The Western Ghats (WGs) region runs to a length of about 1,600 kilometers starting near the border of Gujarat and Maharashtra to Kanyakumari, covering six states. The region covers anarea of about 1.60 lakh square kilometers. Given the environmental sensitivity and ecological significance of the region, as well as the possible impacts of climate change on this region, the Ministry of Environment & Forests constituted a Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) on 4 March 2010. The relevant order itself refers to the rich ecological value of the hill ranges, its huge importance for the water security of the peninsular India, and the serious threats facing it.

WGEEP did a commendable job within a short span of time recommending highly credible action plan to protect and conserve the WGs. WGEEP, after listing and discussing all the parameters as to why WGs has all the necessary conditions to be declared as an Ecologically Sensitive Area, has fully endorsed that the entire Western Ghats tract should be considered as an Ecologically Sensitive Area. The report assigned three levels of Ecological Sensitivity to different regions of it and termed them as Ecologically Sensitive Zone 1, 2 and 3 (ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3).

Whereas one would have expected MoEF to respect the credible recommendations by its own committee, it is sad to know that the ministry refused even to publish the report for nearly 8 months. Now that the views of the stake holders on the report have been sought by the Ministry, the public has an opportunity to participate in the relevant policy.

While it is very unfortunate that some of the political leaders in the 6 States of WGs have expressed reservations on some recommendations of WGEEP, it appears that such a myopic view has been developed only to support the commercial interest of few lobbies. Such leaders must be reminded of the fact that the WGs are considered to be amongst eight "Hottest of Bio©\diversity Hotspots" in the world, and that 39 sites in WGs have been included in the World Heritage list after lot of deliberations and after recognising the obvious need to do so.

The total geographical area of WGs being a small percentage of the total land area of the country, but with huge importance to the long term welfare of our communities can be and must be kept out of the purview of "development" and be kept at minimal interference.

It would also be a clear negation of the lofty objectives of National Action Plan on Climate Change, and especially the Green India Mission (GIM), to allow any location within WGs to be deforested further. It is necessary to suggest that most of ’ 40,000 Crores budgeted for Green India Mission should be spent wisely in protecting the riches of WGs. Actual returns to our society in doing so will be far greater than the returns which can be expected out of the programmes listed in GIM.

Since independence WGs have been ravaged with huge exploitative activities, and hence are eminently suitable now for being allowed to recover and regenerate. WGs already have large number of roads, bridges, highways, tunnels, railway lines, dams, power plants, industries, human habitats, commercial plantations etc. There really is no need to devastate them further with more of such man made structures. Hence the developmental activities in WGs can be and must be kept to the barest minimum without having to compromise on the true welfare of the local communities.

As per Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - IV Assessment Report "Emissions from deforestation are very significant ¨C they are estimated to represent more than 18% of global emissions"; "Curbing deforestation is a highly cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions." Large conventional power projects are all major contributors for deforestation either through dams, buildings, mines, transmission lines, or through pollutants like coal dust, coal ash and acid rains.

An objective consideration of all the issues in the power sector will clearly reveal that the WGs can be completely kept out of the developmental purview of the power sector. This includes all elements of the conventional power projects, such as dams, power plants, transmission lines etc. It is highly desirable even to keep the wind turbines outside of WGs. Only small size renewable energy sources such as pico-hydro, solar and bio-mass plants should be used as sources of distributed electrical power. There are very many benign alternatives to meet the electricity needs of the region/country than through devastating power projects inside or in the vicinity of WGs.

In this context not only the Gundia hydel project in Karnataka and the Athirapally hydel project in Kerala, but also the huge nuclear power project at Jaitapura, Maharastra and many such power projects including those in the close vicinity of WGs should be disallowed.

Convention on Biological Diversity was signed by 156 states in 1992, the objectives of which are the conservation of various components of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisataion of genetic resources. Extreme care in conserving the WGs is a definitive step in this regard.

World Charter for Nature adopted by consensus by UN General Assembly in 1982 has provided some guiding principles for protecting biodiversity: (i) Activities which are likely to cause irreversible damage to nature should be avoided; (ii) Activities which are likely to pose significant risk to nature shall be preceded by an exhaustive examination; their proponents shall demonstrate that the expected benefits outweigh potential damage to nature, and where potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed. The policies and practices of our society so far as far as WGs are concerned can no way be construed as adhering to these guiding principles.

The services of ecological systems and the natural capital stocks that produce them are critical to the functioning of the Earth’s life-support system. For the entire biosphere, the value is estimated to be in the range of US$16-54 trillion per year, with an average of US $33 trillion per year. As compared to global gross product of around US$18 trillion per year, the immense value of services of ecological systems and the natural capital stocks becomes clear. Such benefits to our communities, which are perpetual in nature, must be of high priority than the short term benefits from unsustainable exploitation of the WGs.

It will be a travesty of justice that MoEF, while advocating strongly for the nomination of 39 sites in WGs for World Heritage tag, should have reservation in accepting the credible recommendations of its own expert panel. It should be remembered that if allowed to prosper without human intervention many other locations of WGs will develop into the status of World Heritage sites within few decades. In this scenario there should be no compelling reason for our society not to keep off most locations in WGs from further ravages of the so called "developmental paradigm".

Keeping all these issues of direct and indirect impact to our communities and keeping India’s obligations to the international community, there can be no alternative but to implement the recommendations of WGEEP in its true spirit at the earliest opportunity.

ConcludedViews are those of the author

Author can be contacted at shankar.sharma2005@gmail.com