Gadgil Committee Report and Kasturirangan Committee Report, sometimes seen in the news, are related to
Contents14
- Aconstitutional reforms
- BGanga Action Plan
- Clinking of rivers
- Dprotection of Western Ghats
Show answer
Answer: (D) protection of Western Ghats
Answer: (d) protection of Western Ghats
Both the Gadgil Committee Report and the Kasturirangan Committee Report are related to the protection of the Western Ghats.
Gadgil Committee (2011):
- Chaired by Prof. Madhav Gadgil (ecologist)
- Recommended that the ENTIRE Western Ghats be declared an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) — about 64% as ESA
- Proposed three levels of eco-sensitivity zones (ESZ 1, 2, and 3) with varying restrictions
- Was considered too strict by many state governments and was not accepted
Kasturirangan Committee (2013):
- Chaired by Dr. K. Kasturirangan (former ISRO chairman)
- Set up to review the Gadgil report and make it more practical
- Recommended only 37% of the Western Ghats as ESA (compared to Gadgil's 64%)
- Proposed a blanket ban on mining, quarrying, and setting up red category industries in ESA
- This was seen as a middle ground between ecological protection and development needs
The Western Ghats stretch across 6 states: Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. They are a UNESCO World Heritage Site and one of the world's 8 'hottest biodiversity hotspots.'
The correct answer is (d) "protection of Western Ghats".
The Western Ghats are a UNESCO World Heritage Site spanning 6 states and recognized as one of the world's 8 biodiversity hotspots, making their protection a critical environmental issue.
The Gadgil Committee recommended 64% of Western Ghats as ecologically sensitive while Kasturirangan Committee reduced this to 37%, creating ongoing policy debates between conservation and development that regularly appear in current affairs.
UPSC is testing whether students can distinguish between these two major committee reports on the same ecological region and understand the core environmental policy debates in India.
Gadgil Committee Report 2011
Environment Gadgil Committee Report
Gadgil Committee Report 2011: Western Ghats Protection Framework
Prof. Madhav Gadgil chaired the 2011 committee on Western Ghats conservation
Recommended entire Western Ghats (64% area) as Ecologically Sensitive Area
Rejected by state governments for being too restrictive
Proposed three-tier ESZ classification (ESZ 1, 2, 3) with varying restrictions
The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, led by renowned ecologist Prof. Madhav Gadgil, submitted its report in 2011 to address mounting ecological threats to this biodiversity hotspot.
Gadgil Committee Key Recommendations
Aspect | Recommendation | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
ESA Declaration | Entire Western Ghats as ESA | 64% of total area |
Zoning System | Three-tier classification | ESZ 1, 2, 3 based on sensitivity |
Restricted Activities | Mining, quarrying bans | Varies by ESZ level |
Governance | Village-level eco-committees | Community participation model |
Why States Rejected It
Development concerns: Strict restrictions would halt ongoing projects
Mining industry opposition: Major revenue source for Karnataka, Goa
Agricultural restrictions: Limits on certain farming practices
Implementation complexity: Three-tier system deemed difficult to manage
Trap: Don't confuse Gadgil (ecologist, 2011) with Kasturirangan (ISRO, 2013)
Number trap: Gadgil recommended 64% ESA coverage, not the reduced 37%
Status trap: Gadgil report was rejected, leading to Kasturirangan committee
Kasturirangan Committee Report 2013
Environment Kasturirangan Committee Report
Kasturirangan Committee 2013: Balanced Western Ghats Protection
Dr. K. Kasturirangan (former ISRO chairman) led the 2013 review committee
Reduced ESA coverage to 37% (from Gadgil's 64%) for practical implementation
Complete ban on mining, quarrying, red category industries in ESA
Aimed for middle ground between ecology and development needs
The High Level Working Group under Dr. K. Kasturirangan was constituted in 2013 to review the Gadgil report and make it more acceptable to state governments while maintaining ecological protection.
Gadgil vs Kasturirangan Comparison
Parameter | Gadgil Committee (2011) | Kasturirangan Committee (2013) |
|---|---|---|
Chairperson | Prof. Madhav Gadgil (Ecologist) | Dr. K. Kasturirangan (Ex-ISRO Chief) |
ESA Coverage | 64% of Western Ghats | 37% of Western Ghats |
Approach | Three-tier zoning system | Blanket restrictions in ESA only |
Mining Policy | Graded restrictions by zone | Complete ban in ESA |
State Response | Rejected as too restrictive | Better accepted as balanced |
Kasturirangan Key Features
Cultural landscapes: Allowed existing settlements and traditional practices
Buffer approach: Focused protection on most ecologically sensitive areas only
Industry clarity: Clear prohibition on polluting industries in ESA
State consultation: Incorporated feedback from all six Western Ghats states
Background trap: Kasturirangan was ISRO chairman, not an ecologist like Gadgil
Percentage trap: 37% ESA (Kasturirangan) vs 64% (Gadgil) - frequently swapped in options
Year confusion: Gadgil 2011, Kasturirangan 2013 - don't reverse the chronology
Western Ghats Ecological Significance
Environment Western Ghats
Western Ghats: World's Premier Biodiversity Hotspot
UNESCO World Heritage Site and one of world's 8 biodiversity hotspots
Spans 6 states: Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu
1600 km mountain chain along India's western coast
Home to 30% of India's plant, fish, bird, and mammal species
The Western Ghats form a continuous mountain chain along India's western coast, acting as a climatic barrier that creates unique ecosystems with extraordinary biodiversity concentration.
Western Ghats State-wise Coverage
State | Key Sections | Notable Features |
|---|---|---|
Gujarat | Dangs district | Northern-most extent |
Maharashtra | Sahyadri ranges | Numerous hill stations |
Goa | Scattered hills | Mining conflicts |
Karnataka | Malnad region | Coffee plantations, Coorg |
Kerala | Continuous ranges | Spice cultivation, backwaters |
Tamil Nadu | Nilgiris, Anamalai | Tea estates, Ooty, Kodaikanal |
Geographic Extent
Source: INSIGHTS IAS — Western Ghats: Challenges of Sustainable Development - INSIGHTS IAS - Simplifying UPSC IAS Exam Preparation · www.insightsonindia.com
Ecological Importance
Endemic species: Over 5000 flowering plants (1800+ endemic)
Water security: Source of major rivers - Krishna, Godavari, Cauvery
Climate regulation: Monsoon patterns, temperature moderation
Carbon sequestration: Dense forests act as significant carbon sinks
State count: Western Ghats span 6 states, not 5 (Gujarat often forgotten)
Direction trap: Western Ghats run north-south along western coast, not eastern
Hotspot ranking: One of world's 8 hotspots, not 10 or 25
Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESA)
Environment Ecologically Sensitive Area ESA
Ecologically Sensitive Areas: Legal Framework & Implementation
ESA designation under Environment Protection Act 1986 for fragile ecosystems
Restricted activities include mining, major construction, polluting industries
MOE&F notification required for ESA declaration by Central Government
Local communities often resist due to livelihood restrictions
Ecologically Sensitive Areas are regions where the Environment Ministry imposes restrictions on development activities to protect critical ecosystems from irreversible damage.
ESA Activity Restrictions
Activity Type | Restriction Level | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
Mining & Quarrying | Complete prohibition | Habitat destruction, water pollution |
Red Category Industries | Not allowed | High pollution potential |
Large Construction | Regulated/restricted | Forest clearance, ecosystem disruption |
Tourism Projects | Controlled development | Carrying capacity limits |
Agriculture | Traditional allowed | Sustainable practices encouraged |
ESA Implementation Challenges
State resistance: Loss of revenue from mining, industry
Local opposition: Traditional communities fear livelihood loss
Enforcement gaps: Monitoring and compliance difficulties in remote areas
Legal challenges: Court cases by affected industries and communities
ESA Declaration Process
%%{init: {"flowchart": {"wrappingWidth": 460}}}%%
flowchart TD
s1["`**Scientific Assessment**
Expert committees evaluate ecological sensitivity`"]
s2["`**Stakeholder Consultation**
State governments, local communities consulted`"]
s3["`**MOE&F Review**
Ministry examines recommendations and objections`"]
s4["`**Gazette Notification**
Official ESA declaration with activity restrictions`"]
s5["`**Implementation**
State agencies enforce restrictions, monitor compliance`"]
s1 --> s2
s2 --> s3
s3 --> s4
s4 --> s5Authority confusion: Central Government (MOE&F) declares ESA, not state governments
Legal basis: ESA under Environment Protection Act 1986, not Wildlife Protection Act
Scope trap: ESA restricts development activities, doesn't displace existing settlements