Act 

should also be given, as has been given to similar other authorities such as the Coastal Zone 

Management Authorities, etc. These powers would permit a smother and better functioning of the 

Monitoring Committee.” 

3 Finance: The HLMC is provided with no funds at all, either by central or state governments. 

As a result, it is unable to take up special projects, consultancies, awareness drives or 

environmental research. In fact most of the non-official members spend their own money and 

other resources to carry on the work of the HLMC. 

4 Co-ordination: For better coordination it is suggested that MoEF should regularly hold 

workshops for non-official members of all HLMCs, concerned state environment secretary, 

proposed WGEA authority, MoEF and other national and international experts. 

5 Execution: It is found generally that except the Collector who is also the Member Secretary of 

HLMC, other government officials who are members do not regularly attend meetings. Our 

present experience shows that the local authorities do not take the directions of the HLMC 

seriously. The state governments show benign neglect, at best. There is a need to give 

directions to speedily comply with all HLMC decisions. The concerned state departments 

should regularly monitor the implementation and enforcement of HLMC decisions. 

C. Proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority 

We appreciate that the Chairman of WGEEP has made efforts to take cognizance of the difficulties 

faced by HLMCs in their functioning. Due to the brief tenure of the WGEEP, it was not possible 

for HLMCs to participate in the deliberations of the WGEEP. 

As and when the Western Ghats Ecology Authority is constituted, it would be useful to set up a 

mechanism to involve concerned HLMCs for continuous interaction with the Authority. Besides 

HLMC’s answerability to MoEF, their functioning should be under the overall supervision of the 

WGEA. Since the jurisdiction of WGEA is large, it would be difficult for the Authority to monitor 

development at the micro-level. As such it is recommended that administrative units like the 

HLMC be set up in identified ESZs. The WGEA should include NGOs, tourism and socioeconomic 

experts in addition to technical experts. 

34


Box 9: A summary of feedback from citizens in Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani ESZ 

Prepared by Madhav Gadgil as summarized by Suresh Pingale, a local strawberry and 

rose cultivator 

The ESZ programme is designed and operates in a highly centralized fashion; there has been no involvement 

of citizens in making any pertinent decisions, on deciding on how the ecological objectives would be best 

served, and in day-to-day operation of the ESZ authority 

Many so-called illegal constructions targeted were temporary sheds or cowsheds. People who had 

refused to give bribes were victimized. At the same time, a hotel near the ST stand which had 

probably undertaken construction without permission, was spared. The whole proposal for the 

ESZ was developed and moved by Bombay-based people; there was essentially no involvement of 

local people, especially farmers and adivasis. Local people, including elected members on local 

bodies had no idea whatsoever of the intention behind the ESZ. There were rumors of the on-going 

process and people, e.g. Gavlis, Kolis, and Dhavad Muslims especially from remote hamlets, were 

afraid they were going to be ousted, and were exploited by the officials. Forest dwellers were 

alienated from their access to the forest, with negative consequences. At the same time, large scale 

constructions continued, especially by those with black money, such as smugglers, to set up hotels. 

Forest Officials neglected maintenance of access to tourist view points like Bombay Point. 

Citizens have little awareness about the purpose of the ESZ, what is expected to be achieved, and how the 

ESZ authority is supposed to function 

Barring some political leaders and a small educated class of year-long residents, the general public 

has no idea about the ESZ. They have a vague idea that an office in Bhopal, and another in 

Mumbai, is controlling affairs. Forest officials keep particularly aloof from local people. Even 

political leaders have no idea of possible projects of positive interest to local people from the ESZ 

programme. 

Broader considerations, e.g. stream conservation or restoration, promotion of organic farming, soil carbon 

sequestration, reducing use of agro-chemicals, promoting bridle paths are completely ignored 

The ESZ role seems to be restricted to regulation of construction and tree felling. As a nursery 

owner, Suresh Pingale wished to propagate and popularize indigenous species that do well locally. 

There was no response from officials to such a proposal. 

Citizens are not informed about the respective roles and authority of the HLMC and of bureaucracy; 

consequently they are misled, creating greater opportunities for corruption 

Even political leaders are unclear on their roles. The local leadership that is positively interested in 

maintaining ecology is encouraged in no way. They are treated as enemies. The revenue and forest 

officials are aligned to commercial interests and wealthier outsiders owning property in the 

locality. 

Citizens are not informed of and no attempt is made to implement Acts that would involve them actively in 

conservation efforts,e.g. Biological Diversity Act, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmer’s Rights Act and 

Community Forest Resources, Forest Rights Act 

Local leadership would be quite positively inclined to implement provisions of these acts, but are 

completely uninformed. 

Bureaucracy and political leadership continually try to push through projects favouring the construction and 

commercial tourism lobby 

Even today there is on-going conversion of Agricultural to Non-agricultural land involving 

corrupt practices. 

Citizens are harassed and substantial bribes collected, for simple building repairs, for minor construction, for 

digging wells 

Suresh Pingale’s own small bamboo pole shed shaded by a net to protect nursery plants was 

classified as an illegal construction but his shed was demolished long before a notice to this effect 

35


was served. This is routine occurrence. People complain that they have to pay a bribe of Rs 

20,000 for permission to dig a bore well; for an open well even larger amounts are demanded. 

Farms on hilly lands may be split on two levels; levelling of land is then permitted only on 

payment of bribes.A bribe of at least Rs 1000–1500 from small farmers is demanded for a small 

extension of verandas. 

Citizens are harassed by closure of roads to old villages in areas surrounded by forests in existence for a 

long time 

Previously jeepable roads, or those traversable by bullock carts are now made unusable by 

trenches dug by the Forest Department; these are allowed to be repaired on payment of bribes. 

Villagers without sanctioned gaothans are particularly vulnerable to harassment 

While populations have grown, gaothan areas have remained static over the last 40 years. Due 

to natural growth in populations, new construction are needed but are not permissible. Under 

the land revenue code, a farmer is allowed to construct a farm house if he holds a minimum of 

one acre, whereas in the ESZ no such permission will be granted for landholdings of less than 

two acres. An estimated 80% of farmers own less than two acres of land and are denied 

permission to build causing great hardships. They are forced to dwell in very small huts in 

gaothans. 

Rampant violations do go on, such as illegal construction, illegal tree felling, operations behind high 

corrugated iron sheet fences 

Allegedly 3000 trees were felled by Ramba Hotels Pvt Ltd. Currently a new extension to 

Brightland Hotel seems to be indulging in similar tree cutting. Allegedly there has been a clear 

case of illegal construction in Bhose village. As of today, at least in 4 large plots in 

Mahableshwar, construction along with suspected tree felling is going on behind the shelter of 

high corrugated iron sheets. 

Other suggestions 

It is imperative that we involve local people, promote proper public awareness. The ESZ 

programme should also provide positive opportunities. Strong and authoritative handling by 

the bureaucracy, forest and revenue officials has strangely resulted in degradation of the socioecological 

balance of the area, as this attitude discourages voluntary participation of villagers, 

farmers and adivasis who live here. Fortunately these people, especially the educated youth 

and enlightened leadership, have realized that their lot will be much better if they preserve and 

enhance biodiversity. Instead of taking of confrontationist postures, if government officials 

encourage participation of people, their creative, positive energy and participatory work will 

certainly play an important role in achieving sound ecological objectives. 

With these aims in mind, care should be taken towards creation of employment opportunities. 

Agriculture would provide great scope in this direction. Organic farming, specialty fruit 

cultivation, such as all berries, kiwi etc should be encouraged with technical inputs, marketing 

facilities and related assistance. Preservation, packaging and processing of agri-products would 

add substantially to the incomes of farmers. In this direction agri-, eco- and health- tourism, 

jungle trekking etc may generate further employment opportunities. 

Education, promotion of local/ adivasi arts and crafts would provide honourable livelihoods to 

the poor. An institute for this purpose should be established. About 200 magicians/madaris 

from Ghorpadi, a village near Pune visit and perform for tourists in Mahabaleshwar/Panchgani 

making good earnings. On similar lines local youths be trained for performing arts such as 

songs, music etc. 

Gram Sabhas in small forest hamlets should be especially made aware of provisions like Forest 

Rights Act. 

36


12. Buffering Protected Areas 

Another stream of ESZ related activities has stemmed from a resolution of the Indian Board 

for Wildlife in 2002 to constitute areas up to ten kilometres from the boundaries of Protected 

Areas such as Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Parks as ESZs /ESAs. In pursuance of this 

resolution, MoEF called for proposals from State Governments, with Forest Departments 

expected to take the initiative. By 2002, the Pronab Sen (2000) committee report on 

identifying parameters for designating ecologically sensitive areas was available. This report 

had called for systematically mapping and recording base-line data, as also to design and 

operationalize a comprehensive monitoring programme and network, involving not only 

government agencies but also other institutions, universities, NGOs, and individuals, 

particularly those living in the pertinent areas. No such information base has been created. 

An excellent voluntary attempt along these lines was made by Ashish Kurne, an MSc 

student at Bharati Vidyapeeth Institute of Environmental Research and Education, Pune 

who visited 16 PAs of Maharashtra, including several in the Western Ghats and submitted a 

thesis outlining the issues that will need to be addressed in this regard. The thesis was 

submitted in 2004 and his guide, Dr Erach Bharucha, published a detailed paper 

incorporating the results. This material was presented to Maharashtra Forest Department. 

(Bharucha et al. 2011). 

When the Forest Departments were goaded into some action after a Court judgment in 2005, 

the PCCF sent out letters in which he asked the various Forest Department functionaries to 

prepare appropriate proposals after consulting these publications. Yet only some hesitant, 

tardy action is being taken relating to PAs in Kolhapur Circle, namely Radhanagari WLS, 

Chandoli NP, and Koyna WLS, a follow up that is still incomplete six years after the wakeup 

call by the courts in 2005. 

WGEEP made serious, concerted attempts to obtain information relating to any such follow 

up for all Western Ghats PAs, with some limited success only for the state of Maharashtra. 

Some information was obtained relating to PAs in Kolhapur Circle, and two Conservators of 

Forest who had been in charge, M K Rao (13 May,2011) and Sai Prakash (11 June,2011), were 

kind enough to explain the position in person. Both confirmed that no cognizance 

whatsoever was taken of the Kurne thesis, nor of the many studies undertaken by the faculty 

and research students of Shivaji University. They also confirmed that no systematic data has 

been recorded by the Maharashtra Forest Department. Minutes of the meeting note that two 

Forest Officials advised that the steep escarpments of the Western Ghats that fall within the 

10 km zone from PAs, and also have some Reserve Forest areas should not be considered as 

being ecologically sensitive. This is incredible in view of the fact that these escarpments fulfil 

two of the primary criteria of the Pronab Sen committee including [i] Steep Slopes and [ii] 

Origins of Rivers, and the areas so sought to be dismissed include very steep slopes and 

locations of origins of some important west-flowing rivers. In any case, even as of August 

2011, the Forest Department has advised WGEEP that no proper maps for proposed ESAs 

around these PAs have been prepared. 

The Forest Department has also gone about the business of formulating the management 

regime around these PAs in a most unsatisfactory fashion. A notification asking the public to 

express their views on these issues was issued around August–September 2010. This 

37


notification specified the management regime throughout the 10 km zone.. 5 Box 10 provides 

the proposed management rules for the buffer areas around PAs in Kolhapur. 

Box 10: Kolhapur Wild Life Division’s proposed management rules for Ecologically 

Sensitive Zones around Protected Areas 

• Within the 10 km extent of ESZ an area of 1 km will be declared as a buffer zone. There will be 

no construction within the buffer zone. Buffer zone will be maintained free and green. 

• There shall be no noise pollution in the ESZ. 

• No artificial lighting will be used in ESZ. 

• There shall be no industrial establishments in ESZ. 

• There will be no stone quarries and mining in ESZ. No new proposal will be entertained 

• No tree cutting will be permitted in private /revenue land without permission of District 

Collector. 

• It will be essential to guard natural heritage. 

• There shall be no modifications to waterfalls, caves etc. 

• Special efforts will be made to save endangered plant species. 

• Human heritage such as forts etc will be protected. 

• Excessive use of natural water sources for industrial establishments /residential buildings will 

be prohibited. Similarly care will be taken to prevent water pollution. 

• Use of plastic will be banned. 

• Construction on hill slopes will be prohibited. 

• It will be necessary to properly manage sewage. 

• Pollution resulting from burning of solid wastes will be banned. 

• Pollution from vehicular emissions will be controlled. 

While there are many eco-friendly and positive suggestions in these management rules, 

there has been little or no dialogue of officials with local communities, and consequently 

there is much confusion as to the management regime that will be followed in these ESZ 

/ESAs. For instance, “No artificial lighting will be used in ESZ” can be interpreted as no 

electric lights, nor even kerosene lanterns or oil lanterns with wicks will be permitted even 

inside residences in the 10 km zone. This zone includes large numbers of villages, and many 

other establishments. People interpret such regulations in only one way; that these will 

create opportunities for officials to harass and extort bribes. 

As a result, WGEEP has received many representations that the only fallout of such a 

programme will be for the poor to suffer harassment and extortion, and the wealthy and the 

powerful to successfully flout the regulations. Indeed, Kolhapur Zilla Parishad has passed a 

formal resolution on 6 th October 2010 rejecting the ESZ /ESAs around PAs in the Kolhapur 

district. When WGEEP visited Kolhapur and neighbouring areas between 11–12 October, 

2010, it received a large number of written and oral representations submitting that while 

they are very much in favour of nature conservation, the Forest Department is an agency 

5 

Ref: Power point presentation made by Mr.Chavan, DFO at the meeting held on 12/10/2010 at Kolhapur Zilla 

Parishad Assembly Hall) 

38


that will only harass and in no way act positively to conserve nature. Indeed, a written 

submission from a prominent member of Wai Taluka panchayat has gone so far as to state 

that the rule of the Forest Department is more tyrannical than that of the East India 

Company. 

Several political leaders belonging to many different parties from Sindhudurg also met 

WGEEP between 6–10 October, 2010, and submitted memoranda to the same effect. Notably 

enough, in the same Sindhudurg district, some 25 village Gramsabhas have passed 

resolutions requesting their areas to be constituted as ‘Ecologically Sensitive Areas’. WGEEP 

had the opportunity of visiting many of these villages on 9 th October and discussing the 

WGEEP concept of ‘Ecologically Sensitive Areas’. It was made clear to them that there need 

be no rigid regulations associated with ESAs in their villages; instead they should 

themselves suggest an environment- and people-friendly management system that they 

believe to be appropriate. Many of these Gramsabhas have submitted their proposals to 

WGEEP along these lines. 

12.1 Bhimashankar Wild Life Sanctuary 

Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani ESA, constituted prior to the IBWL resolution of 2002 calling for 

the 10 km ESAs around PAs, serves to protect a significant belt of evergreen forest of the 

Western Ghats, near the origin of Krishna river and its major tributary, Koyna. The 

northward extension of this evergreen forest belt constitutes the Bhimashankar Wildlife 

Sanctuary, an ancient, extensive Sacred Grove on the hill from which the Bhima river, 

another major tributary of the Krishna, originates. No action whatsoever has been taken 

since 2002 to establish an ESA around this PA, despite the following communication from 

PPCF(WL), Maharashtra dated 19/8/04 to CCF(WL), Nagpur, Nashik, Mumbai and 

CF(project Tiger), Amaravati: “Central Government had asked for proposals regarding the 

constitution of ESZs over an area of 10 km surrounding all PAs in connection with a 

resolution of the IBWL in 2002. The follow up should have been concluded by 2004. 

However, no action has been taken so far. Hence, in response to the direction of Nagpur 

High Court, all Wildlife Wardens in charge of Protected Areas are asked to constitute a 

committee involving forest officials as well as NGOs and Hon. Wildlife Wardens to decide 

on the necessity of declaration of ESZs around PAs. Even if it is considered unnecessary to 

constitute any ESZ, full rationale for why this is considered appropriate should be 

provided.” The report was to be submitted by 30.10.04. Subsequently a Wind Mill project by 

the company ENERCON has come up in this area. This project has proved to be 

controversial, with pending Court cases. As a result WGEEP was asked to specially look into 

the matter by the Hon Minister for Environment and Forests at the WGEEP meeting in his 

chambers on 24 March 2011. 

WGEEP therefore attempted to obtain information in this connection from the following 

officials of Maharashtra Forest Department: PCCF(General), PCCF(WL), CF(T),Pune, 

CF(WL), Pune. Beginning 7 th April 2011, they were all requested in writing to provide all 

pertinent background documents and maps relating to ENERCON project, and the proposal 

to constitute an ESZ around Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary. The Forest Department 

subsequently facilitated WGEEP field visits to this area by Madhav Gadgil on 14 April, 2011 

and by Renee Borges on 19 May, 2011. Pertinent documents were requested during these 

field visits also. No documents relating to Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary have been 

provided to Madhav Gadgil at any stage till date despite repeated reminders, and on 2 nd 

June 2011 Shri Sinha CF(T), Pune personally told Madhav Gadgil that no papers relating to 

this matter are traceable in any office of the Maharashtra Forest Department. However, 

39


Renee Borges was handed a file with correspondence that has been exchanged on the 

ENERCON project and also the legal proceedings vis-a-vis the case filed by Shri Kale. In 

addition, substantial material was accessed under RTI by an activist, Shri D K Kale, a 

resident of Chas village close to project area, and this was made available to WGEEP. 

Evidently, this project should not have been cleared at all without completing the 

constitution of the Ecologically Sensitive Zone, as also implementation of Forests Rights Act 

(FRA). 

It is clear from field inspection, as well as from Google Earth images, that the hills where 

wind mills have come up are tracts of high rainfall and biodiversity-rich evergreen forest, 

contiguous with that in the Bhimashankar WLS, and home to Maharashtra’s state animal, 

the Malabar Giant Squirrel Ratufa indica. In fact, RB noticed nests of the Giant Squirrel in the 

project area. The local Range Forest Officer had also clearly recorded these facts and 

recommended that the wind mill project should not be sanctioned. He was overruled by his 

superior officers who have cleared the project by patently misrepresenting the facts on 

ground. 

Apart from substantial forest destruction (including Forest Department estimates of about 

28,000 trees being cut) via wide roads cutting huge swathes through Reserve Forest, the 

wind mill project has triggered large scale erosion and landslides through poor construction 

of roads with steep gradients, and all this rubble is ending up on fertile farmland and in 

reservoirs of tributaries of the Krishna. 

The Forest Department is colluding with wind mill project operators in also illegally 

denying citizens access to these hills. Boards and check-posts have been put up by the 

company, falsely claiming to be authorized by the Forest Department. There are many 

traditional forest dwellers on these hills. Not only are their rights under the Forest Rights 

Act not being recognized, they are being illegally restrained in their movements on hills they 

have inhabited for centuries. 

12.2 A people-oriented process to ESZ delimitation 

WGEEP therefore believes that it is inappropriate to depend exclusively on Government 

agencies for constitution and management of ESZs. Instead, WGEEP suggests that the final 

demarcation of the Zones (including those surrounding PAs, as also in context of the 

UNESCO Heritage Site proposal) taking micro-watersheds and village boundaries into 

account, and fine tuning of the regulatory as well as promotional regimes, must be based on 

extensive inputs from local communities and local bodies, namely, Gram Panchayats, Taluka 

Panchayats, Zilla Parishads, and Nagarpalikas, under the overall supervision of the Western 

Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA), State level Ecology Authorities and District Ecology 

Committees (see details of these proposed committees later). An interesting precedent for 

this process has been established during the preparation of the Goa Regional Plan 2021. The 

first step in this GRP21 planning was a compilation of a comprehensive, spatially referenced, 

database on land, water and other natural resources of Goa state; however, regrettably, 

unlike our Western Ghats database, this has not been, as yet, made available in the public 

domain. Yet, this information was selectively shared with all Gram Sabhas and their 

suggestions as to the desired pattern of land use obtained, consolidated and used as an 

important basis for the preparation of the final plan. Again, regrettably, the Government of 

Goa has not continued with the dialogue, failing to go back to the Gram Sabhas when it felt 

it appropriate to diverge from the Gram Sabha suggestions. Nevertheless, this is an excellent 

model that should be implemented in its true spirit, and WGEEP proposes that WGEA 

should follow it. 

40


Another admirable model for WGEA is the formulation of ‘Conservation of biodiversity rich 

areas of Udumbanchola taluka’ project by Kerala State Biodiversity Board (2010) The 

procedure followed has been grounded in the powers and functioning of Biodiversity 

Management Committees (BMC) in local bodies at all levels, namely Gram Panchayats, 

Taluka Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats, as also Nagarpalikas and Mahanagarpalikas, 

linked to state level Biodiversity Boards and the National Biodiversity Authority. This 

institutional structure of BMCs, mandated by India’s Biological Diversity Act 2002 for the 

country as a whole, is potentially readily available throughout the Western Ghats region and 

provides a sound basis for designing a transparent, participatory system for arriving at final 

decisions regarding (1) delineation of ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3, and (2) the management regime 

to be followed in ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3, fine-tuned to local ecological and social context 

wherever necessary. This highly desirable participatory process will obviously take some 

time. Nevertheless, WGEEP strongly commends its adoption. In the meantime, the Ministry 

of Environment and Forests, GoI, must take immediate steps to safeguard the precious 

natural heritage of the Western Ghats. With this in view WGEEP strongly recommends that 

the Ministry of Environment and Forests immediately notifies under EPA the limits of ESZ1, 

ESZ2 and ESZ3 as proposed by WGEEP at taluka level, along with an appropriate 

regulatory regime as suggested in Table 6. 

13. Proposed guidelines/summary recommendations for 

sector-wise activities 

WGEEP advocates a graded or layered approach, with regulatory as well as promotional 

measures appropriately fine-tuned to local ecological and social contexts within the broad 

framework of (1) Regions of highest sensitivity or Ecologically Sensitive Zone 1 (ESZ1), (2) 

Regions of high sensitivity or ESZ2, and the (3) Regions of moderate sensitivity or ESZ3. 

While we advocate this fine-tuning through a participatory process going down to gram 

sabhas, it is appropriate to provide a broad set of guidelines as a starting point. WGEEP has 

attempted to arrive at such a set of broad guide-lines for the various sectors on the basis of 

extensive consultations with officials, experts, civil society groups and citizens at large. 

These are summarized in Table 6. 

Table 6 Proposed guidelines and summary recommendations for sector-wise activities 6 

Sector ESZ1 ESZ2 ESZ3 

Across the Western 

Ghats 

Land use 

Genetically modified crops should not be allowed 

Phase out the use of plastic bags in shops, commercial establishments, tourist 

spots, on a priority basis (not more than 3 years) 

For all settlements and built areas/ to be developed areas, certain types of areas 

would be no-go areas, including water courses, water bodies, special habitats, 

geological formations, biodiversity rich areas, and sacred groves 

Special Economic Zones should not be permitted 

New hill stations should not be allowed 

Public lands should not be converted to private lands; 

Change in land use not 

permitted from forest to nonforest 

uses or agricultural to 

non-agricultural, except 

Change in land use 

not permitted from 

forest to non-forest 

uses or agricultural 

Changes from 

agricultural to nonagricultural 

land 

permitted, considering 

6 

Detailed sectoral recommendations are in Part II of the Report 

41



agriculture to forest (or tree 

crops) except when extension of 

existing village settlement areas 

to accommodate increase in 

population of local residents. 

For existing built structures such 

as hotels, resorts, the tourism 

policy of the MOEF 

appropriately refined by WGEA, 

to be followed 

Road and other infrastructural 

expansion plans to be submitted 

for EIA scrutiny by the ULB / 

Local Planning Authority before 

execution of projects, especially 

assessing the cost-benefits 

considering ecological costs and 

public benefits. 

to non-agricultural, 

except agriculture to 

forest (or tree crops) 

except when 

extension of existing 

village settlement 

areas to 

accommodate 

increase in 

population of local 

residents. 

For existing built 

structures such as 

hotels, resorts, the 

tourism policy of 

the MOEF 

appropriately 

refined by WGEA, 

to be followed 

Road and other 

infrastructural 

expansion plans to 

be submitted for 

EIA scrutiny by the 

ULB / Local 

Planning Authority 

before execution of 

projects, especially 

assessing the costbenefits 

considering 

ecological costs and 

public benefits. 

the following (and 

mitigating the 

impacts) in addition to 

the other 

socioeconomic and 

environmental 

parameters: 

Building codes 

consisting of green 

technology 

and green building 

materials 

A building code should be evolved by the WGEA which include inter-alia ecofriendly 

building material and construction methods, minimising the use of steel, 

cement and sand, providing water harvesting methods, non-conventional energy 

and waste treatment The application or detailing of the framework would be 

done by local authorities to suit local conditions.. 

Area treatment/ 

plot development/ 

landscaping in the 

open areas of plots 

Waste treatment 

Certain recognized best practices of construction/development such as topsoil 

conservation, trees conservation etc. should be followed as per the guidelines of 

Green Building certifications of Eco Housing, GRIHA or any other appropriate 

codes to be encouraged. 

Certain activities for example filling of marshes/ wetlands, introduction of alien 

invasive species are not permitted 

The area that may be paved is to be restricted; paving of ground areas may be 

done in such a manner that there is no change in the run-off / permeability of the 

plot overall before and after paving (if some area is paved, the recharge from 

other areas will have to be enhanced) 

Local authorities should be made responsible to for developing regional systems 

for handling hazardous, toxic, biomedical wastes as well as recyclable materials 

No hazardous or toxic waste 

processing units 

No hazardous or 

toxic waste 

processing units 

Recycling and waste 

processing and units 

compliant with PCB 

regulations should be 

sited in ESZ3 areas (or 

outside the WG 

region) and should 

cater to nearby ESZ1 

42



and 2 areas 

Wastewater 

management 

Water 

Agriculture 

Mandatory for all layouts/ building developments though the choice of 

technology would vary with size of settlement; 

Should be such as to permit, reuse, recharge, recycling as locally appropriate and 

permit recovery of energy where possible 

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 

programmes involving community participation 

Water conservation measures should be adopted through suitable technology up 

gradation and public awareness programmes 

Inter-basin diversions of rivers in the Western Ghats should not be allowed 

Promote organic agricultural practices; discourage cultivation of annual crops on 

slopes exceeding 30%, where perennial crops should be promoted; introduce 

incentive payments for sequestration of carbon in soils, introduce incentive 

payments for maintenance of select traditional cultivars, encourage participatory 

breeding programmes to improve productivity of traditional cultivars; encourage 

precision agricultural practices, No GMOs 

Phase out all use of chemical 

pesticides/ weedicides within 

five years 

Phase out, through a system of 

positive incentives, use of 

chemical fertilizers within five 

years 

Phase out all use of 

chemical pesticides/ 

weedicides within 

eight years 

Phase out, through a 

system of positive 

incentives, use of 

chemical fertilizers 

within eight years 

Phase out all use of 

chemical pesticides/ 

weedicides within ten 

years 

Phase out, through a 

system of positive 

incentives, use of 

chemical fertilizers 

within ten years 

Animal Husbandry 

Fishery 

Forestry: 

Government lands 

Introduce incentive payments as ‚conservation service charges‛ for maintenance 

of land races of livestock; 

Redeploy subsidies for chemical fertilizers towards maintenance of livestock and 

production of biogas and generation of organic manure; 

Restore community grasslands and forest grazing lands outside the Protected 

Areas. 

Breeds which can withstand adverse agro climatic conditions should be 

encouraged 

Application of weedicides in cash crop areas alongside the roads must be 

prohibited, since almost all plants coming under the weed category are rich 

cattle fodder. 

The unused land in tea estates should be used for cattle rearing and the organic 

manure thus produced used for tea plantation. 

Strictly control use of dynamite and other explosives to kill fish; provide fish 

ladders at all reservoirs 


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 

Forest Rights Act to be implemented in its true spirit by reaching out to people to 

facilitate their claims, Community Forest Resource provisions under FRA to 

replace all current Joint Forest Management programmes, 

43



No monoculture plantation of 

exotics like eucalyptus; 

No pesticide/ weedicide 

application; 

Extraction of medicinal plants 

with strict regulations 

No monoculture 

plantation of exotics 

like eucalyptus; 

Encourage planting 

of endemic species; 

Phase out pesticide/ 

weedicide 

application; 

Extraction of 

medicinal plants 

with strict 

regulations 




Encourage planting of 

endemic species; 


weedicide application; 

Extraction of 

medicinal plants with 

strict regulations 

Forestry: private 

lands 

Recognize rights of all small-scale, traditional private land holders under FRA, 


of natural vegetation for small land holders, as also for switch-over from annual 

crops to perennial crops on steep slopes for small landholders. Introduce 

incentives such as tax breaks or renewal of leases as ‚conservation service 

charges‛ for maintenance of natural vegetation for small land holders; 

Forestry: private 

lands 

No monoculture plantation of 

exotics like eucalyptus; existing 

plantations of such exotics 

should be replaced by planting 

endemic species or allowing area 

to revert to grassland where it 

was originally grassland. 

No pesticide/ weedicide 

application; 

Extraction of medicinal plants 

with strict regulations ; 

Encourage planting of endemic 

species 




existing plantations 

of such exotics 

should be replaced 

by planting endemic 

species or allowing 

area to revert to 

grassland where it 

was originally 

grassland 

Encourage planting 

of endemic species; 




existing plantations of 

such exotics should be 

replaced by planting 

endemic species or 

allowing area to revert 

to grassland where it 

was originally 

grassland 

Encourage planting of 

endemic species in 

private forests; 

Quarrying with 

strict regulations; 

Quarrying with strict 

regulations; 


weedicide 

application 


weedicide application 

Biodiversity 

Introduce incentive payments as ‚conservation service charges‛ for 

maintenance of sacred groves; for maintenance of biodiversity elements on 

private lands, lands under control of Biodiversity Management Committees, 

JFM lands, and lands assigned as Community Forest Resources 

Make special funds available to Biodiversity Management Committees for 

disbursal in relation to wildlife related damage 

Mining 

No new licenses to be given for 

mining 

Where mining exists, it should 

be phased out in 5 years, by 2016 

Detailed plans for 

environmental and social 

rehabilitation of mines to be 

closed. 

No new licenses to 

be given for 

mining. 

This moratorium 

can be reviewed on 

a case by case basis 

Existing mining to 

adopt good practice 

mining and be 

under strict 

regulation and 

New mining may be 

taken up only for 

scarce minerals not 

available on the plains 

and should be under 

strict regulation and 

social audit, subject to 

free prior informed 

consent of tribal and 

other communities 

and in recognition of 

tribal rights. 

44



Illegal mining to be stopped 

immediately 

social audit 

Detailed plans for 

environmental and 

social rehabilitation 

of mines to be 

closed. 

Illegal mining to be 

stopped 

immediately 

Existing mining to 

adopt good practice 

mining and be under 


social audit 

Illegal mining to be 

stopped immediately 

Quarry and sand 

mining 

Where exists should be 

controlled effectively for 

environmental and social 

impacts immediately 

No new licenses to be given for 

quarry and sand mining 

Upgradation 

possible/permitted 

subject to strict 


social audit 

Existing and new 

quarry and sand 

mining should be 

under strict 

regulations and social 

audit and without 

affecting tribal rights 

Polluting Industry 

(Red /Orange) 

No new polluting (red and 

orange category) industries; for 

existing industries switch to zero 

pollution by 2016 and be subject 

to strict regulation and social 

audit 

No new polluting 

(red and orange 

category) industries; 

for existing 

industries switch to 

zero pollution by 

2016 and be subject 

to strict regulation 

and social audit 

New industries may 

be set up under strict 

regulation and social 

audit. 

Non polluting 

(Green/ Blue) 

Industry 

With strict regulation and social 

audit. 

Local bioresource based industry 

should be promoted. All should 

be strictly regulated and be 

subject to social audit. 

Promote Green/ 

Blue industries. 

Local bioresource 

based industry 

should be 

promoted. All 

should be strictly 

regulated and be 

subject to social 

audit. 

Promote Green/ Blue 

industries. Local 

bioresource based 

industry should be 

promoted. All should 

be strictly regulated 

and be subject to social 

audit. 

Power/Energy 

Educate the energy consumer about the environmental and social impacts of 

energy production and the need for reducing ‚luxury‛ demand 

Encourage demand side management; enhanced energy efficiency across sectors 

Launch ‚smart‛ campaigns as key components of demand side management, 

focusing on smart grids, smart buildings, smart power, smart logistics and smart 

motors 

Promote decentralized electricity, use of solar power 

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 

Small bandharas 

permissible for local 

and tribal 

community use / 

local self 

government use 

Large Power plants 

are allowed subject to 

strict environmental 

regulations including 

1. cumulative impact 

assessment studies 

45



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 

No new thermal power plants 

Strict environmental regulation 

of existing thermal power plants 

Existing thermal plants to 

actively promote alternate uses 

of fly ash - such as in road 

making in addition to the 

existing practices 

of manufacture of fly ash bricks 

No large scale wind power 

projects 

Promote biomass based /solar 

sources for decentralized energy 

needs. 

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 

Regulated wind 

power projects but 

after cumulative 

environmental 

impact assessment 

(CEIA) 

Zero pollution to be 

required of existing 

Thermal Power 

Plants 

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 

Existing Power plants 

subject to strict 

regulation and social 

audit. 

Zero pollution to be 

required for new 

thermal power plants. 

Wind projects only 

after CEIA 

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 

Transport 

No new railway lines and 

major roads, except where it is 

highly essential( as perhaps, in 

case of Goa), and subject to EIA, 

strict regulation and social audit. 

No new railway 

lines and major 

roads, except when 

highly essential and 

subject to EIA, strict 


social audit. 

Essential new roads/ 

railways may be 

allowed subject to 


social audit. 

Avoidance of new highways, 

expressways 

Upgradation of 

46



roads possible/ 

permitted subject to 

EIAs, strict 


social audit 

Tourism 

Ecotourism policy of MoEF 

refined by the WGEA to 

promote minimal impact 

tourism in the region 

Strict regulation for waste 

management, traffic and water 

use 

Strict regulation on 

basis of a Tourism 

master plan and 

social audit. 

Tourism Master 

Plan should be 

based on carrying 

capacity of area and 

after taking into 

account social and 

environmental 

costs. 

Strict regulation and 

social audit 

Tourism Master Plan 

should be based on 

carrying capacity of 

area and after taking 

into account social and 

environmental costs 

Education 

Science and 

Technology 

Information 

management 

Reconnect children and youth to local environment through education 

programmes focusing on local environmental issues, especially degradation of 

natural resources of land and water and air and water pollution. 

Tailor Environmental Education projects to serve as an instrument of 

participatory environmental monitoring involving local community members; 

connect such exercises to preparation of ‚People’s Biodiversity Registers‛ by the 

local Biodiversity Management Committees 

Students’ ‚River Clubs‛ should be encouraged in schools situated along the 

course of the respective river 

Teach agriculture in schools 

Cumulative impact assessment for all new projects such as dams, mines, tourism, 

and housing, that impact upon water resources should be conducted and 

permission given only if they fall within the carrying capacity 

Focus research on perfecting green technology and make it affordable for 

common people. 

Environment flow assessments indicators should be worked out by Research 

institutions, NGOs along with local communities 

Build on the Western Ghats database of WGEEP to create an open, transparent, 

participatory system of environmental monitoring involving all citizens, in 

particular the student community 

Update and upgrade a hydrological data base of rivers and consolidate the 

ecological data base and information at river basin level 

13.1 Regional Plans and ESZs 

The overall planning and development of the extensive Western Ghats region would have to 

be placed within the framework of the proposed Ecologically Sensitive Zones. Box 11 

suggests an approach as developed by Professor Edgar Ribeiro, Retd Chief Town Planner, 

GOI, New Delhi. 

47


Box 11: Regional Plans and the WGEA 

Note prepared by Professor Edgar Ribeiro 

A. DPCs and MPCs under the Constitution 

1. THE 73/74 th Constitutional Amendment Acts, 92, introduced the concept of District Planning 

Committees (DPCs) and Metropolitan Planning Committees (DPCs). Thus within the 

Administrative Districts of India and which with the ushering in of 5 year plans in 1950 saw the 

emergence of Development Blocks in empathy with the administrative sub-districts of Talukas / 

Tehsils, a new dimension to districts has constitutionally been introduced. Uniquely DPC’s 

/MPC’s focus on down-top participatory growth based on electoral wards that define the 

Municipalities and Village Panchayats within Development Blocks /Tehsils that constitute the 

Districts of the State /UT’s of India. There are no governance overlaps in this three-tier hierarchy 

of Municipalities (Corporations, Councils, Nagar Panchayats) and of Village Panchayats and 

which settlements in turn constitute the regions of Districts with DPCs or MPCs. 

2. The constitutional amendments have ensured that at least 2/3 rds of MPC and 3/4 th of DPC 

members would be from the electoral Constituencies with a minimum of one-third elected 

representatives being women apart from catering to other statutory reservations. The Constitution 

has also attempted to address the vexing question of inter-se sectoral development conflicts on the 

use of scarce land by mandating that DPCs /MPCs would prepare draft development plans for 

their jurisdiction by amalgamating sectoral projects in a programmed development format for the 

consideration of the State Government. However confusion persists on the sanctity of a draft plan. 

3. Currently most states have DPCs in place but with limited functions. This is through 3-tier 

Panchayat Raj Institution (PRIs ) of village Panchayats (VPs) Development Blocks and Districts 

(Kerala, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat) or 2-item PRIs of VPs and Districts as in Goa. 

4. However only Kolkata Urban .Area has a working MPC in place with the KMDA doubling up as 

its technical secretariat. The Constitution requires that these MPCs be established for all 

Metropolitan Areas (population exceeding one million) i.e., 35 in number in 2001. In fact in the 

12 th 5 year plan, promotional funds through JNNURM is likely to be withheld to states that do not 

constitute MPCs. A bottleneck in this regard is stated to be the jurisdictional overlaps in perimetropolitan 

areas between DPCs with their Zilla Parishads (ZP) or equivalent institutions and 

MPCs outside full Municipal Corporation Districts. 

5. An option that is under debate is, if all continuous districts with peri-metropolitan areas, could be 

placed in their entirety under the MPC. Thereby each state would have distinct Districts with 

DPCs serviced by ZPs and distinct MPCs serviced by Metropolitan Development Authorities with 

ZPs of such districts reporting to MPCs for draft development plan purposes apart from their 

other statutory functions. 

B. The emerging role of spatial plans (regional and urban plans). 

1. The Constitutional amendments that have established MPCs and DPCs attempt to address the 

issues of sectoral investment development planning but not necessarily the implications of such 

sectoral investment planning on the use of land and which increasingly are inter-se in conflict due 

to escalating land shortages and the need to cater to spatial development (the use of land and the 

emerging built environment) after ensuring the conservation of environmentally eco-sensitive 

land and areas /plots of identified heritage value. 

2. This issue is currently being addressed by the Ministry of Urban Development through a model 

‚spatial‛ Development Planning Law for the States of the Union to adopt. This draft law aims to 

ensure an integrative spatial canvas covering the entire state with Regional level broad brush 

plans for Districts, for settlement level plans for Municipalities /Panchayats, and for local area 

level electoral ward plans, each with 20-year perspectives and 5-yearly development programmes, 

complete with distinct land use zones, a chart of uses allowed in each land use zone and 

Development Control Regulations (DCRs) for each land use zone. More importantly, the draft law 

aims to ensure that this instrument is to be the only law in the state that determines the use of 

land. Thereby, under this law no project or scheme would be prepared and processed as such 

projects/schemes are prepared under several Acts, notably Municipality/PRI Acts, Development 

Authority Acts, Industrial Development Acts, Infrastructure Development Authority Acts, etc. 

The definition of project or scheme in the draft Regional and Urban Planning Law is as below. 

48


3. ‚A project or scheme‛ is a plan to scale for a plot of an area for implementation under local 

Authorities Acts or any other Act – Central or State. These are to follow the stipulations of this Act 

and inter alia comprise of plans for transport and other infrastructure, layouts with or without 

designs for the development of townships or areas for housing, industries, commerce, institutions, 

recreation, conservation and for redevelopment including those of obsolete or bad layouts. 

4. Thus a distinction is made between a Spatial Planning Frame work‛ (regional/settlement /Local 

area ) and a ‚Project/Scheme‛ (regional /settlement /local Area.) 

C. The Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA) 

1. The moment is opportune for the WGEA to be set up along with other such Authorities for India’s 

eco-sensitive areas. In fact over one third of India’s 650 or so districts are largely eco –sensitive and 

where development has to play a supporting role. On the other hand around a third of India’s 

Districts are development friendly and where eco-sensitivity has to be judiciously introduced. The 

remaining districts need a balance between development and eco-sensitivity. 

2. The epoch-making (and overdue) WGEA is for an Authority for a spine covering (in full or part) 

several districts in six states (Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu). All 

these districts need spatial regional plans (as in Kerala and Goa). These district level statutory 

surface utilization plans if prepared and processed would earmark eco-sensitive land use zones 

along with other use zones. The boundaries of the WGEA area would accordingly have to be shown 

on each spatial regional plan of the relevant district of all the participating states. Thereby clearance 

would be required from the WGEA before any development is to take place (regional /settlement 

/local area level) within the identified boundaries. 

3. The fact has to be underlined that the WGEA is a ‚Project body‛ and not a land use framework 

body as the framework is provided under the Regional Urban Development Planning Act of the 

State. As the WGEA project matures, any land use they consider fragile (for conservation) has 

mandatorily to be shown on the Regional Development plan. Over a period of time the WGEA 

would determine areas to be conserved, those to be preserved and those that can be developed with 

special DCRs. These would have to be incorporated in each the District Regional Plans. It would 

therefore help if ‚Project‛ terminologies are distinct from framework terminologies. Typically, a 

‘Zone’ is a land use zone as a crucial component of spatial development plans. 

4. In retrospect, if the WGEA had been set up a decade ago Lavasa/Amby Valley as regional projects 

would have taken another shape in empathy with the WGEA ecological mandate and not as 

globally advertised real estate entities. Therefore, for the WGEA project to succeed it should be 

developed within the context of State Regional and Urban Development Planning Acts and with the 

term ‘development’ being redefined to incorporate conservation and preservation. 

5. In fact, the WGEA project could pioneer the new paradigm of spatial development planning of 

‚development in the context of conservation‛ through a subtle exercise of ‚Constraints and 

Opportunities‛ where the positive constraints of forest covers, multi-cropped agriculture lands 

wetlands / water bodies, natural / man-made environments and the like are mapped with zero or 

subdued DCRs, round which the development opportunities of transport, basic infrastructure are 

super imposed for built form land uses with appropriate and even promotional DCRs. 

14. Western Ghats Ecology Authority 

The Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA) should be a statutory authority appointed 

by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, enjoying powers under 

Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986. Of course, the Western Ghats is an 

extensive region spanning over six states, 44 districts, and 142 talukas, so the WGEA would 

need to function in a networked fashion with six constituent State Western Ghats Ecology 

Authorities, appointed jointly by the State Governments and the Central Ministry of 

Environment and Forests. The State Western Ghats Ecology Authorities should interact 

closely with the State Biodiversity Boards and Pollution Control Boards, as well as State 

Planning Departments administering the Western Ghats Development Programmes funded 

through Five Year Plans by the Planning Commission. It would be appropriate that all the 

Western Ghats Development Plan schemes are worked out by the State Governments with 

49


the help of the State Western Ghats Ecology Authorities and used to support sustainable 

development oriented schemes developed under the guidance of the Western Ghats Ecology 

Authority. 

Currently, the Ecologically Sensitive Areas are administered with the help of High Level 

Monitoring Committees appointed by the Central Ministry of Environment and Forests. 

These are hampered by lack of regulatory powers, except in the case of the Dahanu Taluka 

Ecology Authority established through a judgment of the Supreme Court. They are also 

hampered by lack of financial and human resources. In some cases, no HLMC has been in 

place for several years at a stretch. WGEEP proposes that they should be replaced by District 

Ecology Committees in all Western Ghats districts. These District Ecology Committees 

should work in collaboration with the district level Zilla Parishad/ Zilla Panchayat 

Biodiversity Management Committees, as well as District Planning Committees. Indeed, it 

may be appropriate that the district level Biodiversity Management Committees, which are 

statutory bodies established under the Biological Diversity Act and not ad-hoc committees 

which may cease to function for years at a stretch as has happened with HLMCs, may be 

asked to discharge the functions of WGEA District Ecology Committees by augmenting their 

membership by some experts appointed by the Central Ministry of Environment and Forests 

and State Western Ghats Ecology Authorities. 

WGEA should focus on promoting transparency, openness and participation in every way. 

An excellent tool for this could be the revival of the scheme of Paryavaran Vahinis, or 

committees of concerned citizens to serve as environmental watchdogs and undertake first 

hand monitoring of the environmental situation in the district as required. These Paryavaran 

Vahini volunteers could play a significant role in building capacity of people at the grassroot 

level for conservation, sustainable development and ecorestoration. WGEA could also 

undertake to appoint Environmental Ombudsmen in all districts. It should vigorously 

promote the institution of a social audit process for all environmental issues on the model of 

that for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Andhra 

Pradesh. 

WGEEP has made excellent progress in the development of a spatial database, for over 2200 

grids of 5’x5’ or roughly 9 km x 9 km through compilation of all readily available 

information on topography, land cover and occurrence of biodiversity elements for the 

Western Ghats. WGEA should vigorously pursue further development of this database by 

bringing on board many available databases such as that prepared in connection with Zonal 

Atlases for Siting of Industries (ZASI), by sponsoring further scientific inputs, as also by 

linking Environmental Education activities at school and college levels and the People’s 

Biodiversity Register exercises to augment the database. WGEA should encourage citizen 

involvement in continual development of the Western Ghats database on the pattern of the 

Australian River Watch schemes. In this context, WGEA should help overcome the entirely 

unjustifiable difficulties that researchers encounter today in working in forest areas. WGEA 

should pursue concerned Government agencies to make available all pertinent information 

pro-actively as provided in the Right to Information Act, and not wait for applications by 

citizens. For example, the Ministry of Environment and Forests should immediately make 

public all district level Zonal Atlases for Siting of Industries in a searchable form on the 

Ministry’s website, which may then be linked to the Western Ghats database. 

WGEA should lead a radical reform of the Environmental Impact Analysis and Clearance 

process. It should revisit the list of projects that require Environmental Impact Analysis and 

Clearance and include certain items such as Wind Mills and small scale hydroelectric 

projects that are excluded today, and seek ways to carry out the EIAs in a transparent 

50


fashion. Furthermore, it should link Environmental Education activities at school and 

college levels and the People’s Biodiversity Register exercises to the EIA process. Equally 

urgent is the need to promote a more holistic perspective and organize a process of 

Cumulative Impact Analysis in place of the current project-by-project clearances. 

WGEA should strive to promote a participatory, bottom-up approach to conservation, 

sustainable development and ecorestoration of the Western Ghats. With this in view, it 

should encourage devolution of democratic processes as visualized in the 73 rd and 74 th 

Amendments to the Indian Constitution. Kerala, one of the Western Ghats states has made 

substantial progress in this direction, and WGEA should promote the emulation of Kerala 

example in all the Western Ghats districts. Kerala has also taken the lead in meaningful 

implementation of the Biological Diversity Act through Biodiversity Management 

Committees, and WGEA should take immediate steps to ensure establishment of 

Biodiversity Management Committees at all levels, namely, Gram Panchayats, Taluka 

Panchayats, Zilla Panchayats, as also Nagarpalikas and Mahanagarpalikas in all the Western 

Ghats districts. Furthermore, WGEA should ensure that BMCs are motivated through 

empowerment to levy 'collection charges' as provided in the Biological Diversity Act. These 

institutions may be involved in developing programmes on the model of ‘Conservation of 

biodiversity rich areas of Udumbanchola taluka’ in Kerala. These Biodiversity Management 

Committees are expected to take care of agro-biodiversity as well, and in this context the 

provisions of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act 2001 are highly 

relevant. A National Gene Fund has been established under PPVFRA and has substantial 

amounts available. These funds can be utilized to build capacity at the Panchayat level for in 

situ conservation of genetic diversity of indigenous crop varieties. 

The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act has much potential for 

the task of ecorestoration. It also has the advantage that Gram Sabhas are expected to be 

involved in planning of the works to be undertaken. Other opportunities exist for capacity 

building and empowerment of Gram Sabhas through Extension of Panchayat Raj to the 

Scheduled Areas Act (PESA) and the Forest Rights Act, and WGEA should promote proactive 

and sympathetic implementation of PESA and of the provision of Community Forest 

Resources under the Forest Rights Act. 

Finally, WGEA should strive to make a transition from regulations and negative incentives 

to promote nature conservation-oriented activities to a system of use of positive incentives to 

encourage continued conservation-oriented action in the context of traditional practices such 

as sacred groves and to initiate other action in modern contexts. An example of the latter is 

the payment of conservation service charges by the Kerala Biodiversity Board to a farmer 

who has maintained mangrove growth on his private land. WGEA should undertake a 

critical assessment of the efficacy of funds being deployed towards conservation efforts 

today in the form of salaries and perks of bureaucrats and technocrats, including their jeeps 

and buildings to house them. It would undoubtedly be found to be exceedingly low. These 

funds should then be redeployed over a period of time to provide positive incentives to local 

communities to maintain biodiversity elements of high value to conservation. 

Technical inputs would be required to decide on a common system of assigning 

conservation value to specific elements of biodiversity and to organize a reliable, transparent 

system of monitoring biodiversity levels within the territories assigned to various local 

communities, in the form of either Community Forest Resources assigned under FRA, or 

Panchayat areas assigned to Biodiversity Management Committees. Educational institutions 

at all levels, from village primary schools to universities, could play an important role in this 

51


effort. Indeed, these exercises could become very valuable components of environmental 

education curricula. In the long run, only a very lean bureaucratic apparatus should be 

retained to play a coordinating, facilitative role and to ensure that local communities can 

effectively enforce a desired system of protection and management of the natural resource 

base. Such a system would create a very efficient market for conservation performance so 

that funds earmarked to promote biodiversity would flow to localities and local 

communities endowed with capabilities of conserving high levels of biodiversity. This 

system would also channel rewards for conservation action to relatively poorer communities 

living close to the earth, thereby serving the ends of social justice, and creating in the long 

range a situation far more favourable to the maintenance of biodiversity on the earth. 

14.1 The Legal Framework 

Mandate of the WGEA 

1. In order to address the myriad environmental implications in the Western Ghats, which 

is proposed as an Ecologically Sensitive Area along with varying degree of ecological 

sensitivity as ESZ1, 2 and 3, it is proposed that an apex authority for the entire Western 

Ghats along with state Western Ghats authorities for each state and within them District 

Ecology Committees (DEC) be created to address the various environmental challenges 

of the Western Ghats. The Western Ghats Ecological Authority (WGEA) (hereinafter the 

Authority) shall be the Apex multi-statal authority for regulation, management and 

planning of all activities impacting all categories of ecologically sensitive zones within 

the states of the Western Ghats namely Gujarat, Goa, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil 

Nadu and Kerala, and shall be constituted under the relevant provisions of the 

Environment Protection Act, 1986. 

Constitution 

1. The Authority shall be constituted by the Central Government through the Ministry of 

Environment and Forests in consultation with the state governments of the Western 

Ghats. 

Role of the Authority: Conformity with other Environmental Laws 

1. The Authority shall function in conformity with all other environmental laws such as 

Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, Forest Conservation Act, 1980, Rules, Orders and 

Notifications issued under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Biodiversity Act, 

2002, the Air Act, 1981, Water Act, 1974, and the Rules made thereunder and also the 

Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) 

Act, 2006, and Rules and the Provisions of Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) 

Act, 1996, and its state adaptations as the case may be. In other words this notification 

under the EPA will not be in derogation of but in addition to other environmental laws 

to deal with offenders in the Ecologically Sensitive Area of the Western Ghats. 

Constitution of the Western Ghat Ecology Authority 

1. The WGEA shall comprise discipline or domain experts, resource experts and include 

representation from the nodal ministries. Discipline or domain experts include experts 

from the discipline of science, economics, law, sociology and the like. Resource experts 

include experts in forestry, hydrology, soil science, agriculture, land use, ecology and the 

like. 

52


The Western Ghats Ecology Authority shall comprise 24 members as given hereunder 

Non-Official Members 

1. Chairman – A retired judge of the Supreme Court, preferably from the Western Ghats 

region, with proven integrity and sympathetic to the cause of conservation and pro-poor 

sustainable development 

Or 

An eminent ecologist/conservation biologist of the Western Ghats region who has made 

substantial contribution to the Conservation of the region in the last 25 years (preferably 

from one of the Western Ghats States). 

2. An eminent conservation biologist of Western Ghats region who had contributed to the 

cause of conservation of Western Ghats (preferably from the Western Ghats States). 

3. An eminent environmental lawyer or environmental law academician/Professor familiar 

with the laws of the Western Ghats States (preferably from the Western Ghats States). 

4. An eminent social Scientist/economist/sociologist (preferably from the Western Ghats 

States). 

5. An eminent agricultural scientist/Professor (preferably from the Western Ghats States). 

6. An eminent landscape ecologist 

7. A representative of a prominent tribal group ( on rotation from each State) 

8–13. Civil Society Representatives- one from each State of the Western Ghats who had 

contributed to the conservation of the Ghats in the respective State. 

Official Members 

8. One Representative of MoEF – An Additional Secretary, MoEF- GOI-Ex-Officio 

9. Chairman Pollution Control Board – Central –Ex Officio 

10. One Member of Central Planning Commission who is dealing with Western 

Ghats/Environment –Ex Officio. 

11. Chairman National Biodiversity Authority –Ex-Officio 

12. Member Secretary (Full time) – any officer in the cadre of Joint Secretary/Scientist-G to 

be deputed by MoEF-GOI with the consent of the Chairman of the WGEA. 

19 – 24. Member Secretary of each of the State Western Ghats Ecology Board 

Powers and Authority of WGEA 

1. The Authority shall be a statutory authority whose recommendations are ordinarily 

binding. (This could be patterned on the National Board of Wildlife where their 

decisions are rarely tampered with and by and large have been approved even by the 

Supreme Court of India.) 

2. The Authority shall have jurisdiction over location of industry or other facilities or 

processes, land use planning and any other activity having adverse impact on the ESZ 

from environmental, social and ecological aspects. 

3. The Authority shall also be the final authority for approving the Ecologically Sensitive 

Zones in a prescribed period as recommended by the WGEEP in consultation with the 

53


states in various categories such as ESZ 1, 2 and 3. However, an inclusive and 

participatory consultation process shall precede such finalization of the various 

categories of ESZs in a prescribed time period (say six months). 

4. The Authority shall also establish a transparent decision-making process where 

decisions shall be speaking orders for every approval or rejection and also the method of 

arriving at any adjudication process. It shall also publish its decision in the public 

domain as soon as the final decision is taken. 

5. The Authority shall also be the appellate authority for any decision taken by the state 

authorities provided if there are disputes between two states within the Western Ghats, 

then such disputes may directly be brought before the Authority which shall be the final 

authority for adjudication of such disputes. 

6. The Authority may also revalidate accredited EIA Consultants for working in the 

Western Ghats if they deem fit and shall also have the power to blacklist such 

consultants if proved guilty of any malafide action, provided that such accredited EIA 

consultants shall have the opportunity of being heard. 

7. The WGEA shall have the power to issue directions to the state government or agencies 

or authorities to prohibit, regulate or allow any activity that may have adverse impact on 

the Western Ghats and to comply with its orders. 

8. The WGEA shall also have the power to issue clarifications on any provisions in the 

notification. 

9. The Authority shall have the power to levy fines and other punitive measures as laid 

down in the Environment Protection Act and other environmental laws. 

10. The WGEA shall have the power to call for any records, documents, or notes by any 

authority, agency within concerned state government as well as the central government 

in order to arrive at any decision. It shall be empowered under the relevant provision of 

the Civil Procedure Code. 

Functions of WGEA 

1. The WGA shall function in accordance with the mandate of the Environment Protection 

Act, 1986 and other environmental laws such as Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, Forest 

Conservation Act,1980 and Rules and Guidelines issued thereunder, the various Rules 

and notifications issued under the EPA, the Biodiversity Act, 2002, the Air Act,1981 

Water Act, 1974 and also the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and the Provisions of Panchayats 

Extension to Scheduled Areas Act. 

2. The WGEA shall also approve the master land use plan of the ESZ which shall be 

prepared by the state governments in consultation with the DEC. 

3. The WGEA shall develop a Western Ghats-specific master plan for the conservation of 

biological diversity/ecosystem and promotion of sustainable development. Such a master 

plan shall be developed with a bottom up approach through specific village, taluka and 

district (by whatever name called) plans, schemes and programmes. 

4. The WGEA shall lay down normative standards for regulating, managing and 

controlling activities that have adverse impact on the ecology and social fabric of the 

communities with respect to environmental decisions in the Western Ghats. 

54


5. The WGEA shall promote, coordinate research and monitoring of activities that have 

impacts on the ecology of the Western Ghats. 

6. The WGEA shall be vested with delegated powers under Section 3(2) and other relevant 

provisions of the EPA in order to discharge its functions effectively for the conservation 

and development of the Western Ghats. 

7. The Authority shall be guided by the conditions and restrictions enumerated in the 

Schedule where different guidelines have been enumerated and sectors have been listed 

along with the permissivity or prohibitions as the case may be. Such conditions may be 

adhered to in the strictest sense unless a project is of strategic defence requirement in 

such ESZs. 

8. The Authority shall follow a cumulative impact approach to projects that are permissible 

and shall ensure that the regional planning process sets an upper limit for number, size 

and nature of projects or activities in the given region. 

9. The WGEA shall perform such other functions as may be necessary to carry out the 

purposes of this Notification with regard to conservation and sustainable management 

and regulation of the Western Ghats Ecological Sensitive Area. 

Constitution of State Western Ghat Ecology Authorities 

1. There shall be State authorities created by the Central Government in consultation with 

the respective state governments (patterned on the State Environment Impact 

Assessment Authority) and in consultation with the apex Western Ghats Ecology 

Authority. 

2. The State Ecology Authorities shall comprise of discipline or domain experts, resource 

experts and representation from nodal departments. Discipline or domain experts 

include experts from the discipline of science, economics, law, sociology and the like. 

Resource experts include experts in forestry, hydrology, soil science, agriculture, land 

use, ecology and the like. 

Composition of State Western Ghats Authority (SWGA): It shall comprise 11 members 

Non-Official Members 

1. Chairman – retired High Court Judge 

or 

eminent ecologist of the area preferably from the Western Ghats region 

2. Eminent enviro-legal expert of the area preferably from the Western Ghats region 

3. An eminent ecologist of the region 

4–6 Eminent Civil Society representatives of the concerned State 

Official Members: 

7. Chairman, State Pollution Control Board- -Ex-Officio 

8. Principal Secretary, Dept of Environment and Forest of the concerned State- Ex-Officio 

9. One representative of the State Planning Board of the State. 

10. Chairman- State Biodiversity Board-Ex-Officio 

55


11. Member Secretary (Full time) – One officer of the rank of Joint Secretary/Advisor-G (of 

the State Government) to be deputed by the concerned State. 

Special Invitee: Chairman may invite subject experts or Government Officials as and when 

the services of such invitees are required. 

Power of State Authority 

1. The State Authorities shall be the deciding authority for every dispute on the Western 

Ghats relating to environment within its jurisdiction and that is brought before it 

through a prescribed process. 

2. The State Authority may also appoint an Environmental Ombudsman, on the pattern of 

Ombudsmen for MGNREGA, in each district who may be the focal point between the 

Authority and the District and who shall head the District Ecology Committee. 

3. The State WGEA shall have the power to issue directions to any agency at the state level 

or authorities to prohibit, regulate or allow any activity that may have adverse impact on 

the Western Ghats within the state jurisdiction and ensure compliance with its orders. 

4. The State WGEA shall be vested with delegated powers under Section 3(2) and other 

relevant provisions of the EPA in order to discharge its functions effectively for the 

conservation and development of the Western Ghats in their specific jurisdiction. 

5. The State WGEA shall have the power to levy fines and other punitive measures as laid 

down in the Environment Protection Act and other environmental laws. 

6. The State WGEA shall have the power to call for any records, documents, or notes by 

any authority, agency within concerned state government as well as the central 

government in order to arrive at any decision. It shall be empowered under relevant 

provision of the Civil Procedure Code. 

Constitution of the District Ecology Committee 

1. The State Authorities shall also constitute a District Ecology Committee (DEC) at every 

Western Ghats District in consultation with the state Government and the WGEA which 

will be the scrutinizing and verifying body for any dispute regarding ecologically 

sensitive zones within its jurisdiction. 

2. The District Ecology Committees shall comprise of discipline or domain experts, 

resource experts and representation from nodal departments. Discipline or domain 

experts include experts from the discipline of science, economics, law, sociology and the 

like. Resource experts include experts in forestry, hydrology, soil science, agriculture, 

land use, ecology and the like. 

3. The DEC may also appoint Environment Awareness Volunteers ( patterned on 

Paryavaran Vahinis or Hony Wildlife Wardens) whose primary task would be to raise 

awareness about the ecological importance of the Western Ghats and carry out 

participatory monitoring among other things. 

Function of the District Ecology Committee 

1. The DEC shall be the initiating planning agency at the district level for the Western 

Ghats Master Plan through a bottom up process and also be the scrutiny agency to 

assess the integration of other plans by other departments into the master plan at the 

district level. 

56


2. The DEC shall also be the first statutory body for scrutinizing and verifying any dispute, 

before it is brought to the state authority. However, if a dispute involves more than one 

district, such disputes may directly be brought before the state authority. 

Term of Authority 

1. The term of the members of all Authorities and Committees shall be 5 years. 

Cognisance of Offence including Citizens Suit Provision 

1. No court will take cognizance of any offence unless a complaint is filed in a prescribed 

manner and through an authorized officer of the authority at the district, state or 

Authority level. 

2. There shall also be a citizen suit provision wherein any citizen shall have the power to 

send a notice in a prescribed form to any district ecology committee, state authority or 

the apex WGEA to take action on any violation of the said notification or against any act 

having adverse impact on the environment and ecology of the Western Ghats. 

Financial Autonomy of the Western Ghats Ecology Authority and other State 

Authorities and District Ecology Committee 

1. The Central Government shall ensure that there is a complete financial autonomy of the 

Authority, the State WGEA and DEC wherein the central government along with the 

concerned state governments shall pool in resources for the functioning of such 

authorities and Committees. Further, a portion of any pecuniary fine may be utilized for 

the functioning of the authority itself. 

Dispute Resolution 

1. When any person is aggrieved by any activity or act of any other person(s) , or agency or 

authority in contravention of the provisions of the notification or which has an adverse 

impact on the ecology, environmental or social consequences on the ESZs of the Western 

Ghats as prescribed in the Sectoral guidelines as enumerated in the Schedule, then s/he 

may approach the concerned authority through the District Ecology Committee, State 

Authority or the apex WGEA as the case may be in a prescribed form. 

2. The concerned Authority or Committee shall respond within a period of thirty days and 

adjudicate the dispute within a prescribed period which may ordinarily be six months or 

earlier and in exceptional circumstances may be extended by giving reasons thereof. The 

concerned Authority or Committee shall give a reasonable opportunity to all parties for 

being heard either in person or through representative(s). 

Establishment of Western Ghats Conservation and Management Foundation 

1. The Central Government through the WGEA shall establish a Western Ghats 

Conservation and Management Foundation which shall be financially independent to 

support the various extension activities of the WGEA. 

2. Such funds may be used to carry out further research on specific issues, field visits and 

assessments, obtaining experts’ views and other materials necessary for arriving at 

sound environmental decisions. 

57


Proposed Framework of the Western Ghat Ecology Authority 

1. Statement of Object and Rationale of the Authority 

2. Preamble 

3. Definitions 

4. Constitution of WGE Authority 

5. Term of office and conditions of service of members 

6. Officers and employees of WGE Authority 

7. Powers 

8. Functions 

9. Procedure to be regulated by the Authority 

10. Grants and loans to the Authority and Constitution of Fund 

11. Accounts and audit of the Authority 

12. Annual report of the Authority 

13. Annual report and audit report to be laid before parliament 

14. Constitution of State Authority 

15. Constitution of District Ecology Committee 

16. Western Ghats Master Conservation and Management Plan 

17. Alteration and modification of the ESZ categories 

18. Establishment of Western Ghats Conservation and Management Foundation 

19. Offences by Company 

20. Immunity to Officers discharging duties in official capacity 

15. Athirappilly and Gundia Hydel projects 

WGEEP proposes that Environmental Clearance should not be given to any large scale 

storage dams in ESZ1 and ESZ2. Reportedly, Karnataka Power Corporation now proposes to 

reduce the submergence area for Gundia project by 80% from original proposal by dropping 

of Hongadahalla dam. Nevertheless, the other proposed Bettad kumari dam also comes 

under ESZ1. Likewise, the location of Athirappilly dam falls in ESZ1. Hence we recommend 

that the Ministry of Environment and Forests refuse Environmental Clearance to these two 

projects. WGEEP further notes that the process of proper assignment of rights under the 

Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Rights over the Forest) Act has not 

been completed in either of these areas, it is therefore quite improper to accord 

Environmental or Forest Clearances to these two projects. 

15.1 The Athirappilly Project 

1. The KSEB (Kerala State Electricity Board) proposes a hydro-electric dam across the 

Chalakudy River in Trichur district, Kerala, to generate 163 MW of power (233 Mu firm 

energy) to meet the deficit during the peak hours from 6 pm to 10 pm. 

58


2. The concrete gravity dam is envisaged to be 23 m in height and 311 m in length. The 

water spread area would be 104 ha, whereas the total forest area required would be 138 

ha. Water from the dam will be brought through a 4.69 km tunnel of 6.4 m diameter to 

the main power house situated north-west of the dam site and above Kannankuzhithodu 

into which the tail race water will be emptied. These discharges through the 

Kannankuzhithodu will join the Chalakudy River at a distance of 1.5 km. Two penstocks 

each of 3.4 diameter and 50 m length will be provided to the power house with an 

installed capacity of 2 x 80 MW. Apart from these, two dam-toe generators with 1.5 MW 

capacity each are planned 50 m down the dam, thus making the total installed capacity 

to163 MW. 

Background 

1. The Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, gave environmental 

clearance on 20.1.1998 and forest clearances on 22.12.1997 (Stage I - Forest Clearance) and 

on 16.12.1999 (Stage II Forest Clearance). 

2. The honourable High Court of Kerala suspended the above sanction on three Public 

Interest Litigations, based on the irregularities in the procedure followed for tendering 

and against the clearance of the MoEF which was in violation of the Environmental 

Protection Act. The High Court further asked the KSEB to re-examine the procedure and, 

directed the Central Government to withdraw the sanction given earlier and conduct a 

public hearing in accordance with the EIA notification of the MoEF (1994) and the 

amendment to it dated 10.4.1997 (Kerala High Court judgment dated 17.10.2001) and 

then reconsider the grant of Environmental Clearance 

3. Accordingly, a public hearing was conducted by the Kerala State Pollution Control 

Board on 6.2.2002 at Trichur. The arguments against the reliability of the EIA conducted 

by the TBGRI (Tropical Botanical Gardens and Research Institute) in 1996, the impact on 

environment and biodiversity and, the technical feasibility of the project based on the 

actual availability of water were raised by the gathering. Considering all these, the 

Public Hearing Panel asked for a second EIA which should be comprehensive and 

should include inter alia consultations with local bodies, various departments of the 

government and the local communities of the river basin. 

4. The KSEB engaged WAPCOS (Water and Power Consultancy Services, India Ltd) in 

January 2002 to conduct a Comprehensive Environment Impact Assessment (CEIA). 

Their report was questioned by the Chalakudy Puzha Samrakhna Samithi (Chalakudy 

River Protection Council) on various grounds: its period of study, consultations with 

various agencies (local bodies, various departments of the government and the local 

communities) suggested by the High Court, methodology, and scientific reliability. 

5. The KSBB (Kerala State Biodiversity Board) in an affidavit filed in the High Court of 

Kerala categorically stated that the EIA report of WAPCOS was not comprehensive, and 

that the methods followed for the biodiversity studies were wrong and unacceptable. 

There was no indication that WAPCOS had any consultation with the agencies 

suggested by the Public Hearing Panel. 

6. However, the KSEB went ahead and obtained the clearance from the MoEF on 10.2.2005. 

Another PIL was filed by the Athirappilly Gram Panchayat and the Kadar tribals, the 

actual potential sufferers of the proposed dam, challenging the sanction accorded by the 

59


MoEF, mainly on the ground that the report of the second EIA was not circulated and 

kept away from the public and that there was no public hearing on the second EIA. 

7. The honourable Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala by its order dated 23 March 

2006 quashed the Environmental Clearance given by the MoEF on 10.2.2005 and asked 

the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to conduct a Public Hearing after ‚publishing 

the environmental assessment report stated to have been prepared by the KSEB‛. 

8. Thus, the second Public Hearing on the proposed Athirapilly hydro-electric dam was 

conducted on 15 June 2006 at Chalakudy, Trichur. According to the written submission 

made by CPSS (Chalakudy Puzha Samrakshana Samithi) to the WGEEP, more than 1200 

people attended the Public Hearing where none spoke in favour of the project and, in 

the 252 written representations submitted to the Public Hearing Panel, the ratio for and 

against the project was 1:9 respectively. CPSS further states that the minutes of the Public 

Hearing Panel was not unanimous; of the five members, three were against the project 

and among them two happened to be the Presidents of the Athirapilly Gram Panchayat 

and the Chalakudy Block Panchayat; representatives of the people of the two Panchayats 

who would be affected directly by the construction of dam. 

9. Pressure from civil society mounted up again, against the project. A five member EAC 

(Environment Appraisal Committee) of the MoEF visited the dam site and related areas, 

and had discussions with those opposing the project as well as officers of the KSEB at 

Athirappilly on April 2007. It also conducted a ‚public hearing‛ at the Town Hall, 

Trichur, the following day. The then Chairman of the KSBB was also present at the 

meeting. The members of the Committee did not seek any clarification on the points 

raised by those objecting to the project. Instead it was just another ‚Public hearing‛ 

10. Based on the report of this Committee, the Expert Committee for River Valley projects of 

the MoEF gave clearance for the project on 18 July 2007. 

11. PILs were filed again by Ms. Geetha, representative of the Primitive Kadar Tribe, and 

Mr. C. G. Madhusoodhanan, a hydrology engineer, the former challenging the project 

on the ground of ecology and biodiversity and the impact on their life-support system, 

while the latter challenged the WAPCOS EIA per se and the hydrological data base used 

in the WAPCOS study. 

12. The Kerala State Biodiversity Board discussed the issue in detail and took a decision 

against the project considering the rich biodiversity of the area and filed an affidavit at 

the Kerala High Court as KSBB has been made a Respondent. 

13. The Kerala High Court heard the case twice, in 2008 and in 2009, by two Division 

Benches. The judgment is awaited. 

14. On mounting pressure from the Government of Kerala for the clearance from the MOEF, 

it has asked the WGEEP to examine the issue, along with a few other projects proposed 

in the Western Ghats, and give recommendations. 

Visits and consultations 

1. The WGEEP visited the proposed dam site, the reservoir area, the primitive tribal 

settlements at Pokalappara and Vazhzchal, its surroundings and, the downstream 

Thumburmuzhi Major Irrigation project (Chalakudy River Diversion Scheme) on 29 

January 2011. It had consultations at various levels; with the representatives of the 

primitive Kadar tribe at the site, the local Panchayat (Athirappilly Panchayat), and the 

60


general public who responded to the WGEEP’s press note inviting those interested to 

come and give their views. 

2. In addition to these, the WGEEP organized a technical consultation which was attended 

by experts from the KSEB, Chalakudy Puzha Samrakshana Samithi, River Research 

Centre, KSSP (Kerala Sastra Sahithya Parishath), KFRI (Kerala Forest Research institute), 

KSBB (Kerala State Biodiversity Board), TBGRI (Tropical botanical Garden and Research 

Institute), NCF (Nature Conservation Foundation). Officers from Kerala State’s 

departments of Irrigation, Tribal Department, and Forest & Wildlife, Tourism section, 

retired forest officers, Vana Samrakhana Samithi, and KSEB’s Officers' Association were 

also present. It goes to the credit of the WGEEP that this was the first time that such a 

discussion was held between the proponents and opponents of the project. 

3. The WGEEP heard the views of all sections and individuals and, the Chairman, WGEEP 

requested the KSEB and all other participants that if they had any additional information 

or more detailed answers to questions raised by both the parties, they may send them to 

the Chairman by e-mail/post. 

4. Considering the views expressed by and the written representations received from the 

local primitive tribal community, Athirappilly Panchayat, the general public, technical 

experts including the officers of the Kerala State Electricity Board, the detailed minutes 

of the 14 th meeting of the Kerala State Biodiversity Board held on 26 September 2007, the 

EIAs conducted by the TBGRI (1996) and WAPCOS (2002), the results of the three public 

hearings as given in the minutes of the KSBB, technical details of the project explained by 

the KSEB, questions raised on the technical feasibility of the project, alternatives for 

power and the alternatives suggested by the Kerala High Court in its judgment of 17 

October 2001, the WGEEP comes to the following conclusions: 

Biodiversity 

1. Unique riverine forest ecosystem: The riparian vegetation in the Chalakudy river 

system is unique in that there is no such riparian vegetation at such low elevations 

anywhere else in the Western Ghats, especially in Kerala. 

2. High endemism in the riparian vegetation: The riparian vegetation in the proposed 

dam site contains 155 species of endemic plants and more than 33 species of plants 

belonging to the Rare, Endangered and Threatened categories of IUCN 

3. Richness in endemic, endangered species: The project area has a high degree of 

endemic species of several taxa: 21% of plants (out of 508 spp.), 16% of butterflies (out of 

54 spp.), 53% of amphibians (out of 17 spp.), 21% of reptiles (out of 19 spp.), 13% of birds 

(out of 98 spp.) and, 14% of mammals (out of 22 spp.) recorded in the area are endemic 

species (WAPCOS EIA 2002). 

4. Critically endangered plants: Critically endangered riparian trees such as Syzygium 

occidentalis and Atuna travancorica occur in the area. 

5. Rare species of plants in Kerala: Gymnema khandalense was reported in Kerala only from 

Athirappilly. A new species of plant, namely Lagenandra nairii is reported only from 

Athirappilly 

6. Habitat connectivity: The riparian vegetation of the Vazhachal-Athirappilly area serves 

as a link between the varied habitats at lower and higher elevations. 

7. The very high conservation value: According to the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 

and Action Plan for Kerala prepared by the French Institute, Pondicherry, the 

conservation value of the Vazhachal (project area) is as high as 75%. The KFRI, in a 

61


recent study, has also classified Vazhachal area as a High Value Biodiversity Area and 

has brought out a detailed Biodiversity Management Plan for it. 

8. Unique area for bird conservation: i) Of the 486 species of birds recorded from Kerala, 

234 are sighted in the Vazhachal-Athirappilly area, ii) all the four species of hornbills 

found in Kerala, namely Malabar Grey Hornbill, Grey Hornbill, Malabar Pied Hornbill, 

and Great Indian Hornbill occur in the Athirappilly-Vazhachal area; a very rare 

phenomenon, iii) riparian forests of the area constitute one of the only two breeding 

sites of the Malabar Pied Hornbill in Kerala, the other being Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary, 

iv) 12 of the 16 species (75%) of the endemic species of birds seen in the Western Ghats 

are present in the Athirappilly-Vazhachal area. 

9. Important Bird Area (IBA): The Vazhachal-Sholayar area has been identified as a 

globally Important Bird Area in 1995 by Birdlife International, Cambridge. 

10. Extremely high fish diversity: Out of the 210 species recorded in Kerala, the Chalakudy 

River has 104 species including 22 Endangered and 9 Critically Endangered species. 

11. Fishes found only in Chalakudy River: In an exhaustive analysis of the fish fauna of 

Kerala, it is reported that out of the 210 freshwater species of fishes in Kerala, 23 are 

found only in the Chalakudy River. 

12. New species of fish: The fish fauna of the Chalakudy River is unique in that there are as 

many as five new species, namely Osteochilichthys longidorsalis, Travancoria elongata, 

Horabagrus nigrocollaris, Puntius chalakudiensis, and Salarias reticulatus were discovered for 

the first time from the Chalakudy River 

13. An extremely rare species of fish: The population of one fish species (Osteochilichthys 

longidorsalis) found only in the Chalakudy river has reduced 99% during the last two 

decades. 

14. Fish abundance in the project area: In a single study, out of the 99 species of fish 

recorded in the Chalakudy River, 68 were from the project area. 

15. Breeding area of fish: Athirappilly-Vazhachal area provides microhabitats for various 

species of fishes to breed. 

16. Fish migration: Some of the species of fish migrate upstream while some do so 

downstream to complete their annual life cycle . Hence, construction of the dam will 

directly affect the survival of these species. 

17. Chalakudy River as a Fish Sanctuary: Considering the rich fish diversity and its other 

various importance as given above, the National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources has 

recommended the Chalakudy river to be declared as a Fish Sanctuary 

18. Loss of microhabitats of amphibians: Some amphibians such as the torrent frog 

Micrixalus saxicolus recorded from the area are confined only to the boulders submerged 

in the water course would lose their habitat by commissioning this project, 

19. Elephant Reserve: The entire project area falls within the Elephant Reserve No.9 

identified by the MOEF under ‘Project Elephant’. 

20. Migratory route of elephants: The submergence area is within the migratory route of 

elephants from Parambikulam plateau to Pooyamkutty forests. 

21. Presence of the rare Lion-tailed Macaque: One troop containing around 13 individuals 

of the Lion-tailed Macaque, an endemic, endangered species of the Western Ghats, lives 

in the riparian vegetation of the submergence area. 

22. Ideal habitat of the rare Cane Turtle: The cane turtle, an endemic and endangered 

species, first reported here, is currently the only place where they could be seen in 

reasonable numbers 

23. Loss of riparian forest: Construction of the dam and subsequent submergence will cause 

the loss of 28.4 ha of riparian forest rich in biodiversity and endemic species. 

62


24. Loss of animals of lower taxonomic groups: No serious attempts have been made so far 

to document the lower forms of life in this biodiversity-rich ecosystem. The present EIA 

also did not work on the lower forms. The rich microhabitats in the riverine system 

holds promise for the discovery of a large number of hitherto unknown species, 

especially invertebrates 

Impact on ecology 

1. Complete alteration of the ecology of the river system: Construction of the dam will 

completely alter the ecology of the river system, both upstream and downstream of the 

proposed dam site (from a dynamic and vital ecosystem to merely a physical water 

transporting system). 

2. Indispensability of the flow of water for ecosystem functioning: One of the vital 

reasons for the high species richness and endemism of the area is the total volume of 

water flow and the fluctuation in it from a minimum of 7.26 cumec in May to 229 .97 

cumec in August (average of 50 years; 1941–1942 to 1995–1996; table 4.10 of the EIA 

report). 

3. Alteration of the ecology of the system: The proposal to regulate the water flow to 7.75 

cumec, consequent to the construction of dam. This diversion of water for power 

generation would certainly affect the ecology of the system, especially the area between 

the dam site and the point where the tail race waters joins the Chalakudy river, a stretch 

of 7.89 km. The water flow in this sector would be only 7.75 cumec throughout the year. 

Impact on drinking water and agriculture downstream 

1. Impact on the availability of water in downstream Panchayats: Construction of the 

dam and retention of water for 20 hrs while releasing only a portion of it and 

subsequently releasing 5–8 times more water during an interval of four hours at night 

would certainly affect the flow pattern, which would affect the irrigation dynamics as 

well as the ecology of the area. 

2. The downstream irrigation needs of the ayacut (14000 ha spread across 20 Local Self 

Governments in the districts of Thrissur and Ernakulam) depend on the Chalakudy 

River Diversion Scheme (CRDS). According to KSEB the present water discharge from 

Poringalkuthu Hydro-electric Project, the main source of water for the Athirappilly 

Project, during lean months is 6.2–7.6 cumec for 20 hours and 36–38 cumecs for four 

hours (peak hours – 6 pm to 10 pm). The KSEB ensures 7.65 cumec for 20 hours and 36– 

38 cumecs for four hours even after the Athirappilly project is implemented. Therefore, 

according to KSEB, the water available to the CRDS will not be affected. 

3. While this variation (7.65–38 cumec) itself would affect irrigation, the Chalakudy Puzha 

Samrakshana Samithi (CPSS) challenges these figures and points out that the impact will 

be more severe. According to them, quoting the figures of the 2003 DPR (flow series 

from 1970–71 to 2001–02), the present discharge through the river from December to 

April is 14.92 cumec. Based on the maintenance schedule of generators at Poringalkuthu, 

the average flow for 20 hours between December and April is 13.25 cumec and that for 

four hours is 25–31 cumec. If the project comes through, the 20 hours flow will reduce 

from the average of 13.25 cumec to 7.65 cumecs, and that for four hours will increase to 

about 50 cumecs. This will badly affect irrigation from the CRDS. The irrigation needs 

from CRDS cannot be met with a flow of 7.65 cumec for 20 hrs. The change in the flow 

pattern would also affect the ground water in the catchments of the ayacut which in turn 

would affect the availability of drinking water in the area. The KSEB did not counter 

63


these arguments at the Technical Consultation held by the WGEEP at Chalakudy in 

January 2011. 

4. It may also be noted that water scarcity is already experienced in the downstream 

Panchayats, and salinity intrusion is reported up to 20 km from the coast. Construction 

of one more dam and changes in the flow pattern would aggravate the situation. 

Impact on the tribal population 

1. Although most of the tribal dwellings in the area will not be affected by the project, their 

habitats will certainly be seriously affected. A few dwellings may also fall within the 

submergence area when the dam is full. 

2. There are eight Kadar settlements in the Vazhachal Forest Division extending to 413 sq 

km. Two of them, namely Vazhachal and Pokalapara settlements, with 56 and 23 

families respectively, are within the reach of the high impact area of the proposed 

Athirappilly project. 

3. The Kadar tribe is considered to be the most primitive of the South Indian forest tribes 

that show more evidence of a Negrito ancestry with a predominant proto-Australoid 

element. They are a primitive hunter and food gatherer tribe originally restricted to the 

forests and hill tracts of Chalakudy river basin and their population is fewer than 1500. 

They had been subjected to various resettlements on account of construction of various 

dams above the proposed dam in Athirappilly. 

4. Although the tribal settlements would not fall within the submergence area, except 

probably a few at the Pokalapara settlement, their habitats in both the settlements will be 

seriously affected. The Vazhachal settlement with 56 families, the Tribal Cooperative 

Society, and Tribal Residential LP school are all within just 400 m downstream of the 

dam site. The Pokalappara settlement with 23 families is on the border of the proposed 

reservoir and a few houses may fall within the reservoir area when it is full. 

5. No action has been taken as per the statutory provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and 

other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, under which 

there are special provisions to recognize ‚rights over community tenures of habitat and 

habitation for primitive tribal groups and pre-agricultural communities‛. 

Technical feasibility of the project 

1. The technical feasibility of the project was questioned by the RRC (River Research 

Centre, Chalakudy) and CPSS (Chalakudy Puzha Samrakshana Samithi) on the 

following main grounds which were not countered or answered by the KSEB at the 

technical consultation held by the WGEEP at Chalakudy. 

2. Availability of water and power generation 

Varied figures are shown on the availability of water: 

a. Water availability as per 1999 DPR : 1269 MCM 

b. Water availability as per 2003 DPR : 1169 MCM 

c. Water availability as per CWC : 1056 MCM 

3. In all these calculations, the water diverted to Idamalayar Diversion Scheme appeared 

not to have been considered. Data obtained by the RRC (River Research Centre, 

Chalakudy) from KSEB under RTI show that after deducting the water made available to 

the Idamalayar diversion Scheme, only 750 MCM will be available to the Athirappilly 

dam. 

64


4. The Central Electricity Authority had calculated the electricity generation from the 

project at 233 MU per annum on the basis of the figures given in 2003 DPR; i.e. 1169 

MCM. Since water availability will be only 750 MCM, the power generation will be 

reduced accordingly. An analysis of daily generation and discharge data from 

Poringalkuthu from 1987 to 2006 (received under RTI) suggests that even at 70% 

dependability the generation at Athirappilly hydroelectric project will be about 170 MU 

and 210 MU respectively with and without the Idamalayar diversion. 

5. During the lean periods (December–May) and considering the Idamalayar Diversion 

Scheme, the power that could be generated will only be less than 25 MU. In case the 

Idamalayar Diversion Scheme is stopped as KSEB claims, the major portion of the 

electricity that is being generated from that scheme, about 60 MU (as per WAPCOS EIA), 

will cease to be available. That means there will be a substantial loss to the total power 

grid during lean periods, if the Athirappilly Project comes through. 

Conclusions 

Considering (1) the biodiversity richness, the high conservation value, highly significant 

fish fauna with type locality of five new species and as many as 22 endemic and 9 critically 

endangered species, the bird fauna with 75% of the endemics of the Western Ghats, and the 

unique riverine ecosystem not seen in other areas in the State, (2) the impact of the project 

on the biodiversity and the ecosystem, some of which may be irreparable, (3) the impact on 

downstream irrigation and drinking water, (4) the questionable technical feasibility of the 

project, (5) the meagre amount of power that could be generated from the project, (6) impact 

on the habitats of the primitive Kadar tribes of the area, (7) the high cost of construction 

even without considering the ecosystem services and environmental cost, and (8) the 

judgment of the honourable High Court of Kerala made on 17 October 2001 directing the 

KSEB to “take all necessary steps to repair and restore to full capacity , all the existing 

Hydro Electric Projects to ensure that the generation of power as envisaged is obtained and 

also to take steps to ensure that transmission losses are minimized and that theft of energy 

is prevented and to the extent possible eliminated altogether”, the WGEEP recommends to 

the MoEF that the Athirapilly -Vazhachal area should be protected as such and the 

permission for the proposed hydro-electric project at Athirappilly should not be given. The 

WGEEP further recommends that the Chalakudy River should be declared as a fish diversity 

rich area, to be managed on the pattern of ‘Conservation of biodiversity rich areas of 

Udumbanchola taluka’ in Kerala. 

15.2 Gundia hydroelectric project 

The Project 

Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) has proposed a hydro-electric project in the 

Gundia River Basin in the Hassan and Dakshina Kannada districts of Karnataka state to 

generate 200 MW of power (613 MU). Three stages have been proposed for development of 

this project – the first stage would include utilization of water from Yettinahole, Kerihole, 

Hongadahalla and Bettakumari streams covering a catchment area of 178.5 km 2 , the second 

stage would include Kumaradhara and Lingathhole covering 78 km 2 of catchment area and 

the third stage would involve six streams including Kumarahole and Abilbiruhole covering 

a catchment area of 70 km 2 . 

The total catchment area of all the streams contemplated for power development is 323.5 sq. 

km with an average annual yield of 975 Mcum. The area is proposed to be developed in two 

65


phases. Phase I is proposed to be developed initially which will include pooling of waters 

by linking Yettinahole, Kerihole, Hongadahalla and Bettakumari. Small weirs/dams across 

these would be built to intercept the flows in the streams and this water will be drawn 

through a tunnel running from Yettinahole leading to Bettakumari reservoir. From the 

foreshores of this reservoir, water will be led to an underground powerhouse through a 7.8 

km long head race tunnel opening into a surge tank. From this tank, water will be lead 

through a 850 m long pressure shaft bifurcating into two penstocks and an underground 

powerhouse. The proposed installed capacity of the powerhouse is two units of 200 MW 

each (400 MW). Phase II contemplates two tunnels – one taking the waters of 

Kadumanehalla and surrounding areas through a 13 km long unlined tunnel to the tunnel 

starting from Yettinahole weir, while the other will bring the waters of Lingathhole and 

Kumaradhara to Bettakumari reservoir through a 15 km long unlined tunnel. In the second 

phase, only small weirs of about 5 m height are proposed for diversion of waters. With the 

completion of Phase I of the project, the annual energy generation in a 90% dependable year 

will be 653 MU whereas the estimated annual energy generation for the ultimate 

implementation in a 90% dependable year from this project will be 1136 MU. The basic cost 

of the project for Phase-I only including obligatory works of Phase-II works out to be Rs. 

926.50 crores at high tension (HT) bus. Table 7 provides the salient features of the project. 

Table 7 Salient features of the proposed Gundia Hydroelectric project 

Yettinahole Weir Kerihole Weir Hongadhalla Weir Bettakumari 

Dam 

Latitude 12°51’40‛ 12°50’03‛ 12°49’29‛ 12°47’09‛ 

Longitude 75°43’20‛ 75°42’44‛ 75°42’23‛ 75°40’10‛ 

Catchment area 60.50 km 2 27.00 km 2 8.50 km 2 35.00 km 2 

Full Reservoir 

Level (FRL) 

EL 750 m EL 763 m EL 745 m EL 740 m 

Riverbed Level EL 738 m EL 758 m EL 730 m EL 720 m 

Intake Weir 

Level 

EL 743.50 m EL 759.40 m - EL 681 m 

Type of Dam Concrete Concrete Composite Composite 

Height of Dam 15 m 8 m 32 m 62 m 

Length of Dam 

at top 

80 m 68 m 152.40 m 575 m 

Spillway and 

Number of 

Gates 

36 m length, 3 

gates of 10 x 8 m 

size 

53 m length, 

over flow type 

60 m length, 4 gates 

of 12 x 10 m size 

45m length, 3 

gates of 12 x 10 m 

size 

Design inflow 525 cumecs 360 cumecs 1544 cumecs 954 cumecs 

66


Yettinahole Weir Kerihole Weir Hongadhalla Weir Bettakumari 

Dam 

flood 

Average yield 163 Mcum 86 Mcum 28 Mcum 120 Mcum 

Area under 

submersion 

11.54 Ha 0.09 Ha 40 Ha 133 Ha 

Access and deviation roads (length 100 km, width 10m): 

Dams, power house and other structures: 

Other uses (including quarry, field office, material stack, yard, etc.): 

Excavated tunnel muck dump, stock yard: 

100 Ha 

170 Ha 

15 Ha 

275 Ha 

Please note that these submersion areas do not include the HONGADAHALLA dam (523.80 ha) which has 

reportedly been cancelled. 

UNDERGROUND POWER HOUSE 

Type of turbines 

Installed capacity 

Approach tunnel to UGPH 

Francis turbine 

200 MW 

965 m ‘D’- shaped 7 m dia 

ENERGY 

Average annual energy 

1136 MU (90% dependable) 

COST 

Total basic cost of the project 

Rs 926.50 crores 

Background 

Government of Karnataka (GOK) allotted the Gundia Hydro-Electric Project (GHEP) to 

Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) on 06-10-1998. Since then, KPCL obtained 

clearances from a number of state and central government departments including the 

Fisheries Department, GOK (letter dated 28-09-2006), Department of Culture, Archaeological 

Survey of India, GOI (letter dated 10-03-2008), and Directorate of Health & Family Welfare 

Services, GOK (letter dated 16-04-2008). The Central Electricity Authority (CEA) accorded 

concurrence to the project vide their letter dated 25-04-2008. KPCL also obtained the 

approval from the Water Resources Department, GOK (letter dated 02-05-2008) and 

approval for land availability from Government of Karnataka (letter dated 06-06-2008). No 

objection to the proposed project was received from the Ministry of Defence, GOI, through a 

letter dated 07-07-2009. 

67


A public hearing was conducted at Hongadahalla in Sakleshpura taluk of Hassan district on 

06-06-2008 where representatives of the District Administrations of Hassan District and 

Dakshina Kannada District along with people affected by the proposed project were present 

and expressed their views on the proposed project. The Karnataka State Pollution Control 

Board (KSPCB) submitted a copy of the proceedings of the public hearing along with a letter 

dated 27-09-2008 to Ministry of Environment and Forests, GoI. KPCL also submitted a 

Comprehensive Environment Impact Assessment (CEIA) report to MoEF on 05/06-11-2008. 

The 20 th meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) of MoEF was held on 21-11-2008 

which considered the project for clearance. The MoEF conveyed the observation of the 20 th 

meeting of the EAC vide letter dated 03-12-2008 and insisted on conducting a public hearing 

in Dakshina Kannada district also. The KPCL submitted the clarification to MoEF on16-02- 

2009. 

A public hearing was conducted in Siribagilu village of Putturtaluk of Dakshina Kannada 

District on 25-03-2009. A copy of the proceedings of the hearing was furnished to MoEF by 

KSPCB on 18-04-2009. The 27 th meeting of the EAC of MoEF was held on 15-06-2009 which 

considered the project for clearance. The MoEF sought information on certain points vide 

letter dated 29-06-2009 to which KPCL furnished compliance through a letter dated 29-09- 

2009. The Malenadu Janapara Horata Samiti made a presentation before the subcommittee 

of the Expert Appraisal Committee for River Valleys and Hydro Electric Projects, MoEF, 

New Delhi on their visit to the GHEP site on 05-12-2009. The noted environmentalist and 

Chipko movement leader Shri Sunder Lal Bahuguna protested at Bettakumari (Gundia 

Project Balancing Site) and conducted a protest meeting at Hongadhalla village on 21-12- 

2009. The next day a big protest rally and public meeting was organized by the Malenadu 

Janapara Horata Samiti in Hassan town. It would be pertinent to mention that several such 

local protests had also been organized between 2004–2006. 

WGEEP Visits and Consultations 

At the invitation of Prof. Madhav Gadgil, Chairman, Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, 

Ministry of Environment and Forests, a team constituting Dr. T.V. Ramachandra (Member, 

Western Ghats Task Force, and Scientific Officer, Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian 

Institute of Science), Prof. M. D. Subhash Chandran (Member, Karnataka Biodiversity 

Board), Mr. Harish Bhat (Hon. Wildlife Warden, Bangalore) and other researchers visited the 

proposed Gundia Hydroelectric Project site from 29 th August 2010 to 31 st August 2010. They 

were accompanied by some local villagers and representatives. The team also conducted a 

public hearing meeting on 31 st August 2010 in Hongadhalla village, where local people came 

out in significant number to express their views and opinions about the proposed 

hydroelectric project. This was presented to the WGEEP on 15 th September 2010. 

Subsequently, Prof. Madhav Gadgil, with WGEEP member Ms Vidya Nayak, visited the 

project site on 16 th September and had a consultation meeting with locals on 17 th Sept 2010. 

Biodiversity of the Gundia project area 

The Gundia River is an important tributary of the Kumaradhara originating at an elevation 

of about 1400 m in Sakleshpura taluk in Hassan District. The Netravathi and Kumaradhara 

rivers are two west-flowing rivers of the Central Western Ghats in Karnataka. Gundia River 

is formed by the Yettinahole and Kemphole streams to which Kadumanehole and 

Hongadahalla streams join along the course of the river. The Gundia catchment comes 

under influence of the south-west monsoon in the months of June to September. This river 

basin is situated along a narrow belt of tropical wet evergreen and semi-evergreen climax 

68


and secondary forests that are generally classified under two major forest types 1) 

Dipterocarpus indicus–Kingiodendron pinnatum–Humboldtia brunonis type of lower elevation 

(0–850 m elevation) and 2) Mesua ferrea–Palaquium ellipticum type of mid-elevation (650–1400 

m). However, these tree species are not characteristic of the areas that would be directly 

affected by the project (submergence and construction). Vateria indica and Elaeocarpus 

tuberculatus are the two most common and dominant trees in terms of abundance and basal 

area (Sukumar and Shanker 2010). Much of the forest in the basin is secondary growth with 

some patches of primary evergreen forest remaining. Large extent of grassland, 

characteristic of degraded vegetation, is also seen in this basin. 

This region is representative of the biodiversity of the moist western tract of the Western 

Ghats. Of the plant species found in the basin nearly 36% are endemic to the Western Ghats, 

while 87% of amphibians and 41% of fishes of this basin are similarly endemic to Western 

Ghats. Several species of animals included in Schedule I of the Wildlife Protection Act (1972) 

also seen in this basin though their abundance may be low. 

The salient features of the biodiversity of the Gundia basin can be summarised as follows 

(Sukumar and Shanker 2011): 

a) Plants: The tree species (woody plants >1 cm dbh) mean richness of 43 species (in 0.1 

hectare) and associated measures of heterogeneity are comparable to that of the richness 

of other Western Ghats moist tropical forests such as at Kudremukh (Karnataka) and 

Silent Valley (Kerala), though lower than at Sengaltheri in the Kalakkad-Mundanthurai 

Tiger Reserve (Tamil Nadu). Being situated in valleys, the tree richness of the 

Bettakumari and the Hongadahalla submerge sites are higher than the average richness 

of the Gundia basin. Out of 18 species of Western Ghats endemic plants recorded in one 

study, 16 species are widespread in the ghats, one (Atlantia wightii) is restricted to 

Karnataka and Kerala and the other (Pinganga dicksonii) is restricted to Karnataka. 

However, the biomass of the vegetation in the Gundia basin is much lower than other 

comparable forests in the Western Ghats such as Kudremukh and Silent Valley, 

presumably because of removal of large trees in Gundia. 

b) Insects: A bee new to science was discovered by Renee M. Borges and team within an 

ant-plant Humboldtia brunonis that is found in these forests and is endemic to the Western 

Ghats. This cuckoo bee Braunsapis bislensis Michener & Borges (named after the Bisle 

forests in which it was found) is a unique species that is parasitic on Braunsapis 

puangensis. 

c) Fishes: Three locally-protected sites for mahseers in the downstream region of the 

Kumaradhara and Nethravathi indicate the fish richness of the region as well as the 

conservation priority given to these rivers by local people. 

d) Amphibians: Out of a total of 21 species of amphibians recorded in this study, 18 species 

were endemic to the Western Ghats while two species (Nyctibatrachus sanctipalustris and 

Indirana gundia) are presently known only from the Gundia basin. 

e) Birds: Of 69 species of birds sampled in this study, 6 species were endemic to the 


f) Mammals: Several species of mammals that are listed under Schedule I of the Wildlife 

Protection Act (1972) are present in the Gundia basin though at low abundances. Liontailed 

macaque – Macaca silenus), Travancore flying squirrel (Petinomys fuscocapillus), and 

Nilgiri marten (Martes gwatkinsii) have been reported from the broader region though 

they were not recorded in the biodiversity study within the project areas. Similarly, the 

69


presence of tiger (Panthera tigris) has been reported from the region. The Asian elephant 

(Elephas maximus) is also present in the region, and has been recorded in the project area, 

though at very low densities compared to its presence in the major elephant habitat 

(Mysore Elephant Reserve) of Karnataka. The Gundia basin lies outside the Pushpagiri 

Wildlife Sanctuary that is a part of the Project Elephant: Mysore Elephant Reserve. The 

significance of the Gundia basin for movement of elephants between the Mysore 

Elephant Reserve and other areas to the north of the Hassan-Sakleshpur-Mangalore 

highway has not been investigated so far. Presently, it has not been listed among the 

priority elephant corridors recognized by the Government of India as given in the 

publication Right of Passage: Elephant Corridors of India (Menon et al. 2005). 

Land-use pattern of the Gundia Basin 

Land-use in the river basin includes cardamom and coffee plantations. In these plantations 

some of the original trees are preserved to favour the shade- and humidity-loving 

cardamom plants beneath. This cash crop fetches high returns of Rs 1500 per kg of dried 

fruit. Both small and large farmers of Gundia basin are engaged in cardamom cultivation. 

The coffee estates, both small and large, like in the rest of the Central Western Ghats, 

constitute a major economic activity in the region. In many large private holdings a portion 

is under wild vegetation, though unauthorized logging has already removed many of the 

large trees such as Elaeocarpus tuberculatus, Calophyllum polyanthum, Vateria indica, Holigarna 

grahami and Garcenia indica (Sukumar and Shanker 2010). In fact, illegal logging is rampant 

in this region and most of the valuable Calophyllum polyanthum has already disappeared. 

Likewise, encroachment on forest land by settlers is also common and has contributed to 

reduction and degradation of forests. 

Recommendations 

1. The execution of the Gundia project in three stages and two phases will cause large scale 

land cover changes in this basin. The impacts on the habitat and biodiversity would come 

not only from submergence but also associated activity including building constructions as 

well as roads to access the various project sites. 

2. The project would alter the hydrological regime of the river basin. Kumaradhara River, a 

perennial source of water to the important temple-township at Subramanya, will lose water 

due to its diversion to the Bettakumari dam. This may have implications for the piligrims 

visiting the temple. The implications of land cover changes on the catchment yield as well as 

diversion of waters as envisaged in the project are not clear. Current perennial streams could 

become seasonal (as has happened in the Sharavathi river basin), while the altered 

hydrology downstream could affect livelihoods of local people. 

3. The tunnel access to the main underground powerhouse is located in an area of primary 

forest cover. This location is not desirable as it would cause disturbance to one of the few 

remaining patches of primary evergreen forests of the Gundia basin. 

4. The proposed Gundia hydro-electric project falls in an area that has been classified as 

Ecologically Sensitive Zone 1 by the WGEEP (Figure 2). WGEEP recommends that no large 

storage dams be permitted in ESZ1. 

5. The recommendation of the WGEEP is therefore not to permit the execution of the 

Gundia hydroelectric project (in three stages and two phases) as the loss of biodiversity and 

environmental impacts would be significant. 

70


16. Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts 


mining, power production and polluting industries in Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts of 

Maharashtra. This entire region has been seriously impacted, both environmentally and 

socially by a number of mining, power projects, and polluting industries. The impacts are 

manifold; depletion and pollution of ground water, siltation of water bodies, increased flood 

frequencies, loss of fertile agricultural land, depletion of fisheries, deforestation, loss of 

unique biodiversity elements such as herbaceous plants of lateritic plateaus, air pollution, 

noise pollution, traffic congestion and accidents, increase in respiratory ailments, and so on. 

The situation clearly warrants a careful assessment and mid-course correction. 

The problem is not just legal, but substantial levels of illegal activities. For instance, many 

farmers complain of miners muscling their way onto private land and digging pits. Pollution 

from many industries is also well above legally permissible limits. Consequently, there is 

much social discord, especially because people firmly believe that the law and order 

machinery is being misused to protect illegal activities. 

16.1 Assignment of levels of ecological sensitivity 

Only a portion of Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts comes under Western Ghats and has 

been assigned to ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 categories on the basis of WGEEP database. A group 

of scientists and activists associated with the Development Research, Awareness & Action 

Institute (DEVRAAI), Kolhapur has been working in close collaboration with WGEEP, and 

has submitted a proposal for the constitution of ‚Maharashtra Sahyadri Ecologically 

Sensitive Area (MAHASESA)‛. This group has at its disposal extensive data culled from a 

number of research projects and student dissertations undertaken at Shivaji University, and 

using this material, as well as fresh field work, this group has assigned ESZ1, ESZ2 and 

ESZ3 categories for some areas falling in Satara, Sangli, Kolhpur, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg 

districts following WGEEP methodology. Hence for the areas thus covered by DEVRAAI for 

Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts, WGEEP has decided to accept their assignments of 

levels of Ecological Sensitivity. Indeed, the proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority 

should promote such exercises throughout the Western Ghats region. 

16.2 Deficit in environmental governance 

WGEEP’s extensive field visits and consultations with Government officials, industry 

representatives, elected officials of Panchayat Raj institutions, state legislature and members 

of parliament, scientific and technical experts, as well as citizen groups representing farmers, 

herders, fisherfolk, artisans, industrial and farm labourers all point to a grave deficit in 

environmental governance. 

Consider, as an example, ZASI. The Ministry of Environment and Forests has sponsored the 

preparation of these Zoning Atlases for Siting of Industries (ZASI) by Central and State 

Pollution Control Boards with substantial financial and technical help from German Donors. 

It has generated a spatial database for all the districts of the country, mapping existing 

pollution levels and environmentally and socially sensitive areas, delineating zones where it 

would be undesirable to add further pollution loads, and suggesting locations where 

industries with different levels of potential air and water pollution impacts may be set up 

without undue environmental risks. Clearly, this is a valuable exercise, although it has some 

limitations, and has potential of promoting environmentally and socially sustainable 

development. Apparently under unfair pressure, the Ministry of Environment and Forests 

71


has suppressed making this exercise fully public. As a result, the Ratnagiri ZASI has not 

been released at all, and a copy was obtained by WGEEP only after much effort. Despite 

repeated requests, ZASI reports for other Western Ghats districts have not been made 

available to WGEEP. The Ministry of Environment and Forests must obviously 

expeditiously put all these documents in the public domain. A perusal of the Ratnagiri ZASI 

reveals that today industries are being located without due regard to clear cut prescriptions 

of ZASI. Such decisions clearly require to be reviewed. 

Maharashtra Government has prepared a Regional Plan for Ratnagiri and Sindhudrg 

districts emphasizing the natural endowments and strengths of these districts, and 

prescribing land use priorities. However, these prescriptions are being comprehensively 

violated in current practice. Such decisions ought to be reviewed. 

Current environmental clearance processes are seriously defective. The EIAs are particularly 

weak in the sections on biodiversity and socio-economic issues. For instance, they commonly 

dismiss as barren land, the ‘sadas’ or the wind swept lateritic plateaus of the Western Ghats 

with stunted tree growth. These plateaus are very rich in biodiversity. In fact, Dr Sanjappa, 

former Director, Botanical Survey of India states that these plateaus are, for their size, the 

country’s richest repository of endemic plant species. There are other important 

environmental resources that are ignored, such as bivalve production on tidal mudflats. A 

recent study in Aghanashini estuary of Uttara Kannada district just to the south of Goa has 

revealed that the annual value of this production was Rs. 5.6 crores. 

The EIA process leaves out of consideration many pertinent issues. For example, 

transmission lines emanating from power projects have significant impacts on mango and 

cashew orchards, as well as forests on Western Ghats; such impacts are ignored. 

Similarly transport of ore by trucks on roads and by barges on rivers and ships on sea all 

have significant environmental and social impacts that have never been considered. 

The inputs made available during the Public Hearings process are often simply ignored, 

leading to high levels of social frustration and discord. For instance, in Kalane village in 

Sindhudurg, the first Public hearing relating to the mine was held on 20-9-2008. At this time, 

the Marathi EIA was not available and therefore the hearing was postponed. The public 

hearing was once again held on 11-10-2008, after the Marathi EIA was made available. At 

this hearing, the unanimous resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 6-8-2008 opposing 

mining was submitted and several objections were raised: 1) Pollution of Kalane river 

and adverse impact on water supply scheme on this river at Chandel in Goa. 2) Adverse 

impact on horticulture dependent on natural water sources in Kalane. The villagers were not 

provided summary minutes during the public hearing. These summary minutes were made 

available only after 57 days. Despite the unanimous rejection of the mining proposal, the 

Government of Maharashtra has gone ahead and accorded Environmental Clearance to the 

mine on 17th March 2009. In the absence of any transparent, participatory monitoring 

process, the conditions imposed while according Environmental Clearance are routinely 

violated. Indeed, the absence of any transparent, participatory process of environmental 

monitoring is a burning issue. Ratnagiri district has been an epicentre of environment 

related agitations in recent years. 

India’s Biological Diversity Act, 2002, provides for establishment of Biological Diversity 

Management Committees (BMC) involving local community members at Gram, Taluka, 

Zilla Panchayat, as well as at Municipal levels. These BMCs have the responsibility of 

documenting local biodiversity resources, and the authority to regulate their harvests, and 

levy collection charges for permitted uses. Such BMCs could provide a meaningful public 

72


forum and play a significant role in local level environmental management and monitoring. 

Unfortunately, no step has been taken to implement the Biological Diversity Act in the state 

of Maharashtra, and the implementation has been unsatisfactory and restricted to the state 

level committee in Goa. The BMCs must be immediately activated at all levels, before taking 

any further decisions. 

The on-going and proposed mining, industrial and power project activities are in serious 

conflict with the traditional economic sectors of agriculture, horticulture and fisheries, and 

the newer tourism sector on which the lives of a large majority of the people of Ratnagiri 

and Sindhudurg depend. For instance, mangoes are exported in substantial quantities from 

this region. Recently, the doors of the global export market for the Alphonso Mango have 

opened through Global GAP certification. These global standards demand that there be 

no seriously air polluting industries, including coal based power plants in their vicinity. If 

these come up, and even if it turns out that pollution, such as from thermal power plants, 

does not harm the orchards, the inevitable loss of export market is bound to hit 

horticulture hard. Given this very significant social conflict, it is vital that people be fully 

taken on board in deciding on the course of future economic development. 

Huge conflicts have emerged in the context of acquisition of land for various industrial, 

power and mining projects. Land was acquired from farmers of Jaitapur area by invoking 

emergency provisions, leading to grave social discord. There are examples of people 

being misled and being forced to accept activities against their wishes. In Ratnagiri district 

PTIANA now plans to set up a coal-based power plant on land people sold on the 

understanding that it was being purchased to set up an ecotourism resort. Finolex is forcibly 

closing fishermen’s traditional access to fishing areas. Residents of Tamboli village 

in Sindhudurg district narrate that they suddenly discovered in 2006 that mining had been 

entered as ‘other rights’ on their land records without so much as informing them, although 

this can only be done with their full concurrence. They had to resort to prolonged agitation, 

including fast unto death in 2007 to have these illegal entries removed. We must 

clearly evolve systems of meaningful participation by people in deciding on the course of 

future economic development. 

Social discontent is also fuelled by failure to enforce laws such as pollution control. The 

Common Effluent Treatment Plant at the chemical industry estate at Lote in Ratnagiri 

district cannot handle the quantity of effluent it is receiving, and its functioning is 

highly defective. During a visit in October 2010, WGEEP saw large overflows of untreated 

effluent from the plant going into streams serving Kotavale village. Since the situation is 

not being brought under control, the Sarpanch of Kotavale attempted to commit suicide by 

drinking the polluted stream water. He was rushed to Mumbai and saved, but there has 

been no abatement of pollution affecting Kotavale. Also, in 2000, around 30 school children 

near Lote MIDC became unconscious due to inhalation of poisonous gases. The company 

involved took no notice, and did not come forward to take children to the hospital. People 

also reported that solid toxic sludge from industries was mixed with soil and dumped in the 

ghat (a steep hill road) area. Very recently, some party has dumped toxic wastes via a 

tanker in the Boraj Dam which is the source of water supply to Khed town. The town water 

supply had to be stopped for several weeks, but nobody has been brought to book. There 

has been significant decline in fish landings from Dabhol creek due to chemical pollution 

from Lote, and severe loss of employment opportunities for members of fishing 

communities. 

73


With all these problems persisting all that the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board has 

done seems to be to transfer the Lote office to far off Chiplun, rendering any chances of 

effective action even more remote than before. While promises to stop pollution go 

unfulfilled, protests and demonstrations are routinely suppressed by invoking the Bombay 

Police Act 1951 Sec, 37(1)(3) prohibiting gatherings of people. Between 2008–2009, 

such orders were promulgated in Ratnagiri district for no less than 191 days. With all these 

persistent and unrectified problems, we were informed by an MIDC officer that they are 

planning to set up a new Petro-Chemical complex near the existing MIDC area on 550Ha. 

Obviously, we must evolve systems of meaningful participation by people in deciding on 

the course of future economic development to ensure that development genuinely benefits 

society at large, and is not hijacked merely to serve particular vested interests. 

While the 73rd and 74th amendments to the Indian constitution have attempted to empower 

people at the grass-root level, this is not being translated into practice. For instance, several 

Gram Panchayats and Panchayat Samitis, including the Ratnagiri Taluka Panchayat Samiti, 

have specifically passed resolutions relating to environmental issues that are being 

completely ignored by the state government. We must clearly move towards making grassroots 

empowerment of people a reality. 

An important act empowering people in hilly, forested tracts like Ratnagiri-Sindhudurg- 

Goa is the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Rights over Forests) Act 

(FRA), 2006. Regrettably, the current state of implementation of FRA everywhere, including 

in Maharashtra, is characterized by a series of serious problems, as set out in great detail in 

the just completed report of the Saxena Committee set up jointly by MoEF and MoTA. 

All the exercises of Environmental Impact Assessment undertaken so far have the serious 

limitation that they look at various interventions one at a time, ignoring the cumulative 

impacts. For example, air pollutant emissions from a coal based power plant may 

be acceptable when looked at individually. But, in certain seasons, emissions from several 

such power plants may accumulate in some particular basin in a hilly region and 

considerably exceed the threshold for tolerance. Similarly, ore transport trucks from a single 

mine may be accommodated on the road without excessive traffic congestion, but 

those from five mines may exceed the carrying capacity of the roads and lead to intolerable 

levels of congestion and road accidents. Another key factor that is generally ignored is the 

continuity of habitats so essential for maintenance of several elements of biodiversity. Again 

the cumulative effects may be totally unacceptable, although individual impacts may 

be acceptable. For many such reasons it is essential to look at the cumulative impacts of 

various industrial, mining, power generation and other activities in Ratnagiri and 

Sindhudurg districts, and the adjoining state of Goa. 

16.3 Recommendations 

Mining, power production and polluting industries 


mining, power production and polluting industries in Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts of 

Maharashtra. Given the many problems facing these ecologically rich yet fragile districts, it 

is clear that we must proceed with great care. Only the eastern portions of these districts are 

covered by the Western Ghats for which WGEEP has completed assignment of Ecologically 

Sensitive Zones and guidelines for further development projects. For these Western Ghats 

regions of the district, the Panel recommends: 

74


(a) An indefinite moratorium on new environmental clearances for mining in Ecologically 

Sensitive Zones 1 and 2 

(b) A phasing out of mining from ESZ1 by 2016 

(c) Continuation of existing mining in Ecologically Sensitive Zone 2 under strict regulation 

with an effective system of social audit 

(d) No new red and orange category industries, which would include coal based power 

plants, should be permitted to be established in Ecologically Sensitive Zones 1 and 2 

(e) The existing red and orange category industries should be asked to switch to zero 

pollution in Ecologically Sensitive Zones 1 and 2 by 2016, and operated only under an 

effective system of social audit 

Cumulative impact analysis 

WGEEP has not undertaken any extensive compilation of pertinent information and 

assignment of levels of ecological sensitivity to the plains and coastal portions of Ratnagiri 

and Sindhudurg districts falling outside the Western Ghats. Nevertheless, the limited 

investigations of the Panel in these plains and coastal tracts suggest that these are under 

severe environmental and social stress, and it is essential that a careful Cumulative Impact 

Analysis of various development activities in these tracts, ideally in conjunction with Raigad 

district of Maharashtra and the state of Goa, must be immediately undertaken, preferably 

under the leadership of the National Institute of Oceanography, Goa. 

This should not be a techno-centric study alone, but should ensure that people’s 

deep locality-specific knowledge of environmental issues and their development aspirations 

are taken on board. To this end, the Ministry of Environment and Forests should ask the 

state Forest Departments to proactively assist the Tribal Welfare Departments in 

implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Rights over 

Forests) Act. The implementation of the Community Forest Resources provisions of this 

act would greatly help create broad-based stakes for people in safeguarding the 

environment of the region. Furthermore, the Ministry of Environment and Forests should 

ensure the establishment of Biological Diversity Management Committees in all local bodies 

in this region, motivate them through empowerment to levy 'collection charges' as provided 

in the Biological Diversity Act and fund the BMCs to document the local ecological setting 

and biodiversity resources in collaboration with local educational institutions. This would 

not only further encourage local community members to engage in taking good care of their 

own environment, but generate much detailed information of key relevance for the 

proposed cumulative environmental impact analysis. 

Of course a strong scientific institution needs to take overall responsibility of such an 

exercise and ensure sound scientific and technical inputs. Therefore, as mentioned above, 

WGEEP recommends that NIO, Goa, be asked to play such a role. The Panel recommends 

that the current moratorium on new environmental clearances for mining, and red and 

orange category polluting industries and power plants in the plains and coastal tracts of 

Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts should be extended till satisfactory completion of such 

an analysis of the Carrying Capacity of these districts. The moratorium may then be 

reviewed in light of the findings of the study. 

75


17. Mining in Goa 

The Ministry of Environment and Forests has requested WGEEP to provide inputs to review 

the current moratorium on fresh clearances for mining in Goa. The Panel’s observations and 

analysis are based on: 

• Papers commissioned for the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) (R Kerkar, 

2010; N Alvares, 2010; G Kalampavara, 2010) 

• A multistakeholder workshop organized by the Panel in September 2010. 

http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/mom-6-western-ghats.pdf 

• Materials prepared for the Panel by Goa Foundation and the Goa Team 

http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/Annexure3-6th.pdf 

• Our field visits to Goa’s mining areas in September 2010 and January 2011 and 

interactions with mine owners and managers, villagers, NGOs 

• A number of studies on mining in Goa (TERI, 1997; Goa Foundation, 2002; TERI, 2006; 

CSE, 2008; NCAER 2010; GMOEA reports; Basu, 2011; Mukhopadhyay and Kadekodi, 

2011, TERI, DISHA study ongoing) 

Based on observations and analysis, the Panel recommends an indefinite moratorium on 

new environmental clearances for mining in Ecologically Sensitive Zones 1 and 2 in Goa 

and a phasing out of mining to 2016 in Ecologically Sensitive Zone 1 as defined by the 

Western Ghats Panel. The Panel also makes a number of recommendations to reduce the 

environmental and social impacts of mining in Goa and in other regions which are included 

in Part II of the WGEEP Report. The moratorium for ESZ2 can be revisited as and when the 

situation improves. 

17.1 Status and Trends 

The mining and quarrying industry in Goa is the second most important industry next to the 

tourism industry. The wholly exported iron ore industry contributes to exports, employment 

and foreign exchange earnings of India. For the year 2009–2010, the contribution to 

government revenues of state and centre was Rs. 500 crores and Rs. 2000 crores respectively. 

(GMOEA and NCAER (2010). The share from this sector to state income is estimated to be 

around 4.7% (1999/00 prices); 10.1% at 2007/08 prices (indirect 17%) (Economic Survey of 

Goa 2009–2010) Contribution from mining and quarrying is mainly from iron ore mining. 

Figure 8 shows the increase in production of iron ore in Goa for the period 1992–2009. There 

has been an increase from 12.1 million metric tonnes in 1992 to 41.1 million metric tonnes in 

2009 with a 20 million metric tonnes increase in the last 5 years alone. GMOEA estimate that 

there has been considerable illegal mining of around 10 million metric tonnes. 100% of Goa’s 

ore is exported of which about 89% is exported to China and about 8% to Japan (GMOEA 

and NCAER, 2010). 

76

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

million metric tonnes 


Production of Iron ore in Goa, 1992-2009 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Figure 8 Production of Iron ore in Goa (1992-2009) 

Source: GMOEA (2010) 

Year 

17.2 Footprints of mining 

Most of the mining in Goa is in the Western Ghats (Figure 9). The mining belt extends 65 km 

from southeast to northwest spanning some 700 sq. km. Goa is the only state in India, as a 

result of a historical regulatory legacy, where iron ore mines are concentrated in lease areas 

of less than 100 hectares. There are a number of leases that have been dormant but are being 

reactivated given the rising demand for iron ore from China. Following are the key 

sustainability footprints that are a result of mining activities in Goa; these have also been 

recognized in the draft Regional Plan of Goa 2021 (RPG-21) 7 . 

7 

The subsequent paragraphs draw from earlier studies but also RPG-2021; Kerkar, 2010; presentation made by 

Goa team to the WGEEP on 27 September 2010. 

77


Figure 9 Mining leases in Goa 

Source: Goa Foundation, 2010, presentation to the WGEEP, 27.9.11 

Most mining leases are located in and around Wildlife Sanctuaries (WLS) and forest areas. 

For example, 31 leases are within 2 km of WLS, of which 7 are working mines; 13 leases are 

within 1 km of WLS. Evidence of some mines operating illegally within WLS also exists. 

2500 ha of forest area were lost to mining in the period between 1988–1997. (TERI, 1997) No 

studies to assess the loss in forest area in the Western Ghats have been done since then. 

Forests are practically non existent in some parts of the Bicholim taluka where mining has 

been in operation since the late 1940s. In parts of Sattari and Sanguem talukas, forests are 

affected in mining villages. Biodiversity loss associated with the land use and cover change 

resulting from mining operation in the region is very serious . 

Surface water 

The loading jetties of the barges are right on the river bank and these result in surface water 

pollution during loading and unloading operations. Sedimentation of river beds and 

estuaries (Figure 10) (particularly the Mandovi-Zuari estuarine complex) and the resultant 

flooding of the rivers like Bicholim and Sanquelim have been attributed to this activity. 

Dumps are located close to water bodies which contributes to the silt runoff into the water 

especially during Goa’s heavy monsoons (Figure 11). 

78


Figure 10 Sedimentation of river beds and estuaries 

Figure 11 Overburden dumps close to waterbodies 

Source: R Gawas 

Opencast mining has induced significant changes in water quality and quantity besides 

causing topographical, morphological, and land use changes. The following two problems in 

the mining areas have been identified: 

• Suspended particulate matter in the mine and tailings discharge water used for paddy 

cultivation can be major threats to sustainability of fertility of these agricultural lands. 

• Direct surface runoff from the adjoining mine dumps into the agricultural lands adds to 

the problem of siltation. 

Groundwater 

Mining activities involve the conjunctive production of groundwater as they require 

considerable pumping out of water. Many studies have highlighted the negative impact of 

Goa’s mining activities on local hydrology (MS Swaminathan 1982; TERI 1997; G.T. Marathe, 

IIT; B.S. Chowdhri and A.G. Chachadi; NEERI Report; Regional Plan of Goa, 2021.) As 

water tables drop due to the drainage of water into mining pits in zones of unconfined 

aquifers, local wells go dry and affect availability of water for domestic needs and 

agriculture and this impacts local lives. Water shortages as a result of mining activities have 

been well documented (TERI, 1997; TERI, 2002). Evidence from studies (TERI, 2006) also 

79


reveals that the impact of changes in groundwater is disproportionately borne by women 

who are more vulnerable to insecurity, poverty, and ill health. 

Waste Dumps 

Enormous amount of mining waste is piled up in steep and high dumps. Some of this 

overburden waste is being mined currently as it contains material of an iron content that has 

a market in China. Another important concern is how the mines will be backfilled once the 

ore is exhausted, if we export most of this excavated material out of the country. 

Local air quality 

There is massive movement of minerals by road as well as rail from Karnataka to Goa for the 

purpose of blending with local ore for its upgradation as well as export by miners through 

Mormugao Port Trust (MPT) and for 5 sponge iron plants located in Goa. An ongoing TERI 

study estimates that 39% of emission loads for PM10 in Goa are from the mining region and 

25% from industry. It is observed that trucks have been using NH4A and transporting ore 

upto Usgao to access further shipment through barges to MPT. This has been creating 

enormous traffic problems as well as environmental hazards along its route due to ore 

spilling over the wayside by overloaded, and often uncovered, trucks. Many accidents are 

observed in the ore transport route. Studies have also estimated that exposure to air 

pollution (especially respirable suspended particulate matter) is high in the mining clusters 

and transport corridors in Goa, affecting the health of local communities. 

Agriculture 

Agriculture has also been severely affected in the area due to extraction of ground water, 

vast areas being covered by siltation and mining dust, thus destroying farms and livelihood 

(TERI, 1997; Kerkar, 2010; Goa Team Presentation to the WGEEP, 2010). Agricultural fields 

at the foothills of the dumps and mining areas have been severely impacted due to siltation 

from mining. This has led, at times, to serious conflicts between those involved in 

agriculture and mining in the area. A current case in point is Colomba village in Sanguem 

taluka, where 23 mining concessions granted during the Portuguese regime are located and 

which cover 75% of the village. A few of these mines have already commenced activities. In 

other words this agricultural village is under the shadow of being completely consumed by 

mines, leading to local agitation. Another village is that of Caurem. Kerkar (2010) in his 

paper to the WGEEP notes ‚Very few villages in Goa are blessed with the ecological heritage 

of sacred groves, perennial springs and rich forests like that of Cavare of Quepem in south 

Goa. But today, (the) very existence of Cavare is threatened on account of increasing mining 

activities.‛ Agriculture and mining, people and mining companies, are pitted against each 

other. Current laws offer inadequate compensation for those whose land and livelihood is 

taken away by mining. 

Many of these environmental and social impacts do not get reflected when one hears of the 

value that mining contributes to the gross state domestic product (GSDP). An exploratory 

study to value some of the impacts of mining in Goa using 1996/97 data, for example, 

suggested that even if this partial accounting of the environmental and social impacts is 

netted out of the value created by mining activity in terms of value added to GSDP, the 

‚true income‛ would be only 15% of reported income (Noronha, 2001; TERI, 2002, ). More 

recent papers in response to the NCAER Report (2010) suggest that the benefit-cost ratios no 

longer favour mining in Goa (Basu, 2011; Mukhopadhyay and Kadekodi, 2011). 

80


17.3 Governance Issues 

The total failure to implement the community forest resources provisions of FRA in 

Goa has absolutely no justification. To take a specific case, the Devapon Dongar mine of 

Caurem village in Quepem taluka of Goa is located on a hill sacred to the Velips, a 

Scheduled Tribe group, and to sanction a mine on this hill against serious local opposition, 

and without completing the implementation of FRA is thoroughly inexcusable. 

Illegal mining is observed in Goa, both in terms of no clearances obtained, fraudulent EIAs 

and/or flouting of conditions of environmental clearances. The Panel has obtained a list of 

mines that are flouting environmental conditionalities in terms of extracting ore beyond 

output limits. 

The EIA, Environmental Clearance Process, and EC violations 

The EIA process which is so central to protect the ecosystems in the Western Ghats was 

found to be defective at several points 8 . 

• These relate to the poor quality of EIA reports and the process of public hearings. Not 

only were EIAs seen at times to be fraudulent, but it is found that the minutes of public 

hearings are also manipulated. We have seen and heard of cases where the EIA 

consultant did not visit the village or did not conduct appropriate surveys and impact 

studies. EIAs are prepared by agencies employed by project proponents and are 

therefore under tremendous pressure to tweak the information so as to 

facilitate clearance. They are consequently riddled with incomplete and often 

patently false information. For example, the EIA report for Devapon Dongar mine of 

Caurem village in Quepem taluka of Goa states that there are no water courses in the 

mine lease area. Field inspection by WGEEP revealed the presence of two perennial 

springs. 

• The EIAs are particularly weak in the sections on biodiversity and socio-economic 

issues. For instance, they commonly dismiss as barren land, the ‘sada’s’ or the wind 

swept plateaus of the Western Ghats with stunted tree growth. These plateaus are 

very rich in biodiversity, being habitats of many endemic herbaceous plants, are a 

major source of fodder for livestock, and sources of streams that are vital to the life in 

valleys surrounding them. 

• Given that EIA reports are not to be trusted, the role of the Environmental Appraisal 

Committee (EAC) for the sector becomes that much more important. The Composition 

of the Environmental Appraisal Committee (EAC) is considered inadequate since it does 

not always have representation from the region in which the project is to be located. 

Many problems emerge because the EAC does not have a sense of the place and also 

knowledge of what other activities may be stressing the region when the new project is 

being proposed. Since EAC deliberations take place in Delhi, without, most often, a visit 

to the project site, local level pressures and concerns are not always understood, since 

the EIA report is defective and the public hearing minutes are manipulated Given this, 

reliance on faulty EIA reports makes a mockery of the whole regulatory process. 

• States, such as Goa, felt that the EC 2006 notification reduced the SPCB to post offices; 

little state/local input permeated into the EC process. 9 However, at other places it was 

8 

WGEEP observations are based on field work, consultations with GOG, SPCB etc., and more generally on R 

Dutta and R Sreedhar, 2010; Asaniye PH April 2010: N Alvares, 2010; Goa team presentation to the WGEP, 27 

September 2010; 

81


felt that the SPCB acted against the interests of the local people by misleading the EAC of 

the MoEF. 

• The perception of the State government is that its views or the State Pollution Control 

Board’s views do not find place in the whole procedure and process post 2006 except in 

the Consent to Establish which in any case happens only after the MoEF has given its 

clearance. States do have a veto-under the ‚consent to establish‛ requirement but that 

needs to be exercised better. It was felt that pressure to give consent is high post the 

clearance from the MOEF. 

• Environmental Clearances are given to individual projects so the cumulative Impacts of 

Projects are ignored 10 

• Despite poor history of compliance, the Project Promoter is granted clearance for new 

projects. For example, most of those mines found extracting more than the norms laid 

down in their ECs and consents have been granted renewal by the Pollution Board.) 

In the absence of any transparent, participatory monitoring process, the conditions imposed 

while according Environmental Clearance are often violated. The Environmental Clearance 

granted stipulates that if there are any water courses, they should not be disturbed and that 

dense natural vegetation be maintained for a distance of 50 meters on either side of the 

water courses. Field inspection revealed that these conditions were totally violated; that the 

streams are dammed, their flow diverted and stream bank vegetation destroyed. There is 

on-going serious social strife in this area due to this and other such violations of conditions. 

This state of affairs has led to enormous disaffection in the state regarding mining activity. 

The PILs against mining in this state also support the increased public opposition to what 

mining is doing to the local environment here (Box 12). 

9 

It is held by the former Secy, MoEF, P Ghosh, that SPCB in forwarding the minutes can (and should) give the 

views of the State and the MoEF would be bound to consider them. However, he stated, that the procedure can 

be re-visited to provide a separate forum for inputs (not veto!) by the State Personal communication, 2011. 

10 

Since the year 2003, for example, about 141 Environmental Clearances have been granted for mining in a small 

state like Goa, and predominantly in the Western Ghat talukas of the State. 

82


Box 12: PILs in mining in Goa 

Water 

• ‚Advalpal village in north Goa has filed PILs against two mining companies citing diversion 

of streams by the mining companies as the main reason for the repeated flooding of the village 

every monsoon and for the blockage of their water source for irrigating their fields‛ 

Agriculture 

• ‚


Table 8 Survey Responses to mining activity 

Clusters 

Villagers’ views 

About new mining activity 

About fate of existing mines 

Yes No Don’t 

know 

Expand 

Freeze 

Capacity 

Close 

Don’t 

know 

Cluster I 33 41 26 40 42 13 8 

Cluster II 33 34 33 45 24 11 16 

Cluster III 36 28 36 47 40 3 10 

Cluster IV 5 35 60 7 88 5 0 

Source: Household survey (TERI 1997) (Mineral production at 17 million tonnes) 

17.4 Recommendations 

Recommendation 1: Exclusion of mining from ecologically sensitive areas/zones 

• No mining should be allowed in the Western Ghats in Goa in: 

o 

o 

o 

Current protected areas, i.e., national parks and wild life sanctuaries as per current 

Supreme Court orders and wildlife Act 1972 provisions 

In regions of high sensitivity, ESZ1, as being demarcated by the WGEEP. 

All Environmental Clearances for mines in these areas should have an additional 

conditionality requiring (i) 25% reduction in mining every year till 2016, when 

mining has to be stopped in ESZ1 (ii) environmental rehabilitation of the mined area 

post closure. 

• In EZ2, current mining may be allowed but no new mining licenses should be granted 

until the conditions in the mining region improve. 

Recommendation 2: Mineral Extraction Control 

• Close all mines that have been extracting ore beyond limits allowed by environmental 

clearance given as evident from data available with WGEEP 

• Introduce an iron ore content cut off for iron ore extraction that reflects environmental 

and social concerns. 

• Cancel all working leases by 2016 and non-working leases immediately in ESZ1s. 

• Mining leases in WL Sanctuaries to be permanently cancelled. While mines may be 

closed, the leases in Goa are still showing them as existing mines. Hence they must be 

terminated under section 4 of the MMDR Act. Any orders passed by the Collector and 

Revenue Officer excluding any of these mines from the Netravali Wildlife Sanctuary to 

be cancelled. This is also the recommendation of the Central Empowered Committee. 

• Mining leases in the catchment area of dams used for drinking water to be terminated. 

84


• Rules for Sand mining (Padmalal, 2011) 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Sand mining to be audited; introduce sand mining holidays on stretches of rivers 

Aggregate management should be considered separately from river management. 

Separate legislations are required for the purpose 

Examine and encourage alternatives to river sand for construction purposes 

Necessary steps are to be taken to promote regeneration of natural riparian 

vegetation in areas hit by anthropogenic interferences along the river and tributary 

banks. 

The developmental and infrastructural activities in the riparian areas should be 

carried out only after proper Environmental Impact Assessments by a competent 

authority. 

• For mining in Goa, cumulative EIAs must be made mandatory rather than entertaining 

EIAs for individual leases in the same areas. 

Other recommendations regarding regulation of conjunctive productions of minerals and 

ground water, regeneration of agriculture, better practices in mining, etc are discussed in 

Part II of the WGEEP Report. 

85


Appendices 

Appendix 1: Methodology employed in generating and interpreting the 

Western Ghats Database and assigning ESZs 

The following datasets were used for geospatial analyses. 

1. Data Sets: 

1. Western Ghats boundary (shape file) obtained from Dr. Ganeshaiah, Member, 

WGEEP 

2. India states, districts, talukas (shape file ) source : DIVA-GIS (http://www.divagis.org/) 

3. Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM) data for India (TIFF) at 90 m resolution. 

4. Data on endemic plants, IUCN Red list Mammals, percent forest, unique evergreen 

elements, forest with low edge: (from Das et al., 2006) 25k grid (shape file) 

5. Forest types of India (TIFF) 

6. Protected Areas of Western Ghats Cover (shape file) Source: FERAL 

7. Elephant Corridors of Western Ghats Cover (shape file) Source: Prof R Sukumar, 

CES, and WTI. 

8. Endemic vertebrate data of Western Ghats Cover (Spread sheet) Source: Ranjit 

Daniels 

9. Endemic Odonata data of Western Ghats Cover (shape file) Source: ZSI 

10. Enhanced vegetation index of MODIS for North Maharashtra and Gujarat 

11. Riparian Forests derived through drainage and forest cover 

12. Important Bird Areas (IBAs) as point coverages 

Of these, data sets 1–5 and 8–12 were used for the geospatial analyses. For North 

Maharashtra and Gujarat, Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI) of MODIS was used as the 

forest vegetation data were not readily available. 

Use of Free and Open Source Software: 

Free and Open source geospatial tools (www.osgeo.org) were extensively used as given 

below 

Desktop GIS: Open jump, QGIS, SAGA, DIVA-GIS 

Database: PostgreSQL/ PostGIS 

Web GIS: OpenGeo Suite which is a complete web platform based upon Open Geospatial 

Standards (OGC) which includes GeoServer (GIS Server), PostgreSQL/PostGIS(Database), 

Geo Web Cache (Cache Engine), Geoexplorer (for Visualization of WMS layers), GeoEditor 

(Online editing geospatial data), and Styler (Online styling of the data). 

A web enabled searchable database has been a major contribution of this short-term project. 

In addition, through UNICODE, local language adoption has been showcased using 

Marathi as an example. 

86


In addition, using methods of spatial analyses on large landscape level data, an attempt was 

made to arrive at the relative importance of these seven attributes. This has been done 

using a programme called Spatial analyses in Macro Ecology (SAM) . However, this has 

been done only on a preliminary exploratory basis to showcase one possible way of 

reducing the dimensionality of the factors involved. Not much headway was made with 

this approach due to several operational constraints. 

2. Data Cleaning Process: 

a. 5 minute x 5 minute grid file generation for Western Ghats Cover (shape file) using 

Vector Grid plugin of QGIS 

b. 1 minute x 1 minute grid file generation for Western Ghats Cover of Goa state (shape 

file) using Vector Grid plugin of QGIS 

c. Rasterization of each attribute of ATREE data by applying Surface method using 

Rasterize (Vector to Raster) plugin of QGIS 

d. Generated slope map in TIFF format using GDAL library 

e. Generated shape files for following classes in Endemic Vertebrate data (Ranjit 

Daniels, 2011) 

Amphibians 

Birds 

Reptiles 

Fish 

Endemic Odonata (ZSI, 2011) 

3. Uploading datasets into database: 

All the available and generated datasets were uploaded to the PostgreSQL/PostGIS database 

using QGIS as below. The vector datasets were uploaded to the database using the SPIT 

plugin of QGIS while raster datasets were uploaded using Load Raster to PostGIS plugin 

of QGIS. In case of Raster dataset, the data was stored into 64 x 64 blocks. 

4. Vector/Raster analysis using PG Raster of PostGIS 

a. Vector/Raster analysis was done for elevation values from SRTM data using WKT 

Raster Queries. Following is the sample query for it. 

Sample Query: 

Create table as SELECT e.id,test.val, ST_Intersection(test.geom, e.geometry) 

AS gv FROM (SELECT (ST_DumpAsPolygons(ST_SetBandNodataValue(rast, 0))).geom, 

(ST_DumpAsPolygons(ST_SetBandNodataValue(rast, 0))).val FROM ) 

as test, as e WHERE ST_Intersects(test.geom, e.geometry); 

5. Grouping and averaging of pixel values based upon grids 

Thereafter, average elevation values were calculated for each 5' x 5' grid for each state in the 

Western Ghats and considered as a parameter. 

The steps 4–5 were performed for parameters such as maximum slope values, endemic 

plants, iucn max, unique percent, comp3 percent, forest percent values, area of riparian 

87


forest (see explanation of parameter below) for each 5' x 5' grid for each state in the Western 

Ghats Cover. 

6. Ranking the parameters generated 

Assigned ranks for the following 8 parameters 

a. Endemic plants : Number of endemic plant species 

b. IUCN_max: Number of IUCN Red listed mammal species 

c. Unique percent: Percentage of area covered by unique evergreen ecosystems 

d. Comp3 percent : Percentage of area covered by relatively undisturbed forest with 

low edge 

e. Forest percent: Percentage of forest area 

f. Elevation 

g. Slope 

h. Riparian Forests/Vegetation 

As there is an ecological gradient from north to south in the Western Ghats with changes in 

diversity and species richness as well as physical features, a normalization for every state 

was done for these parameters. Thus, scores were normalized for each state. For instance, 

the highest recorded altitude in a given grid in a state was given the maximal score and all 

other grids in that state were ranked in relative fashion. After normalization ranks were 

assigned on a scale from 1 to 10 based on the maximum value of each parameter for each 

state. 

7. Average of the ranks for all parameters 

Subsequent to the rank generation, the average of the ranks for all parameters were 

calculated. If, for a grid, there is data for only for 5 parameters out of 8 parameters, then 

dividing the sum by the number of parameters assessed took care of the problem of data 

available for variable numbers of parameters per grid. 

8. ESZ assignment algorithm 

1. We treat Western Ghats regions of each state separately 

a. Existing Protected Areas are treated as a fourth separate category 

b. ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 status are assigned only to grids outside existing Protected 

Areas 

c. ESZ1 status are assigned only to such grids as have a score at least equalling, or 

higher than the lowest scoring grids falling within existing Protected Areas 

d. The extent of existing Protected Areas plus ESZ1will not normally exceed 60% of 

the total area 

e. The extent of ESZ3 will normally be around 25% of the total area 

With these stipulations, we adopt the following procedure: 

Let p be the percentage of area falling under existing Protected Areas 

88


Let x be the percentage of area assigned to ESZ1 

Let y be the percentage of area assigned to ESZ2 

Let z be the percentage of area assigned to ESZ3 

Obviously, p+x+y+z = 100 

Now, we can visualize three scenarios in terms of value of p; [1] p>75, [2] 60


9. Outputs 

b. The parameters are ranked on a 1-10 scale, with lowest at 1 and highest ecological 

significance at 10 

c. Composite scores – average for each grid- are calculated 

d. For arriving at ESZs, the grid scores were treated thus: 

All grids having PAs are excluded for arriving at the ESZ1. Since these grids 

also have scores, a guiding strategy for demarcation of ESZ1 is the range of 

scores for PAs of a given state. Thus the average minimum threshold for 

Goa PAs is 4.92. Hence all grids having a score of above 4.92 get assigned to 

ESZ1.Thus 11 grids out of a total of 55 grids make the cut (20%). The grids 

with PAs are 21 in number and account for 38% of the total grids. ESZ1 and 

PAs together constitute 58%. 

the lowest quartile (approx. 25%) of these scores for grids was computed. For 

Goa , this score is 3.14 which means all grids below this core are assigned to 

ESZ 3. For Goa there are 12 grids under ESZ3 , which constitute about 22% of 

the area. 

The balance of grids are assigned to ESZ2. These are 11 in number (20%, a 

deviation of 5% from the suggested 15% of area). 

The results obtained are presented as 

a. A spatial depiction of ESZs grid-wise as well as taluka-wise and displayed on a 

colour palette , with Green showing ESZ1, Red showing ESZ2 and yellow showing 

ESZ3. 

b. Percent grids for a given score for each state both in a tabular and graphical notation 

c. Riparian forest scores for each state and in different elevation zones 

d. 1' x 1' grid analysis for Goa to incorporate the results of the Goa Regional plan 

e. A Web GIS application 

10. Information and Data Sources 

a. Habitat related information in the form of shape files for parts of Mahrashtra, 

Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu: Mr Kiran , Arundhati Das, V Srinivasan and Dr 

Jagdish Krishnaswamy of ATREE Additional data from Ravindra Bhalla of FERAL 

and Bhaskar Acharya of CEPF 

b. Dr RJR Daniels of Care Earth: point locations of mammals, reptiles, birds, 

amphibians and fishes 

c. Dr K A Subramanian , ZSI: point locations of Odonata 

d. Prof R Sukumar: information on elephant corridors 

e. Dr K N Ganeshiah: Western Ghats boundary 

f. Dr P S Roy, Director, Indian Institute of Remote sensing, Dehra Dun: habitat 

information and shape files for Gujarat and Maharashtra 

g. Dr Bharucha and Shamita from BVIEER, Pune: data on parts of Maharashtra 

90


h. Dr K S Rajan , Open Source Geospatial Foundation – India chapter and IIIT, 

Hyderabad : geospatial statistical analyses 

i. Dr P V K Nair, KFRI: assistance in analyses for Kerala 

j. Santosh Gaikwad, Siva Krishna, Ravi Kumar, Ch.Appalachari, Sai Prasad of SACON: 

GIS work. 

91


Appendix 2: Proposed assignment of various Western Ghats Talukas to 

ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 

State District Talukas assigned to 

ESZ1 

Gujarat The Dangs Ahwa 

Navsari 

Valsad 

Belgaum 

Talukas assigned 

to ESZ2 

Vansada 


to ESZ3 

Dharampur 

Belgaum, 

Khanapur 

Chamrajnagar 

Kollegal,Gundlupet, 

Yelandur 

Karnataka 

Chikmagalur 

Narasimharajapura, 

Tarikere, Mudigere, 

Koppa, Sringeri 

Chikmagalur 

Kadur 

Dakshin Kannad Beltangadi, Sulya Puttur 

Davanagere 

Bhadravati 

Hassan Sakleshpur Holenarsipur, 

Belur, Alur, 

Arkalgud 

Kodagu 

Somvarpet, 

Virarajendrapet, 

Madikeri 

Mysore Heggadadevankote Piriyapatna Hunsur 

Shimoga Tirthalli, Hosanagara Sagar, Shimoga Sorab 

Udupi Karkal Kundapura 

Uttar Kannada 

Honavar, Bhatkal, 

Sirsi, Siddapur, 

Ankola, Karwar, 

Yellapur, Supa 

Kumta 

Kerala Idukki Todupulai, 

Udumbanchola, 

Devikolam, Pirmed 

Kannur 

Tellicherry 

Kasaragod 

Hosdurg 

Kollam Punalur Kottarakara 

Kottayam Kanjirapalli Pala (Lalam) 

Kozhikode 

Mahe 

92



ESZ1 

Malappuram 


to ESZ2 


to ESZ3 

Malappuram 

Palakkad Mannarkkad, Chittur Alattur 

Pattanamtitta Rani, n.a. ( 2275) Mallapalli 

Thiruvananthapuram 

Nedumangad 

Thrissur Irinjalakuda Trichur Vadakkancheri 

Wayanad 

Vayittiri, 

Manantavadi, Sultans 

Battery 

Maharashtra Ahmednagar Parner Akola 

Kolhapur 

Radhanagari, 

Gargoti, Shahuwadi, 

Panhala, Bavda 

Ajra, Chandgad, 

Gadhinglaj 

Nandurbar 

Navapur 

Nashik 

Nashik, Peint, 

Dindori 

Surgana 

Igatpuri 

Pune 

Ghod, Paud, Bhor, 

Wadgaon 

Junnar, Sasvad 

Raigarh 

Mhasla, Pali, 

Poladpur, Roha, n.a. ( 

1657), Pen, Mahad, 

n.a. ( 1634) 

Mangaon, 

n.a. ( 1572) 

Ratnagiri Devrukh, Chiplun Mandangarh Khed 

Satara 

Medha, Patan, 

Mahabaleshwar, Wai 

Koregaon 

Vaduj, Dahivadi 

Sindhudurg 

Kankauli, Savantvadi 

Thane 

Murbad, Mokhada, 

n.a. 

Shahapur 

( 1482), Jawhar 

Tamil 

Nadu* 

Coimbatore 

Pollachi, 

Udumalaippettai 

Dindigul Kodaikkanal Dindigul 

Erode 

Nilgiris 

Udagamandalam, 

Gudalur, Kotagiri 

Satyamangalam 

Coonoor 

Theni Uttamapalaiyam Periyakulam 

93



ESZ1 


to ESZ2 


to ESZ3 

Tirunelveli Kattabo 

Sengottai, 

Ambasamudram 

*The list of talukas within the Western Ghats in Tamil Nadu according to more recent 

information of reorganized administrative units is as follows (the assignment of these new 

talukas to ESZs has yet to be done) : 

Coimbatore district (Coimbatore North, Coimbatore South, Mettupalayam, Pollachi, and 

Valparai talukas) 

Dindugal district (Kodaikanal, Nilakotai, and Palani talukas) 

Erode district (Satyamangalam taluka) 

Kanyakumari district (Kalkulam, and Vilvankode talukas) 

The Nilgiris district (Coonoor, Gudalur, Kotagiri, Kundah, Panthalur, and 

Udhagamandalam talukas) 

Tirunelveli district (Ambasamudram, Nanguneri, Radhapuram, Shenkottai, Sivagiri, 

Thenkasi, and Veerakeralamputhur talukas) 

Tiruppur district (Udumalpet taluka) 

Theni district (Andipatti, Bodinayakanur, Periyakulam, and Uthampalayam talukas) 

Virudunagar district (Rajapalayam and Srivilliputhur talukas) 

94


Appendix 3: Proposed ESZ1, and ESZ2 assignment of various Western 

Ghats talukas for which less than 50% area is within the Western Ghats 

boundary 

State District Talukas with 

areas 

assigned to 

ESZ1 

Talukas with areas 

assigned 

to ESZ2 

Dadra and Nagar Haveli 

Dadra and Nagar 

Haveli 

Silvassa 

Gujarat Navsari Chikhli 

Surat 

Belgaum 

Mysore 

Hassan 

Shimoga 

Haveri 

Chitradurga 

Dharwad 

Uchchhal, Vyara, Songadh 

Gokak, Hukeri 

Mysore, Krishnarajanagara 

Hassan, Arsikere, 

Channarayapatna 

Shikarpur 

Hangal 

Hosdurga, Holalkere 

Kalghatgi 

Uttara Kannanda Haliyal Haliyal, Mundgod 

Belgaum 

Davanagere 

Udupi 

Chamrajnagar 

Bail Hongal 

Honnali, Channagiri 

Udupi 

Chamrajnagar 

Kerala Kottayam Changanacheri 

Ernakulam 

Perumbavur, Alwaye, 

Kotamangalam, Muvattupula 

Palakkad Palghat Palghat, Ottappalam 

Malappuram 

Perintalmanna, Tirur 

Kozhikode Kozhikode Quilandi, Kozhikode 

Kannur 

Kasaragod 

Thiruvananthapuram 

Talipparamba 

Kasaragod 

Trivandrum, Chirayinkil 

95


State District Talukas with 

areas 

assigned to 

ESZ1 

Kollam 

Maharashtra Nashik Kalvan, 

Chandvad, 

Sinnar 

Talukas with areas 

assigned 

to ESZ2 

Quilon 

Chandvad, Sinnar, Satana 

Sindhudurg 

Kudal, 

Vaibhavwadi 

Sangli Shirala Atpadi, Kavathe Mahankal, 

Tasgaon, Vite 

Thane 

Dhule 

Ratnagiri 

Solapur 

Pune 

Kolhapur 

Rajgurunagar, 

n.a. ( 1612) 

Bhiwandi 

Sakri 

Dapoli, Guhagar 

Malsiras, Sangole 

Rajgurunagar, n.a. ( 1612), 

Shirur 

Kagal 

Ahmednagar Sangamner Sangamner, Ahmadnagar 

Satara 

Karad, Shirwal, Phaltan, Satara 

Tamil Nadu 

See Appendix 2 footnote for list of talukas under the recent reorganization. 

These have not been assigned ESZ at this stage. 

96


Appendix 4 : Current Science Paper 

Mapping Ecologically Significant and Sensitive Areas of Western Ghats: Proposed 

Protocols and Methodology 

Madhav Gadgil 1,2* , R J Ranjit Daniels 3 , K N Ganeshaiah 4,5 , S Narendra Prasd 6 , 

M S R Murthy 7 , C S Jha 7 , B R Ramesh 8 , K A Subramanian 9 

Abstract: 

One of the objectives assigned for the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) of the 

Ministry of Environment and Forestry, GOI, was to identify the Ecologically Sensitive Areas 

(ESAs) along Western Ghats, and thence to suggest regulatory procedures to conserve them. 

However the panel came to realize that globally there is no consensus either on the criteria 

to define ESAs or, on an adaptable methodology to identify them. Therefore defining and 

developing a methodology became an important first step before the panel could map the 

ESAs. This paper reports the outcome of a series of discussions and consultations held by 

the panel for a consensus on defining and mapping ESAs. The purpose of this paper is two 

folded: first, to invoke discussion and suggestions from a wider section of experts, on the 

conceptual and methodological details arrived at by the WGEEP; second to promote the 

methodology as a generic procedure for mapping ESAs in other significant bio-rich areas 

within and outside the country. 

1 

Agharakar Research Institute, G G Agarkar Road, Pune 411004 and 2 Chairman, Western Ghats Ecology Expert 

Panel 

3 

Care Earth Trust, No 5, 21st Street, Thillaiganganagar, Chennai 600 061 

4 

School of Ecology and Conservation and Department of Forestry and Environment Sciences, University of 

Agricultural Sciences, GKVK Bengaluru, 560065 and 5 Member, Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel. 

6 

Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Deccan Regional station, Tarnaka,Hyderabad,500017 

7 

National Remote Sensing Centre, ISRO, Balanagar, Hyderabad, 560625 

8 

Institute Francies De Pondicherry, 1 st Louies Street, PB 33 Pondicherry 605 002 

9 

Zoological Survey of IndiaI, Pune. 

* Author for Correspondence 

97


Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) is a concept more easily perceived than perhaps defined. 

Just as the term `biodiversity’, ESA is among the most widely used terms with no 

unequivocally accepted definition. In fact ESA is often referred synonymous to, 

Environmentally Sensitive Areas 1-5 , Environmentally Sensitive Zones 6 , Ecologically 

Sensitive Ecosystem 7 , Ecologically Sensitive Sites 8 etc., depending upon the context and the 

area or location that is being referred to, for conservation. In most of these situations the 

terms used are without any specific definition or with variable meanings (see table 1 ). And 

for the same reason it is possible only to enlist a set of criteria that characterise the ESAs, all 

of which, though, may not be applicable to all the situations. One such criterion is that ESAs 

are expected to have least resilience to disturbance and hence are difficult to be recovered or 

restored if perturbed by external influences. 

Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP), set up by the Ministry of Environment of 

Forestry, GOI was assigned the task identifying such sensitive areas. However, the panel 

found that world over a number of features are being used for identifying the ESAs in 

different contexts. In fact some of these refer more to the significance of the area- either 

ecological, or economical, than merely to its resilience (table 1). Given the fact that the 

eventual purpose of identifying ESAs is to ensure conservation of sites that are important, it 

is perhaps imperative to consider features that define the ecological and economic values as 

well along with the resilience of an area while identifying the ESAs. Therefore, following a 

country-wide consultancy among the experts and the interested stake holders, WGEEP 

attempted to re-evaluate the concept of ESAs, redefine the concept if possible and develop 

a consensus protocol for mapping the ESAs along Western Ghats. In this paper we outline 

the conceptual basis and details of protocols arrived at, through a series of discussions by 

the WGEEP for mapping the ESAs for Western Ghats. We hope that a generalized form of 

these protocols could be used for other biorich areas as well within and outside the country. 

A working definition of ESA: 

While there does not exist an unequivocally accepted definition, McMillan Dictionary 9 

defines environmentally sensitive area as an area where the natural environment can easily be 

harmed. Accordingly, for the present purpose though, it may be convenient to define 

Ecologically Sensitive Areas as those ecological units that may be easily affected or harmed, we 

wish to refrain from offering a specific definition. Nevertheless, for operational purposes, we 

wish to refer to ESAs as those areas that are ecologically and economically very important, but, 

vulnerable to even mild disturbances and hence demand conservation. We refer to ècologically and 

economically important’ areas as those that are biologically and ecologically `rich’ `valuable’ 

and, or ùnique’ and are hence irreplaceable if destroyed. Further, by the virtue of them 

being biologically rich, they could be potentially of high value to the human societies, help 

in maintaining the ecological stability of the area, and important in conserving biological 

diversity. Similarly, their ùniqueness’ may be recognised either by the rarity of the living 

systems they harbour that are difficult to replace if lost, or by the uniqueness of the services 

they offer to human society. Their `vulnerability’ could be determined by their 

physiographic features that are prone to erosion or degradation under human and other 

influences such as erratic climate. Several earlier attempts to define ESAs have also 

suggested these components as important (see table 1) directly or indirectly. 

98


Do we need a different Terminology? 

Clearly, as being practiced or being suggested world over for demarcating them, ESAs are 

not merely sensitive areas but are also Ecologically Significant Areas. They are significant 

for their biological value, ecological value, economic value, cultural and historical (both 

biological and anthropological) values and also significant because they are sensitive to 

external and natural pressures. Therefore they need to be conserved though with graded 

levels of protection depending upon their intrinsic value and extent of resilience. In other 

words there appears to be a consensus, at least in practice and by suggestions, that the ESAs 

shall not be merely ecologically sensitive areas but are also biologically and ecologically 

significant areas. Given the fact that Ecological Significance is a much wider and more 

inclusive term than the specific Ecological Sensitivity, we propose to use the term 

Ecologically Significant Areas in lieu of Ecologically Sensitive Areas (but retain the 

abbreviation as ESA). Thus in the ensuing pages we use ESAs in this sense and not to refer 

merely to ecologically sensitive areas. 

Why ESAs? 

In India, there are a good set of conservation sites such as biosphere reserves, national parks 

and wild-life sanctuaries that constitute an effective network of protected areas for 

conserving biological diversity and natural habitats 10,11 . All these are large forested areas 

identified for conservation because they harbour high levels of biological diversity or, 

flagship species or, unique landscape elements. However excepting in certain cases such as 

the handful of bio-sphere reserves, the demarcation of the areas for these conservation 

programs was not based on any scientific data or on a large scale consultation involving 

diverse stake holders. Rather, more often they have been identified either on the basis of the 

wisdom of the forest managers and, or, on the basis of a historical contingents (eg., the royal 

hunting grounds, historically known places for certain species such as lions, buffers of 

reservoirs etc.,). Nevertheless the demarcated areas have been remarkably effective in 

attaining the goals of the conservation programs in the post independent period 10,11 

notwithstanding the repeated conflicts emerging between the native residents and the 

managers in several areas, and, distinct lacunae identified in some areas for effective 

conservation of the focal species (such as the lack of most essential corridors between certain 

PAs for large animals such as elephants 12 etc., 

Against the background of such effectiveness of the existing network of conservations sites, 

an obvious question would be why do we need ESAs? While the existing network of 

conservation sites have been wonderfully effective, there are several unforeseen 

consequences as given below, that have biased our emphasis, and our attitude in the 

conservation efforts. We opine that these biases could be corrected by extending the 

existing conservation networks and we argue that the approach taken through ESAs could 

address such problems and complement the existing programs. 

Asymmetry in conservation efforts: While national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and 

biosphere reserves are important and effective in conservation, their establishment has led to 

a complacency in our attitude towards other un-recognised but equally important areas. A 

host of unique habitats 13 (such a Myristica swamps, floral plateaus of north Western Ghats, 

sholas of high altitude), lesser charismatic species (such as the endangered plants, lesser 

visible but threatened insects etc.,) and newly emerging hotter -spots (eg., `hot-specks’ such 

as certain water bodies with unusually high concentration of diversity, water seepages that 

teem with insect, plant and other animal life but are vulnerable to desiccation etc., as 

suggested by Dr P T Cherian; personal comunication ) are lacking the required attention 

99


from the existing conservation programs. Identification of such unique habitats and microniches 

of species require special efforts and the approach of ESA would at least partly 

address this problem. 

The neglect of small and beautiful: There are a number of smaller units of the wilderness, 

that are significant for their historical, cultural and social relevance and hence deserve to be 

conserved (example limestone outcrops at Yana in Karnataka). Unfortunately, they can not 

be conserved via the existing network of conservation sites because they are smaller in size, 

or biologically poor or lack of charismatic wildlife etc., There are of course new 

conservation approaches emerging such as the identification of biodiversity heritage sites, 

conservation reserves etc., For instance, as per the provision provided in Wildlife 

(Protection) Act 1972 even small areas such as tree groves, traditionally venerated by local 

human communities can be conserved; there are also instances of such efforts as for example 

of the kind established by the TN Forest Department along the banks of the Tambaraparani 

river close to KMTR in Tirunelveli. However The ESA-approach proposed here attempts to 

encompass all these along with a host of areas of conservation interest that are otherwise 

neglected. 

Non-valuation of invisible services: There are several areas that do not fall under the 

existing network of conservation, but offer a range of tangible and often invisible services to 

the communities. These services that have generally gone unnoticed require immediate 

conservation. For instance, vast areas of grass lands, not so rich in biodiversity could be 

serving as catchment areas for important rivers that provide agricultural- and food- stability 

to people far off in the downstream. A small patch of land in the form of sacred grove could 

be offering the most important medicinal plants used regularly by the communities 

depending on it. Areas that provide such invisible services may be important for locals 

communities dependent on them and hence could be considered as important components 

of ecologically significant areas. 

Need for variable management strategies: Protected Area networks are rigid with respect 

to their management and the local dependents have least role in utilizing, managing and 

conserving them. Considering the formidable costs involved in expanding the PA network 

and the general lack of wilderness outside the domain of human societies it would be more 

practical to think of alternate ways of a variable management system. Several of the areas of 

conservation significance may be managed by variable regulations with a consensus on its 

utilization and sustenance/management. In other words we need a network of conservation 

sites that have variable and perhaps even flexible management strategies. As would be 

shown below ESAs can be identified with such flexible system of management. In fact there 

could be ESAs with PAs embedded within them with an adaptive regime of regulation. 

Thus there is a need to expand the scope of the existing process of identifying the areas for 

conservation. Ecologically Significant Areas (ESAs) as proposed here aim at attaining this 

much more comprehensively than focusing merely on the biodiversity richness, or on 

ecologically sensitive areas. It takes a more general complementary (than being competing) 

approach for identifying conservation sites. 

Demarcating the ESAs 

A. Criteria for Demarcating ESAs 

As discussed above, there are three important attributes that need to be considered in 

defining the ecological significance or sensitivity of an area: the physico-climatic features 

(geo-climatic features), the biological features and the social relevance (including their 

100


cultural, economic and historical importance) of the area. All these can be grouped under a) 

abiotic attributes, b) biotic attributes and c) anthropological or socio-cultural attributes. Such 

attributes are suggested and used by other workers also 4 . But as yet we do not find any 

structured protocol for using these attributes to arrive at ESAs. We propose below a set of 

these attributes with the criteria to be used for each of them and then provide a 

methodological process to combine and use these criteria in demarcating ESA especially for 

a large area such as Western Ghats. 

1. Biological attributes: We propose that demarcation of an ESA shall consider the 

following components of biological and cultural uniqueness and richness : 

a. Biodiversity richness: Richness in diversity at all taxonomic groups and hierarchies. 

b. Species Rarity- Rarity of population size, distribution and also rarity in taxonomic 

representation. 

c. Habitat Richness: Spatial heterogeneity of Landscape elements 

d. Productivity: Total biomass productivity 

e. Estimate of biological/ecological resilience: Representation of the plesio-vegetation 

f. Cultural and Historical Significance: Evolutionary- historical value and culturalhistorical 

value of the area 

2. Geo-climatic layers attributes: These include the range of layers that assess the innate or 

natural vulnerability of the area. Obviously features such as slope, aspect, altitude, 

precipitation etc shall be used under the following two component attributes: 

a. Topographic Features: Slope, altitude, aspect etc., 

b. Climatic Features: Precipitation, number of wet days etc.,. 

c. Hazard vulnerability: Natural hazards such as landslides and fires. 

3. Stake Holders Valuation: It is important to invite the opinion of the public and local 

bodies especially the Zilla Panchayats, village level political bodies and also other civil 

societies to enlist the areas that they feel ecologically and environmentally sensitive and use 

these as important attributes. 

B. Methodology to demarcate ESAs 

i. Grid the study area: Most often ESAs are discussed and debated with a focus on 

individual landscape elements, specific sites, localities, and habitats. This has obviously 

bought in a lot of ad-hocism in to the process of recognising the ESA. But we propose that 

an exercise to identify ESAs is preferably taken up for a vast area (landscapes) using a 

common set of criteria and by adopting a uniform, replicable methodology. Accordingly, we 

propose here one such protocol for mapping ESAs of the Western-Ghats (Figure 1). 

However the methodology proposed here can be generalized for other similar bio-rich areas 

as well. 

ii. Since it is difficult to decide in advance the exact size of the ESAs, we propose that the 

area in question could be divided in to grids of suitable size, depending upon the datasets 

available and vastness of the area. In case of Western Ghats we propose a 5’ X 5 ’ grids 

because most of the data sets available complement well at this scale . 

101


iii. Valuing Grids for their ecological sensitivity: Data and information could be obtained 

for the entire Western Ghats on each of the criterion listed and maps depicting the three 

attributes are developed as below: 

1. Biological and cultural Layer: 

a. Species Biological Richness: Areas that harbour high levels of biological diversity shall be 

considered as important ESAs than those that are less diverse and the diversity could be 

measured preferably using the Avalanche Index 14,15 that integrates diversity at all levels of 

taxonomic hierarchy. Further in this particular situation, these values could to be 

normalized from the lowest (1) to the highest (10) values of biological diversity and each 

grid shall then be attached with the normalized value corresponding to its level of 

biodiversity. 

b. Rarity of species : 

i. Distributional Rarity: Areas that contain the rarest of the species are to be considered more 

important because the loss of these species is irreversible. For this, the rarity of each species 

needs to be defined quantitatively as the proportion of the total grids occupied by it (Pi) and 

for each grid these rarity values are summed over all the species in that grid. Accordingly, 

the rarity of species can range from 1/ N for those that occur in only one of the total N 

grids to 1.00 for those that occur in all the grids. These rarity values of the species are then 

summed over all the species (S) for each grid to arrive at a Rarity Value for each grid. It is 

important to consider only the naturalized species to avoid the recently introduced invaders. 

The Rarity Value of a grid (RVg) is given by 

S 

RVg = ∑ (Pi) 

i = 1 

Further these RVg values shall be normalized again from 1 (lowest ) to 10 (highest) and 

assigned to the grids. Such quantification is fortunately possible now owing to the datasets 

accumulated on the distribution of species for several bio-rich areas. 

ii. Taxonomic rarity: Using the taxonomic hierarchy from the datasets available 16 

taxonomically (and hence probably evolutionarily) rare species shall be identified as the 

families that contain only one monotypic genus. Such families are counted for each grid and 

normalized between 1 to 10. 

c. Habitat Richness: Habitat heterogeneity is well known to be correlated to the diversity of a 

range of organisms especially of animals including aquatic fishes 17,18 . Therefore, in the 

absence of data on a wide range of animals, we propose that grids that contain high levels 

of habitat heterogeneity or landscape heterogeneity shall be regarded as biologically rich 

and hence as ESAs. Habitat heterogeneity is possible to be quantified for large areas such as 

Western Ghats as fine resolution remote sense data sets are now available. The habitat 

richness of a grid (HRg)can be computed using Simpson Index where the species are 

replaced by the landscape types and the frequency of the species by the proportion of the 

area occupied by the landscape types as given below: 

L 

HRg = ∑ (Pi)^2 

i = 1 

102


where Pi is the proportion of the area of the ith landscape element and L, the number of 

elements in the grid. 

These values are then normalized from 1 to 10 and assigned to grids. 

d. Productivity : It has been demonstrated that productivity of an area, as represented by the 

cumulative greenness or NDVI over the year is a good surrogate for the vegetation 

diversity 19,20 . Since this index captures the extent primary productivity that sustains life, it 

can also be used as a surrogate for diversity of a host of organisms for which data sets are 

not available. Here again the cumulative NDVI over the year is attached for each grid and 

normalized to range from 1 to 10. We understand that this parameter may underestimate 

the importance of certain habitats such as grass lands, and overestimate for others such as 

evergreen forests, we also realize that there are a number of possible ways of using NDVI to 

circumvent these biases. But given that we have other attributes that capture the importance 

of such habitats, we wish to restrict to the cumulative values of NDVI as it does represent 

the base productivity for the life to sustain. 

e. Estimate of biological /ecological resilience: The extent of deviations in the biological 

composition (plant composition) of an area from its original plesio-climax composition 

would reflect the resilience of the system over large time scale; those that have deviated 

more from the original composition can be considered to be least resilient and hence are 

ecologically highly sensitive. For this we propose to estimate the proportion of the existing 

vegetation that reflects the plesio-climax as an index of resilience 21,22 . These proportions are 

assigned to all the grids and then normalized to range from 1 (highest deviations) to 10 (least 

deviations). 

f. Cultural Significance: Areas that harbour historical relics and cultural diversity also 

shall be considered important as ESAs. While there is no easy way to value the cultural 

significance, we suggest that the oldest of the relics shall get the highest value (10) and the 

most recent the low value (1); if there are no relics the grid gets zero value. 

2. Geo-climatic layers: 

a. Topographic Features: Areas with steep slopes and high altitudes are likely to be eroded 

more easily, and hence vulnerable to natural erosion. Obviously such areas need to be 

considered as least resilient and hence environmentally sensitive zones areas. We suggest 

that the slopes, and altitudes can be normalized within each grid from 1 (least average slope 

or lowest average altitude) to 10 (high slope and high altitude) and assigned to the grids (see 

Figure 2 and 3 as examples). 

b. Climatic Features: Areas with high rain fall, and with a narrow window of wet or rainy 

season (actual length of dry season or number of rainy days in conjunction with total annual 

precipitation; rainfall in excess of 3000mm and dry season that exceeds 6 months have made 

landscapes the most vulnerable/least resilient; Pascal, 1988) are most vulnerable of erosion 

and hence needs to be considered environmentally sensitive. Accordingly these are 

normalized within each from 1 (low rain fall or highest number of rainy days) to 10 (highest 

rain fall or least number of rainy days) and assigned to grids. 

c. Hazard vulnerability: Available data on natural hazards such as avalanches and fires 

shall be obtained wherever possible and attached to the grids, and normalized from 1 to 10. 

3. Stake Holders Valuation: WGEEP has been having local consultations, public hearing 

and is also getting responses from wide section of civil societies (through the website 

www.westernghstsindia.org) for their inputs on the ESAs. Similar opinions shall be invited 

103


from public and local bodies. Too often these would not be having the exact boundaries 

and hence they would be assigned to grids. These area then normalized from 1 to 10. 

Grading the ESAs: 

There could be no immediate consensus on how to weigh each of these attributes but one 

simple way (but obviously un acceptable to all) would be to weigh the three criteria (Abiotic, 

Biotic and Socio-cultural) equally. We wish to continue such a process with the hope that 

once the results are out, there could be further discussions, re-valuation and revision of the 

ESAs. However for the time being we propose that all the three attributes viz., biological, 

geo-climatic and public perception are developed and graded as given in the table -1 below. 

Each of them is divided into three categories based on the importance of the biological 

component, environmental sensitivity and valuation by the public and are ranked 

accordingly. These attributes are later overlaid as shown in table 2. The biological and geoclimatic 

layers are first combined and the public perception layer is overlaid on this to arrive 

at the different grades of ESAs (see table 2). 

Once the grids are assigned with these grades/ranks, areas for demarcating ESAs are 

identified as set of consecutive grids with similar grading/ranking. However the more fine 

scale borders of the ESAs can be developed with local inputs from the forest managers and 

the stake holders before they are legally declared as ESAs. 

Conclusions: 

We are aware that the protocol and methodology provided here for mapping ESAs can not 

be final and may not be directly adaptable without further discussions. However it is our 

hope that responses from a wider section of experts and the consequent discussions help 

significantly towards developing a more generic methodology on which there could be 

more consensus. In the meanwhile, however WGEEP has been compiling the datasets 

required for the purpose for mapping the ESAs along Western Ghats using these steps. 

Any constructive suggestions during the process would be highly appreciated. 

Acknowledgments: We thank all the members of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, 

especially Drs R. Sukumar, Ligia Noronha and Rene Borges for their inputs and suggestion 

at different stages of the development of this MS. We also thank Ministry of Environment 

and Forestry, for funding this work. In particular we thank Dr G V Subramanyan for his 

help and cooperation in organizing the discussions. Our thanks are also due to staff of 

ATREE, FERAL and French Institute for their suggestions and inputs. Miss Asha working 

for her Ph D at SEC, UAS Bengaluru on ESAs and Narayani Barve from Kansas State 

University have been of special help in preparing the maps. 

104


Table 2. Suggested methodology to categorise and valuing the attribute layers 

Sl Attributes Category Valuing 

No 

1 Biological BHV (Biologically Highly Valued) 

BMV (Biologically Modestly moderately Valued) 

BLV (Biologically Less Valued) 

10 

5 

0 

2 Geo-climatic EHS (Environmentally Geo-climatically Highly 

Sensitive) 

EMS (Environmentally Geo-climatically 

Moderately Sensitive) 

ELS (Environmentally Geo-climatically Less 

Sensitive ) 

3 Public 

perception 

VIPP (Very Important through Public Perception) 

MIPP (Moderately Important through Public 

Perception) 

LIPP (Less Important through Public Perception) 

10 

5 

0 

10 

5 

0 

Table 3 Suggested methodology to combine the valued layers and grading the ESAs. 

Combined Value from 

Layers 1 and 2 

10 -20 

0 -10 

Value from 

Public 

Perception 

ESA Grade 

Extent of protection 

5-10 Grade1 Highly Protected with no activities 

inside 

0-5 Grade 2 High protection with regulated 

activities 

5-10 Grade 3 Regulated Protection 

0-5 Grade 4 To be kept under watch 

References: 

1. Saxena, M R., R Kumar, P. R. Saxena, R Nagaraja, S. C. Jayanthi, 2007 Remote sensing 

and GIS based approach for environmental sensitivity studies. A case study from Indian 

Coast. Internation Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. www.ispres.org. 

2. Hemkumara, G P T S, 2009, GIS Based analysis on environmental sensitive areas and 

identification of the potential disaster hazardous locations in southern Sri Lanka. 

International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 9:311-315. 

3. MacDonald, A., 2000, Assessment of risk and identification of environmentally sensitive 

areas. Interspill Marseille 2000 Conference and Exhibition, www.interspill.com 

4. Steiner, F., J Blair, L McSherry, S Guhathakurtha, J Marruffo, M Holm, 2000, A watershed 

at watershed: the potential for environmentally sensitive area protection in the 

upper San Pedro Drainage Basic (Mexico and USA). Landscape and Urban 

Planning, 49: 129-148 

5. Capuzucca, J., 2001, Federal Hill: An extraordinarily environmentally sensitive and 

historically significant area. Executive Summary, August 2001. 

www.graphicwitness.com. 

105


6 Anon. 2008, Environmentally Sensitive Zones. (Maharastra Pollution Control Board), 

www.mpcb.gov.on 

7. Lin, M, Yu Cao, Y. Tao, J. Shih, G. Yan, Y Lee, D. Xiao, S, Wang, H Chiu, 2006, Changing 

Landscapes: Monitoring Ecologically Sensitive Ecosystems in a dynamic semi-arid 

landscape using satellite imagery: A case study in Ejin Oasis, Western China. In 

Agricuture and Hydrology Applicatoions of Remote Sensing, edited by 

Kuligowski, R. and J S Parihar. 

8. http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/subsite/guidelines/introduction 

9. http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/environmentally-sensitive-area 

10. Ravikanth, G., Uma Shaanker, R., and Ganeshaiah, K.N., 2000. Conservation status of 

forests in India: a cause for worry? J. Indian Inst. Sci., 80: 591-600 

11. Gadgil, M. and Meher-Homji, V.M. 1986, Role of protected areas in conservation In : 

V.L. Chopra and T.N. Khoshoo ed. Conservation of Productive Agriculture, 

Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi. pp. 143-159) 

12. Menon, V.,Tiwari, S. K., Easa P. S. and Sukumar, R. 2005, Right of Passage: 

Elephant Corridors of India. In (Eds.) Conservation Reference Series 3. Wildlife 

Trust of India, New Delhi. Pp 287. 

13. Daniels, R J R and Vencatesan J (2008) Western Ghats: Biodiversity, People, 

Conservation. New Delhi, Rupa and Co. 

14. Ganeshaiah, K.N., Chandrashekara, K. & Kumar, A.R.V., 1997, Avalanche index: A new 

measure of biodiversity based on biological heterogeneity of the communities. 

Curr. Sci., 73 (2): 128-133 

15. Ganeshaiah, K.N., and Uma Shaanker, R., 2000. Measuring biological heterogeneity of 

forest vegetation types: Avalanche index as an estimate of biological diversity. 

Biodiversity and Conservation., 9: 953-963 

16. Ganeshaiah K N and Uma Shaanker, 2003, Sasya Sahyadri- A database on taxonomy, 

diversity and distribution of plants of Western Ghats. SEC, UAS Bengaluru. 

17. Tews, J., U. Brose, V. Grimm, K. Tielborger, M. C. Wichmann, M. Shwager, and F. Jeltsch, 

2003, Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the 

importance of keystone structures. Journal of Biogeography, 31: 79-92 

18. Jean-Franç ois Gue´ gan, Sovan Lek & Thierry Oberdorff, 1998, Energy availability and 

habitat heterogeneity predict global riverine fish diversity. Nature, 391: 382-384. 

19. Kamaljit Bawa, Joseph Rose, Ganeshaiah. K.N., Narayani Barve, Kiran, M.C. and Uma 

Shaanker. R. 2002. Assessing Biodiversity from Space: an Example from the 

Western Ghats, India. Conservation Ecology. 6 (2): 7. 

20. Waring, R. H., N. C. Coops, W. Fan, J. M. Nightingale, 2006, MODIS enhanced vegetation 

index predicts tree species richness across forested ecoregions in the contiguous 

U.S.A., Remote Sensing of Environment 103 (2006) 218–226 

21 Gadgil, M. and Meher-Homji, V.M. 1986 Localities of great significance to conservation 

of India's biological diversity Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences, 

Animal / Plant Sciences Supplement, pp. 165-180. 

106


22. Pasacal, J P (1988) Wet evergreen forests of the Western Ghats. French Institute, 

Pondicherry, pp345. 

23. Manka-White, L, 1997, Increasing awareness and accuracy in identifying 

environmentally sensitive areas within Cook Inlet, Alaska. International Oil Spill 

Conference, 946-947 

24.Gad, A and A Shalaby, 2010, Assessment and mapping of desertification sensitivity using 

remote sensing and GIS. Case study: Inland Sinai and Eastern Desert Wadies. In 

US-Egypt Workshop on Space Technology and Geoinformation for sustainable 

development, Cairo, Egypt, 14-17, June 2010. 

25. Subramanya K A, Framework for assigning ecological sensitivity to wetlands of the 

Western Ghats.- a report 

26. http//www.westernghatsindia.org 

Table 1. Terminologies used and the attributes suggested to be used while identifying the 

ESAs. 

Term Used 

Environmentall 

y Sensitive 

Area 4 

Or 

Ecologically 

Sensitive 

Ecosystems 7 

Ecologically 

Sensitive Zone 

Desertification 

Sensitivity 24 

Ecologically 

Sensitive 

Areas 25 

(Pronab Sen 

Committee 

report to 

MOEF, GOI) 

Intrinsic 

Biological value 

Habitats, Plant 

Types 

Fishes reptiles 

birds, mammals 

Biological 

Diversity 

Endangered 

species, 

Forests 

Vegetation 

quality 

(Vegetation 

cover) 

Endemism 

Rarity 

Endangered 

species 

Centres of 

evolution of 

domesticated 

species, Special 

breeding 

site/area 

Intrinsic 

Ecological 

Service value 

Linkage 

Corridors 

Seismic areas, 

Groundwater 

recharge, 

Public water 

supply areas, 

Habitats 

Specialised 

ecosystems 

Wildlife 

Corridors 

Origins of 

Rivers 

Wetlands 

Grasslands 

Intrinsic Economic 

Value 

Community needs, 

Economics, 

Agricultural Land, 

Major settlements 

Areas or centres of 

less known food 

plants 

Intrinsic Sociocultural 

Value 

Human history, 

land Use, Unique 

Farmlands, Prime 

farmlands 

Recreation areas 

Community 

organization 

Demographics. 

Torurist and 

religious places 

Sacred groves 

Intrinsic 

Sensitivity 

Soils, 

Hydrology, 

Physography 

(slope 

elevation), 

Geology, 

Cliamate 

Flood prone, 

Earthquake, 

Soil quality 

(texture, 

depth, slope,) 

,Climatic 

quality index 

(Erosion, 

Rainfall, 

Aridity) etc., 

Areas with 

intrinsically 

low resilience 

Steep Slopes 

107


Figure 1. The terrain map if the Western Ghats. The boundary map has been prepared 

following a series of discussions26 by Narayani Barve, Ganeshaiah, K N and R Uma 

Shaanker. The terrain on the boundary has been overlaid by S N Prasad. For details see 

Western Ghats boundary section of www.westernghatsindia.org 

Figure 2. The elevation map of Western Ghats (prepared by SN Prasad) 

108


Figure 3. Grids (.1250 X 0.1250) of Western Ghats ranked based on annual precipitation. 

The data was obtained from the DIVA GIS program which offers average for 100 years and 

the map was prepared by Asha and K N Ganeshaiah 

109


Annexures 

Annexures A: Establishment of Expert Panel on Western Ghats 

No.1/1/2010- RE (ESZ) 


Ministry of Environment & Forests 

(RE Division) 

**** 

Paryavaran Bhavan, 

CGO Complex, Lodi Road, 

New Delhi – 110 003 

OFFICE ORDER 

Dated: March 4, 2010 

Sub: 

Constitution of Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel 

1. The Western Ghats region runs to a length of 1600 kilometers starting from the 

mouth of the river Tapti near the border of Gujarat and Maharashtra to Kanyakumari, the 

southern most tip of India in Tamil Nadu covering six states namely; Tamil Nadu, 

Karnataka, Kerala, Goa, Maharashtra and Gujarat (portions of Dang Forests). The region 

covers an area of about 1.60 lac square kilometers. 

2. The Western Ghats Region generally receives 500 mm to 7000 mm of rainfall. Most 

of the rivers in peninsular India have their origin in Western Ghats of which Godavari, 

Krishna, Kaveri, Kali Nadi and Periyar are of inter – state importance. These water 

resources have been harnessed for irrigation and power. About 30% of the area of the 

Western Ghats Region is under forests. The region is also a treasure house of plant and 

animal life. The Western Ghats is one of the four Biodiversity hotspots of the country. The 

region harbors 1,741 species of flowering pants and 403 species of birds. Notable wildlife 

includes the tiger, elephant, the Indian bison, lion-tailed macaque, wynad laughing thrush, 

Travancore tortoise, uropeltid snakes, several species of legless amphibians and dipterocarp 

trees. 

3. The traditional horticultural crops in the region are arecanut, pepper and cardamom 

in the hills and coconuts in the coast along with mango and jack fruit. Tea, coffee, rubber, 

cashew and tapioca are the other important plantation crops of the region. This region has 

one of the world’s highest concentrations of wild relatives of cultivated plants. Some of the 

National parks situated in this region are the Borivali National Park, Nagarhole National 

Park, Bandipur National Park, Annamalai Wildlife Sanctuary, Periyar National Park, etc. 

110


4. The ecological and environmental problems of the area include increasing pressure 

of population and industry including tourism on land and vegetation; submergence of forest 

areas under river valley projects, encroachment on forest lands; mining operations, clear 

felling of natural forests for raising tea, coffee, rubber, eucalyptus, wattle and other 

monoculture plantations; infrastructural projects such as railway lines and roads, soil 

erosion, land slides; habitat fragmentation and rapidly declining biodiversity. 

5. Given the environmental sensitivity and ecological significance of the region and the 

complex interstate nature of its geography, as well as the possible impacts of climate change 

on this region, it is proposed to constitute a Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel. 

6. The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel is hereby constituted with the following 

members for a period of one year from the date of issue of this order, namely 13 : 

1. Prof. Madhav Gadgil Chairman 

Ex-Chairman, Centre for Ecological Sciences, 

Indian Institute of Science, 

A-18, Spring Flowers, Panchavati 

Pashan Road 

Pune – 411 008, 

Maharashtra. 

2. Shri B.J. Krishnan Member 

Senior Advocate, 

Nilgiris Centre, Hospital Road, 

Ootacamund - 643001 

Tamil Nadu. 

3. Dr. Nandkumar Mukund Kamat, Member 

Assistant Professor, 

Department of Botany, 

Goa University, 

Goa. 

4. Dr. K.N. Ganeshaiah Member 

Ashok Trust for Research in Ecology & Environment 

(ATREE), 

659 5 th A Main, Hebbal 

Bengaluru - 560 024, Karnataka. 

13 

- Dr. Nandkumar Kamat has since resigned from the Panel 

- Dr. V.S. Vijayan has been included as a non-official expert member in his individual capacity while Dr. 

R.V.Varma has become an ex-officio member as Chairman, Kerala State biodiversity Board 

111


5. Dr. V.S. Vijayan Member 

Chairman, 

(ex-officio) 

Kerala Biodiversity Board, 

Pallimukku, Pettah P. O. 

Thiruvananthapuram - 695 024 

Kerala. 

6. Prof. (Ms.) Renee Borges Member 

Centre for Ecological Sciences, 

Indian Institute of Science (IISC), 

Bengaluru – 560 012, Karnataka. 

7. Prof. R. Sukumar, Member 

Chairman, Centre for Ecological Sciences, 

Indian Institute of Science (IISc), 


8. Dr. Ligia Noronha Member 

Director (Resources & Global Security Division), 

The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), 

Darbari Block, India Habitat Centre, 

Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. 

9. Ms Vidya S. Nayak Member 

Nagarika Seva Trust, 

Gurvayankere - 574 217, 

Belthangadi Taluk, 

Dakshina Kannada District, Karnataka. 

10. Dr. D. K. Subramaniam Member 

Professor of Computer Science and Automation, 

and Ecological Sciences, IISc, Bengaluru (Retd) 

Foundation for Advancement of Education and Research 

G5, Swiss Complex, 33, Race Course Road 


11. Dr. P.L. Gautam Member 

Chairman, National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) (ex-officio) 

5th Floor, TICEL Bio Park, 

Taramani Road, Taramani, 

112


Chennai - 600 113, Tamil Nadu. 

12. Prof. S.P. Gautam Member 

Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) (ex-officio) 

Parivesh Bhavan, CBD-Cum-Office Complex, 

East Arjun Nagar, Delhi – 110 032. 

13. Dr. R.R. Navalgund Member 

Director, Space Application Centre (SAC), 


Ahmedabad – 380 015 Gujarat. 

14. Dr. G.V. Subrahmanyam Member-Secretary 



Forests, Government of India, New Delhi. 

7. The Panel shall perform, the following functions, namely:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

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 



shall review the existing reports such as the Pronab Sen Committee report and Dr. T. 

S. Vijayraghvan Committee Report, Hon’ble Supreme Court’s directions, 

Recommendations of the National Board for Wildlife and consult all concerned State 

Governments. 

to make recommendations for the conservation, protection and rejuvenation of the 



to suggest measures for effective implementation of the notifications issued by the 


areas in the Western Ghats Region as Eco-sensitive zones under the Environment 


to recommend the modalities for the establishment of Western Ghats Ecology 




to deal with any other relevant environment and ecological issues pertaining to 



8. The Panel may co-opt any other expert(s) /official (s), if necessary, for taking requisite 

inputs, with the permission of the Chair. 

113


9. The Panel shall furnish its report to the Central Government through the Ministry of 

Environment and Forests within six months from the date of its constitution. Additional 

submissions, if any, may be submitted after this period. 

10. The Panel shall have its meetings at Delhi or at any other place within India as 

decided by the Chair. 

11. The TA/DA of non-official members, including co-opted members, if any, for 

attending the meetings of the Panel and for undertaking site visits, if any, will be met by the 

Ministry of Environment & Forests as per rules. 

12. The non-official members, including co-opted members, if any, are entitled for a 

sitting fee of Rs. 1000/- per day during the meetings of the Panel. 

13. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority and with the concurrence 

of the Integrated Finance Division of this Ministry, vide their U.O. Note Dy. No. 407/AS & FA 

/ F/10 dated 04-03-2010. 

To 

Copy to: 

All Members 

(Dr. G.V. Subrahmanyam) 

1. Pay & Accounts Officer, Principal Pay & Accounts Office, Ministry of 

Environment & Forests, New Delhi. 

2. IFD/B& A Section, Ministry of Environment & Forests. 

3. PS to MOS (I/C), E&F. New Delhi 

4. PPS to Secretary (E&F) 

5. PPS to Addl. Secretary (MFF). 

6. Guard File. 

7. Spare Copies (10). 

Adviser (RE) 

114


Annexure B: Commissioned Papers 

Sl.No. Name Theme 

1 V.B.Savarkar, 

464 Rasta Peth, Flat 3, Nr. MSEDC Ltd. Power 

House, Opposite. Mahalaxmi Motors, 

Pune-411011. Maharashtra. 

E-mail : woodowl464@yahoo.co.in 

2 Mohana, G.S. 

Assistant Professor (Genetics and Plant 

Breeding) , Ponnampet-571 216, Coorg district, 

Karnataka state, INDIA 

Phone: 08274 249156 

Mobile: + 91 99022 73468; 99862 23568 

Email: mohangs2007@gmail.com 

Also at 

Department of Forest Biology and Tree 

Improvement, College of Forestry (UAS, 

Bangalore) 

Phone: 08274 249370 extn. 215 

3 Padmalal, D 

Centre for Earth Science Studies, 

Thiruvanathapuram- 695031, Kerala, India 

E mail: drdpadmalal@gmail.com 

4. N. Baskaran (with technical assistance of R. 

Sukumar), Asian Nature Conservation 

Foundation, Innovation Centre, Indian Institute 

of Science, Bangalore 560012 

E-mail: basakar@ces.iisc.ernet.in 

5 V. Bhaskar 

Professor of Forestry & Former Director (Rtd.), 

National Afforestation & Eco-Development 

Board, Regional Centre, Ministry of 

Environment & Forest, Govt. of India, 

University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore 

– 560 065 

Residence: No. 33, 'Udayaravi', 2nd Main Road, 

Cholanagar, R.T. Nagar P.O., Bangalore - 560 

032 

Email: vbhaskar49@yahoo.co.in or 

vbhaskar49@gmail.com 

Protected Areas in Support of 

Conservation of Biological Diversity and 

Other Values of Western Ghats 

Wild Relatives of Cultivated Plants and 

Crop genetic Resources of the Western 

Ghats: 

Alluvial Sand Mining: The Kerala 

Experience 

The State of Asian Elephants in the 

Western Ghats, Southern India and Its 

Implications to Promote Conservation of 

the Ecology of Western Ghats 

Balsams (Genus : Impatiens L.) Of Western 

Ghats 

6 K.A.Subramanian, Biodiversity and Status of Riverine 

Ecosystems of the Western Ghats 

115



Scientist C, 

Zoological Survey of India 

Prani Vigyan Bhavan, 

M-Block 

New Alipore 

Kolkata-700 053 

Ph: +91-33-24008595 (O) 

Fax:+91-33-24008595 (O) 

Mobile: +91-9088039540 

E-mail: subbuka.zsi@gmail.com 

7 R J Ranjit Daniels 

Managing Trustee, Care Earth Trust, No 5, 21st 

Street, Thillaiganganagar, Chennai 600 061 

E-mail: ranjit.daniels@gmail.com; 

www.careearthtrust.org 

8 S K Khanduri IFS 

Director,Environment and Climate Change, 

Social Forestry Complex, Vattiyurkavu PO 

Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695013 

E-mail: skhanduri@sify.com 

9 E Somanathan, 

Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi 

E-mail:som@isid.ac.in 

10 M. D. Subash Chandran 

CES Field Station, Viveknagar, Kumta – 581343, 

Uttara Kannada) 

E-mail: mdschandra@yahoo.com 

11 Aparna Watve 

BIOME, 34/6, Gulawani Maharaj Road, Pune 

411004 

E-mail: aparnawatve@gmail.com 

12 Mrunalini Vanarase 

Ecological Society, Pune 

E-mail: ioraespune@gmail.com, 

ecological.society@gmail.com 

13 Vinod Kumar Uniyal, IFS, 

Head, PA Network, WL Management and 

Conservation 

Education 

Ecologically Sensitive Areas and Birds of 

the Western Ghats 

Forest Management In Kerala in Context 

of Evolving Forestry and Conservation 

Concerns for Western Ghats 

Incentive-Based Approaches to Nature 

Conservation 

On Understanding and Saving the Sacred 

Groves of Western Ghats 

Rocky Plateaus (Special focus on the 

Western Ghats and Konkan) 

Regeneration of Streams of Western Ghats 

Ecodevelopment Committees: Translating 

Theory into Practice 

116



Wildlife Institute of India 

P.B.No. 18, Chandrabani 

Dehradun (Uttarakhand) -248001 

E-mail: vkuniyal50@rediffmail.com 

14 Dilip B. Boralkar 

Former Member Secretary, Maharashtra 

Pollution Control Board 

# 602, Amar Residency, Sion-Trombay Road, 

Punjabwadi, Deonar, Mumbai 400 088 

E-mail: dbboralkar@gmail.com 

15 N. Anil Kumar & M. K. Ratheesh Narayanan 

M S Swaminathan Research Foundation, 

Community Agro-biodiversity Centre, 

Puthurvayal P.O, Wayanad 673 121, Kerala 

E-mail: anil@mssrf.res.in 

16 Narayan G. Hegde 

BAIF Development Research Foundation 

Pune 411 058 

E-mail: nghegde@baif.org.in 

17 Dr. Ritwick Dutta 

Co Convener, EIA Resource and Response 

Centre, N-71 Lower Ground Floor, Greater 

Kailash -1 New Delhi 

E-mail: ritwickdutta@gmail.com 

www.ercindia.org 

18 Honnavalli N. Kumara 1 and Mewa Singh 2 

1 

Salimali Centre for Ornithology and Natural 

History, Anaikatti P.O., Coimbatore, 641108, 

India. 

2 

Biopsychology Laboratory, University of 

Mysore, Mysore, 570006, India 

E-mail: mewasingh@bsnl.in 

19 R.S. Bhalla a , Jagdish Krishnaswamy b , 

SrinivasVaidyanathan a 

a 

Foundation for Ecological Research, Advocacy 

and Learning 

b 

Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the 

Environment 

E-mail: jagdish@atree.org, 

jagdish.krishnaswamy@gmail.com 

Industrial Pollution 

Diversity, Use Pattern and Management of 

Wild Food Plants of Western Ghats: A 

Study from Wayanad District 

Tree Planting on Private Lands 

A Framework for EIA Reforms in the 

Western Ghats 

Distribution, Status And Conservation of 

Primates of the Western Ghats 

Vulnerabilities of Critical Ecosystems and 

Services in the Western Ghats to Overland 

Flows and Sedimentation During Extreme 

Rainfall Events 

20 Snehlata Nath Livelihood Security in the Western Ghats – 

117



Keystone Foundation, Groves Hill Road, 

Kotagiri, Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu 

E-mail: sneh@keystone-foundation.org 

Some Notes & Discussions 

21 R J Ranjit Daniels 

Managing Trustee, Care Earth Trust, No 5, 21st 

Street, Thillaiganganagar, Chennai 600 061; 

E-mail: ranjit.daniels@gmail.com 

22 M.S. Viraraghavan 

Hillview, Fernhill Road, Kodaikanal 624101, 

Tamil Nadu 

E-mail: girija.vira@gmail.com 

23 Anita Varghese 1,2 ,Tamara Ticktin 2 , Snehlata 

Nath 1 , Senthil Prasad 1 , Sumin George 1 

1 

Keystone Foundation, Kotagiri, Nilgiris, Tamil 

Nadu, India. kf@keystone-foundation.org 

2 

Department of Botany, University of Hawaii, 

Manoa, HI. 

E-mail: anita@keystone-foundation.org 

24 N.A. Aravind* and K.V. Gururaja** 

*SuriSehgal Centre for Biodiversity and 

ConservationAshoka Trust for Research in 

Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Royal 

Enclave, Sriramapura, Jakkur PO., Bangalore 

560064 

E-mail: aravind@atree.org 

**Centre for Infrastructure, Sustainable 

Transportation and Urban Planning (CiSTUP), 

Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012 

E-mail: gururaj@cistup.iisc.ernet.in 

25 G. Ravikanth 

Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the 

Environment, Royal Enclave, Srirampura, 

Jakkur Post, Bangalore 560064, India 

Phone: 091-080-23635555 (110) 

Email: gravikanth@atree.org 

26 N A Madhyastha and Aravind N A* 

Malacology Centre, Poornaprajna College 

Udupi 576101 

*ATREE, Royal Enclave, Sriram Puram, P O 

Jekkur, Bangalore 64. 

E Mail: na.madhyastha@gmail.com 

27 Shashidhar Viraktamath* and Bhaktibhavana 

Rajankar 

Spatial Heterogeneity, Landscapes and 

Ecological Sensitivity in the Western Ghats 

Hill Stations in the Western Ghats. 

Kodaikanal – A Case Study 

Non Timber Forest Products: Experiences 

in Conservation, Enterprise, Livelihoods 

and Traditional Knowledge in the Nilgiri 

Biosphere Reserve, Western Ghats, India 

Amphibians of the Western Ghats 

Conservation of Forest Genetic Resources 

in Western Ghats, India 

Land Snails of Western Ghats 

Wild Bees of Western Ghats: Crop 

Pollination Deficits 

118



Department of Agricultural Entomology, 

University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad 

580005 

*E-mail: shashiv777@gmail.com 

28 Kalyan Kumar Chakravarty 

B-15 (8th Floor), 

Delhi Administration Officers' Flats, 

Sector D-2, 

Near DDA Sports Complex, 

Vasant Kunj, 

New Delhi - 110070 

Mobile - 9818857536 

Res.(phone) – 26891504 

E-mail: msk4747@yahoo.co.in 

29 K.S. Valdiya 

Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced 

Scientific Research, Bangalore – 560 064 

E-mail: ksvaldiya@gmail.com, 

valdiya@jncasr.ac.in 

30 D.J. Bhat 

Department of Botany, Goa University, Goa- 

403 206, India 

E-mail: bhatdj@rediffmail.com 

31 K.R. Sridhar 

Department of Biosciences, Mangalore 

University, Mangalagangotri, 

Mangalore 574 199, Karnataka, India 

E-mail: sirikr@yahoo.com 

32 Sanjeeva Nayaka and Dalip Kumar Upreti 

Lichenology Laboratory, National Botanical 

Research Institute (CSIR) 

Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow – 226 001, U.P. 

E-mail: nayaka.sanjeeva_n@gmail.com 

33 A.Sundara, 

"Kartikeya" 1st floor, Sharada Nagara, 

SHRINGERI 

577139 (Karnataka) 

E-mail: nasundara@gmail.com 

34 Rajendra Kerkar 

Keri – Sattari, Goa 403505 

A Prolegomena towards a Strategy for Bio 

Cultural Survival in the Western Ghats 

Geological Framework and Tectonics of 

Western Ghāt 

Documentation of Micro-Fungal Diversity 

in the Forests of Western Ghats, India 

Aquatic Fungi in the Western Ghats – 

Current Status and Future Concerns 

Lichen Diversity in Western Ghats: Need 

for Quantitative Assessment and 

Conservation 

Glimpses of the Prehistoric and the Proto- 

Historic Cultures in the Region of Western 

Ghat and Ecology 

Mining – Goa, Konkan (social and 

ecological aspects) 

119



E-mail: rpkerkar@yahoo.com 

35 Glenn Kalavampara 

Goa Mineral Ore Exporters Association, P.O 

Box 113, Vaglo Building, Panaji - Goa 403001 

E-mail: Gmoea1963@yahoo.com, 

glenngoa@yahoo.com 

36 Dr. Jayendra Lakhmaprukar 

Gujarat Ecological Society, 3rd Floor, Synergy 

House, Subhanpura, Vadodara- 390023 

E-mail: jlakhmapurkar@yahoo.com 

37 EQUATIONS 

#415, 2 C Cross, 4th Main, OMBR Layout, 

Banaswadi , Bengaluru – 560043, India 

Telephone: +91-80-25457607 / 25457659 

Fax: +91-80-25457665 

Email: info@equitabletourism.org 

Url: www.equitabletourism.org 

Research Team : Rosemary Viswanath, Aditi 

Chanchani, Varun Santhosh, Sabitha Lorenz 

Advisory Team : K T Suresh 

E-mail: ktsuresh2006@gmail.com 

38 Manasi Karandikar and Ketaki Ghate 

Oikos, 210, Siddharth Towers, Kothrud, 

Pune – 29. 

E-mail: oikos@oikos.in Website: www.oikos.in 

39 Devavrat Mehta 

Chairman, Hlmc, Panchagani-Mahabaleshwar 

No. 404, SHALAKA 

M.K.Road, MUMBAI-400021 

E-mail: devshalaka@rediffmail.com 

Mining – Geological and Economic 

Perspective 

Mining in Gujarat – Impacts on 

Biodiversity 

Tourism in Forest Areas of Western 

Ghats 

Sahyadri -‘Western Ghats’ : An Overview 

of Private Ownership, Commercial 

Development and its Impact on Ecosystem 

Tourism Development Strategy in Western 

Ghats 

40 Vishwambhar Choudhari 

Oasis Environmental Foundation, Pune 

E-mail: oasisenv@vsnl.com 

41 Vijay Paranjpe 

Gomukh Environmental Trust For Sustainable 

Development, Pune 

E-mail: gomukh@pn3.vsnl.net.in 

Critical Analysis of Environmental Impact 

Assessment Process and Environmental 

Clearance Procedure in India 

Threats to the Western Ghats of 

Maharashtra: An Overview 

120



42 Adv. Norma Alvares 

Goa Foundation 

G-8, St Britto’s Apts, Feira Alta,Mapusa, 

Bardez, Goa – 403507 

E-mail: goafoundation@gmail.com, 

cnalvares@gmail.com 

Political Struggle through Law 

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) route 

to environmental security in India with 

special reference to the environment 

movement in Goa. 

121


Annexure C : Brainstorming Sessions 

Date Place Topic 

18 November 2010 Centre for Ecological Sciences 


Bengaluru 

19 November 2010 Centre for Ecological Sciences 


Bengaluru 

27 January 2011 Kerala Forest Research Institute, 

Peechi 

28 January 2011 Kerala Forest Research Institute, 

Peechi 

3 March 2011 Centre for Ecological Sciences 


Bengaluru 

Expert 

Consultative 

Meetings 

27 March 2011 Centre for Ecological Sciences 


Bengaluru 

Power Sector 

Joint Forest Management 

Water resources planning 

Decentralized Planning 

Land Use Policy 

Ecologically sensitive areas in Western Ghats in 

Tamil Nadu state with particular reference to 

Nilgiris and Valparai. 

Participants 

Prof R. Sukumar Dr. S.N. Prasad, 

Shri BJ Krishnan, 

Dr. TR Shankar Raman, 

Dr. N Bhaskaran 

3 rd to 5 th May 2011 

Kerala Institute of Local 

Administration, Thrissur 

Development of management plans for 

ecologically sensitive zones 

Lists of Participants 

Brainstorming Session on Role of Power Sector in Development of Western Ghats held at 

Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru on 18 November 2010 

No. Name Organization 

1 S. Sumathy Malarvizhi TN Power Finance Corporation 

2 Anandi Sharan Green party India 

3 Shubhada Shintre Synergy lee Resources 

4 EAS Sarma Individual 

5 M.G. Waghmare Executive Director, Mahagenco 

122



6 C.V. Ramachandra CES, IISc 

7 Ranjan Rao Yerdoor Nagarika Seva Trust 

8 A. S. Reddy CCF (RO, MoEF), Bangalore 

9 A.B. Harrapanhali Director (RO, MoEF) Bangalore 

11 C. Kaliyapervmal Director (RO, MoEF) Bangalore 

12 Santosh Kumar Singh Adani Power 

13 Karuna Raina Green Peace 

14 Amruta Joglekar RANWA 

15 Shankar Sharma Individual 

16 K.N. Balasubramanya KPCL 

17 S.L.Rao ISEC 

18 Anadakumar A KPCL 

19 V.M. Shastri Associate Vice President, JSW Energy 

20 G. Krishnadas IISc 

21 Y.B. Ramakrishna Chairman, Biofuel Taskforce Karnataka 

22 Ashwin Gambhir Prayas Pune 

23 Belure Sudarshna Individual 

24 S. Ramesh Chief Engineer, KPCL 

25 C.K. Sar Wild Orissa, Bhubhaneswar 

26 Mukti Roy CES, IISc 

27 N. Baskaran ANCF 

28 P. Vethamony NIO, Goa 

29 J. Srinivasan IISc 

30 A. Uduya Green Peace 

31 MSKVN Rao Energy Sector 

32 M.D. Subhashchandran IISc 

33 A.K. Shyam Individual 

123


Brainstorming Session on Role of Joint Forest Management (JFM) in Western Ghats held 

at Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru on 19 November 2010 


1 Bhagwan Singh APCCF, Tamil Nadu Forest Department 

2 Anandi Sharan Green party India 

3 Mohan Hirabai Hiralal Vrikshamitra, Chandrapur-Gadchiroli 

4 A.K. Joshi PCCF, Maharastra 

5 M.H. Swaminath APCCF, Karnataka Forest Department 

6 Ranjan Rao Yerdoor Nagarika Seva Trust, Karnataka 

7 A. S. Reddy CCF (RO, MoEF), Bangalore 

8 Rajeeva Nagarika Seva Trust, Karnataka 

9 Madhu Sarin CSD 

11 Amruta Joglekar RANWA, Project Assistant WGEEP 

12 A.K. Shyam Individual 

Brainstorming Session on Water Resources Planning in Western Ghats held at Kerala 

Forest Research Institute, Peechi on 27 January 2011 


1 Prof S. Janakrajan Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai 

2 Dr. K.J. Joy Forum for Policy Dialogue on Water Conflicts in India C/o 

SOPPECOM, Pune 

3 Dr. Sudhirendar Shrama Ecological Foundation, New Delhi 

4 Mr. Samir Mehta International Rivers, Mumbai 

5 Dr. A. Latha River Research Centre, Kerala 

6 Shri S.P. Ravi Chalakudy Puzha Samrakshana Samithi, Kerala 

7 Shri Shree Padre Water Journalist, Post Vaninagar, Kerala 

8 Dr. K.M. Madhavan Nambuthiri Water Consultant, Kerala 

9 Dr. K. A. Subramaniam ZSI, Pune 

11 Dr. S. N. Prasad SACON, Hyderabad 

12 Er. M. Syed Mohamed Abuthalib SG&SWRDC, Chennai 

13 Er. M. Manmathan SG&SWRDC, Chennai 

14 Shri Devrata Mehta High Level Monitoring Committee, Panchgani-Mahabaleshwar 

ESA 

124


Brainstorming Session on Decentralized Planning in Western Ghats held at Kerala Forest 

Research Institute, Peechi on 28 January 2011 


1 Prof. M.K. Prasad Information Kerala Mission 

2 Shri S.M. Vidyanand Special Chief Secretary, Govt of Kerala 

3 Dr. K.A. Subramaniam ZSI, Pune 

4 Dr. S. Narendra Prasad SACON, Hyderabad 

5 Shri Devrata Mehta High Level Monitoring Committee, Panchgani-Mahabaleshwar ESA 

6 Ms. Prakriti Srivastava DIG (WL), Ministry on Environment & Forests, Government of India, 

New Delhi 

7 Col. C.P. Muthana KMFT, Kodagu 

8 Mr K.A. Ravi 

Chengappa 

Cauvery Sene 

9 Mr. K.N. Chengappa KMFT, Kodagu 

11 Mr. Babu Kottur KMFT 

12 Mr. Balakrishna Shetty Janagrithi Samithi 

13 Vidya Dinkar Citizens Forum for Mangalore Development 

14 Vinay P Kumar Krishi Bhoomi Samakrshama Samiti 

Brainstorming Session on land use policy in Western Ghats held at Indian Institute of 

Science, Bengaluru on 3 rd March 2011. 


1. Shri Edgar Ribeiro former Chief Town Planner, Government of India 

2. Shri Y.B. Ramakrishna Executive Chairman, Karnataka State Biofuel Taskforce 

3. Dr. A.K. Shyam formerly at NTPC 

4. Ms T.M. Sudha Senior Town Planner, Department of Town and Country Planning, 

Kerala 

5. Dr. Gopal Kadekodi Centre for Multi-Disciplinary Development Research, Dharwad 

6. Dr. Seema 

Purushothaman 

ATREE, Bangalore 

7. Dr. Jagdish Krisnaswamy ATREE, Bangalore 

8. Dr. Shrinivas Badiger ATREE, Bangalore 

9. Dr. T.R. Shankar Raman Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysore 

125


WGEEP meeting and Expert Consultative meeting at Kerala Institute of Local 

Administration, Thrissur held on 3 rd May 2011 

S.No. Name Institution 

1 Prof K.P. Kannan Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvanthapuram 

2 Dr. CTS Nair Executive Vice President 

Kerala State Council for Science Technology and Environment 

3 Shri C.P. Narayanan Member, Kerala Planning Board 

4 Dr. A Latha River Research Centre 

5 Prof MK Prasad Executive Chairman, Information Kerala Mission 

6 Shri SM Vijayanand Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala 

7 Dr. R. Ajayakumar 

Varma 

Member Secretary, Kerala State Council for Science Technology and 

Environment 

8 Shri M.S. Vinod Deptt of Rural Development, Government of Kerala 

9 Shri Aby George Programme Officer, Social Audit, NREGA 

10 Prof T. Gangadharan Consultant, Kerala Institute of Local Administration, Thrissur 

11 Dr. S. N. Prasad Senior Principal Scientist, SACON 

12 Shri Nitin Rai ATREE, Bengaluru 

13 Shri Pratim Roy Keystone Foundation, Kotagiri 

14 Shri A.K. Shyam Ex-NTPC, Bangalore 

15 Shri Sanjay Upadhyay Senior Advocate, Supreme Court 

16 Shri Samir Mehta International Rivers, Mumbai 

17 Shri R.K. Garg Vice Chairman, EAC (Industries) Mumbai 

18 Smt Archana Godbole AERF, Pune 

19 Dr. N Ramakantan Director, Kerala Institute of Local Administration, Thrissur 

19 Dr. Vijaya Kumar Nair KFRI 

20 Dr. CP Shahji Kerala State Biodiversity Board 


Administration, Thrissur held on 4 th May 2011 


1 Prof K.P. Kannan Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvanthapuram 

2 Shri C.P. Narayanan Member, Kerala Planning Board 


4 Prof MK Prasad Executive Chairman, Information Kerala Mission 

5 Dr. R. Ajayakumar 

Varma 

Member Secretary, Kerala State Council for Science Technology 

and Environment 

126



6 Shri Aby George Programme Officer, Social Audit, NREGA 

7 Prof T. Gangadharan Consultant, Kerala Institute of Local Administration, Thrissur 





12 Shri Sanjay Upadhyay Senior Advocate, Supreme Court 




16 Ms Prakriti Srivastava DIG (WL) MoEF 

17 Dr HC SharatChandra Bengaluru 


Administration, Thrissur held on 5 th May 2011 










9 Shri Raghu Babu GIZ Delhi 

10 Dr HC SharatChandra Bengaluru 

11 Dr. CP Shahji Kerala State Biodiversity Board 

127


Annexure D: Consultations with Government Officials 

Maharastra 

Date Place Officer and Name of 

Government Department 

30/09/2010 Mantralaya,Mumbai Prof. Madhav Gadgil 

Chairman,WGEEP 

Amruta Joglekar 

Project Assistant ,WGEEP 

Dr. Amit Love 

Deputy Director, MoEF 

Mr. Niraj Khatri 

Deputy Director, MoEF 

Dr. A. Mehrotra 

Director, Bhopal 

Shri B.R. Naidu 

Zonal Officer, Central Pollution 

Control Board, West Zone, 

Varodadra 

Shri B. V. Rathod 

Addl. Director, Industries, 

Mumbai 

Dr. K. Shivaji 

CEO, MIDC 

Shri R.V. Sonje 

Addl. C.E., MIDC 

Shri Prakash Chavan 

Executive Engineer, MIDC 

Shri P.P. Nandusekar 

Advisor (Env), MIDC 

Shri S.D. Landge 

Director, Town Planning, M.S. 

Pune 

Shri C.S. Thotwe 

Director (Projects), Mahagenco, 

Mumbai 

Shri K.M. Chirutkar 

CGM Corporation Office, 

Mahagenco 

Capt. J.B. Rohilla 

Hydrographer, MMB 

Shri A.M. Khan 

Issues/Remarks 

Status of different 

projects in Ratnagiri 

and Sindhudurg district 

128




Principal Secy. (Industries) 

Smt. Valsa Singh 

Secretary, Environment 

Department 

Shri Nitin Kakodkar 

Joint Secretary (Forests), 

Revenue & Forests Department 

Shri G.N. Warade 

Director, Environment 

Department 

Dr. B.N. Patil 

Scientist-I, Environment 

Department 

Shri M.M. Ngullie 

Scientist, Grade I, Environment 

Department 

Shri V.M. Motghare 

MPCB, Head Quarter 

Shri P.D, Goud 

Jt. Secretary, Home Department 

Shri S.V. Zanzane 

Section Officer, (Energy), I.E.& 

L. Department 

Shri Vijay Chavan 

G.M., MTDC 

Shri Ajay Ambekar 

Dy. Secretary, Tourism 

Shri Suresh Surve 

Under Secretary (Tourism) 

Shri Radheshyam Mopalwar 

Member-Secretary, Maharashtra 

Pollution Control Board 


30-11- 

2010 

Department of 

Biodiversity, Abasaheb 

Garware College 

Dr.Amar Supate, Maharashtra 

Pollution Control 

Board,Maharashtra 

Meeting regarding 

ZASI in Maharashtra 

Districts 

13/05/2011 A 18 Spring Flowers 

Panchavati Pashan Pune 

Shri.M.K.Rao,CF(Wl), 

Forest Department,Government 

of Maharashtra 

Status of 10 km Buffer 

zone around Protected 

Area 

30-05- 

2011 

CCF,Territorial 

office,Pune 

Shri. Sinha, CCF(T) 





Area 

129





02-06- 

2011 

Yashvantrao Chavan 

Sabhagruh,Pune 

Shri. Sinha, CCF(T) 





Area 

11-06- 

2011 

A 18 Spring Flowers 

Panchavati Pashan Pune 

Shri.Saiprakash, Forest 

Department,Government of 

Maharashtra 



Area 

Tamil Nadu 




Dec. 

23, 

2010 

Chennai, TN 

Principal Seceretary, 

Environment and Forest, 

Principal Chief Conservator of 

Forest and Chief Wildlife 

Warden of Govt. of Tamil Nadu. 

Issues of conservation, sustainable 

development and governance in the 

context of the proposed ecologically 

sensitive areas of Western Ghats in 

Tamil Nadu. 

Jan. 

18, 

2011 

Ootacamund, 

Nilgiris, TN 

Collector of Nilgiris, Field 

Director Mudumalai Tiger 

Reserve and District Forest 

Officers of Gudalur, Nilgiris 

South and Nilgiris North 

Issues of conservation, sustainable 

development and governance in the 

context of the proposed ecologically 

sensitive areas of Western Ghats in 

Tamil Nadu. 

130


Annexure E: Public Consultations/ Roundtable/ Consultations with 

Civil Society Groups 

Karnataka 

Date Place Issues/Remarks Participants 

11.2.2011 Shirsi 

Forestry 

College 

14.2.2011 School of 

Social Work, 

Roshni 

Nilaya, 

Mangalore 

Conservetion of Mangroves 

Forest, Myristica swamps. 

Aganashini, Sharavathi, 

Bedthi river basin should be 

declared ESZ1. 

‣ Dankshin Kannada & 

Udupi District should be 

declared Ecologicaly 

sensitive area. 

‣ Declaration of SEZ in 

Coastal Belt is devasting 

and Petro Chemical 

Industries and Thermal 

Plant in coastal region 

will effect W.Ghats. So it 

should be stopped. 

‣ Permission should not be 

given to Gundia Hydel 

Project-ESA region. 

‣ No River Diversion or 

River Linkages. 

Conservation of Sacred 

Grooves 

‣ No G.M.Crops in 

W.Ghats region. 

Chaired by Ananta Ashisara, Chairman, 

Karnataka Western Ghats Task Force, Ms. 

Vidya Nayak, WGEEP, Shri Vasudev-Task 

Force, DFO, Canara Circle, 

Environmentalists, Scientists, Farmers, 

NGO’s of U.K. & Belgaum. 

Chaired by Keshava Korse, member of 

Karnataka W.Ghats Task Force, Vidya 

Nayak-WGEEP, 

H.C.Sharathchandra,Ex.Chairman, KSPCB, 

Prof.K.P.Achar, Prof.N.A.Madhyasta, Prof. 

Ramachandra, B.K.Parameshwara Rao, 

Organic Farmer; Vasudeva Boluru, 

Fishermen Leader; NGO Heads; 

Environmentalists; Media & Press personel; 

Farmers; Consumer activists; Civil Society 

members of Udupi & D.K. 

28.2.2011 Dr.T.M.A.Pai 

Hall, Sri 

J.C.B.M. 

College, 

Shringeri 

‣ Acording to Forest Right 

Act, Trible Rights should 

be protected. Trible 

should not be evicted 

from National Park 

harassment from Forest 

Department and 

Naxalites should be 

addressed. The Forest 

dwellers are ready to 

leave the forest if they 

are given agricultural 

land with land records. 

‣ Conservation of Sacred 

Grooves and Heritage 

sights. 

Chaired by Gajendra Gorasukudige, 

member, W.Ghats Task Force; Vidya Nayak, 

WGEEP; Prof.Kumaraswamy Udupa, 

Botanist; Veerappa Gowda, Principle; ACF 

Kambli; Members of Raitha Sangha; 

Environmentalists; NGO’s; Farmers; Tribals 

of Chikamagalore and Shivamogga. 

131



‣ No Dams in W. Ghats 

10.6.2011 Kodava 

Samaja Hall, 

Vijayanagar, 

Mysore 

Ecologically the whole of 

Kodagu District should be 

declared as ecologically silent 

area and should be protected. 

Seetavana, Bisle Forest, Seege 

Gudda, Biligiri Ranga, 

Jumma Male, Majrabadh 

Forest should be declared 

ESA. Tourism should be 

strictly regulated. Land Use 

Policy should be strictly 

regulated. Tribals Rights 

should be protected. No 

Railway project. No more 

cutting forest for Power 

Transmission Line. 

Chaired by Dr.K.A.Kushalappa, Kodagu 

Model Foresters, Ponnampete; 

Dr.K.N.Ganeshaiah and Vidya Nayak- 

WGEEP; Dr.Vasudev, W.G.Task Force; DFO 

of Mandya and Mysore; 

Dr.C.G.Kushalappa, Forestry College, 

Ponnampete; Prof.Mohan, Forestry College; 

NGO’s; Tribles Groups; Environmentalists; 

Rtd. Forest Officials; Agriculturists; Estate 

Owners of Kodagu, Hassan, Mysore 

Division. 

28 May 

2011 

Centre for 

Ecological 

Sciences 

Indian 

Institute of 

Sciences, 

Bengaluru 

Consultation on Karnataka 

ESAs 

Dr. S.N. Prasad 

1. Mr. Rajeeva Salian 

Nagarika Seva Trust 

Guruvayanakere, 

Belthangady 

Dakshina Kannada district 

2. Ms. Nyla Coelho 

Paryavarni 

Belgaum 

nylasai@gmail.com 

3. Mr. Balakrishna Shetty 

Jana Jagrithi Samithi 

4. Mr. S. Rajanna 

APCCF (FRM) 

Aranya Bhavan 

Bangalore 

5. Mr. C.S. Raju 

APCCF (HQ&C) 

6. Mr. S.V. Hosur 

132



C.F. (F.C) 

7. Mr. Siddarth Machado 

siddarthmachado@hotmail.com 

8. Ms. Vidya Nayak 

Nagarika Seva Trust 

Guruvayanakere, 

Belthangady 

Dakshina Kannada district 

9. Mr. Vinay Kumat 

Karaavali Karnataka Janaabhivrudhi Vedike 

(KKJV) 

Mangalore 

10.Mr. Sagar Dhara 

sagardhara@gmail.com 

11. Mr. Y.B. Ramakrishna 

Chairman, Karnataka State Biofuel 

Development Board 

12. Ms. Vidya Dinker 

Citizens Forum for Mangalore 

vidyadinker@gmail.com 

13. Dr. H.C. Sharatchandra 

sharatchandra@vsnl.net 

14. Mr. G.S. Kariyappa 

Forest Department 

Karnataka 

15. Prof. Renee M. Borges 


Indian Institute of Science 

Bangalore 560012 

renee@ces.iisc.ernet.in 

133


Maharastra 

Date Place Issues/Remarks 

28/10- 

29/10/2010 

29/11- 

6/12/2010 

BVIEER, Pune 

Bengaluru 

Open Consultation on how to demarcate 

Ecological Sensitive Area 

Number of Participants: 118 

List of participants given at point 1 below 

Cumulative Impact Assessment in Konkan, 

Maharashtra 

13/12/2010 Department of Biodiversity, 

Abasaheb Garware College 

26/12/2010 A 18 Spring Flowers Panchavati 

Pashan Pune 

Flaws in EIA Process and Lavasa issue 

Environmental Problems in 

Konkan,Maharashtra 

04/01/2011 Oikos office,Pune Lavasa –Environmental Impact 

07/01/2011 Oikos office, Pune Lavasa-Field Work Planning 

07/01/2011 Gomukh, Pune Mahabaleshwar-Pachgani ESZ 

09/01/2011 Gomukh, Pune HLMC functions in MPESZ and suggestions for 


06/02/2011 A 18 Spring Flowers Panchavati 

Pashan Pune 









Meeting with NPCIL officials on Jaitapur Project 

Long Term Ecology Monitoring site and 

Cumulative Impact Assessment in Konkan 

Northern Western Ghats data and Long term 

Ecology monitoring site in Konkan 

Cumulative Impact Assessment and Long term 

Ecology monitoring site in Konkan 

DEVRAAI ESZ proposal for southern part of 

Western Ghats of Maharashtra 



Local people facing Problems in 

Mahabaleshwar- Panchgani ESZ 

11/03/2011 COEP,Pune Cumulative Impact Assessment in Konkan 

17/03/2011 Kokan Krushi Vidyapeeth,Dapoli Cumulative Impact Assessment and long term 

ecology monitoring site in Konkan 

17/03/2011 Datar, Behre, Joshi 

College,Chiplun 

17/03/2011 Gogate- Jogalekar College, 

Ratnagiri 

Cumulative Impact Assessment and long term 


Cumulative Impact Assessment and long term 


18/03/2011 Sangameshwar Cumulative Impact Assessment and long term 

134




22/03/2011 BVIEER, Pune Northern Western Ghats data and ESA in 

Maharashtra 

25/04/2011 CDAC Pune Biodiversity data from Nashik,Nandurbar and 

northern Western Ghats 

23/06/2011 BVIEER, Pune ESAs in Maharashtra Western Ghats 

21/07/2011 Gomukh, Pune Mahabaleshwar-Pachgani ESZ 

25/07/2011 CDAC Pune ESAs in Maharashtra Western Ghats 

11/08/2011 BVIEER, Pune ESZ levels to Taluks in Maharashtra Western 

Ghats 

Tamil Nadu 


Jan. 16, 

2011 

Ootacamund, 

Nilgiris, TN 

Conservation of natural resources, sustainable development and 

governance in the context of ecological sensitive areas in Western 

Ghats in the Nilgiris district. 

Goa 


27.9.2010 National Institute of Oceanography, Goa Iron ore mining in Goa 

Number of participants: 87 

List given at point 2 below 

Meeting of the WGEEP with the members of the Save Western Ghats Movement 

(SWGM) Bengaluru 


5.3.2011 Indian Institute of 

Science, Bengaluru 

Interaction with SWGM on different issues related with Western 

Ghats, demarcation and management of ecologically sensitive 

areas. 

List of participants 

1. Shri Somnath Sen 

2. Shri Pratim Roy 

3. Dr. Latha Anantha 

4. Shri S. Unnikrishnan 

4. Dr. Archana Godbole 

5. Shri Samir Mehta 

6. Ms Snehlata Nath 

7. Shri Madhu Ramnath 

8. Ms. Suprabha Seshan 

135


Kerala 


26 & 27 July 

2010 

9 November 

2010 

Trivandrum 

Trivandrum 

2 May 2011 KFRI, Peechi, 

Trichur 

31 May 2011 KFRI, Peechi, 

Trichur 

1 June 2011 KFRI, Peechi, 

Trichur 

2 June 2011 KFRI, Peechi, 

Trichur 

11 August 

2011 

KFRI, Peechi, 

Trichur 

ESA, Decentralised Planning, water resources, plantation, 

agriculture with Government officials and NGOs 

Discussion on ESA with active conservationists 

Discussion on ESA with a core group of conservationists who is 

familiar with the areas 

ESA discussion with a core group of conservationists who is 






Finalizing the ESA the core group of conservationists who is 


List of participants in public consultation on how to demarcate Ecological Sensitive 

Areas in Pune on 28th October 2010 


1 Hirji E Nagarwala Individual 

2 Rajbir Singh Bhadana Videocon Industries 

3 Loveleen Kumar Garg UEGPL 

4 Hasti Mal Kachhara Urban Energy generation 

5 Amruta Joglekar Honarary researcher, RANWA, Abhaseb Garware College 

6 Medhavi Tadwalkar Honarary researcher, RANWA, 

7 Anuj Khare Nature Walk, Pune 

8 Sunil Manahar kale Abhaseb Garware College 

9 Amrita Neelkantan BNHS 

11 Dr. Korad Vishakha Ferguson College 

12 Y. V. kanhare Private 

13 Dr K A Subramaniam ZSI, WRC, Pune 

14 Jayant Kulakarni Wildlife Research and Conservation Society 

136



15 Dr. Prachi Mehta Wildlife Research and Conservation Society 

16 Dr. M.S. Pradhan Individual 

17 Madhav Sahasvabudhe Prayas Energy Group 

18 Dr Ankur Patwardhan Garware College 

19 Mrs Poorva Joshi Garware College 

20 Rishikesh Patil Honarary researcher, RANWA, Abhaseb Garware College 

21 Mridul S Kashelkar M.Sc. Student Garware College 

22 Shubheda Shintre Crossover Advisors Pvt ltd 

23 Nandinidevi Pant Pratinidhi Restoration of Nature 

24 Pradeep Charan Kalpvriksh Pune 

25 Sunil G Ingle Maharastra State Power Generation Company 

26 M.R. Lad MSPCL 

27 Ketaki Ghate Oikos 

28 Manasi Karandikar Oikos 

29 Dr C.P. vibhute Pune University 

30 Vidya S Kudale Biodiversity Department Garware College 

31 Shweta S Majumdar Biodiversity Department Garware College 

32 Amit S Kalyankar Biodiversity Department Garware College 

33 Prerna Agarwal IISER, Pune 

34 Manali B Rane Biodiversity Department Garware College 

35 Ashok D’Costa Turbosketch, Goa 

36 Durga Thikale Biodiversity Department Garware College 

37 Mukta Mahajan Biodiversity Department Garware College 

38 Anand Dandekar Maharastra Nav Nirman Sena 

39 Kiran Purandare Nisarga Vedh 

40 P.K. Mirashe MPCB Pune 

41 M.M. Ngullie Environment Department GoM 

42 K.N. Hasabnis MPCB Pune 

43 Vivek M Tumsare - 

44 R.K. Adkar C/o CF (WL) Pune 

137



45 N. Hariharan Adani Power 

46 A. Barodia Adani Power 

47 Anupriya Karippadath Abhasaheb College 

48 D.K. Goyal NDCIL Mumbai 

49 Sajal Kulkarni Abhasaheb College 

50 Sanjay Patil BAIF 

51 S W H Naqvi Director SFD Pune 

52 S.P. Nande OSD Energy Department Goa 

53 Sachin A Punekar Agarkar Research Institute 

54 Dr. V. B. Sawarkar - 

55 M.G. Waghmode MSPGCL 

56 K.M. Chisutkar MSPGCL 

57 Dr Archana Godbole AERF 

58 Kadam Arunas - 

59 Prasad Joshi Sakal Media Group 

60 Santosh Kr Singh Adani Power Ltd 

61 Eva Pilot Geomed Germany 

62 Thomas Kraft Geomed Germany 

63 Rahul. D. Prabhu Khanolkar BVIEER 

64 Aparna Watve BIOME 

65 Pradeep Patankar Hon. Wildlife warden Satara 

66 Vijay P - 

67 Kalpana Kadap Asstt. Prof. SCOA, landscape Architecture 

68 Anand Chain Sakal Times 

69 Dr Mayuri Panse - 

70 Dipannita Das TOI 

71 Santosh R Go Maharastra 

72 Bhagyashree Kulthe DNA 

73 Amruta MKCL 

74 Shamita Deo Kalpavrikhsa 

75 Hema & Nudrak BEAG 

138



76 Lakshmikant Survey of India 

77 David - 

78 Dr. Dhavle P.V. 

79 S. Asthana Forest 

80 Meenakshi Gurrav Pudhari Newspaper 

81 Satish Awate CEE 

82 J.S. Duge MAHAGENCO 

83 Swati Shinde Times of India 

84 Amol Gole Times of India 

85 Jagdsing Girage Collector Raigads Representative 

86 Dr. Pramod Patil Gahivar Foundation 

87 Melissa Greenberg The Alliance of global Education 

88 Chelsea O Julliran The Alliance of Global Education 

89 Allegra Mount The Alliance of Global Education 

90 Liza Gordon The Alliance of Global Education 

91 Erik Rempen The Alliance of Global Education 

92 Harencha Whitchorft The Alliance of Global Education 

93 Jeannie Kinnett The Alliance of Global Education 

94 Preston Hollts The Alliance of Global Education 

95 Sarah Stodder The Alliance of Global Education 

96 Donas Piper University of Applied Science, Berlin 

97 Dr. J. Sohoeikart University of Applied Science, Berlin 

98 Kusum Karnik Shashwat 

99 Jayant Sarnaik AERF 

100 Niteen Pawar - 

101 M. S. Somni Individual 

102 U.V.Singh - 

103 Nilam V Kumbhar BVIEER 

104 Priti BVIEER 

105 Nayela Sultanpuri BVIEER 

139



106 R. Khalid BVIEER 

107 Alineza lakhamsey BVIEER 

108 Kand Mandke Deptt. of Audiology, BVU 

109 Yogeah Kakade Deptt. of Audiology, BVU 

110 Dayanand Hembade Deptt. of Audiology, BVU 

111 Govind Rajopadhye Deptt. of Audiology, BVU 

112 Janvi Desmukh Deptt. of Audiology, BVU 

113 Anisha Gejji Deptt. of Audiology, BVU 

114 Arun Lad Deptt. of Audiology, BVU 

115 Priyanka Nitturkar Deptt. of Audiology, BVU 

116 Sachin J Patil Deptt. of Audiology, BVU 

117 V Arya Anil Kumar Deptt. of Audiology, BVU 

118 Sanchid Kashmiri Deptt. of Audiology, BVU 

List of participants in public consultation on mining in Goa on 27th September 2010 


1 Abhijit Prabhudesai Goenchea Xetkarancho Ekvott 

2 Carmen Miranda Save Western Ghats campaign 

3 Kamalakar Sadhale Nirmal Vishwa 

4 M.K. Janarthanam Goa University 

5 G.H. Karkare ICPL 

6 Maria A Couro --- 

7 B.S. Kantak Chowgule & Co. Ltd 

8 Shridhar Hegde Farmto Kamas Pvt Ltd 

9 Hartman Desouza Save Western Ghats campaign 

11 Rebouri Saha GBA 

12 Gabriella D’cruz Goa Foundation 

13 Pandurang Patil Utkarsh Mandal, Rivona 

140



14 Anirudh P Dev Ruskiray Gram Vikas Kendra 

15 Rama P Velip Colomba village 

16 Dr. A.R. Prabhudesai Colomba vilage 

17 A.J. Simon Goa Foundation 

18 G. Shirish M/s V.M. Salgaocar 

19 Asavari Kulkarni -do- 

20 Dr. A.G. Chachati Goa University 

21 Dayeedar Gaonka Gakuved Federation 

22 Sanjay Alberto Timblo Private Ltd 

23 Saroj Kumar -do- 

24 Nirmal Kulkarni Mhadei Research Centre 

25 Rajendra P Kerkar Goa Foundation Wildlfie Core Group 

26 Nyla Coelho Goa Foundation (SEF) 

27 Sujeet Dongre CEE Goa State Office 

28 Dr. Manoj Borkar BRC, Carmel College 

29 Baban Ingole NIO Goa 

30 Ayesha Madan Goa Foundation 

31 U S Tilla Fomento 

32 Satyam Vaiude Fomento 

33 Rajendra Kakodkar Kaizen Consultants 

34 P F X D’Lima GIM 

35 Claude Alvares Goa Foundation 

36 D.N.F. Carealho Forest Deptt 

37 M.V. Karkhanis -do- 

38 Yogesh -do- 

39 V. Khulhring -do- 

40 Debendra Dalei -do- 

41 Devika Sequeira Deccan Herald 

42 A. Nayak V.M.S.B. 

43 Rajagopal Prashant ACF (N) 

141



44 S.Sridhar GMOEA 

45 D.V.Pichamuthu Federation of Indian Mineral industries (FIMI) 

46 Glenn Kalavanpara GMOEA 

47 M.V. Khenderpuskar Chowgule 

48 S.Y. Waluse -do- 

49 H.P. Nandey RBSMPL 

50 Hector Ferrandes Directorate of Mines and Geology 

51 Parag Rangnekar MFG 

52 M.K. Shambhu Forest Department Goa 

53 John Fernandes NGO Quepem 

54 Dr. Sachin Tendulkar MFG Panaji 

55 Dr. G.T. Kumar IFS DCF ( North Goa) 

56 Harish Rasani DMC 

57 Babu T Gowta GAKUVED 

58 Lisa Dias-Noronha Concerned Citizen 

59 Andrea Pereira Concerned Citizen 

60 Terence Jorge Concerned Citizen 

61 Punkaj Vaju Affected Parties 

62 Loena Fernandes GOACAN 

63 Roland Martins GOACAN 

64 Edgar Ribeiro --- 

65 Gayatriraje Chowgule Conan Agro marine 

66 Tillottama Chowgule Conan Agro marine 

67 Dean D’cruz -- 

68 Patricia Pinto PMCA 

69 Christopher Foensea AITUC 

70 Rakesh Y Kandolkanti Prudent Media 

71 Jagdish Desai SESA Goa 

72 Rahul Alvares Goa Foundation 

73 Anil Patil Zee News 

74 Tulsidas Chail CNN IBN 

142



75 Manoj Thakur Samruddha Resources 

76 Zarina Dacunha GXE-Margoa 

77 Paul Fernandes Times of India 

78 Dr. Joe D’souza CCP 

79 Mahesh Patil SESA Goa 

80 Sharon Dcosta CSJP 

81 Fr. Maverick Fernandes CSJP 

82 Satish S Naik Samruddha Resources 

83 Pradeep Kr Dolei Samruddha Resources 

84 Dinesh Dias GRID 

85 Alok Patil SIPLtd 

86 AEM Ventures Amit Patkar 

87 Sanghmitra Mainkar Journalist ‚ Gomantak‛ 

143


Annexure F: Field Visits 

Karnataka 


16.9.2010 Gundia Ecologically Sensitive area. Rare 

and endangered species of flora 

and fauna, amphibians, snakes and 

reptiles, Pushpagiri Sanctuary, 

Elephant Reserve, Demand for 

more compensation, Elephant and 

Human conflict, strong opposition 

for Gundia Hydal Project from 

local people and Panchayat’s. No 

further fragmentation of W.Ghats. 

No Mini/Micro Hydel Project, No 

River Diversion. 

Prof.Madhava Gadgil; Dr.Subramanyam; 

Vidya Nayak, Prof.Subhashchandran, 

Dr.Harish Bhat, IISc; Y.B.Ramakrishna, 

Chairman, Bio Fuel Task Force-K. ; Ranjan 

Raol Yerdoor, W.Ghats Task Force; DFO, 

ACF, KPCL representatives; 

Environmentalists; Peoples 

representatives; Wild Life Warden; 

Agriculturists; Anganawady Workers; 

SHG Leaders; Women’s Forum members. 

Maharastra 


4/10- 

12/10/2010 

28/11- 

1/12/2010 

Ratanagiri-Sindhudurg-Kolhapur 

districts (Visit to project sites) 

Aamby Valley, Matheran, 

Lonavala, Lavasa 

19/01/2011 Lavasa City Lavasa Field Visit 

Visit to Ratanagiri-Sindhudurg-Kolhapur 

districts in Maharashtra 

Development of Townships in Western Ghats 

from perspective of Regional Planning 

1/3-4/3/2011 Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani Problems of ESZ rules to Local People 

16/3- 

19/3/2011 

Ratnagiri District in Maharashtra 

14/04/2011 ENERCON wind mill sites near 

BhImashankar Wildlife Sanctuary 

15/05- 

16/05/2011 

Mahabaleshwar 

19/05/2011 ENERCON wind mill sites near 

Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary 

Konkan Field tour for long term ecology 

monitoring site and cumulative impact 

assessment 

Environmental Impact of Wind mill project in 

Proposed ESA adjoining BhImashankar Wildlife 

Sanctuary 

Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani ESZ field visit 

Environmental Impact of Wind mill project in 

Proposed ESA adjoining Bhimashankar Wildlife 

Sanctuary 

Tamil Nadu 


May, June, 

July, 2010 

Ootacamund, 

Coimbatore 

To assess the status of ecology, environmental pollution in 

Western Ghats areas. 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

2011 

Kodaikanal, Valparai 

To assess the status of ecology, environmental pollution in 

Western Ghats areas. 

144


Goa 


28.9.2010 Site Visit to iron ore mines, Madei and Bhagwan 

Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary 

Iron ore mining 

12/1-24/1/2011 Goa Mining in Goa 

Kerala 


29 

January 

2011 

Athirappilly, 

Vazhachal, Trichur 

Athirappilly project: WGEEP site visit, consultation at the 

Athirappilly Panchayath, Public consultation and Technical 

consultation with officers of the Kerala State Electricy Board, 

145


References 

Ahmed B M. 1991. Man and Wild Boar, Sus scrofa cristatus (Wagner) interaction from the 

Western Ghats region of South Maharashtra. Ph.D.thesis submitted to the Shivaji 

University, Kolhapur. 

Almeida S M. 1990. Flora of Sawantwadi. Jodhpur: Scientific publishers. Vol. 1, p. 129 

Alvares N, 2010. Political Struggle through Law The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) route 

to environmental security in India with special reference to the environment 

movement in Goa. WGEEP Commissioned paper; 

http://www.westernghatsindia.org/commissioned-papers 

Anonymous, Census of India. 2001. District census Handbook of Kolhapur ,Satara, Sangli, 

Ratnagiri, Sindhudurg, Raighar District. Series 28, Govt. of Maharashtra 

Anonymous. 1985. The Report of the Working Group on Hill Area Development 

Programme for The Seventh Five Year Plan 1985-90. Planning Commission, 

Government of India, Chapter 3. 

Anonymous. 2000. Report of the Committee on Identifying Parameters for Designating 

Ecologically Sensitive Areas in India. Ministry of Environment and Forest, 


Anonymous. 2004. Minutes of meeting Mohan Ram Committee. Meeting dated 29th June 

2004 

Anonymous. 2008. Report of The task group on, Problems of Hilly Habitations in Areas 

Covered by the Hill Areas Development Programme (HADP)/ Western Ghats 

Development Plan(WGDP). Planning Commission, Government of India. Chapter 1. 

Anonymous. 2010. Manthan-Report National Committee on Forest Rights Act. A joint 

committee of Ministry of Environment and Forests and Ministry of Tribal Affairs, 

GOI. 

Anonymous. 2010. Minutes of the Seventh Meeting of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert 

Panel. Meeting held on 29th October, 2010 at Bharati Vidyapeeth Institute of 

Environmental Education and Research (BVIEER), Pune. 

Anonymous. 2010. Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts: Summary report of the 

Maharashtra government consultation. Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, 30th 

Sep & study tour, 4th to 11th October, 2010. 

Anonymous. The Sahyadri Companion (1995). Sahyadri prakashan. 

Appayya M K and Desai A A. 2007. Assessment of the problems caused by elephants in 

Hassan district, Karnataka state. Report prepared for Project Elephant, MoEF, 

Government of India and Chief Wildlife Warden, Karnataka Forest Department, 

Karnataka State. 

Awale V. Ongoing. Flora of Chandoli. Ph.D in Botany, Shivaji University, Kolhapur. 

Bachulkar C. 1995. Flora of Satara District (Koyna vally). Ph.D thesis, Shivaji University, 

Kolhapur. 

Basu R. 2011. Does NCAER value rigour, independence and quality? On behalf of the Goa 

Foundation, Submitted to Economic and Political Weekly 

Bhalerao R J. 1997. Stress Effect of Environmental factors on fresh water fishes. Ph.D. 

thesis, Shivaji University Kolhapur. 

Bharucha E K, Kurne A, Shinde A, Kolte P and Patel B. 2011. Protected areas and Landscape 

Linkages. Case studies from the Maharashtra Scenario. 

Bhushan C and H M Zeya. 2008. Rich Land Poor People. New Delhi : Centre for Science and 

Environment. 356 pp. 

146


CEPF. 2007. Report on Ecosystem Profile, Western Ghats & Sri lanka Biodiversity Hotspot 

Western Ghats Region. 

Choudri B S and A G Chachadi 2006. Status of groundwater availability and recharge in 

the mining watersheds of North Goa. In Multiple Dimensions of Global Environmental 

Change, pp. 623 - 649, edited by S Sonak. New Delhi, India: TERI Press. 726 pp 

Daniels RJR, Hedge M, Joshi NV and Gadgil M. 1991. Assigning conservation value: A case 

study from India. Conservation biology. 5: 464–475. Report of the WGEEP 

Daniels R J R. 1992. Geographical distribution patterns of Amphibians in the Western 

Ghats, India. Journal of Biogeography. 19 (5): 521-529 

Daniels R J R. 2001. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan – Western Ghats Ecoregion. 

Submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India 

Desai B K. 1992. Potential of Wildlife conservation in Radhanagari Wildlife Sanctuary 

(extended) in Western Ghats of South Maharashtra. Ph.D thesis, Shivaji University 

Kolhapur. 

Deshmukh S. 1999. Conservation and development of sacred groves in Maharashtra. 

Submitted to The Forest Department, Govt. of Maharashtra. 

Gadgil Madhav, RJR Daniels, K N Ganeshaiah, S N Prasad, M S R Murthy, C S Jha, B R 

Ramesh and K A Subramaniam. 2011 Mapping ecologically sensitive, significant 

and salient areas of Western Ghats: proposed protocol and methodology. Current 

Science. 100(2): 175-182 

Ganeshaiah K N et al. 2002. A regional approach for the conservation of the biodiversity of 

the Western Ghats. Tropical ecosystem: Structure, diversity and human welfare. pp 552- 

556. 

Gargate A V. Ongoing. Environmental impacts of Developmental activities on the Ecotourism 

potential of Sindhudurg district. Ph. D. Environmental Science, Shivaji 

University Kolhapur 

Gargate AV, Samant J S. 2010. Environmental Impact of Tourism in the Warna Basin (In 

press) 

Goa Foundation. 2002. Fish Curry and Rice - a source book on Goa, its ecology and life-style. 

Mapusa : Goa Foundation. ISBN 81-85569-48-7 

Govt. of Goa. 2010. Economic Survey for Goa 2009-2010. Compiled by the Directorate of 

Planning, Statistics and Evaluation -Government of Goa. Available at 

http://goadpse.gov.in/publications/economicsurvey0910.pdf 

Gunawardene N R, Daniels A E D, Gunatilleke I A U N, Gunatilleke C V S, Karunakaran P V, 

Nayak K G, Prasad S, Puyravaud P, Ramesh B R, Subramanian K A and Vasanthy G. 

2007. A brief overview of the Western Ghats – Sri Lanka biodiversity hotspot. 

Current Science 93: 1567-1572. 

Gururaja K V, Sreekantha Sameer Ali, Rao G R, Mukri V D and Ramachandra T V. 2007. 

Biodiversity and Ecological Significance of Gundia River Catchment. CES 

Technical Report 116, Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, 

Bangalore. 

Hegde N G. 2010. Tree Planting on Private Lands. Commissioned Paper. Western Ghats 

Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP). Constituted by the Ministry of Environment and 

Forests, Government of India, New Delhi. www.westernghatsindia.org 

http://edc.usgs.gov/products/elevation/gtopo30/gtopo30.html 

http://edcsns17.cr.usgs.gov/1KM/ (AVHRR 1 km images). 

Johnsingh A.J.T et al. 2010. Saving Sahyadri. Frontline, 27(24): 64-72 

Kale M P, Ravan S A. 2009. Patterns of Carbon Sequestration in Forests of Western Ghats 

and Study of Applicability of Remote Sensing in Generating Carbon Credits 

through Afforestation/ Reforestation. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 37: 457-471 

147


Kalavampara, G. 2010. Mining – Geological and Economic Perspective. WGEEP 

Commissioned paper http://www.westernghatsindia.org/commissioned-papers/ 

Kapoor, M: K Kohli and M Menon, 2009 . India’s Notified Ecologically Sensitive Areas 

(ESAs):The story so far. Kalpavriksh 

Karanth K U. 1992. Conservation Prospects for lion-tailed macaques in Karnataka, India. 

Zoo Biology,11: 33-41. 

Karanth, K U. 1985. Ecological status of the lion-tailed macaque and its rainforest habitats 

in Karnataka, India. Primate Conservation, 6: 73-84. 

Kerkar Rajendra.2010. Mining – Goa, Konkan (social and ecological aspects). WGEEP 

Commissioned paper; http://www.westernghatsindia.org/commissioned-papers/ 

Kulkarni B G. 1990. Flora of Sindhudurg. Botanical Survey of India pp. 1-625 Report of the 

WGEEP 2011 

Kulkarni Jayant, Prachi Mehta and Umesh Hiremath. 2008. Man-Elephant Conflict in 

Sindhudurg and Kolhapur Districts of Maharashtra, India. Case Study of a State 

Coming to Terms with Presence of Wild Elephants, Final Technical Report. 

Envirosearch, Pune. 

Kumara, H N. 2005. An ecological assessment of mammals in non-sanctuary areas of 

Karnataka. PhD Thesis, University of Mysore, Mysore. 

Kurane A H and Samant J. 2010. The Environmental and Social Impact of Deforestation in 

the Western Ghats: with Emphasis on the Warna River Basin (In press) 

Kurane A H. 2008. Environmental impact of shifting cultivation on Western Ghats (at 

Gajapur and Manoli villages of Shahuwadi Taluka). M.Sc project,Shivaji University, 

Kolhapur. 

Kurane A H. Ongoing. Studies on the potential of Eco-Restoration in the Western Ghats of 

south Maharashtra. Ph. D. Environmental Science, Shivaji University Kolhapur. 

Kurup G U. 1989. Rediscovery of the small Travancore Flying squirrel. Oryx, 23: 2-3. 

Lad R J and Samant J. 2010. Environmental and Social Impacts of Mining In the Western 

Ghats : A Case Study of Warna Basin. (In press) 

Lad R J. Ongoing. Studies on the impact Mining activities on Environment in Kolhapur 

district. Ph. D. Environmental Science ,Shivaji University Kolhapur 

Lal M and Singh R. 1998. Carbon Sequestration Potential of Indian Forests. Environmental 

Monitoring and Assessment, 60:315-327 

Mali S.1998. Plant chemical profile and its influence on food selection in Malabar Gaint 

Squirrel, Ratufa indica, Ph. D. Thesis, (B.N.H.S) Mumbai University, Mumbai 

Manglekar S B. Ongoing. Studies on the Environmental disasters and there mitigation: A 

case study of Kolhapur district. Ph. D. Environmental Science Shivaji University 

Kolhapur. 

Mani M S. 1974. Introduction. In Ecology and biogeography of India, edited by M S Mani. The 

Hague: W Junk Publishers 

Menon S and Bawa K S. 1997. Applications of geographic information systems, remote 

sensing, and a landscape ecology approach to biodiversity conservation in the 

Western Ghats. Current Science 73: 134-145. 

Menon V, Tiwari S K, Easa P S and Sukumar R. 2005. Right of Passage: Elephant Corridors 

of India. Wildlife Trust of India. Conservation Series No.3. 

Michener C D, Borges R M, Zacharias M, and Shenoy M. 2003. A new parasitic bee of the 

genus Braunsapis from India (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Allodapini). Journal of the 

Kansas Entomological Society, 76:518-522. 

MoEF. 2000. Report of the Committee on identifying parameters for designating 

Ecologically Sensitive Areas in India (Pronab Sen Committee Report) 

148


Mohite S A and Samant J S. 2010. Fish and Fisheries of Warna River Basin (In press) 

Mohite S A. Ongoing. Impact of land use changes on Riparian Habitats in Panchganga 

River System. Ph.D. Environmental Science, Shivaji University Kolhapur. 

Mukhopadhyay, P and G K Kadekodi, 2011. Missing the Woods for the Ore: Goa’s 

Development Myopia. Submitted to the Economic and Political Weekly. 

Myers N, Mittermeier R A, Mittermeier C G, da Fonseca G A B, and Kent J. 2000. 

Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853-858. 

Noronha L. 2001. Designing tools to track health and well-being in mining regions of 

India. Natural Resources Forum 25(1): 53-65 

Noronha. L and S Nairy 2005. ‘Assessing Quality of Life in a Mining Region’, Economic and 

Political Weekly, 1 January 2005, pp 72-78. 

Pascal J P, Sunder S S and Meher-Homji M V. 1982. Forest Map of South-India Mercara– 

Mysore. Karnataka and Kerala Forest Departments and The French Institute, 

Pondicherry. 

Pawar C D. 1988. Studies on fish and fisheries of river Panchganga. M. Phil dissertation , 

Shivaji University, Kolhapur 

Planning Commission. Tenth five Year Plan Government of India. Chapter 40. 

Ramachandra T V, Subash Chandran M D, Bhat H R Rao G R , Sumesh D, Mukri V and 

Boominathan M. 2010. Biodiversity, Ecology and Socio-Economic Aspects of 

Gundia River Basin in the context of proposed Mega Hydro Electric Power Project. 

CES Technical Report 122, CES. IISc, Bangalore. [Report prepared at the invitation of 

Prof. Madhav Gadgil, Chairman, Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, MoEF, GoI] 

River Water quality implementation, GR Maharashtra, No.2009/325/61/1,dated 13th July 

2009. 

Samant J.S 1990 . The Dajipur Sanctuary and Its Potential as a National Park. In 

Conservation in developing countries: problems and prospects : proceedings of the 

centenary seminar of the Bombay Natural History Society. Edited by J.C. Daniel & J.S. 

Serrao. Bombay: Bombay Natural History Society; New York: Oxford University 

Press. 656 p. 

Shinde K. 1989. Impact of dam construction and agriculture practices on the animal 

diversity in Koyna catchment. M. Phil dissertation, Shivaji University, Kolhapur. 

Shinde R V. 1992. Studies on Hydro Biology of the Panchaganga river system in the 

Western Ghats. Ph.D. thesis, Shivaji University Kolhapur. 

Sohani S. 2009. Study on the Environmental impact on amphibians in Sindhudurg and 

Ratnagiri districts in Maharashtra. Ph. D thesis, Shivaji University Kolhapur. 

Subramanian K A. 2010. Biodiversity and status of Riverine Ecosystems of the Western 

Ghats. Submitted to Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel. 

Sukumar R and Shanker K. 2010. Biodiversity of the proposed Gundia Hydroelectric 

Project, Karnataka. Project Report for KPCL. Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian 

Institute of Science, Bangalore. 

Surwase V P. 1988. Evaluation of the impact of human activities on animal diversity in the 

Chandoli Wildlife Sanctuary. M. Phil dissertation, Shivaji University, Kolhapur. 

Sustainable Village Development. GR Maharashtra,No.2610/1/4, dated on 18th August, 2010. 

Swaminathan M S. 1982. Report of the task Force on Eco Development Plan for Goa. Govt. 

of India. Planning Commission 133 pp 

TERI. 1997. Area environmental quality management (AEQM) plan for the mining belt of 

Goa. Submitted to The Directorate of Planning Statistics and Evaluation, Govt. of 

Goa. Govt.of Goa/TERI: Goa. 300 pp 

149


TERI. 2006. Environmental and social performance indicators and sustainability markers 

in mineral development: Reporting progress towards improved ecosystem health 

and human well-being Phase III. Prepared for International Development Research 

Centre, Ottawa, Canada. [2002WR41] 

UNEP-WCMC. 2008. Carbon and biodiversity: a demonstration atlas. Eds. Kapos V, 

Ravilious C, Campbell A, Dickson B, Gibbs H, Hansen M, Lysenko I, Miles L, Price J, 

Scharlemann J P W, Trumper K. Cambridge,UK : UNEP-WCMC. 

Vagholikar N, Moghe K, Dutta R. 2003. Undermining India, Impacts of mining on 

ecologically sensitive areas. Kalpavriksh. 

Venkatesan R, Rao Sambasiva and Kumar Siddharth. 2010. Study of Contribution of Goan 

Iron Ore Mining Industry. NCAER 

Vishwanath R, et.al. 2011. Tourism in Forest Areas of Western Ghats. Equations WGEEP 

Commissioned paper; http://www.westernghatsindia.org/commissioned-papers/ 

Warhust A and L Noronha. (Eds) 1999. Environmental policy in Mining : Corporate 

Strategy and Planning for Closure, Lewis Publishers, London, 1999. 

Yadav S R and Sardesai M. 2000. Flora of Kolhapur district. Shivaji University, Kolhapur 


150


Given the environmental sensitivity and ecological significance of 

the Western Ghats region and the complex interstate nature of its 

geography, The Ministry of Environment & Forests constituted a 

Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel. 

The Terms of Reference of the Committee are as under: 

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 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 Pronab Sen Committee report and Dr. T.S. 

Vijayraghavan Committee Report, Hon’ble Supreme Court’s 

directions, Recommendations, 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 involving people and 

Governments of all the concerned States. 

iv. 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. 

v. 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. 

vi. to deal with any other relevant environment and ecological 

issues pertaining to Western Ghats Region, including those 

which may be referred to it by the Central Government in the 

Ministry of Environment and Forests.

Report of the Western Ghats 

Ecology Expert Panel 

Part II 

Submitted to 

The Ministry of Environment and Forests, 


31 August 2011


Cover Design: 

Courtesy - Kerala State Biodiversity Board


Panel Members 






Prof. R. Sukumar 


Ms Vidya S. Nayak 

Dr. D. K. Subramaniam 


Chairman, Kerala State Biodiversity Board 

Chairman 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 


Chairman, National Biodiversity Authority 

(NBA) 


Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board 

(CPCB) 

Dr. R.R. Navalgund 

Director, Space Application Centre (SAC) 



Forests, Government of India, New Delhi 




Member-Secretary (ex-officio)


Preface 

India is remarkable for the deep and abiding concern demonstrated by its people and its 

successive Central, State and local Governments towards halting the rapid pace of 

degradation of the environment. Our country has been a pioneer in the area of integrating 

the needs of development with the desire to protect the environment, as reflected in the 

emphasis on sustainable development as a key feature of the development strategy of the 

nation since the Fourth Five Year Plan of the country in the early 1970s. The constitution of 

the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel by the Ministry of Environment and Forests of the 

Government of India is yet another reflection of the seriousness with which our country 

views these significant challenges. 

The Western Ghats are naturally an important focus of sustainable development efforts. The 

protector of the Indian peninsula, the mother of the Godavari, Krishna, Netravathi, Kaveri, 

Kunthi, Vaigai and a myriad other rivers, Kalidasa likens the Western Ghats to a 

charming maiden; Agastyamalai is her head, Annamalai and Nilgiri the breasts, her hips 

the broad ranges of Kanara and Goa, her legs the northern Sahyadris. Once the lady was 

adorned by a sari of rich green hues; today her mantle lies in shreds and tatters. It has 

been torn asunder by the greed of the elite and gnawed at by the poor, striving to eke out a 

subsistence. This is a great tragedy, for this hill range is the backbone of the ecology and 

economy of south India. 

Yet, on the positive side, the Western Ghats region has some of the highest levels of 

literacy in the country, and a high level of environmental awareness. Democratic 




policies. Evidently, the Western Ghats constitutes an appropriate region of the country to 

attempt to make the transition towards an inclusive, caring and environment-friendly 

mode of development. 

It is therefore with tremendous enthusiasm that the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel has 

approached its appointed task. The Panel embarked upon the assignment through a multipronged 

strategy which included (i) compilation of all readily available and accessible 

information on the Western Ghats, (ii) development of a geospatial database on ecological 

sensitivity for the entire Western Ghats region which would provide a multi-criteria decision 

support system for demarcation of ecologically sensitive areas, and (iii) comprehensive 

consultations with principal stakeholders which included civil society groups, government 

officials, and peoples’ representatives, ranging from members of Gram Panchayats and Zilla 

Parishads to MLAs and MPs. 

It is noteworthy that in all these endeavors special effort was made to have wide-ranging 

discussions with complete transparency. All the information generated by the Panel 

including the geospatial database is publicity available through a dedicated website created 

for the Panel. 

During the course of the last one and half years, Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel has 

had fourteen Panel meetings wherein the Panel deliberated at length on various issues 

related to the Western Ghats region. The detailed minutes of all these meetings are available 

on the Ministry’s website. These meeting were interspersed with brainstorming sessions, 

public consultations and field visits. The central stream of thought was to develop a sound 

i


scientific methodology/basis for arriving at decisions, with these decisions deliberated upon 

by adopting a participatory approach. 

The report embodies among other things (i) categorization of the Western Ghats into three 

zones of varied ecological sensitivity, based upon careful analysis done by WGEEP, (ii) 

broad sectoral guidelines for each of these zones, and (iii) a broad framework for 

establishment of the Western Ghats Ecology Authority. 

In this endeavor, the Panel has utilized the expertise of a number of people and 

organizations to whom the panel expresses its gratitude. The Panel thanks the Ministry of 

Environment and Forests, Government of India, for giving it this unique opportunity to be 

part of a very significant initiative directed at conserving the natural heritage of the Western 

Ghats – a global biodiversity hotspot. 


Chairman 


ii


Acknowledgements 

The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) acknowledges the valuable inputs 

provided by the Hon. Ministers for Environment and Forests, GoI, several Ministers of State 

Governments, and the Members of Parliament of the Western Ghats region. 

The WGEEP acknowledges the help and cooperation provided by the State Environment 

and Forest Departments, as well as other departments including Rural Development and 

Panchayat Raj, and institutions such as KILA and KFRI of various Western Ghats States viz. 

Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. 

The WGEEP acknowledges the members of all the civil society groups who have interacted 

and shared their invaluable experience and information with the Panel. Many of them have 

played an important role in evolving policy and management formulations for the 

ecologically sensitive zones. Individual names of the members and the civil society groups 

appear at relevant places in the Annexures. 

The WGEEP acknowledges with great pleasure the warmth with which people at the grassroots 

welcomed it and shared their understanding, perceptions and concerns. 

The WGEEP acknowledges the significant and critical inputs provided by Shri Sanjay 

Upadhyay, Advocate, Supreme Court and Managing Partner, ELDF, regarding the 

modalities for setting up the proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority. 

Most importantly, the Western Ghats Ecology Expert panel puts on record its gratitude to 

Dr. S.N. Prasad and its deep appreciation of his effort in preparing the geospatial database 

for arriving at ecological sensitivity levels for the whole Western Ghats region. This 

database is the basis for defining the proposed ecologically sensitive zones across the 


The Panel would also like to acknowledge the following persons for their invaluable help 

and assistance in accessing the data and information required for the geospatial database 

used by WGEEP: 

1. Mr Kiran, Arundhati Das, V Srinivasan and Dr Jagdish Krishnaswamy of ATREE 

(Habitat-related information for parts of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil 

Nadu) 

2. Mr Ravindra Bhalla of FERAL and Mr Bhaskar Acharya of CEPF 

3. Dr R J R Daniels of Care Earth (point locations of mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians 

and fishes) 

4. Dr K A Subramanian, ZSI (point locations of Odonata) 

5. Prof R Sukumar (elephant corridors) 

6. Dr K N Ganeshiah (Western Ghats boundary) 

7. Dr P S Roy (habitat information and shapefiles for Gujarat and Maharashtra) 

8. Dr Bharucha and Dr Shamita of BVIEER, Pune, and Dr Jay Samant and his colleagues 

from DEVRAAI, Kolhapur (data on parts of Maharashtra) 

9. Dr K S Rajan Open Source Geospatial Foundation – India chapter and IIIT, Hyderabad 

(geospatial statistical analyses) 

10. Dr P V K Nair, KFRI (analyses for Kerala) 

iii


11. Mr Santosh Gaikwad, Mr Siva Krishna, Mr Ravi Kumar, Ch. Appalachari, and Mr Sai 

Prasad of SACON for their invaluable and dogged GIS work 

12. Ms Amruta Joglekar of Garware College, Pune, for able support in the work of the Panel 

for its Maharashtra segment. 

The Panel acknowledges the efficient support provided by Ms. Geetha Gadgakar, Centre for 

Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, in convening the Panel meetings 

and brainstorming sessions, and by Ms. Saroj Nair, The Energy and Resources Institute, 

(TERI) New Delhi with the formatting of the report. Special thanks to Ms Shaily Kedia of 

TERI, for research support at various points. 

The WGEEP acknowledges the whole-hearted support provided by the Ministry of 

Environment and Forests, Government of India, and its officers. In particular we wish to 

acknowledge the unstinting and enthusiastic support provided by Dr Amit Love (Deputy 

Director, MoEF). 

iv


Table of Contents 

PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................... I 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................... III 

LIST OF TAB LES ...................................................................................................................... VII 

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... VIII 

LIST OF BOXES .......................................................................................................................... IX 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... X 

REPORT OF THE PANEL – PART II ................................................................................................. 1 

1. Status of Ecology of the Western Ghats ................................................................................. 1 

Geological and Biological Landscapes ................................................................................. 1 

Human Pressure and Ecological Impacts ........................................................................... 7 

Assessing the Current Ecological Status of the Western Ghats ....................................... 11 

Future climate change and the vulnerability of ecosystems across the Western Ghats ... 29 

2. Sectoral Recommendations .................................................................................................... 32 

2.1 Water use ................................................................................................................................ 32 

Issues of Concern .............................................................................................................. 33 

Measures for Mitigation/Improvement ............................................................................ 35 

2.2 Agriculture ............................................................................................................................. 38 



2.3 Animal Husbandry ............................................................................................................... 43 



2.4 Fisheries .................................................................................................................................. 48 



2.5 Forests and Biodiversity ....................................................................................................... 50 



2.6 Organized Industry .............................................................................................................. 67 



2.7 Mining..................................................................................................................................... 70 



v


2.8 Power and Energy ................................................................................................................. 76 



2.9 Tourism .................................................................................................................................. 84 



2.10 Transport .............................................................................................................................. 86 



2.11 Human Settlements............................................................................................................. 89 



2.12 Science and Technology ..................................................................................................... 92 



2.13 Nutrition and Health .......................................................................................................... 94 

3. Towards Multi-centred Governance in the Western Ghats .............................................. 96 

Governance Deficits .......................................................................................................... 97 

Measures for Improved Governance ............................................................................... 104 

A More Thoughtful Conservation and Development Through Education ..................... 111 

Direct Payments to People, Communities and Companies for Conserving the 

Biodiversity of the Western Ghats ............................................................................ 116 

UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention ....................................................................... 121 

Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 122 

Appendix 1 : Kerala State Organic Farming Policy, Strategy and Action Plan, Govt 

of Kerala, 2010 .......................................................................................................... 122 

Appendix 2 : Minerals and Minerals Productions in the Western Ghats ...................... 140 

a. Minerals in the Western Ghat States/Districts .................................................... 140 

b. Mineral Production in 2007–08 ........................................................................... 143 

Appendix 3 : Objections Raised at UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to 

Indian Proposals ....................................................................................................... 151 

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 154 

ANNEXURE: MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF THE WGEEP .................................................. 157 

vi


List of Tables 

Table 1 Wet evergreen vegetation types and their occurrence in the geological landscapes ... 4 

Table 2 Overview of the history of natural and social landscape ................................................. 7 

Table 3 List of Dams on the Northern Western Ghats .................................................................... 9 

Table 4 Tiger population estimates in Sariska Tiger Reserve ...................................................... 51 

Table 5 State-wise Distribution of Approved Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in India .......... 67 

vii


List of Figures 

Figure 1 Location of the 3 key regions and 9 geological landscapes of the Western Ghats ...... 3 

Figure 2 Gujarat Western Ghats ....................................................................................................... 23 

Figure 3 Maharashtra Western Ghats ............................................................................................. 24 

Figure 4 Goa Western Ghats ............................................................................................................. 25 

Figure 5 Karnataka Western Ghats .................................................................................................. 26 

Figure 6 Kerala Western Ghats ........................................................................................................ 27 

Figure 7 Kerala and Tamil Nadu Western Ghats .......................................................................... 28 

Figure 8 Dominant Vegetation ......................................................................................................... 30 

Figure 9 Vunerability to climate change ......................................................................................... 31 

Figure 10 Fuels used in Cooking and Lighting in rural households in varous states ............. 78 

Figure 11 Power Generation Infrastructure located in Western ................................................. 79 

Figure 12 The Mumbai-Pune Expressway Courtesy ................................................................... 88 

viii


List of Boxes 

Box 1: General patterns in the Western Ghats .......................................................................... 5 

Box 2: Kalu dam: Submission .................................................................................................... 37 

Box 3: Vaitarana Fish Sanctuary (Maharashtra): A communication .................................... 50 

Box 4: Patch of Shola forest cleared in violation of laws: probe ........................................... 54 

Box 5: JFPM – An experience from the Western Ghats .......................................................... 58 

Box 6: Note on FRA Implementation for Kadars, a Primitive Tribal Group, in 

Vazhachal Forest Division ................................................................................................... 61 

Box 7: The tragic blunder of Bharatpur .................................................................................... 63 

Box 8: Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple (BRT) hills ..................................................................... 63 

Box 9: Air Quality status in Ratnagiri District, Maharashtra ................................................ 69 

Box 10: Regulated Mining Model proposed by Shri D V Kesarkar, M.L.A., 

Savantwadi, Sindhudurg district, Maharashtra ............................................................... 75 

Box 11: List of Roads across the Northern Western Ghats .................................................... 88 

Box 12: N.C. Saxena Committee report (2010) on the status of implementation of 

FRA ....................................................................................................................................... 100 

Box 13: Current regulatory oversight on matters relating to ENRM ................................. 104 

Box 14: Plachimada experience ............................................................................................... 107 

ix


List of Abbreviations 

ACF 

ADC 

AOFFPS 

APEDA 

AQ 

ARC 

ASCAS 

ASTRP 

ATREE 

BDA 

BEE 

BMC 

BOD 

CAA 

CAMPA 

CCA 

CCF 

CDM 

CES 

CFM 

CFRe 

CFRt 

CPCB 

CPFFZ 

CRPF 

CRZ 

CSD 

CSR 

DBT 

DC 

Assistant Conservator of Forests 

Autonomous District Council 

Area Oriented Fuel wood and Fodder Projects Scheme 

Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority 

Air Quality 

Autonomous Regional Council 

Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme 

Association of Scheduled Tribes and Rural Poor in Regeneration of 

Degraded Forests 

Ashoka Trust for Research In Ecology and the Environment 

Biological Diversity Act 

Bureau of Energy Efficiency 

Biodiversity Management Committee 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand 

Constitutional Amendment Act 

Compensatory Afforestation and Management and Planning Authority 

Community Conservation Areas 

Chief Conservator of Forests 

Clean Development Mechanism 


Community Forest Management 

Community Forest Resources 

Community Forest Rights 

Central Pollution Control Board 

Chemical Pesticide and Fertilizer-Free Zones. 

Central Reserve Police Force 

Coastal Regulation Zone 

Council for Social Development 

Corporate Social Responsibility 

Department of Biotechnology 

District Collectorate 

x


DCF 

DDT 

DFO 

DLC 

DPC(s) 

DSAs 

DTEPA 

EAC 

EC 

EIA 

ENRM 

EPA 

ESAs 

ESLs 

ESZ 

FAA 

FAO 

FC 

FD 

FDC 

FEVORD 

FGD 

FGEC 

FRA 

FRC 

FRI 

GA 

GALASA 

GDP 

GIM 

GIS 

GM 

GN 

GoI 

Deputy Conservator of Forests 

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 

District Forest Officer 

Divisional Level Committee 

District Planning Committee (s) 

Defined Sequestration Areas 

Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority 

Environment Appraisal Committee 

Environmental Clearances 

Environmental Impact Assessment 

Environmental and Natural Resource Management 

Environment Protection Act 

Ecologically Sensitive Areas 

Ecologically Sensitive Localities 

Ecologically Sensitive Zone 

Food Adulteration Act 

Food and Agriculture Organization 

Forest Clearance 

Forest Departments 

Forest Development Corporations 

Federation of Voluntary Organizations for Rural Development 

Flue Gas Desulphurisation 

Forest Grievance Enquiry Committee 


Forest Rights Committee 

Forest Research Institute 

Gram Sabhas 

Group Approach for Locally Adapted and Sustainable Agriculture 

Gross Domestic Product 

Green India Mission 

Geographic Information System 

Genetically Modified 

Goa-Nilgiris 


xi


GSPCB 

HEP 

IAEPS 

ICAR 

ICDS 

ICF 

ICT 

IFA 

IFRs 

IGNFA 

IISc 

IMD 

IUCN 

JFM 

JFMCs 

KAU 

KFD 

KILA 

KSBB 

KSSP 

KVK 

LAMPS 

LEISA 

LPG 

LSG 

MEA 

MFPs 

MGNREGS 

MIDC 

MILMA 

MMSC 

MoEF 

MoRD 

MoTA 

Goa State Pollution Control Board 

Hydro Electric Project 

Integrated Afforestation and Eco-Development Projects Scheme 

Indian Council of Agricultural Research 

Integrated Child Development Services 

International Crane Foundation 

Information and Communication Technologies 

Indian Forest Act 

Individual Forest Rights 

Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy 


Indian Meteorological Department 

International Union For Conservation Of Nature 


Joint Forest Management Committees 

Kerala Agricultural University 

Karnataka Forest Department’s 

Kerala Institute of Local Administration 

Kerala State Biodiversity Board 

Kerala Sastra Sahithya Parishath 

Krishi Vigyan Kendra 

Large Area Multi Purpose Societies 

Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture 

Liquefied Petroleum Gas 

Local Self Government 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 

Minor Forest Products 

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme 

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation 

Kerala Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation 

Mining Monitoring Sub Committee 

Ministry of Environment and Forests 

Ministry of Rural Development 

Ministry of Tribal Affairs 

xii


MPCB 

MP 

NAEB 

NAP 

NAPCC 

NCA 

NCC 

NCERT 

NCR 

NEERI 

NFP 

NFRC 

NGOs 

NP 

NPOP 

NRC 

NREGA 

NRSC 

NSS 

NTCA 

NTFP 

NTFP 

NTPC 

NWGs 

OFPC 

OFRI 

OGC 

OKM 

OTFD 

PAs 

PCCF 

PCS 

PDR 

PESA 

Maharashtra Pollution Control Board 

Member of Parliament 

National Afforestation and Ecodevelopment Board 

The National Afforestation Programme 

National Action Plan on Climate Change 

National Commission on Agriculture 

National Cadet Corps 

The National Council of Educational Research and Training 

National Curriculum Review 

National Environmental Engineering Research Institute 

National Forest Policy 

National Forest Rights Council 

Non Governmental Organizations 

National Park 

National Programme for Organic Production 

National Research Council 

National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 

National Remote Sensing Agency 

National Service Scheme 

National Tiger Conservation Authority 

Non-Timber Forest Produce 


National Thermal Power Corporation 

Northern Western Ghats 

Organic Farmer Producer Companies 

Organic Farming Research Institute 

Open Geospatial Standards 

Organic Kerala Mission 

Other Traditional Forest Dweller 

Protected Area(s) 

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests 

Production Consumption Systems 

People’s Biodiversity Registers 

Panchayat Extension to the Scheduled Areas Act 

xiii


PGS 

PGSC 

PPP 

PPVRFA 

PRIs 

PTG 

R&D 

REDD 

REDD+ 

RES 

RF 

RFD 

RFL 

RTI 

S&T 

SAC 

SCIPs 

SDA 

SDLC 

SEMCE 

SEZs 

SFRS 

SLMC 

SPCB 

SPCS 

SPGI 

ST 

STPs 

T & D 

TCS 

TD 

TEDDY 

TERI 

Participatory Guarantee System 

Participatory Guarantee System of Certification 

Public Private Partnerships 

Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers’ Rights Act 

Panchayat Raj Institutions 

Primitive Tribal Group 

Research and Development 

Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation 

Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), 

Forest Conservation, and Enhancement of Carbon Stocks and Sustainable 

Management of Forest 

Renewable Energy Sources 

Reserve Forests 

Regional Forest Department. 

Reserve Forest Land 

Right to Information 

Science and Technology 

Space Application Centre 

Soil Carbon Incentive Payments 

State Department of Agriculture 

Sub-Divisional Level Committee 

Socio-Ecological Multi Criteria Evaluation 

Approved Special Economic Zones 

State Forest Resources Survey 

State Level Monitoring Committee 

State Pollution Control Boards 

Sustainable Production Consumption Systems 

Space Department of Government of India 

Scheduled Tribe 

Sewage Treatment Plants 

Transmission and Distribution 

Technical Support Consortium 

Tribal Department 

The Energy Data Directory & Yearbook 

The Energy and Resources Institute 

xiv


TFR 

TOR 

TSP 

TTF 

UGC 

UNDG 

UNEP 

UNESCO 

UNFCCC 

VEC 

VFCS 

VFPCK 

VP(s) 

VPF 

WCC 

WG 

WGA 

WGEA 

WGEAC 

WGEEP 

WGNG 

WGPP 

WGR 

WGSoPG 

WHC 

WLPA 

WLS 

WTO 

ZAS 

ZASI 

ZP 

Tribal Forest Right Act 

Terms of Reference 

Tribal Sub Plan Area 

Tiger Task Force 

University Grants Commission 

United Nations Development Groups 

United Nations Environment Programme 

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization 

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 

Village Electricity Committee 

Village Forest Cooperative Societies 

Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council of Kerala 

Village Panchayat(s) 

Van Panchayat Forests 

World Conservation Congress 

Western Ghats 

Western Ghats Authority 


Western Ghats Expert Appraisal Committee 


Western Ghats North of Goa 

Western Ghats Parisara Prakashana 

Western Ghats Region 

Western Ghats South of the Palghat Gap 

World Heritage Committee 

Wild Life (Protection) Act 

Wild Life Sanctuary 

World Trade Organisation 

Zonal Atlas of the States 

Zoning Atlas for Siting of Industries 

Zilla Parishad 

xv


Report of the Panel – Part II 

This report is divided in two Parts, Part I and Part II. Part I is the main report of the WGEEP 

which deals with all the terms of reference, while Part II contains a discussion on the current 

status of ecology of the Western Ghats and specific detailed write-ups about various sectors 

on which the recommendations of the Panel made in the main report are based. Part II 

concludes with our proposals for a system of multi-centered governance to marry 

conservation to environmentally and socially sustainable development in the Western Ghats 

region. 

1. Status of Ecology of the Western Ghats 

The Western Ghats are an intricate product of long processes of geological evolution, of 

evolution of life on earth, and of evolution of human civilizations. The drama started when 

the great southern continent of Gondwanaland began to split 255 million years ago, with the 

India-Madagascar fragment drifting northwards. Gondwanaland was then covered by ferns 

and gymnosperms, and populated by frogs and reptiles, but the flowering plants, and with 

them bees, butterflies, birds and mammals had yet to reach high levels of diversity 

anywhere on the earth. When Madagascar parted company from India some 90 million 

years ago the resultant stresses raised the Western Ghats parallel to the west coast. Around 

65 million years ago, the Indian fragment passed over a weak spot of the earth’s crust on its 

northward journey, producing a tremendous volcanic eruption that created the Deccan 

traps. This kicked up an enormous amount of dust cooling the earth and leading to the 

demise of dinosaurs and the accompanying rise of birds and mammals. These birds and 

mammals, and the flowering plants could reach India from the Asian mainland only after 

the Indian fragment collided with it some 55 million years ago, leading to the uprising of the 

Himalayas, and the onset of the monsoons. The Western Ghats lie at a good distance from 

the point of contact with the Asian mainland, and although their blocking of the monsoon 

winds has produced a wet climate similar to that in Southeast Asia, their biota remained 

rather isolated and impoverished compared to that in the Eastern Himalayas. But the biota 

of the Western Ghats, although not as diverse as that of Eastern Himalayas, has a much 

greater proportion of species confined to India and Sri Lanka. So in these days of sovereign 

rights of countries over genetic resources for which they are the countries of origin, the 

Western Ghats are a treasure trove of biological diversity of very special value to India. 

Humans, of course, evolved much, much later on the African subcontinent, and our own 

species colonized India around 60 thousand years ago. Initially, human populations 

prospered only in the drier parts of the sub-continent, around river valleys such as that of 

the Indus. This is where agriculture took root in India some ten thousand years ago, 

profoundly modifying the landscapes. But the wet forests of Western Ghats were colonized 

much later, only about three thousand years ago, when iron tools became handy. This is 

what probably lies behind the legend of Parashuram, equipped with the parashu or iron axe 

creating the civilization of the west coast and the Western Ghats. Fire and iron then moulded 

the vegetation of the Western Ghats as human settlements grew. 

Geological and Biological Landscapes 

Drawing on Pascal (1988), Daniels (2010), in a paper commissioned for the WGEEP, classifies 

the entire Western Ghats into nine geological landscapes across three regions – Surat-Goa, 

Goa-Nilgiris, and South of Palghat Gap. These nine landscapes are:


1. Surat-Goa Deccan Trap Landscape (extending between Surat and Belgaum) – L1 

2. Goa-Nilgiris Pre-Cambrian Dharwar System Landscape (extending between Panaji 

and Kudremukh) – L2 

3. Goa-Nilgiris Pre-Cambrian Peninsular Gneiss Landscape (extending between 

Shimoga-Kodachadri and Mysore) – L3 

4. Goa-Nilgiris Pre-Cambrian Charnockites Landscape (extending between Kasargod 

and Nilgiris) – L4 

5. Goa-Nilgiris Recent Sedimentary Rocks Landscape (extending between Malabar and 

Trichur) – L5 

6. South of Palghat Gap Pre-Cambrian Charnockites Landscape (extending from 

Anamalai and Palani Hills till Shencottah Pass) – L6 

7. South of Palghat Gap Pre-Cambrian Peninsular Gneiss Landscape (extending from 

Madurai to Kanyakumari; west of 78 o E) – L7 

8. South of Palghat Gap Pre-Cambrian Khondalites Landscape (extending westwards 

and south of Shencottah Pass till about Trivandrum) – L8 

9. South of Palghat Gap Recent Sedimentary Rocks Landscape (extending from Cochin 

through Travancore) – L9 

Figure 1 provides the location of the three key regions and nine geological landscapes of the 


The Surat-Goa region which covers around a third of the entire Western Ghats is also 

relatively the most homogeneous in terms of geology and can be treated as a large geological 

landscape (L1; see Map), while the Goa-Nilgiris has 4 distinct geological landscapes within 

it. The smallest region is the South of Palghat Gap with 4 distinct geological landscapes 

within it. Relative to its size, the South of Palghat region that consists of landscapes L6–9 is 

the most spatially heterogeneous. This region also has the highest peak (the Anaimudi) in 

the Western Ghats. It is further characterized by its wetness (example Valparai) and shortest 

dry season (2–3 months in Travancore; Pascal 1988). At the other extreme, it also 

accommodates the driest hills in the Western Ghats, viz., the east Palani Hills (Kodaikanal). 

2


Surat-Goa 

Region 

L1 

L2 

Goa-Nilgiris 

L3 

Region 

L5 

L4 

South of 

L6 

L9 

L8 

L7 

Hills > 1000m 

Palghat Gap 

Region 

L1- Surat-Goa Deccan Trap Landscape 

L2- Goa-Nilgiris Pre-Cambrian Dharwar System Landscape 

L3- Goa-Nilgiris Pre-Cambrian Peninsular Gneiss Landscape 

L4- Goa-Nilgiris Pre-Cambrian Charnockites Landscape 

L5- Goa-Nilgiris Recent Sedimentary Rocks Landscape 

L6- South of Palghat Gap Pre-Cambrian Charnockites Landscape 

L7- South of Palghat Gap Pre-Cambrian Peninsular Gneiss Landscape 

L8- South of Palghat Gap Pre-Cambrian Khondalites Landscape 

L9- South of Palghat Gap Recent Sedimentary Rocks Landscape 

Figure 1 Location of the 3 key regions and 9 geological landscapes of the Western Ghats 

Source: Daniels, 2010 

3


Vegetation 

The broad classification of vegetation does not, however, coincide with the geological 

landscapes, but seems to be more associated with topography and climatic conditions, 

particularly the length of the dry season. Of the eleven distinct types of evergreen vegetation 

identified in the Western Ghats, 7 occur in L3 making it the most spatially heterogeneous 

geological landscape. 1 (Table 1) 

Table 1 Wet evergreen vegetation types and their occurrence in the geological landscapes 

Vegetation L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 

Dipterocarpus bourdillonii- 

Dipterocarpus indicus-Anacolosa 

densiflora 

+ + 

Dipterocarpus indicus-Kingiodendron 

pinnatum-Humboldtia brunonis 

Dipterocarpus indicus-Humboldtia 

brunonis-Poeciloneuron indicum 

Dipterocarpus indicus-Diospyros 

candolleana-Diospyros oocarpa 

+ + + 

+ 

+ 

Persea macrantha-Diospyros spp- 

Holigarna spp 

+ 

Dipterocarpus indicus-Persea macrantha + 

Cullenia exarillata-Mesua ferrea- 

Palaquium ellipticum 

+ + 

Mesua ferrea-Palaquium ellipticum + 

Memecylon umbellatum-Syzigium 

cumini-Actinodaphne angustifolia 

+ 

Diospyros spp-Dysoxylum 

malabaricum-Persea macrantha 

+ 

Poeciloneuron indicum-Palaquium 

ellipticum-Hopea ponga 

Shefflera sp-Gordonia obtusa-Meliosoma 

arnottiana 

+ 

+ + + 

Total 1 2 7 3 1 2 0 1 1 

Source: Daniels, 2010, Table 3, p 8 

Wet evergreen forests are absent in L7. In the absence of a tight link between geology and 

the present vegetation, it can be speculated that landscape level changes in the distribution 

1 

Spatial heterogeneity is an expression of resilience in that a geographical unit (such as a landscape) redistributes 

its biological resources into what might be considered a ‘meta-community’. Local extinctions, migrations and 

shifting mosaics enhance the beta diversity within disturbed landscapes (Munoz et al, 2008). 

4


and diversity of flora in the Western Ghats have gone through several stages of succession, 

some of the more recent ones induced and maintained by human pressures. 

Spatial heterogeneity, high conservation value and ecologically sensitivity 

Daniels (2010) argues (p 11) that while an irreplaceable locality, site or habitat is certainly 

one that has high conservation value, it is not to be treated as an ecologically sensitive area. 

He suggests that what is evident in the Western Ghats is some sort of correspondence 

between sites of high conservation value and the spatial heterogeneity of the region. ‚Of the 

3 regions identified by Pascal (1988), the Goa-Nilgiris region and the South of Palghat Gap 

region are more heterogeneous. The most spatially heterogeneous Western Ghats South of 

Palghat Gap region has the maximum number of irreplaceable sites. Such correspondence, 

where authenticated across taxa, can be useful in prioritizing a landscape that has been 

designated as ecologically sensitive. In other words, in the exercise of protecting and 

managing ecologically sensitive landscapes, irreplaceable sites have high supplementary 

value. ‚ 

Daniels identifies some general patterns in the Western Ghats that can be accepted as 

realistic and adopted while characterizing and delineating ecologically sensitive landscapes. 

(Box 1) 

Box 1: General patterns in the Western Ghats 

• The 1600 km north-south hill chain of the Western Ghats falls into 3 major regions; the North of 

Goa (WGNG) region, the central Goa-Nilgiris (GN) region and the southern Western Ghats South 

of the Palghat Gap (WGSoPG) region 

• Each of the three regions is comprised of one or more distinct geological landscapes. There are 

totally 9 geological landscapes; L1 covering region WGNG, L2–L5 covering region GN and L6–L9 

covering region WGSoPG 

• Eleven distinct wet evergreen vegetation types are spread over the 3 regions and 9 landscapes; L7 

lacks wet evergreen vegetation, whereas L3 has 7 of the 11 types 

• The geographical spread of the wet evergreen vegetation does not correspond with the geological 

landscapes; the distribution is apparently limited only by rainfall, length of dry season 

(seasonality) and topography 

• Trends in beta diversity along any geo-climatic gradient are better discernable in woody plant 

communities than in birds; information on other taxa is sparse 

• Beta diversity can be used as a reliable estimator of landscape level resilience and thus ecological 

sensitivity. 

Source; Daniels: 2010, p 13 

The geological landscape L3 is of considerable interest in the context of landscape level 

resilience. The landscape, Daniels suggests, can be more precisely identified as the ‘South 

Karnataka Western Ghats’ that stretches between Shimoga and Mysore, including the 

coastal zone. Further, he says that ‚< it is likely that the diversity in wet evergreen 

vegetation types found here is due to the high rainfall, shorter dry season and human 

impacts‛. In summary, he says, the unexplained diversity in the types of wet evergreen 

vegetation in L3, and the rather abrupt disappearance of wet evergreen vegetation in L1 and 

5


just north of L2 only point to the adverse roles of the longer dry season and human impacts. 

He suggests that although there is not adequate amount of published information to 

substantiate this observation, Pascal (1988) can be used as a basis for the following 

speculation: 

• The resilience of wet (rainfall of 2000 mm and above) lowland landscapes in the 

Western Ghats is inversely related to the length of the dry season. 

• Landscapes that receive rainfall in excess of 3000 mm or 5000 mm are apparently 

vulnerable to desiccation (affecting natural regeneration of wet evergreen vegetation) 

when the length of the dry season exceeds a certain threshold. 

• Within a rainfall regime, human impacts such as extensive opening of canopy (as 

experienced during shifting cultivation and clear-felling operations), fire and grazing 

can transform the vegetation in vulnerable landscapes more drastically (often 

irreversibly) than in those that enjoy shorter dry seasons. 

• In the Western Ghats, lower resilience in wet landscapes that experience dry seasons 

in excess of 6 months has led to irreversible changes in the woody plant species 

composition of the lowland evergreen vegetation types. 

• Transformation that is initially apparent as diversification of vegetation types (as 

seen in L3), becomes more rapid and drastic with longer dry seasons (as witnessed in 

L2) and is complete and irreversible resulting in total loss of a pristine plant 

community as that L1 has experienced. 

• The present condition and distribution of Dipterocarpus-dominated lowland wet 

evergreen vegetation seem to be a good indicator of landscape level resilience in the 


• The rather homogeneous lowland Dipterocarpus-dominated wet evergreen 

vegetation, when pristine, extended north into the Uttara Kannada (L2) district if not 

further into southwestern Maharashtra. 

• The Dipterocarpus indicus dominated wet evergreen vegetation diversified into 4 

distinct sub-types and the Dipterocarpus indicus-Persea macrantha sub-type gave way 

to a distinct Persea macrantha-dominated type in Uttara Kannada (in which 

Dipterocarpus indicus may still be sporadically found) more recently. 

• Persea macrantha-dominated wet evergreen forests may also have occurred in the 

landscape north of Goa (L1) during recent history; Pascal (1988) has listed this 

species as occasional in the medium elevation Memecylon umbellatum-Syzigium 

cumini-Actinodaphne angustifolia type of wet evergreen forests of Matheran and 

Mahabaleshwar (Maharashtra). 

• Pascal (1988) attributes the drastic transformation in the plant species composition of 

the wet evergreen forests of Maharashtra to shifting cultivation and the long dry 

season. 

Landscapes with least resilience in the Western Ghats 

Daniels points to the fact that ‚[l]andscapes that have shown the least resilience are mainly 

located in the Western Ghats of Karnataka, Goa and Maharashtra. Whereas the least resilient 

landscape L1 that is spread across Maharashtra has been totally denuded of the original wet 

evergreen forest type, the Western Ghats of Karnataka (L2 and L3) are in various stages of 

recovery. The Western Ghats that run south beginning around Shimoga-Kodachadri latitude 

6


(L3) is clearly the transition. Better ecological management of the landscape can help it 

recover and merge with the southern Western Ghats. Negligent management will certainly 

degrade it further and push it to an ecological state comparable with that of L2 and 

eventually L1.‛ 

He points to the higher beta diversity (or species turnover from locality to locality) in L3, a 

spatially homogeneous landscape, and suggests this may be the first indication of low 

resilience and higher ecological sensitivity. He concludes by stating that ‚[v]egetation, the 

primary determinant of biodiversity, is not quite influenced by the underlying geological 

formations in the Western Ghats. Spatial heterogeneity, therefore, is best explained by 

rainfall, length of the dry season and topography.‛ He concludes that ‚in this regard, a 

spatially homogeneous landscape with high levels of beta diversity should be a matter of 

ecological concern.‛ 

Human Pressure and Ecological Impacts 

Humans, with their tool use and deliberate, planned actions are of course the dominant 

actors on earth today and have shaped the ecology of the Western Ghats over many 

millennia. However, their influence has grown tremendously once iron tools permitted them 

to bring extensive tracts of wet forests under cultivation. Human influences have certainly 

been disruptive, but humans are also remarkable for being the only species that can be 

prudent, that can deliberately put conservation measures into practice. The following table 

provides an overview of the history of the natural and social landscape of the Western 

Ghats. 

Table 2 Overview of the history of natural and social landscape 

# Period Social Organization Forest Utilisation Conservation practices 

1 Before 

1000 BC 

Hunting gathering 

and fishing societies 

Gathering of biological 

resources 

Sacred groves and sacred 

species 

2 1000 BC 

to 300 

BC 

Agricultural 

communities in river 

valleys 

River valley land diverted to 

agriculture 


species 

3 300 BC 

to 300 

AD 

Early chiefdoms 

engaged in overseas 

trade 

Vigorous trade in pepper, 

cardamom and other natural 

forest produce 


species 

4 300 AD 

to 1500 

AD 

Caste society 

developed along with 

formation of states 

Gathering of spices continues; 

spice gardens developed in 

narrow river valleys 


species; traditions of 

restrained resource use 

5 1500 AD 

to 1800 

AD 

Influence of European 

colonial powers 

beginning to be felt 

Vigorous trade in spices; 

demand on timber for 

shipbuilding 




6 1800 AD 

to I860 

AD 

Traditional social 

organization breaking 

up under British rule 

Unregulated exploitation of 

natural teak, catechu etc. 


species, and traditions of 


continue to be maintained, 

but many destroyed 

7


# Period Social Organization Forest Utilisation Conservation practices 

7 1860 AD 

to 1947 

AD 

Continuance of 

British rule; landlords 

and bureaucrats 

dominate 

Shifting cultivation banned in 

many tracts; State takeover of 

forest lands; large-scale teak 

plantations 




continue to be maintained, 

but many destroyed 

8 1947 AD 

to 1960 

AD 

Traditional social 

hierarchy breaks 

down in independent 

India; commerce and 

Diversion of land for 

agriculture and river valley 

projects; rapid rise of forestbased 

industry 

Wildlife Sanctuaries and 

National Parks begin to be 

established 

industry dominant, 

9 1960 AD 

to 1980 

AD 

Pace of forest-based 

industrial 

development slows 

down 

Beginning of shortages of 

forest produce; large-scale 

eucalyptus plantations; largescale 

river valley projects 

Many sacred groves felled 

to meet industrial 

requirements; many more 


National Parks established 

10 1980 AD 

till 

present 

Contradictions in the 

development process 

become significant 

Pace of diversion of forest 

lands and clear-felling of 

natural forests slows down; 

privatization of land and 

water resources and largescale 

conflicts over land 

acquisition 


National Parks 

complemented by 

Biosphere Reserves, and 

Ecologically Sensitive 

Areas 

The pace of human interventions has been continually escalating and the colonial and postindependence 

periods are, of course, of great interest. A good overview of these 

developments for the northern Western Ghats (NWGs) , a region under profound human 

influences because of its proximity to Mumbai, the economic capital of India, is narrated by 

Shri Vijay Paranjpye in the special paper commissioned by WGEEP (see Paranjpye, 2011). 

Paranjpye (2011) records that ‚an unprecedented pace of development on the NWGs 

occurred during the British Period due to three major interventions – 1. Construction of 

Railways, 2. Roads, and 3. Dams. These became the 'channels' of resource extraction, 

exploitation, and appropriation by the ever expanding urban and industrial settlements of 

Mumbai-Thane, Nashik, Pune, which has continued in the present times. The first railway 

across the Western Ghats was built from Mumbai to Pune, and was completed in 1863. The 

second line was consequently laid from Mumbai to Igatpuri in 1865. A major impact of the 

construction of the railway line was the transport of agricultural products and forest 

resources to an untapped market in Peninsular India. Wood from the Western Ghats could 

be transported to most corners of the country, through the medium of railways. Hill stations 

like Lonavala, Khandala, Matheran grew after the construction of railways. However, the 

most far-reaching impact on the NWGs in terms of area covered, scale of projects and time 

required was the construction of dams in the British Period. The first dam in the Northern 

Western Ghats in British India was built in Mumbai at Vihar in 1860. It was followed by the 

construction of over 20 dams till 1947 (on the NWGs alone).‛ This, he notes, continued post- 

1947. ‚In 2009, the number of existing dams, and the construction of on-going ones had 

reached a total of 1821 structures, out of which approximately 200 of the large dams lay in 

8


the NWG. A list of 165 dams is included below found in the National Register of Large 

Dams (2009) and from Google Earth. 

Table 3 List of Dams on the Northern Western Ghats 

Malangaon Latipada Chanakpur Dam 

Ozarkhed Punegaon Karanjwan 

Waghad Palkhed Alandi (nashik) 

Gangapur Mukne Darna 

Kadwa Waldevi Upper Vaitarna 

Bhandardara Pimpalgaon Joge Yedgaon 

Wadaj Dimbhe Chaskaman 

Thokalwadi Bhama-Askhed Uksan 

Valwan Shiravata Pawana 

Mulshi Temghar Khadakwasla 

Panshet Varasgaon Gunjwani 

Bhatghar Malhar sagar Veer Dam 

Neera-Deoghar Dhom-Balkawdi Kanher 

Urmodi Ner Dam Koyna 

Morna Dam Chandoli Kadve 

Kasari Kumbhi Pombare 

Tulshi (Kolhapur) Kurli Radhanagari 

Kalammawadi Patgaon Chikotra 

Chhitri Jangamhatti Tillari 

Rakaskop Anjuna Mukti Dam 

Gondur Dam Purmepeda Jamfal 

Khulte Khandlay Kothare 

Kanoli Devbhane Burzad 

Nandra Rangawli Anchale 

Motinalla Chougaon Lamkhani 

Nawatha Haranbari Burdakha 

Hatti Chavdi Panzara 

Virkhel Burai Kakni 

Kayankanda Jamkhedi Kabryakhadak 

9


Anjneri Warshi Govapur 

Bordaivat Otur Dhardedigar 

Bhadane Malgaon Malgaon- 

Chinchpada 

Rameshwar Khirad Markand Pimpri 

Dhanoli Jamlewani Bhegu 

Khariyaghutighat Lower Panzara Karanjwan 

Kawadsar Talegaon Trambak Sadagaon 

Ladachi 

Shiwan Lower Tapi Naikwadi 

Amboli Mahiravani Rahud 

Kone Alandi (Nasik) Waldevi 

Waghera MI Alwandi Tringalwadi 

Khed (Igatpuri) Taloshi Shenwad 

Chilewadi Utchil Yenere 

Ranjiwadi Wadaj Parunde 

Waghdara (Otur) Ballalwadi Anepemdara 

Manikdoh Lohare kasare Ambikhan 

Ambikhalsa Kelewadi Bori 

Sakur Ambidumala Belapur 

Gohe Andra dam Jadhavwadi 

Mulshi on Mula Rihe Bhugaon 

Chinchwad Pimpoli Walen 

Hadashi Lavarde Marnewadi 

Shere Kamboli Gaddvane 

Hadshi 2 Andur Borgaon 

Nimgaon Koregaon Mandave 

Ekrukh Hotagi Bhose 

As identified on 20th February 2011 (Note that each one of these can be located on Google Earth) 

Source: Paranjpye, 2011 

Construction of dams was often followed by the construction of roads, connecting remote 

areas in the Western Ghats to the cities, thereby exposing the virgin forests to more and 

10


more exploitation. The roads constructed for increasing the communications network and 

for the 'development of backward areas' intersected the forests and have hastened the 

process of forest depletion. 

Paranjpye notes that new industrial estates are being established, further into the Sahyadris 

as land is available at throw away prices due to its typical topography. Large areas are then 

flattened to accommodate the industrial units. He points to over 30 SEZs and industrial 

estates in the Northern Western Ghats that have been notified covering several hectares of 

land (Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation website). However, Paranjpye notes 

‚the larger ecosystem experiences tremendous damage during and after the construction of 

such estates.‛ (p 18) 

Paranjpye also refers to projects such as Amby Valley and Lavasa and the social and 

environmental implications these have. He points to several policy questions that arise from 

such projects: (p 23) 

a. Whether the State Government is authorised to buy 'surplus' land from the community, 

and whether it can sell or lease these 'surplus' lands for private purposes. 

b. Whether selling public land to a private corporation for establishing a 'privately 

governed and managed' city can be justified as a 'larger social benefit' that requires largescale 

displacement of local communities. 

c. Whether virgin lands in the Sahyadris, especially the upper watersheds of rivers, can be 

opened up for development of such dispersed urban areas, hill stations, farm house plots 

or holiday resorts, and 

d. Therefore, how resilient is the Sahyadri landscape to withstand these sudden and violent 

developmental pressures. 

Humans are thus not only the most destructive, but paradoxically the only prudent species 

of animal on earth. That is, of course, why WGEEP was set up to review the status of 

Western Ghats ecology and to suggest how we may now move towards ecologically and 

socially more sustainable patterns of development. The Panel’s assessment of the ecological 

status of the Western Ghats is reported below. 

Assessing the Current Ecological Status of the Western Ghats 

The basis for identification of Ecological Sensitive Areas anywhere in the country, including, 

of course, the Western Ghats, is provided by the Report of the Pronab Sen Committee on 

‚Identifying Parameters for Designating Ecologically Sensitive Areas in India,‛ of the 

Ministry of Environment & Forests, GoI, September, 2000. As an important follow up of this 

report, the Pronab Sen Committee had recommended that: 

1. There is no comprehensive programme for generating base-line data on different 

aspects relating to bio-geographical regions in India. Measures need to be taken to 

systematically map and record such information on ecological characteristics. 

2. The expertise available on Conservation Biology, including ecology and wildlife, in 

the country is extremely limited, especially in so far as field investigation is 

concerned. Measures need to be taken to encourage and expand such capabilities in 

the country, both at the institutional and individual levels. 

3. A comprehensive monitoring programme and network must immediately be 

designed and operationalized, which would involve not only government agencies 

11


but also other institutions, universities, NGOs, and even individuals, particularly 

those living in and around these areas. 

4. In view of the urgency of the situation, the above steps should be carried out in 

Mission mode. 

Primary Criteria 

The Pronab Sen Committee recommends that areas which meet even one of the following 

primary criteria deserve to be protected without any additional factor or consideration being 

brought in. 

Species-based 

1. Endemism 

2. Rarity 

3. Endangered species 

4. Centers of evolution of domesticated species 

Ecosystem-based 

5. Wildlife Corridors 

6. Specialized ecosystems 

7. Special breeding site/area 

8. Areas with intrinsically low resilience 

9. Sacred groves 

10. Frontier Forests 

Geo-morphological features-based 

11. Uninhabited Islands in the sea 

12. Steep Slopes 

13. Origins of Rivers 

The ‚Definitions‛ and ‚Area‛ sections that follow for each criterion are taken directly from 

the Pronab Sen Committee report.(MOEF, 2000) 

Endemism 

DEFINITION 

Endemism refers to any species which is exclusively confined to a particular geographical area and 

occurs nowhere else in the world. 

AREA 

The area of occurrence of an endemic species needs to be protected in its entirety. The precise 

demarcation of the area may take into account population density of the endemic species, quality of 

habitat, level of exploitation and the effect of introduced taxa, pathogens, competitors, parasites and 

/or pollutants. 

Application to Western Ghats 

The Western Ghats harbors over 1500 endemic species of flowering plants, and at least 

another 500 species of endemic fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. A very 

12


substantial number of invertebrates and fungi are also likely to be endemic, but little is 

known of them. For instance, apart from dragonflies, most species of aquatic insects from 

the Western Ghats are yet to be described. These endemics are distributed throughout the 

region, in all sorts of habitats. Thus, several species of the wild yam genus Amorphophallus 

that are endemic to Western Ghats occur in highly human impacted habitats such as 

roadsides. It can therefore be stated with complete confidence that the entire Western 

Ghats region needs to be protected in its entirety as the area of occurrence of a substantial 

number of endemic species. 

Since no action has been taken since 2000 to organize pertinent information as called for by 

the Pronab Sen Committee, WGEEP had to initiate compilation of such data. We could 

access the following relevant data sets for the Western Ghats: 

1. Endemic plants: Number of endemic plant species 

2. Endemic vertebrates 

3. Endemic Odonata 

This, of course, is very incomplete information that WGEEP has been able to use in 

quantifying the levels of ecological sensitivity over the Western Ghats. 

Endangered species 

DEFINITION 

A species facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future. 

AREA 

The area containing an endangered species needs to be protected in its entirety. In case of fragmented 

areas of occurrence of an endangered species, all fragments having high population density and 

habitat integrity should be of prime concern. 


The internationally accepted designation of Western Ghats as a biodiversity hot spot is 

related to a substantial number of endangered species in this region. These are distributed 

throughout the region; for instance a large number of frog species and herbaceous species of 

the hill plateaus of the northern Western Ghats and grasslands adjoining sholas in the 

southern Western Ghats are endangered. It can, therefore, be stated with complete 

confidence that the entire Western Ghats region needs to be protected as containing 

several endangered species. WGEEP could access the following relevant data sets: 

1. IUCN_max: Number of IUCN Red listed mammal species 



Rarity 

DEFINITION 

A species with a small world population that is not at present endangered or vulnerable, but is at risk. 

AREA 

The area of occupancy of a rare species needs to be protected in its entirety. The precise demarcation 

of the area will be based on the population density of the rare species, quality of habitat, level of 

exploitation and the effect of introduced species, pathogens, competitors, parasites and/or pollutants. 

13



The situation with respect to rare species is very similar to that with respect to endangered 

species. It can, therefore, be stated with complete confidence that the entire Western 

Ghats region needs to be protected as containing several endangered species. WGEEP 

could access the following relevant data sets: 




Centres of evolution of domesticated species 

DEFINITION 

Areas associated with the origin of domesticated species which continue to harbour their wild 

relatives and/or progenitors. 

AREA 

The scope of this criterion should not be limited to areas containing domesticated crop plants alone, 

though it is most critical in that area. Animal breeds and aquatic stock in their wild state are also 

important sources providing a wide base of genetic variability which can be used and exploited for 

purposes of improvement of domestic livestock or aqua-culture species. Areas in which such 

populations are located, therefore, are also to be considered ecologically sensitive. 


Western Ghats are a particularly notable centre of evolution of domesticated plant species 

including pepper, cardamom, cinnamon, mango and jackfruit. Indeed the Uttara Kannada 

district has the world’s highest concentration of wild relatives of domesticated plants. The 

Western Ghats is also the centre of evolution of a number of now domesticated ornamental 

fish species such as those belonging to genus Puntius, distributed throughout the region. 

The entire Western Ghats, therefore, deserves to be considered ecologically sensitive. 

Wildlife corridors 

DEFINITION 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

AREA 

A linear two dimensional landscape element that connects two or more patches of wildlife 

habitats that have been connected in historical time and is meant to function as a conduit for 

designated animal species. Even isolated strips, but usually attached to a patch of somewhat 

similar vegetation, could serve as a corridor. 

Streams, rivulets, rivers and their flood plains are natural corridors as they facilitate 

movement and dispersal of designated aquatic species. 

Riparian zones, along with intermittent and permanent streams and rivers, provide migration 

routes for certain designated species, such as butterflies, birds, bats, squirrels and monkeys. 

Wetland habitats along the migration route of designated migratory waterfowls that provide 

passage for large scale movement and food. Such a series of wetland habitats or network of 

staging sites along the migratory highways so as to reach wintering areas is crucial for the 

conservation of birds 

Identification of the area constituting wildlife corridors is not easy since it not only varies from 

species to species, but also between any pair of sub-populations of a given species. Consideration also 

has to be given to the nature and purpose of migration, since the characteristics of the corridors which 

are critical may vary depending upon the purpose. Detailed observations over an adequate period of 

time is, therefore, usually necessary for delineating the geographical boundaries of such corridors. 

The problem is further complicated by the fact that since this parameter is being applied only to 

‚designated‛ species - i.e. those which are already known to be suffering from ecological stress – the 

possibility exists that habitat fragmentation may already have occurred through excessive human 

14


interference in the ‚historical‛ corridors. Therefore, observation of existing migration patterns and the 

corridors involved may not be sufficient to provide full information on the requisite degree of interconnectivity 

of habitats that is necessary to ensure survival and growth of the species. There may be 

situations where ‚historical‛ corridors would have to be identified and rehabilitated by deliberate 

and planned reduction of existing human activity. 


The Western Ghats are very rich in what is referred to here as ‚designated‛ species, namely, 

rare, endangered and threatened species, and the continuity of habitat for such species is a 

matter of considerable concern. Fragmentation of forests, as also disruption of continuity 

of freshwater habitats therefore need to be considered. This is happening so widely that 

the entire Western Ghats deserves to be considered ecologically sensitive. WGEEP has 

been able to access the following databases that are pertinent in this context: 

Percentage of area covered by relatively undisturbed forest with low edge 

Riparian Forests/Vegetation 

Elephant corridors 

Admittedly, this is quite incomplete information. 

Specialised ecosystems 

DEFINITION 

Specialized ecosystems are complex and highly diversified. They exhibit delicate interdependence 

between biotic and abiotic variables and are characterized by their biological productivity, specialized 

adaptations in the native or inhabiting organisms resulting in unique biodiversity and giving rise to 

complex ecological processes. 

AREA 

Specialized ecosystems are usually extremely sensitive to changes in the abiotic characteristics of the 

habitat concerned. Since such abiotic characteristics can be seriously affected by perturbations taking 

place even beyond the immediate vicinity, the area of protection will need to be defined with respect 

to the critical abiotic characteristics of each identified ecosystem and the manner in which they can 

possibly be disturbed. Restrictions in activity may, therefore, have to be placed on locations which are 

relatively distant from the actual location of the ecosystems which would depend upon factors like 

water currents, wind directions, and other geo-morphological features which may affect soil or 

chemical characteristics of the habitat. 

Fresh Water Swamps: 

Fresh water swamps are slow moving streams, rivers or isolated depressions, which are 

dominated by herbaceous vegetation. They are also extremely rich in their faunal diversity, 

including migratory waterfowl. In addition to their richness in terms of specialized flora and 

fauna, they also regulate hydrological cycle through recharging of the ground water and 

seasonally controlling the release of excess water. Some of the main examples are as 

follows:- 

(i) Myristica swamp forests : 

These are distributed only in Travancore (Kerala) along streams (below 300 m altitude) 

on sandy alluvium rich in humus and inundated during the latter half of the year. The 

dominant tree is Myristica sp. 

(ii) Tropical hill valley swamp forests : 

15


They cover along streams on gravelly and sandy beds in submontane tracts of the 

Himalayas (in states of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Assam) and at few places in the 

Western Ghats in particular Wynaad forest division in Nilgiris (Kerala). 


Western Ghats harbor many significant specialized ecosystems such as Myristica swamps, 

high elevation shola-grasslands and hill plateaus of northern Western Ghats. All of these are 

severely disturbed and in consequence large tracts of Western Ghats deserve to be 

considered ecologically sensitive. 

Special breeding sites/areas 

DEFINITION 

An area associated with any stage of the reproductive behaviour of a designated species. 

AREA 

Sites associated with the reproductive, breeding or nurturing behaviour of designated species and 

their associated ecosystems. 


Spawning migrations of endemic, endangered freshwater fishes are severely disrupted 

throughout the Western Ghats. Hence, the entire Western Ghats region needs to be 

considered as being ecologically sensitive. 

In this context, WGEEP could access pertinent data on Riparian Forests/Vegetation. 

Areas with intrinsically low resilience 

DEFINITION 

Ecosystems which are susceptible to irreparable damage from an even low level of disturbance. 

AREA 

The extent of occurrence of such ecosystems, including sufficient areas for their protection and 

potential expansion depending upon the abiotic characteristics of the ecosystems. 


Resilience is a difficult concept, and RJR Daniels has made a careful attempt to apply it to 

the Western Ghats. He suggests that the Western Ghats of Karnataka, Goa and 

Maharashtra are particularly low in resilience, and therefore need special protection. 

Sacred groves 

DEFINITION 

Forest areas or patches of natural vegetation preserved over generations on religious grounds. 

AREA 

The entire area that is demarcated by tradition as being part of a “sacred grove”. 


16


Western Ghats are a rich repository of sacred groves, and there have been many initiatives 

as in Kodagu to conserve them. These sacred groves need special consideration throughout 

the Western Ghats tract. 

Frontier forests 

DEFINITION 

Remnants of primeval natural forests that have remained on the whole relatively undisturbed and big 

enough to maintain their biological diversity including viable populations of species associated with 

the specific forest-type. 

AREA 

The extent of occurrence of such natural forest ecosystems, including sufficient areas for their 

protection and potential expansion. 


Some examples of these are to be found on the western escarpments of the Western Ghats. 

WGEEP could access a database on ‚Percentage of area covered by relatively undisturbed 

forest with low edge‛ pertinent in this context. 

DEFINITION 

A natural slope of 20 degrees or greater. 

AREA 

The slope of a land area is generally defined as its upward or downward inclination to horizontal 

plane and it is usually measured as an angle in relation to the horizontal plane. 

In the Indian context, the gradient nomenclature, which is usually used in engineering designs and 

the image processing techniques (GIS), classify slopes as given in the table below: 

Gradient Nomenclature 

Slope Per cent Description 

- 0-3 Flat 

2 o 3-8 Gently sloping 

4 o 8-15 Sloping 

8 o 15-25 Moderately Steep 

14 o 25-50 Steep 

26 o 50-100 Very Steep 

45 o 100 Extremely Steep 

It may be seen that the 20 o cut-off recommended by the Committee represents the upper half of the 

‚Steep‛ classification and higher gradients. Since a mountain or a hill slope may contain segments 

having different degrees of inclination, the criterion should be applied to the totality of the slope from 

the base to the apex. Also, since the angle of a slope is related to the distance from which it is 

measured, measurements need to be taken from different points along the slope and, if at any point 

the angle exceeds 20 o , the area above that point should be treated as a steep slope. The relevant area 

for protection would need to take into account certain destructive features which are commonly 

present including various combinations of steep slopes, seismicity, residual soil, high pore water 

17


pressure, thick and deeply weathered soil cover, undercutting of the base of the slope, and weak 

material outcropping below stronger material. Since the horizontal planes near the top and base of a 

slope are prone to landslides and receive boulders /debris of a slide respectively, suitable buffer zones 

are designated. In general, a minimum horizontal distance of 500 m at both ends of a slope is 

recommended as a buffer zone. In mountainous ecosystems, buffer zones may need to be extended 

further in landslide-prone slopes. 

Steep slopes 


The Western Ghats is a region rich in many localities with steep slopes. Fortunately, we 

now have good digital databases providing elevation data, and WGEEP has been able to 

access databases on Slopes and Elevation. 

Origins of rivers 

DEFINITION 

A glacier, mountain, hill or spring from where a water stream originates is referred to as the origin of 

a river. 

AREA 

The area relevant to the origin of a river is not strictly limited to the natural point of origin of the river 

itself (for example, the exact point at which the water spring emerges), but the entire area necessary 

for preserving the geological and hydrological features which are critical for the sustainability of the 

river sources. Thus, it is not enough to protect only the glaciers or the snow receiving slopes which 

feed the river, but also the channels, fissures and other features which are intrinsic to the process of 

recharging the water source. Similar considerations would apply to the recharging of spring and rainfed 

rivers. 

18



Western Ghats are a veritable water tower of the Indian Peninsula and therefore the source 

of numerous east- and west-flowing streams. Evidently the entire Western Ghats region 

must be considered as ecologically sensitive for preserving the geological and 

hydrological features which are critical for the sustainability of the river sources of the 

Indian Peninsula. 

Auxiliary Criteria 

The principal objective of identifying these seven auxiliary criteria is to draw attention to 

characteristics which indicate the potential for ecological sensitivity without necessarily 

being definitive in this regard. 

Species based 

1. Areas or centers of less known food plants 

Ecosystem based 

2. Wetlands 

3. Grasslands 

Geo-morphological features based 

4. Upper Catchment areas 

5. Not so Steep Slopes 

6. High Rainfall Areas 

7. Other uninhabited Islands 

Centres of less known food plants 

DEFINITION 

Areas associated with the origin of/ or containing the wild progenitors of less known plants of 

potential food and horticultural values. 

AREA 

The entire area of occurrence of a viable population of such plant species. 


The Western Ghats are very rich in a wide variety of lesser known food plants, including 

leafy vegetables, tubers and fruit. Evidently the entire Western Ghats region must be 

considered ecologically sensitive as being associated with the origin of/ or containing the 

wild progenitors of lesser known plants of potential food and horticultural values. 

Wetlands 

DEFINITION 

Wetlands are submerged or water saturated lands, both natural and man-made, permanent or 

temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish, salty, including areas of marine water, 

19


the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six meters. 

AREA 

As identified by the natural boundaries of the water body. 


The Western Ghats region has a number of natural, as also many man-made wetlands that 

are important from the perspective of aquatic organisms and migratory waterfowl. These are 

distributed throughout the region; hence, the entire Western Ghats region needs to be 

considered as being ecologically sensitive as a repository of wetlands. 

Grasslands 

DEFINITION 

Grasslands are terrestrial ecosystems characterised by plant communities belonging to the grass 

family - „graminoids‟ and „forbs‟. 

AREA 

Areas containing small, isolated or remnant patches of any type of natural grassland supporting 

livestock, native wild animals and avi-fauna. 

Grasslands may be classified as temperate or tropical grasslands. Within the temperate zone, the 

natural grasslands are distinguished from semi-natural types. The semi-natural types have been 

divided further into those used primarily for hay and those that are grazed by domesticated livestock. 

Likewise, scattered and small tropical natural grasslands are found in arid and semi-arid areas, where 

climate is the prime controlling factor, under light to moderate grazing pressure by ungulates. In 

general, majority of the natural grasslands (arid, semi-arid, wet and tall and temperate) have been 

severely impaired. Now only small, isolated fragments or remnant patches of grassland habitats are 

seen. However, even in this category, several sites have undergone considerable modification because 

of excessive livestock grazing. 


Western Ghats region has a number of natural, as also many man-made grasslands that are 

important from the perspective of herbaceous flora as also herbivorous animals. These are 

distributed throughout the region; hence, the entire Western Ghats region needs to be 

considered as being ecologically sensitive as harbouring extensive grasslands. 

Upper catchment areas 

DEFINITION 

Catchment area, also referred to as drainage area, is a basin like structure for collecting and draining 

water. Upper Catchment Area typically refers to a basin which collects precipitation, mostly in the 

mountainous or hilly region or the upper reaches of a river following its origin. The water collected is 

absorbed by the soils or drains into the river. 

AREA 

The designated „upper catchment area‟ from which water is collected into the upper stretch of a river 

varies widely from river to river. It is dependent on various factors viz. location of origin of the river, 

slopes of the basin, tributaries, annual discharge, geology, soil characteristics and forest cover. 


20


As discussed above, Western Ghats are a veritable water tower of the Indian Peninsula and 

therefore the source of numerous east- and west-flowing rivers. Evidently the entire 

Western Ghats region must be considered as ecologically sensitive as being ‘upper 

catchment areas’ critical for the sustainability of the rivers of the Indian Peninsula. 

Not so steep slopes 

DEFINITION 

A slope greater than 10 degree but less than 20 degree. 

AREA 

An area which may have its upward or downward inclination to horizontal plane between 10 and less 

than 20 degrees. Since the horizontal planes near the top and base of a slope are prone to landslides 

and receive boulders /debris of a slide respectively, suitable buffer zones are designated. In general, a 

minimum horizontal distance of 200m at both the ends of a slope is recommended as buffer zones. 

In mountainous ecosystems, buffer zones need to be extended in landslide prone slopes which tend to 

possess certain destructive features, including various combinations of steep slopes, residual soil, 

high pore water pressure, thick and deeply weathered soil cover, undercutting of the base of the 

slope, and weak material outcropping below stronger material. 


The Western Ghats are a region with either steep or not so steep slopes. Fortunately, we now 

have good digital databases providing elevation data, and WGEEP has been able to access 

databases on Slopes and Elevation. 

High rainfall areas 

DEFINITION 

Areas having precipitation intensity greater than 200 cm per year. 

AREA 

Areas which receive high precipitation on a “normal” basis as identified by the Indian Meteorological 

Department (IMD) or from Remote Sensing Data. This would exclude areas which receive such levels 

of precipitation only on an episodic basis. 


Western Ghats are a veritable water tower of the Indian Peninsula and much of the region 

receives rainfall greater than 200 cm per year. Evidently most of the Western Ghats region 

must be considered as an ecologically sensitive region with high precipitation. 

21


WGEEP exercise on assessing relative levels of ecological sensitivity in different 

areas of the Western Ghats 

In view of the above, WGEEP concluded that the entire Western Ghats tract should be 

considered as ecologically sensitive. Regrettably, WGEEP had to initiate its work in 2010, 

without any substantial progress having been achieved in terms of organizing a national 

mission on developing an ecological sensitivity database as suggested by the Pronab Sen 

Committee. Furthermore, the Pronab Sen Committee had not provided any guidance on the 

management regime for ecologically sensitive areas. Since a uniform regime for the entire 

Western Ghats tract is not feasible, WGEEP decided on adopting a layered approach and 

attempted to assign relative levels of ecological sensitivity to different areas. 

For this purpose, WGEEP divided the entire Western Ghats region into 5 minute x 5 minute 

grids. WGEEP is naturally constrained to using only the readily available datasets to decide 

on relative levels of ecological sensitivity of different areas. These included: 

1. Endemic plants : Number of endemic plant species 


3. Unique per cent: Percentage of area covered by unique evergreen ecosystems such 

as shola forests 

4. Comp3 per cent : Percentage of area covered by relatively undisturbed forest with 

low edge 

5. Forest per cent: Percentage of forest area 

6. Elevation 

7. Slope 

8. Riparian Forests/Vegetation 

Admittedly, these tend to emphasize forest biota and ignore issues such as habitat 

continuity. However, perforce we have had to focus on readily available datasets. It is hoped 

that the Western Ghats Ecology Authority would be able to take this exercise further. 

Western Ghats are a highly heterogeneous region with a marked north-south gradient in 

terms of rainfall and length of rainy period. There is also much variation in elevation and 

geology. It is therefore to be expected that there will be substantial variation from state to 

state in terms of ecological endowments and sensitivity. At the same time, it is proper that 

ecological protection efforts should be fairly evenly distributed through the Western Ghats 

region. Hence it is appropriate to look separately at each state to assess relative levels of 

ecological sensitivity of different areas within the state. 

The relative and not absolute values of the parameters are pertinent for our purpose. With 

this in view, we normalized these parameters separately for each state. For instance, the 

highest recorded altitude in a state was assigned the score of 10 and all other grids in that 

state were ranked on a scale from 1 to 10. This was followed by calculation of the average of 

the ranks for all available parameters for each grid. As a result, a particular grid could be 

assigned a very high value, close to 10 , only if it, simultaneously has, for that state, 

relatively very high elevation, very high slope, very high number of endemic plants, very 

high number of red listed mammalian species, very high percentage of area covered by 

unique evergreen ecosystems, very high riparian forest and so on. Consequently, grids of 

substantial biodiversity endowments could still exhibit apparently low values such as 3 or 4. 

22


This procedure also implies that a large proportion of grids would tend to be assigned 

quantitatively lower values if there is high grid-to-grid variation in the parameter values, 

and higher values if there is low grid-to-grid variation in the parameter values. This has the 

result that the largely homogeneous Western Ghats tracts of Gujarat have the largest area in 

the score class 5–7, while the major part of the Western Ghat area in other states is in the 

score class 3–5. Another apparently anomalous result is that a number of Important Bird 

Areas fall in apparently low scoring grids. This is related to the fact that, as Daniels and 

Gadgil (1992) have shown, evergreen forests of the Western Ghats tend to possess low levels 

of bird diversity compared to drier, generally deciduous forests 

Given these effects, it is clear that the conservation significance of a particular grid is not to 

be judged on the basis of the absolute score, but scores in comparison with areas 

independently assessed to be of high conservation value. Areas that have already been 

incorporated in the network of Protected Areas, viz Wildlife Sanctuaries and National 

Parks, provide a convenient yardstick. WGEEP has therefore used the thumb rule that the 

highest ecological sensitivity status of ESZ1 will be assigned only to grids which have, at 

a minimum, a score at least as high as the lowest score assigned to a PA grid in the 

concerned state. 

See Figures 2– 7 which provide the grid maps for the Western Ghat states. 

Figure 2 Gujarat Western Ghats 

23


Figure 3 Maharashtra Western Ghats 

24


Figure 4 Goa Western Ghats 

25


Figure 5 Karnataka Western Ghats 

26


Figure 6 Kerala Western Ghats 

27


Figure 7 Kerala and Tamil Nadu Western Ghats 

28


Future climate change and the vulnerability of ecosystems across the 

Western Ghats 2 

Climate change as a consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and its 

implications for biodiversity have been well documented globally. It can be expected that 

the biodiversity-rich Western Ghats would also be impacted by climate change, and this 

should be factored into considerations of ecological sensitivity of different regions or 

ecosystem types in the ghats. 

Modelling climate change impacts 

There have been a few modeling studies on the potential impact of climate change on the 

forests of India (Ravindranath et al. 2006; Chaturvedi et al. 2011). More specific to the 

Western Ghats, an early study assessed the possible impact of climate change on the 

vegetation and forest-based product flows in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve and the Uttara 

Kannada district (Ravindranath et al. 1997). Using an empirical-statistical model, this study 

brought out the potential of dry thorn forest to spread at the expense of deciduous forest 

and the montane grassland to shrink from increasing temperature. 

The latest study (Chaturvedi et al. 2011) used the dynamic vegetation model IBIS (Integrated 

Biosphere Simulator, v.2). The baseline simulation brought out only the following dominant 

vegetation types – Tropical Evergreen Forest, Tropical Deciduous Forest, and 

Savanna/Grassland – in the Western Ghats, rather than a more complex situation that also 

includes montane forest/grassland, semi-evergreen forest, dry thorn forest and the division 

of deciduous into moist and dry forest. Climate change projections for the Western Ghats 

region were based on the Regional Climate Model of the Hadley Centre (HadRM3), U.K. for 

the A2 scenario (atmospheric CO 2 levels of 750 ppm by 2085) and the B2 scenario (CO 2 of 575 

ppm) at a resolution of 0.5° by 0.5°. The model was run for the period 2071-2100 (mid-year 

1985). 

We considered a total of 51 grids (0.5° by 0.5°) in the simulation of which 26 underwent 

change under A2 scenario (51% grids) and 16 underwent change in the more benign B2 

scenario (31%). The figures below depict the baseline vegetation distribution and vegetation 

changes expected under the A2 scenario. (Figures 8 and 9) 

2 

This subsection has inputs from Rajiv K. Chaturvedi 

29


Figure 8 Dominant Vegetation 

A measure of forest vulnerability in the Western Ghats 

A “vulnerability index” was also developed on the basis of whether or not a particular forest 

grid is (a) projected to undergo vegetation change under climate change scenario (b) 

monoculture or mixed species forest and (c) dense forest, moderately dense or a fragmented 

forest. Based on these indicators each forest grid was assigned a score between 1 to 7 – 1 

(blue color in the map) being the least vulnerable and 7 (red color in the map) being the most 

vulnerable. 

30


Figure 9 Vunerability to climate change 

This exercise indicates a greater degree of vulnerability in the northern and central region of 

the ghats. However, we must interpret these results cautiously; change in forest type may 

not necessarily be negative as when a drier type of vegetation may change to a moister type, 

while the coarse resolution of the model does not pick up the sensitive montane ecosystem 

in the southern Western Ghats as described below. 

Sensitivity of the montane shola forests and grasslands 

Model IBIS has its limitations in that it does not simulate the tropical montane 

forest/grassland complex of the Western Ghats. At the same time, the coarse resolution of 

the model does not distinguish the montane ecosystem prevalent in the Nilgiris and further 

south in the Western Ghats. We thus have to separately consider the sensitivity of the 

characteristic montane stunted evergreen forests (known locally as sholas) and the grasslands 

found at elevations above 1800 m asl in locations such as the Nilgiris, the Anamalais and the 

Palani hills as well as high elevations both to the north and the south of these mountain 

ranges (Sukumar et al. 1995). 

Paleoclimatic studies have shown that the shola forests and grasslands have contracted and 

expanded in tune with past climate change. The following predictions have thus been made 

for this montane ecosystem as regards the future climate change impacts. In many montane 

regions such as the Nilgiris and the Palanis, the grasslands have been planted with exotics 

such as Australian wattles (Acacia spp.) and eucalypts (Eucalyptus spp.). These plants with 

C3 pathway of photosynthesis can be expected to take advantage of the increasing levels of 

31


atmospheric carbon-dioxide (the so-called CO 2 fertilization effect) for enhanced growth. 

Increasing temperature would also help the wattles to spread preferentially (over shola 

species) into colder grassland areas, where frost is presently limiting, and there are 

indications that this is happening. The exotic invasive plant scotch broom (Cystisus scoparius) 

has also spread considerably in recent times across the grasslands in the Nilgiris. Alteration 

of the natural montane grassland would have implications for endemic animals such as the 

Nilgiri tahr (Nilgiritragus hylocrius) and Nilgiri pipit (Anthus nilghiriensis). 

In the next section, we a review of a number of significant sectors and our recommendations 

on how development activities can be regulated to protect the Western Ghats from on-going 

onslaughts 

2. Sectoral Recommendations 

The Western Ghats Ecology Panel (WGEEP) recommends a graded or layered approach to 

regulation and promotion of development activities located in the Ghats depending on the 

kind of environmental impacts the activity entails and the ecological sensitivity of the Ghat 

region. As per the recommendations of the Panel, the Western Ghats has been zoned into (1) 

Regions of highest sensitivity or Ecologically Sensitive Zone 1 (ESZ1), (2) Regions of high 

sensitivity or ESZ2, and the (3) Regions of moderate sensitivity or ESZ3. In these zones, the 

Panel recommends that development activity needs to be decided through a participatory 

process involving the gram sabhas. However, as a starting point, a broad set of guidelines is 

provided in Table 6 of Part I of the report. These broad guide-lines for the various sectors are 

based on extensive consultations with officials, experts, civil society groups and citizens at 

large. In the sub sections that follow, the key sectors are discussed as they relate to the 

Western Ghats, the issues of concern are highlighted and measures are suggested for 

addressing them. The role of the Western Ghats Ecology Authority is also discussed. 

2.1 Water use 

Water resources management in the Western Ghats region is inextricably linked to 

improving the flows in the rivers and the health of the catchments. 

Western Ghats is the origin of many of the important Peninsular Rivers like Cauvery, 

Krishna and Godavari that drain the Deccan Plateau and flow eastwards. The hundreds of 

shorter perennial monsoon fed west flowing rivers like Sharavati, Netravathi, Periyar, and 

the Bharathapuzha travel through steeper and more undulating topography before 

emptying into the Arabian Sea. A rough estimate reveals that 245 million people in the five 

Western Ghats states directly depend on these rivers for their diverse water needs. 

Geographically, the Western Ghats is the catchment for river systems that drain almost 40 % 

of the land area in India. 

The basin area of west flowing shorter rivers is mostly located on the steep western slopes. 

Except for a few coastal streams 1/3 rd of the basin area of most of the river basins is located 

within the Western Ghats. This too makes them fragile and calls for their proper care and 

management. Once these streams leave the Western Ghats proper, they are drained and 

enriched by the once fertile steep river valleys, midlands and flood plains. The coastal and 

backwater fisheries is sustained by the rich nutrients and sediments brought down by the 

flowing rivers. The musings by fisher folk in coastal Kerala: ‘The Sea begins in the 

mountains’ and ‘fertility of the coast and the plains depends on the wealth from the rivers’, 

hold significance in this context. 

32


Open dug wells and springs are the other important water resources being extensively used 

for irrigation and drinking water purposes in the Western Ghats region. In several places, 

water-harvesting structures dependent on rainwater are also used. In the Sigur plateau, 

numerous drinking water schemes dependent on the Moyar River are being operated for the 

tribal and dalit populations. Bore wells have made their entry in the recent past due to 

intensive irrigation patterns and lowering of water tables. As for Kerala, the groundwater 

potential is low when compared to other states and shallow dug wells are the most common 

source of freshwater. However, over the years the groundwater table is lowering at an 

alarming rate indicative of poor recharging capacity. 

On the other hand, water needs for drinking water, energy, irrigation and industrial 

purposes are growing in the Western Ghats States. More and more water is being diverted 

even from irrigation dams to meet the thirst of the expanding urban spaces and for 

industries. We have examples of Siruvani, Kabini, Peechi and Malampuzha reservoirs across 

the Western Ghats where irrigation water is being diverted for drinking and for the 

industrial needs of cities in the midlands like Coimbatore, Bangalore and Mysore, Thrissur 

and Palakkad respectively. New dams are being planned and some of them are in different 

phases of construction in the Maharashtra Western Ghats to meet the expanding needs of 

Mumbai and its suburbs. Pinjal, Shai, Gargai, Kalu and Vaitarani dams are recent cases. 

Water abstraction through check dams across hill streams is being practiced for decades by 

tea and coffee plantations in upstream catchments of rivers to meet their drinking and 

irrigation needs. This has resulted in cutting off the stream flows at their origin itself. 

Indiscriminate and unplanned tourism is another reason for increasing water abstraction 

and diversion. The tourism industry in Ooty depends on the reservoirs constructed across 

the tributaries of the Cauvery in the high mountains since the times of the British. 

Studies reveal that east-flowing rivers like Krishna, Cauvery are struggling to reach the seas 

due to over abstraction of both surface and groundwater. Basins are closing and its impact is 

felt even on delta fishing, farming livelihoods and ecology. During the 2001–2004 drought 

years, the discharge from the Krishna to the ocean was almost nil! As for the west-flowing 

rivers, saline ingress is advancing even into the midlands due to reduced downstream flows. 

Crop losses and saline water intrusion into drinking water has been reported in Kerala 

during severe summer owing to salinity intrusion. In Goa, mining has affected groundwater 

and surface flows and drainage patterns of rivers impacting downstream needs and water 

quality. Tailings from mines are polluting streams and rivers. The Kudremukh mining issue 

is a classic case of mining-related pollution. 

This mountain range has a long history of human interventions and each of these have 

directly or indirectly impacted upon the water resources availability and recharge in the 

region. Some of the important interventions and issues that have had lasting impacts on 

water resources and its management in the Western Ghats are briefly discussed below. 

Issues of Concern 

Forest destruction in the river catchments 

Western Ghats has a long history of deforestation. Deforestation of upper catchments of 

rivers for timber, river valley projects and plantations has drastically reduced the capacity of 

the hill streams that feed into the rivers to hold and recharge water. Drying up of streams 

immediately after the monsoons and desiccation related to deforestation is clearly evident. 

This in turn has contributed to reduced summer flows. 

33


River management in the Western Ghats 

Most of the rivers in the Western Ghats are either dammed or diverted, some of them at 

several sites for power generation in the upper reaches and irrigation in the lower reaches. 

For instance, the east-flowing tributaries of Cauvery (Bhavani, Moyar, Kabani) and Krishna 

(Bhima, Tunga, Bhadra) are already dammed. The west-flowing shorter rivers (Sharavathi, 

Periyar) have been dammed at several places. We also have complete diversion of river 

flows at Mullaperiyar and Parambikulam dams involving Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Westflowing 

rivers have been virtually made into east-flowing rivers by violating all natural 

laws. 

Dams are without dispute the most direct modifiers of river flows. They can heavily modify 

the magnitude (amount) of water flowing downstream, change the timing, frequency and 

duration of high and low flows and alter the natural rates at which rivers rise and fall during 

runoff events. Severe daily flow fluctuation between peak and off peak times below dams is 

commonplace in west-flowing dammed rivers. This has impacted drinking water schemes, 

major and minor irrigation projects operating in downstream areas apart from cutting off 

flood plains and impacting aquatic ecology and riparian systems. However very few studies 

are available that correlate the reservoir operations with the different types of downstream 

impacts and put measures in place for mitigation. 

In the case of inter-basin water diversions, absolutely no natural flows or even ‘minimum 

flows’, leave alone environmental flows, are left below the dams. The Mullaperiyar dam is a 

classic case where the main tributary of Periyar has been completed diverted to the Vaigai 

basin in the east. Idukki dam does not even have a spillway for allowing monsoon spills into 

the river. In Maharashtra, the tail race discharges of Koyna Powerhouse I, II and III are 

released into the west-flowing Vashishthi River and lead to heavy floods in Chiplun. 

Continuous stretches of rivers have dried up irreparably below diversions affecting river 

ecology, surface flows and even ground water seepage. 

Many of the reservoirs especially in the steep valleys are silting up prematurely due to the 

massive encroachment and deforestation of catchments consequent to dam construction. 

Idukki dam is a classic case wherein the entire catchment was encroached along with dam 

construction. 

The operations of hydro electric stations (reservoir operations) are in tune with the power 

needs rather than the downstream water needs. Hence daily flow fluctuations created by 

peak and off peak operations of reservoirs in dammed rivers have led to upstream– 

downstream conflicts in many river basins. Similarly diversion of flows into another river 

basin after power generation is creating problems of daily flood in the recipient basin and 

drought in diverted basins. These are turning into management issues which need to be 

addressed at a basin level. However, there is a lack of systematic river basin level data on 

ecological changes due to hydrological alterations created by dams. 

Incorrect land use patterns 

Mining for mineral ores, granite and lateritic mining has affected water availability and 

recharge especially in the lower altitude regions and midlands. In Goa alone, the 

government itself has acknowledged that over half of the 300 odd mining leases are located 

close to water bodies. Data tabled in the Goa Assembly revealed that several of the 182 

mining leases exist within one kilometer of a major irrigation project, the Selaulim dam, 

which provides drinking water to six lakh people in south Goa, virtually half the population 

of Goa (Ref:http://www.deccanherald.com/content/85522/182-mining-leases-goa-near.html). 

34


In South Karnataka and North Kerala, surangams–a traditional irrigation system in lateritic 

hills is losing out to lateritic mining. Many of the rivers in this region originate from these 

lateritic hills and many of the Western Ghats Rivers like Chandragiri, Valapattanam, and 

Netravathi benefit from the water recharged by lateritic hills in their flow downstream. 

Agricultural practices including cropping patterns have a role to play in water resource 

management in the Western Ghats. Planting steep slopes with soil-eroding monocu;ture 

crops like rubber and banana, and heavy tillage, has led to increased surface runoff along 

with loss of precious top soil. This has contributed to low seepage and infiltration into 

deeper soil depths. The deforestation for tea, coffee and cardamom plantations located at 

higher altitudes has contributed to drying up of hill streams. 

Reclamation of high altitude valley swamps is contributing to water scarcity in the upper 

catchments. Many of the rivers originate from these swamps and are source of perennial 

flow. In the Nilgiris, most of the fertile water rich swamps have been converted for intensive 

pesticide-based farming, greenhouse farms, housing, etc. 

Sand mining 

Most of the rivers in Western Ghats are facing the consequences of indiscriminate sand 

mining. The lowering of water tables and deterioration of water quality are the immediate 

impacts. River beds in some stretches are lower than the sea level accelerating saline ingress. 

Drinking water scarcity is on the rise in river bank panchayats in spite of being close to the 

river. Plan funds are spent for providing drinking water even to panchayats on river banks. 

Sand mining has also impacted breeding and feeding grounds of fish and other aquatic 

species 

Measures for Mitigation/Improvement 

Time for river basin-level planning and decentralised management of water 

resources in the Western Ghats 

As cited above, the impacts of incorrect land use and interventions are already evident. 

Reduced summer flows, flow fluctuations, lowering of water tables and degrading water 

quality are all direct impacts of the presently followed project-oriented, demand–supply 

based and ad hoc approach to water resource planning and management. The time is ripe for 

a paradigm shift in approach to river basin-level management of water resources where 

water is considered an integral part of the ecosystem. Some important measures that can be 

adopted in this regard are briefly detailed. 

1. Local self- government level decentralized water management plans to be developed 

at least for the next 20 years: Water resource management plans with suitable watershed 

measures, afforestation, eco-restoration of catchments, rainwater recharging and 

harvesting, storm water drainage, water auditing, recycling and reuse etc. should be 

built into the plans. These water management plans should integrate into basin level 

management plans. The objective is to reduce the dependence on rivers and external 

sources and to improve recharge. 

2. Reschedule reservoir operations in dammed rivers and regulate flows in rivers to 

improve downstream flows and also to act as a conflict resolution strategy. These should 

be implemented with an effective public monitoring system in place. 

3. Revive traditional water harvesting systems like recharge wells, surangams, etc. 

35


4. Protect high altitude valley swamps that are the origins of rivers from further 

reclamation and real estate or agricultural development and declare them as ‘hotspots 

for community conservation’. 

5. Participatory sand auditing and strict regulations to be put in place. 

6. Declare ‚sand holidays‛ based on assessments and sand audits for mined river 

stretches. Items 5 and 6 would work to improve the water retention capacity in the river. 

7. Rehabilitation of mined areas to be taken up by the companies / agencies with special 

focus on reviving the water resources like rivers, wells, tanks, etc. that have been 

destroyed by the mines. 

8. Planters, local self-governments and Forest Departments in high altitude areas should 

come together for eco-restoration of the forest fragments between the tea and coffee 

estates and revive hill streams. 

9. Take up catchment area treatment plans of hydro and major irrigation projects to 

improve their life span. 

10. Riparian management can be taken up with community participation and involvement 

to improve river flows and water quality. 

11. Water conservation measures should be adopted through suitable technology 

upgradation and public awareness programs. 

12. Reconnect children and youth to rivers and water resources through basin level 

education programs. 

Actionable points for the WGEA 

The (proposed) Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA) can take a strong 

recommendatory and advisory role in this regard. Some of the important recommendations 

for WGEA are: 

1. Declare origins of rivers as Ecologically Sensitive Localities (ESLs) (the catchment area) 

2. Many projects in the Western Ghats are on-going or completed with violations in 

environmental clearance and forest clearance or even no clearances at all, as in the case 

of the Kalu and Shai dams in Maharashtra. The WGEA should act as an additional layer 

for screening projects approved by the Expert Appraisal Committees (EACs), subject 

them to additional scrutiny in terms of the geographical context, ecological sensitivity, 

status of river basin and need for environmental flows taking into consideration all 

season flows instead of ad hoc allocations. 

3. Till the WGEA comes into operation, issue a moratorium on all on-going projects like 

dams and mines that can impact upon water resources in a substantial way. The WGEA 

should subject the projects to scrutiny for mandatory clearances and compliances, and 

augment the level of public consultation before deciding on whether to allow them to 

progress or not. 

4. No more inter-basin diversions of rivers shall be allowed in the Western Ghats. 

5. Take up sample river basins in each state and recommend to the State Governments to 

carry out : 

36


• Environment flow assessments involving social movements for river protection, 

research institutions, NGOs along with communities to put in place indicators for 

environmental flow assessment 

• Assessment of downstream impacts of dams on river ecology, flood plains, fishing 

habitats, livelihoods, etc. 

• Salinity intrusion mapping so as to suggest improved flows in future 

• Improve reservoir operations management in dammed rivers to improve meeting of 

water needs of downstream populations. Put proper monitoring of reservoir 

operations in place involving downstream local self-governments and departments. 

• Update and upgrade hydrological databases in rivers and consolidate the ecological 

database and information at river basin level 

• Based on the consolidation of databases, declare high conservation value stretches of 

rivers as ESAs and keep them free them from further development. 

6. Recommend to State Governments to take up decentralised bottom–up river basin 

planning with restoration built into the plans. 

7. River Basin Planning should be supported by suitable legal institutions that are capable 

of integrating different departments which are presently dealing with or impacting on 

the rivers in a compartmentalized manner. Put in place river basin organizations 

adapted to the State’s administrative context 

8. All new projects in the Western Ghats (dams, mines, tourism, housing, etc. that impact 

upon water resources) should be subject to cumulative impact assessment and should 

not exceed the carrying capacity. 

9. Stronger and stricter laws for regulation of sand mining to be developed 

10. Recommend the decommissioning of dams that have outlived their utility, are 

underperforming, and have silted up beyond acceptable standards, etc. 

Box 2: Kalu dam: Submission from Indavi Tulpule, Surekha Dalvi and Parineeta 

Dandekar 

The Kalu dam site is situated in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region in the Tribal Sub Plan 

(TSP) area of Murbad Tehsil in Thane District of Maharashtra. This dam, with a storage capacity of 

407.99 MCM will submerge an area of 2100 hectares, including about 1000 hectares of forest land. 

The project does not have Forest Clearance nor has the process of land acquisition started. Despite 

this, M/s F.A. Enterprises, Khar, Mumbai (The contractor for this work and many other ongoing dams 

to supply water for industries and drinking in Mumbai) has already started the work under the 

monitoring of Sub Divisional Engineer, Hetawane Medium Projects Sub division no. 6, Vashind, 

District Thane,(Authority: Executive Engineer Raigad Irrigation Division No- 2, Konkan Bhavan, New 

Mumbai) 

The work started by the contractor under the guidance of project authorities is entirely illegal and is 

causing massive damage to the invaluable ecology of the region as well as the livelihoods of the 

Adivasis. 

Various Irregularities in Kalu Dam: 

1. Although the project does not have Forest Clearance, work has already started on what they refer 

to as ‘non-Forest Land’ (which is forested Adivasi land). As per the Supreme Court Order, work 

on non-forest land cannot proceed without a clearance for forest lands for projects that require 

forest-land and non-forest land. 

2. The project authorities claim that the contractor has undertaken only ‘Ancillary’ activities as they 

have yet to receive Forest Clearance. These Ancillary activities should include only temporary 

work. However, the contractor and Project proponents have already caused massive deforestation 

37


and destructive excavations. Such destruction of forest without the Forest Clearance is also illegal 

and in violation of the FCA. Levelling work is on going with more than 30 dozers and 100 JCBS 

on the site, plying incessantly. 

• A huge foundation excavation for the dam is on-going. 

• A guest house for Project officers, staff and contractors has been constructed , which is a 

lavish structure fitted with AC and LCD TV sets 

• Ironically, though the scope of ‘Ancillary Works’ include shelter for dam workers, at Kalu the 

workers and their children sleep in the river bed (which is dangerous and illegal), while the 

CRPF police force, installed at the site for months, reside in rooms. 

3. The non forest land on which this excavation and levelling is continuing belongs to Adivasis. No 

legal process of acquisition has even been started regarding these or any other lands which need 

to be acquired for this project. Since there have been no EIAs, no Environmental Clearance, no 

Public Hearing, the local peoples’ voice is left unheard. 

4. The entire area to be submerged and affected by the Kalu Dam is a Tribal Sub Plan Area (TSP)- 

Scheduled Area. The provisions of PESA require informed consent from Gram Sabhas for this 

project. No such consent has been given by any Gram Sabhas. Most of the Gram Sabhas have 

resolved to resist this project. Thus the on-going construction of this dam amounts to Violation 

of PESA. 

5. The submergence area of the Kalu Project includes about 1000 hectares of forest land. The area is 

inhabited by Scheduled Tribes and other traditional Forest Dwellers who depend entirely on the 

forest land and resources for their bona fide livelihood needs. Many of these tribals and 

traditional Forest Dwellers have filed Individual Cultivation Rights claims under the ‘Scheduled 

Tribes and other Traditional Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 (FRA)’. Further, 

about 20–25 hamlets/ villages have their community forest rights in this forest in the form of food 

gathering, collection and sale of minor forest produce like bamboo, Mahua, mangoes, karwandas, 

tendu leaves, cashews, gum, firewood, etc. They also depend on this forest for herbal medicines. 

Most of these have not been documented or settled yet. 

6. The 2006 FRA, Section 4, subsection 5 states: ‚No member of a forest dwelling scheduled tribes or 

other traditional forest dwelling communities shall be evicted or removed from forest land under 

his occupation till the recognition and verification process under this act is complete.‛ Therefore 

the ongoing work on the Kalu dam is also a violation of the FRA. 

7. The Katkari, Thakur and Mahadev Koli Tribes have more than 20 traditional worship places in 

this forest area and there are many sacred groves and trees associated with these places. 

8. The lands and forests also act as grazing grounds for cattle and goats. Fish from the streams and 

river are an important source of protein for these tribals. 

9. The project contractor has already clear felled thousands of trees near the dam site without 

seeking permission even from the Regional Forest Department. After repeated agitations by 

Shramik Mukti Sangathana, the local Forest officials confiscated one JCB, one Dumper and more 

than 3000 c. meter of Timber. But this is just a small fraction and the felling is continuing in the 

absence of any stringent action by the Forest Department, or any other Department. 

Therefore, in order to protect ecologically invaluable forests and the basic human rights of some of 

the weakest citizens of our country, we urge you to immediately stop the illegal and unjust work at 

Kalu dam and inspect other such works on-going at the neighbouring Shai project site, Balaganga, 

and Poshir. We also urge that the EIA notification be changed to ensure that EIAs, Environment 

Clearance and Public Hearings are mandatory for all such dams, including Kalu and Shai dams. 

Lastly, we urge you to take action against those guilty of violations and ensure that such violations 

are not repeated. 

2.2 Agriculture 

The ecology of the Western Ghats has been subjected to enormous damages, often 

irreparable, from the time of shifting cultivation (punam krishi) of tribal and other indigenous 

communities since centuries to the current intensive monoculture of commercial crops such 

as tea, coffee, cardamom, rubber, pineapple, and timber plantations. Till the advent of the 

British, the culture of growing single crops was never heard of in the mountains. This was 

essentially because agriculture was meant for assuring food security and income generation 

38


was achieved partly through the collection of various spices and other forest produce. This 

practice and concept underwent a major change since the last century by the introduction of 

tea, coffee and teak plantations initiated by the British and later supported by the 

Government of independent India. Various commodity Boards were established to support 

each crop, to expand their cultivation, production and marketing. 


The expansion of commercial plantations in the Western Ghats has led to fragmentation of 

forest, soil erosion, degradation of river ecosystems and toxic contamination of the 

environment. The use of pesticides like DDT was started in the tea plantations during the 

British period itself. Of late, the quantity of toxic pesticides being pumped into the 

plantations is so huge that not only has it impacted the ecology and biodiversity of the 

Ghats, but has also made agriculture unsustainable. This was more evident in the late 

nineties when the price of commodities came down, largely due to the changing trade 

policies, leading to farmer suicides and closure of many plantations especially of tea. The 

economic uncertainty again led to destructive crop shifts, thus further adding to the 

problem. The introduction of water guzzling crops and varieties aggravated the problem. 

Most farmers have realized this. Environmental groups raised concerns and asked for more 

sustainable management practices. In recent years, scientists have also been raising the issue 

of soil erosion and environmental contamination. 

One of the most crucial ecological issues of great concern is that degradation and 

contamination of soil and water in the upper reaches of the Ghats gets carried downstream 

leading to the degradation of midlands and coastal regions. Therefore, a policy shift is 

urgently warranted curtailing the environmentally disastrous practices and switching over 

to a more sustainable farming approach in the Western Ghats. 

In order to accomplish this, the following major changes are to be brought into the current 

agriculture development in the whole of Western Ghats through a policy supporting the 

environment and integration of various State departments and other agencies working in the 

region. A separate strategy would be needed for large plantations and small farmers. Since 

commodity Boards play a major role in agriculture development in the Western Ghats and 

since they come under the Ministry of Commerce, a clear policy direction would be needed 

to support sustainable agriculture development in this region. Furthermore, it must be 

recognised that food security as usually measured by cereal consumption (wheat and rice) is 

not the same as nutritional security which requires the consumption of a diverse diet of 

many agricultural products. To put such a policy change in practice covering the entire 

Western Ghats, a coordinating agency with executive powers would be essential. The 

proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority will be the best suited one for this task. 


1. Landscape planning in select regions /locations: Identify locations where planning can 

be done based on the landscape characteristics, treating each area as part of a larger 

landscape and integrating various cropping systems and other development into it. 

2. Shift from monoculture to polyculture/mixed cropping systems: The large extent of 

monoculture plantations such as tea, coffee, and cardamom needs to integrate more 

indigenous crops, especially food crops and edible fruiting trees best suited to the 

locality, to help reduce soil erosion, improve water holding capacity of the soil, enhance 

productivity and, improve economic returns from unit area. Necessary policies need to 

39


be formulated in each State to accommodate this unavoidable change. Implementing 

them will not be that difficult since most of the large plantations are in leased lands from 

the Government with specific conditions. Both private and public sector plantations 

should follow a polyculture/ agro-forestry approach. Government-owned plantations 

should set a model by taking the lead to bring in such a change for sustainability. Apart 

from this, each plantation has to set aside a percentage of its area, to be fixed, if need be, 

by a proper scientific assessment, for natural regeneration , especially near water 

sources. 

3. Encourage/Support ecological soil conservation measures in the Western Ghats: The 

current approach of constructing stone pitched bunds in plantations and small farms 

needs to be abandoned and support be given for growing live hedges and soil and water 

binding crops. 

4. Discontinue the use of weedicides: Of late, the use of weedicides in the Western Ghats 

has increased to such a large extent that they have become a menace to biodiversity, 

including many economically valuable species. Further, it has led to the emergence of 

more hardy weeds. Hence, there is an urgent need for restricting the use of weedicides in 

the Western Ghats and to progressively ban them according to their hazardous nature. 

One of the major reasons for going in for weedicides, according to farmers, is that they 

are more economical than employing manual labour or other mechanical methods. It is, 

therefore, important that Government subsidise labour for weed removal. One option is 

to provide MGNREGS support to small and marginal farmers and subsidies for 

mechanizing weed control in the large plantations. 

5. Phase out the use of insecticides and fungicides: The need for curtailing the use of 

chemical pesticides and fungicides is of greater priority in the Western Ghats than 

elsewhere, as application of these ‚poisons‛ in the higher hills gets carried downstream 

polluting the entire wetland systems. Therefore, there has to be a coordinated 

programme and action plan for the entire Western Ghats to ease out the use of 

insecticides and fungicides within a period of 5-10 years in a phased manner and, bring 

in No Pesticide Management and organic practices for pest and disease control. The 

Organic Farming Policy of Kerala (Appendix 1) could be adopted as a model not only for 

the Western Ghats, but also for all the six States benefitted by the mountain system. 

Areas need to be selected on a priority basis for implementing the same. Plantations and 

farms lying adjacent to the forest areas and water sources have to be taken on priority 

and the programme integrated with the annual plan of the respective Panchayat. 

Financial and technical supports need to be provided to the farmers during the transition 

period. 

6. Encourage use of organic manures: Use of chemical manure has not only killed the soil 

biota but also has even changed the soil structure affecting soil fertility in the Western 

Ghats. This leads to application of an increasing quantum of chemical fertilizers without 

any scientific basis. Since fertilizers demand more water, there is an increased and 

unsustainable exploitation of water resources in the Ghats affecting the entire ecology of 

the hills and downstream. Therefore there is an urgent need for evolving organic 

management practices. Supports/ subsidies need to be provided for practices such as onfarm 

development of organic manure, crop rotation, and raising green manure crops. 

Production of organic manure should be completely decentralized promoting 

production in the ward level. Self-help groups/ local entrepreneurs should be supported 

to set up units for the manufacture of organic farming material such as good quality 

organic manure, oil cakes, and bio-fertilizers so that good quality manure can be assured 

40


on time. Large plantations should produce organic manure in their plantations 

themselves so that more employment can be generated along with ensuring application 

of organic manure. 

7. Financial support to organic farmers: Yield loss in the first two to three years has to be 

compensated by the State. This could, probably, be done without causing much 

additional financial burden to the State, provided the subsidies and supports given to 

the agro-chemicals are diverted for supporting the organic and ecological framers. The 

whole organic farming programme has to be integrated with the annual programme of 

the Panchayat and provision given for it in the annual budget. At least 20% of 

agriculture and horticulture and 10% of plantation in each Panchayat should be 

converted into organic production every year, making food crops in the whole of the 

Western Ghats poison-free within the next five years and cash crops within the next 10 

years. 

8. Selection of crops and varieties: The current policy of introducing high yielding 

varieties and hybrids for improving productivity need to be revisited to accommodate 

ecological sustainability in management practices. Many of the crops and varieties in 

cultivation are highly water-intensive and also input-intensive. This has to be completely 

discouraged by identifying such crops and consequently developing crops and varieties 

which are less demanding. Local nurseries and seed banks of such crops need to be 

developed to meet the needs of the farmers. The basic approach for production in the 

Western Ghats should be for quality produce rather than just quantity and a separate 

strategy and network should be developed for marketing these good quality products. 

Value addition and local employment generation should be another strategy to generate 

more income and improve the local economy. 

9. Agro-biodiversity conservation and crop improvement: It is quite indisputable that 

since the Green Revolution the country has lost many of its traditional local cultivars and 

other biodiversity elements in the agro-ecosystem. It is more so in the Western Ghats 

which has been the store house of diversity of most of the cultivated varieties of grains, 

vegetables, tubers, and fruits. Determined efforts need to be taken to identify, restore, 

protect and conserve the genetic resources in the farmers’ field itself, even while 

developing ex-situ conservation centres also. A participatory plant breeding and crop 

improvement programme needs to be launched at the Panchayat level with farmers, 

including women, to restore traditional varieties and develop good varieties suitable for 

each locality. It may be noted that mountain ecosystems naturally have a diversity and 

local adaptability of cultivars and hence the seeds developed for the plains and other 

regions may not perform well in this area. Conserving locally adaptive varieties may 

also become extremely relevant in the context of climate change. 

10. Make the Western Ghats free of Genetically Modified crops, trees and animals: The 

biodiversity of the Western Ghats, one of the biodiversity hot spots of the world, 

although not yet fully documented, has been the source of original genes responsible for 

the present day cultivars. It is therefore vital to conserve them and guard them from 

genetic contamination from unnatural sources such as GM crops and GM trees. Since 

genetic contamination of local varieties from GM crops is an established fact, no attempt 

should be allowed to introduce GM crops in the Western Ghats. Not even open field 

trials should be allowed. However, Bt cotton, the first genetically modified crop in the 

country, is being cultivated in some parts of the Western Ghats. Immediate action is 

called for to stop this practice and farmers involved should be supplied with non-Bt 

cotton seeds. They should also be encouraged to go the organic way and a separate 

41


marketing channel opened up for cotton farmers in the Western Ghats. Attempts are 

being made to introduce GM trees such as GM rubber. This should never be allowed. 

11. Awareness building: Awareness building among different sectors including consumers, 

traders, policy makers on a regular basis on the indispensability of sustainable 

agriculture development in the Western Ghats is a must to ensure larger social support 

for the implementation of various programmes. Various innovative methods have to be 

adopted for the same using the creative energy of local communities. 

12. Educating children about organic and ecological farming and their role in conserving 

the biodiversity of the Western Ghats: The importance of the Western Ghats, especially 

its role as a source of water and as a genetic store house of cultivars, the need for 

conserving its biodiversity, the role of ecological agriculture in limiting the damage to 

the ecosystem, and such topics should be taught formally and informally in all the 

schools and other educational institutions in the Western Ghats states in the local 

languages. 

13. Forest corridors: Plantations between the forest patches used by animals for movement 

should be abandoned and steps taken to gradually revert them back to forest where ever 

required. 

14. Forest patches within and along the streams in the plantation: Forest patches within 

the plantations and the forest vegetation along the course of the streams and rivulets are 

to be protected as they are havens for biodiversity. Many endangered, endemic species 

have been reported from these ‚islands of biodiversity.‛ Expansion of plantations into 

these areas should never be allowed. 

15. Community forestry: Community forestry should be encouraged to help provide 

necessary manure, fodder for farming, fuel wood and other needs. 

16. Wildlife problems: One of the major problems for farming in the Western Ghats is the 

destruction caused to it frequently by the wildlife. While farmers should be compensated 

for crop loss, change of crops unsuitable for wildlife may be considered. In the case of 

wild boar which is a menace to agriculture in many places, the only solution, probably, 

is to cull them under strict guidelines and make commercially viable value added 

products as cottage industry. While crop change may control the damage to certain 

extent in the case of herbivores, farming in forest cleared areas which were traditional 

migratory route of elephants may have to be abandoned. Farmers thus affected need to 

be adequately compensated. 

17. Marketing: Strategies focusing on: (a) maximum profits to the farmers reducing the 

middlemen, (b) fixing premium prices, for produce resulting from conservation efforts 

as done for Costa Rican Coffee, (c) linking the products of organic practices in the 

Western Ghats to local and regional markets, (d) securing carbon credits for organic 

farmers and, (e) ensuring Government support for all these efforts should be developed 

and implemented under the overall supervision of the proposed Western Ghats Ecology 

Authority 

18. Tribal farming: A separate strategy on priority for tribal farming to revive their 

traditional farming methods and culture, bringing back the traditional cultivars and food 

culture needs to be developed. 

19. Research: Research related to agriculture and horticulture in the Western Ghats region 

should give priority for restoration of traditional cultivars, and developing locally 

42


suitable, low cost organic farming technologies and practices. Local educational and 

research institutions should be encouraged to take up research projects to help farmers 

shift from non-organic methods to organic agriculture. 

These are some of the ways forward for protecting the natural, cultural and social 

foundations of the Western Ghats and ensuring the integrity of this unique mountain 

system. 

2.3 Animal Husbandry 

Livestock, mostly cattle, goats, sheep and poultry rearing is a major livelihood activity in the 

Western Ghats. Cattle rearing is for milk, agriculture (for manure and for ploughs), and 

transport; sheep and goat for meat and income from sale and manure; and poultry mostly 

for consumption and sale. Several well-defined livestock breeds well adapted to the local 

conditions have been bred in this region. However, there has been a declining trend in the 

indigenous livestock populations in contrast to a marked increase in crossbred cattle due to 

introduction of exotic breeds as part of the livestock development programmes of the 

Government resulting in more damage than benefit to the livestock keepers. 

Karnataka is one of the few states, which has collected information on breeds of sheep, goat 

and pigs, besides cattle and buffaloes. The state has a crossbred cattle population of 16 lakhs 

along with a population of 2,000 exotic cattle. This comes to about 17% of the total cattle 

population of the state. The state has reported information on the different breeds of 

indigenous cattle, namely Hallikar, Amruthamahal, Khilaar, Deoni, Malanadu Gidda (a well 

adapted local breed of the Western Ghats) and Krishna Valley breeds. The prevalence of 

various buffalo breeds, namely Murrah, Surthi, Pandarpuri, and Mehasaani has been 

reported in Karnataka. Merino, Rambouillet and Corriedale are some of the exotic breeds of 

sheep found in the state. A variety of different indigenous breeds of sheep, namely Bannur, 

Deccani, Bellary and Hassan are found in Karnataka. The population of around 20,000 

crossbred pigs in Karnataka consists mainly of Landrace and Yorkshire breeds. 

Local breeds of cattle found in the Kollegal-Satyamangalam range of the Western Ghats 

(Karnataka and Tamilnadu) comprise the Konga, Karagu Batta, Hasur Batta and Gujjamavu 

types and the communities rearing them are the Kampaliga and Soliga Tribes. 

According to the 2003 census, Karnataka had 5.15 % of cattle, 4.08 % of buffaloes, 11.8 % of 

sheep, 3.61 % of goats, 2.31 % of pigs and 5.23 % of the poultry population of the country. In 

Karnataka, crossbred cattle increased by 23.9 percent but indigenous cattle decreased by 

16.80 %, in the period between 1997 and 2003. The buffalo population has also decreased by 

8.6 %, the population of sheep, goats and pigs have decreased by 9.3 %, 8.02 %, and 22.96 % 

respectively during the period. The total livestock in the state has decreased from 29.57 

million (1992 census) to 28.526 million (1997 census) and 25.621 million (2003 census) in the 

last three censuses. 

Kerala: Two distinct cattle breeds, namely Vechur (almost extinct) and Kasergode Dwarf; 

the Malabar goat breed, the Naked Neck poultry breed and several other non-descript 

breeds are being reared in Kerala. 

Crossbreeds are introduced on a large scale by the Government for promoting dairy 

farming. Indigenous cattle breeds were not considered for cross breeding programmes. 

Instead the exotic Jersey and Holstein-Friesian (HF) breeds were introduced. Waynaad 

district tribals constitute 42% of the population. Now this district is also the highest 

producer of milk which was not a traditional enterprise. In the last two decades, a drastic 

43


decline in all types of livestock and poultry population was noticed. The reasons for the 

decline are scarcity of low cost and quality fodder, rapid increase in the cost of feed and 

indiscriminate slaughter of local breeds of animals for meat. Farmers’ preferences have also 

changed from local breeds to crossbreeds because of the promotion of dairy farming and of 

milk breeds by the Government. Further, replacement of the diversified inter-cropping 

agriculture system, as elsewhere, by mono-culture and commercial crops, and the resultant 

replacement of the great indigenous genetic agro-diversity by a narrow genetic range has 

lead to a huge scarcity of food and fodder for animals in the form of crop residues. 

Tamil Nadu: The major local breeds in Tamil Nadu are Kangayam cattle, Thoda buffalo 

(Nilgiris), Mecheri sheep (Erode), and Coimbatore sheep. Although the Kangayam cattle 

conform largely to the Southern Indian Mysore type, studies show evidences of the Gray- 

White Ongole cattle traits in their genetic composition. Possibly this mixture has given the 

breed its larger size in comparison with other cattle of the Mysore type. These cattle are bred 

in the southern and southeastern area of the Coimbatore district of Tamil Nadu. There are 

two varieties of Kangayam cattle, one small and the other large. The smaller variety is more 

numerous in the Kangayam, Dharampuram, Udmalpet, Pollachi, Paddadam and Erode 

subdivisions, while the larger variety occurs mostly in the areas of Karur, Aravakurchi and 

Dindigul subdivisions. The breed is found in its pure form in the herds of some large 

breeders, notably the Pattagar of Palayamkottai, who are supposed to have one of the best 

herds of the breed in the country. Kangayam cattle are of moderate size, active and 

powerful, and are highly priced animals. The cows are generally poor milk yielders but 

there are exceptions. 

In Tamil Nadu, crossbred cattle increased by 46.61 % while indigenous varieties decreased 

by 27.79 % between 1997 and 2003. The buffalo population has decreased heavily by 39.51 % 

while sheep and goat populations increased by 6.35 % and 27.45 % respectively. The pig 

population has decreased by 47.29 % in the State. 

Maharashtra: Cattle, sheep, goat and poultry are the livestock reared in the Maharashtra 

Western Ghats. Dangi Cattle is an endangered breed that takes its name from the hilly track 

of the Dangs adjoining Gujarat and is found in the eastern hill slopes, characterized by dry 

deciduous forests, of the Western Ghats hill ranges of Nasik and Igatpuri. Mansoli, the 

Naked Neck poultry breed is found on the western Konkan coastal regions which are hilly 

with very high rainfall. There are several other livestock breeds which are locally reared and 

suitable to the local conditions. 


Plant diversity of the Western Ghats and livestock rearing 

The rich biodiversity of the Western Ghats (plants and crops) has been a major source of 

fodder, medicinal plants and crop residues. Adivasi communities and the local communities 

living in the forest and hilly areas are those who were conserving livestock breeds with 

specific traits suitable to local environments and local production systems. The adivasi 

communities are mostly dependent on forest herbs for treating their animals and these 

communities possess a huge wealth of traditional healing knowledge which is being passed 

on from generation to generation (e.g. Bedekampaliga, Soliga, Kani, Muluvakuruvar, and 

Katunayaka communities). 

The local breeds of livestock reared in these areas were well adapted to the local topographic 

and environmental conditions. The introduction of exotic crossbreeds has disturbed the 

44


entire production systems and the traditional knowledge on feeding and healing is being 

eroded. The crossbreeds require more concentrates and roughage than the indigenous 

breeds and are often attacked by contagious diseases. Thus the cost of feeding and 

management of livestock has increased and has become a burden for livestock keepers. 

Grazing issues in the Western Ghats 

The traditional pattern of animal rearing in the Western Ghats areas consists of keeping 

herds of indigenous cattle which depend totally on community and forest grazing land. 

One of the major challenges being faced by the cattle keepers in recent years is the 

conversion of grasslands and degraded lands for various plantations, e.g. biofuel 

plantations, and other activities under government programmes thereby reducing the 

grazing land. 

The increased population and the rapid decline of forest and community grazing lands 

compelled the farmers to switch over to smaller animals like goats which has aggravated the 

damage to already diminished grazing lands since goats are aggressive browsers. 

The shift or change in agricultural practices such as raising more cash crops compared to 

food crops in turn has also affected quality fodder production. 

The uncontrolled usage of weedicides in cash crops has caused the naturally available grass 

varieties to perish and has thus made the recommended practice of stall feeding difficult. 

The decision by tea estate managements not to allow their labourers to rear cattle in the 

uncultivated areas of the estates has also made cattle keeping unattractive 

The strict policy of the Forest Department of Tamil Nadu which has imposed a total ban on 

grazing of goats inside the forests, although well intended for the conservation of forests, 

has thrown a difficult challenge to goat farming. Alternative sources may have to be worked 

out so that the local communities dependent on goat farming will not be affected. 


Sustainable strategy of livestock development for the Western Ghats 

Animal breeds and their selection 

Since the milk production status of indigenous animals will not fall within the economically 

profitable range, support needs to be given to farmers willing to keep indigenous cattle. A 

special priced marketing system for their organic products should be established, and 

financial assistance for conserving an indigenous species is to be provided. Financial 

assistance should be determined according to the degree of ecological richness that they 

bring back to the area. Only those breeds which can withstand the adverse agro-climatic 

conditions must be encouraged in these areas. Such protection of indigenous locally adapted 

breeds has great significance in the context of climate change since depending on climate 

shifts suitably adapted breeds will be available across the Western Ghats spectrum. If 

farmers cannot afford to keep exotics or crossbreds, these must not be introduced as they 

only lay further stress on the farmers and their households. There are groups working on the 

improvement of indigenous cattle in this region. Recognise and support such groups for the 

sustainable development of animal husbandry in the Western Ghats 

45


Animal nutrition – Feeding and grazing 

Improving the fodder and vegetation resources 

Attempts should be made to restore community grasslands and forest grazing lands outside 

the Protected Areas. Unused public land may be converted to fodder cultivating lands, the 

work force for which could be managed from the MGNREGP or similar on-going projects. 

Systems of rotational grazing and grazing management have to be developed at the village 

level to prevent over exploitation of resources, help resource regeneration, and also to meet 

the needs of different communities. 

Village communities should be supported to plan their fodder requirements and to adopt 

suitable methods by which fodder can be grown and managed. Importance must be given to 

varied fodder trees, grasses, forbs and shrubs and their protection. 

Improved systems of storing fodder for scarcity periods especially in the case of grasses also 

have to be encouraged. 

Goat-rearing projects should consider local browsing areas and should not be dependent on 

forest areas. Cultivation of fodder plants should be a major component in such projects. Stall 

feeding of goats should be encouraged in areas where the ecological situation is very fragile 

and where goat-based livelihood needs to be protected. 

A second crop of fodder in paddy fields using residual moisture is advisable. 

Application of weedicides in cash crop areas alongside roads must be prohibited, since 

almost all plants classified as weeds are in fact rich cattle fodder, and much livestock grazing 

occurs along roadsides. 

Grazing restrictions imposed on the grounds of forest conservation should be revisited in 

such a way that traditional culture and ways of life of local communities are not affected 

while protecting the regeneration of forest plant species. 

Commercial dairy farming 

Animal husbandry practices must be integrated with other agriculture activities for 

sustainability; therefore an integrated approach involving allied sectors is important in 

planning animal husbandry activities. 

Since agriculture in the Western Ghats is proposed to be totally organic, animal husbandry 

has a vital role to play. The rejuvenation process of the over-exploited land itself would, 

certainly, require large quantities of organic matter. The only sustainable source for this is 

cattle rearing. 

Since milk production is an important sector, assistance such as veterinary facilities, animal 

health surveillance, and feed subsidies may be provided to progress largely towards stallfed 

cattle. Good cattle sheds and scientific practices must be provided to the farmers. 

Instead of larger dairy farming units, mini-dairy units with 3–4 cattle many be encouraged, 

particularly for women self-help groups. 

An integrated approach of cultivating paddy, millets, legumes and other food crops which 

besides providing nutritional security to the farmer’s household in turn would also supply 

enough fodder for the stall-fed group of cattle should be encouraged and financially 

assisted. 

46


Every household in the Western Ghats area having two dairy animals may be financially 

assisted to build biogas plants which will not only improve their living conditions but also 

help reduce the dependence on firewood to some extent. Moreover, the slurry from the 

biogas plant could be used as manure. This may also be thought of at a village level where 

larger biogas plants could be maintained. 

Convert tea estates to organic production with the integration of animal husbandry 

Since tea estates occupy large land holdings in the southern Western Ghats and since there is 

a heavy demand for organic tea internationally, attempts should be made to integrate 

animal husbandry with tea cultivation. Unused land in tea estates could be used for stall fed 

cattle rearing and the organic manure thus produced used for tea plantation. 

Earlier, tea estate labourers reared cattle within the estates, a practice which has been 

recently disallowed by the management. This practice can be restored and strengthened. The 

manure produced may be used as fertilizer for the plantation, thus achieving the production 

of organic tea and organically produced milk simultaneously 

Use of weedicides in tea plantations must be completely stopped. 

Animal health 

Livestock in the Western Ghats region is prone to a number of diseases. In view of the 

limited veterinary services available, the animal husbandry department should extend 

veterinary services to these livestock especially preventive measures such as regular 

vaccinations and de-worming for controlling diseases. It would be ideal if every village had 

its own animal health worker who was trained in giving vaccinations, first aid, elements of 

traditional veterinary practices, ethnoveterinary medicine using locally available plants, as 

well as dealing with veterinary emergencies. 

Cultivation of medicinal plants 

Plants with medicinal properties have been used traditionally for treating domestic animals. 

However, several important naturally occurring medicinal plants in the Western Ghats are 

being over-exploited and have become locally extinct or rare. 

These plants should be grown on a large scale, even in the backyard of every tribal hut and 

other settlements. It would, therefore, be advisable to start nurseries for medicinal plants as 

well as medicine making units at the Panchayat level which should run on a cooperative 

basis. These medicines would then make the local communities less dependent on distant 

health services for themselves as well as for their cattle. 

Educating and sensitizing school students about animal husbandry 

It is important to educate students about their domestic and local livestock diversity, and the 

need for preserving and restoring it considering the crucial role that these animals play in 

the sustainable development of the area. ‚Exploring our environment: a manual for green 

schools‛ produced by Bharati Vidyapeeth Institute of Environment Education, Pune, is an 

excellent example of a document that also emphasises local livestock breeds. 

Marketing livestock produce. 

Wherever marketing is a problem, all animal-derived products need to be processed into 

non-perishable forms. Value addition into products which are of low bulk but command a 

good price is necessary. The earlier practice of converting surplus milk into ghee and khoya 

47


needs to be revived. It is also possible to experiment with new products such as cheese and 

yoghurt. However, care must be taken to ensure high degree quality control in the products 

derived so that they could command premium prices. 

2.4 Fisheries 

Depletion of the fishery resources is a serious issue in the Western Ghats region. Compared 

to marine fish resources / biodiversity, the freshwater fish diversity is on the decline due to 

various reasons. Traditionally the conservation and management of fishery resources were 

vested with local communities, but this has now been altered. Several innovative measures 

are required to revive this highly valued resource and to use it in a sustainable manner on 

account of its relevance in livelihood improvement and food security. There is a need to readdress 

these issues with the fisheries department and other impacting sectors to reorient 

conservation measures in a participatory mode. Furthermore, local fish consumption has 

been a traditional source of protein for local people from time immemorial. 


• Habitat loss, including loss of mangroves 

• Pollution due to pesticides, industrial effluents/other sources 

• Waste dumping in rivers 

• Improper river maintenance and management 

• Unscientific methods of collection (use of poisons, electro-fishing, dynamiting etc.) 

• Impoundments in rivers, check dams 

• Introduction of exotic fishes 

• Destruction/loss of breeding grounds 

• Fish diseases 

• Over-exploitation 

• Unauthorised ornamental fish trade 

• Sand mining 

• Excessive tourism activities in freshwater lakes 

• Decline of indigenous species due to introduction of exotic and alien fishes species 

Examples from Kerala 

In Periyar Lake, which is well known as one of the biodiversity hotspots of Kerala, exotic 

species such as Cyprinus carpio have already established breeding populations and 

contribute more than 70 percent of the exploited stock. A high percentage of diet overlap 

exists between native fish species like Tor khudree, Gonoproktopterus curmuca, Lepidopygopsis 

typus and exotic species like tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus) and common carp (Cyprinus 

carpio). There are established populations of tilapia in almost all rivers of Kerala. The exotic 

high-yielding African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) is another potential danger to indigenous 

species. Alien species such as catla (Catla catla), rohu (Laboe rohita) and mrigal (Cyrrhinus 

mrigala) have been cultured in most of the reservoirs and ponds of Kerala and this has led to 

a gradual reduction of the endemic fish populations in these water bodies. 

48


Water quality 

Agriculture in the catchment areas has aggravated water pollution by the application of 

chemical pesticides. Industries discharge effluents containing heavy metals such as mercury, 

zinc and cadmium above the permitted level; this has resulted in mortality of fishes in the 

major rivers. The ammonia content of effluents discharged into the rivers is also above 

permissible limits. 

Pollutants such as acids, alkalis, fluorides and radioactive materials were detected in the 

effluent waters of industries in the Cochin area as a result of which the Eloor-Varappuzha 

areas of the Cochin backwaters are being transformed into a barren contaminated zone. 


• Regular monitoring of fish wealth to assess the health/ diversity of the fish population. 

• Banning the use of plastics which settle at the bottom of water bodies and lakes and 

affect breeding of some species. 

• Management measures aimed at conserving freshwater fish biodiversity to be 

incorporated into the fishery policy. 

• The database on population size and geographical distribution of endangered and 

endemic species should be strengthened by undertaking extensive micro-geographical 

surveys. Information on area of distribution and micro-geographical characteristics of 

the habitats of these ecologically sensitive fishes will be inputs for establishment of 

aquatic reserves for the conservation of these species. 

• Information regarding migration, breeding behaviour and spawning grounds of 

threatened fishes should be generated through extensive surveys and analysis. Such a 

database is essential for both ex situ and in situ conservation of the species. 

• Techniques should be developed for the captive breeding and broodstock development 

of fishes of potential economic importance. 

• Broodstock maintenance centres and hatcheries should be established exclusively for 

indigenous, endangered and critically endangered fishes for their in situ conservation 

and aqua ranching as a substitute for their natural recruitment. 

• Investigation on the invasive nature of exotic species in the natural habitats should be 

carried out. The functioning of the committee constituted under the Government of India 

to quarantine and control introduction of exotic species should be made more effective 

and foolproof. 

• Strict vigilance and monitoring, including enforcement of laws, to be ensured to reduce 

the loss of the natural breeding grounds of the fishes arising from reclamation of paddy 

and wetlands. 

• Strengthen awareness programmes to ensure the sustainability and survival of fish 

resources. 

• Regulation on fishing, during breeding seasons in freshwater environs to restore natural/ 

wild stock 

• Establishment of fish sanctuaries 

49


• Sand mining and other activities which destroy the habitat of many endemic fishes to be 

restricted. 

• Live-fencing using native plant species instead of stone walls to be encouraged for 

protecting river banks. 

• River Management Funds to be utilised for activities related to river health programmes 

and not for construction or other developmental activities. 

• Regulation of ornamental fish collection from the wild. 

Box 3: Vaitarana Fish Sanctuary (Maharashtra): Parineeta Dandekar, 22 May 2011 

(communicated to Madhav Gadgil) 

When on a field visit to dams in the Vaitarna and surrounding basins, I came across a beautiful fish 

sanctuary in the Tilase village of Wada Taluka in Thane District and thought this might be of interest 

to you. 

The site is downstream of the upper Vaitarna Dam and is predominantly a ravine in hard rock. On the 

banks of this stretch is the Mandikeshwar Shiv Temple. The area on the adjoining bank has deep pools 

with perennial water availability and there is a wonderful congregation of Deccan Mahseer here. 

The fish are not accustomed to being fed much and do not leap out like the fish at Shringeri or 

Chipplagudde, but the size of these Mahseer is definitely bigger than their counterparts in Tunga. 

There is a fishing ban in this stretch and when I suggested looking closely at the fish, I was told that 

they are sacred and do not get caught in nets/ hooks. 

However, activities like washing clothes and utensils do take place at the very same spot. 

I was told that there was a major fish kill some five years ago when water from the upstream reservoir 

was not released for an extended period. 

Now, there is one more reservoir, the Middle Vaitarna, the tallest dam in Maharashtra, coming up just 

upstream of this region, between this site and the original Upper Vaitarna Dam. 

Action points for Western Ghats Ecological Authority 

• The various polices and legal measures available have to be coordinated and 

implemented through user agencies at both Central and State governments to achieve 

desired effects on conservation of freshwater fishes. 

• Appropriate measures need to be evolved to prevent illegal conversion and 

encroachment on water bodies. 

2.5 Forests and Biodiversity 

Our nation is evidently at a crossroads today, with grave misgivings on continuing with 

business as usual. This then is an appropriate juncture at which to undertake a fresh 

assessment of the forestry–biodiversity sector from a scientific perspective. The spirit of 

science is captured well in J D Bernal’s (1939) definition that ‚science is an organized 

enterprise of scepticism‛. Professor Satish Dhawan, who served as Secretary, Space 

Department of Government of India from 1972–1980 was such a true scientist. He was very 

skeptical of the claims of the forestry establishment that as much as 23% of the country’s 

land was under forest cover. So he asked his colleagues in the Space Department to 

undertake an independent assessment with the help of satellite imagery. Their estimate was 

far lower at 14%. This stimulated a healthy dispute leading to a so-called reconciliation at 

50


19%. Unfortunately, the sceptical spirit was buried with the handing over of the job of the 

continuous monitoring of forest cover, with the help of satellite imagery, to the Forest 

Survey of India, an agency of the forestry establishment itself, and naturally unable to act 

independently. 

Another pithy statement about what constitutes the scientific spirit comes from the 

mathematician-philosopher Whitehead (1927): ‚Modern science accepts brute facts, whether 

reasonable or not!‛ One such set of brute facts relates to the existence of paper tigers. When 

tigers were no more being sighted at Sariska, despite the official claims that many existed, 

the Prime Minister set up a Tiger Task Force (2005). The Task Force could access information 

available with the field staff and could put together the following picture (Tiger Task Force 

2005) 

Table 4 Tiger population estimates in Sariska Tiger Reserve 

Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Tiger population (official census) 24 26 26 26 27 26 17 

Tiger estimates by field staff 17 6 5 3 0 1 0 

Evidently, the establishment was deliberately circulating misleading information. In spite of 

the Tiger Task Force putting this on record, no action was ever initiated to penalize those 

responsible for this perjury. There is thus abundant evidence that business as usual will 

simply not do. 


Scientific basis of forestry and biodiversity management 

The British introduced the current system of Forest Management in India some 150 years 

ago with claims that it was a scientific system that would result in sustainable harvests. Both 

these claims of scientific basis and of sustainability are of dubious validity. Science must 

stand on a solid bedrock of empirical facts. An important weakness of so-called scientific 

forestry is the lack or poor quality of its database, as the two examples cited above make 

abundantly clear. 

In the 1960’s the Forestry establishment decided to abandon the "cautious" approach of 

conservation forestry and to become ‚aggressive"– clearfell and raise plantations, such as 

those of exotic tropical pine or Eucalyptus species (Gadgil, Prasad and Ali 1983; FAO, 1984; 

National Commission on Agriculture, 1976). Regrettably, there was no careful scientific 

research on which species would succeed and what productivities could be realized. Some of 

the very best of the Western Ghats natural forest was clearcut, on the supposition that the new 

plantations of Eucalyptus would annually produce a biomass of between 14 to 28 tonnes per 

hectare. A significant proportion of these plantations were a dismal failure, especially in the 

high rainfall tracts due to fungal diseases cutting down their productivity to just 1 to 3 tonnes 

per hectare (Prasad, 1984). Many steep slopes of the Western Ghats of Kerala and Karnataka 

were laid waste as the magnificent old stands of evergreens gave way to miserable stands of 

sickly Eucalyptus. 

51


Similarly, an assessment of bamboo resources of Karnataka on the basis of the data available 

from the State Forest Resources Survey, paper mills, and extensive field work showed that 

the stocks were overestimated by a factor of ten (Gadgil and Prasad 1978, Prasad and Gadgil 

1981). Scientific management also calls for knowledge of growth patterns to decide on a 

harvesting regime that will make the most of the growth potential. Yet, a majority of the 

preservation plots set up in the early 1900s to collect data on girth increments of different 

tree species under different environmental conditions in the country are either poorly 

maintained or destroyed (Gupta 1981). Similarly, Karnataka Forest Department’s 

prescriptions on the number of bamboo culms to be extracted from a clump were flawed 

because of a failure to appreciate the exponential nature of the growth of a bamboo clump 

and consequent excessive harvests from smaller-sized clumps (Kadambi 1949). Furthermore, 

the practices involved cleaning of the thorny covering developing naturally at the base of a 

bamboo clump. This was supposed to promote better growth of new shoots. In fact, removal 

of the thorny covering rendered the young shoots readily accessible to grazing by a whole 

range of animals so that the recruitment of new culms to the clumps remained very poor 

and the bamboo stocks remained stagnant. In contrast, the local villagers were fully aware of 

this difficulty attendant on clump cleaning and left the thorny cover intact while harvesting 

bamboo for their own use (Prasad and Gadgil 1981). 

Working Plans as hypotheses 

The modern scientific method has been termed the ‚hypothetico-deductive‛ method. Hence, 

a truly scientific enterprise would treat documents such as ‚Working Plans‛ as scientific 

documents to be made available for peer review by all interested parties, not as official 

secrets. The yields expected to be realized, and the stocks expected to be left behind after the 

harvests, would be treated as hypotheses to be tested. If the yields do not materialize, or the 

stocks are not sustained, then a scientific enterprise would acknowledge that there are 

obvious errors of fact or logic, and attempt to look for these and correct them. It would also 

try to bring on board all interested parties, technical experts, as well as other stakeholders 

from civil society, in an effort to understand the mistakes and correct them. 

In its place, all that happens is occasional remarks on the efficacy of earlier Working Plans 

when new ones are prepared. To quote one such: ‚In the Yekkambi-Sonda area the A coupes 

under Edie's plan and replacement felling areas under Garland's plan have resulted in total 

exploitation of all valuable species


of tree growth in the selection circle had been declining progressively. The response was to 

convert it into a ‚clearfelling circle‛ and to completely liquidate all tree growth, replacing it 

by monoculture plantations. At the same time, part of the hill slope ‚protection circle‛ that 

was supposed to be perpetually left untouched, was brought under the selection circle. As 

this addition to the selection circle was also overexploited, these steep hill slope areas were 

also clear felled, and the selection circle was extended to yet steeper slopes. This is a classic 

example of the process of sequential overexploitation. 

Sequential overexploitation 

Indeed, India’s forest resources have been continually subjected to such a process of 

sequential overuse. Prasad and Gadgil (1981) illustrate this process of non-sustainable use of 

pulpwood resources by paper mills along several dimensions. The contractors supplying 

bamboo rarely adhered to prescriptions. Instead of removing a fraction of culms from all 

clumps throughout a block, they removed all culms from the clumps most accessible from 

the road. Next year a fresh road would be made further inside the block and all roadside 

clumps clearfelled, and so on in a sequence reaching into less and less accessible terrain. 

Secondly, as the forest areas nearby the mill were depleted, supplies were drawn from 

further and further away. Thus WCPM (West Coast Paper Mill) in Karnataka first went to 

neighbouring Andhra and then further afield to Garhwal, to Assam, and finally to 

Nagaland. Thirdly, as the supplies of bamboo, the most suitable species for paper making, 

dwindled other harder and harder woods were tapped. Fourthly, the mills moved from 

reserve forest land, from which they acquired supplies subsidized by the state to the tune of 

1.50 rupee per tonne of bamboo (when the market price was 5000 rupees per tonne), to use 

of bagasse from sugarcane, or to Eucalyptus grown on farm lands (Gadgil, M. and Guha, 

R.1992 Gadgil,M. and Rao, P.R.S. 1998). 

Knowledge management 

The system of knowledge management of the forestry establishment is not an open, 

participatory system in the spirit of science. Rather, it is a system emphasizing monopoly 

over collection and interpretation of data. Thus the Tiger Task Force (2005) recorded the 

following statement by Raghunandan Chundawat, a wildlife researcher: ‚Unfortunately in 

last three decades no system has been created that encourages or institutionalizes access to 

available professional research in protected areas nor that takes advantage of the growing 

body of professionals with expertise in relevant areas who work outside the government. 

We need to change the attitude of our management from a guard protecting jewels to a 

librarian who is managing library of unexplored knowledge and inviting people for 

learning. These problems occur now and again because we have failed to create a system, 

which supports and provides protection to independent research in the country.‛ 

Just to cite an example of an experience of mine [Madhav Gadgil:MG] from the pre-RTI era, 

at a meeting in the early 1980s in Kolkata, presided over by the Finance Minister of West 

Bengal to discuss environment and forest issues, the PCCF asserted that Working Plans are 

technical documents that must never be made available to the general public. In the early 

1980s, MG was informed that a full set of Working Plans for India was not available at any 

institution in India, including FRI at Dehra Dun. Subsequently, MG could access and study 

them at the Commonwealth Forestry Institute at Oxford. When the proposal to clearfell 

large tracts of natural sal forests of Bastar and plant them up with tropical pine was opposed 

by many tribal groups, MG came to serve on a committee looking into the whole 

programme. The choice of tropical pine was being pushed on the basis of supposedly high 

53


production of a pilot plantation of the species. As a committee we discovered that this pilot 

plantation lay in ruins, and there were no proper records available of the performance of 

tropical pine at all. The whole affair was a gigantic fraud (Gadgil, M., Prasad, S.N. and Rauf 

Ali 1983) 

Are forests/wildlife being genuinely protected? 

On conquering India, the British described the land as an ocean of trees, teeming with 

wildlife. This heritage has been liquidated under the so-called scientific management, 

initiated under colonial rule. The pace of destruction has only accelerated on independence – 

through liquidation of private forests, through large scale felling as roads connected hitherto 

inaccessible regions on account of development projects, through decimation of the resource 

base of forest-based industries that have been practicing excessive, undisciplined harvests. 

All this served the interests of the ruling classes; it was in no way being driven by the 

marginalized rural, tribal communities, who were being blamed all the time by the officials. 

A classic case of how these groups were victimized was that of the village forests of Uttara 

Kannada district, earlier a part of Bombay State. The village forests of Chitragi, Muroor- 

Kallabbe and Halakar were established in 1930 as a rare example of implementation of the 

provision for handing over reserve forests as village forests in the Indian Forest Act 1927. 

This was done on the basis of recommendations of a Forest Grievance Enquiry Committee of 

the district in 1922, which had praised the age-old, excellent community level management 

of these three villages. They were functioning well till the linguistic reorganization of the 

state brought Uttara Kannada district into Karnataka. The Karnataka Forest Department 

promptly served notice on these Village Forest Committees liquidating them on the pretext 

that the Karnataka Forest Rules had no provision for village forests. Tragically, the Chitragi 

villagers totally destroyed their dense forests within fifteen days of receiving the notice, 

while those of Halakar and Muroor-Kallabbe appealed the order. The people of Halakar 

finally won their court case after 28 years of litigation and have continued to manage their 

village forest very well to this day. 

Some six years ago, a CBI enquiry ordered into the Sariska tigers debacle reached the 

conclusion that the tigers could not have been poached without official connivance. 

Nevertheless, no official was ever brought to book, while many local villagers were arrested 

and beaten up by the police. 

Consider also the following recent news item. (Box 4) 

Box 4: Patch of Shola forest cleared in violation of laws: probe 

A patch of Shola forest in Kodaikanal has been cleared in violation of forest protection laws and a 

road was unauthorisedly laid to facilitate construction of a resort, a departmental probe by senior 

forest officials has revealed. According to Forest department sources, local forest officials cleared a 

patch in Tiger Shola (evergreen forest) Reserve Forest in Perumalmalai division in Perambukkanal 

beat in Kodaikanal forest division. A team of officials led by K. Palani, District Forest Officer, 

Sirumalai Interface Forest Division, Kodaikanal, conducted an inquiry into the incident and 

submitted a report to the Department. 

The report submitted by the team led by Mr. Palani said the Dindigul district administration issued 

orders to cut 3,000 eucalyptus trees on a private land in Adukkam village. Following this, the private 

land owner laid a new road for a distance of 362 meters with a width of 3.50 meters. Earth-moving 

equipment was used to lay the road and the obstructing Shola forest trees were uprooted. Rocky 

patches in the area were destroyed using dynamites. 

According to the report, the incident came to light on March 24 this year (2011) when the Assistant 

Conservator of Forests, Kodaikanal, inspected the Tiger Shola Reserve Forests. He immediately 

intimated the violation to the District Forest Officer, Kodaikanal. A case was registered by the Forest 

officials, who secured two labourers in this connection. When they were about to be produced before 

the magistrate one of them escaped. This was the official version of the local Forest officials, the report 

54


said. 

Non-inclusion of real offenders in the case, delayed registration of the case, failure to seize the 

vehicles used for laying the road, the failure of the Forest Ranger to submit a timely report about 

laying of road to the District Forest officer were some of the findings of the report. 

Even after realizing the importance of Shola forests, these were allowed to be destroyed to lay the 

road in Reserve Forests and the District Forest Officer failed to conduct a field inspection before 

allowing the cutting of eucalyptus trees. 

These were some of the major violations found by the special team, which conducted the 

investigation, the report further said. S. Subashkar, Forest Guard, Perambukkanal beat; D.A.S. 

Nathan, Forest, Perumalmalai division; N. Musthafa, Forest Ranger, Kodaikanal; M.Chandru, 

Forester, Hill Area Protection Range, Kodaikanal; R.Paramasivam, Range Officer, Hill Area Protection 

Range, Kodaikanal; and the District Forest Officer D. Sampath were indicted in the report for failing 

in their duty. 

‚It is condemnable that there was an attempt to show that much of the extent on which the road was 

laid in Tiger Shola Reserve Forest land belonged to privately-owned patta land, thereby seeking to 

surrender reserve forest land in favour of private parties,‛ the report said. 

It estimated that an extent of 20 hectares of forest land was sought to be projected as patta land. 

Economic efficiency of performance 

All public sector and government operations are notoriously wasteful of India’s limited 

economic resources. But we have a few careful studies. One such is Somanathan’s work on 

relative efficiency of State versus Van Panchayat management in the state of Uttarakhand. 

There is strong evidence from Kumaun that this type of community management is far more 

cost-effective than state management (Somanathan, Prabhakar et al. 2009). Van Panchayats 

have been at least as effective at conservation as the state has, and at one-tenth the cost. 

Another study, currently under review (Baland et al, 2008), strengthens this finding by 

concluding that tree damage in Van Panchayat forests from the lopping of branches is 

considerably less than that seen in Reserved Forests, while other measures are not 

significantly different. 

Quality of governance 

Extortion 

Finally, we need to consider the quality of governance by the forestry and wildlife 

establishment. That too leaves much to be desired. The forest officials have notoriously used 

their regulatory powers to harass and extort resources from rural and tribal communities. 

While all are aware that this has been going on all over the country, there is little proper 

documentation of the process. So, MG interviewed a number of forest fringe villagers from 

Nandurbar and Gadchiroli districts of Maharashtra. They report that every such family ends 

up losing between 1500 to 3000 rupees per year in the form of cash, grain, chicken, liquor or 

forced labour such as supply of fuelwood as bribes to Forest Department personnel. 

Similarly some 2 crore families in India live in the forest vicinity. If they pay an average of 

even Rs. 1000 per year, this amounts to an underground economy of 2 billion rupees, firmly 

rooted for at least 150 years. 

Failure to implement official programmes 

In India today it is in the tribal and other forested lands that nature is most bountiful. Sadly, 

the human communities coexisting with this wealth of nature are afflicted by poverty and 

malnutrition. Clearly we must transform the system that has created this equation of riches 

of nature coupled with deprived human communities. Of course, we must conserve, and, 

indeed, rejuvenate nature; but surely not by treating our own people as enemies. The many 

different components of our own society and our system of governance are undoubtedly 

55


inflicting wounds on the natural world today. So, all of us must learn to deal with natural 

resources in a disciplined and prudent manner. But this cannot be achieved merely through 

imposing restrictions on communities living close to nature. After all, such communities do 

have a greater stake in the health of the environment. However, it is only in exceptional 

cases that local people are today taking good care of the natural world. This is because, 

beginning with the British times, people have been deprived of all rights over natural 

resources, and these have been dedicated, initially to meeting colonial demands and lately to 

serving industrial and urban interests. We have made available to the plywood industry for 

as little as sixty rupees, giant wild mango trees which yielded fruit famous for pickles worth 

hundreds of rupees every year. Such perverse incentives have destroyed people's 

motivation for guarding nature. 

Fortunately the tide is turning. Joint Forest Management (JFM), Extension of Panchayati Raj 

to Scheduled Areas (PESA), Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers’ Rights Act (PPVRFA), 

Biological Diversity Act (BDA) and the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest 

Dwellers (Rights over the Forest) Act (FRA) have conferred substantial rights over natural 

resources to local communities. Along with the rights, of course, comes the duty, the 

responsibility of using this natural wealth prudently, in a sustainable fashion. At the same 

time, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme has opened up 

opportunities to earn a livelihood, while protecting nature, and rejuvenating natural 

resources. If we employ the provisions of all these various acts in an integrated fashion, it is 

surely possible to accomplish a great deal. 

It must be admitted of course that many people have misgivings about these peopleoriented 

acts, especially, FRA. They fear that: 

• The rights conferred on tribals and traditional forest dwellers would result in large scale 

tree felling. 

• The implementation of this act will adversely affect wildlife and biodiversity. 

• Tribals and forest dwellers would not be in a position to prudently manage Community 

Forest Resources. 

• Outsiders will capture the land of forest dwellers and encroach on lands rich in natural 

wealth. 

But let us ask, what may we expect, if in place of local communities, we give more powers to 

the state machinery? Will this lead to better protection of the forest cover, of wildlife, and 

halt encroachment of outsiders? Consider our experience of the last six decades of 

independence, leaving aside the awful destruction of the continent, which the British 

described as an ocean of trees on their first arrival, during the colonial period. 

• When nearly 11 % of the country's land surface under privately-owned forests was made 

over to forest authorities, delays and corruption resulted in destruction of the bulk of 

this tree cover. 

• Due to developmental projects whenever roads reached earlier inaccessible forest areas, 

there ensued large-scale felling of state forests. 

• Forest-based industries, to which were made available bamboo, or huge trees for 

pulpwood at throw away prices, promptly exhausted these resources. 

• Forest Development Corporations turned themselves into (in the words of Dr. Salim Ali 

and Mrs. Indira Gandhi), Forest Destruction Corporations and clear-felled huge tracts of 

rich natural forest without ensuring its replacement by productive forests. 

56


• Forest departments played a major role in destroying sacred groves under many guises. 

• With people viewing forest authorities as their enemies, the notorious criminal 

Veerappan remained at large for two decades, despite killing several government 

officials, and devastated the sandal wood trees and tuskers of Karnataka and Tamilnadu. 

• All tigers were poached out of the very well funded Sariska Tiger Reserve. Yet the 

government machinery did nothing beyond disseminating false information on the 

number of tigers. 

• The anti-people policies of forest authorities have landed rich wildlife habitats like the 

Keoladev Ghana National Park into serious trouble. 

Consider, on the other hand, what our people have accomplished, despite the powers that 

be continually giving them false promises, trying their best to weaken people’s 

organizations, and trying to co-opt people into the corrupt system. 

• All over the country, keystone ecological resources like peepal, banyan, gular trees 

survive in good numbers. 

• Even today we are discovering new flowering plant species like Kuntsleria keralense in 

sacred groves protected by people in thickly populated coastal Kerala. 

• Monkeys and peafowl still survive in many parts of our country. 

• Numbers of chinkaras, blackbuck, and nilgai are actually on the increase. 

• People play a leading role in arresting poachers of animals like blackbuck. 

• In many parts of Rajasthan people are protecting community forest resources such as 

"Orans". 

• In Nagaland many community forests are under good management. 

• Many Van Panchayats of Uttaranchal are managing forest recourses prudently. 

• Many village communities of the Central Indian belt are managing well forest resources 

over which they earlier enjoyed nistar rights. 

• Villages like Halakar in Karnataka are still preserving village forests well in spite of 

many attacks by state machinery. 

• Peasants of Ratnagiri district have ensured good regeneration of their private forests 

• Thousands of self-initiated forest protection committees of Orissa have regenerated 

forests brought under community protection. 

One must also emphasize that the excellent present day forest cover of Switzerland has 

regenerated entirely on community forest lands. 

After all it is the local people that benefit truly by sustaining the health of the local 

ecosystem. It is they that can guard and nurture these ecosystems most effectively. It is also 

they who possess locality specific knowledge of these ecosystems to manage them in a 

flexible fashion. Today we have a tremendous opportunity to work with the people and to 

protect and rejuvenate our natural resources, while at the same time enhancing the quality 

of people's lives. It is therefore imperative that we strive to implement not only the letter, 

but also the spirit of pro-people legislations such as Joint Forest Management (JFM), 

Extension of Panchayati Raj to Scheduled Areas (PESA), Protection of Plant Variety and 

Farmers’ Rights Act (PPVRFA), Biological Diversity Act (BDA), and the Scheduled Tribes 

and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Rights over the Forest) Act (FRA). 

57



Joint Forest Management programmes, now about twenty years old, were meant to spread 

the benefits of forestry to disproportionately poor marginalized citizens who live in the 

vicinity of forests. However, they suffer from several flaws: 

• They do not entitle all residents of a village rights in the management and rights to the 

products of the forests under their control. Many instances where the poorer inhabitants 

have been excluded from JFM groups have been seen. 

• The JFM groups do not have security of tenure since their control may be taken away 

through an administrative decision of the forest department of the state government at 

any time. This leads to insufficient incentive to invest in and safeguard forests. 

• Too much control to interfere in management is still vested in state forest departments. 

There is no provision for transparent monitoring of forest conservation. As a result, we have 

no systematic data from which to assess the effectiveness of JFM, only large numbers of 

unrepresentative case studies. A much better model for decentralized management is the 

Van Panchayat system of Uttarakhand that began in Kumaun in 1930. There is strong 

evidence from Kumaun that this type of community management is far more cost-effective 

than state management (Somanathan, Prabhakar et al. 2009). Van Panchayats have been at 

least as effective at conservation as the state has, and at one-tenth the cost. Another study, 

(Baland et al, 2008) strengthens this finding by concluding that tree damage in Van 

Panchayat forests from the lopping of branches is considerably less than that seen in 

Reserved Forests, while other measures are not significantly different. 

The Forest Rights Act of 2006 allows for community management of forests for tribal people 

and other forest dwellers as a matter of right, but leaves the design and powers of the 

community management institution unclear. As the work of last year’s Nobel laureate in 

economics, Elinor Ostrom shows (Ostrom 1990), it is crucial that there be good design of the 

community management institution so that it provides the incentive for wise use of forests. 

It follows that a well-designed community management system should be put in place 

throughout India wherever there are people living in the vicinity of forests. This would 

result in savings in expenditure on the administration of Reserved and Protected Forests of 

the order of 90%, and would greatly contribute to the welfare of people living near forests. 

These savings will be realized over time as the forest staff employed in administration and 

policing duties can be reduced in number. 

Box 5: JFPM – An experience from the Western Ghats 

Nagarika Seva Trust (NST), Belthangadi, Dakshina Kannada, from the Western Ghats was closely 

involved in the initial stages (1993) of JFPM in Kundapura division of Karnataka. Two officers of 

Karnataka Forest Department (KFD) Mr. M.L. Ram Prakash (CCF) and Mr. K.N. Murthy (DCF) were 

really interested in forming Village Forest Committees (VFCs) so that the people’s participation in the 

development and protection of forests was ensured in letter and in spirit. The first VFC was formed at 

Shirlalu village of Belthangady Taluk. NST facilitated formation of 11 VFCs in Venuru Range. 

There was great resistance by other FD officers to this process because they felt they would lose their 

power/control. Because of the commitment of these two officers more than 100 VFCs were formed in 

Kundapura Division. However, the adjacent Mangalore Division formed 25 VFCs under great pressure, 

ignoring NGOs/NST but involving timber merchants. Subsequently all these VFCs functioned just 

under FD without any people’s participation. 

There is no coordination between VFC and Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) set up under 

BDA. The functions and powers of these two bodies are to be clearly defined. BMCs are more 

democratic and participatory, though they too have not always lived up to expectation. But at least there 

is scope for people’s participation with Grama Panchayats linked to them. BMC’s scope should be 

expanded to cover even areas managed by VFCs or VFCs may be merged with BMCs. This will have 

better result with people’s participation and there will be more accountability. 

58


Convert JFM into CFM 

It may be recalled that the National Forest Policy way back in 1988 had recognized the 

meeting of local needs as an important goal of forest policy, and had explicitly de-prioritized 

revenue generation as an objective. It gave a clear incentive for participatory forestry, and 

recommended creating a massive people’s movement with the involvement of women for 

achieving the objectives of the policy which included conservation of biological diversity, 

increasing forest/tree cover, increasing productivity of forests etc. One of the immediate 

impacts of this policy was the 1990 circular from MOEF asking states to initiate Joint Forest 

Management schemes for regenerating degraded forests. 

The JFM experiment has generated many positive outcomes in different locations, but there 

are limitations also. The ‘jointness’ in JFM is seriously limited in the field, with day-to-day 

decisions being controlled by the forest official who is usually the ex-officio secretary of the 

committee. The silvicultural decisions rest with the FDs, and their focus remains on tree 

planting (often fast-growing exotic species), thereby adversely affecting graziers and not 

necessarily meeting even firewood or NTFP augmentation goals. Being implemented as part 

of bilateral/multi-lateral projects, JFM has tended to be funding-driven and therefore 

funding-dependent, with activities dropping dramatically after the project is over. 

A serious problem is that of elite capture, i.e. capture of resources by a few in the village. 

This problem bedevils all ‘participatory’ government programmes (such as watershed 

development), not just JFM. But it is particularly problematic in forest management because 

there is often divergence of interests over how to manage commonly held resources, 

between women, graziers, firewood headloaders, NTFP collectors, and those looking for 

profits from commercial timber/softwood production. Consequently, elite capture actively 

hurts marginalized groups. FDs often find it convenient to allow elite capture, and in fact to 

actively use the elite to achieve these objectives while bypassing true participation, which is 

a difficult and messy process. 

FRA provides an opportunity to reverse this situation since all JFM areas as well as 

forests under exclusive village management should be claimed by the community under 

section 3(1)(i) of the Act and managed as a community resource. To facilitate the process, 

FD should provide protection and technical support, and be responsible for ensuring 

compliance with sustainable use and conservation regulations. 

In case the gram sabha or the community is not keen to take over management of JFM 

forests under FRA, or management claims are not accepted under FRA, the government 

should take suo moto action to place JFMCs under the Gram Sabhas. This will ensure that the 

members of the JFMCs are democratically elected by the Gram Sabha. We expect 

government to learn from the past experience, and make JFM more democratic and 

participatory, giving highest priority to the livelihood needs of the poorest. 

Livelihood support through minor forest products (MFPs) 

Even the best of efforts to promote CFM and participatory JFM may still leave out vast tracts 

of forests where there is substantial use of forests by local communities but neither 

community management under FRA, nor JFM are in place. In such areas as well as in 

CFM/JFM areas, as per the 1988 Forest Policy, government should promote such silvicultural 

practices that maximise the production of NTFPs and gatherable biomass. Legal safeguards 

of providing ownership over MFPs to communities under PESA and FRA may not be able to 

prevent deterioration in the quantity and quality of the gathered NTFPs, or incomes 

therefrom. Some of the processes that may cause this are: deforestation, preference for man- 

59


made plantations in place of mixed forests, regulatory framework, diversion of NTFPs and 

forests to industries, nationalization of NTFPs, and exploitation by government agencies and 

contractors in the marketing of NTFPs. 

Therefore in addition to guaranteeing that FRA is implemented in letter and in spirit, one 

would have to address three inter-related issues for ensuring that forest dwellers’ 

livelihoods are supported and enriched by NTFPs: 

1. how to increase NTFP production, 

2. how to improve access of the poor to NTFPs, and 

3. how to maximize their incomes through marketing. 

Multiple objectives to maximise outputs from many products will require innovative and 

experimental silviculture, which must focus more on the management of shrub and herb 

layers, and on forest floor management to enrich the soil and encourage natural 

regeneration. For instance, FD’s present management of sal in Andhra Pradesh and Madhya 

Pradesh seems to be for timber, and hence only one shoot is allowed to grow. Since sal 

coppices well, degraded forests and hills close to a village should be managed under a 

coppice or a coppice-with-standards system for fuelwood and sal leaves. 

Sensitising the forest service 

Since both FRA and JFM mandate close collaboration between foresters and local forest 

dwellers, the need for a sensitive and responsive Forest Department cannot be overemphasized. 

Unfortunately, the internal culture of the Forest Department has continued to 

be hierarchical and authoritarian, and not participative. A paradigm shift in its outlook can 

be achieved by good training modules at the Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy 

(IGNFA) and refresher/in-service courses at various institutions. This and other policy 

measures within the department should aim at the following outcomes: 

• greater interaction with forest dwellers and ensuring their all-round economic and social 

development, involving them at all stages of planning and implementation of forestry 

programmes run by the Department, and supporting their own planning and 

implementation of community-based forestry programmes, 

• increasing emphasis on environmental conservation for strengthening the base for 

sustained agricultural production and water security, 

• increasing role of watershed and landscape approach to forestry requiring integrated 

land management, 

• increasing interaction between agriculture, animal husbandry and forestry, 

• greater public awareness about forestry and the demand for people’s participation in 

forestry programmes, 

• greater appreciation of the role of environmentalists in forest management, 

• more adaptive, participatory and transparent planning processes, based on robust 

research that is open to independent expertise and knowledge including from local 

communities, and 

• increasing focus on understanding and managing complex ecosystems, helping sustain 

their resilience and adaptability in the face of multiple challenges including climate 

change, conserving a range of native biodiversity rather than only individual megafauna 

species, and helping revive/sustain threatened species of both plants and animals. 

60


Box 6: Note on FRA Implementation for Kadars, a Primitive Tribal Group, in Vazhachal 

Forest Division 

1. While the Kadars constitute a Primitive Tribal Group (PTG), their community or habitat rights have not 

been discussed or established. 

2. The Forest Rights Committee (FRC) for each settlement was selected without following the rules and not 

through the gramsabha. 

3. There is a minimal level of awareness among the Kadars or tribal promoters supporters or the Tribal 

Department and the Forest Department on the nuances of the Forest Rights Act and the Rules or its 

significance and implications. 

4. There is lack of co-ordination between the concerned departments regarding effective implementation. 

5. Training programs for creating awareness seem to have been either not carried out properly or have not 

percolated down to the lowest appropriate level. 

JH Hutton (1946) stresses the importance of the Kadar tribes in his seminal book , ‘Caste in India: Its 

Nature, Function and Origin’ thus; ‚Perhaps the most primitive of the South Indian forest tribes is 

that of the Kadars of the Cochin State, a tribe which shows more traces of a Negrito ancestry than any 

other, though that is not a great deal, the proto-Australoid element predominating‛. 

The significance of the Kadar tribes has been highlighted in many anthropological studies. They are a 

primitive hunter and food gatherer tribe originally restricted to the forests and hill tracts of the 

Chalakudy river basin. Census figures show that they are less than 1500 in number. They have been 

leading a life completely dependent on the forests, small wildlife and the flowing river for fish, 

collecting tubers, honey and other minor forest produce. After one and a half centuries of constant 

forced translocation across the river basin due to clearance of forests for plantations and submergence 

of their settlements due to dam reservoirs, they are more or less stabilized along the main valley of 

the river. There are 8 Kadar settlements in the 413 sq. km Vazhachal Forest Division. Two of their 

settlements, Vazhachal and Pokalapara are within the area projected to be seriously impacted by the 

proposed Athirappilly Hydroelectric Project. In turn much of their original forest habitat has been 

destroyed and has become degraded. Presently two of these settlements in the proposed impact area 

are trying to make a living with the help of Vana Samrakshana Samithi activities under the Kerala 

Forest Department. 

The level of awareness of the Kadar tribe about the FRA and its procedures 

Except for very few, most of the Kadars at Pokalapara and Vazhachal Settlements are not aware of the 

FRA and its implications. The two or three persons within the tribe who know about the Act are only 

aware that such an Act exists and that it is for recognition, restoring and vesting of their rights. 

However they were not aware of the different types of forest rights that they are entitled to as per 

section 3 of Chapter II of the Act based on which claims can be made at the FRC. Hence the basic 

premise of the rights establishment as claimed by the Tribal Department officials is flawed. Since they 

are a PTG, they should have been made aware of sections a, c, d, e, i, j, k, and l by the Sub-Divisional 

Level Committee (SDLC) as per section 6 (k) of the FRA Rules outlining the functions of the SDLC 

before seeking claims. This has not happened. 

The Kadars are not at all aware of their community rights. They were asked to claim 8 to 10 acres of 

land by the Tribal Department and file their claims accordingly which they obliged without knowing 

the law. 

The process of implementation and where it stands now 

As per the evidence gathered from various departments and the Kadar tribes, Forest Rights 

Committees were formed without involving gramasabhas. In the first meeting itself, the tribal 

department formed FRCs without taking serious efforts to enlighten the tribes on details of the Act. 

During the selection of FRC members, they said that there would be training programs for these 

selected members. However, the Kadars claim that no such training program was conducted for them 

and for the tribal promoters. Staff from the District Collectorate, tribal department, and Athirappilly 

grama panchayat visited all tribal settlements, organized meetings and selected the FRC members 

instead of through the gramsabha process. They never mentioned the community rights that are 

specified in the law. They asked the tribes to claim some forest land and they promised to give them 

that land. 

In some colonies, FRC members filled the FRA form for the tribals and in most of the colonies, 

promoters filled the form. As per instructions of the Tribal Department, every family claimed 8 to 10 

acres near their settlements. The filled claim forms were submitted in the panchayat and were then 

transferred to the Tribal Department. The Revenue Department started a survey in each colony 

without informing the FRC members of the settlements, so that disputes occurred in some colonies 

61


while a survey. 

The Forest Department was not involved in any crucial steps of the implementation process. As per 

the Act, the gramsabha should be given guidance from the SDLC. The first SDLC meeting was 

convened only after the selection of FRC members and filing of claim forms in the Vazhachal 

Division. In this meeting, no tribes and block Panchayat members participated. Hence before forming 

FRCs, no such meeting at the SDLC seems to have occurred. The Forest Department was also 

unaware of the selection of FRC members. The SDLC did not give any information or map to the 

FRCs before filling the FRA forms. Since the Forest Department is the custodian of forest resources, 

has micro-plans for each settlement and is aware of the details of the land in which the tribes are 

settled, how these forms can be filled and forest area be claimed properly without the their 

involvement remains the larger question. 

Kerala Institute of Local Administration (KILA) seems to have provided training for tribal officers 

and Panchayat Presidents. Unfortunately, the benefits of these training programmes have not reached 

the tribes. 

According to the Athirappilly Gram Panchayat, the gramasabha was conducted. But such 

gramasabhas or oorukkoottam were never held specifically for discussing the FRA or selecting FRC 

members. Even after the selection of FRC members, FRA-related matters were never discussed in later 

gramasabhas 

As it stands now, individual rights over the forest land on which the Kadars are presently living in 

settlements seems to have been somehow established by record. However, as revealed from the 

above, even this is implemented without following the proper procedure, without creation of 

awareness amongst the Kadars on the law and without any co-ordination between the Forest and 

Tribal Department. 

Community or habitat rights has not even been discussed amongst the Kadar tribes and is yet to be 

taken up seriously in the project area as well as in other Kadar settlements in the Division. 

Biodiversity 

Over millennia, Indian society has evolved a variety of biodiversity-friendly practices. Thanks 

to these traditions, pristine patches of vegetation persist in the form of sacred groves over 

much of the Western Ghats, a myriad banyan and peepal trees dot the countryside, while 

thousands of troops of langurs and macaques roam freely in towns and villages. The Indian 

lion survives in the Gir National Park, protected against heavy odds by the Nawab of 

Junagarh in what was once a princely hunting preserve. Today India has a well-dispersed 

network of Wildlife Sanctuaries, National Parks and Biosphere Reserves, covering over 4 

percent of the land surface. This is indeed a most creditable performance in an old, densely 

settled country (Gadgil 1991). 

But the current state-sponsored approach to biodiversity conservation is evidently under 

serious strain (Singh 1995). As a major conservation measure, it has tended to focus on 

the elimination of subsistence demands of local communities, a focus that has brought in 

its wake serious conflicts. It has attempted to divorce conservation from development, and 

is today facing the threat of opening up large tracts of nature reserves to mining and other 

exploitative development (Nambiar 1993). It has paid little attention to the significant levels 

of biodiversity in areas outside nature reserves, whether it is in wetlands or on farm bunds. It 

has completely ignored issues such as in situ conservation of land races of husbanded plants 

and animals. Finally, it has treated with contempt folk practices like sacred groves, as well 

as extensive practical ecological knowledge of large numbers of Indians living close to the 

earth. 

Problems of tight control over Protected Areas 

There is a wide-spread belief amongst urban conservation activists, endorsed whole 

heartedly by the forestry establishment, that it is the local community members and their 

subsistence requirements that are the main threat to India’s wildlife. The case study of BRT 

62


hills brings out how erroneous this line of thinking has been, as does the experience of the 

Bharatpur wetland. WGEA should therefore focus on promoting proper implementation of 

the Forest Rights Act which confers on forest dwellers certain rights and responsibilities 

inside Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Parks also. 

Box 7: The tragic blunder of Bharatpur 

Unfortunately, even as knowledgeable a scientist as Dr. Salim Ali subscribed to this perspective 

without examining the issues in depth. The Bharatpur wetland, famous for large heronries in the 

rainy season and the enormous flocks of migratory birds visiting in winter, was one of the first 

wildlife sanctuaries to be created after independence at the instance of Dr Salim Ali in the 1950s. He 

had worked for years at Bharatpur, banding thousands of migratory birds. Bharatpur had been 

subject to grazing by buffaloes and other uses such as collection of khus grass by the local people for 

centuries, and had remained a biodiversity-rich habitat. However, Dr Salim Ali felt that the habitat 

would greatly benefit from a cessation of buffalo grazing and was supported by experts of the 

International Crane Foundation. These recommendations led to the declaration of the locality as a 

National Park in 1982. The rigid regulations applicable to a National Park called for total cessation of 

the livelihood activities of local people, so buffalo grazing was banned without any alternatives being 

offered. There were protests; seven people were killed in the firing that followed, but the ban was 

enforced. 

This intervention led to a totally unexpected outcome. It turned out that buffaloes were keeping a 

water-loving grass Paspalum under control. When grazing stopped this grass grew unchecked, 

rendering the wetland a far worse habitat for waterfowl, the prime objective of the National Park 

management. The numbers of visiting Siberian cranes also started to decline. Residents of the village 

Aghapur adjoining the National Park have an intriguing suggestion in this regard. They believe that 

Siberian cranes earlier had better access to underground corms and tubers, their major food, because 

the soil used to be loosened while the villagers were digging for khus roots. Since this collection 

regime was stopped on declaration of the National Park, the soil was compacted reducing the access 

of the cranes to this food. This is a plausible hypothesis worth further exploration (Gadgil et al 2000). 

Box 8: Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple (BRT) hills 

While the social impacts of denying rights to forest dwellers are high, there have also been high costs 

to the conservation of biodiversity that have not been as widely discussed. Centralized systems of 

forest management have resulted in the production of standardized responses to local ecology and 

contexts. The application of a single management system (such as bans on fire, shifting cultivation 

and forest produce harvest) has meant that local understanding and knowledge of tribals on forest 

history and ecology has been completely ignored, resulting in a collapse of forest function, 

particularly well documented in the case of the BRT hills in Mysore district of Karnataka. At the same 

time, local people have constantly argued for the re-introduction of customary practices that 

protected the forest that is now valued for its biodiversity. Giving rights to the forest and to forest 

conservation will enable local and contextual management of the forests. The systematic separation of 

people from the forest, the labeling of historic dwellers as encroachers, and complete denial of rights 

has resulted in local people becoming antagonistic to wildlife and forests. There have been increasing 

examples of subversion of state efforts to protect forests. Forest dwellers therefore set fires during the 

dry season to cause maximum damage, rather than the traditional early season burns that only burnt 

the understory. To spite the forest department, disenchanted local people align with timber and 

poaching mafias to gain some reward from the forest, which they have been denied through a 

draconian forest policy. In the rare cases that conservation has shown any success it has been through 

the use of state enforcement and not through any willing compliance with laws by local communities. 

The state has often stifled local protest by increased funding for staff, patrol vehicles and arms. The 

militarization of conservation is a growing global trend. 

Using the FRA to slow down diversion of forests 

One of the most beneficial outcomes of the FRA for conservation is that it is slowing down the 

diversion of forests for development purposes. In 2009 the Ministry of Environment and Forests 

issued a circular instructing state forest departments to obtain written consent from gram sabhas in 

areas where forest was being diverted for non-forest purposes. That people live in most forests that 

63


are being acquired for mines, dams, and major development projects and therefore require their 

rights under the FRA to be settled, has posed a huge hurdle to the till now speedy clearance of 

projects. The environmental clearance process was and continues to be a poorly undertaken effort, but 

now with the requirement of gram sabha consent and the implementation of FRA, development 

projects are facing a stiff challenge from an unexpected quarter. 

Community Forest Rights and conservation 

While much has been written about the FRA, this section will focus on the opportunities in the act for 

biodiversity conservation by local communities, using the case of Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple 

Wildlife Sanctuary in the Western Ghats. The FRA is an unprecedented law that aims to provide 

rights to forest land, forest produce and rights to management and customary practices. The focus of 

the act is to ensure that forest dwellers whose lives have been impacted by forest policy are now able 

to secure an existence in forests. It recognizes that individual rights to land are only a small part of 

livelihoods in forests. The suite of community forest rights that might be claimed are numerous and 

reflects the dependence of local people on forests, as well as their historical marginalization and 

denial of rights. 

Section 3 (1) of the FRA lists the rights that might be claimed by forest dwellers. Out of the 13 rights 

listed, two pertain to rights to land (forest land currently being cultivated and in situ or alternative 

land in case of illegal eviction in the past), and the rest are community rights ranging from forest 

produce harvest, fishing, to conversion of forest to revenue villages. The biodiversity-related rights 

are to ‘protect, regenerate, or conserve or manage any community forest resource, which they have 

been traditionally protecting and conserving for sustainable use’ and ‘right of access to biodiversity 

and community right to intellectual property and traditional knowledge related to biodiversity and 

cultural diversity’. Once vested with rights, the act empowers rights holders to ‘constitute 

Committees for the protection of wildlife, forest and biodiversity’. The act is however silent on the 

process by which these committees will interact with the forest department and other agencies which 

have so far had control over wildlife, forest and biodiversity management. This has caused some 

tension between the forest administration whose responsibilities under the Forest Conservation Act 

1980 and the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 continue in forest lands leading to resistance from state 

forest departments across the country to the vesting of community forest rights. 

The FRA provides space for local and contextual flexibility that might be used by gram sabhas and 

collaborative institutions to evolve their own mechanism for forest management. Some authors have 

argued that the lack of an institutional structure results in a lack of clarity on the functioning of these 

committees and on the relationship between the gram sabha and the forest administration (Lele 2008). 

The FRA does not give a clear road map for the roles of gram sabhas versus the forest department. A 

committee set up by the Ministry of Environment and Forests tasked with redefining the role of the 

forest department in the light of the FRA did not succeed in fully accomplishing this effort. Earlier 

decentralization attempts that laid down detailed institutional structures often resulted in intense 

bureaucratic control and usurpation of local institutions and efforts. By empowering gram sabhas and 

not mandating that they manage resources, the FRA gives communities that desire to manage their 

resources an opportunity to do so. By identifying the gram sabha as the primary institution, the FRA 

builds on nascent decentralization attempts. The lack of a prescribed institutional structure however 

means that only those gram sabhas that are politically aware will be in a position to aspire to manage 

resources on their own. It is not surprising therefore that in the several years since the notification of 

the act there has been only one instance of a gram sabha claiming and receiving rights to conserve and 

manage their community forest area, as occurred in Mendha-Lekha gram sabha of Gadchiroli district 

of Maharashtra. This is as much a result of state resistance as of local reticence, clearly itself a result of 

long decades of centralized control. 

The Council for Social Development (CSD) in its report on the implementation of the FRA noted that 

‘all non-land rights in the Act – most of which are community rights – have largely been ignored in 

implementation. The Central and State governments have treated the Act as if it is a land title 

distribution scheme.’ As noted above, the barriers to the vesting and exercising of the CFRs have been 

at the level of the state, gram sabha and civil society. In addition to the reticence of local bodies in 

claiming CFR, the resistance by the state is based on a outmoded idea that local communities do not 

have the capacity to manage their resources and that all forms of local use are degrading. This is 

based on a colonial premise of traditional practices being unscientific and degrading and that expert 

knowledge is important for the conservation of biodiversity or the management of forests. We might 

look at a few current examples to show that nothing is farther from the truth. The case study of 

Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary (BRT) in the Karnataka Western Ghats shows that 

Soligas have nuanced and contextual knowledge of local ecology. 

Rights, local knowledge and culture in a protected area 

The BRT forest has faced a series of policy changes that have impacted both tribals and the forest. The 

establishment of the sanctuary in 1975 displaced Soligas from their shifting cultivation sites to settled 

colonies. This was accompanied by a major change in land-use management. The agricultural 

practices of Soligas were altered from shifting cultivation to settled agriculture, and their forest 

64


management practices ceased abruptly including the use of early season fire that was until then 

widely used for a variety of purposes. The collection of non-timber forest produce (NTFP) was 

however allowed for several years until 2005 when following the amendment to the Wildlife 

Protection Act the collection of NTFP was banned. This had an immense impact on the livelihoods of 

the Soligas who were heavily dependent on forest produce (Hegde et al 1996, Setty et al 2008, 

Sandemose 2009). The enactment of the FRA and continued campaigning by Soliga welfare groups 

resulted in the forest department agreeing to unofficially permit the collection of Phyllanthus spp. 

(amla) fruits and honey. The FRA has been successful in producing a strong sense among the Soligas 

that their previous tenuous existence in the sanctuary will be strengthened through rights to forest 

produce harvest and to cultivable land. 

As is obvious to even the most casual visitor to BRT, the forest is smothered by the invasive species 

Lantana camara. Soligas have for long claimed that the suppression of fire has increased lantana 

density and coverage due to a lack of management. Soligas customarily managed the habitat using 

fire, which promoted the growth of tubers and controlled the understory. Fires were set early in the 

season and maintained the forest in a state of flux. Invasive species were therefore kept in check. 

‘Scientific’ forest management and the resulting ban on fires and customary management led to an 

increased density of lantana. Another observation by the Soligas is regarding the increased spread of 

hemiparasites on amla trees resulting in the mortality of adult trees. They suggest that hemiparasites 

which are sensitive to ground fires are no longer controlled by fire and thus have increased. The 

spread of lantana is truncating the population growth of tree species by preventing seedlings from 

growing through the dense lantana growth, while hemiparasites are killing adult trees. Soligas have 

thus highlighted the intricate interactions between fire, hemi-parasites and tree mortality. The 

cessation of traditional practices has given rise to an entirely avoidable ecological outcome. This is 

clear demonstration of how local communities have the capacity to manage forests. If the forest 

department had been open enough to incorporate local understandings into their management plans, 

the forests of BRT would have been in better condition than they are today. The provision in the FRA 

about gram sabha committees and their role in forest management could be the appropriate structure 

for Soligas to apply their knowledge about forest dynamics. They have in the recent times offered 

their assistance to the forest department in identifying areas that should first be cleared of lantana, 

and suggesting ways that hemiparasite density could be reduced during amla fruit harvest. 

Modern forest management has also erased people from the forests by ignoring their location, history, 

culture and knowledge. Soligas have demarcated areas of the BRT forest into yelles. Each yelle 

contains five sacred sites that are specific to a kula and are protected and guided by the presence of 

gods and spirits. Yelles are cultural spaces that housed the five sacred sites and were subdivided 

amongst the clans based on requirement for the cultural practice of members of particular clans that 

did not have a cultural space close to their dwelling. Yelles are thus kula-specific boundaries within 

which forest areas have been named. making it possible for Soligas to orally demarcate the boundary 

of each yelle. Mapping has revealed that the entire forest area within the sanctuary is comprised of 46 

yelles. The mapping effort in BRT is the first such attempt in India and has generated enormous 

interest amongst the Soligas. While there was unanimous agreement on the mapping of the sacred 

sites there were differential perceptions of the mapping of yelle depending on age and role within the 

community. Soligas who are part of the customary institutions saw the identification of yelle 

boundaries as an opportunity to rejuvenate the kula system with its traditional office and cultural 

practice. They hoped to see Soliga customary law reinstated. Soliga elders visualised the yelle as a 

boundary within which the five elements - devaru, kallugudi, veeru, samadhi and habbi - were present. 

The younger Soligas, who being aware of the recent legal provisions for claiming rights under the 

FRA are excited about using the sacred site maps as evidence to reassert local control in the landscape 

for livelihoods and identity. 

Implementation of the Forests Rights Act in BRT 

Soon after the notification of the rules for the FRA in 2008, Soligas in BRT began to actively constitute 

forest rights committees in the forest areas of Chamrajanagar district. A total of 105 committees were 

constituted in the district. The first claims filed by Soligas were community forest rights under section 

3(1)c specifically for NTFP collection and trade within the BRT sanctuary. While across the country 

the initial claims were for land rights, Soligas chose to first apply for NTFP collection rights as they 

had been banned from NTFP collection after the amendment to the Wildlife Protection Act which 

banned NTFP collection from national parks and sanctuaries. The impact of the ban on household 

income and well being has been severe. 

Although the Sub-divisional Level Committee approved the claim for NTFP rights, the District Level 

Committee has not granted NTFP rights even after three years of intense parleying by Soligas and the 

officers of the tribal and district administration. The forest department representative on the 

committee has prevented the granting of community rights citing the WLPA provisions that ban the 

collection of NTFP. This is a violation of the FRA and the Soligas are planning to appeal this decision 

with the State-level monitoring committee which is headed by the Chief Secretary of the state. 

In 2009, Soliga households in BRT and surrounding areas applied for rights to individual land and by 

early 2011 a total of 1438 Soliga households were granted individual rights to cultivated land, but not 

65


habitation. Nearly half the Soliga households are landless, so the grant of land does not in itself 

ensure better livelihoods for Soligas. Community forest rights are essential for their livelihoods and 

poverty alleviation. In addition to claiming rights to NTFP, eight Gram sabhas have applied for rights 

to fishing, grazing, conservation, and management. The BRT case reflects a country-wide pattern in 

the vesting of individual rights in forests but a great reluctance to grant community rights of any 

kind. 

Tiger reserve status for BRT affects local rights and livelihoods 

To make matters worse for Soliga rights and livelihoods, the Karnataka state government obtained an 

in-principle approval from the Ministry of Environment and Forests to declare BRT a Tiger Reserve in 

September 2010 and notified the reserve in January 2011. There were wide spread protests from all 

quarters when news of the in-principle approval was received. The Soligas wrote to minsters and 

bureaucrats in the state and central governments, including to the Minister of Environment and 

Forests and to the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), many of whose members were 

against the notification. The declaration was done in haste and without the final approval from the 

NTCA. This development nullifies the gains under FRA and threatens the Soligas with dislocation, 

curtailment and loss of livelihoods. Although the FRA is clear that all rights should be vested before 

any modification of rights can occur, the forest department is continuing to deny Soligas access rights 

to NTFPs and the forest. The declaration of core and critical tiger habitats within the sanctuary will 

lead to the eventual relocation of about 10 podus to establish inviolate areas for tiger conservation. 

This will have an immense impact on the socio-cultural and economic condition of the Soligas. The 

conflict between the forest department and the Soligas has been increasing over the past decade. The 

strict enforcement of an exclusionary conservation policy and the denying of rights under the FRA are 

fueling resentment towards the state forest department, the forests and wildlife. 


• Monitoring and strict compliance of existing Acts and Rules, laws and legal measures by 

Forest and Wildlife, Revenue Departments. 

• Participatory approach; JFM activities to be suitably improved to get the desired results; 

LSGs/NGOs and other self-help groups to be involved in conservation activities, 

especially in areas outside the PAs 

• Promote social security forest plantations as done in Gujarat to provide job security and 

profit sharing of the local community 

• Collaborative inputs from R&D Centres, Universities and other scientific institutions in 

scientifically managing the forests 

• Use the Green Indian Mission effectively by incorporating indigenous, and ecosystemfriendly 

species 

• Promote systems of providing incentives to local people for conservation efforts 

• Early detection, identification and rapid management strategies against invasive alien 

species. 

• Strengthening the Rural Development department on issues related to bamboo/reed 

resource availability/marketing and also of other NTFPs 

• Modify suitably the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme to 

promote and support forest management and NTFP cultivation 

• The Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006 has yet to be implemented in its true spirit and the 

State Forest Departments to be alerted to the fact that implementation of this act is 

needed for future forestry governance. 

• Improving the quality of the forests and take proactive measures to address the 

demographic and developmental pressures on forests 

66


Action points for Western Ghats Ecological Authority 

Support local-level consultations at Local Self-Government level and a bottom–up 

approach to achieve acceptance and transparency in the whole process. 

To improved decision making, goods and services (biodiversity values and ecosystem 

services) of forests to be valued more accurately and a master plan for biodiversity 

economics of the Western Ghats to be prepared, under the proposed WGEA. 

• Enforce principles of Responsible Forest Management and trade practices. 

• Modification/unification of various acts and rules related to forests and wildlife and 

evolve implementation strategies. 

2.6 Organized Industry 

The importance of the industrial sector in the Indian economy has risen over the years. The 

contribution of industries to the gross domestic product (GDP) has improved along with a 

rise in the share of employment in the secondary sector. The new economic policy with its 

package of globalisation, liberalisation and privatisation changed the entire scenario of the 

Indian industrial sector and a sharp rise in foreign investment is now being seen. The 

Western Ghat states are also coastal states, and as such have always attracted industries 

given the access to ports and water. In more recent times they have been important 

investment destinations. In the decade since 2000, their share of these states has been 53% of 

the total Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), with Maharashtra, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and 

Daman & Diu being about a third of the total (RBI data). These states have also been found 

attractive for the location of SEZs. 55% of the notified SEZs by 31 December 2010 were in 

these states and 60% of the operational ones. Formal and in principle approvals are also over 

50% of the total in these categories for these states, making them the industrial engines of 

India’s growth story (Table 5). 

Table 5 State-wise Distribution of Approved Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in India 

States/UTs As on 31.12.2010 

Formal 

Approvals 

In Principal 

Approvals 

Notified 

SEZs 

Operational 

SEZs 

Goa 7 0 3 0 

Gujarat 46 13 29 13 

Karnataka 56 10 36 20 

Kerala 28 0 17 7 

Maharashtra 105 38 63 16 

Tamil Nadu 70 19 57 22 

Total in WG states 312 80 205 78 

67


States/UTs As on 31.12.2010 

Formal 

Approvals 

In Principal 

Approvals 

Notified 

SEZs 

Operational 

SEZs 

Share of total (%) 54 52 55 60 

India 580 155 374 130 

Source : Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Govt. of India & Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 4320, dated on 

05.05.2010. 

http://www.indiastat.com/industries/18/industrialparksspecialeconomiczonessez/27570/stats.aspx 

• Spatial location(D B Boralkar 2010; TERI, 2005 COMAPS study, TERI Disha– Goa 

ongoing study) 

Many of the investments are concentrated in a narrow strip of districts running from South 

Gujarat to the Konkan in Maharashtra. In Gujarat, investment in the coastal districts of 

Vadodara, Bharuch and Surat account for a large share of the total investment in Gujarat. In 

Maharashtra, there are about 22,000 small, medium and large industries in the western 

coastal part of Maharashtra State, of which 234 are large scale units which are highly 

polluting and categorized by the Central Pollution Control Board as ‚Red‛ category 

industries. The principal industrial zone in Maharashtra is the Mumbai-Thane-Pune belt, 

accounting for almost 60 % of the State's output. Most of the investments in Maharashtra are 

in the coastal Konkan belt. Raigarh tops the list, followed by the neighbouring district 

Ratnagiri. The two districts together account for about 38% of the total investment while 

Mumbai accounts for 7%. One of the aspects of Maharashtra’s industrialisation has been the 

over-industrialisation of the Mumbai-Thane-Pune-Nashik belt and also the Konkan 

coastline. These regions have reached the saturation point (Deshpande et al., 1996, Gadgil, 

2010). 

In Goa, there are 20 industrial estates hosting about 2037 industrial units and 18 large 

polluting industries. Most of these industrial estates are located on the Western Ghat 

plateaus While a large number of these in operation are located within the 20 industrial 

estates, a large portion of polluting industries operate from outside the industrial 

estates.(TERI, ongoing study) 

In Karnataka, industries majorly include pulp and paper, sugar, distilleries, cement, 

petroleum, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, iron and steel, ore processing and mining. 

Coffee pulping units, mostly located in Coorg, Chikmagalur and Hassan districts, which are 

all part of the Western Ghats, have pollution problems. Cultivation of tea in the Nilgiris has 

come at the expense of the region’s biodiversity particularly in the Nilgiris and areas like 

Coonoor (Boralkar, 2010, op cit.) The huge people-wildlife conflict issue in these areas is 

partly due to this industry. 


While the attraction of industry to these Western Ghat states is beneficial, there are serious 

concerns because of the environmental and social impacts of such industries and SEZ 

locations. The social impacts are centred around land acquisition and compensation issues, 

68


while the environmental impacts are focused around demand for energy, emissions from 

factories and air pollution, water pollution due to industrial effluents, or land degradation 

due to land conversions. Many industries require large quantities of water in their 

manufacturing processes. Industrial use of water far exceeds household use. 

In Maharashtra, besides causing air pollution due to industrial processes and fossil fuel 

burning, industries discharge about 678,000 cubic meters of industrial effluent which is 

partially treated and/or treated. . The impacts of Lote MIDC on the local creeks and 

mangrove forests have been reported in Gadgil (2010) and Ratnagiri Zonal Atlas for citing 

Industries (ZASI) (2006). As an example, the Box below reports the air quality in Ratnagiri 

district, which shows critical air pollution levels in the Lote MIDC area. 

Box 9: Air Quality status in Ratnagiri District, Maharashtra 

Air quality 

Critical 

Low 

Medium 

High 

Location 

Lote MIDC area 

Awashi at Khed Taluka 

Mirzole, Zadgaon, Ranpur-Golap 

Devrukh 

Source: MPCB, Ratnagiri (2005) 

The industrial units in Goa generate industrial waste water/effluent at about 8400 cu. m per 

day as per GSPCB. All the units are reported to have their own effluent treatment plants. 

Effluent is generated mainly by the breweries, distilleries, drugs and a sugar manufacturing 

unit. 

A Zoning Atlas for Siting of Industries has been prepared for North and South Goa districts. 

It is evident from this exercise that there are no low ecological sensitivity zones (green colour 

codes) for the siting of industries. Most of Goa falls in the red and orange areas which is 

classified under the category of very high and high sensitivity to air and water pollution. A 

few areas in yellow suggest suitability of low to medium pollution potential where best 

practices and technologies are to be applied. 

Some of the concerns voiced by stakeholders with regard to the impact of industries on the 

ecosystems of the Western Ghats are the following: (Dhara, 2010) 

• Air pollution will decrease crop yields significantly, and impact negatively on human 

health and the vegetation of the Western Ghats. 

• Because of the low pH (~4), highly porous lateritic soils, and highly inter-connected 

aquifers in the coastal strip, solid wastes, including ash from thermal power plants will 

leach into the aquifers and contaminate ground water in a substantial area around the 

solid waste dumps. 

• Liquid effluents, even if treatment facilities are available, will contaminate the rivers and 

streams of the area and affect the livelihood of the local fishermen. 

69


• Industries that require copious quantities of water, eg. thermal power plants, paper 

plants, may migrate towards the Western Ghats as other parts of India gradually become 

more water-stressed. Once core sector industries—oil refineries, power plants—take root 

along the coast, other downstream and ancillary industries will follow. 


a. Promote industries and services that involve dematerialization – e.g. e-commerce, e- 

paper, teleconferencing, videoconferencing 

b. Promote education hubs for the states in the western Ghats 

c. Encourage local bioresource-based industry – vermiculture, cane crafts, apiaries, 

basket weaving, afforestation, kitchen gardens, etc. 

d. Special incentives should be given to agro-based fruit and food processing industries 

e. Encourage cottage and soft non-polluting industries 

f. The Zoning Atlas for Siting of Industries should be used as a tool for decisionmaking 

at various levels for industry, regulatory authorities and the general public. 

Perhaps the WGEA should engage with ZASI and adopt this tool to ensure that 

industry has the least impact on the ecology of the Western Ghats and the coast. 

2.7 Mining 

All of the six states of the Western Ghats have important mineral deposits, both major and 

mineral. The most important of the major minerals are iron ore, manganese and bauxite. The 

region is also rich in rare earths and sands (see Appendix 2). Mining activity, especially of 

iron ore, has increased steeply since 2002 in response to the rise in mineral prices. This is 

especially so in the case of Goa and Karnataka. When earlier an average Fe content of 55 was 

the cut off for iron ore, today this is 40. Many environmental clearances (EC) have been 

sought and given in the last few years in Western Ghat States; however, no attention has 

been given to cumulative impacts of such activity. In 2010, a moratorium on new ECs for 

Goa was declared by the Minister for Environment and Forests in response to the people’s 

demand for the same. In Tamil Nadu and Kerala, sand is being mined in huge amounts for 

construction purposes causing a number of environmental and social issues. ‚Floodplain 

mining is severe in Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam, Alappuzha, Kottayam, Ernakulam and 

Thrissur, districts. Mining of sand from back waters and beaches is common all along the 

coastal area.‛ (Padmalal, 2011, WGEEP Commissioned paper) 


Mining activity creates considerable negative externalities which are not sufficiently 

addressed. It is often ground water intensive and environmentally degrading. Forests and 

biodiversity are lost or degraded along with precious ecological services (including 

buffering capacities for climate regulation). Surface water stretches are affected as a result of 

dump run off or due to ore transport when riverborne. Air pollution is considerable both 

from operations as well as through fugitive dust from ore transport. Often, mining activity 

occurs close to wild life sanctuaries (WLS). In Goa for example, 31 leases are within 2 km of 

a WLS of which 7 are working mines; 13 leases are within 1 km of a WLS. 

Social impacts too are several: health impacts of polluted water and air; lost agricultural 

livelihoods; displacement; accidents on roads and water insecurity as mining sucks out well 

70


water from the adjoining areas. Many of these environmental and social impacts do not get 

reflected when one hears of the value that mining contributes to the gross domestic product. 

Illegal mining is observed in many parts of the Western Ghats, both in terms of no 

clearances obtained, fraudulent EIAs and/or flouting of conditions of clearances, An 

emerging view is that the agent (government) does not fully reflect the interest of the 

principal (the people). The view is also emerging that there exists government collusion with 

industry (Goa, Sindudurg, Ratnagiri, Bellary in Western Ghat states). This state of affairs has 

led to enormous disaffection in the states regarding mining activity. The strongest evidence 

of this disaffection and anger is in the state of Goa. 

The Panel was confronted with some questions from stakeholders that require reflection and 

action: 

• Why should mining not be banned to arrest the further loss of cultural and biological 

diversity and destruction of the ecology of the Western Ghats? 

• Why should mining be privileged over other land, waterways, forests and groundwater 

uses/users? 

• How have/are the intergenerational questions around mineral depletion been 

addressed? 

• Why is there so much illegal mining? Who is doing anything about it? 

• What about the corruption at all levels of jurisdiction? 


Exclusion of mining from ecologically sensitive areas/zones 

• No mining should be allowed in the Western Ghats in: 

• Current protected areas, i.e., National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries as per current 

Supreme Court orders and the Wildlife Act 1972 provisions, and 

• In regions of high sensitivity, i.e. ESZ1, as demarcated by the WGEEP for the states of 

the Western Ghats. 

• All Environmental Clearances for mines in these areas should have an additional 

conditionality requiring for 25% reduction in mining every year till 2016, when mining 

has to be stopped in ESZ1. 

• In EZ2 of the Western Ghats, current mining may be allowed but no new mining. Mining 

to be subject to strong environmental and social controls 

• In other areas of the Western Ghats, mining may be allowed but subject to the FCA and 

other clearances and strong environmental and social controls in place as discussed 

below 

• For mining within the Western Ghats, cumulative EIAs must be made mandatory rather 

than entertaining EIAs for individual leases in the same areas. 

• There may be some areas that are claimed to be ecologically very sensitive but have not 

appeared so from the WGEEP demarcation exercise. The precautionary principle should 

be applied to such areas and mining must be banned for at least the next five years until 

71


reputed institutions complete the study of biodiversity and evaluate the actual level of 

ecological sensitivity 

Action Point: Ecological Sensitive Zones to be declared by the MOEF under EPA with 

different conditionalities 

Mineral Extraction Control 

• Close all mines that have been extracting ore beyond the limits allowed by their given 

environmental clearances 

• Introduce an Fe cut off for iron ore that reflects environmental and social concerns to 

prevent the current observed rush to mine 

• Close all mines that violate norms set out by the Zonal Atlas of the States 

• Cancel all working and non-working leases in ESZ1s as proposed by WGEEP 

• Mining leases in Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Parks to be permanently cancelled 

• Mining leases in the catchment area of dams used for drinking water to be terminated 

Rules for Sand mining (Padmalal, 2011) 

• Sand mining to be audited; introduce sand mining holidays on stretches of rivers 

• Aggregate management should be considered separately from river management 

• Separate legislations are required for the purpose 

• Examine and encourage alternatives to river sand for construction purposes 

• Necessary steps are to be taken to promote regeneration of natural riparian vegetation in 

areas hit by anthropogenic interferences along the river and tributary banks 

• The developmental and infrastructural activities in the riparian areas should be carried 

out only after proper Environmental Impact Assessments by a competent authority 

Action Point: Constitute a Mining Monitoring sub-committee of WGEA 

Protection of ground water from mining impacts 

Regulation of conjunctive production of minerals and ground water 

• For mines currently operating below the water table, it should be mandatory for the 

company to have plans in place for ground water management and use that will not 

affect local wells and water supply 

• Without water mapping, no mining should be allowed to commence 

• Offsets should be mandatory, for example through rain water harvesting 

• No mining should be allowed below the water table level of the area if geological or 

other factors do not allow improved practices 

Ground water management in mining areas 

• More studies and more data to be generated on ground water in the mining areas, both 

from an anthropocentric and an ecological point of view 

• Conduct a study to examine the practice of industry on mining discharge 

72


• More data sharing regarding ground water and collaboration between departments in 

order to tackle this issue, specifically the Indian Bureau of Mines and the National 

Institute of Hydrology. 

• Create a PPP with Municipal water supply and industry to ensure piped water supply to 

all villages in mining regions within a maximum time frame of two years 

• The suitability of abandoned or exhausted pits as water storage sites could be evaluated, 

provided forest land is not involved since the law requires forest land to be restored to 

forest. 

Actionable Point: A special cell within WGEA to deal with ground water issues 

Planning for regeneration of agriculture in mining areas 

Needs to done at the watershed or micro-watershed level. 

This would include: 

• Intensive dump management of all dumps within the micro-watershed 

• Desilting of water bodies from the upper reaches to the bottom of the micro-watershed 

and treatment of the drainage network to minimise transport of silt (eg. lose boulder 

check dams) 

• Desilting of fields and/or application of soil amendments 

• Attending to issues of desiccation and loss of water 

• Participatory planning and management 

• Coordination by all regulatory and development authorities 

Incentivising improved environmental behavior in the mineral sector 

• Environmental education 

• Indicators to track environmental performance 

• Green accounting at the state level (impact adjusted income accounts) 

• Market instruments to create incentives 

• Compensation for forest preservation in resource rich states 

• Immediate adoption of a system of Rehabilitation Bonds or other financial assurances as 

required under the Mineral Concession Rules. 

Improving health in mining regions 

• Improve surveillance and monitoring of diseases and disorders and provision of relief 

and rehabilitation for people affected by mining. Mining companies should be asked to 

have a health insurance policy for people in mining regions. 

• Increased education on health disorders through Panchayat–NGO partnerships 

• Get mining to partner with Panchayats and Primary health centres to provide both 

diagnostics and treatments that are industry-linked 

• Reduce air pollution in road corridors/waterways 

• Immediate enforcement of clearance conditions to stop overloading of trucks and barges: 

73


o 

o 

Mining companies need to formulate a ‚no-overloading‛ policy and ensure that 

it is adhered to by each of the trucks/barges working for them. 

Cancellation of mine/barge permits if violation is observed 

• Tarpaulin covers to be mandatory for both barges and trucks 

• Speed limits to be imposed and enforced 

• Companies to be responsible for clean up of incremental pollution over and above what 

the government does for the taxes that it charges on road and barges 

• Revision of transportation rates: 

o 

mining companies need to keep the 10 tonne limit for current trucks in mind 

while calculating transportation rates 

• No ore carrying trucks over 10 tonne limit should be allowed on public roads 

Action Point: Constitute Mining Monitoring sub committee of WGEA 

Addressing legacy of abandoned (orphaned) mines 

• Dedicated resources to convert abandoned mines to productive assets 

o This could be either through cess, or plan funds, or specific financial transfers 

o Addressed through Public-Private Partnerships 


Investment in the mining region 

• Plan for closure: Convert closed mines to productive economic assets either for 

tourism or horticulture 

• Set up Minerals Foundation (as in Goa) which should work out a detailed plan to 

invest in region to provide common facilities 

• Invest in micro-plans for villages affected by mining 


Better practices in mining 3 

• Air pollution control measures, including use of low carbon emitting equipment and 

improved energy efficient practices. 

• Pollution control measures, including wheel washing system at every exit of the 

mine. 

• Stabilization of dumps with geotextiles and arresting of silt 

3 see Kalavampara, 2010 for more suggestions 

74


• Adopting more scientific mining technology from time to time. 

• Working preferably to demineralise one part of mine and concurrent backfilling 

system to be adopted so as to accommodate waste rocks within mining lease 

wherever applicable. 

• Scientific methods to be adopted for dump stabilization and erosion control. 

• Work with grasses only and shrubs for dumps which will control erosion better and 

quicker if dump material is to be used for backfilling 

• Proper drainage and settling arrangements before surface runoff is let out in 

surrounding water bodies. 

Box 10: Regulated Mining Model proposed by Shri D V Kesarkar, M.L.A., Savantwadi, 

Sindhudurg district, Maharashtra 

As the elected representative of this area and having a practical experience of both fields, I would like 

to suggest the following model for mining operations in the district and especially for my 

constituency. I am sure you will consider the proposal positively in the interest of this region. 

1. Only one site should be sanctioned in one village. 

2. There should be control on production of minerals on a yearly basis (one mining season). 

3. In case of iron ore, 2 hectares of land per year or depending on condition of the land should be 

allowed for the excavation. 

4. Multipit system and a controlled production system should be utilized for mining in Sindhudurg. 

5. Not more than 10 hectares should be used as a dumping ground, The rejection should be properly 

staged and hydro-seeding process should be utilized for making the dump into a green plantation 

using local varieties of plants, especially fruit-bearing plants and other important plants which are 

ecologically suitable for that area. 

6. At the end of completion of excavations of the minerals, the pit should be refilled with rejected soil 

from the second pit. The process should be continued so that at the end of 5 th year the area utilized 

should not be more than 20 hectares. At the end of the entire operation only one pit which will act as 

water storage area along with plantations on all the benches should be developed. 

7. The local community should be given a stake-holder status in the project by offering them financial 

benefits by the following method. 2.5 percent of the market value of the gross production should go 

to the land holder and villagers of the said area as the compensation of earning they have lost. 

Another 2.5 percent should be spent on infrastructure of the village including plantation of trees, 

water supply, building of new roads, construction of schools, distance service, street lights, gardens, 

play parks, etc. out of which a minimum of 25 % should be utilized for ecological improvement of the 

region. A further 2.5 percent should be kept as reserve for the future, which is to be utilized after 

closure of the industry. The utilization of this reserved funds could be decide by the WGEEP on the 

lines of Norwegian model. Based on the present market trade and production capacity of 2 million 

tones from the 2 hectare pit, each village will get Rs. 45 crores per annum. 

8. Sindhudurg being a tourism district also having good green coverage, and being rich in 

biodiversity, the following precautions have to be taken: while sanctioning any proposal especially 

regarding the iron ore deposits which are either to be exported or processed in the industrial zone, the 

area should be properly identified in the regional plan. A mechanical system for transportation of the 

mineral either in the form of slurry or powder should be used. The slurry could be transported in 

pipelines and the powder or the lumps can be transported through a closed conveyer belt system or 

in closed containers which could be transported on a ropeway. This will reduce the pollution created 

by road transportation by dust and carbon emission. 

9. The systems should be developed either individually or entire mine operators could be combined 

to erect the required infrastructure. This point could be discussed among the entrepreneurs who are 

willing to set up their unit and the WGEEP committee, and a suitable technical solution could be 

arrived at. Only those companies who are interested and ready to invest the required large amounts 

in infrastructure, including inputs regarding the conservation of ecology, should be allowed to 

engage in mining operations in the district. 

75


10. As suggested in the summary draft report of the study tour, small hydro-electricity projects 

should be promoted in the area and the excess available water after generation of electricity could be 

utilized for providing water to the farmers for agri-horticultural use in the area where mining activity 

will take place. In few cases because of the mining pits the ground water level goes down. In such 

cases the farming activity in the said area will not get affected because of the small dams. For 

example, a small dam in Phukeri village can produce electricity and give water to villages like 

Asaniye, Zolambe, Talkat, etc. Modern technology like drip irrigation can be used for proper 

utilization of the water. The company should bear the cost of the hydro-electricity generation project. 

A drip irrigation system could be subsidized through government schemes and the funds made 

available through the company for village infrastructure. 

11. It should be made compulsory for the companies to fence the entire operation area around the 

project by constructing a 2.5 meter high wall so that no animals are affected by the operations carried 

out inside the enclosed mining area. 

12. The movement of trucks and other machinery should be restricted within this compound wall, 

and the operation should take place only between sunrise to sunset. 

13. Proper precautions should be taken that during the operations, the dust is controlled by using the 

latest technique of spraying water on the entire area. Also adequate tree plantation should be done 

along the project area which will act as a barrier for sound pollution, if any. 

14. Before starting any operation in any area a proper survey of plants in the area of operation should 

be made and a nursery should be established for transplantation and ex-situ conservation. 

15. The sacred grove (dev rai) should be protected in each village; the management for conservation 

of the dev rai should be entrusted to the local communities for which the expenditure could be made 

by CSR of the company. 

2.8 Power and Energy 

The many power projects— hydro, thermal, nuclear, wind — in the states of the Western 

Ghats was one key recurring theme before WGEEP. Many stakeholders argued that these 

projects were harming the ecosystems of the Western Ghats, and questioned whether there 

really was a need for so many power projects in such an ecologically sensitive area. 4 Many 

more, especially thermal power projects, are on the anvil and it is unclear if all of these are 

needed, and sustainable, given their resource requirements and potential environmental and 

social impacts (Dharmadhikary and Dixit, 2011). 

To get a sense of the energy context, we have looked at some of the power and energy 

statistics in the Western Ghats States. The data suggest that the per capita power 

consumption varies widely in the states, from Goa being 3.5 times the national average to 

Kerala being just 2/3 of it. The proportion of villages that have been electrified is high 

relative to the rest of India, but the range of rural households without access to electricity 

ranges from 8% in Goa to 35% in Maharashtra. Industry in these states comprises both large 

and small sectors, and is the largest consumer of energy. The large-scale industry comprises 

ore processing, iron and steel, cement, petroleum refineries, sugar, distilleries, fertilizers and 

petrochemicals, all of which are large energy consumers. There also is a large small- and 

medium-sector that contributes to industrial value and provide a large source of 

employment. An important segment of this sector is energy-intensive comprising sectors 

such as foundries, brick kilns, textile processing, ceramics, pottery, glassware, and bakery. 

In terms of power supply, the states show a mix. Gujarat and Maharashtra have a high peak 

supply deficit, twice the national average; Maharashtra also has a high energy shortage. But 

Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are better placed in terms of supply deficits relative to other 

Western Ghat states and also the national average. Power supply can be locally sourced and 

4 Brainstorming session on the role of the Power Sector in the development of the Western Ghats states, IISc, 

Bengaluru on 18.11.2010; 

76


produced or can be obtained from other states, but a failure to plan for needs can result in a 

mushrooming of diesel-fired back up sets which can have serious local environmental 

problems. Transmission and distribution (T and D) losses are also still high suggesting the 

need for urgent action on this front. 

Energy for cooking and lighting in households 

Figure 10 below presents the state-wise usage of LPG (Map 1) and kerosene (Map 2) as 

primary cooking fuels, and electricity (Map 3) and kerosene (Map 4) used in lighting among 

1000 rural households in various states in 2007–08. It is evident that except for Goa, where 

41% of rural households use LPG, usage of LPG for cooking is low and people are still 

dependent on firewood for their cooking needs in rural areas. Kerala reveals a higher 

proportion of rural households using LPG for cooking as compared to neighbouring 

Karnataka where households are more dependent on firewood. In urban households in Goa 

and Maharashtra, over 80% and 70% of households respectively use LPG for cooking. 

In case of lighting, more households use electricity than kerosene in the Western Ghat states 

as compared to the rest of the country. 

77


Figure 10 Fuels used in Cooking and Lighting in rural households in varous states 

Source: TEDDY 2010 

78


Power Generation Infrastructure located in Western Ghat states 

Power generation infrastructure located in the states is largely thermal (64%). Of the 

installed thermal capacity in the region, 47% is coal-based, 15% natural gas and 2% diesel. 

Hydro power represents 14% of installed capacity and is significant in Karnataka, Kerala 

and Tamil Nadu; nuclear constitutes 3% and is mostly located in Maharashtra. Renewable 

energy sources, essentially wind, comprise 19% of installed capacity and is important in 

Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka. (Figure 11) 

20000.00 

Installed capacity (MW) as on 31 March 2010 

18000.00 

16000.00 

14000.00 

12000.00 

10000.00 

8000.00 

6000.00 

4000.00 

2000.00 

0.00 

Goa Gujarat Maharashtra Karnataka Kerala Tamil Nadu 

States 

Coal Gas Diesel Nuclear Hydro Renewable energy sources 

Figure 11 Power Generation Infrastructure located in Western 

Source: TEDDY 2010 

A number of thermal power sector projects are planned in the state of Maharashtra in the 

period ending 2012. Hydro power projects are also planned in Karnataka and Kerala. Two of 

the more controversial ones, Gundia in Karnataka and Athirappilly in Kerala are discussed 

in detail in Part I of the report. Papers on these topics are also available on the WGEEP 

website – http://www.westernghatsindia.org/ 

The many planned projects are creating concerns in various districts. In Raigad and 

Ratnagiri, for example, Prayas notes that 33000 MW of thermal power projects are in the 

pipeline for environmental clearances. Many of these power projects will have serious 

environmental and social impacts. Given that they are planned to be set up in clusters, there 

are also cumulative impacts that need to be considered (Dharmadhikary and Dixit, 2011). 

The 2010 tour report to Ratnagiri-Sindhudurg districts by the Chairman, WGEEP, has the 

following comment which reflects the concern that while local regions have to put up with 

79


the negative externalities of power plant development, the benefits go to very different sets 

of people: 

‚The current energy requirements of these districts are 180 megawatts a year, while the 

current production is 4,543 Megawatts (Koyna 2000 MW, RGPCL 2200 MW, Finolex 43 MW, 

JSW 300 MW and remaining 900 MW proposed within 2-3 Months) a year. So these districts 

are more than meeting their own requirements and contributing to the national pool.‛ 

Further, 

‚If Mumbai has huge requirements, one may reasonably propose that a giant coal based 

power plant be located on the Malabar Hill, which offers a topographical situation identical 

to the current site of Jindal plant. Such location will have the further huge advantage that the 

power will not have to be transmitted over huge distances, greatly reducing transmission 

losses, and the huge losses of horticultural production under power lines in the Ratnagiri- 

Sindhudurg districts.‛(p 6) 


The development-environment trade-off has its strongest manifestation in the energy and 

power sector. The dependence on fossil fuels in this sector has implications for the global 

and local environment. As people of this country become part of a global community, as 

more people move into the middle income classes, material aspirations tend to rise. We see 

in India, the increased aspirations of a people moving up the income ladder and demanding 

the trappings of a ‚modern‛ life which creates a whole set of new energy consumers, new 

political pressures, increased demand for mobility, all of which result in an increased 

demand for energy and fuels. Along with this growth-driven demand for energy, there is a 

large proportion of people who have no or little access to electricity for lighting and are still 

dependent on the use of ‚dirty‛ fuels for cooking and lighting that are detrimental to their 

health and well being. So we are faced with three key aspects of the dilemma – how do we 

meet energy for growth, and address energy poverty while also protecting the environment? 

Considerable concern is expressed about the environmental and social impacts of existing 

and proposed power infrastructure. 5 Construction and maintenance of energy facilities in 

sensitive zones of the Western Ghats, it is argued, can affect ecosystem structure through 

clearing of vegetation, and habitat loss or fragmentation. This can affect not only the fauna 

and flora but also the microclimate in the region. The major impact that power plants have 

had and continue to have is loss of forest cover, where forest has been cleared for a dam. 

Compensatory afforestation as a measure required under the law exists but does not restore 

the richness and the complexity of the biodiversity lost when original forests are cleared. 

Other impacts include degradation of vegetation due to thermal emissions or pollution of 

water bodies due to release of effluents. The effects of thermal power plants on the 

environment are mainly due to temperature rise of water and fly ash. Temperature also 

exerts direct influence on toxicity. Higher temperatures of water would lead to greater 

dissolution of chemicals and other pollutants such as grease leading to greater 

environmental damage. Apart from the rise in temperature, discharged waters are also 

altered chemically during the cooling processes. The water contains chlorine and other BOD 

material, which affects aquatic life adversely. 

5 Brainstorming session on the role of the Power Sector in the development of the Western Ghats states, IISc, 

Bengaluru on 18.11.2010; WGEEP analysis 

80


Fly ash is known to contain heavy metals such as Zn (6%), Ba (12.2%), Cu (1.3%), As (0.02%), 

V (0.08%), Ti (0.02%) and Mn (0.23%). Particles of fly ash also contain toxic elements such as 

lead and mercury (Sankarapandi, 1994, Prayas, 2011). Reproduction of fish is affected due to 

deposition of fly ash in the marginal areas of the river, which act as their breeding grounds. 

Fly ash covers extensive areas of the bottom, blanketing off the substratum, resulting in 

retardation or total elimination of benthic communities. Thick deposits of fly ash at the 

bottom make the nutrients unavailable to the aquatic community and thereby affect 

productivity. 

It was pointed out at our stakeholder meetings that cumulative impacts studies are needed 

for the proposed merchant power plants in the Konkan region, and improved EIA practices. 

Many concerns were expressed on the overdevelopment of river basins of the Western Ghats 

for hydropower or water projects. There were suggestions that the origin of rivers be 

declared as ‚no go‛ areas to protect the rivers and that no new dams be allowed in overdeveloped 

basins. The need to maintain the environmental flows of rivers was also 

highlighted. 6 Above all, it was highlighted that the cumulative impacts on the ecosystems of 

the Western Ghats of all the projects that exist and are proposed for the states have not been 

assessed. 

Given the sensitivity of the Western Ghats, many have suggested that it is important to find 

ways in which energy needs can be met through more efficient energy use and less 

degrading, less polluting, intrusive energy sources. Renewable energy is indeed being 

actively encouraged in many states given the more global concerns with fossil fuel based 

energy. The need for land and water for solar power and the local social impacts this can 

have was also highlighted. Another insufficiently studied impact, but often cited in our 

stakeholder meetings, is from transmission lines as these can also cause linear intrusions or 

linear fragmentations of habitats. In case of renewable energy projects, it was suggested that 

decentralized off-grid generation be promoted in the more ecologically sensitive areas to 

avoid the need for long transmission lines. 

However, there is need for a greater understanding of the impacts of the development of 

these renewable energy sources on the local environment. For example, large scale wind 

energy farms do have significant effects on local ecosystems (NRC, 2007). There are many 

commercial proposals to erect wind mills in the Western Ghats and several have also been 

completed. Unfortunately, the areas deemed suitable for windmills, i.e. where there may be 

continuous high velocity winds are also the crest lines of the Western Ghat mountains which 

have the steepest slopes, the most fragile ecosystems, and are also accessed via equally 

biodiverse lateritic plateaus which harbour some of the most unique biodiversity elements 

in the Ghats. Hauling construction cranes (of the size used for building skyscrapers in cities) 

required to erect the huge wind masts as well as hauling the wind masts themselves to these 

crests of the mountains also requires the construction of roads in these remote areas which 

in turn necessitates the large-scale destruction of forests, habitats and soils, including 

leading to landslides and massive soil erosion in these high rainfall areas. A WGEEP study 

(by Madhav Gadgil and Renee Borges) of one such windmill project completed by 

ENERCON just 2 km from the boundary of the Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary in 

Maharashtra highlighted the grave destruction of the pristine environment in the area by 

this supposedly ‚green technology‛. (see reference to this project also in Part I of the 

WGEEP Report). The ‚zone of influence‛ of this project therefore was much larger than the 

length of the roads, or the area covered by each windmill mast and associated structures 

6 A Latha, Bengaluru meeting. 

81


which was projected by the company as the area under the project. This study therefore 

clearly highlighted the urgent need for supposedly green technologies such as windmills to 

also undergo a comprehensive cumulative impact assessment before their clearance, as 

currently such technologies being considered ‚green‛ are exempt from requiring an EIA. It 

is recommended that a moratorium be placed on all wind energy farm proposals until 

comprehensive EIA studies are conducted. In any case, WGEEP has also recommended that 

no windmills be allowed in ESZ1. 


Several measures can be recommended as responses to the policy dilemma posed in the 

opening paragraph. These can be grouped under: demand side management, increased 

clean energy supply, clean fossil fuel technologies in production and use, and improved 

environmental governance around the power sector 

With regard to energy demand 

• The need to revisit the concept of energy equity in the Indian context, wherein some 

groups of people in the Western Ghats (and other) states are over-consuming energy, 

while others are energy poor. In the context not just of global concerns, but local 

environmental and social issues linked to energy production and use, there is need for 

an energy policy that clearly reflects sustainability and equity considerations. There is 

need to differentiate between ‚luxury and wasteful‛ and ‚reasonable and adequate‛ 

energy consumption in all of our energy demand projections. The equitable per capita 

energy consumption norms that are being demanded in the climate change debate across 

countries should also be studied for their relevance across regions and groups 

domestically. 

• Much more emphasis is needed on assessing state potential to undertake energy 

efficiency measures in various sectors to reduce demand projections The role of the 

Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE )was emphasized here. Need to include estimates of 

energy efficiency potential in energy demand forecasts, so that demand figures are 

reasonable, not portrayed as gigantic as this creates pressure for increased energy 

supplies which can have adverse environmental impacts 

• Educating the energy consumer about the environmental and social impacts of energy 

production and the need for reducing ‚luxury‛ demand 

• There is need also to launch ‚smart‛ campaigns as key components of demand side 

management, focusing on smart grids, smart buildings, smart power, smart logistics and 

smart motors 

With regard to energy supply 

• Encourage the use of clean energy – renewable energy projects and energy efficiency; 

wherever possible, small renewable projects to be encouraged 

• Micro and mini hydel projects in ecosensitive areas in the Ghats should be designed 

more to meet local power demand and not to feed to the grids as power lines are needed 

to evacuate power from these plants 

• The importance of allowing for the intermittent nature of some renewable energy 

sources and ensuring backup storage facilities 

• Use of Smart grids 

82


o 

o 

o 

To enhance communication and computing capability to improve flexibility of 

energy infrastructure 

To enable better monitoring of electricity flows across the grid and improved 

preventive maintenance 

Reduction in T&D losses 

• Encourage states to adopt regulatory policies of open access to have more efficient and 

reliable electricity supply and reduce the need of using polluting diesel-fired back up 

units in industry. 

• Upscaling interesting energy innovations: For example, a model micro-hydro 

community system in Pathanpara Kerala, where according to reports financing for the 

project was secured from the village through cash or kind. The models used by SELCO 

to provide solar energy in unelectrified villages or the LABL model for solar lighting 

need a careful assessments of the lessons they offer. 

• Introducing benefit sharing arrangements when land is acquired: For example, a recent 

report that the Kerala government had mooted a business model for an 80 MW wind 

power plant with tribals of Palakkad. This will be a partnership between NTPC, KSEB 

and the tribal people of Palakkad. The commercial agreement will involve a fixed 

amount of money per unit of power generated on tribal land (FE 22 June). 

With regard to environmental clearances 

• Need for a complete overhaul of environmental clearance procedures of power plants. 

• EIA procedures should take into account carrying capacity of region and also require 

cumulative impact studies when power plants are planned to be in clusters. 

• As of now EIA guidelines in India do not include renewable energy projects. This should 

be corrected as it is increasingly well established that they do have several impacts 

especially wind farms. For example, UNEP has prepared guidelines for environmental 

due diligence of such projects which could be examined. Wind mill projects should be 

required to have a cumulative impact assessment before clearance is accorded. 

• Need for greater environmental and social impacts studies and anticipatory planning for 

renewable energy projects as these are poised to take off. 

• Need for greater care in clearing thermal power projects by the MOEF in the Western 

Ghat region 

• Strict adherence to environmental clearance conditions when projects are sanctioned 

• Social and environmental audits to ensure such conditions are met 

• Good practices to be followed at all life cycle stages – pre siting, construction, 

development, operation and closure 

• CAMPA funds should be used to promote green jobs in the states where these funds 

have been collected. 

Actionable Point: A special cell within WGEA to deal with power and energy sector-related 

issues 

83


2.9 Tourism 

Tourism in the Western Ghats has been increasing steeply. The forms of tourism observed 

are nature based: ecology and wildlife; religious; social; and business (see Equations, 2010, 

WGEEP Commissioned Paper). Religious tourism has the highest share of tourism in the 

Western Ghats followed by nature-based, social and business; the largest share of tourists is 

from the domestic sector. Tourist flows have risen quite steeply to the Protected Areas (PAs) 

in the Western Ghats – Periyar, Mudumalai, Bandipur, Nagarhole, Dandeli-Anshi since 

2000. The growth of resorts close to the PAs post 2000 has been recorded in several studies 

(Equations, 2010). Most of the tourism is unplanned and unregulated. However, it is 

observed that even planned world class tourism projects, e.g Amby Valley, Lavasa, have 

considerable local impacts. Tourism is promoted by the Centre and states without any 

proper EIA and Cumulative Impact Assessments. 


Some of the main environmental footprints relate to the uncontrolled growth of tourist 

establishments in the Western Ghats leading to habitat fragmentation and increasing 

human–animal conflict. There is also a tremendous increase in garbage which attracts 

various pest species and also causes an increase in pathogens and disease. Untreated water 

is discharged into the open and this impacts vegetation and ground water. There is also 

increased risk of fires. Intensive water demand from tourism is a natural outcome. 

On the socio-cultural front, it is argued that there are changes in traditional livelihoods – e.g. 

agriculture because of land use change and labour shortages and loss of access by 

indigenous and local communities to their land and resources as well as sacred sites. Despite 

ecotourism, arising as a concept to promote nature conservation, it is found that the way 

ecotourism is practiced in India, it is being perceived as becoming just another form of mass 

tourism. However, "ecotourism is environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively 

undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural 

features - both past and present) that promotes conservation, has low negative visitor impact, and 

provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local populations." (IUCN) 

Policy attention is required on the following key pressures on ecosystems arising from: 

• The increased pace of tourism 

• Increased externalities of tourism 

• Location of tourist infrastructure, depending on size, numbers 

• Tourist behaviour – noise, waste generation and disposal, 

• Absence of waste management and waste water management 

• Local impacts on livelihoods, culture 

• Absence of benefit sharing 


Tourism needs special attention in the Western Ghats. Such sites need to be understood as 

production–consumption systems (PCS). These are ‚systems in which environmental goods 

and services, individuals, households, firms and states are linked by flows of materials, 

energy and relationships in which transactions of money and information or negotiation of 

power and influence take place‛ (Lebel and Lorek, 2010, p 6) 

84


Sustainable PCS involve 

• Management of risk and uncertainty through strong sustainability rules; 

• Use of industrial ecology principles, eco-technologies, in activities 

• Adoption of carrying-capacity concepts, pollution prevention and polluter pays 

principles in regulation 

SPCS are linked with notions of the carrying capacity of a location 

• Allowing tourism up to the environmental carrying capacity while exceeding cultural or 

social limits may not be in the interests of sustainable development in the Western Ghats 

• Investments can be made in order to increase a region’s carrying capacity (e.g. in water 

recycling, establishment of green corridors for wildlife, etc.). 

• Technological or policy innovations or more efficient use of resources may also ease 

environmental limitations. 

More specifically, 

In ESZ1, 

Ecotourism policy of MoEF to be followed refined by the WGEA to promote minimal 

impact tourism in the region 

• Strict regulation for waste management, traffic and water use 

IN ESZ2 

Strict regulation, on the basis of a Tourism master plan and social audit. 

Tourism Master Plan should be based on carrying capacity of area and after taking into 

account social and environmental costs. 

In ESZ3 

Strict regulation and social audit of tourist projects 

Tourism Master Plan should be based on carrying capacity of area and after taking into 

account social and environmental costs 

More generally, 

• Small scale tourism should be encouraged adopting benefit sharing with local 

communities: small get-aways, spice farms, homestead tourism, etc. Tourism 

infrastructure, particularly accommodation, should be encouraged to be eco-friendly, 

with careful use of locally available materials. Incentives for the same need to be given in 

the form of subsidies. 

• Concretisation around springs, lakes and other perennial water bodies. should be 

discouraged 

• There should be careful thought given to tourism infrastructure. 

o 

o 

Site specific control of tourism infrastructure in buffers of Protected Areas 

Provision for rainwater harvesting should be made compulsory for all new large and 

medium tourist infrastructure in the Western Ghats 

• Restriction on vehicular movements 

85


• Careful planning for the management of waste 

o 

o 

o 

Actionable Point 

o 

2.10 Transport 

Strong regulation of use of plastics and ban of use of plastic bags by commercial 

establishments, shops, etc. 

Special arrangements for water bottle collection 

Encourage more local partnerships for waste management in tourist sites 

A special cell within WGEA needs to be constituted to deal with tourism-related 

issues. Control of tourism developments and activities, including licensing and 

overall targets for and limits to the scale and type of tourism should be overseen 

by the WGEA 

Transport infrastructure is key to the connection of different parts of the country, to enable a 

balanced regional development, for developing a communications network and to promote 

intra- and inter-state commerce and industry. In the case of the Western Ghats, the long 

western coastline and the need for connecting this to the hinterland of the peninsula is 

obviously an important infrastructural imperative. Presently, only the Palghat Gap provides 

a passage between the coast and the hinterland through the plains. However, roads, 

railways, and highways passing through the hilly terrain of Western Ghat region have been 

one of the key instruments of change affecting its ecological status. The Panel notes that the 

rapidly rising demand for transport infrastructure has been of serious concern, given the 

impacts that they have on the forest, biodiversity and wildlife of the Western Ghat region. 


Roads and railway lines also bring in their wake linear development of human settlements 

and other forms of land-use change. In many cases, such linear development is more 

harmful to the ecology as compared to the direct impact of the transport project itself. The 

development of transport infrastructure is of great concern to ecological and biodiversity hot 

spots as they fragment habitats and cause biodiversity loss. Roads passing through hilly 

terrain involve considerable blasting and cutting of rock/soil along the slopes. 

Apart from immediate concerns of disturbance to the natural habitat, this increases the risk 

of landslides during periods of heavy rainfall as has occurred commonly at several places in 

the Western Ghats, a good example being the Mettupalayam to Udhagamandalam road in 

the Nilgiris that has witnessed frequent landslides. At the same time, the steep cuts along 

roads across hilly terrain make it impossible for larger animals such as elephant to get 

across; typically their movements are restricted to narrow passages along stream or river 

courses or even completely broken. Road kills of animals is a commonly observable 

phenomenon along road in the ghats, especially those that go through flat terrain thereby 

allowing vehicles to move at high speed. Permanent lighting on roads, honking, the speed of 

vehicles, accidents, and disturbance to the animal life in the forests are other serious issues. 

Road construction is under way not only across the Western Ghats but also along the crestline, 

thus dissecting wildlife corridors, and isolating the already small patches of forests and 

wilderness. There are again constant demands for new roads in the region. Many more 

projects are on the anvil and thus require serious attention given their potential impacts. 

86


Paranjpye (2011, pp 14-17) notes that while in the Nineties, the number of roads cutting 

across the Northern Western Ghats was around thirteen, the number in 2011 was twentyone. 

(Box 11 ) This list is not exhaustive but indicative of the road development in the region. 

This number includes the four-lane Express Highway connecting Pune and Mumbai as well 

as the highway under construction between Nashik and Mumbai. Paranjpye (2011) notes 

that the construction of the Mumbai-Pune Expressway has resulted in irreparable and 

irreversible damage to the proposed Fr. Santapau Wildlife Sanctuary near Lonavala. In the 

early 1990s, he reflects ‚a road meant the development of towns and villages which often 

developed at the intersection of roads and became an outlet for the forest produce, timber, 

minerals, etc. However, the trend today is that these areas sandwiched between the three 

metropolitan (Pune, Mumbai and Nashik) areas are slowly falling prey to land grab for large 

scale industrialisation and the urban crawl, which wipe out entire patches of forests at a very 

rapid pace.‛ 

The Konkan Railway, completed in 2001/2002 is one such contested space of environment 

versus development, and impacts on coastal versus forest ecology. The Railway traverses 

through 4 of the 6 states of the Western Ghats and many of its districts. The Railway has had 

a number of impacts, both on forest and coastal ecology, more on the latter because of its 

alignment and was much fought against in the state of Goa as it was expected to have, and 

has had, enormous impacts on coastal ecology, especially on mangrove forests, swamps and 

khazan lands. A number of track maintenance problems and collapse of tunnels have been 

observed, along with frequent incidents of landslides and slippages blocking the track. The 

Railway has involved diversion of forest land as it crossed parts of the Western Ghats as 

documented by Ranade (2009). 

Similarly, the number of major roads in the southern Western Ghats have also resulted in 

ecological problems. For instance, the highways from Mysore through the Protected Areas 

of Nagarahole, Bandipur, Mudumalai and Wynaad in the states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu 

and Kerala witness heavy traffic with resulting disturbance to wildlife (Vidya and Thupil 

2010). In 2010 the Karnataka High Court imposed a ban on movement of traffic across these 

highways during the night, an order that has been contested by traders from Kerala. The 

Tenkasi-Kollam railway line and the highway across the Shencottah Gap in southern Tamil 

Nadu and Kerala has now completely cut off the movement of elephants between the north 

(Srivilliputhur-Ranni-Konni Divisions) and the south (the Kalakkad-Mundanthurai and 

Neyyar Reserves), isolating the relatively smaller population in the south. 

There have been a number of recent demands for more railway lines through the southern 

Western Ghats. These include the proposed Hubli-Ankola line, the Talguppa-Honnavar line, 

the Mysore-Kannur line, the Chamarajnagar-Satyamangalam line, and a line to Sabarimalai. 

The proposed Chamarajnagar-Satyamangalam line would pass through the forests of 

Satyamangalam Forest Division, the steep slopes of the Talamalai plateau and through the 

Moyar River Valley, a major stronghold of the elephant. The potential for train accidents 

involving elephants would be very high. The line would also effectively slice through the 

only connection between the Western Ghats and the Eastern Ghats. For the present, 

clearance has not been provided for this railway line on the basis of the scientific evidence. 

87


Box 11: List of Roads across the Northern Western Ghats 

Sakri – Pimpalner 

Sakri – Dahivel 

Kalwan - Dhule 

Nashik - Kasara 

Sangamner – Bhandardara 

Ahmednagar – Kalyan 

Pune – Nashik 

Pune – Mumbai Old 

Pune – Mumbai Express 

Pune - Satara (Katraj) 

Pune - Satara (Kumbharli) 

Karad – Chiplun 

Satara – Mahabaleshwar – Poladpur 

Kolhapur- Shahuwadi – Ratnagiri 

Rajapur – Kolhapur 

Kolhapur – Kudal ( Phonda Ghat) 

Belgaum – Kudal 

Nipani – Kudal 

Panji – Belgaum 

Pune – Bhor – Mahad 

Source: Paranjpye, 2011, p 10-11 

Figure 12 The Mumbai-Pune 

Expressway Courtesy 

www.amitkulkarni.info. 

Source: Picture 9, V Paranjpye, 2011 


The Panel recommends the following: 

• No new railway lines and major roads in ESZ1, except where it is highly essential (as 

perhaps in Goa), and subject to EIA, strict regulation and social audit. Goa is a special 

case because it has most of its current development, including the Konkan Railway 

located along its coastal regions. Balancing development and decongesting the coast thus 

requires some movement to the talukas in the Western Ghats, which are mostly 

demarcated as ESZ1 by the Panel. Given that Goa‟s boundary with Karnataka is in ESZ1, 

88


it may require some leeway on this issue. Goa‟s Regional Plan 21 also has plans to 

spatially move development to inner talukas and this will require some transport 

infrastructure development. 

• Avoidance of new highways, expressways in ESZ1. 

• No new railway lines and major roads, except when highly essential and subject to EIA, 

strict regulation and social audit in ESZ2. 

• Upgrading of roads and railways is permissible in ESZ2 subject to strict guidelines. 

• Essential new roads/ railways may be allowed in ESZ3 subject to strict regulation and 

social audit. 

• A master plan be prepared for the transport sector in the entire Western Ghats that 

would take into consideration both present needs and future demands of transport of 

people and goods across the ghats in relation to the biodiversity and ecological value of 

the area. Such a master plan could then make recommendations of possible development 

of essential railway line/s and/or roads that would cause the least disturbance to the 

ecology. 

• All future proposals for railway lines and roads should undergo a thorough 

environmental and wildlife impact assessment. The WGEA should set up a sub 

committee (comprising all relevant stakeholders and local communities and tribes) to 

assess the environmental and ecological impacts of constructing any transport 

infrastructure through rich forests, wildlife habitats and wildlife corridors. 

• Before a project is approved, necessary mitigation measures including engineering 

solutions such as tunnelling, bridges, overpasses or elevated roads to facilitate the 

passage of animals, should be a mandatory part of the project design. 

2.11 Human Settlements 

Changing trends of ownership and lifestyle 

Over the past few years, villagers have been selling their lands, and either work as labour on 

the land or migrate to nearby towns / cities in search of work and a ‚better‛ life. The new 

owners, i.e. city people purchase lands from these farmers and convert it into a farm house / 

resort with city amenities and city plans. Many times they convert the land into horticulture 

plantations (mostly mango especially in Maharashtra), or introduce non-native plants for 

landscaping/greening purposes or try out innovative plants like tea, coffee, etc. But for all 

these activities, the original plant diversity is removed indiscriminately. Increasingly, the 

Western Ghat areas are now being occupied by urban individuals / developers with land 

holdings ranging from 0.5 acres to 1000+ acres. These people are politicians, developers, the 

common man, corporates, and industrialists. 

Second homes 

When cities started becoming overcrowded and polluted, people needed a weekend 

destination and creative developers offered it with farm-house schemes and resorts. For the 

past two decades, the Western Ghats have become dotted with farmhouses, resorts and their 

ilk, attracting elite city people. City dwellers need a neat and clean look and all city 

amenities wherever they travel. This started the massive development of the hills to modify 

89


and conquer nature. At the same time, when city people were attracted to the hills, the 

village people wanted city life. So they started selling land, and migrating to cities. 

City lifestyle in the Ghats 

City people living in the Ghats need all the modern amenities even in countryside houses. 

Good wide roads, water, electricity, etc., are all needed for the weekend home. The 

infrastructure is built with inert and non-renewable materials like cement, steel, bricks and 

quarried stone. Palace-like houses are replete with ACs, TVs, marble, and similar luxuries. 

Consequently, the weekend home becomes more lavish and energy-consuming than a city 

home. Along with urban amenities, elements in city gardens are incorporated in the hill 

gardens. Gardens with excessive resource consumption and non-native plants are laid out 

with large lawns and flower beds which need daily watering, fertilisers and pesticides. The 

gardens are overlaid with pathways, paving, steps, etc., consuming a lot of cement. Many 

times invasive plant varieties are used that are dangerous to local ecosystems. There are no 

guidelines or norms for garden development in sensitive hilly areas. 

Hills to developed destinations 

Depending on ownership, the resultant treatment to the land and its impact on ecosystems 

vary. 

• Individual owners - Farm house, Resort, Farm lands, Horticulture 

• Land developers – Farm house scheme, Resort, Townships 

• Industries – IT park, Processing units, Floriculture etc. 

A large number of farm houses and resort projects are being set up all over the Western 

Ghats on land holdings ranging from 10 acres to 500 acres. This is apart from huge projects 

like Amby Valley and Lavasa. Developmental activities associated with these projects are 

roads, terracing, vegetation cutting, construction and landscaping, all proving dangerous to 

biodiversity. Such impacts cannot be measured or compensated by any amount of greening 

activities. 


These new settlement patterns and developments are resulting in hill cutting and physical 

changes in slope profile due to roads, terracing, construction, etc. Modification in 

hydrological patterns are noticed; terracing is causing removal of vegetation and soil and 

changes in hill topography. Dumping of material like stones, sand, bricks is observed as is 

quarrying for stone, murrum, and soil for various construction purposes. 

Allied (or indirect) activities required as support structure during development also cause a 

lot of damage to ecosystems. These are: 

• Establishment of a labour colony and temporary settlements on land 

• Problems of waste disposal, both solid and liquid 

• Increase in vegetation cutting for fuel wood 

• Increase in wildlife hunting 

• Temporary access roads 

• Quarries and stone crushers 

90


• Disturbance to slopes & streams 

• Temporary material storage cause levelling of large areas 

• Stone dust causes air, soil & water pollution 

• Ill effect of accumulation of stone dust on vegetation 

Hydrology changes 

• Canalisation, modifications, removal of boulders, loss of riparian vegetation, habitats 

pose threat to stream ecosystem and its function 

• Changes in natural streams & hyporheic zones 

• Loss of special biodiversity like streamside vegetation and aquatic life 

• Destruction of natural springs and oozes 

• Alteration of sub-surface flows 

• Damage to ground water table 

• Introduction of waste water to water bodies 

• Increase in runoff due to hard paved surfaces and reduction in water percolation 

Soil: 

• Increase in soil erosion 

• Resource is wasted during construction activity 

Vegetation: 

• Major loss to unique floral species 

• Introduction of non-natives for plantation 

• Underground tubers are removed 

Fauna 

• Direct impact on small and ground dwelling fauna 

• Destruction of migratory routes and corridors 


The Panel recommends the following: 

o 

o 

o 

o 

For all settlements and built areas/ to be developed areas, certain types of areas 

would be no-go areas, including water courses, water bodies, special habitats, 

geological formations, biodiversity rich areas, and sacred groves 

Special Economic Zones should not be permitted 

New hill stations should not be allowed 

Public lands should not be converted to private lands 

91


In ESZ1, 

o 

o 

Change in land use should not be permitted from forest to non-forest uses or 

agricultural to non-agricultural, except agriculture to forest (or tree crops), and 

except when extension of existing village settlement areas to accommodate 

increase in population of local residents. 

For existing built structures such as hotels, resorts, the tourism policy of the 

MOEF appropriately refined by WGEA, to be followed 

In ESZ2. 

o 

o 

Change in land use should not be permitted from forest to non-forest uses or 

agricultural to non-agricultural, except agriculture to forest (or tree crops) except 

when extension of existing village settlement areas to accommodate increase in 

population of local residents. 

For existing built structures such as hotels, resorts, the tourism policy of the 

MOEF appropriately refined by WGEA, to be followed 

A building code should be evolved by the WGEA which include inter-alia eco-friendly 

building material and construction methods, minimising the use of steel, cement and sand, 

providing water harvesting methods, non-conventional energy and waste treatment The 

application or detailing of the framework can be done by local authorities to suit local 

conditions. 

Certain recognized best practices of construction/development such as topsoil conservation, 

trees conservation etc. should be followed as per the guidelines of Green Building 

certifications of Eco Housing, GRIHA or any other appropriate codes to be encouraged. 

Certain activities for example filling of marshes/ wetlands, introduction of alien invasive 

species are not permitted 

o 

The area that may be paved is to be restricted; paving of ground areas may be 

done in such a manner that there is no change in the run-off / permeability of the 

plot overall before and after paving (if some area is paved, the recharge from 

other areas will have to be enhanced) 

2.12 Science and Technology 

In general, the contributions from the Science and Technology sector in solving 

environmental issues are found wanting. Eco-friendly technologies in various sectors have 

not been developed and even the available technologies have not been applied or 

popularised, to the full extent. There is need to insist on ‘Green Technology’ to be 

implemented, wherever possible in the Western Ghats region. 

Through some of the R&D Centres/ Universities have developed eco-friendly technologies, 

they do not get the desired attention and are not being utilised or transferred in an effective 

manner. 

The institutional mechanisms have to be strengthened to transfer the technologies 

developed at ISRO/ DST/ DBT and other centres of excellence in the country and State 

Science and Technology Institutions. 

92



• Scientific inputs are lacking in environmental resource management/ sustainable 

utilisation of resources. 

• No integration between R&D Centres, Universities and other scientific organisations 

both at Centre and State level in addressing environmental issues. 

• Some of the useful technical reports/ theses from various R&D centres and Universities 

related to application of technology in solving environmental problems are not made 

available for evaluation under practical situations. 

• Modern technologies are not used in solving environmental issues. 

• There is lack of R&D in providing alternatives to the use of nature resources for 

construction purposes 

• Green technologies for various sectors are not developed or used. 

• Mechanisation in agriculture and material handling is absent or low. 

• There is an absence of technologies for value added products. 

• There is lack of proven / effective methods of pest and vector control which use 

biological means. 

• Modern technologies like remote sensing and GIS are not being properly utilised in 

natural resource management. 

• Solid waste treatment, plastic recycling and disposal are inadequate 

• e-waste management in the IT sector is lacking. 


• Promote green technologies in various sectors (housing, energy, agriculture) and 

encourage investments in this area. 

• Develop sophisticated technologies in the following areas and / or transfer the existing 

technology for wider use and application: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

recovery of petroleum from plastics 

Evaluate the potential of bio fuels; wood gasification technology to meet fuel 

needs 

Biological control of pests and diseases 

Use of Remote Sensing and GIS in natural resource management and to develop 

local level plans 

Adopt, adapt or modify existing technologies to suit local conditions 

• Reduce the energy intensity of production and focus on sectors which are more efficient 

in the use of energy, water and natural resources. 

• Make water harvesting compulsory and also use of solar energy wherever possible. 

• Collate database on Science and Technology-based innovations on the environment and 

take steps to improve capacity building at local level using these technologies. 

93


• Accessibility of Science and Technology benefits is now available only to a group of 

privileged class and measures to initiate action to receive these benefits in a more broadbased 

manner to be evolved. 

• Adopt mechanisation in agriculture and other sectors to reduce pressure on human 

labour (which is costlier/ unavailable in some places) and making it available at local 

levels. 

• Enforce improved technology in the industrial units and mines to check effluent 

emission. 

• Enhance the efficiency of existing technologies in controlling pollution of air, water and 

soil and conserve the biodiversity. 

Action points for WGEA 

• A separate cell should be set up within WGEA to look into transfer of technology of 

usable technologies and promote ‘green technologies’ under various sectors in the 

Western Ghats’ region. 

• Adopt ‚polluter pays‛ principle and generate income to fund R&D centres on 

developing eco-friendly technologies. 

• Come up with a ‘vision statement’ to enhance the science and technology capacity to 

provide ecologically, economically and socially viable solutions with emphasis on 

conservation of biodiversity. 

• Promote green technologies 

• Promote Citizen Science 

• Adopt the Australian River Watch model 

Managing information 

• Follow the lead of Goa Regional Plan 2021, that has put together an excellent GIS 

database, pulling together information from diverse agencies, and that could be used in 

many ways, e.g. to identify mine degraded areas outside mining leases, or to identify 

encroachments in riverine areas 

• Government agencies should proactively disclose information as required by RTI 

• No information is currently available on vital issues such as natural springs 

• Potential valuable role of student projects 

Need to create publicly accessible, transparent, participatory database on environmental 

resources, 

2.13 Nutrition and Health 

Especially after globalization and commercialization, coupled with cultural alienation and 

transformed lifestyles, humans have been paying heavily in the form of lifestyle diseases. 

Increased consumption of popular fast food/junk food is known to cause lifestyle diseases. 

Wild plant resources can provide raw materials for a number of traditional, local, healthy 

and eco-friendly ‛slow‛ foods such as idly, dosa, vada, bonda, patrode, paratha, tukudi, semige 

94


(vermicelli), chutney, curry, sambar, rasam, sukka, tambuli, pickle, jamoon, halwa, juices and 

decoctions. 

The Western Ghats has been identified as one of the world’s top hotspots of biodiversity. 

The Western Ghats, together with the adjoining west coasts form an important eco-region of 

India. Ecological and economic issues mainly focus on nature’s goods and services, such as 

clean air and water, fertile soil, fodder and fuel wood, bamboo, cane and medicinal plants, 

honeybees, fish and animal husbandry as they relate to the material, aesthetic, cultural, 

spiritual needs of human beings. Manifold processes over a period of time have eroded the 

availability and enjoyment of these gifts of nature. It is therefore appropriate that the process 

of development become more sensitive to the needs of sustaining nature’s goods and 

services, even as it promotes man made goods such as roads and bore-wells, sprinklers, 

fertilizers and pesticides, telephones, mobiles and internets, radio and TV broadcasts. 

Grassroots inputs play a vital role in sustaining nature’s goods and services, since these are 

still highly significant to the quality of life of the people from rural localities; people who 

depend on water from streams to irrigate their fields or provide some fish as food, or 

bamboo and cane to thatch cattle-sheds or weave baskets, or use fuelwood to cook or 

medicinal herbs to treat illness. The rural people are also the custodians of valuable 

resources such as traditional crop varieties and also have a treasury of knowledge such as 

the use of wild plants as food, cosmetics and medicines. In the modern times of patenting 

and globalization of trade, it is important to preserve these biological resources and 

knowledge and to ensure just-sharing of benefits from their commercial use. 

Locally value-added ecosystem goods may include mats, baskets, pickles from amla, large 

serving spoons made of coconut shells, rain-cover (gorabe) made from the leaves of Vateria 

indica, milk products like dood-peda, areca palm leaf (sheath) plates etc. 

Hedgerows are rich hunting grounds for wild berries, fungi (mushrooms) and other leafy 

vegetables. Cucumbers, pumpkins, watermelons and other squashes are cultivated as 

vegetables because of their high water content and refreshing nature, although they are low 

in calories. Cucumbers are valued as an ingredient in skin care preparations. Fibre 

consumption help to prevent constipation and also help to lower cholesterol levels in the 

blood. Dietary sources of fibres mainly include fruits, figs, vegetables, cereals and pulses. 

The patterns of land use and of agriculture have changed over time, thereby affecting 

ecosystem services. There were many varieties of paddy. Since paddy is the least paying 

crop, it is losing out to other crops. In addition, the new farming practices have led to the 

increased use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, coupled with intensive irrigation. The 

increasing areas of monoculture plantation crops, especially arecanut, coconut and 

cashewnut have caused reduction in the output of food grains. The land use changes, 

especially the conversion of former common village lands and scrub lands that were once 

used as grazing lands to habitation or to Casuarina, Acacia or rubber plantations have led to 

forced reduction in livestock holdings and a decline in organic manure resources. 

The Western Ghats ecosystem also harbour a range of cultural practices like sacred groves, 

sacred stretches of river/stream beds, tanks, mangroves and sacred species of plants and 

animals. The smaller sacred groves are generally referred to as ‘devarabana’ or ‘nagabana’ 

(serpent groves), which are occasionally linked to temple complexes. Many species of the 

genus Ficus are protected by the people. Nagabanas protected the cobras. In most of the 

temple ponds sacred animals such as the mahseer fishes and turtles are protected. The 

sacred groves are also experiencing a variety of pressures including grazing, illegal felling of 

trees, hunting of wild animals and more recently concretization of nagabanas in the pretext of 

95


renovation. Further, the ongoing acquisition of agricultural land from the farmers for the 

implementation of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) has not only affected the already 

depleting agricultural productivity, but has also destroyed a number of sacred groves 

leading to the extinction of some of the pristine sacred forest patches and their endemic flora 

and fauna. 

Thus, ecosystem goods and services sustain and fulfill human life and they may be grouped 

into ‘provisioning’ services, such as food, water, fibre, fuels and other products; ‘supporting’ 

services, such as biodiversity, soil formation, pollination, waste treatment, nutrient cycling; 

and ‘enriching’ services, such as aesthetic, social relations and cultural traditions. 

Nutritional needs vary individually, depending on a variety of factors including age, sex, 

level of physical activity, metabolic rate and state of health. However, whether a person 

needs a low daily intake of 1500 calories or a high intake of 3000 calories – the proportion of 

food from the different food groups should almost always remain the same. By eating a 

variety of foods in sensible proportions an optimum level of every nutrient needed to 

maintain good health can be obtained. Protecting a diversity of traditional food resources in 

the Western Ghats would thus ensure nutritional security as well as ensure good health of 

the local people. 

3. Towards Multi-centred Governance in the Western Ghats 

Governance for the Western Ghats requires us to work with complexity. This necessitates 

designing institutions that involve multiple levels and multiple actors – state and non-state, 

and across many levels for the support of new norms and sustainability practices. In other 

words, we need many centres for decision-making and at many scales, which enable 

thinking across knowledge domains, social relationships, and competing interests. 

Excessive centralization of regulatory control does not, and has not worked well. Patchy 

enforcement and inadequate monitoring and often an incomplete understanding of 

environmental regulations has resulted in poor environmental outcomes as we have already 

observed. In the case of decentralized institutions, not only is there inadequate regulatory 

capacity, but often the blurring of interests between the regulators and the regulated creates 

unsatisfactory results in terms of environmental and social outcomes. This then requires us 

to work in a more participatory fashion, and with other forms of governance, processes and 

norms beyond just legal rules with a view to achieve the outcomes that we desire. 

To deal with complexity we need resilient institutions that are able to adapt to changes and 

pressures around them. It is in this context that we would like to suggest that we strengthen 

resource and environmental federalism in the Western Ghats, and move towards more 

polycentric forms of governance, and many centres of decision-making, which will enable 

more innovative responses, learning, cooperation and better adaptation to ecosystem 

pressures and changes. We believe that the key focus of the WGEA should be to ‚facilitate 

the development of institutions that bring out the best in humans‛(Ostrom 2009). To cite 

Ostrom (2009) again, ‚building trust in one another and developing institutional rules that 

are well matched to the ecological systems being used are of central importance for solving 

social dilemmas‛ (p 24). 

This section of the Panel Report will focus on issues of governance and then propose specific 

measures in the trajectory towards multi-centred governance with a view to achieving 

greater social harmony. It also discusses the special role of education in promoting a more 

thoughtful conservation and development in the Western Ghats. The section concludes with 

96


suggestions on how people, communities and companies can be incentivised to conserve 

the biodiversity of the Western Ghats. 

Governance Deficits 

In the course of the Panel’s work, it became evident that a number of issues relating to 

governance needed attention. Many of these were also reported by authors who contributed 

papers to support the work of the WGEEP. In this section, we highlight some key areas that 

need attention. 

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Clearance (EC) process 

The EIA process which is so central to protect the ecosystems in the Western Ghats was 

found to be defective at several points (WGEEP observations; WGEEP commissioned papers 

by R Dutta and R Sreedhar, 2010, Equations, 2010 and N Alvares, 2010; M Gadgil, Field 

Report. 4th to 11th October, 2010) 

1. These relate to the poor quality of EIA reports and the process of public hearings. Not 

only were EIAs seen at times to be fraudulent, but it is found that the minutes of public 

hearings are also manipulated. We have seen and heard of cases where the EIA 

consultant did not visit the village or did not conduct appropriate surveys and impact 

studies. 

2. Given that EIA reports are not to be trusted, the role of the Environmental Appraisal 

Committee (EAC) for the sector becomes that much more important. The Composition of 

the Environmental Appraisal Committee (EAC) is considered inadequate since it does 

not always have representation from the region in which the project is to be located.. 

Many problems emerge because the EAC does not have a sense of the place and also 

knowledge of what other activities may be stressing the region when the new project is 

being proposed. Since EAC deliberations take place in Delhi, without, most often, a visit 

to the project site, local-level pressures and concerns are not always understood. 

Consequently the EIA report is often defective and the public hearing minutes are 

manipulated Given this, reliance on faulty EIA reports makes a mockery of the whole 

regulatory process. 

3. States, such as Goa, felt that EC 2006 notification reduced the SPCB to post offices; little 

state/local input was provided into the EC process. However, at other places, it was felt 

that the SPCB acted against the interests of the local people by misleading the EAC of the 

MoEF. 

4. The perception of the State government is that its views or the State Pollution Control 

Board’s views do not find place in the whole procedure and process post-2006 except in 

the ‚consent to establish‛ which in any case happens only after the MoEF has given its 

clearance. States do have a veto under the ‚consent to establish‛ requirement but that 

needs to be exercised better. It was felt that pressure to consent is high post-EC when the 

stakes are high. 

5. Environmental Clearances are given to individual projects so the Cumulative Impacts of 

Projects are ignored 

6. Despite a poor history of compliance the promoter is granted clearance for new projects 

7. Exclusion of projects from the EIA process: The 2006 notification left out many projects 

from the requirement of obtaining Environmental Clearance on grounds of scale and to 

simplify the process. However many of these have serious impacts on the Western 

97


Ghats. For example, hydro projects below 25 MW, wind farms, tourism projects, 

townships etc. The problem becomes really serious when one considers that some of 

these are coming in close proximity resulting in cumulative impacts. Furthermore, many 

of these projects have been thought to be exempt from environmental clearances because 

they are considered ‚green‛ technologies, e.g. wind farms. ‚Green‛ projects and socalled 

‚small-scale projects‛ must require an EIA and a Cumulative Environmental 

Impact Assessment wherever applicable. 

Poor level of Compliance and Monitoring for projects: 

• Conditions of Environmental Clearance are not observed. Many mines, for example, 

who are mining beyond the tonnage are permitted to continue with impunity. 

• There is not enough capacity at SPCB-level to monitor projects. 

• There is also inadequate understanding and monitoring of the impact of gases (SO2 and 

NOx) on plantations and forests. 

Poor implementation of PESA and Forest Rights Act 

PESA 

In 1996, the Indian Parliament passed the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act or 

PESA, with the political class acknowledging the dire need to protect the rights and 

resources of the communities in Schedule V areas, by recognizing and upholding their right 

to self-governance (Choudhary, C. & Dandekar, A. 2010). The law, according to Dileep Singh 

Bhuria, the Chairman of the committee that worked on it, could ‚mark the beginning of a 

new era in the history of tribal people...‛ 

How was this act a departure? PESA recognized the gram sabha (a habitation was the 

natural unit of the community, and its adult members constitute the gram sabha, as against 

the elected gram panchayat) to be pre-eminent. The gram sabha was recognized as being 

competent to act on a range of powers, including: 

• the power to prevent alienation of land in the Scheduled Areas and to take appropriate 

action 

• to restore any unlawfully alienated land of a Scheduled Tribe 

• the ownership of minor forest produce 

• the power to enforce prohibition, or to regulate or restrict the sale and consumption of 

any intoxicant 

• the power to exercise control over money lending to the Scheduled Tribes 

• the power to exercise control over institutions and functionaries in all social sectors 

• the power to control local plans, and resources for such plans including tribal sub-plans 

• the power of prior recommendation in granting prospecting licenses or mining leases for 

minor minerals as well as for grant of concessions for the exploitation of minor minerals 

by auction 

• the right to be consulted on matters of land acquisition 

• the power to issue utilisation certificates for government works undertaken in their 

village 

98


PESA thus constructs tribal self-governance around certain key features. The first feature 

through Sec. 4 (b) fundamentally departs from colonial praxis by affirming that an organic 

self-governing community rather than an administrative unit like a village is the basic unit 

of self-governance. 

PESA also recognizes a habitation to be a natural unit of the community, whose adult 

members constitute the gram sabha. In Sec. 4 (d) and 4 (m)(ii), communities are declared 

competent to safeguard and preserve their culture and tradition, exercise command over 

natural resources, enjoy ownership of minor forest produce and adjudicate their disputes. 

Under Sec. 4 (m) (vi), the village assembly is empowered to monitor all state institutions 

within its jurisdiction, e.g. schools, health centres etc, with the functionaries under its 

control. 

Sec. 4 (i), (j), (k) & (l) mark a departure from colonial laws like the Land Acquisition Act, 

Forest and Mining Acts, and ordain that communities must be consulted on acquisition of, 

or access to land and land-based resources. They also affirm that the tribal community has 

the capability and competence to adjudicate on, and act in its wisdom to put an end to all 

exploitative relations including land alienation, money lending, market relations and alcohol 

trade. This establishes the supremacy of the gram sabha, whose power cannot be usurped by 

a superior body. 

Thus PESA is a unique legislation, often described as a Constitution within the Constitution, 

which attempts to bring together in a single frame two totally different worlds – the simple 

system of tribal communities governed by their respective customs and traditions, and the 

formal system of the State governed exclusively by laws. The second important aspect of 

PESA is that it spells out a general frame of reference for governance in the Scheduled Areas. 

It envisages a number of options that may be exercised in each case by the concerned 

authorities depending on the local situation. It is presumed that the alternative chosen will 

not violate the general spirit of PESA. In the words of a key figure involved in the grassroots 

movement for the passing of the legislation, ‚PESA moved from development delivery to 

empowerment; from implementation to planning; from circumscribed involvement to 

conscious participation (Prabhu, 2004).‛ 

However, in the decade-and-a half since it was passed, the promise of PESA tragically 

remains mostly unrealised. The legislative and executive work, which state governments 

were meant to undertake, still remain incomplete. Further, as the above reading of the law 

shows, PESA envisaged a radical shift in the balance of power – from the state apparatus 

and from the economic and political elite to the community. However, a community can 

exercise this wide range of powers meaningfully only when they have access to adequate 

information and capabilities, in alliance with other arms of the state. All this has been given 

inadequate attention. The entire effort of all organs of government ought to have been 

directed towards building up the necessary capabilities such that the 

‘constitutional/statutory’ competence mandated in communities gets fullest attention. This 

does not seem to have happened, with the forestry establishment playing a notably 

obstructive role. On the other hand legal and administrative subterfuge has relegated the 

provisions of PESA to a set of unfulfilled aspirations and the agenda of self-governance 

remains postponed. 


The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) 

Act, passed in 2006, is a landmark legislation that aims to undo the historical injustice done 

to tribals and other forest dwellers as a result of non-recognition of their forest rights. 

99


However, it has not yet succeeded fully in achieving its objectives because of some 

difficulties in implementation. 

Lands classified as forest, constituting about 23% of the country's land area, are inhabited by 

some of India's poorest and most marginalized communities, who traditionally have 

depended on these areas for cultivation, collection of minor forest produce, use of water 

bodies, grazing of animals, etc. The historic significance of the Act was because forest laws 

often deemed tribals and other forest dwellers as ‚encroachers‛ or criminals while 

exercising their customary rights. The Forest Rights Act was intended to address this 

situation by providing legal recognition to forest dwellers' rights, while making forest 

management more open and participatory. 

The difficulties in implementation of this Act have resulted in the majority of claims by 

forest dwellers in many States being rejected: in some States, rejection rates are higher than 

60%. The failures to recognize community rights, especially to minor forest produce, have 

been even more widespread. Due process in deciding on the claims has been compromised 

in many cases, and specific documentary evidence is being insisted upon, contrary to the 

letter and spirit of the law. Gram sabhas are not being held at the village or community level 

as required by the law, and where these are held, their recommendations are often not given 

sufficient weight. 

One of the key innovations of the Act was to provide recognition to communities’ rights to 

use, protect and conserve community forest resources. This was intended to be a first step to 

shift towards a democratic frame of forest governance. However, these rights have not been 

recognized in almost all states. 

Box 12: N.C. Saxena Committee report (2010) on the status of implementation of FRA 

The current state of implementation (of FRA) is characterized by a series of serious problems, 

including in particular: 

1. Constitution of Gram Sabhas is at the panchayat level, rather than at the village/hamlet level. As 

is evidently clear from section 2(g) and 2(p) of the Act, the gram sabhas are to be convened at the 

hamlet level in schedule V areas, and the revenue village level in other areas. However, in a 

number of states, such as AP, WB, and UP, these are being called at the panchayat level, which is 

illegal. 

2. Extensive and wrong rejections, primarily due to hasty enquiries and lack of a thorough 

examination of the rejected cases by senior officials. Claimants whose cases are rejected are not 

given any ‚reasonable opportunity‛, as provided in Rule 4(c). Decision rejecting the applications 

has not been communicated to the claimant in writing anywhere, with the result that the people 

have not been able to exercise the right to appeal. The Tribal Development Departments of the 

state governments have neither cross-checked the work being done at the village level by the 

revenue and forest officials, nor did they engage any outside agency to do independent 

assessment. 

3. Powers of the FRC and GS are exercised by the village level officials, and the non-officials of the 

FRC and GS are just putting their signatures to the reports written by the officials. The village 

level enquiry reports have not been verified (not even one percent) by block or district level 

officials. 

4. As per rule 10, the State Level Monitoring Committee has to devise criteria and indicators for 

monitoring the process of recognition and vesting of forest rights; and monitor the process of 

recognition, verification and vesting of forest rights in the State. It was for the Tribal Department 

in the States to develop qualitative indicators, call meetings with peoples’ representatives, hold 

public consultations, put pressure on the Revenue and Forest Departments at the district level to 

do justice to the forest dwellers, and improve communication between officials and the people. In 

most states, on the other hand, it appears that monitoring has been only statistical with a focus on 

quick disposal, rather than on ensuring that all occupations are regularized as per law 

5. In almost no instance has the SDLC and DLC pro-actively provided maps, documents, and 

evidence to FRCs and GSs, though this is required by the FRA. 

100


6. Though the FRA provides for multi-stakeholder verification and decision-making at various 

levels, in many places the opinions of forest staff/officers appear to have over-ridden all else. This 

is due to lack of interest and capacity in Tribal Department officers to handle matters of forest 

rights. These departments are used to giving scholarships and grants to beneficiaries, but have no 

experience of dealing with programmes that require inter-departmental coordination. Most nodal 

officers were thus quite happy collecting statistical information (often from FD) on FRA, but took 

no initiative in verifying the figures, arranging for a supervision infrastructure, or assessing the 

quality of performance of districts. 

7. Evictions are taking place in violation of Section 4(5) of the FRA, which states: ‚Save as otherwise 

provided, no member of FDST or OTFD shall be evicted or removed from forest land under his 

occupation till the recognition and verification procedure is complete‛. There have been 

widespread reports of evictions in violation of this provision, before and during the tenure of the 

Committee. There is little evidence that such illegal actions have been dealt with seriously by 

either state governments or by MoEF and MoTA. 

8. OTFDs: The committee has observed that, in all the states where FRA is being implemented, 

OTFDs have been generally excluded from the claims process on the grounds that they have not 

been cultivating the claimed plot for 75 years. MoTA needs to clarify that the requirement ‚for at 

least three generations prior to December 2005‛ applies to the residency clause only, and relates 

to the recognition of a non-Scheduled Tribe person as an OTFD under the Act. This requirement 

does not relate to the parcel of land for which a claim is being made, or to the forest on which 

other rights are being claimed. The claimant need not have occupied the land, or been using the 

forest, for 75 years. If s/he was dependent on the forest as of 13 December 2005 for her/his bona 

fide livelihoods needs as defined in Rule 2(b) of the FRA Rules, s/he would be eligible under the 

Act. 

9. Non-recognition of community forest resource rights and other non-land rights. 

Progress on community forest rights (CFRt) 

The foundation of FRA is the assertion that only security of tenure and formalized recorded 

rights in favour of forest users would lead to its responsible management and sustainability. 

The Act and the Rules made under FRA, therefore, give details of institutional arrangements 

for the protection, management and regeneration of community forest resources (CFR). 

These are defined in section 2(a) of FRA as customary common forest lands where the 

communities had traditional access, or which could be construed to be customary 

boundaries of a village, in other words, those areas where communities can demonstrate 

their traditional access. 

Despite the fact that the main intention of FRA was to promote community participation and 

management, our field work shows that recognition of individual rights has taken 

precedence over community or group rights, and the focus seems to be confined only to land 

rights for agriculture – one amongst the thirteen sets of rights recognized under the Act. Out 

of the remaining 12, at least the following seven rights constitute community forest rights 

(CFRt), the formalization of which has unfortunately been ignored by the district 

administration: 

1. Community rights such as nistar, by whatever name called, including those used in 

erstwhile Princely States, Zamindari or such intermediary regimes; (Section 3(1) (b)) 

2. Other community rights of uses or entitlements such as fish and other products of water 

bodies, grazing (both settled or transhumant) and traditional seasonal resource access of 

nomadic or pastoralist communities; (Section 3(1) (d)) 

3. Rights including community tenures of habitat and habitation for primitive tribal groups 

and pre-agricultural communities; (Section 3(1) (e)) 

101


4. Right to protect, regenerate or conserve or manage any community forest resource which 

they have been traditionally protecting and conserving for sustainable use; (Section 3(1) 

(i)) 

5. Rights which are recognized under any State law or laws of any Autonomous District 

Council or Autonomous Regional Council or which are accepted as rights of tribals 

under any traditional or customary law of the concerned tribes of any State; (Section 3(1) 

(j)) 

6. Right of access to biodiversity and community right to intellectual property and 

traditional knowledge related to biodiversity and cultural diversity; (Section 3(1) (k)) 

7. Any other traditional right customarily enjoyed by the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes 

or other traditional forest dwellers, as the case may be, which are not mentioned in 

clauses (a) to (k) but excluding the traditional right of hunting or trapping or extracting a 

part of the body of any species of wild animal (Section 3(1) (l)) 

In addition to these seven rights, section 3(1)(c) recognizes right of ‘ownership, access to 

collect, use, and dispose of minor forest produce which has been traditionally collected 

within or outside village boundaries’, and this right is both for individuals and communities 

of the village. 

The reasons for neglect of the community perspective in the implementation of the Act are 

summarized below: 

• FRA has largely been portrayed as a legislation to provide individual land rights, 

especially during its promulgation and in its first phase of implementation. At several 

sites the Committee was told that the SDLCs or DLCs were first dealing with IFRs and 

would only then get into processing CFRt. Many officials stated lack of staff as one 

reason for this, though it is not clear why they cannot deal with CFRs which are always 

going to be much less in number than IFRs. 

• MoTA (Ministry of Tribal Affairs) has not collected information on cases and area for 

which community rights under section 3(1)(b) to (m) have been granted by the states, 

and thus has not been able to build any pressure on the states for ignoring to recognize 

these rights. It is simply not known how many claims have been made/accepted/rejected 

at various levels, of each subsection of section 3 that provides for community rights. 

• The data are further complicated by the confusion prevailing in the field between Section 

3(1) and Section 3(2); several states appear to be reporting the latter for the former; many 

of the claims currently being classified as CFRt claims in the State or MoTA databases, 

are actually claims for development facilities under Section 3(2). Even MoTA is unable to 

provide figures separately for the two sub-sections. 

• There is a lack of baseline information on the existence of rights (recorded or 

unrecorded), and existence of customary practices relating to management, use, and 

protection, in most places. This makes difficult any robust comparative assessment of the 

situation prior to and after the FRA’s promulgation. 

• The number of applications received for CFRt is very low, and acceptance abysmally 

lower, compared to the potential if judged by the number of villages that are living 

within or adjacent to forests. 

• Where CFRt claims have been made or accepted, the extent is often much less than 

actually used or managed by the community. 

102


• There is little thinking on the status, management, and conservation of areas with CFRt, 

and specifically CFRe (community forest resource), including issues of relationship of 

the Gram Sabha with existing agencies managing these areas, and of the 

complementarities and contradictions with other laws operating in such areas. 

• Even where there is knowledge about the fact that CFRt can be claimed, at many sites 

communities or relevant officials are not clear on how to determine and verify such 

rights, and so have not started the process. There is also confusion on how to determine 

the boundaries of CFRt (especially in the case of the claim to CFRe); or on whether CFRt 

can be claimed over more than 4 hectares, even though the FRA is clear that this limit is 

only for rights claimed under Section 3(1(a). The process has also got stuck in places 

where more than one village has a claim on the same forest area, and no process has 

been put in place to reconcile such overlapping claims (though the FRA has provided for 

such a procedure). 

• Amongst the various kinds of CFRt, the right to manage/protect CFR given in Section 

3(1)(i) is one of those with the least awareness. One reason for this is that this sub-section 

is not specifically mentioned in Claim Form B that is attached with the Rules; this 

inexplicable and unexplained omission has caused many communities to not claim this 

right even when they have claimed other CFRt. 

• At many sites, misleading information on CFRt has been provided by officials or civil 

society organizations, to communities (not necessarily deliberately, since in many cases 

such officials or NGOs have themselves misunderstood the FRA’s provisions). Amongst 

the most common of these is that CFRt relate only to development facilities listed under 

Section 3(2). Also widespread in some states is the belief that CFRt need not be applied 

for, since people are already benefiting from existing arrangements such as nistar rights, 

JFM/CFM agreements, Van Panchayat agreements, etc. 

• At many places where communities have attempted to make CFRt claims, they have 

encountered various kinds of obstructions, such as refusal to give relevant records, such 

as maps, refusal to accept claims because the land being claimed is located in ‚Joint 

Forest Management‛ areas, etc. 

There are a number of issues where there is lack of clarity, on the relationship between the 

GS and the Forest Department, and the relationship between the FRA, IFA and WLPA, in 

relation to CFRt. These are yet to manifest themselves across most of India, simply because 

CFRs have hardly become operational as yet. 

Overall, given the serious inadequacies in implementation of CFRt at all levels, there is a 

need for a 2 nd phase of FRA implementation in all states, in which primary focus is on CFRt. 

The 20 July 2010 letter of MoTA to all states also indicates such a course of action. While this 

belated letter is appreciated, it is important for MoTA and all state nodal agencies to go 

beyond this by issuing clarifications and instructions. 

Progress with CFRt implementation needs to be monitored as a special exercise, as part of 

the overall monitoring process by the National Forest Rights Council. A simple, ‘how-to’ 

guide on CFRt needs to be produced by MoTA which can be adapted by state nodal 

agencies as appropriate, and issued in large numbers to communities and relevant officials. 

Poor regulatory oversight and institutional coordination 

The institutional oversight on matters relating to environmental and natural resource 

management (ENRM) is highlighted in Box 13. It is evident that local governments and local 

103


community are not being sufficiently involved in the oversight process. There is also 

insufficient coordination between the centre and states and across levels; consequently many 

key concerns remain unattended. This results in poor delivery, insufficient feedback from 

affected groups for policy revisiting, and subsequently social disharmony and conflict. 

Box 13: Current regulatory oversight on matters relating to ENRM 

Key functions/ 

responsibilities 

Centre State Local 

government 

Community 

Land issues: access, 

compensation 

Overseeing of environmental 

and health impacts 

MoEF 

DoRev, 

Agriculture 

SPCBs 

Missing/weak link 

Forest Clearances 

MOEF 

Rehabilitation of projectaffected 

people 

MoRD 

DoRev/RD 

Social investment 

programmes 

MoRD 

Inadequate databases of relevance to governance and planning 

Databases that are needed for regulation and good development planning are deficient such 

as for example spatial data bases. 

Measures for Improved Governance 

The discussion on proposed measures for improved governance focuses on the following: 

1. Adopting Principles for development and conservation in the Western Ghats 

2. Regulating development activity in the Western Ghats through ESZs 

3. Decentralization as the route to a more inclusive multi-centred governance and 

development in the Western Ghats 

4. EIA, Environmental Clearance Reform, Implementation of PESA, FRA 

5. Diffusion of Control through Society 

Principles for Development and Conservation in the Western Ghats 

Through our work on the Western Ghats, we have arrived at the following sets of principles 

that we believe should guide development and conservation. 

1. Whether it is for conservation or development, inclusion and transparency should be 

key. 

2. Development planning should be decentralized, water shed-based, with increased 

convergence of planning at grassroots level. 

104


3. District Planning Committees mandated under the Constitution should be supported 

in all Western Ghat States and these DPCs should be mandated to arrive at the 

district plan. 

4. Ecological sustainable livelihoods should be brought into the planning process for 

natural resource management, and tribal communities should be involved wherever 

relevant. 

5. Education to address individual/ community valuation of resources 

6. Appropriate green technologies that reduce the footprint of development: 

a. Use of appropriate materials, conserving water and soil, and energy saving 

centres that make such technologies accessible in one place 

b. Training programs, to enable households to use this 

c. Use of Industrial Ecology principles, Eco-Technologies 

7. Use of carrying capacity concepts, pollution prevention, polluter pays principles 

8. FPIC through the gram panchayat route for mega-development projects, if at all 

Action Point: These considerations can be included in the design of the WGEA 

Regulating Development Activity in the Western Ghats 

ESZs in the Western Ghats are demarcated using a socio-ecological multi-criteria evaluation 

(SEMCE), discussed in Part 1 of the WGEEP Report. ES Zones are to be seen as tools for 

balancing conservation and economic activity such as: 

1. Areas where human activities will continue, but be prudently regulated under the 


2. Areas not at all meant to stop development in ways that would hurt local people, but to 

ensure that development is environment-friendly and people-oriented, as well as serves 

to preserve the ecological heritage on a long term basis. 

3. Areas with no set regulations, such as ban on all new industries, or on conversion of 

agricultural into commercial land, that would prevail in every ESA. 

4. Areas where regulations should be worked out with due respect to local context. 

5. Areas which are not just about regulation, but about positive promotion of environmentfriendly 

development as well. 

Table 6 in Part I summarizes the broad guidelines for regulation of development activity in 

the Zones. 

Action Point: The Ecological Sensitive Zones and broad guidelines should be woven into the 

WGEA structure and regulatory functions 

Decentralization as the route to a more inclusive multi-centred governance and 

development in the Western Ghats 

WGEEP recommends that following the Constitutional amendment and provisions for 

decentralized government, this should be actively supported in development planning in 

the Western Ghats. According to Article 243 (G) of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 

the States are required to devolve adequate powers and responsibilities on the Panchayati 

Raj Institutions (PRIs) in order to make them effective institutions of local self-government. 

105


The responsibility for the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice 

and its implementation in relation to 29 subjects listed in the Eleventh Schedule is also 

bestowed on the PRIs. 

District Planning Committees mandated under the Constitution should be supported in all 

Western Ghat States and these DPCs should be mandated to arrive at the district plan. To be 

able to do this effectively, spatial planning should be the focus. All necessary technical 

support should be provided to DPCs and LGs from the State, academic institutions, NGOs 

and other experts for local planning. Some of the key issues that need attention are the 

management of solid waste, waste water, local impacts of mining, tourism on livelihoods, 

and benefit sharing from such activities. Management should seek to integrate issues. 

Special purpose vehicles should be set up by local governments to handle multijurisdictional 

matters, such as watershed development, waste disposal, and natural 

resources management. 7 Ecological sustainable livelihoods should be brought into the 

planning process for natural resource management and tribal communities should be 

involved wherever relevant. 

WGEEP believes that if local governments are given clear roles and held accountable for 

these, the incentive structures will be transformed. There will be a demand for capacity to be 

created and this will put pressure on higher levels of government to meaningfully respond. 

A note of caution to be heeded is that devolution of powers of licensing natural resource use 

to local bodies without adequate safeguards can result in ruthless exploitation of these 

resources. 8 Such powers can create incentives for Panchayats to have this as the preferred 

route rather though taxing property. The issue of proximity to the governed can also result 

in corruption and nepotism in the handing out of granite and sand extraction licenses, for 

example. To avoid this, several design precautions have to be kept in mind while entrusting 

conservation responsibilities to local governments: Firstly, one must not give them scope to 

substitute their property tax bases with revenues earned from indiscriminate exploitation of 

finite natural resources. 9 Secondly, there has to be overseeing and appropriate safeguards 

built in. Thirdly, design principles should focus on creating the appropriate incentives for 

the building of trust and reciprocity. 

The following suggestions would go a long way on better natural resource governance by 

Local Governments (Raghunanda, 2008). 

First, given the externalities that are associated with natural resource management and 

governance, there must be scope for arrangements that are more flexible and which can go 

beyond the tiered system of Local Government. Thus, local governments should be 

encouraged to enter into partnerships with each other, form clusters and collaborate with 

private entities to tailor proper arrangements for natural resource management and create 

many centres for decision-making. 

Two, in the context of natural resource management across urban and rural local 

governments should use the instrumentality of the District and Metropolitan Planning 

Committees to develop solutions for matters that straddle rural and urban jurisdictions, 

such as water supply, garbage disposal etc., by providing an overarching system than 

7 Ideas taken from the Conclusions of the Conference of Academics on Panchayati Raj Inclusive Growth through 

Inclusive Governance: The Future Agenda for Local Government, 25-26 February 2009, New Delhi 

8 Ibid. 

9 In Karnataka when Mandal Panchayats were given the rights in 1987 for the extraction of minor minerals such 

as granite, there were several instances of them indiscriminately issuing licenses for granite extraction, 

sometimes even endangering historical sites such as forts and archeological excavations. 

106


manages these activities. Finally, it will be necessary to create a set of new fiscal instruments 

and arrangements for resource sharing and benefit sharing from utilisation of natural 

resources. Similar instruments such as SPVs will need to be conceived for undertaking 

common over-arching projects. 

Box 14: Plachimada experience 

A myth actively perpetuated by traditional politicians and a supportive bureaucracy is that panchayat 

bodies are India's lowest ranked implementing agency for government programmes. Thus their status 

as an institution of self-government, as designated in the Indian Constitution, remains a distant 

dream. This is why, when the Plachimada panchayat in Kerala's Pallakad district rescinded the 

license of a global soft drink major corporate and the state high court dismissed the company's writ 

petition challenging this decision, it became an event with huge ramifications. 

The event strongly indicates the emergence of the panchayat as 'government'. That is why the fight 

between the panchayat and the company – paternally supported by the state government – has 

occurred on the terrain of constitutional rights and their relevance to public good. 

While cancelling the license, the panchayat evoked its constitutional rights (further empowered by 

state legislation). As local elected government, it has argued, it has the duty to protect the well-being 

of its subjects. So it has the right to cancel – or refuse permission – to anything that affects its subjects 

adversely. The panchayat holds the soft drink plant responsible for depleting groundwater in the area 

under its jurisdiction; this has affected local agriculture. The panchayat's reasoning is important: it 

establishes the crucial link between governance and managing local natural resources, and if history 

serves memory right, panchayats were formulated precisely for this reason. The Plachimada 

panchayat has established the supremacy of an elected government. 

The company contends the panchayat is a subordinate of the state government and thus can not 

operate out of its domain. This is usual corporate arrogance, which was shattered by the turn of 

events. The company has visibly panicked, what with the prospect of being denied permission 

permanently, and is now sitting-in at hearings with village leaders. The Constitution has given 

enough power to the panchayat (to avoid such stand-offs, it has even listed 29 functions in a separate 

schedule) to function totally outside state policy. Judicial pronouncement from the Supreme Court 

also upholds the panchayat's power to evolve its policy and to take all necessary steps to implement 

it. Plachimada is a first-hand lesson on the power of local government. This is the event's first 

important lesson. 

Coincidentally, Plachimada occurred even as India tried dimly – hesitantly – to remember Bhopal, site 

of the world's worst industrial disaster. Or, should we say: corporate social irresponsibility. Bhopal is 

a perfect case of how a gap between government and people can stymie the delivery of justice. 

Practically nobody has been punished for this disaster. More importantly, people's right to know 

about the hazards they and their environs might encounter gets grossly curtailed by such distance. 

Till December 2-3, 1984, local residents had no clue about the poison being brewed right in their 

backyard. 

To think of Bhopal's affected people reacting against the plant as swiftly and successfully as 

Plachimada is, unfortunately, wishful thinking. When the disaster occurred, panchayats were not 

constitutional bodies (panchayats were made possible by the 72nd and 73rd amendments to the 

Constitution in 1992). The idea of making people a part of governance was overpowered by the need 

to get more industries. This overpowering need to seek multinational investment is still a policy, but 

the difference is that, in between, Bhopal happened. Plachimada residents asked questions of the 

company that Bhopal victims would surely have asked much before the tragedy. Arguably the 

107


tragedy could have been averted. Thus Plachimada comes across as an effective mechanism to instil 

corporate accountability in the country, and for the corporate sector an amicable way to transact 

business. This is the second important implication of the event. 

Notwithstanding sceptics, panchayats are showing signs of maturity as able governments. This is not 

the place to clinically dissect a crucial development like this, but to realise the inevitability of 

panchayat as government. Interpreting Plachimada as a setback to the country's economic 

liberalisation programme is primarily abrogating responsibility in a democracy, that also the world's 

largest one. If the states use the 'federal' argument to ask for more power from the Union, they must 

apply the same argument to themselves and give power back to the panchayats. 

In fact empowered panchayats like Plachimada can make the flow of investment smooth and faster. 

Companies will not only bypass the massive bureaucratic hierarchy, but can also avoid Plachimadalike 

scenarios. This is because panchayats will make allowance only for such companies as would suit 

their growth; at the same time, the responsibility of how companies conduct themselves will fall to 

the panchayats. Small in size, panchayats would also be able to speedily sort disputes out. 

But before all this happens, as a beginning, the company and the Kerala state government must give 

in to what Plachimada wants. 

Action point: Local government should have representation in the proposed Western Ghat 

Ecological Authority 

EIA and Environmental Clearance (EC) Reform, Implementation of key Acts 

Within existing provisions of EIA processes, the following needs to be done (Dutta and 

Sreedhar, 2010): 

• Specific Terms of Reference (TORs) should be framed for preparation of EIA reports for 

projects located in the Western Ghats and the TORs should be available for public 

comments. 

• The process of accreditation of EIA consultants is welcome. It would be better still if the 

project proponent deposited the money with the MoEF and the MoEF then chose the 

consultant so as to preserve the independence of the consultant. 

• The EIA process in the Western Ghats should move to Regional and Cumulative Impact 

Assessments and carrying capacity studies. 

The EIA clearance procedure introduced in 2006 can be re-visited: 

• To provide a separate forum for inputs by the State: The conditions in the Environmental 

Clearances specify the role of the Regional Office of the MoEF, to monitor the conditions 

stipulated in the ECs. It would be ideal that the State Pollution Control Boards should 

undertake these tasks. This will help resolve many local monitoring issues and curb 

unhealthy mining practices, which the mining operators indulge in, in the absence of 

regular monitoring of mining conditions by the Regional Office. 10 

• For inclusion of projects having significant impacts within the ambit of the EIA: It was 

observed that several projects with significant impacts were outside the purview of the 

10 

Suggestion from the Government of Goa. 

108


EIA process or requiring only state clearances, i.e. the so-called B category. Examples of 

such projects are: diversion of rivers, mini-hydel projects, wind mills, tourism projects 

and resorts specially located within or in proximity of forest land and other ecologically 

sensitive areas. For the Western Ghats, given the richness of the area, this differentiation 

should be revisited. Instead of such compartmentalization of projects, protecting the 

environment needs better coordination between Centre and State entities and across 

State regulatory and development bodies. The EIA process has to also take into account 

whether a particular project is permissible in the ESZs so declared. 

• No mine or tourist infrastructure is to be allowed to continue if environmental rules and 

conditions of clearance are flouted. 

• Strengthen institutional coordination for monitoring impacts 

Given that the challenges to the tribal community’s way of life have severely intensified in 

the past decade with a liberalizing economy, the wooing of private capital for industry, the 

profitable rush for natural resources (in particular, minerals and farmland) along with the 

phenomenon of left-wing insurgency, the neglect of PESA has had particularly tragic and 

violent implications. 

The Western Ghats region has a few Scheduled V areas such as the district of Nandurbar in 

Maharashtra where the experience of implementation of PESA has also been very negative. 

Consequently we need to move ahead to genuinely empower tribal people using the pathbreaking 

provisions of PESA. 

Action Point: 

A special Western Ghats Expert Appraisal Committee should be set up (or may be part of 

the function of the proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority) to further appraise a project 

after it is recommended by the Sector-specific EAC. 

A separate Cell is needed to take forward the enforcement of PESA and FRA in Western 

Ghat districts 

Diffusion of Control through Society 

We would also like to suggest that governance in the Western Ghats allow for a wider range 

of instruments, norms and processes beyond the legal rules that are in place and thereby 

allow a diffusion of regulatory control through society in order to strengthen good 

development practices and incentivise conservation (Scott, 2004). Such processes and 

instruments can include the following: 

• Pro-active disclosure of information in connection with RTI 

• Social audits of projects and development activities 

• Participatory monitoring of impacts using tools and indicators 

• Green accounts for the minerals and tourism sector 

• Creation of spatial databases 

• Creation of incentives for conservation and innovations 

o Payments for ecosystem services (Somanathan, 2010) 

o 

o 

Influence social attitudes and norms 

Reward good corporate/state behaviour 

109


o 

Encourage green innovations 

Strengthening Environmental Governance 

The Panel believes that immediate steps must be taken to address the issue of the serious 

deficit in environmental governance all over the Western Ghats tract. The Panel is impressed 

both by levels of environmental awareness and commitment by citizens towards the cause of 

environment, and their helplessness in the face of their marginalization in the current system 

of governance. The Panel urges the Ministry of Environment and Forests to take a number of 

urgent steps to involve the citizens, in particular: 

(a) pro-active and sympathetic implementation of provision of Community Forest Resources 

of the Forest Rights Act, 

(b) establishment of fully empowered Biodiversity Management Committees in all local 

bodies, 

(c) promotion of programmes on the pattern of ‘Conservation of biodiversity rich areas of 

Udumbanchola taluk’ formulated by Kerala State Biodiversity Board, 

(d) a radical reform of Environmental Impact Analysis and Clearance process, 

(e) a revival of Paryavaran Vahini programme, and 

(f) institution of a social audit process for all environmental issues on the model of that for 

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Andhra Pradesh. 

To recapitulate, we recommend the following: 

• Pro-active disclosure of information in connection with RTI 

• Implementation of Forest Rights Act, 2006 

• No mine or tourist infrastructure to be allowed to continue if environmental rules are 

flouted 

• Social audits and participatory monitoring of impacts using tools 

• Recognize and incentivise good corporate behaviour 

• Green accounts for the minerals and tourism sector 

• Require EIA even for ‚green‛ technologies 

• Creation of spatial databases in the public domain 

• Strengthening institutional coordination before giving EC 

• Strengthen institutional coordination for monitoring impacts 

• Tax the mining and industrial sectors to improve social infrastructure in region 

• Strengthen local panchayat capacity in environmental governance 

• Empower local panchayats in mining regions financially by sharing royalty with them 

• Central Government to arrive at ways to compensate Western Ghats states for the 

contribution to preservation of country’s forests given the high share of forests in their 

land area 

110


A More Thoughtful Conservation and Development Through Education 

Role of Schools, Colleges and Voluntary Agencies 

Educational institutions with their voluntary force of students of NSS and NCC 

programmes, often working in tandem with local voluntary agencies, could an make an 

important contribution to the effort at environmentally and socially sound development of 

the Western Ghats. To be fruitful, however, such an effort should be directed and form 

part of a long term plan. Ideally, the effort should focus on a definite locality and should be 

undertaken in collaboration with the local village panchayats, their Biodiversity 

Management Committees, as well as Governmental agencies. 

Environmental education is now a compulsory component of educational activities at all 

stages from the Primary Level through University education, thanks to a Supreme Court 

order of 22 November 1991. The National Council of Educational Research and Training and 

the University Grants Commission are guiding this process, which is being implemented at 

the state level. It would be very fruitful for WGEA to establish links with these extensive 

educational activities. The National Curriculum Review 2005 has made a number of 

significant suggestions in this context. These include the need to ground Environmental 

Education in student activities relating to local environmental issues and to use the 

information so generated to create a publicly accessible, transparent database on India’s 

environment. 

Parisara: A free, public domain knowledge resource on Indian environment 

developed in a collaborative fashion 

All over the world, citizens are a great repository of detailed information on many facets of 

their local environment. Our citizens, especially students and teachers, ought therefore to 

play an important role in this process of building up a good information resource on India’s 

environment. The rapidly advancing tools of ICT hold much promise in facilitating such a 

participatory process of knowledge generation. An outstanding example of such an 

application is Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Wikipedia articles are 

expected to be encyclopaedic, i.e. based on published, authenticated information, and not on 

primary observations. Thus, a review of published information on birds of Ratnagiri district 

can qualify for an article in Wikipedia, while a checklist of birds of a particular college 

campus based on personal observations. However, the Wiki software is freely available for 

other users to create their own websites. Therefore, such a checklist could be hosted on a 

Wiki site set up on the website of a school/ college, or some other appropriate agency. 

Taking advantage of the Wiki facility, other students or interested citizens, observing 

additional species may then quickly add to the checklist. They may also add images of these 

bird species in Wikimedia Commons, their local names in the 

Hindi/Gujarati/Konkani/Marathi/Kannada/Tamil/Malayalam Wiktionary, classification 

details in Wikispecies, and show the location of the college campus on Google Earth images. 

Another application of interest is a shared spreadsheet that is made available to all or 

selected users for concurrent data entry or modification, usually on a private or public 

network. One may visualize students from different colleges collecting information on BOD 

levels and other water quality parameters, in different water bodies, as a part of their 

Environmental Education projects. They may all be authorized to access a shared 

spreadsheet on which information from a number of different investigations can be 

111


uploaded, validated by a moderator, integrated, analyzed and eventually shared with the 

public. 

The WGEA may begin this collaborative process of developing publicly accessible 

information on India’s environment, with a pilot project in Western Ghats districts. The 

programme may involve the many interested citizens of the district working with a 

consortium of junior and undergraduate colleges representing both urban and rural 

localities. It would take advantage of the fact that it is now mandatory for students in XI–XII 

standards as well as for second year undergraduates in all branches to undertake a major 

project on the environment. It could also build upon the provisions of the Biological 

Diversity Act 2002 that mandates all local bodies–Panchayats and Nagarpalikas–throughout 

the country to undertake documentation of local biodiversity resources and associated 

knowledge in the form of “People’s Biodiversity Registers”. 

To succeed, such an endeavour clearly needs vigorous scientific support. The WGEA should 

provide this with the help of a Technical Support Consortium (TCS), primarily of local, 

district-based scientists. This group will have to develop manuals detailing study 

methodologies, formats in which quantitative data may be collected to support these 

studies, as also other resource material such as field guides to identification of bioindicators 

of water quality etc. Most importantly, the TCS may help through assessing the quality of 

the primary data posted by students or other interested citizens on the various Wiki sites 

that may be networked to constitute a non-peer reviewed publication called ‚Western Ghats 

Parisara Sthiti”. TCS may help in selecting material of good quality from this information 

resource, help in its interpretation in light of available scientific knowledge and in its 

publication in an appropriate peer-reviewed medium. Since much of such information, 

although of good quality, is likely to be of very locality-specific interest, it might be 

worthwhile organizing a locality-specific on-line publication called ‚Western Ghats Parisara 

Prakashana” to host it. Once properly peer reviewed and published, this information may be 

used to write Wikipedia articles. 

This should set up a positive feedback system, because the more knowledge there is, the 

more readily can its quality be assessed, and the more readily can it be added to. With 

students, and other interested citizens generating knowledge about the environment, the 

quality of environmental education will improve. The built in transparency of the process 

would promote honest submissions, as well as grading. It would be a self-correcting system 

with a built-in forum for all citizens, including experts to assess, point out possible 

deficiencies, and incorporate improvements. In the long run, this process should create a 

totally transparent, publicly accessible information resource on India’s environment with 

proper accreditation to concerned students, teachers and other interested citizens for all 

items of information. 

Analysis of the Local Situation 

The particular problems of environment and development of a region vary a great deal 

especially in a hilly tract such as the Western Ghats with its tremendous variation in 

rainfall, landform, extent of deforestation, population pressure and so on. Pointing out and 

investigating the specific problems of a locality does not require very sophisticated technical 

instrumentation and expertise, but can be very valuable for planning development. Schools, 

colleges and voluntary agencies could easily take up simple useful investigations of this 

type in a specific locality. The following is a sample of the kinds of questions that may be 

investigated: 

112


1. What is the depth of water table in the wells in different months of the years? How has 

this level changed in recent years with the installation of electric pumpsets? 

2. How much of the land previously accessible to grazing has been covered by Eupatorium? 

3. What was the actual level of compensation which was productively invested by farmers 

who were rehabilitated due to a development project? 

4. What is the quantity of paddy straw used up as thatching material every year? 

5. What are the population levels of mosquito vectors of malaria in different seasons of the 

year? 

6. What are the levels of gastrointestinal infections at different times of the year and in 

different strata of the society? 

7. What are the levels of pesticide usage in arecanut orchards? Which pesticides are used? 

Are there any known suspected cases of pesticide poisoning? 

8. How many years of fallow period are being allowed in the shifting cultivation of hill 

slopes? 

9. What are the locally growing plants used for medicinal purposes? 

10. What is the source of energy used for domestic cooking? 

If properly organized in a free, public domain knowledge resource on Indian environment 

developed in a collaborative fashion, as sketched above, a wealth of useful information 

pertinent to questions of environmentally sound development could be thus collected and 

used in highlighting specific local problems and required solutions. This could serve as a 

very useful aid to learning and teaching in educational institutions as well. 

Public Awareness 

There is a great scope for educational and voluntary organisations to take the lead in 

educating the public, as also the technical people and administrators, about locally 

significant issues of environment and development. Many form of media, ranging from 

lectures, exhibitions, plays and songs could be employed. The Society for Environmental 

Education in Kerala at Payyanur and the Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishat have been 

organising exhibitions, touring theatre productions, and publishing magazines, and books as 

well as conducting nature camps. The Hulgol Group Villages Co-operative Service Society in 

Sirsi taluk has organised lectures for their members on management of livestock, 

development of fodder resources and merits of stall feeding. The Mahavishnu Yuvak 

Mandali in Kumta taluk had organised a training programme on the construction of fuel 

efficient smokeless chulas at home. A variety of such models is thus already available 

and could be very profitably emulated more widely. 

Organizing People 

Perhaps the most serious stumbling block in the way of eco-development is the fact that the 

masses of people are poor, and uneducated, and so fragmented by barriers of caste and 

religion that they cannot act together in common interest. They are so pressed by the 

need of making daily ends meet, that they find it difficult to exercise prudence in their 

own future interest. Therefore a major contribution that the educational and 

voluntary organizations could make is to help in organizing these people to co - 

113


operate with each other in good management of natural resources, and to take 

proper advantage of the many Government schemes to help them in this 

endeavour. The following is a list of worthwhile projects in this context: 

1. Organise the villagers to agree to protect a fuel-cum-fodder plantation taken up under 

the social forestry programme on village common land 

2. Organise a rotational grazing system on the village gochar land 

3. Organise forest labourers, co-operative societies or LAMPS in tribal areas to take up 

working of forests 

4. Organise a community biogas plant 

5. Organise a co-operative programme of soil conservation on agricultural lands 

Diffusion of Desirable Technologies 

A major block in our development programmes has been the lack of serious effort at 

understanding the problems of diffusion of new technologies under the field conditions, and then, 

promoting such diffusion. Local schools, colleges and voluntary agencies could take an active 

part in this process by analysing the situation, arranging model demonstrations, providing 

voluntary help to set up a project, acting as liaison with the Governmental agencies involved 

or acting as agencies for the execution of a project. Examples of such technologies which 

deserve consideration include: 

1. Revegetation of barren slopes by species of utility to the local population 

2. Fuel-efficient smokeless chulas, 

3. Compacted soil cement blocks for construction 

4. Sulabha Shouchalaya latrines 

There are thus a whole varieties of ways in which educational and voluntary 

organisations could promote the process of environmentally-sound development. 

At the same time, these could strengthen their own resource base by executing 

certain project components such as setting up nurseries for social forestry 

plantations or construction of chulas in scheduled caste houses. 

Role of Universities and Scientific Institutions 

The following is an indicative list of areas of high priority for scientific research and 

development work for the Western Ghats tract: 

1. Changes in soil fertility in relation to levels of use of organic manure and chemical 

fertilizers 

2. Standing biomass and productivity of various sources of organic manure 

3. Evolution of pesticide resistance amongst animal and microbial pests 

4. Impact of pesticide usage on human and livestock health 

5. Utilization of land in relation to its capability 

6. Extent of soil erosion from hill slopes under different land usages 

114


7. Extent of water runoff versus percolation from hill slopes under different land usages 

8. Socio-economic forces promoting cultivation of hill slopes 

9. Techno-economic feasibility of discontinuance of cultivation of hill slopes and a 

switchover to tree and fodder crop production on such lands 

10. Possible role of rural employment generating programmes in switchover to tree and 

fodder crop production on hill slopes 

11. Dependence of horticultural crops on forest cover in the neighbourhood for maintenance 

of microclimate, water regime, supply of leaf manure, fuelwood for curing tea etc. 

12. Maintenance and liquidation of shade trees in plantation crops especially cardamom 

13. Implications of future plans of extension of plantation crops for the maintenance of the 

natural vegetation on the Western Ghats 

14. People’s attitude towards the use of community and state-owned land, pressures of 

fuelwood extraction and grazing on community and state-owned as well as privately 

held lands 

15. Social organisations needed to ensure proper use of community and state-owned lands, 

16. Current patterns of utilisation of malki forest lands 

17. Techno-economic feasibility of switchover to stall feeding of livestock 

18. Maintenance of goats on the Western Ghats 

19. Enhancing the fodder resources of Western Ghats, 

20. Development of fisheries in large reservoirs of the Western Ghats 

21. An inventory of all near-virgin forest tracts of the Western Ghats 

22. Impact of grazing, fuelwood collection, selection felling on levels of biological diversity 

of the Western Ghats 

23. Cultural traditions of conservation of biological diversity of the Western Ghats 

24. Man–wildlife conflict especially for elephant and wild pig populations 

25. Economies of on-site preservation of indigenous varieties of cultivated plants 

26. Non-sustainable use of ground water resources of Western Ghats 

27. Micro- and mini-hydel potential—its utilization through pilot demonstrations 

28. Impact of accessibility by road on the forest cover of Western Ghats, 

29. Utilization of plant material in rural house construction 

30. Improving the life of thatch on huts and cattle sheds 

31. Impact of sanitation measures on incidence of diseases in rural areas of Western Ghats 

32. Role of natural living resources in nutrition of people of Western Ghats 

33. Environmental control of vectors of diseases such as malaria and KED in the Western 

Ghats 

34. Socio-economic factors affecting the diffusion of environmentally desirable technologies 

115


35. Socio-economic and psychological factors determining the number of children desired 

by families of Western Ghats tract 

36. Perception of environmentally and socially sound developmental priorities by people of 

various strata. 

Catalysing Environmentally and Socially Sound Development 

There is clearly considerable scope for Research Institutions, Universities and researchminded 

faculty members of colleges to generate scientific information and technologies of 

immense value to the process of environmentally sound development of the Western Ghats. 

There are several reasons why very little has so far been accomplished in these directions. 

Foremost amongst these is the lack of tradition and interest in working with people 

and under field conditions. But technologies developed in isolation in laboratories at 

research stations often prove irrelevant in the field. It is therefore very important that we 

should now create new traditions of field research and of experimenting with technologies 

under field conditions. 

Each University or scientific institution selecting a particular group of village or watershed 

for detailed long-term effort would best accomplish this. It could then involve itself in a 

variety of environmentally-sound development-oriented action programmes in collaboration 

with local schools, colleges and voluntary agencies and governmental agencies. Its original 

research and technical development work could form part of such an overall programme with 

the local schools, colleges and voluntary agencies taking up the major responsibility of 

actual field action. We believe that this could serve as a very good model for catalysing 

environmentally sound development. 

Direct Payments to People, Communities and Companies for 

Conserving the Biodiversity of the Western Ghats 

Forest ecosystems provide a wide range of provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural 

services broadly termed the ‘ecosystem services’ (MEA, 2003). A key goal of creating a 

Western Ghats Ecology Authority is to maintain the existing forest cover as well as increase 

the tree cover in other areas including degraded lands and privately held lands so as to 

promote ecological sustainability. At the same time, the large human population in the 

ghats, the highest population density of any of the ‚global hotspots of biodiversity‛, also 

makes it imperative that people meaningfully participate in the conservation of this region. 

We think that this would be best achieved under the present circumstances through a 

system of incentives and payments for ecosystem services to people, communities and even 

corporate (such as plantation companies) for maintaining or increasing tree cover as well as 

facilitating the presence and movement of wildlife. 

In addition to the role of forest cover in conserving biodiversity and regulating the 

hydrology of the region, we may also add the following positive ecological roles of 

increasing the tree cover of the region: 

a) Provide alternative sources of biomass-related products to people who may otherwise 

depend on protected areas and other forest areas for their needs. 

b) Promote the overall ecological resilience of the region. 

c) Improve habitat connectivity across the ghats in order to facilitate migration and 

adaptation of plant and animal species to future climate change. 

116


d) Contribute to reducing the country‟s greenhouse gas emissions through sequestering 

carbon into biomass. 

There are a number of ways in which incentive-based approaches to nature conservation 

have been experimented with globally (Somanathan 2010). These could be either in the form 

of deterrents for activities that are seen as inimical to biodiversity conservation (prohibition 

on entry into and extraction from land declared as ‚protected areas‛, imposition of taxes on 

undesirable land-use) or incentives of a positive nature as listed below: 

1) Allocation of rights to revenue generated from use of biodiversity to local 

communities who at the same time nurture and protect this biodiversity. Examples of this 

would include the Van Panchayat system in the Kumaun region of Uttarakhand Himalaya 

that began in 1930 (and has expanded considerably since then) and the Joint Forest 

Management experiment in the country that began in the 1990s. 

2) Subsidies to activities which are complementary to conservation. An example of this 

is a suite of actions broadly classified as ‚eco-development‛ in which loans or small 

amounts of capital are provided to people living in the fringe or within forest areas to help 

them start non-forest related businesses. Subsidies for cooking gas or solar cookers to reduce 

the dependence of people on fuel wood collected from forests are another example of such 

incentives. 

3) Direct payments for conservation. Economists have recently favoured the direct 

payment of incentives to land-owners and communities for their demonstrable 

achievements in conservation (Ferraro and Kiss 2002). This approach, also known as 

‚payments for ecosystem services‛, has never been tried in India but is being implemented 

both in developed (e.g. U.S.A., Australia) and developing (e.g. Mexico, Costa Rica, 

Colombia) countries. The draft eco-tourism policy for Protected Areas posted on the website 

of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India, on June 2, 2011, also makes a 

mention of financial incentives to private land owners near Protected Areas for maintaining 

forest cover. 

Here the panel makes a case for using the third mechanism, namely, that of judicious direct 

payments for conservation for promoting the ecology of the Western Ghats. While the 

framework for such a scheme to operate in the Western Ghats has to be worked out in detail, 

some examples are provided of the context of such direct payments as well as the financial 

mechanisms available to implement such a programme. 

Context of direct payments for conservation 

i) Payments to people: Considerable land area of the Western Ghats region is under 

private ownership of individuals. This would include the large number of settlements, 

cultivated areas and other privately-owned land under other forms of land-use. Increasing 

the tree cover in some of these lands that are strategically located would help fulfil some of 

the positive ecological roles mentioned above while also increasing the income and 

promoting a positive conservation outlook among land owners. While the choice of tree 

species perceived by people as profitable seems to be most important determinant of success 

of tree planting programmes in the country (Hegde 2010), this limitation may be partly 

overcome through incentives for planting native species, irrespective of profitability, as well 

as permitting economically valuable species to be planted and harvested in a regulated 

manner. 

117


ii) Payments to communities: Unlike the northeastern region where a major part of the 

land is under the control of village communities, a much smaller proportion of the Western 

Ghats is vested under community ownership. Examples would include community grazing 

lands, traditional Toda community patta lands (in the Nilgiris), betta lands in Uttara 

Kannada district and perhaps Kovikam lands in Kerala. Some of these lands could have 

considerable value for biodiversity if they are not transformed into other land uses, or there 

may be scope for bringing these under forest cover. Although the option of declaring these 

as Community Reserves exists under the Wildlife Protection Act, this concept has not really 

caught on because of the lack of incentives and of clarity on community rights. Payments 

could be made to communities for maintaining such lands in a favourable state for 

biodiversity. 

iii) Payments to companies: The proposal to make payments to the corporate sector for 

conservation of biodiversity may seem too radical at first, but we think there is a specific 

context in which such incentives could be explored. Large areas of the Western Ghats are 

under commercial plantations of tea, coffee, cardamom, rubber and other species. Plantation 

lands may be under private ownership (i.e. patta lands held by companies or individuals) or 

under long-term lease from the government. Many of these plantations are embedded 

within existing protected areas or about the boundaries of protected areas; as such they have 

considerable potential for conservation of biodiversity as well as providing passages for the 

migration/movement of animal species. The importance of bringing plantations within the 

ambit of direct payments for conservation thus lies in their strategic location and the 

considerable area they can provide for biodiversity conservation. 

Plantations can be brought under a conservation programme under two situations: 

a) Plantations on private lands: Many plantations maintain a certain proportion of their 

land under natural vegetation cover. These areas may be important not just for the 

biodiversity they hold but also for providing habitat connectivity. Examples of this would 

include riparian habitat of tea estates in the Valparai plateau and the thorn forest of Singara 

estate (coffee plantation) in the Nilgiris where specific parcels of land are identified as 

corridors for elephants [Baskaran et al. 1995; Anand Kumar et al. 2010]. Both regulatory 

orders (prohibiting the conversion of such lands to other use) as well as rewards (payments 

for the ecosystem services provided) should go hand-in-hand to achieve conservation goals. 

Another example would be the importance of evergreen forest patches within land owned 

by plantations in the ghats for maintaining populations of the endangered and endemic liontailed 

macaque. Plantation companies who maintain private lands under forests or other 

forms of natural vegetation such as montane grassland should also be rewarded for the 

intrinsic biodiversity values they preserve. Such rewards need not be solely in the form of 

direct payments; these could also be indirect recognition through a process of ‚certification‛ 

that would enhance the prestige of the company and the value of their products; certified 

coffee for example fetches premium prices in the international market. 

b) Plantations on leased lands: The issue of incentives to plantations on leased land may 

be contentious, especially when conservationists would argue that all such lands should 

revert to government control upon expiry of the present leases. We do not have statistics on 

the precise extent of plantations in privately-owned versus leased lands but the latter is 

expected to be much smaller than the former category overall in the Western Ghats [T.R. 

Shankar Raman, pers. comm.]. The plantations have a large labour force whose future 

employment will have to be factored into any transition plans; it would be both socially 

unacceptable and politically a very difficult decision to render a large work force idle. The 

potential of such lands for biodiversity conservation can only be realized if these are brought 

118


under native tree cover. The private sector is more likely to more achieve this in a costeffective 

manner, a task that should perhaps be carried out in a phased manner. A mixed 

strategy of forest restoration and regulated nature tourism along with reduced area under 

the original plantation could perhaps provide the necessary economic viability for 

sustaining the land-use of such areas. 

Financial mechanisms for direct payments for conservation 

Several national policies and programmes have been formulated and are being implemented 

to maintain and enhance the green cover of India. There are also emerging international 

mechanisms which provide opportunities to provide financial initiatives for afforestation, 

reforestation and forest conservation. Such programmes could provide the needed finances 

for enhancing the role of people, communities and companies in protecting, managing and 

regenerating the forests and biodiversity of Western Ghats. 

a) Green India Mission: The National Mission for a Green India is one of the eight 

Missions under the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC). Green India Mission 

(GIM) acknowledges the influences that the forestry sector has on environmental 

amelioration though climate mitigation, food security, water security, biodiversity 

conservation and livelihood security of forest dependent communities (GIM, 2010) and puts 

‚greening‛ in the context of climate change adaptation and mitigation. The Mission aims at 

responding to climate change by a combination of adaptation and mitigation measures, 

which would help: 

enhancing carbon sinks in sustainably managed forests and other ecosystems 

adaptation of vulnerable species/ecosystems to the changing climate, and 

adaptation of forest-dependent communities. 

The Mission envisages a clear role for local communities and promotion of decentralized 

governance. The Mission aims to bring primacy to Gram Sabha as an overarching institution 

to oversee Mission implementation at the village level. The committees set up by the Gram 

Sabha, including revamped JFMCs, CFM groups, Van Panchayats, Committees set up under 

Forest Rights Act; Biodiversity Management Committees etc., will be strengthened as the 

primary institutions on the ground for nested decentralized forest governance in rural areas. 

Likewise, the Mission will support revamping/strengthening of the Forest Development 

Agencies to support the field institutions. GIM is a large programme and with appropriate 

incentives including financial could ensure the participation of people and communities in 

forest regeneration in the Western Ghats. 

b) CAMPA: The ‚State Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning 

Authority‛ (State CAMPA) is intended as an instrument to accelerate activities for 

preservation of natural forests, management of wildlife, infrastructure development in the 

sector and other allied works. CAMPA seeks to promote: 

Conservation, protection, regeneration and management of existing natural forests 

Conservation, protection and management of wildlife and its habitat within and 

outside protected areas including the consolidation of the protected areas 

Compensatory afforestation 

Promotion of environmental services. 

Research, training and capacity building. 

119


The large funding available under the CAMPA programme could be utilized to provide 

incentives to local communities to undertake compensatory afforestation on degraded forest 

lands as well as increase tree cover on private lands in a cost-effective manner. 

c) National Afforestation and Ecodevelopment Board (NAEB): The National 

Afforestation Programme (NAP) was formulated by merger of four 9th Plan centrallysponsored 

afforestation schemes of the Ministry of Environment & Forests, namely, 

Integrated Afforestation and Eco-Development Projects Scheme (IAEPS), Area Oriented Fuel 

wood and Fodder Projects Scheme (AOFFPS), Conservation and Development of Non- 

Timber Forest Produce including Medicinal Plants Scheme (NTFP), and Association of 

Scheduled Tribes and Rural Poor in Regeneration of Degraded Forests (ASTRP). This was 

done with a view to reducing the multiplicity of schemes with similar objectives, ensuring 

uniformity in funding pattern and implementation mechanism, avoiding delays in 

availability of funds to the field level and institutionalizing peoples participation in project 

formulation and its implementation. The NAEB is responsible for promoting afforestation, 

tree planting, ecological restoration and eco-development activities in the country, with 

special attention to the degraded forest areas and lands adjoining the forest areas, Protected 

Areas as well as ecologically fragile areas. One of the important roles of NAEB is to create 

general awareness and help foster people's movement for promoting afforestation and ecodevelopment 

with the assistance of voluntary agencies, non-government organisations, 

Panchayati Raj institutions and others and promote participatory and sustainable 

management of degraded forest areas and adjoining lands. 

d) Clean Development Mechanism (CDM): CDM is one of the funding mechanisms 

under the UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change). Both afforestation 

and reforestation activities are included under CDM. The carbon revenue derived from 

afforestation under the CDM is largely transferred to the local communities and farmers. 

CDM is therefore a ‘win-win’ strategy, providing local benefits (to communities) as well as 

global benefits, contributing to the stabilization of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The 

forest dwellers and rural communities will be rewarded for providing global environmental 

benefits. A large number of forestry projects, particularly JFM under CDM, implemented in 

different regions of India, incorporating innovative technical, institutional and financial 

interventions, could lead to a large positive impact on forest conservation and regeneration, 

degraded land reclamation and socio-economic development of rural communities, in a 

participatory way. CDM is also suited for large scale reforestation projects such as 

conversion of monoculture plantations to a more natural forest cover. Currently four CDM 

afforestation projects have been approved in India and are under implementation. 

e) REDD+: Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 

have agreed to mitigate climate change through several activities, namely, Reduced 

Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), Forest Conservation, and 

Enhancement of Carbon Stocks and Sustainable Management of Forests, collectively known 

as REDD+. The Cancun agreement encourages all countries to find effective ways to reduce 

the human pressures on forests that result in degradation and greenhouse gas emissions. 

This would require addressing drivers of deforestation and forest degradation and inclusion 

of local communities in protection, management and conservation of forests and carbon 

stocks, linking REDD+ with sustainable development and poverty reduction. Although 

India has traditionally been characterized a ‚Low Forest - Low Deforestation‛ country, there 

is significant scale small scale deforestation and forest degradation in India. Consequently 

there is potential for REDD+ activities in India after due care is taken with rights of local 

120


people. The Western Ghats would be a logical starting point for seeking finances of these 

activities. 

Conclusions 

India has realized the importance of involving local communities in forest protection and 

management, and has developed several policies and implemented large programmes such 

as Joint Forest Management programme. India has multiple institutional approaches to 

forest protection and management. However, in spite of its rich experience in forest 

management through traditional initiatives, JFM, social forestry and farm forestry, the 

genuine involvement and empowerment of local communities is limited. It is necessary to 

use this vast experience and existing policies to formulate and implement appropriate 

policies, including transfer of financial powers, and institutions to promote sustainable and 

participatory forestry under the emerging programmes and mechanisms. Some potential 

recommendations could be as follows: 

1. National programmes such as Greening India Mission, CAMPA and NAEB should 

include not just intentions of involving people and local communities but aim for genuine 

and effective transfer of powers and funds to local institutions for implementing the 

programmes. 

2. Similarly, international mechanisms such as CDM and REDD+ could be tapped to 

provide adequate financial resources for larger scale efforts (such as on plantations) to 

regenerate forests. These international mechanisms already have arrangements to ensure 

transfer of all financial returns from carbon credits to local communities. 

3. Guidelines should be developed to ensure transfer of funds from these large national 

programmes, as envisaged under the international mechanisms, to local communities and 

not mere pronouncements of involvement of communities. Local community led initiatives 

with financial resources and powers could provide a cost-effective way of implementing the 

programmes, which has not been attempted so far. 

These national and international mechanisms, with adequate financial resources and 

powers, could be deployed in the Western Ghats for effective participation of local 

communities. 

UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention 

There can be no dispute that the Western Ghats are a unique biological heritage that needs 

to be protected, and nurtured along the path of environmentally and socially sound 

development. This is why WGEEP has strongly recommended that the entire Western Ghats 

tract be considered as an Ecologically Sensitive Area, with substantial areas brought under 

Ecologically Sensitive Zones 1 and 2. It is proposed that the further process of fine-tuning 

the limits of the various zones, deciding on management regimes and the implementation be 

a participatory process going right down to gram sabhas. WGEEP believes that these 

proposals are far more comprehensive, and would more effectively serve the objectives of 

the UNESCO Heritage Programme, than the proposals currently submitted by the 

Government of India. Importantly, the WGEEP proposals would overcome the serious and 

quite genuine objections raised at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to the 

Indian proposals on 17 May 2011 at the Tenth Session, New York, 16–27 May 2011. (See 

Appendix 3) 

121


Appendices 

Appendix 1 : Kerala State Organic Farming Policy, Strategy and Action 

Plan, Govt of Kerala, 2010 

Vision 

Make Kerala’s farming sustainable, rewarding, and competitive, ensuring poison-free water, 

soil and food to every citizen. 

Background 

India has a glorious history of farming, starting probably from the 6 th millennium BC in the 

Indus Valley, harnessing the annual floods and the subsequent alluvial deposits. The Indus 

Valley Civilization was founded on sustainable farming practices. Subsequently, our culture 

and ethos became reflections of the agricultural practices and it became 

mutually inseparable till recently. The harvest of the main crops is celebrated throughout the 

country. 

In Kerala, it went to the extent of identifying the farmland with Mother God or a female. Just 

like the female has to take rest after delivery, the farm land has also to be given rest for three 

months after the harvest; tilling is strictly prohibited during this period. Although it may 

look superstitious, the ecological reason behind this ritual is that tilling during the monsoon 

leads to severe soil erosion and thus, is an unsustainable practice. Therefore, sustainability 

has been the hallmark of our farming system from time immemorial; growing the time 

tested, weather suited, traditional crops with or without additional organic inputs, but 

deeply interwoven with the ecological systems and climatic conditions. 

The once flourished Pokkali cultivation in the coastal districts and the Kaipad farming system 

in Kannur district are testimonials to man’s ingenuity in harnessing the natural events for 

farming, that too integrated farming, without affecting the natural ecological processes and 

without even any external inputs. 

However, the so-called modern agriculture – unmindful of the ecosystem principles so 

revered and practiced for centuries –l ed to seemingly irrevocable ecological and 

environmental catastrophes in the country. The Green Revolution essentially replaced the 

traditional varieties with high-yielding ones. These high-yielding varieties now recognized 

as ‘high input varieties’ needed tonnes of fertilizers, to achieve the target growth. The crops 

and varieties alien to the soil attracted new pests and diseases and also outbreaks of existing 

pests. To combat them, came in huge quantities of pesticides. Input of these "exotic" 

elements into the traditional farming led to a multitude of environmental issues. 

The microorganisms declined; the soil lost its fertility and vitality; water demand increased 

and, the time tested traditional varieties disappeared. In short, the century-old practices 

came to a halt. The eternal relationship between the farmer and farmland was lost. More 

importantly, sustainability of the agriculture systems collapsed, cost of cultivation soared, 

income of farmers stagnated and, food security and food safety became a daunting 

challenge. 

122


Biodiversity in the agricultural fields has now become a history of the past. The farmland 

became silent; devoid of the croak of frogs, chattering of warblers, whistling of Whistling 

Ducks. The long tubular straw striven nests of the Baya weaver bird hanging on the fronds 

of palms – a once spectacular sight – have disappeared from most localities. The 

insectivorous birds such as the drongo, bee-eater, even the house sparrow became rare or 

locally extinct, indicating the collapse of the entire food webs of the farmland. 

In the forestry sector, fortunately, the use of pesticides has been much less. However, the 

aerial spraying of pesticides in India was first tried in Kerala in 1965 to control the teak 

defoliators in Konni forest division. It was noted that within 48 hours nearly 162 non-target 

species of arthropods were knocked down. 

The mentally and physically retarded and handicapped children in Padri village in 

Kasergod tell the world in unequivocal terms the tragedies and disasters that aerial spraying 

of pesticides could inflict on human life. 

As a result of all these "modern" techniques, the air, water and the soil were polluted; most 

food grains and farm products were contaminated by pesticides. The run off from the farm 

land contaminated the wetlands – rivers, tanks, ponds, reservoirs, lakes and all water bodies 

– and the life in them. Fishes carried high levels of pesticides and also heavy metals, the 

latter as a result of the many chemical industries that sprang up to provide chemical 

fertilizers. 

Health hazards became unimaginably high. Incidence of fatal diseases rose. Hospitals with 

modern amenities came up in the cities as profit-making industries. Pharmaceuticals 

flourished. 

Food crops became non-attractive, while cash crops became more remunerative. Rice fields 

have been filled up for non-agricultural activities. The area under cash crops 

expanded during the last 20 years (16% under rubber alone), while that under food crops 

plummeted (to just 9% of the total cultivated area). The monoculture of such economically 

valuable crops led to soil erosion and loss of soil fertility to a great extent. The advent of 

chemical intensive farming and its prevalence in Kerala for the past 50 years have resulted in 

the near stagnant levels of productivity of many of these economically important crops such 

as coconut, cashew, pepper, coffee, tea, cardamom and arecanut. Besides these, many 

regions in Kerala, like Wayanad started facing acute water scarcity. The State has taken note 

of it and given priority in the Eleventh Five Year Plan. 

Over and above, the economic liberalization and WTO policies added to the woes of the 

farmers by bringing down the prices of agriculture commodities. They are caught in the debt 

trap owing to the loans taken to meet the high cost of farming, as it demanded more external 

inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides and water. These led to increasing instances of suicide 

by farmers. Investment in agriculture has essentially changed from the farmer to the 

industries supplying input to the farmer, and as a direct consequence, net income for 

farmers decreased while the industries supporting agriculture in the country flourished. 

The national policies of opening the retail sector to national and multinational companies 

pose great threat to our food sovereignty and right to safe food. The enhanced ‘food miles’ 

led to increased carbon emission, further increasing the load of green house gases. The 

123


potent danger of introducing Genetically Modified crops, monopoly of seeds by national 

and multinational corporate bodies could very well be the last straw on the camel’s back for 

the farmers of Kerala. 

Many farmers have realized that they are fighting a losing battle with the "high yield 

variety-fertilizer-pesticide pack" of the Green Revolution. They have also realized that the 

degradation and disruption of the fragile ecosystems of ‘God’s own country’ are the chief 

culprits for the water scarcity, nutritional insecurity, loss of primary productivity and 

agrarian crisis being faced by the State. 

The farmers in Kerala are convinced that the only way is to return to the traditional 

sustainable ways of cultivation without harming the ecosystem. Thus organic farming, a 

system with the broad principle of ‘live and let live’, came up which was recognized 

nationally and internationally. 

Organic agriculture is not limited to crop production alone, but encompasses animal 

husbandry, dairy, fisheries, poultry, piggery, forestry, bee keeping, and also uncultivated 

biodiversity around. 

By and large, there is an increasing awareness among the consumers also on the deleterious 

effects of pesticides and hence, there has been a high demand for organically cultivated food 

produce. Therefore, it has become a solemn responsibility of the Government to encourage 

organic farming to ensure poison-free food at an affordable price to every citizen. 

There have been demurs and doubts on the practicability of organic farming on the grounds 

that the production would plummet and the country would once again be forced to yet 

another food crisis. This is quite unfounded. Success stories on high productivity of organic 

farming are now abundant. The Food and Agriculture Organization reports at the 

International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security 2007 as follows: 

"Conversion of global agriculture to organic management, without converting wild lands to 

agriculture and using N-fertilizers, would result in a global agricultural supply of 2640 to 4380 

kcal/person/day. Sustainable intensification in developing countries through organic practices would 

increase production by 56 per cent. Organic yields on average are comparable to conventional yields; 

although yields do decline initially when converting from high-input systems and almost double when 

converting from low-input systems". It also has found that organic farms use 33 to 56 percent 

less energy per ha than conventional farms. 

Worldwide, as of now, more than 22.81 million hectares of land area are managed 

organically and the market of organic food is around $30 billion. It may be noted that Cuba, 

a country with 42,402 sq. miles of land and with 11.3 million people, is completely organic. 

A brief history of organic farming 

Pesticides have been in use in agriculture since the Second World War and from the very 

beginning there have been concerns about the commercialization of chemical pesticides. 

Rachel Carson’s "Silent Spring" published in 1964 brought out the scientific certainties of the 

impacts of pesticides on environment. Although DDT was banned in the developed world in 

the 1970s, and its use in the agriculture fields of developing countries later, varieties of toxic 

pesticides found their way into the farms .The scientific predictions of Rachel Carson 

124


became true and the public, especially farmers and scientists, the world over realised the 

dangers of pesticides. This led to the beginning of non-chemical farming. Researches and 

trials of traditional methods and also new models of soil and crop management began to 

appear. 

For the last 4–5 decades scientists have been trying to find out a sustainable agricultural 

system. One of the prominent personalities among them was Sir Albert Howard, the 

Advisor for Agriculture in India from 1905 to 1924. "An Agricultural Testament", written by 

him, is considered to be the first authentic book on organic farming in India. The "indoor 

method" in organic composting was also worked out first by him. 

The permaculture (permanent agriculture) experiments of Bill Mollison and Holmen in the 

1970s gave hope to many farmers the world over. The permaculture wave had its impact in 

Kerala too and since then many farmers have started experimenting with this methodology 

and they found that this is one of the best practices for Kerala with its topographical 

peculiarities and high rainfall so as to conserve soil and water and improve productivity of 

their farms. 

In a report submitted in 1983 to the Department of Agriculture of the United States, Robert 

Papendick and James Parr, agriculture scientists of the same department, had emphasised 

the crucial need for focussing research on sustainable agriculture to replace the farming 

systems being followed using chemical pesticides and fertilizers. 

The infamous Bhopal tragedy of 1984 was an eye opener to a larger section of people in 

India and abroad. Discussion on alternatives began seriously. Publication of the book "One 

Straw Revolution" in 1984 by Masanobu Fukuoka (a Japanese scientist turned farmer), on his 

success in natural farming for the last half a century and, translation of his book into 

Malayalam in 1985 were timely in channelising such discussions in Kerala. Biodynamic 

farming was another method of organic farming which attracted many farmers. 

The very sustainability of agriculture assumed serious concern in the discussions among the 

farmers and organizations in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, 

Maharashtra, Punjab and Kerala during the same period. The total external dependence of 

farmers for agriculture inputs had started affecting their economies leading to desperation 

among farming communities and ultimately to an agrarian crisis. As an alternative, to make 

farming sustainable, Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA) thus gained 

momentum in many places, especially sustainable among small and marginal farmers. The 

agriculture crisis that began in the late 1990s further strengthened this movement. Many 

individuals and organizations started interacting with farmers to make them understand the 

problems of the modern agriculture. 

Thus, from a simple beginning, organic farming later matured to such dimensions as 

women’s empowerment, seed conservation, development of seed banks, value addition and, 

more importantly, food and nutritional security. It took only 10–15 years for this transition 

and the results are encouraging. 

Currently there are a number of certified organic farmers in the state, those cultivating cash 

crops such as spices, tea, and coffee, mainly targeting the export market and also noncertified 

organic farmers who focus on food crops and biodiversity. All of them, whether 

125


certified or not, focus clearly on soil health improvement. Kerala also has an accredited 

organic certifying agency catering to the needs of the farmers. 

Some of the farming systems such as Pokkali and Kaipad cultivation, cultivation of Jeerakasala 

and Gandhakasala varieties of paddy in Wayanad and, homestead farming systems all over 

the state are organic by default. Studies have established the economic viability and 

productivity of homestead farms in the State and elsewhere. Recently the Adat panchayath 

in Thrissur district has started organic cultivation of rice in an area of 2,500 acres, promoting 

integrated farming system, which is known as the Adat model. Similarly, Marappanmoola 

in Wayanad has another model organic farming system involving hundreds of farmers. 

Marketing of organic produce is also being experimented upon in many places like Organic 

Bazaar in Thiruvananthapuram, Eco-shops in Thrissur and Kozhikode, and Jaiva Krishi 

Sevana Kendram in Kannur. Self-help groups of women are encouraged to undertake 

organic farming of vegetables in some panchayats. 

There is a rich potential for promoting organic farming in Kerala in the light that intensity of 

inorganic agriculture here is not that severe compared to that in other States in the country. 

While the national average consumption of fertilizers and pesticides during 2002–2003 was 

90kg/ha and 288g/ha respectively, it was only 60kg/ha and 224g/ha respectively in Kerala. 

This points to the positive side of agriculture in Kerala in terms of the already low levels of 

consumption of hazardous chemicals and, therefore, chances of redeeming farmers to 

organic agriculture are quite high. 

Realising the ground realities, the State Department of Agriculture commenced organic 

farming promotional activities since 2002–03. In the following year, the Department set up a 

cell for Promotion of Sustainable Agriculture and Organic Farming. It has also launched two 

brands, namely ‘Kerala Organic’ and ‘Kerala Naturals’ to market organic farm produces. 

Currently, about 7,000 farmers practice organic farming in the State as per NPOP standards, 

covering a total area of 5750 ha. But non-certified organic cultivation areas, assessments of 

which have not been done, are expected to be much more than this. 

Benefits of organic farming 

• Makes agriculture more rewarding, sustainable and respectable. 

• Sustains soil fertility by preventing the loss of soil and leaching of minerals. 

• Protects and enriches biodiversity – micro organisms, soil flora and fauna, plants and 

animals. 

• Requires less water and promotes water conservation. 

• Improves and maintains the agro-ecosystem and natural landscapes for sustainable 

production. 

• Depends mostly on renewable on-farm resources. 

• Encourages consumption of renewable energy resources – mechanical and other 

alternate sources of fuel. 

• Includes domestic animals as an essential part of the organic system which helps 

maintaining soil fertility and also increases the income of farmers. 

126


• Ensures pollution free air, water, soil, food, and natural ecosystems. 

• Improves agro-biodiversity (both varieties and crops). 

• Protects and enhances traditional knowledge in farming, processing and seed 

improvement leading to its protection for the future generations. 

• Reduces the cost of production through locally suitable methods and inputs. 

• Produces adequate quantity of nutritious, wholesome and best quality food and 

develops a healthy food culture. 

• Reduces food mileage, and thereby, carbon emission. 

The State Government is seized of the importance of organic farming, and realized the 

health hazards and un-sustainability of chemical farming as it clearly states in its 

Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan that the state has to have an organic farming policy to 

protect its rich biodiversity and thus sustain various livelihoods dependent on this precious 

resource. 

Organic Farming Policy, Strategy and Action Plan Objectives 

1. Make farming sustainable, remunerative and respectable. 

2. Enhance natural soil fertility and productivity. 

3. Ensure soil and water conservation. 

4. Ensure agricultural bio-security and food and nutritional security. 

5. Create and ensure domestic market for organic products controlled by the farmers. 

6. Avoid the use of agrochemicals and other hazardous material, and ensure chemical-free 

water, soil, air and food. 

7. Ensure seed, food and sovereignty. 

8. Promote biodiversity based ecological farming. 

9. Ensure quality control in organic inputs and agricultural produce 

10. Enable human health promotion by providing safe agricultural products and 

commodities 

11. Conservation and extension of traditional knowledge related to agriculture. 

FAO put the objectives succinctly: "Organic agriculture improves food access by increasing 

productivity, diversity and conservation of natural resources, by raising incomes and by reducing 

risks for farmers. Improvement also results from sharing of knowledge among farmers. These benefits 

lead to poverty reduction and a reversal of rural outward migration. Policy requirements to improve 

food access include: increasing farmers’ rights to seeds, local varieties and biodiversity; expanding 

fair-trade systems along the full value chain; evaluating current emergency aid and procurement 

programmes; and strengthening the rights of indigenous farmers". 

127


Strategies and Action Plan 

General approach: The mission to convert Kerala into an organic State is to be achieved 

focusing on potential crops and areas in a phased and compact manner with the aim of 

converting a minimum of 10% of the cultivable land into entirely organic every year and 

thus achieving the target within five to ten years. On completion of the third year of 

implementation of the organic farming policy, a Committee of experts comprising 

representatives of farmers and scientists should make a comprehensive assessment of the 

farmer’s well being, economy and environment, and only after rectifying the drawbacks, if 

any, can the policy be implemented in the rest of the areas. 

Definition of organic farmer 

A farmer may be defined as an 'Organic Farmer' provided he/she adheres to and practices 

the following three essentialities of organic farming. 

1. a farmer who practices mixed farming including food crops 

2. a farmer who ensures the conservation of soil and water 

3. a farmer who conserves the biodiversity of the farmland 

Strategy 1 

Ensure seed sovereignty of the farmers and the State 

Action 

1.1 Establish seed villages exclusively for organic farming. 

1.1 (a) Begin programmes for the production of seeds, seedlings, planting materials and, 

traditional animal breeds at the Panchayat level, so as to become self-sufficient in 

the availability of good quality local seeds, both indigenous and breeder seeds 

developed by the KAU and other institutions of agricultural research. 

1.1(b) 

1.1(c) 

1.1(d) 

Begin at the farmers’ group levels, seed banks and seed cooperatives to produce, 

store, share and supply good quality seeds, including those which are traditional 

and location specific. 

Promote farmers who can produce organically, good quality seeds and develop 

participatory seed production programmes along with the KAU and other 

institutions of agricultural research. 

Develop storage facilities/protection measures using traditional methods 

1.2 Ensure maintenance of traceability chain mandatory at the Local Self Government 

Institution level by the Biodiversity Management Committees (BMC) with regard to 

seeds produced, sold, transferred and shared in the Panchayat to protect the farmers 

from spurious low quality seeds, including hazardous genetically modified seeds 

1.3 Declare and ensure Genetically Modified (GM)-free villages/panchayats and State 

1.4 Establish a mechanism to regulate the prices of seeds 

128


1.5 Ensure supply of locally suitable seeds in each agro-climatic zone 

Strategy 2 

Implementation of organic farming policy in a phased manner 

Action 

2.1 Conduct an initial assessment of the status of organic farming and farmers in the State 

including cultivated, certified and non-cultivated wild organic areas in the State. 

2.2 Develop an action plan with an objective of converting annual crops such as grains, 

fruits and vegetables to organic within five years and the perennial crops with in 10 

years. 

2.3 Develop a clear plan of action with budgets for incorporation into the planning process 

of the Local Self Government Institutions for phasing in organic farming in the State. 

2.4 Special thrust should be initially given to complex, diverse and risk-prone areas such as 

rain-fed districts, drought-prone districts, food crop producing districts and tribal 

districts. 

2.5 All agricultural practices to be launched in the tribal belts of Kerala should 

compulsorily be organic. 

Strategy 3 

Compact Area Group approach in organic farming 

Action 

3.1 Encourage the formation of organic farmers groups, especially women organic farmer 

groups, clubs, SHGs and cooperatives for the purpose of cultivation, input production, 

seed/seedlings/planting materials production, certification and marketing. 

3.2 Each group should be of a minimum of five members (as stipulated under the 

Participatory Guarantee System of Certification) 

3.3 Models such as Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council of Kerala (VFPCK), 

Maarappanmoola Cooperative Society, Adat Cooperative Society for paddy, GALASA, 

Compact Area Group approach of Kannore KVK, and Harithasree may be adopted. 

3.4 Encourage Kudumbasree, Vanasamrakshana Samithi, Theera SVS, and Grama Haritha 

Samithi to develop organic farming enterprises 

Strategy 4 

Strengthen soil and ensure water conservation measures 

Action 

4.1 Declare the existing sacred groves, ponds and mangroves as protected areas and ensure 

their conservation. 

129


4.2 Ensure organic farming approach in all the watershed development areas and extend 

support including capacity building and financial assistance for soil and water 

conservation measures through ongoing watershed development programmes. 

4.3 Integrate the various institutions presently involved in watershed management and 

introduce organic farming as a key component. 

4.4 Adopt appropriate agronomic practices suitable to the agro-ecological conditions as 

well as the topographical conditions at the micro watershed level and, 

discourage/restrict inappropriate crops and cropping practices. 

4.5 Kerala Agricultural University and other research institutions should develop suitable 

crop combinations and locally suitable technology, through participatory research with 

farmers. 

4.6 Encourage landowners and part-time farmers by providing adequate financial support 

to utilize their lands for organic farming, if left unutilized. 

4.7 Formulate legislative measures to rejuvenate and protect traditional water resources 

including fresh water lakes, surangas and ensure rain water conservation, restriction of 

bore wells, especially in dark zones and recharging of existing bore wells, open wells 

and ponds, and other conservation measures so as to improve the ground water table 

and also to conserve top soil. 

4.8 Establish testing facilities for soil, water, micronutrients and microorganisms at least at 

the block and introduce the system of providing Soil Health Cards. 

4.9 Promote bio-fencing and thus help ensure soil and water conservation, and availability 

of green manure and green leaf manure 

4.10 Conduct training programmes for resource persons at the Local Self Government 

Institution level on soil and water conservation measures 

4.11 Avoid use of plastics in agricultural practices. Coir and other natural fibres should be 

encouraged to prepare shade for nurseries and flower farming. 

Strategy 5 

Promote a mixed farming approach for livelihood security and ecological sustainability 

Action 

5.1 Make crop–livestock (including poultry) integrated farming as part of organic farming, 

with women-centered ownership and management in the farmer households and 

groups. Emphasis may be given to Kerala’s traditional farming approach of integrated 

farming of dominantly coconut with cattle and poultry. 

5.2 Develop bee-keeping, fisheries, duckeries and similar enterprises as part of the mixed 

farming programme. 

130


5.3 Promote decentralized production of livestock feed from locally available resources, but 

excluding spurious ingredients such as growth promoters and hormones. 

5.4 Document and popularise traditional knowledge related to animal health care. 

5.5 Develop linkages between organic farmers and livestock growing farmers for exchange 

of manure for fodder. 

5.6 Encourage mixed cropping of indigenous trees and medicinal plants through organic 

farming. 

5.7 Promote proven and successful practices developed by farmers. 

5.8 Tax relaxation shall be given to land holdings with maximum forest and wild trees. 

Strategy 6 

Conserve and improve agro-biodiversity and undomesticated biodiversity 

Action 

6.1 Document agro-biodiversity and related traditional knowledge and practice, both 

cultivated and un-cultivated, in each Panchayat. 

6.2 Encouragement in the form of financial support may be given for the establishment of 

model agro-biodiversity conservation farms. 

6.3 Develop programmes for farmers to collect, purify and multiply traditional seeds. 

6.4 Encourage protection of traditional agricultural systems such as Kaipad, Pokkali, Kole and 

Kuttanad as "agricultural heritage of Kerala" 

6.5 Promote indigenous rice varieties such as navara, jeerakasala and gandhakasala and 

also other traditional indigenous varieties of crops. 

Strategy 7 

Launch a state-wide intensive campaign on organic farming in the form of a 

popular movement: "Jaiva Keralam" 

Action 

7.1 Organise Organic Melas in all districts. 

7.2 Begin state-wide awareness programmes for the promotion of organic farming focusing 

on the advantages of organic produce and harmful effects of chemical-based farming. 

7.3 Produce handouts, publications of case studies and best practices, video films, posters 

and other awareness materials to reach out to all sections, especially women. 

7.4 Organize workshops, seminars and exchange programmes for consumers, teachers, 

traders, farmers, government and semi-government officials in the related area. 

131


7.5 Ensure the strict enforcement of the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and 

rules 1955, and bring suitable legislations to notify and enable Agriculture 

Officers, Veterinary Doctors and similar professionals as Inspectors under the Act and 

also establish quality and adulteration testing facilities at district level. 

7.6 Encourage setting up of organic kitchen gardens, organic orchards in urban and rural 

households. 

Strategy 8 

Ensure availability of quality organic manure to the farmers 

Action 

8.1 Encourage, with adequate support, the availability of biomass in the organic farm itself, 

through programmes such as crop rotation, tree crops, cover crops, leguminous crops, 

green manure and green leaf manure. 

8.2 Provide support for cows, buffaloes, ducks, fish, poultry and goats, preferably 

traditional breeds, to organic farmers/groups to ensure integrated farming and the 

availability of farmyard manure and urine. 

8.3 Required changes in the exisiting Cattle Breeding Policy may be made to ensure 

availability of indigenous varities of cows and buffaloes to the organic farmers. 

8.4 Encourage the production of various types of compost in the farm itself, including 

vermi-composting and biogas slurry. 

8.5 Formulate special programmes for increasing the biomass and organic manures, 

especially in rain-fed cultivation areas where soil depletion is high, so as to droughtproof 

the farm. 

8.6 Encourage indigenous species of earthworms and effective microorganisms in 

composting. 

8.7 Establish a decentralized system to produce organic manure from biodegradable 

organic waste segregated at source. 

8.8 Ensure the quality of the organic manure and establish a centralized testing laboratory 

to monitor the same. 

8.9 Discourage burning of all organic materials in the field, which could be utilized as 

manure. 

8.10 Under the leadership of the "Padasekhara Samithi" and other farmer groups draw the 

benefits of the provisions of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme to 

ensure production of green leaves and extraction of silt from the rural ponds, tanks, 

reservoirs, streams and rivulets for augmenting the fertility of the farm lands. 

132


Strategy 9 

Ensure farm inputs for organic farming 

Action 

9.1 Implement programmes for the production of seeds, seedlings and other planting 

materials, manure, plant protection materials at the farm with the help of agriculture 

department, agricultural university, at local level. 

9.2 Encourage Farmers Associations/Clubs/Cooperatives/Companies of farmers, 

SHG’s/Youth groups at the local level to produce need-based farm inputs. 

9.3 Link organic municipal solid waste segregated at source, especially from markets, 

hostels, densely populated areas and other institutions including night soil to farms 

through such means as simple and cost-effective decentralised composting, 

biogasification and vermi-composting and thus ensure organic matter recycling. 

Organic waste treatment plant should be made compulsory for the flats. 

9.4 Conduct training programmes for local resource persons for producing good quality 

input, quality testing and for such related aspects at the Local Self Government 

Institution level. 

9.5 Formulate legislative measures to empower the Local Self Government Institutions, 

reputed NGOs for ensuring quality of inputs, including necessary rules, guidelines, 

standards, monitoring and testing procedures, and establishment of laboratories. 

9.6 Establish special financial assistance schemes, and/or link existing support schemes to 

groups to start production facilities for farm inputs. 

9.7 Develop local linkages for low cost input materials to farmers and ensure markets for 

good quality input materials at reasonable price 

9.8 Steps may be taken to formulate the organic farming packages developed by the 

Agricultural University in collaboration with organic farmers. Priority may be given for 

crops like banana, ginger, pineapple, vegetables, pepper, cardamom, paddy etc. 

9.9 Prepare a database on the organic content of the soil in different zones of Kerala. 

9.10 Ensure the quality of fruits and vegetables coming from other states. 

Strategy 10 

Capacity Building for farmers, implementing officers, agencies, and local selfgovernment 

members 

Action 

10.1 Conduct orientation, training and exposure visit programmes. 

10.2 Group of 10–20 unemployed youth in each Panchayat (50% women) in the model of 

Kudumbasree would be designated as "Karshaka Sevakar", trained in all facets of 

133


organic farm management supported through Local Self Government Institution 

programmes to assist farmers in organic farming. 

10.3 Develop the existing Agro-clinics of the Department of Agriculture into Organic 

Farming Resource Centres and the staff should be given training on organic farming. 

10.4 Create awareness on organic farming practices among the agriculture officers in the 

Agriculture Department. 

Strategy 11 

Develop Model Sustainable Organic Farms in the State 

Action 

11.1 Every Local Self Government Institution would develop model organic farms in select 

farmers’ fields. 

11.2 Research Stations in each agro-ecological zones under the KAU and other agricultural 

institutions should be converted to organic management systems, and thus become a 

field study centre for students, farmers and peoples’ representatives. 

11.3 Such farming areas could be made part of the responsible tourism programme. 

Strategy 12 

Ensure and improve the health and well being of the tribals through special tribal 

agriculture programmes. 

Action 

12.1 Ensure adequate nutritional food availability for tribals, whose traditional agriculture 

has been degraded. 

12.2 Develop specific programmes for the rejuvenation of their traditional agriculture and 

knowledge protection. 

12.3 Ensure sustainable collection of minor forest produce and facilitate the fair marketing 

of these produce through organic outlets. 

12.4 Formulate specific schemes to provide tribal children with their traditional food at 

least once in a day. 

12.5 Develop village (ooru) level seed banks of their traditional crops and medicinal plants. 

12.6 Integrate watershed programmes, NREG etc in the rejuvenation of tribal agriculture. 

134


Strategy 13 

Establish Producer Companies promoted by organic farmers 

Action 

13.1 Facilitate establishment of Organic Farmer Producer Companies or similar concerns as 

an organic farmers-promoted enterprise with share investment by the organic farmers 

and the LSGs 

Strategy 14 

Establish storage and transportation facilities 

Action 

14.1 Establish separate and decentralized storage facilities for organic farm produce to 

ensure its organic integrity and help farmers in certification processes. 

14.2 Provide separate local transportation facilities for organic produce to nearby domestic 

markets. 

Strategy 15 

Promote farm level processing, value addition and encourage the use of organic farm 

produce in food industry 

Action 

15.1 Encourage farm processing by farmers groups, SHGs and Farmer Producer 

Companies for value addition. 

15.2 Ensure value addition does not compromise organic produce quality by facilitating 

testing and evaluation of processes with help from KAU and other research 

institutions. 

15.3 Encourage organic food-based industry in Kerala to procure and use organic produce 

in their products. 

15.4 Set up food industries at manageable decentralised levels in the State with special 

incentive packages. 

Strategy 16 

Develop diverse channels for marketing of organic produce 

Action 

16.1 Set up separate markets/facilities for organic produce certified by the PGS process 

through the existing channels of marketing of agriculture products such as the Milma, 

Supplyco, Horti-corp, Haritha and People’s Market. 

135


16.2 Encourage direct marketing/linkages by farmers groups with end-user institutions 

such as schools, hostels, hotels, hospitals, Ayurveda centres, SHGs making food 

products and food-based industries in the State. 

16.3 Encourage institutions such as schools, hostels, hospitals and government institutions 

to procure local organic produce following rules and specific guidelines. 

16.4 Disallow large private retail corporations through suitable legislations. 

16.5 Encourage existing vegetable, fruits and grocery vendors to promote organic products 

16.6 Facilitate the establishment of organic farm produce outlets in all the districts, with the 

help of Governmental and Non-governmental organizations. 

16.7 Ensure that the tourism industry, through the Responsible Tourism Initiative, source 

organic produce from local producers as much as possible for their hotels and resorts. 

Strategy 17 

Develop a simple certification process in the State for all organic farmers 

Action 

17.1 Encourage through specific schemes the implementation of an internal control system 

for organic farmers’ group. 

17.2 Encourage the Participatory Guarantee System of Certification for small and marginal 

farmers to supply to the domestic market. 

17.3 NGOs accredited by the PGS Council of India should be authorised to help implement 

and monitor the PGS system in the State. 

17.4 The State will develop an Organic Kerala Certification and a logo, and "Jaiva Keralam" 

shall be developed as a brand. Since each country is following different norms, crops 

aimed at export may go for third party certification. 

17.5 Fix local standards for quality testing and certification. 

17.6 Ensure that every organic farmer who is doing organic farming for three years is given 

the certificate free of cost. 

17.7 Include organic livestock rearing (animal husbandry) in the certification system 

Strategy 18 

Provide financial incentives for promoting organic farming 

Action 

18.1 Provide interest-free loans to organic farmers, especially small and marginal farmers. 

Credits linked to banks should be subsidized through Central/State Governments. 

18.2 Set in place production linked incentive system supports. 

136


18.3 Promote a revolving funds system. 

18.4 Provide assistance during conversion period: two years for annual crops and three 

years for perennials. 

18.5 Introduce a State-led insurance scheme for small and marginal organic farmers 

18.6 Introduce a pension scheme for organic farmers. 

Strategy 19 

Encourage the use of renewable energy sources 

Action 

19.1 Assistance in terms of expertise and finances should be given for use of biogas plants, 

solar energy and wind energy units wherever feasible to reduce dependence on 

external energy sources. 

19.2 Develop appropriate small farm machinery for reducing energy, cost and drudgery. 

Strategy 20 

Action 

Introduce organic farming in education institutions 

20.1 Introduce organic farming in educational institutions, prisons and juvenile homes, 

through academic inputs. A specific campaign shall be started among students to 

ensure that they consume organically grown food. 

20.2 Set up a system in all schools in Kerala to have organic vegetable and fruit gardens as 

well as paddy, in potential regions, as part of inculcating among the children the love 

for organic farming and biodiversity conservation, and perpetuation in their 

households. Necessary support schemes may be formulated and implemented through 

the Local Self Government Institutions. 

20.3 Encourage schools to have seed banks and seed farms in the premises, wherever 

feasible, to produce and supply good quality seeds for use in nearby regions. 

20.4 Promote children–farmer interfaces in each school, which shall include visits to 

organic farms. 

20.5 Encourage schools to link with organic farmers for supply of rice, vegetables, fruits, 

pulses, milk, egg and honey as part of the noon meal and nutritional supplement 

programmes. The ICDS can also be encouraged to supply organic food processed and 

prepared through SHGs for the Anganwadis. 

20.6 Provide suitable incentives to baby-food industries that use organic inputs and 

processes. 

20.7 Develop a curriculum for school students on organic farming. 

137


20.8 Publicity through the Farm Information Bureau. 

Strategy21 

Reorient Research, Education and Extension 

Action 

21.1 The KAU would set up a special multi-institutional special task force to re-orient the 

Research, Education and Extension systems to support the Organic Farming Policy 

and the transition of the State’s agriculture to organic farming. 

21.2 The KAU shall develop a package of practices and model demonstration farms for 

organic farming in different agro-ecological zones. 

21.3 Introduce as part of the course curriculum, both at under- and post-graduate levels, 

interactions with leading organic farmers, groups and NGOs promoting organic 

farming in the state. 

21.4 Develop participatory research programmes with organic farmers on all aspects of 

organic farming, ensuring a monthly remuneration for the farmers of the participatory 

research programme. 

21.5 Research and inventories to recognize and document existing practices of organic 

farmers. 

21.6 Identify and screen native livestock/fish breeds which are locally adaptable and 

resistant to parasites and diseases. 

21.7 Develop herbal remedies for control of diseases and pests of livestock/ crops/ fish. 

21.8 To institutionalise the above, an Organic Farming Research Institute (OFRI) may be set 

up. 

Strategy 22 

Phase out Chemical Pesticides and Fertilizers from the farming sector 

Action 

22.1 Ensure phased restriction/ban of sale and use of chemical agricultural inputs such as 

fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides and weedicides parallel to the implementation of the 

organic farming policy in the region. 

22.2 Through necessary legislation stop the sale and use of the highly toxic Class-1a and 1b 

pesticides as a preliminary step. 

22.3 Declare and maintain ecologically sensitive areas with rich biodiversity and natural 

resource base (e.g. water bodies) as Chemical-, Pesticide-, and Fertilizer-Free Zones. 

138


22.4 Regulate the sale and use of pesticides through necessary legislations, enforcing a 

prescription-based system ensuring that pesticides are sold only on a case-to-case basis 

after obtaining prescription from the Agriculture Officer. 

22.5 Strictly prohibit the sale of pesticides to children, pregnant women and non-farmers 

22.6 Generate a database on the non-agricultural use of pesticides (e.g.household, storage, 

food processing, construction) and regulate its sale and use. 

22.7 Review and regulate promotional activities and advertisements of pesticides as per the 

FAO Code of Conduct and Guidelines for Pesticide Use. 

22.8 Conduct periodical analysis of water, soil, milk and crops at the district level where 

pesticides continue to be used and the data to be made public. 

22.9 Precautionary measures should be taken before using exotic organisms for biocontrol 

programmes. 

Strategy 23 

Integrate the programmes and activities of various departments, local self-governments 

and organizations 

Action 

23.1 Integrate the various government departments, institutions, civil societies, and their 

schemes in a harmonious manner duly considering organic farming principles and 

local situations. These include government departments such as Agriculture, Animal 

Husbandry, Forest, Fisheries, Local Bodies, Finance, Revenue, Industries, Tribal, Khadi 

and Village Industries, Financial Institutions, State Corparations, Department; 

institutions such as Kerala Agriculture University, ICAR institutions in the state; 

Commodity Boards for Spices, Coffee, Tea, Coconut and Rubber; APEDA, MILMA 

and other milk marketing societies; Farmers’ Organisations and Societies, Self Help 

Groups; Organic Farming Associations, and NGOs promoting organic farming 

Strategy 24 

Organisational set-up for promotion of organic farming 

Action 

24.1 Set up an Organic Kerala Mission to implement the organic farming policy, strategy 

and action plan and ensure their success. Since the coordination of the various 

departments is vital for the some, a General Council to be chaired by the Honourable 

Chief Minister, and since the policy has to be implemented by the Agricultural 

Department, an Executive Committee to be chaired by the Honourable Minister for 

Agriculture will supervise and guide the functioning of the Organic Kerala Mission. 

139


Appendix 2 : Minerals and Minerals Productions in the Western Ghats 

a. Minerals in the Western Ghat States/Districts 

Districts of Western 

ghats 

Important Minerals 

Maharashtra 

Nasik 

Thane 

Dhule 

bauxite, china clay 

limestone 

Nandurbar 

Pune 

Sindhudurg 

Raigad 

bauxite, china clay, chromite, iron ore, quartz and silica 

sand 

bauxite 

Satara 

Ratnagiri 

Sangli 

Kolhapur 

Ahmednagar 

bauxite, fireclay, manganese ore, quartz and silica sand 

limestone 

bauxite, laterite, quartz and silica sand 

limestone 

Gujarat 

Surat 

Valsad 

fireclay, lignite, limestone, quartz/silica 

bauxite, limestone, quartz/silica 

Dangs 

Karnataka 

Belgaum 

bauxite, china clay, dolomite, felspar, limestone, 

manganese ore, quartz/silica sand, quartzite 

140




Uttara Kannada 

Shimoga 

Udupi 

Dakshina Kannada 

Chickmagalur 

Hassan 


bauxite, china clay, dolomite, iron ore(hematite), iron ore 

(magnetite), limestone, kyanite, manganese ore, 

quartz/silica sand 

fireclay, iron ore (hematite), limestone, kyanite, 

manganese ore, quartz/silica sand 

bauxite, limestone, quartz/silica sand 

bauxite, china clay, iron ore (magnetite), limestone, 

kyanite, quartz/silica sand 

bauxite, china clay, chromite, dunite/pyroxinite, iron 

ore(hematite), iron ore (magnetite), limestone, kyanite, 

manganese ore, quartz/silica sand, talc/steatite 

china clay, dunite/pyroxinite, felspar, fireclay, gold, iron 

ore (magnetite), limestone, quartz/silica sand, talc/steatite, 

chromite 

Kodagu 

Chamrajnagar 

Mysore 

Dharwad* 

chromite, dolomite, dunite/pyroxinite, limestone, kyanite, 

mangnesite, quartz/silica sand, talc/steatite 

china clay, fireclay, gold, iron ore(hematite), quartz/silica 

sand 

Kerala 

Kasargod 

Kannur 

Kozikode 

Malappuram 

Wayanad 

bauxite, china clay, limestone, quartz/silica, titanium 

bauxite, china clay, limestone 

limestone 

limestone 

quartz/silica 

Palghat 

Thrissur 

china clay, limestone 

141




Ernakulam 

Pathanamthitta 


china clay, limestone 

titanium 

Idukki 

Kottayam 

Allapuza 

Kollam 

Thiruvananthpuram 

china clay 

china clay, limestone, quartz/silica 

bauxite, china clay, limestone, sillimanite, titanium, zircon 

bauxite, china clay, quartz/silica, sillimanite, titanium 

Tamil Naidu 

Nilgiris 

Coimbatore 

bauxite, magnesite 

felspar, gypsum, limestone, magnesite, quartz/silica sand, 

steatite 

Theni 

Dindigul 

Virudunagar 

Tirunelveli 

Erode 

Madurai 

Kanyakumari 

bauxite, felspar, limestone, quartz/ silica sand 

gypsum, limestone 

garnet, granite, gypsum, limestone, magnesite, titanium 

felspar, granite, quartz/ silica 

granite, graphite, limestone, quartz/ silica sand 

garnet, titanium, zircon 

Source: IBM 2008 

142


b. Mineral Production in 2007–08 

In red: WG districts 

State 

Important 

Mineral 

District 

2007-08(p) 

Tonnes 

Value of 

production 

(Rs. '000) 

State value 

of mineral 

production 

(Rs. '000) 

Mineral 

production 

as a % of 

state 

production 

Maharashtra 50652367 

Bauxite 

China Clay 

Limestone 

Chromite 

Iron Ore 

(Hematite) 

Quartz 

Silica Sand 

Kohlapur, Raigad, 

Ratnagiri, Satara, 

Sindhudurg, Thane 

Amravati, Bhandara, 

Chandrapur, Nagpur, 

Sindhudurg, Thane 

Ahmednagar, 

Chandrapur, Dhule, 

Gadchiroli, Nagpur, 

Nanded, Pune, 

Sangli, Yavatmal 

Bhandara, 


Sindhudurg 

Chandrapur, 

Gadchiroli, 

Sindhudurg 

Bhandara, 

Chandrapur, 

Gadchiroli, Gondia, 

Kohlapur, Nagpur, 

Ratnagiri, 

Sindhudurg 

Bhandara, 

Chandrapur, 

Gadchiroli, Gondia, 

Kohlapur, Nagpur, 

Ratnagiri, 

Sindhudurg 

1785330 531830 1.0500 

9600000 987938 1.9504 

588000 396291 0.7824 

13442 1648 0.0033 

443259 96313 0.1901 

143


State 

Important 

Mineral 

District 

2007-08(p) 

Fireclay 

Amravati, 


Ratnagiri 

7239 543 0.0011 

Manganese 

Ore 

Bhandara, Nagpur, 

Ratnagiri 

854120 5313228 10.4896 

Laterite Kohlapur 245237 58538 0.1156 

Gujrat 63445599 

Fireclay 

Lignite 

Limestone 

Quartz 

Silica 

Bharuch, Kachchh, 

Mehsana, Rajkot, 

Sabarkantha, Surat, 

Surendernager 

Bharuch, Bhavnagar, 

Kachchh, Surat 

Amreli, Banaskantha, 


Jamnagar, Junagadh, 

Kheda, Kachchh, 

Panchmahals, 

Porbandar, Rajkot, 


Vadodra, Valsad 


Dahod, Kheda, 

Kachchh, 

Panchmahals, Rajkot, 


Surendrnagar, 



Dahod, Kheda, 

Kachchh, 

Panchmahals, Rajkot, 


Surendrnagar, 


35451 2531 0.0040 

11788000 8277771 13.0470 

22120000 2743616 4.3244 

69255 6361 0.0100 

383349 39876 0.0629 

Bauxite Amreli, Bhavnagar, 12515094 2278084 3.5906 

144


State 

Important 

Mineral 

District 

2007-08(p) 

Jamnagar, Junagarh, 

Kheda, Kachchh, 

Porbandar, 

Sabarkantha, Valsad 

Kerala 7482336 

Bauxite 

China Clay 

Limestone 

Quartz/Silica 

Sillimanite 

Titanium 

Zircon 

Kannur, Kasaragod, 

Kollam, 


Alappuzha, 

Ernakulam, Kannur, 

Kasaragod, Kollam, 

Kottayam, Pallakad, 

Thiruvananthpuram, 

Thrissur 

Alappuzha, 

Ernakulam, Kannur, 

Kollam, Kottayam, 

Kozikode, 

Mallapuram, 

Pallakad, Thrissur 

Alappuzha, 

Kasaragod, 

Thiruvananthpuram, 

Waaynad 

Kollam, 


Kosaragod, Kollam, 

Pathanamthitta, 


Kollam 

- - 

475000 147326 1.9690 

38552 18298 0.2445 

14570 87420 1.1684 

Tamil Nadu 30065910 

Bauxite 

Dindigul, Namakkal, 

Salem, Nilgiri 

342687 3663 0.0122 

145


State 

Important 

Mineral 

District 

2007-08(p) 

Felspar 

Coimbatore, 

Dindigul, Erode, 

Kanchipuram, Karur, 

Namakkal, Salem, 

Tiruchirapalli 

576 261 0.0009 

Garnet 

Ramanathapuram, 

Tiruchirapalli, 

Tiruvarur, 

Kanyakumari, 

Thanjavur, 

Tirunelveli, 

Kottabomman 

863014 289493 0.9629 

Granite 

Dharmapuri, Erode, 

Kanchipuram, 

Madurai, 

P.Muthuramalingam, 

Salem, 

Thiruvannamalai, 


Tirunelveli, Vellore, 

Villupuram 

Graphite 

Madurai, 

Ramnathapuram, 

Shivganga, Vellore 

50543 16204 0.0539 

Gypsum 

Coimbatore, 

Perambalur, 



Tirunelveli, 

Thoothukudi, 

Virudhunagar 

- - 

Limestone 

Coimbatore, 

Cuddalore, Dindigul, 

Kanchipuram, Karur, 

Madurai, 

Nagapattinum, 

Namakkam, 

Perambalur, 


Salem, Thiruvallur, 


17336000 2514291 8.3626 

146


State 

Important 

Mineral 

District 

2007-08(p) 

Tirunelveli, Vellore, 

Villupuram, 

Virudhunagar 

Magnesite 

Coimbatore, 

Dharmapuri, Karur, 

Namakkal, Nilgiri, 

Salem, Tiruchirapalli, 

Tirunelveli, Vellore 

179095 301549 1.0030 

Quartz 

Chengai-Anna, 

Chennai, Coimbatore, 

Cuddalore, 

Dharmapuri, Dinigul, 

Erode, Kanchipuram, 

Karur, Madurai, 

Namakkal, Periyar, 

Perambalur, Salem, 

Thiruvallur, 

Thiruvarur, 

Nagapattinam, 

Tiruchipallai, 

Villupuram, 

Virudhnagar, Vellore 

5828 6504 0.0216 

Silica 

Chengai-Anna, 

Chennai, Coimbatore, 

Cuddalore, 

Dharmapuri, Dinigul, 

Erode, Kanchipuram, 

Karur, Madurai, 

Namakkal, Periyar, 

Perambalur, Salem, 

Thiruvallur, 

Thiruvarur, 

Nagapattinam, 

Tiruchipallai, 

Villupuram, 

Virudhnagar, Vellore 

27206 10264 0.0341 

Steatite 

Coimbatore, Salem, 


Vellore 

- - 

Titanium 

Kanyakumari, 

Nagapattinum, 

Ramanathapuram, 

147


State 

Important 

Mineral 

District 

2007-08(p) 

Thiruvallur, 

Tirunelveli, 

Thootukudi 

Zircon 

Kanyakumari 

Karnataka 44949142 

Bauxite 

China Clay 

Chromite 

Dolomite 

Dunite/Pyrox 

enite 

Felspar 

Fireclay 

Gold 

Belgaum, 

Chickmagalur, Uttar 

& Dakshin Kannada, 

Udipi 

Bangalore, Belgaum, 

Bellary, Bidar, 

Chickmagalur, 

Dharwad, Gadag, 

Hassan, Haveri, 

Koalr, Uttar & 

Dakshin Kannada, 

Shimoga, Tumkur 

Chickmagalur, 

Hasan, Mysore 

Bagalkot, Belgaum, 

Bijapur, Chitradurga, 

Mysore, Uttar 

Kanadda, Tumkur 

Chickmagalur, 

Hasan, Mysore 

Mysore, Belgaum, 

Chitradurga, Hassan 

Bangalore, 

Chitradurga, Hassan, 

Dharwad, Kolar, 


Chitradurga, 


Gulbarga, Hasan, 

Haveri, Kolar, 

161554 28425 0.0632 

45000 4500 0.0100 

7257 43843 0.0975 

348690 46020 0.1024 

6438 515 0.0011 

- - 

- - 

2831kg 2799422 6.2280 

148


State 

Important 

Mineral 

District 

2007-08(p) 

Raichur, Tumkur 

Iron Ore 

(Hematite) 

Bagalkot, Bellary, 

Bijapur, 

Chickmagalur, 

Chitradurga, 


Uttar Kannada, 


45605000 39919060 88.8094 

Iron Ore 

(Magnetite) 

Chickmagalur, 

Hasan, Uttar & 


Shimoga 

0.0000 

Kyanite 

Chickmagalur, 

Chitradurga, Coorg, 

Mandya, Mysore, 

Shimog, Dakshin 

Kannada 

- - 

Limestone 

Bagalkot, Belgaum, 

Bellary, Bijapur, 

Chickmagalpur, 

Chitradurga, 

Davangere, Gadag, 

Gulbarga, Hassan, 

Mysore, Uttar & 

Dakshin Kannnada, 

Shimoga, Tumkur, 

Udipi 

14859000 1309892 2.9142 

Magnesite 

Coorg, Mandya, 

Mysore 

4602 7714 0.0172 

Manganese 

Ore 

Belgaum, Bellary, 

Chickmagalur, 

Chitradurga, 

Davangere, Uttar 

Kannada, Shimog, 

Tumkur 

309716 388210 0.8637 

Quatrz 

Bagalkot, Bangalore, 



Chitradurga, 

Davangere, 

2500 153 0.0003 

149


State 

Important 

Mineral 

District 

2007-08(p) 




Koppal, Mandya, 



Raichur, Shimoga, 

Tumkur, Udupi 

Silica 

Bagalkot, Bangalore, 



Chitradurga, 

Davangere, 




Koppal, Mandya, 



Raichur, Shimoga, 

Tumkur, Udupi 

89713 8792 0.0196 

Talc/Steatite 

Bellary, 


Chitradurga, Hassan, 

Mandya, Mysore, 

Raichur, Tumkur 

358 36 0.0001 

Source: IBM 2008 

150


Appendix 3 : Objections Raised at UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous 

Issues to Indian Proposals 

UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Tenth Session, New York, 16–27 May 2011: 

Agenda Item 3(c): Follow-up to the recommendations of the Permanent Forum: free, prior 

and informed consent (Tuesday, 17 May 2011) 

Joint Statement on Continuous violations of the principle of free, prior and informed 

consent in the context of UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention Submitted by: 

Budakattu Krishikara Sangha, Karnataka, Western Ghats, India (representing indigenous 

peoples of Pushpagiri Wildlife Sanctuary, Brahmagiri Wildlife Sanctuary, Talacauvery 

Wildlife Sanctuary, Padinalknad Reserved Forest, Kerti Reserved Forest); Pothigaimalai 

Adivasi Kanikkaran Samuthaya Munnetra Sangam (Kalakkad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, 

Western Ghats, India); Adivasi Gothrajaan Sabha, Kerala (Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary, 

Western Ghats, India); Adivasi-Dalit Land Rights Committee, Kerala; Adivasi Gothra 

Mahasabha, Kerala, India (representing Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuary, Neyyar Wildlife 

Sanctuary, Peppara Wildlife Sanctuary, Kulathupuzha Range, Palode Range, Ranni Forest 

Division, Konni Forest Division, Achankovil Forest Division, Mankulam Range, Chinnar 

Wildlife Sanctuary, Silent Valley National Park, Attapadi Reserved Forest, Aralam Wildlife 

Sanctuary); Kerala Girivarga Kanikkar Sangham (Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuary, Neyyar 

Wildlife Sanctuary, Peppara Wildlife Sanctuary, Kulathupuzha Range, Palode Range); along 

with a large number of other organizations from all over the world. 

Introduction 

1. We would like to again bring to the attention of the Permanent Forum our serious 

concern about the continuous and on-going disrespect of the principle of free, prior and 

informed consent by UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee when it designates sites in 

Indigenous peoples’ territories as ‚World Heritage sites‛. 

2. This issue has already been brought to the attention of the Permanent Forum on several 

occasions, by Indigenous peoples and organizations from many different parts of the 

world. 

3. There are numerous examples of Indigenous sites on the World Heritage List that have 

been inscribed without the free, prior and informed consent of the Indigenous peoples 

concerned. In many cases Indigenous peoples were not even consulted when their 

territories were designated as World Heritage sites, although this designation can have 

far-reaching consequences for their lives and human rights, their ability to carry out their 

subsistence activities, and their ability to freely pursue their economic, social and 

cultural development in accordance with their right of self-determination. 

4. The practice of the World Heritage Committee is inconsistent with the provisions of the 

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Programme of Action for the 

Second International Decade of the World's Indigenous People, the United Nations 

Development Group’s Guidelines on Indigenous Peoples’ Issues, the comments and 

concluding observations of the UN human rights treaty monitoring bodies, the views of 

the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, the Resolutions of the 

4th World Conservation Congress (Barcelona, 2008), and the recommendations of the 

Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. 

151


5. It is also inconsistent with UNESCO’s objective to integrate a human rights-based 

approach into all of its programmes and activities. It contrasts with the practice of 

UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible 

Cultural Heritage, which has adopted Operational Directives ensuring that elements can 

only be inscribed on UNESCO’s lists of intangible cultural heritage if the free, prior and 

informed consent of the communities and groups concerned has been obtained. 

6. Last year, at the World Heritage Committee’s 34th Session in Brasilia (25 July – 3 August 

2010), the Committee inscribed two sites on the World Heritage List although questions 

had been raised regarding Indigenous peoples’ participation in the nomination processes 

and their free, prior and informed consent: the Northwest Hawaiian Islands Marine 

Monument (‚Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument‛) and the Ngorongoro 

Conservation Area in Tanzania.The latter was re-inscribed as a cultural World Heritage 

site, because of its significance as an archaeological site, not because of the significance of 

the Maasai culture. We are concerned that the Committee’s recognition of only the 

archaeological values, and not the living cultural values of the Indigenous residents, may 

exacerbate the already existing imbalances in the management framework for the 

Ngorongoro Conservation Area and lead to additional restrictions on the livelihoods of 

the Indigenous residents and further infringements on their rights. 

7. This year, at its upcoming 35th Session in Paris (19-29 June 2011), the World Heritage 

Committee will be considering several nominations of sites that are located in 

Indigenous peoples’ territories. These include (among other sites): 

• ‚Western Ghats‛ (India); 

• ‚Trinational de la Sangha‛ (Republic of Congo / Cameroon / Central African 

Republic); 

• ‚Kenya Lake System in the Great Rift Valley‛ (Kenya). 

All three of the mentioned sites are nominated under natural World Heritage criteria alone, 

without giving due consideration to the Indigenous cultural values connected to these areas 

and Indigenous peoples’ roles as stewards of these places. Moreover, all of the mentioned 

nominations were prepared without meaningful involvement and consultation of the 

Indigenous peoples concerned and without obtaining their free, prior and informed consent. 

Recommendations 

We urge the Permanent Forum to call on the World Heritage Committee: 

a. to defer all World Heritage nominations of sites in Indigenous peoples’ territories if it 

cannot be ensured that the Indigenous peoples have been adequately consulted and 

involved and that their free, prior and informed consent has been obtained; 

b. to defer the nominations of ‚Western Ghats‛, ‚Trinational de la Sangha‛ and ‚Kenya 

Lake System in the Great Rift Valley‛, and call on the respective State parties to consult 

and collaborate with the Indigenous peoples concerned, in order to ensure that their 

values and needs are reflected in the nomination documents and management plans and 

to obtain their free, prior and informed consent; 

c. to endorse the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and use it as the 

basic reference framework when making decisions about World Heritage sites in 

Indigenous territories, together with the UNDG Guidelines on Indigenous Peoples’ 

Issues; 

152


References 

1. Article 32(2) of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN Doc. 

A/RES/61/295, Annex), adopted by the UN General Assembly on 13 September 2007, 

states: ‚States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples 

concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and 

informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories 

and other resources


References 

Alvares N. 2010. Political Struggle through Law The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) route to 

environmental security in India with special reference to the environment movement in 

Goa. WGEEP Commissioned paper. http://www.westernghatsindia.org/commissionedpapers/ 

Anand Kumar M, Mudappa D and Raman T R S. 2010. Asian elephant Elephas maximus habitat use 

and ranging in fragmented rainforests and plantations in the Anamalai hills, India. Tropical 

Conservation Science 3: 143-158. 

Baskaran N et al. 1995. Home range of elephants in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve. In A week with 

elephants edited by J C Daniel and H S Datye. Bombay Natural History Society and Oxford 

University Press: Mumbai. 

Boralkar D B. 2010. Industrial pollution in the Western Ghats. WGEEP Commissioned paper 

http://www.westernghatsindia.org/commissioned-papers/ 

Cancun Agreement. 2011. CP16/CMP 6, The Cancún Agreements 

Central Water Commission. 2009. National Register of Large Dams - 2009. 

http://www.cwc.nic.in/main/downloads/National%20Register%20of%20Large%20Dams%202 

009.pdf 

Chaturvedi R K, Gopalakrishnan R, Jayaraman M, Bala G, Joshi N V, Sukumar R and Ravindranath N 

H. 2011. Impact of climate change on Indian forests: a dynamic vegetation modeling 

approach. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies to Global Change 16: 119-142. 

Choudhary C and Dandekar A. 2010. PESA, Left-Wing Extremism and Governance: Concerns and 

Challenges in India’s Tribal Districts. IRMA Ahmedabad, Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Govt. 

of India 

Daniels R J R, Joshi N V and Gadgil M. 1992. On the relationship between bird and woody plant 

species diversity in the Uttara Kannada district of south India. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.USA 

89(12): 5311 5315 

Daniels R J R. 2010. Spatial Heterogeneity, Landscapes and Ecological Sensitivity in the Western 

Ghats. WGEEP Commissioned paper. http://www.westernghatsindia.org/commissionedpapers/ 

Dhara S. 2010. Suggested resolution for the consideration of the Western Ghat group. For 

discussion at the Save Western Ghats meet, Kotagiri, 18-20 Feb 2010. Kodachadri 

Environment Forum, Sahyadri Ecology Forum, Hyderabad Platform, Cerana Foundation. 

Available at http://www.westernghatsindia.org/taxonomy/term/23 

Dharmadhikary S and Dixit S. 2011. Thermal Power Plants on the anvil: Implications and need for 

rationalization. Prayas Discussion paper. 

Dutta R and Sreedhar R. 2010. A framework for EIA reforms in the Western Ghats. WGEEP 

Commissioned paper http://www.westernghatsindia.org/commissioned-papers/ 

Equations. 2010. Tourism in the Western Ghats. WGEEP Commissioned paper 


Food and Agriculture Organization. 1984. Intensive multiple-use forest management in Kerala. 

Forestry Paper - 53. FAO, Rome. 

Gadgil M and Rao P R S. 1998. Nurturing Biodiversity: An Indian Agenda. Centre for Environment 

Education, Ahmedabad. p. 163. 

Gadgil M, Daniels R J R, Ganeshaiah K N, Prasad S N , Murthy MSR , Jha C S , Ramesh B R and 

Subramaniam K A. 2011 Mapping ecologically sensitive, significant and salient areas of 

Western Ghats: proposed protocol and methodology. Current Science 100(2): 175-182 

Gadgil M, Prasad S N and Ali Rauf. 1983. Forest management in India : a critical review. 

Gadgil M. 1991. Conserving India's biodiversity : the societal context. Evolutionary Trends in Plants 

5(1), 3‐8. 

Gadgil M. 2000. Poverty and Biodiversity. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity 4: 7263- 7287. Academic Press 

Gadigil M & Guha R. 1992. This fissured land: An ecological history of India. Oxford University 

Press: New Delhi 

154


GIM. 2010. National Mission for a Green India. Under the National Action Plan on Climate Change, 

Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, New Delhi. 

Gupta A C. 1981. Preservation plots in Karnataka In: National seminar on forests and environment. 

2-3 December. Bengaluru 

Hegde N G. 2010. Tree planting on private lands. WGEEP Commissioned paper 


Indian Bureau of Mines. 2008. Indian Minerals Yearbook. Ministry of Mines, Government of India 

Kadambi K.1949. On the ecology and silviculture of Dendrocalamusstrictus in the bamboo forests 

of Bhadravathi division, Mysore. Karnataka Forest Department. Bengaluru. 

Kalavampara G. 2010. Mining–Geological and Economic Perspective. WGEEP Commissioned paper 


Lebel L and Lorek S. 2010. Production Consumption Systems and the Pursuit of Sustainability. In: 

Sustainable Consumption Production Systems: Knowledge, Engagement and Practice, edited by 

Lebel, L, S Lorek, R Daniel, 2010. Chapter 1. Springer: London and New York 

MEA: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2003. Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework 

for assessment. Island Press: Washington DC. 

MoEF. 2000. Report of the Committee on identifying parameters for designating Ecologically 

Sensitive Areas in India (Pronab Sen Committee Report) 

Munoz F, Couteron P and Ramesh B R. 2008. Beta diversity in spatially implicit neutral models: a 

new way to assess species migration. The American Naturalist 172(1): 116-127 

National Commission on Agriculture. 1976. Report of the NCA - Part IX - Forestry. Ministry of 

Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi 

NRC. 2007. Environmental impacts of wind-energy projects. National Academies Press: USA 

Ostrom E. 2009. Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic 

Systems. Nobel lecture, December 8, 2009 

Padmalal. 2011. Alluvial Sand Mining: The Kerala Experience. WGEEP Commissioned paper. 


Paranjpye V. 2011. Threats to the Western Ghats of Maharashtra: An overview. WGEEP 

Commissioned paper. http://www.westernghatsindia.org/commissioned-papers/ 

Pascal J P. 1988. Wet Evergreen Forests of the Western Ghats of India: ecology, structure, floristic 

composition and succession. Institut Francais de Pondicherry, Pondicherry. 

Prasad S N and Gadgil M. 1978. Vanishing bamboo stocks. Commerce 1000‐1004 

Prasad S N and M Gadgil. 1981. Conservation and management of bamboo resources of Karnataka. 

.Karnataka State Council for Science and Technology. 

Prasad S N. 1984. Productivity of eucalyptus plantations in Karnataka. Paper presented at the 

National seminar on eucalyptus, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi. 

Raghunanda T R. 2008. Natural resource governance and local governments: challenges and policy 

solutions. Paper to the Third TERI-KAS Conference on Resource Security: The Governance 

Dimension. New Delhi 

Ranade P S. 2009. Infrastructure development and its environmental impact : study of Konkan 

Railway. Concept Publishing Co.: New Delhi 

Ravindranath N H, Joshi N V, Sukumar R and Saxena A. 2006. Impact of climate change on forests in 

India. Current Science 90: 354-361. 

Ravindranath N H, Sukumar R and Deshingkar P. 1997. Climate change and forests: Impacts and 

Adaptation – A case study from the Western Ghats, India. Stockholm Environment Institute: 

Stockholm. 

RBI Data. http://www.indiastat.com/Industries/18/ StateRBIRegionwiseForeignDirectInvestment/ 

449558/458047/data.aspx, accessed on July 13, 2011 

Scott C. 2004. Regulation in the age of governance: the rise of the post regulatory state. In The 

Politics of Regulation edited by J Jordana and D Levi-Faur. Edward Elgar: UK, chapter 7. 

Somanathan E, Prabhakar R, Mehta B S. 2009. Decentralization for cost-effective conservation. Proc. 

Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106: 4143-4147. 

Somanathan E. 2010. Incentive Based Approaches to Nature Conservation. WGEEP Commissioned 

paper. http://www.westernghatsindia.org/commissioned-papers/ 

155


Subash Chandran M D. 1997. On the ecological history of the Western Ghats. Current Science 73(2): 

146-155. 

Sukumar R, Suresh H S and Ramesh R. 1995. Climate change and its impact on tropical montane 

ecosystems in southern India. Journal of Biogeography 22: 533-536. 

TERI. 2006. National Action Plan (NPA) for Preventing Pollution of Coastal Waters from Land 

Based Activities. Prepared for Ministry of Environment and Forests. 

TERI. 2011. The Energy Data Directory & Yearbook (TEDDY) 2010. TERI Press. New Delhi 

TERI. Ongoing. DISHA Goa study 

Vidya T N C and Thuppil V. 2010. Immediate behavioural responses of humans and Asian 

elephants in the context of road traffic in southern India. Biological Conservation 123:1891- 

1900. 

Viraraghavan M S. 2010. Hill Stations in the Western Ghats. Kodaikanal – A Case Study. WGEEP 

Commissioned paper. http://www.westernghatsindia.org/commissioned-papers/ 

Wesley D G. 1964. Revised Working Plan of the Yellapur and Mundgod teak High forests. Kanara 

Eastern Division. Karnataka Forest Department.Bengaluru 

Websites 

http//www.westernghatsindia.org 

http://new.dpi.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/excel_doc/0007/68227/dpi-bond-calculator-1-December- 

2010.xls 

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/85522/182-mining-leases-goa-near.html). 

http://www.indiastat.com/industries/18/industrialparksspecialeconomiczonessez/27570/stats.aspx 

156


Annexure: Minutes of the Meetings of the 

WGEEP 

Minutes of the First Meeting of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel held on 31 st 

March 2010 at 10.00 am at ATREE, Bengaluru. 

The first meeting of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel was held at Ashoka Trust for 

Research in Ecology and Environment (ATREE), Royal Enclave, Srirampura, Jakkur Post, 

Bengaluru 560 064 on 31 st March, 2010. The following were present: 


2. Shri. B.J. Krishnan Member 

3. Dr. Nandakumar Mukund Kamat Member 




7. Prof. R. Sukumar Member 

8. Dr. Ligia Noronha Member 

9. Ms. Vidya S. Nayak Member 

10. Prof. S. P. Gautam Member 

11. Dr. G. V. Subrahmanyam Member Secretary 

Dr. P.L. Gautam, Chairman, National Biodiversity Authority; Dr. R.R. Navalgund, Director, 

SAC, Ahmedabad, Member of the Panel could not attend the meeting. He deputed Dr. P. S. 

Roy, Dy. Director, NRSC, Hyderabad to represent him. 

The Chairman welcomed all the members and requested them to introduce themselves. 

Thereafter, Dr. G.V. Subrahmanyam briefly outlined the tasks and expected outcomes of the 

Panel. These included assessment of the current status of the ecology of the Western Ghats 

region, demarcation of areas within the region to be notified as ecologically sensitive zones 

under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, as also to recommend modalities for the 

establishment of the Western Ghats Ecology Authority under the Environment (Protection) 

Act. He also informed members that the Panel, with a term of one year, was to submit its 

interim report within six months from the date of its constitution. 

The Chairman briefly explained the TORs of the panel and introduced the major agenda 

points to be taken up during the meeting. These included: 

1. Work plan 

2. Organizing an information system 

3. Organizing a process of Comprehensive Consultation 

4. Time frame 

157


I. Work Plan 

The Chairman introduced the agenda item on work plan (Annexure-I) as prepared by him 

and thereafter a detailed discussion was held. The following were the major points that 

emerged during the discussions: 

• The Panel may collect the following relevant information to address the terms of 

reference listed at I to VI of the MoEF order of 4 th March, 2010: 

o 

o 

Status and on-going changes in health of soils, water, air, biodiversity, rural 

and urban settlements, forestry, farming, herding, fishing, industry, tourism, 

mining etc. 

Institutional issues related to ecologically sensitive areas, community 

conservation areas, wildlife sanctuaries, national parks, biosphere reserves, 

project tiger reserves, environmental impact assessment, assessment of 

carrying capacity, Central and State Pollution Control Boards, Coastal 

Regulation Zone, National, State and local biodiversity authority/ boards/ 

management committees, Heritage sites, Threatened species, Protection of 

Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, Joint Forest Management, Tribal 

Forest Right Act, models like Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection 

Authority, working of Panchayati Raj Institutions, possible new initiatives 

grounded in positive incentives such as the Australian Soil Carbon 

Accreditation scheme and Costa Rica’s Payment of Service Charges to 

farmers for providing watershed services through maintenance of tree cover 

on private land. 

o A Western Ghats Ecology Authority could be constituted under Sub-section 3 

of Section 3 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, as has been done in the 

case of the Dahanu Authority and many other such Authorities. Though the 

Dahanu Authority is an outcome of judicial intervention, the Ministry as an 

Executive could pro-actively constitute the proposed Western Ghats Ecology 

Authority as has been contemplated under the Environment (Protection) Act, 

1986. Nevertheless, it may be desirable to enact a separate law for establishing 

the ‘Western Ghats Ecology Authority’. Such a law would serve as a model in 

future. 

• Intersectoral/interdepartmental conflict resolution (vis-à-vis mining against forests etc.) 

could be done by suitable amendment to the EPA to establish a clear hierarchy for better 

executive and judicial interpretation. 

• The Panel suggested that the schedule of the work may be divided into the following 

modules: 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Research, 

Stakeholders consultation (Region-wise and State-wise) including the 

administration, MPs of the Western Ghats Region and local people, 

Outreach/communication plan and 

Implementation/constitution of the Western Ghats Authority. 

158


II. 

Organizing an Information System 

The Chairman introduced the detailed Agenda (Annexure-II) as prepared by him and 

thereafter detailed deliberations were held by the Panel and the following action points 

emerged: 

• Need to immediately begin with the organization of information pertaining to the 

current status of the ecology of the Western Ghats Region and to demarcate areas within 

the Western Ghats Region to be notified as ecologically sensitive areas under the 


• Besides plants, animals, insects, birds etc., emphasis also needs to be given to the 

precious microbial diversity of the Western Ghats where hundreds of novel microbial 

species have been identified. Historical, archaeological aspects such as prehistoric 

human occupation sites and routes of migration, rock art sites etc. also need to be 

considered. 

• The emphasis for data collection is on published material in English but a lot of 

information on the Western Ghats exists in local languages of the region in the five 

Western Ghats states and at least abstracts of these could be compiled. 

• The tribals of the Western Ghats need special focus as they have traditional knowledge 

about the forest resources and they are the main stakeholders. 

• The Ministry would make available the reports of the Pranob Sen and the Dr. T.S. 

Vijayaraghavan Committees on ecologically sensitive areas and also the 

recommendations of the National Board for Wildlife and Hon’ble Supreme Court 

decisions relating to eco-sensitive zones around National Parks and Sanctuaries. 

• Dr. Ganeshaiah who has been involved in the development of the India Bio-resources 

Information Network and associated with ATREE’s India Biodiversity Portal and Dr. 

Sukumar who heads CES, IISc, which hosts ENVIS’s Sahyadri: Western Ghats 

Biodiversity Information System, were requested to assist the Panel in organizing the 

relevant information system using modern information technologies such as ICT 

including web 2.0 technologies. The assistance of Mr. Janardhan Pillai, Systems Manager, 

CES, may be sought. 

• Dr. Ganeshaiah was requested to develop a proposal seeking a seed budget to initiate a 

programme for creating a Western Ghats data base site. This website is initially 

intended to serve the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, including its outreach 

activities, but will eventually be expanded as a dedicated site for the Western Ghats data 

base management. A detailed proposal along with budgetary details for this purpose 

will be submitted to the MoEF for financial assistance. The Panel strongly recommended 

that such a proposal be funded in an expeditious manner. 

• To incorporate in the proposed information system as well as uploaded on the web, soft 

copies be created of the documents relating to Western Ghats Ecology that are currently 

available as hard copies. Some of these include the following: 

o 

o 

the framework for assessment of the carrying capacity of Dakshina Kannada District 

by Dr. D.K. Subramanian 

the initial project document and a ten-year assessment of the Nilgiris biosphere 

reserve prepared by Prof. Madhav Gadgil 

159


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

relevant impact assessment documents especially those pertaining to protected areas 

in Western Ghats to be provided by MoEF, e.g. Kudremukh Iron Ore Project EIA 

report by NEERI 

Specific reports of importance towards defining Eco-sensitive Areas in the Western 

Ghats to be identified by the Panel and to be commissioned by the Ministry 

Landscape-level information by Dr. P.S. Roy, NRSC, Hyderabad 

Judicial and policy-related information to be provided by Shri B.J. Krishnan 

Various types of literature from NGOs, Millennium Biodiversity Report of CDFC and 

sacred groves to be provided by Ms. Vidya S. Nayak 

Information on Goa to be provided by Dr. Nandkumar Mukund Kamat 

Compilation of existing information on Western Ghats Microbial Biodiversity and to 

suggest systematic eco-conservation and sustainable utilization measures by Dr. 

Nandkumar Mukund Kamat 

• The Chairman noted that a vast amount of pertinent information is available with the 

Ministry of Environment and Forests in its archives; this includes EIAs of projects on the 

Western Ghats, deliberations of various committees such as the Western Ghats Ecodevelopment 

Research Programme, review of Niligiri Biosphere Reserve and so on. 

Apparently there is no system of filing and retrieval of all this valuable information. The 

Ministry is urged to initiate the process of identifying all such, so-called, ‘gray’ literature, 

scanning it and creating soft copies through an optical character recognition (OCR) 

process. 

• The Panel suggested that the data may be organized into biodiversity data, 

landscape/landuse data, natural resources (including soil, water and minerals), various 

policy / legal sets, conservation-related data, data related to endangered species, threat 

maps, human resources, spatial data, traditional / cultural data, pollution-related issues 

from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), tourism, governance and various 

notifications and finally bibliography. 

• The Panel also suggested that important persons involved in the ecology of the Western 

Ghats be contacted; viz. Shri Jayant Kulkarni, Pune; Prof. Sharad Lele; Dr. N.R. Shetty; 

Prof. Vinod Vyasulu, IIM, Bengaluru; Dr. Janardhan Pillai, Centre for Budgetary Policy, 

Bengaluru, and also contacts be made with various institutions viz. Project Tiger of 

MoEF (Dr. Rajesh Gopal), Shri K.G. Tampi, IG (NAEB) and Forest Department MoEF 

(Dr. Dilip Kumar, DG & SS), Justice Dharmadhikari, Dahanu Authority, and 

Anthropological Society of India for tribal-related information. 

• A questionnaire to collect information as per the mandate of the Panel will be designed 

by Dr. Sukumar for circulation to all PCCFs of Forest Departments and District 

Administration of the concerned States. Chairman may send a common circular 

(preferably in local/official language of the state) to Panchayat Raj institutions (PRIs) in 

Western Ghats districts asking for their comments/ suggestions so that the Panel’s work 

becomes truly participative at the grass-roots level. It was noted that Panchayat level 

Biodiversity Management Committees have been formed only in some Panchayats in 

Karnataka and Kerala. 

• The Chairman identified the following as focal points for organizing the information 

system: 

160


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Dr. K.N. Ganeshaiah and Dr. Sukumar – The information system, web-based 

database 

Dr. Nandkumar Mukund Kamat – various parameters pertaining to ecologically 

sensitive areas taking into account the existing reports of the Pranob Sen and Dr. T.S. 

Vijayaraghavan Committees on ecologically sensitive areas. 

Dr. K.N. Ganeshaiah and Dr. R. Sukumar – Mapping of Boundaries of the Western 

Ghats in collaboration with Dr. P.S. Roy, NRSC, Hyderabad 

Dr. B.J. Krishnan and Dr. Ligia Noronha – Site visit plans, public consultation 

processes to arrive at the core issues of the conservation process 

Dr. Renee Borges and Dr. Sukumar – To design the questionnaire 

Prof. S.P. Gautam – All pollution and industry-related information 

III. 

Organizing a Process of Comprehensive Consultation 

The Chairman introduced the agenda on organizing a process of comprehensive 

consultation (Annexure-III) as prepared by him. Thereafter, the Panel discussed the agenda 

and the following action points emerged: 

• Such a consultative process could involve: (a) discussions with people in the field in local 

languages, (b) brainstorming sessions involving a cross section of actors including 

government representatives in English, (c) correspondence including e-mails, and (d) 

web-based discussion forums. 

• To put together a web-based data base of individuals and institutions concerned with 

environmental issues pertinent to the Western Ghats. This should be an open process of 

involving all interested individuals and institutions to register themselves. 

• The web-based discussions need to be moderated taking the advantage of the experience 

of people like Dr. Aparna Watve. 

• The data base should include the following fields: 

o 

o 

Data base of individuals: 

First name 

Last name 

Preferred address for postal communication 

E-mail 

Telephone Number(s) 

Geographic area of interest 

Thematic area of interest 

Data base of Institutions: 

Name 

Nature of organization 


E-mail 

161


IV 

Telephone number(s) 

Geographic area of interest 

Thematic area of interest 

• Broad outline of the public consultation process will be prepared by Shri B.J. Krishnan in 

consultation with the other members of the Panel. 

• The brainstorming sessions could be organized in the form of four or five workshops of 

two days each on identified themes followed by Panel meetings. The themes for the 

workshops will be identified by Dr. Ligia Noronha in consultation with the other 

members of the Panel. 

• It would be useful to form an informal consultative – ‚Western Ghats Inter-University 

Forum‛ to bring together all the universities along the Western Ghats. The Chairman 

may write to the respective VCs to solicit help. Al the universities have repositories of 

information on the Western Ghats. 

• All deliberations of the panel would be posted on the Ministry’s website. It might be 

appropriate to direct media to this material, rather than engage in making any other 

comments. 

Time frame 

The Chairman introduced the agenda item on time frame (Annexure-IV) and after detailed 

discussions, the following time frame emerged: 

• Commissioning of discussion papers – a list of discussion papers to be prepared by Dr. 

Ganeshaiah and circulated to all the members and finalized by 12 th April, 2010. 

Thereafter, they will be commissioned by MoEF as quickly as possible with a request 

that they be submitted by 15 th July, 2010. 

• Develop the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) webpage on MoEF, ATREE 

and CES, IISc websites by 25 th April, 2010. This will provide access to all documents of 

interest (older documents, commissioned papers as they are received, all records of work 

of WGEEP). Some of these will be both the normal and wiki version, open for inputs by 

all registrants. Hosting of pertinent documents will begin on 15 th April, 2010 and 

continue till 15 th September, 2010. Dr. Ganeshaiah will develop a proposal in this regard 

and submit the same to the Ministry immediately. 

• Put up a site for registration by individuals and institutions who wish to contribute to 

the work of the WGEEP by 25 th April, 2010. This will be done by Dr. Ganeshaiah. 

• Site visits and consultation by members of the WGEEP. A tentative set of criteria for 

selecting sites for these visits will be prepared and circulated by Shri B.J. Krishnan. 

Based on the feedback a full plan for sites visit will be prepared. This will be finalized at 

the second meeting of the Panel in the Nilgiris on 7 th May, 2010. Site visits will then be 

conducted over the period 15 th May to 15 th August, 2010. Records of the observations 

and discussions during these visits would be immediately put up on the WGEEP 

webpage, welcoming public feedback. 

• Brainstorming sessions on specific themes: A broad programme will be prepared by Dr. 

Ligia Noronha and will be circulated to all the members. Based on the feedback, the 

themes will be finalized by 15 th April, 2010. 

• Develop and post initial version of the report of the WGEEP on its webpage by 1 st 

September, 2010, welcoming public feedback. 

162


• Submit a final version of the report of the WGEEP in both printed form and as a more 

detailed web-based version by 15 th September, 2010. 

Other Points 

Sustainable models of living in and across the Western Ghats where ecological/natural 

resources of Western Ghats linked to new marketing /employment opportunities, e.g. in 

sale of agro-horticultural produce, medicinal plants, handicrafts, artwork, ecotourism 

need to be highlighted. 

The Panel suggested that all meetings should be held in all the concerned States and it 

was recommended to convene the next meeting of the Panel on 7 th May 2010 at Ooty / 

Kotagiri, Nilgiris. 

The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair. 

163


Annexure-I: Western Ghats Expert Group: Work Plan 

1. Our Western Ghats Expert Group has a challenging assignment ahead of us. 

Our mandate is: 

i. To assess the current status of ecology of the Western Ghats region. 

ii. 

iii. 

iv. 

To demarcate areas within the Western Ghats Region which need to be notified as 

ecologically sensitive and to recommend notification of such areas as ecologically 


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 


To make recommendations for the conservation, protection and rejuvenation of the 



To suggest measures for effective implementation of the notifications issued by the 


areas in the Western Ghats Region as eco-sensitive zones under the Environment 


v. To recommend the modalities for the establishment of the Western Ghats Ecology 




vi. 

To deal with any other relevant environment and ecological issues pertaining to the 



2. In order to accomplish this, we would need to consider the following: 

Context 

Status and ongoing changes in health of soils, water, air, biodiversity 

Rural and urban settlements 

Forestry 

Farming 

Herding 

Fishing 

Industry 

Tourism 

Mining 

164


Institutional issues: 


Community Conservation Areas 

Wild Life Sanctuaries 

National Parks 

Biosphere Reserves 

Project Tiger Reserves 

Environmental Impact Assessment 

Assessment of Carrying Capacity 

Central and State Pollution Control Boards 

Coastal Regulatory Zone 

National, State and Local Biodiversity Authority/Boards/ Management Committees 

Heritage Sites 

Threatened Species 

Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers‟ Rights Act 


Tribal Forest Rights Act 

Models like Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority (DTEPA) 

Working of Panchayati Raj Institutions 

Possible new initiatives, grounded in positive incentives, such as the Australian Soil Carbon 

Accreditation Scheme, and Costa Rica’s payment of service charges to farmers for providing 

watershed services through maintenance of tree cover on private land. 

3. I suggest that we examine the list set out above, and amend it as appropriate. We might 

then like to apportion responsibilities for dealing with the various themes amongst 

ourselves, and chalk out a Work Plan at our first meeting in Bengaluru on 31 st March 2010. 

Appendix: Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority (DTEPA) 

A unique prototype of a democratic institution set up to protect the ecology, natural 

resources and livelihoods of a region, the Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority 

(DTEPA) has for a period of ten years been more than just a watchdog institution. 

Recognising the ecological politics of control over natural resources, the Authority has 

unwaveringly stood by the principles of social justice and equitable rights for local 

communities. With its landmark orders and judgments, the DTEPA has contributed to the 

environmental discourse and debate in India. 

With the local groups in Dahanu seeking legal redress for consistent flouting of 

environmental laws, the Supreme Court in a landmark order, in 1996 recommended the 

setting up of a special Authority in "order to address the complex issues of planning and 

management of ecologically fragile areas". (Read Supreme Court Order, October 1996) 

165


With the mandate to protect the ecologically fragile area of Dahanu taluka, specifically 

control pollution, consider and implement the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays 

principle, the Authority was set up in December 1996 headed by Justice Chandrashekhar 

Dharmadhikari (Read Notification setting up of the special Dahanu Taluka Environment 

Protection Authority, 1996). 

The Authority also has as its members experts from the areas of hydrology, environmental 

engineering, urban planning, etc. Government representatives like the Collector of Thane 

and Member Secretary, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board are also its members. 

Considered a quasi-judicial body, the Authority has functioned like a peoples' court 

responding to local environmental complaints and problems. Through a process of hearings, 

the Authority has been able to discuss and debate issues in a most democratic manner 

holding both public and private institutions accountable. In a sense an environmental 

consciousness and responsibility has been forced into the minds of bureaucrats, elected 

representatives and private players with the Authority taking the position of a strict school 

teacher. 

For instance, the Authority ensured that the Power Grid Corporation while setting up high 

transmission lines through Dahanu, undertakes a massive compensatory afforestation 

project of planting ten trees for every tree cut. Preference was given to indigenous varieties 

and the project was not sanctioned until a deposit was give to the forest department to start 

the afforestation project. 

The Authority started its term with a heavily contested project – despite the fact that Dahanu 

had been declared ecologically fragile, since its coastline fell under the most stringent clause 

of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification and there was a series of orders and 

judgments restricting industrial development, a proposal to set up a multi-billion dollar 

industrial port in Dahanu was mooted. 

The Authority took up this issue and a series of hearings were conducted. Representatives of 

the global giant P&O had to appear and submit their reports and so on. Community 

members, environmental groups also submitted their data on the negative effects of the Port 

on Dahanu. Eventually, with the substantive legal arguments, scientific reports and well 

articulated resistance to the project from the affected communities, the Authority rejected 

the siting of the port in Dahanu. (Read landmark order of September 1998 rejecting the siting 

of the port at Vadhavan) 

The thermal power plant has been another significant area of intervention. The Dahanu 

Authority passed an order in May 1999 directing that the thermal power plant comply with 

clearance conditions and set up a Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) Plant to reduce the 

emissions of sulphur from its plant. Once again in 2005, the Authority passed a significant 

judgment directing energy giant Reliance to produce a bank guarantee of Rupees 300 crore 

to show its commitment in setting up the FGD unit. 

(Read landmark 300 crore order passed by the Authority on March 19, 2005) 

The Dahanu Authority continues to play an important role in ensuring that Dahanu Taluka 

becomes a model taluka of environmental protection and conservation. 

166


Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme (ASCAS) 

From: Christine Jones, PhD, Founder, Amazing Carbon, www.amazingcarbon.com 

Appropriately managed agricultural soils can sequester large volumes of atmospheric 

carbon dioxide, significantly improving soil water-holding capacity, nutrient status and 

agricultural productivity. Under the Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme (ASCAS), 

carbon sequestration is measured within Defined Sequestration Areas (DSAs) located on 

regeneratively managed broad acre cropping and grazing lands. Soil Carbon Incentive 

Payments (SCIPs) are paid annually and retrospectively for validated soil carbon increases 

above initial baseline levels determined within each DSA. 

Receipt of Soil Carbon Incentive Payments is similar to being paid 'on delivery’ for livestock 

or grain, with the bonus being that sequestered carbon remains in the soil, conferring 

production and NRM benefits. Soil Carbon Incentive Payments are calculated at onehundredth 

the 100-year rate ($25/tonne CO2-e). 

The ASCAS model is based on financial reward from the private sector, creating a 

collaborative and progressive market based instrument to help address a wide range of 

environmental issues. Increased levels of soil carbon have multiple landscape health and 

productivity advantages. 

The Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme is a first in the Southern Hemisphere, 

placing Australia among world leaders in the recognition of soils as a verifiable carbon sink. 

Payments for watershed services 

Context: 

Payments for environmental services (PES) are a means of 

creating a market in environmental/ecosystem services. 

They link those who value a given service with those who 

can provide it. Most early PES initiatives were in Latin 

America, which remains the region with the most PES 

schemes, followed by Asia, and lastly Africa (Figure 1). 

Payments for watershed functions seek to link upstream land 

use and management with downstream water use and Figure 1 

management to realize benefits for upstream and 

downstream participants in the scheme and others in the area – not to mention for the 

environment. The ideal is a voluntary agreement between at least one buyer and one seller of 

ecosystem services (or land-use changes presumed to provide an ecosystem service). PES 

schemes have become increasingly popular with donors over the last few years; yet despite 

their widespread application, by their nature they are not primarily intended as a tool for 

poverty reduction – but they may be tailored to this purpose. 

From IFAD’s perspective, the problem is that poor rural people lack the prerequisites for 

participation in PES. Often, they do not have secure land tenure, rewards are easily usurped 

by the elite, and they lack the assets (human capital, natural resources, etc.) to provide the 

level of service needed to yield the desired impacts. Part of the solution to this stubborn 

dilemma may be to eschew PES schemes that simply seek market creation. Rather than 

clinging to economic principles, develop a variant of PES that builds on the reality faced in 

167


rural areas. This means allowing for market support, subsidies and a means of directing PES 

benefits to poor people – in short, developing pro-rural-poor PES. 

Main challenges 

‘Market creation’ is the market-based incentive ideally employed for PES. It involves putting 

an economic value on environmental services and bringing together willing buyers and 

providers – examples include emissions trading, nutrient trading, wetland mitigation and 

PES. Yet the goal of market creation is exactly what may impede PES schemes from being 

pro-rural-poor. If they are indeed intended to be pro-rural-poor, then it is arguably 

necessary to depart from the economic tenets of PES 

Watershed-based PES schemes are not, by definition, pro-poor. They are not intended for 

this purpose, they are intended to secure watershed functions such as downstream water 

supply. If they are to be made to fit into a poverty-reduction box, they must be tailored to fit 

this role. The ideal of PES is to link those who value ecosystem services with those who can 

provide them so as to create a market. In the context of developing countries, poor rural 

people may not be the best vehicle to achieve this end. 

The bottom line is that if donors and governments are willing to accept a compromised 

version of PES in order to target poor rural people, then PES schemes for watershed services 

can indeed benefit them – but PES might not be the right name for such schemes. 

IFAD approaches 

Intersectoral management is a relatively new, holistic approach that offers a promising 

framework for better understanding and pro-poor mobilization of potential development 

synergies. In IFAD’s approach to water, this theme is not central, but is considered a holistic 

element in strengthening poor rural people's livelihoods and resilience. IFAD investment 

approaches to water-related interface management take into account the country-specific 

structures of the rural political economy. In so doing, they support the development of propoor, 

community-based natural resource management (NRM) institutions, which in turn 

improve farmer-led agriculture, natural resource technologies, and the sharing of 

knowledge of these achievements. 

When planning a watershed PES scheme intended to benefit poor rural people, several 

assumptions must be tested against the ‘new rurality’. For instance, the likelihood that 

upstream land users will benefit from PES does not necessarily mean that there will be a 

substantial impact on poverty. Across many watersheds, a large proportion of the 

population may be poor, but this will not be true everywhere; and the poorest people may 

not be the ones who receive the payments. 

Institutional approaches 

• Make secure land tenure a prerequisite for participation in PES schemes – pro-poor or 

otherwise – and provide for it. The poorest people are almost always landless. The 

creation of legal and institutional frameworks that allow poor rural people to participate 

and that ideally provide secure land tenure will often be incentive enough to encourage 

initial participation. 

• Facilitate an effective and impartial legal system to ensure that would-be participants 

can enter into contractual PES arrangements with confidence. Ideally, PES schemes 

should be formally recognized by the country’s legal and institutional framework, but 

this is not essential. 

168


• Reduce transaction costs by concentrating service providers into groups. Groups of 

service providers or consumers have a more effective voice in negotiations than do 

individuals; they are better able to monitor compliance; and they can more easily accept 

or make payments. 

• Establish a strong, independent intermediary between service providers and consumers 

in order to: ensure that water resource allocations are properly monitored and assessed; 

assist in the resolution of disputes; and, most importantly, provide a mechanism for the 

regular transfer of payments. 

Technical approaches 

• Assess demand as a first step in setting up a PES scheme. There must be sufficient 

demand for the service, and would-be participants must have the capacity to provide it. 

In parallel with assessing demand, planners can discover which types of incentives 

(payments, rewards) are most likely to encourage and sustain the participation of service 

providers. 

• Technically assess, monitor and evaluate the likely effects of introducing PES. In the 

planning stages, appropriate measurement, testing and modeling should be used (e.g. 

hydrographs, remote sensing and allocation models) to determine the likely effects of the 

proposed land-use change on downstream water quality and quantity. Moreover, these 

techniques can help identify which households and communities need to participate in 

order to achieve the desired downstream results – optimizing, rather than maximizing, 

participation. 

• Monitor schemes independently once they are implemented. It is important that landuse 

management and downstream water quality and quantity are independently 

monitored at regular intervals by an independent intermediary trusted by both buyers 

and sellers. 

• Reward service providers for land management changes. That is, reward upstream land 

and water users for their actions, not for the outcomes of the changes made, since it is 

not certain that changes to upstream land management will yield the desired effects 

downstream. 

Investment approaches 

• Invest in smaller-scale schemes, which are more likely to benefit poor people, being 

more easily managed and monitored. 

• Build capacity and invest in education; both are crucial to PES schemes. Once ecosystem 

services are assigned an economic value, both service providers and consumers will 

assign a market value to these services, which may, in turn, lead to more efficient use of 

the resource. 

• Package payments as incentives or rewards, such as credit, vouchers for school fees or 

livestock. Direct money payments for services rendered may not always be ideal or even 

desired by service providers. 

• Provide start-up investment. This is essential to ensure that the pro-poor PES schemes 

actually work and, in particular, that poor groups and households are able to and will 

participate. 

169


• Provide funding for ongoing subsidies and market support. Donors and participating 

agencies must be willing to face the likely need for such support (e.g. demand 

augmentation) 

IFAD case study 

Green water credits in Kenya 

Over the last two and half decades, most of Kenya’s cropland has lost its topsoil, while the 

population has doubled, boosting demand for power and water. Green water credits (GWC) 

offer a tried and tested means of providing Kenya with food, water and power security. 

GWC are payments or rewards for water and land management services provided by 

farmers, which in turn benefit downstream users by providing them better-quality water 

and a more reliable supply. World Soil Information (ISRIC) will begin a full-scale GWC 

project in the near future (Proof-of-Concept of a Global Mechanism to Pay Rainfed Land 

Users for Water Management Activities), based on extensive testing and piloting in Kenya. 

In the GWC proof of concept, focus groups were organized to give voice to land users. 

Water user groups and other institutions in the sector shared their views of existing 

institutional capacities. 

Much was learned from these sessions and filtered into the current project design. 

Leaseholds were identified as one of the best means of providing GWC participants with 

secure land tenure, in order to ensure that the project is pro-rural-poor. In addition, the 

Kenyan hydroelectric company, KenGen, was identified as an ideal GWC partner: they have 

a clear incentive to pay, a long-term commitment to the scheme, and the financial resources 

needed. 

The project’s policy will be to encourage group rather than individual participation, and the 

Government of Kenya has attempted to decentralize water provision and operation and 

maintenance responsibilities, while providing an enabling policy and regulatory 

environment. 

The promise of GWC Kenya can be measured anecdotally by the Government’s desire to 

scale it up to the national level. This does not testify to the scheme’s pro-poor impact (which 

will have to wait for eventual assessment), but it does indicate the demand for such an 

approach. 

Topic sheet author: Alasdair Cohen 

Peer reviewed by: Marcela Quintero (CGIAR) 

References 

Cohen, A. 2008. Prerequisites and semantics: The challenges of implementing pro-poor 

payments for watershed services. Technical Background Report: Rural Poverty Portal. 

Rome: IFAD. 

Dent, D., and J. Kauffman. 2007. The spark has jumped the gap: green water credits 

proof-of-concept. Wageningen, the Netherlands: ISRIC – World Soil Information. 

170


FAO. 2004. Payment schemes for environmental services in watersheds. Rome: Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 

Pagiola, S., A. Arcenas and G. Platais. 2005. Can payments for environmental services 

help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin 

America. World Development 33: 237-253. 

Pfaff, A., S. Kerr, L. Lipper, R. Cavatassi, B. Davis, J. Hendy and G.A. Sanchez-Azofeifa. 

2007. Will buying tropical forest carbon benefit the poor? Evidence from Costa Rica. Land 

Use Policy 24: 600-610. 

Wunder, S. 2005. Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts. Jakarta: 

Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). 

Biodiversity Procurement Schemes 

Professor Peter Bardsley 

(http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/researcher/person666.html) 

Background - Some Australian Experience 

Awareness of environmental issues and the value placed on environmental 

goods and services has risen steadily over some decades in Australia, becoming increasingly 

important as a political issue. This is understandable, and consistent with worldwide 

patterns. These appear to be goods for which demand systematically increases as income, 

wealth, education and the communication intensity associated with globalisation increase. 

As the supply of these goods diminishes, while demand increases, the value placed on them 

naturally rises. These trends can, I think, be predicted to continue, and will become more 

and more evident in India, as in Australia and the rest of the world, in the future. I think that 

it is clear that future generations will wish that we had done more. 

Since these are public goods, and their provision is also subject to various forms of market 

failure, there is a very sound economic efficiency case for public intervention, either by 

governments or by non-government agencies. 

Australia has seen the growth of a very significant public willingness to pay for such goods, 

particularly for actions to protect biodiversity. This has taken the form of political pressure 

such that environmental policy is now a mainstream political issue, and private action. With 

this rise in willingness to pay, there is increasing dissatisfaction with the mechanisms 

available to meet the demand. Standard government regulatory responses are rarely 

incentive compatible, and can create perverse incentives that are actually counterproductive. 

Voluntarism, while admirable, often lacks scientific depth or the capacity for 

long term commitment. People are increasingly dissatisfied with policies that are merely 

symbolic, or are inefficient and do not give value for money, and that often lead to no 

scientifically valid verifiable outcomes. 

The design of good policy instruments for the provision of environmental services is a 

fruitful area for the application of modern economic theory, particularly the economics of 

information and incentives, but this is an area that has been rather neglected. Over the past 

decade, a group of economists and scientists have worked on this issue in Australia. The 

main elements of the approach have been the objective is a practical framework for 

171


achieving desired outcomes, which means changing people's behaviour; this means aligning 

their incentives with ours start from first principles, and work analytically towards a 

solution (rather than beginning with a preconception of, or ideological predisposition to, any 

particular type of policy instrument) close partnership from the beginning between science 

and economics recognise the fundamental importance of information and incentives, and 

engage with scientists on these issues, start small (pilot projects, demonstration projects, 

experimental economics lab work), refine the approach, build confidence, build expertise, 

demonstrate results, take the long view. 

Over the last decade, beginning with an initial pilot project for managing biodiversity on 

private land in Victoria, Australia, we have developed a program of biodiversity 

procurement auctions, and related programs, that have now been adopted state-wide as the 

preferred policy approach. Imitation programs have been initiated in the majority of 

Australian states, and there is interest from agencies in the US, Canada, France and Scotland. 

The project has involved partnership between the following groups: economists. ecologists 

(development of metrics, contract design, on ground implementation), hydrologists and 

biophysical modelers (connecting local interventions to large scale landscape effects), 

computer scientists and environmental engineers (remote sensing, micro sensor network 

arrays, for contract monitoring). A lot of material, including field manuals and some 

evaluations, are available on the web at 

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrence.nsf/LinkView/DED128E11A362A51CA256FFF001CA 

B6C544ABC860B2506F7CA257004002550CC 

EcoTender 

What are ecoMarkets? | How ecoMarkets work | The science behind ecoMarkets | 

EcoTender | BushTender | BushBroker 

What is EcoTender? 

EcoTender is an auction-based approach that expands BushTender to include multiple 

environmental outcomes. It introduced a more detailed way to evaluate tenders, based on 

potential improvements in salinity, biodiversity, carbon sequestration and water quality. 

Under EcoTender, landholders are invited to tender contracts to deliver these multiple 

environmental benefits, primarily by means of improved native vegetation management and 

revegetation works on their properties. 

Successful bids include activities offering the best value for money to the community, based 

on ecosystem outcomes, the significance of the environmental assets affected by these 

changes and the cost. Successful landholders receive periodic payments as they deliver the 

management actions under contractual agreements with the DSE. 

• Current EcoTender 

• Past EcoTenders 

EcoTender process 

Landholders start by registering their interest to participate in EcoTender. A DSE Field 

Officer will then come and visit their property to advise on the environmental significance of 

the site. They will work with the landholder to identify on-ground actions that could be 

included in a five-year EcoTender Management Plan. 

172


The Field Officer will write up the management plan based on actions agreed with the 

landholder. The plan could include planting new native vegetation, weed control or 

protection of existing native vegetation along waterways, around wetlands, in gullies and 

paddocks. 

The landholder uses this Management Plan as the basis for their EcoTender bid along with 

details on how much they expect to be paid to do the environmental work over five years. 

Successful EcoTender bids are those showing best environmental value for money, with 

successful landholders receiving periodic payments for management activities conducted 

under agreements entered into with the DSE. 

Potential For Cooperation With India 

First of all, it is not the case that we have a model that can simply be transferred to another 

environment. What we do have is a group of people with considerable experience in 

thinking about problems of this nature; I think that they would be delighted to be involved 

in exploring these ideas in an Indian context. 

From an economist's viewpoint, there are two main aspects to the biodiversity procurement 

problem. One is identifying which projects are worth investing in, given the fact that people 

do not necessarily have an incentive to be truthful (would YOU tell the government that you 

have something rare and valuable on your land?). Developing this idea leads naturally in 

the direction of designing certain kinds of auctions. The second is designing the incentive 

structure for the groups who participate in your program (rewards, penalties, risk sharing, 

monitoring, transactions cost). This leads naturally to what economists understand by 

contract design. Both issues clearly need to be addressed to some degree. In Australia, most 

attention has been given to the auction theory, and less to the contract design issue. This is 

now being rectified, and we are looking intensively, both from the economic design and the 

science/engineering points of view, at contract design and practical contract implementation 

issues. 

Given the Indian context, I think that it is in the latter area, of contract design and 

implementation, where the most interesting work might be done. We have in fact been 

looking for a project of this type. So I think that there would be considerable interest from 

the Australian end in some kind of cooperation in this area. 

E Somanathan, Professor, Planning Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, New Delhi 

I would add the following to Peter's note [see Peter Bardsley above]. A valuable pilot project 

in India would: 

1. Protect a habitat not already protected by regulation and with no plausible alternative 

means of funding protection (such as tourism). 

2. Be of high value from the perspective of the conservation organisations funding the 

project, and from that of the public at large. 

3. Make a clearly measurable difference to what would have occurred in the project's 

absence. We'll have to think carefully about this one. One possibility is to locate a set of 

comparable candidate locations. 

Then select one (or some) of them for the project, either by auction, randomly or some 

suitable means. Then monitor both the selected and non-selected areas and compare them. 

4. Be potentially replicable. 

173


Annexure-II: Western Ghats Expert Group: Organizing a process of comprehensive 

consultation 

One of the mandates of our Western Ghats Expert Group is ‚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.‛ 

We would have to work out how to organize such a process of comprehensive consultation. 

It could involve: a) Discussions with people in the field in local languages, b) Brain-storming 

sessions involving a cross-section of actors, including Government representatives, in 

English, c) Correspondence, including Emails, and d) Web-based discussion forums. 

During our first meeting on March 31, we should chalk out a strategy for this component of 

our work plan, assigning responsibilities amongst ourselves. To facilitate these 

consultations, we should immediately begin putting together a web-based database of 

individuals and institutions concerned with environmental issues pertinent to the Western 

Ghats. This should be an open process of inviting all interested individuals and institutions 

to register themselves. 

The web-based discussion would need to be moderated; to this end we may take advantage 

of experience of people like Dr Aparna Watve who has serious interest in issues of the 

Western Ghats as well. 

The database may include the following fields: 

Database of individuals 

First name 

Last name 


Email 

Telephone number(s) 

Geographic areas of interest [to be selected from a drop-down list] 

Thematic areas of interest [to be selected from a drop-down list] 

Database of institutions 

Name 

Nature of organization [to be selected from a drop-down list] 


Email 

Telephone numbers 

Geographic areas of interest [to be selected from a drop-down list] 

Thematic areas of interest [to be selected from a drop-down list] 

174


Annexure-III: Western Ghats Expert Group: Organizing an Information System 

The mandate of our Western Ghats Expert Group includes two information-intensive items: 

(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 notified as 



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 


It is therefore important that we immediately begin organizing information pertinent to 

these themes. For this purpose, we ought to take full advantage of modern developments in 

Information and Communications Technology (ICT), including the Web2.0 technologies, 

such as wikis. Fortunately, we have amongst our members considerable experience and 

expertise in this area. Dr. Ganeshaiah has been leading the development of the IBIN (India 

Bioresources Information Network), and is associated with ATREE’s India Biodiversity 

Portal; Dr Sukumar heads CES, IISc which hosts the ENVironmental Information System 

*ENVIS+’s Sahyadri: Western Ghats Biodiversity Information System. So I would like to 

request Dr. Ganeshaiah to lead this effort. 

In this context, it would be useful to incorporate in our Information System and upload on 

the web, many documents that may currently exist only as hard copies. Examples include 

the framework for an assessment of the ‘Carrying Capacity’ of Dakshina Kannada district, 

prepared by Dr. D.K.Subramaniam, or the initial project document and a ten-year 

assessment of the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve prepared by me. We also need to identify and 

upload all pertinent Environmental Impact Assessment documents, beginning with that of 

Liquid Propulsion R&D unit (at Valiamalla) and the test station (near Nagercoil) of Vikram 

Sarabhai Space Centre commissioned by Dr Satish Dhawan in 1975, before this became a 

formal requirement, and including that of Bedthi Hydroelectric Project in 1979, a more 

recent one of the Kudremukh Iron Ore Project by NEERI, and the latest one of the Neutrino 

Observatory in the Nilgiris, and so on. A serious effort on a war footing will have to be 

launched in this context, and I would like to request Dr G V Subrahmanyam to lead this 

effort. Of course, we also need to have ready access to and examine the Mohan Ram 

Committee Report, Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decisions, recommendations of the National 

Board for Wildlife etc, specifically mentioned in our mandate. Of course, these are only some 

initial suggestions; all of us need to put our heads together and finalize a comprehensive list 

of useful information resources during our first meeting. 

We might also wish to commission specific reviews of existing information. Possibilities 

include: 1) Birds of Western Ghats and a strategy for their conservation: Dr Ranjit Daniels, 

2) Amphibians of Western Ghats and a strategy for their conservation: Dr Gururaja, 3) Hill 

streams of Western Ghats and a strategy for their conservation: Dr K A Subramaniam, 4) 

Balsams of Western Ghats and a strategy for their conservation: Dr Bhaskar, 5) Uropeltid 

snakes of Western Ghats and a strategy for their conservation: Dr Karthik Shankar, 6) Tiger 

and panther populations of Western Ghats and a strategy for their conservation: Dr. Uma 

Ramakrishnan, 7) Elephant populations of Western Ghats and a strategy for their 

conservation: Dr T N C Vidya, 8) Landscapes of Western Ghats: Dr Harini Nagendra, 9) 

175


Crop genetic resources of Western Ghats and a strategy for their conservation: An expert 

from NBPGR, 10) Wild relatives of Cultivated Plants of Western Ghats and a strategy for 

their conservation: An expert from NBPGR, 11) Current Protected Areas Network of the 

Western Ghats: Dr Savarkar, former Director, WII, and so on. Please note that this is only an 

indicative list based on my personal knowledge; your feedback is most welcome; the list 

may be examined, changed, added to and finalized at our first meeting. 

All of this will need some funding from the Ministry, and I would like to request Dr G V 

Subrahmanyam to assess the possibilities before our first meeting. 

All thoughts, ideas, offers of undertaking specific responsibilities in this context, would be 

most welcome. 

176


Annexure-IV: Western Ghats Expert Group: Time frame 

Agenda item for meeting of the Western Ghats Expert Group on 31/03/10. 

We need to decide upon a time frame for completing our assignment. 

I propose the following for consideration. 

1. Chalk out a work plan and time frame: 31/03/10 

2. Complete commissioning of discussion papers (to be submitted by 15/07/10) by 

15/04/10 

3. Develop a Western Ghats Expert Group web page on ATREE and CES, IISc, websites 

by 15/04/10. This will provide access to all documents of interest (older documents, 

commissioned papers as they are received, all records of work of the Western Ghats 

Expert Group). Some of these will be in both normal and wiki versions, open for 

inputs by all registrants. Posting of pertinent documents will begin on 15/04/10, and 

continue till 15/09/10. 

4. Put up a site for registration by individuals and institutions who wish to contribute 

to the work of the Western Ghats Expert Group by 15/04/10 

5. Site visits and consultations by members of Western Ghats Expert Group: 15/04/10 

to 15/08/10. A broad programme will be decided upon on 31/03/10. Records of 

these discussions and consultations would be immediately put up on the Western 

Ghats Expert Group web page, welcoming public feedback. 

6. Brain storming sessions on specific themes: 15/04/10 to 15/08/10. A broad 

programme will be decided upon on 31/03/10. Records of these discussions would 

be immediately put up on the Western Ghats Expert Group web page, welcoming 

public feedback. 

7. Develop and post an initial version of the Report of the Western Ghats Expert Group 

on its web page by 01/09/10, welcoming public feedback. 

8. Submit a final version of the Report of the Western Ghats Expert Group, in both 

printed form, and as a more detailed web based version by 15/09/10. 

177


Minutes of the Second Meeting of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel held on 7 th 

May 2010 at 10.00 am at BSI, Coimbatore. 

The second meeting of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel was held at Botanical 

Survey of India (BSI), Coimbatore on 7 th May, 2010. The following were present: 










The following Members of the Panel could not attend the meeting: 

1. Dr. Nandakumar Mukund Kamat 

2. Dr. Ligia Noronha 

3. Dr. D.K.Subrahmanyam 

4. Dr. P.I. Gautam 

Dr. R.R. Navalgund was represented by Dr. Murthy, NRSA, Hyderabad. 

The following experts were co-opted by the Chairman of the Panel: 

1. Dr. Ranjit R. Daniels, Care Earth Trust, Chennai 

2. Dr. Pratim Roy, Keystone Foundation, Kotagiri 

3. Dr. Latha, River Research Centre, Kerala 

4. Dr. Sanjappa, BSI, Kolkata 

5. Dr. P. Pramod, SACON, Coimbatore 

6. Dr. S. N. Prasad, SACON, Coimbatore 

The Chairman welcomed all the Members and briefly explained the action taken on the 

points that emerged in the first Meeting of the WGEEP. He stressed that the current 

identification of Ecologically Sensitive sites such as Matheran and Mahabaleshwar on the 

Western Ghats was based on the concern of particular groups of individuals with respect to 

those specific sites, and not on the basis of a comprehensive assessment of the totality of the 

situation on the Western Ghats. As opposed to this, the site for the country’s first Biosphere 

Reserve in the Nilgiris had been identified on the basis of an assessment of all potential sites 

178


from the Western Ghats region. WGEEP would now have to follow this precedent and 

undertake a comprehensive assessment of the totality of the situation on the Western Ghats. 

Such an assessment of potential Ecologically Sensitive Areas within the Western Ghats 

region on a scientific basis calls for a sound information base. He also emphasised the need 

for consultations with the local people and all other concerned stakeholders in the process of 

delineating Ecologically Sensitive Areas within the Western Ghats region, and the 

importance of avoiding situations such as in Matheran, where the Kalpavriksh study 

mentions that the members of BEAG (Bombay Environment Action Group), the original 

proponents of the Matheran ESA can now visit the site only under police escort. The 

Chairman informed the Panel about the concerns expressed by the Hon’ble Minister of State 

(Independent Charge) Environment and Forests about the ecological sensitivity of the 

Western Ghats region through a letter addressed to him. In this letter, the Hon’ble Minister 

has urged the Panel that while it continues working on the larger issues in a comprehensive 

manner as planned, the work plan was to be undertaken in two parallel tracks; one to begin 

the task urgently to complete the demarcation of areas within the Western Ghats Region to 

be notified as Ecologically Sensitive Areas within the next 4-5 months and parallel to this 

activity the Panel should continue the broader work plan as proposed by the Panel to 

suggest measures that would promote conservation, protection and rejuvenation of the 

ecology of the Western Ghats Region. 

The Chairman indicated that these suggestions from the Hon. Minister were fully 

acceptable, and that the action plan of WGEEP may involve the following steps that may be 

pursued in parallel: 

(a) Drawing up a set of criteria for identification of ESAs, based on earlier work such as 

the Sen Committee report 

(b) Put together an information base on the Western Ghats that would support objective 

identification of potential ESAs arranged in order of priority. Suggest appropriate 

regulatory measures that need to be put in place for management of different 

potential ESAs on a case by case basis 

(c) Call on different civil society groups to propose areas for protection as ESAs. 

(d) Call on different local bodies (gram panchayats, taluk panchayats, zilla parishads, 

and nagarpalikas) to propose areas for protection as ESAs 

(e) Assess ESA proposals received from different civil society groups and local bodies in 

light of the exercises [a] and [b] 

(f) Suggest how the Western Ghats Ecology Authority may operate. 

The Chairman then briefly explained the agenda for the Meeting and the agenda items were 

taken up for discussion. These included: 

1. Review of actions taken so far regarding website (Dr. Ganeshaiah) 

2. Delineation of geographical limits (Dr. Ganeshaiah and Dr. Kamat) 

3. Registering individuals and institutions who wish to interact (Dr. Ganeshaiah and Sh. 

B.J. Krishnan) 

4. Finalizing the list of commissioned papers (Prof. Madhav Gadgil) 

5. Themes, participants and schedule of Brainstorming Sessions (Prof. Madhav Gadgil) and 

6. Schedule of site visits / consultations (Prof. Madhav Gadgil and Sh. B.J. Krishnan). 

179


The detailed agenda on which the Coimbatore discussions were based is given in Annexures 

A,B,C. 

The major outcomes of the Meeting were as follows: 

I. Review of progress of website: 

Dr. Ganeshaiah presented the basic structure of website and mentioned that the website for 

Western Ghats will be developed with a facility for registration of individuals and 

institutions. 

The Ministry has released the requisite funds as sought by the ATREE for the development 

of the Western Ghats Ecology website by ATREE with the condition that the proposed 

website will cover the entire ecology of the Western Ghats region which will be interactive 

and dynamic with domain registration of gov.in and have linkages to other websites of the 

Western Ghats, and will also have a provision for updating it remotely. After its 

development, the website shall be transferred to the Ministry and shall be maintained by the 

Ministry. 

Further, the panel members were requested to send the papers / concerned material in their 

respective domain areas for uploading on the website. The Chairman opined that 

documents may be uploaded for discussion in 15 days. 

II. Registering individuals and institutions who wish to interact with the Panel. 

Sh. B. J. Krishnan provided to the Panel details of individuals and their organizations 

working in the States of the Western Ghats Region who had expressed their desire to 

interact with the WGEEP and would like to get registered on the website. They would be 

happy to contribute extensively to the proposed consultations as well as to field visits 

inareas falling within their respective States. These are as follows: 

I Organisations/individuals (according to State): 

1. Gujarat: Kutch Mahila Vikas Sangathan – Ms. Sushma lyer 

2. Maharastra: Applied Environmental Research Foundation – Dr. Archana Godbole. 

Email: archanagodbole64@gmail.com 

3. Goa: Goa Foundation – Ms. Norma Alvares. 

4. Karnataka: Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysore – Dr. N. Madhusudan 

5. Kerala: (i) River Research Centre, Vayali, Thirssur – Dr. A Latha. 

Email: rrckerala@gmail.com 

(2) Prof. M.K. Prasad, KSSP, Kerala 

6. Tamil Nadu: Keystone Foundation, Kotagiri, Nilgiris – Dr. Pratim Roy 

Email: pratim@keystone-foundation.org 

II Organisations/individuals (thematic/generic): 

1. Environment & Social Movement: SWGM – Pandurang Hegde, Sirsi 

Email: appiko@gmail.com 

180


2. Conservation Education: Ms. Anitha Sharma, Balvihar, Trivandrum 

3. Biodiversity Research: ATREE Bangalore, Agumbe Rainforest Research Foundation, 

Shimoga 

4. Livelihoods: Deshpande Foundation, Hubli 

5. Political Economy: Sampark, Bangalore – Ms. Smita Premchandran 

6. Gujarat: Kutch Mahila Vikas Sangathan – Ms. Sushma lyer 

7. Maharastra: Applied Environmental Research Foundation – Dr. Archana Godbole 

8. Karnataka: Nature Conservation Foundation – Dr. N. Madhusudan 

9. Tamil Nadu: Keystone Founsation – Dr. Pratim Roy 

10. Kerala: River Research Centre – Dr. A Latha; V Gayali, Thrissur 

III. Geographical Limits: 

The Panel deliberated at length on the geographical limits for drawing the map of Western 

Ghats region for the purpose of its conservation and sustainable development. 

The Panel opined that the delineation of the map of the Western Ghats region should be 

based on topography, taking account of altitude, slope and connectivity. The overall 

Western Ghat region would fall into three segments with extended plains areas separating 

them, viz. Western Ghats north of the Palghat gap, Western Ghats south of the Palghat gap, 

and the BRT hills. 

National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA) was requested to define the BRT Hills segment for 

inclusion in the map of the Western Ghats region. 

IV. Commissioned papers: 

The Panel discussed at length the list of Commissioned papers as given at Annexure ‘A’ of 

the agenda. The Panel decided that the authors of commissioned papers should be requested 

to address the specific theme, as they see fit, in the context of the mandate of the Western 

Ghats Ecology Expert Panel; keeping in mind that it is desirable to: [a] draw a picture of the 

current status of ecology of the Western Ghats region, [b] provide suggestions as to 

measures that would promote conservation, protection and rejuvenation of the ecology of 

the Western Ghats Region, [c] provide suggestions as to areas within the Western Ghats 

Region which may be considered for notification as ecologically sensitive. 

The nearly-final list of Commissioned Papers as agreed by the Panel is as follows: 

S.N Name Mobile/ landline E-mail Theme 

o. 

1 V.B.Savarkar, 464 

Rasta Peth, Flat 3, 

Nr. MSEDC Ltd. 

Power House, 

Opposite. 

Mahalaxmi Motors, 

Pune-411011. 

Maharashtra. 

9890045692. 

020-26133844 

woodow464@yahoo.co.in Protected Areas 

Network 

181



o. 

2 G S Mohan College of Forestry 

Ponnampet 

Mohangs2007@gmail.com Wild relatives of 

Cultivated Plants 

and Crop genetic 

resources 

3 D. Padmalal, 

Environmental 

Sciences Division, 

drpadmalal@yahoo.com Alluvial sand 

Mining- the Kerala 

experience 

Centre for Earth 

Science 

Studies, 

Thiruvananthapura 

m, 695031, Kerala 

4 Ajay Desai Ajay Desai 

(ajayadesaih@yahoo.com) 

Elephants 

5 AJT Johnsingh, 

former Dean, Wild 

Life Institute of 

India, Bengaluru 

6 Kartik Shanker 

Centre for Ecological 

Sciences 

Indian Institute of 

Science 


7 Bhaskar, formerly of 

UAS, Bengaluru 

8 K.A.Subramanian 

Scientist C 

Zoological Survey of 

India 

Western Regional 

Centre 

Rawet Road, Sector- 

29 

Vidyanagar 

Akurdi, PCNT (PO) 

Pune-411 044 

9 T.N.C. Vidya, 

JNCASR, Bangalore, 

and N. Basakaran, 

ANCF, Bangalore 

10 Ranjit Daniels, 

Careearth, Chennai 

Care Earth Trust 

No 5, 21st Street 

Thillaiganganagar 

Chennai 600 061 

Office :080- 2293 

3104, 2360 0985 

(Labs-Internal): 233, 

313 Res: 32720750 

Mobile: 9945565935 

. 

ajt.johnsingh@gmail.com 

kshanker@ces.iisc.ernet.in 

9844021625 vbhaskar49@yahoo.co.in Balsams 

Phone (Office): +91- 

20- 

27655213,27652564, 

27651927 

Phone 

(Residence):+91-20- 

27658971 

Phone 

(Mobile):+91- 

9422907805 

Fax (Office): +91-20- 

27652564 

Tel: 91-44-6543 5841 

Mobile: 

09282123242 

subbuka.zsi@gmail.com 

tncvidya@jncasr.ac.in, 

baskar@ces.iisc.ernet.in 

careearth careearth 

 

Wild life poaching 

Uropeltid snakes 

Hill streams 

Large mammal 

populations 

Birds 

11 C T S Nair, formerly 

of FAO, Nilambur 

12 E Somanathan, 

Indian Statistical 

Institute, Delhi 

13 B R Ramesh, French 

Institute, Pondichery 

14 M D Subash 

Chandran, CES, IISc, 

Bengaluru 

15 T R Shankar Raman, 

Nature Conservation 

Foundation, 3076/5, 

IV Cross, Gokulam 

Park, Mysore - 570 

002 

09995305542 ctsnair@hotmail.com Working of forests 

098681 82096, 011- 

41493939 

E. Somanathan 

 

Ramesh 

 

09242123555 subash md 

 

Telephone : 

+91.821.2515 601 

Facsimile : 

+91.821.2513 822 

trsr@ncf-india.org 

Incentive based 

approaches to nature 

conservation 

Trees 

Sacred groves 

Shola- grasslands 

182


18 Ranjan Rao Yerdoor, 


Gurvayankere 

80-23530070 

09448287055 nstgkere@sancharnet.in Joint Forest 

Management 

programmes 

19 Aparna Watve 09822597288 Dr. Aparna Watve 

 

20 S N Prasad, SACON 09440602754 S Narendra Prasad 

 

Grassy plateaus 

Wetlands 

21 Vijay Paranjape 9922009749 gomukh@pn3.vsnl.net.in Dams 

22 Mrunal Wanarase, 

Ecological Society, 

Pune 

09822000862 ioraespune@gmail.com, 

ecological.society@gmail.c 

om, 

23 Jay Samant, formerly 

Shivaji University, 

Kolhapur 

24 Kusum Karnik, 

Shashvat 

25 Vinod Uniyal, Kerala 


26 K.V.S. Prasad, AME 

foundation, No. 204, 

100 feet ring road, 

3rd phase, 

Banashankari, 2nd 

block, 3rd stage, 

Bengaluru, 560085 

27 Sharad Lele, ATREE, 

Bengaluru 

28 SHALINI 

RAGHUNATH, 

Department of 

Studies in Folklore, 

Karnatak University, 

Dharwad 580 003, 

Karnataka 

29 Pandurang 

Phaldessai, member 

secretary, Kala 

akademy, Panaji, 

Goa, 91-832- 

2420451, 

30 Dilip Boralkar, 

Mumbai 

31 Shyam Asolekar, IIT, 

Mumbai 

32 S. Muralidharan, 

Sálim Ali Centre for 

Ornithology and 

Natural History, 

Anaikatty Post, 

Coimbatore - 641 

108, 

Tamil Nadu,. 

33 Anil Kumar, MSSRF, 

Chennai 

09822655168 Udaysinh gaikwad 

 


o. 

16 A Damodaran, 080-26993323 damodaran@iimb.ernet.in Plantation crops 

Center for Public 

Policy, Indian 


Management, 

Bengaluru 

17 Nitin Rai, ATREE, 

Bengaluru 

Telephone: +91-80- 

23635555 Fax : +91- 

Nitin Rai 

 

Tribal Forest Rights 

Act 

91-080-26699512,91- 

080-26699522,fax- 

91080-26699410 

(O) 0836-2215299, 

(R) 0836-2778233, 

(M) 09845809746 

Res. 91-832- 

2410888 (R) 

9822123030 (M) 

09892542288,022- 

25552558 

022 -25767867, 

09820410443 

Tele Fax: +91 - 422 - 

2657088 

Tele : +91 - 422 - 

2657101 - 102, 131, 

199 

shashwat 

 

Sharad Lele 

 

dboralkar@gmail.com, 

asolekar@iitb.ac.in 

salimali@vsnl.com 

 

Regeneration of 

streams 

River pollution 

Religious tourism 

Ecodeveolpment 

committees 

Sustainable 

agriculture 

Watershed 

management 

Nature in Folklore of 

central Western 

Ghats (Karnataka) 

Natural resources as 

reflected in folklore 

of Goa 


Functioning of ESA 

Authority 

Pesticides 

Wild food plants 

183



o. 

34 Shri L. Narayan 

Reddy, Srinivaspura, 

080 7651360 Potential of organic 

farming 

Marlenanahalli, 

Dodaballapura, 

Hanabe, 561203 

35 N G Hegde, 

Formerly of BAIF, 

Pune 

09890181848 nghegde@baif.org.in Tree growth on 

private lands 

36 Jayant Kulkarni, Row 

House 1, Ratan Park 

Phase 2, 127/5, Sus 

Road, Pashan 

Pune 411021 

09423006694 

Office: +9120- 

65222903/25861310 

Home : +9120- 

65619257 

main@envirosearch.in, 

jayant.kulkarni@envirose 

arch.in 

Human- wild life 

conflict 

37 Sagar Dhara, E-303, 

Highrise 

Arparments , Lower 

Tank, Bund Road 

Hyderabad 500 080 

(040) 636593 

Fax: (040) 636593 

Sagar Dhara 

, 

sagdhara@hd1.vsnl.net.in 

EIA process 

38 Mewa Singh, Mysore 

University, Mysore 

39 Jagdish 

Krishnaswamy/ 

Kiran, ATREE, 

Bengaluru 

40 SNEHLATA NATH, 

Keystone Centre, 

Groves Hill Road, 

Kotagiri, Nilgiris, 

Tamil Nadu 

41 Harini Nagendra, 

ATREE, Bengaluru 

42 T R Vijayaraghavan, 

IAS (Retd) 

43 ANITA VARGHESE 



Kotagiri, Nilgiris, 

Tamil Nadu 

44 Dr Aravind 

ATREE 

45 Dr Vasudeva 

College of Forestry 

Sirsi 

46 Dr Ravikanth 

ATREE 

09448603506 mewasingh@bsnl.n Primates 

Telephone: +91-80- 

23635555 , 

Fax : +91-80- 

23530070 

jagdish@atree.org, 

jagdish.krishnaswamy@g 

mail.com 

harini.nagendra@gmail.co 

m 

amadhyastha@gmail.com 

vasukoppa@gmail.com 

gravikanth@gmail.com 

Criteria for deciding 

on Ecologically 

Sensitive Areas 

Livelihood security 

Landscapes 

Hill stations 

Non-Timber Forest 

Produce 

Amphibians 

Economically 

important but 

endangered species 

Conservation of 

forest genetic 

resources 

47 DK Ved, FRLHT dk.ved@frlht.org Medicinal Plants 

48 NA 

Madhyastha/Rajendr 

a Mavinkurve 

Malacology Centre, 

Poorna Prajna 

College, Udupi- 

576101 

na_madhyastha@sanchar 

net.in 

(Please check this email) 

Land snails of 

Western Ghats 

49 PA Sebastian 

Division of 

Arachnology, Dept. 

of Zoology 

Sacred Heart College 

Thevara, Cochin- 

682013, Kerala 

administrator@southindia 

nspiders.org 

Spiders 

184



o. 

50 Dr Shashidhar 

Viraktamath 

University of 

Agricultural 

Sciences, Dharwad 

51 Kalyan Kumar 

Chakravarty 

(Former Director of 

Indira Gandhi 

Rashtriya Manav 

Sangrahalaya, 

Ministry of Culture, 

Bhopal) 

52 KS Valdiya 

JNCASR, Bangalore 

53 N M Kamat, Goa 

University 

54 D.J.Bhat, Goa 

University 

55 K.R.Sridhar, 

Mangalore 

University 

56 Urmila Makhija, 

Agharkar Research 

Institute, G.G. 

Agarkar Road, Pune- 

411 004 


Wild bees of Western 

Ghats; crop 

pollination deficits 

Hill forts and 

cultural heritage, 

including rock 

carvings 

Geological and 

palaeobiological 

heritage (rare rock 

formations; 

fossiliferous strata) 

Ethnomycology of 

western ghats (focus 

on edible, medicinal, 

toxic and 

hallucinogenic 

species) 

Microbial habitats 

and resourcesterrestrial 

Microbial habitats 

and resourcesaquatic 

Lichens 

57 K. Gopalkrishna Bhat 

Dept of Botany, 

Poornaprajna 

College, Udupi 

Add: "Madhuca", 

Durga Saw Mill 

Lane, Chitpady, 

UDUPI, 576101 

58 C.Achalender Reddy, 

I.F.S, 

Secretary, 

National Biodiversity 

Authority, 

5th Floor, TICEL 

Biopark, 

Taramani, Chennai - 

600 113 

Tamilnadu, India. 

59 Norma Alvares, Goa 

Foundation 

G-8, St Britto’s Apts, 

Feira Alta,Mapusa, 

Bardez, 

Goa – 403507, 

60 A. Sundara, Director 

of the Post-Graduate 

Research Centre of 

the 

Karnataka University 

at Bijapur 

9449935486 Conservation of 

Pteridophyes and 

Gymnosperms of 

Western Ghats 

44-22541071(Off), 

+91-44- 

24515020(Resi).Mob 

ile: +91 96770 66330 

832-2256479 / 

2263305 

secretary@nbaindia.in, 

achal.reddy@gmail.com 

Ecotourism 

development and 

opportunities in 

Western Ghats 

Environmental PIL 

and judicial activism: 

A Western Ghats 

NGO 

perspective 

Prehistoric and 

protohistoric cultural 

heritage of Western 

Ghats 

185



o. 

61 Raghunandan 

Raghavan, 

IAS(Retd), No 1 

KPTCL Quarters, 

Hosakerehalli Main 

Road, Bangalore 

560085 

Land 

line: 08026420700 

cell: 9845749988 

 

districts 

62 Antonio 

mascarenhas@nio.org, 

Mascarenhas, NIO, 

Dona Paula, Goa, 

63 Alito Sequiera, 

Associate professor, 

dept. of sociology, 

Goa University, 

Taleigao, Goa, 

08326519308 

64 Ranjan Solomon 

,149/D, Gina, 

Maina-Curtorim 

Salcete, Goa – 

403709, 

65 Dr T T Sreekumar 

assistant professor, 

communications and 

new media 

programme 

National University 

of Singapore 

66 Ramesh Ganwas, 

Senior teacher, 

Govind 

Gunaji sawant high 

school, Sarvona, 

Bicholim 

67 Rajendra Kerkar , 

Gonteli, 

Keri, Sattari, 

9421248545, 

Telephone: 91- 

0832-2450335 

Fax: 91-0832- 

2450602 

Telephone +91 – 

9881181350 

(Mobile) 

and +91 - 832- 

2787667 (Home), 

Tel: +65-6516 3148 

Fax: +65- 6779 4911 

alito@unigoa.ac.in, 

ranjan.solomon@gmail.co 

m 

cnmsttp@nus.edu.sg; 

sreekumar@nus.edu.sg 

rpkerkar@yahoo.com 

Need for enhancing 

the role and capacity 

of the Panchayats for 

improving 

governance in the 

Western Ghats 

Tourism-Legal, 

technical, ecological 

and environmental 

issues (Goa, 

Konkan, Coastal 

Karnataka) esp. w.r.t. 

CRZ, geo and 

ecohazards, SLR etc. 

Tourism-Social, 

cultural issues 

Tourism –Cultural, 

social ethical issues 

Tourism in Kerala – 

social, cultural 

impacts 

Mining (Konkan and 

Goa) 

Mining-people’s 

perspectives 

Mining-Goa, Konkan 

(social, ecological) 

68 Glenn (GMOEA) Mining-Geological 

and Economic 

perspective 

69 Gujarat ecological 

society 

70 Kanchi Kohli 

Kalpavriksh 


Environmental 

Sciences Division, 

Centre for Earth 

Science 

Studies, 

Thiruvananthapura 

m, 695031, Kerala 

http://www.gesindia.org 

/eco.htm 

kanchikohli@gmail.com 

drpadmalal@yahoo.com 

Mining (Gujarat)- 

Mining (Karnataka)- 

Alluvial sand 

Mining- the Kerala 

experience 

72 Pratim Roy Tourism 

73 VB Mathur, WII, 

Wildlife Tourism 

Dehra Dun 

74 M P Nair Keystone species 

75 ??? Transport 

infrastructure 

76 Sankaran, K F R I Invasive species 

186



o. 

77 Suresh, Equations Tourism in forest 

areas 

78 Gautam, CPCB Systems of 

environmental 

monitoring 

79 Murthy, NRSC, 

Hyderabad 

Land cover 

monitoring 

80 Dr. Pratim Roy 

Keystone 

Foundation, Kotagiri 

Sustainable 

ecotourism in 

Nilgiris 

For preparation of commissioned papers, the Panel suggested that an Honorarium of Rs. 

10,000/- should be provided to each contributor and funds for this purpose will be made 

available by the MoEF. Prof. Sukumar has kindly agreed to write to all the authors and 

obtain their acceptance / willingness within two weeks; therafter the authors will be 

requested to submit the papers in their allotted themes within 3 months to the CES, IISc, 

Bengaluru for peer review and acceptance. The papers will accompany an executive 

summary with a focus on policy. The commissioning of papers would be undertaken at CES, 

IISc, Bengaluru 

V. Brainstorming sessions: 

The Panel discussed the themes, participants and schedules of brainstorming sessions given 

in the Agenda at Annexure-B. The Panel opined that the brainstorming session should be 

operationalised at CES, IISc, Bengaluru. The Panel finalised the list of brainstorming sessions 

as indicated below: 

S. 

No. 

Theme 

Responsible panel 

member 

Lead discussant 

1 Positive and negative experiences of 

administering Ecologically Sensitive Areas 

Madhav Gadgil 

S Asolekar 

2 Current EIA process and how we may reform it Ligia Noronha Sagar Dhara 

3 Assessing regional level Carrying Capacities DK Subramaniam Somnath Nayak 

4 Incentive based approaches to nature 

conservation 

5 Potential of Joint Forest Management 

Programmes for promoting ecologically 

positive action 

6 Potential of Tribal Forest Rights Act for 

promoting ecologically positive action 

7 Sequestering carbon in agricultural soils and 

grazing lands 

8 Potential of Biological Diversity and PPVFR 

Acts for promoting ecologically positive action 

9 How to manage mining projects so as to 

minimize ecological damage, and possibly 

generate positive outcomes 

R Sukumar 

Vidya Nayak 

BJ Krishnan 

BJ Krishnan 

Nandkumar Kamat 

Nandkumar Kamat, 


E Somanathan 

R R Yerdoor 

Nitin Rai 

K.V.S. Prasad 

Raghunandan 

Raghavan 

Rajendra Kerkar 

10 How to manage tourism projects so as to Renee Borges C.Achalender 

187


S. 

No. 

Theme 

Responsible panel 

member 




Reddy 

11 How to manage power projects so as to 



12 How to manage river valley projects so as to 



13 How to manage road/ railway projects so as to 



14 Patterns of distribution of biological diversity 

and human activities on the Western Ghats 

15 Sites that deserve to be declared as Ecologically 

Sensitive Ares of Western Ghats 

Ligia Noronha 

DK Subramaniam 

R Sukumar 

KN Ganeshaiah 

KN Ganeshaiah 

Norma Alvares 

T R Vijayaraghavan 

Jagdish 

Krishnaswamy 

R Vasudeva 

Ranjit Daniels 

16 Land Use Planning Renee Borges V S Vijayan 

17. Invasive Alien Species Dr. Sankaran, KFRI 

(subject expert) 

Dr. 

Ramachandaran, 

KFRI 

The members of the Panel were requested to send their detailed proposals in respect of their 

allotted themes indicating the schedules, duration, and participants along with budgetary 

requirements to Prof. Sukumar, CES, IISc, Bengaluru 

VI. Site visits and public consultations 

The panel discussed the site visit plan and public consultation processes to arrive at the core 

issues of conservation process as proposed by Sh. B. J. Krishnan which is given in the 

agenda at Annexure C. After detailed deliberations the Panel agreed to employ the 

framework suggested by Sh. B.J. Krishnan and Prof. Madhav Gadgil’s as given in Annexure 

– C of the agenda. 

The detailed plans for various states will be drawn up by the following members: 

1. Gujarat and Maharashtra: Madhav Gadgil and Renee Borges 

2. Goa: Nandkumar Kamat and Ligia Naronha 

3. Karnataka: KN Ganeshaiah and Vidya Nayak 

4. Tamilnadu: B J Krishnan and Sukumar 

5. Kerala: V S Vijayan 

The members of the Panel are requested to submit details of themes, responsibility and 

schedule of site visits / consultations in respect of each of their States in the Western Ghats 

region as per the details given in Annexure C of the agenda to Prof. Sukumar, CES, IISc, 

Bengaluru for inclusion in the budgetary proposal being prepared by him. 

The Panel noted that the official term of Dr V S Vijayan as Chairman, Kerala State 

Biodiversity Board may end by end of May 2010. His current position on WGEEP is in his 

188


official capacity. WGEEP would, of course, welcome the new Chairman, Kerala State 

Biodiversity Board as an ex-officio member. However, given Dr V S Vijayan’s extensive 

involvement in WGEEP thus far, and his deep knowledge of the field situation in Kerala and 

Tamil Nadu, he may be co-opted as a member of WGEEP for the remaining tenure of 

WGEEP in his personal capacity, in the eventuality of his ceasing to be the Chairman, Kerala 

State Biodiversity Board. 

VII. The Panel suggested that Prof. Sukumar, CES, IISc, Bangaluru will develop a detailed 

proposal along with the budgetary requirements towards: 

1. Commissioned papers 

2. Brainstorming sessions 

3. Site visits and public consultations 

As noted below Drs Ganeshaiah, Murthy, Daniels and Prasad will develop another proposal 

for developing a quantitative data base on Western Ghats based on available information 

that will provide an objective basis for delineation of Ecologically Sensitive Areas. 

The proposals then will be submitted to the Ministry for financial assistance. 

VIII. Brainstorming Session on Criteria for deciding Ecologically Sensitive Areas 

Regarding the agenda items related to criteria for deciding on Ecologically Sensitive Areas, 

Dr. Ranjit R.J. Daniels who was co-opted by the Panel presented a paper on the criteria for 

deciding Ecologically Sensitive Areas which focussed on the following steps: 

1. Define ecological sensitivity 

2. Classify the entire Western Ghats into landscapes of varying levels of ecological 

sensitivity 

3. Grade the different landscapes along a scale of decreasing sensitivity; example Grade I 

being the most sensitive, Grade II less sensitive and so on 

4. List out the salient physiographic and ecological attributes adopted in grading 

landscapes 

5. Prepare a map of the entire Western Ghats delineating landscapes by their respective 

ecological sensitivity grade 

6. The map will generally guide the delineation of any landscape as ecologically sensitive 

area (ESA) 

7. Biological communities and species can be used as tools for prioritizing landscapes 

8. Biological communities and species should have one or more characteristics such as 

being relic, representative, endemic, endangered, of great human use value, etc 

9. All other values being equal, priority should be accorded to landscapes that are likely to 

complement ongoing conservation efforts when delineated as ESA. 

10. Assessment at 3 levels is needed such as: Landscapes wherein Topography and climate 

can predict the ecological sensitivity of landscapes and the most sensitive landscapes 

have shown the least resilience which has been assessed based on our understanding of 

trends of change in communities of woody plants, amphibians and birds. Landscapes 

have been classified in six grades viz., Grade I and Grade II are divided on the basis of 

189


altitudes, Grade III as watersheds, Grade IV as hill–coast ecotones, Grade V as cultural 

landscapes and Grade VI landscapes that have shown the most resilience. 

Biological Communities of special sensitivity include those that are relic, representative, 

of restricted range, with high species richness, with high levels of endemism, of high 

ecological service value and with high values of endemic, endangered, sacred/venerated 

and human use species . 

The Chairman while summing up the discussion as the criteria to demarcate areas as 

Ecologically Sensitive Areas in the Western Ghats region, opined that the Panel has been 

considering the available guidelines as contained in the Pranob Sen Committee Report as 

well as the experience thus far in already notified Ecologically Sensitive Areas of Matheran, 

Mahableshwar-Panchgani and Dahanu. He also observed that there are a number of 

practical problems in employing criteria as given in the Sen Committee Report. 

For instance, it was proposed that the area of occupancy of an endemic species needs to be 

protected in its entirety. The Western Ghats harbours well over one thousand endemic 

species of flowering plants, fish, frogs, birds and mammals amongst the better known 

groups of organisms, and no doubt thousands more amongst less studied groups including 

insects. Amongst themselves these would cover the entire geographical extent of the 

Western Ghats and all conceivable habitats, including many disturbed ones such as 

roadsides. There are thus obvious difficulties in operationalizing this, as well as other 

recommendations of the Sen Committee. 

It was also noted that the experience of ‚India’s notified ecologically sensitive areas‛ has 

been summarized in a report published by Kalpavriksh in 2009. It narrates the experiences 

of three areas of interest to WGEEP, namely, Dahanu, Matheran and Mahabaleshwar. In all 

these cases the identification of ESAs began with interests of specific groups, in particular, 

the Bombay Environmental Action Group, in protecting these particular areas. In contrast, 

WGEEP would have to assess the situation over the entire stretch of Western Ghats and then 

identify particular areas as appropriate for designation as ESAs, assigned to different levels 

of priority. In all cases so far, the initiative has come from above, and not from the ground 

level. Surely, WGEEP should not impose its recommendations in this fashion from above, 

and must promote a process of broad-based public consultations from the ground level up 

to fulfill its mandate. 

The Panel also opined that it should look at the global-best practices and accordingly pick 

up the best suitable for the needs of the Western Ghats Region. 

The Panel suggested that a project on assessing the levels of eco-sensitivity along the 

Western Ghats is to be developed by Dr. Ranjit Daniels, Dr. Pramod, Dr. M.S.R. Murthy and 

Dr. Ganeshaiah with Dr. Murthy as nodal person and should be submitted to MoEF for 

financial assistance. The outcome of this project would be used by the Panel in demarcating 

areas as Ecologically Sensitive Areas in the Western Ghats Region. 

The Chairman invited Dr. Pratim Roy and Dr. Latha, the co-opted experts for that meeting, 

to make their observations. 

Dr. Pratim Roy, Director Keystone Foundation while participating in the brainstorming 

session made the following observations: 

1. Instead of identifying all those areas which are ecologically sensitive and perhaps 

“re-discovering the wheel” why don‟t we demarcate all areas which have 

ecologically destructive or severely unsustainable practices? Then the areas which 

190


are left out could be the landscape that requires to be preserved, and the value of 

conservation would thus be enhanced. 

2. Fragmentation is the biggest issue. If the panel arrives at how to connect the 

fragmented areas then the flow of ecological processes, linkages and continuity will 

start to tick again. This would include pollination flows, river valleys, upstream and 

downstream linkages. 

3. The Panel has an opportunity to do something unique here. In terms of classification 

of ecology and inventories; if people on the ground, i.e. communities across 51 

districts are to be involved in this exercise then it will become truly a partnership 

between science and people‟s movements. SWGM (Save Western Ghats Movement) 

can help the Expert Panel as much as possible to make this paradigm shift. 

4. It may be desirable to have broad criteria and sub-criteria to capture niches and 

special areas such as water-falls and water bodies. 

5. Western Ghats should be divided into 4 zones – North, Central, South Central, and 

South – in each of these areas we could contact local stakeholders – tribals and nontribals 

whose livelihoods and lives depend on the natural resources that are found in 

this region such as plantations, rivers, forests, NTFPs, cultural spaces – if their 

insights can come forth and they can be a part of this consultation process – then it 

will be unique and relevant to these changing times. Need for wide dissemination of 

information such as radio, post cards as well as places where web-based inputs 

through open source software. 

6. Two examples were given to expand on this concept – Hill wetlands in the Nilgiris – 

we have surveyed 38 wetlands and have detailed analysis of ecological and 

livelihood status in those areas. We could plug that in the larger Western Ghats 

Wetlands database. Another example is Non-Timber Forest Produce – through our 

network we could provide data from across the Western Ghats on the communities 

and their dependence on NTFPs, the current practices, trade and business, and the 

ecological aspects of sustainable harvesting. Perspectives of ancestral domains and 

home ranges need to be brought in as a current tool for delineation purposes of hills, 

valleys and plains – which connect culture, ecology, social systems and economy of 

the region. 

7. A strategy of less intensive growth pattern and softer / greener industries in parts of 

the Western Ghats may enable the promotion of eco-enterprises such as eco-tourism, 

value addition of local products, and viable small cottage industries which are 

ecologically sustainable. The Keystone Foundation could share their 16 years of local 

enterprise experience in promoting contextual ventures which improve ecology and 

biodiversity. 

8. A series of panchayats as in the case of the People‟s Biodiversity Register or 9 

districts of NBR (Nailigiris Biosphere Reserve) may be taken up for a local level 

consultation process to identify ecological and connected social issues. The Western 

Ghats Fly Through map hosted by the Keystone Foundation is intended to be an 

open source and participatory exercise through which other stakeholders and 

interest-groups can contribute with information on their local ecosystems and 

environmental issues in their area. 

191


Dr. A Latha from River Research Centre, Kerala, while participating in the brainstorming 

session during the meeting made the following important points / observations relating to 

Western Ghats ecology and its conservation: 

1. The people living within ESAs when declared should own the ESA concept and be ready 

to cooperate in its effective implementation. Also, there is need to sensitize the people 

and rope in the support and consensus of local self-governments, MLAs and MPs early 

in the process before finally declaring ESAs. 

2. There should be a Zonal approach to declaration of ESAs in the long run. Within a 

larger declared ESA Zone, there can be smaller zones of ‘no touch or no more 

development’ and there could be zones of ‘development with caution’ just like in the 

case of the CRZ Notifications. 

3. As far as possible, highly ecologically sensitive river basins or landscapes with 

considerable representation and extent of PAs, IBAs, Elephant Reserves etc. within them 

can be considered for ESAs. 

4. The extent of destruction / degradation / human intervention could be a criterion for 

deciding ESAs. For instance, the extent of dammed stretches in a river basin, extent of 

dried up river stretches below dams and diversions, extent of mined catchments, extent 

of catchments with monoculture plantations etc. could be criteria for deciding ESAs 

along with biogeographical aspects. For instance the entire Kannan Devan Hills village 

in Munnar High Ranges is a potential ESA within the larger Munnar landscape. 

5. Along with cultural aspects, the traditional hunting and gathering areas of primitive 

hunter-gatherer tribes needs to be preserved for posterity. Hence, while declaring ESAs 

such areas may be given high priority. 

6. Once the ESAs have been declared on a Zonal basis, perspective management plans 

with clear prescriptions of what can be allowed and what cannot be allowed within the 

ESA can be worked out for each ESA. ESA Management Committees can be formed 

which are multidisciplinary in nature with representatives from different departments, 

local self-governments, MLAs , MPs, NGOs and grass-roots organizations etc. working 

within that ESA. They can work under the proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority 

to prepare perspective plans for the respective ESA. Separate monitoring committees 

can be set up to oversee effective implementation. 

7. Along with the declaration of the ESAs the expert panel should also recommend 

restorative measures in the ESA as part of the perspective planning process to be taken 

up after declaration based on the context. 

The Keystone Foundation and River Research Centre, Kerala, were requested to submit 

innovative ideas / success stories for effective implementation of Ecologically Sensitive 

Areas Notifications. 

192


Annexure: Agenda WGEEP meeting, Coimbatore, 7th May 2010 

Review of action taken so far 

Website (Ganeshaiah) 

Decisions needed 

Geographical limits (Ganeshaiah, Kamat) 

Registering individuals and institutions who wish to interact (Ganeshaiah, Krishnan) 

Commissioned papers (Gadgil) – Annexure A 

Themes, participants and schedule of Brainstorming Sessions (Gadgil) – Annexure B 

Themes, responsibility and schedule of site visits/ consultations (Gadgil, Krishnan) – Annexure C 

Each member should present her/his proposal for site visits she/he desires to undertake. We 

should consolidate and arrive at a final plan during this meeting. 

Timetable 

I believe that the real bottleneck is going to be obtaining required Ministry of Environment 

and Forest sanctions for undertaking our proposed work plan. I suggest that we finalize the 

detailed work plan at this meeting. We will not decide on the actual time schedule, 

including the date of the next meeting, until the requisite sanctions are obtained. Only after 

all the sanctions are in place, we will initiate action and decide on a time frame. Till then we 

will keep WGEEP in suspended animation. If it is still in suspended animation on September 

1, 2010; or, for that matter, when our term ends in March 2011, so be it. But, of course, I very 

much hope that the sanctions will be obtained promptly so that we can get going. 

Brainstorming 

Criteria for deciding on Ecologically Sensitive Areas 

Paper presentation by: 

Ranjit R J Daniels, Care Earth Trust, Chennai 600 061 

Discussant: Dr P Pramod, SACON, Coimbatore 

193


Annexure A: Commissioned papers: penultimate list 

We shall request the authors of commissioned papers to address the specific theme, as they 

see fit, in the context of the mandate of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, keeping in 

mind that it is desirable to: [a] draw a picture of the current status of ecology of the Western 

Ghats region, [b] provide suggestions as to measures that would promote conservation, 

protection and rejuvenation of the ecology of the Western Ghats Region, [c] provide 

suggestions as to areas within the Western Ghats Region which may be considered for 

notification as ecologically sensitive. 

# Name Mobile/ landline E-mail Theme 

1 V.B.Savarkar, 464 Rasta 

Peth, Flat 3, Nr. MSEDC 

Ltd. Power House, 

Opposite. Mahalaxmi 

Motors, Pune-411011. 

Maharashtra. 

9890045692.020- 

26133844 

woodow464@yahoo.co.in 

Protected Areas Network 

2 G S Mohan College of 

Forestry 

Ponnampet 


Environmental Sciences 

Division, Centre for 

Earth Science 

Studies, 

Thiruvananthapuram, 


Mohangs2007@gmail.com 

drpadmalal@yahoo.co 

m 

Wild relatives of Cultivated 

Plants and Crop genetic 

resources 

Alluvial sand Mining- the 

Kerala experience 

4 Ajay Desai Ajay Desai 

(ajayadesaih@yahoo.co 

m) 

Elephants 

5 A J T Johnsingh, former 

Dean, Wild Life 

Institute of India, 

Bengaluru 

ajt.johnsingh@gmail.com 




Sciences 

Indian Institute of 

Science 


Office :080- 2293 

3104, 2360 0985 

(Labs-Internal): 

233, 313 Res: 

32720750 

Mobile: 

9945565935 

kshanker@ces.iisc.ernet.in 

Uropeltid snakes 

7 Bhaskar, formerly UAS, 

Bengaluru 

9844021625 vbhaskar49@yahoo.co.in Balsams 

194




Scientist C 

Zoological Survey of 

India 

Western Regional 

Centre 

Rawet Road, Sector-29 

Vidyanagar 


Pune-411 044 

Phone (Office): 

+91-20- 

27655213,2765256 

4,27651927 

Phone 

(Residence):+91- 

20-27658971 

Phone 

(Mobile):+91- 

9422907805 

Fax (Office): +91- 

20-27652564 

subbuka.zsi@gmail.com 

Hill streams 

9 T.N.C. Vidya, JNCASR, 

Bangalore, and N. 

Basakaran, ANCF, 

Bangalore 

tncvidya@jncasr.ac.in, 

baskar@ces.iisc.ernet.in 

Large mammal populations 

10 Ranjit Daniels, 

Careearth, Chennai 

Care Earth Trust 



Tel: 91-44-6543 

5841 

Mobile: 

09282123242 

careearth careearth 

 

Birds 


11 C T S Nair, formerly, 

FAO, Nilambur 

09995305542 ctsnair@hotmail.com Working of forests 

12 E Somanathan, Indian 

Statistical Institute, 

Delhi 

098681 82096, 

011-41493939 

E. Somanathan 

 

Incentive based approaches 

to nature conservation 



Ramesh 

 

Trees 

14 M D Subash Chandran, 

CES, IISc, Bengaluru 

09242123555 subash md 

 

Sacred groves 

15 T R Shankar Raman, 

Nature Conservation 

Foundation, 3076/5, IV 

Cross, Gokulam Park, 

Mysore - 570 002 

Telephone : 

+91.821.2515 601 

Facsimile : 

+91.821.2513 822 

trsr@ncf-india.org 

Shola- grasslands 

16 A Damodaran, Center 

for Public Policy, Indian 


Management, 

Bengaluru 

080-26993323 damodaran@iimb.ernet.i 

n 

Plantation crops 

17 Nitin Rai, ATREE, 

Bengaluru 

Telephone: +91- 

80-23635555 Fax : 

+91-80-23530070 

Nitin Rai 

 

Tribal Forest Rights Act 

195





Gurvayankere 

09448287055 nstgkere@sancharnet.in Joint Forest Management 

programmes 

19 Aparna Watve 09822597288 Dr. Aparna Watve 

 

20 S N Prasad, SACON 09440602754 S Narendra Prasad 

 

Grassy plateaus 

Wetlands 

21 Vijay Paranjape 9922009749 gomukh@pn3.vsnl.net.in Dams 

22 Mrunal Wanarase, 

Ecological Society, Pune 

23 Jay Samant, formerly 

Shivaji University, 

Kolhapur 

24 Kusum Karnik, 

Shashvat 

25 Vinod Uniyal, Kerala 



foundation, No. 204, 

100 feet ring road, 3rd 

phase, 

Banashankari, 2nd 

block, 3rd stage, 

Bengaluru, 560085 


Bengaluru 

28 SHALINI 

RAGHUNATH, 

Department of Studies 

in Folklore, 


Dharwad 580 003, 

Karnataka 

29 Pandurang Phaldessai, 

member secretary, Kala 

akademy, Panaji, 

Goa, 91-832-2420451, 

09822000862 ioraespune@gmail.com, 

ecological.society@gmail 

.com, 

09822655168 Udaysinh gaikwad 

 

91-080- 

26699512,91-080- 

26699522,fax- 

91080-26699410 

(O) 0836-2215299, 

(R) 0836-2778233, 

(M) 09845809746 

91-832-2410888 

(R) 9822123030 

(M) 

shashwat 

 

Sharad Lele 

, 

Regeneration of streams 


Religious tourism 


committees 

Sustainable agriculture 

Watershed management 

Nature in folklore of 

Central Western Ghats 

(Karnataka) 


reflected in folklore of Goa 

30 Dilip Boralkar, Mumbai 09892542288,022- 

25552558 

dboralkar@gmail.com, 



Mumbai 

022 -25767867, 

09820410443 

asolekar@iitb.ac.in 


Authority 

196





Ornithology and 

Natural History, 


Tele Fax: +91 - 

422 - 2657088 

Tele : +91 - 422 - 

2657101 - 102, 

131, 199 

salimali@vsnl.com 

Pesticides 

Coimbatore - 641 108, 

Tamil Nadu,. 


Chennai 

 


34 Shri L. Narayan Reddy, 

Srinivaspura, 




35 N G Hegde, Formerly 

of BAIF, Pune 

080 7651360 Potential of organic 

farming 

09890181848 nghegde@baif.org.in Tree growth on private 

lands 

36 Jayant Kulkarni, Row 

House 1, Ratan Park 

Phase 2, 127/5, Sus 

Road, Pashan 

Pune 411021 

09423006694 

Office: +9120- 

65222903/258613 

10 

Home : +9120- 

65619257 

main@envirosearch.in, 

jayant.kulkarni@envirose 

arch.in 

Human–wildlife conflict 

37 Sagar Dhara, E-303, 

Highrise Arparments , 

Lower Tank, Bund 

Road 

(040) 636593 

Fax: (040) 636593 

Sagar Dhara 

, 

sagdhara@hd1.vsnl.net.in 

EIA process 




09448603506 mewasingh@bsnl.n Primates 

39 Jagdish Krishnaswamy/ 

Kiran, ATREE, 

Bengaluru 

Telephone: +91- 

80-23635555 , 

Fax : +91-80- 

23530070 

jagdish@atree.org, 

jagdish.krishnaswamy@g 

mail.com 

Criteria for deciding on 


40 Snehlata Nath, 



Kotagiri, Nilgiris, Tamil 

Nadu 


41 Harini Nagendra, 

ATREE, Bengaluru 

harini.nagendra@gmail.c 

om 

Landscapes 


IAS (Retd) 

Hill stations 

43 Anita Varghese 




Nadu 


197



44 Dr Aravind 

ATREE 



Sirsi 


ATREE 

amadhyastha@gmail.com 

vasukoppa@gmail.com 

gravikanth@gmail.com 

Amphibians 

Economically important but 


Conservation of forest 

genetic resources 

47 Ved, FRLHT dk.ved@frlht.org Medicinal Plants 

48 NA 

Madhyastha/Rajendra 

Mavinkurve 


Poorna Prajna College, 

Udupi-576101 


Division of 

Arachnology, Dept. of 

Zoology 


Thevara, Cochin- 


50 Dr Shashidhar 

Viraktamath 

University of 

Agricultural Sciences, 

Dharwad 

51 Kalyan Kumar 

Chakravarty 

(Former Director of 

Indira Gandhi 

Rashtriya Manav 

Sangrahalaya, Ministry 

of Culture, Bhopal) 

52 KS Valdiya 


53 N M Kamat, Goa 

University 


University 

na_madhyastha@sancha 

rnet.in 

administrator@southindia 

nspiders.org 


Land snails of Western 

Ghats 

Spiders 

Wild bees of Western 

Ghats; crop pollination 

deficits 

Hill forts and cultural 

heritage, including rock 

carvings 


palaeobiological heritage 

(rare rock formations; 


Ethnomycology of Western 

Ghats (focus on edible, 

medicinal, toxic and 

hallucinogenic species) 

Microbial habitats and 

resources-terrestrial 

198



55 K.R.Sridhar, Mangalore 

University 

56 Urmila Makhija, 

Agharkar Research 

Institute, G.G. Agarkar 

Road, Pune-411 004 



Poornaprajna College, 

Udupi 

Add: "Madhuca", Durga 

Saw Mill Lane, 

Chitpady, Udupi, 

576101 


resources-aquatic 

Lichens 

9449935486 Conservation of 

pteridophyes and 

gymnosperms of Western 

Ghats 

58 C.Achalender Reddy, 

I.F.S, 

Secretary, 


Authority, 

44-22541071(Off), 

+91-44- 

24515020(Resi).M 

obile: +91 96770 

66330 

secretary@nbaindia.in, 

achal.reddy@gmail.com 

Ecotourism development 

and opportunities in 

Western Ghats 

5th Floor, TICEL 

Biopark, 

Taramani, Chennai - 

600 113 



Foundation 

G-8, St Britto’s Apts, 

Feira Alta,Mapusa, 

Bardez, 

832-2256479 / 

2263305 

Environmental PIL and 

judicial activism: A 

Western Ghats NGO 

perspective 

Goa – 403507, 

60 A. Sundara, Director of 

the Post-Graduate 

Research Centre of the 



heritage of Western Ghats 

Karnataka University at 

Bijapur 

61 Raghunandan 

Raghavan, IAS(Retd), 

No 1 KPTCL Quarters, 

Hosakerehalli Main 

Road, Bangalore 560085 

Land 

line: 0802642070 

0 

cell: 9845749988 

 

Need for enhancing the role 

and capacity of the 

Panchayats for improving 

governance in the Western 

Ghats districts, 

62 Antonio Mascarenhas, 

NIO, Dona Paula, Goa, 

Telephone: 91- 

0832-2450335 

Fax: 91-0832- 

2450602 

mascarenhas@nio.org, 

Tourism–legal, technical, 

ecological and 

environmental issues (Goa, 

Konkan, Coastal 

Karnataka) esp. w.r.t. CRZ, 

geo and ecohazards, SLR 

etc. 

199



63 Alito Sequiera, 

Associate professor, 

alito@unigoa.ac.in, 

Tourism–social, cultural 

issues 

Dept. of Sociology, Goa 

University, Taleigao, 

Goa, 08326519308 

64 Ranjan Solomon ,149/D, 

Gina, 

Maina-Curtorim 

Salcete, Goa – 403709, 

Telephone +91 – 

9881181350 

(Mobile) 

and +91 - 832- 

2787667 (Home), 

ranjan.solomon@gmail.c 

om 

Tourism–Cultural, social 

ethical issues 



Communications and 

New Media Programme 

Tel: +65-6516 

3148 Fax: +65- 

6779 4911 

cnmsttp@nus.edu.sg; 

sreekumar@nus.edu.sg 

Tourism in Kerala–social, 

cultural impacts 

National University of 

Singapore 

66 Ramesh Ganwas, Senior 

teacher, Govind 

Gunaji Sawant High 

School, Sarvona, 

Bicholim, Goa 

Mining (Konkan and Goa) 

Mining–people’s 

perspectives 

67 Rajendra Kerkar , 

Gonteli, 

Keri, Sattari, Goa 

9421248545 rpkerkar@yahoo.com Mining–Goa, Konkan 


68 Glenn (GMOEA) Mining-Geological and 

Economic perspective 

69 Gujarat Ecological 

Society 

70 Kanchi Kohli, 

Kalpavriksh 

http://www.gesindia.org/e 

co.htm 

kanchikohli@gmail.com 

Mining (Gujarat) 

Mining (Karnataka) 

200


Annexure B: Brainstorming Sessions: Penultimate list 

# Theme Responsible panel 

member 


1 Positive and negative experiences of administering 


Madhav Gadgil 

S Asolekar 

2 Current EIA process and how we may reform it Ligia Naronha Sagar Dhara 

3 Assessing regional level Carrying Capacities DK Subramaniam Somnath Nayak 

4 Incentive based approaches to nature conservation R Sukumar E Somanathan 

5 Potential of Joint Forest Management Programmes for 


6 Potential of Tribal Forest Rights Act for promoting 

ecologically positive action 

7 Sequestering carbon in agricultural soils and grazing 

lands 

8 Potential of Biological Diversity and PPVFR Acts for 


9 How to manage mining projects so as to minimize 

ecological damage, and possibly generate positive 

outcomes 

10 How to manage tourism projects so as to minimize 


outcomes 

11 How to manage power projects so as to minimize 


outcomes 

12 How to manage river valley projects so as to 

minimize ecological damage, and possibly generate 

positive outcomes 

13 How to manage road/ railway projects so as to 

minimize ecological damage, and possibly generate 

positive outcomes 

14 Patterns of distribution of biological diversity and 

human activities on the Western Ghats 

15 Sites that deserve to be declared as Ecologically 

Sensitive Ares of Western Ghats 

Vidya Nayak 

BJ Krishnan 

BJ Krishnan 

Nandkumar 

Kamat 

Nandkumar 

Kamat 

Renee Borges 

Ligia Naronha 

DK Subramaniam 

R Sukumar 

KN Ganeshaiah 

KN Ganeshaiah 

R R Yerdoor 

Nitin Rai 

KVS. Prasad 

Raghunandan 

Raghavan 

Rajendra Kerkar 

C Achalender 

Reddy 

Norma Alvares 

T R 

Vijayaraghavan 

Jagdish 

Krishnaswamy 

R Vasudeva 

Ranjit Daniels 

16 Land Use Planning Renee Borges V S Vijayan 

201


Annexure C: Site Visits 

B.J. Krishnan proposals: 

Site Visit Plan and Public Consultation Processes to arrive at the core issues of the 

conservation process 

TASK: 1. Broad outline of the Public Consultation Process (and) 

2. A tentative set of criteria for selecting Sites for Visit 

For the sake of convenience and easy identification, I have broadly divided the entire 

Western Ghats regions into four Zones (1) Southern Western Ghats (2) South-Central 

inclusive of Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve (3) Central and (4) Western Zones – See Annexure 

B. Outline of the Public Consultation / Approach 

Consultation processes for each zone and themes will have stakeholders representing the 3 

dimensions of the CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) objective triangle 

• Conservation – Ecology 

• Sustainable Use of Natural Resources – Economics 

• Benefit Sharing – Equity 

To validate the current situation, each stage of the consultation process will engage various 

stakeholders. I suggest selecting research institutions, private and government and NGOs / 

CSOs to provide inputs, data, evidences, case studies and innovative ideas in each of the 

selected sites. 

C. Core Issues of Conservation Processes / Proposed Themes: Broad outline for Public 

Consultation process and tentative set of Criteria for selecting Sites for Visits 

1. Plantations / Farming Practices – Annamalais / South Western Ghats/Nilgiris 

• Agricultural plantation like tea, coffee, rubber, cardamom in areas near forests 

• Cultivation along steep slopes 

• Soil erosion 

• Frequent landslides 

• Chemical Inputs / Pesticides / Toxics 

• Buffer zones not protected or declared 

• Encroachments into forest areas 

• Farming and excessive application of Chemical Pesticides 

• Need for Organic Farming 

2. Mining – Goa / Central Western Ghats 

• Deforestation 



3. Rivers, Dams & Reservoirs – Idduki / South Western Ghats 

202


• Forests submerged under reservoirs 

• Tourism related pollution, traffic and disturbance to wild life and ecology 

• Riparian zone destruction and/ or loss 

• Legal Protection of Catchment Areas (no legislative protection in state or centre) 

• Power lines cutting through forests 

4. Wildlife Corridors / Man – Animal Conflict – Nilgiris / South Central Western Ghats 

• Forest Fragmentation – lost continuity 

• Poaching and wild life trade 

• Invasion of exotic species 

• Frequent forest fires 

• Grazing by domesticated animals from the surrounding villages / settlements 



5. Tourism – Goa and Ooty / South Central Western Ghats 

• Unregulated / unplanned / issues of carrying capacity 

• Benefit sharing 

• Infrastructure – Carrying Capacity of roads 

6. Energy / Power Plants / Heavy Industries – Dahanu, Ratnagiri / North Western Ghats/ 

and all other areas 

• Pollution – land, air, water 

• Displacement 

7. Urban Settlements – North Western Ghats 

• Unplanned Infrastructure and buildings 

• Highways cutting through forests 

WESTERN GHATS: ZONES AND DISTRICTS 

Tentative set of criteria for selecting sites for visits/ Public consultation Processes: 

Proposed Zonation of Western Ghats (4 Zones) for the purpose of Identifying thematic 

issues and consultation processes and site visits. 

S.No Zones District 

1 North Western Ghats (NWG) Surat 

2 North Western Ghats (NWG) The Dangs 

3 North Western Ghats (NWG) Valsad 

4 North Western Ghats (NWG) Nandurbar 

5 North Western Ghats (NWG) Dhule 

203


6 North Western Ghats (NWG) Nashik 

7 North Western Ghats (NWG) Thane 

8 North Western Ghats (NWG) Pune 

9 North Western Ghats (NWG) Ahmadnagar 

10 North Western Ghats (NWG) Satara 

11 Central Western Ghats (CWG) Ratnagiri 

12 Central Western Ghats (CWG) Sindhudurg 

13 Central Western Ghats (CWG) Kolhapur 

14 Central Western Ghats (CWG) Sangli 

15 Central Western Ghats (CWG) Belgaum 

16 Central Western Ghats (CWG) Dharwad 

17 Central Western Ghats (CWG) Uttara Kannada 

18 Central Western Ghats (CWG) Shimoga 

19 Central Western Ghats (CWG) Udupi 

20 Central Western Ghats (CWG) Chikmagalur 

21 Central Western Ghats (CWG) Hassan 

22 Central Western Ghats (CWG) Dakshina Kannada 

23 South Central Western Ghats (SCWG) Kodagu 

24 South Central Western Ghats (SCWG) Mysore 

25 South Central Western Ghats (SCWG) Chamarajanagar 

26 Central Western Ghats (CWG) North Goa 

27 Central Western Ghats (CWG) South Goa 

28 South Central Western Ghats (SCWG) Kasaragod 

29 South Central Western Ghats (SCWG) Kannur 

30 South Central Western Ghats (SCWG) Wayanad 

31 South Central Western Ghats (SCWG) Kozhikode 

32 South Central Western Ghats (SCWG) Malappuram 

33 South Central Western Ghats (SCWG) Palakkad 

34 South Western Ghats Thrissur 

35 South Western Ghats Ernakulam 

36 South Western Ghats Idukki 

37 South Western Ghats Kottayam 

38 South Western Ghats Alappuzha 

39 South Western Ghats Pathanamthitta 

40 South Western Ghats Kollam 

204


41 South Western Ghats Thiruvananthapuram 

42 South Central Western Ghats (SCWG) Erode 

43 South Central Western Ghats (SCWG) The Nilgiris 

44 South Central Western Ghats (SCWG) Coimbatore 

45 South Western Ghats Dindigul 

46 South Western Ghats Madurai 

47 South Western Ghats Virudhunagar 

48 South Western Ghats Theni 

49 South Western Ghats Tirunelveli 

50 South Western Ghats Kanniyakumari 

51 North Western Ghats (NWG) Raigarh 

Madhav Gadgil proposals: 

Site visits may involve one or more members. At least one of the members should be fluent 

in the local language. 

We might wish to choose representative examples of the following three types of sites for 

field visits by one or more members/ entire panel: 

• Candidate sites for being declared as Ecologically Sensitive Areas 

• Sites representing various types of serious threats to ecological health: river valley 

projects, mining, power projects, industrial pollution, tourism, roads and railways 

• Sites representing examples of positive action: for example, Dahanu ESA Authority, 

Lamkani revegetation, Thekkady EDAs 

205


Minutes of the Third Meeting of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel held on 23 – 

24 June, 2010 at Dahanu, Maharashtra. 

The third meeting of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) was held at 

Dahanu, Maharashtra on 23 – 24 June, 2010. The following were present: 




4. Dr. Ms. Ligia Noronha Member 







1. Dr. D.K. Subrahmanyam 

2. Prof. (Ms.) Renee Borges 

3. Prof. R. Sukumar 

4. Dr. Nandkumar Mukund Kamat 

Dr. R.R. Navalgund was represented by Dr. Chandrasekhar Jha, NRSC, Hyderabad. 

Mrs. Usha Subramaniam, Additional Director, MoEF, also participated in the Meeting. 

The Following Special Invitees were present: 

1. Justice C.S. Dharmadhikari, Chairman, Dahanu Taluka Environment 

Protection Authority (DTEPA) 

2. Mrs. Asha Dahake, Town Planner & SO, DTEPA 

3. Shri N.R. Praveen, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Dahanu Forest Division 

4. Shri Ashok D. Patil, Asst. Forest Officer, Dahanu Forest Division 

5. Dr. J.M. Jare, S.D.O. Dahanu 

The meeting began on 23 rd morning with a site visit by the Expert Panel to the areas where 

tree plantation has been undertaken by the DTEPA. The WGEEP was able to visit a few of 

the 12 upavans (small forests) developed in the area by the DTEPA with the assistance of the 

Forest Deptt. 

The Panel met in the afternoon of 23 rd June, 2010 to discuss the agenda items of the 3 rd 

meeting of the WGEEP. 

Chairman initiated the meeting by thanking DTEPA and the Forest Dept., Dahanu Taluka 

for organizing the site visits as also for making arrangements for the meeting at Dahanu. 

After welcoming all the Members he briefly explained the Agenda for the meeting and 

206


proposed introduction of two more items namely, Lavasa Township and BVEERI, Pune for 

discussion and stated that the Panel could adopt the agenda after which the agenda items 

would be taken up individually for discussion. 

Then the agenda was adopted by the Members of the Panel with the comment that the 

WGEEP should give utmost priority to the development of guidelines and criteria for 

demarcation of any area as ecologically sensitive or fragile in the Western Ghats Region. 

After this the agenda items were taken up for discussion. 

Agenda Item No.1: Confirmation of the Minutes of the Second Meeting of the WGEEP 

held on 7 th May, 2010 

The minutes were confirmed with the clarification that the six experts who were present in 

the Second Meeting are to be shown as special invitees, invited specifically for the second 

meeting and not as co-opted members. It was also decided that the Minutes of the meetings 

of the WGEEP would be put up in the website of the both MoEF and WGEEP, after they 

have been seen and approved by the members of the Panel. 

Agenda Item No. 2: Inauguration of WGEEP website. 

The WGEEP website was formally inaugurated by Justice C.S. Dharmadhikari, Chairman, 

DTEPA. Dr. Ganeshaiah demonstrated the features of the website and mentioned that the 

website would be interactive and dynamic in nature with a query answer system. The 

website is designed in such a way that spatial data can also be uploaded. The Chairman 

congratulated Dr. Ganeshiah in getting the website developed in such a short time. The 

WGEEP decided to place on record its appreciation and gratitude to Dr. Ganeshaiah for 

developing the WGEEP website. Several suggestions were also given by the members for 

expanding the information base of the website. All the Members of the Panel were 

requested to upload the information available with them relating to the Western Ghats 

Region on the website. It was decided that under the window – ‚discussion‛ in the website, 

a page for WGEEP be created to receive queries and suggestions from concerned 

stakeholders and to respond to the same. 

Agenda Item No. 3: Geographical limits 

The Panel discussed the geographical limits for drawing the map of Western Ghats Region 

for the purpose of its conservation and sustainable development. As National Remote 

Sensing Center (NRSC) has defined the BRT Hills segment, it was decided to include this 

segment in the map of the Western Ghats Region. 

Agenda Item No.4: Status of the project to assess the levels of eco-sensitivity along the 

Western Ghats 

Chairman mentioned that as decided in the 2 nd meeting of the WGEEP, NRSC was to 

prepare a detailed proposal on assessing the levels of eco-sensitivity along the Western 

Ghats. He therefore requested Dr. Chandrashekhar Jha to apprise the Panel of the progress 

regarding this. Dr. Jha then made a detailed power point presentation on the proposal 

during which it was mentioned that in view of the procedural constraints in appointment of 

project staff, NRSC may not be in a position to take up implementation of the proposal. 

After discussion, it was decided that the project proposal would be prepared by Dr. S. N. 

Prasad, SACON, Hyderabad in consultation with NRSC and would be submitted to the 

Ministry for financial assistance. Dr. Moorthy and Dr. Jha from NRSC, Dr. K.N. Ganeshiah 

and Dr. Ranjit R. J. Daniels will also collaborate in this project. 

207


Agenda Item No.5: Commissioning of Papers and organization of Brainstorming Sessions 

/ Site Visits. 

A detailed project proposal comprising of commissioned papers (80 in number) and details 

of brainstorming sessions and site visits for public consultations, along with budgetary 

requirements, has been prepared by Prof. R. Sukumar and the same has been received in the 

Ministry. The proposal is under active consideration in the Ministry for release of requisite 

funds. During the meeting it was clarified that the brainstorming sessions will be of three 

days duration each with two sessions per day. Dr. Ligia Noronha was requested to 

coordinate the site visits for the State of Goa and also to take on the other responsibilities 

that were given to Dr. Nandkumar Mukund Kamat who has resigned from the membership 

of the Panel. 

Agenda Item No.6: Interaction with the group undertaking the study of Carrying Capacity 

of Uttara Kannada District 

The Chairman introduced the Agenda and also briefly explained the application of the 

concept of carrying capacity to parts or whole of the Western Ghats Region. He informed 

the Panel that Dr. T V Ramachandra is presently engaged in Study of the Carrying Capacity 

of Uttara Kannada District. Since Uttara Kannada is an important component of the 

Western Ghats, this work would be of relevance to WGEEP. Hence, it was decided to invite 

Dr. Ramachandra to make a presentation before the Panel. 

Agenda Item No. 7: Lavasa Township 

The Chairman informed the Panel that in view of the apprehensions expressed by people 

about this Township, the WGEEP may have an open discussion with Lavasa Corporation 

and other interested people. 

Agenda Item No. 8: Consideration of the proposal of Bharati Vidyapeeth Institute for 

Environment Education and Research (BVIEER), Pune. 

The Chairman informed the Panel that BVIEER has carried out extensive work on the 

Western Ghats of Dangs (Gujarat) and Maharashtra. The BVIEER has offered to review all 

available literature on these areas and prepare a background paper, if possible in both 

Marathi and English addressing the mandate of Panel. Once this is ready, it could be 

uploaded on the WGEEP website and also circulated widely throughthe media followed by 

an open discussion meeting at BVIEER which will be hosted by them. 

Agenda Item No.9: Discussion 

Presentation by Justice Chandrashekhar Dharmadhikari, Chairman DTEPA. 

The Chairman extended a warm welcome to Justice C.S. Dharmadhikari and expressed his 

gratitude that in spite of the heavy rains Justice Dharmadhikari could come to share with the 

WGEEP his experience and knowledge on the subject. 

The Panel sought the advice of Justice C.S. Dharmadhikari, Chairman, DTEPA, as a way 

forward for the WGEEP in the light of his vast experience in administering the Dahanu 

Taluka Environment Protection Authority (DTEPA) with specific reference to the following: 

a) To share the experiences of the DTEPA with the WGEEP with reference to 

ecologically sensitive areas. 

b) To advise on the measures for effective implementation of the notifications issued by 

the MoEF declaring specific areas in the Western Ghats region as eco-sensitive zones 

under the EPA, 1986. 

208


c) To advise on the modalities for the establishment of the Western Ghats Ecology 

Authority under the EPA, 1986. 

Justice Chandrashekhar Dharmadhikari, Chairman DTEPA, made a detailed presentation 

regarding the role and functioning of the DTEPA followed by a presentation by Mrs. Asha 

Dahake, Town Planner, SO, DTEPA. 

The salient points made by the Chairman, DTEPA, during his presentation include the 

following: 

i. The Authority had adopted the new concepts of pre-afforestation and prehabilitation, 

keeping in view the Right to Protection of Life and also since reafforestation 

and re-habilitation do not take place as planned. 

ii. 

iii. 

iv. 

The Authority has accepted the slogan of ‚Development without Tears‛ and believes 

that development should not be for a few, at the cost of the Public. For this purpose, 

a Social Cost is added to every project 

DTEPA is able to carry out its mandate being a Statutory Authority vested with the 

powers under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Therefore, he suggested that 

the proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority should be a Statutory Authority 

vested with powers under the EPA except for the powers of prosecution. 

The Authority successfully convinced the concerned authorities of the power plant in 

Dahanu to install an FGD (Flue-gas desulfurisation) Plant which was absolutely 

necessary for controlling sulfur dioxide emissions. 

v. The principle of transparency and public participation was followed by the 

Authority, in order to enable the affected persons to put forward their suggestions 

and objections which could be considered very objectively. He emphasized the need 

for public consultation and not public hearing, as the former allows a dialogue. 

Public consultation would not only include hearing objections but even accepting 

suggestions which may be made by affected persons or by any other interested 

parties. 

vi. 

The criteria for deciding whether an area is ecologically fragile cannot be imprisoned 

in a straitjacket formula, as the criteria may change according to the facts and 

circumstances of each case. 

Agenda Item No. 10: Action Plan for WGEEP 

The Chairman then took up the action plan as outlined in Annexure-C of the Agenda Note 

which is enclosed. The action plan was discussed in detail and the Panel accepted the action 

plan in toto. The following major decisions inter alia, emerged during the discussions: 

(a) The Panel agreed to draw up a set of criteria for identification of ESAs by building on 

the earlier work such as the Pronob Sen Committee report. 

(b) To finalize a note on ESA for public circulation in English and local languages, 

incorporating the following points: [i] ESAs are not meant to stop development in 

ways that would hurt local people, but to ensure that development is environmentfriendly 

and people-oriented, as well as serve to preserve ecological heritage on a 

long-term basis. [ii] There are no set regulations that would prevail in every ESA; 

rather, the regulations need to be worked out with due respect to the local context. 

209


(c) The proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority should be a Statutory Authority 

vested with powers under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 except powers for 

prosecution. 

The Panel also visited the Reliance Dahanu Thermal Power Station to inspect the FGD plant 

installed at the instance of the DTEPA for control of sulfur dioxide emissions. 

The Panel decided to hold the 4 th meeting at Trivandrum in the last week of July, 2010. 


210


Annexure : Agenda for the Third Meeting of WGEEP 

23 – 24 June, 2010 at Dahanu 

Review of action taken so far 

A] Website 

B] Geographical limits 

C] Status of project on assessing the levels of eco-sensitivity along the Western Ghats being 

developed by Drs. M.S.R. Murthy (nodal responsibility), Ganeshiah, Ranjit Daniels, and P. 

Pramod 

D] Arrangements for commissioning papers, holding brainstorming sessions, and financing 

site visits and consultations through CES, IISc 

E] Interaction with group undertaking the study of Carrying Capacity of Uttara Kannada 

district 

Decisions needed 

Timetable 

Discussion items 

A] Experiences to date of Ecologically Sensitive Areas with special reference to Dahanu ESA. 

This discussion will be on the background of the field visit on 23 June, and will be facilitated 

by Justice Chandrashekhar Dharmadhikari, Chairman, Dahanu Taluka Ecologically 

Sensitive Area authority. 

B] 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. Justice 

Chandrashekhar Dharmadhikari would be requested to give his advice on this issue as well. 

C] 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. Justice Chandrashekhar Dharmadhikari would be requested to give his advice on this 

issue also. 

D] Putting into operation the following process: 

a) Drawing up a set of criteria for identification of ESAs, based on earlier work such as Sen 

Committee report. 

b) Put together an information base on Western Ghats that would support objective 

identification of potential ESAs arranged in order of priority. (Work relevant to steps a 

and b is being undertaken by the group headed by Dr. Murthy). 

c) Prepare a list in order of priority of potential ESAs identified on the basis of such an 

information base. 

d) Call on different civil society groups to propose areas for protection as ESAs, and to 

suggest how these areas should be managed on a case by case basis. 

211


e) Call on different local bodies (Gram Panchayats, Taluk Panchayats, Zilla Parishads, and 

Nagarpalikas) to propose areas for protection as ESAs, and to suggest how these areas 

should be managed on a case by case basis. 

f) Assess ESA proposals received from different civil society groups and local bodies, as 

also generated on the basis of WGEEP’s own information base, and suggest appropriate 

regulatory measures that need to be put in place for management of different potential 

ESAs thus identified on a case by case basis. 

g) Suggest how the Western Ghats Ecology Authority may operate. 

Annexure A: Response to Shri Jairam Ramesh, Hon. Minister for Environment and 

Forests, Government of India, from Chair, WGEEP 

Thank you so much for your most kind letter of 4 th May, with its many valuable suggestions 

for the functioning of WGEEP. We fully appreciate that our priority function is to demarcate 

areas within the Western Ghats region to be notified as Ecologically Sensitive Areas. In this 

context we have been examining the available guidelines, as well as the experience thus far. 

The most significant guidelines are contained in the Sen Committee report; however, there 

are a number of practical difficulties in employing their criteria. For instance, it is proposed 

that the area of occupancy of an endemic species needs to be protected in its entirety. 

Western Ghats harbours well over one thousand endemic species of flowering plants, fish, 

frogs, birds and mammals amongst the better known groups of organisms, and no doubt 

thousands more amongst less studied groups including insects. Amongst themselves these 

would cover the entire geographical extent of the Western Ghats and all conceivable 

habitats, including many disturbed ones such as roadsides. There are thus obvious 

difficulties in operationalizing this, as well as other recommendations of Sen Committee. 

The experience of ‚India’s notified ecologically sensitive areas‛ has been summarized in a 

report published by Kalpavriksh in 2009. It narrates the experiences of three areas of interest 

to WGEEP, namely, Dahanu, Matheran and Mahabaleshwar. In all these cases the 

identification of ESAs began with interests of specific groups, in particular, Bombay 

Environmental Action Group, in protecting these particular areas. In contrast, WGEEP 

would have to assess the situation over the entire stretch of Western Ghats and then identify 

particular areas as appropriate for designation as ESAs, assigned to different levels of 

priority. In all cases so far, the initiative has come from above, and not from the ground 

level, so much so, that in the absence of local involvement and support, Kalpavriksh report 

notes that activists of Bombay Environmental Action Group can today visit Matheran only 

under police protection. Surely, WGEEP should not impose its recommendations in this 

fashion from above, and must promote a process of broad based public consultations from 

ground level up to fulfill its mandate. 

The action plan of WGEEP may then involve the following steps that may be pursued in 

parallel: 

1. Drawing up a set of criteria for identification of ESAs, based on earlier work 

such as Sen Committee report 

2. Put together an information base on Western Ghats that would support 

objective identification of potential ESAs arranged in order of priority. 

Suggest appropriate regulatory measures that need to be put in place for 

management of different potential ESAs on a case by case basis 

212


3. Call on different civil society groups to propose areas for protection as ESAs. 

4. Call on different local bodies (gram panchayats, taluk panchayats, zilla 

parishads, and nagarpalikas) to propose areas for protection as ESAs 

5. Assess ESA proposals received from different civil society groups and local 

bodies in light of the exercises [a] and [b] 

6. Suggest how the Western Ghats Ecology Authority may operate. 

I attach a note that provides some further details. We are working hard and would like to 

complete the task assigned to us in a timely fashion. However, I see no alternative to the six 

step process outlined above. I will, of course, keep you posted as we progress, and would 

appreciate your feedback at all stages of our work. In the meanwhile, I would greatly 

appreciate your support in ensuring that the financial sanctions required from your Ministry 

to pursue our work plan are obtained in an expeditious fashion. 

213


Annexure B: An appraisal of the Report of the Pronab Sen Committee on Identifying 

Parameters for designating Ecologically Sensitive Areas in India. September, 2000. 

Introduction 

An important element of the mandate of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel is 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 has been asked to 

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. So far, WGEEP has not been provided any of these reports. 

However, we have been supplied a copy of the Report of the Pronab Sen Committee on 

Identifying Parameters for Designating Ecologically Sensitive Areas in India, September, 

2000. This report is clearly a significant starting point for WGEEP’s work. This note therefore 

provides an appraisal of this report. 

Need for objective criteria 

The report begins by stating that a balance had to be struck between the protection of 

ecologically sensitive areas (ESA) and the needs of national development, particularly in the 

context of a country like India with low levels of income and high levels of poverty. 

Therefore, the parameters had to be selected and defined in such a manner that they 

represented only the critical elements of ecological preservation and did not impinge unduly 

on the process of development and efforts at eradication of poverty. Second, it was clearly 

recognized that in view of the pressing demands on land and land-use patterns, areas 

designated as ecologically sensitive would become issues for litigation. Therefore, the 

parameters evolved by the committee and the modes of application would have to be 

framed in such a manner that they could stand scrutiny in the courts of law. As the 

committee stresses, it is therefore important that the criteria should be as objective as 

possible, and applicable in a transparent manner, while keeping in mind that it is not 

practicable that ESAs cover a very large proportion of the Western Ghats tract. 

The Sen Committee Report proposes that the operative concept which would need to form 

the basis of defining ecological fragility is organisms or life forms. It goes on to define 

‚ecological sensitivity” as the imminent possibility of permanent and irreparable loss of 

extant life forms from the world; or significant damage to the natural processes of evolution 

and speciation. It states that the loss of a species in its entirety from the world is a grave 

matter. The prevention of such a possibility is not merely an ethical issue, which places 

absolute importance on the right to existence of every form of life, but it has a practical 

dimension as well. The importance of genetic resources is only now beginning to be realized 

to any extent, and even today our knowledge of the intricate and complex relationship 

between different forms of life and their environment is at best rudimentary. Given this 

inadequacy of knowledge, conservation of bio-diversity would have to cover not only 

species which are presently threatened and protection of eco-systems which have 

demonstrated qualities of high evolutionary activity, but also characteristics whose 

ecological impact can be so widespread that there is no reasonable method of predicting the 

consequences on present and future progress of bio-diversity. 

214


Sen Committee Criteria 

The Sen Committee Report goes on to list thirteen principal parameters of ecological 

sensitivity falling into three broad categories of ecological significance. The first of these 

categories is species-related, and defines the characteristics of species which are or may 

become threatened with extinction. The second category relates to eco-systems. Some of 

these derive their importance from being essential to the survival of the first category, while 

the rest are critical for maintaining the range and pace of evolution and speciation. The 

third category includes geo-morphological conditions which are known to have substantial 

effect on eco-systems at large. 

Principal criteria 

Species-based 

Endemism 

Rarity 

Endangered species 

Centers of evolution of domesticated species 


Wildlife corridors 

Specialized ecosystems 

Special breeding site/area 

Areas with intrinsically low resilience 

Sacred groves 

Frontier forests 

Geo-morphological features-based 

Uninhabited islands in the sea 

Steep slopes 

Origins of rivers 

The Sen Committee Report states that areas which meet even one of the above primary 

criteria deserve to be protected without any additional factor or consideration being brought 

in. In addition to these primary criteria, the Committee has also identified seven auxiliary 

criteria, which though less compelling than the primary criteria, nevertheless require 

consideration in view of our insufficient state of knowledge and ecological understanding. 

Areas which are characterized by these auxiliary criteria need further investigation in order 

to establish the degree of ecological sensitivity that may be present. 

Auxiliary Criteria 

Species-based 

Areas or centers of less known food plants 

215



Wetlands 

Grasslands 

Geo-morphlogical features-based 

Upper catchment areas 

Not so steep slopes 

High rainfall areas 

Other uninhabited islands 

The Sen Committee opines that the Government should move proactively in identifying and 

protecting areas as expeditiously as possible. The mandate of the WGEEP is a step in this 

direction. In order to fulfil this requirement, a number of steps are necessary. First, the Sen 

Committee recognizes that the availability of information and knowledge limits the ability 

of the Government to move on a broad front. A certain amount of prioritization, therefore, 

becomes necessary. A convenient starting point would be to consider such areas which are 

already known to be either ecologically important or under ecological stress. According to 

the Sen Committee, examples of such areas are: 

a) National Parks and Sanctuaries 

b) Tiger Reserves 

c) Protected and Reserve Forests 

d) Biosphere Reserves 

e) National Marine Parks 

f) Coastal Regulation Zone – I (i) 

g) Hill Stations 

Although some of the above areas are already under some form of protection, the Sen 

Committee was of the view that additional protection under the EPA should nevertheless be 

accorded to either the whole or part of the above areas which fulfil the criteria of ecological 

sensitivity as defined in the Sen Committee Report. Such multiple protection is both feasible 

under law and desirable under ecological considerations. 

The Sen Committee Report states that this would still, however, leave vast areas of the 

country uncovered in so far as assessment of their ecological sensitivity is concerned. Given 

the size of the country, it is very unlikely that at the present rate of progress, complete 

ecological mapping would be feasible within any reasonable span of time. Reliance would, 

therefore, have to be placed on research and investigations that are being carried out by a 

wide range of people ranging from academics to environmental activists. In order to utilize 

such data effectively, it will be necessary for the Government to evolve a transparent system 

by which such information either becomes available or is accessed with relative ease and is 

evaluated to determine prioritization of areas for detailed investigation of ecological 

sensitivity. For this purpose, the criteria of ecological sensitivity must be made widely 

available and a format devised by which the relevant information can be passed on to the 

Government in a systematized manner. Application of information technology can help this 

process significantly. WGEEP proposes to take this route, and to undertake a programme of 

216


further work involving: (1) A critical appraisal of the criteria proposed by the Sen 

Committee, (2) Formulation of a set of more objective and practicable criteria, (3) Organizing 

the readily available relevant information with respect to the Western Ghats in order to 

identify candidate sites for being considered Ecologically Sensitive Areas in order of 

priority. 

Difficulties in employing the Sen Committee criteria 

Endemic and rare species 

It must be noted that there are a number of practical difficulties in employing the Sen 

Committee criteria. Their foremost principal criterion is endemism, followed by rarity. The 

Sen Committee Report states that: 

‚endemism refers to any species which is exclusively confined to a particular geographical 

area and occurs no where else in the world. The area of occurrence of an endemic species 

needs to be protected in its entirety. The precise demarcation of the area may take into 

account population density of the endemic species, quality of habitat, level of exploitation 

and the effect of introduced taxa, pathogens, competitors, parasites and /or pollutants.‛ 

Incidentally, the Sen Committee Report erroneously refers to the Nilgiri Langur as Macaca 

silenus. The Sen Committee Report proposes that the area of occupancy of an endemic (as 

also rare) species needs to be protected in its entirety. The precise demarcation of the area 

will be based on the population density of the endemic/ rare species, quality of habitat, level 

of exploitation and the effect of introduced species, pathogens, competitors, parasites and/or 

pollutants. 

There are obvious difficulties in operationalizing this recommendation. The Western Ghats 

harbours well over thousand of endemic species of flowering plants, fish, frogs, birds and 

mammals amongst the better known groups of organisms, and no doubt thousands more 

amongst less studied groups including insects. Amongst themselves these would cover the 

entire geographical extent of the Western Ghats and all conceivable habitats, including many 

disturbed ones such as roadsides. 

Endangered Species 

The Sen Committee Report also states that an ‘Endangered Species’ is a species facing a very 

high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, and that the area containing an 

endangered species needs to be protected in its entirety. In case of fragmented areas of 

occurrence of an endangered species, all fragments having high population density and 

habitat integrity should be of prime concern. Here again, all vulture species have recently 

become seriously endangered. They occur in fragmented populations over the entire stretch 

of the Western Ghats. So, once again, we have problems in operationalizing this 

recommendation. 

Centres of evolution of domesticated species 

The Western Ghats are an important center of origin of cultivated plants such as pepper, 

cardamom, jackfruit and many others, such as yams. The Sen Committee Report 

recommends that areas associated with the origin of domesticated species which continue to 

harbour their wild relatives and/or progenitors should be considered ecologically sensitive. 

These occur in fragmented populations over the entire stretch of Western Ghats, including 

roadsides. So, once again, we have problems in operationalizing this recommendation. 

Special Breeding Sites/Areas 

217


The Sen Committee report defines Special Breeding Sites/Areas as areas associated with any 

stage of the reproductive behaviour of a designated species, where designated species are 

any recognized endemic, rare or endangered species. Incidentally, it cites Keoladeo National 

Park, Bharatpur, for Siberian Cranes as an instance of a Special Breeding Site. This is an 

error; the Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, is only a winter visiting area for Siberian 

Cranes. The Special Breeding Sites/ Areas are recommended to be considered ecologically 

sensitive. All the streams and rivers of Western Ghats harbour some endemic, rare or 

endangered species, as do all grasslands, and forests. Even many farms and orchards 

harbour endemic, rare or endangered species of limbless amphibians or uropeltid snakes. 

All of them breed in these localities. So, once again, we have problems in operationalizing 

this recommendation. 

Areas with Intrinsically Low Resilience 

The Sen Committee report defines as ‘Areas with Intrinsically Low Resilience’ ecosystems 

which are susceptible to irreparable damage from even a low level of disturbance, and gives, 

as an example, ‘Evergreen Forests of the northern Western Ghats’. It recommends that the 

extent of occurrence of such ecosystems, including sufficient areas for their protection and 

potential expansion depending upon the abiotic characterstics of the ecosystems be 

considered ecologically sensitive. The Evergreen Forests of the northern Western Ghats 

occur in fragments over the entire stretch of the Northern Western Ghats. So, once again, we 

have problems in operationalizing this recommendation. 

Sacred Groves 

The Sen Committee report recommends that the entire area that is demarcated by tradition 

as being part of a ‚sacred grove‛ should be considered ecologically sensitive. These occur in 

several thousand fragments of several hectares to stands of just a few trees scattered over the 

entire stretch of the Western Ghats. So, once again, we have problems in operationalizing 

this recommendation. 

Steep Slopes 

The Sen Committee report defines these as natural slopes of 20 degrees or greater. It 

recommends that such slopes along with a minimum horizontal distance of 500m at both 

ends of a slope be considered ecologically sensitive. These would cover much of the western 

slopes of the Western Ghats. So, once again, we have problems in operationalizing this 

recommendation. 

Origins of Rivers 

The Sen Committee report refers to as the origin of a river as a mountain, hill or spring from 

where a water stream originates. It suggests that the area relevant to the origin of a river is 

not strictly limited to the exact point at which the water spring emerges, but the entire area 

necessary for preserving the geological and hydrological features which are critical for the 

sustainability of the river sources. Thus, it is not enough to protect only the slopes which 

feed the river, but also the channels, fissures and other features which are intrinsic to the 

process of recharging the water source. These would cover almost the entire stretch of the 

Western Ghats. So, once again, we have problems in operationalizing this recommendation. 

Auxiliary criteria 

These are some of the difficulties in operationalizing the recommendations of the Sen 

Committee report relating to principal criteria. Similar difficulties would attend 

operationalizing the recommendations of the Sen Committee report relating to many of the 

218


auxiliary criteria. Consider, for instance, High Rainfall Areas, defined as areas having 

precipitation intensity greater than 200 cm per year. This would cover almost the entire 

stretch of the Western Ghats, barring some rain shadow areas to the East. So, once again, we 

have problems in operationalizing this recommendation. 

Regulating activities in ESAs 

In addition to laying down objective and scientific parameters for identifying ecologically 

sensitive areas in the country, the terms of reference of the Sen Committee required it to 

‚evolve an appropriate methodology for regulating various activities in such areas‛. The Sen 

Committee noted that this is no easy task, since the nature of protection that may be 

required will vary not only from parameter to parameter but quite possibly from one 

specific constituent of a particular parameter to another. The Committee debated this issue 

at length, and unanimously concluded that to lay down a specific methodology, or even a 

set of methodolgies, for regulation of activities would be both impractical and undesirable, 

particularly at the level of generality that has been used for identification of the parameters. 

The nuances of ecological sensitivity are such that excessive rigidity on this count could 

defeat the very purpose of this exercise, which seeks to strike a balance between 

preservation of our ecological endowments and the needs of development. The Committee 

felt that the system presently being followed for notifying environmentally sensitive areas 

under the EPA, which involves wide public consultation on the nature and manner of 

regulation of economic activities in the identified areas, was appropriate and adequate for 

the purpose with only minor modifications. The modifications which would need to be 

introduced have to do with the degree of transparency and with the precise characteristics of 

ecological sensitivity which require preservation. Mechanical application of existing 

regulations on use may not suffice, and consultation with experts on ecology should form an 

integral part of the process. The Sen Committee also felt that the weaknesses that exist in the 

monitoring of permissible activities need to be corrected expeditiously through widening 

the ambit of information flows and sources. 

The nature and extent of human activity that can be permitted in designated ecologically 

sensitive areas will vary from criterion to criterion. These must therefore be worked out 

with due regard to the nature of the criterion and its implications. 

The story so far 

The experience of ‚India’s notified ecologically sensitive areas‛ has been summarized in a 

report published by Kalpavriksh in 2009. It narrates the experiences of three areas of interest 

to WGEEP, namely, Dahanu, Matheran and Mahabaleshwar. In all these cases the 

identification of ESAs began with interests of specific groups, in particular, Bombay 

Environmental Action Group, in protecting these particular areas. In contrast, WGEEP 

would have to assess the situation over the entire stretch of the Western Ghats and then 

identify particular areas as appropriate for designation as ESAs, ordered on different levels 

of priority. In all cases so far, the initiative has come from above, and not from the ground 

level, so much so, that in the absence of local involvement and support, the Kalpavriksh 

report notes that activists of the Bombay Environmental Action Group can today visit 

Matheran only under police protection. Surely, WGEEP should not impose its 

recommendations in this fashion from above, and must promote a process of broad-based 

public consultations from the ground level up to fulfil its mandate. 

219


Annexure C: An action plan for WGEEP 

The action plan of WGEEP may then involve the following steps that may be pursued in 

parallel: 

a) Drawing up a set of criteria for identification of ESAs, based on earlier work such as the 

Sen Committee report. 

b) Put together an information base on the Western Ghats that would support objective 

identification of potential ESAs arranged in order of priority, and generate a prioritized 

list of potential ESAs on the basis of such an information base. (Work relevant to steps a 

and b is being undertaken by the group headed by Dr. Murthy.) 

c) Call on different civil society groups to propose areas for protection as ESAs, and to 

suggest how these areas should be managed on a case by case basis. 

d) Call on different local bodies (gram panchayats, taluk panchayats, zilla parishads, and 

nagarpalikas) to propose areas for protection as ESAs, and to suggest how these areas 

should be managed on a case by case basis. 

With regard to steps c and d, we should finalize a note on ESA for public circulation. I 

suggest that the note may incorporate the following points: [i] ESAs are not meant to stop 

development in ways that would hurt local people, but to ensure that development is 

environment-friendly and people-oriented, as well as serves to preserve ecological heritage 

on a long-term basis. [ii] There are no set regulations that would prevail in every ESA; 

rather, the regulations need to be worked out with due respect to local context. So if people 

in a particular locality believe that theirs is an ecologically fragile area that needs to be 

protected through a ban on all mining, and highly polluting industries, but that no other 

regulations are called for, they may propose so. Or they may propose that highly polluting 

industries be banned throughout the area, but mining may be banned on slopes of greater 

than 20 degrees, but permitted elsewhere. Or they may propose that no agricultural land 

should be permitted to be converted to other uses, and that only organic agriculture may be 

practiced, and so on. [iii] People may therefore make proposals for constitution of ESAs that 

should include documentation of the following three elements: (a) Ecological value of the 

area under consideration, (b) Susceptibility of the area to degradation of ecology under 

‘Business-as-usual’ development, (c) Regulatory measures that may be applied in different 

zones of the proposed ESAs, and (d) Mechanisms for ensuring compliance to regulatory 

measures that may be applied in different zones of the proposed ESAs. The note may 

suggest a variety of monitoring mechanisms for consideration, such as (i) establishment of 

Biodiversity Management Committees under the Biological Diversity Act in all the local 

bodies at village, wards in urban areas, towns, cities, taluks and zilla levels charged with 

responsibility for environmental monitoring, and (ii) Revival of the program of Paryavaran 

Vahinis, along with various Expert and Monitoring Committee mechanisms. 

The circulation of the note in English and all state languages should be followed by webbased, 

video conference-based as well as face-to-face public consultations throughout the 

Western Ghats tract. We may, for example, convene state level meetings of MLAs, MLCs, 

and Presidents of ZPs to discuss these issues and build consensus. 

e) Assess ESA proposals received from different civil society groups and local bodies, as 

also the proposals generated on the basis of WGEEP’s own information base, and 

suggest appropriate regulatory measures that need to be put in place for management of 

different potential ESAs thus identified on a case by case basis. 

220


f) Suggest how the Western Ghats Ecology Authority may operate. We should finalize a 

note on our proposals on how the Western Ghats Ecology Authority may operate for 

public circulation based on discussions during our 3 rd Meeting on 24 th June. 

Dear Colleagues, I wish to add two items to the agenda: 

1. Site visit to Lavasa as a case study on tourism in Western Ghats 

2. Request to BVIEER to help in review of Dangs and Maharashtra Western ghats 

I quote the pertinent letter below: 

*************************************** 

Dr Erach Bharucha, 

Bharati Vidyapeeth Institute of Environmental Education and Research,Pune 

Dear Dr Bharucha, 

Sub: Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel- request on behalf of 

Thank you so much for your most kind offer of help in taking forward the work programme of Western 

Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, particularly in the context of Western Ghats of Dangs and Maharashtra, 

when we personally met at BVIEER on 15th June. The mandate of WGEEP is as follows: 

(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 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. 

(iii) 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. 

(iv) 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. 

(v) 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. 

(vi) To deal with any other relevant environment and ecological issues pertaining to Western Ghats 

Region, including those which may be referred to it by the Central Government in the Ministry of 

Environment and Forests. 

We would therefore like to request you to draw on BVIEER’s own extensive work on the of Western 

Ghats of Dangs and Maharashtra, as also review other available material and prepare a background 

paper, if possible in both English and Marathi, addressing our mandate by early August 2010. This 

could be uploaded on the WGEEP website as well as circulated through other media, followed by an 

open discussion meeting in the BVIEER auditorium around the third week of August. I also greatly 

221


appreciate the fact that you do not require any specific funding to render this important service to 

WGEEP. 

With personal regards, 

Yours sincerely, 

Madhav Gadgil 

Chairman 


222


Minutes of the Fourth Meeting of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel held on 26 th to 

27 th July, 2010 at Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala. 

The fourth meeting of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) was held at 

Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala on 26 th - 27 th July, 2010. The following were present: 


2. Dr. Ms. Ligia Noronha Member 




6. Dr. R. V. Varma Member 




2. Prof. (Ms.) Renee Borges 

3. Prof. R. Sukumar 

4. Shri B.J. Krishnan 

5. Dr. K.N. Ganeshaiah 

6. Prof. S.P. Gautam 

7. Dr. R.R. Navalgund 

The Following Special Invitees were present: 

1. Dr. Nalini Bhat 

Adviser MoEF 

2. Prof. M.K. Prasad 

Executive Chairman 

Kerala Information Mission 

3. Dr. C.T.S. Nair 

Executive Vice President 

Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment 

4. Dr. S. Narendra Prasad, 

Senior Principal Scientist 

Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History 

223


5. Shri. Tony Thomas 

One Earth One Life 

6. Shri. S.K. John 

Director, VASUDA 

7. Dr. A. Latha 

River Research Centre 

8. Shri. A. V. George 

Chairman; Advisory Board WWF-Kerala 

9. Shri R. Sridhar 

Progarmme Director, THANAL 

10. Shri. S. K. John 

COSTFORD 

11. Shri. M. Divakaran 

Joint Director, Western Ghats Cell, Government of Kerala 

12. Dr. Sreekumar Chattopadhaya 

Scientist E2, Centre for Earth Science Studies, Akulam 

Shri Mullakkara Retnakaran, Hon’ble Minister for Agriculture, Government of Kerala and Shri 

Binoy Viswom, Hon’ble Minister for Forests, Govt. of Kerala, also addressed the meeting and 

participated in the discussions. 

Dr. R. V. Varma welcomed the Hon’ble Ministers, Members of Panel and the invitees. The 

Chairman initiated the meeting by thanking the Kerala State Biodiversity Board for 

organizing the meeting of the Panel at Thiruvananthapuram and then briefly outlined the 

agenda for the Meeting. He stressed on the need for an integrated, transparent and 

participative process in identifying the various levels of eco-sensitivity in the Western Ghats. 

Further, he briefly introduced the four major themes of discussion on biodiversity 

conservation in Western Ghats and the agenda to be followed in the meeting. 

He mentioned that it was very appropriate that this series of discussions was being held at 

Thiruvananthapuram as Kerala has always being in the forefront of a holistic and 

participatory approach to environmental issues beginning with their pioneering study of 

economic, technological, and ecological analysis of Silent Valley in 1979 and the Panchayatlevel 

resource mapping programme of the 1990s. 

Shri Mullakkara Retnakaran, Hon’ble Minister for Agriculture, Government of Kerala, 

discussed the fragility of the Western Ghats and remarked that anthropological changes are 

rampant in the Western Ghats Region. He further added that organic farming in 50,000 

acres of Kerala is moving towards making the agriculture in the state sustainable. He 

elaborated on the organic farming initiative of the Government of Kerala. This was followed 

by the discussion on the possible merits of promoting organic farming in the Western Ghats 

especially in the more eco-sensitive regions. 

224


Shri Binoy Viswom, Hon’ble Minister for Forests. Govt. of Kerala, explained the initiatives 

taken by the Government of Kerala towards forest conservation in the Western Ghats region 

of the State of Kerala. 

Dr. V. S. Vijaynan made a presentation on experiences and options for sustainable 

agriculture and horticulture in the Western Ghats, and the relevance of the Protection of 

Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act. He stressed that after the Green Revolution of the 

1960s, rampant use of pesticides has increased from 20 MT in 1953 to 120 MT in 2000. The 

presence of heavy metals and pesticides in fishes indicate how severely polluted are air, 

water, soil and food. 

Dr. R. Sridhar made a presentation on organic farming in the Western Ghats and correcting 

50 years of unsustainable agriculture development. He discussed the various stages from 

policy formulation to implementation and consultations conducted with all stake holders – 

farmers, civil society, scientists, department officials. He explained how organic practices are 

being developed by Kerala Agricultural University in consultation with farmers and NGOs 

and how changes have been incorporated in due course. 

Three other special invitees also shared some experiences: 

(i) Sh. Tony Thomas shared his experience on inter-planting in rubber plantations with 

80 different species of trees to create a multi-species forest. Notably, the yield of 

rubber latex has actually increased because of the higher level of humidity in such a 

plantation. 

(ii) Sh. S. K. John shared his experience of no tillage, multi-storeyed, multi-species 

agriculture / horticulture/ forestry plantations in Wynaad. 

(iii) Sh. A.V. George stressed that the low elevation tea plantation is now no longer 

profitable, and that some way had to be found of making a transition. 

Dr. P. L. Gautam gave a background on the Convention on Biological Diversity, National 

Biodiversity Authority, State Biodiversity Boards and Biodiversity Management 

Committees. He emphasized the important role of local Biodiversity Management 

Committees in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity resources. He mentioned 

that a sui generis system was being developed for protection of the Intellectual Property 

Rights of the traditional knowledge holders. Apart from the Biodiversity Act, he also 

mentioned the related International Conventions and Acts, including the Protection of Plant 

Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act. 

The Chairman suggested that pending the finalization of this sui generis system, sensitive 

information, which may be misappropriated by commercial interests as well as other 

sensitive information which may unfavorably affect rare and endangered species, should not 

be included in any public database at this stage. However, it would be very useful to digitize 

and make publicly available all other information. In particular this would help the National 

Authority and State Boards to establish communication with the local biodiversity 

management committees whenever there are applications for accessing biodiversity 

resources and associated knowledge by commercial enterprises. 

Dr. R. V. Varma shared his experiences of established Biodiversity Management Committees 

and preparation of People’s Biodiversity Registers in a number of panchayats in the State of 

Kerala. He emphasized the need for capacity building of panchayats as well as support by 

providing expertise in taxonomy efforts. It was felt that establishment of biodiversity 

225


committees and biodiversity registers in panchayats throughout the Western Ghats region 

would be very desirable. 

Prof. M. K. Prasad outlined the emergence and significance of Information and 

Communication Technology in modern times and shared his experiences of the Kerala 

Information Mission in organizing information essential for promoting the ecological health 

of the Western Ghats. 

Dr. S. N. Prasad shared the experiences of the use of Open Source Geospatial Tools in 

conservation; these are software suites for processing spatial data such as maps, satellite 

data and other geo-referenced data and information. 

Dr. C.T.S. Nair presented an analysis of the past, present and future of a green economy and 

of natural resources. He elaborated on a green economy which is sustainable and resilient in 

the long run, primarily based on renewable resources, and which maintains and improves 

ecosystem services besides enhancing inter- and intra-generational equity. He explained the 

three-pronged approach to accomplish the transition into a green economy via 1) awareness 

and local action, 2) reforming government policies and regulations, and 3) transforming 

public sector departments / institutions as major agents. 

Dr. R. Sridhar further shared his experience about the role of engineers in a green economy 

and the difficulties involved in persuading them to consider green technologies. 

Dr. S.N. Prasad made a presentation on the status of project on assessing the levels of ecosensitivity 

along the Western Ghats being developed by Dr. S.N. Prasad, Dr. MSR Murthy, 

Ranjit Daniels and Dr K.N. Ganeshiah. The major points emerged include the following: 1) 

The latest available land use /land cover maps of NRSC (AWIFS) should be used. In 

addition, the French Institute vegetation maps beginning with the first set of maps dating 

back from the 1960s may be used for delineating potential climax vegetation and assessing 

anthropgenic influences. Also data on NDVI for the Western Ghats should be included in 

the spatial analyses. FSI may also be contacted for obtaining forest density and forest cover 

maps. A budget for carrying out this work by Drs KN Ganeshiah, Ranjit Daniels, MSR 

Murthy and SN Prasad for a period of six months was presented. 

2) A Track-II initiative to supplement this scientific exercise activity was suggested. In this 

activity tentative identification of ESAs by the resource persons identified to contribute ~80 

different status papers on various themes be initiated immediately. Similarly other existing 

information bases such as the hotspots of biodiversity identified by the Karnataka 

Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan exercise, and any inputs from members of the public 

should be utilised. The suggested areas along with outputs from activity 1, will then form 

the basis for field visits by the panel members and subsequently for finalization of ESAs. 

Review of actions taken so far: 

1. Website: The Western Ghats website is functional and there is good response. 

2. Geographical Limits: Various proposals are being considered and for administrative 

purposes the delineation of the Western Ghats as settled by Dr. M. S. Swaminathan, 

Member in-charge of the Hill areas in the Planning Commission during 1981 may be 

taken as a reference. 

3. Regarding the issue of assessing the levels of eco-sensitivity along the Western 

Ghats, Dr. S.N. Prasad made a presentation and defined an „ecological sensitive area 

(ESA) as a bio-climatic unit (as demarcated by entire landscapes) in the Western 

Ghats wherein human impacts have locally caused irreversible changes in the 

226


structure of biological communities (as evident in number/ composition of species 

and their relative abundances) and their natural habitats‟. 

It was decided that the Hon. Union Minister for Environment and Forests may be 

requested to write to various opinion leaders as well as publish in the newspapers a note 

on ‘Ecologically Sensitive Areas’ calling for suggestions on this issue. A note on 

‘Ecologically Sensitive Areas’ prepared by WGEEP will be forwarded to the Hon. 

Minister for further action. 

Dr. V. S. Vijayan raised the issue of the need for defining and formulating guidelines for 

the ESA, as he had done at the third meeting at Dahanu. He felt that unless this is done, 

no progress can be made in identifying ESAs, which is the primary mandate of the 

WGEEP. 

Dr. Subrahmanyam drew the attention of the Panel to the definition of an ESA as given 

in the Pronob Sen Report which may be taken as a base for further refinement. The 

Chairman then pointed out that in that case we would have to declare the whole of 

Western Ghats as an ESA. Dr. Vijaynan added that this was quite appropriate, and 

should be done; but in addition we would have to delineate various areas of the Western 

Ghats according to their conservation importance as ESA class A, B, C and so on. All the 

shola forests, origin of rivers, biodiversity rich areas should be grouped as class A, where 

total protection should be given, whereas, Class B and C could be regulated at different 

levels in terms of human interventions depending on the conservation importance and 

the socio-economic and environmental setting of the area. 

Regarding commissioning of papers, the following is the status as reviewed in the 

meeting: 

# Name Theme Status as on 21.7.2010 

Confirmed/Regretted/No 

response/Unable to contact 

1 V.B.Savarkar, 464 Rasta Peth, 

Flat 3, Nr. MSEDC Ltd. 

Power House, Opposite. 

Mahalaxmi Motors, Pune- 

411011. Maharashtra. 

Protected Areas Network 

Confirmed 

2 G S Mohan Wild relatives of Cultivated 

Plants and Crop genetic 

resources 

Confirmed 

3 D. Padmalal, Environmental 

Sciences Division, Centre for 

Earth Science 

Studies, 

Thiruvananthapuram, 


Alluvial sand Mining- the 

Kerala experience 

Confirmed 

4 Dr. Ajay Desai 

Member, Steering 

Committee 

Project Elephant 

B.C. 84, 

Camp Belgaum 

Belgaum 590 001. 

Elephants Reminder on 20.7.2010 

Telephoned. Will respond soon. 

Drop if not available. 

227





5 A J T Johnsingh, former 

Dean, Wild Life Institute of 

India, Bengaluru 

----------------------- 

Mr. Ashok Kumar, WTI 


AJT Johnsingh Regretted. 

Prof. Sukumar contacted Mr. 

Ashok Kumar who has agreed 

to write. 



Sciences 



Uropeltid snakes Confirmed – 

Considering 

his ongoing projects on the 

status and distribution of frogs, 

lizards and 

snakes of the Western Ghats, he 

would prefer to prepare a paper 

on these 

groups as a whole rather than 

on the somewhat narrow theme 

of uropeltid 

snakes. This may be agreed to. 

7 Bhaskar, formerly UAS, 

Bengaluru 


Scientist C 

Zoological Survey of India 

Western Regional Centre 

Rawet Road, Sector-29 

Vidyanagar 


Pune-411 044 

Balsams 

Hill streams 

Confirmed – would like to 

discuss details with Prof. 

Sukumar 

Confirmed 

9 T.N.C. Vidya, JNCASR, 

Bangalore, and N. 

Basakaran, ANCF, Bangalore 

10 Ranjit Daniels, Careearth, 

Chennai Care Earth Trust 




Large mammal populations 

Birds 

Confirmed 

TNC Vidya wants more time 

Baskaran - confirmed 

Confirmed 

228





11 C T S Nair, formerly, FAO, 

Nilambur 

Shri S K Khanduri, IFS , 

"skhanduri ." 

has 

agreed to write a paper on 

working of forests in Kerala. 

12 E Somanathan, Indian 

Statistical Institute, Delhi 



14 M D Subash Chandran, CES, 

IISc, Bengaluru 

Working of forests 

Incentive based approaches 

to nature conservation 

Trees 

Sacred groves 

Regretted. 

Prof. Madhav Gadgil has been 

requested to suggest an alternate 

name 

Confirmed 

Awaiting response 

Reminder 20.7.2010 

Confirmed 

15 T R Shankar Raman, Nature 

Conservation Foundation, 

3076/5, IV Cross, Gokulam 

Park, Mysore - 570 002 

Shola- grasslands Reminder by e-mail 19.7.2010 

Telephoned.Will be responding 

soon 

16 A Damodaran, Center for 

Public Policy, Indian 

Institute of Management, 

Bengaluru 

T R Shankar Raman may 

suggest 

Plantation crops 

Regretted. 



name 

17 Nitin Rai, ATREE, Bengaluru Tribal Forest Rights Act Confirmed 



Gurvayankere 

Could ask Ranjana Kanhere, 

Janaarth, Shahada, 

Nandurbar; 09326160354, 

janarthorg@rediffmail.com 


programmes 



Contacted on phone. He will 

send his response soon. May not 

be able to write. 

19 Aparna Watve Grassy plateaus Confirmed 

20 S N Prasad, SACON Wetlands Confirmed 

21 Vijay Paranjape Dams Confirmed by phone 

22 Mrunal Wanarase, Ecological 

Society, Pune 

23 Jay Samant, formerly Shivaji 

University, Kolhapur 

Regeneration of streams 


Confirmed 

Confirmed 

24 Kusum Karnik, Shashvat Religious tourism Confirmed 

25 Vinod Uniyal, WII, Dehra 

Dun 


committees 

Confirmed 

229






foundation, No. 204, 100 feet 

ring road, 3rd phase, 

Banashankari, 2nd block, 3rd 

stage, Bengaluru, 560085 

Shri R. Sridhar, Progarmme 

Director THANAL has 

agreed to write 

Sustainable agriculture 

Regretted 


Bengaluru 

Dr V S Vijayan will suggest 

an alternative 

28 Shalini Raghunath, 

Department of Studies in 

Folklore, 


Dharwad 580 003, Karnataka 

29 Pandurang Phaldessai, 

Member Secretary, Kala 

Akademy, Panaji, 

Goa, 91-832-2420451, 

Watershed management 

Nature in Folklore of central 

Western Ghats (Karnataka) 


reflected in folklore of Goa 

Regretted 

Confirmed by phone 

Confirmed 

30 Dilip Boralkar, Mumbai Industrial Pollution Confirmed by phone 


Mumbai; 



Ornithology and Natural 

History, 


Coimbatore - 641 108, 

Tamil Nadu,. 


Chennai 

34 Shri L. Narayan Reddy, 

Srinivaspura, 





Authority 

Pesticides 


Potential of organic farming 

No response 


Tephoned : Will respond soon 



Confirmed 

Letter sent by speed post. 

No response. 

Telephone number does not 

exist 


230





35 N G Hegde, Formerly of 

BAIF, Pune 

36 Jayant Kulkarni, Row House 

1, Ratan Park Phase 2, 127/5, 

Sus Road, Pashan 

Pune 411021 

Tree growth on private 

lands 

Human–wildlife conflict 


Confirmed 

37 Sagar Dhara, E-303, Highrise 

Arparments , Lower Tank, 

Bund Road 


Let us ask Dr H.C. 

Sharatchandra, No.66, 

Belaku, 3 rd main, Amarjyothi 

Layout, Cholanagara, 

Bangalore-560033, Phone:080 

23332480, 2558851, 

Mob:9448056248, 

sharatchandra@vsnl.com or 

sharatchandra@vsnl.net 



39 Jagdish Krishnaswamy/ 

Kiran, ATREE, Bengaluru 

40 Snehlata Nath, Keystone 

Centre, Groves Hill Road, 


Nadu 

EIA process 

Primates 

Criteria for deciding on 



No response 


Confirmed 

Confirmed 

Confirmed 

41 Harini Nagendra, ATREE, 

Bengaluru 

Ranjit Daniels may be 

requested 


Let us request: 

M.S.Viraraghavan 

Palni Hills Conservation 

Council 

Kodaikanal 

Tamil Nadu; Girija 

 

43 Anita Varghese, 

Keystone Centre, Groves 

Hill Road, Kotagiri, Nilgiris, 

Tamil Nadu 

Landscapes 

Hill stations 


Regretted 



name 

Unable to contact. Could not get 

contact details 

Confirmed 

231





44 Dr Aravind 

ATREE 



Sirsi 


ATREE 

Amphibians 

Economically important but 


Conservation of forest 

genetic resources 

Confirmed 

Confirmed 

Confirmed 

47 Mr. D.K. Ved, FRLHT Medicinal Plants He will take a few days to send 

his response 

48 NA Madhyastha/Rajendra 

Mavinkurve 


Poorna Prajna College, 

Udupi-576101 


Division of Arachnology, 

Dept. of Zoology 


Thevara, Cochin-682013, 

Kerala 

We may drop this topic 

50 Dr Shashidhar Viraktamath 

University of Agricultural 

Sciences, Dharwad 

51 Kalyan Kumar Chakravarty 

(Former Director of Indira 

Gandhi Rashtriya Manav 

Sangrahalaya, Ministry of 

Culture, Bhopal) 

52 KS Valdiya 


Land snails of Western 

Ghats 

Spiders 

Wild bees of Western Ghats: 

crop pollination deficits 

Hill forts and cultural 

heritage, including rock 

carvings 


palaeobiological heritage 

(rare rock formations; 


Confirmed. 

He wants to include Fresh Water 

Molluscs and change the title to 

‚Non-Marine Molluscs of WG‛. 

E-mails bounced. Unable to get 

latest contact information. 

Continuing to find. 


Confirmed 

Confirmed. Wants more time – 

till November 

Confirmed 

53 N M Kamat, Goa University Ethnomycology of western 

ghats (focus on edible, 

medicinal, toxic and 

hallucinogenic species) 

Confirmed 


University 


resources-terrestrial 

Confirmed 

232





55 K.R.Sridhar, 

Department of Biosciences 

Mangalore 

University 


resources-aquatic 

Confirmed 

56 Urmila Makhija, Agharkar 

Research Institute, G.G. 

Agarkar Road, Pune-411 004 



Poornaprajna College, Udupi 

We may drop this topic 

58 C.Achalender Reddy, I.F.S, 

Secretary, 


Authority, 

5th Floor, TICEL Biopark, 

Taramani, Chennai - 600 113 



Foundation 

G-8, St Britto’s Apts, Feira 

Alta, Mapusa, Bardez, 

Goa – 403507, Ligia will 

provide an earlier paper by 

Norma on this topic. 

60 A. Sundara, Director of the 

Post-Graduate Research 

Centre of the 

Karnataka University at 

Bijapur 

61 Raghunandan Raghavan, 

IAS(Retd), No 1 KPTCL 

Quarters, Hosakerehalli 

Main Road, Bangalore 

560085 

Lichens 

Conservation of 

Pteridophytes and 

Gymnosperms of Western 

Ghats 

Ecotourism development 

and opportunities in 

Western Ghats 

Environmental PIL and 

judicial activism: A Western 

Ghats NGO 

perspective 



heritage of Western Ghats 

Need for enhancing the role 

and capacity of the 

Panchayats for improving 

governance in the Western 

Ghats districts, 

E-mail to aripune id bounced. 

Managed to get another e-mail 

id and spoke to her on phone. 

She will respond soon. 


Regretted 


Confirmed 

No response 


Telephoned – Very doubtful of 

writing 

Confirmed on 21.7.2010 

In the USA till end of October. 

Sent the invitation by e-mail. 

Confirmed. Needs periodical 

reminders 

233





62 Antonio Mascarenhas, NIO, 

Dona Paula, Goa, 

Ligia may suggest 

alternative 

Tourism-Legal, technical, 

ecological and 

environmental issues (Goa, 

Konkan, Coastal Karnataka) 

esp. w.r.t. CRZ, geo and 

ecohazards, SLR etc. 

Regretted 

63 Alito Sequiera, Associate 

professor, 

Dept. of Sociology, Goa 

University, Taleigao, Goa, 

08326519308 


alternative 

64 Ranjan Solomon ,149/D, 

Gina, 

Maina-Curtorimn Salcete, 

Goa – 403709, 


alternative 



Communications and New 

Media Programme 

National University of 

Singapore 

66 Ramesh Ganwas, Senior 

teacher, Govind 

Gunaji Sawant High School, 

Sarvona, Bicholim 


alternative 

Tourism–social, cultural 

issues 

Tourism–cultural, social 

ethical issues 

Tourism in Kerala–social, 

cultural impacts 

Mining (Konkan and Goa) 

Mining–people’s 

perspectives 

No response 


No response 


Telephone numbers are not 

working 

Auto message – Out of town 


Letter sent by speed post. 


67 Rajendra Kerkar, Gonteli, 

Keri, Sattari, Goa 

68 Glenn (GMOEA) 


alternative 

Mining–Goa, Konkan 


Mining–Geological and 

Economic perspective 

Confirmed 

Unable to get contact details 

234





69 Gujarat Ecological Society Mining (Gujarat) Sent an e-mail to the Director 

requesting him to suggest names 

of people to write on this theme. 

No response. 

70 Kanchi Kohli, Kalpavriksh Mining (Karnataka) Confirmed. But 

Telephoned: They have a new 

director – Dr. Anil Karnik who 

is out of town, returning on 26 th 

July. 

wants some clarifications before 

writing. 

71 Dr Murthy, NRSC, 

Hyderabad 

72 Pratim Roy 

Director 

Keystone Foundation 

Land cover monitoring 

Tourism 

Confirmed 


73 Mathur, WII, Dehra Dun Wildlife Tourism Regrets?? 

Prof. Sukumar to contact 

74 M P Nair Keystone species Trying to get latest contact 

information. 

75 T R Shankar Raman or V S 

Vijayan may suggest 

Transport infrastructure 

76 Sankaran, KFRI Invasive species Confirmed 

77 Suresh, EQUATIONS Tourism in forest areas Awaiting response 


78 Gautam, CPCB Systems of environmental 

monitoring 



79 Kranti Yardi, Bharati 

Vidyapeeth Institute for 

Environmental Education 

and Research, Pune, 020- 

24275684, 

kranti@bvieer.edu.in 

80 Shamita, Bharati Vidyapeeth 

Institute for Environmental 

Education and Research, 

Pune, 020-24275684, 

shamita@bvieer.edu.in 

Maharashtra Western 

Ghats: an ecological status 

report 

Maharashtra Western 

Ghats: identifying critical 

areas 

235


The Chairman informed the Panel of his interaction with the Chairmen of the two Statutory 

Authorities established by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, GOI, namely, Justice 

Bhaskaran of Loss of Ecology Authority, Chennai, and Shri Bhure Lal of Environment 

Protection (Prevention and Control) Authority of Delhi regarding their advice on the nature, 

constitution, powers and functioning of the proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority. 

The main suggestions that emerged were: 

1. The Authority should not merely be a recommendatory authority, but a statutory 

authority exercising powers conferred under the Environment Protection Act. 

2. The Authority should identify specific environmental issues on which it should 

focus. Examples of such issues could be: protection of upper catchments of rivers, 

conservation of germplasm of wild relatives of cultivated plants, prevention of 

groundwater pollution, and so on. 

3. Having identified its focal issues the Authority should devise a strategy of dealing 

with them. 

4. The Authority should be in position to arrange for field investigations, marshal facts 

and institute action. 

5. The Authority should liaison with concerned Government agencies and persuade 

them to act. 

6. The Authority should work with people while maintaining an appropriate distance. 

The Chairman then introduced the new responsibilities assigned to the Panel by the 

Ministry of Environment and Forests seeking the comments / opinion of the Panel in respect 

of the following three projects: 

1. Gundia Hydroelectric Project, 

2. Puyankutti Hydroelectric Project and 

3. Athirappilly Hydroelectric Project 

In addition to the above three, the Ministry also sought views on projects in Ratnagiri and 

Sindhdurg, Maharashtra. 

The Chairman requested Dr. Nalini Bhat, Advisor, MoEF, to give the Panel a brief 

background to the projects referred toabove. Dr. Nalini Bhat briefly explained about the 

three projects which were being examined in the Ministry for environmental clearance 

through the Expert Appraisal Committee and to begin with requested the Panel to provide 

their comments / suggestions on the Gundia Hydroelectric Project in Karnataka. The 

following points emerged: 

(i) The Panel may undertake a site visit to Gundia and Arthirappilly to study the 

environmental scenario on the ground and the likely environmental impacts on the 

ecology of the region and on humans settlements. 

(ii) The Ministry has initiated Carrying Capacity Studies of mining in Goa and of the 

Teesta River in Sikkim. Also the Government of Karnataka has initiated a carrying 

capacity study in Uttar Kannada. The terms of reference of these studies will be 

studied by the Panel to initiate such studies in Western Ghats Region. 

236


(iii) The Panel opined that it may be appropriate to defer their comments / suggestions 

on the projects referred to them till the levels of eco-sensitivity in Western Ghats 

Region are identified and demarcated. 

Dr. Ligia Noronha during the interactive discussions suggested the following tentative 

checklist on things that the Panel needs to focus on, discuss and write about: 

1. What regulations regarding development activities are needed to be put in place 

within the ecological zones identified 

2. Key principles of sustainable development that must be followed in the following 

activities in the districts of the Western Ghats: Plantations, Agriculture, Mining, 

Ecotourism, Infrastructure needs and Hydroelectric projects 

3. Need to study existing Land Use Policies and Plans of Western Ghat states 

4. Linking the Panel’s work to emerging initiatives for Panchayats 

5. Identifying ways to get the acceptance of people: green dividends, benefit sharing etc. 

6. Identification of institutional supports: review of Boards, Councils, BMC, ZPs 

The next meeting of the Panel will be held in Delhi with the MPs from the Western Ghats 

Region. 


237


Minutes of the Meeting of the MPs of the Western Ghats Region with the Minister of 

State (I/C) Environment and Forests along with the Members of the Western Ghats 

Ecology Expert Panel held on 17th August, 2010 at Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi. 

A Meeting of the Members of Parliament (MPs) of the Western Ghats Region with the 

Members of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) was held under the 

Chairmanship of Shri Jairam Ramesh, Minister of State (I/C) E&F on 17th August, 2010, at 

Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi. 

Shri Jairam Ramesh, Hon’ble MOS (I/C) E&F initiated the proceedings by welcoming all the 

MPs and other officials participating in the meeting. He then introduced Dr. Madhav 

Gadgil, Chairman of the WGEEP as a distinguished ecologist of the country who was also 

involved in the efforts to protect the Silent Valley area in Kerala. Dr. Gadgil, he stated, is also 

a member of the National Advisory Council set up by the Government of India under the 

Chairmanship of Smt. Sonia Gandhi. The Minister mentioned that one of the important 

mandates of the WGEEP is to demarcate ecologically sensitive areas in the Western Ghasts 

Region with a view to notifying them under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The 

Minister also introduced all the members of the WGEEP and the staff of MoEF to the MPs. 

He then invited Dr. Madhav Gadgil, Chairman, WGEEP to make a presentation on the 

mandate and the work done so far by the WGEEP including the need to protect, conserve 

and preserve the region. 

Dr. Madhav Gadgil then made a detailed PowerPoint presentation on the Western Ghats 

Region covering its rich biodiversity, natural and human resources, agrobiodiversity, 

aesthetic appeal etc. The presentation also covered the impacts of unplanned and destructive 

development in the region. He then briefed the MPs about WGEEP, its Terms of Reference, 

the work done by the Panel so far and requested all MPs to provide their valuable inputs to 

enable the Panel to make realistic recommendations for conservation, protection and 

rejuvenation of the Western Ghats Region. 

The Minister gave a brief background on the constitution of the WGEEP and informed the 

MPs about the importance of conservation of biological diversity especially in the Western 

Ghats Region which is one of the World’s recognized Biodiversity Hotspots. In this context, 

he informed the MPs about the forthcoming 10th Conference of Parties (CoP) to the 

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to be held in Nagoya, Japan in October this year 

and the 11th CoP, which is being hosted by India in Oct, 2012. He also mentioned that there 

is a need to have focused attention on the Western Ghats Region as is being done for the 

Himalayan region. 

The Minister then stated that the main idea of today’s meeting was to inform the MPs about 

the working of the WGEEP and that the final aim of the Panel is to identify ‘No Go’ areas in 

the Western Ghats Region where no development would be allowed and to identify those 

areas where development needs to be regulated considering the environmental sensitivity 

and ecological significance of the region. He also clarified that the intention of the Ministry is 

not to stop development but to come out with ideas and solutions to integrate 

environmental issues with development so that we may achieve sustainable development of 


He expressed happiness at the remarkable attendance of the MPs from the Western Ghats 

Region and said that it shows the keen interest the MPs are taking in environmental issues 

238


relating to the Western Ghats Region. With these introductory remarks, he invited the views 

and suggestions of all the MPs. 

All the MPs agreed with the need to protect and preserve the environment of the Western 

Ghats Region including its Forests, Wildlife and other natural resources. They also 

congratulated the Minister for having constituted the WGEEP and for convening the 

meeting of the MPs with Experts which is the first of its kind and they appreciated the 

democratic process of consultation adopted by the Minister in this regard. 

The main points raised by the MPs are summarized State-wise below:- 

Kerala: 

1. The Athirappilly issue which has already been examined by other Committees of the 

Ministry should not be re-opened. 

2. Demarcation of ecologically sensitive areas should not result in disturbing settled 

people, i.e. areas where people have been living for centuries should not be 

disturbed. 

3. Cut-throat measures such as providing monitory compensation to adivasis as is 

being done under the Tiger Project, should not be used in rehabilitating people while 

preserving forests and wildlife. 

4. Biodiversity Committees exist in every Zilla but most of them do not have a specific 

agenda. MoEF may consider giving a specific agenda to these committees. 

5. New Guidelines need to be developed for identifying Ecologically Sensitive Zones 

(ESZs) as the common man cannot understand these categories. The Guidelines may 

contain the criteria for identification of ESZs and the level of sensitivity of the area 

etc. Geomorphologic Zones may also be included in ESZs so that they can be 

visualized. 

6. There are a lot of legal problems and issues in the Western Ghats of Kerala since the 

promulgation of the Kerala Forests (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile 

Lands), Act, 2003. In areas already declared as Ecologically Fragile Lands (EFL) 

under this Act, it is difficult to carry out even normal agricultural activities, such as 

plucking of coconuts. This aspect needs to be taken into consideration while 

demarcating ecologically sensitive areas by the WGEEP. 

7. In the Idukki- Munnar region, more than 200 acres of Cardamom Plantations have 

been classified as forest land. The Cardamom Reserve Land and the CHR issues of 

Idukki district needs to be settled soon. 

8. The State of Kerala is in the process of formulating / implementing organic farming 

policies as pesticides are reaching the rivers, thus polluting the water, food and soil. 

Presence of heavy metals and pesticides in fish indicates the seriousness of the 

situation. This needs to be taken into consideration by the WGEEP. 

9. The approach of WGEEP in demarcating areas should be realistic and the Panel must 

consult the State Government, the Panchayats and even people at the grassroot levels 

before making recommendations. 

10. The issues relating to human–wildlife conflicts, especially at Erimala, which is at the 

boundary between Kerala and Karnataka, need to be resolved. 

239


11. Millions of rupees in fuel can be saved if the Kottam-Ambasamudram Road between 

Tamil Nadu and Kerala is opened for traffic. 

12. At the Periyar, Munnar and Anaimudi areas, no compensation has reached the 

affected people so far. Whether the Anaimudi area is going to be declared as a 

Biosphere Reserve or not may be clarified. 

13. WGEEP should have more members. Protection of the Western Ghats should not be 

taken over by environmental fundamentalists. 

14. The WGEEP should also identify and document alternative energy projects that are 

implementable in Kerala as the State is really short of energy and has no gas or coal. 

15. Whether it is possible to regenerate biodiversity once it is destroyed may also be 

clarified. 

16. Different Ministries of the Government are implementing several projects / schemes 

for development of the region which have similar objectives. But, as there is no 

coordination / interaction between the Ministries it results in duplication of efforts. 

There should be a more integrated approach to development between the Ministries 

of Panchayati Raj, Rural Development and Environment & Forests. 

17. The pesticide endosulfan already banned by 62 countries of the World is still being 

used in India. The WGEEP may look into this issue. 

Maharashtra: 

1. The illegal encroachments in Koyna Wildlife Sanctuary, now declared as Sahayadari 

Tiger Project in Maharashtra, are serious and need urgent attention of MoEF. More 

than 500 trees have been cut illegally within the Sanctuary area and over 215 

windmills and 10 Resorts have been set up within the premises of the Sanctuary 

without permission from the Forest Department. A 6.5 Kms stretch of bituminous 

road has also been constructed under the Prime Minister‟s Gram Sadak Yojana 

without requisite permission from the Forest/ Wildlife Department. 

2. In 1965, the Koyna Hydro Electric Project displaced more than 100 villages. No 

justice has been done to these villagers till date, i.e. even after 45 years. WGEEP must 

keep such realities in mind, while declaring any area as ESA, which may result in 

displacing people. 

3. The main focus of the Government and its policies must be on the improvement of 

the lives of the common man. We need to protect people first. In Ratnagiri and 

Raigarh districts there are very high levels of poverty and unemployment, resulting 

in the men of the villages migrating to Mumbai, leaving only the women and old 

people in the villages. These areas, therefore urgently need development, which will 

lead to generation of jobs and alleviation of poverty. This may be kept in mind while 

declaring „No Go‟ areas in the Western Ghats Region of the State. 

4. Setting up of a Sewage Treatment Plant in Matheran which has been pending since 

long needs to be expedited. The WGEEP is requested to undertake a site visit to 

Matheran which is already a notified eco-sensitive area by the MoEF. 

5. The Maharashtra-Krishna Valley Corporation administers more than 11 major dams. 

Whatever land there is in Satara district, belongs to the Forest Department. Villages 

in buffer areas should be de-notified. Though there are massive tree plantations in 

this area under US-aided projects, the villagers do not have enough food from their 

240


lands. Agro- and eco-tourism are the only sources of income for the people in the 

buffer area. 

6. The High Level Monitoring Committee (HLMC) for Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani 

Region, consists of 7 Members from Government Departments and only 3 members 

are subject experts. The Chairman of the HLMC is not performing his duties 

effectively. These issues may be examined/ rectified by the Ministry. 

7. In Thane district, several environmental problems are being faced such as: (a) 

Rampant destruction of mangroves, (b) Indiscriminate land filling of Hazardous 

Wastes, (c) Effluent Treatment Plants (ETPs) being run by private operators do not 

maintain the BOD, COD limits specified and thus pollute the rivers affecting the poor 

fishermen and (d) Levelling of natural hillocks for construction purposes. 

Tamil Nadu: 

Goa: 

1. There is practically no development at all in the Ambasamudram, Kutrallam areas of 

Tamil Nadu, except for the Papanasam Hydro Electric Project. The Ambasamudram- 

Thiruvananthapuram Road has been pending for more than 50 years. But inside the 

declared forests, there are so many well-laid roads, which, ironically are being used 

by anti-social elements for illegally cutting and transporting trees. 

2. While protection of forests and wildlife is no doubt important, it must also be noted 

that it leads to increase in human–animal conflicts. Poor village farmers‟ cultivated 

areas are destroyed by wild pigs, which sometime also attack people. Elephants 

routinely enter banana plantations and cause severe loss to the farmers‟ livelihood. 

3. The problems faced by small farmers holding agricultural land adjacent to / 

bordering forests need special attention. In fact, many such farmers in Tamil Nadu 

are ready to surrender such lands, as they are unable to do anything with these lands 

as most of them are classified as protected areas. Whether there is any scheme for 

providing compensation to such farmers needs to be examined. This issue needs to 

be kept in mind by the WGEEP while demarcating eco-sensitive zones. 

4. There is need for bringing about awareness among school children of the importance 

of planting trees and they should be encouraged to plant trees in their respective 

areas. 

5. The rope way project between Palni and Kodaikanal – 13 km long – needs to be 

expedited. 

1. The State of Goa is narrow with no width. The Goa Panchayats have no land at all. 

These issues are specific to the State of Goa. The WGEEP must therefore take the 

State Government into confidence before coming out with recommendations for 

declaring ESAs in the State. 

2. State-owned Forest Corporations, especially those of cash crops such as rubber and 

cashew, must be replaced by perennial forests. 

3. The Forest Department should not limit its role only to distribute saplings – it should 

also be involved in planting saplings at the appropriate time and in protecting them 

on a sustained basis. 

241


Karnataka: 

1. Income-generating Community Forest programmes are being implemented in every 

Panchayat of Karnataka and are being received enthusiastically by the people. 

However, the land on which such forests are to be developed is very degraded. The 

State Government. is ready to provide plants and the villagers are ready to plant and 

protect them. MoEF is requested to provide guidance to such programmes under the 

Green India Mission. 

Response of MoS (I/C) E&F 

Summing up the discussions, MoS (I/C) E&F made the following points: - 

1. As far as Constituency Level issues are concerned, MoS (I/C) E&F will respond to 

each of the MPs individually. 

2. The request of all the MPs of Kerala, regarding Athirappilly issue to be exempted 

from WGEEP‟s mandate, was noted by the Minister. 

3. Regarding specific areas such as Athirappilly, Pooyankutti, Ratnagiri, Sindhdurg etc. 

separate „Status Reports‟ will be prepared. 

4. All the analysis/ findings/ recommendations of the WGEEP will be discussed with 

all the six concerned State Governments. Demarcation of ESA, „No Go‟ areas, „Go 

Areas‟ subject to environmental safeguards will be shared with the State 

Governments. The working of the WGEEP and demarcation of ESAs will be done in 

a most democratic manner. 

5. The Chairman of WGEEP is the greatest champion of public consultation. The 

members of WGEEP are fully aware of the need and importance of public 

consultation. The Panel‟s work will be done only through an interactive/ democratic 

process. 

6. If any MPs of the concerned state or State Government forward names of experts to 

be co-opted as members of the WGEEP, it will be considered. 

7. MoEF recognizes that the State of Kerala will need a special dispensation, as the area 

of forest in proportion to the land area is the highest in the State. We cannot wish 

away settlements where people have been living in the same area for more than 100 

years. Such settlements will be given special consideration. 

8. Regarding the endosulfan issue, Chairman CPCB has been requested to get a 

technical report prepared on the implications of the use of endosulfan. With this, the 

Minister once again thanked all the MPs from the Western Ghats Region for their 

participation in the Meeting as well as for their valuable suggestions to the WGEEP. 

9. After this meeting the WGEEP met separately under the Chairmanship of Prof. 

Madhav Gadgil and it was decided that the next meeting of the WGEEP will be held 

at Goa between 26th–29 September, 2010. The meeting will also include a site visit by 

the Members of the Panel to the mining areas to understand the environmental 

situation of the mines of the State. 


242


Minutes of the Sixth Meeting of Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel held at National 

Institute of Oceanography, Goa between 26–28 September 2010 

The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP), met on 26 th , and 28 th September, 2010 at 

National Institute of Oceanography, Goa. 

The following members were present: 


Shri B J Krishnan 




Ms. Vidya S. Nayak 


Chairman 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member Secretary 

WGEEP panel members Dr. P.L. Gautam, Chairman, National Biodiversity Authority; Dr. 

R.R. Navalgund, Director, Space Application Centre, Ahmedabad;Prof. S P Gautam, 

Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board; Dr. R. Sukumar, IISc, Bengaluru; Dr. K.N. 

Ganeshiah, UAS, Bengaluru; Dr. R.V. Verma, Chairman, Kerala Biodiversity Board; Dr. D.K. 

Subramaniam, IISc, Bengaluru, could not attend the meeting. Shri Neeraj Khatri (Deputy 

Director, MoEF) and Dr. Amit Love, (Deputy Director, MoEF) were also present during the 

meeting. 

The Chairman welcomed the Members of the Panel and briefly explained the agenda items 

following which the agenda items were taken up individually for discussion. The agenda 

items are enclosed at Annexure 1. 

1) Confirmation of minutes of the 5 th meeting of WGEEP 

The minutes of the 5 th meeting of WGEEP were confirmed without any modifications by the 

panel. 

2) Review of actions taken so far 

a) Review of progress of website, geographical delimitation of the Western Ghats and 

project on levels of ecosensitivity along Western Ghats 

The Panel reviewed the progress achieved on the website, geographical delimitation of 

Western Ghats and Project on levels of ecosensitivity along Western Ghats. The Panel was of 

the view that the progress achieved was satisfactory. 

b) Status of commissioned papers 

The status of commissioned papers was examined in detail. The Chairman informed the 

Panel members that commissioned papers have begin to come in. The following four 

commissioned papers have been received (i–ii) Landscape and Birds of Western Ghats – Dr. 

Ranjit Daniels, (iii) Alluvial sand mining – Dr. D. Padmalal, and (iv) Tree growth on private 

lands – Shri N.G. Hegde 

243


The Chairman asked Dr Vijayan to follow up the commissioned paper on organic 

agriculture. The Chairman informed the members that Dr. M.H. Swaminath of Karnataka 

Forest Department has agreed to do a commissioned paper on ‚Effects of roads, railways, 

transmission lines on Western Ghats ecology‛ and Ms. Geetha, IISc Bangalore was requested 

to send a formal communication to Dr Swaminath about this. 

Mr. Edger Ribeiro, former Chief Town Planner, GOI, has received a formal invitation to 

write a commissioned paper on land use policy in the Western Ghats. The Chairman 

informed members that the paper on ecosensitive areas to be published in Current Science 

would be ready in 10 days. 

Mr. Glenn Kalampavara of GMOEA was also to be asked to contribute a paper on mining 

issues and practices in Goa. 

3) Reporting items 

a) Discussion with Director, Town and Regional Planning, Government of Maharastra 

Professor Madhav Gadgil, Chairman, WGEEP, informed the panel members about his 

meeting with Director (Town Planning) Maharastra. He informed the members that the 

Town and Country Planning Act and Town and Country Planning Code provide the 

framework for formulating regional plans. He also mentioned that district-level regional 

plans can be sourced from Director (Town and Country Planning) of each state. The 

Chairman entrusted responsibilities of the following members for collection of District-wise 

regional plans 

1) Dr Vijayan – Kerala 

2) Dr. Renee Borges – Karnataka 

3) Shri B.J. Krishnan – Tamil Nadu 

The ministry will send letters to the concerned officers in the state governments with copies 

endorsed to members in this regard 

The Chairman mentioned that Prof Sukumar may be requested to send whatever 

information is available on the Uttara Kanada Carrying Capacity study done by Professor 

T.V. Ramachandra to be uploaded on the website – www.westernghatsindia.org. 

b) Interaction with Karnataka Government’s Western Ghats Task force and site visit to 

proposed Gundia hydroelectric power project site 

Prof Madhav Gadgil informed the panel members about the interaction with Karnataka 

Government’s Western Ghats Task force and the site visit to the proposed Gundia 

hydroelectric power project by two panel members and the Member Secretary of the panel 

(Professor Madhav Gadgil, Ms Vidya Nayak and Dr. G.V. Subrahmanyam) along with 

officials of MoEF. 

He mentioned about the detailed and productive discussion the Panel members (Professor 

Madhav Gadgil, Dr. Renee Borges, Ms Vidya Nayak, Dr. G.V. Subrahmanyam) had with 

State Forest Department officials and Karnataka Government’s Western Ghats Task force at 

Aranaya Bhavan, Bengaluru. 

With reference to the site visit to the proposed Gundia hydroelectric power project, Prof 

Madhav Gadgil informed the members that the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited 

alleged that it was a ‘secret’ site visit and that they were not informed. In this regard Prof 

Madhav Gadgil detailed the chronology of events in undertaking the site visit. 

244


At the outset, a letter was sent to Principal Secretary (Environment), Government of 

Karnataka three weeks before the proposed visit. Apparently, she was on leave. Ms. Vidya 

Nayak, Member, WGEEP, arranged the site visit through the Chairman, Biofuel Taskforce, 

Government of Karnataka, who holds a Minister of State rank in the Government of 

Karnataka. Karnataka government officials were informed through him. The collector of 

Hasan district, where the project site is situated, was also informed. 

Prof Madhav Gadgil clarified that officials of Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) 

gave him a copy of the presentation given by KPCL to the Expert Appraisal Committee of 

MoEF. The KPCL officials were also present at the public consultation held at the site and 

they also met the Collector of Hasan District along with the Panel members. Hence there 

was nothing ‘secret’ about the site visit. 

During the deliberations among the Panel members it was suggested that clarifications 

regarding the Gundia visit would be put on the WGEEP website. Further, it was also 

suggested that Dr. G.V. Subrahmanyam, Advisor, MoEF, could write to the Managing 

Director of KPCL. Ms Vidya Nayak informed the Panel members that the Gundia visit was 

publicized using handouts, flyers and the local press. 

c) Thematic discussion – Round table with civil society, industry and government of Goa on 

27 th September 2010 

The Panel observed the following points raised by the two major groups: 

Points raised by the Goa Foundation and other Environmental Groups: 

1. The mining licenses given prior to 1980 have to be revisited and cancelled. 

2. All the Wildlife Sanctuaries in the State should be declared under Ecologically 

Sensitive Areas. 

3. Licenses given for mining inside the Sanctuaries should be cancelled. 

4. Any orders for de-notifying any area from existing Sanctuaries for any purpose, 

including mining, shall be revoked in line with the recommendations of the CEC. 

5. The proposal of the Goa team to declare four sanctuaries along with adjacent areas as 

a tiger reserve may be recommended by the WGEEP. 

6. The Sahyadri Ecologically Sensitive Area (SESA) proposal of recommending the four 

Sanctuaries to be notified as an ESA shall be revisited in compliance with the criteria 

developed for the whole of the Western Ghats by the WGEEP and also considering 

the proposal of the State Pollution Control Board given in its Environment and 

Zoning Atlas. Copies of the above proposals should be obtained by the WGEEP. 

7. Sacred Groves and Ecosystems of Sadas should be declared as ESAs. 

8. Lateritic plateaus in Goa are rich in biodiversity and hence, should be considered for 

ESAs. 

9. Mining in the Thalvadi Irrigation project must be stopped. 

10. The Goa Government‟s proposal for “Zero buffer” for the Sanctuaries shall be 

rejected outright and fixed at 10 km. 

11. There is an indication of increasing incidence of human–wildlife incidence which 

should also be considered while recommending the area for a buffer zone. 

245


12. Mining leases within a three km radius of wildlife sanctuaries should be terminated. 

13. Mining leases in the Selaulim Dam should be revoked. 

14. No mining should be permitted in the Forest Working Plan Divisions of North and 

South Divisions. 

15. No forest clearance should be given for mining as there is no land available for 

compensatory afforestation and, moreover, compensatory afforestation schemes 

have been a failure. 

16. Mining causes depletion of ground water leading to water scarcity in the area. 

Points raised by the Federation of Indian Minerals Industries (FIM) Southern Region: 

1. Delineation of the Western Ghats needs to be put down on a map which has to be 

tied to the coordinates of the Survey of India topo-sheets. 

2. Similarly, the boundaries of Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Parks have to be 

accurately defined so that there is no confusion on the ground. 

3. The developmental needs of the people and the states have to be considered always 

keeping in mind ecological and environmental concerns. 

4. Mining and agriculture are the only two activities which create value out of mother 

earth. If minerals are not extracted, their worth is the same as mud. 

5. The employment potential of mining is huge as apart from the persons directly 

employed, an army of people is engaged in loading, transportation and ore treatment 

plants. It also spawns ancillary activities like workshops, eateries, schools and 

hospitals. It is estimated that for every person directly employed, ten other jobs are 

generated. 

6. There are also many environmental-friendly technologies available. The use of 

ripper/ dozers or “surface miners” obviates the need for blasting. In certain 

deposits, underground mining is an option and the environmental impacts are much 

less in that case than in open-cast mining. 

7. Transportation also plays a major role in pollution. Alternatives like conveyors and 

aerial ropeways can be considered particularly in hilly terrain. 

8. A point to be considered is that in the absence of economic activities, the youth 

particularly tend to get disaffected and led astray. A case in point is that after the 

closure of Kudremukh, naxalism has raised its head in the area. 

9. Therefore, FIM‟s suggestion is to declare the present sanctuaries and parks as ecosensitive 

areas and leave the rest of the Western Ghats for developmental activities. 

10. FIM, from the perspective of a responsible mining industry, will pledge to follow 

sound mining practices and participate in the overall development of the areas. 

11. Not only will mines comply with all environmental laws, many are already going 

beyond what is statutorily laid down. 

12. The mining industry is also willing to contribute 26% of the royalty (over and above 

the current royalty) towards a Development Fund to be channelized into the areas 

around the mining areas. It will also follow the Relief and Rehabilitation policy of the 

government. 

246


13. On the export of iron ore, FIM categorically stated that 90% of exports are iron ore 

fines and inferior grades which no domestic producer of iron will touch. If a product 

can be sold economically in the domestic market, which producer will like to export 

it and that too after paying export duty? 

Both the parties expressed their willingness to cooperate with the WGEEP for any 

discussion on the issue. 

further 

Following the discussion, Dr Vijayan observed that although the economic return from the 

mining activities have been highlighted, there apparently has been no comprehensive study 

on the loss/impact on the environment, human health, ground water, biodiversity and other 

aspects of ecology. Till such a study is done there has to be a moratorium on mining. 

The Panel decided to discuss the matter further at the next meeting of the WGEEP scheduled 

on 28 and 29 October at Pune. 

The Panel members expressed their satisfaction on a very meaningful round table discussion 

with civil society, industry and the government of Goa with a specific focus on iron ore 

mining in the Goa Western Ghats. Dr. Ligia Noronha brought to the notice of the panel that 

for the Goa meeting, site visit and round table discussion, she had written to government 

officials on 7 September 2010 by email but got no response from them. Dr. G.V. 

Subrahmanyam, Advisor, MoEF, had also written to the Secretary (Environment) Goa 

informing about the meeting of the Panel. The Panel noted the lack of responsiveness of the 

state government officials. 

d) Site visits to iron mines in Goa and Mhadei and Bhagavan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary 

The Panel members along with officials of the State Forest Department had site visits to the 

forest and mining regions on the 28th. The Panel members visited the Sankelim iron ore 

mines of Sesa Goa and were shown the activities in place for ecological restoration in this 

non-active mine. It was also shown an active new mine that has commenced in the area and 

that has been made profitable due to the increased demand from China and the rise in iron 

ore prices. Unfortunately the Panel was unable to see other active mines, despite requests to 

the Goa Government to arrange for a more detailed visit to the mining region. However, the 

Panel was given detailed presentations and documentation by non-governmental 

organizations, and also got responses by the mining industry to issues raised by NGOs on 

the 27 th on mining in Goa. This is documented in the note on that consultation. 

The Panel members also visited the Mhadei Sanctuary, Anjuna Dam area and fringes of the 

Bhagavan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary to understand the proposal of the State Forest 

Department on notification of ecologically sensitive areas around these Sanctuaries. The 

Panel noted the proximity of some of the mines to the Sanctuaries and reflected on some of 

the impacts that this proximity could have on the forests. The impact of mining on wildlife 

corridors was also discussed with State forest officials. 

e) Proposed interaction with Secretary (Environment), Government of Maharastra on 30 th 

September 2010 

The Chairman informed the Panel members about his scheduled interaction with Secretary 

(Environment), Government of Maharastra and other officials of the Maharastra 

Government on 30 th September 2010. 

247


f) On-going preparations for visits to Ratnagiri-Sindhudurg districts from 4 th to 12 th 

October 2010 

Prof Madhav Gadgil informed the panel members that Maharastra Government is well 

aware about his field visit to Ratnagiri and Sibdhudurg districts. He also mentioned that the 

collector of Ratnagiri wants to meet him. Further, he informed the Panel Members that while 

21 Gram Panchayats of Sindhudurg want to be part of an ecologically sensitive area, on the 

other hand the vice president of the Zilla Parishad of Kolhapur expressed that the villagers 

don’t want Kolhapur to declared as an ESA. Professor Madhav Gadgil said that he is 

planning to arrange for a meeting with Zilla Parsihad members and to have an open 

discussion on ecologically sensitive areas 

The Chairman, WGEEP, informed that Dr. Sharat Chandra, ex-Chairman Karnataka 

Pollution Control Board, has agreed to do a study on the impact of urbanization of Ratnagiri 

and Sindhudurg districts. He has submitted a proposal to the MoEF for the same and he has 

been advised by the MoEF to reassess and revise his budgetary requirements. 

g) Definition and criteria for identification of ecologically sensitive areas 

Prof. Madhav Gadgil initiated the discussion on the criteria for identification of ecologically 

sensitive areas. He outlined the primary and auxillary criteria listed by the Pronab Sen 

Committee for designating an area ecologically sensitive. These criteria could be classified 

based upon biodiversity, ecosystem and geomorphological features. The important 

parameter in this report for identification of an ecologically sensitive area is the presence of 

endemic species. Prof Madhav Gadgil mentioned that there is difficulty in using these 

criteria as the only basis for identification of ecologically sensitive areas in the Western 

Ghats, as the total area of the Western Ghats would qualify as ecologically sensitive, and it 

would be necessary to look for additional ways to suggest a more graduated regime of 

regulations. He suggested that resilience of an ecosystem is now considered to be a more 

meaningful criterion for characterizing ecological sensitivity. Resilience of an ecosystem 

could be viewed as the ability of the ecosystem to recover from anthropogenic perturbations. 

The important issue in using ecosystem resilience as a criterion for assessing ecological 

sensitivity is how resilience of ecosystems can be measured. Prof Madhav Gadgil elaborated 

the work carried out by Dr. Ranjit Daniels at the landscape level wherein Dr. Daniels had 

compared landscapes having undisturbed vegetation and landscapes where vegetation was 

disturbed due to external perturbations. Based upon the ability of the ecosystems in the 

disturbed landscapes to recover or maintain themselves ecological sensitivity could be 

graded. Hence ecosystems could be classified as more or less resilient. 

Further Prof. Madhav Gadgil expressed his views that a graduated or layered approach 

would be a better means to identify the ecologically sensitivity of an area, rather than a 

binary approach of ‘sensitive’ and ‘not sensitive’ areas in terms of ecological sensitivity. The 

categorization of ecological sensitivity would allow certain sets of activities to be permissible 

for a certain area depending upon the level and nature of its ecological sensitivity. 

h) Notification of ecological sensitive areas around protected areas in Goa 

MoEF informed members about the issue of notification of ecologically sensitive areas 

around National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries in all the states. The panel members were 

also informed that the Goa state government has submitted its proposal for notification of 

ecologically sensitive area around 6 National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries falling within 

the Western Ghats range. The area to be notified as ecologically sensitive around the 6 

National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries varied from 0–6 km on a case-to-case basis. MoEF 

248


requested the panel to consider these proposals in its broad mandate of Ecologically 

Sensitive Areas in the Western Ghats Region. 

i) Development issues and ecologically sensitive areas 

Shri B.J. Krishnan brought to the notice of the panel that most of the hydel projects are 

invariably present in areas which can be classified as ecologically sensitive. Dr. Ligia 

Noronha pointed out that a distinction has to be made between run-of-the-river versus 

water storage projects. Ms. Vidya S. Nayak highlighted the issue that the whole concept of 

micro-hydel projects being less environmentally damaging is defeated by the fact that microhydel 

projects need to have grid connectivity resulting in cutting down of forests for laying 

of power lines. Dr. Ligia Noronha said that there is no justifiable reason for large-scale land 

requirement for setting up power projects. Further, there is an urgent need for optimizing 

land area requirement per unit energy produced. Prof. Madhav Gadgil pointed out that 

environmental impacts of laying transmission lines are not factored into Environmental 

Impacts Assessment reports. 

Prof. Madhav Gadgil suggested that a brainstorming session could be held at IISc, 

Bengaluru, with specific reference to the power sector and role of power in the development 

strategy of the Western Ghats. He further suggested that the brainstorming session can 

cover (i) issues and options related with the power sector and (ii) the role of the power sector 

in the regional development strategy for the Western Ghats. 

Dr. Vijayan wanted to clarify the terms of reference of the Panel under which the 

development strategy of the Western Ghats will be covered. The Chairman clarified that 

broad issues relating to development strategy and sector-specific issues related to power, 

road, railways are covered under item no 3 of the terms of reference of the panel. 

4) Decisions needed 

a) Future site visits 

Chairman, WGEEP, brought out the issue of future site visits for consideration of the 

members. He suggested one of the areas which can be considered for a site visit is the 

Western Ghats region between Mumbai and Pune. This segment of the Western Ghats is 

under tremendous pressure of urbanization. Many residential and tourist complexes are 

coming up in this region,e.g. projects like Amby valley and Lavasa. Prof Madhav Gadgil 

suggested that this area requires a special examination. He recommended a small project can 

be given to T.R. Vijayaraghavan, a retired IAS officer, and to Edgar Rebeiro for this purpose. 

Travel expenses for these consultants can be met from the money sent to IISc for site visits. It 

would be a great help to the WGEEP to know what these experts feel about urbanization in 

the Western Ghats. 

b) Future brainstorming sessions 

Following the discussion on the issue of future site visits, the issue of future brainstorming 

sessions was taken up. It was decided that the brainstorming session in Bengaluru would be 

on Joint Forest Management, and the Power Sector . The members were informed that the 

Karnataka Forest Department has agreed to participate in the brainstorming session on Joint 

Forest Management in the Western Ghats. 

It was decided that in the second brainstorming session on the power sector, Karnataka 

Power Corporation Limited would be invited. Furthermore, representatives of all State 

Electricity Boards of Western Ghat States and representatives of private power companies 

249


would also be invited. The dates of the brainstorming session at Bengaluru were fixed as 18 th 

– 19 th November 2010. 

c) Next meeting of WGEEP at Pune 

It was decided that the next meeting of WGEEP would take place on 28 th – 29 th October 2010 

in Pune at Bharati Vidyapeeth. The Panel meeting would also involve a brainstorming 

session on the Maharastra Western Ghats and discussion on the spatial database being 

prepared for WGEEP. Professor Madhav Gadgil informed the panel that Bharati Vidyapeeth 

has prepared a review of the status of the Western Ghats in Maharastra. 

d) Time table 

Keeping in view the prescribed Terms of Reference of WGEEP and the scope of work given 

by the MoEF, the Panel members unanimously felt that the Chairman should ask for an 

extension of time period for the submission of the report by the Panel. 

The Panel members thanked the National Institute of Oceanography for hosting the 6 th 

meeting of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel. 


250


Summary Record of Round Table discussion with Civil Society, Industry and Goa 

Government held on 27th September 2010 and Site Visit to iron ore mines, Mhadei and 

Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary on 28th September 2010 

Round Table discussion with Civil Society, Industry and Goa Government 

The Western Ghats Expert Ecology Panel (WGEEP) had a round table discussion with civil 

society, industry and Goa Government on 27 September 2010 at the National Institute of 

Oceanography (NIO), Goa. 

Dr. S. Shetye, Director, NIO, Goa welcomed the members of WGEEP. He expressed his 

happiness on being able to participate in the deliberations. He mentioned that though the 

study of the Western Ghats does not directly form part of the mandate of NIO, the 

degradation of the Western Ghats certainly effects the ecology of coastal areas, the study of 

which is part of the mandate of NIO. 

After the welcome address by the Director, NIO, there was a round of introductions of the 

participants. Professor Madhav Gadgil, Chairman, Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel 

(WGEEP) thanked civil society groups, industry and government for coming to the round 

table discussion. 

Prof Madhav Gadgil gave a brief overview of the terms of reference and main objectives of 

the WGEEP. The main objectives of the WGEEP are (i) to identify areas which are 

ecologically sensitive in the Western Ghats, (ii) to identify criteria for their identification and 

(iii) to determine how ecologically sensitive areas should be managed. He mentioned that 

ecologically sensitive areas cannot be managed by a rigid set of regulations but they should 

be managed by graduated regulations which are fine tuned to the local context and should 

have positive development initiatives. He stressed the need for making a development 

strategy for Western Ghats which mainstreams environmental concerns into the 

development process. He also emphasized the making of a road map for development of 

such a strategy. 

Dr Claude Alvares, Goa Foundation, welcomed the members of WGEEP. On behalf of the 

Goa Team he thanked WGEEP for giving them an opportunity to present their case. He said 

that the presentation that was to be made to the Panel was put together by the Goa 

Foundation and other like-minded people who constitute the ‚Goa Team‛. He brought to 

the attention of WGEEP members the proposal of the Shayadri Ecological Sensitive Area 

(SESA) which is pending with the Government of India. The area to be notified in this 

proposal encompasses 4 wildlife sanctuaries of Goa. The Goa Team now proposes a bigger 

area to be brought under SESA. The new proposal is based upon actual delimitation of 

Western Ghats based upon geomorphology and vegetation type. Dr. Alvares told the Panel 

members that the Goa Team has done substantial work on the new SESA proposal. Goa 

Team is even ready with a draft notification. He further informed the Panel that the 

modified SESA proposal as projected by the Goa Team is in agreement with the Zoning 

Atlas developed by the Goa Pollution Control Board and draft Regional Plan of Goa 2021. 

He mentioned that Goa has 58% forest cover and that a number of mining leases operate in 

and around forest areas. The Goa Team has prepared a map which superimposes mining 

leases on the forest cover map of Goa. According to the Goa Team, mining is incompatible 

with the ecology of the Western Ghats. It has serious adverse effects on the ecology of the 

Western Ghats. Some of the recommendations of the Goa Team on mining activities are (i) 

mining leases within Wildlife Sanctuaries should be permanently cancelled, (ii) mining 

251


around the Selaulim Dam, which is a major source of water for Goa, should be stopped, and 

(iii) no fresh forest clearances should be given for mining activity since no land is available 

in Goa for compensatory afforestation programmes. 

Dr. Alvares pointed out that according to a Supreme Court order there should be no mining 

activity within 10 km of a Wildlife Sanctuary. There should be a 10 km buffer zone around a 

Wildlife Sanctuary whereas the Goa Government has proposed a Zero km buffer in the case 

of Mhadei and Netravali Wildlife Sanctuaries. He said that this decision of the Government 

is wrong as most of the overburden dumps are present outside the mining area. 

After the presentation of Dr. Alvares, members of the Goa Team gave presentations on 

different aspects of Western Ghats biodiversity and ecology, mining industry and its effect 

on the Western Ghats. The Goa Team submitted a dossier to WGEEP which contained a 

summary of the presentation given to WGEEP along with some other additional documents. 

Shri Rajendra Kerkar, environmentalist, made a presentation for declaring the wildlife 

sanctuaries and adjacent areas in Goa as a tiger reserve. He proposed that the Tiger Reserve 

would include areas of Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary/National Park, Cotiago 

Wildlife Sanctuary, Mhadei Wildlife sanctuary, and Netravali Wildlife Sanctuary. 

Prof M.K. Janarthanam, Department of Botany, Goa University, gave a presentation on 

ecologically sensitive lateritic plateaus of Western Ghats. He highlighted the importance of 

these plateaus as biodiversity rich areas which support a substantial number of endemic 

species found in the Western Ghats . He provided evidence from taxonomic and ecological 

studies that these plateaus are rich in biodiversity and there is every reason to consider them 

ecologically sensitive. 

Dr. Borkar and his colleagues in their presentation highlighted a large number of endemic 

animal species in the Western Ghats especially in the following groups (i) amphibians, (ii) 

butterflies, (iii) uropeltid snakes, (iv) arachnids, and (v) birds. Dr. Borkar stressed that much 

of the diversity is yet to be documented. 

Shri Kamlakar Sadhale gave a presentation on ‘The Western Ghats and water conservation 

regime’. He highlighted the importance of the Western Ghats as a catchment area and the 

adverse effects mining has on the Western Ghats with specific reference to fresh water 

resources. 

Shri Rajendra Kakodkar presented the economic perspective of mining for Western Ghats 

ecology. He pointed out that the rapid increase in mining in the last 10 years has made low 

grade and deep seated ores economically viable. He also detailed the economic aspects of 

mining with respect to revenue, mineable resources, and employment generation. He 

highlighted the adverse effects of mining on the small state of Goa. 

Rama Velip, local villager from Colomba village, highlighted the adverse effects of mining 

on agriculture and water resources. He pointed out that mining damages surface water 

bodies by siltation due to which they get choked. The ground water level decreases 

dramatically near mining areas due to mining activity below the water table level . 

Dr. Prabhudesai, a medical doctor practicing in the villages adjacent to mining areas, 

elaborated upon the public health effects of mining and pointed out the increased incidence 

of chest disorders due to mining. He also highlighted adverse health effects due to noise 

pollution. 

After the presentations of the Goa Team, Professor Madhav Gadgil, Chairman, WGEEP, 

called upon the representatives of the mining industry to give their point of view. 

252


The representatives of the mining industry presented their views to the Panel Members. 

They highlighted the following points. 

a) The mining industry plays an important role in employment and revenue generation 

in Goa. 

b) The mining industry is willing to have a dialogue with civil society. It is also willing 

to contribute towards upgradation of civic infrastructure in areas adjoining mines. 

c) The mining industry recognized the fact that an increase in the production capacity 

of mines has led to a huge strain on the road network of Goa. This has resulted in 

difficulty to the villages adjoining the roads. Approximately 12,000 trucks transport 

iron ore across Goa. The increased transportation requirement is used for 

transporting ore from Goa and ore from there to adjoining land-locked states. The 

mining industry of Goa is willing to invest in improving the road network used for 

transportation of the ore. 

d) As a responsible industry, the mining industry will comply with all environmental 

regulations. 

e) The mining industry in Goa promotes a policy of sustainable mining through various 

initiatives apart from utilizing latest technology and reclamation of mined pits. 

f) A clear demarcation of the Western Ghats with the coordinates marked and tied to 

the grid of Survey of India maps will help remove a lot of ambiguity in the mind of 

the industry as to where to mine. 

g) The mining industry agrees that no irreversible damage should be done to the 


h) Complete banning of mining activity is not an option. It provides revenue to the 

government and provides employment to the local people, but the industry is 

concerned with the recent rapid increase in mining activity in Goa 

i) Goa‟s mining belt would be under threat if a 10 km buffer zone is notified as an 

ecosensitive zone. 

j) There are procedural delays in the government which is one of the reasons for illegal 

mining. A prospecting license which should be cleared in 9 months takes 6 years. 

k) There should be a development plan as to which areas can be mined for a 20-year 

period and which can be mined for 5-year period. 

l) The depth of surface mining needs to be mentioned in environmental clearances. 

Professor Madhav Gadgil asked the Goa Team for their suggestions for regulated mining in 

Goa. 

Dr. Claude Alvares, Director, Goa Foundation, mentioned the following points with respect 

to regulation of mining activity if it is not banned completely. 

(i) There should be a cap on the mining targets for the mining companies. This cap 

should be based upon the concept of sustainability. 

(ii) No mining should be allowed below the water table level of the area. Mining activity 

below the water table level in Goa has led to drought-like situations in villages 

adjoining mining lease areas. 

253


(iii) The mining companies should follow the principle of equity in their corporate social 

responsibility (CSR) activities. The inequitable distribution of CSR activity has led to 

division of villagers into haves and have-nots. 

(iv) The mining companies should be transparent in their functioning and should share 

information and data on environmental parameters and hydrological maps. 

(v) The number of trucks transporting iron ore and their overloading has to be 

regulated. 

After this Dr. Renee Borges, Member, WGEEP, chaired the round table discussion as 

Professor Madhav Gadgil had to leave for an urgent commitment. 

Dr Manoj Borkar, Carmel College, mentioned that the process of EIA should be made 

transparent. A Biodiversity Cess should be applied on industries for the cause of 

biodiversity conservation. There should be monitoring of post-environmental clearance of 

mining activity. Alternative livelihoods for the people which are based upon 

biodiversity/bioresources should be encouraged. 

Mr.Christopher Fonseca, trade union leader, raised the issue of labour welfare. He 

mentioned that there is no adequate space for mining workers and there are labour 

problems in the mining industry. 

Mr. H Fernandes, representative from the Directorate of Mines, Goa, explained the current 

status of mining leases in Goa. He also explained that mine closure occurs either when 

mining lease periods get over or when the deposit is completely extracted. 

Mr. Edgar Ribeiro, town planner, stressed the need for addressing environmental concerns 

by incorporating them into the regional plan of Goa. He highlighted the fact that regional 

plans are legal documents and hence can be enforced. 

a) Many representatives from civil society raised the following points for consideration 

of WGEEP. 

b) There should be a people‟s audit of the mining companies which should be based 

upon a fair and just mechanism. There should be committees at the taluka level to 

oversee mining activities. 

c) The social cost of mining should be evaluated and factored into the revenues of the 

mining companies 

d) Transparency is required from both the mining industry and civil society groups. 

e) The process of EIA should be done in transparent manner. An independent agency 

should conduct the EIA; it should not be carried out by consultants at the behest of 

the project proponent. 

Dr. Vijayan, Member, WGEEP, commented on the need to assess the economic value of the 

ecosystem services provided by forest areas, and that this could be much higher than the 

revenue that the mining industry gives to the government. He also highlighted there should 

be rigorous evaluation of EIA reports. 

After the participants had expressed their views, Dr. Renee Borges on behalf of the WGEEP 

thanked NIO for hosting the Round Table Discussion. 

254


Site visit to iron ore mines in Goa and Mhadei and Bhagavan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary 

The Panel members along with officials of the State Forest Department visited Sanquelim 

iron ore mines of Sesa Goa. Shri Mahesh Patil, General Manager of the mines, explained the 

mining plan and the general lay out of the mine to the Panel members. Shri Patil explained 

to the Panel members that earlier Acacia auriculiformis was used in the plantation activity by 

Sesa but now they are in process of replacing Acacia auriculiformes with native species of the 

region. He further elaborated upon the water conservation measures being carried out in the 

mines. The Panel members were taken around the mining area. They were shown the 

various activities of the Mining company for environmental protection and ecological 

restoration. The Panel members were informed that the company has developed a 

biodiversity area, fishing pond, medicinal garden, and bamboo area inside the mining lease 

area. Shri Patil said that the work done by Sesa in Sanquelim mines was a model for 

reclamation of iron ore mines. 

After visiting the iron ore mines the Panel members proceeded to Keri Forest Rest House 

where Shri Shashi Kumar, Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Forest 

Department Goa, welcomed the Panel members and gave a brief overview of forests of Goa. 

This was followed by a brief presentation by Dr. G. Trinadh Kumar, DCF, (North Goa). The 

presentation detailed different aspects of forest cover, forest classification and the protected 

area network in Goa. 

Following the presentation, discussion on the proposal of the state government for 

declaration of ecologically sensitive areas around national parks and wildlife sanctuaries 

was taken up. The Additional PCCF explained the constraints due to which in certain cases 

no area was proposed for declaration as ecologically sensitive around a wildlife sanctuary. 

He highlighted the fact that Goa is a small state and hence enough land is not available for 

development. On the issue of mining in protected forest areas the Additional PCCF 

informed the Panel members that no mining activity is being carried out in any protected 

area in Goa. He further clarified that the state government is not considering any fresh 

proposal of mining till a Mining Policy is finalized. On the same lines no proposal for 

diversion of forest land is being considered till a Forest Policy is announced. 

From Keri Forest Rest House, the Panel members went to Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary via the 

Anjunem Dam area. The State Forest Department officials highlighted the close proximity of 

human habitation to the Wildlife Sanctuary. They also pointed out the the dense forest cover 

of the Western Ghat area of the Sanctuary. After visiting the Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary, the 

Panel proceeded to Bhagavan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary. Enroute the Panel members saw 

a number on iron ore mines and trucks used for transportation of iron ore. The Panel 

members were taken to a place on the way from Mollem to Collem which is the boundary of 

Bhagavan Mahavir Sanctuary where the State government has proposed a zero km buffer to 

be declared as ecologically sensitive. The State Forest Department officials explained that 

this was done as the land next to the Wildlife Sanctuary was private land and that 

declaration of an ecologically sensitive area on private land may reduce the genuine 

development needs of the landowner. The Panel members felt that there is a need to educate 

the local people that declaration of an area as ecologically sensitive does not necessarily 

mean complete ban on development activities. It only restricts activities that can severely 

impact the ecology of the area. After the site visit the WGEEP members left for NIO. 

255


Minutes of the Seventh Meeting of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel held on 29 th 

October, 2010 at Bharati Vidyapeeth Institute of Environmental Education and Research 

(BVIEER), Pune. 

The seventh meeting of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) was held on 29 th 

October, 2010 at BVIEER, Pune. The following members of the WGEEP were present: 






6. Shri B.J. Krishnan Member 




2. Dr. R. V. Verma 

3. Dr. (Mrs.) Ligia Noronha 

4. Dr. P.L. Gautam 

5. Prof. S.P. Gautam 

6. Dr. K.N. Ganeshaiah 

Dr. Erach Barucha, Director, BVEERI; Dr. S. N. Prasad, SACON; Dr. Shamita, BVIEER; Sh. 

Ashok D’Costa, Turbosketch, Goa; Sh. Manish Kale, C-DAC, Pune and Sh. G. S. Pujari, 

NRSC, ISRO were also present in the meeting. Shri Neeraj Khatri (Deputy Director, MoEF) 

was also present during the meeting. 


following which the agenda items were taken up individually for discussion. 


a) Review of progress of website, geographical delimitation of Western Ghats and project 

on level of ecosensitivity along Western Ghats 

The Panel reviewed the progress achieved on the website, and geographical delimitation of 

Western Ghats. The Panel was of the opinion that the progress achieved was satisfactory. 

Professor Madhav Gadgil, Chairman, WGEEP, stressed the importance of mapping of 

ecologically sensitive areas in Western Ghats. The Chairman requested Dr. S.N. Prasad, 

SACON to make a presentation on ecologically sensitive / significant and salient areas of 

Western Ghats stressing on the proposed protocols and methodologies. 

256


Dr. Prasad discussed the criteria for demarcating ecologically sensitive areas and the 

division of areas into grids of suitable size depending upon the database available and the 

vastness of the area. 

The Chairman stated that rate of change of degradation/transformation and other changes 

may be predicted from the satellite images of the 70s and 80s and the level of persistence 

may reflect how changes took place. Dr. Renee Borges suggested that changes in land use 

pattern, vegetation and agricultural practices may also reflect the trend of change. 

Dr. V.S. Vijayan remarked that levels of resilience depend on the levels of disturbance 

which in many cases are not known adequately. He observed that the grid size explained by 

Dr. Prasad during his presentation was too large, approximately 8100 ha (5’ x 5’) and in 

many cases there will not be any data at all and, in some cases the data available will be too 

few to determine their priority for conservation. He further explained that after all we are 

not laying the grids and collecting data via a statistical design, but laying the grids and 

putting onto them whatever data that are available. 

Dr. Vijayan suggested that we could adopt two approaches for identifying the ESA, namely 

(1) based on the matrix of ecological, geological, climatic and socio-cultural characteristics 

and (2) areas which require no further information for declaring as ESA, i.e. those which are 

known for their biodiversity richness and ecological as well as environmental significance. 

The Panel requested Dr. Vijayan to provide a brief write-up on the methodology which as 

submitted by him is given below 

The panel resolved to adopt the following two-way approach for the identification of ESAs. 

Approach-I 

Areas which are known for their ecological values 

1. All shola forests along with the grasslands and surrounding ecosystems 

2. All forests contiguous with the PAs depending on the area 

3. All habitat corridors, 

4. Catchments of the origin of all rivers 

5. Catchments and riverine vegetation of all the rivers originating from the Western 

Ghats up to the borders of the Western Ghats 

6. Steep and degraded slopes 

7. Sacred groves 

8. Areas known for endemic, endangered species 

9. Forests and degraded forests on the slopes 

10. Wetlands 

11. All Protected Areas 

12. Hill Stations 

13. Areas with history of landslides and those prone to landslides 

257


Approach-II 

Identifying and prioritising ESA based on a matrix of biological, geo-climatic and socio-cultural values 

1. Biological values would include: biodiversity richness, species rarity, taxon rarity, habitat 

richness, productivity, ecological resilience, and colonial breeding sites. 

2. Geo-climatic values will cover: topographic features (slope, altitude, aspect etc), climatic 

features (precipitation, number of wet days) and hazard vulnerability (land slide, fire etc) 

3. Socio- Cultural values will cover: stake-holders’ perceptions on ESAs, evolutionaryhistorical 

values and cultural-historical values of the area. 

These matrices will be developed by the WGEEP based on the available information 

superimposed on each of the 5’ x 5’ grids covering the entire Western Ghats. The grid 

getting the highest score will be considered as ecologically highly significant while the 

lowest less significant. 

The areas identified as ESA under Approach-I would also be covered under Approach-II. 

However, if any of those areas get a lower value under the grid system, the decision under 

Approach–I would prevail and such areas would be subjected to further investigations of 

their values. 

Professor Madhav Gadgil remarked that the list of criteria for areas which are known for 

their ecological values provided by Dr Vijayan has large overlap with the criteria proposed 

by the Pronab Sen committee. WGEEP may therefore employ all Pronab Sen committee 

criteria, along with any additional criteria suggested by Dr Vijayan. 

Mrs. Vidya Nayak recommended that technical people must also be included in the 

stakeholders for additional information or detailed information. Dr. R. Sukumar expressed 

his views about the vulnerability of ecosystems and drew attention to forest fires and the 

frequency of such fires. Further, he stressed that ownership of land should have no bearing 

on identification of ecologically sensitive areas. 

The Panel recommended that to maintain heterogeneity, 5′×5' grids are more suitable units. 

Further, it was also suggested that Forest Survey of India be contacted to get any database 

and maps related to the Western Ghats with forest types. 

It was decided that Dr. Sukumar shall write letters to the Forest Survey of India, Deccan 

Council of Agricultural Research, Mysore and French Institute for various maps and 

databases. 

Further, it was discussed to have images with reference to species and biodiversity data. It 

was opined that for vegetation 5'×5' grids are not suitable, hence the combination of various 

grids can be used for validation of plants for which 3.5’x 3.5’ may be used. 

The Chairman was of the opinion that one of the objectives of the Panel must be to improve 

the quality of information. 

He informed the members about submission and web publication of the paper ‘Mapping 

Ecologically Sensitive, Significant, and Salient Areas of Western Ghats: Proposed Protocols 

and Methodology’ in Current Science. This was done so that wider response can be generated 

from the scientific community in India. 

Dr. Bharucha stressed on individual information with respect to vegetation, endangered 

species and wetlands. He opined that river catchments and reservoirs have different types of 

ecologically sensitive areas and these may be categorized region-wise. 

258


b) Proposal to commission Dr. H.C. Sharatchandra to undertake a review of Carrying 

Capacity of Ratnagiri-Sindhudurg Districts 

The proposal of Dr. Sharatchandra on ‚Assessment of Impacts of Urbanization in Konkan 

Region covering the districts of Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg‛ at a total cost of Rs. 11.95 Lakhs 

for a duration of three months that was submitted to MoEF for financial assistance was 

placed before the Panel. The Panel was informed by the Member Secretary that the Principal 

Investigator has sought emoluments at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh/month for three months. It was 

also proposed in the proposal to hire two external experts with monthly emoluments of Rs. 

40,000/-. The Member Secretary informed the members of the Panel that the present 

proposal of Dr. Sharatchandra was not in conformity with the available research guidelines 

of the Ministry. Hence, it was not possible to get administrative and financial approval for 

the Project. 

The Panel opined that if the proposal does not meet the guidelines of the MoEF, then the 

Chairman may be requested to ask BVIEER to undertake the proposed project as per the 

norms of MoEF. The Panel also suggested that the Panel should go ahead with its work even 

if the project has not been able to take off. 

c) Status of Commissioned papers. Commissioning of a paper on EIA by Ritwick Dutta 

and his colleagues at EIA Resource and Response Centre (ERC) Western Ghats Cell 

(http://www.ercindia.org) and commissioning Dr. Ribeiro to undertake a study of the 

urbanization of the Western Ghats 

The Panel decided that Shri Ritwick Dutta and his colleagues would be requested to write a 

paper on Environmental Impact Assessment and related issues. Dr. Sukumar would send a 

formal invitation in this regard to Shri Ritwick Dutta. Further, it was also suggested to invite 

Shri Edgar Riberio to prepare a commissioned paper on the urbanization of the Western 

Ghats as Dr. Riberio has prepared the Goa Master Plan. 

d) It was finalized to commission site visits to Amby Valley and Lavasa City projects and the 

stretch between Mumbai and Mahableshwar-Panchgani by Shri Edgar Riberio. To facilitate 

the same, Dr. Bharucha may provide the logistic support and Dr. Shamita/ Kranti of BVEERI 

may accompany Sh Ribeiro on these visits. 

d) Gundia hydroelectric project: assessment of EIA by Dr. M.D. Subhash Chandran 

Regarding Gundia project, the following observation were made: (i) The EIA reports were 

very defective and (ii) Dr. Subhash Chandran may be requested to do the evaluation of the 

EIA report of Gundia Hydroelectric Power Project, on the same lines as he has agreed for the 

Athirappilly project. 

Dr. Sukumar suggested that WGEEP should not take up any more such EIA projects in 

future which the Chairman agreed. It was also decided that any new or old project shall be 

kept pending till the final report of the panel is completed and published. Regarding the 

Athirappilly project, the Panel was of the opinion that more site visits are required before 

the final recommendations are made. 

Furthermore, the Chairman added that recommendations of the Panel on these Proposals 

will be given only after the analysis of the Panel on ecologically sensitive areas in the 

Western Ghats is complete. The Panel will give recommendations regarding these projects 

based upon the analysis of ecological sensitivity and its criteria. 

259


2) Reporting Items 

a) Discussion with Secretary (Environment) and other officials of Government of 

Maharastra on 30/9/2010 and site visit to Sindhudurg districts 

The Chairman made the following observations regarding his discussions with Secretary 

(Environment) and other officials of Government of Maharastra on 30/9/2010 and the site 

visit to Sindhudurg districts. 

(i) The discussion with Secretary (Environment) and other officials from the state 

government of Maharastra was very fruitful. The state government officials explained the 

government’s perspective on various issues related to development in the Western Ghats 

region especially in the Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg region. 

(ii) During the visit to Ratnagiri, Chairman observed that inadequate monitoring was being 

carried out. District Level Environmental Committees at Ratnagiri were not formed. The 

local abhyas gat (study group) at Lote Chemical Industries Complex of MIDC was inactive. It 

was noted that the abhyas gat was formed in 2006, only two meetings have been held so far, 

and the Common Effluent Treatment Plant is not working properly. In some cases, the 

effluents are being discharged into the ground water by borewells or transported by tankers 

to dump in nearby ponds. 

(iii) It was observed that local people participated actively during the field visits of the 

Chairman, WGEEP. During the field visits the severe environmental degradation of 

Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts was also discussed with special emphasis on the ENRON 

Thermal Power Plant and Ratnagiri Gas Power Project. 

(iv) The Chairman informed the Panel members about the perception of local people on 

ecologically sensitive areas. He mentioned that in Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts, 22 

villages unanimously resolved that these may be notified as ecologically sensitive areas. 

On the other hand the Zilla Parishad of Kolhapur has passed a resolution that no part of 

their area shall be declared as an ecologically sensitive area. 

3) Discussion items 

a) Mining 

The Panel discussed the various points raised by both the Goa Foundation and the 

Federation of Indian Minerals Industries (FIMI) Southern Region. It particularly noted two 

of the points raised by the latter that (a) if minerals are not extracted, the worth of mother 

earth is the same as mud and, (b) declare the present sanctuaries and parks as eco-sensitive 

areas and leave the rest of the Western Ghats for development activities. 

The panel also noted that during its Goa visit, the panel could visit only one mining site and 

that there is a need for assessing other mining areas in the State before the panel make its 

observations/suggestions. The Panel constituted a team consisting of the following members 

for the same: (i) B. J. Krishnan, (ii) Dr. Ligia Noronha, and (iii) Dr. V. S. Vijayan. 

b) Ground water issues 

The Panel requested Dr. Renee Borges to follow up on the commissioned paper on Ground 

water issues. 

c) Social perceptions relating to ESAs 

The Panel deliberated upon the social perceptions of Ecologically Sensitive Areas at length. 

260


4) Decisions Needed 

a) Future site visits 

The Panel decided that the site visit to the Athirappilly Project needs to be undertaken 

before the recommendations on the project site are finalized. It was decided that the site visit 

would be undertaken during December/January. It was decided that the Panel will request 

Shri Edgar Riberio to undertake site visits to Amby Valley and Lavasa city projects and also 

to the stretch between Mumbai and Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani. To facilitate the visits the 

Panel requested Dr. Erach Bharucha to provide logistic support. The Panel also requested 

Dr. Shamita Kumar/ Kranti Yardi, BVIEER to accompany Sh Ribeiro on the site visit. 

b) Future brainstorming sessions 

It was further decided that a full day brainstorming session on ‘Role of power sector in the 

development of the Western Ghats’ would be held on 18th November at Centre for 

Ecological Sciences, IISc Bengaluru, wherein the government sector as well as the private 

sector would be invited. It was also decided to hold a half-day brainstorming session on 

‘Joint Forest Management’ on 19th November at Centre for Ecological Sciences, IISc 

Bengaluru. 

The Panel decided that the next meeting of WGEEP would be held on 19th November 2010 

at IISc, Bengaluru. 


261


Summary Record of Public Consultation with Civil Society, Industry and Government of 

Maharastra held on 28th October 2010 at Bharati Vidyapeeth Institute of Environmental 

Education and Research, Pune 

The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) held a Public Consultation with civil 

society, industry and the Government of Maharastra on 28 October 2010 at Bharati 

Vidyapeeth Institute of Environmental Education and Research (BVIEER), Pune. 

1) Dr. Shamita Kumar, BVIEER, Pune welcomed Professor Madhav Gadgil, Chairman, 

WGEEP, and members of WGEEP to the Public Consultation on the northern Western 

Ghats. She also welcomed the officials of the government of Maharashtra and the 

participants to the Public Consultation. She informed the participants that BVIEER had 

done a study and prepared a discussion paper on the Ecological Status of the northern 

Western Ghats and Identification of Potential Ecologically Sensitive Areas in the Region. 

2) Professor Madhav Gadgil thanked the Participants who had come for the public 

consultation. This was followed by a round of introduction. The Chairman opined that the 

participants represent a wide cross section of the society including representatives from 

government, voluntary groups and students. He was happy to note that a few people from 

rural areas were also present at the Public Consultation. He hoped that there would be a 

vigorous discussion on various issues related with the northern Western Ghats. 

Chairman highlighted the following two major tasks, which have been assigned to the 

WGEEP: (i) identify Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESA) in the Western Ghats and determine 

how to manage them, and (ii) to propose a management strategy for the Western Ghats 

which is environment-friendly. To fulfill these tasks, WGEEP has undertaken a range of 

activities, one of them being commissioning a study and discussion paper by BVIEER on the 

Ecological Status of the northern Western Ghats which are spread across from the Gujarat 

Dangs to Goa. He informed the members that BVIEER has prepared a background 

document which has been uploaded on their website so that people can be exposed to this 

information and can comment on it. He also welcomed remarks from the participants. 

Professor Madhav Gadgil said that the opinions regarding ecologically sensitive areas are 

highly polarized with some sections of the society supporting the concept while other 

sections opposing the concept of ESAs. He gave the example of Kodagu wherein the local 

people wanted Kodagu to be declared as an eco-sensitive area. On the other hand, the 

Kolhapur Zilla Parishad does not want Kolhapur to be declared as an eco-sensitive area. He 

stressed the fact that in the past notifications of Ecologically Sensitive Areas have followed a 

top-down approach wherein the government, judiciary or activist groups led the notification 

process of an ESA without consulting the local people of the area. He gave examples of 

where recent government and judicial actions on ESAs met with resentment at local level. 

He said that WGEEP was considering and deliberating upon the criteria to identify 

ecologically sensitive areas and the various management options available for their 

management. The Chairman highlighted the fact that WGEEP wanted greater participation 

of the local people in the process of notification of ecologically sensitive areas and that local 

bodies and local people are taken on board while making management plans for these areas. 

He highlighted the fact that the recent intent notification by the Government on declaration 

of Dhandi as an ecologically sensitive area was different in spirit as compared to earlier 

notifications. 

262


He stressed that the new approach to ecologically sensitive areas was to make 

environmental protection a participatory activity where local people have an active role in it. 

He said that the Public Consultation would focus on potential ecologically sensitive areas in 

Gujarat, Maharastra and Goa. 

3) Dr Erach Bharucha gave a presentation on the discussion paper prepared by BVIEER on 

the Ecological Status of the northern Western Ghats and the identification of potential 

ecologically sensitive areas in the region. Dr. Bharucha recollected his long association with 

the northern Western Ghats and the various ways in which BVIEER is intimately related to 

this segment of Western Ghats though its activities of environmental education and 

research. He stressed that the Western Ghats is a living laboratory. He said that in his 

presentation he would highlight the process used for preparing the report. He outlined the 

structure of the report which included (i) concepts of ecological sensitivity – the different 

ways of thinking involved, (ii) effects of threats on the northern Western Ghats, (iii) 

planning for ESAs which includes categorization of ESAs and prioritizing ESAs, (iv) 

implementing ESAs including conservation planning and corridoring existing important 

areas of biodiversity, and (v) judicial implications of ESAs. 

Dr. Bharucha highlighted the fact that the northern Western Ghats are a hotspot of 

biodiversity and are under tremendous anthropogenic pressure due to which they are 

undergoing rapid changes. He stressed that the northern Western Ghats is the most 

threatened region of the Western Ghats. Furthermore, the problem is compounded by the 

fact that the information available on this region is very scarce and is not much publicized. 

On the contrary he said that lots of information is available on the Western Ghats region 

south of Goa. He said that there is an urgent need for formulating a development strategy 

for the region as these areas are multiple-use areas with great ecological value. He informed 

the members that parts of the Western Ghats region have been traditionally protected due to 

cultural practices; these areas included sacred groves, origin of rivers, and hill top temples. 

He highlighted the fact that the term ecologically sensitive area has been used loosely. He 

detailed the chronology of major events in the development of the concept of ecologically 

sensitive areas. Dr. Bharucha elaborated upon the significant threat factors to the northern 

Western Ghats (NWG) which included (i) extensive wasteful road network, (ii) intensiveness 

of agriculture, (iii) new township development, (iv) intensive tourism, and (v) invasive 

species. According to him one of the major effects of these threats was that the pristine 

vegetation of the northern Western Ghats would become patchy and the natural resources 

may also be annihilated. He said that in NWG, areas which can be classified as ecologically 

sensitive could be categorized into three groups viz. (i) protected areas, (ii) buffers of 

protected areas, and (iii) hill stations as ecologically sensitive areas. According to the study 

of BVIEER the proposals for future ecologically sensitive areas include (i) reserve and 

protected forests, (ii) village forests, (iii) catchments of rivers and (iv) catchments of dams, 

and (v) Important Bird Areas in and outside Protected Areas. He also highlighted the need 

to conserve specialized highly fragile ecosystems which may be very small but are extremely 

important. For example, sacred groves, old growth forests, plateau tops, valleys, and 

waterfalls. 

He presented a framework for prioritizing ecologically sensitive areas using a GIS format. In 

the framework, relative weights are given to ecological characteristics of an area and also to 

the threats to the ecology of that area. Features such as species richness, habitats of 

threatened species, and animal corridors are also taken into account. This leads to 

categorization of an area based on ecological sensitivity into robust, sensitive, highly 

263


sensitive and fragile. The ecologically important areas are then plotted on a taluka-wise 

map. He mentioned that no portion of the northern Western Ghats can be classified as 

‚robust‛. Based upon the threats to the ecology of an area, a disturbance index for each area 

was calculated which was used to map threat levels on a taluka-wise map. 

In the end, Dr. Bharucha stated that for successful implementation of the concept of 

ecologically sensitive areas, people’s participation is a must. 

4) After the presentation Professor Madhav Gadgil thanked Dr. Bharucha for a lucid 

exposition of the process of preparing the report by BVIEER. He said that a solid 

information base should be developed which should be used to arrive at an informed 

decision. He informed the participants that WGEEP has a limited mandate and it will 

provide background information to the proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority. He also 

stressed the need for reports and documents to be made available in the local language, in 

the present case Marathi. 

5) Professor Vijay Paranjape made a presentation on developmental pressures on the 

northern Western Ghats. He pointed out that to understand the effects of developmental 

pressures it is important to understand the nature of pressure and whether anything can be 

done to mitigate the pressure. Furthermore, he said that his presentation would focus on the 

effects of threats on the last 3 criteria mentioned in the Pronab Sen Committee report. These 

criteria basically relate to the geo-morphological features of the Western Ghats. This is so 

because the major development projects have physical impacts on land and water systems. 

He pointed out the Mumbai-Thane-Pune-Nashik belt in the northern Western Ghats is the 

economic growth engine of the country and is a high growth centre. The land prices in this 

region are very high which has resulted in MIDC and promoters of SEZ to look for areas 

where land is cheap. These areas are more often than not ecologically sensitive areas. He 

mentioned that it has to be understood what is meant by sensitivity and the sensitivity is to 

what. He elaborated that when we talk about sensitivity we imply vulnerability to human 

interference. 

Professor Paranjape futher mentioned that we are following the non-sustainable 

development path. He gave example of the number of roads that cut across the Western 

Ghats. He pointed out that the major function of these roads is to connect the coast to 

peninsular India. Furthermore, these roads not only open avenues for development of an 

area but are also used as medium for draining the resources of the area. He drew the parallel 

of the British Raj when roads were constructed to drain resources. Though he mentioned 

that roads can be used for draining resources he also emphasized the fact that they have 

definitive positive effects on the development of an area such as better connectivity and 

education. 

Professor Paranjape called the Western Ghats the ‚Water Towers‛ of Peninsular India. He 

elaborated this by saying that the Western Ghats spread over a length of 1600 km with a 

width of 30 km have a huge catchement area. This with a dense forest cover makes them a 

very important water source. He highlighted the fact that in 1990 there were 49 dams which 

have now gone up to 63 in 2010. Further, he pointed out that there is no valley in the 

northern Western Ghats which does not have a dam. 

He pointed out these dams have given an opportunity to private developers which now 

want to purchase land next to the dams reservoir as it provides a scenic view of the 

reservoir. To get this land private developers have made a case by saying that they are 

developing new tourist resorts which would, when developed, take away pressures from 

tourist places such as Matheran, Panchgani, and Mahabaleshwar. He further explained that 

264


these private developers have been able to get vast tracts of land to the extent of 1000 ha 

which included forest land, ‚watan land‛– land belonging to the local tribal community. 

This, he said, was made possible by a series of Government of Maharastra notifications 

which facilitated this transfer. He gave examples of Amby valley and Lavasa in this regard. 

He further emphasized the fact that this kind of new urbanization and tourism development 

is not in the interest of common people and is a major threat to the ecology of the northern 

Western Ghats. He said these developments are for the elite in society. Furthermore, such 

activities are damaging the ecology of the Western Ghats by cutting down vast tracts of 

forests and increasing soil erosion. 

He contrasted this by mentioning that Matheran has been a tourist resort for common 

people since 1850. Nearly 16,50,000 common people visit Matheran annually. He highlighted 

the case of Mahabaleshwar and Panchgani where the 52 villages want tourists to come so 

they can earn their livelihood. He said village-based tourism needs to be encouraged. He 

said the villagers should be made proud of their heritage and made to plan their own 

development plans. In Mahabaleshwar 16 different occupation committees have been 

formed which regulate their own occupation activities. 

He said the local people should be made to appreciate the concept of ecologically sensitive 

area and this can be done by more people-to-people contact. He also stressed the need of 

translating government notifications into Marathi so that the people can understand what is 

written in them. He pointed out that the main thing which needs to be done is to reduce the 

vulnerability of the areas. 

He gave another example wherein 23 villages were relocated when Pawana Dam was built. 

These villages demanded water from the Dam; out of the 23 villages only two villages have 

been given water while the rest of the water was diverted to Pimpri-Chinchawad industrial 

estate. He said such kind of development can in no way be called people-centric 

development. 

6) Professor Sukumar, Member, WGEEP, enquired about the legal status of land before it 

was given to Lavasa. Professor Paranjape replied that the land given to Lavasa included 

forest land, irrigation land, social forestry land, agricultural land and watan land or tribal 

land. 

Professor Paranjape highlighted the fact that presently the whole swathe of land with 

Lavasa is denuded and lacks vegetation cover. He said Lavasa will become green but not 

with native species. 

7) After his talk, Prof Paranjape commented upon the notion of Carrying Capacity of an 

area. He said that the results of Carrying Capacity studies depend upon the assumptions 

which are made and with relation to which resource Carrying Capacity is being estimated. 

He further highlighted the issue of how village people cannot make a structured 

development plan in the conventional sense. The local villagers are aware of their needs 

based upon which they can make a different kind of development plan which is targeted 

towards fulfilling needs. He said that there is difference between an official plan and the 

villagers’ perspective on planning. 

7) Dr. Archana Godbole highlighted the fact that the time of one month given by WGEEP is 

too short for the villagers of Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg to be able to develop their 

development plans. Professor Madhav Gadgil explained to the participants that WGEEP has 

requested the Gram Sabhas to give what they visualize as their development objectives, with 

a focus on management of ecologically sensitive areas, and not a development plan. This 

265


was done with an aim to trigger the process of people’s involvement in development 

planning. He further clarified that the elements of the plan can come from people’s 

suggestions. 

8) Dr. Farooq Wadia informed the participants on the brief history of the Mahabaleshwar 

ecologically sensitive area. He said that there was deforestation happening in 

Mahabaleshwar and Panchgani following which the Bombay Environment Action Group 

initiated the proposal for declaring Mahabaleshwar as an ESA and also formulated the 

regional plan of the area. Following this, the Committee set up by the MoEF for the 

Ecologically Sensitive Area has made a significant contribution towards the 2 nd regional plan 

for the region. 

9) Professor V.B. Mathur, Dean, Wildlife Institute of India, gave a presentation on the Serial 

Nomination of the Western Ghats for inscription on the World Heritage List to the WGEEP. 

He gave a brief overview about the World Heritage Convention, and that it is a unique legal 

instrument for protection of the cultural and natural landscape. He mentioned that the 

natural heritage included physical and biological formations. He informed the Panel 

members that there are 911 world heritage sites. He also outlined the criteria for inscription 

on the World Heritage List. The Western Ghats region has been chosen for nomination 

under the natural heritage category. The Western Ghats fulfill two important criteria for 

nomination to the World Heritage list. These two criteria are (i) outstanding example of 

significant ongoing ecological and biological processes and (ii) most important and 

significant natural habitats for in situ conservation of biological diversity. He informed the 

members that nominations under natural heritage sites are evaluated by IUCN, while 

nominations for cultural sites are evaluated by ICOMOS. He said that for serial nomination 

of the Western Ghats as World Heritage Sites, the sites selected were chosen from Protected 

Areas i.e. Wildlife Sanctuaries and National parks from different Western Ghats states. 

Professor Mathur detailed the methodology adopted for the purpose. He mentioned that 

Gujarat and Goa were hesitant in putting up their Protected Areas for nomination. He 

informed that recently a team for IUCN was in India to evaluate the proposals for 

inscription to the World Heritage List. It was pointed out that the IUCN team and officials of 

Karanataka Forest Department faced a hostile public reaction in Kodagu. Professor Madhav 

Gadgil highlighted that people’s participation is a must for conservation efforts to be 

successful. He said that State Forest Departments should take note of this. Prof. Mathur said 

that, besides the honour and recognition, the importance of being inscribed on the World 

Heritage list is direct and indirect financial benefits which can be used for conservation and 

the development of local communities. 

10) Dr. Savarkar, Former Director, Wildlife Institute of India gave a talk on the notion of 

ecologically sensitive areas and their management. He said the main intention of his talk is 

to provoke the gathering and make the deliberations more participatory. He commented 

upon the suggestion made by Dr. Bharucha on corridoring Protected Areas of the Western 

Ghats. He said that the definitions of corridors are very varied. He pointed out that there is a 

management system to look into buffers of protected areas. 

He said that the process of village-level planning which has been suggested as one of the 

methods for management of Ecologically Sensitive Areas can be emulated from the 

ecodevelopment planning projects. He informed the members in these projects micro 

planning at village level has been successfully carried out by State Forest Departments. He 

also stressed the need for capacity building at village level institutions to undertake these 

planning initiatives. He pointed out that monitoring at ground level is of paramount 

266


importance. This can help in carrying out mid-course corrections. He pointed out that the 

state Forest Departments have a planning process which is nearly 130 years old and now the 

new mandate for the forest sector is preservation of biological diversity. 

Professor Madhav Gadgil clarified that planning needs for ecodevelopment projects and 

ecologically sensitive area are different. The WGEEP can make a mention in its report that 

planning for ecologically sensitive area is a long-term process and the plan can be 

formulated in one or two years. 

After this Prof Paranjape, Dr Savarkar, and Dr. Bharucha chaired the session designated for 

interaction with the participants. The following issues emerged: 

a) Cumulative effects of projects need to be considered rather than evaluating them on an 

individual basis. The example was given of micro- and mini-hydel projects below 5 MW 

which do not require an EIA or environmental clearance but if many projects come near by 

each other there could be a significant impact. 

b) The issue of declaring 10 km area around Protected Areas as ecologically sensitive areas 

was highlighted. Participants were concerned as to what would happen to the people living 

in these areas; will they be relocated? It was clarified by the Chairs of the session that no 

displacement of people would be required. Declaration of ecologically sensitive areas would 

bar only environmentally unsound activities. They said buffer areas and ecologically 

sensitive areas are multiple use areas. Professor Madhav Gadgil clarified that graded 

regulations would be put in place for the management of ecologically sensitive areas to 

reduce the level of conflict. 

c) The development of Regional Plans and the planning process in Ecologically Sensitive 

Areas was discussed. Dr Bharucha said regional plans are sometimes insensitive to ecology 

and show much greater concern for urban development. With reference to the participation 

of local villagers in planning process, a mention was made that villagers do not have a 

sectoral perspective towards planning since they look at issues as a whole. It was felt that a 

certain level of facilitation and capacity building would be required for microplanning with 

villagers. 

Dr. G.V. Subrahmanyam pointed out that after declaration of an Ecologically Sensitive Area, 

the Zonal Master Plan has to be developed within a period of two years . Professor Madhav 

Gadgil clarified that even though the state government is involved in this planning, the 

Constitution of India has now empowered village bodies to make their own plans. Such an 

exercise has been done in Kerala. Dr. Vijayan pointed out that in Kerala there is a Centre for 

Local Self-Government which trains Panchayat Heads on how to make development plans. 

This helps in getting the notion of development from bottom-up and not from top-down. 

The issue of integration of different village plans was also discussed. 

d) It was suggested that in the given scenario of rapid urbanization in the northern Western 

Ghats, especially in areas near Pune, there is an urgent need to restrict development of land 

by a Government Policy. The city fringe has become a zone of development. The city 

dwellers are purchasing village lands and developing them. It was felt that while evolving 

any policies on restriction of certain activities it has to be kept in mind that people who have 

preserved their natural resources should not be punished. 

e) The management strategy for private forests in Ecologically Sensitive Areas was also 

discussed. It was felt that the owners of private forests should be compensated in some 

measure through conservation service charge as has been done in Costa Rica. 

267


f) The importance of the northern Western Ghats being a hotspot of biodiversity was 

highlighted. It was pointed out that there are 26 micro centres of biological evolution in this 

region. It was highlighted that the Panchgani lateritic plateau is a type locality of many 

species. Further, the fact that certain areas of northern Western Ghats such as Dhapoli in 

Ratnagiri District are repositories and archives of fossils was also highlighted. 

g) The Chairs of this session concluded by saying that to effectively implement the concept 

of ecologically sensitive areas there has to be a common frame of reference for different 

Government Departments. Furthermore, there has to be integration between various 

Government Departments. There has to be a cohesive association between different citizens 

groups working in the northern Western Ghats as is the case in Southern Western Ghats so 

that more results are delivered. Government orders and notifications need to be simplified 

so that local people can understand and make use of them. 

h) Finally, it was pointed out by the Chairman, WGEEP, that the role of WGEEP was to 

collate information and provide recommendations to the Government on Ecologically 

Sensitive Areas. It was envisaged that there would be a seamless transition from WGEEP to 

the Western Ghats Ecology Authority. 

At the end of the Public Consultation Professor Madhav Gadgil, Chairman, WGEEP, 

thanked the participants for coming to this meeting. He also thanked BVIEER and its faculty, 

staff and students for organization of this Public Consulation. 

Dr. Shamita Kumar, Vice President, BVIEER, proposed a formal vote of thanks to the 

WGEEP and the participants in the Public Consultation. 

268


Minutes of the Eighth Meeting of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) held 

at the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, on 19 November 2010 

The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel met on 19 th November 2010 at Indian Institute of 

Science, Bengaluru. 

The following members were present:- 









Chairman 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 


Dr. P.L. Gautam, Chairman, National Biodiversity Authority; Dr. R.R. Navalgund, Director, 

Space Application Centre, Ahmedabad; Prof. S P Gautam, Chairman, Central Pollution 

Control Board; Dr. R. Sukumar, IISc. Bengaluru; Dr. R.V. Verma, Chairman, Kerala 

Biodiversity Board; Dr. D.K. Subramaniam, IISc, Bengaluru; all Members of the Panel could 

not attend the meeting. Dr. Amit Love, (Deputy Director, MoEF) was also present during 

the meeting. 


following which the agenda items were taken up individually for discussion. 


a) Review of progress of website, geographical delimitation of Western Ghats and project on level of 

ecosensitivity along the Western Ghats 

The Chairman informed the members that the Panel website had some problems of effective 

navigation and search options. Dr. Ganeshsiah, who is the nodal person managing the Panel 

website, informed the Panel members that these problems have now been rectified. 

b) Proposal to commission Dr. H.C. Sharatchandra to undertake a review of Carrying Capacity of 

Ratnagiri-Sindhudurg Districts 

Dr. G.V. Subrahmanyam, Member Secretary, WGEEP, informed the Panel that the proposal 

of Dr. Sharatchandra in the present form was not according to the Research Guidelines of 

the Ministry. The honorarium proposed by Dr. Sharatchandra was also not in accordance 

with the guidelines. Hence, the Ministry would not be able to support the project. The Panel 

noted the inability of the Ministry to fund the proposal in the present form and decided to 

drop the proposal. 

c) Status of commissioned papers 

The Panel was informed that most of the experts, who had been contacted to prepare 

commissioned papers for the Panel, have agreed. Of the total commissioned papers, IISc had 

269


received 22 papers from different authors till date. The Panel was informed that 20 papers 

have already been uploaded on the website of the Panel. 

d) Proposed study by Shri Ribeiro pertaining to urbanization of Western Ghats 

The Chairman, WGEEP, informed the Panel that Shri Ribeiro, a senior town planner, would 

undertake a study on the urbanization of the Western Ghats region between Mumbai and 

Mahabaleshwar. For this he would undertake site visits of the region from 28 November 

2010 to 1 December 2010. Shri Riberio would give his suggestions on issues related to 

urbanization after the site visits. BVIEER has kindly agreed to provide logistical support for 

the site visit. The budget for the site visits would be met from the funds released by the 

MoEF to IISc. 

2) Discussion items 

a & b) Mining & social perceptions relating to ESAs 

Dr. Ligia Noronha, Member (WGEEP) gave a brief presentation on the mining sector in Goa 

with specific focus on the management regimes and environmental effects of mining. She 

also covered the issue of demarcation of ecologically sensitive areas around the protected 

areas in Goa. Professor Madhav Gadgil suggested that broad suggestions on issues related 

to mining could be incorporated into the regional development strategy. He also suggested 

that with reference to developmental activities we should recommend the process and not 

the exact targets. He also said that usage of available information should be made. Shri B.J 

Krishnan mentioned that mining is a destructive activity and the Panel should help in 

rejuvenation of the Western Ghats. Dr. Vijayan emphasized that mining also has severe 

negative impacts on biodiversity of the area. The Panel decided to take a final view on the 

matter after the site visit by Dr Vijayan and Shri B.J. Krishnan to the mines. 

Following the discussion on mining, Dr. Vijayan raised the issue of identification of 

ecologically sensitive areas and the methodology adopted for the same. Dr. Vijayan brought 

his write-up on the methodology for assessment of ESAs to the notice of the Panel. Professor 

Madhav Gadgil informed the members that as Dr Vijayan’s criteria had many things in 

common with the Pronab Sen Committee Criteria,.therefore each locality (grid) would be 

graded according to the methodology developed by the Panel and the Pronab Sen Criteria. 

This would lead to accommodation of the list of criteria given by Dr. Vijayan. He also 

stressed the fact that the Pronab Sen criteria would be properly scored. 

c) Reforming the EIA process 

The Chairman informed the panel members that as much of the debate in the Western Ghats 

involves major development activities it is timely that the Panel examines the environmental 

impact assessment process for these activities. 

Dr. H. C. Sharatchandra, former Chairman, Karnataka Pollution Control Board, gave a 

presentation to the panel on ‚EIA notification: Issues and Challenges‛. He divided his talk 

into two parts: (i) SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis of the 

EIA process and (ii) issues related to public participation. He covered the definition of EIA 

and the process and steps involved in the EIA. He also gave a brief chronology of the 

development of the EIA process in India. He informed the panel that the latest notification 

which is being used to undertake EIA is the 2006 notification of the Ministry. He said that 

the EIA process could be foolproof if we have well defined legal structure and a good 

regulatory structure. 

270


He highlighted the following lacunae in the current EIA process: (i) insufficient baseline 

environmental data, (ii) reliability of data in the EIA reports, (iii) kind and type of scoping, 

(iv) issues related with public consultation, and (v) cumulative versus individual effects of 

developmental activities. According to him, the decentralization of EIA process to SEAC 

(State Expert Appraisal Committee) and SEIAA (State Environmental Impact Assessment 

Authority) has led to increase in malpractices in the process. He suggested the following to 

strengthen the EIA process: (i) the the importance of EIA should be explained to industry in 

a proactive manner, (ii) information about the project and the EIA document should be 

given to the people well in time, (iii) vernacular languages should be used to communicate 

the environmental impacts of the developmental activity, and (iv) regional EIAs should be 

carried out to study cumulative impacts. 

After the presentation, Dr. G.V. Subrahmanyam, Advisor, MoEF and Member Secretary, 

WGEEP, explained to the Panel members in detail the genesis of the EIA notification of 2006 

and the broad principles on which the notification is based. Dr. Ligia Noronha said that the 

role of SPCB is central in the EIA process. Professor Madhav Gadgil informed the members 

about his experiences with the EIA process. He stressed that it is of utmost importance to 

study and find out what happens at the ground level both before and after environmental 

clearances are given. He informed the Panel members that in certain cases the government 

officials are not aware as to what is happening at the ground level. Dr. Sharatchandra 

pointed out the lack of coordination between different governmental agencies involved in 

the regulation of the environment. Professor Madhav Gadgil said that lot is to be desired 

from the data presented in the EIA reports. 

d) Draft report of the study tour of Ratnagiri-Sindhudurg-Kolhapur Districts 

Professor Madhav Gadgil presented his draft tour report on Ratnagiri-Sindhudurg- 

Kolhapur Districts to the Panel. He briefed the Panel about the structure of the report, the 

methodology adopted and the main observations presented in the report. The Panel noted 

the contents of the report and approved it. The Panel also noted the contents of the letter 

from Dr. Archana Godbole to Shri Jairam Ramesh, Hon’ble Minister of State (I/C), 

Environment and Forests, regarding the conduct of WGEEP in undertaking study tours. The 

Panel suggested that since the Study Tour Report answers all the queries raised by Dr. 

Archana Godbole and the same would be uploaded on the MoEF website, a specific 

response to her may not be necessary. 

3. Decisions needed 

a) Next steps 

The Panel decided to have the next meeting of the Panel in Kerala from 27 th to 29 th of January 

2011. It was also decided that the Panel would visit the Athirappilly Hydroelectric Power 

Project site and have two brainstorming sessions on (i) water resources in the Western Ghats 

and (ii) local self-governance in the Western Ghats in Kerala during this period. The panel 

agreed to adhere to the stipulated time frame allotted by the MoEF. 


271


Summary Record of the Brainstorming Session on Role of Power Sector in Development 

of Western Ghats held at Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, on 18 November 2010 

Professor Madhav Gadgil, Chairman, Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) 

welcomed the participants to the brainstorming session on behalf of the WGEEP. He 

informed the participants that a whole range of issues including environmental, social and 

economic issues which are related with the power sector would be covered. 

He said that one of the concerns with respect to the environmental clearances given to 

power projects, which are located in close proximity to each other, is that the impacts of such 

power plants are considered on an individual basis, and not on a cumulative basis. He 

added that the topography of Western Ghats is such that pollutants generated by power 

plants can get concentrated in certain areas. He also pointed out that EIAs are deficient in 

important details and are carried out with a careless attitude. He informed the participants 

that the Panel would try to develop a perspective on what details are missed out during the 

EIA process. 

Professor Madhav Gadgil informed the participants that WGEEP aims to address two major 

issues, viz. (i) identification of ecologically sensitive areas and their management in the 

Western Ghats, and (ii) a regional development strategy for the Western Ghats. He further 

said that a methodology for the identification of ecologically sensitive areas in the Western 

Ghats has been put up on the website of the Panel and suggestions on it from the 

participants are welcome. Professor Gadgil also mentioned that WGEEP is also preparing a 

detailed database on Western Ghats Ecology, which would also be used for the identification 

of ecologically sensitive areas. 

Prof Madhav Gadgil said that the Panel is getting inputs from the local communities living 

in Western Ghats on what they think is important and needs to be preserved. He highlighted 

the case of lateritic plateaus found in Maharastra, Goa and North Karanataka. These 

plateaus are one of the richest in terms of endemic herbaceous species in India but EIA 

studies would mention these plateaus are barren. The reason is that EIAs are carried out 

during the dry season when the plateau lacks vegetation. He said the local people of these 

plateaus in Maharastra have written poems in Marathi which describe the rich wealth of 

these areas but this rich biodiversity is never reflected in EIAs. He said these inputs could be 

got from local people. 

In the broader context of developing a regional development strategy, brainstorming 

sessions on important sectors such as power, mining etc. are being held. The present session 

would focus on the context in which power development in the Western Ghats needs to take 

place. Finally, he said that the WGEEP would make recommendations, which would form 

the basis of the Western Ghats Ecology Authority. 

Professor Madhav Gadgil observed that there are participants from civil society, academics, 

public and private power companies and corporations. There was a round of introductions. 

Shri Y.B. Ramakrishna, Chairman, Biofuels Taskforce, Government of Karanataka, spoke on 

‚Meeting Energy Needs through Renewables and Demand Side Management: 

Various possibilities in Karnataka‛. He highlighted the fact that as a society we were 

refusing to leave old paradigms. He mentioned the fact that fossil fuels which are nonrenewable 

in nature, have driven the world economy in the last century. Further, he added 

that the use of fossil fuels have had an adverse impact on the environment. He informed the 

272


gathering about a new concept in measuring fossil fuel requirement – cubic mile of oil 

(CMO). According to recent estimates while humanity is consuming 1.06 cubic mile of 

oil/year, the proven oil reserves in the world are 43 CMO, the gas reserves are 42 CMO while 

the coal reserves come to about 122 CMO. He then elaborated on the fact that conversion 

technologies adopted in the past were not very efficient and that while the conversion 

efficiency was nearly 38 %, the rest of the energy was wasted. He stressed the fact that there 

is an urgent need to adopt conversion technologies which are more efficient. Shri 

Ramakrisha elaborated on the power scenario in Karnataka and highlighted the fact that the 

capacity utilization was very low. He stressed upon the fact that if there was proper 

utilization of the installed capacity there would be no deficiency of power. Shri Ramakrishna 

specifically commented upon micro- and mini-hydel projects. He said that the power lines 

which are needed to evacuate power from the plants lead to fragmentation of forest areas. 

According to him it would be meaningful to have micro- and mini-power projects which 

cater to local demand and not to the grid. Finally he covered the options available for power 

generation from renewable sources and presented an integrated plan to manage the power 

sector. Dr. A. K. Sharma, formerly at NTPC, enquired about the measures taken by the 

Karnataka Government on the energy efficiency front and the roadmap for use of alternate 

energy sources. Discussion took place on how demand forecasts are made based upon the 

rate of growth of GDP, use of energy efficiency measures and use of alternate energy 

sources. 

Shri Shankar Sharma, power policy analyst, spoke on the impact of power projects on the 

Western Ghats. At the outset, Shri Sharma pointed out that we should aim to protect all the 

ecologically sensitive areas of the country which include the Western Ghats, Eastern Ghats, 

wetlands, and forests of Central India. Otherwise we are not solving the problem but only 

postponing it. According to him development activity of the scale being discussed here has 

effects across the different regions. He said that the power sector development in the 

Western Ghats has done more harm than good. 

He mentioned that the impacts of conventional power plants could be categorized into 

economic, social and environmental costs. In his presentation he focused on the 

environmental costs. In the Western Ghats, the power generation infrastructure includes 

dams, thermal power plants, nuclear power plants and large-scale wind farms. He 

elaborated upon the environmental effects of the different types of power plants, the major 

one being loss of forest cover. He remarked upon the utility of the Green India Mission 

when deforestation is occurring due to the irrational development of the power sector. Shri 

Sharma further added that as a country we should look at per capita forest cover which is 

very low. He also summarized the role of the power sector in GHG (greenhouse gas) 

emissions. 

Shri Sharma highlighted the inequities in the distribution of power in the country and the 

inefficiencies in the power sector. He flagged the issue of high transmission and distribution 

losses. Further, he spelt out a future action plan for the power sector which included 

effective demand side management, highest possible level of energy efficiencies, optimal 

levels of energy conservation, and widespread use of distributed renewable energy sources. 

After the presentation, Dr. V.M. Shastri, JSW Energy, clarified that in the case of run-of-the 

river projects methane emissions are not an environmental problem. Dr. Shyam said that 

adequate safe guards are now put in place with respect to disposal of fly ash from coal-fired 

power plants. He also commented upon lack of evidence for reservoir-induced seismicity as 

presented by Shri Sharma. 

273


Professor J Srinivasan, Chairman, Divecha Centre for Climate Change, IISc, Bengaluru, 

spoke on the effect of air pollution on human health and the modelling of cumulative 

impacts of development projects on air quality. In his presentation, he covered issues related 

to air pollution and human health, aerosol dispersion, the Gaussian plume model, and 

dispersion of air pollutants. He also highlighted the use of models in prediction of the 

cumulative impacts of power plants on air quality. He covered these issues through various 

case studies. He also mentioned the environmental issues related with fly ash generated 

from coal-based power plants including radioactivity in fly ash. 

Dr P.J. Paul of Aerospace Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, 

gave a talk on the use of biomass for power generation. He said a mechanism needs to be 

developed for collection and utilization of agricultural residues effectively. The cost of 

power generated through agricultural residues is directly related to the cost of the 

agricultural residues. He mentioned that there is a non-formal mechanism for collection of 

agricultural biomass. He informed the participants about the amount of agricultural residue 

generated in Karnataka. He added that in Karnataka 1000 MW is produced from biomassbased 

power plants. Following the presentation a brief discussion took place on the use of 

biomass for power generation versus the alternative uses of biomass including its use as 

farmyard manure. 

Dr. P. Vethamony, National Insititute of Oceanography, gave a presentation on the effect of 

power plants on marine ecosystems. He said that industries have been set up both on the 

east and west coasts of India. These industries have become clustered in selected areas along 

the coast with the exception of Goa. Dr Vethamony said that due to the rapid pace of 

industrial development, assessment of singular or individual impact of projects is not 

reasonable. He gave example of the Gulf of Kutch where many industrial activities such as 

refineries, fertilized plants, and thermal power plants are being set up. He also highlighted 

the presence of the Marine National Park and Sanctuary on the southern coast of the Gulf of 

Kutch. He detailed the parameters which were monitored during the study carried out in 

the Gulf of Kutch. With reference to the proposed power plants, which are going to come 

up on the west coast, he elaborated upon a case study of one such power plant Finally, he 

provided typical oceanographic investigations which are required to be carried out for an 

impact assessment study of power plants . 

Dr. T.V. Ramachandra, CES, IISc, gave a presentation on the ‚Options for Energy Generation 

in Uttara Kanada District‛. In his presentation, Dr. Ramachandra gave an overview of the 

energy scenario in Karnataka explaining the sector-wise breakup, the present installed 

capacity and growth in the installed capacity. He outlined the methodology adopted for the 

estimation of solar energy, wind energy and bioenergy potential in Uttara Kanada. He 

highlighted the alternatives to establishment of mega power projects which included 

environmentally sound design, use of bioresources in power generation, micro/mini/small 

hydroprojects. He explained the concept of environmentally sound design using the Bedthi 

hydroelectric project. Following the presentation there was a discussion on how even after 

reducing the submergence area of a Dam the electricity production remained the same. 

Ashwin Gambhir, Energy Group, Prayas (Pune) gave a presentation on ‚Electricity Need 

and Future Outlook: Need for Mid-course Correction‛. At the outset he said that the power 

sector cannot be examined at a regional level in view of the national grid coming up. Shri 

Gambhir focused on the inequity in electricity availability and distribution. He said that as a 

country we have not been able to use the increase in electricity production to increase the 

Human Development Index (HDI) of the country. We can achieve higher HDI by providing 

electricity to the poor. He further added that the efforts on clean energy production should 

274


focus on energy efficiency measures which would reduce the need for capacity addition. 

Furthermore, he said that post E-Act 2003 the demand and supply of electricity is seen at the 

national level and that the number of power plants given environmental clearances would 

exceed the base load energy need till 2020. As a mid-course correction he suggested that 

projects which are not in an advanced stage of implementation can be screened based on 

environmental and social criteria. In the post-2020 scenarion Shri Gambhir suggested a 

relook at the following issues: (i) type of industrialization, (ii) tariff policy, and (iii) need for 

promotion of small renewable projects. 

Shri E.A.S. Sarma in his presentation highlighted the invincible link between ecology and 

livelihood of people. He stressed upon the concept of promoting energy efficiency and the 

role of the Bureau of Energy Efficiency in it. He said that the marginal social cost of the 

development of the power sector is very high and that for every MW of power produced 

there are people who suffer. He stressed the need for power sector planning. Furthermore, 

he pointed out that the proposed merchant power plants, which have been given 

environmental clearances in the Konkan region, would produce 15, 600 MW of power. If all 

these power plants come up then there would be surplus power in the region. He said that it 

was very difficult for state governments to handle power from merchant power plants. He 

gave the example of Enron in this regard where the State was not able to handle 2400MW. 

Shri Sarma highlighted the fact that because all these power plants are coming up in the 

Konkan region, the cumulative impact of these plants should be assessed. He also opined 

that to make the process of EIA more meaningful, the EIA consultants should be delinked 

from the developers. Finally, two legal principles which are central to the debate on 

environmental issues were highlighted, viz. (i) the doctrine of public trust, and (ii) the 

precautionary principle approach. Shri Sarma said that the Government holds the natural 

resources of the country in public trust and acts as a trustee of these resources. 

After the presentations from civil society, the presentations from industry representatives 

were taken up. 

Shri S. Ramesh, Chief Engineer, Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) gave a 

presentation about the proposed Gundia Hydro Power Project. He explained the mandate of 

KPCL and its brief history. He highlighted the fact that power production was not difficult 

but transmitting the power was difficult to manage. Furthermore, he explained the practical 

aspects of renewable energy and the experiences of KPCL with renewable energy. He 

explained in detail the layout and design of the Gundia Hydro project. He gave clarifications 

on the issues of forest and environmental clearances of the project, use of non-submergence 

area and land requirement for transmission lines. 

Shri M.G. Waghmare, Executive Director, Mahagenco, gave a presentation on the proposed 

Dhopawe Thermal Power Project. In his talk he explained the sectorwise installed capacity 

of Mahagenco, the demand shortfall as per the 17 th EPS and the capacity-addition 

programme of Mahagenco. He elaborately detailed the clearances obtained for the Dhopawe 

project, details of the project, the EIA and environmental monitoring stations. He also 

emphasized the site selection aspects of the Dhopawe project site. He explained that the site 

is a lateritic plateau and does not have any threatened plant species. After the presentations, 

clarifications were sought from Shri Waghmare with respect to the status of the farmers of 

the area, adverse environmental effects of the power plant with respect to water resources, 

mango orchards, common pasture land, effect on fish landings, and the access of the 

fishermen to the sea. 

275


Dr V.M. Shastri, JSW Energy, gave a presentation on a 4 x 300 MW thermal power plant at 

Jaigad to be set up by JSW. He provided a brief background of the JSW group. He explained 

the property plan, statutory clearances obtained for the project and the environmental 

protection measures taken. Following this he detailed the specially commissioned impact 

studies carried out with respect to the effect of power plant emissions on mango plantations. 

He also elaborated upon the land use, land cover and mango plantations in a 10 km radius 

of the power plant. Further, he spelt out the status of legal cases and the environmental 

clearance given by MoEF. He also exhibited the compliance table with EC and the amended 

EC of MoEF including provision for FGD. He explained the ash evacuation plan and the 

CSR and environmental protection activity by JSW. 

276


Summary Record of the Brainstorming Session on Role of Joint Forest Management (JFM) 

in the Western Ghats held at Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, on 19 November 2010 

Professor Madhav Gadgil, Chairman, WGEEP, initiated the proceedings for the 

brainstorming session on the role of joint forest management in the Western Ghats. He told 

the participants about the main objectives of the Panel, viz. (i) identification of ecologically 

sensitive areas and their management in the Western Ghats, (ii) regional development 

strategy for the Western Ghats, and (iii) modalities for the formation of the Western Ghats 

Ecology Authority. The Chairman informed the participants that very fruitful and 

productive brainstorming session have been held on the following topics (i) iron ore mining 

in Goa, (ii) pressures of urbanization in the Western Ghats in Pune, and (iii) role of the 

power sector in the Western Ghats at Bangalore. He said that the idea of organizing the halfday 

brainstorming session on Joint Forest Management came from the interaction with the 

Western Ghats Task Force, Government of Karnataka. 

The Chairman suggested that the participants should focus their presentations on the JFM 

experience, its future and role in the Western Ghats. He also suggested that the participants 

should consider newer legislations enacted by the Government of India such as the 

Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 

and its role/impact on JFM. This was followed by a round of introduction of the participants. 

Shri A.K. Joshi, PCCF, Maharasatra, at the outset mentioned that the Western Ghats is a 

hotspot of biodiversity and areas such as the Kas Plateau in Maharastra is being considered 

by the UN and IUCN Committee for nomination as a World Heritage Site. He highlighted 

the fact that Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg areas of Maharastra Western Ghats are highly 

forested areas. The Forest Survey of India has reported a forest cover of nearly 49%. He 

contrasted this fact with the designated reserve forest area of the districts, which is about 

10.8 %. This is because most of the forested area is primarily private land. 

Shri Joshi gave a brief overview of administrative and legal instruments available through 

which tree cover of private areas can be protected. One such act is the Tree Act. This act 

relates to legal protection of 15–16 tree species which are present in the Schedule of the Tree 

Act. He informed the participants that the tree density in the Western Ghats is around 800 

trees/hectare and most of the tree species are not listed in the Schedule of the Tree Act. Other 

than the scheduled trees, people are free to cut trees for their own personal use from 

community lands. 

Felling of trees can also be contained by the Land Revenue code which regulates felling of 

trees in sensitive areas such as water courses on revenue land. Another legislation wherein 

the preservation of forest is vested with the government is the Maharastra Private Forest 

Acquisition Act. He informed the participants as most of the forest lands are under private 

holding they are outside any legal protection. Further, 49 mining proposals which are 

located in the Western Ghats of Maharastra are not covered by regulation. 

Regarding the JFM experience in Maharastra he said that there are 15,500 villages which are 

present on the periphery of forest areas in Maharastra. Nearly 12,000 forest committees have 

been formed and around 3000 are doing good work. He said that under the Tukaram Van 

Yojana, awards are given to the JFM Committees doing good work. He pointed out that JFM 

Committees need to work in a more responsible manner. 

Shri Bhagwan Singh, Additional PCCF, Tamil Nadu, gave a presentation on Joint Forest 

Management in Tamil Nadu. He gave a brief profile of forests of Tamil Nadu. He informed 

the participants that the JFM movement started in Tamil Nadu through Japanese funding in 

277


1997. He elaborated on the basic principles of JFM and the empowerment of the local 

communities through JFM. He informed the participants about JFM initiatives in Tamil 

Nadu. 

Shri Singh provided information on the administrative mechanisms for the implementation 

of JFM programmes. At the State level the Chief Secretary is the head of the JFM Committee. 

At the District level the JFM Committee is chaired by the District Collector and has members 

from the village council. The Divisional Forest Officer is the Member Secretary of the 

Committee. This committee basically coordinates the activities of various line Departments. 

Villages adjoining forest areas, which could have an impact on the forests, are selected for 

formulation of Village Forest Committees. The Village Forest Committee (VFC) has one 

willing male or female member from each household. The President of the committee is 

selected by election. The Member Secretary of the Village Forest Committee is the Range 

Forest Officer. Shri Singh informed the participants that the Executive Committee of the VFC 

decides on issues such as disbursement of microcredit finances and choice of species to be 

planted. 

He then elaborated on the various activities carried out under JFM which included 

employment schemes, microcredit financing, village- and community-development 

activities. He also stressed the achievements of the JFM programme. 

Ms Madhu Sarin enquired about the administrative mechanism of the JFM schemes and the 

role of the Range Forest Officer vis-à-vis the power of drawing and disbursing grants, 

following which discussion on the issue of the Forest Rights Act and Joint Forest 

Management ensued. 

Dr. M.H. Swaminath, Additional PCCF, Karnataka Forest Department, gave his reflections 

on JFM activities. At the outset he gave a brief profile of the forest area in Karnataka. He 

informed the members that the total forest area in Karnataka is 4.2 million hectares of which 

1.7 million hectares is in the Western Ghats. He also informed the members that the Western 

Ghats are spread across 6 districts. In the 1990s there was a big gap between the Forest 

Department and the local people. At that time JFM became a handy tool to bridge the gap 

between the local people and the forest department. The JFM project was initiated with the 

DFID (Department for Interntional Development, UK) project in Uttar Kanada which took 

up ecorestoration of degraded forests. Dr Swaminath told the participants that when the 

project funding from DFID stopped, the village forest committees became non-functional 

due to the financial crisis. This happened due to inadequate institutional development. 

According to Dr. Swaminath, in Karnataka there are nearly 4000 VFCs of which 40 % may be 

actually working. He said that VFCs are working wherever the funds from Government of 

India are still operational. He said that the state Forest Department is trying to revive the 

VFCs. 

The benefit-sharing mechanism at the beginning of the programme was 50 % to the local 

people; however, this was not a big incentive for the local people. The benefit-sharing 

mechanism was since revised. The state forest department has also devised a benefit-sharing 

mechanism in which 75 % goes to the VFCs and 25 % goes to the state pool. Dr. Swaminath 

was apprehensive about the accountability of the VFC in the absence of the Range Forest 

Officer. He said that the VFC constitution is similar to that of Tamil Nadu. He also informed 

the participants that the state forest department is trying to give more rights to the local 

people for NTFPs and grazing. Presently the forest department has control over these issues. 

278


Following the presentation of Dr. Swaminath, the following issues were flagged by the 

participants: (i) the degraded nature of forests given to VFCs, (ii) the empowerment of 

elected members of the VFCs, (iii) blanket rights on NTFPs for the local communities, and 

(iv) the issue of settlement of forest rights. Professor Madhav Gadgil enquired about the 

community forest resources provision of the Forest Rights Act. Shri Yerdoor, Nagarika Seva 

Trust, enquired about bottlenecks in the implementation of JFM. It was brought out during 

the discussions that the basic philosophy of the JFM is defeated when the Forest Department 

thinks itself as the owner and gives benefits to the people. The issue of settlement of Forest 

Rights in Karnataka was also discussed. 

Shri K.S. Reddy, CCF (Regional Office, MoEF, Bengaluru), informed the members that 20 – 

25 million hectares of degraded forests are present in the country of which 3 million hectares 

are those degraded forest areas which are not able to support biological productivity. Hence 

the quality of such sites is low. He said that it is important to recognize the difference 

between site quality of different areas. Further, he added that JFM activitites will not be able 

to solve the problem of degradation of those forests whose site quality is very low. Those 

degraded forest sites which have the potential to support productivity should be taken up 

under JFM and these sites should be protected and restored. According to Shri Reddy full 

rights can be given to the local people but the key to this would be the principle of 

sustainable harvest, and reduction of anthropogenic pressures. He said that one of the 

crucial issues is the allocation of land resources for specific purposes such as for fuel wood 

versus tobacco. Shri Reddy said that settlement of forest rights is an on-going process. 

Ms Madhu Sarin, CSD, spoke about ‚Community Control on Natural Resources‛. She talked 

about the experiences gained from Sukhomajri in Haryana. At the outset she highlighted the 

following two points regarding the participation of local communities in natural resources 

management: (i) power should rest in the villages and not with the government, (ii) the 

principle of equity has to be followed. She elaborated the second point – every one in a 

community who incurs the cost of protection of a natural resource should have an equal 

share in that natural resource. She added that protection of natural resources willfully by the 

local communities leads to ‚social fencing‛ of that resource from exploitation. She added 

that the Forest Conservation Act and other such acts have created walls of mistrust between 

the government and the local people. She said that the notification of forest areas under FCA 

is ad hoc and lacks a clear rationale. 

She informed the participants that the JFM movement started in the 1980s and the Haryana 

JFM Policy was much before the Government of India policy of 1 June 1990. According to 

her the following should be key considerations in JFM programmes: (i) to have autonomous 

self-governing institutions with no government servant as its member, (ii) to recognize 

people–resource linkages for which government institutions should enter into locationspecific 

agreements with the local communities, (iii) the existing customary boundaries and 

use patterns should be recognized, and (iv) to strengthen existing livelihoods of the local 

communities. 

She highlighted the following drawbacks in the JFM programme as it is practiced: (i) JFM 

practiced by the Forest Departments is – we decide, you participate, (ii) JFM talks about 

conditional entitlements and not rights, (iii) MoUs entered into cannot be implemented in 

the true sense, and (iv) villagers are confined to degraded forest areas. Ms Sarin said that the 

genesis of the Forest Rights Act was the massive abuse of the JFM programme. She pointed 

out that local people had to gratify the local officials to get their due under JFM. She added 

that the Forest Rights Act provides a means for restoration to communities what was 

279


already theirs and to try to undo the historical injustice done to them. She highlighted the 

point that in many states tribal rights have not been settled. 

Shri Mohan Hirabhai Hiralal, Covenor, Vrikshamitra (Gadchiroli, Maharastra), in his 

presentation highlighted the various legislative and administrative mechanisms through 

which forest rights of local communities can be recognized. He highlighted the fact that JFM 

should be considered an important tool for Participatory Forest Management wherever 

forest rights are not covered by the Forest Rights Act, 2006 or under sec 28 of the IFA, 1927. 

He elaborated on the methodology for recognition of community forest rights under FRA, 

2006, IFA 1927 and through JFM. 

Shri Hiralal stressed the need for recognizing the Gram Sabha or Mohallasabha as the basic 

unit of governance. He gave the example of Mendha (Lekha) where the government has 

recognized Gram Sabha under FRA 2006. He detailed the modalities which need to be 

carried out for the recognizing the Gram Sabha or Mohallasabha as the basic unit of 

governance. Further he highlighted how the Gram Sabha can also serve in the role of 

different committees such as the Community Forest Committee, Village Biodiversity 

Management Committee and JFM committee. He elaborated on good governance practices 

which need to be undertaken under the Gram Sabha model. In the end he summarized the 

Gram Sabha model by stating that in the villages, the local people are the government. He 

invoked the concept of direct democracy and stressed on the strength of the individual 

within a community. 

Rajeeva, from Nagarik Seva Trust, spoke in Kannada regarding his grassroots experience in 

Dakshin Kannada district. His talk has been translated and summarized below. He informed 

the participants that the first Village Forest Committee was set up in Dakshin Kannada 

district under the DFID project. He said that the money received by the VFC is completely 

retained by the State Forest Department and is spent entirely under the control of the Forest 

Range Officer. The President of the VFC is merely told to sign. He said that can people can 

ask for the accounts in General Body Meeting but the officials at the village level do not 

know the details of involvement of other line departments. He also mentioned that the 

NTFPs are never shared with the local community. In some cases the NTFPs are stolen from 

the forest and the VFC has no control on them. 

He highlighted the fact that under the JFM programme, tree plantation did happen on a 

sizeable area of land and that microplans were made at the village level. He said that the 

MoU is one-sided. He highlighted the fact that local people are told to conserve nearby 

forest areas but they do not have any say in their management. The eco-development 

committees near National Parks have no involvement of people. 

Dr Ganeshaiah asked whether there were any comparative studies demonstrating better 

forest stock under Joint Forest Management. Shri Reddy informed that studies in Andhra 

Pradesh had revealed no significant difference in forest stocks under and outside Joint 

Forest Management. 

280


Minutes of the Ninth Meeting of Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) held at 

Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi on 28 January 2011 

The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel met on 28 th January 2011 at Kerala Forest Research 

Institute, Thrissur. 





Dr. R.V.Varma 

Dr. Renee Borges 

Prof R. Sukumar 



Chairman 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 


Dr. Ligia Noronha, TERI, New Delhi; Dr. R.R. Navalgund, Director, Space Application 

Centre, Ahmedabad; Prof. S P Gautam, Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board; Dr. D.K. 

Subramaniam, IISc, Bengaluru; Dr. K.N. Ganeshaiah, UAS, Bangalore; all Members of the 

Panel could not attend the meeting. Dr. Amit Love (Deputy Director, MoEF) was also 

present during the meeting. 

Special Invitees 

Shri Devrat Mehta, Chairman, High Level Monitoring Committee, Mahabaleshwar- 

Panchgani Ecosensitive Area 

Dr. S.N. Prasad, Senior Principal Scientist, SACON, Hyderabad 

Dr. K.A. Subramaniam, ZSI, Pune 

The Chairman welcomed the Members of the Panel and initiated the discussion on the 

identification of ecologically sensitive areas in the Western Ghats region. Prof Madhav 

Gadgil outlined a proposal wherein the whole Western Ghats region could be classified as 

Ecological Sensitive Area and it could be further classified into different zones with varied 

degree of regulatory and promotional activities depending upon the ecological sensitivity of 

each zone. This would be followed by development of detailed guidelines for preparation of 

development plans for each zone. The Chairman suggested that such guidelines for each of 

the zones would be developed through a worshop in collaboration with Kerala Institute of 

Local Administration (KILA). 

Professor Madhav Gadgil informed the Panel about the resolutions passed by 22 

Gramsabhas of Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg regions for declaring their areas as ecologically 

sensitive areas. Most of these villages are located in the vicinity of mines. He further said 

that most of the resolutions were in Marathi. Prof Gadgil read out one such resolution, 

which was translated from Marathi into English. Professor Madhav Gadgil informed the 

Panel members that most of the other Gramsabha proposals were on similar lines to the one 

281


he read out. The Gramsabhas resolutions also included a tentative management plan for the 

areas under their jurisdiction. 

Shri Devrat Mehta, Chairman, High Level Monitoring Committee (HLMC), Mahabaleshwar- 

Panchgani Ecosensitive Area gave a talk on the Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani Ecosensitive 

Area and the issues relating to the management of the same. He informed the Panel that the 

main objective in setting up the Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani Ecosensitive Area was to 

maintain the green cover of the area. The state govenment agreed to the proposal of 

maintaining green cover and declaration of an ecologically sensitive area at the outset, but 

was not very clear as to what an ecosensitive area notification meant. Thus, now the State 

Government has developed an apathy towards the Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani Ecosensitive 

Area. 

Shri Mehta gave a brief history of the Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani EcoSensitive Area with 

respect to the notification and the setting up of the High Level Monitoring Committee. He 

informed the Panel that he took over as Chairman, HLMC, in November 2009. Further, Shri 

Mehta also informed the Panel members that after taking over as Chairman, he has made 

separate subcommittees and prepared a Draft Regional Plan for the area. The draft Regional 

Plan keeps the specific requirements of the ESA in focus. He highlighted the fact that as per 

the ESA notifications, a Regional Plan can be approved when the Tourism Plan of the area is 

also approved. Shri Mehta suggested that the approval of the Regional Plan and the 

preparation of the tourism plan should be delinked in this particular instance. According to 

him, the framework for activities can be defined in the regional plan and the detailed plan of 

activities could be given in subzonal plans – such as the tourism master plan. He informed the 

Panel members that the HLMC has laid down the criteria for development of the Tourism 

Master Plan. 

Shri Devrat Mehta informed the Panel that in the absence of concrete guidelines, some 

people have misused schemes for promotion of tourism for illegal construction. He gave the 

example of the Bed and Breakfast scheme, which was launched to promote homestead 

tourism by local people, but was used as a guise for illegal construction and running of 

hotels by non-residents. Shri Mehta read out the draft regional plan of the Mahabaleshwar- 

Panchgani area and explained the various initiatives launched by the HLMC. He also 

informed the Panel that the HLMC has created a broad framework for the development of 

the Tourism Master Plan for the region which has been sent to the State Government. 

Shri Mehta highlighted the fact that under the ESA notification, a Monitoring Committee is 

set up but actually the Monitoring Committee is quite ineffective in carrying out 

management functions. He said that in such a case there should be a provision in the 

notification which enables the Monitoring Committee to take action against offenders. For 

this, he said there is a need to earmark offices through which the HLMC will take action. He 

emphasized that there is no need to earmark any actual staff for this purpose. He also added 

that powers need to be devolved to the HLMC if effective management of ESAs needs to be 

carried out. He suggested that the composition of the HLMC should not be loaded towards 

government officials, and that it would be more meaningful to have subject experts. He also 

suggested that there should be a buffer zone around an ESA. Further, he said that the MoEF 

should appoint coordinators for each state for the administration of Ecologically Sensitive 

Areas. 

Dr. S.N. Prasad made a presentation on ‚Assessing Levels of Ecological Sensitivity of 

Western Ghats‛. Dr Prasad explained the grid size for developing a spatially explicit 

database. He also explained the various parameters used for arriving at ecological sensitivity 

282


scores for the grids. He also mentioned the sources of information for each parameter. Dr. 

Prasad presented the ecological sensitivity scores for grids in the states of Kerala, Tamil 

Nadu, and Karnataka. He explained the various layers which have been developed as 

overlays on the Google Earth images. 

After the presentation, Prof R. Sukumar sought clarifications on the boundaries and 

delimitation of the Western Ghats. Prof Sukumar also explained the geographical 

distribution of elephants across the Western Ghats region. He informed the Panel Members 

that he would pass on the information on boundaries of elephant reserves to Dr. Prasad for 

incorporation into the geospatial database being developed for the Panel. Shri B. J. Krishnan 

enquired about the scores allotted to the Nilgiri region. Dr Prasad requested Sri B.J. 

Krishnan to send material relating to Palni hills for incorporation in the database. Dr. K. 

Subramaniam, ZSI, was also requested to provide the following data for incorporation in the 

geospatial database: (i) invertebrate taxa especially on dragonflies and damsel flies, (ii) dams 

present in the Western Ghats region, and (iii) watershed boundaries for major rivers. 

Dr. S.N. Prasad informed the Panel Members that no weights have been attached to the 

parameters used for arriving at ecological sensitivity scores. Further, the issue of correlation 

between the variables could be examined at a later date using available statistical tools. 

Representatives from Cauvery Sene (a citizens group), Madikeri, Kodagu, presented a 

proposal to declare Kodagu as an ecologically sensitive area. They requested the Panel 

members to recommend imposition of a moratorium till the proposal of Kodagu is examined 

by the Ministry for declaring it as an ecologically sensitive area. After the presentation, Dr. 

V.S. Vijayan enquired from the Kodagu team whether the local panchayats have been 

consulted on the proposal for making Kodagu an ecologically sensitive area. Prof R. 

Sukumar sought clarifications on the land rights of the local community and the legal 

problems which could be involved with issuing a moratorium on development activity in 


Ms. Prakruti Srivastava, DIG (WL), Ministry of Environment and Forests, gave a 

presentation on the notification of ecologically sensitive areas around National Parks and 

Wildlife Sanctuaries spread across the country. She explained in detail the genesis of the 

proposal and chronology of events. She informed the Panel Members that of the 619 PAs 

present in the country, the Ministry had received only 5 proposals as on date and only 1 

notification has taken place. She informed the Panel Members that the Wildlife Division of 

the Ministry is preparing guidelines to be followed for the notification of ecologically 

sensitive areas around Protected Areas. 

She explained the draft guidelines to the Panel members. It was suggested by the Panel that 

it would be meaningful to have public consultations with local bodies such as Panchayats 

before formulating the ESA proposals. The Panel also suggested that a representative from 

the Panchayat/Biodiversity Managament Committee/Village Forest Committee should be a 

member of the Committee which will be set up for each PA to decide on the extent of the 

ecologically sensitive area around that PA as suggested in the draft guidelines. 

The Chairman initiated discussion on the time line for submission of the report to the 

Ministry. The Chairman suggested that he would develop an outline and the broad contents 

of the report by early February which would then be sent to all Panel Members for 

comments. After receiving comments and suggestions on the draft outline, the Chairman 

will incorporate the views and suggestion of the members and prepare a draft report by 

March 2011. 

283


Dr. V.S. Vijayan sought clarification on what is the view of the panel on the concept 

ecologically sensitive areas in the Western Ghats and the methodology for development of 

concrete proposals for ecologically sensitive areas. The Chairman suggested that ESA 

rankings for the grids would be made available in the coming 15 days. After that each of the 

Panel Members can study the grid-based sensitivity rankings for the entire Western Ghats. 

This would be followed by a meeting of the Panel in early March to finalize the proposals 

regarding ESAs. 

Prof R. Sukumar suggested that after preparation of the draft report it could be uploaded on 

the Ministry’s web site for public comments. These comments can then be considered by the 

Panel and the final report be prepared for submission to the Ministry. Dr. Renee Borges 

suggested that if all the members are coming to IISc Bengaluru in early March then the 

brainstorming session on land use planning could be organized during that period also. 

Professor Madhav Gadgil suggested that during the March meeting of the Panel the 

proposals for ecological sensitive areas would be finalized. The Chairman proposed that, 

based upon the ecological sensitivity scores, the Western Ghats region could be categorized 

into 5 zones. This zonation of the Western Ghats would then be put on the web for public 

comments. Of the five zones, zone 5 may be treated as the most sensitive zone which needs 

to be highly protected. The Chairman proposed that the detailed guidelines for the 

management of each zone could be developed in collaboration with the Kerala Institute of 

Local Administration. For this a workshop may be organized in May where experts from 

different areas could be called. 

Prof Sukumar said that the proposed zonation should be based upon the ecological 

sensitivity scores and grid analysis and it should not be limited to political/state or 

legislative boundaries. Dr. Vijayan said that ground truthing should be carried out to check 

the reliability of the ecological sensitivity scores for each grid. Dr.R.V.Varma said that sites 

which have small areas but high conservation values and are outside the typical PA network 

can be protected with the approval of State Government as Community Reserves under the 

Wildlife Protection Act. Following this a discussion ensued with respect to notification of 

areas under the Wildlife Protection Act or Environment (Protection) Act. 

Finally, the WGEEP visualized the following timeline for concluding its activities: 

(i) An interim report outlining the ecological sensitivity scores for the entire Western 

Ghats will be prepared by 1/3/11. 

(ii) This report would be discussed at the next meeting of WGEEP scheduled to be held 

in Bengaluru from 3 rd to 5 th March 2011. 

(iii) Based on the discussions a revised report will be prepared and discussed at the Panel 

meeting proposed to be held around 23/3/2011 in Delhi with the Hon’ble Minister for 


(iv) The Draft report prepared after deliberations will be uploaded on the Ministry of 

Environment and Forests website for public comments. 

(v) A 4-day workshop will be held at Kerala Institute of Local Administration, Thrissur 

in early May 2011 to suggest guidelines for development planning for different 

regions of Western Ghats taking into account their level of ecological sensitivity. 

(vi) A final report based upon the inputs received from this workshop, and from the 

public, will be submitted by 30 June 2011. 

284


Dr. G.V. Subrahmanyam enquired about the view of the Panel on the issue of declaration of 

ecologically sensitive areas around National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. Professor 

Madhav Gadgil clarified that the Panel has unaninmously recommended to the Wildlife 

Division of the Ministry that a component of public consultation should be added in the 

guidelines for declaration of ecologically sensitive zone around protected areas. Further, a 

representative of local bodies should be a member of the Committee to be set up for each 

Protected Area which will decide on the extent of ecological sensitive zone around the PA. 

He said that till such time that the draft guidelines are finalized the proposals for ESAs may 

be put on hold. 

Shri B.J. Krishnan said that management plans needs to be developed for ecologically 

sensitive areas and clear administrative mechanism also needs to be worked out. Dr. R.V. 

Varma suggested that the Biodiversity Monitoring Committees set up under the Biological 

Diversity Act can provide a focal point for the administration of ecologically sensitive areas. 

Ms Vidya Nayak and Shri B.J. Krishnan commented that BMCs are not functioning 

effectively in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Hence the use of BMCs as focal points for 

administering ESAs needs to be revisited. This was followed by detailed discussions on the 

governance mechanisms for ESAs and the regulatory powers of the Western Ghats Ecology 

Authority under section 5 of the EPA. 

Next steps 

The Panel decided to have the next meeting of the Panel in Bengaluru from 3 rd to 5 th of 

March 2011 at Indian Institute of Science. It was also decided to have a brainstorming 

session on land use planning in the Western Ghats on 3 rd March 2011. 


Summary Record of the Brainstorming Session on Water Resources Planning in the 

Western Ghats held at Kerala Forest Research Institute (KFRI), Peechi, on 27 January 2011 

Dr. K.V. Sankaran, Director, KFRI, welcomed the WGEEP members and the participants of 

the brainstorming session. He also said that it was the privilege of KFRI to host the WGEEP 

meeting at KFRI. He requested the Panel members to visit the various Divisions of the 

Institute to familiarize themselves with work carried out by the Institute in the area of 

tropical forest ecology. 

Professor Madhav Gadgil, Chairman, WGEEP, thanked Dr. K.V. Sankaran for hosting the 

meeting of WGEEP at KFRI. He informed the participants that he has been associated with 

KFRI in various ways in the past. This was followed by a round of introductions. 

Prof Gadgil welcomed the participants to the brainstorming session on Water Resources 

Planning in Western Ghats organized by WGEEP. He informed the house that WGEEP has 

been organizing brainstorming sessions on important themes related to Western Ghats. He 

said that earlier brainstorming sessions have been held on (i) organic agriculture in Kerala, 

(ii) iron ore mining at Goa, (iii) pressures of urbanization in Western Ghats at Pune, (iv) role 

of the power sector and role of Joint Forest Management in the Western Ghats at Bangalore. 

Professor Gadgil recollected his recent experiences with respect to how water resources are 

impacted upon by development activities and how these are reported in EIA reports. He 

gave the example of a specific case in Goa where a mine was located inside a sacred grove 

and was damaging many springs which are present in the area. The EIA report stated that 

there were no water courses in the area. The environmental clearance mentioned that 

285


natural water courses should not be tampered with. Professor Madhav Gadgil informed the 

participants that according to the interpretation of the mine manager, EIA notification 

specified water courses as nullahs and not springs. Further, the toposheet did not have any 

blue line demarcating water courses. Through this example, he highlighted the fact that 

there is inadequate information on water resources in the upper reaches of the Western 

Ghats. 

Prof Gadgil gave another example of forest areas in Ratnagiri District. He said that the 

Zoning Atlas for Siting of Industries (ZASI) mentions there is 2.5 % forest area in the district, 

whereas the satellite imagery shows around 42 % forest area, since most of the forest area in 

Ratnagiri is private forest area. Prescriptions for siting of industries takes into account only 

2.5 % forest area. The Zoning Atlas for Siting of industries also gives consideration to major 

rivers only and not other natural water sources. 

Shri Samir Mehta, South Asia Programme Director, International Rivers, gave a presentation 

on ‚Water and Natural Resources Governance within ESAs – the Challenges in 

Implementation‛. He informed the participants that he was associated with the planning 

process of Matheran and Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani ecologically sensitive areas and was 

also involved in the vision document for the Mt Abu ESA notification. 

Shri Samir Mehta said that the procedure followed for the development of the regional plan 

of ecologically sensitive areas is laid down by the Town Planning Act. Generally, the Town 

Planning Acts are not amenable to ESA planning, as they are related more to regulation of 

land use. Every state government has its own methodology and procedures for town 

planning. He said the that regional planning process has worked for town planning and 

transport but not in the case of ecologically sensitive areas. 

He explained the process followed in the preparation of the regional plan with respect to the 

ecologically sensitive areas in Maharastra. After the Gazette notification of an Ecologically 

Sensitive Area, the Government of Maharastra set up a regional planning board which 

included elected representatives of the Government and two members of civil society. The 

regional planning board had three subcommittees under it, one subcommittee each on 

tourism, environment and land use. He said that the Land Use committee which is chaired 

by the Collector compiles recommendations of the Environment and Tourism 

Subcommittee. Shri Mehta said that none of the members of the regional planning board talk 

about issues related with environment and ecology. The regional plan so developed is 

biased towards development and lays down land use zoning only. 

He highlighted the fact that all through the planning process no line organizations are 

identified for implementation of policies and programmes. Further, there is no integration 

and coordination between different government departments. He gave the example of the 

Western Ghats Development Programme which was started in 1974–1975 by the 

Government of Maharastra in this regard. 

Shri Samir Mehta stressed on the need for following the precautionary principle in 

ecologically sensitive areas. He suggested that the process of planning for ecologically 

sensitive areas should be from the perspective of effective management of natural resources. 

He highlighted the case of the Matheran Ecologically Sensitive Area where even after 7 years 

the Master Plan has not been developed. According to him the major concern is the process 

of how to meaningfully engage the state government in the process of planning for 

ecologically sensitive areas. 

286


Shri Samir Mehta proposed that the Ministry should identify Line Departments and spell 

out workplans for each of them in an accompanying document and not in the main 

notification itself, as is conventionally done by many Ministries of the Government. He 

suggested that the Panel should lay down the process for development of the Master Plan 

including identification of stakeholders. This process should also facilitate out-of-the-box 

thinking in the government. 

According to Shri S. Mehta, the Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA) for the whole 

Western Ghats will not work smoothly as the requirements for each of the Western Ghats 

states may be different. He suggested that the WGEA should have sub panels for each of the 

Western Ghats states with a common Chairman for the whole Authority. Furthermore, the 

Ministry of Environment and Forests can set up a Western Ghats Regional Office of the 

MoEF for the purpose of administration of the Western Ghats. He added that the WGEA 

should have a conflict resolution expert who engages the different parties on interest-based 

negotiations rather than position-based negotiations. 

Shri S. Mehta also commented on the functioning of the WGEEP. He said that WGEEP has 

undertaken the process of public consultation but interest groups have not been given 

adequate time to participate in the public consultation. He commended the WGEEP on the 

brilliant work which has been carried out developing a geospatial database wherein 

geographical grids have been assigned ecological sensitivity scores. 

On the issue of construction of dams on the rivers in the Western Ghats region, Shri Samir 

Mehta said that no big dams should be allowed in the Western Ghats. He emphasized that 

even run-of-the-river projects are not good in the case of west-flowing rivers of the Western 

Ghats region. The down-stream effects of dams need to be studied for the complete river till 

the river meets the sea. He highlighted the concept of environment flows of the river. He 

mentioned that according to stipulations there should be 15 % environmental flow in the 

river but this is not followed in the process of dam design. 

After the talk, Dr. Renee Borges commented that it was not good that the committees 

involved in the planning process of Ecological Sensitive Areas work independently. Shri 

Devrat Mehta said that in the case of Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani the High Level Monitoring 

Committee set up by MoEF has given the overall guidelines to the different committees 

involved in the preparation of the regional plan due to which the regional plan of 

Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani could be salvaged. He brought the issue of what should form 

part of the zonal plan or and what should be included in the subzonal plans. He informed 

the members that the Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani notification is 10 years old. Dr VS Vijayan 

said that public consultation should be undertaken after the draft plan is ready. 

Dr K.J. Joy, National Convener, Forum for Policy Dialogue on Water Conflicts in India, gave 

a presentation on ‚Water resources planning and people's livelihoods in the Northern part 

of the Western Ghats:The case of Warana Basin‛. He said that the work presented was 

carried out under the Live Diverse project undertaken in the Warana basin of Maharastra. 

He informed the participants that the people of the study area have suffered double 

displacement, first when the Warana Dam was constructed and then when the Chandoli 

National Park was created. Dr Joy gave a brief profile of the area which included watershed 

details. He informed the members that the Warana river is a tributary of the Krishna and 

forms part of the larger Krishna Basin. He also presented the water use profile of the area. 

He highlighted the relationship between livelihood and biomass resources. The local people 

generated their livelihood from direct use of biomass, by modifying the biomass, or by 

selling the biomass. He also brought out the intricate linkage between biomass generation 

287


and availability of water resources. Further, he mentioned that social arrangements can 

modify biomass use. Hence, these social arrangements should be considered in the planning 

process. 

He said that under the programme the basin was categorized into three different zones. 

Zone 1 was the upper part of the basin. The area in Zone 1 had steep slopes and the area for 

undertaking agriculture was very limited. The economy of Zone 1 could be called a money 

order economy. Zone 1 was a surplus water/biomass zone after taking into consideration the 

biomass requirement for livelihood, the water resources required to raise the biomass, and 

water requirement for domestic use. This surplus water/biomass could be used for 

development of ecotourism in the area. 

Zone 2 was a transitional zone. Zone 2 was mainly rainfed with some irrigation facility. This 

zone was deficient in water and biomass requirement. The efficient use of water is the key 

issue for this zone. Efficient use of water resources could be achieved by equitable access to 

water resources and better choice of crops and better agronomic practices. It was suggested 

that biomass processing for income generation through non-agricultural pathways should 

be the key activity. 

Zone 3 was a heavily irrigated zone and was dominated heavily by sugarcane cultivation. 

Recommendations for the zone included promotion of water-saving techniques so that 

excess water can be used in Zone 2. Further, broad basing of the cropping pattern and 

processing of biomass was also recommended. 

Prof Janakarajan, Madras Institute of Development Studies, gave a presentation on 

‚Vulnerabilities of East-Flowing Rivers: Some Issues and Concerns‛. Prof Janakrajan said 

that the Western Ghats are the foundation for south India in terms of water resources and 

biodiversity. The major east-flowing rivers, which originated in the Western Ghats, are the 

Krishna, Godavari, Pennar and Cauvery. Prof Jankarajan gave basic details of the eastflowing 

rivers which included the catchment area, average annual potential and utilizable 

surface water potential. He highlighted the inter-state nature of these rivers. He stressed 

upon the critical issues, which concern the entire east-flowing rivers of the Western Ghats. 

These include upstream development, increasing pollution load, delta vulnerability and 

water conflicts. 

Prof Janakarajan also highlighted the following issues which need contextualization in terms 

of water resources: (i) unsustainable development, (ii) persistent poverty, (iii) uncontrolled 

urbanization, and (iv) myopic sectoral approach for growth and development. Following 

this he gave a brief overview of the pressures on the Krishna river including high pollution 

load. He explained in detail disturbing features of the River Cauvery basin. Some of them 

were: (i) highly used, urbanized and water deficit basin, (ii) high level of pollution, (iii) 

negligible environmental flow in river except during the monsoons, and (iv) saline ingress in 

the delta region. He covered the delta vulnerabilities of the Cauvery Delta. Further, Prof 

Janakarajan also outlined the impact of climate change on coastal ecosystems and coastal 

agriculture. 

He summed up by saying that east-flowing rivers and their river basins are the food basket 

of India. This region has become increasingly vulnerable due to high level of pollution and 

rapid urbanization. As a way forward he suggested that pollution of the rivers should be 

reduced, the intimate link between the delta region and the upper reaches of the river needs 

to be recognized and there should be a comprehensive policy backed by legislation for better 

river basin management as well as better enforcement and monitoring mechanisms for 

pollution control. 

288


After the presentation, Prof Sukumar enquired about the reduced flow in the Cauvery river. 

Dr. R.V. Varma asked about the effect of seawater ingress on well water quality. 

Shree Padre, Water Journalist, spoke on ‚Water Conservation in the Lateritic Zone of 

Western Ghats – Lessons from Experience‛. Shri Padre informed the participants that the 

history of open wells went back 4500 years. He said that if an open well cannot yield water 

in the Western Ghats then it cannot yield water anywhere. He said the local people in the 

Western Ghats have developed ingenious methods for rainwater harvesting and 

augmentation of their local water supply. Shri Padre stressed on the important role of media 

in highlighting these local innovations for water conservation, which have not been 

documented as yet. He said that now people have started to recognize the importance of 

local rainwater harvesting techniques. The concept of recharge wells is becoming popular in 

Bengaluru. 

Shri Padre gave examples of water conservation and augmentation measures on lateritic hill 

tops. He elaborated the cases of Johars and Madakas or nullah-bunds where the local people 

make a temporary check dam along drainage lines of a depression on lateritic hill tops. In 

this method advantage is taken of depression shape wherein the depression has a 

bottleneck-like feature on the main drainage line, which is plugged to retain water at a 

minimal cost. Shri Padre suggested that such areas on lateritic hill tops where Madakas can 

be made should be reserved for public purposes. According to him this will bring down the 

costs of watershed development. 

He also suggested that abandoned laterite quarries should also be left untouched so that 

they can also act as points for water recharge. Shri Padre also elaborated upon the following 

examples of local innovations for water conservation and augmentation (i) Kutta – 

temporary check dam, (ii) Surangas – gravity irrigation, (iii) use of abandoned termite 

mounds as water recharge points, and (iv) creation of percolation ponds in 5 % area of a rice 

field. Shri Padre stressed upon the importance of vegetation in recharge of ground water 

and the fact that ground water recharge can be enhanced by protection of natural vegetation 

in an area. 

Dr. Renee Borges sought clarification on how abandoned termite mounds act as recharge 

points for ground water. The participants appreciated the illustrated presentation of Shri 

Padre for documenting the local techniques of water conservation in the Western Ghats. 

Dr. A. Latha, River Research Centre, gave a presentation on ‚Decentralized River Basin 

Planning for West-Flowing Rivers‛. She stressed upon the fact that rivers and landscapes are 

intricately connected. Hence, river basin planning was a must. She highlighted the wrong 

approaches which have been adopted in the past with reference to forests and rivers. Some 

of them are (i) building more and more water storage structures ignoring the need to 

maintain environmental flow in the river, (ii) considering river as conduits of pollution, (iii) 

neglecting the importance of river in riparian ecology, (iv) delinking land use and river 

ecology, (v) keeping primary users away from the planning process, and (vi) reclaiming 

wetlands. 

Dr. Latha stressed on the importance of maintaining environmental flow in the river. She 

said that in the case of the Western Ghats we are dealing with a highly fragile landscape. She 

highlighted the facts that (i) Western Ghat rivers originate at high elevations in the Ghats 

and reach the sea in less than 50 km, and (ii) nearly 1/3 rd of their river basin is in the Western 

Ghats. Thus there is an intricate link between the ecology of the Western Ghats and the river 

flows. Dr. Latha informed the participants that due to faulty planning rivers are not reaching 

289


the sea in the summer season; consequently there are unnatural flow fluctuations, and 

fisheries are being adversely affected. 

According to her, it is imperative now to undertake catchment-level planning and 

management. The suggestions given by Dr. Latha included basin-level impact study of large 

dam projects, origin of rivers to be declared as ‚no go‛ areas, free-flowing biodiversity-rich 

strectches of rivers be declared as ESAs, and no environmental clearance be given to new 

dams in overdeveloped and closing basins. She said that there is an urgent need for 

government departments, local bodies and river basin communities to understand ecology 

of rivers. Further, if any meaningful solution is to be developed, involvement of local 

communities in implementation, planning and management of river basins is a must. She 

listed the enabling steps which should be taken up by the government in this regard. The 

major one involves creating an institutional environment for participatory decentralized 

river basin managament. Dr. A. Latha also detailed activities to be undertaken as part of a 

river basin plan. 

Dr. K. A. Subramaniam, ZSI, Pune, gave a presentation on ‚Biodiversity and Status of 

Riverine Ecosystems of the Western Ghats‛. Dr. Subramaniam showed the different river 

basins present in the Western Ghats. He also showed the different ecological zones of a 

typical river, viz. (i) headwater zone, (ii) mid reach, and (iii) floodplains. Dr. Subramaniam 

showed the different types of stream habitats found in the Western Ghats. He also illustrated 

the different types of wetland habitats found in the Western Ghats which include Myristica 

swamps, high altitude streams and bogs. Dr. Subramaniam gave a brief overview of the 

floral and faunal diversity of the riverine ecosystems in the Western Ghats. He highlighted 

the unique species of aquatic macroinvertebrates, odonates, fishes, amphibians and reptiles 

found in the Western Ghats. Dr Subramaniam stressed the high degree of endemicity in 

various taxa. He focussed on the distribution of endemic Odonata and Amphibia in the 

Western Ghats which were clustered in the southern Western Ghats. 

After giving a brief overview of the biodiversity associated with riverine ecosystems of the 

Western Ghats, Dr. Subramaniam listed the major threats associated with rivers in the 

Western Ghats, the major threat being dams and hydroelectric power projects. Dr 

Subramaniam presented the various dammed river basins and sub-basins in the Western 

Ghats. He highlighted an important fact that there are very few river basins in the Western 

Ghats which do not have any dams. He also showed the other threats associated with 

riverine ecosystems of the Western Ghats which include mining, deforestation, development 

of road infrastructure, sand mining, plantation development, unplanned tourism, pollution 

and biological invasions. Finally, he suggested measures for biological conservation in the 


Shri Sudhidhendra Sharma, Director, Ecological Foundation, gave a talk on ‚Integrating 

Ecosystem Services in Water Resources Planning for the Western Ghats‛. He started his talk 

by saying that during the deliberations the participants have only stated the obvious and 

have not focussed upon what needs to be done. He commented upon the tasks which the 

proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority has to perform and the fact that the Western 

Ghats are spread across many states. 

Shri Sharma gave the example of New York city where the local government decided to 

invest in the protection of upland areas to improve the quality water rather than setting up 

of a conventional water treatment plant. The people residing in the upland areas were given 

monetary incentives for maintaining the catchment areas. Through this case study Shri 

Sharma made out a case for payment of ecosystem services to the local communities. He 

290


gave another example of one such case in Assam wherein downstream communities pay for 

ecosystem services to the upstream communities. He said that this system has been in 

operation successfully and the local communities have worked out a mutually acceptable 

compensation mechanism. 

Shri Sharma said that the difficult part in payment for ecosystem services is how to compute 

values for ecosystem services. He added that there are many case studies where payment 

for ecosystem services has been undertaken as a mode for environmental protection. He 

gave examples of China and Australia where payment for ecosystems services has been 

adopted. He commented that in the case of environmental protection, the market is the 

problem and also the solution. 

Following the presentation of Shri Sharma a discussion ensued on the importance and 

relevance of ecological economics in solving environmental problems. 

Shri Devrat Mehta, Chairman, High Level Monitoring Committee, Mahabaleshwar- 

Panchgani, spoke about ‚Management of Rivers and Lakes of the Western Ghats‛. He gave 

examples where the planning processes were undertaken with a well meaning objective of 

environmental protection. He talked about the planning process which was undertaken for 

lake districts in Maharastra with the purpose of promoting tourism in the early 80s. 

According to the plan, no development was allowed in the 100m zone around the lake and 

the FSI (Floor Space Index) was regulated in the zone between 100m–500m from the lake. 

Any construction activity was to be merged with the landscape and felling of trees was 

completely banned. This plan was not approved by the then government due to political 

interests. He also gave the example of Waghora river and Ajanta and Ellora caves. Shri 

Mehta said that under the Ajanta and Ellora development plan, land was bought along the 

river to protect the Ajanta and Ellora caves and the riverine ecology. 

He stressed on the need for development of regulations for areas adjacent to rivers and lakes 

and hill top areas. He pointed out that due to the CRZ notification private developers have 

moved away from the coast and have started developing on hill tops adjacent to the coastal 

zone. Furthermore he informed the participants that the developer becomes the planning 

authority when townships occupy and area of more than 100 acres. He discussed the cases 

of Ambi Valley and Lavasa. 

Dr. S. N Prasad, SACON, and Dr. K.A. Subramaniam, ZSI, spoke on ‚Conservation of 

Aquatic Ecosystems of the Western Ghats‛. Dr Prasad gave a talk on the geospatial database 

being developed for WGEEP and how the information on endemic fish species would be 

introduced as an overlay on the Google Earth map. He also informed the participants that 

seven parameters have been used to arrive at the ESA rankings. He informed the members 

that as all the information has not been incorporated in the database, some of the grids 

which had low ecological sensitivity rankings had endemic species in them. 

Open Discussion 

The brainstorming session on Water Resources Planning was followed by an open 

discussion by the participants and WGEEP Panel Members. 

Professor Madhav Gadgil, Chariman, WGEEP, outlined the major tasks which the Panel will 

undertake, viz. (i) assignment of sensitivity scores to all parts of the Western Ghats, (ii) 

preparation of guidelines for regulation and promotion of activities under various sectors 

for areas in relation to their sensitivity scores, (iii) designing a participatory process for 

preparation of environmentally and socially sustainable development plans for the Western 

Ghats region. He informed the participants about the time line which the WGEEP is 

291


envisaging for submission of the report. Further, he told the participants that the draft report 

of the Panel would be uploaded on the Ministry’s web site for comments from the public. 

Prof Gadgil stressed upon the need for effective water resources planning in Ecologically 

Sensitive Areas. 

Dr. Joy highlighted the issue of how the Western Ghats Ecology Authority will relate to 

other regulatory authorities such as the Maharastra Water Regulatory Authority (MWRA). 

The MWRA has the authority to settle entitlements and inter-sectoral use of water resources. 

He also pointed that there are various government regulations on water-related issues. The 

Panel will have to consider them while defining the authority of WGEA. 

Dr. Joy also pointed out that there is no need for any large water impoundments in the head 

water zone of the rivers in Mahrastra. He informed the members that even with many large 

dams, the irrigated area in Maharastra is only 17 %. According to him it would be more 

meaningful to have local water harvesting structures in the villages so that water can be 

made available locally for irrigation and other uses. Dr. Joy also commented on the 

regulation of mining activity in the Western Ghats region. He said that mining should be 

regulated by a two-pronged approach, viz (i) mining companies should be made to strictly 

adhere to the environmental clearance conditions, and (ii) they should undertake 

ecorestoration of mined-out areas. 

Dr. Vijayan said that the Panel should clearly demarcate ‚No Go‛ areas in the Western 

Ghats and the Panel should make a clear recommendation for adoption of green 

technologies and organic agriculture in the Western Ghats. On the issue of dams, Dr Vijayan 

said that no large dams should be allowed in the Western Ghats. He also said that the whole 

Western Ghats should be declared as an ecosensitive area having different zones of varying 

ecological sensitivity. 

Prof Madhav Gadgil asked whether the Panel will be able to make a case for declaring the 

whole Western Ghats as an ecologically sensitive area. 

Ms. Vidiya Nayak said that subsidy to fertilizer companies should be stopped and the 

money could be directly transferred to the farmers for promotion of organic agriculture. Prof 

Madhav Gadgil commented that different alternatives have to be explored for this. Dr. V.S. 

Vijayan said that the amount given in subsidies should be made explicit. Prof Sukumar said 

that organic agriculture in Western Ghats should be encouraged. He also commented that 

farmers have to be given economic incentives such as tax breaks for promotion of organic 

agriculture. Dr Vijayan said that use of pesticides has been promoted by marketing activities 

of shopkeepers. 

Shri B.J. Krishnan said that the concept of declaring the whole Western Ghats as an 

Ecologically Sensitive Area with zones of varied degree of ecological sensitivity was 

commendable. Further, he said that organic agriculture can be implemented in the Western 

Ghats in a phased manner. Dr. R.V. Varma suggested that the Panel should recommend that 

the Western Ghats should be made a pesticide-free zone. He invited the attention of the 

Panel to the endosulfan problem in Kerala. 

Dr. Latha said that plantations in Western Ghats should be made pesticide-free in a phased 

manner. She said the cost of plantations is increasing, and to make plantations pesticide-free 

planters should be involved in the process. She also suggested that planters should be 

involved in the process of eco-restoration of old plantations and they should be involved in 

welfare schemes in their areas. 

292


Dr. Varma also opined that conservation of forests of the Western Ghats is important for 

water security of the region. He said that the Panel should declare over-exploited regions of 

rivers in the Western Ghats as ecologically sensitive. Shri Sameer Mehta was of the opinion 

that no dams should be allowed in the Western Ghats region. He suggested that if any water 

regulation has to be considered it should be for the purpose of drinking and irrigation only, 

and not for power generation. He also said that there should be provision for 

decommissioning of existing dams on Western Ghats rivers and these dams should not be 

replaced by new dams. 

Shri Padre highlighted the issue that traditional knowledge related to water conservation is 

not taken into account. Dr. Latha added that riparian river basin restoration activities should 

be taken up through involvement of local self-governments. Dr. Vidya Nayak suggested 

that schools should also be involved in the environment movement. 

Dr. Renee Borges raised the issue of the use of ground water in the Western Ghats and the 

regulations which govern such use. It was suggested that there is an urgent need for a study 

of catchment hydrology and the movement of water in lateritic formations. 

Dr. Latha stressed on the following non-negotiables which should be kept in mind while 

planning for ESAs: (i) no inter-linking of rivers, (ii) no pesticide use in plantations, (iii) no 

plantation activity in the shola regions of the Western Ghats, and (iv) downstream impacts 

of water regulation structures to be studied. 

Prof Sukumar suggested that special schemes should have to be developed for Ecologically 

Sensitive Areas. Regarding regulation of rivers in the Western Ghats, Prof Sukumar 

suggested that the concept of environmental flows should be central to the planning process. 

Prof Sukumar sought clarification on the issue of private developers becoming planners in 

the Western Ghats region with respect to the specific instances of Lavasa and Amby Valley. 

He also highlighted the fact that government funds are not utilized in a proper manner. He 

suggested that the government should use CAMPA funds for payment for ecological 

services programmes in Western Ghats states. Under such programmes, local people having 

private forests could be remunerated for protection of the forests. Similarly, incentives 

should be provided to planters who undertake eco-restoration programmes. 

293


Summary Record of the Brainstorming Session on Decentralized Planning in Western 

Ghats held at Kerala Forest Research Institute (KFRI), Peechi on 28 January 2011 

Professor Madhav Gadgil, Chairman, Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, welcomed the 

participants to the brainstorming session on Devolution of Powers to Local Self- 

Governments in Relation to the Environment. He thanked Shri S.M. Vijayanand, Special 

Chief Secretary, Department of Local Self-Government, Government of Kerala, and Prof 

M.K. Prasad, Chief, Information Kerala Mission. Prof Gadgil recollected the exceptional 

work carried out by Kerala Sasthra Sahitya Parishad (KSSP) in the area of the environment. 

He said that through the brainstorming session the Panel wants to understand how to 

administer the whole of the Western Ghats if it is declared as an ecologically sensitive area, 

and what are the options. 

Shri S. M. Vijayanand, Special Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, gave a presentation 

on ‚Decentralization – Learning from the Kerala Experience with special reference to 

environment‛. Shri Vijayanand informed the participants there was no organized selfgovernance 

in Kerala till 1995. The devolution of power to people in Kerala was done with a 

big bang approach. The power from the state was transferred to Panchayats in one go and 

the mechanisms for implementation were built afterwards. The responsibilities were given 

first and the capacities were built at a later stage. The core of the Local Self-Government 

Model is that the elected Panchayat is the executive authority and the government servant is 

the ex-officio Secretary to the Panchayat. The people’s group and volunteer groups provide 

the technical core of the local government. The initial focus of the Local governments was on 

the planning process which then went on to management of natural resources. 

Ecodevelopment of the area was a natural corollary to the decentralization. 

Shri Vijayanand gave a brief profile of the Panchayati Raj institutions in Kerala. He then 

explained the various Fs involved in the decentralization process. These were (i) functions, 

(ii) functionaries, (iii) finances, (iv) framework, (v) freedom, (vi) fraternity, and (v) 

functionings. Shri Vijayanand said that there is a clear division of responsibility between the 

Local Governments and the state governments. This is important because accountability 

mechanisms work effectively if the power to implement is clear. The Local Self- 

Governments have an important role with respect to development of infrastructure and 

provision of services, as well as human development functions in their areas. In other 

matters there is overlap with state government functions which is also clearly decided. He 

said that in Kerala the state government has no executive control over Local Governments. 

Shri Vijayanand informed the participants that work and workers go together. He said that 

along with devolution of work, the staff from various departments have been transferred to 

Local Governments. The Local Governments have the power to assign and review work, and 

have disciplinary and fiscal control over the staff. Issues such as recruitment are handled by 

the state government. Within this model there is a concept of ex-officio secretary to the local 

government. There is a code of conduct for the officers and representative of Local Self- 

Government which is enforceable. 

Shri Vijayanand said that fiscal decentralization has been carried out in a transparent 

manner. No discretion is allowed for allocation of funds to the Local Governments. It is done 

through a fixed worked out formula. This is done keeping in view the works carried out by 

Local Governments and the State Finance Commission recommendations. The majority of 

the centrally-sponsored schemes of the Ministry of Rural Development are implemented 

through Local Governments including the MGNREGS (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural 

294


Employment Guarantee Scheme). Shri Vijayanand outlined the major parameters which 

define the quality of funds transferred to Local Governments. 

He also explained in detail the framework developed within which the Local Governments 

function in Kerala. He elaborated that there is a strong legal framework which is provided 

by the Panchayati Raj Act and other such acts. The accountability system developed is very 

robust and the administrative systems are in the process of being institutionalized. Further, 

local self-governance is based upon rigorous participatory planning methodology. There are 

working groups which deal with separate sectors including environment and natural 

resource management. There is also a provision of an Ombudsman and an Apellate 

Authority. 

In the Kerala model of decentralization, a high degree of autonomy has been given to Local 

Governments in the use of available resources and in taking decisions. There is freedom 

from executive interference. The Local Self-Governments in Kerala function along with a 

host of related institutions which act in a complementary and enabling way to the Local 

Governments. Some of the institutions are (i) State Development Council, (ii) Kerala Institute 

of Local Administration, and (iii) Information Kerala Mission. Shri Vijayanand highlighted 

the significant achievements of the decentralization process. According to him, 

decentralization has resulted in (i) diffused development stimulus which has an impact on 

reduction of intra-state inequality, (ii) strong pro-poor expenditure, (iii) improvement in 

service delivery and infrastructure, and (iv) transparency in administration and better 

peoples’ participation. He also highlighted his concerns with respect to decentralization. 

They related to a weakening in the administrative capacities of the officials, planning based 

on negotiated priorities not data analysis, and resources being thinly spread out. 

Shri Vijayanand explained in detail the role of Local Self-Governments in activities related to 

the environment. These activities included Resource Mapping, preparation of Watershed 

Status Reports, Master Plans, Biodiversity Registers, and State of Environment Reports. He 

also informed the participants that Local Governments are also involved in energy planning. 

Finally, he said that in the future the Local Self-Governance will have to focus on (i) good 

governance, (ii) natural resource management, (iii) improved planning techniques, and (iv) 

new measures of accountability. 

After the presentation there was an open discussion on various aspects related with 

decentralization. Prof Madhav Gadgil said that the Kerala model for decentralization will 

provide key inputs into the recommendations of the Panel relating to administration of 

ecologically sensitive areas. He also commented that MNREGS is an important tool which 

could be used for ecorestoration of degraded lands. 

Dr. Vijayan pointed out that the activities undertaken in the MNREGS should be with 

participation of the local people. He gave examples of failed experiences in the early phases 

of its implementation in Kerala. 

Shri Devrat Mehta sought clarifications on how exactly the system of Ombudsman works 

with special reference to the Local Self-Governments. Shri Vijayanand explained the 

constitution of the Ombudsman which had members from civil society, judiciary and the 

government. 

Dr. R.V. Varma informed the members that preparation of PBR (Peoples’ Biodiversity 

Register) is mandatory for Local Self-Governments, for which money is provided by the 

State Biodiversity Board. The Biodiversity Board also provided money for organizing 

awareness programmes for school children. 

295


Dr. Vijayan said that the whole Western Ghats should be declared as an ecosensitive area 

and then zones of varying ecological sensitivity should be defined as in the case of CRZ. He 

said that planning for ESAs should be based on ground truthing at the village level and the 

livelihood issues of the people should be addressed. Shri B.J. Krishnan commented that the 

development plan for ESAs should be loosely structured by listing down the activities which 

can be undertaken in the zone. Dr. Vijayan said that the notification should have certain 

restrictive activities, banned activities, and certain activities which should be promoted. 

Prof Madhav Gadgil said that he is in favour of people-based planning for ESAs rather than 

centralized planning. He said that detailed guidelines for each zone in the Western Ghats 

ESA can be made with the involvement of the Kerala Institute of Local Administration. 

Summary record of the Public Consultation at Athirappilly on 29 January 2011 

Field Visit 

The six-member panel headed by Prof.Madhav Gadgil reached Athirappilly by 7 a.m. They 

visited the riparian forest within the project area and also the tribal hamlet at Vazhachal. 

They also visited the submergible areas and the Athirappilly waterfalls. On their return they 

met Ms.V.K.Geetha, a member of the Kadar community who has gone to court against the 

Athirappilly Hydro Electric Project and listened to her. She explained that the livelihood of 

the Kadar tribes solely depends on the forests and the river and they should not be 

displaced. During the discussions with the tribal representatives it was mentioned that the 

community rights of the tribals as per the Forest Rights Act were not recognised. The forest 

officials present at the site were also not able to clarify the points raised by the committee. 

Hearing at Panchayat Office 

Shri B.D. Devassy, MLA, Chalakkudy, argued in favour of the project and pleaded before 

the committee not to oppose it. The Panchayat President of Athirappilly Mr.Baby K.Thomas, 

and the Ward Member Mr.Mulari Chakkathara, strongly opposed the construction of the 

hydroelectric dam. The Block Panchayat President Mrs.Leena mentioned that she is a local 

person who has analysed the various pros and cons of the proposed project. She indicated 

that agencies like Pollution Control Board and Kerala State Electricity Board gave wrong 

information on many issues. She said she has a lot of interest in protecting the river base and 

also the rights of the Kadar community and was against the proposal for the hydroelectric 

project. The Vice President of the Athirappilly Panchayat Mrs. Devi also argued against the 

project. Mr. K.S. Sathish Kumar pleaded for the project and informed that permission was 

already obtained in the past. He also said that the project would be beneficial for the tribals 

and also suggested that the waterfall be retained. The Panchayat Members Ms. Sicily Antony 

and Ms. Jaya Thampi spoke in favour of the project. The Ward Member Ms. Sandhya 

Unnikrishnan, who is also a tribal argued in favour of the project and also suggested that the 

waterfall be maintained intact and also the livelihood of the tribals in the area be protected. 

Hearing at Aroormuzhi Community Hall 

At the public consultation meting at Aroormuzhi Community Hall, 27 people spoke. All 

those who spoke feared that the project will adversely affect the drinking and irrigation 

water needs of the people and also the current tourism activities on which hundreds of local 

people depend on for their livelihood. Smt. Ammini Amma, leader of the Athirappilly 

struggle, opined that there had been a steady decrease in the river flow during the last 45 

years. She also submitted photographs of the Athirappilly water fall taken during the 

296


monsoon and summer. Shri T.N. Radhakrishnan, ex–MLA, warned that people living in the 

constituencies of Kodagara, Chalakkudy, Kodungallor, Vadakekara and Angamali would 

face untold sufferings if the project is implemented, as the diminishing water levels in the 

Chalakudi river will reduce water flow in the canals of the river leading to severe drought in 

the above constituencies. The Chalakkudy River Protection Forum Chairman Shri. K.K. 

Shelley also feared that the proposed dam will lead to destruction of 1400 ha of agricultural 

land. According to Dr. P.M. Joy implementation of the Athirappilly dam would also affect 

the Periyar river. He further stated that the water flow from Poringalkuthu to Edamalayar 

will result in decreased production of electricity in Edamalayar and lowering of water level 

in the Periyar. Construction of the dam at huge costs to produce very little electricity is a 

waste. The same view was also expressed by Shri. Shilu Chali of the Forest Protection 

Samithi who added that the proposed project would also lead to destruction of the natural 

riparian forest and displacement of more than 200 odd families of Schedule Castes and 

Schedule Tribes. Shri Gopala Krishnan, representative of the N.S.S. Karayogam, also 

vehemently opposed the proposed project. According to Shri Shajan Puthenvelikara and 

Shri Antony Putharipal another adverse impact of the proposed project on the river and 

downstream population was that when the water flow in the Chalakudy river decreases 

seepage of saline water will destroy cultivation and also result in shortage of drinking water. 

Former Panchayat Presidents Shri N.R. Satheesan and Shri Muhammed mentioned about 

the chances of earthquakes occurring in the area, if the dam is constructed. Others who 

spoke against the project included Mr. M.V. Gangadharan, Mr. K. Rajan, Mr. V.T. Balaram, 

Mr. Dilik Divakaran, Paulson Kodiyan, Chandra Sekharan, Sivankutty, E.M. George, 

Shakeer, Janaki, Geetha and Jesna Alfus. All of them expressed their concern and opposed 

the proposal for the construction of the dam. 

Public Consultation of technical group 

At the beginning itself, Prof.Madhav Gadgil, Chairman, WGEEP explained the mandate of 

the Panel and also mentioned that the strategy would be the overall development of the 

Western Ghats with due consideration for conservation of biodiversity. The panel is also 

trying to identify ecologically significant areas based on scientific data. The various technical 

groups present were the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB), Irrigation Department, Tribal 

Welfare Department, Tropical Botanical Research Institute, Kerala Forest Research Institute, 

Kerala State Biodiversity Board and two NGOs – River Research Centre and Kerala Sasthra 

Sahithya Parishad. 

The KSEB placed before the committee their arguments in favour of the project with a power 

point presentation. They also explained past issues related to the project. The Irrigation 

Department mentioned that there would not be any problem if the project comes through. 

The Tourism Department was of the view that, if the project comes though more tourists 

will visit the area. 

The Forest Department took a neutral stand and did not specifically mention any matter for 

or against the project. They also mentioned that the earlier decision in favour of the project 

has not been changed and also reported that the Forest Rights Act came into force later. The 

tribal welfare department informed the Panel that the issues related to title deeds of the 

tribals are in its final stage. They also wanted the interests of the tribals be protected. The 

TBGRI, which has done an EIA at the instance of KSEB, supported the project. The KFRI 

which did a study of the value of the biodiversity of Vazhachal highlighted the biodiversity 

richness of the area and also the unique riparian forest ecosystem. The Kerala State 

Biodiversity Board also highlighted the importance of the biodiversity in the area, especially 

the rich and endemic fish fauna and also the presence of several unique invertebrates and 

297


microbes which have not been studied in detail. The Board in fact wanted a multiinstitutional 

team to conduct an in-depth study on the biodiversity of the area. 

The River Research Centre made a detailed presentation (with 4 experts in different fields) 

and questioned the reliability of facts provided by KSEB and others who supported the 

project. Clarifications on many technical issues were not readily available and Prof. Gadgil 

suggested that KSEB provide these details by mail. He said that MoEF will also put these 

clarifications on the website of WGEEP for the people to see and react. The Kerala Sasthra 

Sahithya Parishad suggested that as per the EIA, alternatives have to be suggested. 

According to them a hydroelectric project with reduced power generation than the 163 mega 

watts as originally proposed may be thought of. 

Prof. Madhav Gadgil assured participants that the various issues raised will be considered 

and the report will be handed over to MoEF by March 2011. The final decision will be taken 

by the MoEF. 

After the Technical Consultations on the Athirappilly Hydroelectric project, citizens groups 

from Goa and Mangalore gave detailed presentations on the Sahyadri Ecologically Sensitive 

Area (SESA) and Kodachadri Ecologically Senstive Area (KESA), respectively, to the 

WGEEP. 

Summary Record of the Brainstorming Session on land use policy in the Western Ghats 

held at Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, on 3 rd March 2011. 

Prof Gadgil welcomed the participants to the brainstorming session on land use policy in the 

Western Ghats organized by the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP). He 

informed the house that WGEEP has been organizing brainstorming sessions on important 

themes related to Western Ghats. Further, he said that earlier brainstorming sessions have 

been held on (i) organic agriculture in Kerala, (ii) iron ore mining at Goa, (iii) pressures of 

urbanization in Western Ghats at Pune, (iv) role of power sector and role of Joint Forest 

Management in Western Ghats at Bangalore (v) water resources planning in Western Ghats 

in Kerala and (vi) decentralized planning in Western Ghats in Kerala. 

Shri Edgar Ribeiro, former Chief Town Planner, Government of India, spoke on the Land 

Use Policy for the Western Ghats. He stressed upon the fact that land has become a scarce 

resource in India with the increasing population level. This has not only restricted the policy 

options available but has also made implementation of programmes difficult. The spatial 

structure of India is also changing with rapid urbanization taking place. He said that there is 

an urgent need for an urban and rural land use policy at the state level. He said that the 73 rd 

and 74 th constitutional amendments have supported development of statutory spatial plans 

for integrated development plans of the Government. He said that now plans can be 

developed at the state, district, municipality, panchayat and electoral ward level. According 

to him the plans should have a 20-year perspective and 5-year programmes. He emphasized 

that laws governing development planning need to be strengthened. 

Further, he said that it was imperative that development planning law is the only law in the 

state which regulates land use in both urban and rural areas. He added that the practice to 

have development plans made by Industrial Development Corporations has led to lot of 

abuse and conflicts on land use. The same is happening with SEZs. He highlighted the fact 

that a lot of land is going outside statutory spatial frameworks in the form of PPP (Public 

Private Partnership) projects. Prof. Ribeiro stressed that spatial development plans should 

therefore be the key to land use policy which should be based on sustainable development 

298


principles. He suggested that as a priority activity a state land use policy could be made for 

the six Western Ghats states and each state policy should be approved by the Central 

government in terms of national policies, safeguarding operational uses and infrastructure 

development etc. 

Prof. Ribeiro informed the participants that there are 40 revenue districts in the Western 

Ghats and spatial development plans for each district should be developed. It should be a 

three-tier exercise at the district level (regional), municipalities and panchayat level 

(settlements level), and electoral ward level (local areas). These spatial plans should have a 

20-year perspective and 5-year programme plans. These plans would have land use maps, 

with a matrix of activities for each land use and a development control chart for each land 

use zone. Further, there would be sub plans related to transportation, services and 

environment. He said that out of the six Western Ghats states, 5 have three tier (District – 

Taluka (block) –settlement) panchayati raj institutions while Goa has two tier (District – 

settlement) system. 

A critical component of the Regional (even Settlement) plan is the presence of ecosensitive 

zones. Through demarcation of ecosensitve zones on the Regional Development Plans, they 

would get credence on statutory Development Plans. The Goa Regional Plan 2021 is a good 

example of this. Finally, he said that for success in implementation of this system there has 

to be a synergy between the State Development Planning Board and the State Planning 

Commission, which regulates development plan funds. 

Shri Y.B. Ramakrishna, Executive Chairman, Karnataka State Biofuel Taskforce, gave a 

presentation on Bio Fuels–Land Management issues with specific reference to the Western 

Ghats . He gave a brief introduction about the biofuel status at global, national and state 

level (Karnataka). He stressed that degraded and fallow lands could be brought under 

biofuel cultivation. This would yield benefits to the local people. He explained how the 

biofuel plantation, extraction and production could work on a participatory and 

decentralized mode. Finally he said that A pragmatic land use policy needs to be adopted 

for taking up ecologically sustainable and socially acceptable developmental projects and 

that biofuel plantations with local species may be promoted on betta land, kumki land and all 

marginal and fallow lands with total participation of communities. 

Ms T.M. Sudha, Senior Town Planner, Department of Town and Country Planning, Kerala, 

gave a presentation on ‚Opportunities in Participatory Planning in Evolving a Land Use 

Policy for the Western Ghats Region‛. Ms Sudha gave an introduction about Kerala 

including an overview of the Kerala Western Ghats. Ms Sudha highlighted the peculiarities 

of land holdings and settlements in Kerala which included scattered homesteads and a 

rural–urban continuum. She said that urban sprawl is very common in Kerala and the per 

capita land availability is very low. To limit urban sprawl a judicious land use policy 

alongwith a comprehensive development plan which includes concerns of the environment 

was required. 

In the specific case of the Western Ghats, the Kerala Government has involved local bodies 

such as Panchayati Raj institutions for implementation of programmes under the Western 

Ghats Development Programme. It has strengthened people’s groups such as Self-Help 

Groups, Neighborhood Groups, User Groups, and Kudumbashree (State Ppverty 

Eradication Mission of Government of Kerala). The Kerala Government has also initiated the 

formulation of District Development Plans in a participatory mode with the involvement of 

people, local governments (Panchayati Raj Institutions), line departments, NGOs and 

technical support provided by the Town and Country Planning Department. This pilot 

299


project has been taken up in Kollam district. For the formulation of the District Development 

Plans, a District-Level Technical Committee was set up which had subcommittees on 

different thematic areas including those related with the environment. Finally, she said that 

decentralized participatory planning was an opportunity to respond to local requirements 

and conservation needs. 

Dr. Gopal Kadekodi, Centre for Multi-Disciplinary Development Research, Dharwad, gave a 

presentation on socioeconomic considerations for forest land use management . Dr. 

Kadekodi at the outset said that the land use problem could be seen in the context of an 

optimum resource use paradigm where the equilibrium situation is arrived at after looking 

at the supply side and the competing uses available. He said that forests are a kind of 

equilibrium resource keeping in view of the land being covered by them and the many 

ecosystem services which are useful for humans. He added that the main problem in the 

current context is the best land use option between agriculture and non-agriculture. He gave 

examples of land use and land cover changes in the Western Ghats with specific reference to 

conversions of forest land for different uses including mining and dams. 

Dr Kadekodi provided a framework on how to capture the social cost of forest land 

conversion and the mechanism of how to deal with the conversion of forest land. He said 

that this can be done by compensating the loss of social marginal cost and developing 

institutions to implement the compensatory principle. He informed the participants that to 

arrive at an estimate of the social marginal cost, forest resources and biodiversity have to be 

valued in an ecological and economic framework. He explained the valuation framework 

and various types of values associated with forest resources. Finally, he gave the example of 

the Net Present Value concept developed by the Kanchan Chopra Committee to value forest 

resources. This exercise suggested an allocation of compensation for forest loss amongst 

different stakeholders including the local community, state and central governments. 

However, this recommendation was not incorporated by the Supreme Court in its judgment. 

Dr. Seema Purushothaman, ATREE, Bangalore, gave a presentation on land use regulations 

for poverty reduction in the forest peripheries of the Western Ghats. At the outset, Dr. 

Purushothaman commented upon the utility and success of market-based instruments and 

economic valuation in conservation of resources. During her presentation she highlighted 

the intricate link between land use and poverty, the policies which affect land use, and 

governance of common property resources. She explained the policies which affect land use 

in forest peripheries. She also explained the policy and enforcement gaps which could 

aggravate poverty by a case study of Anaikutty area in Tamil Nadu. Dr Purushothaman also 

covered issues related to governance of common property resources (CPRs). She gave details 

of a case study wherein the conventional wisdom regarding CPRs was challenged and the 

reasons for the same. In the end, she provided a new approach for governance of CPRs. 

Dr. Jagdish Krishnaswamy, ATREE, gave a presentation on ‚Effects of Land-Cover Change 

on Hydrology in the Western Ghats‛. Dr. Krishnaswamy informed the members that 

different ecosystems and different forest types partition input rainfall into different 

hydrological components in a differential manner. He explained the basic water balance 

model and various hypotheses on the effects of forest loss on stream water yield. He 

presented data from case studies carried out by him to test these hypotheses in wet and dry 

forest regions. For the wet regions, one of the main conclusions was that forests generate 

more delayed stream flows and rainfall falling on forested areas spends more time in forest 

ecosystems as compared to degraded forest and plantation areas. In the drier areas, there is a 

view that increase in the number of trees increases evapotranspiration which leads to 

reduced stream flow. According to Dr. Krishnaswamy, the tradeoff between increased 

300


carbon storage by plantation activities vis-à-vis hydrological effects of massive plantation 

activities need to be carefully examined. Finally, Dr. Krishnaswamy said that hydrological 

services are very sensitive to land-cover change and there are synergies between 

hydrological services, carbon storage and sequestration, and biodiversity conservation. 

Dr. Shrinivas Badiger, ATREE, gave a presentation on agricultural land use changes and 

cropping system choices in Western Ghats catchments: hydrological regime changes and 

implications for food-security and livelihoods. Dr. Badiger said that areas which have high 

forest cover have high water availability in generic terms. He said that changes in 

agricultural land use patterns in upper, mid-stream and lower catchments has led to 

depletion in stream/river flow regimes and aquifer reserves. He explained this by a case 

study of Malaprabha basin where there has been intensification of agriculture and increase 

in sugarcane cultivation which has led to depletion in stream flows (especially postmonsoon 

dry season) and groundwater levels. He concluded that agricultural land-use 

regulation is inevitable to improve the ecosystem functions of upper catchments. 

Dr. T.R. Shankar Raman, Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysore, gave a presentation on 

‚Plantations and Land Use Change in the Western Ghats: Conservation, Restoration and 

Sustainable Agriculture‛. Dr. Shankar Raman informed the members that most rainforest 

fragments found in tea and coffee plantations are private forest areas. The level of habitat 

modification determines the species composition of these forest fragments. He brought out 

the importance of these forest fragments as refugia and as corridors for wildlife. He said that 

the forest fragments present in plantations and riparian tracts need to be conserved due to 

the important role they play as wildlife habitat and corridors. Dr. Raman said that riparian 

tracts are little strips of vegetation which have disproportionately high value. He stressed 

the fact that there is a need to ecologically restore these forest fragments and riparian strips. 

He showed the various steps involved in the ecological restoration of these fragments. 

Dr. Shankar Raman also highlighted the work being carried out to identify native shade 

trees for tea and coffee plantations. This activity becomes important as the area under 

plantations is increasing. He stressed upon the ecosystem services provided by native 

biodiversity to the coffee plantations. Dr. Shankar Raman informed the participants of 

schemes of fostering responsible land use in these plantations by giving business incentives 

for sustainable agriculture. He mentioned about the growing demand for tea and coffee 

which have conservation certification such as that of the Rainforest Alliance. This 

certification is given to plantations which meet certain fixed standards. 

Finally, Dr. Shankar Raman talked about conservation initiatives and the effects of linear 

intrusions such as roads and transmission lines on rain forest. He suggested the need for a 

policy on linear intrusion in rain forest areas and the scheme of activities which could be 

taken up in this regard on a priority basis. 

After the presentation there was an open discussion of land use policy and development 

planning. Dr. Gopal Kadekodi said that development planning should take into account the 

land capability and the capacity of land to support development. He further added that GIS 

should be used to overlay societal preferences on different types of land. Dr. T.R. Shankar 

Raman said that there should be an incentive scheme for undertaking ecological restoration 

by the local people. Prof Madhav Gadgil highlighted the importance of riparian strips in 

Western Ghats ecology. He informed the members that the riparian strip next to river 

Kayadhu in Hingoli District is an important habitat for native grasses and legumes in 

Maharastra. The local people maintain these riparian strips and harvest these native grass 

species for their use. 

301


Prof. Ribeiro made a case for sound development planning for sustainable development. 

This was followed by a discussion on what development means, and that development as it 

is understood today is for whom and for what purpose. Shri B.J. Krishnan said that there 

should be a role for local communities in the formulation of development control rules. Ms 

Sudha said that development should have a common definition and there should be clear 

parameters for development. 

Professor Madhav Gadgil discussed the proposal to undertake participatory planning of 

ecologically sensitive areas at the electoral ward level. Ms Sudha said that we should guide 

and educate the local people to formulate plans for ecologically sensitive areas. 

302


Minutes of the Tenth Meeting of Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) held at 

Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, on 4 th and 5 th March 2011 preceded by a 

brainstorming session on land use policy held on 3 rd March 2011 

The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel met on 4 th March 2011 at Indian Institute of 

Science, Bengaluru. 

The following members were present: 




Dr. R.V.Varma 





Chairman 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 


Dr. Ligia Noronha, TERI, New Delhi; Dr. R.R. Navalgund, Director, Space Application 


Subramaniam, IISc, Bengaluru; Prof R. Sukumar, IISc, Bengaluru; all Members of the Panel 

could not attend the meeting. Dr. Amit Love (Deputy Director, MoEF) was also present 

during the meeting. 

The Chairman welcomed the Members of the Panel. He informed the members that there 

would be four presentations followed by Panel deliberations which would form the agenda 

for the day. The presentations were on: (i) adaptive agroforestry in the Western Ghats region 

by P. R. Sheshagiri Rao, (ii) the framework and components of the WGEEP report by Prof 

Madhav Gadgil, (iii) geospatial database for assessment of ecologically sensitivity by Dr. S. 

N. Prasad, and (iv) SESA proposal by Prof Madhav Gadgil. 

Shri P. R. Sheshagiri Rao gave a presentation on ‚Adaptive Agroforestry in the Western 

Ghats region‛. He explained what is meant by adaptive agroforestry and how it is different 

from conventional agroforestry. Typically, adaptive agroforestry is characterized by very 

high tree density and a short rotation period coupled with activities to nurture and improve 

soil quality. He indicated the areas of the country where this technology could be applied. 

Shri Rao explained the principles of the technology in detail with examples. He said that if 

this technology has to be applied in the Western Ghats area it would have to be adapted for 

the special context. Shri Rao further added that different verticals involved in the process 

would have to be integrated, viz. production, market, policy and information. He pointed 

out some limiting factors for which the technology will have to be fine tuned in the specific 

case of the Western Ghats. Some of the limiting factors are: (i) high rainfall, (ii) steep slopes, 

and (iii) lateritic soils. Shri Rao also highlighted the opportunities, which are available in the 

Western Ghats region with respect to this technology. He finally detailed how the 

opportunities available in the Western Ghats region could be used for the success of the 

technology. 

303


Professor Madhav Gadgil gave a presentation on the framework and components of the 

WGEEP report. At the outset there was a discussion on the format of the report. It was 

decided that the report would have three parts: (i) executive summary, (ii) main report, (iii) 

anexures to the report. Following this, discussion took place on various components of the 

report. 

a. Prof Madhav Gadgil covered the quotations, which have to be included in the 

introductory section, followed by TORs of the Panel and the activities undertaken by the 

Panel in the last one year. It was suggested that the development of the website of the 

Panel be included in the activities of the Panel. 

b. The setting of Western Ghats in terms of its boundaries, landscapes and ecosystem were 

then elaborated. There was a discussion on the demarcation of the boundaries of the 

Western Ghats. Dr Ganeshaiah informed the members that a lot work had been carried 

out for the demarcation of the Western Ghats. The criteria used included geographic 

continuity, slope and forest type. There was also a discussion on the history of the 

demarcation of the Western Ghats boundaries wherein different criteria such as geology, 

administrative boundaries and vegetation have been used for demarcation. Professor 

Madhav Gadgil gave the example of Bhimashankar in Pune district, a very hilly area, but 

not classified as hilly, due to which certain forms of soil conservation measures could not 

be carried out. The importance of boundary setting was discussed. The Chairman said 

that the Panel advocates a layered, nuanced, participatory approach so that boundaries 

will not be discontinuities and therefore will not be of undue significance. 

c. The threats faced by the Western Ghats and the challenges faced by local communities 

inhabiting the region were discussed. Following this, Professor Madhav Gadgil delved 

upon the pillars of sustainable development, and the real meaning of the word 

development. He then discussed the paths which could be followed to achieve 

development. 

d. Prof Madhav Gadgil elaborated upon the currently available tools such as Town and 

Country Planning Act, Hill Stations and Lake Districts Policy, Zoning Atlases for Siting 

of Industries, environment and forest related legislations. He also covered the new 

conservation initiatives such as community conservation areas in Udumbanchola in 

Idukki, positive incentives for conservation as in the case of Kerala mangroves and 

restoration of rainforest patches in plantation areas. Further, Prof Gadgil also brought to 

the notice of the members the ecodevelopment committee of the Periyar Tiger Reserve. 

He also stressed upon the role of people in environmental monitoring of pollution and 

the case of the Paryavaran Vahini Scheme of the Ministry. He also narrated the 

experience in implementation of the PESA (Panchayat Extension to the Scheduled Areas) 

Act, the case of development planning and democratic devolution of power. He talked 

about the Kerala experience and the Goa decentralization approach in planning. It was 

also decided that biosphere reserves would also be discussed in the report as a 

management tool. 

e. Following this, the Chairman elaborated upon the Pronab Sen criteria for determination 

of ecological sensitivity. He said that if the Pronab Sen Criteria are applied all of the 

Western Ghats will classify as ecologically sensitive. He said that the Panel envisages 

adopting a graduated approach for ecologically sensitive spanning from highly sensitive 

to less sensitive. He then discussed the guidelines prescribed by the Wildlife Division of 

the Ministry to notify ecologically sensitive areas around the national parks and wildlife 

sanctuaries. 

304


f. Professor Madhav Gadgil said that there would be a section on the methodology 

adopted by the Panel for identification of ecologically sensitive areas using the 

geospatial grid-based approach where ecological sensitivity was scored. He also said 

that the section will also include inputs from the general public as in the case of Gram 

Sabhas of Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts and the proposals from NGOs as in the 

case of Kodagu, Sahayadri and Kodachadri ecologically sensitive area proposals. This 

will be followed by the statewise rankings of ecological sensitivity. The ecological 

sensitivity scores would range from lowest to highest sensitivity. 

g. This would be followed by a section which will detail how conservation can be married 

with development. The entire Western Ghats could be made a model for sustainable 

development and a laboratory for fashioning development programmes compatible with 

nature conservation and social justice.The development strategy for each of the zones 

with different levels of ecological sensitivity would be elaborated upon. This section 

would include environmental policies of Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Sikkim as 

case studies. 

h. Prof Gadgil mentioned the specific recommendations given by various groups including 

those of Kodagu and Ratnagiri to manage their respective ecologically sensitive areas. 

He detailed issues related with land use, water policy, community lands, forest areas, 

and promotion of traditional practices of local communities. Further, Prof Gadgil also 

elaborated the approach which has to be followed for sectors like agriculture, organized 

industry, mining, power, tourism, transport, communication, human settlements, health, 

science and technology. 

i. Prof Gadgil stressed upon the importance of managing information and the creation of 

an accessible, transparent, participatory database on the environmental resources of the 

Western Ghats. He also talked about the political institutions which would be required 

for administering these ecologically sensitive areas and the importance of democratic 

devolution of power. He also stressed upon the important role of social audits and 

engaging people in planning and monitoring of environmental resources. He specifically 

highlighted the Paryavaran Vahini initiative. Prof Gadgil talked about legal and 

administrative provisions towards environmental protection and that reforms are 

required in them. He said that policies in the Western Ghats should be made to promote 

social harmony and not to create social divides. He suggested that economic growth in 

the Western Ghats region should be tailored to the carrying capacity of the area. Finally 

he talked about the scope and powers of the proposed Western Ghats Ecology 

Authority. 

j. It was decided that the indicated members would provide information on the following 

topics for inclusion in the report. 


(i) Adverse effects of hydroelectric power projects (Slide 12) 

(ii) Excessive use pesticides in agriculture (Slide 14) 

(iii) Tourism in Munnar (Slide 23) 

(iv) Promotion of organic agriculture (Slide 59) 

(v) Use of GMOs in Western Ghats (Slide 59) 

(vi) Environmental ombudsman (Slide 93) 

305



(i) Encroachment in the Western Ghats (Slide 12) 

(ii) Pilgrimage tourism (Slide 14) 

(iii) Community conservation area – Udumbanchola (Slide 26) 

(iv) Incentives to private owners of mangrove areas (Slide 26) 

(v) Biological diversity – Kerala model (Slide 27) 

(vi) Conversion of cardamom hill reserve to rubber plantations (Slide 58) 

(vii) Effect of plantation of spices and condiments on environment (Slide 58) 

(ix) Introduction of exotic fishes (Slide 63) 

(x) Promoting traditional conservation practices (Slide 72) 

(xi) Biodiversity and tribal cooperation (Slide 74) 

(xii) Biodiversity awareness programmes (Slide 86) 

(xiii) Centre–State institutional arrangements (Slide 93) 


(i) Forest rights (Slide 12) 

(ii) Biodiversity and tribals – Keystone Foundation (Slide 74) 


(i) Environmental Policy – Bhutan (Slide 49) 

(ii) Risk evaluation of GM crops (Slide 59) 

(iii) Invasive species (Slide 84) 

Ms. Vidya Nayak 

(i) DANIDA report (Slide 23) 

(ii) Joint Forest Managament – Dakshin Kannada experience (Slide 28) 

(iii) Water diversion structures (Slide 57) 

(iv) Swapping of land for resettlement (Slide 58) 

(v) Grazing lands and social forestry (Slide 64) 

(vi) Promoting traditional conservation practices (Slide 72) 

Dr. T.R. Shankar Raman 

(i) Promotion of organic tea (Slide 59) 

Dr. Jagdish Krishnaswamy/ Dr. Badiger 

(i) Effect of plantations on water use of an area (Slide 57) 

The following information would be provided by the Ministry 

306


(i) Loss of Ecology Authority and polluter pays principle (Slide 14) 

(ii) Ecodevelopment Committee of Periyar (Slide 20) 

(iii) Attapadi case study (slide 20) 

(iv) EIA process (Slide 24) 

(v) Process of declaration of ecologically sensitive areas under EPA 1986, number of 

ecologically sensitive areas declared till date. 

(vi) UNESCO heritage site proposal for Western Ghats (Slide 37) 

(vii) State-wise policy for protection of environment – Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Himachal 

Pradesh. (Slide 49) 

The Panel noted the contents of the letter sent by the Nilgiri Wildlife and Environment 

Association addressed to the Hon’ble MOS (I/C) E&F on the public consultation held in 

Ootacamund on 18 th January 2011. 

This was followed by a detailed presentation by Dr. S.N. Prasad on the grid-wise ecological 

sensitivity scores for the states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. He explained to the 

members the variables which have been used for arriving at sensitivity scores and the 

meaning of the different sensitivity scores. He also explained to the members that special 

ecosystems such as riparian forests have been added as a separate layer on the map. This 

will facilitate highlighting sensitivity where riparian forests are present. The Panel members 

went through the grid-wise sensitivity scores for the states of Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil 

Nadu. 

The meeting of the Panel continued on the 5 th March 2011. 

307


Minutes of the Tenth Meeting The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel again met again 

on 5 th March 2011 at Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru for the Tenth Meeting of 

Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP). 





Dr. R.V.Varma 





Chairman 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 


Dr. Ligia Noronha, TERI, New Delhi; Dr. K.N. Ganeshaiah, Member; Dr. R.R. Navalgund, 

Director, Space Application Centre, Ahmedabad; Prof. S P Gautam, Chairman, Central 

Pollution Control Board; Dr. D.K. Subramaniam, IISc, Bengaluru; all Members of the Panel 

could not attend the meeting. Dr. Amit Love (Deputy Director, MoEF) was also present 

during the meeting. 

The Chairman welcomed the Members of the Panel and informed them that the agenda for 

the day was (i) deliberations with representatives of Save Western Ghats Movement, (ii) 

presentation on the geospatial database for assessment of ecologically sensitivity, and (iii) 

presentation on the SESA proposal with specific reference to the mandate of the Western 

Ghats Ecology Authority and recommendations with respect to the authority. 

Shri Somnath Sen, SWGM, said that the Save Western Ghats Movement has a rich body of 

experience at policy and ground level and through this interaction wanted to flag key issues 

and contribute to the thinking of the Panel. 

Shri Pratim Roy gave a brief history of the genesis of WGEEP and the role of SWGM in 

Western Ghats conservation. He flagged the issue of demarcation of Ecologically Sensitive 

Areas in the Western Ghats and how to put science into practice at the ground level. He 

stressed the need to make decentralized environmental governance as local as possible. 

Dr. Latha commented upon the ESA methodology. She appreciated the methodology 

developed by the Panel and said that as per their expectations the Protected Areas got 

higher ecological sensitivity scores. This was because there was more information available 

about them. She further added that the grid-based sensitivity scores provide the basis for 

developing different zones of ecological sensitivity. Dr. Latha commented that the grid 

methodology can be further enriched by inclusion of more factors. One such factor which 

should be included in the methodology is rivers and the associated riparian forests. 

Professor Madhav Gadgil commented upon the suggestions made by members of SWGM. 

He said that the Panel will recommend a graduated approach to ecological sensitivity, i.e. 

there would be zones of different ecological sensitivity rather than an ESA versus no ESA 

approach. Further, the Panel would recommend graded management regimes which would 

be developed by a decentralized participatory approach. He also said that the inputs from 

308


the local people would be taken into account while finalizing the ecologically sensitive areas. 

Prof Gadgil further said that the Panel will also adopt a participatory approach in 

development planning and prioritization and the participation of the local people may be at 

the electoral ward level. 

Dr. Archana Godbole commented that threats should be made a factor and should be 

quantified for arriving at the ecological sensitivity scores of different areas. The 

quantification of threats is a more important variable than the IUCN categories which have 

been used. 

Shri Somnath Sen requested the Panel to indicate issues under consideration of the Panel so 

that the SWGM can contribute meaningfully. 

Professor Madhav Gadgil gave a brief overview of the important issues being considered by 

the Panel. Some of the issues were (i) protection of stretches of rivers which are relatively 

undisturbed, eg. some stretches of the Aghanashini, (ii) area-specific development issues 

such as Amby valley and Lavasa. 

He said that the Panel is deliberating whether certain activities may be regulated all across 

the Western Ghats such as the use of GMOs. Then there may be specific recommendations 

for certain areas such as Munnar. He also suggested that the Panel would try to suggest the 

process by which local participatory inputs play a major role in the formulating of 

development plans. The process will be finalized at a workshop at the Kerala Institute of 

Local Administration. Professor Gadgil said that the Panel envisaged submission of the 

final report by June 30, 2011. 

Prof Gadgil said that the Panel is envisaging recommending that the Western Ghats Ecology 

Authority should be a statutory body and not a recommendatory, advisory or monitoring 

body. Further, it would not be a unitary authority, but would have state level bodies whose 

details would have to be worked out. 

Shri Samir Mehta said that the composition of WGEA is a critical factor in its success. The 

important question is whether the WGEA will have the local elected representatives 

members in it or not and the number of government officials, civil society representatives to 

be included. He stressed that for effective running of WGEA, political buy-in of the WGEA 

is important. He also highlighted changes which will have to be brought into the EIA 

process specifically keeping in view the recommendations of WGEEP and the role and 

mandate of WGEA. 

Shri Mehta suggested that the state-level committees under the WGEA should be mandated 

to demarcate the boundaries of specific ESAs. He stressed upon that fact that public 

consultation should be held before the ESA notification is carried out. It was also suggested 

that the WGEA should be an automonous, professional body which has civil society 

representatives and its decisions should be based on rigorous science. The office of the 

WGEA could be located at the Regional offices of the Ministry. The members also discussed 

the use of CAMPA funds by the Authority for data collection. 

Professor Madhav Gadgil informed the participants that he had had discussions with the 

Chairpersons of the three existing authorities set up by the Ministry, viz. Dahanu Authority, 

Loss of Ecology Authority, and Bhure Lal Authority. He said that generally professional 

bodies do not have elected representatives. He also said that the Panel is trying to formulate 

the role of WGEA in the EIA process. 

309


Professor Gadgil said that detailed boundaries of the ESAs would be worked out through a 

bottom-up approach. Further, he added the Panel does not visualize just two levels of 

sensitivity and rather there would be different zones of ecological sensitivity. These zones 

would be demarcated using the participatory approach. Professor Gadgil also discussed 

about advantages of direct democracy in decision making on issues related to the 

environment. He gave the example of Goa in this regard. He added that the financial 

resources of WGEA and the use of CAMPA funds would be deliberated upon. 

Dr. V.S. Vijayan said that WGEA should be system-centered and not individual-centered. 

He further said that only green technologies should be allowed in the entire Western Ghats 

region. Prof. Raman Sukumar said that WGEA should not be on the lines of NTCA (National 

Tiger Conservation Authority) where the members are not informed about decisions. He 

gave the example of the BRT Tiger Reserve in this regard where the members of NTCA 

learned about the decision post facto. 

Shri B.J. Krishnan said that the Panel has come to the decision of a graduated approach 

rather than a ‚Go–No go‛ approach through a democratic and harmonious process. He also 

said that through the graduated approach the Panel aims to minimize the scope of 

exploitation of the Western Ghats region. Shri Krishnan further added that the grid-based 

approach is an inclusive one and that the Panel was open to suggestions for improvement. 

Dr. Latha enquired about the process of ESA planning and how it relates to Local Self- 

Government (LSG) in the planning process. She said that the exact demarcation of 

boundaries of ESAs is a must for effective planning. She raised the issue of whether 

notification of ESAs will be done sequentially or simultaneously. She said these things 

should be specifically addressed by the Panel in their report. Prof Madhav Gadgil said that 

the example of the Goa Regional Plan 2021 where the planning process was carried using the 

bottom-up approach will be considered while evolving a process for involvement of LSGs in 

ESA planning. 

Dr. Archana Godbole enquired about areas which will not qualify for ecological sensitivity 

based upon the grid-based scores but also need to be protected. Prof Gadgil clarified that in 

such circumstances a detailed case should be made out and the Panel might invoke the 

precautionary principle in such cases. Prof Raman Sukumar said that though the process of 

identification and demarcation of ESAs is dynamic in nature, it should not become ad hoc 

and discretionary. There should be a 20-year perspective and 5-year planning. 

Ms Snehlata Nath said that in areas which get low ecological sensitivity scores, ecological 

restoration should be recommended by the Panel. She also said that if people’s perception 

was also quantified and included in the grid methodology, the rankings may change. She 

added that a forum should be created for people’s participation and a mechanism should be 

put in place for conflict resolution and this should be part of the WGEA mechanism. 

Prof R. Sukumar suggested that an incentive structure should be worked out for the local 

people who are involved in conservation efforts using CAMPA funds. Dr. R.V. Varma 

mentioned that the Kerala State Biodiversity Board is giving incentives to people for 

protection of heronries. Ms. Vidya Nayak said that CAMPA funds should be used for 

ecological restoration programmes. Prof Madhav Gadgil told the participants that local 

communities can also be given incentives under the Protection of Plant Varieties and 

Farmers’ Rights Act where the local people conserve the indigenous cultivars of crop plants. 

Ms. Vidya Nayak suggested that Biodiversity Management Committees and Village Forest 

Committees should be strengthened. 

310


Shri Madhu Ramnath, Palni Hills Conservation Council, gave a brief profile of the Palni 

Hills. He stressed the fact that most of the pristine and threatened areas of the region are 

outside the PA network. According to him the Panel should recommend ecological 

restoration of degraded areas in the Palni region. 

Ms Latha said that there should be a plan for long term monitoring of downstream impacts 

of dams. She also stressed the concept of environmental flows. She suggested that funds 

generated by the government from sand mining should be used for conservation and 

restoration initiatives. Prof Madhav Gadgil said that it would be meaningful if she could 

give the list of parameters which should be monitored for downstream effects. 

Prof Madhav Gadgil thanked the members of the SWGM for their interaction with the Panel 

and told them to suggest four representatives of SWGM which would attend the workshop 

in KILA from 3 rd -5 th of May. 

This was followed by a presentation by Dr. S.N. Prasad on geospatial analysis for 

assessment of ecological sensitivity scores. It was suggested that the ecological sensitivity 

scores could be colour coded and the range of colours would follow the VIBGYOR 

spectrum. Voilet will indicate lowest ecological sensitivity score whereas red would indicate 

highest ecological sensitivity score. Prof Madhav Gadgil suggested that it would be 

meaningful to look specifically at special ecosystems such as lateritic plateaus, sholas and 

cloud forests, grasslands and riparian forests in the geospatial grid analysis. 

Prof Madhav Gadgil gave a presentation on the SESA proposal. The SESA proposal 

provided a primer for discussion about the mandate, composition and function of the 

Western Ghats Ecology Authority. The presentation was followed by discussion on the 

ambit and scope of the Western Ghats Ecology Authority and demarcation of ecologically 

sensitive areas in Western Ghats. 

Prof Madhav Gadgil proposed that the entire Western Ghats could be classified as an 

Ecologically Significant Area, out of which selected areas could be notified as Ecologically 

Sensitive Area in legal terms. Prof Raman Sukumar supported the proposal that the entire 

Western Ghats be declared as an Ecologically Significant Area with selected areas being 

notified as Ecologically Sensitive Area. This was followed by a discussion on whether the 

whole Western Ghats should be notified as Ecologically Sensitive Area or the Western Ghats 

would be designated as an Ecologically Sensitive Area with selected areas being notified as 

ecologically sensitive areas. Shri Vijayan supported the idea that the entire Western Ghats be 

legally notified as an Ecologically Sensitive Area. 

Dr. R.V. Varma said that state governments would not agree with the proposal of the entire 

Western Ghats being declared as a Ecologically Sensitive Area. Dr. G.V. Subrahmanyam 

pointed out that declaring the Western Ghats as an Ecologically Sensitive Area would also 

affect the EIA process as all the projects which would earlier be classified as category B 

projects would become Category A projects. Prof Madhav Gadgil said that declaration of the 

whole Western Ghats as an ESA would centralize a lot of power with the Union 

Government which is not a good practice. This is exemplified in the case of mining in Goa. 

Shri B.J. Krishnan said that planning and management of ESAs should be pro-people. Dr. 

Renee Borges said that the Panel should provide prescriptions for development planning of 

the Western Ghats. Prof Madhav Gadgil said that through the model of ecologically 

significant and ecological sensitive areas, the Panel will try to inject better practices of 

development planning in the Western Ghats. 

311


Finally, it was decided that the Western Ghats could be declared as an Ecologically 

Significant Area. Within this ecologically significant matrix, Ecologically Sensitive Areas 

would be notified. Each group of Panel members would look after the particular states 

allocated to them. This group would demarcate Ecologically Sensitive Areas in their 

respective states and provide guidelines for participatory development planning. It was also 

decided that WGEA should have statutory powers and it should have state-level committees 

which would firm up proposals of Ecologically Sensitive Areas of each state. The WGEA 

would promote environmentally sound development in the Western Ghats. 


312


Minutes of the Eleventh Meeting of Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) held 

at Paryavaran Bhavan, New Delhi, on 24 th March 2011 with the Hon’ble MOS (I/C) E&F 

The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel met on 24 th March 2011 at Paryavaran Bhavan, 

New Delhi with the Hon’ble MOS (I/C) E&F. 






Dr. R.V.Varma 




Co-opted expert member 

Dr. S.N. Prasad, SACON, Hyderabad 

Special Invitees 

Chairman 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 


Dr. P.J. Dilip Kumar, Director General of Forests & Special Secretary, Ministry of 

Environment & Forests (MoEF), Government of India 

Shri Jagdish Kishwan, Additional Director General of Forests (Wildlife), MoEF 

Shri A.K. Srivastava, Inspector General of Forests (Wildlife), MoEF 

Shri B.M.S. Rathore, Joint Secretary, MoEF 

Dr. K.N. Ganeshaiah, UAS, Bangalore; Dr. R.R. Navalgund, Director, Space Application 

Centre, Ahmedabad; Dr. D.K. Subramaniam, IISc, Bengaluru; Prof R. Sukumar, IISc, 

Bengaluru, Dr Renee Borges, IISc, Bengaluru, all Members of the Panel could not attend the 

meeting. Shri Neeraj Khatri (Deputy Director, MoEF) and Dr. Amit Love (Deputy Director, 

MoEF) were also present during the meeting. 

Professor Madhav Gadgil gave a presentation on the framework and components of the 

WGEEP report. 

At the outset, Prof Madhav Gadgil, Chairman, Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel 

(WGEEP) covered the material that will form part of the introductory section of the report. 

This included a few quotations and extracts of an article published by Ram Guha in Outlook 

Magazine. Following this there would be a section on the TORs of the Panel and the 

activities undertaken by the Panel during the past year. 

Prof Gadgil elaborated on the contents of the section on Demarcation of Western Ghats 

Boundaries. He said that the boundaries of the Western Ghats are not very rigid and the 

Western Ghats have very strong westward and eastward linkages. He added that the 

administrative definition of the Western Ghats has no implications in terms of 

environmental regulation and the actual boundaries of the Western Ghats. WGEEP proposes 

to demarcate geographical boundaries on the basis of slope, elevation and continuity of hilly 

313


tracts. Prof Gadgil explained the implications of demarcation of the Western Ghats with 

respect to management and regulatory regimes which would be adopted in the Western 

Ghats vis-à-vis other areas. He said that there were two possible alternatives (i) develop 

recklessly – conserve thoughtlessly (ii) develop thoughtfully – conserve thoughtfully. He 

informed the members that the Panel advocates a layered, nuanced, participatory approach, 

so that boundaries will not be discontinuities and therefore will not be of undue significance. 

Prof Gadgil covered the material which would be included in the section on the 

environmental setting of the Western Ghats in terms of its landscapes, and ecosystems. He 

then dwelt on the challenges faced with respect to the governance of environment and 

natural resources and also listed case studies from the Western Ghats where the governance 

of natural resources and the environment has left a lot to be desired. He said that the Panel 

advocates for moving towards sustainable and inclusive growth whereas at present 

exclusionary development and exclusionary conservation is being followed. Further, Prof 

Gadgil said that for moving towards sustainable development the following 

doctrines/principles have to be put in practice (i) public trust doctrine, (ii) polluter pays 

principle, and (iii) precautionary principle. Prof Madhav Gadgil elaborated upon the 

currently available legal and policy instruments available for the management of the 

environment and natural resources of the Western Ghats region. He supplemented these 

with case studies highlighting the strengths/weaknesses of these legal and policy tools in 

administering the environment and natural resources in Western Ghats region. Prof Gadgil 

covered the new conservation initiatives such as community conservation areas in 

Udumbanchola in Idukki, positive incentives for conservation as in the case of Kerala 

mangroves and restoration of rainforest patches in plantation areas. Further, he stressed 

upon the fact that provisions of the Forest Conservation Act and Forest Rights Act have not 

been applied fully in the Western Ghats. He gave examples of forest clearances given for 

mining in Goa and non-implementation of Forest Rights Act in Athirappilly, Gundia and 

Goa. 

This was followed by an elaboration on the Pronab Sen criteria for determination of 

ecological sensitivity. He said that that the Pronab Sen Committee did not provide for any 

guidelines for the management of Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs). The Panel envisages a 

graduated approach for the management of ESAs. The ecologically sensitive areas would be 

graded from highly sensitive to less sensitive rather than by using a ‚go, no-go‛ approach. 

He gave the example of the graded management regime that has been adopted in the Goa 

Regional Plan 2021. 

He then discussed the guidelines prescribed by the Wildlife Division of the Ministry to 

notify ESAs around the National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. Prof Gadgil listed the 

activities that are prohibited, regulated or to be promoted in ESAs as per the guidelines. He 

informed the members that as per the guidelines green technologies have to be actively 

promoted in ESAs. He highlighted the fact that wind mills which are considered to be a 

green technology and are exempt from any kind of Environmental Impact Assessment have 

led to wide spread deforestation in the Western Ghats. According to him, this issue of wind 

mills required serious consideration. Hon’ble MOS (I/C) E&F suggested that the Panel 

should examine this issue in detail in its report. 

Prof Madhav Gadgil elaborated upon the methodology adopted by the Panel for 

identification of ecologically sensitive areas using a geospatial grid-based approach where 

ecological sensitivity was scored. He also mentioned that WGEEP will also consider inputs 

from the local public as in the case of Gram Sabhas of Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts 

314


and proposals from NGOs as in the case of Kodagu, Sahayadri and Kodachadri ESA 

proposals to demarcate ecologically sensitive areas. 

Further, he said that since the entire Western Ghats qualifies as an ecologically sensitive area 

as per the Pronab Sen criteria, the WGEEP proposes to classify the entire Western Ghats as 

an Ecologically Significant Area and in this Ecologically Significant Matrix, selected areas 

could be notified as Ecologically Sensitive Areas in legal terms. He elaborated that there 

would be different zones of ecological sensitivity which would vary from zones of highest 

sensitivity to zones of low sensitivity. The nomenclature of the zones could be ecosenstive 

core, ESZ1, ESZ2, ESZ3 and the ecologically significant matrix. 

After the section of demarcation on ESAs there would be a section on management regimes 

to be adopted in the Western Ghats. Prof Gadgil said that the Western Ghats would serve as 

a laboratory where development programmes that are compatible with nature conservation 

and that promote social justice would be followed. The management strategy developed for 

the Western Ghats would focus on conservation and efficient use of resources. He said that 

WGEEP proposes to prepare a development strategy for various sectors with respect to the 

Ecosensitive core, ESZ1, ESZ2, ESZ 3 and ecologically significant matrix. Prof Gadgil further 

added that a participatory approach would be adopted for the formulation of the 

development strategy for each area. He said that lessons could be taken from the 

environmental policies of Sikkim, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh and also from other 

countries such as Costa Rica, Australia and Norway. Further, he added that Payment for 

Ecosystem Services could provide a model for incentivizing conservation and sustainable 

development as has been done in Australia and Costa Rica. 

Prof Gadgil gave a brief idea for the proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA) 

and said that the WGEA would have statutory powers. Further, he added that WGEA 

would have State Level Committees, which would firm up proposals for Ecologically 

Sensitive Areas of each state. The WGEA would promote environmentally sound 

development of the Western Ghats. 

After the presentation on the framework and components of WGEEP report by Prof Madhav 

Gadgil, Hon’ble MOS (I/C) E&F appreciated the work done by the Panel and gave a goahead 

signal to the Panel to finalize the WGEEP report. Hon’ble MOS (I/C) E&F left the 

meeting after giving his comments. 

Prof Madhav Gadgil expressed his satisfaction that the Hon’ble Minister had given a clear 

signal for finalization of the Report. He added that the Panel should now assess the items 

that need to be executed for finalization of the report. Prof Gadgil opined that it would be 

meaningful to introduce threats as a variable in the geospatial grid methodology for 

calculating ecological sensitivity. Dr. S. N. Prasad clarified that presently it would be 

difficult to quantify the threats in the stipulated period of time. Prof Gadgil suggested that 

as a first step dams, highways, railways and mines could be depicted on the geospatial map. 

Detailed discussion took place on the status of identification and demarcation of 

Ecologically Sensitive Areas in various Western Ghat states. It was decided that the WGEEP 

members responsible for each of the allotted states would give broad proposals of ESAs for 

their respective states. They would also suggest the process and guidelines for development 

planning of the ESAs with full rationale. The complete proposals for ESAs would be 

prepared by adopting the participatory approach with the involvement of the local people in 

the planning process. The participatory process would be finalized in the next meeting of the 

Panel at Kerala Institute of Local Administration from 3 rd to 5 th of May 2011. 

315


There was discussion on the issue of management of areas which have low ecological 

sensitivity scores due to degradation of the environment but require urgent attention so that 

mitigative measures and ecological restoration programmes can be initiated as in the case of 

Munnar in Kerala. 


316


Minutes of the twelth Meeting of Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) and 

Expert Consultative Meeting held at Kerala Institute of Local Administration, Thrissur, 

from 3 rd to 5 th May 2011 

The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel met from 3 rd to 5 th May 2011 at Kerala Institute of 

Local Administration, Thrissur 

The following members of the WGEEP were present:- 




Dr. R.V.Varma 






Chairman 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 


Dr. K.N. Ganeshaiah, UAS, Bengaluru; Dr. R.R. Navalgund, Director, Space Application 


Subramaniam, IISc, Bengaluru; all Members of the Panel could not attend the meeting. Shri 

Neeraj Khatri (Deputy Director, MoEF) and Dr. Amit Love (Deputy Director, MoEF) were 

also present during the meeting. 

The Panel Meeting and the Expert Consultative Meeting took place simultaneously. The 

meetings were spread across three days from 3 rd to 5 th May 2011. 

Professor Madhav Gadgil, Chairman, Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP), 

welcomed the participants and thanked them for accepting the invitation on behalf of the 

WGEEP. Professor N. Ramakantan, Director, Kerala Institute of Local Administration 

(KILA), welcomed the participants and the members of WGEEP to the KILA. 

Prof Madhav Gadgil highlighted the main tasks entrusted to the Panel by the Ministry, viz. 

(i) identification of ecologically sensitive areas in the Western Ghats and suggesting 

management strategies for them, (ii) proposing an overall development strategy for the 

Western Ghats for their protection and rejuvenation, and (iii) providing recommendations 

on the proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority. Prof Gadgil briefly explained the 

agenda items for 3 rd , 4 th and 5 th May following which the agenda items for 3 rd May 2011 were 

taken up individually for discussion. 

Dr. V.S.Vijayan gave a presentation on assignment of sensitivity scores to different parts of 

Kerala Western Ghats. He also identified the panchayats which were present in the 

proposed ecologically sensitive areas. 

Prof M.K Prasad made a presentation on ‚Development Plans based on Sustainable Use and 

Conservation of Natural Resources: Guidelines for Gram Panchayats‛ 

Shri S.M. Vijayanand, Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, spoke on the 

planning process adopted at the District and Local Self-Governments levels. He listed the 

317


various steps involved in the planning process which included (i) situation analysis, (ii) 

consultations, (iii) strategy setting, (iv) issues and options, and (v) resource allocation. He 

further elaborated on the institutional framework involved in the planning process such as 

District Planning Committees, Technical Advisory Groups, and Volunteer Technical Core. 

He mentioned that the District Planning process could easily be integrated with central plan 

schemes. 

In the specific case of planning for Ecologically Sensitive Areas he stressed that the existing 

institutions should be built upon rather than creating a new institutional framework. He 

further mentioned that the planning should be more objectiv- based rather than based on 

specific sectors. This will help in the integration of the functioning of various departments 

towards a common objective. 

Shri Vijayanand suggested that a Model Plan with sustainable development at its focus 

could be prepared for the Panchayats. This plan could then be implemented in selected 

panchayats on a pilot scale. He said that WGEEP could guide the development of such 

plans. Prof Madhav Gadgil said that the Panel could provide guidelines for the development 

of such a model plan. He further requested Dr CTS Nair, Executive Vice President, Kerala 

State Council for Science and Technology, to be the Convener of the group which would 

formulate the Plan. This was followed by discussion on various aspects of development 

planning and the ways in which development plans are implemented. 

Dr. CTS Nair said that the main challenges are (i) how decentralization and decentralized 

planning can break Departmental Silos, (ii) how we can build on existing institutions to 

fulfill the objectives of model plans, (iii) how greater transparency can be brought into the 

system, and (iv) how existing science can be brought into action. 

Day 2: 4 May 2011 

Professor Madhav Gadgil explained the agenda for the day. He also suggested that the 

WGEEP member handling the specific thematic area would chair deliberations on that 

thematic area. 

At the outset, Professor Sukumar explained the rationale and the basis for delimitation of the 

spatial limits of the Western Ghats. He clarified that WGEEP has used an ecological basis for 

the demarcation of the Western Ghats. Prof M.K. Prasad opined that if the Western Ghats 

definition adopted by the WGEEP does not coincide with the official government definition 

there might be problems with respect to implementation of different schemes. It was 

clarified that the present definition encompasses all the Western Ghats taluks which are 

covered by the government definition, hence there would be no problem. 

Shri B.J. Krishnan presented the constitution, mandate and functioning of the proposed 

Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA). At the outset, Shri Krishnan gave a brief 

description of the Environment (Protection) Act and the sections that are relevant to the 

establishment of the Authority. He covered in detail the salient features of the Authority, 

viz. nature and role of the Authority, functions and powers of WGEA, legal framework and 

institutional structure, composition of the Authority, tenure and secretariat of the Authority, 

finances, honorarium and allowances of members. 

Shri Krishnan said that the WGEA would be a statutory authority with a two-tiered system 

of one umbrella Central authority with state-level authorities. He detailed the constitution of 

the Umbrella Authority and the state Authorities. The chairman of the Authority would be a 

retired Supreme Court judge or an eminent scientist. 

After the presentation of Shri Krishnan, there was detailed discussion on various aspects of 

the proposed WGEA, its mandate, constitution, powers and functioning. Shri Samir Mehta, 

318


International Rivers, highlighted the facts that the powers and jurisdiction of the umbrella 

WGEA and state authorities should be different otherwise there are chances of conflicts. Shri 

Sanjay Upadhyay, Advocate, Supreme Court of India, enquired about the linkages of the 

proposed Authority with other statutory authorities in the area of environment and asked 

about the need to have statutory authorities which have similar or overlapping powers. He 

gave the example of the National Green Tribunal, State environmental appraisal authorities 

and Central and State Pollution Control Boards in this regard. 

Prof K.P. Kannan opined that in the present form the proposed WGEA was highly unitary in 

nature. Shri Sanjay Upadhyay suggested that the umbrella WGEA should act as an appellate 

authority only in the case of inter-state issues and not matters related with one state alone. 

Dr. A.K. Shyam highlighted the issues related with the present institutional mechanism for 

appraising and conducting EIA vis-à-vis establishment of the proposed authority. He also 

commented upon lack of adequate representation of scientists in the Authority. Dr. V.S. 

Vijayan suggested that the Chairman, National Biodiversity Authority, should also be a 

member of the proposed WGEA. 

Prof M.K. Prasad said that rather than setting up new regulatory bodies we should activate 

institutions and institutional mechanism which are not performing. Shri R.K. Garg said that 

the point of concern is that even though there are institutions and laws with relation to the 

environment, development is being carried out in an unregulated manner. The important 

issue is one of effective implementation of existing regulations and plugging the lacunae in 

existing authorities and institutions. He suggested that the proposed WGEA should have a 

watchdog function which gives feedback to plug the deficiencies and lacunae of the system 

rather than functioning as a regulatory body. 

It was felt that the proposed WGEA should not be a strict regulatory body but it should have 

a watchdog function and that its recommendations should be binding. Prof Madhav Gadgil 

said that there are a number of regulatory bodies with overlapping powers. It would be 

meaningful if the proposed WGEA monitors and points out the lacunae in the already 

existing institutions and institutional mechanisms. 

Dr. H.C. Sharatchandra presented an alternative framework for the proposed WGEA which 

was more in line with the views which were expressed. 

This was followed by a presentation by Dr. Ligia Noronha on development planning, 

governance and the role of Panchayati Raj institutions. 

Ms. Prakriti Srivastava, Deputy Inspector General (Wildlife), Ministry of Environment and 

Forests, Government of India, made a presentation on the guidelines formulated by the 

Ministry for demarcation of ecologically sensitive areas around National Parks and Wildlife 

Sanctuaries. She gave a brief overview of the chronology of events upto the issue of 

guidelines by the Wildlife Division of the Ministry. She highlighted the fact that the Ministry 

has given lot of leverage to site-specificity of the ecological sensitive area around protected 

areas by setting up of a three-member committee. She said that the report of the Committee 

would bring out protection needs, development needs and conservation needs based upon 

which specific proposals for demarcation of ecologically sensitive areas would be assessed. 

Prof Gadgil sought clarifications on the following issues regarding demarcation of 

ecologically sensitive areas around protected areas: (i) have any surveys have been 

undertaken of areas surrounding PAs which have to be notified as ecologically sensitive 

areas, (ii) have any functions been visualized for areas around PAs in the context of 

biodiversity conservation, (iii) what is the process of delineating ESA around PAs – who was 

involved, how this was done? (iv) what is the process of deciding on regulatory measures; 

are these generic or context-specific? 

319


Dr. Ligia Naronha sought clarifications on the proposals of ecologically sensitive areas 

around PAs in Goa. Dr. Latha enquired about the process by which the proposals are 

forwarded from the states and at what juncture public consultations are held. Dr. G.V. 

Subrahmanyam explained the process of notification in detail. 

Dr. Ligia Naronha made a presentation on the ecological sensitivity scores of Goa. She 

explained that as per the Goa Regional Plan 2021 nearly 80% of Goa is covered under 

ecologically sensitive zones. There are two ecologically sensitive zones, viz. ESZ 1 and ESZ 2. 

ESZ 1 comprises Government and private forests, National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, 

mangrove forest and water bodies. No new development is allowed in this zone. ESZ 2 

comprises paddy area and khazan lands, command areas, salt pans and heritage zones. Only 

regulated development is allowed in these areas. The presentation was followed by detailed 

discussions on the mining scenario in Goa and environmental impacts of mining. Various 

methods were discussed for regulation of the mining sector in Goa. 

Prof Madhav Gadgil made a presentation on the demarcation of ecologically sensitive areas 

in Maharastra. 

Day 3: 5 May 2011 

Shri Raghu Babu, GIZ (Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit), Delhi gave a 

presentation on the use of Zoning Atlas for Siting of Industries (ZASI) as a tool for 

development planning of ecologically sensitive areas. He explained the basic principles 

involved in the development of a Zoning Atlas. He also gave an illustrative example of 

developing regional plan for Tripura 

After the presentation, Prof Madhav Gadgil sought clarifications from Shri Raghu Babu 

regarding the Zoning Atlas for Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts with particular reference 

to forest area in the districts. Prof Gadgil opined that the Zoning Atlas for Ratnagiri and 

Sindhudurg districts has mixed up legal and operational landuse categories. Dr. 

Sharatchandra said that Zoning Atlases had not been used for development planning in the 

country. Prof Madhav Gadgil said that in the present form the planning approach followed 

for development of Zoning Atlases and Regional Plans tends to follow a top–down 

approach. It would be desirable that Planning should be bottom–up just as in the Kerala 

model for Development Planning. 

The draft WGEEP report outline was deliberated upon in detail. This was followed by a 

detailed discussion on the sector-wise regional development strategy which was fine tuned 

with the different levels of ecological sensitivity. The following sectors were discussed in 

detail: agriculture, forestry, tourism, transport and communication, power. Prof Madhav 

Gadgil suggested that the detailed write ups for each sectors that would be included in the 

report be prepared in the following format: (i) issues, (ii) measures suggested, (iii) on-going 

decision-making process, and (iv) implementing the contemplated measures, (v) action 

Points for WGEA 

Finally, the Panel decided to have the next meeting at the Centre for Ecological Sciences, 

Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, on 20 th and 21 st June 2011. 


320


Minutes of the thirteenth meeting of Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) held 

at Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, from 20th to 21st June 2011 

The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel met from 20th to 21st June 2011 at Indian Institute 

of Science, Bengaluru. 



Chairman 


Member 


Member 

Dr. R.V.Varma 

Member 


Member 


Member 


Member 

Dr. G.V. Subrahmanyam Member Secretary 



Subramaniam, IISc, Bengaluru; Dr Renee Borges, IISc, Bengaluru; all Members of the Panel 

could not attend the meeting. Dr. S.N. Prasad, SACON, Hyderabad and Dr. M.D. Subhash 

Chandran, CES, IISc also participated in the meeting. Dr. Amit Love (Deputy Director, 

MoEF) was also present during the meeting. 

1. Dr S.N. Prasad gave an elaborate presentation on the geospatial database used for 

arriving at ecological sensitivity scores. He explained in detail the methodology adopted for 

scoring the variables used in the geospatial database. The variables used in the geospatial 

database are (i) elevation, (ii) slope, (iii) % forest cover, (iv) unique evergreen elements, (v) 

edge, (vi) riparian forests, (vii) endemic plants, and (viii) IUCN Red List category 

(mammals). He also elaborately explained the process of normalization of variables while 

calculating ecological sensitivity scores. It was decided that the raw data used in the 

geospatial database should be made available in the public domain and the detailed 

methodology used in the geospatial database be clearly brought out in the WGEEP report. 

After detailed deliberations it was decided that the Western Ghats would be classified into 3 

zones differing in ecological sensitivity, viz. (i) ESZ1, (ii) ESZ2 and (iii) ESZ3 while Protected 

Areas would be a separate zone by themselves. Protected Areas were given a special status 

as they are covered under the Wildlife Protection Act. The color scheme, which would be 

used for the depiction of these zones on the maps, was also finalized. Prof R. Sukumar 

suggested that habitat connectivity should be added as a variable in the geospatial database 

for assessing the ecological sensitivity of an area. Prof Madhav Gadgil suggested that the 

proposals of civil society groups for declaration of ecologically sensitive areas in the Western 

Ghats should be overlaid on this 4-zone map of the Western Ghats. 

This was followed by a discussion on the methodology for demarcation and delineation of 

ESZ 1, ESZ 2 and ESZ 3 in the Western Ghats. It was agreed that scores of National Parks 

321


and Wildlife Sanctuaries can be taken as the bench mark value for defining the lower cut off 

value for ESZ1, i.e. all grids which had ecological sensitivity scores equal to or higher than 

the lowest score of any grid in Protected Areas would be considered in ESZ 1. Prof R. 

Sukumar and Dr. Ligia Noronha said that it was important to identify outliers if such a 

methodology is adopted. 

2. The Western Ghats Natural Heritage proposal submitted by the Government to UNESCO 

was discussed by WGEEP. It was felt that there is a need for greater participation of local 

people and communities in formulation and implementation of the Western Ghats National 

Heritage proposal. 

3. Dr. G.V. Subrahmanyam raised the issue of the guidelines of the Wildlife Division of the 

Ministry with reference to demarcation of ecologically sensitive areas around National Parks 

and Wildlife Sanctuaries and how these guidelines can be integrated with the Panel’s 

Recommendations. Prof. Madhav Gadgil said that the Wildlife Division should suitably 

consider WGEEP’s recommendations regarding demarcation of ecologically sensitive zones. 

4. Shri B.J. Krishnan gave a talk on the powers, functions and constitution of the proposed 

Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA). This was followed by a detailed point-wise 

discussion on the draft note prepared by Shri B.J. Krishnan on the WGEA. 

5. Prof Madhav Gadgil informed the Panel members that it would be advisable for the 

WGEEP to submit an interim report on the matters referred to WGEEP by June 30, 2011. The 

issues referred to the WGEA are (i) moratorium on setting up of new industry and mining in 

Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts of Maharashtra, (ii) Gundia hydroelectric power project, 

Karnataka, (iii) Athirappilly Hydroelectric Power Project, Kerala, and (iv) mining in Goa. All 

these issues were discussed in detail by the Panel. 

6. Dr. Ligia Noronha gave a presentation on the mining sector in the state of Goa. M.D. 

Subash Chandran gave a talk on the Gundia Hydroelectric Power Project covering the 

chronological details of the project and the environmental and ecological impacts of the 

proposed project. He also provided an overview of the forest types of the area and the 

unique endemic species found in the project area of the Gundia Hydroelectric Power Project. 

Prof. Madhav Gadgil presented the salient points of his detailed report on Ratnagiri and 

Sindhudurg districts. 

7. Dr. V.S. Vijayan gave a presentation on the Athirappilly Hydroelectric Power Project in 

Kerala. He detailed the chronological events with respect to the EIA process, environmental 

clearances and the cases in the High Court of Kerala. He further brought out the objections, 

which have been raised by the civil society groups on the techno-economic feasibility of the 

project and adverse environmental impacts of the project. He highlighted the fact that 

construction of the Athirappilly dam will adversely effect the biodiversity of the area and 

lead to the destruction of lowland riparian forests; Dr Vijayan provided details of the 

biodiversity elements of the Athirappilly area. He also highlighted that the forest rights of 

the Kadars which are a Primitive Tribal Group inhabiting the area have not been settled 

under the Forests Right Act by the State Government. 

8. After the presentations, Prof. Madhav Gadgil drew the attention of members to the 

ecological security of pristine rivers in the Western Ghats. He gave the example of 

Aghanashini River as one such pristine river. This was followed by a discussion on whether 

pristine river stretches in Western Ghats region could be considered as ecologically sensitive 

areas. 

322


9. Dr Ligia Naronha said that special emphasis should be given to protection of critical 

habitats and there should be a section in the WGEEP report dealing with these habitats. Prof 

Raman Sukumar was requested to write a note in this regard for WGEEP report. It was 

decided that the Panel would recommend that the Ministry could initiate a study on riverine 

and riparian ecosystems in the Western Ghats. It was decided that Dr. R.V. Varma, 

Chairman, Kerala State Biodiversity Board, could act as a focal point for implementing the 

study across the Western Ghats. 

10. It was decided that the final WGEEP report would include sector-wise guidelines for 

ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 in a matrix form. Prof. R. Sukumar initiated the discussion on the 

broad sector-wise guidelines for the different ecosensitive zones, viz. ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3. 

The following sectors were deliberated in detail: mining, power, roads and highways, 

infrastructure, industries, tourism, agriculture and plantations. The broad regulatory and 

promotional activities were discussed. It was decided that the panel would give broad 

policy recommendations for each sector. Detailed sectoral guidelines would be finalized by 

the proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority in consultation with the local communities. 

11. Finally, the framework of the WGEEP report was deliberated upon by the members. 

The contents of the reports were discussed. It was suggested that the report may have 

sections on delineation of ecologically sensitive areas, a broad introduction to the Western 

Ghats which would include the environmental setting, critical habitats, the boundary of the 

Western Ghats region, sector-wise guidelines, governance issues, nature of powers and 

functions of the proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority, and Appendices. It was 

decided that many case studies would be incorporated in the relevant sections, which would 

highlight specific issues related to the Western Ghats region. 

12. This was followed by a discussion on timelines and the expected date for submission of 

the final report of the Panel. The Panel felt that keeping in view the complex issues, which 

would be addressed in the WGEEP report, it would be meaningful to seek an extension of 

the tenure of the Panel till 31 Aug 2011. In this regard a specific request can be sent on 

behalf of the Panel to the Hon’ble MEF by Prof Madhav Gadgil, Chairman, WGEEP. It was 

also decided that the Panel would meet on 16–17 August 2011 at CES, Indian Institute of 

Science, Bengaluru, to finalize the report. 


323


Minutes of the fourteenth meeting of Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) held 

at Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, from 16 th to 17 th August 2011 

The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel met from 16 th to 17 th August 2011 at Indian 

Institute of Science, Bengaluru. 



Chairman 


Member 


Member 


Member 


Member 


Member 

Dr. G.V. Subrahmanyam Member Secretary 

Dr. R.V.Varma, Chairman, Kerala State Biodiversity Board; Dr. Ligia Noronha, TERI, Delhi; 



Subramaniam, IISc, Bengaluru; all Members of the Panel could not attend the meeting. Dr. 

S.N. Prasad, SACON, Hyderabad, and Shri Sanjay Upadhyay, Advocate, Supreme Court of 

India and Managing Patner, ELDF, New Delhi, also participated in the meeting. Dr. Amit 

Love (Deputy Director, MoEF) was also present during the meeting. 

1. Prof Madhav Gadgil, Chairman, WGEEP, initiated the meeting by saying that as this was 

the last meeting of the WGEEP all the substantive sections of the report should be 

deliberated upon and finalized. He informed the members that Dr. Ligia Noronha, member, 

WGEEP, has volunteered to finalize the draft final report. Further, he added that it has been 

suggested that the executive summary of the report should be made concise to make it more 

meaningful. Prof Gadgil also said that Panel should stick to the timeline of 31 August 2011 

for submission of the report. 

2. Prof Gadgil projected the contents page of the draft final report. He then projected each 

section of the draft final report in chronological order and gave a brief summary of the 

section while highlighting the substantive points. 

3. Prof Gadgil went through the initial sections of the report, which dealt with the 

Introduction to the report, mandate of the Panel, organization of the report and the activities 

undertaken by the Panel. He informed the members that the details of the activities 

undertaken by the Panel would be given in the Appendices. 

4. This was followed by a section on the boundaries of the Western Ghats. The members of 

the Panel discussed in detail the delimitation of Western Ghat boundaries. Dr. Vijayan 

opined that if altitude was used as one of the criteria for delimiting the boundaries of 

Western Ghats then crucial riparian habitats present on the western slopes of the Western 

Ghats may be left out. Dr. Renee Borges also highlighted the case of steep escarpments 

present in the Bhimashankar area of the Maharashtra Western Ghats that may also be left 

324


out. Finally, it was decided by the Panel that the boundaries proposed by WGEEP could 

rationalized and firmed up by the proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority. 

5. Dr. S.N. Prasad made a detailed presentation on the geospatial database on ecological 

sensitivity. He presented the outputs of the project which included state-wise details on 

ecological sensitivity grid scores, maps delineating eco-sensitive zones with taluka 

boundaries and also the boundaries of the Western Ghats from the ecological point of view. 

The database generated has been made available in the public domain. The WGEEP has 

accepted the findings of the study which formed the basis for delineating and demarcating 

the eco-sensitive zones in the Western Ghats region. 

6. After this section, the sections on the environmental setting of the Western Ghats and the 

concept of ‚develop sustainably and conserve thoughtfully‛ was projected. Prof. Gadgil 

initiated the discussion on categorizing the whole Western Ghats into three zones of varied 

ecological sensitivity and the implications of such a zonation. The members deliberated 

upon the methodology adopted for classifying the Western Ghats into three zones, viz ESZ1, 

ESZ2 and ESZ3, and the ESZ assignment to various talukas of Western Ghats. It was felt 

that the main text of the WGEEP report should have a succinct summary of the 

methodology adopted whereas the details of the methodology could be given in the 

Appendix. The detailed methodology would also include the limitations of the 

methodology adopted. 

7. The terms Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) and Ecologically Sensitive Zone (ESZ) were 

discussed by the members with special reference to implementation of provisions which 

would be given in the proposed draft notification. It was felt that the proposals for 

declaration of ESAs received from civil society groups and generated through the process of 

active public participation by WGEEP would be tabulated and presented in a separate box in 

the main report. 

8. After this the section of the existing ESZs and the lessons learnt was projected. The 

institutional mechanism for administering ESAs was discussed in detail. The Panel felt that 

the three-tiered approach suggested by it wherein there would be a Central Western Ghats 

Ecology Authority and six State Western Ghat Ecology Authorities followed by District 

Ecology Committees would provide a good mechnism for managing the ecology and 

environment of the Western Ghats. The District Ecology Committees would act as an agency 

of the WGEA for implementation of various plans. The Panel also deliberated upon the 

relative advantages of the District Ecology Committees over the High Level Monitoring 

Committees (HLMCs) which are presently being set up for each ESA which is notified. The 

members discussed the experiences gained from the establishment of the present ESAs, and 

the management of these ESAs through HLMCs. The case study provided by Shri Devrat 

Mehta, Chairman, High Level Monitoring Committee, Mahabaleshwar-Panchagani was 

discussed. The Panel members were of the opinion that management of ESAs should be 

people-oriented. 

The section on buffering of protected areas detailed the experiences and case studies on 

declaration of ESAs around Protected Areas. As per the decision of the Indian Board of 

Wildlife and Supreme Court directions, the Government has to declare areas around 

National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries as a ecologically sensitive areas. These areas would 

act as a buffer for the protected area buffer. Professor Madhav Gadgil informed the 

members that case studies relating to declaration of ecologically sensitive areas around 

protected areas would be included in the report. One of the case studies relates to 

325


Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary in Maharastra wherein a large wind mill project was 

coming up. 

9. This was followed by detailed discussion on the section containing broad sectoral 

guidelines for ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3. Dr. Vijayan said that the use of chemical fertilizers 

should be completely phased out from the Western Ghats over a fixed period of time. After 

deliberations, the Panel recognized the importance and relevance of moving towards 

organic agriculture but felt that rather than prescribing fixed timelines it would be more 

prudent to create enabling policies which promote organic agriculture. It was decided that 

the Panel would recommend provisions such as subsidies given to the fertilizer industry be 

used for the promotion of organic agriculture. 

Ms Vidya Nayak highlighted the importance of regulating uncontrolled industrial 

development in coastal areas because they will also adversely affect the ecology of the 

Western Ghats. She also flagged the issue of land use and establishment of SEZs in the 

Western Ghats. The Panel members carefully went through the prescribed guidelines for 

each sector in ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 and agreed upon the prescriptions provided therein. 

After this the section dealing with the specific cases of Gundia and Athirappilly 

hydroelectric projects was discussed and this was followed by discussion on the industrial 

development and mining in Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts of Maharastra and iron ore 

mining in Goa. The panel finalized the recommendations for all the four matters referred to 

it by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. 

10. Prof Madhav Gadgil initiated discussion on the modalities for submission of the 

WGEEP’s report to the Government. He also flagged items which would finally constitute 

the main report of WGEEP. It was decided that the report of WGEEP will have two parts. 

Part 1 would be the main report of WGEEP covering all the TORs of the Panel while Part 2 

would include elaborate discussions on the ecology of the Western Ghats and detailed write 

ups on various sectors. 

11. Prof Madhav Gadgil initiated the discussion on the structure and function of the 

proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority. He projected the section of the report, which 

deals with the proposed WGEA. Prof Gadgil highlighted a few salient points to initiate 

discussion on WGEA which were (i) concept of Environmental Ombudsman, (ii) charging 

fees from project proponents for EIA, (iii) the possibility of the Biodiversity Management 

Committee (BMC) acting as the District Ecology Committee, and (iv) empanelment of EIA 

consultants. The members of the Panel were in agreement on the concept of having an 

Environmental Ombudsman in the District Ecology Committee. It was felt that the 

Biodiversity Management Committee should not be given the role of a District Ecology 

Committee as the role, mandate and composition of these two committees differ greatly. 

12. There was detailed discussion on the role of WGEA in the EIA process. It was felt by the 

members that the concept of collection of fees by WGEA might create a conflict of interest. 

Shri Sanjay Upadhyay, Advocate, Supreme Court of India and Managing Partner, ELDF, 

New Delhi, was of the opinion that WGEA should be free from any fee collected from 

project proponents. Dr. V.S. Vijayan also expressed similar views. This was followed by 

discussion on the empanelment of EIA consultants and selection of competent agencies to do 

EIA. Dr G.V. Subrahmanyam informed the Panel members that there is already a scheme 

for accreditation of EIA consultants and the project proponent is free to choose from the 

accredited consultants. Prof Raman Sukumar opined that it should be clarified whether 

WGEA will be a body selecting Competent Agencies for doing EIA or be a body which 

326


would give professional opinion on specific projects. Dr. G.V. Subramanyam was of the 

opinion that WGEA should be a professional body. 

Prof Gadgil said that WGEA should catalyze the process wherein people’s groups do careful 

analysis of the environmental impacts of development projects and that WGEA should 

promote independent data generation on Western Ghat ecology and biodiversity by citizens’ 

groups. 

13. Prof Gadgil requested Shri Sanjay Upadhyay to provide his views on the proposed 

WGEA. At the outset, Shri Sanjay Upadhyay mentioned that he has prepared a write up on 

the proposed WGEA. In his write up, he has used the formulation of Shri B.J. Krishnan on 

the proposed Authority and supplemented it with additional points. 

14. Shri Sanjay Upadhyay projected the salient points with reference to powers, functions, 

composition and constitution of WGEA. Some of the salient points were: 

(i) Respective State Governments would be consulted before constitution of the Central and 

State WGEAs as is done in the case of SEIAA. 

(ii) The recommendations of the WGEA would be ‚ordinarily binding‛ on the lines of the 

National Board of Wildlife resolutions. 

(iii) The boundaries of the ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 would be provisional and the notification of 

these will suggest the process for firming up and rationalizing these boundaries with a 

comprehensive process of public participation. 

(iv) The members of the proposed WGEA would be technical experts and eminent people 

with practical experience. 

(v) The District Ecology Committee (DEC) would be the nodal agency for public 

participation at the grassroots level. The DEC would be involved in the planning process at 

the district level and mainstream environmental concerns into the planning process. It 

would be the body to scrutinize district plans with respect to the ecology of the Western 

Ghats. 

(vi) The authority would check the veracity of facts presented in EIAs carried out for 

developmental projects to be undertaken in this region. Shri Sanjay Upadhyay also detailed 

the basic tenets of the proposed notification for the Western Ghats Ecology Authority. 

15. Professor Madhav Gadgil thanked Shri Sanjay Upadhyay for preparing a note on the 

proposed WGEA and for giving a presentation on this topic to the Panel at a very short 

notice. 

16. Finally, after detailed deliberations on the contents of the draft final report the Panel 

members adopted the draft final report of Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel and 

authorized the Chairman to submit the final report to the Ministry. 

17. Dr. G. V. Subrahmamyam, Member Secretary, WGEEP, proposed a formal vote of thanks 

to the Chairman and the members of the Panel for their active and whole-hearted 

participation in the deliberations of the Panel. 

327


Given the environmental sensitivity and ecological significance of 

the Western Ghats region and the complex interstate nature of its 

geography, The Ministry of Environment & Forests constituted a 

Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel. 

The Terms of Reference of the Committee are as under: 

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 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 Pronab Sen Committee 

report and Dr. T.S. Vijayraghavan Committee Report, Hon’ble 

Supreme Court’s directions, Recommendations, 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 involving people and 

Governments of all the concerned States. 

iv. 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 


v. 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. 

vi. to deal with any other relevant environment and ecological issues 

pertaining to Western Ghats Region, including those which may be 

referred to it by the Central Government in the Ministry of 


1

report of the western ghats ecology expert panel

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?