The Kasturirangan Report summarizes the findings and recommendations of the High Level Working Group on Western Ghats regarding ecologically sensitive areas. Some key points: - The report identified about 60,000 sq km of the Western Ghats region as an Ecologically Sensitive Area based on remote sensing data at a high resolution. - It recommended restrictions on mining, quarrying, large construction projects, and polluting industries in these sensitive areas. - Financial incentives were proposed to encourage sustainable development practices like ecotourism in both ESAs and other parts of the Western Ghats. - The demarcation of ESAs was meant to be fine-tuned based on feedback from

1. Kasturirangan Report
MUHAMMED DILSHAD.P.A
ENV ENG
SES,CUSAT

2. • High Level Working Group presents report on
Western Ghats to Ministry of Environment
and Forest(MoEF)
• Working Group is headed by Dr. K.
Kasturirangan(Member, Planning Commission)
and includes environmental experts and other
professionals as its members.

3. • Working Group was constituted to advise the
Government on the recommendations of an
earlier report – that of the eminent ecologist
Madhav Gadgil-led Western Ghats Ecology
Expert Panel (WGEEP).
• recommended that the entire Western Ghats
should be declared as an ecologically sensitive
area.

4. • High Level Working Group (HLWG) to examine the
large numbers of public responses received to the
recommendations of the Gadgil report and to suggest
the way ahead.
• Dr K Kasturirangan says “The message of this report is
serious, alarming and urgent. It is imperative that we
protect, manage and regenerate the lands now
remaining in the Western Ghats as biologically rich,
diverse, natural landscapes. We have reached a
threshold from which we cannot slip further. This has
to be the objective of future planning and regulation
in this recognized centre of biodiversity in our
country”.

5. • HLWG draws upon the basic framework
suggested by WGEEP to use remote sensing
technologies to demarcate the ESA of the
Western Ghats but with two key differences
1. it used satellite data, down to 24 m
resolution, as against 9 km used by WGEEP
2. it distinguishes between the cultural and
the natural landscape of the region. Using
remote sensing technology

6. • recommendations to “incentivize green
growth in the Western Ghats”
• managing forests and improving their
productivity to ensure inclusive growth and
economic benefits for local communities
• integrating forest accounts into state and
national economic assessments
• initiating an ecosystem service fund to help
villages around the forests
• promoting sustainable agriculture and
encouraging ecotourism for local benefits.

7. Kasturirangan Report
• Western Ghats is a magnificent mountain range
next only to Himalayas and is a biological treasure
trove with a high degree of endemism (11% to
78%) and scenic beauty.
• Out of the estimated 1,64,280 km2 of the
Western-Ghats area, the natural landscape
constitutes only 41 per cent. The area identified
as ecologically sensitive is about 37 per cent i.e.,
about 90 % of the natural landscape.

8. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
AND ACTION PLAN
1.Delineation and demarcation of ecologically
sensitive area in Western Ghats region
• The delimited area of 188 talukas in 6 States
of Western Ghats has been designated as
Western Ghats Region
• spreads over an area of 1,64,280 km2
• 6 states as Western Ghats Region

9. • About 60,000 km2 of natural landscape
(approximately 37% of the total geographical
area of Western Ghats Region) has been
identified as Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA)
• includes Protected Areas and World Heritage
Site
• MoEF should put the ESA map in the public
domain, which will enable scrutiny and
transparency in decisions.

10. 2.Development Restrictions in proposed
Ecologically sensitive areas
• HLWG is recommending a prohibitory and
regulatory regime in ESA for those activities
with maximum interventionist and
destructive impact on the ecosystem
• There should be a complete ban on mining,
quarrying and sand mining in ESA.

11. • No thermal power projects should be allowed
in ESA.
• HLWG recommends that wind energy should
be included in EIA notification and brought
under purview of assessment and clearance
• All ‘Red’ category industries should be strictly
banned, But all efforts should be made to
promote industries with low environmental
impacts.

12. • Building and construction projects of 20,000
m2 and above should not be allowed
• All other infrastructure and development
projects/schemes should be subject to
environment clearance under Category ‘A’
projects under EIA Notification 2006.

13. 3.Financial arrangements and Incentivising
Green Growth in Western Ghats region
• HLWG has recommended policies to
incentivize environmentally sound growth
across the Western Ghats.
• Western Ghats States should come together to
negotiate for a grant-in aid from the Centre
• HLWG recommends that there should be
arrangements for Payments for Ecosystem
Services accruing from ESA and non-ESA
regions within the Western Ghats

14. • The Planning Commission should create a
special Western Ghats Sustainable
Development Fund
• promote sustainable tourism
4.Decision Support and Monitoring Centre for
Western Ghats
5.Climate change and Western Ghats

15. 5.Specific cases referred to HLWG
• During 2011, MoEF referred four specific cases to
the Western Ghats Panel for its observations
• Athirappilly hydropower project in Western Ghats
of Kerala
• Gundya hydropower project in Western Ghats of
Karnataka
• Moratorium on development projects in
Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg District;
• Mining in Goa

16. Athirappilly Hydropower Project
• (KSEB) proposed a hydroelectric dam across
Chalakudy River to generate 163 MW of power to
augment energy requirement of the State and also
to provide water for drinking and irrigation.
• uncertainty about ecological flow available in the
riverine stretch
• dam at a short distance upstream of the proposed
project

20. KERALA thaluka TalukaArea(km2) ESA No. of Villages with ESA
Ernakulam Kothamangalam
Kunnathunad
Muvattupuzha
316
476
449
1
Idukki Devikulam Peerumade
Thodupuzha
Udumbanchola
1,808
1,310
888
1,094
1,808
1,146
426
1,094
12
8
4
23
Kannur Taliparamba
Thalassery
1,329
1,212 304 3
Kasaragod Hosdurg 976
Kollam Kottarakkara
Kunnathur
Pathanapuram
571
143
1,271
942 8
Kottayam Kanjirappally
Meenachil
429
689
51
106
1
3
Kozhikode Kozhikode
Quilandy 745 170 2
Vadakara
1,031
745
580
234
170
112
5
2
2
Malappuram Ernad
Nilambur
Perinthalmanna
Tirur
816
1138
511
418
1012 10
Palakkad Alathur
Chittur
Mannarkad
Palakkad
578
1170
1226
726
66
648
857
272
1
3
7
3
Pathanamthitta Adoor
Kozhenchery
Ranni
336
958
1097
616
924
2
4
Thiruvananthapuram Nedumangad
Neyyattinkara
957
585
457
165
4
3
Thrissur Kodungallur
Mukundapuram
150
1326 708 1
Wayanad Mananthavady
Sulthanbathery
Vythiri
749
770
619
364
301
287
4
2
7
TOTAL 29,693 13,108 123
ESA kerala

21. Kasturirangan Report after 4 march
2014

22. • The boundary of the ESA as identified by the
HLWG may be fine tuned after receiving inputs
from state governments and that the
governments may suggest modification based
upon physical verification
• State government of Kerala has informed that
they had set up a expert committee (KSBB)to
study recommendations and to asses ground
level information

23. • 123 villages falling within the ESA as identified
by HLWG for for undertaking on-the-spot field
verification. And forward back report to MoEF