A range of options

Populism trumps biodiversity in the Western Ghats

Preservation of the fragile ecology of the Western Ghats - the world's second-richest biodiversity reservoir - has become a victim of political ping-pong. First it was the report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP), headed by Madhav Gadgil; after being kept under wraps for several months, the report was summarily rejected on fears of adverse political fallout. Later, a more moderate report from the high-level working group led by Planning Commission member K Kasturirangan, too, was subjected to political scrutiny and eventually put into cold storage. The notification for the implementation of several of its recommendations was subjected to quick revisions to appease various interest groups, including farmers, plantation owners and small entrepreneurs. Though the objections by some states - notably Kerala, Maharashtra and Goa - were cited as the reason for putting the Kasturirangan report into cold storage, the real cause was, evidently, pressure from the mining, thermal power, timber, real estate and other lobbies.

The 1,600-kilometre-long Western Ghats, which passes through six states, is the catchment zone for a complex river network and the source of origin of at least three major rivers - Godavari, Krishna and Cauvery. More importantly, it is one of the world's most acclaimed biodiversity hotspots, sheltering more than 5,000 recorded species of flowering plants, 139 mammals, 508 birds and 179 amphibians. Many of these species are not found anywhere else in the world. Over 325 of them have been included in the global list of threatened species. Many other forms of flora and fauna native to this region are believed to be undiscovered as yet. Sadly, hardly one-fourth of the original native vegetation and other biodiversity is currently in its pristine state. The road map to stem further damage to this natural heritage is outlined lucidly by the Gadgil panel, which suggested protective action that was regionally differentiated to minimise its adverse economic impact on local population. For this, it had classified the whole stretch into three categories depending on the degree of environmental fragility and had suggested different levels of protection - highest, intermediary and moderate. Local residents, through village assemblies, were to be involved in the process of safeguarding the natural habitats of flora and fauna. A plan was laid out for redeeming the damage to biodiversity and enriching it further.

Given the merits of the Gadgil panel's recommendations, it would be advisable to put those suggestions into practice. If that is politically too inconvenient, at least the diluted version as presented in the Kasturirangan report should be implemented without delay. Populist considerations should not be allowed to block positive action on such a critical environmental issue.