WGEEP Report (Madhav Gadgil Committee Report)
Click Here to Download WGEEP Report
Click Here to Download WGEEP Report
WGEEP Report: Executive Summary
Western Ghats constitute a practically
unbroken hill chain (with the exception of the Palakkad Gap) or escarpment
running roughly in a north-south direction, for about 1500 km parallel to the
Arabian sea coast, from the river Tapi (about 210 16’ N) down to
just short of Kanyakumari (about 8019’ N) at the tip of the Indian
peninsula; a hill chain that is extremely rich in biodiversity and crucial for
the security of water resources of Peninsular India.
Mandate
In view of the environmental sensitivity
and ecological significance of the Western Ghats region and the complex
interstate nature of its geography, as well as possible impacts of climate
change on this region, the Ministry of Environment & Forests Government of India
has constituted, by an order dated # March 2010, a Western Ghats Ecology Expert
Panel (WGEEP).
The Panel has been asked to perform the
following functions:
(i) To
assess the current status of ecology of the Western Ghats region.
(ii) To
demarcate areas within the Western Ghats Region which need to be notified as
ecologically sensitive and to recommend for notification of such areas as
ecologically sensitive zones under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. In doing so, the Panel shall review the existing
reports such as the Mohan Ram Committee Report, Hon’ble Supreme Court’s
decisions, recommendations of the National Board for Wildlife and consult all
concerned State Governments.
(iii) To
make recommendations for the conservation, protection and rejuvenation of the
Western Ghats Region following a comprehensive consultation process involving
people and Governments of all the concerned States.
(iv) To
suggest measures for effective implementation of the notifications issued by
the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests declaring
specific areas in the Western Ghats Region as eco-sensitive zones under the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
(v) To
recommend the modalities for the establishment of Western Ghats Ecology Authority
under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 which will be a professional body
to manage the ecology of the region and to ensure its sustainable development
with the support of all concerned states.
(vi) To
deal with any other relevant environment and ecological issues pertaining to
Western Ghats Region, including those which may be referred to it by the
Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
The Ministry has subsequently asked the
Panel to include in its mandate the entire stretch of Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg
districts, including the coastal region, and to specifically examine the Gundia
and Athirappilly Hydroelectric projects.
Boundaries
For the purpose of defining the boundary of
the Western Ghats, WGEEP has used altitude and forest area or vegetation as
drivers defining the boundaries. Our operational definition for the `Ghats’
therefore is forest area above a certain altitude. Accordingly we demarcated
the eastern edge by identifying the forested areas that are above 500 m; the
rationale for this cutoff followed from the digital data which showed that, in
general, 500m constitutes the elevation at which the Western Ghats rise
discretely from the plains of the Deccan plateau. For the western edge, we used a cutoff of
forested areas at 150 m and above as the ghats fall more steeply down to the
coastline as compared to the eastern side of the ghats. We also found that
whenever the forested areas at elevations of more than 150m drop directly into
the ocean or within a distance of 1km of the coastline, it was difficult to define
the coast. Hence, in such situations (as in parts of Maharashtra), the
coastline itself was considered as the western edge of the ghats. One further
issue that has to be resolved is the eastern boundary of the Western Ghats at
the region of its geographical connection with the Eastern Ghats. It is
generally agreed upon in the scientific literature that the southern-most and
western-most extent of the Eastern Ghats is the hill range in Karnataka and Tamilnadu
known as the Biligirirangans. The region between the Nilgiris and the
Biligirirangans thus constitutes important habitat contiguity for several
floral and faunal elements and, hence, it would be prudent to include the
latter hill range within the ambit of the proposed Western Ghats Authority that
aims to conserve the ecology of the ghats.
As per the new boundaries, the WG stretches
to a length of 1490 km from Tapi Valley in the north to Kanyakumari in south.
With an area of 174,700 km2,
it stretches to a width of 210 km in Tamilnadu and narrows to as low as 48 km
in Maharashtra (leaving the Palghat gap). Thus defined, Western Ghats do not correspond
exactly to particular administrative units such as districts and talukas. The
district boundaries do not, by and large, coincide with limits of Western Ghats, except in a few cases such as Kodagu, Nilgiris,
Wynaad and Idikki. The majority of districts include either West Coast or Western Peninsular
tract regions along with Western Ghats areas. Western
Ghats as an administrative entity was therefore first visualized only in the
context of Regional Planning exercises, beginning with a report prepared by the
Town and Country Planning Organization, Delhi in 1960’s#(Ref).
This report delineated Western Ghats at Taluka level,
and became the basis of the Planning Commission’s Western Ghats Development Programme initiated in #. This serves as
the basis of disbursement of Central Government assistance, but has no implications
in terms of environmental regulation. Since talukas do constitute a reasonable
administrative unit for defining the Western Ghats, WGEEP
proposes that the talukas will be the focus of our recommendations.
Strengths
Western
Ghats are a treasure trove of biodiversity, surpassed only by the Eastern Himalayas.
However, they score over the latter region in harbouring a larger number of
species confined within Indian limits. The Western Ghats also constitute the
water tower of Peninsular India. The region has some of the highest levels of
literacy in the country, and a high level of environmental awareness. The
democratic institutions are well entrenched, and Kerala leads the country in
capacity building and empowering of Panchayat Raj Institutions. Goa has recently concluded a very interesting exercise,
Regional Plan 2021, of taking inputs from Gram Sabhas in deciding on the land
use policies. Evidently, Western Ghats are an
appropriate region of the country to attempt to make the transition towards an
inclusive, caring and environment friendly mode of development.
Develop thoughtfully - conserve thoughtfully
Many stakeholders have suggested that,
apart from the context of provision of Central financial assistance for plan
schemes, definition of Western Ghats should have a regulatory content of a go-
no go nature; that certain activities would be banned within limits of
Western Ghats, but fully permitted outside these limits. WGEEP would like to
submit that we should move away from such formulas that impart inflexibility to
development processes. WGEEP would like to stress that development plans should
not be cast in a rigid framework, but ought to be tailored to prevalent
locality and time specific conditions with full participation of local
communities; a process that has been termed adaptive co-management. What
should be ‘go’ and what should be ‘no go’ ought then to be decided on a case by
case basis, in tune with the specific environmental and socio-economic context,
and aspirations of the local communities. Such a system of adaptive
co-management would marry conservation to development, and not treat them as
separate, incompatible objectives.
Yet we are today stuck in a system that
forcibly divorces conservation from development. It ends up creating a
dichotomy so that our policies at once promote reckless development in certain
areas, and thoughtless conservation in other areas. In the process we
constitute islands of
biodiversity (and social exclusion) - the so-called Protected Areas- in an
ocean of ecological devastation outside of these PA’s. WGEEP believes that the insistence on “not
a blade of grass shall be removed from PA’s” is as inappropriate as the on-going
comprehensive violation of pollution control laws outside of PA’s. This has led
to a situation such that the majority of people are excluded from fruits of,
and decisions relating to, both development and conservation. Indeed, both
development and conservation programmes are being imposed on them against their
wishes. WGEEP would like to propose that we should instead attempt to develop a
model of conservation and development compatible with each other encompassing
the whole of the Western Ghats region, to replace the
prevailing “Develop
recklessly – conserve thoughtlessly” pattern with one of “Develop thoughtfully
- conserve thoughtfully”. The fine-tuning of development- conservation
practices to local context that this calls for would require full involvement
of local communities. To sum up, WGEEP advocates a layered, nuanced,
participatory approach, so that boundaries will not be discontinuities and
therefore will not be of undue significance. Hence, while we will, of course,
talk of the boundaries of Western
Ghats, we plead that the pattern of
adaptive co-management that we propose may also be applied to regions beyond
these boundaries.
Ecologically Sensitive Zones
Section 3 of the Environment (Protection)
Act 1986 (EPA) gives power to the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests to
take all measures that it feels are necessary for protecting and improving the
quality of the environment and to prevent and control environmental pollution.
To meet this objective the Central Government can restrict areas in which any
industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations or
processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain
safeguards. [Sec. 3(2) (v)]
Section 5(I) of the Environment
(Protection) Rules 1986 (EPR) states that the Central Government can prohibit
or restrict the location of industries and carrying on certain operations or
processes on the basis of considerations like the biological diversity of an
area (clause v), maximum allowable limits of concentration of pollutants for an
area (clause ii), environmentally compatible land use (clause vi), or proximity
to Protected Areas (clause viii).
These provisions were invoked in 1989 in
the context of Murud-Janjira, a coastal village of Maharashtra. Subsequently,
the term ‘Ecologically Fragile Area’ was used for the first time in 1991 in the context of
Dahanu Taluka in coastal Maharashtra. This has been followed by declaration of
a number of other areas such as the Mahabaleshwar- Panchgani and Matheran hills
in Maharashtra Western Ghats as Ecologically Sensitive Zones / Areas. So far,
these Ecologically Sensitive Zones / Areas have been established either as a
result of initiatives of some civil society organizations wishing to protect a
particularly vulnerable and significant area, or as a consequence of a
resolution of Indian Board for Wildlife in 2002 to protect areas up to ten
kilometers from the boundaries of Protected Areas, namely, Wildlife Sanctuaries
and National Parks.
Over the years, a variety of terms such as
Ecologically Sensitive/ Ecologically fragile/ Ecosensitive/ Ecofragile Zones/
Areas have been used in the context of programmes relating to Ecologically
Sensitive Zones and Areas. It is obviously useful to introduce some standard
terminology and definitions. WGEEP will therefore use the term ‘Ecologically
Sensitive Area’ while referring to extensive tracts and ‘Ecologically Sensitive
Zone’ while referring to specific zones within the extended ‘Ecologically
Sensitive Area’ for which a particular
set of regulatory/ promotional activities have been proposed. Following the
Pranob Sen committee’s criteria, WGEEP proposes that the entire Western Ghats
region be declared as an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA). Within this Western
Ghats ESA, WGEEP proposes to assign
different regions, other than those covered by Wildlife Sanctuaries or National
Parks to one of the following three zones; Ecologically Sensitive Zone 1 (ESZ1), Ecologically Sensitive Zone 2 (ESZ2), and Ecologically Sensitive Zone 3 (ESZ3). Thus, WGEEP has come up with four
colour maps spanning the entire Western Ghats depicting PAs, and ESZ1, ESZ2 and
ESZ3.
The Ministry of Environment & Forests
had set up a committee under the chairmanship of Shri Pronab Sen in 2000 to
identify parameters for designating ecologically sensitive areas in India. This
committee proposed a series of species, ecosystem and geo-morphology based parameters.
Sen Committee’s foremost criterion for identification of ESA is endemism, and
the Committee proposes that the area of occurrence of every endemic species
needs to be protected in its entirety.
Western Ghats harbours well over a thousand endemic species of flowering
plants, fish, frogs, birds and mammals amongst the better known groups of
organisms, and no doubt thousands more amongst less studied groups including
insects. Amongst themselves these would cover the entire geographical extent of
the Western Ghats and all conceivable habitats, including many disturbed ones
such as roadsides. The Western Ghats region also qualifies as an ESA under
several other, primary as also auxiliary, criteria proposed by the Pranob Sen
committee. WGEEP fully endorses the conclusion
that follows that the entire Western Ghats tract should be considered as an Ecologically
Sensitive Area.
However, a uniform set of regulations
cannot, obviously, be promulgated under EPA for this entire region. Hence,
WGEEP recommends the adoption of a graded or layered approach, and suggests
that entire Western Ghats be characterized as comprising (1) Regions of highest
sensitivity or Ecologically Sensitive Zone 1 (ESZ1), (2) Regions of high
sensitivity or ESZ2, and the remaining (3) Regions of moderate sensitivity or
ESZ3. Such a characterization can be done on two bases; namely (1) Existing
Protected Area network and (2) systematic mapping and recording of base-line
data as recommended by Sen Committee.
WGEEP Western Ghats Database
WGEEP has made considerable progress in the
exercise of development of a spatial database, for over 2200 #[exact number
needed] grids of 5’x5’ or roughly 9 km x 9 km through compilation of all
readily available information on topography, land cover and occurrence of
biodiversity elements. The rationale and methodology followed has been widely
exposed to scientific scrutiny through publication of a detailed exposition in
Current Science, India’s leading scientific journal, in January 2011(Gadgil, M.
et al 2011). The WGEEP database is complemented by development of similar, more
detailed, information bases by BVIEER, Pune and DEVRAAI, Kolhapur (# specific
references needed).
Admittedly there still are serious lacunae.
In particular, our database is yet to incorporate considerations of habitat
continuity. It is also weak in terms of information on streams, rivers and
other wetlands, as well as ground water and further careful work is needed to
identify, protect and sustainably manage aquatic habitats and water resources. Since
our focus is on hill areas, this database also leaves out of consideration
issues of significance for the West Coast and coastal plains, such as mangrove
forests and khajan lands. Nevertheless, we now have, for the first time in the
country, a comprehensive, spatially referenced database on a series of
important ecological parameters, transparently available in the public domain
that can serve as the basis of a systematic delineation of different levels of
ecological significance/ sensitivity for a sizeable region.
WGEEP, of course, realizes that ecological
sensitivity is not merely a scientific, but very much a human concern. In
particular, a great deal of locality specific understanding of what has been
happening and what is desirable, is simply not part of any scientific databases
and resides with local communities. WGEEP therefore invited all concerned
people and institutions to share their own perceptions as to what specific
areas on the Western Ghats should be identified as being ‘Ecologically Sensitive
Areas’, why they feel so, and what set of regulations tailored to the needs of
the locality should be put in place if the area were to be formally declared as
being ecologically sensitive. In response, we have received a number of
specific proposals from individual Gram Panchayats as well as NGOs from
different parts of the Western Ghats. Two of these are particularly noteworthy,
(a) Gramsabha resolutions from a single cluster of 25 villages from Savantwadi
and Dodamarg talukas of Sindhudurg district that they wish their areas to be
constituted as ESAs, and (b) careful proposal for a “Maharashtra Sahyadri
Ecologically Sensitive Area” by DEVRAAI, an NGO from Kolhapur drawing on
extensive research conducted at Shivaji University.
ESZ assignment
WGEEP proposes that the 2200 odd grids
spanning the entire Western Ghats be assigned to (1) Protected Areas, namely,
Wild Life Sanctuaries and National Parks, and (2) ESZ1 (3) ESZ2 and (4) ESZ3 on
the basis of composite scores of ecological significance derived from the
database generated by WGEEP. Since a long standing effort has gone into
identification of Protected Areas and they represent both social and ecological
values, we propose that grids with scores at the level of Protected Areas and
above within the same state be assigned to ESZ1 category, with the proviso that
the total area under PAs and ESZ1 will be limited to ~60%. We propose that ~25%
of grids with scores at the lower end be assigned to ESZ3 category, and the
balance to ESZ2. This implies a decision to treat ~75% of the grids as
belonging to PAs, ESZ1 or ESZ2. Our national goal is to maintain 66% of area
under forest cover in all hill tracts. Given that Western Ghats are a hill
region of special significance, we decided that it was appropriate to aim at
75% being treated as areas of high or highest significance. In view of the
strong north- south ecological gradient over Western Ghats, one cannot really
treat Gujarath Dangs and Kerala Ashambu hills on the same footing. Hence, this
exercise has been undertaken separately for each state. In states where the
boundary of the Western Ghats coincides or is very close to coastal areas, the
Panel has left out a width of 1.5 km from the coast from the delimitation
exercise to acknowledge the fact that the scoring exercise did not reflect
coastal ecological values and sensitivities.
To sum up:
1. We will treat Western Ghats regions of each state separately
2. Existing Protected Areas will be treated as a fourth separate
category
3. We will be assigning ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 status only to grids
outside existing Protected Areas
4. ESZ1 status will be assigned only to such grids as have a score at
least equaling, or higher than the lowest scoring grids falling within existing Protected Areas
5. In addition, other detailed information such as localities of origin
of rivers, laterite plateaus, localities critical for maintenance of habitat
continuity, and localities where local communities have expressed a strong
interest in conservation will be used to decide on demarcation of ESZ1 and
ESZ2.
6. The extent of existing Protected Areas plus ESZ1will not normally
exceed 60% of the total area
7. Extent of area covered by existing Protected Areas plus ESZ1 and
ESZ2 together will be around 75%.
8. The extent of ESZ3 will normally be around 25% of the total area
The database employs square grids of ~9km x
9 km that do not correspond either to natural features such as watersheds, or
administrative units such as village or taluka boundaries. It will clearly be
desirable to put in place a system of zonation that jointly considers
micro-watersheds and village boundaries to decide on specific limits of ESZ1,
ESZ2 and ESZ3, as well as to arrive at locality specific management plans. This
would be a task that will have to be initiated by the Western Ghats Ecology
Authority when it is put in place. However, as a first step, we suggest that the
Ministry of Environment and Forests provisionally notify the initial limits of
ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 based on WGEEP analysis. This may be most appropriately
done at Taluka/ Block level. With this in view, we have gone ahead and assigned
ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 levels to all the ## talukas of Western Ghats.
Table : Proposed assignment of various
Western Ghats districts to ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3
|
||||
State
|
District
|
Talukas assigned to ESZ1
|
Talukas assigned to ESZ2
|
Talukas assigned to ESZ3
|
Maharashtra
|
Pune
|
Wadaon, Paud, Bhor
|
Sasvad
|
|
Satara
|
Patan, Mahabaleshwar, Medha
|
Koregaon
|
Vaduj
|
|
Dr S N Prasad is requested to provide the
complete table along these lines
|
||||
ESZ management
The Pronab Sen Committee did not evolve any
methodology for regulating the nature and extent of human activity that can be
permitted in designated Ecologically Sensitive Zones/ Areas, a task that was
addressed later by the Ministry of Environment & Forests itself. For this
purpose, the MoEF has put in place a centralized system grounded in regulating
land use employing the provisions of Section 5 of the Environment Protection
Act 1986. The MoEF prepares the notification and calls for responses from the
public and the concerned state Government. Since land is a state subject, the
state government is then asked to prepare a Regional Development Plan that will
provide for appropriate use of land as visualized in the Ecologically Sensitive
Zone/ Area notification. The state governments, in turn, finalize the Regional
Development Plan after calling for public inputs. To oversee the
implementation, MoEF constitutes a High Level Monitoring Committee, in most
cases without any local representation.
While the constitution of such ESZ /ESAs
has had many positive consequences, there are also serious flaws in the system.
The most serious problem is that the system depends heavily on bureaucratic
regulation. With no meaningful participation by local community, and given the
absence of bureaucratic transparency and lack of accountability, this breeds
corruption. The result is that the weaker sections suffer harassment and
extortion, while the wealthy and the powerful successfully flout the
regulations, leading to tremendous local resentment. People at Mahabaleshwar
have complained in writing of very old roads to their villages being disrupted
by trenches dug by Forest Department, and Madhav Gadgil has personally
inspected some of these. They allege that the trenches are then filled on
payment of bribes, to be dug again some time later. They also allege that
farmers have pay revenue officials a bribe of Rs 20,000 if they are to be
permitted to dig a bore well on their farmland. Large scale illegal tree
cutting seems to be taking place in some hotels such as Brightland, and in a
number of construction sites under cover of very tall metal sheets erected all
along the compound walls. Furthermore, no effective mechanisms have been
developed to promote good natural resource management, such as protection of
streams or conservation of habitats rich in biodiversity, for instance, the
laterite plateaus of northern Western Ghats.
ESZs surrounding Protected Areas
A
2002 resolution of Indian Board for Wildlife has called for constitution
of Ecologically Sensitive Zones up to a distance of 10 km surrounding all
National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. The implementation by state Forest
Departments has been very tardy, with some action being taken only when prodded
by two court decisions, one in 2005 and the second in 2010. WGEEP could obtain
no clear information on follow up in any state other than Maharashtra; while
some fragmentary information was obtained in Mharashtra only after much effort.
Notably, most of the information obtained for Maharashtra, too, derives from
documents obtained under RTI by activists opposing a wind energy project close
to Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary. In
contrast, Bharati Vidyapeeth Institute of Environmental Research and Education
promptly sponsored a Master’s thesis on possible problems that might arise in
implementation in case of PAs in Maharashtra, a thesis that was completed in
2004 (Kurne, ###). Although the Maharashtra PCCF referred to this thesis in a
letter dated ## to his subordinate officers, the thesis has been completely
ignored in the unsatisfactory follow up that has taken place on Maharashtra
Western Ghats. As an example, minutes of meetings relating to potential ESZs
surrounding Radhanagari, ### WLS record that some Forest Officials expressed
the view that the steep escarpments of Western Ghats should not be considered
ecologically sensitive, in stark contradiction to Pranob Sen Committee
recommendations. As of now no maps or complete records have been made available
pertaining to these PAs.
The
hill range of Bhimashankar is the origin of Krishna’s major tributary, Bhima,
and just like Mahabaleshwar- Panchgani ESZ region, site of origin of Krishna
river to the south, is an area of high rainfall and biodiversity-rich evergreen
forest. However, no steps have been taken to constitute this Bhimashankar Ecologically
Sensitive Zone, despite repeated requests both from Centre and by head of
Forest Department in Maharashtra. During visits to areas adjoining Bhimashankar
Wildlife Sanctuary, WGEEP came across several instances of grave misgovernance:
[1] A major wind mill project has been
cleared close to Bhimashankar WLS and a large number of wind mills have come up
within the stipulated ten km zone on the periphery. This project should not
have been cleared at all without completing the constitution of the Ecologically
Sensitive Zone.
[2] This region has large populations of
Scheduled Tribes and traditional forest dwellers. Hence, it was imperative that
Forest Rights Act should have been implemented in this area in its true spirit
five years ago. Nothing is done, and local people claim that this results in
continued harassment of and extortion from local people.
[3]
WGEEP Chairman Madhav Gadgil and member Prof Renee Borges visited this area
around Bhimashankar. In fact, Prof Renee Borges has been engaged in scientific
studies in this area for over two decades. It is clear that the hills where
wind mills have come up are tracts of high rainfall and biodiversity-rich
evergreen forest, contiguous with that in the Bhimashankar WLS, and home to
Maharashtra’s state animal, Giant Squirrel. The local Range Forest Officer had
also clearly recorded these facts and recommended that the wind mill project
should not be sanctioned. He was overruled by his superior officers who have
cleared the project by patently misrepresenting the facts on ground.
[4] Apart from substantive forest
destruction, including by large roads cutting huge swathes through Reserve
Forest, the wind mill project has triggered large scale erosion and landslides
through poor construction of roads with steep gradients, and all this rubble is
ending up on fertile farmland and in reservoirs of tributaries of Krishna.
[5] The Forest Department is colluding with
wind mill project operators in illegally denying citizens access to these
hills. Boards and check-post have been put up by the company, falsely claiming
to be authorized by Forest Department. There are many traditional forest
dwellers on these hills. Not only are their rights under FRA not being recognized,
they are being illegally restrained in their movements on hills they have
inhabited for centuries.
Grass-roots involvement
WGEEP therefore believes that it is
inappropriate to depend exclusively on Government machinery for constitution
and management of ESZs. Instead, WGEEP suggests that the final demarcation of
the Zones (including those surrounding PAs, as also in context of the UNESCO
Heritage Site proposal), and fine tuning of regulatory, as well as promotional
regime, must be based on extensive inputs from local communities and local
bodies, namely, Gram Panchayats, Taluk Panchayats, Zill Parishats, and Nagar
Palikas, under the overall supervision of the Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA),
State level Ecology Authorities and the District Ecology Committees. An interesting precedent for this process has
been established during the preparation of Goa Regional Plan 2021. The first
step in this GRP21 planning was compilation of a comprehensive, spatially
referenced, database on land, water and other natural resources of Goa state;
although, regrettably, unlike our Western Ghats database, this has not been, as
yet, made available in the public domain. However, this information was
selectively shared with all Gram Sabhas and their suggestions as to desired
pattern of land use obtained, consolidated and used as one important basis for
preparation of the final plan. Again, regrettably, the Government of Goa has
not continued with the dialogue, failing to go back to the Gram Sabhas when it
felt it appropriate to diverge from the Gram Sabha suggestions. Nevertheless,
this is an excellent model that should be implemented in its true spirit, and
WGEEP proposes that WGEA should follow it.
Another excellent model for WGEA is the
formulation of ‘Conservation of biodiversity rich areas of Udumbanchola taluk’
project by Kerala State Biodiversity Board. The procedure followed has been
grounded in the powers and functioning of Biodiversity Management Committees(BMC)
in all local bodies, namely Gram Panchayats, Taluk Panchayats and Zilla
Panchayats, as also Nagarpalikas and Mahanagarpalikas, linked to state level
Biodiversity Boards and National Biodiversity Authority. This institutional
structure of BMCs , mandated by India’s Biological Diversity Act 2002 for the country
as a whole, is available throughout the Western Ghats region and provides a
sound basis for designing a transparent, participatory system for arriving at
final decisions regarding (1) delineation of ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3, and (2) the management regime to be followed
in ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3, fine-tuned to local ecological and social context
wherever necessary. This highly desirable participatory process will obviously
take some time. Nevertheless, WGEEP strongly commends its adoption. However,
the Ministry of Environment and Forests, GoI must also take some immediate
steps, to safeguard the precious natural heritage of the Western Ghats. Hence
WGEEP strongly recommends that Min of En & F immediately notifies under EPA
the limits of ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 as proposed by WGEEP at taluka level, along with an appropriate
regulatory regime as suggested in Table 2.
Sectoral guidelines
Table 2: Proposed sector-wise guidelines
|
|||
Sector
|
ESZ1
|
ESZ2
|
ESZ3
|
Land use
|
No Special Economic Zones; no new hill
stations
|
||
No new non-agricultural land use to be
permitted, except extension of existing village settlement areas to
accommodate increase in population of local residents, FSA ratio of ***
|
|||
Water use
|
Decentralized
water resources management plans at Local
Self Government level are to be
developed at least for the next 20 years Reschedule reservoir operations in such a way as to improve
downstream flows and also act as conflict resolution strategy
Revive
traditional water harvesting systems such
as recharging wells and
surangams
Protect
high altitude valley swamps
Participatory
sand auditing and strict regulations to be
put in place to control sand mining
Declare “sand holidays” based on
assessments and sand audit for mined river stretches.
Rehabilitation of mined areas to
be taken up by the companies / agencies with special focus on reviving the
water resources
Eco – restoration of the forest fragments between the tea/coffee/cardamom estates and reviving the hill streams should be taken up as a major well coordinated
initiatives among Planters, Local Self
Governments and Forest Departments in high altitude areas
Catchment area treatment plans of
hydroelectric and major irrigation
projects should be taken up to improve their life span.
Improve river flows and water quality by scientific riparian management programmes involving community participation
Water conservation measures should
be adopted through suitable technology up-gradation and public awareness
programmes
Inter-basin diversions of rivers
in the Western Ghats should not be allowed
any more
River Basin Planning should be
supported by suitable legal institutions that are capable of integrating
different departments which are presently dealing with or impacting the
rivers in a compartmentalized manner.
Decommissioning of dams that have
outlived their utility being underperforming, silted up beyond acceptable
standards is to be considered.
|
||
Agriculture
|
Promote organic agricultural practices,
introduce incentive payments for sequestration of carbon in soils, introduce incentive payments for
maintenance of select traditional cultivars, encourage participatory breeding
programmes to improve productivity of traditional cultivars, encourage
precision agricultural practices, No GMOs
|
||
Phase out all use of chemical pesticides/
weedicides and chemical fertilizers within five years
|
Phase out all use of chemical pesticides/
weedicides and chemical fertilizers within eight years
|
Phase out all use of chemical pesticides/
weedicides and chemical fertilizers within ten years
|
|
Animal Husbandry
|
Introduce incentive payments as “conservation
service charges” for maintenance of land races of livestock, Redeploy
subsidies for chemical fertilizers towards maintenance of livestock and
production of biogas and generation of organic manure
|
||
Fishery
|
Strictly control use of dynamite and
other explosives to kill fish, Provide fish ladders at all reservoirs, Introduce
incentive payments as “conservation service charges” for maintenance of
indigenous fish species in tanks under control of Biodiversity Management
Committees or Fishermen’s co-operatives, monitor and control trade in
aquarium fishes with the help of Biodiversity Management Committees
|
||
Forestry:
Government lands
|
Forest Rights Act to be implemented in
its true spirit by reaching out to people to facilitate their claims,
Community Forest Resource provisions under FRA to replace all current Joint
Forest Management programmes
|
||
No monoculture plantation of exotics like
eucalyptus;
No quarrying;
No pesticide/ weedicide application;
Extraction of medicinal plants with
strict regulations
|
No monoculture plantation of exotics like
eucalyptus;
Encourage planting of endemic species;
Quarrying with strict regulations;
Phase out pesticide/ weedicide
application;
Extraction of medicinal plants with
strict regulations
|
No monoculture plantation of exotics like
eucalyptus;
Encourage planting of endemic species;
Quarrying with strict regulations;
Phase out pesticide/ weedicide
application;
Extraction of medicinal plants with
strict regulations
|
|
Forestry:
private lands
|
Recognize rights of all small-scale,
traditional private land holders under FRA, Introduce incentive payments as
“conservation service charges” for maintenance of natural vegetation for
small land holders; Introduce incentives such as tax breaks or renewal of
leases as “conservation service charges” for maintenance of natural
vegetation for large land holders/ plantation owners;
|
||
Forestry:
private lands
|
No monoculture plantation of exotics like
eucalyptus;
No quarrying;
No pesticide/ weedicide application;
Extraction of medicinal plants with
strict regulations ; Encourage planting of endemic species
|
No monoculture plantation of exotics like
eucalyptus;
Encourage planting of endemic species;
Quarrying with strict regulations;
Phase out pesticide/ weedicide
application;
|
No monoculture plantation of exotics like
eucalyptus;
Encourage planting of endemic species in
private forests;
Quarrying with strict regulations;
Phase out pesticide/ weedicide
application;
|
Biodiversity
|
Introduce incentive payments as
“conservation service charges” for maintenance of sacred groves; Introduce
incentive payments as “conservation service charges” for maintenance of
biodiversity elements on private lands, lands under control of Biodiversity
Management Committees, JFM lands, lands assigned as Community Forest
Resources; Make special funds available to Biodiversity Management Committees
for disbursal in relation to wildlife related damage
|
||
Mining
|
No mining in areas demarcated as ESZ1
Where mining exists, it should be phased
out in 5 years, by 2016;
Illegal mining to be stopped immediately
|
No new mining; Existing mining under
strict regulation and social audit
|
New mining may be taken up under strict
regulation and social audit
|
Industry
(Red /Orange)
|
No new red and orange category
industries; for existing industries switch to zero pollution by 2016 and be
subject to strict regulation and social audit
|
No new red and orange category
industries; for existing industries switch to zero pollution by 2016 and be
subject to strict regulation and social audit
|
New industries may be set up under strict
regulation and social audit
|
(Green/ Blue)
|
With strict regulation and social audit.
Local bioresource based industry should
be promoted. All should be strictly regulated and be subject to social audit.
|
Promote Green/ Blue industries. Local
bioresource based industry should be promoted. All should be strictly
regulated and be subject to social audit.
|
Promote Green/ Blue industries. Local
bioresource based industry should be promoted. All should be strictly
regulated and be subject to social audit.
|
Power/Energy
|
No large storage dams, small bandharas
are permissible;
No new large wind projects or thermal power plants;
Promote biomass based and solar sources for decentralized energy
needs;
Promote
small scale, micro and pico hydropower systems, that are people owned &
managed and are off grid;
Strict
regulation of existing thermal power plants;
the existing thermal plants should be obliged to actively promote alternate
uses of fly ash - such as in road making in addition to the existing
practices of manufacture of fly ash bricks
Promote run of the river schemes.
Promote biomass based /solar sources for
decentralized energy needs. All should be strictly regulated and be subject
to social audit.
|
No large storage dams, small bandharas
are permissible;
Promote
run of the river hydropower projects but after cumulative impact study
of the river basin is done;
Regulated wind power projects but after
cumulative impact study;
Zero pollution to be required of
existing Thermal Power Plants;
Promote biomass based /solar sources for
decentralized energy needs. All should be strictly regulated and be subject
to social audit.
|
Power plants are allowed subject to strict environmental
regulations and monitoring and after
cumulative impact assessments are undertaken;
Dams subject to strict regulation and
social audit.
|
Transport
|
No new railway line.
No national highway/state
highway/expressways.
|
Upgradation possible/permitted subject to
strict regulation and social audit; New roads subject to strict regulation
and social audit.
|
Essential new roads may be allowed
subject to strict regulation and social audit.
|
Tourism
|
No ecotourism zones;
Follow Ecotourism policy of MoEF;
Strict regulation
|
Strict regulation on basis of a Tourism
master plan and social audit
|
Strict regulation and social audit
|
Sewage disposal
|
Organize effective treatment of sewage
under strict regulation and social audit
|
||
Solid waste management
|
Ban all use of plastics; Enforce proper
separation of degradable and non-degradable solid waste; Manage careful
disposal of solid wastes subject to strict regulation and social audit; Introduce
incentive payments for agreeing to host solid waste disposal sites within
jurisdiction of any Panchayat
|
||
Hazardous waste management
|
Strictly ban all activities producing
hazardous wastes
|
Strictly ban all activities producing
hazardous wastes
|
Manage careful disposal of hazardous
wastes subject to strict regulation and social audit
|
Education
|
Reconnect children and youth to local environment through education programmes focusing on local environmental
issues.
To achieve this, students’ “River
Clubs” should be encouraged in schools situated along the course of the
respective river
Tailor Environmental Education
projects to serve as an instrument of participatory environmental monitoring
involving local community members; connect such exercises to preparation of
“Peole’s Biodiversity Registers” by the local Biodiversity Management
Committees
|
||
Science and Technology
|
Cumulative impact assessment for
all new projects such as dams, mines, tourism, and housing should be conducted and permission given only if they fall
within the carrying capacity
Environment river flow assessments / indicators should be worked out by
Research institutions, NGOs along with local communities
|
||
Information management
|
Build on the Western Ghats database of WGEEP to create an open, transparent, participatory system of environmental
monitoring involving all citizens, in particular the student community
Update and upgrade hydrological data base of rivers and consolidate the ecological data base and
information at river basin level
Assess downstream impacts of dams
on river ecology, flood plains, fishing habitats, livelihoods, biodiversity and related aspects
Map salinity intrusion so as to
suggest improved flows in future
Monitor reservoir operations
involving downstream local self governments and departments
|
||
Western Ghats Ecology Authority
The Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA) should be a
statutory authority appointed by the Ministry of Environment and Forest,
Government of India enjoying powers under Section 3 of
the Environment (Protection) Act 1986. Of course, the Western Ghats is an extensive region spanning over
six states and 40 odd ## districts, and WGEA would need to function
in a networked fashion with six constituent State Western Ghats Ecology Authorities, appointed
jointly by the State Governments and the Central Ministry of Environment and
Forest. The State Western
Ghats Ecology Authorities should interact closely with the State Biodiversity
Boards and Pollution Control Boards, as well as State Planning Departments
administering the Western Ghats Development Programmes funded through Five Year
Plans by the Planning Commission. It would be appropriate that all the Western
Ghats Development Plan schemes are worked out by the State Governments with the
help of the State
Western Ghats Ecology
Authorities and used to support sustainable development oriented schemes developed
under guidance of Western Ghats Ecology Authority.
Currently, the
Ecologically Sensitive Areas are administered with the help of High Level
Monitoring Committees appointed by the Central Ministry of Environment and
Forest. These are hampered by lack of regulatory powers, except in the case of
Dahanu Taluka Ecology Authority established through a judgment of the Supreme
Court. They are also hampered by lack of financial and human resources. In some
cases no HLMC has been in place for several years at a stretch. WGEEP proposes
that they should be replaced by District Ecology Committees in all Western Ghats districts. These District Ecology
Committees should work in collaboration with the district level Zilla Parishad/
Zilla Panchayat Biodiversity Management Committees, as well as District
Planning Committees. Indeed, it may be appropriate that the district level
Biodiversity Management Committees, which are statutory bodies established
under Biological Diversity Act, and not ad-hoc committees which may cease to
function for years at a stretch as has happened with HLMCs, may be asked to
discharge the functions of WGEA District Ecology Committees by augmenting their
membership by some experts appointed by Central Ministry of Environment and Forest and State Western Ghats Ecology Authorities.
WGEA
should focus on promoting transparency, openness and participation in every
way. An excellent tool for this could be the revival of the scheme of Paryavaran Vahinis, or committees of concerned
citizens to serve as environmental watchdogs and undertake selective first hand
monitoring of the environmental situation in the district. These Paryavaran Vahini volunteers could play a
significant role in building capacity of people at the grass-roots for conservation,
sustainable development and ecorestoration. WGEA could also undertake to
appoint Environmental Ombudsmen in all districts. It should vigorously promote institution of a social audit process for all environmental issues
on the model of that for Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
in Andhra Pradesh.
WGEEP
has made excellent progress in the development of a
spatial database, for over 2200 grids of 5’x5’ or roughly 9 km x 9 km through
compilation of all readily available information on topography, land cover and
occurrence of biodiversity elements for the Western Ghats. WGEA should pursue
vigorously further development of this database by bringing on board many
available databases such as that prepared in connection with Zonal Atlases for
Siting of Industries, by sponsoring further scientific inputs, as also by
linking Environmental Education activities at school
and college level and the People’s Biodiversity Register exercises to augment the
database. WGEA
should encourage citizen involvement in continual development of the Western Ghats database on the pattern
of Australian River Watch schemes. In this context, WGEA should help overcome the
entirely unjustifiable difficulties that researchers encounter today in working
in forest areas. WGEA should pursue concerned Government agencies to make
available all pertinent information pro-actively as provided in the Right to
Information Act, and not wait for applications by citizens. For example the Ministry of Environment and Forests should immediately make
public all district level Zonal Atlases for Siting of Industries in a
searchable form on the Ministry’s website, which may then be linked to the Western Ghats database.
WGEA
should lead a radical reform of Environmental Impact
Analysis and Clearance process. It should revisit the list of projects that
require Environmental Impact Analysis and Clearance and include certain items
such as Wind Mills and small scale hydroelectric projects that are excluded
today. It should ask all project proponents to deposit an appropriate fee with the
Authority and then select competent agencies to carry out the EIAs in a
transparent fashion. Furthermore, it should link the Environmental Education
activities at school and college level and the People’s Biodiversity Register
exercises to the EIA process. Equally urgent is the need to promote a more
holistic perspective and organize a process of Cumulative Impact Analysis in
place of the current project-by-project clearances.
WGEA
should strive to promote a participatory, bottom-up approach to conservation,
sustainable development and ecorestoration of the Western Ghats. With this in view, it should
encourage devolution of democratic processes as visualized in 73rd
and 74th Amendments to the Indian Constitution. Kerala, one of the Western
Ghats states has made substantial progress in this direction, and WGEA should
promote the emulation of Kerala example in all the Western Ghats districts. Kerala has also taken the
lead in meaningful implementation of Biological Diversity Act through Biodiversity
Management Committees, and WGEA should take immediate steps to ensure
establishment of Biodiversity Management Committees at all levels, namely, Gram
Panchayats, Taluka Panchayats, Zilla Panchayats, as also Nagarpalikas and
Mahanagarpalikas in all the Western Ghats districts. Furthermore, WGEA should ensure that BMCs are motivated through empowerment to levy 'collection charges' as
provided in the Biological Diversity Act. These institutions may be
involved in developing programmes on the model of ‘Conservation
of biodiversity rich areas of Udumbanchola taluk’ in Kerala. These Biodiversity
Management Committees are expected to take care of agro-biodiversity as well, and
in this context the provisions of Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’
Rights Act 2001are highly relevant. A National Gene Fund has been established
under PPVFRA and has substantial amounts available. These funds can be utilized
to build capacity at Panchayat level for in situ conservation of genetic diversity of
indigenous crop varieties.
The
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act has much potential for the
task of ecorestoration. It also has the advantage that Gram Sabhas are expected
to be involved in planning of the works to be undertaken. Other opportunities
exist for capacity building and empowerment of Gram Sabhas through Extension of
Panchayat Raj to Scheduled Areas Act (PESA) and Forest
Rights Act, and WGEA should promote pro-active and sympathetic
implementation of PESA and of the provision of Community Forest Resources under
the Forest Rights Act.
Finally, WGEA should strive to make a
transition from regulations and negative incentives to promote nature
conservation oriented activities to a system of use of positive incentives to
encourage continued conservation-oriented action in the context of traditional
practices such as sacred groves and to initiate other action in modern
contexts. An example of the latter is the payment of conservation service
charges by Kerala Biodiversity Board to a farmer who has maintained mangrove
growth on his private land. WGEA should undertake a critical assessment of the efficacy of funds being deployed
towards conservation
efforts today in the form of salaries and perks of bureaucrats and technocrats,
including their jeeps
and guns and buildings to house them. It would undoubtedly
be found to be exceedingly low. These funds should then be redeployed over a period of time to provide
positive incentives to local communities to maintain biodiversity elements of high value to conservation.
Technical
inputs would be required to decide on a common system of assigning conservation
value to specific elements of biodiversity and to organize a reliable, transparent system of
monitoring biodiversity
levels within the territories assigned to various local
communities, in form of either Community Forest Resources assigned under FRA,
or Panchayat areas assigned to Biodiversity Management Committees. Educational
institutions at all levels, from village primary schools to universities, could play an important role in this effort.
Indeed, these exercises could become very valuable components of environmental
education curricula. In the long
run, only a very lean bureaucratic apparatus
should be retained to play a coordinating,
facilitative role and to ensure that local communities can effectively
enforce a desired system of protection and
management of the natural resource
base. Such a system would create a
very efficient market for conservation performance so that funds earmarked to promote biodiversity would flow
to localities and local communities endowed
with capabilities of conserving high levels
of biodiversity. This system would
also channel rewards for conservation
action to relatively poorer communities
living close to the earth, thereby serving ends of social justice, and
creating in the long range a situation far more
favorable to the maintenance of biodiversity on the earth.
Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg
The Panel has been asked to suggest an
appropriate course of further development of mining, power production and
polluting industries in Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts of Maharashtra. This
entire region has been seriously impacted, both environmentally and socially by
a number of mining and power projects, and polluting industries. The impacts
are manifold; depletion and pollution of ground water, siltation of water
bodies, increased flood frequencies, loss of fertile agricultural land,
depletion of fisheries, deforestation, loss of unique biodiversity elements
such as herbaceous plants of lateritic plateaus, air pollution, noise
pollution, traffic congestion and accidents, increase in respiratory ailments,
and so on. The situation clearly warrants a careful assessment and mid-course
correction.
The problem is not just legal,
but substantial levels of illegal activities. For instance, many farmers
complain of miners muscling their way onto private land and digging pits.
Pollution from many industries is also well above legally permissible
limits. Consequently, there is much social discord, especially because
people firmly believe that law and order machinery is being misused to
protect illegal activities.
The Panel has been asked to suggest an
appropriate course of further development of mining, power production and
polluting industries in Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts of Maharashtra.
Given the many problems facing these ecologically rich yet fragile districts,
it is clear that we must proceed with great care. Only eastern portions of
these districts are covered by the Western Ghats for which WGEEP has completed
assignment of Ecologically Sensitive Zones and guidelines for further
development projects. For these Western Ghats regions of the district, the
Panel recommends:
(a) An indefinite moratorium on new environmental clearances for mining
in Ecologically Sensitive Zones 1 and 2,
(b) A phasing out of mining from ESZ1 by 2015
(c) Continuation of existing mining in Ecologically Sensitive Zone 2
under strict regulation with an effective system of social audit.
(d) No new red and orange category industries, which would include coal
based power plants, should be permitted to be established in Ecologically
Sensitive Zones 1 and 2;
(e) The existing red and orange category industries should be asked to
switch to zero pollution in Ecologically Sensitive Zones 1 and 2 by 2015, and
operated only under an effective system of social audit.
Cumulative impact analysis
WGEEP has not undertaken any extensive
compilation of pertinent information and assignment of levels of ecological
sensitivity to plains and coastal portions of the Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg
districts falling outside the Western Ghats. Nevertheless, the limited
investigations of the Panel in these plains and coastal tracts suggest that
these are under severe environmental and social stress, and it is essential
that a careful Cumulative Impact Analysis of various development activities in
these tracts, ideally in conjunction with Raigad district of Maharashtra and
the state of Goa, must be immediately undertaken, preferably under the
leadership of National Institute of Oceanography, Goa.
This should not be a techno-centric
study alone, but ensure that people’s deep locality specific knowledge of
environmental issues and their development aspirations are taken on board.
To this end the Ministry of Environment and Forests should ask the state
Forest Departments to proactively assist the Tribal Welfare Departments in
implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Rights over Forests) Act. The implementation of the Community Forest
Resources provisions of this act would greatly help create broad based
stake for people in safeguarding the environment of the region.
Furthermore, Ministry of Environment and Forests should ensure the
establishment of Biological Diversity Management Committees in all local
bodies in this region, motivate them through empowerment to levy 'collection
charges' as provided in the Biological Diversity Act and fund the BMCs to
document the local ecological setting and biodiversity resources in
collaboration with local educational institutions. This would not
only further encourage local community members to engage in taking good
care of their own environment, but generate much detailed information of
key relevance for the proposed cumulative environmental impact analysis.
Of course a strong scientific
institution needs to take overall responsibility of such an exercise and
ensure sound scientific and technical inputs. Therefore, WGEEP recommends
that NIO, Goa be asked to play such a role. The Panel recommends that the
current moratorium on new environmental clearances for mining, and red and
orange category polluting industries and power plants in plains and coastal
tracts of Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts should be extended till
satisfactory completion of such an analysis of Carrying Capacity of these
districts. The moratorium may then be reviewed in light of the findings of the
study.
Gundia Hydroelectric project
The Gundia river basin is a ‘hot hotspot’
of biodiversity with a repository of biological wealth of rare kinds, both in
its aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The premium should be on conservation
of the remaining evergreen and semi-evergreen forests, which are vital for the
water security (perennially of streams) and food security (sustenance of
biodiversity).
Recommendations
The proposed project (GHEP) is ecologically unsound and
economically unviable because of the following reasons1:
1. The construction of this project will cause large scale land cover
changes in Gundia
2. The proposed project would have negative impacts on the biodiversity
of the region
3. The proposed region is a part of an Elephant Reserve and forms a
vital link between two Elephant Corridors.
4. The proposed project would cause habitat fragmentation and shrinkage
resulting in enhanced human–wildilfie conflicts.
5. The forests are ecologically and economically beneficial to humans.
6. The project would alter the hydrological regime. Kumaradhara River,
a perennial source of water to the important Subramanya temple, will lose water
due to its diversion to the Bettakumri dam. This will affect the temple and
revenue from ecotourism. Also, due to large scale land cover changes, the
catchment yield will dwindle and current perennial streams will become seasonal
(as in the Sharavathi river basin). This would affect local people.
Considering the above, the proposed
hydro-electric project at Gundia river basin would be ecologically and
economically unviable as it would weaken the food and water security of the
region apart from enhancing human–wildlife conflicts. This project should not
be granted Environmental Clearance.
Athirappilly Hydroelectric project
Considering the: (1) biodiversity
richness, the high conservation value, highly significant
fish fauna with type locality of five new species and as many as 22 endemic and
9 critically endangered species, the
bird fauna with 75% of the
endemics of the Western Ghats, and the
unique riverine ecosystem not seen in other areas in the State, (2) the
impact of the project on the
biodiversity and the ecosystem, some of which may be irreparable, (3) the
impact on downstream irrigation and drinking water, (4) the questionable
technical feasibility of the project, (5) the meager amount of power that could
be generated from the project, (6)
impact on the habitats of the
primitive tribes of the area, (7) the
high cost of construction even without considering the ecosystem
services and environmental cost, and (8) the judgment of the honourable High
Court of Kerala made on 17 October 2001 directing the KSEB to “ “take all necessary steps to repair and restore to full
capacity , all the existing Hydro Electric Projects to ensure that the
generation of power as envisaged is obtained and also to take steps to ensure
that transmission losses are minimized and that theft of energy is prevented
and to the extent possible eliminated altogether”, the WGEEP recommends to the MoEF that
the Athirapilly - Vazhachal area should
be protected as such and the permission for the proposed hydro-electric project
at Athirappilly should not be given. The WGEEP further recommends that the
Chalakudy River should be declared as a fish diversity rich area, to be managed
on the pattern of ‘Conservation of biodiversity rich areas of Udumbanchola
taluk’ in Kerala.
