Why in the News?

• The Union Environment Ministry has reissued, for the seventh time in over a decade, its draft notification proposing an ecologically sensitive area (ESA) across the Western Ghats, after the previous draft lapsed without being finalised due to continuing differences with the six states.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• About Western Ghats (Background, Gadgil Committee, Kasturirangan Committee, etc.)
• News Summary (7^th Draft, Key Proposals, Core Controversy, etc.)

About the Western Ghats

• The Western Ghats is a mountain range running parallel to the western coast of the Indian peninsula, spread over approximately 1,500 km across six states: Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala & Tamil Nadu.
• Ecological Significance

• A UNESCO World Heritage Site, recognised for its outstanding universal value.
• It is older than the Himalayas in geological age.
• Home to thousands of species of flora and fauna, many of which are endemic and found nowhere else.
• Influences the monsoon pattern of peninsular India.
• Acts as a critical water source, giving rise to major rivers such as the Godavari, Krishna, and Cauvery.
• Hosts 39 components of protected areas, including national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and reserved forests.

About the Gadgil Committee (2011)

• Background
  • The dispute over protecting the Western Ghats dates back to 2011, when the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP), chaired by ecologist Madhav Gadgil, submitted its report recommending stringent conservation measures.
• Key Recommendations

• The entire mountain chain of the Western Ghats should be treated as an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA).
• The region should be divided into Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1, 2, and 3, based on the level of ecological sensitivity.
• Strict regulation of developmental activities, including a ban on mining, quarrying, and highly polluting industries in ESZ-1.
• Phased decommissioning of chemical and polluting industries operating in sensitive zones.
• Promotion of sustainable agriculture and organic farming practices.
• A bottom-up, decentralised governance model involving local communities and Gram Sabhas in conservation decisions.

• Reaction
  • The Gadgil report faced strong opposition from states, particularly Kerala and Karnataka.

• Strict restrictions would adversely affect agriculture, plantations, and infrastructure development.
• It would displace local populations and impact livelihoods dependent on natural resources.
• The recommendations were seen as anti-development by state governments.
• States argued that the report did not adequately consider the socio-economic realities of the region.
• Despite the ecological merit of the report, its political unacceptability led the Centre to seek a more balanced approach.

About the Kasturirangan Committee (2012)

• Background
  • Following the widespread opposition to the Gadgil report, the Centre constituted a High Level Working Group (HLWG) in 2012, chaired by K. Kasturirangan, to review the earlier recommendations and propose a more balanced framework.
• Key Recommendations
  • Only 37% of the Western Ghats should be designated as an ESA, significantly lower than the 64% suggested by the Gadgil report.
  • A complete ban on mining, quarrying, sand mining, and thermal power plants in the ESA.
  • Strict regulation of highly polluting industries within the eco-sensitive zone.
  • Exclusion of inhabited regions and agricultural plantations from the purview of the ESA, making the report more pro-farmer in its approach.
  • Regulation of hydel power projects and large construction activities.
  • Promotion of sustainable development alongside conservation.
• Criticism
  • States argued that the report used an "erroneous method" that included many villages under ESA despite having only rubber plantations and no forest land.
  • The report was accused of including ecologically non-sensitive areas under ESA while leaving out some ecologically sensitive ones.
  • Kerala appointed its own state-level committee under Oommen V. Oommen, which recommended further exclusions of inhabited regions and plantations.
  • States continued to object to the restrictions on infrastructure and developmental activities.

News Summary: The 7th Draft Notification

• The ESA issue has been pending since August 2011, when the Gadgil Committee first recommended notifying a no-go zone to save the fragile terrain.
• The first draft notification was issued in March 2014, but the proposal has remained on paper since then.
• The ministry subsequently issued five more drafts in 2015, 2017, 2018, 2022, and 2024 before coming out with the latest seventh one in July 2026.

Key Features of the 7th Draft

• The Union Environment Ministry notified the seventh draft on July 27, 2026, after the previous draft lapsed on July 27, 2026, without being finalised. The draft will remain open for public objections for 60 days before the Centre considers issuing a final notification.
• The latest notification retains the proposed ESA at 56,825.7 sq. km, spread across the six states.
• Prohibited Activities
  • Mining, quarrying, and sand mining within the ESA.
  • New thermal power plants.
  • Certain highly polluting industries.
  • Large construction projects.
• Regulated Activities
  • Hydel power generation would be regulated.
  • Agriculture and plantation activity will not be affected due to the provisions in the draft notification.
  • The actual area will be finalised based on the recommendations of the states, the views of stakeholders, and the expert committee.

No Substantive Changes

• A comparison of the latest draft with the previous notification issued in July 2024 shows no substantive changes in the notified area, state-wise extent, or regulatory provisions.
• The list of villages proposed for inclusion also remains unchanged.
• New Provision for Phased Implementation
  • Like the sixth draft, the seventh one proposes a provision where the final ESA notification can be taken up "in a phased manner either state-wise or through a combined single notification." This move may help speed up the process without waiting for all six states to be on board simultaneously.

The Core Controversy

• Conservation vs. Development
  • The central tension in the Western Ghats debate is between ecological conservation and developmental aspirations:
  • Conservationists argue that the fragile ecosystem needs strict protection to prevent disasters like landslides, biodiversity loss, and water scarcity.
  • States and local communities fear that stringent regulations would stifle economic growth, restrict agriculture, and displace populations.
• Scientific Demarcation vs. Political Acceptability
  • The Gadgil report was scientifically rigorous but politically unacceptable due to its strictness.
  • The Kasturirangan report was a politically diluted compromise but was criticised for scientific inaccuracies in demarcation.
  • Neither approach has succeeded in finding a balance acceptable to all stakeholders.
• Federal Dynamics
  • The Centre wants a uniform framework for ecological protection across the Western Ghats.
  • States demand flexibility to determine the extent of regulation based on local conditions.
  • The lack of consensus has left the entire issue in limbo for over a decade.
• Recurring Natural Disasters
  • The repeated landslides in Wayanad and other parts of the Western Ghats have reinforced the urgency of ecological protection:
  • Experts have linked the disasters to deforestation, unplanned construction, and climate change.
  • The failure to notify the ESA has allowed environmentally hazardous activities to continue unchecked.
  • Each disaster revives the debate but has not yet led to a final decision.