PREFACE Western Ghats is a magnificent mountain range next only to Himalayas and is a biological treasure trove with a high degree of endemism (11% to 78%) and scenic beauty. This unique eco-system has been threatened by continuously increasing habitat pressures and declared as one of the world’s hottest hotspots of biodiversity. Realizing the need to protect and rejuvenate the ecology of and for sustainable development in Western Ghats, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) constituted a Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP). The mandate of WGEEP was to demarcate ecologically sensitive zones and suggest measures to conserve, protect and rejuvenate the ecology of Western Ghats region. Taking into account the comments and suggestions made by different stakeholders including State Governments and Central Ministries on WGEEP Report, the MoEF constituted a High Level Working Group (HLWG) to suggest an all-round and holistic approach for sustainable and equitable development while keeping in focus the preservation and conservation of ecological systems in Western Ghats. The Working Group has carefully examined the different approaches available for characterizing the Western Ghats System to get an insight so as to make pragmatic recommendations. The Working Group followed a detailed geospatial analysis for identification of Ecologically Sensitive Areas at a fine resolution of 24 m with village as unit. After extensive discussions with experts, the Working Group also defined the extent of Western Ghats; and as per HLWG’s definition, the Western Ghats region spreads over an area of 1,64,280 km2 and extends from North to South over a distance of 1500 km traversing Six States. Our analysis also revealed that already close to 60 per cent of the Western Ghats region is under cultural landscape - human dominated land use of settlements, agriculture and plantations (other than forest plantations) - and only 41 per cent of the land area can be currently classified as natural landscape. Of the natural landscape, the biologically rich area, with some measure of contiguity is roughly 37 per cent of the Western Ghats which is about 60,000 km2. We have identified this 37% of natural landscape having very high and iii high biological richness and low fragmentation and low population density and contain Protected Areas (PAs), World Heritage Sites (WHSs) and Tiger and Elephant corridors as Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) and recommend it to MoEF for notification. Because of unprecedented threats to natural landscape of Western Ghats region by development projects and urban growth, the Working Group has recommended a non-tolerance policy with respect to highly interventionist and environmentally damaging activities like mining or polluting industries and made specific recommendations about prohibited activities and those that require high level of scrutiny and assessment before clearance within ESA. While recognizing the fact that list of non-permissible activities recommended may not be enough to fully manage the environmental fallout of development and also being fully aware that management through prohibition and fiat is often detrimental to the interests of the very people, the environment policy is aiming to protect. The Working Group has suggested a balanced and nuanced approach – to say no to the most damaging and high impact activities and at the same time creating an enabling process to incentivize environmentally sound development that benefits local livelihoods and economies. The Working Group also took note of the environmentally friendly practices in coffee plantations in Kodagu and cardamom plantations in Idduki and Wayanad where integration of natural landscapes with human settlements exists. Indeed, it is because of this harmony between people and nature in the Western Ghats, the HLWG recommended policies to incentivize green growth that promotes sustainable and equitable development across the Western Ghats region. The future lies in working on green growth strategies that build on the natural endowment of the Western Ghats region to create a vibrant economy, while preserving, conserving and rejuvenating the ecology. As a part of the governance of Western Ghats ecology, the Working Group also recommended to MoEF for setting up of a “Decision Support and Monitoring Centre for Western Ghats’’. iv Even as we take urgent steps as outlined in this report, the future planning and regulations would call for constantly updating and improving our understanding of this multi-dimensional Mountain System. The Western Ghats ecosystem has a high degree of complexity arising out of a variety of non-linear interactions between its component elements such as rich Biodiversity (Flora & Fauna), Hydrological Systems, Geological and Geomorphological characteristics and Climatic Variations coupled with impacts of human interventions. Understanding of such a system and evolving specific strategies for sustainable development, after duly factoring conservation and preservation imperatives, demand insights into the behavioural pattern of this complex entity. Against this backdrop, our own understanding of the system behaviour has not even scraped the surface of the huge embedded knowledge bases and their interrelationships. The work of WGEEP and our own work can help to highlight the need for understanding this complex system in its variety of manifestations as we seek for maximum possible internal self-consistency between competing demands of development, conservation and local livelihoods. This is an area of research that can be carried out for several years involving some of the most brilliant minds. In this context, we feel that we should inspire generations of researchers to work on aspects relevant to the functioning of Western Ghats Ecosystem for greater insight into its behaviour. This in turn can also open up multiple pathways for decision making and facilitating the application of criteria like multi-parameter optimization. In short, the WGEEP report together with the present Report can be, indeed, a starting point in a long and what could be an eventful odyssey to understand the man-environmental relations through the eyes of Western Ghats which in the view of its Creator can be a gift or a curse depending on how we judge and act. Recognizing this aspect should truly make us humble. Members High Level Working Group v ACKNOWLEDGMENT The Members of the High Level Working Group (HLWG) would like to record their deep gratitude to the Hon’ble Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Environment & Forests, Smt. Jayanthi Natarajan for entrusting this important task to us, a task which was challenging and called for finding a right balance between the imperatives of conservation ecology and development for the complex Western Ghats System. The task entrusted to the HLWG involved development of multi parameter criteria, analysis and modelling of different types of data and information. In executing this aspect of the activity, the HLWG relied heavily on the expertise of Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) in general and National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC) in particular. Specifically, the Working Group would like to express their sincere appreciation to the guidance provided by Dr. V.K. Dhadwal, Director, NRSC. Further, nearly all the important aspects of this specialized effort were carried out by Dr. Chandrasekhar Jha and Shri G. Rajashekar of NRSC who tirelessly worked on various aspects of analysis and interpretation. The high levels of expectations of HLWG were fully responded to by these scientists. We also recall with gratitude the special interest Dr. K. Radhakrishnan, Chairman, ISRO took in extending all the required support of ISRO for this purpose. As a part of getting a second opinion through a peer review mechanism, the HLWG requested a committee of Dr. Y.V.N Krishna Murthy, Director, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dr. V.B. Mathur, Dean, Wildlife Institute of India and Prof. Subhash Ashutosh, Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy for the critical evaluation of the methodologies used for identification of the Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESA). We appreciate the high degree of professionalism brought to bear by these scientists in reviewing the methodology adopted. vi The HLWG had contacted the Governments of the 6 States of Western Ghats to seek their specific views on the various recommendations made in the WGEEP report and their implications. The States not only responded to these enquiries with quality analytical inputs but also in most of the cases facilitated meetings of the working Group with the concerned State Government officials who made excellent presentations besides insightful discussions. Further, the HLWG had the privilege of meeting with Chief Ministers of Maharashtra, Goa and Kerala along with their Cabinet colleagues and elected representatives (MPs and MLAs belonging to different parties). This aspect of interaction with the State Governments, their elected representatives, functionaries and officials, provided the most valuable inputs for the Working Group to draft its recommendations. The Working Group would like to acknowledge with thanks the concerned functionaries at the State levels and in particular Chief Secretaries and Secretaries of relevant Departments. The HLWG also made similar request to the Ministries/ Departments of the Central Government in the context of the WGEEP report. We would like to record our appreciation for the exhaustive responses that we received from the Central Ministries and Departments of the Government of India. At the individual level, several important experts, professionals, NGOs and Activists interacted with the HLWG. Whereas, it is not possible to exhaustively acknowledge all the names, a few of them nevertheless merit mention. On the aspect of delineation of the Western-Ghats, the very illuminating discussions HLWG had with Prof. R. Vaidyanathan, Retd. Prof. of Geography and Geology, Andhra University, Dr. Balakrishna, Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India and Prof. K.R. Subramanya of Geological Society of India are gratefully acknowledged. Further, the invaluable technical inputs and advice on Wildlife corridors provided by Prof. V.B. Mathur and Dr. Y.V. Jhala of Wildlife Institute of India are appreciated. Dr. Jayaraman of ISRO provided excellent inputs on the concept of Decision Support and Monitoring Centre for the Western Ghats. vii One of the most important meetings that HLWG had at the individual level was with Prof. Madhav Gadgil, Chairman of WGEEP. The very extensive interaction of the individual Members of HLWG with Prof. Madhav Gadgil was deeply insightful even as we could glean his passion and commitment for the conservation of the Western Ghats ecology. Discussion with Prof. Madhav Gadgil provided valuable inputs for the HLWG, which also had discussions with many Members of WGEEP. Many institutions provided useful information which were used by HLWG in conducting analysis and assessment. The State Biodiversity Boards, State Forest Departments, State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and Tropical Botanical Garden Research Institute (TBGRI), Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) and Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL), to mention a few, provided valuable data on different issues ranging from Hydropower projects to biodiversity conservation. HLWG also met a number of stakeholders including experts, experienced and knowledgeable citizens, associations of trade organizations, scientists and academicians, who offered valuable suggestions on the different facets of the Western Ghats. The HLWG also benefitted from meetings with some notable NGOs and Activists. The HLWG thanks the Planning Commission, particularly Smt Indu Patnaik, Joint Advisor and Ms Urvana Menon, Young Professional (E & F) for their help in providing data inputs on Western Ghats Development Programme and analysis of the responses received. Dr Amit Love, Deputy Director, Ministry of Environment and Forests, has been the major force behind the functioning of HLWG and it would have been impossible to accomplish the enormous task entrusted to HLWG without him. The HLWG acknowledges the invaluable support provided by the scientists and staff, particularly Dr Rakesh Kumar and Shri Pankaj Kumar working at the Centre of Excellence Programme of the Ministry of Environment and Forests at the Centre for viii Environmental Management of Degraded Ecosystems, University of Delhi in compilation and finalization of the report. From the Ministry of Environment and Forests, we would like to particularly recognize the excellent presentation made by Dr. G.V. Subramanyam on the various aspects of WGEEP recommendations. Some of us also benefitted by the comprehensive briefing by Dr. Nalini Bhatt on the history of evolution of the several issues related to Athirappilly and Gundya projects. HLWG also acknowledges the inputs given by senior officers of the MoEF viz. Dr. S.K. Khanduri, Dr. Satpathy, and Dr. Burman. The HLWG would also like to express our thanks to Dr. V. Rajagopalan, Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, for his keen interest in the progress of the HLWG and also extending the support of the Ministry whenever called for. ix List of Tables Table 1: Elevation and rainfall data at various sections of Western Ghats Region Table 2: Different approaches followed in delimitation of Western Ghats Table 3: Datasets (Layers) used in geospatial analysis and their sources Table 4: Vegetation and land cover types in Natural and Cultural Landscapes of Western Ghats Region. Table 5: Number of villages and population density in ESAs and non ESAs of Western Ghats Region Table 6: Area under Natural and Cultural landscapes, ESA, PAs+WHSs and total area of ‘talukas’ under Western Ghats region in different States of the Western Ghats Region Table 7: Number of villages with ESA in each taluka, the total geographical area of taluka and the area occupied by ESA in a taluka across the States of Western Ghats Region x List of Figures Figure 1: Percent Responses and distribution pattern under categories ‘Not in favour’ (A) and ‘in favour’ (B), to WGEEP Report. Figure 2: Frequency distribution of responses under the two categories of Responses ‘in support’ and ‘not in support’ to WGEEP Report. Figure 3a: Distribution pattern of responses classified into identified issues under category ‘not in favour’. Figure 3b: Distribution pattern of responses classified into identified issues under category ‘in favour’. Figure 4: Frequency distribution pattern of responses to different aspects of WGEEP Report under each of the two category. Figure 5: Map of peninsular India showing the boundary of Western Ghats Region and origin of major rivers, with Tapti river as the northern boundary of Western Ghats. Figure 6: Map of peninsular India showing 188 talukas of Western Ghats Region that includes 7 talukas of Gujarat located to south of Tapti river – the northernmost limit of Western Ghats Region. Figure 7: Schematic representation of geospatial analysis carried out using different datasets for identification of ESAs. Figure 8: Mudigere taluka showing vegetation and land cover types. Figure 9: Mudigere taluka showing natural and cultural landscapes. Figure 10: Mudigere taluka showing ESAs. Figure 11: Mudigere taluka showing ESZs of WGEEP overlaid on ESAs. Figure 12: Vegetation and Land cover types in WG region. Figure 13: Western Ghats region showing Natural and Cultural Landscapes and water bodies. Figure 14: Western Ghats region showing different levels of biological richness in natural landscape. xi Figure 15: Western Ghats region showing different levels of forest fragmentation in natural landscape. Figure 16: Western Ghats region showing different population densities. Figure 17: Western Ghats region showing ESAs, PAs and WHSs. Figure 18: Wildlife corridors (Tiger and Elephant) in ESA of Western Ghats region. Figure 19: Natural and Cultural landscapes in Western Ghats region of Gujarat. Figure 20: ESA in Western Ghats region of Gujarat. Figure 21: Natural and cultural landscapes in Western Ghats region of Goa. Figure 22: ESA in Western Ghats region of Goa. Figure 23: Natural and Cultural landscapes in Western Ghats region of Maharashtra. Figure 24: ESA in Western Ghats region of Maharashtra. Figure 25: Natural and Cultural landscapes in Western Ghats region of Karnataka. Figure 26: ESA in Western Ghats region of Karnataka. Figure 27: Natural and Cultural landscapes in Western Ghats region of Kerala. Figure 28: ESA in Western Ghats region of Kerala. Figure 29: Natural and Cultural landscapes in Western Ghats region of Tamil Nadu. Figure 30: ESA in Western Ghats region of Tamil Nadu. Figure 31: Components of the proposed Center xii SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION PLAN The observations and discussions presented in different chapters of this Report clearly indicate unambiguously that the eco-system of Western-Ghats is in need of urgent attention and action. Out of the estimated 1,64,280 km2 of the Western-Ghats area, the natural landscape constitutes only 41 per cent. The area identified as ecologically sensitive is about 37 per cent i.e., about 90 % of the natural landscape. It is against this backdrop of a fast dwindling unique ecosystem, that we make these recommendations. Needless to emphasize, there is a great sense of urgency, in the implementation of the tasks arising out of these recommendations, even though, we fully recognize the sincere commitment that each of the Six States has displayed in the context of protecting the rich Bio-diversity of this mountain range. In making some of the general and sectoral recommendations, we are also aware that many of these are already inbuilt into the present strategies of the respective States. In repeating such recommendations, we are only underscoring the imperatives of implementing such recommendations in letter and spirit. The summary of recommendations are given below: A. Delineation and demarcation of ecologically sensitive area in Western Ghats region 1. In the absence of accepted definition and delimitation of Western Ghats in terms of geology and geomorphological features, the talukas under Western Ghats Development Programme of Planning Commission and under Hill Development Programme and talukas located at the traditionally accepted northernmost boundary of Western Ghats (south of Tapti river) in Gujarat have been included in defining and delimitation of Western Ghats Region by HLWG. The delimited area of 188 talukas in 6 States of Western Ghats has been designated as Western Ghats Region which spreads over an area of 1,64,280 km2 between 8˚0’– 22˚26’ N and 72˚55’– 78˚11’ E and extends over a distance of 1500km from Tapti River at the north to Kanyakumari at the south, with altitudinal range (ellipsoid) from 0 to 2674 m above sea level and xiii width ranging from 10km (at narrowest point) to 200km (at widest point). HLWG recommends the adoption of the boundaries as demarcated in the Report. 2. About 60,000 km2 of natural landscape (approximately 37% of the total geographical area of Western Ghats Region) has been identified as Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) by HLWG, which represents more or less a contiguous band of vegetation extending over a distance of 1500 km across 6 States of Western Ghats region and includes Protected Areas and World Heritage Sites. The demarcation unit of ESA is the village. IRS LISS III derived spatial layers on vegetation type and landscape level indices (with a fine spatial resolution of 24 m) were used as the basis for identification of ecologically sensitive areas (ESAs). To facilitate sustainable development in the WG region, which is inhabited by about 50 million people, the non ESA comprising mostly cultural landscape is also demarcated. HLWG recommends that the Central government should immediately notify the ESA area, demarcated by HLWG in public interest. The need for urgent action is evident. In this notified area, development restrictions as recommended in this report will apply. 3. MoEF should put the ESA map in the public domain, which will enable scrutiny and transparency in decisions. B. Development Restrictions in proposed Ecologically sensitive areas 4. HLWG is recommending a prohibitory and regulatory regime in ESA for those activities with maximum interventionist and destructive impact on the ecosystem. All other infrastructure development activities, necessary for the region, will be carefully scrutinized and assessed for cumulative impact and development needs, before clearance. xiv 5. There should be a complete ban on mining, quarrying and sand mining in ESA. All current mining areas should be phased out within the next 5 years, or at the time of expiry of mining lease, whichever is earlier. 6. No thermal power projects should be allowed in ESA. Hydropower projects may be allowed but subject to following conditions: (a) Uninterrupted ecological flow at atleast 30 per cent level of the rivers flow in lean season till a comprehensive study establishes individual baselines. (b) After a cumulative study which assesses the impact of each project on the flow pattern of the rivers and forest and biodiversity loss. (c) Ensuring that the minimum distance between projects is maintained at 3 km and that not more than 50 per cent of the river basin is affected at any time. 7. HLWG recommends that wind energy should be included in EIA notification and brought under purview of assessment and clearance. 8. All ‘Red’ category industries should be strictly banned. As the list of industries categorized as ‘orange’ includes many activities like food and fruit processing, there will not be a complete prohibition on this category. But all efforts should be made to promote industries with low environmental impacts. 9. Building and construction projects of 20,000 m2 and above should not be allowed. Townships and area development projects should be prohibited. xv 10. All other infrastructure and development projects/schemes should be subject to environment clearance under Category ‘A’ projects under EIA Notification 2006. 11. Additional safeguard for forest diversion in ESA should be introduced. In cases of forest clearance required in ESA, all information of the project, from application stage to approval should be placed in the public domain on the website of MoEF and of the forest department of the respective States. 12. All development projects, located within 10 km of the Western Ghats ESA and requiring Environment Clearance (EC), shall be regulated as per the provisions of the EIA Notification 2006. 13. HLWG recommends a framework for governance and regulation of ESA, which draws on current regulatory institutions for decision-making, but simultaneously, strengthens the data monitoring systems and the participation and involvement of local communities in decision-making. 14. Existing regulatory institutions and processes for environment and forest clearances and project monitoring would need to be greatly strengthened for the governance framework to be enforced and monitored effectively. 15. The villages falling under ESA will be involved in decision making on the future projects. All projects will require prior-informed consent and noobjection from the Gram Sabha of the village. The provision for prior informed consent under the Forest Rights Act will also be strictly enforced. 16. The State Governments should also ensure consultation with local communities while planning for protection of wildlife corridors. 17. State Governments should immediately put in place structures for effective enforcement of development restrictions and ensuring sustainable development in ESA. xvi C. Financial arrangements and Incentivising Green Growth in Western Ghats region 18. HLWG recognizes that the Western Ghats even in those areas categorized as natural landscapes, is inhabited. It is not wilderness area, but the habitat of its people, who share the landscape with biological diversity. Conversely, the cultural landscape is also biologically rich and the economic growth of the entire region comes from its natural endowment of water, forests and biodiversity. For this reason, HLWG has recommended policies to incentivize environmentally sound growth across the Western Ghats. 19. HLWG recommends that the Western Ghats States should come together to negotiate for a grant-in aid from the Centre. The financial arrangement should be of the nature of a debt for nature swap. This is a mechanism whereby part of the outstanding debt of a State is swapped for new constructive initiatives by it to protect its natural resources. A part of these payments be retained by the State Governments and a part be used to finance local conservation trust funds (as in several countries), which disburse grants to community projects for improving forest productivity and ensuring sustainable forest based livelihoods in ESAs. In addition, the 14th Finance Commission should consider substantially increasing the fund allotted to States by the 13th Finance Commission for forest and environmental conservation. 20. HLWG recommends that there should be arrangements for Payments for Ecosystem Services accruing from ESA and non-ESA regions within the Western Ghats. HLWG also recommends that individual State Governments pursue such initiatives which may create possibilities for a dialogue on this issue between municipalities and relevant Panchayats within their States. xvii 21. HLWG recommends considering extending Entry 20 (Economic Planning) in the Concurrent List, and introduce an appropriate new entry, say 20A, suitably titled, to ensure that developmental projects and activities are undertaken within an overarching environmental and ecological framework. 22. The Planning Commission should create a special Western Ghats Sustainable Development Fund, as proposed in this Report. This fund will be used to promote programmes specifically designed to implement an effective ESA regime and incentivize green growth in the region. 23. The 14th Finance Commission should consider options for ecosystem and other service payments in the Western Ghats as well as allocation of funds to ESA areas. It should also consider how these funds for environmental management would be made available directly to local communities who live in and around Western Ghats ESA. 24. The Planning Commission is currently working on a ranking of States based on Environmental Performance Index (EPI) developed by it. The EPI could be used to devolve funds to the States. ESA should get ‘plus payments’ which should be paid directly to the village community. 25. The strategy evolved for the continuation of the Western Ghats Development Programme, in the 12th Plan centres around, besides watershed based development, fragility of the habitat, and development needs of the people i.e. a Watershed + approach – an approach which emphasizes conservation, minimal ecological disturbance, involvement of locals along with sustainable model of economic development and livelihood generation with enhanced allocation. After a careful consideration of the strategy proposed, the HLWG recommends the following: (a) Continuation of the WGD program with an enhanced allocation of Rs. 1000 crores, xviii (b) Continuation of the special category status to the program i.e. cost sharing of 90:10 between Centre and State, (c) Revival and reconstitution of the High Level Committee consisting of CMs of the six States, for monitoring the implementation of the recommendations /suggestions of the HLWG and existing legislations and periodical review the status report of the Decision Support and Monitoring Centre for Western Ghats Region, (d) Setting up / strengthening of the State WG cell with a mandate to liaise with SPCB, State Department of Forests, SEAC and SBA, and Regional office of the MoEF and service the information and decision support needs of the State Government. 26. Forest management for inclusive development should require policies to integrate forest accounts, including measurement of the tangible and intangible benefits into State and National economic assessments and policies to improve productivity of forests for economic benefits for local communities. 27. The current rules of timber transit, which do not incentivize forest production on private lands and community forestlands, should be reviewed and revised. The Forest Rights Act’s categorization of minor forest produce, including bamboo should be promoted to build forest-based local economies. 28. To promote sustainable agriculture, HLWG recommends a focused programme to incentivize growers in the Western Ghats to move towards organic cultivation and to build a unique ‘brand’ for such premium products in the world market. 29. In order to promote sustainable tourism, HLWG recommends the following: xix (a) Existing regulatory provisions to assess environmental impact of tourism projects must be strengthened. (b) The tourism policy for Ecologically Sensitive Area of the Western Ghats must provide local community ownership and benefits. (c) All tourism hotspots in the Ecologically Sensitive Area should be monitored for compliance with environmental conditions and development restrictions and assessed in terms of impact. D. Decision Support and Monitoring Centre for Western Ghats 30. The management of Western Ghats ecology involves conservation, protection and rejuvenation as well as sustainable development in Western Ghats through periodic assessments of environment and ecology on a long term basis across the Six States of Western Ghats region using state-of-art geospatial technologies. The information generated will be used for wide range of purposes including planning and policy formulation from time to time, keeping in view of changes monitored both in time and space. A Centre with the mandate to: (i) use the existing and new knowledge to build a vibrant political dialogue in the region as a whole on the need to make shifts in development paradigm, given its particular vulnerability, (ii) assess and report on the state of ecology of the entire region, and (iii) provide a decision support function in the implementation of ESAs is essential. With this objective in view, HLWG recommends for setting up the “Decision Support and Monitoring Centre for Western Ghats” by MoEF and it will be hosted by one State and will have joint management of all Six States of the Western Ghats region for conservation of the ecology and sustainable and equitable development in Western Ghats Region. 31. For the first time in conservation ecology and sustainable development, HLWG with the help of NRSC developed a scientific, objective and practical way of identifying Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs) at a fine resolution of xx 24 m with village as a unit, using IRS LISS III derived spatial layers of vegetation type and landscape indices (based on ground truthing involving 100’s of sampling sites under DBT-ISRO project on Biodiversity Conservation). The maps generated on GIS platform having different layers have a wide range of applications. Consequently, the HLWG recommends that the approach followed for identification of ESAs serves as a model for replication elsewhere in the region and country. E. Climate change and Western Ghats 32. The predictions on climate change have been made using Global Climate Models (GCMs) and Regional Climate Models (RCMs) with resolutions at 100km and 25km, respectively, which are very coarse for Western Ghats, the width of which varies from 10 to 200km. There is a need for downscaling of the data for ecosystem change models such as Dynamic Vegetation Growth Models (DVGM) and Ecological Niche Models. HLWG recommends that the proposed Centre may undertake these studies. In any case, the likely increase in temperature regime, rainfall and extreme events, besides decrease in the duration of precipitation which alone has serious concern for Western Ghats ecosystem - increased water stress to the forests, in fire incidences, evapo-transpiration and surface runoff. As a adaptive measure to these changes, a number of adaptive strategies such as (i) species-mix plantations, (ii) planting of hardy species that are resilient to increased temperature and drought risk, and (iii) launching of a few adaptive projects such as anticipatory plantation along altitudinal and latitudinal gradient and linking of PAs and forests fragments and implementing advance fire warning strategy, which have been outlined in Chapter 3, should be taken into account while formulating policies across Western Ghats region xxi F. Specific cases referred to HLWG 33. HLWG is of the view that while the importance of the proposed Athirappilly hydropower project for meeting the peaking power requirements of the State cannot be disputed, there is still uncertainty about ecological flow available in the riverine stretch, which has a dam at a short distance upstream of the proposed project. It recommends that given the increased variability due to unpredictable monsoon, the project must be revaluated in terms of the generation of energy and whether the plant load factor expected in the project makes it viable against the loss of local populations of some species. Based on this revaluation and collection of data on ecological flow, the Government of Kerala, could take forward the proposal, if it so desires with the Ministry of Environment and Forests. 34. As the proposed Gundya hydropower project is located in the ESA, it must be proceeded upon with extreme caution. HLWG recommends that the Government of Karnataka should reassess the ecological flow in the downstream areas, based on a thorough evaluation of hydrological regimes in the area. The project should not be given the go-ahead, till such a review and reassessment is made. The Government’s review must also assess local damage to all forests, which will emanate from the construction work and if at all, this can be mitigated. The HWLG has not proposed a complete ban on the construction of hydropower projects in the ESA, but its recommended conditions that balance the needs of energy with environment, must be followed. 35. HLWG has recommended that there should be a complete ban on mining activity in ESA and that current mining activities in ESA would be phased out within five years, or at the time of expiry of the mining lease, whichever is earlier. In view of the fact that the matter of iron ore mining in Goa is xxii pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, HLWG does not find it appropriate to make any other recommendation in the matter. 36. Sindhudurg and Ratnagiri districts have three categories of areas: (i) area under ESA, (ii) area under non ESA within Western Ghats and (iii) area outside Western Ghats region. HLWG recommends that the moratorium imposed should be lifted with the following conditions. As per the recommendations of this report, in the area of these two districts, which has been categorized as ESA, the sectoral restrictions and regulations will apply. In addition, all development projects located within 10 km of the Western Ghats ESA and requiring Environment Clearance (EC) shall be regulated as per the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006. In the remaining area, including the area outside ESA but within Western Ghats, environment and forest processes and regulations will continue to apply. However, in order to ensure that such development projects do not adversely impact the environmental balance of the two districts, MoEF should monitor on regular basis the cumulative impact of projects, which may come up in these districts and take policy decisions at appropriate time based on such findings. Action Plan I Considering the urgency in protecting and safeguarding the remaining biodiversity rich areas in Western Ghats, MoEF needs to notify ESA recommended by HLWG and also issue other notifications, regulations etc., as may be required to implement the aforesaid recommendations as soon as possible in public interest. II The aforesaid recommendations clearly bring out the requirements for their implementation. MoEF should be the overall nodal Ministry to ensure timely implementation of these recommendations. Each of the Six State xxiii Governments may identify the nodal department to co-ordinate the implementation of these recommendations in the State. III On recommendations relating to financial arrangements and incentivising green growth in Western Ghats region, co-ordinated action needs to be taken by MoEF, Planning Commission and Ministry of Finance. In particular, the 14th Finance Commission should be persuaded to provide sufficient allocation of funds to the States in the Western Ghats for forest and environment conservation. Further, as recommended above, the Planning Commission should strengthen the implementation of Western Ghats Development Programme. 1 . CHAPTER 1 Introduction The Western Ghats (WG) or the Sahyadri is the majestic mountain range on the fringes of the west coast of India. It is one among the seven great mountain ranges in the country and is next only to the Himalayas. Its landscape is unique in terms of geology, biology and ecology. The mountain range extends over a distance of 1500- 1600 km from Tapti river in the north to Kanyakumari in the south with an average elevation of more than 600 m and traverses through Six States viz. Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Its geology and geomorphology coupled with high rainfall makes the Western Ghats as one of the most ecologically diversified landscapes. It is this ecological diversity of WG that supports: (i) a wide range of forest types ranging from tropical wet evergreen forests to grasslands, (ii) some 4000 species of flowering plants with high degree of endemism and (iii) rich fauna with endemism ranging from 11% to 78% among different groups. Consequently, Western Ghats constitutes not only one of the hotspots of biodiversity in the world, but also one among world’s eight hottest hotspots. The Western Ghats is the home for about 50 million people belonging to the Six States of the Country. It is the source of water for the entire Peninsular India, and also influences the monsoons. The life supporting and biodiversity rich ecosystems of Western Ghats are threatened today due to habitat pressures. 1.1 Background and Constitution of HLWG The Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF), Government of India, has been concerned with degradation of Western Ghats in the past due to increasing population pressure. Keeping in view of the ecological sensitivity and significance of the region, complex interstate nature of its geography and also possible impacts of climate change, the MoEF constituted a 14- member Western Ghats Ecology Expert 2 . Panel (WGEEP), with Professor Madhav Gadgil as its Chairman, on 4th March 2010. The Panel submitted its report on 30th August 2011. Considering the complex interstate character of the Western Ghats and the recommendations of WGEEP which involved demarcation of Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) and zonal regulations of important sectors of activities, the Ministry sought comments/suggestions of all stakeholders. Over a thousand and seven hundred responses were received by the Ministry when the WGEEP Report was made public and put on the website of the Ministry. It is in this background that the MoEF constituted the High Level Working Group (HLWG) vide office order dated 17th August 2012 (Annexure 1) with inter alia the following terms of reference: (i) examine the WGEEP Report in a holistic and multidisciplinary fashion in the light of responses received from the concerned Governments of States, Central Ministries and Stakeholders, keeping in view the following matters: (a) sustainability of equitable economic and social growth in the region while preserving the precious biodiversity, wildlife, flora and fauna and preventing their further losses; (b) ensuring the rights, needs and developmental aspirations of local and indigenous people, tribals, forest dwellers and most disadvantaged sections of the local communities while balancing equitable economic and social growth with sustainable development and environmental integrity; (c) the effects and impacts of climate change on the ecology of Western Ghats region, (d) the implication of recognizing some sites in Western Ghats as world heritage sites in the conservation and sustainable development in Western Ghats and (e) the constitutional implications of Centre –State relations with respect to conservation and sustainable development in Western Ghats; (ii) to interact with the representatives of the Six States of Western Ghats region and other stakeholders, particularly environmentalists and conservation specialists; (iii) to suggest to the Government for further course of action on WGEEP Report; (iv) any other relevant matter that 3 . may be referred to it by the Central Government; and (v) submission of Action Plan to implement WGEEP Report in the most effective and holistic manner. 1.2 Working of HLWG During its tenure HLWG held 10 meetings, undertook four field visits and had interactions with State Governments and stakeholders (Annexure 2). In the first meeting of HLWG, the MoEF presented an overview of the WGEEP Report and responses of State Governments, Central Ministries and Stakeholders. The Group decided to carefully review the Report of the WGEEP submitted in line with the terms of Reference assigned / its given TORs . To achieve this and to address the issues raised by stakeholders on WGEEP Report, the HLWG decided to adopt a number of approaches. These approaches are described below. One approach followed was to visit different States in Western Ghats region and interact with democratically elected State Governments and other stakeholders. During its tenure, HLWG visited Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala and Goa. In Maharashtra, HLWG held discussions with the Hon’ble Chief Minister Shri Prithviraj Chavan, his Cabinet colleagues, Chief Secretary and Secretaries of relevant Departments. In Karnataka, the HLWG held discussions with Chief Secretary and Secretaries of relevant Departments and Forest Officials. Chairman HLWG also met the Hon’ble Chief Minister Shri Jagadish Shettar. In Kerala, HLWG had discussions with Hon’ble Chief Minister, Shri Oommen Chandy, his Cabinet colleagues, Chief Secretary and Secretaries of relevant Departments and 4 . Chairperson of State Biodiversity Board. The HLWG also met elected representatives of Parliament and State Legislature. In Goa, HLWG had discussion with Hon’ble Chief Minister Shri Manohar Parrikar and Secretaries of relevant Departments. During these visits, HLWG also met Stakeholders including representatives of civil society, NGOs, professionals, industry and trade associations, planter associations, professionals, academicians and local communities. The second approach followed was to elicit responses from State Governments and Central Ministries to a questionnaire formulated by HLWG based on its ToRs. The third approach adopted was to make field visits to the sites of the developmental projects activities which were to be reviewed as per the ToR. As a part of wider consultations, HLWG also visited Pune and held discussion with Professor Madhav Gadgil, Chairman, WGEEP. HLWG couldn’t visit the States of Tamil Nadu and Gujarat as no convenient dates for the visit could be finalized in consultation with the State Governments. However, their inputs were received and were duly considered by HLWG while firming up its recommendations. HLWG undertook field visits to assess the ground reality with respect to two proposed hydropower projects (Athirapilly and Gundya), development activities in Sindhudurg and Ratnagiri, Mining in Goa, and area specific issues related to Idukki and Wayanad. During these visits, HLWG interacted with Stakeholders, NGOs and activists besides the project staff and officials of district administration and concerned Departments of the States. The following ten Central Ministries provided their comments to the HLWG for consideration (i) Ministry of Steel, (ii) Ministry of Mines, (iii) Ministry of Urb
Posted on: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 18:12:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015