Sahyadri IAS

The Hindu : Page 05

Syllabus : GS 1 & 3 : Geography & Disaster and disaster Management

Ecologist Madhav Gadgil criticised the Kerala government for failing to implement the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel’s recommendations, contributing to the Wayanad disaster.

He attributed the catastrophe to unregulated development in highly sensitive areas and highlighted the exacerbating impact of defunct quarries and climate change.

What said Mr. Gadgil?

Man-Made Tragedy: Ecologist Madhav Gadgil, former Chairman of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, labelled the Wayanad disaster as a man-made tragedy, attributing it to the Kerala government’s neglect of crucial ecological recommendations.
Panel’s Recommendations: Gadgil criticised the State government for failing to implement the panel’s guidelines, which classified the affected region as highly sensitive and recommended restricting development in these areas.
Development Concerns: He pointed out that the highly sensitive zones, once marked for preservation, had been extensively developed for tea plantations, resorts, and artificial lakes, contrary to the panel’s recommendations.
Impact of Quarries: Gadgil noted that defunct quarries near the disaster site could have exacerbated the situation, with shockwaves from their operations potentially contributing to landslides during heavy rain.
He accused the Kerala government of rejecting the panel’s report, which he believes led to recurring disasters in Wayanad and other regions.
Gadgil stressed that without serious implementation of the panel’s recommendations and proactive measures, such disasters would continue, intensified by climate change effects like extreme rainfall and droughts.

The Madhav Gadgil Committee Report, 2011

Introduction: The Madhav Gadgil Committee Report, 2011, focused on the ecological sensitivity of the Western Ghats, a biodiversity hotspot in India.
Regional Classification: The report classified the Western Ghats into three zones:
Ecologically Sensitive Zone I (ESZ I): Includes areas with high biodiversity, requiring strict conservation measures.
Ecologically Sensitive Zone II (ESZ II): Areas with moderate sensitivity, needing some conservation practices and regulated development.
Ecologically Sensitive Zone III (ESZ III): Regions with lower ecological sensitivity, where development can be permitted with caution.
Recommendations: Strict Conservation: ESZ I areas should have stringent environmental regulations and minimal development.
Regulated Development: ESZ II areas should balance conservation with regulated development activities.
Sustainable Practices: Encourage sustainable agricultural and forestry practices across all zones.
Implementation: The report faced resistance from various stakeholders due to its strict recommendations impacting local development and livelihoods.