Gadgil vs Kasturirangan Reports on the Western Ghats

Why study this mountain range?

• The Western Ghats run beside India’s western coast.
• They cross six states: Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
• Forests here shelter many species found nowhere else.
• Rivers that start here supply farms and towns.
• People also farm, build homes and work in the Ghats.
• A new mine or road can affect forests, water and villages.
• An ESA is land proposed for special environmental controls. It is not the same as a national park.
• The exact controls depend on a government notification.
• Sources: UNESCO Western Ghats decision and 2013 High Level Working Group report.

Who wrote the reports?

• The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel was led by Madhav Gadgil. It reported in 2011.
• A High Level Working Group, led by K. Kasturirangan, reported in 2013.
• It examined the earlier report and the responses to it.
• Both aimed to protect the Ghats. They used different methods.
• Sources: Kasturirangan report and Government release on the two panels.

What is the key difference?

• Do not treat 64% and 37% as identical legal boundaries.
• Popular summaries give about 64% for Gadgil’s sensitive zones.
• The two groups also defined the Ghats region differently.
• A zone inside a report is not a final law.
• Sources: 2013 report and 2011 Gadgil report.

A village example

• Imagine a village beside a forest. A company seeks a quarry lease nearby.
• This is a teaching example, not a real village.

1. Gadgil’s plan asks which sensitivity zone covers the site. Local bodies have a strong say.
2. Kasturirangan’s plan first asks if the village falls in the mapped ESA.
3. It then applies the proposed limits to the quarry.
4. The government must issue a valid notice before ESA rules become final.

Was the later plan free of local participation?

• No. The Kasturirangan group used more map-based screening.
• Its report also called for Gram Sabha involvement in project decisions.
• “Top-down versus bottom-up” is a memory aid. It is too simple as a full description.
• The group proposed ending mining in the ESA.
• Calling it a plan for unrestricted development is wrong.

Report, draft notice, final rule

1. 2011: the Gadgil panel submitted its recommendations.
2. 2013: the Kasturirangan group proposed about 60,000 km² as ESA.
3. 2024: the ministry issued a draft ESA notice listing 56,825.7 km² across six states.
4. 27 July 2026: a further draft notice still proposed 56,825.7 km². It invited objections and suggestions.

• As checked on 24 September 2026, the July 2026 text is a draft.
• The government may finalise the area in stages or in one combined notice.
• The draft uses powers under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
• It would restrict mining, quarrying and sand mining in the proposed ESA.
• It also addresses new thermal power plants and red-category industries.
• Read the final form before applying a rule to one village.
• Sources: July 2026 draft Gazette notice and July 2024 draft notice.

Why do states and villages debate the boundary?

• The area crosses six state governments.
• It includes homes, farms and businesses near forests.
• Some people fear limits on building or work.
• Others fear damage from mining, roads and forest loss.
• A fair decision needs clear maps, local voices and sound risk checks.

UNESCO is a separate label

• UNESCO listed 39 Western Ghats component areas as World Heritage in 2012.
• The whole six-state chain is not one continuous UNESCO property.
• UNESCO listing and the proposed ESA have different boundaries and legal roles.
• Species like the Great Indian Hornbill need connected habitat.
• A species link alone does not prove a project’s effect. That needs a local study.
• Source: UNESCO World Heritage decision, 2012.

Exam traps

• Both reports are about the Western Ghats.
• Gadgil used graded zones. Kasturirangan marked one ESA.
• A report or draft notice is not final law.
• UNESCO listing and ESA are different things.