Fear revisits residents of Western Ghats

The controversy underscores the challenge of implementing the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, under which the Union government designates Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs). The Western Ghats, a UNESCO World Heritage site and a global biodiversity hotspot, requires urgent protection. The original Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP), chaired by Madhav Gadgil, recommended classifying the entire region into three levels of Ecological Sensitivity Zones (ESZ 1, 2, and 3), advocating a graded, bottom-up approach to conservation. It proposed radical shifts like ending monoculture plantations and restricting large dams. In contrast, the subsequent High-Level Working Group (HLWG) under K. Kasturirangan adopted a more top-down, partitioning approach. It recommended declaring only 37% of the area (the 'natural landscape') as an ESA, leaving the 'cultural landscape' open to development. The current draft notification (the seventh since 2014) is based on the Kasturirangan report, proposing a ban on mining, highly polluting industries, and large construction projects within the ESA. For UPSC, understanding the differences between these two reports—Gadgil's ecological purism versus Kasturirangan's attempt at balancing development—is crucial for questions on conservation strategies.

The ongoing protests highlight a significant deficit in participatory governance and trust between the state and local communities. The Gadgil Committee strongly advocated for democratic decentralization, empowering Gram Sabhas (village councils) under the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 and the Forest Rights Act, 2006 to make decisions regarding their local environment. It suggested financial incentives like payments for ecosystem services to encourage conservation. However, the top-down implementation of forest laws, often characterized by 'funds and guards' conservation models, has alienated local populations. The article highlights how existing regulations already deny basic amenities like roads, schools, and electricity to forest-dwelling communities, leading to 'development-induced displacement' (e.g., the Linganamakki dam displacees). The fear is that an ESA notification will further centralize control under the Forest Department, exacerbating these livelihood challenges. UPSC Mains questions often explore this tension between environmental protection and the rights of forest-dwelling communities, asking how to achieve inclusive and sustainable development.

The repeated failure to finalize the ESA notification over a decade illustrates complex dynamics in cooperative federalism. While environmental protection is on the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule, allowing both the Centre and States to legislate, the designation of ESAs under the EPA, 1986, is a central prerogative. However, implementing these regulations requires state cooperation. All six states sharing the Western Ghats (Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu) have consistently opposed the draft notifications, citing concerns over economic development and local livelihoods. Kerala, in particular, has seen intense political mobilization against the Kasturirangan report. The Karnataka government's plan to discuss the report in a special legislative session reflects the political pressure on state governments to defend local interests against central mandates. This scenario is a prime example of the challenges in managing shared ecological resources across multiple political jurisdictions, requiring institutional mechanisms for consensus-building between the Union and the States.