See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280309320

Appraising the Debate on Biodiversity Conservation in the Western Ghats

Article  in  Economic and political weekly · July 2015

CITATIONS READS
2 221

4 authors, including:

Kamal Murari Thiagarajan Jayaraman

Tata Institute of Social Sciences Tata Institute of Social Sciences
10 PUBLICATIONS   63 CITATIONS    69 PUBLICATIONS   645 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Nuclear Policy View project

Climate Change and Agricultural Yields in Karnataka View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kamal Murari on 23 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPECIAL ARTICLE
Appraising the Debate on Biodiversity
Conservation in the Western Ghats
Aravindhan Nagarajan, Kamal K Murari, T Jayaraman, Goutham Radhakrishnan
This critical review and comparison of the Gadgil and
Kasturirangan panel reports on the Western Ghats
highlights various concerns related to their
methodology, recommendations, and the manner in
which they resolve the contradictions between the
imperatives of environmental protection and economic
development. It also focuses on basic demographic data
on the affected areas in the Western Ghats, statistics on
agricultural land use, and occupation data of the
affected population in the ecologically sensitive zones,
none of which has been considered in the two reports.
The paper argues that the constitution of expert panels
for the Western Ghats is an attempt to appeal to the
principles of scientific certainty for addressing the dual
concerns of environment and development. The two
reports have an unwitting common ground: while they
are alive to environmental concerns, they ignore
insights from development theory and practice. The
recommendations of both the reports presume that
environmental and developmental imperatives can be
combined without a political debate.
This paper was formulated at a much earlier date, and hence may not
include some of the more recent debates regarding issues of governance
and legal jurisdiction of the two reports which have come to light in the
public domain. We are grateful to Geetanjoy Sahu, for bringing this to
our attention and discussing with us at length the impact that a new
governance model would have on existing regulations and laws in the
Western Ghats. It is a subject that would require a detailed and separate
analysis, perhaps in a later publication.
Aravindhan Nagarajan (aravindhan.nagarajan@gmail.com), Kamal K
Murari (kamal.iitd@gmail.com), T Jayaraman (tjayaraman@gmail.com)
and Goutham Radhakrishnan (goutham.radhakrishnan@gmail.com)
are with the School of Habitat Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences,
Mumbai.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW july 25, 2015 vol l no 30
1 Expert Panel Debate on the Western Ghats
I
ndia’s Western Ghats are considered a biodiversity
hotspot.1 They are also home to a large human population
that is dependent on the ghats for their livelihood. The re-
gion has become the subject of large-scale environmental con-
troversy of late. Protests erupted in 2013 in Kerala against
what was perceived to be an unfair imposition of the report of
the High-Level Working Group (HLWG) on the Western Ghats
(Pereira 2013; Matthew 2013). A wide spectrum of political ac-
tors, from the left to the right, appears to be on the same page
in voicing their disapproval of the report. The protests over the
report have underscored a pressing need: we must delineate
the differences and similarities between the two reports on
the Western Ghats that are in question here, their outlook on
the environment, their methodologies and their recommenda-
tions. To pursue this argument, one needs to examine the tar-
gets of the protests: the two expert committees appointed by
the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and the
debates between them.
The first of these reports was that of the Western Ghats
Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) (headed by Madhav Gadgil)
which had a mandate to (i) demarcate the boundaries of the
Western Ghats, (ii) identify areas to be classified as ecologi-
cally sensitive zones (ESZ), and (iii) make tentative recommen-
dations for regulating these zones. Apart from this, the WGEEP
report also provided guidelines for the formation of a Western
Ghats Ecological Authority (WGEA) that would govern, and
regulate the Western Ghats. After the report was submitted,
representatives of state governments concerned argued that
the regulations proposed by the WGEEP infringed their
developmental rights. Subsequently the MoEF, by now headed
by a different minister, constituted the HLWG (headed by the
former Planning Commission member, K Kasturirangan),
which was given a mandate similar to the WGEEP. It was also
directed to review the WGEEP report. This report was made
available to the public on 15 April 2013 (Kasturirangan et al
2013). While the HLWG commented on, responded to, and con-
trasted itself with the WGEEP, the architects of the WGEEP have
tried to clarify their stand (Gadgil and Noronha 2012; Gadgil
2012; Gadgil 2014). They have also put forward criticisms of
the HLWG in the public domain (Gadgil and Noronha 2013;
Gadgil 2013).
The debate has again highlighted the age-old issue of the
trade-off between the environment and development. Much
of the attention has been directed towards the regions
49
SPECIAL ARTICLE
demarcated as being ecologically sensitive. The WGEEP
declared the whole of the Western Ghats as an ecologically
sensitive area (ESA); this is to be further graded into three
zones. In comparison, the HLWG demarcated the Western
Ghats into natural and cultural landscapes and then identified
around 37% of the area of the Western Ghats as ecologically
sensitive. As Kanchan Chopra (2014) argued in a recent com-
mentary, the debate has been reduced to “the identification of
ESAs and the bans imposed therein.”
However it must be emphasised that the two expert panel
reports also differ on other significant issues: in terms of meth-
odologies, the type of data sets used, as well as on their world
views on the larger questions of the environment, develop-
ment, technology, and governance with respect to the Western
Ghats. These differences range from issues that are clearly in
the realm of their expertise to questions that are frankly politi-
cal in nature. For instance, in a recent article Dilip Kumar
(2014) pointed out how both the reports do not consider the
political situation on the ground and the role of local popula-
tions, environmental movements, and organisations. Given
this context, the debate on the Western Ghats issue is by no
means purely academic. Before passing any judgment on
either report, it would be of interest to analyse and compare
these two reports, where their views come from, and where
they diverge. This paper seeks to examine and compare these
reports to bring out their differences and commonalities based
on the following issues:
(1) Data sources, methodology and criterion used for physical
delineation of the Western Ghats and demarcating ESAs
and ESZs.
(2) Recommendations of the expert panel for the ESZs.
(3) Affected population demographics and the case of agricul-
tural areas within ESAs.
(4) World views on the environment and development.
2 Data Sources, Methodology and Criterion
The definition of what constitutes the Western Ghats is a criti-
cal factor in the choice of areas to be demarcated as ecologi-
cally sensitive within it. The Western Ghats have been deline-
ated differently in the two reports. Also, the data sets used in
the two reports have different spatial resolutions.2 This affects
the estimation of the total geographical area in the Ghats. The
WGEEP defines the Western Ghats as a region with a continu-
ous hill range running in the north–south direction (except
the Palghat gap) for about 1,500 km, parallel to the Arabian
Sea and extending from the River Tapti to Kanyakumari. The
eastern and western boundaries are defined by elevation,
using the 1 km resolution GTOPO30 SRTM (Satellite Radar
Topography Mission)3 data. The WGEEP has used forest area
and altitude as the criteria to demarcate the Western Ghats.
Accordingly, the forest area above 500 m on the eastern side
and 150 m on the western side is used to delineate the Western
Ghats. In addition, the WGEEP report considers the Biligiriran-
gan forest range, the Chamrajnagar forest division, the Satya-
mangalam forest division and the Nilgiri biosphere as part of
the Western Ghats. The forest area has been identified by
50
using the Forest Survey of India map.4 The WGEEP reports that
total area under the Western Ghats is 1,29,037 sq km.
In the HLWG report, the area under the Western Ghats is de-
lineated using 30 m ASTER (Advanced Spaceborne Thermal
Emission and Reflectance)5 DEM (Digital Elevation Model)6
data, considering talukas that have 20% of their area above
600 amsl (above mean sea level). The use of this fine resolu-
tion data and the elevation criteria of 600 amsl precludes the
inclusion of coastal areas in the Western Ghats. According to
the HLWG definition, about 1,64,280 sq km falls under the
Western Ghats. This is 35,243 sq km more (or 27% higher) than
that reckoned by the WGEEP. This is primarily due to the choice
of the fine resolution of elevation data and elevation criteria of
600 amsl.
The next methodological step is that of demarcating ESAs or
ESZs. The term “ecologically sensitive area” or “ecologically
sensitive zone” is a concept with various antecedents. How-
ever for policy purposes, it was fleshed out by the Pranab Sen
Committee report (2000), which suggested three broad
parameters for demarcating an ESA. These parameters can be
broadly classified as, (i) species based (endemism,7 rarity,8
endangered species9 and centres of evolution of domesticated
species),10 (ii) ecosystem based (specialised ecosystems, spe-
cial breeding sites/areas, frontier forests, areas with intrinsi-
cally low resilience, sacred groves and wildlife corridors), and
(iii) geo-morphological features (uninhabited islands in the
sea, steep slopes and origins of rivers). While the parameters
form the basis for identifying the ESZs/ESAs for both reports,
there are two main differences. The first pertains to the data
sets used by the two reports. The second issue is the criterion
and the methodological framework used to assign areas as
ecologically sensitive.
The WGEEP report relies on Forest Survey of India data for
identification of the ESAs. Further, its original source of infor-
mation is at a resolution of 9 km by 9 km, which appears to be
too coarse to incorporate information such as forest cover,
agricultural areas, and species—especially as these finer vari-
ables appear to be important for the report’s definition of an
ecologically sensitive region. The primary source of informa-
tion for the HLWG is based on the ASTER DEM at 30 m spatial
resolution and the Indian Resource Satellite (IRS) based LISS III
data.11 The LISS III data is further corroborated with Advanced
Wide Field Sensors (AWiFs) at 50 m spatial resolution)12 and
LISS IV13 data (at 5.4 m spatial resolution). The data sets used in
the HLWG are the state-of-art finer level of information. They
are able to identify the finer details on the ground. In the
WGEEP, the entire taluka is taken as a unit. This means that the
diversity of ecological characteristics within the taluka is not
captured in the report.
The HLWG considers the village as its basic unit. The village
is deemed ecologically sensitive if more than 20% of it is iden-
tified as ESA based on its criteria of biological richness14 and
forest fragmentation.15 The use of finer level information as
part of the criteria in the HLWG report is justifiable as their
data from the LISS III data is at the scale of 23.5 m, a scale
where homogeneity may be expected.
july 25, 2015 vol l no 30 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

Both reports assign scores to individual grids formed
through satellite imagery, based on the various criterion and
their corresponding physical attributes. In the WGEEP, grids
falling in a state are ranked based on their relative ranking,
after normalisation.16 Basically, the WGEEP holds that the
entire Western Ghats needs to be protected as a region of
endemism, containing endangered and rare species; there-
fore it demarcates the whole of the Western Ghats an ESA. The
WGEEP subsequently follows an approach whereby this entire
ESA is graded into three ESZs; ESZ1 is the most sensitive
zone, followed by ESZ2, and ESZ3 (each of which has different
sets of recommendations). The scores of ESZ1 (Ecologically
Sensitive Zone 1), ESZ2 and ESZ3 are identified based on the
score of protected areas (PA) obtained for each state. This
means that the score for the PA s is obtained first, based on the
criterion identified earlier, and their comparative ranking is
made for the ESZs. Out of the total area classified as an
ESZ, it is then stipulated that 60% of the total state area
should be classified as PA+ESZ1, 15% as ESZ2, and 25% as
ESZ3. Relative scoring of grids within individual states
therefore puts a major limitation in classifying grids (as ESZ1,
ESZ2 and ESZ3) consistently across the entire Western
Ghats. For instance, if two states have grids with the same
score, it is not necessary that both the grids are assigned
under the same ESZ category. Data for many variables, as
discussed on the WGEEP report, is not available consistently at
the desired spatial resolution, a fact accepted by the
WGEEP report.17
Use of such information at a coarser scale may be an
approximation, with significant impact for specific regions.
Also, the methodology used to spatially represent this data
and the sample used for approximation are not clear. For
instance, use of topographic information such as slope and
elevation at 1 km by 1 km grid scale, that too for a hilly terrain
such as the Western Ghats, may involve inappropriate repre-
sentation of actual terrain. In addition, defining ESZs based on
such coarser level data in the WGEEP may have under-
represented or over-represented the extent of ecologically
sensitive regions.
The HLWG, in contrast, uses a different set of criteria to
demarcate the area within the Western Ghats into natural
and cultural landscapes. Cultural landscape refers to an area
with major human settlements and developmental activities.
Based on this framework, it goes on to identify within the
natural landscape, areas that are to be slotted as ESA. The
HLWG uses two major criteria, forest fragmentation and
biological richness for identifying ESA s which are demarcated
by using LISS III-based land use and land cover classification
maps. Such data sets can easily be derived using available
finer resolution satellite images. So in the case of HLWG,
information at finer level grid size are aggregated to a
village level. Further a village is categorised as ESA if at least
20% of the grids of a village are ESA s. The methodology used
by the HLWG does not work on relative scoring within
states and is therefore applied consistently for the entire
Western Ghats.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW july 25, 2015 vol l no 30
SPECIAL ARTICLE
3 Recommendations and Regulations
After having demarcated ESAs/ESZs within the Western Ghats,
both reports specify regulations for human activity within
these regions. The recommendations for the mining, power,
and polluting industries by and large overlap in both reports,
though there are some differences with respect to wind and
hydroelectric power generation. Each report goes by its under-
lying world view on the environment, technology, and indus-
try while framing recommendations. While neither report in-
tends ostensibly to pit development against conservation, both
avoid confronting the concept of human development.
The WGEEP is explicit that it does not want to create areas
where human activity is regulated by a simple “go and no-go”
formula (Gadgil et al 2011:13). It instead wishes to advocate
“developing and conserving thoughtfully.” WGEEP notes that
this concern is to be addressed by encouraging small-scale
industries and through decentralised demand-side energy
generation policies.18 Nevertheless it recommends regulating
industrial, agricultural, and other human activities across
the three ESZs. Hence regulations regarding the type and
scale of activities within these broad sectors are also
applicable to the highly urbanised areas within these zones,
including entire towns and the peri-urban areas near
urban agglomerations.19
The WGEEP emphasises the regulation of forest and non-
forest land use in the ESZs. It recommends development of eco-
tourism, promotion of biomass and agro-based industries, ban
on the use of genetically-modified crops to preserve natural
vegetation species, regulations for transport and infrastructure,
as well as rejection of centralised power generation by large-
scale thermal power plants and hydroelectric power plants. The
WGEEP also recommends regulations that forbid changes in
land use from forest to non-forest or from agricultural to non-
agricultural, except when an existing village settlement area
has to accommodate an increase in population of local residents.
The HLWG makes recommendations for regions identified as
natural landscapes for industry, infrastructure, and energy.
However, it also makes recommendations for the overall area
demarcated as ESA. These include a moratorium on mining
and polluting industries. WGEEP also recommends a shift
towards organic cultivation in the Western Ghats as a part of
promoting and incentivising green growth. It also states that
infrastructure projects would require greater scrutiny before
being cleared. The HLWG states that “environmentally sound
development cannot preclude livelihood and economic options
for this region” (Kasturirangan et al 2013: 101) and its use of
natural and cultural landscapes are partially designed to avoid
infringing upon existing livelihood and economic options.
The human activities that threaten the environment the
most, according to these reports, are mining and power gen-
eration. WGEEP calls for a complete ban on mining in the ESZ1,
and a halt to existing operations by 2016. It allows for mining
in the ESZ2 and ESZ3, subject to strict regulations. The HLWG
calls for a complete ban on mining, and the phasing out of
existing mines within five years in zones demarcated as ESA.
Both reports call for strict regulation of power plants; in some
51
SPECIAL ARTICLE

cases, they ask that such plants be prohibited (the WGEEP in economic activities they are engaged in. The two reports also
the ESZ1 and the HLWG in the zones marked as ESA). concur that environmental governance within the Western
The two reports differ in their recommendations on wind Ghats has been inadequate. The WGEEP, through various case
and hydroelectricity generation. The WGEEP is against large- studies it highlights, calls for the establishment of a centra-
scale wind power plants and hydroelectric power plants in the lised WGEA,20 an apex committee composed of state-level and
entire Western Ghats. It, instead, proposes promotion of small- district-level committees that would work closely with biodi-
and micro-scale wind and hydropower. The HLWG, in contrast, versity boards, state pollution control boards and state plan-
does not recommend prohibiting these sources of power, but ning departments. Such a set-up, according to the WGEEP, will
says that they must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and enable a “bottom up Western Ghats-specific master plan for
must be subject to EIAs (environmental impact assessments). the conservation of biological diversity/ecosystem and promo-
Both panels stress that governance structures be strength- tion of sustainable development” (Gadgil et al 2011: 54). As
ened or created afresh so that they become more participatory with the regulations, the main opposition to the proposals for
and empowering for people living in the Western Ghats. Both a new governance structure and the creation of WGEA has
reports agree that decision-making must be decentralised so come from representatives of the six state governments. They
that tribals and other marginalised people in the Western argue that regulations would infringe upon the state’s
Ghats have a greater say. However, as we elaborate in the next decision-making powers and the creation of a central nodal
section, all this is stated without giving any specific indication agency would erode their powers even more (Kasturirangan
as to how many people are affected, who they are, and the et al 2013: 10–17).
Table 1.1: Demographics of Administrative Units for the State of Kerala
In view of these objections, the HLWG report recommends
in Both WGEEP and HLWG Reports reforming the existing set-up before contemplating the consti-
Population Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe tution of a new one. In addition, the HLWG calls for the consti-
Population Population
District WGEEP HLWG WGEEP HLWG WGEEP HLWG
tution of a Decision Support and Monitoring Centre for the
Erunakulam 10,21,349 0 82,678 0 5,251 0
Western Ghats to provide scientific and technical support to
Idukki 11,29,221 8,42,483 1,59,362 1,31,441 50,973 42,912 various regulatory bodies.
Kannur 16,60,491 53,365 58,690 878 19,640 4,463
Kasargod 12,04,078 0 90,218 0 30,338 0 4 Agriculture, Labour and Employment
Kollam 15,94,904 1,16,398 1,99,203 21,898 1,520 3,142 So far we have compared the two reports by looking at the
Kottayam 4,09,288 49,072 38,265 2,598 1,514 3,937 ways they demarcate areas within the Western Ghats as eco-
Kozhikode 22,64,768 1,32,598 1,84,682 9,183 3,802 1,941 logically sensitive. But the sector-wise recommendations made
Mallapuram 15,62,545 2,46,245 1,01,645 19,766 412 6,634 by them (if implemented) for the demarcated areas will have
Palakkad 26,17,482 1,74,858 4,32,398 18,053 39,665 33,750 an impact on economic growth and human development. So an
Pathanamthitta 3,44,846 1,27,104 32,859 33,826 5,053 3,421
additional set of questions need to be asked: who will be
Thiruvananthapuram 23,75,365 1,00,921 1,78,779 10,361 18,285 9,897
affected if the government acts on the expert panel recommen-
Thrissur 16,88,190 31,615 1,87,335 4,831 4,325 1,049
Wayanad 7,80,619 1,38,458 33,364 9,393 1,36,062 28,299
dations and how exactly will such people be affected? The
Total 1,86,53,146 20,13,117 17,79,478 2,62,228 3,16,840 1,39,445 answer requires an analysis of livelihoods and employment
Source: Census of India 2001. These criteria are as defined in the Census of India 2001. This options—encompassing a diverse range of productive activi-
does not include areas which are marked in the reports as Protected Areas and Water Shed ties, including agriculture, industry and services—in the
areas. In the case of the HLWG there are a significant number of no-name villages (villages
which have been identified by the report but not in the Census 2001 data). For instance, Western Ghats.
there are 68 such villages in Maharashtra which have no names. Statistical details in the HLWG report offer insights into the
Table 1.2: Demographics of Administrative Units for the State of people likely to be affected if the panel’s recommendations are
Maharashtra in Both WGEEP and HLWG Reports
accepted. The report has data on administrative areas demar-
Population SC Population ST Population
District WGEEP HLWG WGEEP HLWG WGEEP HLWG cated as ESA and non-ESA; these include details of the number
Ahmednagar 9,54,629 2,66,638 63,463 1,514 1,74,937 31,239 of villages with ESA in each taluka, the ratio of village area in
Dhule 3,63,092 4,581 14,494 68 1,75,238 3,983 ESA to non-ESA, aggregated data at the taluka level describing
Kolhapur 14,02,579 1,60,302 1,57,774 19,511 5,175 527 the area occupied by ESA in every taluka across all the states of
Nandurbar 2,39,507 3,187 2,723 6 2,03,292 2,961 which the Western Ghats is a part. The HLWG provides an agg-
Nashik 27,48,645 1,24,669 2,51,264 2,330 7,68,410 1,08,615 regate figure for the population densities in ESA and non-ESA
Pune 5,62,739 1,90,833 35,820 7,910 14,366 58,270 areas for the entire area it demarcates as Western Ghats, but
Raigad 8,00,705 2,32,558 18,297 5,435 78,933 45,708 does not disaggregate it on a state-wise basis. The WGEEP lists
Sangli 6,83,166 15,799 76,624 1,588 1,974 32
the number of talukas affected in each state, but does not
Satara 21,15,862 1,35,729 1,89,538 5,479 17,639 2,820
provide any description about the population affected by the
Sindhudurg 4,88,436 1,99,257 24,007 8,649 3,213 959
demarcation of ESZs.
Solapur 6,94,677 0.00 1,12,782 0.00 4,725 0.00
Ratnagiri 8,81,878 1,94,799 15,056 3,133 18,085 1,304
Both reports do not analyse the impact of their recom-
Thane 15,67,511 2,14,270.16 36,130 4,113 3,62,830 1,23,777 mendations on livelihoods. Based on the 2001 Census, in
Total 1,35,03,426 17,42,622.16 9,97,972 59,736 18,28,817 3,80,195 Tables (1.1 and 1.2), we have provided details of the affected
Source: Census of India 2001. populations (including the number from different social
52 july 25, 2015 vol l no 30 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

categories, a detail that the HLWG ignores), and the land use
patterns within the demarcated regions in Kerala and
Maharashtra. These are data for the administrative units that
both the reports have used. For the WGEEP report, this would
mean ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 which have been demarcated at the
taluka level and then aggregated to the district level. In the
case of the HLWG, this would include ESA that were
demarcated at the village level and then aggregated to the
district level.
In Kerala (see Table 1.1), in case of the WGEEP report, ap-
proximately 1.8 crore (over 39 lakh households) people live in
the ESZs, compared to the 20 lakh people (over four lakh
households) who live in the HLWG-demarcated ESA. In Mahar-
ashtra (see Table 1.2), approximately 1.3 crore (over 26 lakh
households) live in the WGEEP demarcated ESZs; the corre-
sponding figure for the HLWG’s ESAs is over 17 lakh (over 3.1
lakh households).
HLWG’s definition of natural and cultural landscapes is such
that the population of the areas demarcated as ESA is consider-
ably less than that of the WGEEP demarcated ESZs. The WGEEP
figures for household and population affected are eight to nine
times higher than the corresponding figures of the HLWG. This
is also true for the affected population belonging to the mar-
ginalised sections (Scheduled Castes—SCs and Scheduled
Tribes—STs). Even then, a significant number of people live in
the ESAs demarcated by the HLWG. Moreover, once the village
level data from the 2011 Census are released these figures will
have to be revised, and the numbers of the affected will
increase significantly.
The two reports also differ in their delineation of land use
patterns in the areas they demarcate for protection. While
they more or less converge on the extent of forestland in the
ESZs, the reports differ a lot when it comes to irrigated land in
the ESA s: the amount of irrigated land in the zones drawn out
by WGEEP is almost seven times that in the areas demarcated
by the HLWG. This is again a reflection of the way in which the
HLWG has defined natural and cultural landscapes.
However, both reports demarcate large parts of Kerala as
ESA/ESZ. Moreover, a highly significant amount of cultivable land,
both irrigated and un-irrigated, forms part of the ESZs demar-
cated by both the reports (see Table 2.1 and Table 2.2, p 55).
Table 2.1 shows that in Kerala, 13.8 lakh hectares of cultivable
land falls in the ESAs/ESZs demarcated by the WGEEP while
such areas demarcated by the HLWG have four lakh hectares of
cultivable land. In Maharashtra, 28.1 lakh hectares of cultiva-
ble land fall in the ESAs/ESZs demarcated by the WGEEP and 5.3
lakh hectares of such land lie in the zones demarcated by
HLWG. The WGEEP also points to the cultivation of annual
crops on high slope regions and calls for discouraging
such cultivation.
One of the fears expressed in the protests in Kerala is that of
eviction of cultivators from settled farmlands. The fear clearly
stems from the fact that a large number of people are directly
affected by the demarcation of the ESZs. The taluka level
details of the areas demarcated as ESZs in Kerala by the WGEEP
report show that over 6 lakh workers, 34,000 cultivators,
Economic & Political Weekly EPW july 25, 2015 vol l no 30
SPECIAL ARTICLE
and 60,000 agricultural labourers will be affected by the de-
marcation. Over 85 lakh workers, 37 lakh cultivators, and over
16 lakh agricultural labourers in Maharashtra will be affected
by the ESZ regulations. It is difficult to make a similar state-
wise estimate for the HLWG report, though the report does
refer to 52,12,244 people dependent on agriculture in the ESAs
across the entire Western Ghats and 4,29,46,841 people
dependent on agriculture in non-ESA regions of the Ghats.
Not Mere Oversight
While neither of the two reports directly mentions eviction of
people from farmlands within an ESA/ESZ, both appear to be
unaware of the potential fears and sense of uncertainty that
could result from their recommendations. They say nothing to
ward fears. The resistance to the recommendations of the HLWG
report in Kerala, and the widespread sympathy for such resist-
ance, clearly stems from the risk and uncertainty over liveli-
hoods, employment and entrepreneurial activities perceived
by the local populations.
The absence of detailed demographic analysis of the af-
fected areas in both reports cannot be regarded as simple over-
sight; that large numbers of people will be affected should
have been reason enough for a detailed assessment of the
effects of the recommendations. In the absence of such an
analysis, it is not surprising that both reports have little or
nothing to say on how the local population will cope with the
impacts on land use, forestry, agriculture, power, and
industry in case the regulations they recommend are
implemented.
This problem extends to the ways with which both reports
deal with industry. Here again there are no details, or even a
descriptive account, of the population dependent on indus-
tries. There is nothing on and how the recommendations will
affect direct and indirect employment in industries. For the
WGEEP the issue of industry revolves around social impacts of
land acquisition and compensation, environmental impacts of
energy, emissions, and pollution from industrial effluents. The
HLWG cites the statements of state government representa-
tives, and argues that only the most polluting and damaging
industries located within the ESA should be banned. But
neither report speaks of the likely impact of such bans on
workers’ livelihoods.
Decisions on the regulation of land-use areas and agricul-
tural practices, on the closure of polluting industries, or im-
posing a moratorium on mining cannot ignore the (un-
resolved) ways in which inequality is central to the variations
in the perception of risk. This refers not just to existing socio-
economic divergences but it is also about dealing with future
insecurities. While risks are produced socially, both the bur-
den of risk mitigation as well as coping with the consequences
of the risk are left to individuals and communities. What is not
clear is how exactly priority will be accorded to the recom-
mendations of the expert panel groups, vis-à-vis the livelihood
and income opportunities of a significant proportion of the
population, the threat to the employment of labour, the con-
cerns of cultivators within agricultural landscapes in the
53
SPECIAL ARTICLE
region, the concerns of the state governments, and the
pressures of industry. The various concerns at hand are swept
under the carpet of “sustainable development.” There is a com-
plete lack of recognition of the fact that risks and uncertainties
are significant factors in social and economic policymaking
and their implementation.
5 Conservation versus Development
Both reports attempt to define their world view on
development and ecology. The WGEEP advocates “developing
and conserving thoughtfully” in opposition to the existing
“paradigm” which it terms as “development and conservation
by exclusion.” The report states that in such a “model,” devel-
opment options should be decided on a case-by-case basis, in
tune with environmental and socio-economic contexts and
aspirations of the local communities” (Gadgil et al 2011: 13).
The HLWG states that “environmentally sound development
cannot preclude livelihood and economic options for this
region” (Kasturirangan et al 2013: 101). Its use of natural and
cultural landscapes within the Western Ghats was the result
of its concern about infringing livelihood and economic
options. But beyond these general statements, the reports do
not state how their world views are to be realised.
Though both reports identify the importance of sustainable
development, they provide only vague answers to questions
regarding the fallout of their recommendations on socio-
economic and human developmental indicators. Paying atten-
tion to development would imply an analysis anticipating the
socio–economic changes ensuing from the implementation of
the reports. This can be attempted through approaches as var-
ied as an analysis of the basic data of the affected population
and extended input–output analysis of the economic impacts
of the proposed regulations. It needs to then move on to antici-
pate the impacts of the recommendations on large-scale eco-
nomic projects such as the railways, mining, industry, and
power generation.
Both reports could have taken the elementary step of incor-
porating in their criteria various economic parameters along
with ecological indicators. The Human Development Index
(HDI) could have been, for instance, deployed along with other
economic indicators while defining ESAs/ESZs and this
composite of economic and ecological indicators could have
been used for ranking various zones in order of priority. An
even more comprehensive approach could have been working
out a composite measure for the environment and develop-
ment—as observed in the Stiglitz–Sen–Fitoussi report (2008),
or in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessments (2003). But not
even a basic analysis has been attempted in both reports. Such
an examination is important because it can enable us to com-
prehend who the affected people are. In the process, the re-
ports could perhaps have addressed an even more significant—
and a more perplexing—question: Can sustainable develop-
ment improve—and not just maintain—the living standards of
local populations?
It is true that ecological and developmental literature rarely con-
verge; this can be observed in debates as varied as international
54
deliberations on climate change and debates on preservation of
biodiversity at local or regional levels. While economic theories
of development have been rightly criticised for not including
environmental parameters, the case of the two reports on the
Western Ghats indicates that the reverse could also be true.21
More conspicuously, in spite of economic theory pointing out
limitation of markets in environmental governance, both
reports advocate market mechanisms such as CDM (Clean
Development Mechanism) and REDD+ (Reducing Emissions
from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) and also push for
market-based incentives for green growth at the local level.
The divergence between ecological and development litera-
ture on the question of what constitutes sustainable develop-
ment leads to development and ecology (as well as their theo-
retical underpinnings) being assessed independently. This
divergence is then sought to be cushioned by an appeal to
decentralisation. This usually means emphasising the role of
local governments and panchayats, which are necessary
aspects of sustainability but are surely not sufficient for the
purpose. So Kanchan Chopra’s (2014) questions—“Is a move-
ment towards thoughtful conservation and development pos-
sible? Are we going to pursue a pattern of development which
concentrates on the maximisation of present gains of the privi-
leged few to the detriment of the interests of vulnerable people
and ecologically fragile areas?—can only be seen as rhetorical
flourishes in the absence of a clear hypothesis on matching
with interests of the vulnerable with the imperative of protect-
ing ecologically fragile zones. Both reports stress that answers
lie in market mechanisms and market-based incentives, even
though development literature casts doubt on using such
means to either reduce vulnerabilities or protect the environ-
ment. This makes the overall appeal for sustainable develop-
ment in both reports facetious. It is unlikely to inspire people
at large.
Having made these criticisms, we ask if some of the differ-
ences between the two reports can be resolved. Issues related
to spatial resolution of satellite imagery used, as well as those
related to the criterion or parameters used for ranking can be
contrasted and compared only if there are certain standards or
frameworks for this purpose. They cannot be made arbitrarily.
This would then refer not just to the Western Ghats but will
also be useful for other conservation plans. The HLWG fares
better on these counts because it uses a finer resolution spatial
data and considers village level boundaries.22
Second, the two reports differ on approaches to regulate
ESZs and ESAs. These include the issue of hydropower, the
scale of industries and industrialisation, and the type of gov-
ernance model in the ESAs and ESZs. Unfortunately, this is
where expertise in a particular domain can be used to increase
shrillness in an already polarised debate. While so far public
responses have been unfavourable to both reports, there can
well be a political situation pitting “my expert” against “your
expert.” This could completely distort the debate. By pointing
out the specific instances within both reports, this paper tries
to highlight the dangers of such an eventuality which could
dilute the real issues of development and conservation.
july 25, 2015 vol l no 30 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
 SPECIAL ARTICLE

But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of both reports is much greater effort is called for. Indeed the paucity of serious
that in effect they represent an attempt by a section of the state economic analysis in the two reports points to the need
to foreclose the issue of environmental protection. It is clear for interdisciplinary expertise to tackle issues pertaining
that the state wishes to settle the issue by appealing to expert to sustainability.
recommendations without making any serious attempt to sub- It is also clear that dealing with the challenge of sustainable
ject the conclusions of expert bodies to serious democratic development involves significant normative choices that we as
Table 2.1: Land-Use Area* for Kerala within Administrative Units Declared
a society and nation have to make, even while we recognise
Ecologically Sensitive in Both WGEEP and HLWG Reports our role as global citizens. Such normative choices cannot be
Administrative Total Irrigated Unirrigated Area imposed and have to be arrived at by a process of responsible,
Area under ESA Area under ESA under ESA
(hectares) (hectares) (hectares) frank and informed dialogue. We quote here from an essay by
District WGEEP HLWG WGEEP HLWG WGEEP HLWG Amartya Sen. Referring to the significance of a normative
Erunakulam 1,57,981 0 1,01,423 0 46,352 0 framework, he points out:
Idukki 4,83,469 4,55,343 24,495 21,978 1,51,890 1,36,792
The first is the general problem of not having anything like an overall
Kannur 2,51,934 28,267 32,415 4,048 53,594 10,177 normative framework, involving ethics as well as science that could
Kasargod 2,39,429 0 55,829 0 65,363 0 serve as the basis of debates and discussions on policy recommenda-
Kollam 100,099 93,050 14,388 2,890 57,038 18,936 tions. Despite the ubiquity and the reach of environmental dangers, a
Kottayam 76,974 14,832 9,986 20 41,727 10,966 general normative framework for the evaluation of these dangers has
Kozhikode 2,34,146 42,001 17,445 3,915 93,403 15,285 yet to emerge.
Mallapuram 1,17,003 97,127 26,740 8,356 46,569 55,558
On the contours of such a framework, Sen says:
Palakkad 5,39,113 1,80,236 1,05,957 16,790 1,27,800 39,391
Pathanamthitta 1,26,113 1,49,768 3,712 40 36,023 1,80,34 A normative framework for environmental evaluation would have
many requirements. Among them, it has to have both evaluative
Thiruvananthapuram 1,67,322 51,877 29,693 1,442 52,415 9,994
soundness and the possibility of informed application and reasoned
Thrissur 2,24,694 35,867 46,778 1,705 27,246 1,509
public use. The issues that have to be considered in developing an ap-
Wayanad 2,23,631 84,334 19,825 8,355 92,661 16,664 plicable normative framework must include politics and public reason-
Total 29,41,908 12,32,702 4,88,687 69,541 8,92,079 3,33,304 ing, science and epistemology, and ethics (Sen 2014).
* These criteria are as defined in the Census of India 2001. This does not include areas which
are marked in the reports as Protected Areas and Water Shed areas. Also the urban areas of It is clear that democratic, and hence sustainable, solutions
Perumbavur, Punalur, Mahe, Mallapuram, Irinjalakude which are demarcated as ESZs in the
WGEEP report are not included. require that such frank and informed dialogue must become
Source: Census of India 2001. part of the realm of politics—understood in the broader sense
Table 2.2: Land-Use Area for Maharashtra within Administrative Units of the term. Regrettably, too often, we take rigid positions,
Declared Ecologically Sensitive in Both WGEEP and HLWG Reports however well-intentioned and well-argued. More disturbingly,
Administrative Total Irrigated Unirrigated Area
Area under ESA Area under ESA under ESA various interest groups or representatives of different stake-
(hectares) (hectares) (hectares) holders, often try to foreclose such debate by appealing to gov-
District WGEEP HLWG WGEEP HLWG WGEEP HLWG
ernment and get key people in the government to intervene in
Ahmednagar 5,10,183.1 41,724.21 2,65,026 18,825 5,10,183.1 41,724.21
their favour; they are reluctant to their views being judged in a
Dhule 2,43,274.1 6,129 1,25,567 1,687 2,43,274.1 6,129
wider debate.
Kolhapur 5,27,201.8 1,92,430 2,82,299.7 72,159.66 5,27,201.8 1,92,430
A durable social and political solution to the problems of
Nandurbar 93,767.54 2,265.8 56,357.03 768.58 93,767.54 2,265.8
sustainability, therefore, needs a clear commitment to main-
Nashik 7,40,454.9 1,14,985.3 3,42,081.4 37,872.95 7,40,454.9 1,14,985.3
Pune 3,94,743.7 2,48,107.9 1,59,160.2 1,03,727.1 3,94,743.7 2,48,107.9
streaming the politics of sustainability. This would mean
Raigad 3,30,040.1 1,92,867.2 1,19,092.1 42,977.4 3,30,040.1 1,92,867.2 generating solutions through democratic processes. However,
Sangli 3,04,358.5 4,588 1,84,464.2 0 3,04,358.5 4,588 we are witnessing selective appeals to the “will” of the people
Satara 6,34,224.3 1,47,255.9 2,74,196 52,196.2 6,34,224.3 1,47,255.9 or communities. In fact, communities are also selectively
Sindhudurg 2,83,649.7 1,84,262 1,26,494.7 71,246.73 2,83,649.7 1,84,262 identified or located. The levels of governance to be included
Solapur 3,11,666.6 0 1,28,891.9 0 3,11,666.6 0 in the decision-making process are often arbitrarily identified.
Ratnagiri 4,05,236.7 1,72,489.7 1,55,695 51,973.65 4,05,236.7 17,24,89.7 Very often the Government of India and environmental move-
Thane 4,31,145.9 2,01,825.5 1,85,667.3 62,824.77 4,31,145.9 2,01.825.5 ments and NGOs concur in trying to exclude state governments
Total 5,209,947 15,08,931 2,404,992 5,16,259.1 52,09,947 15,08,931 or local governments while issuing ambiguous appeals to
Source: Census of India 2001.
decentralisation. Such attempts to reinterpret the meaning of
scrutiny through constitutionally mandated political process. democratic processes are common to pro-environmental
The significance of sustainable development (which is really movements, groups and advocates, as well as the powers-that-
the issue here), especially in terms of setting the agenda of de- be in Delhi.
velopment, is such that it cannot be treated simply as a techni- But all such moves to bypass democratic decision-making
cal issue. This is not to underplay the importance of detailed are bound to be politically unsustainable. We may yet learn
natural scientific and technological knowledge and under- something from the current Western Ghats imbroglio if we
standings drawn from social science. Without such knowledge, seriously consider the form and content of such democratic
it would be impossible to chart the road map of sustainability. decision-making processes and the normative framework
While there has been some work in this area, it is evident that within which it ought to be conducted.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW july 25, 2015 vol l no 30 55
 SPECIAL ARTICLE
Notes
1 UNESCO declared the Western Ghats as a
world heritage site and also recognises it as one
of the world’s eight “hottest hotspots” of bio-
logical diversity, http://whc.unesco.org/en/
list/1342
2 Technically the term resolution has a meaning
as an ability to separate and distinguish adja-
cent objects and items. In remote sensing, reso-
lution specifies a smallest feature on earth that
we can discriminate. For instance, a 1 km
resolution data indicates that we can separate
objects that are 1 km apart, in other words,
earth features within 1 km range cannot be dis-
criminated in the data. Also the data repre-
sents the average of earth features (such as el-
evation) that are present within 1 km resolu-
tion data.
3 GTOPO30 is the digital elevation model data
showing elevation value at 1 km resolution and
is developed to provide regional and continental
scale topographical information such as position
of earth surface features and their elevation.
4 Although NDVI data is also used to define the
forest area as mentioned in the WGEEP report,
however, the source of NDVI data is not given
in the published report.
5 ASTER data are high-resolution images of
earth in different bands of the electromagnetic
spectrum (spectrum released by sun’s radia-
tion and received by the sensor of remote sens-
ing satellite). ASTER data has an ability to pro-
vide earth surface features such as land surface
temperature, reflectivity, emissivity and eleva-
tion in zoomed way.
6 A DEM is a three dimensional representation of
terrain of earth surfaces which is obtained
from elevation data.
7 Endemism is related to species that are con-
fined to a given geographical region. If species
distribution is limited to a smaller geographi-
cal region, it may be vulnerable to extinction.
While if it spread to a large geographical re-
gion, its survival chances are higher because of
its exposure to large reserve.
8 Rarity of group of species is an indication of
their uncommon and scarce presence. Rarity
of species is represented to their numbers
which could be related to endemic property of
species. Rare species are threatened because of
their small population.
9 Endangered species are the species that are
facing very high risk of extinction.
10 This is associated with areas of origin of do-
mesticated species which continues to harbour
their wild relatives. This is measured by taxo-
nomical classification, identification of loca-
tion of species of plant when no communica-
tion was developed and determination of varie-
ties and races.
11 LISS III data are product of ResourceSat satel-
lite which has sensor of 4 bands of spectral res-
olution, all at 23.5 m resolution. These sensors
on board will provide the data which is useful
for vegetation related applications and will al-
low multiple crop discrimination and species
discrimination. The spectral band senses the
reflection of earth features and generates a
unique identification of earth features. This
unique identification of earth features helps in
terms of distinguishing different objects in the
earth.
12 The AWiFS are special cameras in satellite
which have a spatial resolution of 56 m, and
have the spectral band same as LISS III data. As
stated in description of LISS III, spectral band
helps in discrimination of species and agricul-
tural crops.
13 LISS IV data have three sensors same as LISS III
data, but at higher spatial resolution of 5.8 m.
56
View publication stats
14 Biological richness is at landscape level which is
determining function as measure of ecosystem
uniqueness, species diversity, biodiversity value,
terrain complexity, and disturbance index. It is
measured using LISS III satellite used to stratify
different vegetation type supported by bio-
geographical zones and altitude zone maps in
blend with local level field level information.
15 Forest fragmentation occurs when large, con-
tinuous forests are divided into smaller blocks,
either by roads, clearing for agriculture, urba-
nisation or other human development. Forest
fragmentation is measured by land use and
land cover change on ground using remotely
sensing satellite images.
16 Here, normalisation refers to providing rela-
tive grading of each grid within the state. It is
important to note that in the WGEEP report,
the grids within a state are considered for nor-
malisation, which means that two grids of dif-
ferent states may have different attributes but
may have the same normalisation ranking.
17 This refers to the second part of the WGEEP re-
port (Gadgil et al 2011: 11–17), where in the def-
initions of the criterion used for ESAs from the
Pranab Sen Committee report are stated and
then a justification is provided for the applica-
tion of these criterion, to the effect that the
whole of the Western Ghats is declared by the
WGEEP as an ESA. One such criterion for in-
stance is that of species endemism where the
WGEEP states: “It can be stated with complete
confidence that the entire Western Ghats re-
gion needs to be protected in its entirety as the
area of occurrence of a substantial number of
endemic species…This, of course, is very in-
complete information that WGEEP has been
able to use in quantifying the levels of ecologi-
cal sensitivity over the Western Ghats.”
18 A point that is implicit within the WGEEP re-
port and which is made explicit elsewhere
(Gadgil and Noronha 2013).
19 Within the WGEEP report urban areas are
defined by the Census of India, such as talukas
in Perumbavur, Punalur, Mahe, Mallapuram,
Irinjalakude in Kerala are demarcated as ESZs.
In Maharashtra, this would also include some
talukas in Pune and Nashik.
20 It does so by stating how inefficient the existing
environmental governance institutions within
the Western Ghats are too bureaucratic, lacks
any meaningful participation of local stake-
holders, and how there exists an ever increas-
ing marginalisation of the weaker sections of
the population. It also cites the example of the
“Goa Regional Plan 2021” and the “Conserva-
tion of Biodiversity Rich Areas of Udumbanchola
taluka” project by Kerala State Biodiversity
Board (2010) as efforts to improve upon the
various shortcomings.
21 This is not to say that the terms ecology and
environment are interchangeable. What is be-
ing stressed here is that there is a hurdle that
seems to be present while concurrently view-
ing issues that are related to development and
the environment.
22 Village-level boundary data was not made
available to the WGEEP, and it has been acce-
pted and stated that on this count the HLWG
report does indeed have imagery of a much
better resolution.
References
Chopra, K (2014): “Conservation and Development
in the Western Ghats: A Tale of Two Commit-
tees and More,” Economic & Political Weekly,
Vol XLIX, No 11.
Gadgil, M (2012): “Making These Slopes Less Slip-
pery,” Hindu, 29 June, http://www.thehindu.
com/opinion/lead/making-these-slopes-less-
slippery/article3581730.ece
july 25, 2015
— (2013): “Shocking Betrayal on Western Ghats,”
Hindu, 18 May.
— (2014): “Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel:
A Play in Five Acts,” Economic & Political Weekly,
Vol XLIX, No 18.
Gadgil, M and L Noronha (2012): “To know, Is to
Protect,” Hindu, 13 June, viewed on 29 June
2015, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead
/to-know-is-to-protect/article3520629.ece
— (2013): “An Ecosystem to Save, or Squander,”
Hindu, 2 May.
Gadgil, M, R Daniels, K Ganeshaiah, N Prasad,
M Murthy, C Jha, K Subramanian (2011): “Map-
ping Ecologically Sensitive, Significant and
Salient Areas of Western Ghats: Proposed
Protocols and Methodology,” Current Science,
Vol 100, No 2.
Gadgil, M, B Krishnan, V Vijayan, R Borges, R Su-
kumar, G Subrahmanyam (2013): “Report of
the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel Sub-
mitted to the Ministry of Environment and For-
ests, Government of India,” viewed on 29 June
2015, http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-in-
formation/wg-23052012.pdf
Guha, R (1988): “Ideological Trends in Indian Envi-
ronmentalism,” Economic & Political Weekly,
Vol XX111, No 49.
Hindu (2012): “Reports of All Panels Should Be
Made Public, Rules CIC,” Hindu, 11 April, viewed
on 29 June, http://www.thehindu.com/news/
national/reports-of-all-panels-should-be-made-
public-rules-cic/article3301214.ece
Kasturirangan, K, C Babu, J Mauskar, K Chopra,
J Kishwan, D Shankar, I Chandrashekharan
(2013): “Report of the High Level Working
Gorup on Western Ghats Submitted to the
Ministry of Environment and Forests, Gov-
ernment of India (Volume 1 and Volume2),”
viewed on 29 June 2015, http://envfor.nic.in/
sites/default/fi les/HLWG-Report-Part-1_0.
pdf
Kumar, D (2014): “Western Ghats Conservation:
Experts’ Reports and a View from the Ground,”
Economic & Political Weekly, Vol XLIX, No 29.
Matthew, R (2013): “Violence Breaks Out in Kerala
over Implementation of Western Ghats Report,”
Hindu, 15 November.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003): Ecosys-
tems and Human Well-being: A Framework for
Assessment, Washington: Island Press.
Pereira, I (2013): “Fury over Panel Report Surprises
Greens,” Hindu, 19 November.
Sen, A (1988): “The Concept of Development,” in
H Chenery and T Srinivasan, Handbook of
Development Economics, Volume 1, North Hol-
land: Elsevier Science Publishers BV.
— (2006): “Environment and Poverty: One World
or Two?,” paper presented at International
Conference on Energy, Environment, and
Development: Analysing opportunities for
reducing Poverty, Bangalore, 16 December.
— (2014): “Global Warming Is Just One of Many
Environmental Threats That Demand Our
Attention,” New Republic, 22 August, viewed on
29 June 2015, http://www.newrepublic.com/
article/ 118969/environmentalists-obsess-about
-global-warming-ignore-poor-countries
Sen, P (2000): “Report of the Committee on Identi-
fying Parameters for Designating Ecologically
Sensitive Areas in India Submitted to the
MoEF,” viewed on 29 June 2015, https://www.
elaw.org/system/files/Pranab+Sen+committe
e+report+2000.DOC
Stiglitz, J, A Sen and J Fitoussi (2008): “Report
by the Commission on the Measurement of
Economic Performance and Social Progress,”
viewed on 29 June 2015, http://www.stiglitz-
sen-fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf
vol l no 30 EPW Economic & Political Weekly