As the Centre is expected to soon issue the final notification on ‘Ecologically Sensitive Areas’ (ESA) in the Western Ghats on the basis of the Kasturirangan committee report, the states through which the Western Ghats pass are pushing for relaxations. The Kasturirangan report is itself widely seen as a dilution of the recommendations of the Western Ghats Ecology Experts Panel, which was headed by noted ecologist Madhav Gadgil. Gadgil tells DH’s Arjun Raghunath that his report was pro-people and democratic; the Kasturirangan report could be considered “unconstitutional” as it did not provide for considering the local peoples’ views.
How different is your report from the Kasturirangan report?
There seems to be a general confusion about what is ‘Ecologically Sensitive Area’ as per the Kasturirangan report and what it is in our (Gadgil) report. Our report said there cannot be a rigid set of regulations on all areas of Western Ghats that have to be considered ESA. Instead, we recommended three levels of ESA zones — higher sensitivity, moderate sensitivity and lower sensitivity. But in the Kasturirangan report, there is no such distinction. It had just one zone.
The second major difference is that we suggested that certain activities should not take place in the ESA of higher sensitivity, but we also said that these recommendations should not be applied rigidly. The recommendations should be made available to the local grama sabhas and feedback obtained through a grassroots process and then appropriate decisions could be made. The Kasturirangan report, on the other hand, maintained that local communities can have no role in decision-making, which I think is completely unconstitutional. Now, the government is talking mostly about the Kasturirangan report only, which to my mind is flawed.
How do you say that your approach is right?
As per our report, the recommendations of the local community must be taken seriously. The problems cropping up regularly in the sensitive regions indicate that the local people have been kept away from the decision-making process. The recent disasters at Koottickal in Kottayam district of Kerala is a clear instance. Locals there told me that they had been agitating for more than 10 years to stop stone quarrying in the neighbourhood. Even on the day of the landslide, big blasts were carried out in those quarries. As per our report, that area is among the highest sensitivity zones. If our report was implemented, this feedback from the local community could have been obtained and the illegal quarrying could have been stopped.
State governments are justifying seeking relaxations in restrictions citing the livelihoods of local people and their requirement of raw materials for construction activities…
That is just nonsense. The farmers are weeping as their livelihoods are facing a threat from the illegal activities in the sensitive region. The recent calamities are instances. With regard to construction activities, we have to see whether all this infrastructure — like roads, railways — are really required. The kind of infrastructure we need pertains to health and education. Priority can be given to housing as a large number of people are still homeless.
Most ‘development’ activities now are aimed at benefiting only the rich. Destroying mangroves to set up high-rises is only for the rich. The level of economic disparity, the number of people suffering anaemia, etc., are on the rise. These issues need to be addressed.
Then what could be the real reason or the hidden agenda for states seeking relaxation?
The agenda is not hidden at all. The relaxations in ESA will benefit the quarries that make huge, illegal profits. It is being shared among politicians and bureaucrats. Some 10 years back, some mine-owners in Goa had told me about the huge rates they pay to the politicians, right from the bottom to the top. It is regretful that in all states, the ruling parties are in cahoots with the vested interest lobbies. Before the 2014 elections, the BJP strongly supported our report, but the moment they came to power, they took a 180-degree turn. When not in power they supported our report only to get some political mileage.
Those seeking relaxations in Kerala say that the major calamities were mainly due to poor dam management and not activities in the ecologically sensitive areas. Is that so?
Poor dam management was one contributory reason for the 2018 calamities in Kerala. But in the subsequent years also, there were major landslides. I had personally visited the Puthumala area of Wayanad where the landslide happened and claimed many lives. It was evident that the construction of roads and buildings on the steep slopes were contributing factors. In Konkan areas of Maharashtra, this year, landslide geologists who did field studies told me that the rubble from quarrying activities had reached the river. They have documented all this.
In Kerala, the Left Front government is pushing for a semi high-speed rail project. Does that pose an ecological risk?
I would say a straight ‘no’ to the semi high-speed rail project proposal as it will definitely affect the natural flow of water. For instance, look at the floods in the Konkan region. There is good scientific data in this regard.
What do you expect from the government on the ESA notification?
The government should follow the democratic process. When that happens, then things will change. They will begin to respond only to pressure from the public below. Unfortunately, the government doesn’t want democracy and hence my report that suggested collecting opinions from the local community is not considered. Even on the farmers’ protest, the government tried to suppress public pressure. But finally, they had to yield. So, if public pressure builds up, the government will yield. Otherwise, it will only go by the vested interests.