Why an Indian mountain range is in the centre of a storm

The Western Ghats, a mountain range in Southwest India, is perhaps the country’s most ecologically sensitive spot. It’s also a UNESCO world heritage site. The Ghats has an estimated 5000 species of flowering plants, 139 mammal species, 508 bird species and 325 globally endangered species. Yet it is also home to villagers, industry and tourism. In the last few years, quarrying and sand mining have also encroached into parts of the Ghats. With all these stakeholders, the conservation of the Ghats is hotly debated, and no one can agree on an acceptable solution. In September 2012, it looked like there might be some action, when the government agreed, in principle, to accept a report on conservation, drafted by scientist and bureaucrat K.Kasturirangan. The report suggested that 37% of the Ghats area be conserved, and roughly about 60,000 km across six states be designated an ecologically sensitive area, where there would be no mining, quarrying, sand mining or polluting industries. It also recommended no thermal power plants in the ESA and hydroelectric plants only after detailed consideration of the impact. The government immediately asked several states to stop polluting activity. But on 21 December last year, the environment ministry changed hands. New environment minister Veerappa Moily, who oddly is also the minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas, said that the government was reviewing the report, and had decided to give states a chance to respond with their objections before any action is taken. With general elections in April, this realistically means any conservation measures will happen only when the next government takes office. Meanwhile, a fierce tussle continues over the Kasturirangan report. On one side are ecologists, who say the 37% conservation target is simply not enough, paving the way for the destruction of most of the Ghats. Chief among the critics is ecologist Madhav Gadgil, who was also earlier asked to write a report suggesting conservation strategies by the government, but whose report was then hastily shelved. The Gadgil report suggested that the entire Ghat area be declared an ecologically sensitive area, the Ghats be divided into three zones and that villagers and local councils be consulted on all polluting projects. In contrast, the Kasturirangan report acknowledges the importance of tourism, and even encourages it as an alternative source of income. It also contains an interesting line, “It is not possible to preserve the Ghats as a fenced off zone away from human influence”, tacitly acknowledging encroaching industry. In a scathing open letter, Gadgil wrote of Kasturirangan’s attempt to balance ecology and development, “This amounts to attempts to maintain oases of diversity in a desert of ecological devastation. Ecology teaches us that such fragmentation would lead, sooner, rather than later, to the desert overwhelming the oases.” Gadgil also flayed the Kasturirangan report’s rejection of the role of local communities in making economic decisions. He wrote, “It is our people, rooted in India’s strong cultural traditions of respect for nature, who have venerated and protected the sacred groves, the ficus trees, the monkeys and the peafowl.” On the other side of the debate are some state governments and villagers, many of whom oppose both the reports. The government of the Southern state of Kerala has fiercely opposed the Kasturirangan report, saying it was impractical, and the powerful Syrian Catholic church says both reports are written by ecologists who don’t care about people, just flora and fauna. Last November, when the government imposed restrictions on construction and industry in 123 villages, several areas in Kerala saw violent protests. Part of the problem is that there is immense confusion over how much of the report will be implemented, and what will be allowed. Many poor villages fear their land will be acquired, and they will have no means of feeding themselves. Politicians have taken advantage of the confusion to drum up panic and muddle issues. The Gadgil report, for instance, was not released until a year after it was written, and the long gap cut off any possibility of debate. The Kerala government has now appointed its own committee, which has recommended that areas under human settlement be exempted from ecological conservation. Other states continue to protest even the Kasturirangan report’s moderate conservation measures. In an election year, it’s clear that business considerations and jobs will take priority over environment. In the meantime, the Ghats stand threatened.