കസ്തൂരി രംഗന്‍ സമിതി സമര്‍പ്പിച്ച റിപ്പോര്‍ട്ട്- ഒന്നാം ഭാഗം

REPORT OF THE HIGH LEVEL WORKING GROUP ON WESTERN GHATS
Volume II
Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India 15 April 2013
Cover: Portion of peninsular India showing Western Ghats region depicted using multi spectral image of advanced wide field sensor (AWifs) on board RESOURCESAT-1 as natural color composite
Contents
Volume I Submission Certificate of the Report of HLWG Preface Acknowledgement List of Tables List of Figures Summary of Recommendations and Action Plan 1. Introduction 2. Evaluation of comments of the Stakeholders, State Governments and Central Ministries 3. Impact of Climate Change on the Ecology of Western Ghats 4. Definition and Delimitation of the Western Ghats Region 5. Identification of Ecologically Sensitive Areas in Western Ghats Region 6. The Paradigm for Sustainable and Inclusive Development and the Framework for Governance 7. Decision Support and Monitoring Centre for Western Ghats 8. Review of specific cases a. Athirappilly Hydropower Project b. Gundya Hydropower Project c. Moratorium on development projects in Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg Districts d. Mining in Goa References Appendix 1: Peer-review report Appendix 2: Approach for biodiversity characterization at landscape level i ii - iv v - viii ix x - xi xii - xxiii 1 9 18 27 43 98 126 133
Volume II
Appendix 3 Annexure 1 Annexure 2 Annexure 3 Annexure 4 List of Villages in ESA of the Western Ghats Composition and constitution of the High Level Working Group (HLWG) Minutes of the HLWG and Visit Reports Summary of the Comments received on the WGEEP report from Stakeholders before constitution of the HLWG Summary of Comments received on the WGEEP report from Stakeholders before constitution of HLWG classified under various heads Analysis of the Responses received by the HLWG on the WGEEP report Statement of Major comments of the six State Governments on the Sectoral recommendations made in the WGEEP report Statement of the comments received from the Central Ministries Responses from the State Governments and Central Ministries
Annexure 5 Annexure 6
Annexure 7 Annexure 8
Volume II of the Report of High Level Working Group contains Appendix 3 dealing with the list of villages in ESA demarcated in Western Ghats Region across Six States. In this Volume, there are also 1 to 8 Annexures cited in the text of Volume 1 of the Report.
Appendix 3: List of Villages in ESA of the Western Ghats (307 polygons did not have an entry in the name field in the Survey of India layer. These polygons have been named as NoNameXXXX and counted as a village. These names may be finalized in consultation with the State Governments and Survey of India)
Sl No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 STATE GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA DIST NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA NORTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA TALUK SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI SATARI KANKON KANKON KANKON KANKON KANKON SANGUEM SANGUEM Village Name Anjune Shiroli Gulle Bayalvada Pali Singna Salpi Budruk Jarma Naneli Maloli Koparde Karambali Bramha Hedode Uste Ambede Dongarvada Mausi Bhuipal Bombede Veluz Sonal Kumar Khand Valpoy Sanvarde VELGUE HASOLE Karambali Buzruk BARAJAN Panse SHELPI KHURD BHIRONDE KHOTODE SIRSODE KARANZOL AASSODE MELAVALI Gotiakhadilwada AMBELI Gavane MALPON SURLA Satre GOALI Charavade IVRE KHURD IVRE BUDRUK Kelavade Rive Kodal Dongurvada Derode Vayangani Nanode GoaNoname1 Kodal Penral Kola Gaundongren Cotigao Poingunin Lolen SURLA AALOT
Sl No 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133
STATE GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA GOA Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat
DIST SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA SOUTH GOA NAVSARI NAVSARI NAVSARI NAVSARI NAVSARI SURAT SURAT SURAT SURAT SURAT SURAT SURAT SURAT SURAT SURAT SURAT SURAT SURAT SURAT SURAT SURAT SURAT SURAT SURAT THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS
TALUK SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM SANGUEM BANSDA BANSDA BANSDA BANSDA BANSDA SONGADH SONGADH SONGADH SONGADH SONGADH SONGADH SONGADH SONGADH SONGADH SONGADH SONGADH SONGADH SONGADH UCHCHHAL VYARA VYARA VYARA VYARA VYARA THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS
Village Name DARBANDORA SANGOD SHIGAON Kamarkhand Kamarkhand RUMBREM DUDAL Salavli Kurdi Revona Kolamba Naiquinim Digali Nune SAKVORDE MOLEN Karanjhol KOLEM Colem Sonauli BOMA OXEL DONGURLI MALINGEM PATIEM Ugem Todov Potrem Vilyan Dongar Portem Netravli Verlen Bati Kumbari Sigonem KALA AMBA KEVDI SADAD DEVI VAGHAI AMBABARI KHOKHSA KANJI EKVA GOLAN MEDHA NANA TARPADA OJHAR BHARADADA HINDLA KHADI TEMKA DARDI SELJHAR KAPAD BANDH JHARANPADA DHOLIA UMAR CHHEVDI BHURIVEL DHAMANDEVI AMONIA BANDHPADA GIRMAL DHULDA KAKARDA CHIKHALA(KALIBELSAJA) SAWARDAKASAD MAHAL CHIKAR (JHAVDASAJA) JHARI WADIAWAN
Sl No 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203
STATE Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka
DIST THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM
TALUK THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS THE DANGS BELGAUM KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR
Village Name CHINCHDHARA KARADIAMBA MAHARDAR MORZIRA MADALBARI JAVTALA CHINCHLI RAVCHOND ISDAR(BORKHALSAJA) KOSAMBIA LINGA ANJANKUND UKHATIYA KAMAD CHINCHOD SINBANDH PIPALPADA(GALKUNDSAJA) MURAMBI PAYARPADA WANKI AMBALIA VANAR UMARYA JAMDAR SAMGAHAN KOTAMDAR RANPADA JOGBARI MALEGAON BARADPANI DHAMNE S.BAILUR CHIGULE BETAGERI MORAB HULAND KANAKUMBI BAILUR GOLYALI UCHAWADE CHORLA BETNE --NoName--283 JAMBOTI KALMANI PARWAD GAWASE CHAPOLI Chikhale DAROLI KAPOLI K.CHAPOLI MUGAWADE AMAGAON KABANALI --NoName--301 --NoName--302 GAVALI NERASE PASTOLI KONGALE MANTURGA KHANAPUR (RURAL) HOLDA TEREGALI JAMAGAON ABANALI Shiroli KELIL Dongargaon MENDIL Degaon
Sl No 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273
STATE Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka
DIST BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM BELGAUM CHAMARAJA NAGAR CHAMARAJA NAGAR CHAMARAJA NAGAR CHAMARAJA NAGAR CHAMARAJA NAGAR CHAMARAJA NAGAR CHAMARAJA NAGAR CHAMARAJA NAGAR CHAMARAJA NAGAR CHAMARAJA NAGAR CHAMARAJA NAGAR CHAMARAJA NAGAR CHAMARAJA NAGAR CHAMARAJA NAGAR CHAMARAJA NAGAR CHAMARAJA NAGAR CHAMARAJA NAGAR CHAMARAJA NAGAR CHAMARAJA NAGAR CHAMARAJA NAGAR CHAMARAJA NAGAR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR
TALUK KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR KHANAPUR GUNDLUPET GUNDLUPET GUNDLUPET GUNDLUPET GUNDLUPET GUNDLUPET GUNDLUPET GUNDLUPET GUNDLUPET GUNDLUPET GUNDLUPET GUNDLUPET GUNDLUPET GUNDLUPET GUNDLUPET GUNDLUPET GUNDLUPET GUNDLUPET GUNDLUPET GUNDLUPET GUNDLUPET CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR
Village Name PADALWADI --NoName--317 Ambewadi KAMATAGE KIRAWALE (K.G.) --NoName--321 GHOSE (B.K.) MOHISET GHOTAGALI SHINDHOLLI (B.K.) SATANALI AKRALI BASTAWAD KODAGAI SULEGALI MUDEWADI --NoName--346 TARAWAD --NoName--350 SUWATAWADI KUMBARDA GHARLI --NoName--370 --NoName--1110 --NoName--1111 BARAGI --NoName--1123 HONGAHALLI CHANNAMALLIPURA MADDUR BERAMBADI BACHAHALLI LAKKIPURA KALLIPURA KUNAGAHALLI BERAMBADI STATE FOREST HEGGAVADI CHIRAKANAHALLI KADABUR BANDIPURA STATE FOREST --NoName--1137 --NoName--1138 BANDIPURA KANIYANAPURA MELAGIRI KESAVINAMANE HIPLA HEGGARMATHAVANI MADLA ATHIGIRI MELINAHULUVATHI KESAVE SUGUDUVANI SIRAGOLA KOLAGAVE JAGARA SHIRAVASE BIDARE MALAGARU DATTATHREYAPEETA CHURCHUGUDDE KAVAL BOGGASE BASAPURA KADAVANTHI BERANAGODU HUIGERE BASARAVALLI SARAGODU MANABOOR --NoName--759
Sl No 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343
DIST CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR
TALUK CHIKMAGALUR KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA KOPPA MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE MUDIGERE NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA
Village Name BIKKARANE KELAKULI GUNAVANTHE HIREKODIGE BOLAPURA BHANDIGADI KESAVE KUMBARKOPPA DEVARAHALLI KAGGA HONAGARU TALAMAKKI ESTATE ADDADA NUGGI SHANKARAPURA HEGGARU KUNCHUR MARITHOTLU BILAGADDE --NoName--725 UDANA MACHIKOPPA KARIMANE BELAWADI LOKANATHAPURA DAYAMBALLI ADIGEBYLU HEGGARU HULIGARADI DEVAGODU HARALANE MEGUR KALLUGUDDE THANUDI HORNADU KALAKODU SAMSE IDKANI KELAGUR KUNDUR --NoName--772 DARSHANA ARAMANE THALAGUR HEGGODLU THATKOLA KENJIGE ESTATE DURGADAHALLI MADUGUNDI --NoName--810 ATTIGERE TARUVE BARIMALE ESTATE KOGILE GUTTI MULARAHALLI URUBAGE HOSAKERE BYRAPURA MEKANAGADDE BYRAPURA ESTATE --NoName--660 --NoName--663 --NoName--664 KONAKERE --NoName--667 ARAMBALLI --NoName--670 --NoName--671 --NoName--672 VITTALA
Sl No 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413
DIST CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG
TALUK NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA NARASIMHARAJPURA SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI SRINGERI MERCARA MERCARA MERCARA MERCARA MERCARA MERCARA MERCARA MERCARA MERCARA MERCARA MERCARA MERCARA MERCARA MERCARA MERCARA MERCARA MERCARA MERCARA MERCARA
Village Name --NoName--679 --NoName--680 --NoName--683 BELLUR --NoName--694 KONODI NANDIGAVE --NoName--704 ARALIKOPPA --NoName--709 SANKSE BALE SALUR HEBBE SARYA --NoName--713 --NoName--715 HARAVARI ALEHALLI DAVANA --NoName--724 --NoName--726 MEGARAMAKKI --NoName--733 HALSUR NEELANDUR --NoName--720 KUMBARAGODU MASIGE MEEGA RUSHYASHRINGAPURA (MARKAL) MASIGE YEDADALLI YADADALU BALEKADI NEMMARU GINIKAL KUTHAGODU Kere SUNKADAMAKKI --NoName--741 MUDUBA MALANADU Kere NEMMAR ESTATE GULAGANJIMANE HADI MATHUVALLI ESTATE BALAGERE --NoName--751 SHEERLU HAMMIYALA --NoName--997 MONNANGERI MUKKODLU GALIBEEDU SAMPAJE MELCHEMBU KARIKE BHAGAMANDALA BETTATHUR MADE KUNDACHERI KOPATTI THANNIMANI CHERANGALA KOLAGADALU SANNAPULIKOTU (NO.2) AIYANGERI PEROOR
Sl No 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483
DIST COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG COORG HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN
TALUK MERCARA MERCARA MERCARA MERCARA SOMVARPET SOMVARPET SOMVARPET SOMVARPET SOMVARPET SOMVARPET SOMVARPET SOMVARPET SOMVARPET SOMVARPET SOMVARPET VIRAJPET VIRAJPET VIRAJPET VIRAJPET VIRAJPET VIRAJPET VIRAJPET VIRAJPET VIRAJPET VIRAJPET VIRAJPET VIRAJPET VIRAJPET VIRAJPET VIRAJPET VIRAJPET VIRAJPET VIRAJPET VIRAJPET VIRAJPET VIRAJPET ALUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR SAKALESHPUR
Village Name NALADI YEVAKAPADI CHELAVARA KARADA KUMARALLI SURLABI MALAMBI FOREST --NoName--996 NIDTHA YEDAVANADU FOREST II JAINKALBETTA FOREST YEDAVANADU FOREST II --NoName--999 ANEKAD FOREST ATTUR FOREST KARADIGODU MALDARE CHANNAYAN KOTE DEVAMACHI FOREST AREKERI FOREST - I AREKERI FOREST - III KEDAMULLUR PALANGALA AREKERI FOREST - II DEVANUR HEGGALA --NoName--1019 KUTTANDI BADAGA BADAGARAKERI PARAKATAGERI NALKERI FOREST THERALU KURCHI KUTTA MANCHALLI & FOREST ADIBYLU ACHANAHALLI MARAGUNDA AGANI --NoName--884 HODACHAHALLI KADUMANE DEVIHALLI KESAGANAHALLI --NoName--917 --NoName--918 HEGGADDE ALUVALLI --NoName--943 KADAGARAVALLI --NoName--946 YADEKUMARI HONGADAHALLA BALEHALLA HOSAHALLI --NoName--963 JEDIGADDE BATTEKUMARI YATHAHALLA ATHIHALLI --NoName--968 YARAGALLI --NoName--970 MARAGATHUR ARINI VANAGOOR MANKANAHALLI --NoName--976 --NoName--981
Sl No 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553
DIST HASSAN KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR
TALUK SAKALESHPUR ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA ANKOLA BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL BHATKAL
Village Name BANAGERE KODLAGADDE --NoName--435 SHEVAKAR KAMGE LAKKEGULI MALLANI --NoName--442 --NoName--444 SUNKSAL KATTINHAKKAL --NoName--445 VARILBENA HALVALLI SAKALBENA DONGRI MARUGADDE --NoName--450 BERDE KAMMANI HEBBUL HEGGAR NAVAGADDE ADLUR BOGRIBAIL AGSUR KUNTGANI HILLUR TALGADDE GULE MANIGADDE VASAR KUDRIGE VARILBENA SURVE VASAR KUDRIGE ACHAVE MORALLI KODSANI SHIRUR KAREBAIL KENKANISHIVAPUR KAREBAIL BRAHMUR TAKATGERI KOPPA HENJALE HASARVALLI BADABAG AGGA HUDIL --NoName--579 --NoName--581 ANTRAVALLI HALLYANI KITRE HADAVALLI VONI BAGIL --NoName--587 MARUKERI KURANDUR KUNTAVANI ARAVAKKI BILURMANE BESE --NoName--601 HEJJIL HALLARI KEKKOD BENANDOOR KAGGUNDI
Sl No 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623
DIST KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR
TALUK BHATKAL BHATKAL HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR HONAVAR JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA
Village Name Mugali NUZ CHANDAVAR KADNIR HODKE SHIROOR HIREBAIL HOSGOD SALKOD NILKOD --NoName--530 GUNDABALA MAHIME TUMBOLLI HERAVALI JALWALLI SARALAGI HULEGAR --NoName--539 --NoName--541 --NoName--542 KELGIN-IDGUNJI UPPONI GUNAVANTE NAGARABASTIKERI HINNUR BIRANGOD BEGODI MAGOD MELIN-MANNIGE HADGERI SHIRKUR --NoName--551 GUDEMAKKI ADUKAL MANKI KHANDODI DABBOD HADIKAL ADEKEKULI ASHIKERI KOTA TUMBEBEELA SAMPOLLI SULEBIL HERALI KUCHODI PALADA --NoName--320 VIRANJOL AKHETI VATALA --NoName--331 --NoName--337 PAYASWADI ANAMOD KALAMBULI --NoName--358 DURG KONSHET --NoName--360 Amshet CHAPOLI (A) KAMRA MIRAS KUMBELI SHINGARGAON --NoName--367 ASU Bori IVOLI --NoName--372
Sl No 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693
TALUK JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA
Village Name BOREGALI TIMBHOLI VAIJAGAON AVEDA KASARLE --NoName--379 BAMANAWADI Kuveshi KUMBRAL DONSHET VARANDE PUSHELI BANDODA --NoName--383 --NoName--384 --NoName--385 VAINI JAGALBET USODA --NoName--388 ASULLI PISOSE --NoName--389 --NoName--390 KONDA (HALIYAL) VIRAL --NoName--393 --NoName--394 MAVALINGE BADGUND --NoName--396 --NoName--397 --NoName--398 DIGGI --NoName--399 VIRNOLI BAPELI --NoName--401 PANJELI --NoName--402 TERALI --NoName--403 --NoName--404 --NoName--405 --NoName--406 NAGODA --NoName--407 --NoName--408 CHAPOLI (KALSAI) JOIDA --NoName--409 --NoName--411 NAGARI CHAPOLI (A) HUDASA --NoName--412 KUNDAL --NoName--413 --NoName--414 --NoName--415 --NoName--416 KUMBELI TINAI KHAND GODASHET GUND --NoName--418 KALASAI NUJJI --NoName--419 AMBOLLI
10
Sl No 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763
TALUK JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA JOIDA KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA
Village Name YERAMUKH NIGUNDI Chafer --NoName--420 BADPOLI BIDOLI HEBBAL --NoName--422 ANASHI TULASGERI Shivapur ULAVI --NoName--425 --NoName--426 BIRKHOL --NoName--428 LANDE --NoName--421 GOYAR GOTEGALI MAIGINI BALEMANE BHAIRE KADRA GOPASHITTA HANKON MUDGERI HOTEGALI DEVAKAR ARAV SAWANTWADA MALLAPUR VIRJE KERWADI \I\ KUCHEGAR KADIYE KAIGA DEVALMAKKI SHIRVE NIVLI HARTUGA SIDDAR Kadwad BARGAL NIVLI BELUR NAGEKOVE SHIRWAD TODUR --NoName--440 --NoName--441 CHENDIYE ARGA AMADALLI --NoName--446 HEGLE YANA KADKOD KOLIMANJAGUNI SANDOLLI-MUTTOLLI --NoName--483 KURIGADDE MUGVEKANVADI YELAVALLI --NoName--487 ANEGUNDI YEDATARE YATTINABAIL HEBBAIL ALKOD
11
Sl No 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833
TALUK KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA KUMTA SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR
Village Name NILKOD ANEGUNDI ANTRAVALLI SANTUR --NoName--496 KANAKALE MALWALLI KAVALODI KALVE SHIRGUNJI MORSE --NoName--500 --NoName--502 BANGANE --NoName--508 MUDGI HOSAD SOPPINAHOSALLI DIVALLI MUDNALLI BASOLLI MEDINI SANTAGAL HOLANAGADDE ABBOLLI HINDBAIL HARAVALLI ULLURMATH GIRGADDE AREHALLA DEVISAR SHIGEHALLI GHATTIKAI TAGGINBALGAR KELGIN SARKULI --NoName--489 --NoName--490 MANIGAR UMBALMANE HALLIBAIL KANCHIKAI YELUGAR HALDOT BALEKAI GOLGOD --NoName--499 GAVINGUDDE BIDARMANE MULGUNDA KARJAGI --NoName--501 HULLUNDE MATTI HALLI HIREKAI (KODSAR HALKANI) SURGIKOPPA MUDHALLI KALEN HALLI TARESAR NILKUND --NoName--505 NANDYANE HEGGE GODLABIL HASARGOD HEGGARANI HUTAGAR ( MUTHALLI ) --NoName--510 HUKALI (WAJGOD) HARIGAR HANDIYANE MATH
12
Sl No 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903
TALUK SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIDDAPUR SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI
Village Name --NoName--513 HAVINBIL --NoName--515 UNCHALLI NIDGOD ALGOD MUTTIGE (GUNJAGOD) HEGGODMANE --NoName--516 HONNEKOMB HALDOT NALIGAR BANDISARA --NoName--517 GIJAGINI HADRIMANE HALAGADIKOPPA NAIGAR ILLIMANE KASTUR BILEGOD KADAVADI MAVINKOD DODMANE --NoName--520 BALLATTE HEGGADDE BALESAR NIRGOD KAUNSALE --NoName--525 BILGI BALEKOPPA (SHIRALGI) BALGOD MAGHEGAR KOLGI BEGAR KUDEGOD KODIGADDE MUTTIGE (KAVAL KOPPA) ITAGI SANGOLIMANE DANMAV TARAGOD TALEKERI --NoName--536 ALAVALLI ALGOD SUTTALMANE MATTIGAR CHANDRAGHATGI HUKALI (WAJGOD) HARALIKOPPA KODGADDE MALEMANE HEMAGAR HEJANI KILAR KULIBID --NoName--543 MALVAJADDI HEGGEKOPPA KORALKAI MUSAVALLI MALAVALLI GADIHALLI GADIHALLI --NoName--443 DHORANAGIRI KODNAGADDE
13
Sl No 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973
TALUK SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI
Village Name YADALLI MUSKI GOUDALLI MOGADDE --NoName--447 DASANGADDE VANALLI AUDALA --NoName--449 HULGOL KOPPA GURUVALLI SHIRGANI MUDEBAIL BAKKAL SONDA GONSAR ANGODKOPPA ULLAL KODIGAR KUGTEMANE HUDELKOPPA BOPPANALLI NAKSHE BENAGI MUREGAR HAREHULEKAL AGASAL KUGTEMANE KELGINKERI SADASHIVALLI MALALGAON SHIGEHALLI MANADUR ISLOOR KOTEKOPPA HEBBALLI MUNDGANMANE --NoName--458 UMMADI NEELKANI BISLAKOPPA SARGUPPA HULDEVANSAR MATTIHALLI --NoName--462 PURA JADDIGADDE ACHANALLI MODUR --NoName--465 HAREPAL GONGATTA SINGANALLI DEVANALLI KANDRAJI GONUR KARJIGIMANE HEDIGEMANE BYAGADDE KALVE HUSRI ONIGADDE MUNDAGESAR MARGUNDI KYADGIKOPPA HEDIGEMANE SANNALLI --NoName--475 HEGGAR
14
Sl No 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043
TALUK SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI SIRSI YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR
Village Name BENAGAON SUGAVI KALKOPPA KALLALLI HAKKIGADDE KALUGAR KALKARDI MUNDAGESAR --NoName--478 KANALLI GADGERI ADALLI HALLUSARGI TEPPAR HOSTOTA HALLUSARGI MANJAGUNI HEBRE KODGIBAIL KALGUNDIKOPPA NAVILGAR GADIHALLI BIDRALLI VADDINAKOPPA HOSTOTA HADALAGI NAVANAGERI KUKRI SOMANALLI UPLEKOPPA UMBLEKOPPA MUNDGEHALLI SAMPAKHANDA JANMANE (H) BANDAL TUDUGUNI KALLI KUGTEMANE MUNDGEHALLI HANAGAR NERLAVALLI BISLAKOPPA DEVIMANE DEVIMANE HOSUR BALAVALLI Badagi KADGOD ADALLI BUGADI HOTAGERI LALGULI KIRAVATTI KANNIGERI GOTGULI NAGARAKHAN KANNADAGAL SAVAGADDE ANGOD MADNUR BELEGERI HIRIYAL GOPADMANE BARAGADDE KATTIGE BISGOD CHIMANALLI SHISTAMUDI DEHALLI TATAGAR
15
Sl No 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113
DIST KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR KARWAR MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE
TALUK YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR YELLAPUR BELTHANGADI BELTHANGADI BELTHANGADI
Village Name HAMSANA GADDE HEGGAPUR KALASURU BALAGAR SOMANALLI LINGADABAILU --NoName--427 BARABALLI DONAGAR BANKASALLI BENDIGERI CHANDGULI KALACHE --NoName--429 BAGINKATTA GADIJOGADMANE CHIMANALLI BHOMNALLI GHARWAS PURATBOMNALLI BEEGAR --NoName--430 IDAGUNDI BILKI KEREHOSALLI TARGAR HOTAGERI CHIKKOTTI MALALGAON HONAGADDE KODLAGADDE KAMPLI MAVINAMANE SHIRANALA HEGGUMBALE AALWAD MAGOD GULLAPUR KELASHI DABAGULI BARE HALAGOD HULLARAMANE BARE JAKKOLLI KUSGULI BAICHGOD HARIGADDE YADALLI HALASINKOPPA UCHAGERI BIDRALLI JADDIGADDE GERAL HIRESAR BHARATANAHALLI ILEHALLI HITTLALLI BELLAMBI KANAGOD-BALEHADDA TAREHALLI HASALMANE BHARANII CHAVATTI HEMMADI BEEJANAKOPPA Kanur NARAVI MALAVANTHIGE KUTHLURU
16
Sl No 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183
DIST MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MANGALORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE
TALUK BELTHANGADI BELTHANGADI BELTHANGADI BELTHANGADI BELTHANGADI BELTHANGADI BELTHANGADI BELTHANGADI BELTHANGADI BELTHANGADI BELTHANGADI BELTHANGADI BELTHANGADI BELTHANGADI PUTTUR PUTTUR PUTTUR PUTTUR PUTTUR PUTTUR PUTTUR PUTTUR PUTTUR PUTTUR PUTTUR SULYA SULYA SULYA SULYA SULYA SULYA SULYA SULYA SULYA SULYA SULYA SULYA SULYA SULYA SULYA SULYA SULYA SULYA HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE
Village Name SULKERIMOGRU SHIRLALU NAVARA SAVANALU CHARMADI SULKERI NAVOORU NERIYA NADA PUDUVETTU SHISHILA KALANJA --NoName--919 REKHYA KOWKRADI G0LITHATTU SHIRADY ALANTHAYA --NoName--947 ICHLAMPADY SHIRIBAGILU BALLYA KOMBARU BILINELE DOLPADY BALPA YENEKALLU SUBRAMANYA --NoName--989 NALKOORU KUTHKUNJA --NoName--990 DEVACHALLA HARIHARAPALLATHADKA BALAGODU --NoName--994 MADAPPADY UBARADKA MITTUR KALMAKARU ARANTHODU ALETTY SAMPAJE THODIKANA RAJEGOWDANAHUNDI SOLLAPURA GOWDIMACHANAYAKANA HALLI SIDDAPURA METIKUPPE FOREST AGASANAHUNDI METIKUPPE --NoName--1037 --NoName--1038 HIREHALLI HONNURKUPPE ANTHARASANTHE --NoName--1057 RAGALAKUPPE MANCHEGOWDANAHALLI KAKANAKOTE FOREST --NoName--1066 N.BELATHUR NISNA --NoName--1076 --NoName--1078 BEGURU --NoName--1082 --NoName--1084 KENCHANAHALLI --NoName--1086 HARIYALAPURA
17
Sl No 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253
DIST MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE MYSORE SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA
TALUK HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA
Village Name --NoName--1087 --NoName--1088 KATAWALU --NoName--1091 --NoName--1092 --NoName--1093 --NoName--1094 --NoName--1095 --NoName--1096 BADAGA KANDALIKE --NoName--1098 SEEGEVADI BANKAVADI ANEMALA HOSAKOTE CHANNAGUNDI NETKALHUNDI --NoName--1102 --NoName--1103 --NoName--1104 KADEGADDE HIREHALLI --NoName--1108 --NoName--1109 --NoName--1113 --NoName--1114 INUR MARIGUDI JUNGLE --NoName--1116 --NoName--1117 --NoName--1118 BARAGI ALANAHALLI VADERAHALLI --NoName--1122 NANDRI DODDA BILAGODU ALAVALLI HULUSALE MALAVALLI HOLAGODU AMACHI THOTADA KOPPA HARIDRAVATI H.HUNASAVALLI MENASE MASARUR NELAGALALE KANAGODU GUBBIGA MELINA SAMPALLI CHURDA BASAVAPURA MAJAVANA NERALA MANE BASAVAPURA BENAVALLI ARASALU SIDIYAPURA VEERABHADRAPURA KACHIGEBYLU KALASETTI KOPPA KUKAKALALE HOSAKOPPA JENI BILKI ANDAGOLI HIREMAITHE HALETHOTA HAROHITHLU KALKOPPA
18
Sl No 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323
DIST SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA
TALUK HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA
Village Name KOTESHIRUR MALAVALLI HEBBIGE PUNAJE NEELAKANTANATHOTA THAMMADIKOPPA ARAGODI MALALI KESARE H.HONNE KOPPA KARAGODU TARIGA MASAGALLI HARAMBALLI DUMMA KOLAVALLI KALIKAPURA MUGADTHI MULAGADDE KUSGUNDI KALASE TALALE MUTHUR GUBBIGA KALKOPPA YALAGALLU ADAGODI KALLUR KAGACHI KARIGERASU BELUR NAGODI HULIGADDE MANJAGALALE K.KUNNUR HEBBURLI HOSUR BIDHARALLI BEHALLI K.KUNNUR MASAKANI SHAKAVALLI L.GUDDEKOPPA VADAHOSALLI AMRUTHA MALALI KOPPA SAVANTHUR ARAMANE KOPPA KAMMACHI BALEKOPPA H.HONNE KOPPA HIRIYOGI KATTINAHOLE DOBYLU MATHIKAI BRAHMANATHARUVE KODUR NELLUNDE THRINIVE KODASE ANEGADDE BHRAMANAVADA BASAVANABYANA KILANDUR THOGARE BYSE MUDUGOPPA (NAGARA) BILLODI HILUKUNJI KALLUVIDI ABBIGALLA
19
Sl No 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393
TALUK HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA HOSANAGARA SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR
Village Name MALALI BELLUR KILANDUR KADIGGERE KARIMANE KABALE RYAVE ADAGODI KHYRUGUNDHA GINIKALLU Kolavadi NIDAGODU KAVARI SULAGODU YADUR KATTEKOPPA HUMMADAGALLU GUBBIGA BEGADALI ULTHIGA KORANAKOTE GUTHANAHALLI TALAKALALE KORLIKOPPA TALAVATA --NoName--549 HALAVAGODU JAMBANI --NoName--550 BILISIRI MADASURU KANUTHOTA BIDARUR HIREMANE BELANDUR LAVIGGERE --NoName--552 --NoName--554 KERODI BELLANNE MALLA BHYRAPURA URULAGALLU KUDIGERE HONNEMARADU NADAVALLI --NoName--560 KANURU NARAGODU CHANNASHETTIKOPPA NEECHADI HIREBILAGUNJI BALIGERE --NoName--566 YALAVARSI --NoName--567 SHIRAGUPPE SAMPALLI --NoName--568 KANAPAGARU MANDAVALLI BANUMANE ARALAGODU YALAGALALE NITLIHALETHOTA ARAVADE HAROGOPPA CHIKKABILAGUNJI HENAGERE BANADAKOPPA
20
Sl No 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463
TALUK SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR
Village Name GOWTHAMPURA HIREHARAKA BYADARAKOPPA KAPTEMANE ULLURU KESAVINAMANE KOPPARIGE HULAKODU PURADASARA KASPADI HOTALASARA NAGAVALLI KOPPALAGADDE CHANNASHETTIKOPPA GUDIHITHALU NEDARAVALLI NADAVALLI DANANDUR CHIKKAMATTUR MATTIKOPPA CHIPLI NADAVADDALLI BRAHMANACHITRATTE HAROGOPPA NARASIPURA BHANUKULI MUMBALU KANNUR INAM NANDITALE --NoName--574 MALALI HONGODU JAMBEKOPPA HOSAGUNDA CHANNAGONDA BALIGE MAVINASARA KANUMANE MUNDIGESARA TANGALAVADI CHANNIGANATHOTA GUDIHITHALU KALURU TUMARI SANGALA AMBARAGODLU HEBBASE --NoName--578 GILALAGUNDI BALLIBYLU BALAGODU HEBBARIGE CHADARAVALLI KURUVA RI KEREHITHALU BESUR YEBBODI TUMARI KOPPA KAPTEMANE HEGGATTU ARABALLI LAKKAVALLI SATALALU GIJAGA INDUVALLI KATTINAKARU --NoName--589 GANTINAKOPPA KUDARURU BOBBIGE
21
Sl No 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533
TALUK SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SAGAR SHIKARPUR SHIKARPUR SHIKARPUR SHIKARPUR SHIKARPUR SHIKARPUR SHIKARPUR SHIKARPUR SHIKARPUR SHIKARPUR SHIKARPUR SHIKARPUR SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA
Village Name HOTALASARA KOLUR KOLUR KANIKE --NoName--600 MALURU KOLUR KODANAVALLI BARUVE ADAGALALE KARANI TALAGODU SHANKANNA SHANUBHOG MARATI --NoName--639 --NoName--555 --NoName--556 SIDIGINAHALU --NoName--559 --NoName--562 --NoName--563 MADRAVALLI --NoName--565 YAREKOPPA MATHIGHATTA KITTADAHALLI KUTRAHALLI KUMSI KONE HOSURU THUPPURU --NoName--575 ALKUNI VITAGONDANA KOPPA KESAVINA KATTE SANNIVASA KEMPENA KOPPA HORABYLU BHAIRANAKOPPA KORAGI SHANTHI KERE SHETTI KERE MADE KOPPA MANDAGATTA SUDURU ADAGADI VEERAGARANA BHAIRANA KOPPA CHIKKAMATHALI --NoName--618 ANESARA CHANNA HALLI ITTIGE HALLI DODDAMATHALI ADINA KOTTIGE THEVARA KOPPA SHIRIGERE THAMMADI HALLI --NoName--621 THAVARE KOPPA GUDDADA ARAKERE MANJARI KOPPA KOODI --NoName--627 HOSURU PURADALU ANUPINA KATTE MALE SHANKARA MALESHANKARA STATE FOREST HANUMANTHA PURA GOVINDAPURA AGASAVALLI
22
Sl No 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603
TALUK SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI
Village Name SHETTY HALLI ECHAVADI BASAVAPURA SAKRE BYLU THATTI KERE HOSAKOPPA CHITRA SHETTY HALLI GAJANURU MULLAKERE VEERA PURA KUDAGALA MANE KUSKURU YARAGANALU KADEKAL HURULI HALLI KYDOTLU UMBLE BYLU SARI GERE GANIDALU --NoName--651 SIDDAMAJI HOSURU --NoName--659 KAKANA HOSUDI LINGAPURA --NoName--636 HUMCHADAKATTE HUTTALLI ALUR VATAGARU KARAKUCHI KESARE YOGIMALALI UMBLEBAILU MUNIYUR HIREKALLAHALLI HANAGERE THOREBAILU SHANKARAPURA CHIKKALLALLI ALASE MANDAKA SHIRANALLI BEEDE MELINAKADAGODU KOMBINAKAI HEGALATHI HOSAKOPPA JOGIKOPPA KEEGADI HADIGALLU DEMLAPURA BASAVANAGADDE KONANDUR ADINASARA AKLAPURA HALAVANAHALLI GARAGA SURULI VENKANAHALLI KITTANDUR KATTEKOPPA MALLAPURA SINGANABIDARE SALEKOPPA KIKKERI TRIYAMBAKAPURA YAMARAVALLI HULLUKODU TALALE HOSAKERE KULUNDE
23
Sl No 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673
TALUK THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI
Village Name ATTIGADDE KUCHHALU KHANDAKA KALAVATHI BOMMANAHALLI NERALAMANE VIRUPAPURA THOTADAKOPPA NERALAKOPPA BEESU YADAVATHI BILUVEHARIHARAPURA TENKABYLU --NoName--652 NANDIGODU UBBURU HALAGA KADEGADDE NEKRAGODU KANGALAKOPPA BYLUBADAGI MELINAPADARAVALLI AGASADI SHINDUVADI BANDYA HALASAVALA TENGINAKOPPA SHEDGAR HOSAKODIGE MITLA GODU KAVERI HEMMAKKI LINGAPURA TYANANDURU YADEHALLIPAL KUDUMALLIGE BILUVEHARIHARAPURA KIMMANE KAVALEDURGA YADAGUDDE BEJJAVALLI BOBLI KASAGARU JAMBUVALLI BEKSHIKENJIGUDDE BOBLIHINCHUVALLI HOSAKOPPA HALUMAHISHI KELAKERE KOKKODU HEDDURU MAHISHI HASANDUR BINTALA KUDUVALLI KOLAGIBYLU SHETTIGALAKOPPA HOLEKOPPA MUNNURHALLI KODLU MRUGAVADHE ANGALAGODIGE LAKKUNDA Mavadi INGLADI HORABAILU ALMANE ANDAGERE BOGARUKOPPA BILUMANE
24
Sl No 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743
STATE Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala
DIST SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI UDUPI Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki
TALUK THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI THIRTHAHALLI KARKAL KARKAL KARKAL KARKAL KARKAL KARKAL KARKAL KARKAL KARKAL KARKAL KARKAL KARKAL KARKAL KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA Devikulam Devikulam Devikulam Devikulam
Village Name SHEDGAR MANIKOPPA KOLAGI HONNEKERE SHUNTIHAKLU THUMBRAMANE HURULI --NoName--688 SHIVALLI YADAMANE HADAGINAMAKKI HERAMBAPURA BELLANGI KOLIGE HOLALURBETAGERE KABASE BEKKANUR DASANAKODIGE GURUVALLI KEERANAKERE SHIRURU HOSURU CHANGARU HONNETALU KUNDA NANTUR --NoName--712 TALLURU BALEHALLI BELENJE NADPALU KUCHCHUR CHARA HEBRI KABBINALE ANDARU --NoName--754 --NoName--758 DURGA Mala --NoName--781 NOORALBETTU HOSOOR --NoName--610 KOLLUR --NoName--634 YELJITH --NoName--638 MUDOOR GOLIHOLE JADKAL IDURKUNHADI KERADI HALLIHOLE ALOOR CHITTOOR --NoName--656 BELLAL VANDSE HOSANGADI MACHATTU AMASEBAILU --NoName--690 SHEDIMANE MADAMMAKKI --NoName--719 Marayoor Keezhanthoor Kannan Devan Hills Kuttampuzha
25
Sl No 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813
STATE Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala
DIST Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Idukki Kannur Kannur Kannur Kollam Kollam Kollam Kollam Kollam Kollam Kollam Kollam Kottayam Kottayam Kottayam Kottayam Kozhikode Kozhikode Kozhikode Kozhikode Kozhikode Kozhikode Kozhikode Kozhikode Kozhikode Malappuram Malappuram
TALUK Devikulam Devikulam Devikulam Devikulam Devikulam Devikulam Devikulam Devikulam Devikulam Peerumade Peerumade Peerumade Peerumade Peerumade Peerumade Peerumade Peerumade Thodupuzha Thodupuzha Thodupuzha Thodupuzha Udumbanchola Udumbanchola Udumbanchola Udumbanchola Udumbanchola Udumbanchola Udumbanchola Udumbanchola Udumbanchola Udumbanchola Udumbanchola Udumbanchola Udumbanchola Udumbanchola Udumbanchola Udumbanchola Udumbanchola Udumbanchola Udumbanchola Udumbanchola Udumbanchola Udumbanchola Udumbanchola Thalassery Thalassery Thalassery Pathanapuram Pathanapuram Pathanapuram Pathanapuram Pathanapuram Pathanapuram Pathanapuram Pathanapuram Kanjirappally Meenachil Meenachil Meenachil Kozhikode Kozhikode Kozhikode Kozhikode Kozhikode Quilandy Quilandy Vadakara Vadakara Nilambur Nilambur
Village Name Kottakamboor Kanthalloor Vattavada Mankulam Mannamkandam Pallivasal Anaviratty Kunjithanny Vellathuval Upputhara Kumily Manjumala Periyar Kokkayar Peerumade Mlappara Peruvanthanam Kanjikuzhi Udumbannoor Idukki (Part) Arakkulam Chinnakanal Baisonvally Rajakumari Poopara Rajakkad Konnathady Santhanpara Kanthippara Vathikudy Chathurangapara Udumbanchola Upputhode Parathodu Kalkoonthal Thankamony (Part) Ayyappancoil Pampadumpara Kattappana Karunapuram Vandanmedu Anakkara Anavilasam Chakkupallam Aralam Kottiyoor Cheruvanchery Punnala Piravanthur Edamon Thenmala Arienkavu Thinkalkarikkakom Kulathupuzha Channappetta Koottickal Melukavu Teekoy Poonjar Thekkekara Kedavur Puthuppadi Nellipoyil Kodencheri Thiruvambadi Chempanoda Rikkattapatta Thinoor Kavilumpara Chungathara Kurumbilangode
26
Sl No 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883
STATE Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra
DIST Malappuram Malappuram Malappuram Malappuram Malappuram Malappuram Malappuram Malappuram Palakkad Palakkad Palakkad Palakkad Palakkad Palakkad Palakkad Palakkad Palakkad Palakkad Palakkad Palakkad Palakkad Palakkad Pathanamthitta Pathanamthitta Pathanamthitta Pathanamthitta Pathanamthitta Pathanamthitta Thiruvananthap* Thiruvananthap* Thiruvananthap* Thiruvananthap* Thiruvananthap* Thiruvananthap* Thiruvananthap* Thrissur Wayanad Wayanad Wayanad Wayanad Wayanad Wayanad Wayanad Wayanad Wayanad Wayanad Wayanad Wayanad Wayanad AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR
TALUK Nilambur Nilambur Nilambur Nilambur Nilambur Nilambur Nilambur Nilambur Alathur Chittur Chittur Chittur Mannarkad Mannarkad Mannarkad Mannarkad Mannarkad Mannarkad Mannarkad Palakkad Palakkad Palakkad Kozhenchery Kozhenchery Ranni Ranni Ranni Ranni Nedumangad Nedumangad Nedumangad Nedumangad Neyyattinkara Neyyattinkara Neyyattinkara Mukundapuram Mananthavady Mananthavady Mananthavady Mananthavady Sulthanbathery Sulthanbathery Vythiri Vythiri Vythiri Vythiri Vythiri Vythiri Vythiri AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA
Village Name Vazhikkadavu Akampadam Karulai Amarambalam Chekkode Kalikavu Kerala Estate Karuvarakundu Kizhakkencheri-I Muthalamada-I Muthalamada-II Nelliyampathy Pudur Padavayal Agali Kottathara Kallamala Sholayur Palakkayam Puthuppariyaram-I Malampuzha-I Pudussery East Thannithode Aruvappulam Chittar-Seethathodu Kollamula Perunad Vadasserikkara Peringamala Thennoor Vithura Mannoorkara Vazhichal Kallikkad Amboory Pariyaram Thirunelly Thrissilery Periya Thondernad Kidanganad Noolpuzha Thariyode Achooranam Pozhuthana Kottappadi (Part) Chundale Kunnathidavaka Vellarimala Bitaka Shenit Waranghushi Jahagirdarwadi Ambevangan Panjare Ghatghar Udadawane Murshet --NoName--33 Shinganwadi Samrad Ratanwadi Shirpunje Bk. Koltembhe Dhamanvan Kumshet Shirpunje Kh. Shelad Shiswad Ambit
27
Sl No 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953
STATE Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra
DIST AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR AHMADNAGAR DHULE DHULE DHULE DHULE DHULE KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR
TALUK AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA AKOLA SAKRI SAKRI SAKRI SAKRI SAKRI AJRA AJRA AJRA AJRA AJRA AJRA AJRA AJRA AJRA AJRA AJRA AJRA AJRA AJRA AJRA AJRA AJRA AJRA AJRA AJRA BAVDA BAVDA BAVDA BAVDA BAVDA BAVDA BAVDA BAVDA BAVDA BAVDA BAVDA BAVDA BAVDA BAVDA BAVDA BAVDA BAVDA BAVDA BAVDA BAVDA BAVDA BAVDA BAVDA BAVDA
Village Name Shilvandi Lavhali Otur Paithan Pachanai Kotul Lavhali Kotul Ambhol Shinde Somalwadi Tale Kothale Vihir Abit Khind Palsunde Umbarwadi Phophasandi Satewadi Keli Otur Garwadi Esarthav Khetewadi Dhamandhar Shenwad Vardadi Mohagaon Kalgaon Hajgoli Kh. Vinayakwadi Medhewadi Velawatti Parpoli Dardewadi Haloli Gavase Suleran Kitvade Ambade Awandi Uchangi --NoName--223 Polgaon Satewadi Chafavade Latagaon Erandol Chitale Nivade Vesarde Taliye Bk. Kode Bk Kode Kh. Mandur Mandukali Andur Khokurle Asalaj Dhundavade Vesaraf Palsambe Saitavade. Sangashi Sheloshi Jargi Katali Kadave Borbet Garivade Narveli Baveli Taliye Kh.
28
Sl No 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
DIST KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR
TALUK BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD BHUDRAGAD CHANDGAD CHANDGAD CHANDGAD CHANDGAD CHANDGAD CHANDGAD CHANDGAD CHANDGAD CHANDGAD CHANDGAD CHANDGAD CHANDGAD CHANDGAD CHANDGAD CHANDGAD CHANDGAD CHANDGAD CHANDGAD CHANDGAD CHANDGAD CHANDGAD PANHALA PANHALA PANHALA PANHALA PANHALA PANHALA PANHALA PANHALA PANHALA PANHALA PANHALA PANHALA PANHALA PANHALA RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI
Village Name Hanbarwadi Girgaon. Phaye Phanaswadi Devakewadi Khedge Murukate Bidri Vasnoli Padkhambe Shivdav Bediv Sonurli Anturli Kudtarwadi Navale Megholi Mhasarang Vesarde Devarde Palyachahuda Mathagaon Karivade Chikkewadi Antivade Mani Chivale Dele Dhamapur Pundra Kanur Kh. Sadegudwale Bhogoli Pilani Kokare Nagave Umagaon Jambre Gudawale Khalsa Isapur Jelugade Waghotre Kitvade Mirwel Kalasgade Hajagoli Kodali Khalsa Mhalunge Kolik Patpanhala Washi Kaurwadi Manwad Kisrul Mugadewadi Pohalwadi Kaljawade Padasali Kolik Pombre Gothane Harpavade Panore Konoli Tarf Asandoli Kandalgaon Rai Manbet Padasali Piral Padali
29
Sl No 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093
DIST KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR
TALUK RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI RADHANAGARI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI
Village Name Phejiwade Karanjphen Olavan Shiroli Savardhan Radhanagari Banachiwadi New Karanje Ramanwadi Farale Patpanhala Aini --NoName--198 Rajapur --NoName--199 --NoName--200 --NoName--201 --NoName--202 --NoName--203 --NoName--204 --NoName--206 Chafodi Tarf Ainghol Savarde Gawathanwadi Wadachiwadi Adoli Dubalewadi --NoName--179 --NoName--180 --NoName--181 --NoName--182 --NoName--183 --NoName--184 --NoName--186 --NoName--187 --NoName--188 --NoName--189 Ukhalu Udgiri Shirale Tarf Warun Kandavan Malgaon --NoName--190 Jambur Palasavade Virale Paraleninai Pusarle Wakoli AMBA Talavade Chalanwadi Masnoli Humbavali Gholasvade Jawali Kasarde --NoName--192 Dhanagarwadi Gajapur Yelan J.Gai Ainwadi Mhalasvade Gelavade Panundre Shirale Tarf Malkapur Girgaon Parivane Manjare. Burambal
30
Sl No 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163
DIST KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR NANDURBAR NANDURBAR NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK
TALUK SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI SHAHUWADI NAWAPUR NAWAPUR BAGLAN BAGLAN BAGLAN BAGLAN BAGLAN BAGLAN BAGLAN BAGLAN BAGLAN BAGLAN BAGLAN BAGLAN BAGLAN BAGLAN BAGLAN DINDORI DINDORI DINDORI DINDORI DINDORI IGATPURI IGATPURI IGATPURI IGATPURI IGATPURI IGATPURI IGATPURI IGATPURI KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN KALWAN PEINT PEINT PEINT PEINT
Village Name Sonurle Yelvadi Mosum Kante Anuskura Barki Savardi Injoli Kareghat Khekada Golwad Jad Ajande Bordaiwat Bhimkhet Jakhod Waghambe Bhawade Manur Salwan Malgaon Kh. Vathode Kelzar Tatani Wadi Chaulher Deosane Mokhnal Dehare Palasvihir Goldari Dhargaon Walvihir Tringalwadi Chinchale Khair Bhandardarawadi Manjargaon Kurungwadi Jamunde Malagaon Bk. Supale Digar Umbardhe Sidharthanagar Koswan Virshet Dhanoli Bhandane (Hatgad) Dare Bhanagi Dharde Digar Shrungarwadi Mohobari Daregaon Hatgad Inshi Kosurde Karambhel Hatgad Amdar Jamle pale Dahyane (Otur) Jamshet Bhusani Kurdane (Otur) Daregaonwani Pimpri Markanda Saptashrungagad Mehadar Wadale[Wani] Machidhodap Amdongra Sadadpada Gandole Kapurne
31
Sl No 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 2171 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 2178 2179 2180 2181 2182 2183 2184 2185 2186 2187 2188 2189 2190 2191 2192 2193 2194 2195 2196 2197 2198 2199 2200 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 2218 2219 2220 2221 2222 2223 2224 2225 2226 2227 2228 2229 2230 2231 2232 2233
DIST NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK
TALUK PEINT PEINT PEINT PEINT PEINT PEINT PEINT PEINT PEINT PEINT PEINT PEINT PEINT PEINT PEINT PEINT PEINT PEINT PEINT SINNAR SINNAR SINNAR SINNAR SINNAR SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA SURGANA TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR
Village Name Kayare Dabhadi Kumbhale Lavhali Sadadpada Belpada GARMAL Andhrute Tondawal Chafyachapada AMBAPANI Kahandolpada Kasatvihir Khadki Umbrad Borpada Jambhulmal Nachlondhi Murmuti Gulvanch Khopadi Bk. Shahapur Kedarpur Khopadi Kh. Gondune Pangarne Pimpalsond WANGAN Malgonde Sundarban Mohapada Guhijambhulpada Karanjul Surgana Vijaynagar Khuntavihir Galbari Ranvihir Shrirampur Udaldari Rasha Dolhare Kathipada Amzar Walutzira Shribhuvan Karwande Mothamal Wangan Sule Patali Bendwal Bhawada Umbarde Waghadi Karanjul Kotamba Merdand Dangrale Pilukpada Murumdari Undohal Warambhe Bhenshet Khobale Digar Khokarvihir Khirdi Kahandolpada Chinch Ohol Khadakohol Behedpada Kadegahan
32
Sl No 2234 2235 2236 2237 2238 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 2253 2254 2255 2256 2257 2258 2259 2260 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303
DIST NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK NASHIK PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE
TALUK TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR TRIMBAKESHWAR AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON AMBEGAON BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR
Village Name Hatlondhi Ozar Khed Berwal Chinchwad Mahadeo Nagar Rayate Belpali Waygholpada Jategaon Bk Mulvad Rautmal Varasvihir Vatakapada Deola Nandgaon Welunje Metkawara Ambai Chokore Umbharande Metghar Killa Harshewadi Take Harsha Pahine Take Deogaon Met Yelyachi Pimpargane DON Aghane Ahupe MALIN Tirpad Nhaved Patan Asane Nanavade Adivare Kushire Bk. Kondhare Sakeri Panchale Kh. Panchale Bk. Phulvade Kondhaval Apati Digad Vachape Magholi Savarli Jambhori Pimpari Ambegaon Amondi Chaptewadi kanas Kalambai Terungan Phalode Dimbhe Kh. Mahalunge Tarf Ghoda RAJPUR Nigdale Chikhali Dhakale Kurungvadi Ketkavane (Nimme) Guhini Kikavi Khulshi Sarole Bhutonde
33
Sl No 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 2341 2342 2343 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373
DIST PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE
TALUK BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR BHOR HAVELI HAVELI HAVELI HAVELI JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR
Village Name Dere Chandavane Kumbale Velvand Bhandravali Nanavale Bope Brahmanghar Kondgaon Sangvi (Velavade Khore) Jayatpad Pangari Dehen Nandghur Rajivadi Karanjgaon Salungan Kund Mhasar Kh. Mhasar Bk. Umbarde Shilimb Kondhari Dhamunashi Karungan Nigudaghar Chikhalavade Ashimpi Venupuri Varavand Shirgaon Panvhal Mazari Shirvali (Hirdas Maval) Abhepuri Dapakeghar Pavhar Kh. Durgadi Gudhe Rayari Kudali Bk. Kudali Kh. Nivangan Dhanivali Balawadi Korle Ambade Ravadi Varodi Bk. Ghera Sinhagad Bhagatwadi Khamgaon Mawal Mogarwadi Khireshwar Kolhewadi Kopare Jambhulshi Sanganore Mandave Ambe Gavhan Chilhewadi Muthalne Taleran Pimpalgaon Joga Ajanawale Nimgiri Devale Pargaon Tarf Madh Alu Mandarne
34
Sl No 2374 2375 2376 2377 2378 2379 2380 2381 2382 2383 2384 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 2404 2405 2406 2407 2408 2409 2410 2411 2412 2413 2414 2415 2416 2417 2418 2419 2420 2421 2422 2423 2424 2425 2426 2427 2428 2429 2430 2431 2432 2433 2434 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 2440 2441 2442 2443
TALUK JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR JUNNAR KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL
Village Name Kolwadi Ghatghar Ahinavewadi Rohkadi Godre Phagul Gavhan Pur Amboli Bhivade Bk. Uchhil Hatvij Bhivade Kh. Ambe Pimparwadi Sukalwedhe Bhorgiri Bhivegaon Karkudi Mandoshi Naiphad Tokavade Awhat Bhomale Shirgaon Wada Kharpud Virham Wandre Darakwadi Bursewadi Torne Kh Adhe Ambhu Kharawali Velhavale Palu Gadad Malegaon Bk. Sawale Pimpari Malegaon Kh. Kusur Kune Ansute Dahuli Kivale Borivali Kambare Andar Mawal Kashal Jambhavali Thoran Rakaswadi Shirdhe Kalhat --NoName--55 Udhewadi Ukasan --NoName--56 Khandashi Pale Nane Mawal Nigade Brahmanwadi Vaund Karanjgaon Kune N.m. Moramarwadi Vehergaon Kurvande Boraj Patan Dudhivare
35
Sl No 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 2451 2452 2453 2454 2455 2456 2457 2458 2459 2460 2461 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 2477 2478 2479 2480 2481 2482 2483 2484 2485 2486 2487 2488 2489 2490 2491 2492 2493 2494 2495 2496 2497 2498 2499 2500 2501 2502 2503 2504 2505 2506 2507 2508 2509 2510 2511 2512 2513
TALUK MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MAWAL MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI
Village Name Bhaje Pimpaloli Aundholi Malewadi Apati Gevhande Apati Atvan Shindgaon Kolechafesar Morave Malavandi Thule Ovale Pusane Divad Tikona Shilimb Jovan Ajivali Devghar Peth Shahapur Ambavane Visakhar Kolawali Kashig Andhale Majgaon Saltar Kumbhori Pomgaon Pimpaloli Chandivali Tail Baila Barpe Bk. Jawal Shirvali Bhambarde Kolwan Nandivali Dongargaon Padalgharwadi Hotale Ekole Adgaon Valane Ghutake Bhadas Bk. PIMPRI Tata Talav Disali Mulshi Kh. Share Vandre Kondhawale Male Maded Nive Vitthalwadi Vadgaon Chinchwad Warak Tamhini Bk Lavharde Vegre Kolavade Temghar Vede Watunde Bhode Mugaon Bhoini
36
Sl No 2514 2515 2516 2517 2518 2519 2520 2521 2522 2523 2524 2525 2526 2527 2528 2529 2530 2531 2532 2533 2534 2535 2536 2537 2538 2539 2540 2541 2542 2543 2544 2545 2546 2547 2548 2549 2550 2551 2552 2553 2554 2555 2556 2557 2558 2559 2560 2561 2562 2563 2564 2565 2566 2567 2568 2569 2570 2571 2572 2573 2574 2575 2576 2577 2578 2579 2580 2581 2582 2583
TALUK MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI MULSHI PURANDHAR PURANDHAR PURANDHAR PURANDHAR PURANDHAR PURANDHAR PURANDHAR PURANDHAR PURANDHAR VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE
Village Name Dhamanohol Dasave Kondhur Padalghar Admal Palase Koloshi Wadavali Sakhari Gadale Saiv Kh Mose Kh. Dhadawali Tav Chivhewadi PANVADI Gherapurandhar Ketkawale Bandhalwadi Kumbhoshi Dawanewadi Satalwadi Pingori Mose Bk Vadghar Dapsare Gholapghar Kambegi Balvadi Kadhve --NoName--125 Ambegaon Bk Kurtavadi Kasedi Ranjane Ghodkhal Gondekhal Givashi Ghodshet Shirkoli Ghol Thangaon Tekpole Mangaon Pole Antroli Khanu Nivi Ghisar Velhe Bk. Bopalghar Chandar Brahmanghar Khodad Velhe Bk. Ghera Bhatti Wagdra Gevhande Charhat Wadi Mohari Metpilaware Harpud Varoti Bk Kolambi Jadhavwadi Singapur Dadvadi PIMPRI Ekalgaon Barshicha Mal Pal Kh.
37
Sl No 2584 2585 2586 2587 2588 2589 2590 2591 2592 2593 2594 2595 2596 2597 2598 2599 2600 2601 2602 2603 2604 2605 2606 2607 2608 2609 2610 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 2627 2628 2629 2630 2631 2632 2633 2634 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 2651 2652 2653
DIST PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE PUNE RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH
TALUK VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE VELHE KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KARJAT KHALAPUR KHALAPUR KHALAPUR KHALAPUR KHALAPUR KHALAPUR KHALAPUR KHALAPUR KHALAPUR KHALAPUR KHALAPUR KHALAPUR
Village Name Varoti Kh. Asani Manjai Khopde Wadi Gunjavane Pasali Bhordi Majgaon Pishawi Gugulshi Kelad Nigde Kh Pangari Karnavadi Pashane Olman Chai Baliware Chevane Borgaon Nandgaon Ware Kurung Ambherpada Deopada Pathraj Sugave Gudhavan Rajape Shilar Shingdhol Dhotre Jambrung DHAMNI Peth Malegaon T. Kothal Khalati Pimpalpada Hedawali Mandawane Bamnoli Potal Bhivpuri (camp) Humgaon Jambhiwali Pali T. Kothal Khalathi Saidongar Dhak Vengaon Kushiwali Tiwane Mangaon T. Wasare Sandashi Palasdari Mugape Salpe Talawali Kharwandi Kondhane Chochi Sondewadi Warose Tarf Wankhal Matheran (M Cl) Borgaon Kh. Nadhal Kalote Mokashi Nigdoli Kalote Rayati Talavali Ghodivali Jambarung Umbarvira
38
Sl No 2654 2655 2656 2657 2658 2659 2660 2661 2662 2663 2664 2665 2666 2667 2668 2669 2670 2671 2672 2673 2674 2675 2676 2677 2678 2679 2680 2681 2682 2683 2684 2685 2686 2687 2688 2689 2690 2691 2692 2693 2694 2695 2696 2697 2698 2699 2700 2701 2702 2703 2704 2705 2706 2707 2708 2709 2710 2711 2712 2713 2714 2715 2716 2717 2718 2719 2720 2721 2722 2723
DIST RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH
TALUK KHALAPUR KHALAPUR KHALAPUR KHALAPUR KHALAPUR KHALAPUR KHALAPUR KHALAPUR KHALAPUR KHALAPUR MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD
Village Name Parkhande Talashi Adoshi Tondali Khambewadi Gohe Chavani Ujloli Karambeli Tuksai Kawale Tarf Nate Sandoshi Karmar Warangi Bavale Punade Tarf Nate Savarat Pane Gherakilla Raigad(Raigadwadi) Vagheri Kadsari Lingana Dapoli Nerav Wagholi Panderi Warandoli Khardi Walan Kh Shevate Devghar Taloshi Ketakicha Kond Chapgaon Mandle Walan Bk Adrai Ambe Shivtar Nandgaon Kh Kusgaon Waki Kh Kolose Padavi Kinjaloli Bk Solamkond Veer Kinjaloli Kh. Kasabe Shivtar Ghurupacha Kond Dongroli Parmachi Dasgaon Wahoor Taliye Kokare Tarf Govele Dabhol Gothe Kh. Sape Tarf Govele Kiye Vadghar Kh. Gothvali Bebalghar Telange Mohalla Pimpalwadi Nadgaon Tarf Tudil Ambavali Kh. Sutarkond Pimpalkond Kondmalusare Ghavre Kond Fauji Ambavade
39
Sl No 2724 2725 2726 2727 2728 2729 2730 2731 2732 2733 2734 2735 2736 2737 2738 2739 2740 2741 2742 2743 2744 2745 2746 2747 2748 2749 2750 2751 2752 2753 2754 2755 2756 2757 2758 2759 2760 2761 2762 2763 2764 2765 2766 2767 2768 2769 2770 2771 2772 2773 2774 2775 2776 2777 2778 2779 2780 2781 2782 2783 2784 2785 2786 2787 2788 2789 2790 2791 2792 2793
TALUK MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MAHAD MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON MANGAON POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR
Village Name Kawale Tarf Vinhere Pangari Ravtali Shingar Kond Vasap Vinhere Tamhane Phalakewadi Patnus Saje Bedgaon Bhagad Umbardi Tasgaon Yelwade Bhuvan Bondshet Sangi Kandalgaon Kh. Wave Diwali Jite Maluste Titave Kumbharte Borawali Sakhalewadi Shirsad Nivi Nagroli Kumbhe Manjurne Mashidwadi Jor Karambeli Palasgaon Kh. Kadapur Borghar Tarf Kharavali Gharoshi Dongroli Kavilvahal Kh. Waghose Chapadi Kumshet Manjarwane Panhalghar Kh Shilim Govele Kond Alsunde Kushede Tarf Govele --NoName--130 Harkol kond Harkol Wadpale Lakhapale Phalani Matwan Wave Dharwali Wadghar Bk. Kamthe Sade Turbhekond Turbhe Bk. Dhawale Borghar Nawale Chandale Adavale Bk. Khandaj Wazarwadi
40
Sl No 2794 2795 2796 2797 2798 2799 2800 2801 2802 2803 2804 2805 2806 2807 2808 2809 2810 2811 2812 2813 2814 2815 2816 2817 2818 2819 2820 2821 2822 2823 2824 2825 2826 2827 2828 2829 2830 2831 2832 2833 2834 2835 2836 2837 2838 2839 2840 2841 2842 2843 2844 2845 2846 2847 2848 2849 2850 2851 2852 2853 2854 2855 2856 2857 2858 2859 2860 2861 2862 2863
TALUK POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR POLADPUR ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA
Village Name Salvikond Chikhali Ranawadi Bk. Khopad Chandake Karanje Lahulase Haldule Dabhil Rankadsari Golegani Tutawali Pangaloli Parsule Mahargul Kotwal Bk. Kshetrapal Palchil Kotwal Kh. Kudpan Bk. Kudpan Kh. Kondgaon Palas Wasgaon Nagothana (CT) Kadsure Wani Patansai Chikani Bhatsai Wazaroli Wangani Sanegaon Bhise Godasai Hedawali Pale Tarf Ashtami Wavepotge Dongari Shenvai Revoli Yashwantkhar Waravade Dapoli Sukeli Dhamansai Kandale Wandoli Vitthalwadi Are Bk. Shedsai Devakanhe Madhali Kh. Pingalsai Khamb Nadawali Gherasurgad Talawali Tarf Ashtami Dhankanhe Chilhe Chinchawali Tarf Atone Malsai Mahalunge Talawali Tarf Ghosale Chandgaon Muthavali Kh Vaijnath Talavade Usar Balhe
41
Sl No 2864 2865 2866 2867 2868 2869 2870 2871 2872 2873 2874 2875 2876 2877 2878 2879 2880 2881 2882 2883 2884 2885 2886 2887 2888 2889 2890 2891 2892 2893 2894 2895 2896 2897 2898 2899 2900 2901 2902 2903 2904 2905 2906 2907 2908 2909 2910 2911 2912 2913 2914 2915 2916 2917 2918 2919 2920 2921 2922 2923 2924 2925 2926 2927 2928 2929 2930 2931 2932 2933
TALUK ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA ROHA SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD
Village Name Dolavahal Roha (Gaulwadi) Kamath Kokban Pangaloli Warathi Neharunagar Khairale Shiloshi Bhuwaneshwar Sarsali Khambere Khope --NoName--111 Kolad Sudakoli Bobadghar Khandar Temghar Tamhanshet Tambadi Karivane Kawalthe Barshet Mhasadi Sawane Wali Ghosale Kelghar Jadhavwadi KANTI Gopalwat Uchel Bhalagaon Kandane Bk. Kandane Kh. Khajaniwadi Gondav Hatond Falyan Bheliv Nere Mahagaon Wave T. Asare Mangaon Kh Vasunde Pawasalawadi Khandpoli Varhadjambhulpada Tadgaon Kavele Kumbharghar Kalamb Waghoshi Harneri Uddhar Asare Mulashi Navghar Chikhalgaon Ghera Sudhagad Bhilpada (khuravale) Tivare Pilosari Karanjghar Chive Nadsur Rasal Kumbharshet Khandsai
42
Sl No 2934 2935 2936 2937 2938 2939 2940 2941 2942 2943 2944 2945 2946 2947 2948 2949 2950 2951 2952 2953 2954 2955 2956 2957 2958 2959 2960 2961 2962 2963 2964 2965 2966 2967 2968 2969 2970 2971 2972 2973 2974 2975 2976 2977 2978 2979 2980 2981 2982 2983 2984 2985 2986 2987 2988 2989 2990 2991 2992 2993 2994 2995 2996 2997 2998 2999 3000 3001 3002 3003
DIST RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RAIGARH RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI
TALUK SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD SUDHAGAD CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN CHIPLUN KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED
Village Name Rabgaon Ghera Sarasgad Siddheshwar Bk Wavloli Zap Adulse Shiloshi Madhali Apatwane Ambivali Khad Sambale Potlaj Kh. Gondale Pimploli Usar Nagshet Gomashi Atone Koshimbale Tiware Riktoli Tivadi Bamnoli Pedhe Parshuram Kadwad Nandivase Moravane Swayamdev Khopad Ganeshpur Kalkavane Gane Owali Pedhambe Kolkewadi Adare Kamathe Kh. Terav Bk. Mundhe Tarf Chiplun Kharavate Anari Ubhale Shirgaon Kumbharli Kondmala Kond Fansavane Talsar Pophali Kudap Pophali Bk. Dervan Turambao Mundhe Tarf Savarda Dhakmoli Phurus Durgwadi Kh. Durgwadi Manjutri Talavade Pathe Majare (Goval) Kutare Tulashi Bk. Tulashi Kh. Wadgaon Bk. Shivtar Kalambani Kh. Kasaba Natu Pakharwadi Dahivali
43
Sl No 3004 3005 3006 3007 3008 3009 3010 3011 3012 3013 3014 3015 3016 3017 3018 3019 3020 3021 3022 3023 3024 3025 3026 3027 3028 3029 3030 3031 3032 3033 3034 3035 3036 3037 3038 3039 3040 3041 3042 3043 3044 3045 3046 3047 3048 3049 3050 3051 3052 3053 3054 3055 3056 3057 3058 3059 3060 3061 3062 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3068 3069 3070 3071 3072 3073
DIST RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI
TALUK KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED KHED LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA
Village Name Wadi-beldar Divan-khavati Wadgaon Kh. Kinjale Tarf Natu Biramani Kondwadi Gherapalgad Shingri Pure Kh. Jamage Ghera-sumargad Kandoshi Vihali Kinjale Tarf Khed Nandivali Kalambani Bk. Wadi Malde Poyanar Kh. Sakharoli Kh. Tise Kh. Astan Ghera-rasalgad Wadi Bid Chatao Prabhuwadi Devghar Humbari Khalachi(humbari) Sanaghar Kartel Chinchwadi Varovali Ambavali Nawanagar Kumbhad Nandgaon Sanglot Shirgaon Khopi Nive Bajrang nagar Morvande Kh. Choravane Shirgaon Kh. Mirle Shiv Kh. Talvat Khed Sapirli Talvat Javali Choravane Utekarwadi Talvat Pal Kavale Kasai Ashti Mohalla Sakhar Bhelsai budhawadi Dhamanand Bhelsai chauthai Wave chinchatwadi Dhamanand Gaonthan Kelane Javli Gaonthan Zagdewadi Kumbhavali Kuraval Gaothan Ambadas Vesurle Shirambavali Kochari Daphale
44
Sl No 3074 3075 3076 3077 3078 3079 3080 3081 3082 3083 3084 3085 3086 3087 3088 3089 3090 3091 3092 3093 3094 3095 3096 3097 3098 3099 3100 3101 3102 3103 3104 3105 3106 3107 3108 3109 3110 3111 3112 3113 3114 3115 3116 3117 3118 3119 3120 3121 3122 3123 3124 3125 3126 3127 3128 3129 3130 3131 3132 3133 3134 3135 3136 3137 3138 3139 3140 3141 3142 3143
TALUK LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA LANJA PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR
Village Name Salpe Kurchumb Machal Chafet Kangavali Veral Chinchurti Khorninko Palu Hasol Agargaon Kumbhargaon Prabhanvalli Guravwadi Khanavali Waghrat Kante --NoName--193 Buddhawadi T.veravali Bk. Majal Ramgaon Isavali Javade Bhambed Puragaon Kudewadi Bhade Ravari Hardkhale Bapere Nivoshi Kurang Waked Kondage Panore Vilavade Roon Argaon Khorgaon Borthade Harche Kondgaon Ringane Zarye Watul Yeradav Kond Dasur Parule Chikhale Kondsar Kh. Pangari Kh. Tiware Dhamanpe Haral Varchi Guravwadi Kotapur Kolwankhadi Saundal Khingini Kelavade Patharde Pachal Agarewadi Bharade Karak Hardi Gothane Doniwade Oshiwale Walwad Kajirda
45
Sl No 3144 3145 3146 3147 3148 3149 3150 3151 3152 3153 3154 3155 3156 3157 3158 3159 3160 3161 3162 3163 3164 3165 3166 3167 3168 3169 3170 3171 3172 3173 3174 3175 3176 3177 3178 3179 3180 3181 3182 3183 3184 3185 3186 3187 3188 3189 3190 3191 3192 3193 3194 3195 3196 3197 3198 3199 3200 3201 3202 3203 3204 3205 3206 3207 3208 3209 3210 3211 3212 3213
TALUK PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR PAJAPUR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR
Village Name Phupere Rajapur (M Cl) Kolamb Pahiliwadi (tamhane) Jambhavali Miland Bag Kazi Husen Hasol Tarf Saundal Pangari Bk. Savadav Hatade Dongar Mosam Mahalunge Panhale Tarf Saundal Shejavali Valye Bandiwade Prindrawan Kumbhavade Palye Kumbhar Khani Bk. Shirambe Ratambi Rajivali Shinde Amberi Vikas Nagar Asave Kase Kuchambe Kutgiri Pachambe Rangav Ambet Mavalange Tural Shenavade Kond Bhairav Masarang Katurdi Kond Nivali Golavali Shringapur Tambedi Anderi Shembavane Kumbharkhani Kh. Hedali Dhamani Dingni Nayari Pirandavane Manjare Tivare Ghera Prachitgad Asurde Maladewadi Umare Sangameshwar Upale Kond Ambed Kinjale Washi Tarf Sangameshwar Devale Ghera Prachitgad Kule Kurdhunda Phansavale Sayale Katavali Tamnale Kundi
46
Sl No 3214 3215 3216 3217 3218 3219 3220 3221 3222 3223 3224 3225 3226 3227 3228 3229 3230 3231 3232 3233 3234 3235 3236 3237 3238 3239 3240 3241 3242 3243 3244 3245 3246 3247 3248 3249 3250 3251 3252 3253 3254 3255 3256 3257 3258 3259 3260 3261 3262 3263 3264 3265 3266 3267 3268 3269 3270 3271 3272 3273 3274 3275 3276 3277 3278 3279 3280 3281 3282 3283
DIST RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI RATNAGIRI SANGLI SANGLI SANGLI SANGLI SANGLI SANGLI SANGLI SANGLI SANGLI SANGLI SANGLI SANGLI SANGLI SANGLI SANGLI SANGLI SANGLI SANGLI SANGLI SANGLI SANGLI SANGLI SANGLI SANGLI SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA
TALUK SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SANGAMESHWAR SHIRALA SHIRALA SHIRALA SHIRALA SHIRALA SHIRALA SHIRALA SHIRALA SHIRALA SHIRALA SHIRALA SHIRALA SHIRALA SHIRALA SHIRALA SHIRALA SHIRALA SHIRALA SHIRALA SHIRALA SHIRALA SHIRALA SHIRALA SHIRALA JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI
Village Name Nigudwadi Gothane Belari Bk. Belariwadi Kond Ozare Talavade Tarf Devrukh Math Dhamapur Chandivane Belari Kh. Bamnoli Sonarwadi Maral Agarewadi Karandewadi Hativ Khadi Kolvan Angavali Kondran Devghar Bondye Ozare Bk. Nivdhe Chaphavali Ninave Dakhin Murshi Bhadkambe Bhovade Kirbet Devade Wadi Adhishti --NoName--165 --NoName--166 --NoName--167 --NoName--168 --NoName--169 --NoName--170 --NoName--171 --NoName--172 --NoName--173 --NoName--174 --NoName--175 --NoName--176 --NoName--177 --NoName--178 Khundalapur Manadur (CT) --NoName--185 Gudhe Manewadi Panumbre Tarf Warun Meni Charan Shendgewadi Nathavade Bondarwadi Bhuteghar Vahite Yerne bk Valanjwadi Umbari Yerne kh Majarewadi Achali Devasare Jarewadi Kuraloshi Hateghar Soundari Sayghar
47
Sl No 3284 3285 3286 3287 3288 3289 3290 3291 3292 3293 3294 3295 3296 3297 3298 3299 3300 3301 3302 3303 3304 3305 3306 3307 3308 3309 3310 3311 3312 3313 3314 3315 3316 3317 3318 3319 3320 3321 3322 3323 3324 3325 3326 3327 3328 3329 3330 3331 3332 3333 3334 3335 3336 3337 3338 3339 3340 3341 3342 3343 3344 3345 3346 3347 3348 3349 3350 3351 3352 3353
DIST SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA
TALUK JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI
Village Name Kuroshi Dabhe mohan Bhaleghar Sonat Kalamgaon kalamkar Dabhe dabhekar Dabhe turuk Okhavadi Shirnar Lakhwad Kotroshi Bhogavali t. medha Khambil pokale Amshi Rangeghar Divdev Mamurdi Kandat Varsoli koli Galdev Khambil chorge Kharoshi Vadgare Songaon Dare bk. Renoshi Zadani Harchandi Mhate kh. Mohat Gondemal Vengale Belawade Rule Pali t. ategaon Dodani Ganje Apti Gavadhoshi Maradmure Agalavewadi Saloshi Uchat Furus Kumbhargani Awalan Morghar Mhamulkarwadi Lamaj Walne Tambi t. medha Morawale Valawan Sangvi t. medha Nivali Narfdev Parwat t. wagawale Ahire Tetli Maleshwar Malchoundi Nizare Gadhavali Dhanakwadi Akalpe Karandi t.medha Kolghar Sawari Sayali Araw
48
Sl No 3354 3355 3356 3357 3358 3359 3360 3361 3362 3363 3364 3365 3366 3367 3368 3369 3370 3371 3372 3373 3374 3375 3376 3377 3378 3379 3380 3381 3382 3383 3384 3385 3386 3387 3388 3389 3390 3391 3392 3393 3394 3395 3396 3397 3398 3399 3400 3401 3402 3403 3404 3405 3406 3407 3408 3409 3410 3411 3412 3413 3414 3415 3416 3417 3418 3419 3420 3421 3422 3423
TALUK JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI JAOLI KOREGAON KOREGAON MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR
Village Name Morni Dund Yekiv Shindi Andhari Kas Mhavshi Chakdev Pimpri t. tamb Mhalunge Ravandi Met shindi Majare shevandi Mauje shevandi Phalani Adoshi Madoshi Khirkhandi Kusapur Munawale Umbarewadi Kargaon --NoName--136 Tambi Vasota Maldev --NoName--138 --NoName--139 Deur --NoName--143 Vele --NoName--146 --NoName--147 --NoName--150 Rautwadi Gujarwadi Kshetra mahabaleshwar Jaoli Dare Avakali Nakinda Mahabaleshwar (M Cl) Ran adva gaund Kumbharoshi Metgutad Haroshi Dudhoshi Petpar Parsond Met taliye Bhekavali Kumthe Parpar Birwadi Shiravali Shindola Navali Malusar Birmani Manghar Tekavali Hatlot Dudhgaon Goroshi Parut Chikhali Yerandal Chaturbet Ghavari Dhardev
49
Sl No 3424 3425 3426 3427 3428 3429 3430 3431 3432 3433 3434 3435 3436 3437 3438 3439 3440 3441 3442 3443 3444 3445 3446 3447 3448 3449 3450 3451 3452 3453 3454 3455 3456 3457 3458 3459 3460 3461 3462 3463 3464 3465 3466 3467 3468 3469 3470 3471 3472 3473 3474 3475 3476 3477 3478 3479 3480 3481 3482 3483 3484 3485 3486 3487 3488 3489 3490 3491 3492 3493
TALUK MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN
Village Name Zanzwad Devali Vivar Ghonaspur Kalamgaon Taldev Maloshi Kusavade --NoName--149 Kushi --NoName--151 Dicholi Nivade Shirshinge Tondoshi Bharsakhale Dhokawale --NoName--152 --NoName--153 Dhoroshi Nivakane Marloshi --NoName--154 Kathi Divashi kh Punvali --NoName--156 Mandure Zadoli --NoName--157 --NoName--158 Nawaja Chafoli --NoName--159 Mendhoshi Mirgaon Ghanav --NoName--160 Vatole Torane --NoName--161 Humbarli Padloshi Ambavane --NoName--162 Ghatmatha Ker Kamargaon Dhayati Kharadwadi Gokul tarf helwak Karvat Bondri Gadhav khop Gheradategad Shivandeshwar Nanel Kemase Marul tarf patan Bopoli Rasati Thankal Baje Mastewadi Nechal Helwak Mendheghar Kondhavale Vanzole Waghane
50
Sl No 3494 3495 3496 3497 3498 3499 3500 3501 3502 3503 3504 3505 3506 3507 3508 3509 3510 3511 3512 3513 3514 3515 3516 3517 3518 3519 3520 3521 3522 3523 3524 3525 3526 3527 3528 3529 3530 3531 3532 3533 3534 3535 3536 3537 3538 3539 3540 3541 3542 3543 3544 3545 3546 3547 3548 3549 3550 3551 3552 3553 3554 3555 3556 3557 3558 3559 3560 3561 3562 3563
TALUK PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN PATAN SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA WAI WAI WAI WAI WAI WAI WAI WAI WAI WAI WAI WAI WAI
Village Name --NoName--163 Govare Chafer Kadoli Zakade Taliye Maneri Patharpunj Kolane --NoName--164 Risawad Natoshi Gothane Bahe Mala Ambrag Pachgani Atoli Kalkewadi Humbarwadi Kodal Kahir Asawalewadi Humbarne Palashi Paneri Karale Ruvale Satar Ghotil Nivi Kasani Chinchani Gogavalewadi Akale Kamathi T.satara Agudewadi Parambe Jotibachiwadi Atali Savali Bhambavali Kurulbaji Yavateshwar Pateghar Katavadi Kh Navali Kelavali Nitral Takawali Kus kh. Khadegaon Sandavali Chalkewadi Thoseghar Raighar Boposhi Jambhali Gherakelanja Yeruli Kochalewadi Khavali Abhepuri Duichivadi Chorachiwadi Kironde Jor Kondhavale Golegaon Ulumb
51
Sl No 3564 3565 3566 3567 3568 3569 3570 3571 3572 3573 3574 3575 3576 3577 3578 3579 3580 3581 3582 3583 3584 3585 3586 3587 3588 3589 3590 3591 3592 3593 3594 3595 3596 3597 3598 3599 3600 3601 3602 3603 3604 3605 3606 3607 3608 3609 3610 3611 3612 3613 3614 3615 3616 3617 3618 3619 3620 3621 3622 3623 3624 3625 3626 3627 3628 3629 3630 3631 3632 3633
DIST SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SATARA SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG
TALUK WAI WAI WAI WAI WAI DEVGAD DEVGAD DEVGAD DEVGAD DEVGAD DEVGAD DEVGAD DEVGAD DEVGAD DEVGAD DEVGAD DEVGAD DEVGAD DEVGAD DEVGAD DEVGAD DEVGAD DEVGAD DEVGAD DEVGAD DEVGAD KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KANKAVLI KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL
Village Name Balakavadi Asagaon Nandgane Paratavadi --NoName--131 Dhalavali Pombhurle Phanasgaon Welgave Waghivare Mahalunge Nad Gadhitamhane Shiravali Shevare Hadpid Nimatwadi Chafed Lingdal Salashi Sherighera Kamte Are Tambaldeg Rembavali Kuvale Khudi Waingani Sherpe Jambhalnagar Darum Dhareshwar Ozaram Nagsawantwadi Ghonsari Koloshi Phondaghat Damare Ayanal Uttar Bajar Peth Kondye Harkul Kh. Savdav Main Bharni Kumbhavade Tarandale Gandhinagar Rameshwarnagar Bhiravande Humbarane Pise Kamate Varavade Natal Dariste Digavale Shiraval Ranjangaon Kasavan Pimpalgaon Osargaon Bhairavgaon Yevteshwargaon Nardave Jambhalgaon Kalasuli Kupavade Gavalgaon Bhutvad Durganagar Bhadgaon Bk.
52
Sl No 3634 3635 3636 3637 3638 3639 3640 3641 3642 3643 3644 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 3652 3653 3654 3655 3656 3657 3658 3659 3660 3661 3662 3663 3664 3665 3666 3667 3668 3669 3670 3671 3672 3673 3674 3675 3676 3677 3678 3679 3680 3681 3682 3683 3684 3685 3686 3687 3688 3689 3690 3691 3692 3693 3694 3695 3696 3697 3698 3699 3700 3701 3702 3703
DIST SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG
TALUK KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL KUDAL SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI
Village Name Bhadgaon Kh. Sonavade Tarf Kalsuli Bharani Ghotage Nirukhe Pangrad Warde Padave Kadawal Avalegaon Kusagaon Rumadgaon Girgaon Kinlos Nerur K.Narur Hirlok Anjivade Shivapur Narur Keravade K.Narur Nileli Pandur Wasoli Chafeli Gothos Nivaje Sakirde Upavade Pulas Gandhigram Wados Walawal Amberi More Mudyacha Kond Kanduli Madgaon Kaleli Taligaon Munagi Bhattgaon Tendoli Akeri Shirshinge Amboli Gele Sawarwad Verle Sangeli Ambegaon Ovaliye Madkhol Kunkeri Parpoli Nene Kegad Devsu Masure Danoli Bhom Nirukhe Charathe Kesari Chaukul Fansavade Kariwade Bavlat Sawantwadi (M Cl) Brahmanpat Sarmale
53
Sl No 3704 3705 3706 3707 3708 3709 3710 3711 3712 3713 3714 3715 3716 3717 3718 3719 3720 3721 3722 3723 3724 3725 3726 3727 3728 3729 3730 3731 3732 3733 3734 3735 3736 3737 3738 3739 3740 3741 3742 3743 3744 3745 3746 3747 3748 3749 3750 3751 3752 3753 3754 3755 3756 3757 3758 3759 3760 3761 3762 3763 3764 3765 3766 3767 3768 3769 3770 3771 3772 3773
DIST SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG SINDHUDURG THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE
TALUK SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI SAWANTWADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI VAIBHAVVADI JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR
Village Name Dabhil Udeli Konas Gharap Majgaon Asniye Tamboli Kumbhavade Degave Banda Padve Majgaon Ronapal Padve Dandeli Madura Dingne Aros Galel Kondure Satarda Dongarpal Gulduve Sateli Tarf Satarda Tiravade Tarf Soundal Nerle Palandewadi Jambhavade Akhavane Mandavkarwadi Upale Mounde Bhom Ainari Bhui Bawada Tiravade Tarf Kharepatan Kumbharwadi Ringewadi Madhaliwadi Kumbhari Bhattiwadi Kumbhavade Pimpalwadi Bhuyadewadi Yedgaon Karul Narkarwadi Navale Vayamboshi Sangulwadi Vabhave Nim Arule Mohitewadi Tembewadi Sadure Shirale Achirne Kurli Bopdari Vavar Dahul Dadhari Ozar Vangani Kharonda Hateri Morchachapada Tilonde Palshin Kogade Alyachimet
54
Sl No 3774 3775 3776 3777 3778 3779 3780 3781 3782 3783 3784 3785 3786 3787 3788 3789 3790 3791 3792 3793 3794 3795 3796 3797 3798 3799 3800 3801 3802 3803 3804 3805 3806 3807 3808 3809 3810 3811 3812 3813 3814 3815 3816 3817 3818 3819 3820 3821 3822 3823 3824 3825 3826 3827 3828 3829 3830 3831 3832 3833 3834 3835 3836 3837 3838 3839 3840 3841 3842 3843
DIST THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE
TALUK JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR JAWHAR MOKHADA MOKHADA MOKHADA MOKHADA MOKHADA MOKHADA MOKHADA MOKHADA MOKHADA MOKHADA MOKHADA MOKHADA MOKHADA MOKHADA MOKHADA MOKHADA MOKHADA MOKHADA MOKHADA MOKHADA MOKHADA MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD
Village Name Akare Hade Garadwadi Kardhan Juni Jawhar Dengachimet Kaulale Kadachimet Dongarwadi Nandgaon Chauk Zap Aine Manmohadi Medhe Khidse Ase Dhamani Dandwal Khoch Dhondmaryachimet Dolhare Sayade Kurlod Nashera Botoshi Kevanale Gomghar Suryamal Pachaghar Vashind Wakadpada Kiniste Amale Kochale Kashti Sawarde Alawe Talegaon Merdi Shiroshi Fangaloshi Walhivale Kochare Bk. Thitabi Tarf Vaishakhare Nyahadi Diwanpada Fangane Moroshi Sawarne Udaldon Karavale Vaishakhare Sajgaon Pimpalgaon Asose Khutal Bangla Ambele Kh. Inde Hireghar Nandgaon Pendhari Eklahare Mangaon Vidhyanagar Tembhare Bk. Sonavale Sajai Madh Padale
55
Sl No 3844 3845 3846 3847 3848 3849 3850 3851 3852 3853 3854 3855 3856 3857 3858 3859 3860 3861 3862 3863 3864 3865 3866 3867 3868 3869 3870 3871 3872 3873 3874 3875 3876 3877 3878 3879 3880 3881 3882 3883 3884 3885 3886 3887 3888 3889 3890 3891 3892 3893 3894 3895 3896 3897 3898 3899 3900 3901 3902 3903 3904 3905 3906 3907 3908 3909 3910 3911 3912 3913
TALUK MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD MURBAD SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR
Village Name Kheware Ghorale Koloshi Vidhe Shiravali Kalambhe Kalambad Mu Kole Umbroli Kh. Dudhanoli Khopivali Rao Ganeshpur Dehari Uchale --NoName--43 Sidhgad Mohaghar Khanivare Kachakoli Mohghar Jambhurde Dongar Nhave Patgaon Vihigaon Dapur Tembhe Ajnup Belwad Dand Umbravane Ambivali Dahigaon Fugale Palshin Vashala Bk Vaveghar Vashala Kh Kothale Veluk Jarandi Ghanepada Khardi Aghai Dhakane Kalbhonde Vaghivali Umbarkhand Patol Pingalwadi Kalamgaon Kashti Hinglud Lahe Palheri Nevare Julawani Roadvahal Pendhari Nandgaon Mohili Chondhe Kh. Tanasa Kothare Taharpur Bhavse Vehlonde Jambhulwad Kanvinde Chondhe Bk.
56
Sl No 3914 3915 3916 3917 3918 3919 3920 3921 3922 3923 3924 3925 3926 3927 3928 3929 3930 3931 3932 3933 3934 3935 3936 3937 3938 3939 3940 3941 3942 3943 3944 3945 3946 3947 3948 3949 3950 3951 3952 3953 3954 3955 3956 3957 3958 3959 3960 3961 3962 3963 3964 3965 3966 3967 3968 3969 3970 3971 3972 3973 3974 3975 3976 3977 3978 3979 3980 3981 3982 3983
TALUK SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR SHAHAPUR VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA
Village Name Vedvahal Gandulwad Savaroli Kh. Sakharoli Khoste Atgaon Sajivali Sakurli Khor --NoName--36 Savaroli Bk. Dehene Piwali Mahuli Saralambe Khutadi Pundhe Chandroti Mamnoli Kharade --NoName--38 Vandre BHINAR Lingayate Awale Gunde Katbao Adivali Ambekhor Dahagaon Asangaon MALEGAON Narayangaon Lavale Khativali Kudshet Borsheti Kh Bedisgaon Pashane Umbhrai Lenad Bk. Sane Ambivali Kharivali Palsoli Bhagdal Akhada Virhe Ujjaini Pinjal Dabhon Pachghar Satronde Shilottar Pik Mandava Khodade Ogada Parali Dahivali Kumbhiste Amgaon Kumdal Ambhai Tilmal KARANJPADA Devali Kolim Sarovar Posheri Shele Guhir
57
Sl No 3984 3985 3986 3987 3988 3989 3990 3991 3992 3993 3994 3995 3996 3997 3998 3999 4000 4001 4002 4003 4004 4005 4006 4007 4008 4009 4010 4011 4012 4013 4014 4015 4016 4017 4018 4019 4020 4021 4022 4023 4024 4025 4026 4027 4028 4029 4030 4031 4032 4033 4034 4035 4036 4037 4038 4039 4040 4041 4042 4043 4044 4045 4046 4047 4048 4049 4050 4051 4052 4053
STATE Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu
DIST THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE THANE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE COIMBATORE DINDIGUL DINDIGUL
TALUK VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA VADA COIMBATORE NORTH COIMBATORE NORTH COIMBATORE NORTH COIMBATORE NORTH COIMBATORE SOUTH COIMBATORE SOUTH METTUPALAYAM METTUPALAYAM METTUPALAYAM METTUPALAYAM METTUPALAYAM METTUPALAYAM METTUPALAYAM METTUPALAYAM METTUPALAYAM METTUPALAYAM UDUMALAIPETTAI UDUMALAIPETTAI UDUMALAIPETTAI UDUMALAIPETTAI UDUMALAIPETTAI UDUMALAIPETTAI UDUMALAIPETTAI VALPARAI VALPARAI VALPARAI VALPARAI VALPARAI VALPARAI VALPARAI DINDIGUL DINDIGUL
Village Name Harosale Kanchad Dhapad Vaghote Dhadhare Balivali Galtare Vaveghar Nane Sange Kalambhe Sonale Kh. Nishet Pimparoli Moj Bilghar Tuse Varai Bk. Sonale Bk. Varai Kh. Avandhe Chikhale Savarkhand Asnas Abitghar Gaurapur Goleghar Kalambhai Devghar Devgaon Ambarbhui Budhavali Bilavali Kati Gunj Khaire Ambivali Varnol Dongaste Thadagam R.F. Anaikatti (North) Anaikatti (South) Veerapandi Boluvampatti (Block I) Booluvampatti(BlockII) Odanthurai R.F. Jaganarai Slopes R.F. Kallar R.F. Hulical Drug R.F. Pillur Slope R.F. Nellithurai and Sundapatti R.F Kandiyur R.F. Nilgiri Eastern Slope R.F. Melur Slope R.F. Anaikatti North R.F. Anamalai R.F. Anamalai R.F. --NoName--1201 Amaravathi R.F. Kudiraiar & Kukkal R.F. --NoName--1212 Manjampatti R.F. --NoName--1183 Valparai (TP) --NoName--1194 Valparai (TP) --NoName--1199 Valparai (TP) Valparai (TP) Kannivadi (TP) Adalur
58
Sl No 4054 4055 4056 4057 4058 4059 4060 4061 4062 4063 4064 4065 4066 4067 4068 4069 4070 4071 4072 4073 4074 4075 4076 4077 4078 4079 4080 4081 4082 4083 4084 4085 4086 4087 4088 4089 4090 4091 4092 4093 4094 4095 4096 4097 4098 4099 4100 4101 4102 4103 4104 4105 4106 4107 4108 4109 4110 4111 4112 4113 4114 4115 4116 4117 4118 4119 4120 4121 4122 4123
STATE Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu
DIST DINDIGUL DINDIGUL DINDIGUL DINDIGUL DINDIGUL DINDIGUL DINDIGUL DINDIGUL DINDIGUL DINDIGUL DINDIGUL DINDIGUL DINDIGUL KANNIYAKUMARI KANNIYAKUMARI KANNIYAKUMARI KANNIYAKUMARI KANNIYAKUMARI KANNIYAKUMARI KANNIYAKUMARI KANNIYAKUMARI KANNIYAKUMARI KANNIYAKUMARI KANNIYAKUMARI KANNIYAKUMARI KANNIYAKUMARI KANNIYAKUMARI KANNIYAKUMARI KANNIYAKUMARI KANNIYAKUMARI KANNIYAKUMARI KANNIYAKUMARI KANNIYAKUMARI THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THE NILGIRIS THENI THENI THENI THENI THENI THENI THENI THENI THENI THENI THENI TIRUNELVELI
TALUK DINDIGUL DINDIGUL DINDIGUL KODAIKANAL KODAIKANAL KODAIKANAL KODAIKANAL KODAIKANAL KODAIKANAL KODAIKANAL KODAIKANAL KODAIKANAL ODDANCHATRAM AGASTHEESWARAM KALKULAM KALKULAM KALKULAM KALKULAM THOVALA THOVALA THOVALA THOVALA THOVALA THOVALA THOVALA THOVALA THOVALA THOVALA THOVALA THOVALA THOVALA THOVALA VILAVANCODE COONOOR COONOOR GUDALUR GUDALUR GUDALUR GUDALUR GUDALUR KOTAGIRI KOTAGIRI KOTAGIRI KOTAGIRI KOTAGIRI KOTAGIRI KOTAGIRI KUNDAH KUNDAH KUNDAH KUNDAH KUNDAH PANTHALUR UDHAGAMANDALAM UDHAGAMANDALAM UDHAGAMANDALAM UDHAGAMANDALAM UDHAGAMANDALAM ANDIPATTI BODINAYAKANUR BODINAYAKANUR BODINAYAKANUR UTHAMAPALAYAM UTHAMAPALAYAM UTHAMAPALAYAM UTHAMAPALAYAM UTHAMAPALAYAM UTHAMAPALAYAM UTHAMAPALAYAM AMBASAMUDRAM
Village Name --NoName--1207 Erukkalmalai R.F. Sirumalai Pachalur Vadagounchi Periyur Kilakkuchettipatti Kookkal Thandigudi Kamanur Adukkam Vellagavi Vadagadu Thekkumalai RF.(West and East) Veerapuli R.F. Veerapuli Extn. (Old Kulasekarapuram) --NoName--1414 Velimalai Forest Veerapuli R.F. Asambu R.F. Poigaimalai R.F. Azhagiapandiapuram (TP) --NoName--1420 --NoName--1421 --NoName--1423 Velimalai R.F. Thadagamalai R.F. Chiramadam Aralvaimozhi (TP) --NoName--1443 Thekkumalai West Thekkumalai East Kilamalai R.F. Burliyar Coonoor Mudumalai Nellakotta Srimadurai Gudalur (TP) O' Valley (TP) Nilgiri Eastern Slopes Nandipuram Aracode --NoName--1142 Kadinamala Kengarai Jackanarai Mulligoor Kilkunda (TP) Melkundah Kinnakkorai Kilkunda (TP) --NoName--1140 --NoName--1139 Ebbanad Kukkal Sholur (TP) Naduvattam (TP) --NoName--1262 Ahamalai Bodi Hill North Kottagudi Erasakkanayackanur Hills Suruli RF . Koothanatchiyar RF --NoName--1271 Vannathiparai RF Pandarathurai RF Melagudalur RF Papanasam R.F.
59
Sl No 4124 4125 4126 4127 4128 4129 4130 4131 4132 4133 4134 4135 4136 4137 4138 4139 4140 4141 4142 4143 4144 4145 4146 4147 4148 4149 4150 4151 4152 4153 4154 4155 4156
STATE Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu
DIST TIRUNELVELI TIRUNELVELI TIRUNELVELI TIRUNELVELI TIRUNELVELI TIRUNELVELI TIRUNELVELI TIRUNELVELI TIRUNELVELI TIRUNELVELI TIRUNELVELI TIRUNELVELI TIRUNELVELI TIRUNELVELI TIRUNELVELI TIRUNELVELI TIRUNELVELI VIRUDHUNAGAR VIRUDHUNAGAR VIRUDHUNAGAR VIRUDHUNAGAR VIRUDHUNAGAR VIRUDHUNAGAR VIRUDHUNAGAR VIRUDHUNAGAR VIRUDHUNAGAR VIRUDHUNAGAR VIRUDHUNAGAR VIRUDHUNAGAR VIRUDHUNAGAR VIRUDHUNAGAR VIRUDHUNAGAR VIRUDHUNAGAR
TALUK AMBASAMUDRAM AMBASAMUDRAM AMBASAMUDRAM AMBASAMUDRAM NANGUNERI NANGUNERI SHENKOTTAI SHENKOTTAI SHENKOTTAI SHENKOTTAI SHENKOTTAI SIVAGIRI TENKASI TENKASI TENKASI TENKASI TENKASI RAJAPALAYAM RAJAPALAYAM RAJAPALAYAM RAJAPALAYAM RAJAPALAYAM SRIVILLIPUTHUR SRIVILLIPUTHUR SRIVILLIPUTHUR SRIVILLIPUTHUR SRIVILLIPUTHUR SRIVILLIPUTHUR SRIVILLIPUTHUR SRIVILLIPUTHUR SRIVILLIPUTHUR SRIVILLIPUTHUR SRIVILLIPUTHUR
Village Name Dharmapuramatam Singampatti Zamindar Forest --NoName--1379 Therku Viravanallur R.F. Kalakadu(R.F) Vadagarai --NoName--1350 Puliyarai R.F (Part) --NoName--1353 Achampudur (TP) Puliyarai R.F.(Part) Sivagiri Reserve Forest Krishnapuram R.F. Vairavankulam R.F. Kadayanallur Upper Slopes --NoName--1354 Courtallam Slopes R.F. --NoName--1281 Sappaniparambu (R.F) Kollankondan R.F. Kothankulam RF Settur RF Khansabpuram (Unnipath RF) --NoName--1275 Khansabpuram(Khansapuram RF) Pudupatti R.F Sundarapandiyam(R.F) Srivilliputtur R.F. --NoName--1277 Venkateswarapuram R.F. Pillaiyarnatham R.F. --NoName--1279 Valaikkulam R.F.
60
Annexure 1
evolution, the UNESCO included parts of Western Ghats in the UNESCO World Natural Heritage List. The Western Ghats are not only home to the rich biodiversity, but also include areas of high human population density. In the past, major transformations of the landscape have affected the habitat integrity of the Western Ghats. In recent decades the Government has taken serious measures to conserve the fast declining biological diversity with the establishment of Protected Area network, tiger reserves and biosphere reserves. More recently a significant new initiative has been added to the conservation efforts in the form Ecologically Sensitive Areas. These areas are not just about regulation of development but are also intimately linked to positive promotion of environment-friendly and socially inclusive development. Keeping this in view the Ministry of Environment & Forests had constituted the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) under the Chairmanship of Prof Madhav Gadgil on 4th March 2010 to, inter alia, (i) demarcate ecologically sensitive areas in Western Ghats, (ii) recommend measures for management of these ecologically sensitive areas, (iii) recommend measures for preservation, conservation and rejuvenation of this environmentally sensitive and ecologically significant region and (iv) recommend modalities for the establishment Western Ghats Ecology Authority under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The tenure of the Panel expired on 31st August 2011 and the Panel has since submitted its report to the Ministry. The Western Ghats have complex interstate character and the recommendations of WGEEP involve demarcation of Ecologically sensitive zones and zonal regulation of important sectors of activity such as agriculture, land use, mining, industry, tourism, water resources, power, roads and railways. Therefore, the Ministry sought comments/views of the concerned six State Governments and eleven Central Ministries on the report. Further, the Ministry also made the report available in public domain for seeking comments/views from all concerned stakeholders on the report on 23 rd May 2012 within a period of 45 days. The Ministry has since received comments/views from some of the concerned State Governments and Central Ministries and also from a large number of stakeholders. In order to examine the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel Report in a holistic and multidisciplinary fashion keeping in view the comments received from the concerned State Governments/Central Ministries/Stakeholders and other related important aspects such as preservation of precious biodiversity, needs and aspirations of the local and indigenous people, sustainable development and environmental integrity of the region, climate change and constitutional implications of centre-state relations, the Ministry constitutes a High Level Working Group with the following composition and Terms of Reference:
S.No. 1 2
4 5
Name of Expert Dr. K. Kasturirangan Member (Science), Planning Commission, New Delhi Professor C.R. Babu Professor Emeritus, University of Delhi & Ex Pro-Vice Chancellor, University of Delhi, Delhi Shri J.M. Mauskar Ex-Special Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India, New Delhi Professor Kanchan Chopra Ex-Director, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi Dr. Jagdish Kishwan In his personal capacity and posted at present as Additional Director General of Forests (Wildlife) Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India, New Delhi Shri Darshan Shankar Chairman, Institute of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine, Bengaluru Ms. Sunita Narain Director General Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi Dr. P.S. Roy Director Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun Shri Ajay Tyagi, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India, New Delhi
Status Chairman Member
Member
Member Member
Member
Member
Member
Member Convenor
Special Invitee Dr. Indrani Chandrasekhran, Advisor (E&F) Planning Commission, New Delhi 1. Terms of Reference I. To examine the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel Report in a holistic and multidisciplinary fashion in the light of the comments received from the concerned State Governments/Central Ministries/Stakeholders considering the following important aspects: a) the imperatives of equitable economic and social growth of the region in the most sustainable manner with special attention and importance to the preservation of the precious biodiversity, wildlife, flora and fauna of the Western Ghats and to prevent further degradation of the same; the rights, needs and development aspirations of local and indigenous people, tribals, forest dwellers and the most disadvantaged sections of the local community recognizing
b)
Annexure 2 MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING HELD ON 28.8.12 IN NEW DELHI OF THE HIGH LEVEL WORKING GROUP TO STUDY THE PRESERVATION OF THE ECOLOGY, ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY AND HOLISTIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTERN GHATS IN VIEW OF THEIR RICH AND UNIQUE BIODIVERSITY
1.
List of participants is annexed. Leave of absence was given to Shri
J.M. Mauskar, who could not attend the meeting on account of other pressing engagements.
2.
At the outset, Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Chairman of the High Level
Working Group (HLWG) welcomed all the Members of the Group. In the opening remarks, he apprised the Members about the background for setting up the HLWG. He informed that HLWG was constituted on 17th August,
2012 with the main objective of examining the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) Report in a holistic and multidisciplinary fashion in the light of comments received from the concerned State
Governments/Central Ministries/Stakeholders.
Drawing attention of the
Members to the Terms of Reference of the HLWG, he stated that the Group has been asked to recommend further course of action to the Government with respect to WGEEP. The Chairman stated that while the Group will
have consultations with various stakeholders as per the Terms of Reference, attempt shall be made to not to repeat the process already followed by WGEEP. The task of this Group should be seen as a continuum,
acknowledging the richness and value of the WGEEP report and enabling the understanding and implementation of its recommendations.
3.
Thereafter, the Chairman requested Dr. G.V. Subramaniam, Advisor,
MoEF and Ex-Member Secretary of WGEEP, to make a brief presentation
on the recommendations of the WGEEP report and the comments received thereupon from different stakeholders.
4.
Dr. Subramaniam in his presentation highlighted the main features of
the report and brought out the recommendations relating to:
i. Demarcation and delimitation of Western Ghats ii. Demarcation of ecologically sensitive zones in Western Ghats, iii. Development of broad sectoral guidelines for the ecologically sensitive zones, iv. Measures for management of these ecologically sensitive zones, including recommended modalities for the establishment of Western Ghats Ecology Authority under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. v. Gundia Hydroelectric Power Project, Karnataka , Athirapally Hydroelectric Power Project, Kerala, Iron ore mining in Goa and Industrial projects and iron ore mining in Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts of Maharashtra.
He also briefly presented the comments received from the State Governments (Maharashtra, Kerala, Goa and Gujarat) and Central Ministries (Power, Steel, Agriculture, Urban Development and
Commerce & Industry), bringing out their concerns. As regards the comments of other stakeholders he stated that MoEF had received about 700 emails and about 500 comments through post. The same are being compiled.
5.
The Group felt that WGEEP report is a comprehensive report on the
ecology and environmental aspects of Western Ghats and has been finalized
after wide consultations with various stakeholders. The report should be examined in the light of aspirations of the States and the local people of the Western Ghats with a view to balancing the needs of ecological preservation, rural livelihood and biodiversity conservation vis--vis economic development of the region. Defining the Western Ghats area in an objective and clear manner is critical for policy making, planning, management and implementation for regional plans and programmes in the region. There is a need for more clarity on the criteria for categorizations of ecological sensitive zones vis--vis protected areas. The recommended demarcated area and the suggested degree of protection to be granted to various ESZs need to be closely examined with respect to the ground realities and the comments of various stakeholders.
6.
Thereafter, the Group deliberated at length on the way forward and
the methodology to be followed for firming up its report. The gist of the discussion held and decisions taken in respect of the way forward and methodology to be adopted by HLWG is as follows: I. Consultations with six State Governments Before having meetings with individual State Governments, it would be useful to obtain their specific comments on the following points:
1. The recommendations of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP), could be categorized as (i) State specific
recommendations; and (ii) Recommendations applicable to all States in the Western Ghats area. Under each of these categories, the States may further categorize the recommendations into following categories and give their comments:
(a) The recommendations which are acceptable to the State Government. (b) The recommendations which are acceptable with modifications along with suggested modifications and reasons for
suggesting the modifications. (c) The recommendations which are not at all acceptable, along with detailed reasons for not finding them acceptable.
2. What are the existing legislative and regulatory measures taken by the State Government, as also the status of existing institutions in the State relating to ecology and environment preservation, and:
(a) Whether they are adequate to deal with the issues brought out in WGEEP report? (b) Do they need improvement / strengthening ? What are State Governments suggestions in this regard? 3. What are State Governments views on the adequacy of the existing Central Government legislations and regulatory systems relating to ecology and environment in the context of the issues brought out in the WGEEP report? State Governments views on the need for their improvement / strengthening.
4. What is the implication of UNESCO heritage site recognition of some part of the Western Ghats as also of international commitments relating to biodiversity and other environment related areas? 5. State Governments comprehensive analysis on economic
implications of implementing the recommendations of WGEEP.
Such an analysis may take into account all the pros and cons of implementing the recommendations. 6. Does the State Government have any regional planning process which takes into account the ecology and environment preservation of Western Ghats while considering the developmental and livelihood issues in planning? How can the recommendations of WGEEP help in improving this planning process? It was decided that the Chairman may write to the Chief Secretaries of all these States asking them to send their comments within 10 days.
II. Consultations with Central Government Ministries and MoEF 1. It was decided that the Chairman may write to the Secretaries of eleven Central Government Ministries, i.e., Power, Steel,
Agriculture, Commerce & Industry, Urban Development, Railways, Rural Development (Department of Land
Resources), Tribal Affairs, Tourism, Mines & Surface Transport and seek their comments on the recommendations of the WGEEP within 10 days.
2. The following Divisions of MoEF may make presentation before the HLWG: i. Climate Change Division on the effects and challenges of climate change in the ecologically significant Western Ghats region. ii. Impact Assessment Division on the existing practices of impact assessment particularly for hydro power projects and mining activities in Western Ghats region; need for
cumulative impact assessment and strengthening of monitoring mechanisms. iii. Forest Conservation Division on the issue of status of clearances accorded / pending for the projects in the region. iv. Forest Policy Division on the livelihood issues of the indigenous people, tribals and forest dwellers residing in the area. v. Wildlife Division on the issues of eco-tourism and buffer zone development vi. Division dealing with CRZ issues on efficacy of the existing regulatory structure vii. Research and Education Division on the functioning of High Level Monitoring Committees (HLMCs) in charge of eco-sensitive zones.
The dates for these presentations would be conveyed in due course.
3. The concerned division of Planning Commission may make a presentation on the existing scheme of Planning Commission on Western Ghats development. The date for this presentation would be conveyed in due course.
4. MoEFs comments may also be obtained on the following with 10 days :
i.
Adequacy of the existing Central regulatory framework to deal with the issues raised in the WGEEP report and the need, if any, to bring in amendments/ modifications
ii.
Adequacy of existing institutions / institutional mechanism including those on bio-diversity and the need to bring in improvements / strengthening of the same.
iii.
What is the implication of UNESCO heritage site recognition of some part of the Western Ghats as also of international commitments relating to biodiversity and other environment related areas.
5. With a view to having a better understanding of regional planning process and coordination of inter-State relations, the Secretaries of the North-East Council and Inter-State Council may be invited to make presentations before the HLWG.
III.
Consultations with other stakeholders
1. HLWG observed that WGEEP has had extensive consultations with various stakeholders in respect of ecology and environment preservation issues and that HLWG should not attempt to repeat what has already been done by WGEEP. The WGEEP had 40 interactions with the stakeholders. Further, MoEF received about 1200 comments through emails / posts on WGEEP report. All these should be properly categorized and summarized by MoEF and presented before the HLWG so that there could be a proper appreciation of the consultations held so far with various stakeholders. This categorization and summarization may be done
within ten days. During the discussions, it was realized that there would be a need to have further consultations with stakeholders on socio-economic issues, especially those relating to use of biodiversity and forests. It was decided that the Members may
identify such groups / institutions / NGOs, etc., who are working on the socio-economic aspects of ecology, environment and forestry in the Western Ghats region and such groups / institutions / NGOs could then be invited for having interaction with HLWG. This suggested methodology of interacting with the stakeholders may be brought out clearly in a transparent manner on the website of HLWG (to be created) so as to clarify the position to all concerned.
2. It was decided that HLWG may have a meeting with the ExChairman and Ex-Members of WGEEP.
IV.
Technical and Legal inputs
1. It was decided to invite / hire appropriate institutions / individuals to give inputs on the following technical matters:
(i)
River valley / hydro power projects, existing and proposed, in Western Ghats need for cumulative impact assessment studies and hydrological analysis.
(ii)
Wind power projects, existing and proposed, in Western Ghats impact assessment
(iii)
Mining of minerals including riverbed mining impact assessment issues
(iv)
Mapping and zonation methodology adopted by WGEEP. It was decided that this study could be handled by Dr. P.S. Roy, Member, HLWG with the help of ISRO. This study may
further include the issues like inclusion of ecological zoning in regional planning; mapping of other thematic layers, e.g. settlements, industries, mining, agriculture, etc., over ecological zoning; developing satellite based monitoring mechanisms and suggesting an appropriate inter-state mechanism in the Western Ghats region which could provide assistance on monitoring, modeling and decision support system based on remote sensing technology. It was decided that the Chairman may write to Chairman, ISRO, seeking their support for this purpose 2. As regards the need to have a legal consultant or to have consultations on other matters, appropriate view would be taken later. V. Field visit
1. Goa has developed an innovative regional planning process which takes into account the eco-sensitive zones. With a view to having a better understanding of the local planning process and also to understand the issues relating to mining in Goa, it was decided that HLWG may visit Goa. The visit could be for two days one day for the meeting with the State Government officials and the second day for visiting mining areas and other sites. It was decided that tentatively this visit could be on 20th 21st September, 2012.
2. As regards the visit to other States, appropriate view would be taken in due course.
It was decided that Member Convener of HLWG will attempt to draft appropriate timelines for above activities with the aim to meet the deadline of 17th October, 2012 for submitting the report to the Government.
7.
The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to and from the Chair.
*******
ANNEXURE Meeting of the High Level Working Group (HLWG) held on 28-08-2012 List of Members / Special invitees present:
1. Dr. K. Kasturirangan 2. Ms. Sunita Narain, Centre for Science & Environment 3. Shri Jagdish Kiswan, ADG(WL), Ministry of Environment 4. Prof. Darshan Shankar, FRLHT 5. Prof. C.R. Babu, University of Delhi 6. Prof. P.S.Roy, IIRS, Dehradun 7. Ms. Kanchan Chopra , Former Director (IEG) 8. Shri Ajay Tyagi, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment 9. Dr. Ranjan Chatterji, Consultant, Planning Commission 10. Dr. Indrani Chandrasekheran , Advisor, Ministry of Planning Commission
In Chair Member Member
Member Member Member Member
Member Convener Special Invitee
Special Invitee
MINUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING HELD ON 18.9.12 IN NEW DELHI OF THE HIGH LEVEL WORKING GROUP TO STUDY THE PRESERVATION OF THE ECOLOGY, ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY AND HOLISTIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTERN GHATS IN VIEW OF THEIR RICH AND UNIQUE BIODIVERSITY
List of participants is annexed. Leave of absence was given to Shri Darshan Shankar, who could not attend the meeting on account of other pressing engagements.
At the outset, Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Chairman of the High Level Working Group (HLWG) welcomed all the Members of the Group. In the opening remarks, Dr.
Kasturirangan highlighted the need for arriving at time-bound targets after focussed discussions on the agenda items. Item 2: Confirmation of the minutes of the 1st meeting of the HLWG
Minutes of the first meeting of HLWG were confirmed.
Item 3:
Action taken on the minutes of the previous meeting.
The Chairman, requested Shri Ajay Tyagi, Joint Secretary and Member Convenor, HLWG to inform the members about the follow-up actions following the first meeting of HLWG. Shri Ajay Tyagi informed that the item-wise Action Taken Report has been circulated to the members along with the agenda papers (Annexure 1). Shri Tyagi explained the item-wise actions taken. He informed the members the status of responses received from the concerned State Government and Central Ministries including the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
With reference to the presentations which are to be made to the HLWG by the relevant Divisions of the Ministry and the concerned Division of the Planning Commission handling the Western Ghats Development programme it was decided that both these presentations would be taken up in the third meeting of the HLWG. It was also decided that Secretaries of North-East Council and Inter-State Council would be called for presentation by the HLWG after the consultation of HLWG with State Governments.
Shri Ajay Tyagi also informed the Working Group that the comments received from the stakeholders both by post and email have been segregated, and the copies of detailed comments received from stakeholders covering various sectors have been provided to the members for their perusal. The HLWG decided that the comments may also categorized in a sector-wise fashion, and their summary be given to the members of HLWG.
Item 4:
Identification and Clustering of work elements for HLWG Report
Item 4.1. Zonation Criteria - (i) Disturbance factor, (ii) Extent of spread of endemic elements, (iii) Watershed Item 4.2. Zonation - PA, ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3
The Chairman requested Professor CR Babu to provide his views on the abovementioned items. Professor Babu opined that there is a need for rationalization of the Report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. The following issues were discussed and elaborated upon: (i) existence of a gap between the aspirations of conservationists and sustainable developmental needs of people; (ii) the zonation methodology is largely based on biodiversity values, with limited information on a few taxa, lack of clarity on the distribution of endemics, rarity of species, resilience and relationships of altitude and slope with biodiversity values; (iii) the methodology has not factored in disturbance regime, watersheds, livelihoods of people and their socio-economic needs; and (iv) inadequate focus on the sustainable development approach for natural resource conservation.
The Chairman also requested Dr. P.S. Roy to present the mapping exercise undertaken by the ISRO with respect to Western Ghats. Dr. P.S. Roy presented the outputs generated by ISRO for mapping of endemic species and the cultural landscape.
This was followed by detailed discussion on the zonation criteria and the zonation methodology. It was felt that the 9 km x 9 km resolution used by the WGEEP is coarse resolution and has not been able to pick up the cultural landscape. After detailed deliberations, it was decided that Professor C.R. Babu and Dr. P.S. Roy would prepare a
note on the zonation criteria and zonation methodology after addressing the concerns of the members which include use of finer resolution of maps, integration of cultural landscapes including mapping of human settlements and disturbance factors, extent and spread of endemic elements and watershed boundaries.
This note would also provide detailed requirements for generation of outputs using the modified zonation criteria and methodology for specific areas in Western Ghats as a pilot study, for each state one area or an example of applying the methodology. The modified zonation criteria and methodology would inter alia include mapping of human settlements and disturbance factors, extent and spread of endemic elements and watershed boundaries. The note would also provide the methodology for development of a GIS based decision support system. This note would be prepared within 15 days. The datasets available with ISRO would be used to implement the methodology. The Group felt that there should be a focus on the zonation criteria, development features within the zone and administrative mechanism for the management of ecosensitive zones.
Item 4.3. Institutional Mechanism for monitoring, undertaking carrying capacity studies and Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment of development projects
The need for an institutional mechanism for effective monitoring was recognized by the Working Group. The Chairman requested Dr. P.S. Roy to develop a proposal on institutional mechanism which would act as a central repository of data, act as a networking centre and utilize technology to the fullest for undertaking monitoring, carrying capacity and cumulative environmental impact assessment studies of development project studies relevant to the Western Ghats.
Item 4.4. Examination of Issues relating to Conservation of natural resources across Western Ghats- activities, projects referred; (a) Athirappily Hydel Project, (b) Gundia Hydel Project,(c) Mining, power production and polluting industries in Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg projects, (d) Mining in Goa Professor CR Babu summarized the salient issues related to abovementioned projects. After detailed discussion, it was decided that these issues would be dealt with in greater detail after consultations with concerned State Governments.
Item 4.5. Centre - State relations with respect to environmental regulations regulatory authorities and resource utilization.
It was decided that Professor Kanchan Chopra and Ms. Sunita Narain would jointly develop a concept note on 'Development in the Western Ghats states with a focus on centre-state relations etc.' in 10 days. Item 4.6. Recommendations / Guidelines -(i) Sectoral, (ii) Western Ghats Applicable across
It was decided that the members of HLWG would give their item-wise specific comments on the sectoral guidelines given in Table 6 of WGEEP report to the Member Convenor. Item 5. Discussion on proposed Goa Visit on 26th 27th September, 2012
It was decided that the trip to Goa may be postponed to a later date, and on the same dates, HLWG may visit Karnataka i.e. on 26th and 27th September 2012. Accordingly, it was felt that an official communication may be sent to Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka.
Item 6. Approval of draft note on consultation process with stakeholders, to be hosted on HLWGs website, and layout of website
The HLWG considered the draft consultation note and layout of website for HLWG. The Working Group approved the consultation note laying down the methodology to be adopted by the Panel for consultation with stakeholders with the suggestion that a line should be added in the note at the end stating explicitly that all the minutes of the Working Group would be put on the website of HLWG.
Item 7. Any other item with the permission of the Chair. It was decided that the next meeting of the HLWG would be held on 8th October 2012 in New Delhi.
*******
ANNEXURE Meeting of the High Level Working Group (HLWG) held on 18-09-2012 List of Members / Special invitees present:
11. 12.
Dr. K. Kasturirangan Ms. Sunita Narain, Centre for Science & Environment Shri Jagdish Kiswan, ADG(WL), Ministry of Environment Shri J.M. Mauskar, Ex-Special Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India Prof. C.R. Babu, University of Delhi Prof. P.S.Roy, Ex-Director, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun Ms. Kanchan Chopra , Former Director Institute of Economic Growth Shri Ajay Tyagi, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India Dr. Ranjan Chatterji, Consultant, Planning Commission Dr. Indrani Chandrasekheran , Advisor, Ministry of Planning Commission
In Chair Member
13.
Member
14.
Member
15. 16.
Member Member
17.
Member
18.
Member Convener
19.
Special Invitee Special Invitee
20.
MINUTES OF THE THIRD MEETING OF HIGH LEVEL WORKING GROUP (HLWG) TO STUDY THE PRESERVATION OF THE ECOLOGY, ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY AND HOLISTIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTERN GHATS IN VIEW OF THEIR RICH AND UNIQUE BIODIVERSITY HELD ON 8.10.12 IN NEW DELHI List of participants is annexed.
At the outset, Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Chairman of the High Level Working Group (HLWG) welcomed all the Members of the Group. In the opening remarks, Dr.
Kasturirangan provided an overview on the agenda items listed for the meeting. The Chairman highlighted the fact that the Working Group needs to move towards taking a final view on the agenda items listed and link them up to time bound action. Item 2: Confirmation of the minutes of the 2nd meeting of the HLWG Minutes of the second meeting of HLWG were confirmed after incorporating minor typographical amendment suggested by Prof Kanchan Chopra wherein the topic of the concept note under item 4.5 should read as Development in the Western Ghats states with a focus on centre-state relations etc.. Item 3: Presentations by officials of MoEF and Planning Commission a) Ecologically Sensitive Zones In his talk, Dr. G.V. Subrahmanyam, Advisor (RE), Ministry of Environment and Forests covered (a) definition of ecosensitive zone, (b) purpose of declaring ecosensitive zone, (c) statutory provisions under which ESZs are notified, (d) the objective of declaring ESZs, (e) types of proposals received by the Ministry for declaration of ESZs, (f) ecosensitive zones declared by the Ministry to date, and (g) role and functions of High Level Monitoring Committees (HLMCs). After the presentation, the following issues were deliberated upon by the HLWG (i) criteria for adopted by the Ministry for identifying the ecologically sensitive zones, (ii) role and functioning of HLMCs, (iii) how does declaration of ESZ impinge upon peoples right in the designated areas, and (iv) list of activities which are regulated or prohibited in the ESZs as per the Ministrys guidelines. HLWG requested Dr. G.V. Subrahmanyam to provide a note on ecologically Sensitive Zones covering the following aspects - the chronological sequence of the ESZs notified
till date, functioning of HLMCs, adequacy of institutional mechanism for administering ESZs, and guidelines developed by the Wildlife Division for ESZs around Protected Areas.
b) Ecotourism, buffer zones and World Heritage Sites Dr. S.K. Khanduri, Inspector General (Wildlife), Ministry of Environment and Forests covered ecotourism guidelines prepared by the National Tiger Conservation Authority and the recent Supreme Court directions in the matter. He highlighted the fact that the WGEEP has adopted these ecotourism guidelines in ESZs in Western Ghats. Dr. Khanduri also covered the concept of buffer zone as per the section 38 V (3) of the Wildlife Protection Act. Dr. Khanduri elaborated on the declaration of ESZs around Protected Areas as per the National Board for Wildlife Resolution of 2002 and the subsequent Supreme Court directions. He also provided an overview of the recognition of some of the sites of Western Ghats as World Heritage Sites.
After the presentation, the Working Group deliberated on the following issues (i) World Heritage Sites in Western Ghats vis-a-vis ESZ 1 areas demarcated by WGEEP, (ii) rationale for selecting certain sites of Western Ghats for designation as World Heritage Sites, (iii) Indias international commitment with respect to World Heritage Sites in Western Ghats.
HLWG requested Dr. S.K. Khanduri to provide a background note on World Heritage Sites along with dossier submitted to the UNESCO on the subject. He was requested to provide the information regarding the percentage of Western Ghats area covered by the World Heritage sites and Protected Areas. He was also requested to provide the present status of declaration of ESZs around Protected Areas and the recent CEC guidelines in the matter which have been submitted to the Supreme Court.
c) Scheme on Western Ghats Development Program (WGDP) Dr. B.D. Virdi, Advisor, Planning Commission provided an overview to the Hill Areas Development Programme (HADP) and Western Ghats Development programme (WGDP) covering the inter alia background, allocation of special central assistance, difference between HADP and WGDP, states covered under HADP and WGDP, Allocations to WGDP from Vth to XIth plan, and major activities covered under WGDP. After the presentation the following issues were discussed in detail (i) nature of assistance provided under the programme, (ii) type of activities supported under the programme, (iii) what the kind of development adopted in Western Ghats?, and (iv) how to incentivize such development activities?
d) Environmental Impact Assessment Dr. B. B. Burman, Director (Impact Assessment River valley projects), Ministry of Environment and Forests, provided an overview of the impact assessment process and procedures. Dr. Burman explained the various steps involved in the Environmental Impact assessment studies. He also provided detailed information on an example of cumulative impact assessment study supported by the Ministry in the North east region of the country.
The Working Group specifically sought the chronology of events with respect to the Athirappily hydro-power project in Kerala and Gundia Hydroelectric Power Project in Karnataka and the details of court cases, if any, from the IA Division of the Ministry.
e) Climate change and Western Ghats Dr. Sathpathy, Director (Climate Change), Ministry of Environment and Forests, gave a presentation on Effects and Challenges of Climate Change in the Ecologically Significant Western Ghats. Dr. Sathpathy provided the climate projections for 2030 in the Western Ghats region and its impacts on agriculture, forests, human health, water resources. He elaborated upon the 4x4 assessment undertaken by the Ministry dealing with different sectors and 4 important regions of the country which includes Western Ghats. Dr Sathpathy also provided an overview to the policy framework to address climate change concerns and listed out the challenges which need to be addressed with respect to climate
change. The Working Group deliberated upon potential impacts of the projected climate change scenarios. The Working Group requested Dr. Sathpathy to provide a note climate change adaptation action and the state action plans with specific reference to Western Ghats. Item 4: Progress made on the minutes of the 2nd Meetings and Action taken The Chairman, requested Shri Ajay Tyagi, Joint Secretary and Member Convenor, HLWG to inform the members about the follow-up actions following the second meeting of HLWG. Shri Ajay Tyagi informed the members that the item-wise Action Taken Report has been circulated along with the agenda papers (Annexure 1).
Item 5. Work plan to generate Geospatial data to support High Level Working Group on Western Ghats As a follow up to the discussions in the 2nd meeting of HLWG, Dr. PS Roy prepared a detailed proposal to generate Geospatial data to support High Level Working Group on Western Ghats with inputs from Prof C.R. Babu. The proposal was circulated to all the members in advance. The proposal relates to landscape level characterizations of existing land use /land cover, biodiversity characterization at landscape level for Disturbance, endemicity and watershed to provide supporting information to HLWG. It will also overlay cultural and natural landscape on ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3. The data requirements, expected outputs, timelines, facilities and budgetary support.
Dr. PS Roy presented the proposal for generation of fine resolution GIS maps for the HLWG. After detailed deliberations the Working Group finalized the expected outcomes from the generation of GIS maps (i) potential sites which could be recommended as ESZs, (ii) differences between the WGEEP maps and maps generated for the study, and (iii) methodology for future planning. It was decided that Dr. PS Roy would be able to show interim results in one month time, while the complete outputs could be made available in two months time period.
The HLWG decided that keeping in view the nature and scope of work the National Remote Sensing Centre, Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) would be the most appropriate institution to undertake geospatial analysis of Western Ghats region. As
ISRO has agreed to partner with the HLWG in this very important endeavour, the Ministry would write to Director, NRSC in this regard. It was also decided that the Ministry would write to all concerned Government
Departments/Organizations/Institutions/Agencies and individuals requesting them to provide relevant geospatial data to HLWG for analysis.
It was also decided that a team comprising of Dr. PS Roy, Prof CR Babu and Dr. Indrani Chandrasekharan would visit NRSC to have discussion on the proposal with their scientists and to initiate the project work. Further, it was also decided that the data requirements as mentioned by Prof Kanchan Chopra in her note would also be generated under this study. The Working Group also enquired from Dr. PS Roy about the financial implications of undertaking such a study, it was informed that the cost of the study would be limited to the air travel expenditure of the team members as the geospatial data is available with ISRO/Government agencies. The Working Group recommended that the expenditure for the study be supported by the MoEF.
Item 6: Institutional Mechanism for monitoring, undertaking carrying capacity studies and Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment of development projects Centre for Environmental Policies, Research and Advisories for Western Ghats As a follow up to the discussions in the 2nd meeting of HLWG, Dr. PS Roy prepared a detailed note on the concept of a Centre for Environmental Policies, Research and Advisories for Western Ghats which was circulated to the members of the HLWG. Dr. Roy gave presentation of the proposed Centre. He mentioned that the proposed Centre provided a framework for systematic utilization of the existing data and knowledge for preparation of policies to conserve rich biodiversity in the Western Ghats. He elaborated upon the main objectives of the Centre, the data and services providers, the network of scientific institutions which could be associated with the Centre, the methodology for field data collection and development of spatial decision support system.
The Working Group discussed the various options for providing an appropriate institutional mechanism for such a Centre. It was felt that this Centre could be supported under the Western Ghats Development Programme of the Planning Commission as it
would be dealing with cross-cutting issues across different Central Ministries and different State Governments.
Item 7. Centre - State relations and environmental regulations, regulatory authorities and resource utilization - Prof. Kanchan Chopra and Dr Sunita Narain As a follow up to the discussions in the 2nd meeting of HLWG, Prof. Kanchan Chopra prepared a detailed note on Development in Western Ghats States: Nuanced, Inclusive and Sustainable. Prof Kanchan Chopra provided an overview of different development scenarios for Western Ghats which were nuanced to address the needs of the local people while conserving the ecological uniqueness of ESZs in Western Ghats. Prof Chopra highlighted the issues related to environmental governance, decision making procedure and the deliberative process which may be adopted in the Western Ghats. She also highlighted the data requirements for analyzing different development scenarios in the Western Ghats. She mentioned that the relevant data may be collected as part of the consolidated project for generation of geospatial data for the Working Group.
The Working Group deliberated at length on the type of development which should be undertaken in the Western Ghats region. The Working group also discussed the relvance of nuanced approach to development in ESZ areas of Western Ghats.
Item 8. Comments received from States- Maharastra, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat Item 9. Comments received from Central Ministries/ Departments (Land Resources, Tourism, Agriculture and Cooperation, Power, Commerce, Railways) Item 10. Reflections on WGEEP report- Vijnana Bharathi , Maharatta Chamber of Commerce, Codagu Planters Association, Codagu Small Planters Association, Western Ghats Task Force, Government of Karnataka Shri Ajay Tyagi, Member Convenor, informed the members of HLWG that hard copies of the comments have been provided to each member for their perusal as part of Agenda papers. The members said that they would go through the comments and deliberate on the same at appropriate stage, if required.
Item 11.
Review of comments received on the WGEEP report and action taken
Shri Ajay Tyagi, Member Convenor, informed the Working Group that summary of stakeholder comments on WGEEP report has been given to all members HLWG for their perusal. The members said that they would go through the comments and deliberate on the same at appropriate stage, if required.
Item 12 & 13. Comments on the Recommendations/Guidelines of the WGEEP (i) Sectoral and (ii) Applicable across Western Ghats and Responses of the Members to the decisions taken during the 2nd meeting As a follow up to the discussions in the 2nd meeting of HLWG, Prof Babu provided detailed inputs on the sectoral guidelines. Prof Babu categorized the sectoral guidelines given by WGEEP into recommendations which could be accepted with little or no modifications and recommendations which need substantial modifications. Further, in continuation of the deliberations of the 2nd meeting of HLWG, Prof CR Babu also provided a further note giving detailed analysis of the zonation methodology adopted by the WGEEP. Prof Babu also provided a note on the Western Ghats boundary adopted by WGEEP report. Prof provided an overview of the different definitions of Western Ghats including those adopted by Western Ghats Development programme (WGDP), WGEEP and geological definition of the area. Shri JM Mauskar also provided detailed comments on the WGEEP report covering inter alia the following issues - boundary of Western Ghats, criteria used to arrive at ecological sensitivity, grid size, recommendations on hydropower and industry sector and Western Ghats Authority. The Working Group deliberated at length on various issues highlighted above. Item 14 Any other matter with the permission of the Chair
Shri Ajay Tyagi informed the members of HLWG about status of the cases pending with respect to the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel report in the National Green Tribunal and the Bombay High Court.
Shri Ajay Tyagi also mentioned that as the two month tenure of the Working Group would expire on 16th October 2012, a view may have to be taken by the HLWG in this regard. The members of HLWG reviewed the progress of work and the further tasks left out. Keeping in view, the wide scope work assigned to the Working Group including holding official consultations with State governments/Central Ministries and
Stakeholders, it was decided by the Working Group that an extension of 4 months may be sought from the Ministry to meaningfully address the ToRs given to the Group.
It was also decided that Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Chairman, HLWG would write a detailed letter to the Honble MEF apprising Honble MEF on the activities undertaken by the HLWG with a request to extend the tenure of the HLWG by 4 months.
The Working Group also decided that Dr. Indrani Chandrasekharan and Ms. Sunita Narain would prepare a draft structure of the HLWG report and circulate to members for their comments/suggestions.
*******
ANNEXURE Meeting of the High Level Working Group (HLWG) held on 8-10-2012 List of Members / Special invitees present: 21. 22. 23. 24. Dr. K. Kasturirangan Ms. Sunita Narain, Centre for Science & Environment In Chair Member
25. 26. 27. 28. 29.
30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.
Shri Jagdish Kiswan, ADG(WL), Member Ministry of Environment Shri J.M. Mauskar, Ex-Special Secretary Member Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India Prof. C.R. Babu, University of Delhi Member Shri Darshan Shankar, Chairman, Indian Institute of Member Ayurveda Research Prof. P.S.Roy, Ex-Director, Member Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun Ms. Kanchan Chopra , Former Director Member Institute of Economic Growth Shri Ajay Tyagi, Joint Secretary, Member Ministry of Environment and Forests Convener Government of India Dr. Indrani Chandrasekheran , Advisor, Special Ministry of Planning Commission Invitee Dr. G.V. Subrahmanyam, Advisor, Ministry of Special Environment and Forests Invitee Dr. B.D. Virdi, Advisor, Planning Commission Special Invitee Dr. S.K. Khanduri, IG (WL), Ministry of Special Environment and Forests Invitee Dr. Indu Patnaik, Joint Advisor, Planning Special Commission Invitee Dr. S.C. Garkoti, Director, Ministry of Environment Special and Forests Invitee Dr. S. Sathpathy, Director, Ministry of Environment Special and Forests Invitee Dr. B.B. Burman, Director, Ministry of Special Environment and Forests Invitee Dr. Sonu Singh, Deputy Director, Ministry of Special Environment and Forests Invitee Dr. P.V. Subba Rao, Sc B Special Invitee
MINUTES OF THE FOURTH MEETING OF HIGH LEVEL WORKING GROUP (HLWG) TO STUDY THE PRESERVATION OF THE ECOLOGY, ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY AND HOLISTIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTERN GHATS IN VIEW OF THEIR RICH AND UNIQUE BIODIVERSITY HELD ON 20.11.12 IN MUMBAI
List of participants is annexed. Leave of absence was given to Prof Kanchan Chopra, who could not attend the meeting on account of other pressing engagements.
At the outset, Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Chairman, High Level Working Group (HLWG) welcomed all Members of the Group. In the opening remarks, Dr. Kasturirangan
mentioned about the in depth discussion with the State Government of Maharashtra on the Western Ghats Ecology Expert panel Report. The Chairman also mentioned that the Working Group needs to move towards finalization of the report in a time bound manner. Item 1: Confirmation of the minutes of the 3rd meeting of the HLWG
Minutes of the third meeting of HLWG were confirmed. Item 2: Action Taken Report on the minutes of the 3rd meeting.
Shri Ajay Tyagi informed the Working Group that the item-wise Actions Taken Report has been circulated to the members along with the agenda papers (Annexure 1).
Item 3: Discussion on the geospatial analysis carried out at NRSC, Hyderabad by Dr. PS Roy, Prof CR Babu and Dr. Indrani Chadrasekharan and finalization of criteria for demarcation of Western Ghats area and ecologically sensitive areas It was informed to the Working Group that the report on the visit of the team to NRSC, Hyderabad has already been circulated to the members. This was followed by a detailed presentation by Dr. PS Roy on geospatial analysis carried out at NRSC, Hyderabad (Annexure 2). In his presentation Dr. Roy explained the new methodology developed for identification and demarcation of ecologically sensitive areas in the Western Ghats. He also elaborated upon the variables used for identification and demarcation of ecologically sensitive areas which included forest fragmentation, biodiversity richness, watershed boundaries, and human population density. Dr Roy informed the Working Group that a pilot study for identification for ecologically sensitive areas using the new methodology
was carried out for the following three districts in Western Ghats viz. (i) Uttara Kannada District, Karnataka, (ii) Idduki District, Kerala and Ratnagiri District, Maharastra.
The Working Group scrutinized in detail the outputs generated from the pilot study. After detailed discussion the Working Group approved the criteria used for demarcation of ecologically sensitive areas. It was also decided that information on existing wildlife corridors would also be incorporated in the demarcation of ecologically sensitive areas so that the issue of habitat continuity may also be addressed. Accordingly, Dr. PS Roy, Prof CR Babu and Dr. Indrani Chadrasekharan would visit Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun to incorporate the information of Wildlife Corridors in the current geospatial analysis. It was decided that as part of the geospatial analysis a sensitivity analysis would be carried out with respect to the size of the grid used for mapping.
Prof CR Babu informed the Working Group about the progress in demarcation of the Western Ghats boundary. The Working Group decided that a meeting be convened under the Chairmanship of Dr. Kasturirangan ,wherein, Dr. Valdiya, Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research, and Director, NRSC and other identified experts may be called to finalize the definition of Western Ghats. It was also suggested that a tabular chart may be prepared for the existing definitions adopted for the Western Ghats so that a logical decision could be arrived at.
Item 4. Comments on the draft structure of the HLWG report suggested by Dr. Indrani Chandrasekharan The draft structure of the report prepared by Dr. Indrani Chandrasekharan is given at Annexure 3. Dr Sunita Narain presented the draft structure of the report. Various sections which could be included in the report were deliberated upon. It was suggested that a section on the working of the HLWG and the activities undertaken could also be included. The modified proposed draft structure is given at Annexure 4. The Working Group resolved that a draft structure of the report should be made ready latest by 15th January 2013 so that the final report can be made ready within the stipulated time.
Item 5. Reflections on the interaction with State Government of Maharashtra
The members expressed satisfaction on the interaction with the Government of Maharashtra. The summary record of the discussion is given at Annexure 5. The concerns of the Government of Maharashtra regarding the WGEEP report were noted including those regarding the current moratorium on Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg Districts. It was felt that the follow up suggestions given by Chairman, HLWG to Government of Maharashtra for identifying a nodal person to interact with HLWG and to constitute a Committee of Secretaries to provide views of the State Government on the specific issues raised by the HLWG be done expeditiously.
Item 6. Way forward for consultations with concerned State government of Western Ghats region and further stakeholder consultations The Working Group discussed the plan for holding consultations with the State Governments. It was felt that keeping in view the tenure of the Working Group the State visits of the Working Group may be completed by mid January 2013. It was also decided by the Working Group that selected Stakeholders may be called for interaction with the Working group as per the methodology put up on the website of the Working Group. It was decided that Dr. Indrani chandrsekharan and Shri Ajay Tyagi would draft the time table for consultations of HLWG, discuss with the members of the HLWG and finalize the same. Item 7. Proposed meetings with the Inter State Council Secretariat and North Eastern Council; Way forward in firming views on the proposed Centre for Environmental Policies It was felt by the Working Group that meetings with the Inter State Council Secretariat and North Eastern Council would be done after the interactions with the State Governments are completed. It was decided that Dr. Indrani chandrsekharan and Shri Ajay Tyagi would finalize an appropriate date for meeting with Inter State Council Secretariat and North Eastern Council as per the approved time table for consultation of HLWG.
The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to and from the Chair. *******
ANNEXURE Meeting of the High Level Working Group (HLWG) held on 20-11-2012 List of Members / Special invitees present: 40. 41. 42. 43. Dr. K. Kasturirangan Dr. Sunita Narain, Centre for Science & Environment In Chair Member
44. 45. 46. 47.
48.
Shri Jagdish Kiswan, ADG(WL), Member Ministry of Environment Shri J.M. Mauskar, Ex-Special Secretary Member Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India Prof. C.R. Babu, University of Delhi Member Shri Darshan Shankar, Chairman, Indian Institute of Member Ayurveda Research Prof. P.S.Roy, Ex-Director, Member Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun Shri Ajay Tyagi, Joint Secretary, Member Ministry of Environment and Forests Convener Government of India Dr. Indrani Chandrasekheran , Advisor, Special Ministry of Planning Commission Invitee
MINUTES OF THE FIFTH MEETING OF HIGH LEVEL WORKING GROUP (HLWG) TO STUDY THE PRESERVATION OF THE ECOLOGY, ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY AND HOLISTIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTERN GHATS IN VIEW OF THEIR RICH AND UNIQUE BIODIVERSITY HELD ON 11.2.13 IN GOA
List of participants is annexed. Leave of absence was given to Prof Kanchan Chopra and Dr. Darshan Shankar who could not attend the meeting on account of other pressing engagements.
At the outset, Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Chairman, High Level Working Group (HLWG) welcomed all Members of the Group. Dr. Kasturirangan briefed the HLWG about his meeting with Honble Chief Minister of Goa. The Chairman mentioned that it was a very useful meeting. Some of the major reservations expressed by the CM were that (i) WGEEP report is biased towards biodiversity preservation, (ii) common mans issues and the economic impact of recommendations on a small state like Goa have been completely ignored in the report, (iii) the recommendation relating to setting up of Western Ghats Ecology Authority in WGEEP report has serious impact on the state autonomy and federal structure of the country, and (iv) implementation of WGEEP report would lead to chaotic situation in the state of Goa. CM also highlighted the rich legacy of environmental protection in Goa. Item 1: Confirmation of the minutes of the 4th meeting of the HLWG Minutes of the fourth meeting of HLWG were confirmed. Item 2: Action Taken Report on the minutes of the 4th meeting. Shri Ajay Tyagi, Member Convenor, HLWG informed about the actions taken since the last meeting of the Working Group. Item 3: Geospatial analysis of Western Ghats carried out at NRSC, Hyderabad for identification of ecologically sensitive zones Dr. CS Jha, Group Head, Forestry and Ecology Group, National Remote Sensing Centre, Hyderabad, gave a presentation on the geospatial analysis for identification of ecologically sensitive zones in Western Ghats. Dr. Jha explained the methodology used for the geospatial analysis for identification of ecosensitive zones. Based upon the
discussions, the HLWG decided that elephant and tiger corridors would be mapped as potential ESZ and the concerned State Governments may take a final view on the matter to include the corridors as part of ESZ or not. Further, the change in forest cover of Western Ghats states would be calculated by NRSC based upon two cycles of forest mapping done by Forest Survey of India after 2005. The relative change in forest cover would provide an indication to any significant impact of data acquisition date on geospatial analysis. The Working Group also finalized and approved the procedure for demarcation of the ecologically sensitive zones in Western Ghats.
The Working Group deliberated in detail the issue of delineation and demarcation of Western Ghats boundary.
HLWG observed that till date there is no accurate and acceptable definition of the Western Ghat boundary. Hence, there is no consensus on what constitutes the Western Ghats. The problem is further compounded by the fact that there are a number of eastern and western spurs, which originate from the main mountain chain thus making it difficult to arrive at a precise boundary. As the natural boundaries of a landform generally arise out of its geology and geomorphology, the Working Group noted the outcome of the brainstorming organized by the Working Group on 17th December 2012 at NRSC, Hyderabad, wherein experts in Geomorphology, Geology, Ecology and representatives of some Western Ghats States were invited to deliberate upon the methods/approaches available for demarcating Western Ghats. The experts at the brainstorming session concluded that given the heterogeneous geological origin and geomorphology of Western Ghats it would be practically difficult to accurately and precisely demarcate Western Ghats boundary on the basis of geology and geomorphology alone. Further, to get the perspective of the State Governments of the Western Ghats region, the High Level Working Group had requested the State Governments to share with the HLWG any exercise done by them to demarcate Western Ghats region in their respective jurisdiction. The HLWG noted that no information has been received except from the State Government of Karnataka. The Karnataka Forest Department had used (i) forest and land use pattern, (ii) rainfall and (iii) elevation as variables to define the Western
Ghats in Karnataka. The Group felt that the Karnataka methodology is very specific to the State and the criteria adopted may not apply to the other States. Further, HLWG also noted that Planning Commission had constituted a Technical Committee under the Chairmanship of Surveyor General of India (1978) to delineate the Western Ghat region. This Committee debated the technical criteria (forest/land use pattern, elevation, rainfall pattern, geology and physiography) to delineate the Western Ghat region. They were unable to reach a conclusion on the demarcation of the Western Ghat scientifically. The High Level Working Group also noted that the Planning Commission initiated the Western Ghat Development Programme (WGDP) way back in May, 1972, wherein, taluks with at least 20% of their area at an altitude of 600 meters or above were included in the Western Ghat Development Program for special assistance. The Planning Commission has been using 175 taluks delineated and assigned by the States to support the developmental activities in Western Ghats region of the 5 States viz., Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamilnadu and Goa.
HLWG also noted that various organization/agencies/committees have tried to define the boundaries of Western Ghats in case specific manner keeping in view specific objectives for the programmes under which the exercize was carried out .
Based upon the existing body of knowledge, data availability and constraints of time HLWG was of the opinion that it would be practically not feasible to undertake accurate and precise demarcation of Western Ghats. However the Working Group felt that to provide a proper perspective to the ESZ delimitation exercise in the Western Ghats, it would need to broadly indicate the Western Ghats region. In the view of the above the Working Group decided to use the Planning Commission definition of Western Ghats with the addition of 7 talukas of Gujarat below Tapti river divide as an option to define the Western Ghats region. The 7 talukas of Gujarat below the Tapti River divide were added as it is known that Western Ghats start below the Tapti river. However, this broad agreement should be subject to the caveat that it is only an indicative assessment of the Western Ghat region and may not be used by any agency/Government for any development activities and/or regulatory prescriptions.
Item 4: Responses from various State Governments At the outset the Group expressed its satisfaction at the delegation level meetings held with the State Government of Kerala, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Goa. The Working Group also took stock of the responses received from the State Governments of the Western Ghats region. It was noted that Government of Kerala and Maharashtra have provided a response to the questionnaire sent by the HLWG. It was decided by the Working Group that the Ministry would send reminder to the Government of Karnataka for expediting their response as also a reminder to Government of Kerala to provide additional inputs as decided in the NRSC meeting held on 4th and 5th February 2013. Similarly, A request may also be sent to Government of Goa to send their response in writing within one week. The Working Group also decided that the Chairman, HLWG would write to the Chief Ministers of Tamil Nadu and Gujarat for seeking their intervention so as to expedite the comments from their States.
Item 5: Field Visits and delegation level meetings with the State Government of Tamil Nadu and Gujarat
The Working group noted that meetings with the Government of Tamil Nadu and Gujarat are still to be undertaken and field visits to Idukki and Wayanad also need to be done. Working Group decided that visit to Idukki and Wayanad could be taken up after the meetings with the State Governments of Tamil Nadu and Gujarat.
Item 6: Responses from the Central Ministries The Working Group noted that formal responses have yet to be received from the Ministry of Water Resources and Ministry of Mines. It was decided that the Chairman, HLWG would write to the Union Ministers for their kind intervention in expediting comments from their respective Ministries. Item 7: Meeting with the Interstate council secretariat It was felt by HLWG that as it was interacting with each State of the Western Ghats region separately and understanding their views/concerns as such there is no specific need for a separate interaction with the interstate council. Item 8: Status of court cases The Working Group was informed about the status of various court cases pending in Bombay High Court and National Green Tribunal.
Item 9: Implication of World Heritage Site status with particular reference to Western Ghats Working Group decided that IG (WL) MoEF may be requested to provide a note on the general and specific commitments of India with reference to the World Heritage site status. Item 10: Climate Change and Western Ghats It was decided that Dr. S.K. Sharma, Advisor, (CC), MoEF may be requested to provide a note detailing the impact of climate change on Western Ghats region. Item 11: Referred projects/issues to WGEEP Athirappily hydropower project, Gundia Hydropower project, Mining in Goa, development projects and mining in Ratnagiri and Sindhurug Districts The Working Group assessed the inputs received from the State Governments as also other stakeholders with respect to projects/issues referred to WGEEP. The Working Group felt that inputs/data provided by the State Governments and other stakeholders needs to be further analyzed. Item 12: Deadline for submission of final report of HLWG The members reviewed the progress of work and the future course of action to address the terms of reference given to the Group. The Working Group noted the following: (i) consultation with the State Governments of Tamil Nadu and Gujarat are yet to be done, (iii) all political parties of Kerala have sought time to provide their detailed inputs to HLWG, (iii) Chief Minister of Kerala has also requested that the Working Group visit Idukki and Wayanad districts, (iv) inputs still have to be received from Ministry of Water resources and Ministry of Mines. Keeping in view the reasons stated above, the Working Group resolved that to meaningfully finalize the report, the Ministry may be requested to extend of tenure of HLWG beyond 16th February 2013 upto 31st March 2013. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to and from the Chair. ******* ANNEXURE Meeting of the High Level Working Group (HLWG) held on 11.2.2013 List of Members / Special invitees present: 1 2 Dr. K. Kasturirangan Shri J.M. Mauskar, Ex-Special Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests In Chair Member
Government of India 3 4 5 6 7 Dr. Sunita Narain, Centre for Science & Environment Shri Jagdish Kiswan, ADG(WL), Ministry of Environment Prof. C.R. Babu, University of Delhi Prof. P.S.Roy, Ex-Director, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun Shri Ajay Tyagi, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India Dr. Indrani Chandrasekheran , Advisor, Ministry of Planning Commission Member Member Member Member Member Convener Special Invitee
MINUTES OF THE SIXTH MEETING OF HIGH LEVEL WORKING GROUP (HLWG) TO STUDY THE PRESERVATION OF THE ECOLOGY, ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY AND HOLISTIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTERN GHATS IN VIEW OF THEIR RICH AND UNIQUE BIODIVERSITY HELD ON 2nd AND 3rd MARCH 2013 IN NEW DELHI
2nd March 2013 List of participants is annexed. At the outset, Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Chairman, High Level Working Group (HLWG) welcomed all Members of the Group and initiated the proceedings of the meeting as per the Agenda. Item 1: Confirmation of the minutes of the 5th meeting of the HLWG Minutes of the fifth meeting of HLWG were confirmed. Item 2: Presentation on Geospatial analysis of Western Ghats carried out at NRSC, Hyderabad for identification of ecologically sensitive zones Dr. CS Jha, Group Head, Forestry and Ecology Group, National Remote Sensing Centre, Hyderabad, gave a presentation on the geospatial analysis for identification of ecologically sensitive zones in Western Ghats. The following decisions were taken by the HLWG after the presentation: (i) Only one ecologically sensitive zone would be identified in the Western Ghats region, (ii) the data sources used in the geospatial analysis would be recorded explicitly along with their year of generation, terminologies used in the geospatial analysis would be explicitly defined, and latest available dataset for talukas with NIC and village dataset available with Survey of India would be used for the geospatial analyses, (iii) The Western Ghats region as identified by HLWG would include 175 talukas from the Western Ghats Development Programme of Planning Commission, 7 talukas of Gujarat below Tapti river and 6 talukas of Nilgiri district covered under Hill Area Development Programme Item 3: Presentation by Dr. CD Thatte, Ex-Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India
Dr. CD Thatte presented his appraisal of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel report. He mentioned that water sector has been condemned in the report. Further, he added that the WGEEP report contains sweeping recommendations such as decommissioning of dams and no interbasin water transfer, without undertaking any proper analysis on these aspects. He also mentioned that WGEEP did not consult any experts from water sector. Dr. Thatte pointed out Western Ghats cannot be viewed in isolation in terms of water resources because east flowing rivers originating from the Ghats support the major part of peninsular India. He highlighted the importance of interbasin water transfer and hydel power as a source of clean energy. He also criticized the arbitrary recommendation of WGEEP with respect to the decommissioning of dams. Finally, Dr. Thatte said that to achieve sustainability with respect to water resources sector a rationale mix of top-down and bottom-up approaches would be required. 3rd March 2013 Item 5: Discussion on draft HLWG report The Working Group discussed in detail the draft HLWG report. The Working Group also analyzed and scrutinized the geospatial analysis using GIS platform. It was decided that (i) inputs from Advisor (Water), Planning Commission would be taken with respect to water sector, (ii) inputs would also be taken from Dr. Nalini Bhat, Advisor, MoEF. The Working Group also decided that in case of the proposed Athirappily and Gundia Hydroelectric Power projects an analytical note would be developed. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to and from the Chair. *******
ANNEXURE Meeting of the High Level Working Group (HLWG) held on 2nd and 3rd March 2013 List of Members / Special invitees present: 1 2 Dr. K. Kasturirangan Shri J.M. Mauskar, Ex-Special Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India Dr. Sunita Narain, Centre for Science & Environment Shri Jagdish Kiswan, ADG(WL), Ministry of Environment Prof. C.R. Babu, University of Delhi In Chair Member
3 4 5 6 7. 8
Member Member Member
10
Prof. P.S.Roy, Ex-Director, Member Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun Prof Kanchan Chopra Member Ex-Director, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi Shri Darshan Shankar Member Chairman, Institute of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine, Bangalore Shri Ajay Tyagi, Joint Secretary, Member Ministry of Environment and Forests Convener Government of India Dr. Indrani Chandrasekheran , Advisor, Special Ministry of Planning Commission Invitee
MINUTES OF THE SEVENTH MEETING OF HIGH LEVEL WORKING GROUP (HLWG) TO STUDY THE PRESERVATION OF THE ECOLOGY, ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY AND HOLISTIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTERN GHATS IN VIEW OF THEIR RICH AND UNIQUE BIODIVERSITY HELD ON 13th MARCH 2013 IN NEW DELHI
List of participants is annexed. At the outset, Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Chairman, High Level Working Group (HLWG) welcomed all Members of the Group and initiated the proceedings of the meeting as per the Agenda. Item 1: Confirmation of the minutes of the 6th meeting of the HLWG Minutes of the sixth meeting of HLWG were confirmed. Item 2: Discussion on draft HLWG report The various proposed chapters of the draft report were tabled for discussion. A brief summary of the major discussions is given below. Prof Babu and Dr. PS Roy gave a brief presentation on the contents of the chapters dealing with the Western Ghats boundary and demarcation ecologically sensitive areas. This was followed by detailed discussion on these chapters. The members also sought explanations on various aspects of the ESA demarcation exercise. It was suggested that the methodology adopted by HLWG for demarcation of Western Ghats and delineation of Ecologically Sensitive Areas would be subjected to peer-review by 2-3 experts. The chapter dealing Decision Support and Monitoring Centre for Western Ghats was also discussed. The issues relating to proposed Athirappily and Gundia Hydropower projects as also Moratorium in Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts and Mining in Goa were discussed in detail. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to and from the Chair. *******
ANNEXURE Meeting of the High Level Working Group (HLWG) held on 13th March 2013 List of Members / Special invitees present: 1 2 Dr. K. Kasturirangan Shri J.M. Mauskar, Ex-Special Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India Dr. Sunita Narain, Centre for Science & Environment Prof. C.R. Babu, University of Delhi In Chair Member
3 4 5 6. 7
Member Member
Prof. P.S.Roy, Ex-Director, Member Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun Prof Kanchan Chopra Member Ex-Director, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi Shri Darshan Shankar Member Chairman, Institute of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine, Bangalore Shri Ajay Tyagi, Joint Secretary, Member Ministry of Environment and Forests Convener Government of India Dr. Indrani Chandrasekheran , Advisor, Special Ministry of Planning Commission Invitee
MINUTES OF THE EIGTH MEETING OF HIGH LEVEL WORKING GROUP (HLWG) TO STUDY THE PRESERVATION OF THE ECOLOGY, ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY AND HOLISTIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTERN GHATS IN VIEW OF THEIR RICH AND UNIQUE BIODIVERSITY HELD ON 19th MARCH 2013 IN NEW DELHI
List of participants is annexed. At the outset, Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Chairman, High Level Working Group (HLWG) welcomed all Members of the Group and initiated the proceedings of the meeting as per the Agenda. Item 1: Confirmation of the minutes of the 7th meeting of the HLWG Minutes of the seventh meeting of HLWG were confirmed. Item 2: Discussion on draft HLWG report The various proposed chapters of the draft report were tabled for discussion. A brief summary of the major discussions is given below. The Working group took up the proposed chapter on paradigm of sustainable and inclusive growth for discussion. The Working Group deliberated on the salient contents of the chapter with focus on the possible sectoral development restrictions for the Ecologically Sensitive Areas demarcated by the HLWG. The proposed chapter dealing with the evaluation of comments of State Governments/Central Ministries/and stakeholders was discussed. The Committee was informed that a large proportion of stakeholders have sent the same comments, with a common text repeated in them. It was also informed that the comments sent by the stakeholders have been considered and evaluated. The Working Group discussed the proposed chapter on climate change. The Committee felt that the aspects related to the predictability of current models, grid size, adaptation strategies may be addressed in the chapter. The section on decaration of Woeld Heritage Sites in Western Ghats was also discussed. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to and from the Chair. *******
ANNEXURE Meeting of the High Level Working Group (HLWG) held on 19th March 2013 List of Members / Special invitees present: 1 2 Dr. K. Kasturirangan Shri J.M. Mauskar, Ex-Special Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India Dr. Sunita Narain, Centre for Science & Environment Shri Jagdish Kiswan, ADG(WL), Ministry of Environment Prof. C.R. Babu, University of Delhi Prof. P.S.Roy, Ex-Director, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun Prof Kanchan Chopra Ex-Director, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi Shri Ajay Tyagi, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India Dr. Indrani Chandrasekheran , Advisor, Ministry of Planning Commission In Chair Member
3 4 5 6 7. 8
Member Member Member Member Member Member Convener Special Invitee
MINUTES OF THE NINTH MEETING OF HIGH LEVEL WORKING GROUP (HLWG) TO STUDY THE PRESERVATION OF THE ECOLOGY, ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY AND HOLISTIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTERN GHATS IN VIEW OF THEIR RICH AND UNIQUE BIODIVERSITY HELD ON 23rd MARCH 2013 IN NEW DELHI
List of participants is annexed. At the outset, Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Chairman, High Level Working Group (HLWG) welcomed all Members of the Group and initiated the proceedings of the meeting as per the Agenda. Item 1: Confirmation of the minutes of the 8th meeting of the HLWG Minutes of the eighth meeting of HLWG were confirmed. Item 2: Discussion on draft HLWG report The various proposed chapters of the draft report were tabled for discussion. A brief summary of the major discussions is given below. The chapter on demracation of ecologically sensitive areas was taken up for discussion. The Committee felt that it is important to have an assessment of the total human population living in he proposed Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESA) and non-ESA areas in Western Ghats region. Accordingly, it was decided that a table providing data on (i) area, (ii) totl population, (iii) number of villages and (iv) population density in ESA and on-ESA areas of Western Ghats region would be included in the report. The Committee also went through the maps and tables which would be included in the report. The issue of Wildlife Corridors was discussed in detail. The Group felt that the wildlife
corridors present in the proposed ESA may be depicted. Further, the State Governments may involve local people in firming up their proposals relating to wildlife corridors. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to and from the Chair. *******
ANNEXURE Meeting of the High Level Working Group (HLWG) held on 23rd March 2013 List of Members / Special invitees present: 1 2 Dr. K. Kasturirangan Shri J.M. Mauskar, Ex-Special Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India Dr. Sunita Narain, Centre for Science & Environment Shri Jagdish Kiswan, ADG(WL), Ministry of Environment Prof. C.R. Babu, University of Delhi Prof. P.S.Roy, Ex-Director, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun Prof Kanchan Chopra Ex-Director, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi Shri Ajay Tyagi, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India Dr. Indrani Chandrasekheran , Advisor, Ministry of Planning Commission In Chair Member
3 4 5 6 7. 8
Member Member Member Member Member Member Convener Special Invitee
MINUTES OF THE TENTH MEETING OF HIGH LEVEL WORKING GROUP (HLWG) TO STUDY THE PRESERVATION OF THE ECOLOGY, ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY AND HOLISTIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTERN GHATS IN VIEW OF THEIR RICH AND UNIQUE BIODIVERSITY HELD ON 5th APRIL 2013 IN NEW DELHI
List of participants is annexed. At the outset, Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Chairman, High Level Working Group (HLWG) welcomed all Members of the Group and initiated the proceedings of the meeting as per the Agenda. Item 1: Confirmation of the minutes of the 9th meeting of the HLWG Minutes of the ninth meeting of HLWG were confirmed. Item 2: Final Discussion on draft final HLWG report The various proposed chapters of the draft final report were tabled for discussion. The chapter on Summary of Recommendations an Action Plan was discussed point-by-point. The introductory chapter was also discussed. The members also went through the other chapters of the report. After detailed deliberations on the contents of the draft final report, the Working Group members adopted the draft final report of High Level Working Group and authorized the Chairman to submit the final report to the Ministry. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to and from the Chair. *******
ANNEXURE Meeting of the High Level Working Group (HLWG) held on 5th April 2013 List of Members / Special invitees present: 1 2 Dr. K. Kasturirangan Shri J.M. Mauskar, Ex-Special Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India Dr. Sunita Narain, Centre for Science & Environment Shri Jagdish Kiswan, ADG(WL), Ministry of Environment Prof. C.R. Babu, University of Delhi In Chair Member
3 4 5 6 8
Member Member Member
10
Prof. P.S.Roy, Ex-Director, Member Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun Shri Darshan Shankar Member Chairman, Institute of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine, Bangalore Shri Ajay Tyagi, Joint Secretary, Member Ministry of Environment and Forests Convener Government of India Dr. Indrani Chandrasekheran , Advisor, Special Ministry of Planning Commission Invitee
Summary Record of discussions held between the Government of Karnataka and the High Level Working Group on 11th January 2013 at Bangalore ************ At the outset, Principal Secretary (Environment) welcomed Chairman and members of the High Level Working Group. Principal Secretary (Environment) also welcomed the Chief Secretary, Chairman and members of Western Ghats Task Force and Senior Officers of the Government of Karnataka.
Shri R. Sridhar, Principal Secretary (Environment) and Shri Luhtra, Additional PCCF (HQ) gave a presentation (Annexure I) on the response of Government of Karnataka to the questionnaire sent by HLWG.
The following were major comments of the Government of Karnataka
State Government had serious objections to the constitution of Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA). The proposed WGEA as it interferes with the states sphere of authority and would lead to duplication of existing institutional structures. Western Ghats boundary delimitation and demarcation of ecologically sensitive areas in Western Ghats done by WGEEP needs to be improved. Declaring the entire Western Ghats region as Eco-sensitive as per WGEEP is not correct, the already developed areas in Western Ghats need separate treatment. The WGEEP has used taluka as a unit of demarcation which is a big administrative unit with large area. The better unit which could be to used for demarcation is at the village level. Local community consultation needs to be done for demarcating eco-sensitive zones. The demarcation of ecologically sensitive zones in Western Ghats should be done with a holistic perspective taking into account larger interests of the society. It was pointed out that there needs to be certainty in definition boundaries keeping in view regulation of activities are proposed in the identified region
It was also pointed out that the process for consultation with the local communities needs to be developed after careful thought. The complete ban on agricultural chemicals such as fertilizers, weedicides and pesticides in one go, may not be possible as the availability of organic manure may not be adequate for the purpose of this change. The Government of Karnataka does not agree with the recommendation that Joint Forest Management (JFM) should be converted Community Forest Management under Forest Rights Act as JFM has been working very successfully in Karnataka. The need and status of the proposed Gundia Hydropower project was explained
The details of the sectoral level comments are covered in the presentation given in the section of State Government comments.
There was also a discussion between the members of the High Level Working Group and Shri Anant Hegde, Chairman, Western Ghats Task Force and Dr. TV Ramachandra, Member, Western Ghats Task Force on various issues relating to Western Ghats Ecology as also the proposed Gundya Hydropower project.
After the presentation Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Member (Science), Planning Commission and Chairman, High level Working Group (HLWG) opined that the presentation made by the Government of Karnataka was focused and has been able to succinctly provide the comments of Government of Karanataka. He said that the HLWG has gained further insights into specific issues brought out by the State Government as also the reservations of the State Government on the WGEEP report. Dr Kasturirangan further mentioned that the HLWG would take cognizance of the issues raised by the Government of Karnataka while examining the WGEEP report.
*********************************************
Brief record of discussion between Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Member, Planning Commission, and Shri Manohar Parrikar, Chief Minister of Goa State, on 11.02.2013 at Panjim
After the exchange of usual pleasantries, the Chief Minister initiated the discussion by stating that the forest cover in Goa State has increased by about 5-7% during the past few years. The canopy-wise total forest cover in the state is about 57%. It would be impractical to suggest regulation of un-organized activities as per recommendations of the WGEEP Report. The WGEEP Report has not taken into consideration the common mans interests. MoEF is at fault for being extra liberal in granting environment clearances to the mining projects to the State in the past. The courts are exceeding their jurisdiction in taking executive decisions. The Central Empowered Committee can not be allowed to run the Mining Department of the State Government. While the WGEP Report may be good
environmental report, it has not taken into account the developmental issues, has made recommendations which impinge on the powers of the State Government and have serious ramifications for the federal structure in the country. In case the WGEEP Report were to be implemented, it would lead to chaotic situation in the state.
On the iron-ore mining issue, the Chief Minister stated that the mining activities began in the state in the 1950s. It is a low grade ore and can hardly be used in India. Because of the increase in demand for this quality of ore in the global markets during the last few years, there has been windfall profits for the mine owners and their greed has inter alia which has led to illegal mining in the State. The current total ban on the
mining of iron ore in the state is a serious issue, as about 25% of the State revenue comes from the mining activities and about one lakh population depend on mining and allied activities in the State. Dr. K. Kasturirangan explained to the Chief Minister the terms of reference of HLWG, the broad methodology intended to be followed by HLWG in demarcation of ecologically sensitive areas within Western Ghats and about the proposed decision support system to facilitate appropriate decision-making by six States in the Western Ghats.
Brief record of discussion of the Members of the High Level Working Group (HLWG) with Prof Madhav Gadgil, Chairman, Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) on 28th December 2012 at Pune ************************
The list of HLWG members present during the meeting is at Annexure.
Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Member (Science), Planning Commission and Chairman, High Level Working Group thanked Prof Madhav Gadgil, Chairman, Western Ghats Ecology Expert (WGEEP) for taking out time to meet with HLWG Members and commended the WGEEP report as an example of erudition and scholarliness on the biodiversity of Western Ghats. Dr. Kasturirangan also mentioned that he appreciates the willingness of Prof Gadgil to participate in open discussion on all issues related with WGEEP repor and cited the meeting organized by Vijnana Bharati , at Pune. Dr. Kasturirangan than informed Prof Gadgil about the activities undertaken by the High Level Working Group so far , including the re-drawing of the WG boundaries on a scale of 30Mx 30M and requested Prof Gadgil to share his views on the WGEEP report.
Professor Gadgil first alluded on the report of the Pronab Sen Committee set up by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India to deal with the issue of ecologically sensitive areas and also gave a brief account of the ecosensitive zones notified by the MoEF. Prof Gadgil commented on the continued usage of the term Ecologically Sensitive Areas as not
conforming to the definition and that the Pronab Sen Committee was tasked to look at criteria for demarcation of Ecologically Sensitive Areas . He further informed, that the Government has notified ecologically sensitive areas in the past in an adhoc manner and which is not based on accepted criteria. He said that it was in this back drop that the WGEEP was asked to look into the report of previous committees on the subject, the resolution of National Board of Wildlife for declaration of ecologically sensitive zones (ESZs) around Protected Areas and the Supreme Court ruling on the subject so as to evolve criteria for demarcation of ESZ.
Professor Gadgil felt that based upon the Pronab Sen Committee criteria the whole Western Ghats could be classified as ecologically sensitive area and the WGEEP also recognized the whole of Western Ghats as an ecologically sensitive area based upon its biodiversity value. He than mentioned that the Pronab Sen Committee did not provide any management regime for the ecosensitive areas and therefore the WGEEP developed a graded and nuanced approach for the management of ecosensitive areas, wherein, Western Ghats area was categorized into three ecosensitive zones viz. ESZ 1, ESZ 2 and ESZ 3 of varied ecological sensitivity. The WGEEP went by the norm in the National Forest Policy, as per which 2/3rd area in the hilly areas should be kept under vegetation - this benchmark was used to define boundary for ESZ 1, the most sensitive zone.
Prof Gadgil than highlighted that the Pronab Sen Committee had also recommended that spatial environmental database should be developed for the country but nothing has been developed in the last ten years. As such, WGEEP undertook the task of compiling spatial environmental database for Western Ghats based upon all available computerized information on 9 x 9 km grid. The size of the grid was chosen keeping in view the constraints of time and resources available with the Panel and the available information. Prof Gadgil opined that mapping of Western Ghats should be preferably done at the village and taluka level. The environmental database so developed should be used for planning purposes and should be available in the public domain.
While undertaking its activities the WGEEP decided to take 2-3 levels of inputs, which included not only official inputs i.e. at the level of State Governments and Central Government but also inputs from locals which included inputs from Gram Panchayats, Zilla Parishad, and Gram Sabhas. Prof Gadgil stressed on the importance of consulting Panchayats and Gram Sabhas in decision making. He said that this is also mandated in the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments. At present, there is no peoples participation in decision making relating to environment protection. He expressed the view that the public hearings done under EIA process are not fair and transparent.
Prof. Gadgil opined that the laws are not being implemented in the country and in some case they are being flouted. He gave example of the Forests Right Act, which as per him is not being
implemented at the ground level. He informed that it is in this context that the WGEEP decided to include specific case studies related to violation and non- compliance in the report. He stressed that if the existing laws are implemented in the right earnest there was no need for constituting any Panel. He emphasized the need of bottoms up planning process with free access to reliable information for effective peoples participation in decision making.
Regarding the zonation methodology adopted by the WGEEP, Prof Gadgil mentioned that the model of Goa Regional Plan 2021was adopted, wherein, a database was developed as part of planning process which was sent to the Gram Sabhas in Konkani and Marathi for their comments. The recommendations of the Gram Sabhas were then sent back to the Government. He did however mention that this process is not yet completed in case of Goa. He mentioned that for wider appreciation of the WGEEP report it should be translated in regional languages of the Western Ghats region and circulated amongst all Gram Panchayats. He added that in the absence of the feedback from the Gram Sabhas of the Western Ghat region on the WGEEP report, the deliberations and the output of the High Level Working Group would not be as relevant. He also mentioned that the State Governments have been spreading misinformation about the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel report.
Prof Gadgil thanked the members of the HLWG for the interaction and expressed his willingness to work together with the Group in case any further clarification/suggestion were required with respect to WGEEP report.
Dr. K Kasturirangan thanked Prof Gadgil for sharing his views on the WGEEP report with the HLWG and stressed that the task of the HLWG is to develop a pragmatic action plan which can lead to the conservation of the unique biodiversity of the Western Ghats region consistent with sustainable development of the region. He mentioned that the HLWG is considering the WGEEP report in this perspective. He further added that the members of the HLWG do not have any preconceived notion or bias while examining the WGEEP report.
***********************************
ANNEXURE Meeting of the High Level Working Group (HLWG) held on 28-12-2012 List of Members present: 1. 2. 3. Dr. K. Kasturirangan In Chair Shri Jagdish Kiswan, ADG(WL), Member Ministry of Environment and Forests Shri J.M. Mauskar, Ex-Special Secretary Member Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India Prof. C.R. Babu, University of Delhi Member Shri Darshan Shankar, Chairman, Indian Institute of Member Ayurveda Research Shri Ajay Tyagi, Joint Secretary, Member Ministry of Environment and Forests Convener Government of India Dr. Indrani Chandrasekheran , Advisor, Special Ministry of Planning Commission Invitee
4. 5. 6.
7.
The presentation of Prof Gadgil for the meeting had already been circulated to the members in advance (Annexure I).
Annexure 3: Summary of the Comments Received on the WGEEP Report from Stakeholders before Constitution of the HLWG
1. About 34% of responses from locals strongly support permitting mining in four taluks of Goa viz Sanguem, Bicholin, Satari and Qupem. In all these communications, mining was stated as an important economic activity, affecting livelihoods of a large number of people. They also stated that mining industries in these taluks of Goa have responsibly taken up social activities to promote well being of people. 2. Similarly, responses received from locals of Sindudurg favour mining activities. These responses strongly support, The New India Mining Company, and its commitment to the environment. These comments highlight the enhanced livelihood options, improved water supply for agriculture and general well being of the people of the district due largely to the INIM. 3. Responses from locals of Dang area of the Navsari district, Gujarat , suggest careful examination of the proposed ESZ delineation based on the criteria put down by the Government of India and carried out with the help of local educated boys. 4. Overwhelming responses has been received to examine the methodology adopted for delineation of EcoSensitive Zones including the area earmarked. 5. A detailed response strongly advocates the establishment of Athirapally Hydro Electric Power Plant. 6. About 11 elected representatives in a strongly worded letter, have stated that establishment of the Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA) would not serve any specific purpose and would exist as another layer. Establishment of such an authority would only result in delays in project clearances and would impede development. 7. Another detailed response requests for declaration of Sawantwadi -Dodamang as ESZ. 8. A human rights organization has indicated that , of the 4 heritage sites notified, two are in Kohlapur. They have therefore requested not to add to the existing inviolate area in view of livelihood issues and as locals have not been consulted. 9. Responses from a group of Kodagu Planters have categorically stated that plantations should be excluded from the Ecologically Sensitive Zone. 10. Villagers of Goa , have pleaded that none of the recommendations of the WGEEP should be followed. About 37 locals specifically have prayed that there should be no moratorium on Mining in Goa. 11. LAVASA Corporation Ltd has requested clearly stating that new hill stations approved be not included in WGEEP report recommendations. 12. Green Peace strongly supports the WGEEP report in entirety. 13. Federation of Indian Mining Industry has expressed severe disagreement with the recommendation of the report , stating that Mineral exploration and mining are critical to the nations development. 14. H ENERGY has requested that if the thermal power plants are being discouraged in the Western Ghats region then Gas Plants should be promoted. 15. A detailed technical response stating the erroneous zonation methodology of the WGEEP has also been received.
16. Sarpanch of Gram Panchayats of district Thane , Jawahar Taluk and members of the panchayat including 157 locals have requested the MoEF that the ESZ be delineated after careful consideration and involvement of locals. A Cumulative Environment Impact Assessment be also carried out. Previous attempts such as ZASI (Zonal Atlas for Siting of Industries) initiated, but were not discussed and implemented be re-considered. A fresh look on zonation methodology and procedure is imperative. 17. Suggestions to remove governance deficit by way of public awareness and training has been detailed in a communication. 18. A request has been made to decline the proposal for creation of an industrial park in Alleppey . 19. About 29 people have strongly voiced their concerns against the Gundiya Hydro Electric Power Plant.
Annexure 4: Summary of Comments Received on the WGEEP Report from Stakeholders before Constitution of HLWG classified under various Heads
Establishment of WGEA General Comments not in favour Gundiya HEP Implementation of the WGEEP Report General comments in favour
Summary of comments received before formulation of HLWG Zoning Mortorium on Lote Mining in Mining in Goa Methodolgy Parshuram Sindudurg
The categorisation of the ESZ itself needs to be scientifically validated.
The earnings and business have increased because of mining activities. Lifestyle and financial status of our villagers has positively changed due to mining
We desparately need growth in the region. Please permit mining.
The WGEA will not serve any purpose.
WGEEP panel has not carried out any detailed study which brings out very nature of problem on coastal region. In addition, all coastal regions in country is under preview of CRZ notification 2011 which includes adequate procedure, checks and measure for coastal region. Strong measures should be initiated to address issues of deficit in environmental governance as highlighted in the report
The Report has captured in an eloquent manner the importance of Gundia.We cannot thrash the last few remaining places in the Western Ghats like Gundiya to dust and use power generated by super destructive projects.
The recommenda-tions of the WGEEP Report must be strongly endorsed
In all areas designated as ESZ1 , all mining should be phased out by 2016.
Exact demarcation of sensitive areas. Broad regions like Taluks etc cant be used as benchmark at all. The establishment of the Western Ghats Ecology Authority would only result in delays in clearances.
Any expansion of industries or new investments in this region are on hold for the last 2 years due to blanket moratorium on Ratnagiri district.This has stagnated employment generation, exports and growth of the region in general. Lote-Parshuram industrial area falls in between Khed& Chiplun and there is no development in this region apart from chemical industry in Lote which is source of direct & indirect income for people in the region. Mining industry in Goa is pivotal to the entire Trade, Commerce and Industry in the state on which lacks of people depend for their livelihood. The remedies suggested by WGEEPR cannot be hastily forced upon the people without planning. There are MoEF guidelines for winds energy projects on forest lands. These guidelines can be revised and made robust, without any need for special rulings under ESZ1 category. It is requested to respect the recommendations of the committee and request denial of clearance to the proposed projects particularly Gundiya in order to protect the Western Ghats.
Our traditional agriculture of Cashew does not generate sufficient income to feed the families in our village and district. The mining business should continue and the stay should be released immediately
Translation of report in local languages & extension of timeline for comments. Western Ghats encompass an area of 1,29,037 sq.km. population of a few crores and 5 states with lingual diversity. It is therefore important to publish the report in all local languages of the Western Ghats Region. It is also necessary that all Gram Panchayats, Panchayat Samiti, Zilla Parishads , Municipalities and Corporations in the area are provided with a copy of the report in the regional languages. The Ministry hence should extend the timeline for receipt of comments/ views by about 90 days. The MoEF should consider this request, issue orders in order to ensure transparency among stakeholders.
MoEF should consider recommendations of the WGEEP Report at the earliest.
The panel has over simplified the actual task of demarcating areas within the Western Ghats by describing the ecology of the Western Ghats and by using readily available data, impressions gained through field visits etc.
Committee has completely formulated a one sided report on the region without involving opinion of the indutry.Even the villages around the LoteParshuram area are supporting the industry & new investments realising that industrialisation will only help their next generation to earn a living.
Mining has generated new opportunities of self employment. The New India Mining Company is a flagship company and has supplied needs of villages like water supply for agriculture and medical help.
Sudden & abrupt ban of Iron ore ban extraction and export from Goa is not advisable and acceptable.
The WGEA would be another layer in the multiplicity of several institutions already existing.
It is common knowledge that if fertilisers,pesicides amd weedicides are phased out and organic cultivation is practised, the yield from coffee plantation will get reduced by 30 % to 40 %.
The Gundia basin lies very near to Mysore Elephnat Reserve and is an important corridor for elephant migration.It is also a home for tigers.It is requested that the ministry to accept the report and reject the environmental clearance proposal submitted by Karnataka State Government.
All new projects in the Western Ghats (dams,mines,tourism,ho using etc) should be subject to Cumulative Impact Assessment and should not exceed the carrying capacity.
Genetically Modified Organisms should not be allowed in the Western Ghats region.No BT Cotton Cultivation or GM Rubber Plantation should be allowed.
Annexure 5: Analysis of the Responses Received by the HLWG on the WGEEP Report
Responses in favour of the WGEEP Report
General Comments Report be made available in the local vernacular language to the communities and stakeholders of Western Ghats, so that the people can understand as to how it is going to affect their lives in future The report is elaborate,exhaustive and uses detailed database to report and cover the Western Ghats The Western ghats are unique and are a Biological HotSpot of the country.These need to be protected. FOR WGEEP REPORT Project Specific Proposed Interstate highways to Kerala will cause massive loss of tree cover in Kodagu.
Responses not in favour of the WGEEP Report

Socio Economic Issues The local inhabitants should be permitted to reside in ESZ 1, 2 and 3 and continue their livelihood vocations and as far as possible mobilised to help in protection and conservation of the biodiversity and ecology of these zones GM crops should not be allowed across the Western Ghats
Technical Comments
The square grid of 9 km x 9 km, used for division of ESZ, does not differentiate natural features like water body or water shed or administrative unit or human habitat.
Project/Area Specific Comments Regarding specific areas such as Athirappilly, Pooyankutty, Ratnagiri, Sindhdurg etc. separate Status Reportshould be prepared.
The report has not taken note of the Taluka boundaries earmarked by the Revenue department while incorporating Talukas in the ESZ.This has resulted into residential area of many Talukas into ESZ which is most dangerous.
There are 19 dams in the irrigation sector and 33 major dams in the Power Sector and 2 dams in the water supply sector. Most of the dams have crossed the life span of 30-50 years. The WGEEP has recommended that all the dams that have crossed the life span of 30-50 years will have to be decommissioned in a
Recommendations/ Regulatory Framework Moratorium on new clearance for mining, red and orange category of industry, thermal and nuclear power plants, artificial prawn cultivation, ports, marine sports/sea world projects, three to five star tourism, five star holiday resorts, tourist townships such as LAVASA, farm houses that lead to privatization of beaches, hill-slopes; hill tops and highways that disturb the sensitive ecosystems of hill ranges and sea fronts mangroves, wetlands, breeding ground for fish, habitat of sea creatures, birds, animals, etc. needs reconsideration. Put in place Biodiversity Management Committees in all local bodies, fully empowered under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, to regulate use of local biodiversity resources Choose topographically suitable crops and promote indigenous cultivars suited for the climate and region.Phase out all pesticides, weedicides and synthetic fertilizers in a phased manner in the next five years. About 6000 crew members work on board barges and 30,000 in various ancillary industries related to barge industry, i.e of say 1.5 lakh population. They will lose employment The report stands against the principle decentralization of powers as envisaged in 'Panchayati Raj System' adopted in India with an aim of participation of local communities in all community related decisions as it is surprising that the committee did not think it fit to include even a single elected representative of Need for benefit sharing arrangements when land is acquired. We agree with this suggestion of the expert panel and appreciate recommendations from them for a sustainable benefit sharing model with regards to private land, for wind energy
The proposed high tension power line through South Kodagu will result in the loss of about 15000 trees in forest and plantation areas.
concerned area Initiate registration of crop cultivars as called for by Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001, and give grants to Panchayats to build capacity for in situ conservation of crop genetic resources The barge owners would be out of business, with huge loans to settle. Banks to Goa may have to face a tough time recovering their disbursements.Entrepreneurs invested in purchasing a barrage by taking bank loans which together are estimated to be approx. 1000 crore. The recommendation of cumulative Impact Analysis in Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg area is a welcome step A moratorium for ESZ 1 areas on conversion of agriculture, horti-culture and plantation lands for commercial purpose and on executing other developmental projects should be placed immediately
The division of Western Ghat into three eco-sensitive zones (ESZ) does not have perfect scientific basis.
phased manner.This is unacceptable. Non-applicability of WGEEP report and current moratorium on LNG storage and regasification industry
The overall recommendations of WGEEP are not based on scientific study and are inter contradictory
The important areas such as Dapoli and Guhagar in Ratnagiri District, and secondary ranges of the Western Ghats in Tahne and Raigad districts such as Tungareshwar, Manor, Tansa, Valitarna, Prabal etc have unfortunately been excluded by the WGEEP should be classified as ESZ1.
There is no need of Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA), if one goes through the role of authority as mentioned in the report, it mentions that WGEA under EPA will not be in derogation of but in addition to other environmental laws to deal with offenders in the Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of the Western Ghats. This is a duplication of effort as this role is already played by especially created Green Tribunals in India.
In the southern States of Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu the plantation sector Viz;, tea, coffee, rubber and spices employs 12.50 lakh growers and 14 lakh workers directly and at least 5 times of that numbers dependent on this sector indirectly. Most of the plantations in the Southern regions fall under ESZ1. Organic cultivation will reduce the yield by at least30-40%. In case these recommendations has to be implemented, the plantation industry , already burdened with high cost of production will become unviable and there will not be any other option but to wind up its operation will have very adverse economic impact.
There have been no discussions held with the GCCI (Goa Chamber of Commerce & Industry) on this important issue (of stakeholder engagement) despite, being one of the oldest Trade Association's in the State Detailed consultations were also not held with State government. The WGEEP report also needs to take into consideration other issues apart from only environmental issues. For eg. (a) Social and Economic cost benefit analysis (b) Sustainable Development (c) Health and Medicare (d) Current Biodiversity and loss, if any, region wise Extent wise (e) Fate of Industries, Mining Projects which are operating following all legal adherences. Sawantwadi - Dodamarg region of District Sindhudurg is highly Biodiversed in Nature and Ecologically fragile with Wildlife.The WGEEP Report must be accepted in full form and Dodamarg region along with Sahyadri Mountain Ranges should be declared as ESZ 1.. It is important to note that there is not enough water or flows available in the Chalakudy river for the proposed and the Plant Load Factor (PLF) or Capcity Utilisation Factor (CUF) is only 12 %.The water availability at present in the river is highly insufficient for a 163 MW project.
Locking up the area of approximately 129037 square km for so called Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) seems inappropriate
The views and opinions expressed by officials representing Tourism Dept, Irrigation Dept, Tribal Welfare Dept. and Forest Dept. in favour of implementation of the proposed Athirappilly project is not seen included in the WGEEP report.
The proposed WGEA (Authority) has jurisdiction over location of the industry. The authority in the Western Ghats will take over the role of Ministry of Environment & Forest in approving the Eco Sensitive Zones (ESZ). This authority is not clear about the role and implications of Forest (Conservation) Act 1980.
WGEEP panel has not carried out any detailed study which brings out very nature of problem on coastal region. In addition, all coastal regions in country is under preview of CRZ notification 2011 which includes adequate procedure, checks and measure for coastal region.
If the MoEF is not inclined to declare the entire Western Ghats (WG) as ecologically sensitive, MoEF should nonetheless accept that the WG are ecologically sensitive. MoEF should state that for reasons it is not desirable/possible to declare entire WG as such under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
The exact boundaries of each proposed zone needs to be worked out and final recommendations should not trigger blanket moratorium as suggested by the panel, instead there should be careful consideration for establishing green and non intrusive sources of energy such as wind. Delineation of ESZ 1 to 3 by (i) Scientific Survey and data analysis (ii) consultation with Special economic zone, new hill stations, change in land use from forest to non-forest use, agriculture to non-agriculture, have Composite power generation based on Solar, Wind and gas shall be in the best interest of Western Ghats Region in most environment friendly
Some of the very ecosensitive areas have not been included in the ESZ1,ESZ 2, such as Ajara and Chandgad Taluk in Kohlapur district,which is the only wildlife corridor on the crest of the Western Ghats between Maharashtra and Karnataka.
There may not be a need to do comprehensive EIA, as recognised by Government of India, for this sector as the projects are environment friendly. The attempt will delay the development in India adding on to the existing power deficit.
Maharashtra Government economic survey highlights the backwardness of the Sindhudurg district. Census 2001 and 2011 reports highlight the negative factors which point to heavy migration from the Sindhudurg district.
There are MoEF guidelines for winds energy projects on forest lands. These guidelines can be revised and made robust, without any need for special rulings under ESZ1 category. The categorisation of the ESZ itself needs to be scientifically validated.
MoEF can consider constituting a separate Western Ghats ESA Cell based at Banglore with exclusive mandate of implementing the recommendations of the panel report.
Water availability for both irrigation and drinking water will be drastically reduced if Athirapally HEP is implemented. The proposal of the HEP will severely affect the functioning of the existing major irrigation project, the Chalakudy River Diversion Scheme and result in the closure of the Idamalayar diversion which supplements the water needs of the Idamalayar HEP Displacement of the primitive tribal community is also an important issue.The HEP will generate too little electricity at an exorbitant cost.
The Ministry of MSME, Ministry of Industry, Ministry of Textile have initiated number of Clusters of
The WGEEP report if implemented will alienate the local people from the effort of
The Gadgil report is very much in the interest of the farmers of the Western Ghats, to help them change for sustainable and
Wind mills in Nandurbar district have impacted Burai river, which is an important
local toilers and Gram Sabhas.
been discouraged / banned.Road and other infrastructural expansion will be allowed after EIA scrutiny. This will completely stop all the development and progress of the region.
manner.
conservation.
more productive farming. An important point of the WGEEP Report is that the Committee do not recommend dislocation of families either for 'development' or for 'conservation'
source of water in that area.
New Guidelines need to be developed for identifying Ecologically Sensitive Zone (ESZ) as the common man cannot understand about the ESZ.
Micro and Small Industries /Services throughout India. Many such Clusters are being established in Western Ghats Region also. We suggest to continue all such Clusters as it is even though they may be in Western Ghats. The terms like layered approach, grids, zonation are highly technical. These need to be simplified with definitions and diagrams. For easy understanding, a flowchart may be used to represent the complex sequence of the rationalisation process. It is requested to clearly mention the list of talukas and industries getting covered by WGEEP report by clearly setting boundary of WGEEP report and its applicability. Sindhudurg despite flushed with adequate Economic Resources and Infrastructure is virtually an no industry district. Immediate intervention is required so as to prevent exodus of working population, improve adverse Sex Ratio and to provide gainful employment and Per Capita Income. The panel has not made any efforts to verify the data given in the book on the basis of ground truthing. The analysis of the status of ecology of the Western Ghats described in the report should not only be accepted as baseline for the implementation of this report but also for any future activity related to Western Ghats
The WGEEP has also not given due importance and consideration to Maval and Mulshi Talukas of Pune District in Maharashtra (Part I, Section 6, page 7) and it is missing from Appendix 2 (Part I, page 93). These Talukas have been identified as environmentally sensitive by the Town and Country Planning
The names of taluks in the Planning Commission list should be checked to find out whether they tally with the current names in the states.
Provisions of the (Draft) Guidelines for Ecotourism in and around Protected Areas issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) may be taken into account.
Locals were not consulted during the preparation of the report
Reports to be translated in regional languages with the help of respective experts. Send the copy of such translation to various Gram Panchayats in the Western Ghat area and suggest them to have feedback from Gram Sabha in their regional languages.
The report helps us understand the ecological fragility of the region and the kind of development hence needed for this region, rather than following a development hence needed for this region, rather than following a development model for the plains.This approach is urgently needed for the water and livelihood security of people living in the Ghats as well as in the state of Kerala. The 3 zones viz ESA-1,ESA -
The proposed 9 thermal power stations one nuclear power station and several jetties in the districts of Sindhudurg and Ratnagiri cost would exert serious environmental impact on the local ecology and livelihood of locals. In view of the severe destruction of the biological diversity due to commercial activities in Western Ghats and adjoining coastal region, total prohibition/control measures need to be put in place and strictly implemented for conservation and protection of this unique bioreserve.
2 and ESA-3 should be retained despite opposition from the States.To retain the ecological integrity of the eco-sensitive regions there should be zonation
Organisation. This is mentioned in the current Regional Plan of Pune District, a statutory plan u~.9.er the Maharashjia Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. Report makes no mention of 'standing forests' which are the forest on lands other than on Forest Department lands and identified as 'deemed forest' by the Supreme Court Order in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 with W.P.(C) NO.171 of 1996 and termed as 'Vansadrushya' or Forest Alike Areas (FAA), by the state of Maharashtra The best answer therefore lies in composite approach. We feel composite power generation based on Solar, Wind and gas shall be in the best interest of Western Ghats Region in most environment friendly manner. Threat to Livelihood We are disappointed to note that tourism has not been given much space in the WGEEP report.In ESZ1, Ecotourism policy of MoEF to be followed refined by the WGEA to promote minimal impact tourism in the region A Guidance Manual with globally harmonised protocols must be in place before addressing environmental and ecological issues pertaining to Western Ghats Region The WGEEP recommendations tantamount to the total transformation of the predominanatly agriculture based economy by declaring the entire area as an Ecologically Sensitive Zone(ESZ-1).
Area of each grid/zone is very large. The variation within each zone/grid w.r.t. to the ecological criteria is not properly rationalised.
Exact demarcation of sensitive areas. Broad regions like Taluks etc cant be used as benchmark at all.
The panel has over simplified the task of demarcating areas within the Western Ghats by describing the ecology of the Western Ghats and
Decommissioning of projects If the ecosystem benefits is found to be more than the benefits from power generation, such projects to be recommended for phased decommissioning / alteration in reservoir operations to allow more flows for the ecosystem.
We the people of Ratnagiri District appeal to the Ministry of Environment and Forest to ensure that the proposed refinery of HPCL, a reputed Public Sector Company of Government of India is allowed to be constructed. In case of the policies of the Government of India deprive us of such an economic
The ESZ Notification defined by the report should be immediately implemented. Carry out a radical reform of Environmental Clearance process through [a] assigning preparation of EIA statements to a neutral competent body that does not depend on payment by project proponents [b] making mandatory periodic environmental clearance requirement, preferably every five years [c] make mandatory the preparation of regional Cumulative EI Analysis.. Rapid change in land use pattern, unchecked urbanisation resulting in increased demographic pressures and a proliferation of tourist resorts and villa complexes are issues which have rightly been recognised and addressed in the WGEEP Reoprt . I hereby request that the WGEEP Report should be totally implemented without any change for the national interest. Make mandatory the
(a) Moratorium on new clearance for mining, red and orange category of industry, thermal and nuclear power plants, artificial prawn cultivation, ports, marine sports/sea world projects, three to five star tourism, five star holiday resorts, tourist townships such as LAVASA, farm houses that lead to privatization of beaches, hillslopes; hill tops and highways that disturb the sensitive ecosystems of hill ranges and sea fronts mangroves, wetlands, breeding ground for fish, habitat of sea creatures, birds, animals, etc. (b) Cancellation of all the proposed thermal power projects in Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts of Maharashtra ' .(c) Cancellation of Jaitapur Nuclear Power Park at Madban (Rajapur taluka, Ratnagiri
by using readily available data, impressions gained through field visits etc. The panel has inappropriately designated whole of Western Ghats as Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA)
development of the region, we request the Government of India to consider compensating us suitably for the lack of industrial development and related backwardness of the region.
preparation of regional Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment The recommendations made by the WGEEP for Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts must be accepted
district, Maharashtra) (d) Withdrawal of mining licenses in Goa and RatnagiriSindhudurg districts of Maharashtra (e) No permission to industry and other commercial activities till satisfactory completion of carrying capacity analysis for Ratngairi and Sindhudurg districts of Maharashtra. The Governments should give top priority to the establishment of WGEA (Western Ghats Ecology Authority) and give all necessary powers and funds for its operation. Establishment of WGEA is important. Otherwise 'business as usual' will continue.
Wind power decommissionpossibel to construct dam
Some further areas could be notified as ESAs. The final report should leave scope for further additions to the ESA list..
Do not support the proposal of phasing out the use of mild chemical fertilisera,pesticides and weedicides so as to shift to organic farming. If the recommendations of the WGEEP are implemented in the present form,it will have adverse impact on the plantation industry. On coffee plantation - No agricultural or plantation crop in the world can accommodate the degree of biodiversity that the Indian Coffee Plantation accommodates.Hence it isthe WGEEP recommendations are absolutely inadequate.
Suggestions should be made on climate change mitigation/adaption.
The spatial database is compiled into 2200 spatial grids of 9km * 9km i.e for an area of 81 sq. Km or 8100 hectares. This is a large area and may have within it considerable variation in ecological characteristics.
The proposal for no new hill stations is a harsh recommendation
The report does not provide relevant data on diversity indices with the help of which one can understand and appreciate biodiversity in a quantitative manner.
Infrastructure developments with in plantations like roads, footpaths, labour lines , go-downs, residence for workers and growers, tanks for storing water, processing ,sprinklers, drip irrigation and other plantation
Cumulative Impact Assessments (CIA) of projects should be carried out irrespective of the outcome of the WGEEP report. The terms of reference to WGEEP were to operate within Environment (Protection) Act,1986. The terms of reference have not asked the Panel to recommend new norms / guidelines for the Western Ghats which are different from the norms / guidelines applicable for
The report uses highly technical and scientific language. MoEF should bring about a shorter version of the report in a simpler manner.
Cumulative Impact Assessments (CIA) of projects and Carrying Capacity Study is necessary. Regional Cumulative Environmental Impact Analysis should be made mandatory.
activity and roads for access to plantations to transport men and materials be allowed.
the entire country.
It is in the National Interest to accept the WGEEP Report in order to protect and preserve the Kodagu landscape that provides almost fifty percent of total inflow into the Cauvery. It is common knowledge that if fertilisers,pesicides amd weedicides are phased ou andorganic cultivation is practised, the yield from coffee plantation will get reduced by 30 % to 40 %. The WGEEP recommendations of not supporting large scale tourism are rational The propoal to ban railway lines and express ways is also a rational suggestion The recommendation to phase out Plastics is positive but should be subject to the Plastic Act and rules prescribed by the MoEF. .
The Contents of the instant WGEEP report are inadequate in dealing with techno legal matters
Any restriction on development of infrastructure like roads, railways, airports and power in the region - should be opposed.
Panel wants WGEA to exercise control on land use planning, regulate development and formulate its own building code. Constitutionally these powers are within the purview of the state governments. Any attempt to transfer them to the WGEA will amount to distrusting the state and transgressing the states powers.
WGEEP must revisit the demarcation issue. As the ESA ranking (Tables 2 & 3 ) suffer from oversimplification and arbitrariness on two counts namely setting of scores and subsequent evaluation based on these scores. The WGEEP have made recommendations for sustainable development without any clarity as to what is sustainable development.The MoEF
Coffee effluent systems already exist in ESZ1 and ESZ2 and growers are using them since several decades as per norms prescribed by the PCBs.The effluent generated are organic and nottoxic or hazardous.Hence waste processing units should be permitted in ESZ1 and ESZ2 also.
Terms of Reference should be a part of this report. This would enable successors to understand what their predecessors thought about the completion of the study of biodiversity and evaluation of actual level of ecological sensitivity
The Pronab Sen Committee report and the WGEEP Report both highlight the inadequacy of the database.Measures need to be taken to systematically map and record such information on ecological characteristics.Since this is a long drawn process , it can proceed in parallel to the implementation of the recommendations The report should be translated in all regional languages and disseminated to all Gram Sabha and Ward Sabhas to obtain feedback to arrive at appropriate decisions in a downtop fashion and to initiate strong measures in order to address the issues of deficit in environmental governance as Reform in Environmental Clearance is necessary as EIA reports prepared by the project proponents are often incomplete and lack vital information. EIA reports reflect lack of understanding about the local ecological issues, land use practices and socioeconomic concerns. Make periodic environmental clearance, preferably every five years.
highlighted in the report.
SD concept ignored steep slopes exceeding 30 degrees should not be used for cultivation
The TORs for the WGEEP do not state or ask the Panel to examine decommissioning of dams or thermal projects.The Panel exceeded their brief by making these recommendations.
must clearly define 'Sustainable Development' and the WGEEP must use this definition for making recommendations. (as per TOR (V)) All the environmental clearances granted for new projects in the Western Ghats since the formation of the WGEEP where work has not commenced should be reviewed. Report does not say much about the existence or otherwise of certain keystone species which are to be preserved and protected during and after any developmental venture within the area of Western Ghats. The recommendations in the report have been made beyond its Terms of Reference Debt for nature, Heritage Status,Forest Hydrology The concept of "conservation service charges" as an incentive for the maintenance of natural vegetation and green cover is welome.
The ecological study methodology is flawed - it is based on secondary studies - definition of landscape ecology criteria not been discussed -
The envisaged authority to administer and manage the Western Ghats should be a Public-Private Partnership model with the modalities of ownership structured to be entirely transparent
Methodology for defining the boundaries of the Western Ghats is questionable 500/150 meters? redefined
The WGEEP was not clear in its report on the methodology for determining when dams should be decommissioned.The HLWG should accept dam decommissioning in principle and either spell out the methodology for determining it or recommend that MoEF does it.
Samples taken for making sweeping recommendations are too small. In some cases these samples are managed due to high profile stature of some WGEEP members.
The Zoning, which is essential for deciding development plans and conservation areas in various parts of the Ghats, is quite well thought of.The Zoning proposed in the Gadgil Report is totally different from that of Ecologically Fragile Areas declared by the forest Department. It is appreciable that the report offers / recommends compensation to farmers during transition period from chemical to organic period.
The zoning system is based on relative and not absolute values
To ensure that Master Plans are prepared in a time bound manner, SPVs should be set up with representatives from nodal departments of the state government and NGOs,CSOs and experts from civil society. The report should have reviewed existing governance mechanisms in 6 states and districts and recommend methods and ways of improved governance for smoother implementation and functioning of the WGEA,SWGAs,DECs. The MoEF needs amend the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification The WGEEP Report has not made recommendations that amount to policy making.
The report should be rejected - confirm the taluks in the WG
The most important point in the report is that the recommendations are tenetative and flexible; final decision for deciding the borders of the ESZs and the activitie sto be undertaken in each is left to the local communities and the Panchayat, adhering truly to the provisions of the Panchayat Raj.
The grid size used was very large Generalisation of the enetire WG The WGEA, SWGAs ,DECs, should have been mandated to identify,delineate and draft the notifications forvarious ESZs in the states. The WGEA, SWGAs ,DECs, should have been mandated to identify,delineate and draft the notifications forvarious ESZs in the states. The WGEA should only be constituted if it can be given adequate powers,infrastructure and
The Group has not obtained free,infromed consent of the stakeholders and have imposed conditions that are impossible to comply with.
The following features of the report, need to be endorsed : 1) A building code suggesting ecofriendly constructions (2) Water harvesting systems in all the houses .3) Decentralised water resource community management system at community level (4) Nonconservation of forest land for any other land use (5) Non conservation of agricultural land to any other land use (6) Banning mining and quarrying in Zone 1 (7) Steps to be taken to improve river flow and reduce pollution levels (8) Suggesting measures for growing fodder for cattle (9) Providing support for biogas in the
resources. Rather than it be a mandate of WGEA, all ESZ notifications issued by MoEF should mandate that the Master Plan shall state how MGNREGA,PESA,positive incentives etc. will be used to implement the Master Plan.It is for the state government and not WGEA to decide how MGNREGA are to be implemented. The HLWG must consult expert dam engineers,thermal power plant engineers, water resources engineers, etc.beforetaking a view on these technical matters.
houses and (10) Most importantly the need for going in for solar power for all domestic requirements..
Annexure 6: Statement of Major Comments of the Six State Governments on the Sectoral Recommendations made in the WGEEP Report
Comments of Kerala Comments of Goa
No
Sector /Issue
Comments of Karnataka
Comments of Maharashtra
Comments of Tamil Nadu
Comments of Gujarat
Recommendation of WGEEP to have blanket ban on mining cannot be agreed to.
Mining
Complete ban on mining in ESZ 1
Government of Karnataka is not giving fresh permission for mining in Western Ghats of Karnataka (as per their presentation in Bangalore )
Not acceptable Mining of site specific minerals such as bauxite and iron may be considered outside forest areas and Protected Areas with strict mitigation measures Complete ban on mining including lateritic stone mining done at local level for construction of houses would lead to unrest. Mining of stones/sand which are non-site specific may be banned
1. Acceptable subject to laws and rules governing these matters and the interim order of Honble SC dtd 27.2.2012 in SLP No. 729-731/2011 and pursuant direction of MoEF and the final decision of the SC case. 2. The state does not have sizeable deposit of major minerals and mines hence they should be allowed to sustainable utilize its natural resources in an environment friendly manner. 3. The state would separately submit a special scheme for regulation of mining especially quarries and sand mining in SC seeking special consideration and diluted EIA procedure in view of lesser scale and extent
WGEEP has proposed 30 % of geographical are of state as ESZ 1 around the Pas. This area has working mines, according to WGEEP existing mines should cease functioning by 2016. If mining needs to be closed down in Goa an adequate perennial compensation of Rs. 1800 crores should be given to the state from the Centre. This amount includes Rs 1400 crores as revenue from mining and Rs 360 crores as income of 1,20,000 work force in the mining sector.
No additional implication for the state. Incidents of mining in Western Ghats is negligible. HACA has been constituted by the states.Apllicati ons for mining are examined both by HACA and under provisions of EIA,2006.
All these have to be in the context of livelihood needs, scope of permissibility, essential needs of socio-economic development without compromising ecological and environmental balance.
Sector /Issue
Comments of Kerala
No large scale wind power projects in ESZ 1 is not acceptable.
Comments of Goa
NSC
Comments of Gujarat
Non conventional energy Wind energy etc.
NSC
No large scale wind power projects in ESZ 1
Complete prohibition of wide energy in ESZ1 areas would be counter productive because sites of windmills are highly site
Wind power is green power. Due to high speed winds at higher altitude
Alternative energy projects like solar and wind energy can be taken up as source of green
specific. It would be appropriate to propose prohibition in case of forest land and wildlife sanctuaries
wind power needs to be promoted.
energy
Sector /Issue
Comments of Karnataka A complete ban on quarrying of sand, stone, morrum, soil should be rejected. NSC It may be noted that Financial viability of water resources would be effected if sand is required to be brought from far away sites Existing as wells as new quarries and sand mining should be allowed with environmental impact mitigation measures The state would separately submit a special scheme for regulation of mining especially quarries and sand mining in SC seeking special consideration and diluted EIA procedure in view of lesser scale and extent No additional implication for the state. Incidents of mining in Western Ghats is negligible. HACA has been constituted by the states. Applications for mining are examined both by HACA and under provisions of EIA,2006 Covered under interim order of Honble SC dtd 27.2.2012 in SLP No. 729731/2011 and pursuant direction of MoEF and the final decision of the SC case.
Comments of Kerala
Comments of Goa
Comments of Gujarat
Quarry and sand mining
NSC
No new licenses to be given for quarry and sand mining in ESZ 1
Recommendation of WGEEP to have blanket ban on mining cannot be agreed to. All these have to be in the context of livelihood needs, scope of permissibility, essential needs of socio-economic development without compromising ecological and environmental balance.
Sector /Issue
Recommendation on no change of land use in ESZ areas is not agreed to by the State Government as this would affect landuse change for all infrastructure projects in future The State Government submits that hill stations in the Western
Comments of Kerala
Acceptable subject to relevant provisions of law for the time being in force The land use pattern in the 3 zones except that in forested areas is residential and regulating any such areas as no go areas cannot be thought
Comments of Goa
NSC

-The existing framework prohibits diversion of water courses and water bodies for any other use except in the rarest of rare cases.
Comments of Gujarat
NSC
Land use 1. No change in land use in ESZ areas 2. Special Economic Zones should not be permitted 3. New Hill stations
NSC
-The existing legal
should not be allowed 4. Public lands should not be converted to private lands Ghats should not be banned Existing legal set up does not permit such conservation of forest lands. However, where law allows Legally permitted conversion of forest land should be allowed in conformity procedure laid down
-A blanket ban on new hill station is not acceptable. -Assignment of public land to pooe in the region need not be banned.
of.
provisions like the Environmental Protection Act are sufficient.
Sector /Issue Prohibition of new railway lines, new highways and major roads in ESZ1 areas cannot be agreed to Railway projects are outside the purview of prior Environmental Clearance. Restrictions on vital transport infrastructure to be imposed in WG region is unacceptable
Comments of Kerala
Comments of Gujarat Recommendation like no railway lines cannot be accepted in a blanket manner. All these have to be in the context of livelihood needs, scope of permissibility, essential needs of socio-economic development without compromising ecological and environmental balance.
Transport
Comments of Karnataka NSC
Comments of Goa NSC
No new railway lines and major roads, except where it is highly essential( as perhaps, in case of Goa), and subject to EIA, strict regulation and social audit in ESZ1 and ESZ 2. Development of transport infrastructure important for port sector development. Transport infrastructure development is important for connectivity of economic centres Recommendation not conducive for port sector As transport sector is closely connected with power sector this recommendation is not conducive for power sector
Comments of Tamil Nadu Highways Department does not undertakes any new formation/extension of existing roads/construction of express way.
Sector /Issue The embargo on new hydro electric projects and the conditions imposed are unacceptable The rationale for limiting the capacity of power projects in ESZ 1 and ESZ 2 areas have not been given.
Comments of Kerala
Power/Energy including Hydropower No new thermal power plants IN ESZ 1
Comments of Goa NSC
New small hydropower projects (10 MW and below) are permissible in ESZ 1
Comments of Tamil Nadu The recommendat ion that no hydropower projects be allowed in ESZ is objected to.
Comments of Gujarat The recommendati on of WGEEP to have blanket ban on energy projects cannot be agreed to. Decommissio ning of dams and power projects should not be allowed.
Allow run of the river schemes with maximum height of 3 m in ESZ 1 Recommendation of Decommissioning of dams and thermal power projects that have crossed viable life span is unacceptable No diversion of streams and rivers allowed for power projects - unacceptable in respect of hydel projects inside the state
Dams and thermal projects that have crossed their viable life span (for dams the threshold is 3050 years) to be decommissioned in phased manner in all ESZs
The State of Karnataka has already entrusted an 'Ecological Carrying Capacity study of the Western Ghats in Uttara Kannada District' being conducted by the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore for which a budget of Rs. 40 lakhs is already placed at the disposal of IISc, Bangalore. The recommendations of this study will be taken on board while considering projects in this region.
The state would be put to irreplaceable loss in terms power generation capacity if hydropower projects are not allowed in ESZ. Hence, the State Government objects to this recommendation Restrictions on dam height is without logic and should be rejected. Hydropower projects have optimal sizes for techno-economic feasibility should be allowed within existing legal framework Hydropower is renewable, non-polluting and environment friendly
Sector /Issue
Comments of Kerala
Comments of Goa
Comments of Gujarat
7 Power/Energy .
Total 32 talukas in Maharashtra come under ESZ 1. While Karnataka and Kerala have 26 and 15. Maharashtra will therefore be most adversely affected. The recommendation of No new thermal power stations is drastic for a state which has a deficit of about 4000 MW. Hence is objected to. Recommendation on decommissioning of dams and thermal power plants that have crossed their viable life span needs to be rejected Recommendation on dam operation, conversion of landuse and stopping of stream diversion for power projects is not acceptable
If hydroelectric power generation is objected, it will be detrimental to the development of the country. Wind power is green power and due to availability of high speed wind at higher attitude, wind power needs to be promoted. All the power generation works are carried out will full consideration to the environmental conservation.
No forest clearance or stream diversion for new projects in ESZ 1
No thermal power plants function in Western Ghats region. Hydro electric power and solar power is already being encouraged. Tamil Nadu Energy Development Agency (TEDA)is already developing nonpolluting sources of power.
No diversion of streams/ rivers allowed for any power projects and if already existing, to be stopped immediately in all ESZs
Sector /Issue The recommendation that interbasin diversion of rivers in Western Ghats should not be allowed is strongly objected by the state Interbasin diversion of water should be allowed for human development within the framework of existing laws from water surplus basin to water deficit basin . . Inter basin diversion works wherever contemplated, are being examined with full environmental concern This recommendation contained in the report would impact existing dams and transbasin diversion proposals .
Water Sector Irrigation and inter basin diversion
Comments of Kerala The recommendation that interbasin diversion of rivers in Western Ghats should not be allowed is unacceptable. Such an embargo would be unnecessary and discriminatory.
Comments of Goa NSC
Comments of Gujarat NSC
Sector /Issue Water The following recommendations are acceptable to Government of Kerala:
The following recommendations are acceptable to Government of Karnataka:
Comments of Maharashtra NSC
Comments of Kerala
Comments of Goa NSC
Comments of Tamil Nadu Decentralized water resources management plan at local level is under examination. Protection of high altitude valley swamps , catchment area treatment and improved river flow, water conservation measures and water quality are under implementation
Protect high altitude valley swamps Rehabilitation of mined areas eco-restoration of the forest fragments between the tea and coffee estates and revive hill streams. catchment area treatment plans Water conservation measures should be adopted through suitable technology upgradation and public awareness programs. Reconnect children and youth to rivers and water resources through basin level education programs.
Decentralized water resources management plan at Local Self Government Level . Protect high altitude valley swamps and water bodies 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 through suitable technology upgradation
Sector /Issue Restriction on new industry
10
37 MIDC areas fall under ESZs as per WGEEP if complete ban on red and orange industry is imposed, the whole of Lote MIDC would be closed. Hence this recommendation is objected to It is suggested that stringent pollution control norms should be imposed and monitored scrupulously instead of complete ban
Polluting Industry (Red /Orange) Not acceptable in the case of hospitals and hotels. In the case of existing industries they can be made to comply with stringent pollution abatement norms as per effluent/ emission standards as per EP rules
Comments of Kerala
Comments of Goa NSC
No new red and orange category industries in ESZ1 and ESZ 2 areas; for existing industries switch to zero pollution by 2016
Sector /Issue Comments of Maharashtra
Comments of Kerala
11
Forestry: Government Lands
Comments of Goa NSC Forest Rights Act to be implemented in true spirit Community forest resources provisions under FRA to replace all current JFM programes Acceptable subject to continuance of JFM, and
Comments of Tamil Nadu -The siting of polluting industries in ecologically sensitive areas and areas adjoining forests is already governed by the provisions of the EIA notification, which is considered adequate. -The state implements the Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) Policy Comments of Tamil Nadu
Comments of Karnataka Recommendation with regard to Forest and Biodiversity are all acceptable to the Karnataka Forest Department.
Forest Rights Act to be implemented in true spirit Community forest resources provisions under FRA to replace all current JFM programes Acceptable subject to continuance of JFM, and national environment and forest policies
-Provisions of
FRA,2006 is in the process of being implemented through the Tamil Nadu
national environment and forest policies No monoculture plantation of exotics, No weedicide/ pesticide application, Extraction medicinal plants with strict regulation, Encourage planting of endemics, Acceptable subject to the contractual obligations of forest department with time frame for removal of the planted introduced species
KFD has been proactive in he implementation of the FRA as is evident from the progress achieved in the State. Out of the 1,63,038 applications received by the Forest Rights Committee (FRC), 1,62,743 have already been disposed.
Tribal Welfare Department, which is the Nodal Department. -No monoculture plantations are raised on forest lands. - Pesticide/ weedicide application not permitted including extraction of medicinal plants
Sector /Issue
12
Acceptable
Forestry: Private Lands Recognize rights of all small scale traditional private land holders under FRA Acceptable subject to conservation of traditional farming practices of indigenous varieties and rice and with the incentives and subsidies and all other conveniences that are being extended to cash crops being equally made available to farmers adopting ecofriendly traditional cultivars, as a special scheme of the Government of India
Comments of Kerala
Comments of Goa NSC
Introduce incentive payments for maintenance of natural vegetation as also for switch over from annual crops to perennial crops on slopes
Comments of Tamil Nadu Incentivisation can be considered as a promotional effort to preserve the existing natural vegetation in private lands
Sector /Issue Recommendation of giving incentive to farmers for shifting from seasonal crops to local tree crops/fruit crops is welcome. Government of India should provide incentives to farmers to undertake the shift. Phasing out of agricultural chemicals is acceptable subject to time frame and supply of quality inputs and only in selected farming areas. Government of India would provide necessary incentive and subsidies for farmers to convert to organic. Availability of quality inputs shall also be ensured. Promotion of organic agricultural practices is acceptable subject to timeframe for shifting from conventional agriculture to organic Government of India should provide special budgetary support for organic farming. Inventivization for carbon sequestration shall be included in the national action plan for climate change
Comments of Kerala
Comments of Goa
Comment s of Gujarat
13 Agriculture
The following recommendations are acceptable: Landscape planning in select regions /locations: Discontinue the use of weedicides: Phase out the use of insecticides and fungicides: Encourage use of organic manures: Financial support to organic farmers: Selection of crops and varieties: Agro-biodiversity conservation and crop improvement: Make the Western Ghats free of Genetically Modified crops, trees and animals: Awareness building: Educating children about organic and ecological farming and their role in conserving the biodiversity of the Western Ghats: Forest corridors: Forest patches within and along the streams in the plantation: Community forestry: Tribal farming: Research: Subject to the condition that Central Government agrees to provide the required subsidies to the farmers in the Western Ghats areas for the financial loss that they may suffer, as suggested in the report. Comments of Maharashtra NSC Comments of Kerala Strict regulation of tourism as per tourism master plan and social audit Comments of Goa NSC
Comments of Tamil Nadu Organic farming is encouraged. The State is in the process of drafting an Organic farming Policy State encourages the use of biopesticides to slowly phase out the use of chemical pesticides/w eedicides. Phasing out will be a slow process
Sector /Issue
14
Tourism Ecotourism policy of MoEF refined by the WGEA to promote minimal impact
Recommendations with regard to Tourism are all acceptable to the Karnataka Forest Department, except
Comments of Tamil Nadu Ecotourism policy of MoEF Already implemented
tourism in the region in ESZ1 Acceptable safe tourism practices are to be enforced inside sanctuaries making the ecotourism spots in forests more eco-friendly rather tourist friendly from December 2012.
Strict regulation on basis of a Tourism master plan and social audit in ESZ 2 & 3 .
refining the Eco Tourism Policy of MOEF by WGEA. The Karnataka Forest Department agrees to follow the Eco Tourism Policy approved by MOEF.
Sector /Issue
Comments of Kerala
15 Acceptable subject to devolution of funds to the State Environment Department by MoEF for these purposes.
Biodiversity Introduce incentive payments as conservation service charges for maintenance of sacred groves; for maintenance of biodiversity elements on private lands, lands under control of Biodiversity Management Committees, JFM lands, and lands assigned as Community Forest Resources Make special funds available to Biodiversity Management Committees for disbursal in relation to wildlife related damage
Comments of Goa NSC
Comments of Tamil Nadu No incentive is paid but sequestration is encouraged
Sector /Issue
Comments of Maharashtra NSC Acceptable in case of toxic and hazardous industrial wastes NSC NSC
Comments of Kerala
Comments of Goa
16
Waste Treatment
No hazardous or toxic waste processing unit is ESZ 1 and ESZ 2 areas. Extended producers responsibility shall be enforced more strictly as a general condition in respect of such wastes as provided in the rules. Individual units/waste producers would be made responsible for development of regional system local bodies would act as facilitators especially for providing land for such facilities.
Local Authorities to be made responsible for developing regional systems for handling hazardous toxic, biomedical wastes as well as recyclable materials
Sector /Issue
Comments of Kerala A building code exclusively for the Western Ghats region is uncalled for. Uncalled for as a limiting condition for Western Ghats area only
17
Building codes consisting of green technology and green building materials
Comments of Goa NSC
Comments of Tamil Nadu NSC
Sector /Issue Genetically modified crops should not be allowed Acceptable, subject to state policy on permission for GM Crops Phase out the use of plastic bags in shops, commercial establishments, tourist spots, on a priority basis (Not more than 3 years) Plastic management to be Recycled Plastics (Manufacture & Usage Rules)
Comments of Kerala
18
Across the Western Ghats
Comments of Karnataka Genetically modified crops should not be allowed Acceptable
Comments of Goa NSC
Comments of Tamil Nadu NSC
Sector /Issue
19 Animal Husbandry
NSC Acceptable NSC
Comme nts of Karnata ka NSC NSC
Comme nts of Mahara shtra NSC
Comments of Kerala
Comments of Goa
Comment s of Tamil Nadu
Comments of Gujarat
Introduce incentive payments for maintenance of land races of livestock; To be adopted in all areas under organic farming
Redeploy subsidies for chemical fertilizers towards maintenance of livestock and production of biogas and generation of organic manure;
Restore community grasslands and forest grazing lands outside the Protected Areas. Acceptable
Breeds which can withstand adverse agro climatic conditions should be encouraged Application of weedicides in cash crop areas alongside the roads must be prohibited, unused land in tea estates should be used for cattle rearing and the organic manure thus produced used for tea plantation Acceptable.
20 NSC NSC NSC NSC NSC
Area treatment/plot development/landscaping in the open areas of plots Acceptable subject to local conditions Acceptable subject to the existing state legislations
Certain recognized best practices of construction and development such as topsoil conservation, tree conservation should be followed as per green building certification etc.
The area to be paved may be restricted such that there is no change in run off/permeability of the plot (if some area is paved recharge from other areas will have to be enhanced There is an urgent need to focus on destruction of invasive alien species in the state to ensure conservation of native diversity
Certain activities for example filling of marches/wetlands, introduction of alien invasive species are not permitted.
Annexure 7: Statement of the Comments Received from the Central Ministries S.No. Central Ministry 1. Ministry of Rural Development Department of Land Resources (DoLR) Comments The Department of land resources implements three major area based programs namely, Drought Prone Areas Programme, Desert Development Program and Integrated Wastelands Development Program. Since the recommendations contained in the Report of WGEEP do not clash with Watershed Management Program , DoLR has no objection to the demarcation of Western Ghats into Ecologically Sensitive Zones and guidelines prescribed for preservation of biological diversity of the area. The recommendations made by the WGEEP are similar to the Ministry of Tourisms Sustainable Tourism criteria approach. The Ministry hence agrees with the recommendations made in the report. A special cell may be constituted in the Western Ghats Ecological Authority with one representation from the Ministry of Tourism. There is no risk to the Western Ghats biodiversity due to the cultivation of the current GM Bt-Cotton hybrids. There is hence no reason whatsoever to enforce a restriction on cultivation of Bt Cotton in the Western Ghats, especially since there is no perceived threat to any form of biodiversity of tetraploid cotton species or related tetraploid wild species present in the Western Ghats. A blanket ban on Bt Cotton in Western Ghats with an unreasonable pretext of threat to biodiversity is not backed by scientific principles or research and is thus inappropriate. On the suggestion to discontinue the use of weedicides DAC in all its crop development programmes encourages mechanical sowing, line transplanting etc which are conducive to mechanical weeding. On the suggestion to phase out the use of insecticides and fungicides DAC emphasizes alternative tools for pest management such as cultural, mechanical methods use of bio control agents and judicious and need based use of pesticides. On the recommendation for community forestry DAC supports community forestry which will help in availability of fodder, fuel wood and biological residue for manure preparation. Agro forestry and afforestation are eligible components under watershed programmes to promote such activities. On the suggestion to promote marketing of organic agricultural produce Development of marketing for organic
2.
Ministry of Tourism
3.
Ministry of Agriculture , Department of Agriculture & Cooperation (DAC)
4.
Ministry Of Power
5.
Ministry of Commerce and Industry
produce in India is in nascent stage, hence, it requires promoting formation of Farmers/ Producers Group or cooperatives to collect and add primary value to produce to make it quantity and quality-wise marketable. Regarding Thermal Projects - The WGEEP may review the recommendations in regard to location of thermal power plants especially for 3 taluks viz Honavar,Ankola and Kumta of Karnataka. These taluks have been identified in a report by Central Mines Planning and Design Institute Ltd. (CMPDI), by taking into account availability of land, sea water, infrastructure facilities, R&R issues and environmental aspects. Regarding Hydro Projects The recommendation that Dams and Thermal projects that have crossed their viable life span (for dams the threshold is 30-50 years) should be decommissioned in phased manner, is worth considering. The recommendation that there should be no diversion of streams/ rivers for any power projects and if already existing to be stopped immediately will hamper the hydro development in the country. Instead of putting a blanket ban the merits and demerits of individual projects may be examined and the decision should be taken on a case to case basis. Status of Athirapally HEP The MoEF had earlier accorded environmental clearance during July 2007 but subsequently issued notice to Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) on issues regarding effect on Tribals and Biodiversity.The matter is under correspondence between MoEF & KSEB. The Athirapally and Gundiya HEP are in advanced stage of development. Stopping these projects would further hamper the development of HydroPower. It is suggested that decision on these projects may be reviewed and comments of concerned state Government may also be obtained. The recommendations on agriculture sector will have direct impact on the plantation sector crops in the Western Ghats region. Practicing organic farming over the entire area and phasing out all chemical fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides would make plantation crops unviable as there will be substantial decline in productivity of plantations. Coffee cultivation in the Western Ghats is not going to affect the biodiversity, flora and fauna of the region or is polluting the environment as feared in the Report.
Western Ghats accounts for 80% pepper produced in India. If the Report is accepted, pepper cultivation has to be brought under organic system and there would be no reliable organic methods to control foot rot disease. If the recommendations of Gadgil Committee are accepted, species indigenous to India like cardamom,pepper and some of the tree spices might suffer heavily, which will adversely affect our spices trade. Going 100% organic may not be practical/logical.It may be impractical and dangerous.If 100% of the plant nutrients should come from organic sources alone it will be enormous and inaccessible. Natural rubber produced with 100% organic materials will not attract any price premium. Similarly, the recommendations about GM, no cultivation beyond certain slopes is not logical. 6. Ministry of Railways The Ministry fully shares the need for strict regulations and social audits before permitting ne development in the Ecologically Sensitive Zone 1,2 & 3 . A total of 5 rail projects are listed in the Report.Out of these, following 3 projects have been sanctioned : Hubli- Ankola NL(167 kms) The Marmagao port is getting saturated and this project will facilitate movement of freight trains via alternate route. Banglore Satyamanglam- Mettypalayam This will clear passenger traffic and provide an alternate route from Banglore to Down South and it will be utilized for passenger traffic. Sabrimala Angamali Sabrimala is not connected with a rail head.This will cater to passenger traffic and also serve for pilgrimage purpose. Mysore Kannur, Talguppa- Honnavar lines have not yet been surveyed yet. Hence no comments can be offered at this stage. The recommendations and action points mentioned by the Panel are very critical for maintaining the ecological balance of the region and may be adopted. In case of solid waste management MSW Rules published by the MoEF from time to time may be referred to for compliance in the project implementation. Water recharging structures need to be suggested in the
7.
Ministry Of Urban Development
8.
Ministry of Steel
region to improve the groundwater recharge. It appears that the recommendations of WGEEP regarding moratorium on mining activities and recommendations regarding industrial and infrastructural projects (including railway lines and roads) may have negative impact on the industrial growth of the region, as these stringent provisions may not only drift away the industries from demarcated zones, but may also adversely affect development of requisite infrastructure in the region. This Ministry is of the view that while taking measures for ecological safeguards, for ensuring industrial and economic development of the region industries may be allowed within carrying capacity of the region/area with suitable safeguards and measures for preservation of ecology, flora and fauna. Iron and steel sector is one of the most important infrastructural sectors of the country, contributing significantly to overall economic growth and development of the nation. The report suggests the formation of a Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA) , a statutory authority which enjoys the powers under the Environment (Protection) Act. As the Western Ghats is an extensive region spanning over six states , it is desirable that the WGEA functions in a coordinated fashion with 6 constituent State Western Ghats Ecology Authorities (SWGEA) appointed jointly by the State Governments and the Central Ministry of Environment & Forests to avoid administrative delays in environmental clearances. Not recd. Not recd.
9 10 11 12
Ministry of Water Resources Ministry of Surface Transport Ministry of Mines Ministry of Tribal Affairs
Recd The Ministry agrees with the recommendation that the Forests Right Act must be implemented in its full spirit. Action in this regard however should be taken up by the states. With regard to the recommendation that Community Forest Resource Provisions under FRA should replace Joint Forest Management Programs, it may be mentioned that the provisions relating to community resource management under FRA are different from those mentioned under Joint
Forest Management Programmes implemented by the MoEF. It is suggested that an official from the Ministry of Tribal Affairs may be included as a representative in the Western Ghats Ecological Authority. The Ministry agrees with the recommendation that the sanction for the environmental and forest clearances for the Devapon Dongar mine of the Caurem village in Quepem Taluk of Goa, against serious local opposition and without implementation of FRA is thouroughly inexcusable.
Annexure 8
0,0 , NoWLP-1011-154-F
25 th March 2013
Dear Shri Tyagi , Kindly refer to 0,0 , letter No 1/1/201 O-RE(ESZ dated 30-8~2012 addressed to the Chief Secretary, Gujarat by Dr.K.Kasturirangan , Member Planning Commission , Gol , New Delhi regarding Specific Comments on the recommendations of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) constituted by the MoEF under the Chairmanship of Prof. Madhav GadgiL The remarks of the State Govt. on the proposed guidelines and summary of recommendation Sector-wise activities are as per Annexure-1 to this letter, So far as constitution of the Western Ghats Ecology Authority, adequacy of existing rules and regulations and restrictions on infrastructure development are concerned, the views of the State Government are as under: 1, State Government may noLl!l a position to agree for creation separate authority which would become additional structure and complicate the present Environmental Clearance Procedure, Under the existing Acts and Rules , there are sufficient and appropriate provisions to take care of the requirement of Permission , Prohibition, Rejection or Acceptance of Forest and Environmental matters, The recommendations of WGEEP to reslricUprohibit , Railway line, Energy Projects, Mining etc, cannot be agreed in a blanket manner, All these have to be seen in the context of livelihood needs , scope of permissibility and essential needs of Social and Economic development. Non-conventional Energy projects like solar and wind can be taken up which are basically sources of green energy,
2,
3.
Primacy should be attached to the interest of local population, their needs, interdependence, livelihood etc. A Consultative mechanism at best is the rig ht Recommendation in this direction rame'" than creation of a New Authority.
So far as taking into account the ecology panel environme~: preservations is concerned while considering the developmental and livelihood issues in planning, the law of the land on this issue is the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Rights) 2006 and this Act takes adequate care of this issue. The forest is managed by working plan, which includes reasonable coup-cutting. It has to have prior approval of the MoEF and is implemented under strict supervision of the field staff of this Department. Because of well-developed social forestry and considerable quantity of imported timber on well-developed ports, the timber availability in the State is always surplus which has considerably reduces risk on indigenous forests. These views of the State Government may please be placed before the HLWG for further necessary action. Yours sincerely,
~~
(H. K. Dash)
Shri Ajay Tyagi
Joint Secretary, Monistry of Environment & Forests, Paryavaran Bhavan, C.G.O. Complex,Lodhi Road, New Oelhi-11 0 003.
').\C(,~ Sr. No.
.
Sector
ESZl ESZ2 ESZ3
Remarks of Govt. ofGujarat after State Level Inter Departmental Discussion O n 28/02/2013
projects, especially assessing the cost-benefits considering ecological costs an d public benefits.
Local Planning Authority before executIon of projects, especially assessing the cost-benefits conside ring ecological costs an d public benefits.
Not accepted -
.- .
3
Building codes
consisting of green technology

and green building materials
A building code should be evolved by the WGEA which include inter-alia eeo-friendly building materia l and construction methods, minimising the use of steel. cement and sand. prOViding water harvesting methods, non-conventio nal energy an d waste treatment Th e application or detailing of the framework would be done by local authorities to suit local
conditions.
However, these recommendat , o n ~ are viewed positively but ShO Ul d

be taken care of by existing local a uth o ritie s. To be encouraged by awarene ss.
Area treatment!
plot
development
Certai n recognized best practices of construction/development such as topsoI l con servation, trees conservation etc. should be followed as per the guidelines of Green Building certifications of Eco Housing, GRIHA or any other appropriate codes to be encouraged. Certain activities for example filling of marshes/ wetlands. introd uction of alJen invasive species are not permitted The area that may be paved is to be restricted; paving of ground areas may be done in such a manner that there is no change in the run-off I permeability of the plot overall before and after paving (if some area is paved, th e recharge from other areas will have to be enhanced)
Accepted as a general gui delir: ~ t the existing authorities These recommendations are viewed positively.
/ landscaping
in the open areas of plots
-Page 3 of 16
~.
Sr. No.
Sector
,
-
ESZ1
ESZ2
ESZ3
Remarks of Govt. of Gujarat after State l.evellnter Departmental Discussion on
28/02/2013
---------
5
,
Waste
treatment
Local authorities should be made responsible to for developing regional systems for handling hazardous, toxic, biomedical wastes as well as recyclable material
,
, ,
Accepted as a general gUideline and it is already provided under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and notifications there under Under the existing laws and legal provision this is provided and may be viewed positively.
No hazardous or toxic waste processing units
Recycling and waste processing and units compliant with PCB regulations should be sited in ESZ3 areas (or outside the WG region) and should cater to nearby ESZl
Accepted as a general gUideline and it is already provided under the Environment (Protection) Act. 1986 and notifications there under - Under the existing laws and legal provision this is provided and are viewed positively.
Wastewater management
Mandatory for alilayoutsJ building developments though the choice of technology would vary with size of settlement;
.
-~-
Accepted as a general gUideline and it is already provided under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and notifications there unde:- Under the existing laws and legal provision this is provided and are viewed positively.
Page4of16
d-~
Sr. No. Sector ESZ1 ESZ2
.
ESZ3
Remarks ofGovt. of Gu/arat after State Level Inter Deparbnental Discussion on 28/02/2013
Accepted as a general guideJin-
Should be such as to permit, reuse, recharge. recycling as locally appropriate and permit recovery of energy where possible
and it is already provided und E,
Water
Decentralized water resources management plans at Local Self Governm ent level
the Environment (Prot~ction) '\cl; 1986 and notifications th ere u,-.d t - Under the existing laws and lega l provision thi s is provided and --;~.!'.: viewed positively. - Accepted as a general g uid elin This should be don e as per the over all water management policy of the State Government.
Accepte d as a gen eral guidelin- This is viewed positively by the local authorities
~
-Protect high altitud e valley swamps and water bodies.
Catchment area treatment plans of hydroelectric and major irrigation projects should be taken up to improve their life span.
Accepted as a gen era l gU ideli n . This is viewed positive ly by the existing local authorities/project authoriti es.
.-
Improve ri ver Hows and water quality by scientific riparian management programmes involving community participation
Accepted as a general gU idelin -;: This is viewed positively by the existing local authorities /project authorities.
Page 5 of16
Sr.
No.
I
Sector
I
0
Remarks of Govt. of Gujarat
ESZ1
ESZ2
ESZ3
after State Level Inter Departmental Discussion on 28/02/2013

Accepted as a general guide lin e This Is viewed positively by the existing local authorities/project authorities.
Water conservation measures should be adopted through suitable technology up gradation and pub Iic awareness programmes
I
i
0
Inter-baSin diversions of rivers in th e Western Ghats sh ould not be allowed
Not accepted Instead of complete ban, the EIA
should be made compulsory and

the decision to be taken by existing competent authorities on case to case basis as per th e findings of EIA and merits of the case,
i
I
0 0
I I I
0
Agriculture
,
0
Promote organic agricultural practices; discourage cultivation of annual crops on slopes exceeding 30%. where perennial crops should be promoted; 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 oftraditionaJ cultivars; encourage precision agricultural practices, No CMOs
Phase out all use of chemical pesticides/ weedicides within five years Phase out all use of chemical pesticides/ weedlcides within eight years Phase out all use of chemical pesticldes/ weedicides with in ten years
Accepted as a general guideline This is viewed positively by the existing local authorities/project authorities
i
Instead ofcamplete ban these objectives may be achieved through (a) mass education programme and (b) incentives and
I
I ,
0
i, _
Phase out, through a system of
Phase out, through a system of
Page 60116
of'\!
Sr.
No.
Sector
ESZ1
ESZ2
ESZ3
Remarks of Govt. of Gujarat after State Level Inter Departmental Discussion on
28/02/2013
positive incentives, use of chemical fertilizers within five Phase out, through a system of positive incentives, use of chemical fertilizers within eIght years positive incentives. use of chemical fertilizers within ten
alternatives. Prescribing time __:;n- : is not accepted.

These are viewed positively by the existing local authoriti es/project authoriti es. However, it should be voluntary based on proper
years
years
awareness programme to prevent

loss or reduction in agricultural income. These are viewed positively by the existing local authoriti es/ project authorities
Animal Husbandry
Introduce incentive payments as ,conservation service charges' for maintenance ofland races of livestock;
Redeploy subsidies for chemical fertilizers towards maintenance of livestock and production ofbiogas and generation of organic manure; Restore community grasslands and forest grazing lands outside the Protected Areas.
AccepteLi as a general gU id eb.a. This recommendation is vi ewed positively by the existing local authorities Accepted as a general guidelin eThis recommendation is viewed positively by the existing local authorities Accepted as a genera l guid eli n cO This recommendation is Vi ewed positively by the existing local authorities
Page 70f16
ISr.
I No
,
Sector
ESZ1
ESZ2
ESZ3
,
Breeds which can withstand adverse agro climatic conditions should be encouraged
I
28/ 02 /2 013
Accepted as a general gUideline-
This recommenda tion is viewed positively by the existing local authorities Application ofweedicides in cash crop areas alongside the roads must be prohibited, since almost all plants coming under the weed category are rich cattle fodder. Accepted as a general guideline This recommendation is viewed positively by th e existing local authorities
Accepted as a genera l guideline-
, ,
,
,
The unused land in tea estates should be used for cattle rearing and the organic manure thus produced used for tca plantation.
i ,
10
Fishery Strictly control use of dynamite and other explosives to kill fish; provide fish ladde rs at all rese rvoi rs
This recommendation is viewed positively by the existing local authorities. State ofGujarat does not have tea estates. Accepted as a genera l guideline This recommendation is viewed positively by the existing local authorities Accepted as a general guideline This recommendation is viewed positively by the existing local authoriti es
, ,
,
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
,
Page8of16
Sr. No. Sector ESZ1 ESZ2
d~'
ESZ3 Remarks of Govt. of Gujarat after State Level Inter Departmental Discussion on 28/02/2013
Accepted as a general gUidelin ~-
11
Forestry: Government lands
Forest Rights Act to be implemented in its true spirit by reaching out to people to fadlitate their claims, Community Forest Resource provisions under FRA to replace all current Joint Forest Management programmes,
This recommendation is viewed positively by the existi ng local
authorities
No monoculture plantation of exotics like eucalyptus;
No monoculture plantation of exotics

like eucalyptus;
No monocu lture plantation of exotics like eucalyptus;
Accepted as a gen t'ral
gui deii r;~ -
These recommendation is viewed
No pesticide/ weedicide application; Extraction of medicinal plants with s trict regulations
Encourage planting of endemic species; Phase out pesticidel weedicid e application; Extraction of medicinal plants with strict regulations
Encourage planting of endemic species; Phase out pesticidel weedicide application; Extracti on of medicin al plants with strict regulation s
positively by the exis ting local authorities
12
Forestry: private lands
Recognize rights of all small-scale, tradition al private land holders under FRA,lntroduce incentive payments as ,conservation selvice charges' for maintenance of natural vegeta tion for small land holders, as also for switch-over from annual crops to perennial crops on steep slopes for small landholders. Introduce incentives such as tax breaks or renewal of leases as ,conservation service charges' for maintenance of natural vegetation for small land holders;
Accepted as a general gUiri elk ~This recommendation is viewed positively by the existing local authoriti es
- -
._.. Page 90116
-_. Sr .
Nc.
I
!
Sector
,----
I ,
ESZ1
ESZ2
ESZ3
Remarks of Govt. of Gujarat after State Level Inter Departmental Discussion on 28/02/2013 Acce pted as a general gUid eline These recomme ndations a re viewed positively by the existing local authorities
13
No monoculture pla ntation of exotics like eucalyptus; existing plantations of such exotics should be replaced by planting endemic species or allowing area to revert to grassland where it was originally grassland. No pesticide/ weedicid e application; Extraction of medi ci nal plants with strict regul ations; Encourage planting of endemic s pecies
No monoculture plantation of exotics like eucalyptus; existing plantations of such exotics should be replaced by planting endemic species or allowing area to revert to grassland where it was originally grassland Encourage planting of endemic species; Quarrying with strict regulations; Phase out pesticide/ weedicide application
No monoculture plantation of exotics like eucalyptus; existing plantations of such exotics should be replaced by planting end emic s pecies or allowing area to revert to grassland wh ere it was originally grassland Encourage planting of endemic species in private forests; Quarrying with strict regulati ons; Phase out pesticid e/ weedicide application
14
Biodiversity
Introduce incentive payments as ,conservation service charges' for maintenance of sacred groves; for maintenance of biod ivers ity elements on private lands, lands under control of Biodiversity Management Committees, JFM lands, and lands assigned as Community Forest Resources Make special fund s available to Biodiversity Management Committees for di sbursal in relation to wil dli fe related damage
Acce pted as a general gUid e line This re commend ation is vi ew ed positively by th e existing local authorities Accepted as a gen e ral guidelineThis should be don e as per the existing norm s and regulations of the Government of Gujarat and the Biodiversity Conse rvation Act, 2002 .
Page 10 ot16
'f~
Sr. No.
,
Sector
ESZl ESZ2 ESZ3
Remarks of Govt. of Gujarat after State Level Inter
Departmental Discussion on
28/ 02/ 2013
15
Mining
No new licenses to be given for
No new licenses to be
given for mining.
min ing Where mining exists, it should be phased out in 5 years, by
I I
2016
Deta ited plans fo r environmental and social rehabili tation of mines to be closed. Illegal mining to be stopped immediately
This moratorium can be reviewed on a case by case basis Existing mining to adopt good practice mining and be under strict regulation and so cial audit Detailed plans for en Vironmental and social rehabilitation of mines to be closed. Illegal mining to be stopped immediately
New min ing may be taken up only for scarce minerals not availabl e on the plains and should be under strict regulation and social a udit, s ubject to fr ee prior inform ed consent of tribal and other communities and in recognition of tri bal rights. Exis ting mining to adopt good practice mining and be under strict regulation and social audit Ill egal mining to be stopped immediately
Not accepted.
However, these recommendat
.) 11
are viewed positively by the exis ting local authorities. There are adequate safe gua rd
provisions under the existing '
':t~
& r egulati ons that may be inv: ~'" case to case basi s.
16
Where exis ts s hould be controlled effectively fo r environmental and social impacts immediately No new licenses to be given for qua rry and sand mining
Upgradation poSSible/permitted subject to strict regulation and social audit
Exis ting and new quarry and sand minin g should be under strict regulations and SOCial audit and without affecting tribal rights
Not ac cepted. However, th ese recom me ndz:t Jr.. are vi ewed posi tively by the existing local authorities. There are ad equate safe guard provisions unde r th e existing ~ ::t~ & regulations that may be in v{ ke ' case t o case basi S.
Page 11 of16
- -
~ sr l
, I
No.
. , ,
Sector
[SZl
ESZ2
ESZ3
.1;
Polluting Industry (Red /Orange) No new polluting (red and orange category) industries; for existing industries switch to zero pollution by 2016 and be subject to strict regul ation and social audit No new polluting (red and orange category) industries; for existing industries switch to zero pollution by 2016 and be subject to strict regulation and social audit New indus tries may be set up und er strict regulation and
28/02/2013
Accepted as a general gUideline -
social audit
This recomm endation is viewed positively by the existing local authorities. Th ere are adequate safe guard provisions under the existing acts & regulations that may be invoked case to case basis.
18
I ,
I
Nonpolluting (Green/ Blue) Industry
19
Power/ Energy
With strict regulation and social Promote Green/ Blue industries. Local bioaudit. resource based Local bio-resource based industry should be industry s hould be promoted. promoted. All should All should be strictly regulated be strictly regulated and be subject to social audit. and be subject to social audit Educate the energy consumer about the environmental and production and the need for reducing ,luxury' demand
Promote Green/ Blue industries. Local bio-res ource based industry should be promoted. All s hould be strictly regulated and be subject to social audit.
Accepted as a general gUideline These recommendations are viewed positively by the ex isting local authorities. Th ere are adequate safe guard provis ions under the existing acts & regulation s that may be invoked case to case ba s i ~. Accepted as a gen eral guideline These recommend ations are viewed pos itively by the exis ting local authoriti es. There ar e adequate provis ions under the existing policy, rul es & regulations.
-- -- --
social impacts of energy
Encourage demand s id e management; enhanced energy efficiency across sectors Launch ,smart" campaigns as key components of demand side management, focusing on smart grids, s mart buildings, smart power, smart logistics and smart motors Promote decentralized electricity, use of solar power
- _ ._ - -- ---- -
.
- _ ..
Page 120116
j~' . ~
Sr. No. Sector
.
ESZ1 ESZ2 ESZ3
.
Remarks ofGovt. ofGujarat after State Level Inter
Departmental Discussion on
28/02/2013
Allow run of the river schemes with maximum helghtot3 m permissible which would serve local energy needs of tribaJf local communities / plantation colonies subject to consent of gram sabha and all clearances
from WGEA, SEA and DECs Small bandharas permi ssible for local and tribal community use / local self government use
No new dams above 15
Large Power plants are allowed subject to strict environmental regulations including
1. cumulative impact assessment studies 2. carrying capacity studies 3. minimum forest clearance (norms to be set by WGEA) 4. based on assessment of flows required for downstream needs including the ecological needs of the river Existing Power plants subject to strict regulation and social audit. Zero pollution to be required for new thermal power plants. Wind projects only after CEIA For already existing dams reservoir operations to be
Not accepted -
However, these recommendaL 'Jn", are viewed positively by the

existing local authorities on cc: " :e to case basis depellding on th E'_ merit of the casco There are adequate safe guard provisions under the existing regulations.
m or new thermal plants permissible

New hydro projects between 10 25 MW (up to 10 m ht) permissible
No forest clearance or stream diversion for new projects Run ofthe river schemes not allowed in first order or second order streams Promote srnall scale. micro and pico hydropower systems, that are people owned & managed and are off grid
All project categories subject to very strict clearance and compliance conditions thrOUgh SEA and DECs ofWGEA
New small hydropower projects Have run off the river (10 MW and below) are hydro power projects pennissible but after cumulative impact study of the
.-
Page 130116
Sr
--Sector
r No
ESZl
i
ESZ2
ESZ3
Remarks of Govt. of Gujarat after State Level Inter Departmental Discussion on 28/02/2013
i ,
i I
No new thermal power plants
river basin is done
Strict environmental regulation of existing thermal power plants EXisting thermal plants 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
No large scale w ind power
Regulated wind power projects but after cumulative environmental impact assessment (CEIA) Zero pollution to be required of existing Thermal Power Plants
r escheduled for allowing more water downstream
projects Promote biomass based lsolar sources for decentralized energy needs.
No diversion of streams/ rivers allowed for any power proj ects and ifalready existing, to be stopped imm ediately Catchment area treatment in a phased manner following watersh ed principles;
l_ _
I
continuous non-compliance of clearance conditions for three years would entail decommissioning of eXisting projects -
Page 14 of 16
rp\\l
Sr.
No.
.
Sector
ESZ1 ESZ2 ESZ3
Remarks of Govt. ofGujarat after State Level Inter Departmental Discussion on
28/02/2013
Dams and thermal projects that have crossed their viable life span (for dams the threshold is 30-50 years) to be decommissioned in phased manner
All project categories to be jointly operated by LSGs and Power Boards with strict monitoring for compliance under DECs
-20
Transport
No new railway lines and maior road s, except where it is highly essential (as perhaps, in case of Goa) , and subject to EIA, strict regulation and social audit. Avoidance of new highways, expressways
I I
No new railway lines and major roads. except when highly essential and subject to EfA. strict regulation and social audit.
Upgradation of roads possible/ permitted subject to EIAs, strict regulation and social audit Strict regul atio n on basis of a Tourism ma ster plan and social audit. Tourism Maste r Plan should be based on carrying capacity of area and after taking into account soc ial and environmental costs.
Essential new roads/ railways may be allowed subject to strict regulation and social aud it.
Not accepted However, these recommcndat ) n ~ are viewed positively by the existing local authorities on ca .to case basis depending on th : merit of the case. There are adequate safe guard provisi o n ~ under the existing policies, rul :::: ,.: regu lations.
21
Tourism
Ecotourism policy ofMoEF refined by the WGEA to promote minimal impact tourism in the region Strict regulation for waste management, traffic and water use
Strict regulation and social audit Tourism Master Plan should be based on carrying capacity of area and after taking into account social and e nviro nmenta l costs
Accepted as a general gutdeli n - Th ese recommendations a re viewed positively by the existi ng local authorities. There are adequate safe guard provisions unde r the existing regulations.
i , L __ I
--.'
._. ,-
Page 15 0116
Sr I
No . 1
.---.----.-..
.
ESZ2 ESZ3
Remarks of Govt. of Gujara ;_ after State Level Inter Departmental Discussion on
----
I
Sector
i !
22
ESZ1
28/02/2013
Education
Reconnect children and youth to local environment through education programmes focusing on local e nvironme ntal issues, especially degradation of natura l resources of land and water and air and water pollution. Tailor Environmental Education projects to serve as an instrument of participatory environmental monitoring involving local community members; connect such exercises to preparation of ,Peo ple's Biodiversity Registers' by the local Biodiversity Management Committees
Accepted as a general guideline These recommendations are
viewed positi vely by th e existing local authorities.
Students' ,River Clubs' should be encouraged in schools situated along the course of the respective river Teach agricu lture in schools
23
Science and Technology
Accepted as a general guidelineCumulative impact assessment for all new projects such as dams, mines, tourism, and housi ng, that impact upon water resources should be conducted and permission given only if These recommendati ons are they fall within the carrying capacity viewed positively by the existing local authorities. Focus research on perfecting green technology and make it affordable for common people. Environment flow assess ments indicators should be worked out by Resea rch institutions, NGOs along with local communities
I I
!
2J !
Information management
Build on the Western Gha ts database ofWGEEP to create an open, transparent, participatory system of environmental monitoring involving all citizens, in particular th e student community Update and upgrade a hydrological data base of rivers and consolid ate the ecological data base and information at river basin level
Accepted as a general guideline These recommendations are viewed positively by th e existing local authorities.
Page 16ofl6
.
'.
'
. ' .1. " . .
.', GOVERNMtNf OFMAHt\RASHTRA '

. No. FLD20ll!CRJ671F~IO, . Reven~e &. Forest Department . M!l1ltl)llaya, Mumbai4Q0032. Th\ted: 13" January, 2012. .
.
To
. / .'
. .
.,
'. . '. :The Secret,ary,
"Ministry Envirtminenta,nd Forests,' . '. Goveniinent oflndia; . ' . ' . '. . Paryavaran Bhilwan; CGO Complex, . . : Lo<Jhi Road NewDelhi~ I J 0003 '. ' ' . .. . . . . . .~ . . . . .. . . . Sub: COmments on WGEEP Report
'
of
.
'
. ..
",
.'
' .
. ..
'.
. Sir, State undertaking the vital task : for ecological conServation ahd...sustainability' of Western Ghat region, .
'~lthe (ju~.the Government~iates
oflayi~g
down guidelines .
As perthe referenceated above the comments of the State G vemrnent are as under - .
I) Setting up of WGEA--- The proposed mechanism will
rate parallel to existing environmental
agencies and C!l1l have ,divergent approaches. The mandate of any dispute related to environment is . too ambitious !l1ld will practically cover all areas of government functioning Therefore Government
of M;.haraShtra takes objectiOn on setting upofthe Western Ghat Ecology Authority, WGEA from
I its proposed constitution, appears to be a too big an Authority. Such a heavy bureaucl)ltic set up
would lead to bottlenecks and getting C:1earances of various developmental projects even though they are otherwise permissible within the existing framework oflaws may often find difficult to get .
I~1!f'ji"'5~~ iia;t;;;i;j~W..t~~f~!-_$214~~~g.~~~~ ;.. . '. ,'."., ;.. . ; .~... ' ..;. . .... ".';;~~i
. ' ... '.' . " .. ' witli respeeitodevelOpment prOjectS e.g. . windmills; t..ilways etc., wili restiltin :.hicreased
. bureaucracY!l1ld permission regime 'IX)ndl\Civeio corruption. Existi~g statutory authorities ~nder the
..~I~h~dShira :RegiOr,CiI 'TO~~i _PJ~m~ai;tg
r \ct, . ~~.1~;'~h~~ :!'.1.~nitipa!
co~'rat'i(\~ : ' A~ct.- ~nd ".
OVEnVironmeolProteCtion Act andaZ irointime to time . . lri$tead, the eXisting High Level further strengthened
~ aresuffi~ient to take care ofvariou~ vr~~1>: '. . ' ~ilViromnentai concerns and should not be ove.:seenbY the proposed, newauthoritpiz. WmiA: .
.,,\~.' ~nd continue' tei work lnsteadofWGEA, Iher~for~ there is norieedofhaving a
.'
MonitOringCoinmitte~ functiQningin theStite, if required, can .~' ..
.'
~l~""\
.' .' .
f-& ~-y' \\.'..\ v \ ,,\v,' ~ \ ~l\.' .

.
(~i{
.
Sepo/ateWGEA, '

. .. 2a. Definition of
westernGh~is: . WGEEP
east~rnedge . -
lias attempted
to define . . the . western . Ghats from an
envirarunenial .angle andutilisedaJlitude and forest areaor vegetation as . westemOhatsc The . . devation afWahats is identified by
driven defining the boUndaries of forested 3teaSthllf . . . ... ~e ahove soom: . The
. .....
-
nitionaleforlliis cut afffallawedfj'am digital data which showed that, ing.neial, 500m. constitutes the
at whIch WG r!sediicreteiy from the Ileccanpfa;eau. Fo~ ihe w~~ edge,tliecutof{offa~ted . ..

area delin~asper the sl~~'mdforests
~
areas atl50rn is taken as Ghats faliow f1lore steeply dOwn to .the coastline. Jbfsdefinition h,;'; signi(icant .. impact on defining thee)(tentofWestern Ghats. Only exact
.:
sho~ld be under ESZ-I add noitheeritire.Taluka. .

total 132 ta[\lk.is as details are
. _2b Administrative unit for monitoring: . i'arljer studyof Plamling cominiSskm in 1960'shad .ideritified . . ..
west~rn Ghats ilnda speCial progfl;m was imdertaken farWestemghat devel~p~enL ]\10 giveniri report. And th~r~far~ which defining the area under westein GhalSTaluka is take~ ~..
an;takenfor~onitorin'gbut. in 2
.. . reasonable administrative unit. AUtalukas which falls in the .definition groups; one, less than 50% tobereviewed particulatly f6r Jess than 5.0% are. within WG area.
..
mea, With.in WG area and other, more than 50% ~within WGarca This )leeds
... .... . . . .
.. . . > .. . . "
.. ....
.. ..
. . .. . .
2e. WGEEP recommends thai the entire western ghat traCt shall be declared as ecologically sensitive area . under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 "'
Area categorisation for monitoring: . ESZI : Regions of highest sensitivity or ecological sensitive zone I ESZ2 : Regions of high sensitivity . ESZ3 :Regions of moderate sensitivity.
The methodol ogy defined is cOmplex and need to be reviewed. The ESZI and ESt3 definition needs more .careful review asit covers com~tively larger areas.
2 (d) DeHneation of ESZ-l, with Taluka as a unit
It is not acceptable. This would mean that even the TaJuka towns which may not fulfill the criteria of steep
3:Ecci-Sensjti~e Z<>ne I (ESz-i) .

Restrictions imposedwithlnESZ-i arewell intended with an objective of protecting the fragile eco- . system of the Western GhatH~weversome ofthese appear to be ungovernable arid will restrict and not based
evengree~
or eCo.friendlYdevelopment of the n'gion.Somerecommendatiorisare b. 3$ed Wi one or Mofield.examples . .
On thorough social cost-beneiit~xercise. H~wever in general all the Strict ~ecom~en&tio~sof ..

"
ESZlmay for f<irest. m.eas. prot!!i:ted . areas and . be acceptabie . ' . . eca-sensitive zone aroond the protected areas. .
3(3) Wi;,dm11ls .
. . . .
. . . In respect of wi'!dmill, which isa "9n-Coilireotlonal. and green somce <if energy, it would be appropriate to .. case: offorest land and. wildlife sanctuaries. However complete prohibiiion on such imposeprohibition in . . projects in the entire ESZl area wHi prove to be counterprod\lctive as sites for wind energy are very site specific. Kindly note th!'7!!at 85% of the pcPulati~n in the Western Ghat use fuel wood as the
-.-

. cooking .energy, therefore complete' prohibition on such ' alt~mativesource of gleen energy ' will .reSult in . . cOride~ the peopie io use . i'!ielWQOdfor years to come. . . . .'
-
'." ,
3 (b) (I)
~ Sec.tor
neicaid2
.
. '."
' . .
taluk~ ofMaha~ashira included in ESZ-I; ~ithmaximum restri~tioI1s. Kamatakaand

and 15 talukas respectively in ESZ"1. Thus MaharashtrlJ,State will .
. . '.
. '
Kerala have been ciniy 26 .
be most . .
'
adversely affected. .The recommendations of the Committee are not practical and do not take into consideraiioq local needs.' Rlino{t/Je rivers schemes with. m~ ' height of 5mtrsare .only perrnissiblEi for '. ..
Powe~, ~. ioo with . .

~
consent ' no. of;utlioritieS.'.N'o new' thermal power 'staiioos': is ildiaStic. .. . ofl,rrge .. . ' . . . ' . . . ' .
recorruit~ol}in the' face of around' 4000 MW shortage ofele~triciiy in the State.. Even .windpowet .
. ... proj.eetS. are ";~hibited. piversiOnof agri. .land to non-agri. lanilisaiSo r.estricted, thus installalionofnew .. . . / .. .. ..... su"'stat'ons; gnd Imes Will be hampered. . . . .'
-
.
'
.. .
. '
'. .
" '. .
. '. . \../"" ." .

-
j (b) (Ii) H}'dni Electric ,Projects
So far as ibe hydr~electric projec!S are concerned, projects hi~than 3. meters must be allowed if there is . no subnierzcnce offorestand. protected area and further less t~ 1000 trees are being felled. Such projects ' may
be~ in non-forest areas. Thus hydroelectric projects outside the forest an~ protected area may /
be allowed if they fulfill the . criteria laid down in the existing framework of laws. 3 (c) Transportation Projects
TrlIIISpOrt
sector is closely connected with Power sector. The report prohibits new railway lines,
major roads, new highways, expressways. This will hamper the development of linkages to Power sector adversely. Thus these recommendations
are not conducive for energy sector and hence are opposed by the
Government of Maharashtra The Railway projects reaching ports which are essential either due to connectivity toImportant economic centres or due to geographic factors may be approved with environment
3(d) l\1lnj~
Aco~pletc banQn miningandeictraetion ofsite specific minerale.g.bauxite~dironore which~efound ' .. '

in specific pockets,
IS ~lso obj~ciionable. With a view of ~ptiinalutilisation of such scarce minerais, it .\viii ...
.be appropriate ifthepmhihftion oosueh ;.nining is restricted to lorest and .'
aiJdpiotect~dareas wiih strict MinihgEnvi;onrnent Impact Mitigation Measures, The . inining and ~iOrl~ of stoneslsandwhich are otherwise not sit~ specific could be baimed in BSZ-I " '/
. outside the forest
. 3 (e) Agria.ltllrirl Sector
prote~ted areas in miz-1. How~ver, iii tbe interest of the econoinyoltne country, ihemihing of-sU~hscarce~ineralsinay be. allowed .. .
. .'
IntheagricuilDre sector, the recoinmendatiori of giving iilcentives to fwersto shift to l6c~1 tree crops I fruit . crops is weiaJme. The Government of I~dia shOllld proyide for incentives. to farmers if they shift from seasonal crop towards. the tree cropping pattern.
..
)
..

.
-
T
.
-
. '
- ' . -
'
'
4. ',As irrigation and hydrOpOwer are critical for development of region arid need of local people more detailed 'comments are e~c1osed in Annexure A ' , ' , 5, In viewo{the above, this Government requests Government of India to consider all the(;om~erits , , and suggestions ofGovernment of Maharashtra presented in this letter and 'accompanying Annexure A.
" ~~~(I'Tl!veenPardeshi) ' ' . . ' , Principal Secr~ary (Forests) , ,
YO,urs, fa,ithful,I,Y~, '
",
"
"
..

. .. ..... ANNEXURE A .. ... . COMMENTS WITH RESPECT TO IRRIGATION AND HYDROPOWER
(1) Water (ESZ 1,2,3) (P~ge 43 of Report)
(i)
Recommendation of WGEEP: . Inter-basin diversions of .rivers in the Western Ghats
should not be allowed.
\.
Comments:. Western Ghats region receives heavy rains during monsoon. It is having surplus water resourCes. So it is obligatory to implement inter basin diversions/transfers of waters! rivers from .. water surplus basin(Q deficit basin to satisfy the water needs of I\umanbeings and development . activities. This various
..
'
Rive~ WaterDisputes Tribunals; constituted
is awell established principle and is implemented J practiced all over the world. The
under Inteistate River Water Disputes Act _
1956 haveaflowedtheinterbasindiversions/ transfers. Someofthe diversion schemes are already i~
existence in Western Ghats. Hence, in the interest of the humand~velopment, inter-basin .divers.ions / transfers orriver...ater should be allowed within the existing franiework oflaws .. Assuch the WRD . strongly objeCts to any such restrictions funilateral impOSiti.Olls, which are bad inla"'; as ~ If this recommendation is accepted, then the State will be putto huge. irreparable loss particularly in respect of substantial power generation to the tune of 3900 Million Units through Koyna Hydroelectric Project (1960 MW) & Ghatghar H.E.P. (250 MW). (2) Quarry and sand mining (ESZ 1) ( Page 45 of Report) (i) Recommendation of WGEEP: No new licenses to be given for quarry and sand milling.
....
Comments: A complete ban on quarrying of sand, stone, murum, soil etc. is objectionable. The financial viability of the water resources projects primarily depends on the availability of these quarry materials, within the shorter reach/economical lead. In the (nterest of the economy, existing as well as new quarries and sand mining should be allowed with Environmental Impact Mitigation measures. If the recommendation is blindly accepted, then it will affect economical viability of all
~~~i~i~1_~i~~{i~I~~~;1~~~1~;!~~~~.~~~:~~:~~~':~~~.~tiji~Jfll.lhW,_j.~.~~~~I;!~:t_~.~
.. ... . . reommendation needs to be rejected in its entirety.
(3) Power /Energy (page 45, 46 of Report)
General: Derrianctfol' power is grOwing enormously and in this. 'era of global warming pollution . . . . .. free,eeo-friendly arid sustainablep~wer availability has become order of the day. Hydropower has
.
all these features / advantages diesel. generaiors .ic,
ove~ other alternatives of power generation namely,thermal, nuclear, .
Hydropower is. it renewable, nonepQilutingand environmentally friendly
source of energy. Hydropower represents use ofwaterresourcestaWards inflation free energy due to absence oUue] ~St with mature technology characterizedb), highest prime moving efficiency and
. .
' .
- '
. '
"
spectacular operalio;,,;1 flexibility. To cater the peak demand and to maintain grid stability, the hydro thermal ratio needs to be maintainedat40:60 as hydrop6wer station can be started and stopped within shorter time (tiexible operation). For any hydropower station beillg feasible, three basic requirements are: (i) Availability of water resources (ii) Water head (Natural fall) & (iii) Minimum
length of water conductor, s.ystem (cQnyeyance sy_stem). Lot of attractive anatechno-economicafly -
.
~
..
'. . feasible sites are available in the WesternOtrit region in view of abundant water resou;ces,natural fail across .the
cO~tinental divide with mirun;.oll le~gth of water conveyance system: Mo~t
of the '
eXisting major hydropower stations .arelocattdin Western Ghats, namely Koyna (1960MW),Bhira (383 MW), Vaitania (61.50 MW), Tillaii(66 MW), Ghatghar (250 MW), Khopoli (72 MW). Bhivapuri (72 MW),etc. alognwith inany ' ~iumand small power stations. The .River Water Disputes Tribunals have allowed & uph'eid .
-
the inter basin diversions for

'
".
such projects.
Keiyna.
hYdioelectJjc project complex having a .total jn$Ued capacity of 1960 MW is located .in Western . P t region itself Sector..
and it is the lifeline of the M3harashtra State, Vis-a-visindustryand agriculture

19;000MW
avail~ble thro~gh pmjectsproposedinWe~&hat regi(l~(whic~ is to the .tune of

-
To ropewithever growing demand for .peaking power, the entire ' hydropow~r potential
7...
'. ' Comprising of pumped storage schemes) needs to be harneSsed fully. . . ' . .. " . ' . .
(a) ESZ I
. '. (i) Recon,;nendation of WGEE P: Allowrtin ~f the dver schem.es with .maximum height~f]rn permiss'iblewhichwouid .serve locai energy ~ofi~ibal i local communities l plamation colonies ' . . . ' . ' .
-
'
'
. .subject to consent of gram sabha and all clearances from WGEA, SEA and DECs
Comments: As explained in foregoing para (General) the importance, advantages & .eeo - friendly nature of hydropower, the available & techno-cconomically feasible hydropower potential/resources need to be harnessed fully without enforcing any ill-logical restrictions on height. The WRD SIrongly opposes any such restrictions.
Co') Recommendation of WG EEP: No forest clearance or stream diversion for new projects.
Comments: As submitted in (I) Water (ESZI, 2, 3) above, stream diversions shouldjbe allowed for new projects. The forest land clearance should be allowed within the existing framework of laws. (iii) Recommendation of WGEEP: Run of the river schemes not allowed in first order or second
/'
('
.,,~~~~~r~~i~~~~e~;i~:i~~~.l~~~#~~1:~~~~~ri~~~~~~-:~~J..:~i:(-}.':~J~~~~~~~~~!~~~~k~t~~ .(;o~mentS: As e~plaii1edearlie;(i), !he . WRD takes 'objection ' f~r restric~ing r\ln (lfthe river '.' .,
schemeS in first orderbr second order stteams:.
.
. ' :
.' .
(iv) Rec6mmendation of WGEEP: NewsDialI hydropower projects (10 MW and . below) are petmissible. '. Comments: As
explainedea~lier (i),the G~venme~t of Maharsht;a takes objection for restrictingthe "

.. . . ..
below. Large hydropowerptOjects having ' . ' . ... .... .. / . . !lPtimal sizes and WhiCh : are tehno- economically viable should be allowed within the existing
'
.....
caPacity of new hydropower projects to 10

.
"
MW arid
.
'
.'
' fuunework ot: laws to cope with the ever gro~ power demand.
.
.
'.
.. t
..
(b) ESZ 2 ' .

,
Recommendation of WGEEP: '
(I) Nonew dams abOve 15 mor new thermalplants permissible,

(ii)NewhydI'O projects bm-n 10 &25 MW(up to 10 m ht) permissible '
..
. . . .
,
'
(iii)AII Project categories subject and DECs OfWGEA. "

IS done.
10
~iv) Have run offtJie riverbydr0power project:~~fter c\lmulative impact sit1dy of the river baSin
, ,', " ' ' ' " -:, , " , ' '" " ,
very strictj:l~arice and compliance Conditions, through SEA ,.';;': /, " ', , ' ,
',, '
, CommelltsAs explained
'
;'~y ill~l~gicar restfi~tions~~ heighi of new dams (upto

projecls
earner (i) o( (a) EStL t~ Government of MaharShira objects to eniorce

15 m) and
hydropow~rcapaciiyof new
(UpIO
25M',v
(UjlIo
10
in height). Large hydropower Projects which are techn~
feasible and. having. optimalsizes should be allowed, wi.thin the existing framework of , .economicaily . ' . . . . . ... .
laws . . ..
(c}ESZ:,3 , ,
(i) Recommendation of \VGEEP: Large Power plants are allowed subject to strict environmental regulations inclUding I. cumulative impact assessment studies. 2. carrying capacity sllJdies 3. minimum forest clcr.mce (norms to be set by WGEA) 4. based on assessment of flows required for downstream needs including the ecological needs of the river, Comments: Large hydropo...". projects having optimal sizes should be
~Iowed
i!~c:$ia,~~~ i;~g~~faWS3Ji~u.i"~t~ifrd\~\rte;v~~fufi.rffiiTT~Ii&I\iftj~~Iffir"f "~f'!t~ ~i~~

, . make' impossible in gettingcleaian:ces for development Projects, The Government of Maharshlra objects
10
within the e,xis!ing
,"
'
such ,striCt regulations. In fact all' above 'aspects ,mentioned in th~ rerommendaiions are:
, take~ care of while planning ofhydioelectric projects ,and ' enforcing such conditions again is not felt
necessary. (ii) Recommendaiionof , audit. ,
WGEEP:ExistingPow~rplimts
subject
10 siriCt re~lati6n
and
so~ial
'
.Comments : EXistinghydrO\XJWU projects arecofl)missioned wi;hin the existing fJaInework of laws ,' and ,after obtaining 'all mandatory &. sialutory clearances. As such again enforcing new .co~ditions on .the
alreadycommis~io~ed pi-~S is not jlistifiedat all &
it will be bad
inla~ i1s~ell. Hence, Jhe
.,
'
. .,
Government of Maharshti"a takes objection for enforcing the striCt regulali'on and social audit' for existing. power stations,
"
.'
. .
'
,
'
. .
(iii}R~mendatiori
C~mmenb
of\yGEEP: For
alr~dy
exiSting dams
res~rvoiroperationsto
be,
reschedilled for aljowing more.wilter doWnstream. For existing dams,i, is not feasible to r~~heclIde reserv~iroperations f~r allowing more
water dOwnSlream, because Ihe'sectoral water allocations,have already been decided and water rights established. Ais!> siJch rescheduling based on non-techniQl consideri.tions may e~danger safety ' of <lams, which carry huge hazard potential.
"
'
. (i) Recommendation of WGEEP: No diversi on of streams! rivers allowed for any power projects andiC already existing, ,to besioppedimni~di"tely~' .' Comments As submitted in (I) Water (ESZ I, 2, 3}abOve;diveFsion6fstreams/ riversshollid Qe' allow"ect,"ror pOwer projects, It is no(:possible / feasible io stop existing diversion of streams for '
"
(d) ESZl;z,l , '

.
'
..
powe~ j>rojeds ',~these ha~e been ~o~missioned within ttieexl~ting fra~~yjork ~f laws and they are
essential , for the human developmenis. If this rec~mmendaii6n is accepted, then ' most of the hydropOwerstatiorn; including Koyna (t960MW),GhatgbaT H.E,P, (250 MW), Tata H .E. power s tations (447 MW), etc, will have to be stopped which will Cause huge irreparable Joss to the State, This will cause havoc in all development sectors of the Maharashtra State, The Government of Maharshtra Slrongly objects to any such restrictions ! unilateral impositions which are bad in law as well. The Koyna, Ghatghar, Tillari and Tata H,E. Projects contribute about 25% of State's total installed power generation capacity. Abruptly stopping power generation through these projects
r , ,',
based on above ill-logical recommendations will not only adversely affect industrial and agriculture sector in the state but also severely affect Mumbai city & Metropolitan region 'as far as their po'-:"er/ demand is concerned,
(ii)
'
V
s would,
Recommendation of WGEEP: Catchment area _ment in a phased maMer following
i ' ) ., ',',. ,'
, ,,,ate~~hed princi~les;c9n!:,2.us, non:co ;m ;~.,~ p" l ,i~a j~ nC ~e ~ o~ f~C~I~~j'~'ii,c~on ~d ~i~tio ~n @s;? " ;~ g 0#lr~t ~~~~!i!<;~~~i'll1i~ru . . . iff-f' i i' f ix!si ~i " " ,', ' , , . . . .
"" ,'
,< , ,,' ,0
' .
'
'
Comme~j, Thedovemrneilt
of Maharshtrais against
~decOrnmissioning regulation
as tne
~xistinglawsare 5ufficienttotake action.

(iii) Re~ommendation of WGEEP: Dams and theimal IX"Ojects tHat liav'; crossed theirviable nfe , span (for ~the threshold is 30~50years) to be decom~ooedinphastd manner, , Comrnenb lkdamsarebuilt Considering a lifespan of &bout 100 years and n~t 30,50 y~ars, Their' life .
" .
can be
ext~ndedfurther. by r~sorting to .
.
.' . '
suitab'le .
str~nirig . .
. '
ineasures if requinid" II is mit"

,
justifiable to decommission the dams and hydro projeds".Ibai haVec~ossed the so called ,lifespan of 3D-50 years. Ifatall decommissioning is felt necessary ,in case of certain dams,we have to think and plan Jorbuildin~
' .
. .
alternati~~dams ! l)Ydr~power
projects '50 that accrual ofbenelits
canco~tinue'
further for
the overall h..;man development. The GovemmeDt of Maharshtra strongly objects to any
irrational! ill-logical decommissioning of structures, If this'iII-logical recommendation is accepted, then th"'induslrial"'& agriculture sector along with nlanybig cities, towns & villages in the State will ~
"
. ...:
. . J(bJ(i) ~ Sector
.
' . ~". . .. .. . .' .. . . . . -.. . .' -: '. : .- .: '. :, . . . . .. . . . . .. ' . ' :. . .. . Thete are 32 talukas ofM.harashtra included in . ESZ-J; ~ithmaximuni restrictions. . . Kamataka . and ..
' '
::..
' -
'
Kerala hav~ been onl)' 26 .and .15t.lukas respectively in ESZ~L Thus Maharashtra State will bemosl adversely 8ff";'ied . .The recommendations of the . consideratiOn .Iocal . needs. RlI~ofthe . rivers
ComlJlittee~eno; practical and do not take into s~he~es with. ma~ height of 5 mtrsare only permissible ror
...
rec6~~o~iri thef~e of ar<1und 4000 . . .
Powe~,
ib.t ioo with consent o(Jwge
no. of authoritie~.'No newth~rmaJ power statjons' is

'
a diilstit.
. projeCts. ~~i~ited. ~iversiOnof .gri. .Iand to nori~agri. land is.alsor.estri<:ted, thus installathm of new .. . . / . / sub.statlORS; gndhnes WIll be ha,mpereq. :. .. .. . . . . . . . . . \..,/" : . . . - . .. . .: ' . .. .
' . '
are
. "
MW shortage of.eleetricity In the Siate.Even .windj,owet . . . . .. . ' .
'
So far as !be bydro-electricprojec!S areconcemed, projects hi~han 3 meters must be allowed ifthere is . no subniergence of fote. stand protecledarea and further less tBllp 1000 trees are being felled. Such projects may OOconsidcred in non-forest areas.
Thus hydroelectric projects outside the forest a~ protected area may /

..
be allowed if they n,lfill the . criteria laid down in the existing fr3ltlework of laws. 3 (e) Trllllsportation Projects
Transpon sector is closely connected with Power sector. The report prohibits new railway lines, major roads, new highways, expressways. This will hamper the development of linkages
io Power sector
adversely. Thus these recommendations ire not conducive for energy sector and hence are opposed by the Govmllnenl of Maharashtra. The Railway projects reaching ports which are essential either due to connectivity toimportant economic centres or due to gecgraphic factors may be approved with environment
3(d) Mlniiog
. A complete ban 00 mining . a nd eXtraction of site specific mirieraJe.g. bauxiteaitdir.on ore .which are found . .. in specific )lOCkets, is also objectionable. With a view of optiinaJuiilisaiionof such scarce minerals, ii wiH . . . .00 apprcPriate Wthep~ohibiiion on such ~iriing is . restricted Ho~ever,iil the. iitterestof the econoin;
or the cour;t!)'; the mining of-w~h sCarce minerals may. be. allowed ..
..
to. forest
and pretect~dareas i~ ESZ-J.
butside the forest and piotected areas with strict Mini~gEnvironmeni Impact Mitigation Measur!'S. The . . mining and .eximction~ of stoneSisandwhlch.:re.cthenvise not sit~ specific cculd be baitned in ESZ-I. \ /
;3 (e) Agrin....
ral Sect!)f .
ii1c~nti"es to farmerslo shift tc local tree cropS I fruit
shO~ld provide for incentives te farmerS if they shift from
~
Inthe:agricwiure Sector, the recolnmendatiori of giving . crops is w~e. The Government of India seasonal crop towards the tree cropping.P?ttem.
~ ,
..
..
'
V- /' .
...
...
~
" .
..be very adversely affected as far as their water .requirements are concerned. Almost every dty ot .. town is fully dependent on a dam for its waterneeds. The City of Pune is totally dependent on water supply through 125 years old Khadakwasla darn, about50years old Panshet dam & about 25 year; old Varasgaon dam. City of Karad &8angli are dependent on about 50 years old Koyna dam for 'domestic water requirements. Same aod Thane metropolitan cities. There are . .. . is.1he case for Mumbai .. . .
"."". "
many examples of such city & dam combinations. Hence, will it be worth, logical & practicable to abnIptly stop wate; supply to all cities & towns in the State after decommissioning 30-50 years o.ld
"
dams merely based on above recommendation_ As such this non-technical, irrational &in~logical recommendation needs to be;ejected in
...
.. its entirely & should flOt be
consider~d at ~I byany streich o f i m a g i n a t i o n . /
(i~)Recoinmendation of WGEEP: All project categories to be jointly <>perated by LSGs and . Power Soar<\:( with strict monitoring for~pliance under DECs. Comments-: It is not feasible to operate all power projects jointly because the generated power is supplied to Slate grid.
. ....
Government of Mabarashtra
No. FLD 201IlCR-203IF-IO, Revenue & FQte9". D~w&.\'A Room no. 456 Annex, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Madam Cama Marg, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032. Dated: 4th September, 2012._ To, The Secretary, Planning Commission, Yoj ana Bhavan, Government of India, New Delhi 1.0001. Sub: Report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel Ref: Your D. O. letter no. 12074/2 (28) I05-E&F, Dated 4th June, 2012. Sir, Please refer your letter mentioned above, addressed to the Chief Secretary of Government of Maharashtra. 2. Government of Maharashtra, vide letter no. FLD 201l1CR 167/F-1O, dated
13th
January, 2012 and no. FLD 20111CR2031F-1O, dated 25 th January, 2012 has already submitted its comments on the recommendations of Western Ghats Ecology Expert Committee headed by Dr. Madhav Gadgil. Copies of these letters are enclosed for your kind perusal. With regards, . Yours faithfully, Encl: As above.
- P1j Me-h
_Ad v/se:r (~F)
E:\FIO\Drafi SakrLdoc Email id=undersecretaryfl O@gmaiLcom
/
GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASIITRA
No. FLD 20111CR 203/F-I0 Revenue & Forest Department, Room no. 456/461 (Annex), Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Madam Cama Marg, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032. Dated, ...1.1 February, 201,3-
To, Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Chainnan, High Level Working Group, ~...firristry cfEn'l!rCn;nent & Fc:~sts, Government of India, New Delhi Sub: Comments of State Government on the Questionnaire. Ref: Your D. O. Letter no. 1I11201O-RE(ESZ), dated 30/08/2012. Sir,
This Government has submitted comments vide letter no. FLD 20111 CR 1671F-1O, dated 13 th January, 2012 (Annexure-I) with its specific comments regarding various recommendations ofWGEEP. 2. Subsequently, the High Level Working Group has had detailed discussion with
Hon'ble Chief Minister, in presence of People's Representatives from different regions of Western Ghat, in the State of Maharashtra. During the said discussion the State Government has reiterated its reservations regarding some of the recommendations made by the WGEEP. A hard copy ofthe Power Point Presentation made by the State Government to the High Level Working Group is enclosed as Annexure -II. 3. The comments of this Government with respect to the questionnaire received vide letter dated 30th August2012 are as under I (a) The State Government expresses its concerns the recommendation of the WGEEP regarding the delineation of the Western Ghat Area into 3 types of Ecologically Sensitive Zone, viz. ESZ-l , 2 and 3. The State Gqvernment also requests to modify the recommendation of regUlating the mining activities in the Western Ghat region.
I. (b) This Category is
~lready
covered in the comments submitted by this Gnve.rnment
vide its letter dated 13t.'l Jan.u~y, 2012. It may be pointed here that it is desirable
E:\We$tem Ghats\HLWG commentsU!.doc
to delineate the region into 3 types of ESZs. However, as submitted by the Government in the letter dated 13th January, 2012, the exact area delineated as per the slope and forest should be under ESZ-l. The entire Taluka should not be taken as the unit to define the ESZ. Moreover, grid size of 9 X 9 kms is too large to identify the administrative boundaries. Moreover, the state of complete moratorium on mining activity will not be desirable with the view of optimal utilization of site specific minerals like bauxite & iron ore; it should be allowed to extract with strict mining environmental mitigation measures. The State Government has also objections for restricting the capacity of new Hydro Electric Power Projects to 10MW and below. Large Hydro Electric Power projects having optimal sizes and which are techno-economically viable, should be allowed in the existing framework of laws to cope up the ever growing power demand. I (c) The remarks submitted by this Government vide letter dated 13th January, 2012, cover all the activities which are not at all acceptable. During the discussion held on 2011112012, the same facts were again brought to the notice of HL W G. II & III The existing legislature and regulatory measures which are in force at present are as follows II (a) 1. Maharashtra Felling of Trees (Regulation) Act, 1964 2. Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 3. Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. II(b) 1. Indian Forest Act, 1927. 2. Wildlife (protection) Act, 1972. 3. The Water (prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 4. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 5. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. 6. Air (prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 7. Environment (protection) Act., 1986. 8. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 9. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The above mentioned regulatory measures are adequate to deal with the recommendations brought out in the WGEEP report. These regulations therefore do not need any further
improvement/alterations. Setting up of separate Western Ghat Regulatory

E:iWestern Ghats\}ll.-WG commentsOLdoc 2
Authority as envisaged in the WGEEP report is, therefore, not at all acceptable to this Government, for the reasons mentioned in the paragraph 1 of the letter dated
13 th January, 2012.
...
IV
Western Ghat is a unique biogeographic region which consists of fragile ecosystem along with the habitants highly dependent on the available resources for their livelihood. So the conservation measures had to be carefully implemented taking into consideration the measures for livelihood of local habitants. Therefore, the balance between conservation and subsistence issue of local habitants must be struck within the existing framework of regulations. Local habitants are well conversant of the value of resources of their region. Imposing further restrictions on the pretext of heritage site recognition will definitely prove to be counterproductive for the people who have preserved their natural resources for several generations. The detailed analysis is covered in this Government's letter dated 13 th January,
2012 and the presentation made before the HL WG.
V.
VI.
The State Government implements the Western Ghats Development Program of Central Government.
The above facts and submissions of this Government may please be considered while finalizing your report. Yours, Encl: As above.
p~
(Prav&IlPa@eshi) Principal Secretary (Forests) Copy Principal Secretary to Hon'ble Chief Minister, Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai ~retary (Forests), .r-.. iinistry of Envinmment & Forests, Gavernment ofIndia, New Delhi Shri Ajay Tyagi , Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India, New Delhi Addl. Chief Secretary, (Revenue), Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. Secretary, Environment Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
E:\Western Ghats'JILWG comments01.doc
Government of Maharashtra
No. FLD 20111CR 2031 Part-lIF-10 Revenue & Forest Department, Room no. 456/461 (Annex), Hutatma Rajguru Chowk. Madam Cama Marg. Mantralava. Mumbai 400032. Dated. 16th February. 20 13 .
'-6r ~ K. Kasturirangan,
Chairman, High Level Working Group, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India, New Delhi
Sub: Comments of State Government on the Questionnaire. Ref: 1) Your D. O. Letter no. 1I11201O-RE(ESZ), dated 30108 /2012. 2) This Governmenf s letter of even no. dated 11 th February, 2013
To(
Sir, This Government has submitted comments on your lener referred a 1 aN)\ e_ vide
(iJ\otf
lener cbted 11 th FebrualY, 20 13 mention~-I at _ 0.
_ .
In continuati01; to that lenet. the comments received from Industries Department of Government of Maharashtra are enclosed for your consideration. The facts and submissions of this Government may please be considered while finalizing your report. Yours, Encl: As above.
(S
Joint
1;;: Gaur ) t~i; Fore.::-.::
Copy Princi _ .i-b:e _I: ~_ . il..Ii ef.. _ Secretary (Forests), ~inistry ofE ."Jnment & Forests, Government of India . -e, D !hi Shri Ajay Tyagi, Joint Secret~ _ ~ stry of Environment & Forests, Government of India New Delhi Dr. Amit Love, Deputy Director. ing Commission, Government oflndia, New Delhi. Addl. Chief Secretary, (Revenue _ ~ enue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. Secretary, Environment Departm-- _fantralaya, Mumbai
D:\KOPARD EIHLWG comments02.doc
The comments of Industries Department on Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) Recommendation/ Suggestion related to Industries Department are as under:
Page No. Description Industries Departments Comments
Summary :- In the summary on Page no .2 Panel has recommended on for new mining
In
Recommendations of the Committee
an
indefinite for indefinite moratoriurn for new environmental by clearance the is not The of
moratorium clearances
environmental
Ecologically justified
1 ~Y
In
committee.
In
Sensitive Zones 1 and2, a phasing out of carrying

I mining in
capacity
respect
E(;o~ogil,;~I;Y Sens.iti~c zo~~
p~llu~ion. for Ratnagiri

Dlstnct
IS
& Sindhudurg
2016 and contmuatlon of eXlstmg mining
not defined . The carrying I
Ecologically Sensitive Zone 2 under strict I capacity may be defi ned first for these regulation with an effective system of social I two districts. However, the moratorium should ~ot be indefinite, it have been over by
audit. It is also recommended that
111
I I
Ecologically Sensitive Zones 1 and 2, no should new polluting (red and orange category) industries, which would include coal-based
I
31 51
December. _01 1 as envisaged. Similarl) , all the red & orange
power plants, should be permitted to be ' type ~ of ind ustries are not of equal established; the existing red and orange pollution potentials hence these may category industries should be asked to be deci ed depending on pollution switch to zero pollution by 2016, again with loa an effective s)6tem of social audit. of in hi uar industry and this
should be applicable to large red category industries only. SSI Units & Medium scale units which are located in MIDC areas may be permitted with
,
I
the concepts of zero discharge effluent as suggested.
Mandate of the Panel :- In the mandate it is After studying ma!1.date given to ine mentioned that in the Point No.3 panei and observations thereof of the ay
, recommendation & conservation, protection committee. it i felt tha! _ WCS

&
~!1at icn
of the g a
We:-.e
G_ --
I Region
foH m
comprehensive I the permissiu:ts expanjons of the re
I consultation pr -- -- involving people and I & orange categories of the industries.
-< concerned States. . e-::-lo-p-s-us-t-ai:--- . --co-n-v-e-rv-e--:tr--=.o-u-g-=-h-;;-fu-;-;l1y-lI--=T=h:-e-co-n-t-en-t-s-o-=f:-th=--e-re-m-a-r-=-k-:i-n-t:-he--:::S--=o---i - ~i--}-3--f-- - v x De I

I
IGovernment of
On the Page
~. 14
in the Box I: I no. I

i
by
the
committee
are
not
F:\Mou\Coments ofi"lIDC
~em[l].doc
Development by Exclusion : Lote MIDC i acceptable. and pollution of Dabhol creek.
Whereas,
I already informed comments to the[
Environment
Department,
Government of Maharashtra on the study to of the WGEEP from 4th to 11th October 2010, the role of MIDC I about the Abhyas Ghat & meetings I related
I
to vide this office letter I
nos.358 & 360 dtd.09.04.2011 (Copies I the cognizance of which i. not taken by committee.
I enclosed),
16-17 Ecologically Sensitive Zones . :- WGEEP There
I
area
are
already
sensitive
recommends the adoption of a graded or notified by the MoEF viz. Dahanu,
layered approach, and suggests that the I Murud-Janjira. In . he proposal of the entire Western Ghats be characterized comprising
(I)
as
ecological sensitive ommirtee it

IS
zone
of the
Regions
of
highest
not clear whether
sensitively or Ecologicall Sensitive Zone I
existing MIDC area in Ratnagiri &
(ESZl), (2) Regions of high sensitivity or Sindhudurg District are within the or ESZ2, and the remaining (3) Regions of outside moderate sensitivity or ESZ3 be excluded from the ESZ (lreas. Proposed guidelines/ summary En ironment Depanment Go\ernrnent -the ESZ. This requires
I recommendatIOns
for sector-wise activities . of 1aharashtra
:- In the ESZl it is mentioned no new ! poli \" for red. ......... ,.,,.... I polluting (red and orange category) industD -~hl"lrv n~~., industries: for existing industries
swit\~h
to
Jul~.
I LCiO
I
pollution b 2016 and be subject to
strict regulation and socia! audit.
_009.
the industry potential & distance criteria as per me A-I, A-II, A-III & A-IV of the notified
I
I
I river is already defim:d . Hene'p. r.ew !
F:\Mou\Coments of AIDe on Western[i].doc
2'1r1 "
I of red category list in Annexure -IV
of the classification of industry (Red, Orange & Green Category). The list A is mainly industry identified by Ministry of Environment & Forest, Govt. of India as heavily polluting and covered under Central Action Plan in this list there are 18 types of sub
I I I
I
I categories.
- I
These types of industries I
can be restricted in ESZ) area except _ industriai areas which are established & MIDC has
I
I MIDC
I already
I provided environmental infrastructure
I faciiities.
indicates
Whereai in the less polluting
list B activity
compared to industries as the listed in
I A & there are 41 sub categories of the

industries in list B. (List enclosed). Similarly, in the orange category there are
2.t
sub
ategories
in
\\.i ~
&:
medium polluting industries
1 -
pOlluting industries are included such as, hotels & restaurant, automobile
servicing station, Malted food, Food I
including
fruits
and
vegetaole
processing, Non-aicoholic beverages (soft diinks), Fish processing etc. The I

I activity of these industries mainiy
depend upon the ra," materia l which is a\-aila Ie i

~2.Il~.
Ht - - .
~~
'. ~
restri ted in E Zl area already established. Similarly, MoEF, New Delhi has
I also issued a notification for setting up
L-______-L________________________________
I of the industry as per their guidelines I

~I_____ _
F:\Mou\Coments ofMIDe
estern[ 1] .doc
on
1411 September, 2b06.
notification also there are 39 types 01 projects or activity which requires EC. The MoEF decides the grant/refuse the permission report.
1
depending Hence, the
on
the EI separate will for
recommendation
I contribute
of WGEEP confusion
more
I implementing the policy.

I
Thus there is a overiapping of ' RRZ policy while identification of ESZ areas suggested by committee.
45
Committee has also made restriction to non Green industries does not contribute polluting green/ blue industry in ESZ I area .
I
pollution of liqui~, air & hazardous waste, hence there should not have any restricti on for green category industries. Whereas, there is no
I category of industries called "blue" in

the notification issued by Environmental Government described of above. has no Department Maharashtra
(15
MoreO\ er.
I committee
I type of induslries.
creating
I
45 area.
impleme Committee has also pre_ ~ribed restriction of I In inuu..:.uL.... red, orange green & blue in E Z2 & ESZ3 Sindhu established
CETP. infrastructures
!.
Ienvironmental
l::ul~
like
I
I
I effluent collection! disposal systems,
L,-:e
P .....:-Sh.
-::... -
F:\Mou\Coments ofMIDC on Westemrl]doc
7L~ 17t~
RRZ policy, EC Policy & Costal Zone Management Policy. ifupgradation of CETP & collection! disposal system is required, MIDC is also taking care of the same. Hence, there should not be ban on any type of industry in MTDC
II
area
particularly
In .
thc
district
mentioned above.
71
Ratnagiri
&
Sindhudurg
District
- The committee has not considered the views MIDC to as which the are already
I Committee
industry
has mentioned pollution from also well above
if
legal!y informed
Environment stated above.
permissible limits. Consequently, there is Department
much social discord, especially because Moreover, committee has met farmers
I people firmly believe that the law and order
& local resident~ only. It seems that
machinery is being misused to protect the views of industries association/ illegal activities. entrepreneurs are not observed. MIDC
I has already received representations
from various industries not requiring E.C. & having zero discharge for release of the restrictIon on the activity in Ratnagiri & Sindhudurg District which are located in notified
I industrial
areas. These industries are
I also SSI units. Hence, the committee
i
I
j
I recommendation can not be accepted.
73
Drinking
of
Pol!uted
Stream
by
the I Committee's remark is based
on
Sarpanch
Kotavale
of
CETP
Lote I misleading information given by the I local people. MIDC has already given I
Parshuram & also in 2000, around 30 school children near Lote MIDC
became the clarification on this vide letter I

l: 15
unconscious due to inhalation of poisonous I no.358 dtd .09.0.! .2011 Ho\\c\ . gases. have nut
be con idered
b'
Committee while finalization of the report. 92-93 &
.i
I
I
J
96
I Appendix 2: I vaiious Western
osed
assignment
of In case of Maharashtra, Talukas
ats Talukas to ESZ I, I assigned to ESZ 1 are about 29 in estern[I].doc
F:\I'"iou\Coments ofMlUC -
~ l~rl.
ESZ2 and ESZ3. assignment of various Western
various
districts Pune,
like ' KolI{upur;. Raigad,

&
Appendix 3: Proposed ESZI, and ESZ2 Nashik, Ghats Satara,
Ratnagiri, Thane. i
Sindhudurg
talukas for which less than 50% area is Whereas, it is not clear about areas of within the Western Ghats boundary. the taluka covered in ESZ 1 or part of it or whether MIDC areas which are already established are excluded or included. Similarly, in case of ESZ2, total 4 nos. of talukas are included
I
I
I
from Ahmednagar, Nashik, Ratnagiri

& Thane districts. Whereas, in ESZ3
about
12
no.
of talukas
from
Ahmednagar, Kolhapur, Nandurbar,
Nashik,
Pune,
Iiaigad,
Ratnagiii,
Satara & Thane are covered. Similarly, committee has

!
proposed ESZ 1 & ESZ2 assignment of I WGEEP for which less than
- o~o
area
is within the western ghat boundary. In this case also in ESZ 1 there are 8 no of taluka from Nashik. Sangli, Pune & Ahmednagar & under E Z1
I area
there are _3 no of talukas in Sangli, Thane, Dhul,
Nashik,
districts comprising of 8 talukas & addi i
Ratnagiri, Solapur, Pune, Ko!hapur

i Ahmednagar & . atara districts. In this
case al<;() it is I ! "AI"r ;'1'. LA.. areas
no
lear \\ hether th.,

re _ .
\\ . I h
establi hed are in 1 ed As per Page No.93 of repo;-t of committee, there are 10 districts comprising of 45 Talukas under ESZI. ESZ2 & ESZ3. In this additional 3 i 19 u h.. . .. in abO\
included on Page No.95 of report. Thus.. otal i talukas are included iii report. Out of these 7_ taltAas, are being affected due to in orporati muratorium should be rerno.. without.. F:\Mou\Coments ofMIDC on Westem[I ].doc 'at are35
in the report of committee and
er delay. In the view of above, 6
moratorium in Maharashtra imposing any restriction on putting / setting up or operating any industry in Maharashtra should be urgently removed without further delay. Their committee' s recommendations should be out rightly rejected as mentioned above and also because there're several policies to maintain eco & environment standard are already in place and these are being implemented in Maharashtra. Hence, in compliance to above, it is felt that MIDC areas may be exempted from the action being taken in accordance with the WGEEP's report of 20 II considering the following facts.
1) MIDC
has taken
initiative in abatement of environment pollution by
establishment of CETPs/ STPs, alongwith effluent collection & disposal system, Hazardous waste treatment & disposal facilities & Green belt development by giving land at nominal rate of Rs.lI- per m2, giving financial assistance in form
of subsidy of 25% of project cost.
2) Wherever the performance of CETPs is not satisfactory it is decided to upgrade the same by adopting new modern technology. 3) MIDC has stopped granting permission for new allotment lexpansion within industria! areas in Sindhudurg & Ratnagiri Districts, since issue of moratorium. 4) MIDC is already following directions issued vide RRZ & CRZ policy of Environment Departmer:t GfGoMi MoEF, G.O.1. 5) It is proposed that
Oli':
peilllissior. for allotment /expansion may be granted by
inviting individual industry a) to obtain Environment Clearance at tbeir own ifrequired & follow norms laid in consent granted by MPCB stringently. b) zero discharge i.e. recycle & reuse in their own premises till the up gradation of existing CETP. c) Solid hazardous waste shaH be disposed to CHWTSDFs (Comprehensive Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage & Disposal Facilitics).
******* ****
F:\Mou\Comcnts ofMIDe on 'estcm[lJ.doc
PARIMAL RAI , lAS PR. SECRET ARY (Mines /Forest)
GOVEtNM CN 1 UI"" <OVM SECRfTARIAT. PORVORIM . GOA! 403521
D .O . No . PSEC / WG / Cornrne n ts
/16/ 0
D a t e d : 2 6 th Ma ch , 2 013.
Dear
~/
i
Th is has reference to Ministry reference seeking comments of the State of Goa on the report of We.s tern Ghat Ecology Panel(WGEEP) headed by Dr. Madhav Gadgil and recom mendations containe.d therein . In this co ntext I arj1 directed to convey the following . ! The State Government acknowledges that W estern Ghats are s~cond only to the Eastem Hima laya as a treasure trove of biolog ica l divers'ity in Ir'jdia . It is also aware that the Western Ghats have been subjected to unregulated hurj1an activity to meet the requirement of social and economic development over the ears and it is high time that a mechanism to regulate growth and development ar und Western Ghats is put in place to protect the rich heritage lest irreparable damag is caused . Be that as it may, e volving a conservation strategy has to foli o a deliberative process accommod ating the local con stra ints and concern , if it i to be made implementable . It cannot be an armchair exercise based on some n t so obj ective parameters oblivious of local needs and requirement. The stat government expresse s its serious re servation and disagreement to the what,e exer ise and is not in a pos ition to accept the recommendations made in the Ireport. We feel that integrating the needs of development with the de sire to protec the environment, for sustainable development has to be the ke y feature of the conservation strategy for Western Ghats . WGEEP has recommended ad option of a graded or layered approach , and suggested that the entire Western Ghats be characterized as com prising (1) Regions of highest sensitivity or Ecologica lly Sensitive Z one 1 (ESZ1 ), (2) Regions of high sensitivity or ESZ 2, and the remaining (3) Reg ions of m oderate sensitivity or ESZ3 . These w ill be complementary to areas already declared as Protected Areas , which will continue to be managed under regulations prescri bed by pertinent acts such as the Wil dlife Protection Act. Thus , WG EE P has come up with four color maps spanning the entire Weste'rn Ghats depicting PAs , and ESZ1 , ESZ2 and ESZ3.
Despite lack of methodolog ical clarity and objective and indices to suggest a conservation framework the report has made extensive recpmmendations about land use, developmental activities including infrastructural development and setting up critical infrastructure related to power, water and waste ma~agemen!. The recommendation have serious social and fiscal consequences which ~ave not been gone into by the committee , rather they have been deliberately ignored fdr reasons best known to them . I
accePt~ble
The report has made extensive recommendations about of industry and allowing existing industries to continue subject to strict environme al control and zero pollution by 2016 in Zone-I and II and permits setting up of new in ustries only in Zone-III subject to strict regulation . Th e recommendation has serious implication for economic development of state of Goa.
I , setting Iup
The report recommends setting up of Western Ghat Eco logy Pla~ning Authority which would be responsible 'for various deve lopmental approvals directly infring ing the authority of the State Government in matters contained in the State Us!. The report recommends a State level Authority as well but with very limited advisory role . The central Authority has been vested with powers to issue directives to pro~ibit or regulate any activity that may have adverse impact on the western Ghats r' nd have also recommended conferring poiNers to enforce comp lian ce of its orders b making them binding on the State Governments in total deviance to democratic traditions and principles of participatory and inclu sive governance to wr.ich the St te of Goa is committed .
The report re commends that most of the developmental proje ts , location of Industry, land use planning and any other activity havi ng adverse impa t shall have to be placed before the Authority ; it has not defined prope rl y what would b construed as offending activity thereby giving omnibus power to Central Authority in to al disregard of the federal principles enshrined in and guaranteed by the Constitution f Indi a. Since the Central Authority has been vested with all powers to decide IEco-sensitive Zones without any say of the State Government, it wo uld seriously fetter the authority of State in planning and development based on local needs.
Further, the report d has made recommendations about mining operations suggesting stopping all mining activity in Zone I by 2016 , moratorium on fresh leases in Zone II and regulated and sustainable min ing in Zone III without analyzing the consequences. The Western Ghats are rich in iron , manganese and bauxite ores in parts of their ranges . These are being extracted on a large scale and exported in ore form , from Goa. W ith the stringent recommendations made in the report it would be almost impossible to carryon sustainable mining operation resulting in serious economic and social disruption . In this context it is relevant to add that mining operation can only be carried out whe re ore is available and we cannot confine them to a zone w ithout carefully studying and analysing the availability of ore and operational and economic feasibility considerations . We feel that sustainable mining is necessary; scarce and precious natural resciurces can and should not be left unexploited , it wou ld have serious social and economic consequences for a state like Goa which has limited land and is constrained to ta'ke up much economic activity due to its sma ll size .
"..
While the government of Goa is committed to conserve its natural lheritage but at the same time it is also conscious of the impact of recommend~ions of the Western Ghat panel report on the mining operations hitherto being pursued' as one of the most important economic activity and future economic and social developmental needs . Mining has been going on in the state since Portuguese time , and is the main stay of the Goan economy . It generates revenue of 1200 crores and directly and indirectly emp loys over a lakh persons in various activities associated with mining and export of iron ore . Moreover, a good number of local entrepreneurs and others have contracted heavy financial exposure and are engaged in supply of heavy mining machinery and equipment and transport and Tran's shipment of the are through a fleet of 26000 trucks , 400 Barges . While the state is totally against reckless mining at the cos t of ecology and environment but sustainable m ining in the state cannot be stopped . However, if restrictive recommendations contained in the report , ignoring the local constraints , are accepted it is bound to adversely impact mining in the state ruining the economy of state and unleashing deprivation due to loss of income opportunity and employment leading to below par living standards thereby causing protest and dissent.
The report totally ignores the :Iand constraints faced by the State. The State of Goa is the 3 rd smallest State in the 'Union ; the total geographica l area is only 3702 sq . Kms . And out of that,
a) An area of 1250 sq .. kms. Is under forest (protected/reserved/ private) which is about 34.63% of the total geographical area; b) That out of the said area under forest , 62% i.e ., 755 .35 Sq . Kms . has been declared as' National Park / and or Wild Life Sanctuary ; c) Further, an area .cif approximately 70 sq . Kms . failS under the Coastal Regulation Zone . d) In fact , the total Jand mass available to the State of Goa , fre~ from various restrictions would further be reduced by 196.80 sq . Kms. i.e. u8 to 5 .32% on account of rivers , lakes , and other water bodies . ; !
, ,
e) Also approxirTIately 40% of the land is under agriculture which tT government has decided should not be diverted .
Insofar as restrictions are concerned about 45 % of the area availJble in Goa is under one form of restriction or the other. In the event, the agricultural lan~ is also to be considered almost 85% of the area ava ilable in the State of Goa wou ld je unavailable for further development.
Besides restrictions ' referred to above the state is subject to la nd use restrictions on many other accounts. The state has a large number of . historical monuments that are . covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Rema ins Act, 1958 that imposes serious restrictions on enjoyment of property rights in protected areas . The norms provide for a perimeter cover ranging from 100 meters to 200 meters around protected area and undertaking any development work is prohibited without the permission of the Central Government.
I ,
The state is blessed with seven rivers and cover a length of 253 KM !approximately; The state is committed to conserve its natural heritage by regulating development around the rivers and henCe has subjected the areas around rivers under . , Coastal Zone Regulation with a no development zone of 100 meters from the bank , , b f rivers o n all sides thereby imposing serious land use restriction . ,
The state 's coastal are:s are full of mangroves and khazan land development around mangroves or on khazan land is banned by the state governmen~ as a voluntary measure to protect our ecological heritage and maintain ecological bala1ce . The state is home to Western Ghats and allied ranges and in order to protect the f atural physical character of topography the state has banned all development on and around hills or Western Ghats slopes ,
a~d
I I ,
The state is urbanizing at a very fast pa ce and out of total po~ulation 49 ,76 % population lives in urban areas and small towns occupying 15% of t1e geographical area , The decadal growth of urban population is very high , 39 ,78% a ' d such pace is bound to make tall claim on the land for settlement besides soci I and physical infrastructure and infrastructure and facilities for income generation nd employment through industrial and allied activities incl uding service industry , Furt er, the existing population density of Goa is 3901 Sq . K ,M which is above national a rage and if w e account for areas that are not available for development due to va ri o~s restriction that are applicable namely ,Forest, CRZ, etc , the resultant density may touc, h two thousand s making it impossible to manage , It is for these reasons that are peculia( to Goa , that the state deserves special dispensation in terms, imposi ng any restriction ~at impacts land use or other social or economic actiVity' or enterprise , j
I
The State of Goa has been pro-active in protecting and lnvironme nt and has strictly regulated diversion of forest land or land falling wi thin ecb sens itive zone , The proactive stance of the State should not be penalized by ignoring the co nstrains of developm'e nt and growth of the State and the local ground realiti s and imposing constrains for future growth of the State , The State is in no position to accept further stringent restriction on development of land and land use includin settlement and creation of allied infrastructure including industrial and infrastru cture d velopment in and around Western Ghats located on eastern side of the state running fro north to south .
eCOlo~y
. '
The state government seriously feels that while it may be absolutely necessary to have conservation strategy for Western Ghats but it should be based on local constraints rather than on a one size fit all approach . The tradeoff between growth and development needs of the state and impending obligation to protect the eco logy and environment has to be chosen carefully and in such manner that it addresses local co nstraints and concerns so that it does not lead to protest and dissent from locals who wou ld face the impact of the adoitional land use constraints imposed due to acceptance of the re com mendations of"WGEEP report . In view of the above any further restriction , as contemp lated in the recommendations of the W GEEP would spell economic disaster insofar as the State of Goa is concerned and the refore are not acceptable .
i ,
A careful analysis .of the report suggests that the report w ithout ' any basis has assumed that the states hflVe failed and they cannot be entrusted the responsibility of protecting Western Ghats ., The State Government or the stakehold~rs were never consulted and . based on advice of expe rts the rep ort was prpared making recommendations that wou ld adversely impact the fiscal health of th~ State besides serious consequences for socia l and economic development in the Slate . Objective observation by experts is good while drafting a report but at ti';;-bs participatory observation in the form of involvement of local stakeholders and StatJ Government is critica l when it comes to issues like ecology and environment , especiall to address the local concerns and constraints . I I The recommendation s made in the rep ort suffer from following infim-jilies: Serious implication for social and eco nomic development. Imposes serious constraint on land use. Restriction on development of physical and socia l infrastructure . Restrains economic activity . Loaded against not so w ell developed but well endowed states that started their journey late . Negates the endow'm ent benefit on the name of ecology . No analysis of fis cal" and social impact Misplaced believe that one more regulation would do the trick . Instead of putting premium on comp liance the approach is reptri ctio n centric- it would only alienate masses and overawe them with strict m1asures leading to dissent" and protest. I . An attempt to cure the symptom rather than cure the disease. It has not gone into realities of why is ecology threatened , ho optimalily and recognize trade off. we can introdu ce
I
I
I
Fails to understand tbat every economic and social purs it shall consume environment and ecolog y as an input to some degree and at is needed is a carefu l strategy that creates condition for vol untary co pliance by using technolog y to minimize damage rathe r than complete
b,'
..
Cure market failures ; the report assumes that it is not the market but the states have failed . Glorifies incompatibility of growth and environment ignoring that it is not either or. development with ecology and It forgets that compromises are necessary if we want to provide decent living standards to the people of the state ; growth would not come free , the aim should be to minimize damage and maximize return rather than opting for shunning all activity. The report forgets . that every good cause is wo'rth some inefficiency and it has to be accepted , addressed and accommodated in the strategy for sustainable development. Creates rivalry between ecology and development and ' the approach is fraught with dangerous cortSequences. Ignores .that the entire state would fall in eco sensitivE! zone and the recommend<;ltions of WG EEP if accepted wou ld make it almpst impossible to undertake economic pursuits and social and economic development; what Maharashtra .and .Karnataka can sustain Goa may not. ,
Negates the endowment advantage of a small state like peopie 'of Goa if it is,well endowed?
Goa~
Ignores already existing restriction in form of CRZ- , Monum~nts , Ri ver Basin , Hills and Slopes; the new restriction wo uld exclude hundreds 4f Sq . KM of area from any meaningful economic and social activity leavinl' very little for deve lopment, approximate ly 15 to 17% of the total land area which is too little to addre~s the desires and aspiration of people of Goa af,d therefore not acceptable .
l ,
is it the fault of
I
I Admittedly there are serious lacunae in the report. The databas~ relied upon has not incorporated considerations of habitat continuity. It is also "yeak in terms of mformatlon on streams , rivers and other wetlands , as well as grpund water, and furth er careful work is needed to identify, protect and sustainably ' anage aquatic habitats and water resources . It has also not undertaken any exten ive compilation of pertment mformatlon and assignment of levels of ecological s nsitivity to the plains and coas tal portions falling in the Western Ghats with specific eference to the local Inhabitants and their traditionally-driven activities I earning initiat ves .
The imposition of restrictions envisaged in 'the report for ESZ-1, ~hich accounts for more that 30 % of the geographical area .of the State (outside the protected areas) would restrain the local . Panchayat Raj Institutions from carrying out! any local sitespecific traditional activities to meet the requirements of basic ame~ities , housing , small-scale enterprises , rural economic activities , thus putting on hold all socioeconom\c-oemograph\c growth m these areas . \mp\emen tior) of the recommenda\\ons amounts to negating the endowment benefit ~n the name of
ecology \n rural areas wh\ch \s not acceptable to the State Governm nt.
We feel that Instead of putting premium on complian ce the approach is restriction centric. It would only alienate masses and o verawe them wi th strict measures leading to dissent and protest. The recommendations are loaded aga inst not so w ell developed but well endowed states that started the ir journey late, which is unfair and not acceptable .
As regard to constitution of Western Ghat Ecology Authority (WEGA), the State Government is of the view that it encroaches on the powers of the State Government and is against well establiihed federal principles . Subjects like land use planning , location of industries, infrastructure developments are within the domain of State Government but with . the constitution of the Authority the freedom of the State . Government would be seriously curbed and is not acceptable. In a federal set-up when you choose to impose restrictions on subjects which squarely fall in State 's domain wider consultation is a must to understarid the impact and implications. . I However, the State Government or the local stakeholders were never consulted while preparing the report or finalizing the recommendations .
While making recommendations that have fiscal , social and other impacts impinging o'n ' growth and development of the State their impact must be analyzed and explained in deta il which this is totally missing .in the report . In vie w of serious implications on State's ability to undertake growth and developme(lt measure , the recommendations ' must be fine-tuned to suit the tw in objecti ve of c?nservation and growth . One size fits all is a simplistic way of answering co mpl~x questions of ecology and environment and should be avoided . The grou nd re alitjes obtaining in every State must be understood carefully before making reco mmen~ation s to make them acceptable and palatable . i ,
: , I ,
Further, while the report has made recommendati ons that haJe far rea ching fiscal consequences it has not gone into mechanism to compensa te the state for any loss of revenue it may have to suffer and its impact o n e cono/n ic a nd social development. A report cannot recommend re strict ions on spatia l pla~ln i ng and landuse without .analyzing alternatives and impa ct on e xisting socio-eco~omic activities e .g . Mining ,Industry, tourism , fishery , local hand icrafts etc. A lternale land-use, as has been recommended in the report, cannot be arbitrarily confine d tJ z ones without deta iled feasibility study . Moreover, size of the State mu st be kepi in mi nd while suggesting any site-specific recommendations whic h is totall y lacking In the rep ort .
I
I
The recommendations have never been discussed at the g ra ss-r ot level which is a must especially when rights and livelihood of inhabitants is li kely t be ad versely impacted . It is nothing but autocratic decision making obliv ious of v ices from the ground and local concerns and constra ints. Such unilateralism m p rove to be detrimental to the interest of environmental protections as it cannpt be secu red : without people's participation .
obtaining in every State must be understood carefully recommendations to make them acceptable and palatable .
before
making
Further, while the report has made recommendations that have far reaching fiscal consequences it has not gone into mechanism to compensate the state for any loss of revenue it may have to suffer and its impact on economic and social development. A report cannot recommend restrictions on spatial planning and land-use without analyzing alternatives and impact on existing socio-economic activities e.g. Mining ,Industry, tourism . fishery, loc'i'l handicrafts etc. Alternate land-use , as has been recommended in the report, cannot be arbitrarily confined to zones without detailed feas ibility study. Moreover, size of the State must be kept in mind while suggesting any site-specific recommendations which is totally lacking in the report ..
The recommendations have never been discussed at the grass-root level which is a must especially when rights and liveiihood of inhabitants is likely to be adversely impacted . It is nothing but autocratic decision making oblivious of voices from the ground and local concerns and constraints . Such unilateralism may prove to ' be detrimental to the interest of environmental protections as it cannot be secured without people's participation .
In view. of the submission above recommendations contained in the WGEEP report are ' not acceptable to the State of Goa . The State Government is of the view that the whole report needs to go through a consultative , deliberations to ' . I accornmodate local constraint and concerns and make it qonform to well established federal principles .
1\\.111,
'W~
A '
[
,
I
I
o~rs sincerely
(
-
'/. G:,. 'b' "
Rai) Prin~pal Secretary Depa1ment of Forest Goverm en of Goa To

D r. V. Rajagopa lan ,
lAS
(P~rimal
Secretary, Ministry of Forest and Environment Government of India , Paryavaran Shawan , New Delh i.
4/15/2013
Response of Government of Karnataka
Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA)
oUndemocratic oUncalled for interference in the states sphere of authority oDuplication of existing institutional structures
4/15/2013
Western Ghats boundary delineation needs
improvement ideally at village level Declaring the entire Western Ghats region as Eco-sensitive is problematic. Developed areas need separate treatment. Local community consultation needed for demarcating eco-sensitive zones. Should be balanced with larger interests.
4/15/2013
Para of the report Para 2.1(Water use) of Part-II of the report.
Recommendation
a) Measures for mitigation / improvement : Recommendations No.4, 7, 8, 9 & 11 are acceptable.
Para 2.2(Agriculture) of Part-II of the report
Measures for mitigation / improvement : Recommendations No. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 & 19 are acceptable, subject to the condition that Central Government agrees to provide the required subsidies to the farmers in the Western Ghats areas for the financial loss that they may suffer, as suggested in the report. Measures for mitigation / improvement in the area of Science and Technology are acceptable.
Para 2.12(Science and Technology) of Part-II of the report
Para 2.4 (Fisheries) of Part-II of the report
Issues of Concern: Fisheries
Habitat loss, including loss of mangroves is a concern shared by the Karnataka Forest Department. Recommendation with regard to Forest and Biodiversity are all acceptable to the Karnataka Forest Department. KFD has been proactive in the implementation of the FRA as is evident from the progress achieved in the state. Out of the 1,63,038 applications received by the Forest Rights Committee (FRC), 1,62,743 have already been disposed.
Para 2.5(Forests and Biodiversity) of Part-II of the report
4/15/2013
Para 2.8 Energy and Power EIA procedures should take into account carrying capacity of region and also require cumulative impact studies when power plants are planned to be in clusters
The State of Karnataka has already entrusted an 'Ecological Carrying Capacity study of the Western Ghats in Uttara Kannada District' being conducted by the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore for which a budget of Rs. 40 lakhs is already placed at the disposal of IISc, Bangalore. The recommendations of this study will be taken on board while considering projects in this region. Recommendations with regard to Tourism are all acceptable to the Karnataka Forest Department, except refining the Eco Tourism Policy of MOEF by WGEA. The Karnataka Forest Department agrees to follow the Eco Tourism Policy approved by MOEF.
Para 2.9(Tourism) of Part-II of the report
Para 2.11 of Part 2 of the Report
Human Settlemen ts
Measures for mitigation / improvement : The Report has recommended that For all settlements and built areas/ to be developed areas, certain types of areas would be no-go areas, including water courses, water bodies, special habitats, geological formations, biodiversity rich areas, and sacred groves Special Economic Zones should not be permitted
All such land use issues are either dealt by KTCP Act or Rules of the Revenue department, depending upon the classification of the Town/city. Necessary amendment to the Act and rules will be required for declaring such areas as no go areas or for banning SEZs in Western Ghats.
4/15/2013
A building code should be evolved by the WGEA which include inter-alia eco-friendly building material and construction methods, minimising the use of steel, cement and sand, providing water harvesting methods, nonconventional energy and waste treatment The application or detailing of the framework can be done by local authorities to suit local conditions.
This matter is already under consideration of the State Government and workshops and discussions at various levels are being held. After a final view is taken by the state government, necessary changes would be made in the Acts and Rules and local authorities will be asked to implement the same.
Para Para 1 of summary
Recommendation MoEF to notify provisionally ESZ1, ESZ2 & ESZ3 Talukas Boundary delineation criteria of forest area (as per FSI) and altitude
Reason for not being acceptable Taluka is a large administrative unit
Modification suggested WG to be delineated at Hobli level and at village level in the fringe areas High Resolution Satellite imageries to be used or the geospatial database of the State to be used It would be appropriate to delineate the eco sensitive zones in the fringe areas at the village level only after consultation with local communities
Para 6 of Part 1
Important Talukas such as Haliyal,Chamrajnagar, Kalghatgi, Hassan etc left out assigning eco sensitive zone to the entire taluk would lead to erroneous zonation
Para 10 of Part 1 of the report
ESZ assignment
4/15/2013
Para Para 13 of PartI of the report and Para 2.7 of Part-II of the report
Recommendation Quarry and sand mining: No new licence should be given for quarry and sand mining in ESZ1.
Reason for not being acceptable Total ban on quarrying of such materials would bring undue hardship to the people residing in high forest areas.
Modification suggested Quarrying of material like sand, jelly, stones, boulders and laterite stones needs to be permitted on case to case basis as these materials are essential for various development activities like construction of residential buildings , under strict regulations and as per the provisions of existing law in Western Ghats areas.
Para
Recommendation
Reason for not being acceptable In this regard it is to state that grazing by goat is a major impediment to the regeneration of forests
Modification suggested Grazing by goat therefore needs to be discouraged in forests.
Para 2.3 of Part-II of the report
Animal husbandry Animal nutrition feeding and grazing it has been suggested that grazing restriction imposed on the of forest grounds conservation should be revisited.
4/15/2013
Para Para 2.8 of Part-I of the report and Para 13 of Part-I of the report
Recommendation Power and Energy; Micro and mini hydel projects in eco sensitive areas in the Ghats should be designed more to meet local power demand and not feed to the grids as power lines are needed. The report has also suggested that large power plants are allowed in ESZ3 with certain regulations.
Reason for not being Modification suggested acceptable In this regard it is stated that the Government of Karnataka is not permitting the mini hydel projects in the forest areas of Western ghats. The current Government of Karnataka Policy needs to be followed
Para Para 2.8 of Part-I of the report and Para 13 of Part-I of the report
Recommendation Power and Energy; Recommends regulated wind power projects with cumulative environmental impact assessment in ESZ2 and ESZ3.
Reason for not being Modification suggested acceptable Since the western Ghats is endowed with many species of avifauna and falls in many migratory paths of various birds species, establishing wind mill in western ghats will be detrimental to the avifauna conservation efforts. Thus no wind power projects should be permitted in western Ghats areas.
4/15/2013
Para Para 2.7 of Part-II of the report
Recommendation Mining Recommended for exclusion of mining from ESZ1 while it has suggested that in other eco sensitive zones it may be permitted on a case by case basis.
Reason for not Modification being acceptable suggested The Government of Karnataka has not been in favour of allowing any mining activities in the region. All the old mining leases in the region that have expired have not been renewed and no new mining lease has been granted. The Honourable Supreme Court of India, in WP (c) No. 562/2009, has ordered that No mining operations of any kind in the Western Ghats has to be countenanced.
Para Para 14 of Part 1 of the report
Recommendation Reason for not being acceptable Western Ghats Ecology Authority(WGEA) :Mandate of WGEA to include regulation and management and planning of all activity impacting eco sensitive zone of Western Ghats. In this regard it is strongly felt that setting up new regulatory / planning / managing body would lead to only duplicating the functioning and authority of existing institutions like National Board for Wildlife, State Wildlife Board, Pollution Control Board, Bio Diversity Board, etc. It is suggested that it would be appropriate to further strengthen these Institutions and Institutional Mechanisms. Similarly the recommendations for constitution of District Ecological Committee would also lead to duplication Moreover, the suggested Authority is totally undemocratic as it has no peoples representatives on the authority.
4/15/2013
Para Para 2.2 of Part-II of the report
Recommendation Reason for not being acceptable Agriculture Wildlife problems
Modification suggested
Culling of wild boar This recommendation needs has been to be dropped recommended which is in contravention of Wildlife the Protection Act and therefore cannot be accepted
Para Para 2.5 of PartII of the report
Recommendation Forest and Biodiversity
Reason for not being acceptable The Karnataka Forest Department has serious reservations about discussions and issues of concerns raised by the committee on the history and scientific management of forests in Karnataka. The biased and one sided arguments of Prof. Madhav Gadgil, regarding the management of Forests by the State Government are totally unacceptable.
4/15/2013
Para
Recommendati on Forest and Biodiversity
Reason for not being acceptable Convert JFM into CFM The Report has recommended virtual replacement of the State oriented forest management system by what is termed as CFM (community forest management) system. The applicability of FRA is legally limited to areas where either tribal communities or other forest dwellers have rights under the provisions of FRA while the concept of JFPM through Village Forest Committees ( in notified forests) or Eco-Development Committees(in PAs) is applicable to all forest areas.
Para 2.5 of Part-II of the report
Gundya Hydro Electric Project FC Act diversion proposal under examination

KPCL to survey and demarcate the land, so that
tree enumeration can be carried out; KPCL to provide the details of alternate lands for compensatory afforestation.
10
4/15/2013
Western Ghats Task Force Malnad Development Board Karnataka Bio-diversity Board Karnataka Medicinal Plants Authority
The existing legal framework the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Forest (Conservation) Rules, Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969, Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976, Environment (Protection) Act and Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
11
4/15/2013
THANKYOU!
12
By Speed Post
Environment & Forests (EC-2) Department, Secreta riat, Chennai 9. Letter No: 22074/EC-2/2011 - 22, Dated: 15.03.2013
From Thiru. Mohan Verghese Chunkath, LA.S., Additional Chief Secretary to Government.
TO~K. KASTURIRANGAN, THIR MEMB 1\, PLANNIN'G COMMISSION, GOVERNM~OF INDIA, YOJANA BH AN, NEW DELHI - \1 0 001.
Sir, Sub:
"
Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel Report High Level Working Group - Comment of the State Government - Forwarding of - Regarding. Your D.O. Letter No: 1/1/2010-RE (ESZ) dated 30.8.2012 addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu.
======
Ref:
With reference to your D.O. letter cited and the earlier letters received "". --- f"Fom Government of India on this subject I send herewith the views of State Government on the recommendations of Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) and connected issues. At the outset, I mention that there is no State specific recommendation in respect of the State of Tamil Nadu and hence the views are given on the recommendations applicable to all States in the Western Ghats. The views of the State Government on the pOints mentioned in para 3(1) to 3(VI) of your letter as mentioned as follows:
Para 3. I (a) Government:
The recommendations which are acceptable to State
The State Government does not accept any of the recommendations. Many of the recommendations are found to be like after thoughts of the
, 1
regulations already in existence for a long time in this State. Hence, ttl question of fresh acceptability of these recommendations does not arise. As the remarks in regard 3.1 (a) and 3.1(b) are quite lengthy they are given separately in the Annexure to this letter.
Para 3. I (b) The recommendations which are acceptable with modifications along with the suggested modifications and reasons for suggesting modifications:
The response is as stated in Para 3 (1) (a).
Para 3. I (c) The recommendations which are not acceptable, along with detailed reasons for not finding them acceptable:
The entire set of recommendations is not acceptable. The State is not in favour of creation of an additional layer of regulatory authority in the form of Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA), as the State. is more than adequately equipped to handle the issues connected with the conservation of Western Ghats mentioned in the report of the Panel.
Para 3. II) What are the existing legislative and regulatory measures taken by the State Government, as also the status of existing institutional framework relating to ecology and environment preservation:
In Tamil Nadu State, we are implementing following State Legislations namely, (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Rules Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Rules, 1957 Rules for the Management of Toda Patta Lands in the Nilgiris (specific to Nilgiris District of Western Ghats) (vii) Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules 1968 (viii) Tamil Nadu Rosewood Trees (Conservation) Act, 1994 (ix) Sandalwood Possession Rules, 1970
These are basic enactments implemented in the State of Tamil Nadu including Western Ghats. Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 and Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees Act) 1955 are ecology based legislations enacted during 1949 and 1955 respectively.
Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 enacted basically for preserving forests on private land. In Tamil Nadu the major hilly parts lie in Western Ghats and the State Government was aware and committed to preserving ecology and that is the reason the Assembly passed enactment as early as in 1949. Although the lands belong to private individuals, but its ecology has still been intact. Similarly Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees Act) 1955 was enacted to provide for regulation of the cutting of trees and cultivation of land in Hill Areas in the State of Tamil Nadu. The preamble of this Act is to stop indiscriminate cutting of trees in hill stations in Tamil Nadu and also to prevent the deforestation and soil erosion and also to preserve the special characteristics of the hill areas as regards landscape, vegetal cover and climate. In a nutshell, these two legislations namely, Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1955 and Tamil Nadu Hill Areas Preservation Act, 1955 are totally ecology based legislations and these have achieved their objective in this State by preserving ecology in hilly regions especially Western Ghats. Apart from Forest Acts and Regulations, the Goverr,ment of Tamil Nadu constituted Hill Area Conservation Authority(HACA) by Government Order No:44, Planning and Development Department, Dated 2.4.1990 and Government Order No: 49, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 24.3.2003. Under this regulatory authority, (HACA), 9 Districts and 31 taluks falling in Western Ghats portions of Tamil Nadu are covered. Only the State of Maharashtra has more number of taluks (35) affected. Under this regulatory authority, agriculture, Industries, Energy, Textile, Manufacturing of glass, rubber industry, infrastructure projects, other projects like Holiday villages, hotel and resort complexes are covered. Without the permission of HACA in the notified area, no activity can be undertaken. HACA is basically intended for preserving ecology in Hill areas including Western Ghats. The existing State legislation like Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, Sandalwood possession Rules, Tamil Nadu Rosewood Trees (Conservation) Act, 1994, Tamil Nadu Private Forest Act, 1949, Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 and Authority like Hill Area Conservation Authority are very appropriate and adequate legislations for protecting the ecology of Western Ghats and no separate legislation jregulationsj Authority are required. This legislative framework has been time tested and has been upheld right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Para 3. III) What are your views on the adequacy of the existing Central Government legislations and regulatory systems relating to ecology and environment in the context of the issues brought out in the WGEEP report? State Government's views on the need for their improvement/strengthening. The existing central legislations namely, Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and various Supreme court directions in
3
202/ 1995 (Godavarman Tirumalpad Vs. Union of India), Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and its subsidiary legislations are being implemented in the State of Tamil Nadu. Further three famous tiger reserves namely, Kalakkad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Anamalai Tiger Reserve and Mudumalai Tiger Reserve fall in Western Ghats Region of Tamil Nadu. In these three tiger reserves notified under section 38(V) of Wildlife Protection Act, no activities are permitted without prior permission from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence there is complete moratorium on any activity inimical to conservate ecology in these areas. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and its subsidiary legislations are implemented in Western Ghats Region of Tamil Nadu in letter and spirit by Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and Department of Environment. The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 is implemented in this State in letter and its spirit. This central legislation is governed by its schedules. Hence the flora and fauna listed in Wildlife Protection Act enjoy protection irrespective whether it is found in protected area or elsewhere . Offences pertaining to Schedule I and Schedule II animals are cognizable and nonbailable and there is minimum punishment of three years. Hence existing Wildlife (Protection) Act,1972 is more than adequate to protect the flora and fauna found in Western Ghats Region of Tamil Nadu. The Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 and various directions issued by Supreme Court since 1996 onwards are being implemented by Tamil Nadu in letter and spirit. Even Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgement in 202/95 (Godavarman Tirumalpad Vs Union of India) in its judgement dated 12.12.1996 have banned felling of spontaneously grown trees in Tamil Nadu. Hence even for cutting a single tree of spontaneous growth in Tamil Nadu including Western Ghats, a permission from Supreme Court is required. There is no violation of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and its guidelines issued by Ministry of Environment and Forests in Western Ghats Region of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the existing Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is more than adequate and no change is required. The Government of Tamil Nadu is of the view that existing central legislations namely, Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 are more than adequate to protect the ecology of Western Ghats and no additional central legislation/ regulatory authority is required.
Para 3. IV) What is the implication of UNESCO heritage site recognition of some part of the Western Ghats as also of international commitments relating to biodiversity and other environment related areas?
Based on a proposal from the Tamil Nadu Forest Department to include six locations in the Western Ghats in Tamil Nadu as part of the serial nomination of the Western Ghats of India, the Government of India submitted the detailed proposal to the UNESCO for inscribing as World , Heritage Site. The World Heritage
4
Committee has recommended the inscription of Western Ghats (India) and the UNESCO has inscribed Western Ghats (India) under the World Heritage Site (Natural Properties) in its 36 th Session held in 2012. The Western Ghats were inscribed under criteria 9 and 10 of the Operational Guidelines of the World Heritage Convention. The sub-clusters for Tamil Nadu include Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Srivilliputtur Wildlife Sanctuary, Tirunelveli Forest Division (part), Karian Shola National Park, Grass Hills National Park and Mukurti National Park. All these heritage sites are already covered by the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 and various Acts enacted by Government of Tamil Nadu, which provide these areas a very high status of protection and conservation. Hence, the additional agency like WGEA is not considered necessary in view of the existing legal provisions. Para 3. V) State Government's comprehensive analysis on economic implications of implementing the recommendations of WGEEP. Such an analysis may take into account all the pros and cons of implementing the recommendations: The Panel report has included the entire area of the chosen Western Ghat taluks into one of the categories of Ecologically Sensitive Zone (I,II,or III), without taking into account the present level of development and the future growth needs of the States in these areas. The multiplicity of the sectors involved and the complexity of the interrelatedness of these sectors make it difficult to evaluate the economic implications in accurate quantitative terms. However, it will suffice to state that the regulatory framework, recommended by the Panel is expected to put strong impediments in the developmental process, particularly the industrial development in these areas. For the same reasons both Maharashtra and Kerala have also vehemently opposed the setting up of Western Ghats Ecological Authority. Tamil Nadu, with its high economic growth, trajectory, necessarily needs concurrent industrial and infrastructure development. Tamil Nadu is one of the leading States, which has got adequate ecological and environmental safeguards by way of policies, regulations, programmes/action plans and also institutional mechanisms for implementing the same for achieving the goal of conservation and sustainable management of its natural resources. Hence, the proposed classification of the Western Ghat taluks of the State into different Zones of sensitivity and the constitution of WGEA to oversee various regulations are not at all acceptable to the State Government. Para 3. VI) Does the State Government have any regional planning process, which takes into account the ecology and environment preservation of Western Ghats while considering the developmental and livelihood issues in planning? How can the recommendations of WGEEP help in improving this planning process? Considering the ecological fragility of the hill areas of the Western Ghats region, Tamil Nadu Government have enacted specific rules to regulate various
developmental activities, including regulation of land use, infrastructure and mir, development, tree felling etc. in specific identified regions falling within the Westel Ghats. Some of these are: the Tamil Nadu Hill Area (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 applicable to certain specific hill areas of the State, considering their ecological importance; the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 to deal with the preservation of natural vegetation outside notified Government forests; Hill Area Conservation Authority (HACA) to regulate specific development activities in notified villages that are environmentally sensitive both in the Western Ghat and Eastern Ghat regions of the State. The UNESCO's Man and Biosphere Reserve (MAB) programme adopts a regional approach in developmental planning. Tamil Nadu has two biosphere reserve areas falling within the Western Ghats, viz., Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve and the Agasthiamalai Biosphere Reserve. Western Ghat Development Programme , (WGDP), Hill Area Development Programme (HADP), the scheme for mitigation of depredation by Asian elephants, Project Elephant, Project Tiger etc. schemes, being implemented in the State also follow the regional planning approah, with even interstate cooperation. All these programmes are broadly incorporating the development and livelihood issues of the concerned planning area. Considering the loss of livelihood in Western Ghat areas due to wild animal attack and taking cognizance of the need to quickly compensate the loss sustained by the people, the State Government have constituted a corpus fund of Rs.2.5 crores for timely disbursal of compensation amount.
It is felt that the recommendations of the WGEE panel will not in any way add to the effectiveness of the regional planning process that is already in place.
In conclusion, it is stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu is not in agreement with the report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel and wishes to reiterate that the Western Ghat Ecology Authority need not be constituted. Yo rs fa ithfu lIy,
fs .. ,9~r.V. Rajagopalan, I.A.S.,

CODY to
~~ ~,
for Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, New Delhi - 110 003 Shri Ajay Tyagi, I.A.S., Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Paryavaran Bhawan, e.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
6
ANNEXURE Recommendation of WGEEP (Page 41 of Part I report)

2
Sector
Implication of recommendation of (WGEEP)
Present Status in State of Tamil Nadu
1 Across Western Ghats
4 under Already implementation in the State. No separate regulation is required.
No additional the Genetically modified crop implication is should not be envisaged allowed.
additional Phase out the use No is of plastiC bags in implication shops, commercial envisaged establishments, tourist spots on a priority basis (not more than three years)-
S~ate is The implementing the provisions of the national legislation viz., 2011 Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules across the State, which also includes the Western Ghat region. Further the local bodies, which are responsible for enforcing the provisions relating to the trade, use and disposal of plastiCS also make rules under the respective Municipal laws regarding the thickness of plastiC bags that are permitted for trading and use in the local body areas. The State is also in the process of enacting its own set of ru les regarding the use and disposal of plastiCS in the name and style of Non bio-degradable Garbaqe (Control) Act.
Therefore, it considered that th above existing and proposed provisions are adequate to deal with the use and disposal of plastics in the Western Ghat region. Land use For all settlements and built areas/to be developed areas, certain of areas types would be no-go areas, including water courses, water bodies, special habitats, geological formations, biodiversity rich areas and sacred groves. Special Economic It will completely Zone should not be affect the permitted development of new SEZs in the notified taluks. The existing framework prohibits diversion of water courses and water bodies for any other use except in the rarest of rare cases.
New hill stations should not be allowed
The scope for forming new hill station in the State will be completely eliminated
The existing legal provisions like the Environmental Protection Act are sufficient to decide on the appropriateness of siting a SEZ in different parts of the State. Therefore, this recommendation is not agreeable. As there is scope for developing new hill stations without actually affecting the ecology, a blanket ban on new hill station is not acceptable but can be decided on a case to case basis
Public lands should not be converted to private lands
New assignment of lands to the will be poor completely ruled out.
Change in land use not permitted from forest to non-forest uses or agricultural to non-agricultural except agricultural to Forests (or tre crops) except when extension of existing village settlement areas to accommodate in increase population of local residents.
This provision will completely put a on even ban diversion of small extent of forest lands for essential development projects of the Govern ment, which will have huge implication on meeting the genuine sitespecific development requirements for the people.
of Assignment Government lands to the poor in the Western Ghat region need not be banned. Instead, assignment can be considered on a case to case basis, taking into account the ecology and environment Already enforced by Tamil Nadu Government through implementation of the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, Tamil Nadu Hill Area (Preservatio~ of Trees) Act 1955 and Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 949. Tamil Nadu is promoting on tree cultivation farmers land under Tree Cultivation in Private Lands component in a big way under Tamil Nadu Biodiversity Conservation and Greening Project.
For existing built No additional structures such as implication is hotels, resorts etc. envisaged. the Tourism policy of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, appropriately refined by WEGA to be followed.
So far as this State is concerned, developments in major hill stations like Udhagamandalan, Coonoor, Kodaikanal and Yercaud are governed by Tamil Nadu Hill Station Building Rules, 1993. A Separate committee viz., Architectural and Aesthetics Aspects Committee (AAA Committee) is also in
place to assist \.. Collector 0\ District these hill stations to on take decisions approving development proposals. Apart from the above major hill stations, hill areas containing even small hillocks have been identified throughout Tamil Nadu. Major developments like buildings having plinth area more than 300 sq.m ., mining activity and all other activities in the Hill Areas are monitored and clearance for development proposals are given by the apex body called Hill Area Conservation Authority (HACA). HACA is functioning under the Chairmanship of the Secreta ry to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department and Director of Town and Country Planning as its convener and having various Secretaries to Government, Departments and officials from various as departments Members of the Authority. HACA clears the proposal depending on the recommendations of the departments viz., Forest, Agricultural Engineering Geolooy
10
/
Road and other Infrastructure expansion plans to be submitted for EIA Scrutiny This will lead to inordinate delay in executing needy projects.
and Mining and based on the specific recommendation of the District Collector. Hence strict regulations are already in force. Preparation of EIA reports and their scrutiny before permitting any project covered under Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006 is already enforced by the State Pollution Control Boar(i. no These recommendations are already under implementation through general or specific guidelines. For example, the State is a leader in Rain Water Harvesting in all public buildings. Establishment of water harvesting structures in private buildings is also insisted upon by the local bodies and Urban development authorities. Hence, separate building code is not considered necessary.
Building Works consisting of green technology and green building material
A building code should be evolved by the WGEA which include inter-alia eco-friendly building material and construction methods, minimizing the use of steel, cement and sand, providing water harvesting methods, nonconventional energy and waste treatment. The or application detailing of the framework would be done by local authorities to suit local conditions.
There is additional implication envisaged.
11
Area Treatment plot development / Land scaping in the open area of plot
Certain recognized best practices of construction / development such as top soil conservation, tree conservation etc, should be followed as per guidelines of Green Building certificates of Eco Housing Certain activities eg, filling of marshes / wetlands, introduction of alien invasive species are not permitted There is additional implication envisaged.
Action have alreo initiated b been Government for restoration of wetlands. Further Tamil Nadu Forest Department have proposed remova I of alien species like lantana, wattle from as per forest area Working Plan / Wildlife Management Plan. no The marshes, wetlands which are considered as ecologically sensitive are not set apart for any development.
Recommendations are generally under implementation. Tamil Nadu Forest Department as a policy has already stopped planting of exotics in the hill areas. is There additional implication envisaged. no Recommendations are already under implementation.
The area that may be paved is to be restricted; paving ground areas may be done in such a manner that there is no change in the runoff/permeability of the plot overall before and after paving. Waste Treatment Local Authorities should be made responsible to for developing regional for system handlinq
There is additional implication envisaged
no There are already existing legal provisions by way of Municipal Solid Waste (Management, Handling and trans boundary
12
..;
..l.
toxic hazardous, biomedical wastes well as as recyclable materials.
movement) Rules 2008, Waste Biomedical (Management and Handling) Rules 1998 and Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 1989 with enabling powers for the various agencies of the State Government. Therefore, no separate prescriptions are considered necessary. The State is a leader in innovative treatments of sewage and solid waste .
No hazardous or No additional The existing Hazardous (Management toxic waste implication is Waste Handling) Rules and processing units envisaged 1989 with enabling provisions for the various agencies of the State Government is adequate to address the issue. no Provisions of Water Waste water - Mandatory for all There is (Prevention and Control management layouts/building additional developments implication of Pollution) Act 1974 envisaged. are considered Should be such as adequate. Hence no new to permit reuse, regulation is required. recharge, recycling as locally appropriate and permit recovery of energy wherever possible Water Decentralized water resources management plan at local selfGovernment level
It is under examination.
13
Protection of high valley altitude swamps and water bodies area Catchment treatment plans of hydroelectric and irrigation major projects.
is There additional implication envisaged. is There additional implication envisaged.
no Already implementation.
unt.
"\
under
no Already implementation.
Improve river flow and water quality by scientific riparian management programmes involving community participation No additional Water is implication Conservation measures through envisaged suitable technology and public awareness.
Already under implementation. The State (lAMWARM) is worth project mentioning.
Already under implementation. The system is already in vogue so as to normally not disturb the environment and ecology, while undertaking construction activities in the Western Ghats. Such works wherever contemplated, are being examined with full environmental concern.
Inter basin No new dam can diversion of river in be constructed. western Ghats should not be allowed. Agriculture organic No Promote agricultural implication practices envisaged.
new Agriculture Department is already promoting organic agriculture throughout the State. The State is in the process of drafting an 'Organic farming Policy'
14
Discourage cultivation of annual crops in slopes exceeding 30% Incentive payment for sequestration of carbon in soil
new This system is already practiced under the provisions of the Tamil Hill Areas (Preservation of trees) Act, 1955. The No incentive is paid but is sequestration recommendation will be difficult to encouraged. implement. No Genetically No new The State Government has already taken the Modified Crops are implication same stand. In any encou raged. envisaged. case, this is in line with prevailing National Policy. No implication envisaged. new State is entouraging the use of bio-pesticides to slowly phase out the use of chemical pesticides/weed iCides. Phasing out will be a slow process. new State is encouraging the use of bio fertilizers and green manure to slowly phase out chemical fertilizers.
Phasing out of all No use of chemical implication pesticides envisaged. /weedicides
Phasing out of use No of chemical implication fertilizers. envisaged.
Animal Husbandry
Introduce incentives for maintenance of land Races of livestock Redeploy subsidies chemical for fertilizers towards maintenance of livestock and of production biogas and of generation organic manure
Generally under implementation. Further progress will be achieved in future.
15
Discourage cultivation of annual crops in slopes exceeding 30% Incentive payment for sequestration of carbon in soil
new This system is already practiced under the provisions of the Tamil Hill Areas (Preservation of trees) Act, 1955. The No incentive is paid but is sequestration recommendation will be difficult to encouraged. implement. No Genetically No new The State Government has already taken the Modified Crops are implication same stand. In any encou raged. envisaged. case, this is in line with prevailing National Policy. No implication envisaged. new State is entouraging the use of bio-pesticides to slowly phase out the use of chemical pesticides/weed iCides. Phasing out will be a slow process. new State is encouraging the use of bio fertilizers and green manure to slowly phase out chemical fertilizers.
Phasing out of all No use of chemical implication pesticides envisaged. /weedicides
Phasing out of use No of chemical implication fertilizers. envisaged.
Animal Husbandry
Introduce incentives for maintenance of land Races of livestock Redeploy subsidies chemical for fertilizers towards maintenance of livestock and of production biogas and of generation organic manure
Generally under implementation. Further progress will be achieved in future.
15
No pesticide/ No additional Already in practice. implication weedicide envisaged. application. of No additional No extraction of any Extraction medical plants with implication medicinal plant in forest envisaged. area is permitted. strict regulation Forestry: Private lands of Introduction Incentive payment as "Conservation service charges" for maintenance of natural vegetation for small land holders This can be considered as a promotional effort to preserve the existing natural vegetation in private lands.
This recommendation is not agreeable, in view of its larger economic implications to the individuals.
Application of pesticide/weedicide will be generally discouraged and application of biopesticide encouraged. Encourage planting No additional Already implemented. of endemic implication species. envisaged. Quarrying with No additional Regulated through Hill strict regulation implication Area Conservation envisaged. Authority. Introduce incentive No additional as "Conservation implication service charges" envisaged. for maintenance of sacred groves. This can be considered as a promotional effort to preserve the existing natural vegetation and biodiversity.
This will infringe upon the rights of individual land holders from putting the land to an economic activity which will be beneficial to him. No No additional pesticide/weedicide implication application envisaged. No monoculture of plantation exotics like eucalyptus
17
of No additional Process of b Constitution has alreao) on implication been initiated by Tamil by envisaged. Nadu Biodiversity Board. One Community Reserve has been notified in the state for biodiversity conservation under wildlife Protection Act 1972 during 2009. Mining No new licence to No additional The incidence of mining be given for implication in the Western Ghats is mining; Where envisaged. negligible or of no mining exists it significance as far as the State is concerned. This should be phased out in five years by State already has a Hill 2016 Conservation Area Authority (HACA), which -Detail plans for examines the environmental and environmental and other social rehabilitation aspects of mining and of mines to be quarrying in the hill closed. areas. Further, all applications for mining -Illegal mines to be are being examined with stopped to the reference immediately. provisions under the Impact Environmental Assessment notification 2006 by the respective statutory agencies. Rehabilitation plans for closed mines is part of the EIA process. and Where exists No Quarry additional The incidence of sand mining should be implication quarrying and sand controlled envisaged. mining in the Western effectively for Ghats is negligible or of envi ron menta I and no significance as far as social impacts the State is concerned. immediately. This State already has a Hill Area Conservation Authority (HACA), which examines the environmental and other aspects of sand mining Maintenance Biodiversity private lands Biodiversity Management Committee. 18
and quarrying in the hill areas. Further, all applications for sand mining and quarrying, if any are being examined with reference to the provisions under the Environmental Impact Assessment notification 2006 by the respective statutory agencies.
No new licence to No additional Grant of any new licence be given for quarry implication is considered under the and sand mining envisaged. relevant provisions of HACA and 'EIA. - No new polluting No additional The siting of polluting Polluting industries in ecologically industries implication Industry sensitive areas and envisaged. (Red/Orange) For existing areas adjoining forests Industries switch is already governed by to zero pollution by the provisions of the EIA 2016 and be notification, which is subject to strict considered adequate. regulation and social audit. Tamil Nadu is already implementing the Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) policy in respect of polluting industries. Further, as per the New Industrial Policy of this Government, now in force, the industries which set up Dedicated Effluent Treatment Plants (ETP) and / or Hazardous Treatment Storage and Disposal Facility (HWTSDF) are given suitable incentive. Non polluting With additional Already strict No under Industry regulation and implication implementation. social audit envisaged. (Green/Blue)
19
Local bio resource based industry should be promoted. All should be strictly regulated and be subject to social audit. Local Bioresources based industry should be promoted
1 \
Already under implementation. As per the New Industrial Policy 2007, it provides suitable support and encouragement to investors willing to set up ethanol units through sugarcane . and grainbased routes. This would enable better returns for dry land farmers who cultivate sago, millets etc., A separate Tamil Nadu Biotechnology Policy is being formulated.
Power Energy
Educate the energy consumer about the environmental and social impacts of energy production and the need for reducing "luxury" demand Encourage demand side management; enhanced energy efficiency across sectors Launch 'smart' campaigns as key components of demand side management, focusing on smart: grids, buildings,
20
...
power, logistics and motors. Promote decentralized electricity, use of solar power r-~~~--------+-------------~ No forest or clearance stream diversion for new project
No thermal power plants function in Western Ghats region. Hydro electric power and solar power is already being encouraged. Tamil Nadu Development Energy Agency (TEDA)is already developing non-polluting sources of power.
- Promote small scale, micro and pico hydropower f-s ----';y'---:s_te_m __________--+______________---1 - No new thermal f-JP"---lo=----w_e"---r---'p"---ll..::...a_nt-=----____-+-____________----I Strict Envi ron menta I of regulation existing thermal power plants - Existing thermal plants to promote alternate use of fly ash r---------------+-------------~ - No large scale wind power project.
If hydroelectric power gen e ratio n is 0 bj ected, it will be detrimental to the develop me nt of th e country.
Transport
- No new railway lines and major roads except where it is highly essential
Wind power is green power and due to availability of high speed wind at higher attitude, wind power needs to be promoted. All the power generation works are carried out will full consideration to the envi ron menta I conservation. Already in the Western Ghats region the Highways Department does not undertakes any new formation/extension of
21
Avoidance of new highways express ways.
Tourism
- Ecotourism policy of MoEF, promote minimal impact tourism in the region
Education
These is almost moratorium of all type activities in core area. This will affect livelihood and lead into non - Strict regulation co-operation from for waste people residing in management, the areas. traffic and water use. Reconnect Children any youth to local envi ron ment through education programmes
existing roads/construction express way. Only improvement works in the existing roads are being carried out. Already implemented by Tamil Nadu Forest Department from December 2012.
Department of Environment and Department of School Education are already implementing it through around 5000 Eco-clubs in schools. The State is adding to these numbers year by year. Western Ghats region is already conserved through a number of regulations and full care of conservation issues is taken if any new project is proposed.
cumulative Science and Technology impact assessment for all new projects such as dams, mines, tourism and housing and permission to be given within carrying capacity - Focus research on perfecting green technology and make affordable for common people.
22
nformation Management
Build on the western Ghats database of WGEEP
and Update upgrade a hydrological database of rivers and consolidate the ecological database and information at river basin level
State already has the hydrological database and all the relevant information. The selfregulations are sufficient and no new regulations are required.
MOHAN VERGHESE CHUNKATH ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
//TRUE COPY//
23
RESPONSE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WESTERN GHATS ECOLOGY EXPERTS PANEL
INTRODUCTION
For the reasons and with the objectives stated in office Order No: 111120 1ORE (ESZ) dated 4-3-201O,the Ministry of Environment & Forests Government of India constituted the Western Ghats Ecology Experts Panel (WGEEP) for a period of one year from the date of issue of the order; (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. (highlighted) The WGEEP submitted the two volume report to the Ministry of Environment & Forests on 31 st August 2011 and the Ministry has uploaded the Report on its website on 23rd May 2012. The Ministry has asked for public feedback within a period of 45 days i.e. on or before the 5th July 2012. Government of Kerala got a copy of the report on 26-11-2011. Government conveyed their stand on the report, to the MoEF vide letter No 3527/A21 111 Envt dtd 31-1-2012. Copy of the same is enclosed as Annexure I. There occurred serious discussions in the state legislative assembly on the impacts of the recommendations on the development front especially power generation. State Government has expressed their reservations and dissent to the recommendations detrimental to the development plans of the state vis-a-vis the recommendations prohibiting or regulating such plans. There after the State Government set up the expert committee to examine the report of the WGEEP to identifY the recommendations that the state would have to object being impractical or unfavourable to the interests ofthe state. Meanwhile as per office order No: 1/1/2010Re (ESZ) Pt. dtd 17-8-2012 the MoEF constituted a high level working Group under the Chairmanship of Dr: K. Kasturirangan, Member (Science) Planning Commission to examine the WGEEP report in a holistic and mUltidisciplinary fashion keeping in view of the comments received from the state governments, Central Ministries, stakeholders and other related important aspects. The terms of reference includes the most significant issue i.e the constitutional implications of centre -state relations with respect to conservation and sustainable development of the Western Ghats region. The Working Group has been directed to submit an action plan to implement the WGEEP report in the most effective and holistic manner within a period of two
months from the date of issue of the order. The Chairman has called for specific comments of the state Government to engage in discussions on various issues. This memorandum of comments on the recommendations of the WGEEP has been filed before the High Level Working Group at this juncture.
2. UNACCEPTABLE ZONATION
The Western Ghats Regions of the state of Kerala are by and large protected under the forest laws and other conservation measures adopted by the state Government. The ecologically fragile areas of the state have been statutorily determined under the Kerala Forests (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act 2003. Kerala has a total forest area of 11,125.59 sq.kms including 5 National Parks and 7 wild life Sanctuaries, covering 28.88 percent of the total land area of Kerala. This is greater than the national average of 19.50. The entire f9rest area is spread over the Western Ghats. But the panel has proposed a zoning plan for the WGs, recommending that the Ghats including the contiguous midland areas of the state should be classified into three eco-sensitive zone with various degrees of restriction on land use for development and agriculture. It had also recommended for setting up three tier authorities to monitor implementation of the report and the management of the ecosensitive zones. As to the this approach, the following findings of the WGEEP in para 9, page 170f its report on the criteria adopted by the Pronab Sen Committee that the Western Ghats qualifies as an ESA is relevant: The WGEEP found that, 'However a uniform set of regulations cannot, obviously be promulgated under the EPA for this entire region". Hence WGEEP recommended adoption of a graded or layered approach and suggested that the entire Western Ghats be characterized as comprising (1) Regions of highest sensitivity or Ecologically Sensitive Zone I(ESZl), (2) Regions of high sensitivity or ESZ2, and the remaining (3) regions of moderate sensitivity SEZ3. These will be complementary to areas already declared as Protected Areas, which will continue to be managed under regulations prescribed by pertinent acts such as the Wild Life Protection Act. The main complaint against the recommendations on zoning of the Western Ghat regions (WGs) of the state is that the WGEEP has done it within the geographic limits of the whole WGs jointly as a single unit, without considering the special problems confronted in Kerala as to land use, population pressure, socio-economic factors etc. Asa matter of fact, the yard stick for recognising an area as a part ofWG is more stringent for Kerala compared to all other WG states. Any place above 150 mts of altitude is categorised as WG in Kerala whereas it is above 500mts for other
2
states. The WGEEP evolved the zonation as in paras 9 and 10 of the report (pages 16 to 21) based on a study published in Current Science in January 2011. (Gadgil, M et al. 2011) titled Mapping Ecologically Significant and Sensitive Areas of Western Ghats: Proposed Protocols and Methodology. The authors were of the following view on grading the Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESA)
' There could be no immediate consensus on how to weigh each of these attributes but one simple way (but obviously unacceptable to all) would be to weigh the three criteria (Abiotic, Biotic and socio-cultural) equally. We wish to continue such a process with the hope that once the results are out there could be further discussions revaluation, and revision of the ESAs. However for the time being we propose that all the three attributes viz: biological, geo- climatic and public perception are developed and graded as given in the table 1 below. Each of them is divided in to three categories, based on the importance of the biological component, environmental sensitivity and valuation by the public and are ranked accordingly. These attributes are later overlaid as shown in Table. The biological and geo-climatic layers are first combined and public perception layer i!t overlaid on this to arrive at the different grades of ESAs. Once the grids are assigned with these grades/ranks, areas for demarcating ESAs are identified as set of consecutive grids with similar grading/ranking. However the more fine scale borders of the ESAs can be developed with local inputs from the forest managers and the stake holders before they are legally declared as ESAs. Conclusions: We are aware that the protocol and methodology provided here for mapping ESAs cannot be final and may not be directly adaptable without further discussions. However it is our hope that responses from a wider section of experts and the consequent discussions help significantly towards developing a more generic methodology on which there could be more consensus. In the meanwhile, however WGEEP has been compiling the datasets required for the purpose for mapping the ESAs along Western Ghats using these steps. Any constructive suggestions during the process would be highly appreciated'.
However when it came to the application of the grid concept in section 9.1 of the report, it is done based only on the scientific exposition without any further verification or consultation. When the authors themselves have admitted that the purpose of the paper published in the (current science' was first to invoke discussions and suggestions from a wider section of experts on the conceptual and methodological details arrived at by the WGEEP' and also conceded that 'As the methodology described in Section 20 indicates we could not compile the full set of data indicated above , nor have we been able to cover all the criteria proposed by the Pranob Sen committee, primarily due to lack of time.' (Vide Box: 4, Section 9.1, page 18) This limitation faced by the committee is also admitted in section 6 of the report on boundaries of the Western Ghats. In page 7 of the report of the WGEEP the Panel has revealed that 'We must however admit that the Western Ghats Ecology Authority,
3
when put in place, will have to take another look at the boundaries we suggest, since we have not been able to find time to examine and refine these with enough care.
(Highlighted)
Again in Section 10 of the report at page 25 the Panel has commented that'
'It will be 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 a locality-specific management plan. This would be a task that will have to be initiated by the Western Ghats Ecology Authority through a broad-based participatory process when WGEA is put in place. However, as a first step, we suggest 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/ Bloc level. With this in view, we have gone ahead and assigned ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 levels to all the 134 talukas of Western Ghats. The assigned level to the taluka is the ESZ that covers the largest fraction 0 the taluk'.
The report perse reveals that it is merely based on the incomplete scierftific exposition in Appendix 4 of the report and not based on the further improvements suggested in Box 4 thereof that the zonation has been done. The State Government is particularly unhappy about the approach of the panel in making a crucial recommendation based on incomplete scientific exposition. It cannot but be said that the Panel has failed in identifying and demarcating the appropriate areas within the western Ghats which need to be notified as ecologically sensitive to recommend for notification of such areas as Ecologically sensitive Zones under the environment (Protection) Act, 1986, as it had been specially mandated. Therefore the zonation particularly ESZ-2 and ESZ-3 as has been made by the WGEEP cannot be accepted either as scientific, or in conformity with its mandate to that task and hence unacceptable to the state government. 36 out of 63 taluks, 80 out of 152 Block panchayats and 546 out of 978 Grama Panchayats of the state fall within the Western Ghats Region. However the facts stated in prepara do not justify the confirmative assignment. Whereas the report in Section I 0 page 21 speaks of separate treatment of Western Ghat Regions of each state for the purpose of ESZ assignment, there is no apparent evaluation of attributes with the criteria to be used for each of them in respect of Kerala. Instead it is generally stated that the extent of area covered by existing protected areas plus ESZl and ESZ 2 together will be around 75% and the extent of ESZ3 will normally be around 25% of the total area which in the absence of verifiable data and details and in the lights of the facts stated in Annexure I is unacceptable to the state Government. Also in Section 6 of the report the WGEEP itself has stated that;
'the higher mountain ranges further south of Kodagu (about 12degrees N) including the Nilgiris, the Anamalais, the Cardamom Hills and the Agasthyamalai range, being
4
referred to as distinct geological entity named as the southern block (Mani 1974). For our purposes we use the term Western Ghats in the broader sense to include the entire tract of hills from the Tapi to Kanyakumari. '
In the matter of identification of the eastern and western boundaries of the
Western Ghats the WGEEP has adopted the following criteria:

'For the purpose of defining the boundary of the Western Ghats, we used altitude and forest area or vegetation as drivers defining the boundaries. Our operational definition for 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 cut off followed from the digital data which showed that, in general, 500m constitutes the elevation at which the Western Ghats rise discretely from the Deccan plateau. For the western edge, we used a cut off 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 wa ~ 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. We used the land-use map developed by Forest Survey of India to demarcate forested areas, and GTOP030 (Global 30 Arc-Second Elevation Data Set) for altitude details at 1 x1km resolution. The boundaries were defined by overlaying these two datasets and following the criteria defined above. We also used the annual cumulative NDVI (normalized differential vegetation index) values as a surrogate for vegetation or forest cover but eventually found that the Forest Survey of India' s map per se was sufficient for the purpose'.
A perusal of the report as such gives the inference that the Western Ghats for the purpose of the WGEEP as far as it relates to the state of Kerala had to be considered as the forested hill tracts which is a distinct geographical entity as far as the state is concerned. In so far as the boundaries of the Kerala Western Ghats could have been distinctly differentiated and fixed with reference to biological, Geoclimatic, attributes and stake - holder evaluations it was not necessary that arbitrary and irrational zonation methodology was adopted and the Western Ghats regions stretched to in appropriate areas where regulations are proposed to be clamped for conservation of the Ghats The geographical features of Kerala are distinct and dissimilar compared to the WG states ofthe Deccan plateau, making it possible to divide the state vertically in to three natural geographic divisions, the Western Ghats (High Range) or highlands - , Plains or midlands and Coastal area or lowlands. The zonation adopted by the WGEEP transcends the physiographic limits of the conventional Western Ghats and intrudes even in to the entirely unrelated and peripheral coastal plains in the form of SEZ 3grids. Actually the kind of zonation the WGEEP has recommended is not as mandated by the MoEF and as per the resolutions of the WGEEP itself in the matter of
demarcation of areas within the Western Ghats to be notified as Ecologically Sensitive Areas under the EP Act. The first meeting of the Panel held on 31stMarch, 2010 had resolved to assess the current status of the ecology of the Western Ghats Region, demarcation of areas within the region to be notified as ecologically sensitive zones under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, as also to recommend modalities for the establishment of the Western Ghats Ecology Authority under the Environment (Protection) Act The Second Meeting of the W GEE P held on 7th May 2010 at, Coimbatore had decided to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the potential Ecologically Sensitive Areas within the Western Ghats region on a scientific basis calls for a sound information base. In the Fourth Meeting of the Panel held on 26 th to 27th July, 2010 at Thiruvananthapuram, Dr. V. S. Vijayan raised the issue of the need for defining and formulating guidelines for the ESA. Dr. Subrahmanyam eJrew attention of the Panel to the defmition of ESA as given in the Pronob Sen Report which may be taken as a base for further refining it. Chairman then pointed out that in that case we would have to declare the whole of Western Ghats as ESA. Dr. Vijayan added that this was quite appropriate, and should be done; but in addition we would have to delineate various areas of Western Ghats according to their conservation importance as class A, B, C and so on. In the Ninth Meeting of the pert Panel held at Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi on 28 January 2011 Dr. Vijayan said that ground truthing should be carried out to check the reliability of the ecological sensitivity scores for each grid. Following this a discussion ensued with respect to notification of areas under Wildlife Protection Act or Environment (Protection) Act. He said that till such time that the draft guidelines are finalized the proposals for ESAs may be put on hold. The WGEEP held a Brainstorming Session on land use policy in Western Ghats at the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru on 3rd March 2011.Smt: T.M. Sudha, Senior Town Planner, Department of Town and Country Planning, Kerala gave a presentation on the Opportunities in Participatory Planning in Evolving a Land Use Policy for Western Ghats Region. Ms. Sudha highlighted the peculiarities of landholdings and settlements in Kerala which included scattered homesteads and rural -urban continuum. She said that urban sprawl is very common in Kerala and the per capita land availability is very less. The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel met on 24th March 2011 at Paryavaran Bhavan, New Delhi with the Hon'ble MOS (IIC) E&F. This was followed by Pronab Sen criteria for determination of ecological sensitivity. The Chairman said that Pronab Sen Committee did not provide for any guidelines for the management of Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs). After the presentation on the framework and components of WGEEP report by Prof Madhav Gadgil, Hon'ble MoS, E&F appreciated the work done by the Panel and gave a goahead to the Panel to fmalize the WGEEP report. It was decided that the WGEEP
6
members responsible for each of the allotted states would give broad proposals of ESAs for their respective states. They would also suggest process and guidelines for development planning of the ESAs with full rationale. The complete proposals for ESAs would be prepared by adopting the participatory approach with the involvement of the local people in the planning process. In the twelfth Meeting of WGEEP and Expert Consultative Meeting held at Kerala Institute of Local Administration, Thrissur from 3rd to 5th May 2011, Professor Sukumar explained the rationale and the basis for delimitation of the spatial limits of Western Ghats. He clarified that WGEEP has used ecological basis for demarcation of Western Ghats. Prof. M.K. Prasad opined that if the Western Ghats definition adopted by the WGEEP does not coincide with the official Government definition there might be problems with respect to implementation of different schemes. It was clarified that the present definition encompasses all the Western Ghats taluks which are covered by the Government definition hence there would'be no problem. The thirteenth meeting of Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel held at Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, from 20th to 21st June 2011 Dr S.N. Prasad explained in detail the methodology adopted for scoring the variables used in the geospatial database for zonation. The variables used in the geospatial database are (i) elevation, (ii) slope, (iii) % forest cover, (iv) unique evergreen elements, (v) edge, (vi) riparian forests , (vii) endemic plants, and (viii) IUCN Red List category (mammals). After detailed deliberations it was decided that the Western Ghats would be classified into 3 zones differing in ecological sensitivity, viz. (i) ESZ1, (ii) ESZ2 and (iii) ESZ3 while Protected Areas would be a separate z~me by themselves. (highlighted) A close reading of the minutes of the meetings and workshops held by the WGEEP gives the irrefutable inference that: 1. The panel initiated its works for identifYing the ecologically sensitive zones within the Western Ghat regions as mandated in the terms of reference. No ground truthing had been carried out to check the reliability of the ecological sensitivity scores for each grid as finally demarcated by the panel and recommended. 2. Views expressed by the MPs of the state in the interactive meeting with the Minister of State Environment & Forests along with the Members of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel on 17th August, 2010 at the Parliament House Annex, New Delhi were not considered by the WGEEP. Neither has the assurance in respect of Kerala given by the Hon: Union Minister had been adverted to. Problems of land use practices and
7
peculiarities of land holdings in Kerala presented to the panel by Smt: T.M. Sudha, Senior Town Planner, Department of Town and Country Planning, were also not considered. 3. The Panel was of the stand that the Pronab Sen Committee did not provide for any guidelines for the management of Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs) and if the Pronab Sen Criteria is applied the whole Western Ghats will classifY as ecologically sensitive area, implying it need not be so. 4. Participatory approach with the involvement of the local people was not adopted for demarcation of the ESZ.s 5. The present definition of Western Ghats admittedly encompasses all the Western Ghats taluks which are covered by the government defmitionand hence the panel expected no problem. Hill tracts for Government purposes have been notified under Rule 44 of Kerala Service Rules Part II, (Travelling Allowance) which does not correspond with the zonation of the panel. 6. No rationale or grounds have been adduced in the report for grading the non Western Ghat regions (not being part of the conventional highlands but falling within the midlands and coastal plains) as SEZ to be protected or regulated for the sake of the Western Ghats. 7. The deliberations of the panel and decisions were centered on the forest ambience and ecological attributes of protected areas and in the lines of the guidelines as per the Wild Life Protection Act. No decision is seen to have been taken by the WGEEP for extending the zonation to any other regions not falling within the conventional Western Ghats. 8. The panel has not considered the relevant and significant matters of public interest as adduced in Annexure.! while considering and recommending the SEZs and zonal regulations therein, to which no democratic government can shut its eyes. 9. The criteria for delineating zones within the WGs should be given different weightage such as presence of shola forests, rare and endangered flora and fauna, microclimate, geo-climatic attributes, economically and strategic mineral deposits, elevation, shear zones, fault, hydrological attributes etc., may also be considered.
8
Section 9 of the report refers to the prohibition that could be imposed by the Central Government under Section 50f the Environment (Protection) Rules 1986 on the Ecologically Sensitive zones being identified. But the action under Rule 9 shall be with particular reference to the attributes laid down and only after following the procedure prescribed therein. But the Panel itself has conceded that 'However, a unifonn set of regulations cannot obviously be promulgated under the EPA for the entire region' .(Section 9,pI7) However the Panel not only demarcated the ESZs but also prescribed a uniform set of regulations applicable across the SEZs, even as the zonation lacks the data and methodological process criteria (box 4. P 18 of report) adopted in arriving at the demarcation process for each zone in the respective unit. The Panel has opined that, '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 ESZ I, ESZ 2 and ESZ 3, as well as to arrive at a locality specific management plan. This would be a task that will have to be initiated by the Western Ghats Ecologically Authority through a broad-based participatory process when it is put in place.' For the very reason the extant recommendations of the Panel on zonation may not be acted upon. For the above reasons and those categorically reported to the MoEF by the State Government vide Annexure. I, the zonation as recommended by the WGEEP especially in the traditional midlands and coastal areas of the state are wholly unacceptable to the State Government. The state Government has very serious reservations and anxieties over the zonation process adopted by the Panel and request that those may not even be considered tentative or illustrative. Nevertheless the state Government wish to clarifY the at all possible conservation and protection measures are being taken and will be ensured in the conventional Western Ghat regions of the state. In this context the report appeared in 'The Hindu' daily dated 228-2012 is extracted below:
'Madhav Gadgil, head of the WGEEP, told The Hindu over the phone from Mumbai that the grid size of 9x9 km was selected because the available computerized information . was in that scale. "Within the available time frame we had to prepare the report, it was a scale we could handle because of the earlier work done". He however said there was a need to develop the map further on a finer scale.'
General recommendation on restricted or prohibited activities across the entire Western Ghats as a single unit is repugnant to the admission of the WGEEP in para 2 page 17 of its report in section 9.When the WGEEP has unequivocally found that a unifonn set of regulations cannot obviously be promulgated under the EPA for the entire Western Ghats region, (section 9, p17) it is precisely what is done and
9
recommended by the panel in section 13 of the report. The recommendations which are acceptable to the Government of Kerala, which are acceptable with modifications, and reasons thereof and those are unacceptable with reasons therefore are categorised and enclosed herewith as Annexure II. The Chief Minister of Kerala has also brought the reservations of the state in the matter of the recommendations to the personal notice of the MoS for Environment & Forests by his Demi official letter No 3527/A212011/Envt dtd 3-3-2012. Whereas the specific mandate of the WGEEP was 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 far as Kerala is concerned the bulk of the SEZs identified in the state fall outside the Western Ghat Regions comprised in the other geographical areas viz; midlands and coastal areas. The approach of the panel is irrational. It includes vast extents of areas ubder protected zones and wants to exclude areas which are not fit to be included in the zones by the Authority in consultation with local bodies. The process may take years and the people will be stifled till the process is completed and ultimately the lands would be excluded from zonation. It is as if sending a person to jail when a case is registered for life term to be released once the trial is over.
It is seen that there had been general objections against the approach of the WGEEP from environmental scientists as well. Prof: Madhav Gadgil himself has explained the objections (and certain allegations) raised by Dr .c.p Vibhute against the report, which is available in the website Amrutmanthan-WGEEP: Rebuttal to objections raised by Dr C P Vibhute. A hard copy of the rebuttals given by Prof: Gadgil is produced herewith as Annexure III. The clarifications given by the Chairman of the WGEEP in paras 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9,13and 14 verify the objections and defects pointed out in the above paras as to the unacceptability of recommendations on zonation. The state Government considers the clarification to point No: 9 in Annexure III as evasive and misapropos. The very stand of the Chairman on such vital issues supports the stand of the government in Annexure I that the report should be left to the state Government to take appropriate actions for conservation of the Western Ghats proper. When the Chairman of the WGEEP holds that:
'the WGEEP has clearly stated that what is proposed are only provisional boundaries and provisional guidelines, both to serve as a basis of informed deliberations through an inclusive process reaching down to all grama sabhas/ ward sabhas throughout the western ghats region. The decisions arrived at through such a democratic process should then be taken up for implementation' (para 9, Exhibit 6),
The state government may not be made to accept the Western Ghats conservation and regulatory framework as enunciated by the WGEEP in its report dated 31-8-2011.
10
In the response to the points raised by the MPs from the state in the meeting of the MPs of the Western Ghats Region with the Minister of state Environrnent& Forests along with the members of the Western Ghats Ecology Experts Panel held on 1i h August 2010 at Parliament House Annexe New Delhi, the Hon: Minister had made the following assurance:
'MoEF recognizes that the state of Kerala will need a special dispensation, as the area
of forests in proportion to the land area is the highest in the state. We cannot wish away settlements where people have been living in the same areas for more than 100years. Such settlements will be given special consideration'. (highlighted)
Unfortunately the WGEEP failed to stick to the above decision recorded in the minutes of the said meeting (page242, item 7). It is particularly notable that in the matter of Coastal Regulation Zone, the Notification No : S.O 19 (E) dtd 6-1-20110f the Ministry of Environment & Forests vide Rule 7(v) thereof specially prescribes areas requiring special consideration for the purpose of protecting the critical ruastal environment and difficulties faced by local communities, wherein under clause A (ii) ,the CRZ areas of Kerala including the backwaters and backwater islands are included. Again in rule 8. 2 of the said Notification, in view of the unique coastal systems of backwater and backwater islands along with space limitation present in the coastal stretches of the State of Kerala, special favourable conditions have been stipulated in relaxation of the distance and other regulations and controls generally applicable to coastal states. Kerala has a clear case for special and a discretely differentiated consideration in the matters of zonation and regulations in the matter of the conservation of the Western Ghats as well and the same is craved for, for the facts, reasons and grounds adduced in the above paragraphs. It is unfortunate that the WGEEP did not extend such a consideration to the land starved state despite the recommendations of the MPs from the state to the panel and the positive response of the Minister for Environment & Forests thereon. Whereas the specific mandate of the WGEEP was 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 far as Kerala is concerned the bulk of the SEZs identified in the state fall outside the Western Ghat Regions comprised in the other geographical areas viz; midlands and coastal areas {highlighted}. Of the 39 Western Ghat sites that won global recognition for their outstanding Universal Value, Kerala accounts for 19, the highest for any single Western Ghat state. Out of these, 10 are existing protected areas,9 are either reserve or interior forests. The activities are already regulated by existing statutes. Hence it has no effect of imposing any new regulations as in the case of the WGEEP recommendations. 'The World Heritage Site' status bestowed on the Western Ghats buttress the stand of the state Government that it is the traditional forested high ranges of the state that
11
deserves to be conserved as the Western Ghats of the state and the geographically distinct midlands and coastal plains need not be brought under the 'Western Ghats regions of the State' for imposing unpractical and unwarranted conservation measures. Protected areas in Kerala form II % of the WG areas (3180sq.km). The report recommends that ESZland ESZ2 together shall be up to 75% of the area of the WGs. This leaves very little area outside the restricted zone. Differentiated extra legal development norms for the WG regions and another set of regulations for the other areas of the state would be an unacceptable proposition.
3.
OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE PROPOSED WESTERN GHATS ECOLOGY AUTHORITY
Kerala is fast becoming a single urban agglomeration with its unique settlement pattern compared to other states in the country. The pressure on developable lan~ is very high across the state and hence any development / conservation policy taken at the national level may require suitable modifications to adapt to the ground realities existing, the socio-economic needs of the society and the constitutional obligations of the state. The remedy to erosion of natural capital or unnecessary environmental damage to the Western Ghats is not imposition of more harsh and arbitrary regulations and prohibitions in the other geographic areas outside the Western Ghats, both to be administered by a national, state and district level authorities. There is no mention as to how the checks and controls proposed for the areas comprised in the SEZs outside the conventional forested and contiguous high ranges would facilitate the environmental well being of the Kerala Western Ghats. There were historical, socio-political, commercial and finapcial reasons for the migration and settlement of people in the Western Ghats region during the past century and up to a few decades. Later in order to tap the immense potential for power generation for which the state had no other source, and to irrigate the agricultural areas downhill, dams had to be constructed, otherwise the water in the rivers originating from the Western Ghats at average 1.2 km above sea level would have drained to the sea which in a few hours. The extant, stringent conservation laws had not been in effect and the need for environmental conservation was not known to society and not even enshrined in the Constitution of India at those times. But that was inevitable and contributed to population increase in high ranges such as Idukki as is evidenced in the table below:
Year Kerala Decennial Population Population Growth (in 1000) (in %) Idukki Decennial Population Population Growth (in 1000) (in %)
1901 1911 1921 1931
6396 7148 7802 9507
47.69 99.60 108.80 187.77
108.88 19.23 72.59

12
11.75 9.16 21.85
1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991
11032 13549 16904 21347 25454 29011
16.04 22.82 24.76 26.29 19.24 13.97
244.42 331.60 580.23 765.61 971.20 1160.63
Source: Census of indIa 1991 , Kerala, General PopulatlOm Table and Census of 1991 , ProvIsIOnal PopulatIOn Table.! .
..
30.17 35.67 74.98 31.95 26.85 19.5
Environmental Justice linked to human well being without compromising on environmental protection as mandated in the Constitution is an avowed policy of the state government. Environmental degradation that affects the life and livelihood of the poor and vulnerable sections of society will be prevented, for which restrictions in residential areas of such social groups may not be the appropriate step. While firmly upholding environmental justice the government has the constitutional obligation to ensure that no such individual or group is disproportionately burdened by arbitrary environmental concerns. Environmental issues including conservation of the Western Ghats are critical. However those can be approached and handled only in the light of the ground realities of the state as to land requirement, development needs and priorities concerning human beings as well. Striking a balance between protection of the environment and sustainable development is called for and always practiced by the state Government. Various instruments of conservation of environment are in force in the country at present. The system of statutory clearances under FC Act, Environment (Protection) Act, Water and Air Acts, provide adequate checks and balances and consume considerable time before launching any development project. Creation of the Western Ghats Ecology authority will make one more such regime. Multiplicity of regulatory regimes has been considered an impediment to governance and development generally. The present proposal for designating zones creates an accrued situation of having overlapping between WGEEP zones and other zones like wet lands etc In some cases, WGEEP zones extend up to the coasts. As the main issue is implementation of such regulations and sensitisation of stake holders for need of compliance, direction from MoEF in the form of guidelines to each state on basic principles for treatment of ESZs through their in house mechanisms will not only enable them to take up responsibility of conservation but also build their capacity of doing so in long term. As the objective of the exercise is to ensure maintenance of the ecological integrity of the WGs, what is important is to integrate the expertise of this kind in the development planning of the areas. Accordingly a panel of experts can be proposed for participation in the planning process ranging from appraisal to monitoring and evaluation. Additionally, some of the experts of the WGEEP can be inducted in to the
13
Forest Advisory Committee which clears the proposal under the F C Act, or the Expert Appraisal Committees and similar regimes for regulating environmentally relevant activities. Recently the Central empowered committee appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in IAI000 in WIP 202/95 suggested demarcation of ecologically sensitive areas around the protected areas. For this purpose they have classified the Protected Areas in to 4 categories namely a, b, c, d depending upon the extent of the Protected Areas. The committee suggested demarcating a radial area of 2kms, llan, 500m, 100m around the Protected Area of catagory a, b, c, d respectively as ecologically sensitive areas. Once the Hon'ble supreme Court accepts this recommendations; they will be binding on the State also, which inturn will result in additional restrictions in undertaking developmental works. As per the Environment (Protection) act, and the rules there under, the cootral government can notify areas in which industries shall not be established, few maximum allowable limits of concentration of pollutants for an area, decide environmentally compatible land use etc. The Hon: Supreme Court directed the states to declare ecologically sensitive areas around each protected area within a time frame and suggested a limit of 10 kms around each protected areas to be constituted as ecologically sensitive areas. In a small state like Kerala, we have already 27% of the forest area and 8% of the land area under 23 protected areas, and have forest area greater than the national average. In a narrow state which has high population density like Kerala, delineating ecologically sensitive areas of 10kms around each of the 23 protected areas will cover most of the land area and the hands of the state Government will be tied to take up any development work. There are many public lands in ESZl, and 3 which are eligible under the "list of assignable lands' as per the various rules under the Kerala Land Assignment Act1960. A vast area which is coming in the purview of special rules for regularisation of occupation of forest lands prior to 1-1-1977 is lying in these zones and Government have already committed to assignment, after getting necessary clearances under the Forest Conservation Act- 1980. Government cannot go back from this commitment especially after the introduction of zero landless (citizens) Kerala 2015 programme. Such important policy decisions of the State having vital social ramifications cannot be left to the proceedings of the proposed WGEA as an ecological issue. The state Revenue Department apprehends that bringing 25 taluks out of total 63 under the WGEA will under the direct overall control would disrupt the normal governance function in the state.
14
State government has very serious concerns at the recommendation to set up the Western Ghat Ecology Authority as a regulatory body for the WG regions. It would upturn established procedures, Government business and violate the mandates of the environmental laws. It may be noted that "Environment' is a central subject, but the regulations are on matters falling within the purview of the WG states. The MoEF as the administrators of the environmental laws and the WGEA as an additional regulator for some elevated areas and forests of the state would certainly be an awkward situation. The recommendations can very well be brought to practice by the Ministry or the states and if necessary by suitable amendments of the respective laws or rules. It would be against the spirit of all the existing environmental laws to allow an 'national ' authority for approximately 129037 sq: km of six states as a spatial development authority in addition to a host of similar authorities at state and central level having state/ country wide jurisdiction. The existing authorities over which the state governments have no appellate or other authority are for specific enviroI1\l1ental purposes such as Coastal Regulation Zone, Wetlands, etc the WGEA is recommended to be a body with sweeping regulatory power on almost all the development sectors at state level and hence likely to hold up key development projects of the states even if the statutory environmental clearance is given. Enforcement of environmental regulatory standards as proposed may lead to throwback to the avoidable licenceclearance regime entailing further delays and impediments. Instead the environmental legislations and the EIA procedure may be made rigorous in ecologically more sensitive areas such as the WG proper, after having the areas identified and demarcated scientifically with the approval of the state Government The state is at present having the following regulatory regimes exercising jurisdiction throughout or regionally: Regulatory body Function Building construction Local Bodies regulation Kerala Panchayat Act Kerala Local governance Local bodies Municipalities Act Kerala land Conservancy Act Conservation of Revenue Authorities 1957 Government lands Kerala land utilisation Order Utilisation of fallow District collector 1967 lands for food crops Kerala conservation of paddy Conservation of paddy Revenue Authorities lands and wetlands land & Wet land Act 2008 Zone Conservation of Coastal CRZ Authority Coastal Regulation Notification areas Wetland Conservation Rules Conservation of notified Wetland Authority 2010 wetlands Statute Town Planning Act
15
Environment (Protection ) Act Environmental Clearance 1984 of major projects Environmental clearance for minor projects
MoEF, Gol State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority
Proliferation of 'Authorities' with prohibitory and restrictive powers in a state without the required land area to enforce all these regulations would not certainly be a wise proposition and would only be counterproductive. It has not been clarified whether the proposed WGEA would do away with the other regulatory and consent regimes. If the recommendations are implemented as such, two third of the geographic area of the state would be under direct regulations restraining human activities, which is not acceptable to the state Government. The specific proposal of the state in this context made to the MoEF in Annexure. I letter that these aspects may be sorted olit at state level may be considered positively. The federal concept must also get due consideration as the recommendation largely infringes upon the state's legislative and administrative areas. It is also against the concept of decentralised decision making. Instead of the proposed WGEA it may be considered whether a state level Ecology Commission or similar set up acceptable to all may be considered so as to avoid proliferation of authorities under the Environment (Protection) Act and other similar regulatory legislations.
4.
OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATIONS ON RYDAL PROJECTS
(A). GENERAL As regards the recommendations against major river valley and hydroelectric projects the need to irrigate the drier tracts to the east or to generate power by taking advantage of the steep slopes to the west, justifies the inevitable activity. This human centric activity cannot be avoided in the agro- centric socio economic structure prevailing. River Valley projects with due environmental safeguards are possible and in a way it has a positive side of preserving its own ecological elements. The International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage in its position paper on 'Role of Dams for Irrigation, Drainage and Flood control' (pp 18-19) explains the position as under:
'Every human activity modifies the environment. Some changes are for the good, some are not, but the awareness in the society about size and scope of the adverse impacts plays an increasing role in decision making. Effort is made to mitigate and compensate such effects while increasing the positive impacts, so that sustainability of development is maintained and the natural resource base is not eroded. The challenge is to ensure that the positive effects on environment outweigh negative effects.
16
Mitigation/enhancement measures have been evolved, over a period of time, by concerned professionals. ICOLD and ICID have prescribed detailed listings, criteria and guidelines for study of environmental impacts and their mitigation. Many countries have developed appropriate policies and measures for compensating negative impacts. While respecting the privilege of countries/governments to develop their water resources plans and priorities, it will be only fair to expect that adequate compensatory packages are provided by them to the adversely affected people and to ensure that such people are better off after the project implementation than before it. Adverse impacts with and without a dam. In the developing world, land and water development is required to take care of the population pressures and the poverty level of societies. As development reduces the poverty level and improves the standard of living mainly by providing employment generation, this in itself has positive effects. While adverse impacts of a dam can be taken care of, the availability of fresh water, a sovereign country no doubt will preserve its basic right of deciding its own priority of developmental needs and most suited options. Global criteria can at best indicate guide lines. ICOLD and ICID have prescribe! detailed listings, criteria and guidelines for study of environmental impacts and their mitigation on the other hand reduces environmental degradation. The positive impacts on environment are manifold. In absence of a dam or a water withdrawing facility, the environmental degradation continues unabated especially in less developed regions because of population pressures. Environmental impact studies therefore have to be carried out for both, with and without dam scenarios. The environmental cost of constructing a dam is normally smaller than that in a situation without the dam, if the continued degradation in absence of a dam due to poverty and population pressures during the life of the dam is considered. It is often to be concluded that the environmental cost of building and using a dam in a developing country is smaller than that of not doing that .dam project. The extent of submergence and evaporation loss from a large storage project is lesser than that from a series of equivalent small storage projects. Apart from assessment of adverse impacts with and without a dam, it is sometimes required to carry out the assessment for situations before and after completion of a dam project as one time exercise. Both assessments are important as they provide important insight into the environmental concerns and their containment .(www.icid.oraldam pdf)
Power generation in Kerala is largely from hydro resources. Hydel energy is the most reliable and dependable energy in the state. The hydro electric potential available in the state is estimated to be about 6000 MW. The state has exploited only about 35% of potential available. One of the peculiar attributes of the state is the network of river system originating from the Western Ghats, although majority of them are short rapid ones with low discharges. The total power generation capacity of the hydroelectric projects is about 2040MW, which produces about 7100 MU of energy that amounts to 37% of the total energy requirement of the State. Kerala's requirements of power, irrigation and drinking water are now being met by the storage reservoirs at the high ranges proposed to be made ESZ-I.
17
There is no alternative for the 2000MW of power being generated in the state from the hyde I projects. Diversion of waters from rivers and forest lands is also not permitted. The condition that the dams 35-50 years shall be decommissioned and the prospects of new dams coming up in the state very grim in the wake of the WGEEP report would prevent the state from having electricity produced from hydro resources, which is more eco-friendly and economically produced. The WGEEP has also put up hurdles in setting up coal based and gas based power plants. Decommissioning of the dams would virtually fail the state in all the above sectors. All the existing and proposed hydro electric projects are in the proposed ESZ1. The recommendations that only dams having the height of 3m will be permitted in ESZ-I will effectively thwart the state's proposals for harvesting hydro electrical power, since dams cannot be build at any places in the other zones. There is no alternative for the 2500 MW of power generated in the state from the hydal proj ~cts . Diversion of rivers and forests is also not permitted. The condition that the dams 50 years old shall be decommissioned and the prospects of no new dams would prevent the state from having electricity and producing it in the only way by which it could be produced here eco friendly and economically. The WGEEP had put hurdles in setting up coal based and gas based power plants. Kerala is bestowed with huge hydro potential by way of plentiful rain and many rivers. As if acted upon by nature's balancing mechanism the state is devoid of any fossil fuel reserves. It is estimated that the vast hydel potential can take care of the power needs of the state for many decades to come. However Kerala could accomplish only two major power projects viz: Idukki (780MW) and Sabarigiri (300MW) with substantial storage capacity so far. Even though the Kerala State Electricity Board had been formulating many other large capacity hydroelectric power projects, those could not be developed due to denial of environmental and forest clearances. With the enactment of the Forest Conservation Act in 1980, the situation became worse and even the medium capacity projects had to be shelved. Some of the major hydroelectric projects which were denied environmental clearance are Silent valley (240MW, 522MU), Pooyamkutty (240MW, 645MU), Pathrakkadavu (100MW). Out of the estimate hydel potential of about 6000 MW in the state, Kerala could harness only about 2040 MW so far, leaving a huge gap between the potential and the harnessed capacity. All the proposed hydel projects in Kerala can come up only in the Western Ghats. The forest cover of Kerala is 29% of its geographical area whereas the state accounts for 28% of the total biodiversity of the country. The WGEEP report has recommended for demarcating select areas of the Western Ghats a "No-Go" areas where no developments will be allowed under any condition so as to protect the
18
ecology of the region. All major, medium and small hydro electric projects proposed by the KSE Board during the next two plan periods have to be stalled if the WGEEP report is accepted in to. Those include Poringalkuthu SHEP(24MW), Anakkayam SHEP (7.5MW), Achencovil HEP(3OMW), VakkalarSHEP(24MW), . Kanthanpara HEP (66MW),(30MW), Mankulam VythiriHEP(60MW), Stage2(40MW), UpperSengulam (24MW), AnamalaiManali (lOOMW), PandiyarPunnapuzha HEP(105MW), Mananthavady HEP. Pooyamkutty HEP (21OMW), Pathrakkadavu HEP(105MW) etc. Hence if the report is accepted in toto will close all avenues for developing more hydroelectric projects in the state. Hence the State government cannot but take in to consideration of the genuine grievance of the Kerala State Electricity Board and request the High Power Working Group to recommend to the MoEF to undertake a revisit of the entire recommendations of the WGEEP , undertake adequate consultation with the state government and thereafter take ~ view of balancing the development needs of the state with environmental sustainability. There are 18 completed and 5 ongoing irrigation projects in Kerala. Out of the 18 completed projects, 13 have storage and 5 are barrages (SPB, 2011). The storage capacity created by major and medium irrigation projects in Kerala is around 1500 Mm3 and the gross average live storage in the reservoirs at the end of the monsoon is around 1200 Mm3 . The estimated irrigation potential of Kerala is 16 lakh ha, but there are several constraints to achieve this target. So far all the completed projects together have about 2,92 lakh ha of net and 5.51 lakh ha of gross ayacut area (Table 6.4). The net and gross irrigated areas in the state from. all sources are 3.86 lakh ha and 4.55 lakh ha respectively during 2009-' 10. This constitutes 18.6% and 17% of the net sown area and gross sown area respectively (DoES, 2010) Table 6.4 Sector-wise area irrigated as on March 2010
Source 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Government canals 98664 101397 104669 private canals 4965 4729 4300 Tanks 43983 45062 42064 Wells 108445 110000 114477 Other sources 134802 135227 125900 Total 3993356 399923 385405 Gross Irrigated Area 455391 464765 475231 Net area irrigated to 18 19 17.52 net area sown Gross irrigated area 15 16.29 15 to gross cropped 2007-08 88318 4324 41580 l31002 133321 387545 455310 2008-09 95956 6318 39752 133312 123915 399253 458238 2009-10 94813 2656 40851 125892 122118 386330 454783
18.41 16.44
18.86 16.96
16.34 17.04
19
area Irrigated area under paddy to total irrigated area
40
38
45
40
37
37
As per the assessment of the Directorate of Economics and Statistics the net irrigated area in the state as on March 2010 is 3.86 lakh ha and the gross area irrigated is 4.54 lakh ha. The net area irrigated has declined from 3.99 lakh ha during 2008-09 to 3,86 lakh ha in 2009-10 only 16.34 per cent of the net cropped area is irrigated. The percentage of net area irrigated to net area has declined and percentage of gross irrigated area to gross cropped area records a slight increase during the year compared to the last year. The hydal potential of the stat has to be tapped lest the agriculture, drinking water needs and the environment would be at the receiving end.
There are 19 major dams in the irrigation sector and 33 major dams in the power sector and two dams in the water supply sector. Most of the dams have crossed the life span of 30-50 years. The WGEEP has recommended that all the dams that have crossed the life span of 30-50 years will have to be decommissioned in a phased manner. All hydel projects conserve water for use in lean periods. They control floods by storing water and control drought by releasing it as and when required for generation of power, agriculture, industry, domestic uses, salinity control, etc. When all the existing dams that have completed 30-50 years are to be decommissioned and no new storage schemes are permitted, the entire waters of Kerala during the monsoon months would flow to the sea in 48 hours and severe drought would be experienced. As per WGEEP report, only run of the river schemes with maximum height of 3m are allowed in SEZ 1 for serving local energy needs of tribal/iocal communities / plantation colonies etc. A solution to drinking, irrigation and power needs of the common people is not seen furnished in the WGEEP report. Only with storage of water during monsoon the above requirements can be met. Therefore the WGEEP report is accepted, water availability will be a major problem in the state. If it is decided that any hydel project has to be put off due to concern for biodiversity conservation, the State has to be suitably compensated by allocating cheaper power or fuel for power generation for the opportunity cost on account of the loss of hydel generation. If any area with rich biodiversity has to be conserved in view of any law or covenants in the field of conservation of biodiversity and environment, it is done for the benefit of entire nation and humanity as a whole. When a small state like Kerala is enjoined to conserve biodiversity for the benefit of entire nation and humanity, the State has to be duly compensated by cheaper energy or cheaper fuel especially in view of the fact that the State has no other fuel reserves. Heavy opportunity cost cannot be thrust on a small state like Kerala, which is struggling for cheaper and eco friendly energy.
20
Recommendation for decommissioning of dams could create further ecologically disagreeable problems in so far as sustainable eco systems have already been established around the reservoirs and flourishing. It cannot be changed every 50 years. The ecosystems in and around the reservoirs enjoy protection as prohibited areas and the forest profile in the hydel project reservoirs of the state bear testimony to the fact.
(B). A THIRAPPALLY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Athirappally which is specially looked into by the WGEEP. The WGEEP does not recommended in implementing the project as the proposed project area is located in ESZ-I. The project is located in Mukundapuram Taluk. As per WGEEP report, Mukundapuram Taluk: is not included in any of the ESZ's. Feasibility of this hydroelectric project has been cleared thrice by the Central Electricity Authority. Water availability for the project has also been cleared specifically thrice tby the Central Water Commission based on the reference from MoE&F. Environmental clearance was accorded thrice in 1998, 2005 and 2007 by MoE&F. Clearance has been accorded for diversion of 138.9 ha of forest by MoEF and state forest department. I ignore all the statutory clearances, going by the dictates of the NGOs only their views have been incorporated in the report. The report id totally one sided in this regard. Environmental Clearance to the project had been given in 20070nly after a site visit and public consultation by the expert team delegated by the Prime Minister's office. For the 163 MW project the water spread area would be 104 ha, whereas the total forest area required would be 138 ha (14.2 ha is temporary diversion and to be returned back, 36.80 ha is forest teak plantations, 39.20ha is river bed, 28.40 ha is natural forest). Clearance for tree growth is required only for 61.80ha. The WGEEP has not considered the expert opinion. There was no hydrologist in the WGEEP, the conclusions about the hydrology, technical feasibility and limit of power generation etc seems more eco centric. As regards the alternatives for power conservations suggested by WGEEP, Kerala has the best track record in minimizing T&D loss. Now a case for implementation of the report has been filed in the National Green Tribunal. As far as Kerala State Electricity Board and the State of Kerala are concerned the report is damaging. The WGEP has even commented adversely on the techno-economic feasibility of the project for which its competence is doubtful. The Kerala State Electricity Board has submitted a separate memorandum pertaining to its problems arising out of the recommendations of the WGEEP, copy of which is submitted separately as Annexure IV.
21
The 59th meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee on hydropower Projects (MOEF) has taken a decision in favour of the Gundia Hydroelectric Project. Copy of the minutes is submitted as Annexure V. Athirappally Project of the state also deserves a similar consideration on similar grounds. 5. STATE LEVEL LEGISLATIONS AND ITS ADEQUACY
Sl. No 1 Name of Statute Kerala Forest Act (1961) and Amendments The Kerala Cattle Trespass Act, 1961 Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 The Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 The Kerala Forest Produce (Fixation of Selling Price) Act, 1978 Objective An act to unify and amend the law relating to the protection and management of forests in the state of Kerala An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to trespass by cattle in the State of Kerala An Act to enact a comprehensive legislation relating to land reforms in the State of Kerala. An Act to provide for the vesting in the Government of private forests in the State of Kerala and for the assignment thereof to agriculturists ad agricultural labourers for cultivation. An act to provide for the fixation of the selling price of certain important forest produce, for the prohibition of the sale of such forest produce at less than the price so fixed and for matters incidental or ancillary thereto. An Act to control indiscriminate felling and destruction of trees, in the State of Kerala resulting in considerable soil erosion and destruction and loss of the timber wealth of the State; and to prevent soil erosion and to regulate the felling and destruction of trees in the State . An act to unify and amend the law relating to the protection and management of forests in the state of Kerala. An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to trespass by cattle in the Slate ofKerala. Comments Adequate
2 3
Adequate Adequate
~.
Adequate
Adequate
The Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986
Kerala Forest Act (1961) and Amendments The Kerala Cattle Trespass Act, 1961 The Kerala River Bank Protection and Sand Mining Regulation Act (200 1)
Adequate
Adequate
An Act to protect river banks and river beds from large scale dredging of river sand and to protect biophysical environment system and their regulate the removal of river sand and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. An act to conserve the paddy land and wetland and to restrict the conservation or reclamation thereof, in order to promote growth in the agricultural sector and to sustain the ecological system, in the State ofKerala
Adequate
10
The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008.
Demands are there, for amendment of the act enabling reclamation for industrial and investment purposes
22
6. CENTRAL LEVEL LEGISLATIONS AND ITS ADEQUACY

Sl. No 1 Name of Statute The Wildlife (protection) Act, 1972 Objective Comments Adequate
10
To provide for the protection of Wild animals , birds and plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. To provide for the conservation of forests and for The Forest (Conservation) Act, matters connected therewith or ancillary or 1980 incidental thereto. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) and (3) of section 5A read with section 63 of The National Board for Wildlife the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972), Rules, 2003 the Central Government notified the rules for national board for Wildlife. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section The Forest (Conservation) Rules, (i) of section 4 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (69 of 1980), the Central Government 1981 notified the rules for conservation of forests. In exercise of the powers conferred by Cf. (a) of sub-section (1) of sec. 63, read with Cf. (b) of subsection (4) of sec. 44 of Wildlife (protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972) the Central Government The Wildlife (protection) notified the rules for the protection of Wildlife Licensing (Additional Matters For and additional (4) of sec.44 of Wildlife Consideration) Rules, 1983 (protection) Act, 1972(53 of 1972) the Central Government notified the rules for the protection of Wildlife and additional matters for consideration for licensing. In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (f) and (g) of sub-section (i) of Section 63 of the Wild The Recognition of Zoo Rules, Life (protection) Act 1972 (53 of 1972), the 1992 Central Government notified the rules for recognition of zoo. m exercise of powers conferred by clause (k) of sub-section (1) of section 63 of the Wildlife The Wildlife (protection) Rules , (protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972), the Central 1995 Government notified the rules for protection of wildlife. In exercise of powers conferred by Clause (a) of Subsection (1) of Section 63 of Wild Life The Wildlife (Specified Plants (protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972), the Central Conditions for Possession by Government notified the rules on conditions for Licensee) Rules, 1995 possession by licensee of specified plants in wildlife. In exercise of the powers conferred by subsections (1) and (3) of section 40A read with Declaration of Wild Life Stock section 63 of the Wild Life (protection) Act, 1972 Rules, 2003 (53 of 1972), the Central Government notified the rules for declaration of wildlife stock. To provide for the prevention and control of water pollution and maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water, for the establishment, The Water (prevention & Control with a view to carrying out the purpose aforesaid, of Boards for the prevention and control of water of Pollution) Act 1974 pollution, for conferring on and assigning to such Boards powers and functions relating thereto and for matters connected therewith.
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
.
Adequate
Adequate
23
11
The Water (prevention and Control of Pollution CESS) Act 1984
12
The Air (prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981
An Act to provide for the levy and collection of a cess on water consumed by persons carrying on certain industries and by local authorities, with a view to augment the resources of the Central Board and the State Boards for the prevention and control of water pollution constituted under the Water (prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. To provide for the prevention, control and abatement of air pollution, for the establishment, with a view to carrying out the aforesaid purposes, of Boards, for conferring on and assigning to such Boards, powers, and functions relating thereto and for matters connected therewith.
Adequate
Adequate
13
The Environment (protection) Act 1986
14
The Environment (protection) Rules 1986
15
The Hazardous Waste (Management & Handlmg) Rules 1989
16
The Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules 1989 The Coastal Regulation Notification 1991 The Environmental Impact Assessment Notification The Chemical Accidents (Emergency Planning, preparedness and response) Rules 1996
17
18
19
20
The Environmental Public Hearing Notification 1997
21
The Bio Medical Waste (Management & Handling) Rules 1998 The Recycled Plastics (Manufacture & Usage) Rules 1999
22
Effective institutional To provide for the protection and improvement of machineries environment and for matters connected there with lacking for implementation. In exercise of the powers conferred by sections 6 and 25 of the Environmental (protection) Act, Adequate 1986 (29 of 1986), the Central Government notified the rules for protection of Environment. In exercise of the powers conferred by sections 6, 8 and 25 of the Environmental (protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986), the Central Government Adequate notified the rules for management & handling of hazardous waste. In exercise of the powers conferred by sections 6, 8 and 25 of the Environmental (protection) Act, Adequate 1986 (29 of 1986), the Central Government notified the rules for the manufacture, storage and import of Hazardous Chemicals. Regulation of activities in the coastal areas as Adequate notified. Prior Environmental Clearance for notified major Adequate projects and activities affecting environment. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 6, 8 and 25 of the Environment (protection) Act, 1986 Adequate (29 of 1986), the Central Government notified the rules for emergency planning, preparedness ad response on Chemical Accidents. Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests issued under sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section Adequate (2) of Section 3 of the Environment Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection Rules), 1986. In exercise of the powers conferred by sections 6, 8, and 25 of the Environment (protection) Act Adequate 1986 the Central Government notified the rules for the management and handling of biomedical waste In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (viii) Adequate of sub-section (2) of section 3 read with section 25 of the Environment (protection) Act 1986 the 24
23
The Environment (Setting for Industrial Projects) Rules 1999
24
The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000
25
The Municipal Solid Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules 2000
Central Government notified the rules for the manufacture and use of recycled plastics, carry bags and containers In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) read with rule 5 of the Environment (protection) Rules, 1986, Central Government notified the information of all persons likely to be affected thereby. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 3, sub-section (1) and clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 6 and section 25 of the Environment (protection) Act 1986 (29 of 1986) read with rule 5 of the Environment (protection) Rules, 1986, the Central Government notified the rules for the regulation and control of noise producing and generating sources. In exercise of the powers conferred by sections 3, 6 and 25 of the Environment (protection) Act 1986 (29 of 1986), the Central Government notified the rules to regulate the management and handling of the municipal solid waste.
Adequate
Poor enforcement
..
Adequate
26
The Biological Diversity Act 2002 & The Biological Diversity Rules 2004
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 62 of the Biological Diversity Act , 2002, and in supersession of the National Biodiversity Authority ( salary, Allowances and conditions of service of Chairperson and other Members ) Rules, 2003 except as respect to things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government notified the rules.
State Biodiversity Boards to be empowered as the regulatory agencies. Financial assistance from MoEFto be provided to SBB andBMC s as contribution to the State Biodiversity Fund and Local Biodiversity Fund.
27
The Motor Vehicle Act 1938
An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles.
Adequate
28
The Public Liability Insurance Act & Rules 1991
29
The Manufacture, use, import, export and storage of hazardous microrganisms and genetically engineered organisms or cells Rules 1989
An Act to provide for public liability insurance for the purpose of providing immediate relief to the persons affected by accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. In exercise of the powers conferred by sections 6, 8 and 25 of the Environment (protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) and with a view to protecting the environment, nature and health, in connection with the application of genetechnology and micro-organisms, the Central Government notified the rules.
Adequate
Adequate
25
7.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF WGEEP
There is justified disappointment in not having such a specific term of reference for the WGEEP especially as the terms of reference were bound to make the states losers on many development fronts for the sake of conservation of the WGs and contiguous midlands traditionally not considered WG regions. This is particularly notable in respect of vital sectors like land utilisation, power generation, urban development etc. A land owner living in a particular piece of land would find that the value of his land is deflated because of WGEEP on a fine day. If environmental care especially biodiversity conservation ensures all basic needs of daily life and survival, and loss of biodiversity if a much greater threat to human survival than climate change(per Prof: Edward .0 . Wilson, Harvard visionary of Biodiversity), thus it being so indispensable for human survival, its utility shall equally be acknowledged by suitably compensating and incentivising the WG people who are subjected to the regulations proposed ~ the WGEEP and are likely to suffer economic, social and personal comforts for the overall well being of the rest of the society and the country. There should be 100% compensation payment for eco system services, to those who suffer for the whole state/country/even the Universe. There is a centrally sponsored scheme for Western Ghat regions with 90% central assistance called Western Ghats Development Programme to sustain and preserve the WG regions. It involves watershed development programmes and livelihood support, for inhabitants of the region, afforestation activities, with the help of Forest Department and research activities on the subject related to natural resources management of the WG region. Major activities of the WGDP now confines to Zone It would be advisable if the central 3. The quantity of funds devolved is meagre. funding is reoriented to approved WG conservation recommendations in the report. The exact amounts required for implementing the recommendations of the WGEEP cannot be estimated with any degree of accuracy. There has been no fund assistance so far for the authorities constituted by the state Government as per the notifications issued by the MoEF under the Environment (protection) Act. The state governments were made to meet the expenditure on their own. However the WGEEP recommendations being not confmed to setting up of the three tier WGE Authorities, but extends to far reaching regulatory measures telling upon the socio-economic situation in the regulated areas, a suitable economic package is necessary if such recommendations are implemented. Compensatory funding is required in the following heads
1.
Plastic ban Green Technology Area treatment / plot development activities

26
2. 3.
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
Waste Treatment (SWM) Waste Water Management (STPs) Catchment area treatment Water conservation measures Organic farming (inputs, subsidy, certification) Animal husbandry (Incentives, redeployment of subsidies) Fisheries (conservation service charges) Planting of endemic species (social forestry) Private Forest lands (Conservation service charges, incentives, tax benefits) Biodiversity (conservation service charges) (Conservation service charges) Grant-in-aid to BMCs.(local biodiversity fund) Environmental awareness ( fund assistance for PBR based awareness and conservation programmes for students of the concerned Grama Panchayats) Assistance to state Governments for implementing conservation projects such as the one prepared by the Kerala State Biodiversity BoaFd for conservation of Biodiversity rich areas ofUdumbanchola taluk, recommended by the WGEEP as a model project to be emulated by other states. Western Ghats Database Studies on hydrological database of rivers and ecological database at river basin level. A compensatory Ecological Management Fund with 100% central assistance to compensate the people who are made to suffer any kind of loss, or restrained from beneficial enjoyment of their landed property or usufructs from such lands as could be done by their counterparts in the other non regulated areas of the state, to be established at state level to be provided to the affected persons Ifamilies on proportional basis according to the rules to be framed. The Ecosystem service compensation, though not included by the Panel in their report, id highly essential from equity point of view. It will come to thousands of crores of rupees which can be assessed only through an elaborated study.
17.
18. 19. 20.
27
The 13 th Finance Commission (2010-2015) in its report commenting on environment related grants as observed as follows in para 12.27 "There is also Government of India (GoI) policies which have added to the environmental risks facing the country" In para 12.32 the commission further states that: "next to the preservation of the forest wealth of the country, there is paramount need to address environmentally adverse policies currently in place. Where these originate at the level of the national government such as fertilizer subsidy, correction can only happen only at the national level " Compensatory ecological incentives as suggested earlier and financial assistance under Finance Commission Awards for such conservation activities as proposed in the report would go a long way in supporting such restrictive as well as conservation measures at state level. The MoEF may evolve appropriate thumb rules fbr such compensatory conservation and incentive schemes.
8.
IMPLICATIONS OF UNESCO HERITAGE SITE RECOGNITION TO SOME PARTS OF WESTERN GHATS OF KERALA
Of the 39 WG sites, maximum (19) are in Kerala. The inscribed sites ofKerala include two National Parks( Silent Valley and Eravikulam) five wild life sanctuaries (Shendurney, Neyyar, Peppara, Chinnar and Aralam) , Periyar Tiger Reserve, four forest ranges (Kulathupuzha, Palode, Mangulam and Kalikavu), three forest divisions( Ranni, Konni and Achankovil), two Reserve forests ( New Amarambalam, and Attappady) , and two shola forests (Karian shola and Mannavan Shola). According to R. Windy Strahm the IUCN expert assessing the WG regions for the world heritage list of UNESCO, "in any World Heritage nomination evaluation, it is inevitable that the nominated site will have positive as well as negative aspects. Overall the hope is that the world status would serve as an umbrella to recognise and conserve the most important places on earth. There is no automatic mechanism for this and conflicts do not just disappear because of the label. However, the listing does constitute as a strong and high level governmental commitment for conservation which is not only of national but international significance" (The Hindu- 20-10-2010). It is expected that the status would enable the state to tap the UN for funds to revive traditional farming practices and funding the mechanism for Payment for Ecosystem Services to the farmers or landowners who are compelled to subject themselves to the stringent development restrictions under the WGEEP recommendations. The heritage
28
status may also help to mobilise international technical and financial resources for conservation and promote visitation and revenue generation for local, regional and national economies. According to the World Heritage Convention:
'Each state Party to this Convention recognizes that the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation presentation and transmission to future generation s of the cultural and natural heritage .... Situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that state. It will do all as it can do to this end, to the utmost of its own resources and where appropriate, with any international assistance and cooperation, in particular, financial, artistic, scientific, and technical, which it may be able to obtain'.
The convention also states that it does not affect property rights of individual countries, and that signatory countries have a duty to cooperate in protection of World Heritage Sites., to provide related help if another country requests it, and to desist from deliberate actions that might damage sites. Therefore while a country voluntarily pledges to manage its World heritage Sites, in a manner that ensures their protection, it does not surrender any authority over its sites. The concerned International authorities do not have any authority to force changes in site management upon Governments, public agencies or private parties. The only authority they have over the sites is to remove them from the list, which could costs embarrassment to the country in which the site is located . The basic restriction is that any development activity in the sites should not have any adverse impact on the outstanding universal value and integrity of the sites. Once enlisted, the countries must ensure that such sustainable use does not adversely impact the outstanding universal value, integrity and/or authenticity of the property. Furthern10re any use should be ecologically and culturally sustainable. "For some properties human use would not be appropriate' according to UNESCO. Most of the nominations in Kerala occur in protected areas either as national parks, tiger reserves, wildlife sanctuaries or reserved forests, which have an effective management mechanism in place, under a policy and legal frame work. It is expected that governance mechanism will not be externally imposed but will be within the existing state and national level governmental arrangements. It also could practically implement an upstream process to provide better support to the country in a collaborative and constructive manner. This will lead to protection of the sites and prevent encroachments. The approval might not affect development activities in the non-forested areas as in the case of the WGEEP recommendations. The status as world heritage site may not have appreciable adverse impact on human activities, so far as the boundaries are confined as considered for the nomination. There will not be any fresh restrictions on activities that are currently
29
permitted in the forest areas of Kerala. The WGEEP recommendations encompass the contiguous human habitations and even the non-WG midland areas of the state whereby the heritage status does not bring in more issues than that has been occasioned by the WGEEP report.
9. REGIONAL PLANNING PROCESS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT
The Department of Town Planning started functioning in 1957 with head quarters at Thiruvananth~puram and regional offices at Ernakulam and Kozhikode, mainly to ensure planned development of Urban settlements in the State. In order to ensure the achievement of the above, this Department prepares various spatial development Plans at State, District / Regional and local levels, examines development potentials and advices the Government in matters related to Town Planning. Later, giving due respect to the unique scattered development pattern of settlements as well as the rural urban continuum prevalent in the state, it was decided to widen the field of a~tivity of the Department by covering the rural settlements as well. Accordingly, in 1999, this Department was renamed as the 'Department of Town and Country Planning'. The district offices of the dept. of Town & Country Planning were appointed as spatial planning wings of DPC's vides G.O. [Rt.] No. 2003 / 99 / LAD dt. 22 - 6 - 99.The Town Planners, Deputy Town Planners and other officers of this Department are nominated as members of various sectoral committees of Corporations and Municipalities to advice on the importance of spatial planning in decentralized planning system.
Major Functions of the department
Preparation, processing, continuous monitoring, review and revision of: State spatial development plan. District development plans. Regional development plans. Urban development plans. Detailed town planning schemes for thrust & priority areas. Development schemes for potential tourist destinations and pilgrim centres. Development schemes for areas of environmental and heritage concerns. Formulation of state policies and development strategies for various sectors related to spatial planning and hence to integrate. Identification of towns under the centrally sponsored scheme - idsmt (integrated development of small and medium towns) and formulation of project reports, monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of projects thereof by local bodies etc.
30
Preparing subject plans on housing, urbanization, slums, urban environment and other subjects pertaining to town and country planning, through R& D activities. Advising the local bodies and the government on all issues relating to urban and regional planning. The major activities include legal and enforcement functions with respect to town planning acts and rules, Kerala Municipal Building Rules, factories act and rules etc. Technical secretariat of art and heritage commission. Formulating urban and regional information system in the dept. Through a continuous system of data collection, compiling, analysis and publication on aspects of town and country planning. DPCs and District Development Plans Preparation of District Plan by DPCs through participatory planning Pilot tried in Kollam District Work being carried out in 5 districts Features of the District Development Plan Spatial Plan Perspective Plan for 15 years Participation of all local self governments ensured Integrated Plan - addressing all sectors Involvement of people, local governments, line departments, NGOs Technical support provided by the Town and Country Planning Department Draft Local Development Plans considered
The categorisation of the WGs with the Grama Panchayat ward as unit and exact boundaries at cadastral level enables development regulations for specific zones to be incorporated in the comprehensive development plans prepared district level and settlement level. These long term spatial plans in the context of Kerala are the Integrated District Development Plans (IDDP) and the Local Development Plans (LDP) which are prepared with a participatory approach at the initiatives of the department of Town & Country Planning. These plans keep the specific requirements of Ecologically Sensitive areas in focus. In fact as per ESA notification regional plan can be approved when tourism plan of the area is approved. Approval of the regional plan and preparation of the tourism plan needs to be delinked. The framework for activities can be defined in the regional plan and the detailed plan of activities could be given in sub-zonal plans, such as tourism master plan. The state Town Planning Act there is no provision of preparation of the Regional plans. However in the draft Town & Country Planning Bill being considered
31
by the Government for enactment has provisions for Regional plans and Special Area Plans. This facility will be ideal for the spatial planning of the Western Ghat Regions. Enforcement of the development regulations may be vested with the Local Self Government Institutions concerned. The building code as recommended with the suggestions of the state government thereon could also be incorporated in the development regulations of the plans. Kerala is fast becoming a single urban agglomeration with its unique settlement pattern compared to other states in the country. The pressure on developable land is very high across the state and hence any development / conservation policy taken at the national level may require suitable modification to adapt to local situations. The acceptable recommendations of the WGEEP could be achieved at Grama Panchayat level, by Integration ofWGDP with decentralized planning process. The principle of "People's Participation" for design of locally relevant programmes. "Participatory mode" for implementation of WGDP projects through the active involvement of Watershed community, Panchayat Raj institutions, Voluntary agencies and Government Departments/ Organizations. Strengthening of people's institution viz. Self Help Groups, Neighbourhood Groups, User Groups, Kudumbashree etc for organisation and execution of location specific development activities on watershed basis. Linking of various watershed based programmes implemented in the region.
(Source: Website of Town & Country Planning Department, Kerala)
10. REQUEST FOR HEARING
The Terms of Reference of the High Level Working Group, as contained in office order No. 1I1120101RE(ESZ) dated 17.08.2012 of the Ministry of Environment & Forests, mandate the Working Group to engage in comprehensive discussions with the representatives of the six states of the Western Ghats Regions (item 11). Accordingly the Government of Kerala proposes a detailed discussion on all these matters with the HL WG for presenting the issues of the State Government and additional points if any from the stake holders. The state Government therefore requests the HL WG to kindly arrange for a discussion and to hear the representative( s) of the State Government before the HL WG takes the fmal decision in the matters in which it is engaged.
JAMES VARGHESE. LA.S. Principal Secretary to Govt. ofKerala,

(Environment, Ports & Fisheries Dept).
Thiruvananthapuram, 05.12.2012.
32
LIST OF ANNEXURE
Annexure No.
Subject
Page No.
I
II
letter No 3527/A21 111 Envt dtd 31-1 -2012 Statement of (a) recommendations acceptable to the Government of Kerala, (b) acceptable with modifications, reasons thereof and (c) those are unacceptable with reasons therefore. Copy of the rebuttals given by Prof: Gadgil to the response ofDr.C.P.Vibhute. Memorandum ofKSEB Copy of the minutes of the 59lli meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee on hydro panel projects, held on 1st and 2nd June 2012.
34
39
III
62 separately
IV V
69
33
ANNEXURE-I REGISTERED/ACKNOWLEDGMENT
GOVERNMENTOFKERALA Environment (A) Department No.3527/A2/IIlEnvt. Thiruvananthapuram, Dated:31-01-2012.
From Principal Secretary to Government To Dr.T.Chatterjee, Secretary to Government ofIndia, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Paryavaran Bhavan, CG.O.Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-l 10 510 Sir, Sub: - Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel-Report -Comments -Furnished-Reg. Ref: - (1) Letter No.l/l /2010-RE-ESZ dated 15.11.2010 from Dr.G.V.Subarmanyam, Advisor, Ministry of Environment & Forests (2) This Government letter of even number dated 23.11.1011 Attention is invited to the reference cited. With regard to the report of the WGEEP and the recommendations therein, I am directed to convey the following views of the Government of Kerala. (i) The WGEEP has attempted to define the Western Ghats (WG) from an environmental view point. Conventionally in Kerala, WG is considered in the geographic point of view as the eastern most and elevated forest regions of the state. In the case of the eastern side of the WG, the panel adopted 500M as the cutoff elevation to determine the boundaries, while for the western edge, the cut off is 150m. (This is an approximation). The panel has admitted that the proposed WGEA will have to take another look at the boundaries since they have not been able to find the time to examine and refine these with enough care. Therefore the recommendations on the boundary are not objective and final. (ii) The panel admits that a uniform set of regulations cannot obviously be promulgated under EPA for the entire region. Hence it adopted a graded or layered approach (ESZ-I, ESZ2, and ESZ-3) .i.e. region of highest sensitivity (1), high sensitivity (2), and moderate sensitivity (3). Protected Areas (PA) in forest are a separate category. When the boundaries are not fixed, further zonation of the areas to be regulated seems without basis. Also the panel has admitted that zonation adopted was without full set of data as per the criteria
34
adopted for demarcating ESZs, nor have it been able to cover all the criteria, due to lack of time. The zonations suggested in the report is totally faulty and unreliable as accepted by the authors. Some taluks and some areas are dragged into zones without any basis. Therefore the recommendation on demarcation of ESZs cannot be accepted as such. (iii) WGEEP clarifies that ESZ-I status is assigned only to such grids (a 9x9 Ian spatial differentiation) as having a score at least equaling or higher than the lowest scoring grids falling within the existing PAs .Such a criterion is not seen adopted for SEZs-2 and 3. WGEEP leaves it to the proposed WGEA, to be done through a participatory process when it is put in place. WGEEP recommends that as a first step, the MoEF may provisionally notify the initial limits of the ESZs at block or taluk level as suggested. In Kerala 15 taluks come under SEZ-I , 2 under SEZ-2 and 8 under SEZ-3. As the zonation is not after ground level verification, provisional zonation is arbitrary. It may be pointed out that In Thiruvananthapuram the 9x9 zonation covers the entire breadth of the district in 5 zones (2 PAs, one SEZ-l, one SEZ-2 and one SEZ-3) reaching the coastal area! Such sweeping and overwhelming regulatory measures even if it is purported to be for general welfare ma~ not be agreed to. (iv) The WG region of the state is governed by the following extant legislations; These unique laws and statutes are sufficient to protect the environment. FOREST The Kerala Forest Act The Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignments) Act1971. Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption oflands) Act The Kerala Restriction on cutting and destruction of valuable trees act 1974. The Kerala Preservation of trees Act The Kerala Forests (Vesting and management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 . 7. Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in non-forest Areas act- 2005
I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
REVENUE 8. Kerala Promotion of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act 2001. 9. Kerala Land Conservancy Act. 1957 10. Kerala Land Utilization Order 1967 11. Kerala (Restriction on Transfer of lands and Restoration of alienated lands) Act 1975 12. Paddy and Wet land Act, 2008 WATER RESOURCES 13. Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act 2003 14. Pampa River Basin Authority Act, 2009. CENTRAL ACTS 15. The Indian Forests Act- 1927 16. Forest (Conservation) Act- 198011988 17. Biodiversity Act, 2002 18. The Environment Act, 1986
35
19. The Scheduled Tribes and other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) act 2006. 20. Wild Life Protection Act. 1973 The above legislations take good care of the WG conservation as intended under the proposed WGEA. The WGEA is proposed to be a regulatory body under the Environment (protection) Act. But all the above legislations authorize appropriate authorities (not being the WGEA) for implementation. The WGEA would be extra legal to that extent. The environmentally sensitive people of Kerala are its 'watch dogs' for protecting its environment. Therefore an additional authority would be redundant. If at all some more legislations are required to protect the environment, it should be left to the state Government; under the federal structure of our country. If at all an authority is to be formed, Kerala should be left out as it is geographically, environmentally, demographically and culturally different from other states sharing Western Ghats (WG). (v) The state is conventionally divided in to 3 distinct geographic regions, the Highlands above 250' (76.2m) above msl the Midlands between 250, and 25, t(7,6m) and Lowlands up to 25' (7.6m) ms!. Area wise it is 18653.5, 16231.2, and 3979.3 km 2 respectively for each units. It may be pointed out that the EFL areas in 984 bits would come to 132.5 km 2 and that also comes within. Width of the state ranges from 11 to 124 kms only. The Highlands include the High Ranges (>600m) its foothills (300-600m) and upland regions (lOO-300m) which are residential or agricultural lands. Any attempt to stretch the regulated areas beyond the existing boundaries of the WG (now forested areas or lands classified as forest / plantations adjoining the forests) and/or governed by the existing laws as is applicable to each region would be counter productive and unnecessary for the sake of the WG. The effort may be to administer the existing legal frame work more effectively so as to achieve the objectives of the WGA under the existing dispensations. (vi) Total area of the state is 38,863 km 2 WG is 21,856 km2 (56% of total land area). Inland and Coastal Wetlands extends to 1279.30 km 2 . About 300 kms is under Coastal Zone Regulation. Paddy Lands coming under the ambit of the Kerala Paddy Lands and Wet lands (Conservation) Act comprise of 3818.3 km 2 In all the regulated areas in existence come to 26983.6km2 (69.4%).Balance available for habitation, cultivation and development activities is just 11879.4km2 (30.6%), that too subject to zonal restriction under Municipal Laws and the Kerala Building Rules. Though the state is only 1.1 % of the total land area of the country, it supports 3.13% of the total population. A further regulatory regime on the effective land area for habitation and development would be grossly unjustifiable and unnecessary. Only 30 % of the land is at present outside the purview of zoning under some laws and introduction of further zones would make life impossible. The report of the WGEEP makes special, mention of the state in the matter of biodiversity conservation, and activities in furtherance of WG conservation. The panel has lauded the formation of Biodiversity Management Committees (BMC) in all the 978 Grama Panchayats in the state.(The first in the country to have this achievement) , the Udumbanchola Biodiversity Conservation Programme,(a conservation programme of direct WG ecology restoration), incentives for mangrove conservation activities etc. as models to be emulated. The state Government has further such plans like the Sabarimala
36
Master Plan, Pampa Action Plan, Conservation of Biodiversity rich areas outside Protected Areas, etc: for conservation of the WG areas, which with possible incentives from the Govt: of India, could better achieve the goals of the WG conservation without further regulatory measures under a central Authority, seriously jeopardizing the development needs of the state. (vii) Over the last one century rural and urban population of Kerala increased by 4 and 18 times respectively registering a five fold increase on the whole. In 190 1, the population of the state was only 6.4 million, which almost doubled in 40 years. The next doubling took only 30 years. The population density , a mere 165 persons/ km 2 in 1901 increased t6 819 in 2001, exerting significant pressure on land, as per capita land availability dropped from 0.61ha to 0.12ha. Demand on land on housing and urbanization rose many times resulting in the decline of availability of agricultural land. Kerala suffers from very high unemployment. Approximately 10% of India's unemployed population lives in Kerala. Unemployment fuels large scale migration both within and outside the state and country. This leads to migration to highlands in search of more agricultural lands which paves way for encroachment of forest lands. Further regulation of an/kind in midlands and lowlands, on land use would only catalyze such environmentally denigrating activities. (viii) All the WG states except Kerala have land east of their WG boundary, whereas the WG is the eastern boundary of Kerala with a land parcel of just 11-124 kms in breadth. Excepting the regulated areas, the free land would be a few islets sandwitched between the regulated areas. If the WGEEP proposals are accepted, the same region would be subjected to more than one zone. For example Coastal Zone Regulation and ESZ Regulations where the three ESZs would come in conjunction. In the case of development projects the EIA procedure under the EIA Assessment Authorities would be an added restriction, which altogether would make things impossible and may tum counter productive. As far as Kerala is concerned, WG is a geographically, geologically, and morphologically distinct and composite subunit of the state's landscape, unlike the eastern slopes which descend more gently and merge with the deccan plateau. Hence distinct conservation and regulatory measures can be adopted and implemented for the WG regions of the state as a separate entity, without the other geographic entities of the state. In fact the conservation of the WG proper is more important and relevant for the low altitude areas in midland and lowlands, rather than regulations in the low altitude areas for the benefit of the WG. Towards this end the state Government has already initiated various programmes such as empowennent of BMCs of Grama Panchayats as the authorized agency for the immediate cognizance of environmentally degrading activities in the Panchayats and to report to the concerned authorities for timely actions. The proposed WGEA is almost in the lines of the EIA Authority. Proliferation of the Authorities (State Government proposes to form the Vembanad Eco Development Authority there is provision to fonn the state River and wet land Authority, River Basin Boards etc;) having concurrent and overlapping jurisdiction might perhaps 'spoil the broth'. The existing laws, statutory popular fora like the BMCs in all the Grama Panchayats, and the hyper sensitive environmentalists of the state would more than serve the purpose. At the same time the conventional WG should be protected and conserved at all costs, for which the State Government is committed.
37
(ix) Some of the proposals in WGEEP report are draconian. For example, decommissioning of dams older than 50 years, would leave the State without power in a few years. The above mentioned plausible adverse effects of the recommendations of the WGEEP and proposed WGEA may be considered while finalizing the Western Ghats Ecology Conservation Plans taking into due account of the genuine concerns and issues raised by the state.
I am also directed to convey the alternative suggestion of the State Government that the Ministry of Environment & Forests may send the report to the state for appropriate action, at state level.
Yours faithfully,
JAMES VARGHESE Principal Secretary to Government
Copy to:Dr.G.V.Subramanyam, Advisor, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Paryavaran Bhavan, CG.O.Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-liD 510.
38
ANNEXURE- II
COMMENTS OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA ON THE STATE SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF WGEEP IN PARA 13 - TABLE 6 (PROPOSED GUIDELINES A~D SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION FOR SECTO~ .. WI~E AC1JVITI~S) ESZl I ESZ2 I ESZ3 I Response I Reasons for the stand Sector Acceptable, subject to state State Government's declared stand is that Across the Genetically modified crops should not be allowed. Phase out the use of plastic bags in shops, commercial policy on permission for Genetically modified crops will not be Western establishments, tourist spots, on a priority basis (not G.M crops. permitted in the state even for trials until Ghats Plastic management to be the controversy that is going world over on more than 3 years) subject to the Recycled their negative impacts on health; Plastics (Manufacture & environment and economy are settled Usage Rules) beyond dispute. MoEF, Gol has notified the rules for plastic management which should be generally applicable throughout the state for effective implementation by the local bodies. For all settlements and built areas/ to be developed Acceptable with The land use pattern in the 3 zones except Land use areas, certain types of areas would be no-go areas, modifications. that in the forested areas is residential and including water courses, water bodies, special habitats, Regulations in wetlands to regulating any such areas or portion thereof geological formations, biodiversity rich areas, and be in accordance with the as no-go areas cannot be thought of. Wet Land Conservation The ecologically significant areas of the sacred groves. Special Economic Zones should not be permitted. Rules 2010 (MoEF) and the state are already governed and secured New hill stations should not be allowed. Kerala Conservation of under appropriate legislations. Lands Public lands should not be converted to private lands; Wetland and Paddy land comprised in the 3 zones not covered by Conservation Act, 2008. any such acts, rules, notifications The no - go areas in the guidelines or orders need not be brought state for conservation under further restrictions of any kind not purpose shall be confined to warranted by statutes. the forest areas under the Kerala is fast becoming a single urban control of the state forest agglomeration with its uniCJ.ue settlement
39
department, to be notified by that department. The social issues related to the settlements in high ranges where pattayams have to be granted to the eligible families as per the policy decisions of the state government is also to be duly considered.
pattern unlike other states. Pressure on developable land is very high across the state and hence any land use restriction policy of interstate application shall be with due considerati<?n of the state's special status. Sacred groves of the state are well protected under religious sanctions, which allow entry at specified occasions for worship and for customary rites. This has to continue. (See general comments also)
Change in land use not permitted from forest to non-forest uses or agricultural to non-agricultural, except agriculture to forest (or tree crops) except when extension of existing village settlement areas accommodate to increase in population of local residents. For existing built structures such
Change in land Changes from use permitted agricultural not from to forest to non- nonagricultu forest ralland uses or agric to permitted, non-agricultural, con the except agriculture following (and to forest (or tree mitigating the . crops) impacts) in except when extension of I addition to the other existing village settlement socioecono mic and I areas to environment accommodate
Acceptable subject to the Existing legal setup does not permit such relevant provisions of law conservation of forest lands. However in for the time being in force. matters where the law allows conversion of forest land with or without conditions, such The additional legally permitted activities shall continue to conditionality proposed that be undertaken in conformity with the the WGEA to 'refine' the procedure therefore. policy of the MoEF in these The WGEEP itself has conceded the need matters is unacceptable. for accommodating the increase in population of local residents as an exception to the rigid conditions herein. The State having the highest density of population in the country, educated unemployed, and low per capita land holdings cannot but find beneficial enjoyment of as much revenue land available in the state as possible and it is t'he special pleading of the state ~gainst the
40
as hotels, resorts, the increase in al tourism policy of the population of I parameters: MOEF appropriately local side ring refined by WGEA, residents. to be followed. For existing built Road and other I structures such as infrastructural hotels, resorts, the expansion plans to tourism policy of be submitted the MOEF for EIA scrutiny by appropriately the ULB I Local refined by Planning Authority WGEA, before to be followed. execution of projects, especially Road and other assessing the cost infrastructural benefits considering expansion plans ecological costs and to public benefits. be submitted for EIA scrutiny by the ULB I Local Planning Authority before execution of projects, especially assessing the cost benefits
consideri~
..
report. Kerala has the additional burden of resettlement of the migrant plantation laborers in the Western Ghat Regions. As regards environmental controls, the existing forest - and environmental regulations especially the requirement of prior Environmental clearance by the centrall state governments as the case may be for such projects and activities obviate the need for additional mandatory safeguards. In respect of activities impinging upon environment that does not require the prior environmental clearance, the state Government has issued special order in G.O.(P)3/11IEnvt. dt.07.10.2011 that for all such activities, the concurrence of the state Environment department shall be obtained by the concerned line department of Government. These activities can be better regulated in the western Ghat regions under the extant laws, rules and orders and that need not be reiterated as a special measure of conservation under an ad-hoc statutory or other institution. A regulatory authority to 'refine 'the policy of a central government ministry would be unconstitutional.
41
ecological costs and public benefits. A building code should be evolved by the WGEA which Building include inter-alia eco-friendly building material and codes construction methods, minimizing the use of steel, consisting cement and sand, providing water harvesting methods, of green technology non-conventional energy and green and waste treatment. The application or detailing of the framework would be done by local authorities to suit building materials local conditions.
Unacceptable as a limiting condition for the western ghat areas only. The main obstacle in generally adopting green technologies in building sector is land where it can be done without disturbance to ecosystem. The parameters to be followed while identifying land for green construction are also to be adverted and adhered to.
I Green building concept is being adopted in

the state in order to make the constructions eco friendly. There are specific conditions in the Kerala Building rules in the matter of structural, water and energy conservation, eco friendly. The externalities associated with individual building constructions requiring prior environmental clearance are adequately being accounted for in the EIA procedure. A building code exclusively for western ghat regions at the instance of the proposed WGEEP is uncalled for. The WG areas are land slide and earthquake prone , which has also to be reckoned while restricting structurally strong dwelling units.
Area treatment! plot developme nt/ landscapin g in the open areas of plots
of I Acceptable subject to local Land and wetland conservation legislations Certain recognized best practices are in force and necessary floor area and construction/development such as topsoil conservation; conditions. land scape requirements are being insisted trees conservation etc. should be followed as per the and ensured. guidelines of Green Building certifications of Eco Housing, GRIHA or any other appropriate codes to be encouraged. I Acceptable subject to the I The needs and rights of the local people and forest dwellers have to be taken in to Certain activities for example filling of marshes/ existing state legislations. consideration for implementing land use wetlands, introduction of alien invasive species are not There is urgent need to and green technology practices in the WG permitted. focus on destruction of regions, to be executed in a bottom up The area that may be paved i~to be restricted; paving of I invasive alien species in the !pproach.
42
Waste treatment
ground areas may be done in such a manner that there is no change in the run-off / permeability of the plot overall before and after paving (if some area is paved, the recharge from other areas will have to be enhanced) Local authorities should be made responsible to for developing regional systems for handling hazardous, toxic, biomedical wastes as well as recyclable materials
state to ensure conservation of native biodiversity.
Acceptable. The existing rules in this regard adequately take care of this requirement.
I No hazardous
or toxic waste processing units
Recycling and waste processing and units compliant with PCB regulations should be sited in ESZ3 areas (or outside the WG region) and should cater to nearby ESZl and 2 areas
Acceptable in the case of toxic and hazardous industrial wastes. In the matter of BMW centralized treatment and disposal facilities compliant with PCB regulations may be set up at non-forest WG areas. Waste processing units for ESZ 1 and 2 at ESZ3 or outside WG regions is well neigh impossible and will not be considered on any account, those being residential areas.
Extended Producers' Responsibility shall be enforced more strictly as a general condition in respect of such wastes as provided in the rules. Individual units / wastes producers shall be made responsible for developing regional systems for handling hazardous, toxic, bio medical and recyclable materials for channelizing such wastes to common facilities on the basis of polluter pay principle. Local bodies need be facilitators, especially for providing land for the facilities. There is no scope for setting up of BMW treatment and disposal facilities as per the rules therefore at other locations in the state. and The very socio-demographic topographical situation of the small state with few pockets for setting up industrial and developmental activities having regulatory regimes all around makes the unenviable condition for having suitable sites for setting up of even common facilities for waste management. There is no way at all other than resort to areas available which could be the ESZ (not being forest) as recommenced to be, which
43
Wastewater Mandatory for all layouts/ building developments I Acceptable Manageme though the choice of technology would vary with size of settlement; should be such as to permit, reuse, recharge, nt recycling as locally appropriate and permit recovery of energy where possible. Water Decentralized water resources management plans at I Acceptable Local Self Government level. Protect high altitude valley swamps and water bodies. Acceptable
otherwise would have been suitable. Existing legislative and regulatory measures are adequate to deal with the issue.
Catchment area treatment plans of hydroelectric and I Acceptable major irrigation projects should be taken up to improve their life span Acceptable Improve river flows and water quality by scientific riparian management programmes involving community I Acceptable participation. Water conservation measures should be adopted through suitable technology up gradation and public awareness Not acceptable programmes.
Inter-basin diversions of rivers in the Western Ghats should not be allowed
As per section 171 of the Kerala Panchayat act 1995, vesting of community property or income in village panchayats. - any property or income which by custom belongs to or has been administered for the benefits of the Villagers in common or lands under a particular source of petty irrigation shall vest in the village panchayat to be administered by it for the benefit of the villagers or holders aforesaid. As per the third schedule on functions of Village Panchayats, water resources management plans have been determined and the legal provisions are effectively being carried out in the state. High altitude valley swamps and water bodies in the state are under the protection of the forest department. Inculcating environmental awareness and motivating local action for environmental up gradation are general functions of the w Grama Panchayats.
44
Out of the ten west flowing rivers of the state having the total catchment/drainage area of 16211 sq;km, 521 Osq: km is in Karnataka and 5~98Sq: km in Tamilnadu. Due to the inter state river liabilities, the state which is a late comer in the water resources utilization, be it hydro power generation or irrigation, or drinking water projects has no other way but to use the available water resources to the maximum possible, subject to the laws in force. Any further embargo would be unnecessary, discriminatory and hence unacceptable. Agriculture Promote organic agricultural practices; discourage cultivation of annual crops on slopes exceeding 30%, where perennial crops should be promoted; 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 Acceptable subject to time frame for shifting from conventional to organic. The GOl should provide special budgetary assistance to the state for organic farming in the WG regions and also for the recommended incentivisation schemes. The incentivisation for carbon sequestration shall be included in the National Action Plan for climate change. organic I Phase out all use I Phase out all I Acceptable subject to the The state Government has already adopted an organic farming policy. These general strategies have been adopted therein as the general policies. The approach is to adopt organic farming in a phased manner. Budgetary allocation is also being made. The action plans also envisage inclusion of organic farming as a scheme to be taken up by the three tier local Self Government institutions through their annual plans. Farming in the tribal areas of the state shall be in the organic way.
Promote
I The
proposed zonation covers the bulk of

45
agricultural practices; discourage cultivation of annual crops on slopes exceeding 30%, where perennial crops should be promoted; introduce incentive payments for sequestration of carbon in soils, introduce incentive payments for maintenance of select traditional cultivars, encourage partici patory breeding programmes to improve of productivity traditional cultivars; encourage
of use of chemical chemical pesticides/ pesticides/ weedicides weedicides within within eight eight years years Phase out, out, I Phase through a through a system of I system of positive positive incentives, use I incentives, of use of chemical chemical fertilizers fertilizers within eight I within years eightyears
time frame for shifting from the conventional to organic and supply of quality inputs to the farmers, and only at selected farming areas. Government of India shall provide necessary incentives and subsidies to the farmers converting to organic. Availability of quality organic inputs shall also be ensured.
the state and hence the proposals tantamount to converting the entire state as organic. Recommendations for ban on pesticides within the fixed time line of 8, 10 years in the three ESZs may not be feasible. So also shift to 100% organic cultivation within the proposed periods would not be possible, given the obligation of the state for food security and high tech farming. It would not be practicable to phase out all chemical fertilizers . Organic farming would be practical at selected areas. Imposing farming practice conditions on unwilling farmers without effective alternatives for agrochemicals would be counterproductive. It may not be possible for commercial cultivation to phase out chemical pesticides without effective alternatives. In Kerala Red and yellow insecticides are already banned. Total ban on others as recommended is not practicable. It may be done in a systemic and phased manner. The state government had commissioned a pilot project on organic rice farming through the State Biodiversity Board which was promising. Pursuantly the Agriculture department has been advised to adopt the polders of Kuttanad around Vembanad lake (Ramsar Site) and Vellayani Lake near Thiruvananthapuram City (drinking water
46
Animal Husbandry
Fishery
source) for organic farming. The cardamom plantations in Udumbanchola Taluk have also been identified as a strategic area to be brought under organic farming. Introduce incentive payments as ,conservation service Acceptable. Improvement of genetic variability of charges' for maintenance ofland races of livestock; indigenous breeds is an environment policy Redeploy subsidies for chemical fertilizers towards To be adopted in all areas of the state government. Promotion of onmaintenance of livestock and production of biogas and under organic farming. farm and ex-situ conservation of local Cannot be confined to WG breeds and varieties by giving incentives to generation of organic manure; regions alone. farmers and conservation of the germplasm Restore community grasslands and forest grazing lands I Acceptable of local varieties of domesticated animal diversity are approved action plans of the outside the Protected Areas. Breeds which can withstand adverse agro climatic I Acceptable Kerala State Biodiversity board and the Board is implementing schemes for conditions should be encouraged. germplasam conservation of the native Application of weedicides in cash crop areas alongside I Acceptable the roads must be prohibited, since almost all plants Vechoor cows, the smallest cattle species in the world, which has been included in the coming under the weed category are rich cattle fodder. The unused land in tea estates should be used for cattle I Acceptable list of endangered cattle published in the rearing and the organic manure thus produced used for National Bureau of Animal Genetic tea plantation. resources, ICAR and FAO among the Indian breeds. Use of dynamites and other explosives for Strictly control use of dynamite and other explosives to I Acceptable fishing has already been banned in the kill fish; provide fish ladders at all reservoirs state, under the Kerala Inland fisheries and Introduce incentive payments as ,conservation service I Acceptable charges for maintenance of indigenous fish species in Acqua culture Act. tanks under control of Biodiversity Management Kerala Agricultural University has Committees or Fishermen's co-operatives; monitor and developed captive breeding technology for control trade in aquarium fishes with the help of 13 species of fishes, which is the first of its Biodiversity Management Committees kind in India. The technology has already ~ een transferred to scientists, farmers and entrepreneurs for their commercial
47
Forest Rights Act to be implemented in its true spirit by Forestry: Governmen reaching out to people to facilitate their claims, Community Forest Resource provisions under FRA to tlands replace all current Joint Forest Management programmes.
Acceptable subject to continuance of the Joint Forest Management Programmes and national environment and forest policies.
No monoculture No monoculture plantation of plantation of exotics like exotics like eucalyptus; eucalyptus;
No monoculture plantation of exotics like
Acceptable subject to the contractual obligations of the forest department, with time frame for removal of
production.(Ornamental Fishes of the Western Ghats of India- National Fish Genetic Resources.2007) The spirit of conservation which forms the basis of the report is welcome. The FRA is successfully implemented in Keralsa . as on date, 21059 RoRs have been issued to the Scheduled Tribes in the state out of the 31917 applications. Considering the progress in other states this is comparatively the best figures. The community Forest Resources provisions as recommended in the report and the current joint Forest management Programme can co-exist. The Joint Forest Management Institutions will have a role to play in forest protection and management even after the community forest resources provisions are implemented. The forest areas are managed as per the working plans Management Plans approved by MoEF in accordance with the provisions of National Environment and Forest policies. Therefore along with the protected areas all the forest s may be kept out of the ESZ classifications, to be managed under the extant legislations. The state Forest department is phasing out the monoculture exotic species. However removing the entire stretch of exotic plantations at one go would create legal
48
No pesticide/ I Encourage weedicide planting application; of endemic of I species; Extraction medicinal plants out Phase with strict pesticide/ weedicide regulations application; Extraction of medicinal plants with strict regulations
eucalyptus; the planted introduced alien I problems to the Forest department in species meeting the contractual obligations to the Encourage industries. of planting endemic species; Phase out pesticide/wee dicide application; I Extraction of medicinal plants with strict regulation ns The Biodiversity Act requires formation of Recognize rights of all small-scale, traditional private Acceptable Local Biodiversity Found at the Grama land holders under FRA, subject to Panchayat level for such activities. The Introduce incentive payments as ,conservation service Acceptable charges for maintenance of natural vegetation for small conservation of traditional MoEF may formulate schemes for of contribution as grant-in-aid to the practices land holders, as also for switch-over from annual crops farming to perennial crops on steep slopes for small landholders. indigenous varieties and Biodiversity funds for such voluntary Introduce incentives such as tax breaks or renewal of rice and with the incentives conservation activities. leases as ,conservation service charges' for maintenance and subsidies and all other The Kerala Forest department had conveniences that are being implemented a scheme to insentivise the of natural vegetation for small land holders; extended to cash crops owners of the mangrove areas, but there being equally made were very few applicants. However such available to farmers incentives will not match the benefits of adopting eco-friendly alternative land use in a state like Kerala traditional cultivars, as a where land is very costly. special scheme of the A new concept of "Tree Bank" with government ofIndia. eianting of timber yielding indigenous trees in the western ghat regions that would helQ
49
increase the tree cover as a participatory model has been mooted which merits consideration with incentives from the Gol. No rnonoculture of plantation exotics like eucalyptus; existing plantations of such exotics should be replaced by planting endemic species or allowing area to revert to grassland where it was originally grassland. No pesticide/ weedicide application; Extraction of plants medicinal strict with regulations; No mono culture plantation of exotics like eucalyptus; existing plantations of such exotics should be replaced by planting endemic species or allowing area to revert to grassland where it was originally grassland Encourage planting of endemic species; Quarrying with strict regulations; out Encourage planting Phase of endemic species pesticide/ weedicide application No Acceptable subject to the rnonoculture above condition. The exotic varieties were planted by the social forestry programme of the Plantation of government of India under external exotics like assistance. eucalyptus; existing plantations of such exotics should be replaced by planting endemic species or allowing area Acceptable As per the Organic farming policy of the state Government, farming in the tribal to revert to grassland areas of the state shall be in the organic where it was way. originally As regards quarrying, the Hon: Supreme grassland Court in the interim order dtd27-2-2012 in Encourage SLP No 729-73112011 (Deepak Kumar Vs State of Haryana) and connected cases has planting of endemic directed that prior environmental clearance in shall be obtained for mining of minor species private minerals regardless of the mining area. In compliance therewith the MoEF has issued forests; Quarrying directives to follow the existing notification with strict on prior environmental clearance, which regulations; at>plies to quarrying a well.
50
Phase out pesticide/ Weedicide

~lication
Biodiversit
y
Introduce incentive payments as ,conservation service charges' for maintenance of sacred groves; for maintenance of biodiversity elements on private lands, lands under control of Biodiversity Management Committees, JFM lands, and lands assigned as Community Forest Resources. Make special funds available to Biodiversity Management Committees for disbursal in relation to wildlife related damage
Accepted subject to devolution of funds to the state Environment departments by the MoEF for these purposes.
Mining
No new licenses to be given for Mining. Where mining exists, it should be phased out in 5 years, by 2016. Detailed plans for environmental and social rehabilitation
No new licenses to be given for mining. This moratorium can be reviewed on a case by case basis Existing mining to good adopt
New mining may be taken up only for scarce minerals not available on I the plains and should be I under strict
Acceptable subject to the laws and rules governing these matters and interim orders dtd 27-2-2012 of the Hon: Supreme court in SLP No 729-731/2011 (Deepak Vs State of Kumar Haryana) and pursuant directives of the MoEF, and the final decision of the
The Biological Diversity Act-2002 lays down constitution of National Biodiversity fund in Section 27(1) thereof, to which the Central Government may pay such sums of money as grants or loans. The fund can be applied for conservation and promotion of biological resources and development of areas from where such resources or knowledge associated thereto has been accessed and also for socio-economic development of such areas in consultation with the local body concerned. Government of India may provide adequate grants to the to National Biodiversity Authority introduce such incentive schemes by the WG State Biodiversity Boards and also to support the BMCs. As far as mineral resources of the state is concerned, the mid-Iand- high land region is enriched with major mineral deposits such as gold, graphite, limestone, tungsten, Bauxite, gemstone etc: and minor mineral deposits such as granite building stone, Granite Dimension Stone, laterite etc. 80% of the mining area are less than 5 hectors in ~xtent. Government have been granting mining leases and penn its with due
51
of mines to be practice closed. mining and be Illegal mining to be under strict stopped regulation and immediately
I Where
exists should be controlled effectively for environmental and social impacts immediately. No new licenses to
Supreme court in matters connected thereto. The state which does not have sizeable deposits of major minerals and no major mines shall be given due consideration to sustainably utilize its natural resources in the environment friendly manner as permitted by rules and laws as would be possible to all other states. The state will be submitting a special scheme for of mmmg regulation especially of quarries and sand mining in the Supreme court seeking special consideration and diluted ElA procedure in view of the lesser scale and extent of mining activity. Existing and Covered by the interim Upgradation orders dtd 27-2-2012 of the possible/perm itt new and Hon: Supreme court in SLP ed subject to quarry No.729-731/2011 (Deepak sand strict Vs State of mining should Kumar regulation and Haryana) and pursuant be social audit directives of the MoEF. under strict regulations
regulation and social audit, subject to free prior informed of consent tribal and other communities and in recognition of tribal rights. Existing to mining good adopt practice mining and be under strict regulation and social audit. Illegal mining to be stopped immediately.
consideration to the environment friendly exploitation of the mineral resources for the substance of the mineral based industries of the state, thereby increasing the revenue of the government. The mineral minerals are inevitable raw material to the construction industry. Thodupuzha , Udumbanchola, Devikulam,Peerumade, Thalassery, Punalur, Mannarkad, Chittur, Ranni, Pathanamthitta, Nedumangad, lringalahkuda, Vythiri, MananthavadY,and Sulthan batherry taluks fall within ESZ.I.These taluks are the only source of building materials and other minerals of the state. The proposed regulations in the three ESZs would deny the state of the benefit of these natural resources in the entire state and would create unpredictable adverse consequences in the industrial, economic, labour and social sectors in the state. Lakhs of migrant labourers of other state would also be at the receiving end. As the mining area is generally less than 5 hectors and majority are small scale units employing limited daily waged employees, mainly migrant laborers, EIA procedure as applicable to large scale industrial activities cannot be insisted. The state Government ~roposes to file a special scheme for regulating the quarry operations and sand
52
be given for quarry and sand mining
Polluting Industry (Red

IOrange)
No new polluting (red and orange category) industries; for existing industries switch to zero pollution by 2016 and be subject to strict regulation and social audit
Non polluting (Green! Blue) Industry
With strict regulation and social audit. Local bio resource based industry should be promoted. All should be strictly regulated and be subject to social audit
and social audit and without affecting tribal rights No new New industries polluting may (red and orange be set up under strict category) regulation and industries; social for existing industries switch audit. to zero pollution by 2016 and be subject to strict regulation and social audit Promote Green! Promote Blue industries. Green! Blue Local bio industries. resource Local based industry bio resource should be based promoted. All industry should be should be strictly promoted. All regulated and be should subject to social be strictly audit. regulated
Not acceptable in the case of hospitals and hotels. In the case of existing industries those can be made to comply with stringent pollution abatement norms as per the I emission effluent standards as per the environment (protection) Rules.
mining in the Supreme Court for approval as per the interim orders of the Hon: in SLP No:729Supreme Court 731/2011 (Deepak Kumar V s State Of Haryana) Hospitals come under Red category and hence no hospitals could be set up if the restriction proposed for the SEZs are accepted. Even hotels and resorts come under orange category and could not be allowed in non-forest areas. Hospitals shall be allowed at non forest WG areas regardless of zonation and orange category hotels and resorts as per consent to be issued or EIA procedure as may be applicable.
I Acceptable.
Existing rules and regulations can be applied and activities regulated. The state government has already taken decision to designate the Grama Panchayat level Biodiversity Management Committees as the 'Environmental Sentinels' of the respective areas, which can ensure compliance of the consent conditions and immediately interfere in cases of violation.
53
and be subject to social audit PowerlEner Educate the energy consumer about the environmental gy and social impacts of energy production and the need for reducing ,luxury' demand. Encourage demand side management; enhanced energy efficiency across sectors . Launch ,smart campaigns as key components of demand side management, focusing on smart grids, smart buildings, smart power, smart logistics and smart motors. Promote decentralized electricity, use of solar power Allow run of the Small bandharas Large Power river schemes permissible for plants with maximum local and tribal are allowed height of 3 m community use / subject to strict self environmental permissible which local would serve government regulations local energy needs use. including 1. cumulative oftriballiocal No new dams communities / above 15 m or impact plantation new thermal assessment colonies subject to plants studies. consent of gram permissible 2. carrying sabha and all New hydro capacity clearances from projects between Studies. 3. minimum WGEA, SEA and 10- 25 MW DECs. (up to 10m ht) forest No forest clearance permissible clearance ( or stream diversion All project norms to for new projects. categories be set by
Acceptable
State Government is already promoting such consumer awareness programmes
The rationale for limiting the capacity of power projects in the SEZI and 2 have not been given.
The Indian delegation canvassing for World heritage site status for the WGs was of the opinion on the biodiversity impact of some of the dams in the WG region that were built long ago that they had no major environmental impacts.
The embargo on new hydro electric projects and the conditions proposed are Kerala's requirements of power, irrigation unacceptab Ie. and drinking water are now being met by the storage reservoirs at the high ranges proposed to be made ESZ 1. Decommissioning the dams will virtually fail the state in all the above sectors. All the eXlstmg and proposed hydroelectric projects are in the proposed ESZ.l . The recommendation that only dams having the height of 3m will be permitted in ESZ 1 will effective!~ thwart th_estate's proposals for
54
Run of the river schemes not allowed in first order or second order streams. Promote small scale, micro and pico hydropower systems, that are people owned & managed and are off grid. New small hydropower projects (10 MW and below) are Permissible. No new thermal power plants. Strict environmental of regulation existing thermal power plants. Existing thermal plants to actively promote alternate uses of fly ash such as in road making in addition to the existing
subject to very WGEA). strict clearance 4. based on and compliance assessment of conditions flows required through for SEA and DECs downstream needs of including the WGEA Have run off the ecological needs of the river hydropower river. projects but after Existing Power plants cumulative subject to strict impact study of the regulation and social river audit. basin is done Regulated wind Zero pollution power projects to be required for but after cumulative new thermal power environmental impact plants. assessment Wind projects only . (CEIA) Zero pollution to after CEIA. For already be required of I existing dams reservoir existing Thermal Power operations to Plants be
harvesting hydroelectric power, since dams cannot be built at any places in the other zones. There is no alternative for the 2500MW of power generated in the state from the hydal pr.ojects. Diversion of rivers and forests is also not permitted. The condition that the dams 50 years old shall be decommissioned and the prospects of no new dams would prevent the state from having electricity and producing it in the only way by which it could be produced here eco friendly and economically. The WGEEP has put hurdles in setting up coal based and gas based power plants. The only source of power generation in the state in the conventional sector in the most economic way is hydal projects. The most abundant natural gift in the state is its water resources. Ifno dams are possible in ESZ 1, all the irrigation projects conceived in the state will have to be abandoned, leading to the desertification of the state. Major projects such as the new dam at Mullaperiyar, Chaliyar projects, Pam bar projects Attappady projects, Kabini projects and the Kavery Tribunal award as the share of Kerala of the east flowing rivers cannot be utilized. The report adopts 150 meters above the mean sea level as the western boundary of die WGs. But in respect of Kerala this
55
practices of manufacture of fly ash bricks. No large scale wind power projects. Promote biomass based Isolar sources for decentralized energy needs.
rescheduled for allowing more water downstream.
Not acceptable.
criterion is not seen adopted. The criterion adopted for determining the boundaries of the RSZs are also not clear. The zonation extends to coastal areas in some cases! Places at 40M msl also come under ESZ regulations. Whereas the northern and eastern limits have been defined, only the western limit has been left out. Whereas the potential areas for hydel projects in the WG areas of the state have been categorically brought within the ESZ, such areas of other states have been conspicuously left out , making it impossible for the state to have projects such as twin Kallar, when the other states can proceed with their projects at similarly situated areas , and even look positively at the river linking proposals mooted. The blatantly discriminatory and malafide recommendations are violative of the forest laws applicable, as exposed by the Hon: Supreme court in the land mark Judgment dtd July 6, 2011 in Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited ("Lafarge '') (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, Interim Applications 1868, 2091, 2225 to 2227, 2380, 2568, and 2937 in W.P. No. 202 of 1995) relevant portion of which is extracted below: 'As stated in our order hereinabove, the j" words "environment" and "sustainable
56
, I
I' I
development" have various facets. At times in respect ofa few of these facets data is not available. Care for environment is an ongoing process. Time has come for this Court to declare and we hereby declare that the Nationat Forest Policy, 1988 which lays down far-reaching principles must necessarily govern the grant of permissions under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 as the same provides the road map to ecological protection and improvement under the Environment(Protection) Act, 1986. The principles/ guidelines mentioned in the National Forest Policy, 1988 should be read as part of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read together with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. '
To the above extent the recommendations against construction of dams for power, irrigation and drinking water purposes in the proposed SEZs are illegal and maybe rejected. Kerala has excellent potential for wind energy (about 605 MW).In the face of growing opposition against conventional and nuclear power generation, the state has to explore nonconventional power as well, which will be adopted following the .procedure for environmental clearance,
57
I wherever necessary. No diversion of streams/ rivers allowed for any power Unacceptable in respect of I Please see general remarks in section 4 projects and if already existing, to be stopped hydel projects inside the immediately. state
Acceptable Catchment area treatment in a phased manner following watershed principles; Continuous non-compliance of clearance conditions for three years would entail decommissioning of existing projects. Dams and thermal projects that have crossed their viable life span (for dams the threshold is 30-50 years) to be decommissioned in phased manner. All project categories to be jointly operated by LSGs and Power Boards with strict monitoring for compliance under DECs Unacceptable Unacceptable. Unacceptable. LSGs have no mandate to operate power projects. The legally approved authority such as the State Electricity Board shall be the competent authority to operate power projects.
Transport
No new railway lines and major roads, except where it is highly essential( as perhaps, in case of Goa), and subject to EIA, strict regulation and social audit.
No new railway lines and major roads, except when highly . essential and subject to ElA, strict regulation and social audit.
Essential new roads/ railways l)1ay be allowed subject to strict regulation and social audit.
Railway projects are outside the purview of prior environmental clearance as per the MoEF notification thereon. That restriction for the vital transport be infrastructure shall imposed in the WG regions is unacceptable.
Decommissioning of dams as a penalty for post commISSIOning violation of environmental clearance conditions is not a responsible recommendation. The Environment (Protection) Act 1984 has provisions to deal with such situations. Decommissioning of dams and thennal projects that have crossed their viable life span 30-50 years even in phased manner could only create further ecologically disagreeable problems in so far as sustainable ecosystems have already been established around the reservoirs and flourishing. It cannot be changed every 50 years. There are approved schemes for dam monitoring. Though railway through forests may be restricted, the facility need not be denied at other places; especially electrified rail way is an environmentally compatible mode of transport and is being advocated as a viable alternative for major road transport infrastructure. The M.Ps from the state and Tamil Nadu had categorically pointed out the necessary road facility between Thiruvananthapuram
58
Avoidance of new I Upgradation of highways, expressways
Tourism
Ecotourism policy ofMoEF refined by the WGEA to promote minimal impact tourism in the region. Strict regulation for waste management, traffic and water use
Strict regulation on basis of a Tourism master plan and social audit. Tourism Master Plan should be based on carrying capacity of area and after taking into account social and environmental costs.
Strict regulation and social audit Tourism Master Plan should be based on carrying capacity of . area and after taking into account social and environmenta I costs
Acceptable subject to the condition that in non forest areas coming under SEZ 1, the conditions for SEZ 2 shall be applicable. Safe tourism practices are to be enforced inside sanctuaries making the ecotourism spots in the forests eco-friendly rather than tourist friendly.
and Thirunelveli via KottoorAmbasamudram before the WGEEP. The MoEF has adopted a policy scheme and framework of generic and specific guidelines for . the creation, design, realignment, removal, restoration, maintenance and mitigatory measures for roads and power lines in defined natural areas of importance in the country recognizing the diversity of situations and environments across the country, wherein provision is made for incorporation of sitespecific expert advice, consultation, and implementation. These recommendations are therefore infructous. Conservation of the WG has a very significant place in the tourism promotion activities of the state. The ecotourism activities in the WG regions are as per the guidelines of the MoEF. Almost all the ecotourism activities are managed through the Vana Samrakshana Samithies and eco Development Committees of the Forest Department. New tourism initiatives are taken up only based on Tourism Master Plan prepared considering carrying capacity and after taking in to account social and environmental coasts. The world heritage tag is expected to increase the global attention and visitation to the WGs. Ecotourism activities in the
59
Education
Reconnect children and youth to local environment Acceptable through education programmes focusing on local environmental issues, especially degradation of natural resources of land and water and air and water pollution. Tailor Environmental Education projects to serve as an instrument of participatory environmental monitoring involving local community members; connect such exercises to preparation of ,People's Biodiversity Registers' by the local Biodiversity Management Committees Students' ,River Clubs' should be encouraged in schools situated along the course of the respective river. Teach agriCUlture in schools
Science and Technolog

y
Cumulative impact assessment for all new projects such as dams, mines, tourism, and housing, that impact upon water resources should be conducted and permission given only if they fall within the carrying capacity. Focus research on perfecting green technology arid make it affordable for common people.
Acceptable except in the case of housing.
Acceptable subject to consideration of the needs and rights of the local people for land use and nature of the green Environment flow assessments indicators should be technology to be perfected. worked out by Research institutions, NGOs along with Acceptable local communities.
World Heritage Sites of the WGs may have to be streamlined after assessing the carrying capacity ofthe individual sites. The state government is glvmg utmost priority to environmental awareness. Several NGOs are also contributing to this cause. The National Green Corps, (Schools) , Bhoomitra senas (Colleges) and several environment oriented activities are functional in the state. The state government has formulated a major scheme for environment and biodiversity conservation based on the PBRs of Grama Panchayats for the educational institutions of the respective areas and submitted to the NBA for funding. The MoEF may reorient its funding for environmental education as recommended by the WGEEP so that the PBRs would be put to use, BMCs and the students benefitted. It is the constitutional duty of the government to provide houses to the poor. Schemes for members of the Scheduled tribes (forest dwellers) , Scheduled Castes and those below poverty line may have to be implemented . In the state having the highest density of population and non availability of land housing activities (except at the legally prohibited areas of the WGs) cannot be controlled. TJore WGEEP itself has conceded the need
60
Informatio
n
manageme nt
Build on the Western Ghats database of WGEEP to I Acceptable create an open, transparent, participatory system of environmental monitoring involving all citizens, in particular the student community. Update and upgrade a hydrological data base of rivers and consolidate the ecological data base and information at river basin level.
for accommodating the increase in population of local residents as an exception to the rigid conditions recommended. The ENVIS scheme of the MoEF may take over this function. The NGC volunteers of the WG states can involve in the activity. A special centrally sponsored programme in the lines of the National Ambient Water Quality Monitoring programme of the State Pollution Control Boards ,may be introduced through the state Environment Departments for regular monitoring of the ecological status of the rivers .
61
ANNEXURE-III
Amrutmanthan - WGEEP: Rebuttal to objections raised by Dr C P Vibhute Link of this article --} http://wp.me/pzBjo-M6 Link of the Amrutmanthan Blog --} http://amrutmanthan.wordpress.com/
Rebuttal to objections raised by Dr C P Vibhute

A Pune based environmental consultant for industries Dr. C. P. Vibhute, has termed the report on We~tern ghats by the committee of experts headed by Madhav Gadgil as incomplete, erroneous and technically faulty and has demanded that it be scrapped. He has released a Press Note (in Marathi) consisting of 16 objections against the WGEEP Report. Dr. Madhav Gadgil and other members of the panel have prepared a point by point rebuttal of objections raised by Dr. Vibhute.
We present below, English translation of Dr. Vibhute's objections together with the clarification to each of the points, released by Dr. Madhav Gadgil, on behalf of the WGEEP (Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel), constituted by the Ministry of Environment & Forests' (MoEF) of the Central Government. "Dr C P Vibhute, who has made a number of baseless allegations against the report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, has apparently failed to grasp much of significance that is stated in the report. For instance, in his point 2 he states that there is no mention of the opinion of the experts who have studied bio-diversity. Pages 227- 235 of Part II of the Report lists names of 80 experts invited to write Commissioned Papers. Some 44 ofthese are experts in biodiversity, others are experts in a variety of fields including geology, history, economics and law. Most of these experts contributed Commissioned Papers; all these papers have been available on the Panel's website. The report also has details of a number of brainstorming sessions the Panel organized with record of names and opinions of the experts." Now to take up each ofVibhute's points: 1) 'Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel' report has been uploaded on the website of the Environment Ministry for inviting suggestions from the public. After studying the same, prima facie it appears to be incomplete, deficient, technically erroneous. From the report it appears that excessive importance has been given to the opinions expressed by the people during the meetings as well as the reactions expressed by the NGOs. This would become clear from the points given below. As clarified above, the Panel has had wide ranging interactions with scientific and technical experts, both during the work of the Panel, and outside as part of the Panel members' professional work over many years. Of course, we value the understanding and conservation traditions of the rest of the society as well. We were specifically asked in our mandate to consult the people and Governments of Western Ghats, and we have done so. We have talked to fishermen and farm labourers, forest dwellers and orchard owners. We have talked to mine owners and beach shack owners. We have talked to members of gram panchayats and
62
members of Parliament. We have talked to NGOs and lAS officers. We believe that such an inclusive approach has led to a very balanced report. 2) There is no mention of the opinion of the experts who have studied biodiversity.This assertion has been partly dealt with above. The Panel has organized a website and comments and views posted by a large numbers of experts on this website have run to thousands of pages. Besides, the Panel members themselves are some of the best recognized experts on biodiversity. Gadgil has been awarded the Centennial Medal by Harvard, considered the world' s best university, for his contributions to this field. There is no scientific basis for the Eco Sensitive Zones shown in the Western Ghats. Because there is no consensus among the experts with regard to determination of borders in this context.
3)
MoEF constituted WGEEP in March 2010 with a mandate to demarcate areas withinWestern Ghats Region which need to be notified as ecologically sensitive. This concept of ecologically sensitive areas is very much an Indian invention, rooted in attempts by civil society to use the Environment Protection Act 1986 to promote sustainable development alongside protection of the natural heritage. The term 'Ecologically Fragile Area' was first used in 1991 for Dahanu Taluka in Maharashtra, followed by the declaration of other ESAs like Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani and Matheran. These are all initiatives of civil society organizations or are a consequence of a resolution of Indian Board for Wildlife in 2002 to protect areas up to ten kilometers from the boundaries of Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Parks. Initially, there were no guidelines available on what areas may be considered as ecologically sensitive, nor on working out an appropriate management regime. These issues were addressed in 2000 by the Pronab Sen Committee. Pronab Sen committee, appointed by Ministry of Environment and Forests had recommended in 2000 that the Government should establish a comprehensive programme for generating base-line data on different aspects relating to bio-geographical regions in India, systematically map and record such information on ecological characteristics, and establish a comprehensive monitoring programme and network involving not only government agencies but also other institutions, universities, NGOs, and even individuals, particularly those living in and around these areas. Furthermore, the Sen Committee urged that this be undertaken in Mission mode. Unfortunately, neither had happened. There had, however, been one development of significance, that of district-wise Zoning Atlases for Siting of Industries (ZASI) by Central and State Pollution Control Boards. However, MoEF has not released this exercise; as a result, WGEEP had to start from the scratch. WGEEP thus needed to address manifold challenges; formulate the non-standard concept of ESAs, develop a database on ecological parameters for the Western Ghats region, assign Ecological Sensitivity scores and delineate Zones of different levels of Ecological Sensitivity over the region, solicit suggestions from civil society and gram sabhas on constituting ESAs, suggest management strategies, and finally, suggest mechanisms for building upon what was necessarily a preliminary exercise. WGEEP attempted this in a fully transparent, participatory mode, while, at the same timeobserving due scientific discipline.
63
Ecological Sensitivity being a non-standard concept, WGEEP began by organizing a webbased discussion, and publishing a paper in Current Science in January 2011. The following working definition was arrived at: ESAs as those areas that are ecologically and economically important, but, vulnerable even to mild disturbances and hence demand careful management. Since sensitivity scores had to be arrived at within a year over this extensive tract, our focus was on accessing pertinent computerized databases. Fortunately, several were available: Western Ghats boundary, boundaries of states, districts, talukas, Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM) 90 m resolution data, Protected Areas, Forest types of India, percent forest, unique evergreen elements, forest with low edge, Enhanced Vegetation Index of MODIS, riverine forests derived through drainage and forest cover, data on endemic plants, vertebrates, and dragonflies- damselflies, Red list Mammals, Important Bird Areas, and Elephant Corridors. Such exercises, like the globally accepted Important Bird Areas, naturally involve subjective elements, but we sought to put it on an objective scientific basis by explicitly stating the methodology and making public the nature and quality of the information used, along with its limitations. We can confidently state that we have done very well in fleshing out this important concept and developing an appropriate scientific methodology in a tran/parent, participative mode. We have created an Environmental Decision Making System on a regional basis for the first time for India. Of course there are many disagreements, including on boundaries of the zones. In his pioneering work on "Social Functions of Science" Bernal defines science as an organized enterprise of scepticism. Science progresses through doubts and disagreements without allowing itself to suffer from paralysis by analysis. So the country needs to build further on this exercise, improving it as we go along. 4) Owing to the drivers used by the panel, borders have been created for unviable zones. Height from the sea level and green cover have been used for creation of the eco sensitive zones. Green cover consists of the crops raised by the farmers as well as other trees and forests. Therefore the borders of the zone have been wrongly indicated.
It is important to note that the concept of ecologically sensitive zones is quite distinct from that of Wildlife Sanctuaries or National Park. As mentioned above the whole of Dahanu Taluka has been designated as ecologically sensitive and is being managed so as to promote environmental conservation hand in hand with sustainable development. So all forms of land uses may fall within ecologically sensitive zones. Furthermore, we had to work with data on a crude scale without access to details of Panchayat and watershed boundaries. Therefore we explicitly stated that our boundaries are tentative and only provisionally drawn on basis of taluk boundaries. The Panel has not prescribed rigid boundaries for Western Ghats, for Ecologically Sensitive Zones 1, 2 and 3 and given a set of inflexible restrictive prescriptions to be followed for various development initiatives in these zones. Quite to the contrary, WGEEP has stated that what is proposed are only provisional boundaries and provisional guidelines, both to serve as a basis of an informed deliberations through an inclusive process reaching down to all Gram Sabhasl Ward Sabhas throughout the Western Ghats region. The report suggests that an excellent precedent exists whereby the Goa Government placed the database prepared by Goa Regional Plan 2021 before all Gram Sabhas for correction of any errors as well as suggestions. Additionally, the report does not only talk of regulation, it suggests promotional measures such as payments to farmers for sequestering carbon in the soil, or protection to sacred groves or pools or to wild life.
64
5)
The expert panel has not used bio diversity index e.g. Shannon Weaver or Simpson Index for zoning. Had they been used, human settlements would have been excluded.
Vibhute has not understood the concept of ecologically sensitive zones, which can include human settlements as in case of existing ESZs like Dahanu taluka or MahabaleshwarPanchgani. Furthermore, he does not seem to understand the context in which alpha diversity indices he quotes are relevant. They will not exclude human settlements. Moreover, they are relevant for looking at individual communities and not at whole regions as we are doing. Incidentally, we not only understand long standing work on diversity indices, we have contributed to further development of these indices as is evident from the following two publications: Ganeshaiah, et aI. Avalanche index: a new measure of biodiversity based on biological heterogeneity of the communities. Pramod, Gadgil et aI. On the hospitality of Western Ghats habitats for bird communities. 6)
It has been mentioned in the report that due to the 9 X 9 km grid, it was not possible to distinguish among a lake or a river or a water-shed or an administrative head quarter of a taluka or a human settlement.
Certainly, as honest scientists, we have stated these limitations, clarified that what is proposed are only provisional boundaries to serve as a basis of an informed deliberations through an inclusive process reaching down to all Gram Sabhasl Ward Sabhas throughout the Western Ghats region. 7) While preparing the report a taluka has been included in the Eco Sensitive Zone without considering the taluka or the village Doundary fixed by the government.
As noted, the whole concept of ecologically sensitive zones started with the whole Dahanu taluka being declared one. Furthermore, we reiterate that WGEEP has clearly stated that what is proposed are only provisional boundaries to serve as a basis of an informed deliberations through an inclusive process reaching down to all Gram Sabhas I Ward Sabhas throughout the Western Ghats region. 8) As a result of this residential area has been included in the zone. This is quite dangerous.
As noted above the Government has already constituted whole Dahanu taluka, Matheran, and Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani with many residential areas as ecologically sensitive. Of course, they have to be managed with proper reference to the locality specific context as we emphasize in our report. 9) Construction of new dams in Eco Sensitive Zone 1 is prohibited in the report. If the Environment Ministry accepts this recommendation, then green and cheap hydraulic power generation stations cannot be constructed. Moreover,
65
expansion programme of the Koyna Hydraulic Power station will be blocked. The Central Government should rethink about this recommendation. WGEEP proposals are being wrongly portrayed as "Conservation by Imposition" as if the Panel has prescribed rigid boundaries for Western Ghats, for Ecologically Sensitive Zonesl, 2 and 3 and given a set of inflexible restrictive prescriptions to be followed for various development initiatives in these zones. Quite to the contrary, WGEEP has clearly stated that what is proposed are only provisional boundaries and provisional guidelines, both to serve as a basis of informed deliberations through an inclusive process reaching down to all Gram Sabhas / Ward Sabhas throughout the Western Ghats region. The decisions arrived at through such a democratic process should then be taken up for implementation. 10)
It has been mentioned in the report that existence of 4000 different kinds of plants, 350 types of ants, 330 types of butterflies, 174 types of flies, and 269 types of snails has been endangered. This information has not been verified .
The plant figures are based on two data sets:
a) Database compiled by Ganeshaiah and colleagues from over 120 floras, and reports published on Western Ghats, and incorporated in the Sasya Sahyadri database and the literature cited therein. Sasya Sahyadri has now become a globally used database for the plants of W Ghats. b) Field work led by Ganeshaiah involving 7 groups of 4 members each for five years who scanned the entire W Ghats at a scale of 40 km2 with a km transect in each of the gird. This means a total or 7 X 4 X 5 = 140 man years. The butterfly data comes from Gaonkar, H. Butterflies of Western Ghats, India including Sri Lanka: a biodiversity assessment of a threatened mountain system. Unpublished report submitted to CES, lISc and Zoological Museum Coopenhagen (Denmark) and Natural History Museum (London) vols I & II.
All available information on Western Ghats biodiversity has been summarized in the book by
Ranjit Daniels co-authored with Jayshree Vencatesan: Western Ghats: biodiversity, people, conservation. This is the most up-to-date and authentic compilation available today. Daniels was intimately associated with the work of the Panel as is clearly indicated in the report. No other global hotspot has been surveyed as intensively as Western Ghats and if one is looking for data on conservation it will be impossible to find better database. We can claim with confidence that several WGEEP members have contributed to this happy state of affairs. 11) All this information has been taken from Mr. Gunavardhane's book 'Toxy'. The panel has not verified if the information is correct or not. This is a most irresponsible allegation as the answer to points 10 and 12 makes abundantly clear.
66
12)
It has been mentioned that there are 120 mammals in the Western Ghats. But no appendix giving their list has been given in the report and it has also not been mentioned if it includes domestic animals.
The list of 120 species of mammals was derived from the most authentic source available, Nameer POmmer. Checklist of Indian Mammals, Published by the Kerala Forest Department and Zoo Outreach Organization, Coimbatore. We certainly have plans to further strengthen the database, give all references etc. This proposal is still being processed. 13) The ground level reality has not been checked while preparing the report. The report has been prepared on the basis of casual meetings with the villagers in the Western Ghats.
This is another incredibly irresponsible allegation. All Panel members have huge field experience of several decades covering amongst ourselves the entire stretch. This can be ~een from the hundreds of highly cited publications that anybody can access by going to the Google Scholar website. 14) There are different versions as to Eco Sensitive Zone should be made applicable to totally how many talukas. The map on the Page no. 24 of the report shows 35 talukas in the zone. But the table on Pages 93, 96 shows 28 talukas in the zone. Which out of these is correct?
Given the small scale, the overlap of Protected Areas with Taluk boundaries and difficulty of fitting in Taluk names, the maps cannot be interpreted properly on the scale included in the report. Of course there are larger scale maps for which these problems vanish, but they could not fit in the report. The information in the table of taluk-wise ESZ 1, 2, 3 assignment is
~~
15)
It is said that Zero pollution system should be made applicable till 2016 and social audit should be carried out. This recommendation has been made in the case of the industry in Ratnagiri and Sindhudurga Zillas. No detailed information about the social audit has been provided.
Social audit has been made an integral part of MGNREGA programme and Andhra Pradesh has the most effective system in place as mentioned in the report. 16) The report has recommended preparation of a cumulative environment impact report. This is welcome. The panel does not seem to be aware of the fact that Central Environment Expert Committee calls for such a report from the project bearer.
The Panel asked the Ministry of Environment and Forests if any Cumulative Impact Assessments were available with them. None were forthcoming. Incidentally, several of the Panel members have been involved in a variety of EIAs over the years and are very well familiar with the system.
67
Some other related articles are available at the foHowing links: 1. Follow-up Response to 'Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel' Report - by Dr. Madhav Gadgil --} http://wp.me/pzBjo-LM 2. We must force the Govt for implementation of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (Dr. Madhav Gadgil committee) Report --} http://wp.me/pzBjo-Lg
68
ANNEXURE- V
MINUTES OF THE 59th MEETING OF EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITfEE FOR RIVER VALLEY AND HYDRO POWER PROJECTS
The 59th Meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee for River Valley and Hydro Power Projects (EAC) was held on 20th-21st July, 2012 in SCOPE Convention Centre, Opp. Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. The meeting was chaired by ProfJ.K. Sharama for half a day on 20th July 2012 and for the remaining days by Shri Rakesh Nath. Dr. B.P. Das, Shri Bhattacharya and Prof Arun could not attend the meeting due to preoccupation. Dr. K.D. Joshi attended the meeting only for 20th July 2012. The list of EAC Members and . Officials from various Projects who attended the meeting is enclosed at Annexure-I. After welcoming the members, the following Agenda items were taken up for discussion20th July. 2012
1.
Agenda Item No. I :
Welcome by Chairman and Confirmation of Minutes of 58th Meeting held on 1st -2nd June, 2012.
The minutes were cONfirmed with the following revision(i)
In item 2.1 -2.3, at page 5 point (i) may be replaced by "the same comments shall be applicable to all three projects".
Discussion on Environment Clearance to Gundia 200 MW Hydroelectric Power Project in Hassan and Dakshina Kannada Districts of Karnataka by Mis Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. in view of recommendation of Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel.
2. Agenda Item No. 2:
In 58th Meeting of EAC held on 1st-2nd June, 2012, it was decided that Prof. J.K. Sharma, Dr. Nayar and Dr. Dhananjay Mohan shall meet and consolidate their views, which shall be presented in the next meeting. The views of them are summarized as belowDr. Dhananjai Mohan was of the view that although there has been a sincere effort by WGEEP to adopt a methodology which is objective and scientific but there are certain limitations in the same. The evaluation was fairly objective however, the assessment was relative and not absolute. The database used by WGEEP is incomplete and yet to incorporate considerations of habitat continuity. The grading on the basis of which the Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs) have been classified also has some problems. In fact the panel itself felt that after the report is published, there could be further discussion, reevaluation and revision of ESAs and 'more fine scale borders of the ESAs can be developed with local inputs from the forest managers and the stake holders before they are legally declared as ESAs' . The protocol and methodology provided for mapping ESAs is not final and requires further discussions. Thus the present exercise of identification of ESAs needs further refinement. Therefore, based on a data which is not final, the recommendation of WGEEP not to allow Gundia HEP seems unjustified. His specific comments on the five recommendations of WGEEP with respect to Gundia HEP are69
(i)
Even though the panel had been given a specific task of examining the Gundia HEP, it failed to generate good scientific facts to evaluate the impacts and thus its recommendations are not based on rigorous scientific data. The recommendation is too general and lacks in facts (statements like large scale land cover changes) and so cannot be commented upon. This recommendation may be put as an additional condition to the project proponent so that the temple town of Subramaniyam may not face water shortage. Rest of the recommendations is too general. MoEF has in its letter dated 07.01.2010 has already asked KPCL to avoid diversion of 2 ha of primary dense tropical rain forest for construction of road at Yettinahole by constructing a bridge at the turning point. KPCL has accepted the suggestion in its compliance report dated May 2010. Similarly possibility of shifting the tunnel access to the main underground powerhouse which according to the WGEEP report is located in one of the few remaining primary evergreen forest patches may be explored. (iv) Since, the classification criteria ~till need refinement as accepted in the WGEEP report, therefore, a decision on the basis of the ESZ classification in the report may not be reasonable at this stage. The final recommendation of not permitting the Gundia HEP in its entirety (3 stages and 2 phases) is thus not based on well researched facts and still uses general statements like 'loss of biodiversity and environment impacts would be significant ' while much o/the discussion in the report doesn't seem to be supporting it.
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Prof. 1.K. Sharma was also of the view that since Gundia HEP has been placed under ESZl which means that all the eight parameters considered for delineation of ESZs are either equal or more than the Protected Areas which is not consistent with the state of affairs with regard to forest health and biodiversity mentioned Jor Gundia Basin by WGEEP experts. There was no hydrologist in the Team, the conclusions about height of the dam, limits of power generations etc. seems more eco-centric. We need to have a trade off in the present scenario of growing demand for power. Dr. Sharma also felt that the specific recommendations for Gundia HEP by WGEEP is sweeping, vague and generalized and is not based on any exhaustive study in the Gundia forests. There are anomalies and contradictions in their own statements itself. The Team members and researchers visited the Project site from 29th-31st August 2010but the biodiversity study of the area has been made by Sukumar and Shankar (2010) which itself is not complete therefore based on this study such strong recommendation seems unjustified. There are many statements in the study indicating that the forests in Gundia basin are not unique in terms of biodiversity but degraded, encroached and exploited and the biodiversity found therein is found elsewhere in the WG also. Endemic nature of species, amphibians and fishes are endemic to Western Ghats and not of Gundia basin alone. The statement on Page 69, Para 4, a) Plants, lines 7 - 12 clearly shows that there is nothing unique in Gundia basin in terms of plant diversity which is not found elsewhere in the Western Ghats and whatever is there it is of less biomas s due to removal of trees. Moreover, the biodiversity part of the ErA of Gundia HEP was prepared by Dr. Sukumaran, who also happened to be the WGEEP member. Further, it is also seen from the report that the Gundia area is not harbored with unique species which are not found elsewhere in the Western Ghats. The area does not seem to be pristine or unique, but degraded and have species which are found elsewhere in the Western Ghats. The recommendations are based on secondary data and no ground truthing
70
has been carried out. Therefore, the WGEEP Report appears to be biased and not based on long-term scientific field study but based on arm chair research using secondary data on a GIS platform. Moreover, the Ministry has also not approved the WGEEP Report yet.
In his opinion, the EAC has already looked into these aspects and after a site VISIt, the Hongadahalla Dam component of Phase I of the Gundia Project was not approved which ultimately reduced the forest area to be affected from 1041 ha to 478.96ha and submersion area from 733 ha to 191.92 ha. Therefore, adopting the sustainable development, the EAC had recommended environmental clearance for the project which should not be withdrawn. Instead, some more mitigating measures may be suggested, as given by Prof. Dhananjay and there should be strict monitoring of the environmental conditions.
Prof. T.S. Nayar felt that the Western Ghats biota is a highly precious capital to be protected for posterity at any cost as it is the result of millions of years of evolution. The report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) is a welcome attempt in this direction endeavoring to assess the Western Ghats biota in its entirety. The report, at the same time, is not without flaws, the biggest being, while it makes sWf eping suggestions it assumes the approach that the report is comprehensive and thorough, and hence the suggestions put forward are to be considered as the final endorsements. The idea brought forward through Ecologically Sensitive Zones 'ESZ 1-3' and Ecologically Sensitive Localities (ESL) are fine concepts but their fidelity with respect to the assigned values (Endemic species, IUCN listed mammal species, unique evergreen ecosystem, undisturbed forests, forest areas, elevations, slope, riparian vegetation) have not been investigated and proved. Action plans purely based on concepts which lack ground truthing, in spite of the fact that there are abundant chances for it, may find it difficult to take off. At least 25% of the designated ESZl, 15% of ESZ2 and 10% of ESZ3 (% given arbitrarily with conservation value priorities) should at random be subjected to taxonomic and ecological investigations at least for two years and the result should be compared with appropriate assigned values so as to get scientific currency to the concept of ESZ as many of these zones still remain data deficient with respect to their biota. There are no conclusive evidences to prove that ESZl is the highest conservation value area, there can not have any scientific backing for the conclusion that Gundia enjoys the highest conservation value biota simply because Gundia is designated as an ESZI area. Gundia could be a high conservation value area but should be proved with supporting scientific evidences. WGEEP Chairman, along with two scientists (not in the panel) visited the site for 3 days followed by another visit with another person and a consultation meeting. It is clear that no judgment on biodiversity is possible within such a short duration. The basis ofWGEEP's comprehension on the biodiversity of Gundia is from the report of Sukumar and Sanker (2010) because it heavily draws upon from this report. Precisely, as per the mandate, WGEEP has not specifically examined Gundia HEP but relied on already available report of Sukumar and Shanker, 2010. He observed that this report, although has certain flaws , provides highly valuable data on biodiversity of Gundia site when viewed in the light of the fact that it is the result of a mere two month study based on 16 days' field work. It is anybody's guess what would be the magnitude of its biodiversity if a thorough study was conducted for at least one year. The EIA conducted for Gundia HEP is also not too satisfactory and there are many discrepancies in the report. Lower groups of plants (Algae, Fungi, Lickens, Bryophytes and Pteridophytes) which could be abundant in forests like Gundia are sparingly reported. Most of the planktons are identified only up to genus level. The proponents have wrongly conceived what in-situ conservation is. Many of the conservation management strategies mentioned sound like very casual statements, not supported by good methodologies. In his opinion also Gundia site appears to be a good evergreen tropical forest
71
with high concentration of endemic plant and animal species but they occur elsewhere in the Western Ghats except two species of amphibians and one species of insect which are confined to Gundia. There could be a possibility of occurrence of some unreported species in the EIA study for the pOlject, therefore; a detailed floristic and faunal survey of the area is required. It also seems the forests have high regeneration potential in degraded areas if left alone as degradation is the result of illegal logging and encroachment. He also felt that ESZ 1-3 categorisation provides only predicted or assumptive value without any scientific backing. The Committee deliberated on the observations of the three experts and came to the conclusion that both the reports seems incomplete but at the same time, the revised EINEMP report of Gundia provided a good amount of information for the Committee to come to a conclusion. It is evident that there is no endemic species specifically of Gundia HEP region and there is no any species for which mitigation methods are not available. The damage due to submergence of flora and fauna of the area is mitigable. Moreover, the Committee had looked into these aspects at the time of site visit and had suggested some environmental measures which have been implemented by sacrificing one of the dams by the PP. In view of this, the Committee felt that there is no enough data and reason to go against the recommendations of EAC for environmental clearance for the Project hence reiterated its earlier recommendation with the following additional environmental conditions(i) Possibility of shifting the tunnel access to the main underground powerhouse, which is located in one of the few remaining primary evergreen forest patches, may be explored. The PP may also ensure that the temple town of Subramaniyam may not face water shortage owing to construction of the dams. One more floristic and faunal survey covering all the different seasons may be carried out and submitted to the Ministry, before starting construction of the project. Such studies should cover all aspects of taxonomy and ecology, especially all the species present, types of their interactions, habitat specificity, habitat uses, gene flow systems etc. of organisms by specialists in respective fields. As two species of amphibians exclusively from Gundia region are reported which are new to the science, an amphibian specialist should be included in the survey team. Specialist groups may suggest after the study that fragmentation due to dam construction does not result in species loss. Each suggested management plan should be supported by sound methodology. Proponents may have to understand that ex situ conservation of animals is a huge task unlike it is projected in the EMP. Besides the conventional conservation measures, possibilities of modern methods like micro reserves promoting natural regeneration and restoration of habitats, establishing lobster pots, fencing of habitats, biotope management, establishment of ecological corridors etc. may be explored and incorporated in management plans to conserve affected groups of plants and animals or population of individual species. The Ministry, after reviewing the survey report, shall impose more mitigating measures, if required. The Project Proponent shall abide by the decision of the Ministry at that time.
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
The Committee felt that the Western Ghats are now are being included in the World Heritage List due to its unique biota and already about 1,821 dam structures are existing in
72
the Northern Western Ghats, It IS important to study the carrying capacity of the Western Ghats to accommodate more dams to prevent any species loss. The MinistIy may undertake the same at the earliest. 3. Agenda Item No.3: Consideration of Project Environment Clearance Proposals for Scoping and
The following project proposals were considered3.1 Rivers in Inter-Linking of Tambiraparani, Karumeniyar and Nambiyar Tirunelveli and Tbootbukudi Districts of Tamil Nadu by MIs. Public Works Department, Water Resources Organisation, Government of Tamil NaduReconsideration for TORs.
The project was earlier considered in 53rd Meeting of EAC held on lIth-12th November, 2011 but could not be discussed at length as the Committee members did not received hard copy of the documents. However, based on the presentation made by the Project Proponent, the Committee had asked for certain additional infonnation which was submitted by the them. Shri S. S. Ramasubbu, Member of Parliament from Tirumelveli, Tamil Nadu apprised the Committee regarding the importance of the project for the State of Tamil Nadu. He informed that the agricultural development in Tamil Nadu mainly depends on the surface and ground water irrigation. But the State has almost utilized its surface and ground water resources hence future expansion of irrigation and agriculture in Tamil Nadu depends on linking of rivers and tributaries and by utilizing the surplus unused flood water which flows into the sea. The present scheme aims at providing irrigation to the drought prone area of Sathankulam and Thisaiyanvilai Districts of Tamil Nadu through diversion of surplus flood from the perennial Tamiraparani River to the ephemeral Karuneniyar and Nambiyar rivers. This is the first interlinking of rivers project in Tamil Nadu and the project is very important for development of his constituency. The Committee appreciated his presence and interest in the project. Shri Sampat Kumar, Chief Engineer along with his team presented that for utilizing the surplus flood water of river Thamiraparani, the Government of Tamil Nadu had sanctioned Rs. 369 Crores for construction of a flood carrier canal from Kannadian Channel to the drought prone area of Sathankulam, Thisaiyanvilai by interlinking Tamiraparani, Karumeniyar and Nambiyar Rivers in Tirunelveli and Thoothukudi Districts of Tamilnadu. The project area covers 4 Talukas in Tirunelveli District namely Ambasamudram,
73
Annexure-I
List of EAC Members and Project Proponents who attended 59th Meeting of Expert Appraisal Committee for River Valley & Hydroelectric Power Projects held OD 1st-2nd JUDe, 2012 in New Delhi Members of EAC
I. Shri Rakesh Nath- Chainnan 2. Dr. Dhananjai Mohan 3. Prof. S.K. Mazumdar 4. Dr. (Mrs.) Maitrayee Choudhary 5. Dr. K.D. Joshi 6. Prof. T.S. Nayar 7. Prof. J .K. Sharma 8. Shri G.L. Bansal 9. Dr. Praveen Mathur 10. Ms. Sanchita Jindal, Director, MoEF II. Dr. P.V. Subba Rao, MoEF
Inter-Linking of Tambiraparani, Karumeniyar and Nambiyar Rivers, Government of Tamil Nadu

1. Shri.M.Sampath Kumar, Chief Engineer, PWD Water Resources Organisation, Madurai . 2. Shri.S.P. Pandian, Superintending Engineer, PWD Water Resources Organisation, Madurai. 3. Shri. M.R. Mohan, Deputy Engineer, PWD Water Resources Organisation, Madurai. 4. Er. S. Subhash, Executive Engineer PWD, Madurai. 5. Shri S. Antony Anbarasu, Executive Engineer, PWD, Chennai. 6. Shri A.S. Nagarajan, Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD. 7. Shri J. Murugan Assistant Engineer, PWD. 8. Shri K. Karthikeyan, Associate Engineer, PWD.
Ghogra Minor Irrigation Project by Government of Madhya Pradesh

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Shri R. Julania, lAS, Principal Secretary, % WR. Shri M.G. Chowbey, Engineer-in-Charge Shri S.K. Nigam, Senior Engineer Shri Avinash Kulkarni, Executive Engineer Shri Deepak Satpate, Executive Engineer Shri P.K. Tripathi, SOO Shri B.K. Jain, SOO Ms Devyani, Assistant Engineer
I:
74
F. No. 28-1j2012-NRM-!. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Ministry of Agriculture Department of Agriculture & Cooperation (Natural Resource Management Division) Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. st Dated: 21 September, 2012 SUb:-
Report of "Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP)" Part-II of Ministry of Environment & Forestscomments on the measures suggested for improvement in agriculture sector- reg.
Please refer to d.o.letter No.1j1j2010-RE-ESZ dated 04.01.2012 and this Ministry's letter of even number dated 24.01.2012 on the subject mentioned above 2. Department of Agriculture & Cooperation(DAC) has to consult States of the region before finalizing its views which will be communicated to High Level Working Group(HLWG) in due COurse. 3. Comments of DAC transmitted earlier may, therefore, be treated as interim in nature.
4.
This issues with the approval of Secretary (A&C). ~')./

(C.M.Pa~ndey)
Additional Commissioner(NRM) Telephone No.011-23383772 Shri Ajay Tyagi, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests Room No.417, 4th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
No. 28-l/2012-NRM-I Ministry of Agriculture Department of Agriculture & Cooperation (Natural Resource Management Division)
'-'
,~ t..-:-J:':.U
I V\ "/
102, B-Wing, Shastri Bhawan New Delhi Dated: 04.09.2012 Subject: Report of Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel: Observation of Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture Reference is invited to D.O. No. 1I112010-RE-ESZ 31.8.2012, on above subject. dated
2.
Copy of the comments/observations of Department of Agriculture &
Cooperation (DAC), Ministry of Agriculture sent earlier vide letter of even No. dated 24.01.2012 are enclosed for kind information.
\""~~~ . ~. ~~
(C.M. Pandey Additional Commissioner (NRM) Encl: As above
~ri Ajay Tyagi,
Joint Secretary, Ministry of Enviornment Room No. 417, 4th FI CGO Complex, hi Road, New Delhi-II 003
'b\, ~~~ w
~ \~(5)
(0.\\'1/ \~ l/71,
Report of Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel: Observations of Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture
5.1.
2.2
Measures for mitigation! \ Observatio~s of Department of Agriculture improvement & CooperatIon Agriculture Sector 1 I Landscape planning in In hilly and undulated terrain, land select regions / iocations. development like terracing, leveling, protection wall etc. are supported under I watershed progralmnes of Department of I & Agriculture & Cooperation (DAC) Department of Land Resources. DAC supports need based land development activities / interventions for increasing production and productivity. However, Landscape plmming in select regions / locations need to be taken up in holistic malmer based on watershed approach to make it hydrologically sustainable. Shift from mono culture Integrated Farming System includhlg mixed to polyculture/ mixed farming system is being supported under cropping system. ne"vly latmched scheme of Rainfed Area Development Programme (RADP) as a sub I I scheme of Rashh'iva Krishi Vikas Yoj ana i
!
(RKVY) .
i..I,.
I ; ~n"'opraCTPI! L, h.. b'I
SUD, port _
: ecological soil : conservatIOn measures In 1 the 'A/estern GhZits
I 4
I Discontinue
: weedicides.
I
the nse of
i
I I I
I I I Phase out of the use of and I insecticides
1 fungicides.
I
Under watershed programmes, low cost agronomic / \ egetati\'e conservation measures are rreferred to make it sustainable. HOWeVer, :"'11 locaticns which are witnessing adv2~'sC hyd:'ological ccrciitions, viz higher "olurne & rate or t1o'W of run-off I etc., mechanic?.! stn.1C"'::.lres CCiJi E0{ be completely avoideci. DAC in all its crop development progranl1nes, encourages mechanical sowing, line h'ansplanhng, etc, which are conducive to mechamcal \veed.ing. DAC through its mechacization progranm1.e, suppmts farmers for procurement of different type of power and hand operated weeders to discourage use of weedicides / herbicid.es. DAC is also promoting Integrating Pest Managem.ent (IPM) emphasizing alternative tools for pest management such as cultural, I physical, mechanical methods, use of bioconh'ol agent and judicious and need based used of pesticides for conh'ol of pests.
t
S.l.
l\ieasures for mitigation! Observations of Department of Agriculture improvement & Cooperation
I
I
I
i I
I
I
1\
I
i
I
I
I
! I
I
I
DAC is promoting soil test - based, balanced and judicious use of chemical fertilizers ill. conjUllction with bio-fertilizers and locally available organic measures such as farm yard manure, vermi-compost and green manure, to maintain soil health and productivity. A centrally sponsored scheme namely "National Project on Management of Soil Health and Fertility" is already in operation throughout the country, Scheme includes (a) sh-engthening of soil testing facilities (b) h-aining and demonstrations on balanced use of fertilizers (c) promoting use of Integrated Nuh-ient Management (INM); and (d) strengthening of fertilizer testing facilities to DAC is implemenmig a scheme -namely; support Financial 'National Project on PrOlnotion of Organic orgall.ic farlners. Farming' (NPOF), This scheme lays sh'ess on tecb--,-"lical capacity building, information generation and promotion of organic farming through setting up of fruits / vegetables waste composts units and bio-fertilizers/biopesticides production Ullits. Financial assistance is beL."1g provided for establishment of various org3.nic inputs production units unLier C2t}::it21 L..->'estmEnt SEGsiciy Schem.E "-':::5") IO nU.llllTIlZ2 '" -'l d ana gap 1 .='('t>,,,'een ~!eman (,_10 I ! production of organic mpurs like bioI I fertilizers, bio-pEsticides ar-;d fruit cucd I vegetable waste compost. .'---,-..";: i":rc.ps and DAC is already implementi..rl.g a programme I Selection Ul. 'Developrnent and sh'engthening of I varieti 2S, I infrash'ucture facilities for production and I dish'ibution of quality seeds across the I counhy This progranune is also encouraging promotion of Hybrid seeds, It also encourages setting up of seed villages and I I I boosting production of quality seeds through i I private sectors for enhancing food i production, Indian Cmmcil of Agriculture Research Agro-biodiversi ty conservation and crop (lCAR) and Agricultural Universities are improvement. conducting research through plant breeding for improvement of crops . These institutions
Encourage use of organic manures.
5.1.
Measures for mitigationj improvement
10
Make Western Ghats Genetically free of Modified (GM) crops, trees and animals.
11
I
Awareness building.
,II
I
i
Observations of Deparhnent of Agriculture & Cooperation take care of development and improvement of the haditional varieties suitable for each locality while performing their research through plant breeding programmes. Under scheme of National Horticulture Mission (NHM), activities are taken up for promotion of protected cultivation for higher production per unit of area through desirable diversification. However, it does not anticipate promotion of any GM crop. DAC is promoting awareness progTamme through Agricultural Technology Management Agency (ATMA) at Disb'ict level to operationalize the extension reforms in all sectors of agriculture. ATMA has active participation of farmers/ farmer" group, NGOs, Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVKs) Panchayati Raj Institutions ( PRIs) and other stakeholders operating at Dish'ict level and
I
b~w.
Educating children about Programme of National Project on Organic and ecological Farming (NPOf) lays sh'ess on technical : farming and th ~ir role in capacity building and Human Resource ! conseTving the Development through certified courses and biodiversity cf the disb'ibution of literature, exhibitions, radio ! \Vesrern Ghats. I talks and television prograrnmes, ___________ ~I-----------------------+-----------------~~------------------0j'J ror'2st conjdors. Relates to Forest Deparmlent I ,-;-,-,,'ost '~atchr>'" 'Nithi 1 l Rela tes'to Forest DepartrrJ::nt
I
12
I organic
~~~:' aion~ th"~~;Il"eam; i~
: the p]antati::m,
I
15
I
I
I
!
. r . ommunlty Iorestry.
16
I Wildlife problerns.
DAC supports cOl1Ul1Unity fo restry w hich I will help in availability of fodder, fuel wood and biological residue for manure preparation. Agro foresb'y and afforestation are eligible components under watershed prograrrunes to promote such activities. Preventing crop damage from wild life may not be fully addressed through compensation or discouraging farmers growing crops that am'act wild animals. Insurance provisions may be examined to protect loss of farmers through appropriate policy provisions.
.J
'1
5.1.
Measures for mitigation! Observations of D epartment of Agriculture im r ovem en t & Coo eration Wherever feasible alternate crops which are acceptable to farmers and do not attract animals may be supported under agriculture programmes / schemes.
17
rv!arke ting.
DAC is already on path of agricultural l11.arketing reforms and has been vigorously pursuing States/ UTs to promote innovative marketing channels with a view to offer remunerative price to farmers and to reduce marketing cost by providing provision of
d~~~~!~l;~:~~~~~~!er~~mfh~~c O~i ~JruUllEe

Developmen t of m arketing for organic produce in India is in nascent stage, hence, it requires promoting form.ation of Farmers/ Producers Group or cooperatives to collect and add primary value to produce to make quantity Etnd qu ality-wise marketable . may provide necessary Govern ment assistance for it.
18
I' Tribal farming.

I i
_____---L. _______ _
19
i
I
Research_~
I
I
i
i
I
I
i i
i
As peT recent directives of govermTlent, Scheduled Cast Sub-Plan(SCSP)/ Tribal SubPlan ( TSP) component has been envisaged in all development progranunes of DAC to Drotect of SCI h-ibal fanners. The lCA.I<. ?esearch Complex, Goa established W. 1989 is a multidiSCiplinary lnstihlte mandated tu adell-ess different issues such as resource conservation, watershed approach for water conservation, conservation of biodiversity, integra ted fanning system approach incorporating horticulhue, animal husbandry and fish ery for m aximum utilization of available resources, climate change impact and lnitigation s b-ategies for agJ:iculture, employment generation and liveW100d improvement, value addition and post harvest processing, agro tourism for Western Ghat agricultural system. ICAR has developed teclmologies namely bio engineering measures in cashew nut/ coconut based agro-foresh'y system for rehabilitation
5.1.
Measur~s for mitigation! Observations of Depaxtment of Agriculture ' i improvement & Cooperation I of degraded lands in Western Ghat, organic I rice cultivation, bio inoculants based INM I and IPM packages, integrated farming system encompassing rice-fish-duckery-poultryI livestock- horticulture (including floriculture, mushroom cultivation & apiculture) for and livelihood increasing profitability generation of this region. Benefits of successful research are being popularized among the farmers of this region through IVLP prograrrune, KVKs, State extension agencies etc. reAR is also conducting Front Line DemonstTations (FLDs) on relevant I teclmologies, inlparting h'ainings to farmers, I Subject Matter Specialists of Krishi Vigyan (KVK) , State Lil,e I Kendra i Deparhnents/NGOs etc.; publishillg popular I articles and technical bulletins in local I languages and organizillg regional I workshops. I
I
I
~';i)te: Recommendertiuns
iJ!mci
!1:?
poru 23 & 24 oj'Report of VVesrem Ghnts EcologtJ Expert COJi([r7ll'd to Depa rtmen t of A l1imnl H7I slJnll!iry Dnzry (? ,ld Fisheries
CI/
!\Q,:, ~:"c!2012-SD-V
of fr;cH;;i i",,'f:1jS,trV cJ t~gr'k~!!t;~t"~ D~:-:~-~3rtr:-\c~y~ Df p;gr1c.Jtu Ie & Ccc>pfratie. r.,

Krlsr. i 8h~wi1n, ,~"w De/h'
~)2!T~d
G::1vt:;;"nm~:1t
O(iC!',2C1;
c"t;J!Ect; V;.'estH', Gr,5:::: Ecc40f:lV E)'q:lert Ptl'<'b( c.:,~,t11:!!t&d by Mlni$try of Environment & '-'c!',-,~\,,~ ~t,~,~rt - !\'1<.ke th~ We~Lerr: G~t:t {me of G'::'Ie~J(';alty Mocllfi",d crops , tree and
CAeR j~6.:i:;Jc.r :"Gs t'Een C:;:clz~'ec!? :'0;""':';;' l;;:;;c:'~tc!r\' wndE;f the Seed [~1I1e<s, 19(,8 tra
=1',' ,1i:12c,e- ~re,.~nce/a::;5~~:(;2: c{ f):t ge: c .n 2l! '.:;::: e',ems of Bt genos" it is ~rernil"f ":i',~tf i::,:Hvr; for C$vekl prnE "'il, d C:)ttOl r"brid:var.:;ot!es ir,:::!,ld:ng !H ,otton, Comrne:lt, ,-:,_. '<:: ~,c;~;g~~t ;<~iT: r~CR an:; \!(e~\ls c:~,~c:lrl:;;,i frcrn "d":t:'n t:.-6 rQprOCuce::J belo\.v~
''[-J.;eLI;' I,hcWe,w,.m GhJt~ feiCE." d: G'~~l,ti('?;!iy MooI'!'iGC uO;,ls, U'E'~ Mid anlmiJi'~ The biD:li\lE>~s~tv oj' ~he W'::'f't;:'rn (ih:::ts, ene of ttle bi0div~'rsit\' hot spot'i of (hi' worid, ".:thfJi . gh 'Iel 'yet full' doc;,rr,f;'nt.f:d. 1:1, bc-en SOWU' 0'( ori(lill,): gl'U'~ r:J::;p:n'iil.!C, 'or 'I[,E preSe;-,[ dc.y ;;:l~itii',~.rs:. It is there-tore vi::al r;, :C'l"'[Jrv,c th('r'n <Fld
,1;"
;~;c;,6 Lhc:;-'i frJnl gGn{:r~ :ofrtarninf,Uon frL)i'rl unndturZl S~L;"'C8~ s ..feh Jf Gf-l. r;'cp~ "n.:: Cry, trTI?\ 5ir;c~ :~~nH:C con':dm:nCl~IO:i pf Ioc,d vari.::,ties from GM cr:tp" iii . ',n '~1i~~:_ J ~~~cd ~:2~'1. nc. ~rtt2fnpl shouk~ be: aHov\,ted to rntrodJce G~\~ Ci'"i.)PS ~~~r:: \i'.h~~(crj': Gr,~ts. r'~ot Q)/cn OP8'j n(;!!d t~i~ls s~lc~.dd bG ~llfavJcd~ ~CV"t;Vf!'r; 2-r :l~~-:" :I" 0 !""', e-,r,::tiC'illv~'lc(Yi(>a c:mc in 'tie CDlIntrv i" b"lng CJltlJ<ited ,r, SOrN' Q"r s c" 'iP i\_';~,q':', r Ct-',fl:~$., !f:l:::e::1ic-;:2 ~('~,jc.j;- :S c2ded f.or i~O step tht, pr~cti(.::: arl~ ;; t';H- ~ . \ [' V'~':' :,',~1:,L~, ::+ \filth t:'),! ~.t COttO:1 ~f>ed:;. --l,(jV shou:C: nl,o i~F ,21:: ,=, ~p th5, :)~f;,,;f);t eJ2\; ::;n~, ~ <;:op2m;:te ri10rkNing :h,m.'I0i OPFf1C'O d~ i;), ~:~,',-~":~,n f.;;;'ytltr~ !.~ the Vi:'e;ltern '~h3-~~S" /\rtE~rnpt1 are bOillIT rnad~ to ~n~.rorl!J[f- Clf/
I
I
'_"((l.':~ ,~u:::h ::.:s G",/ !uL:b'~r
T. . :f~
::':!jOU:(! n~v;;;.r' t.;f. i-. d i:HAt0.d
Ii
rk'H'.~ i:. '~G

~~ :.Jtl;~:"I" "
i ;,,:\:
'\/Vfl}tCO
t<c:;.,
r. g:"\ut Oi()ri:\tt"r~,ity'
;!~
dur:lo thfl Cli! iv;,tiol1 of the' lunfr't (,V;
. ~f. ~~rr r~\( P\jc.L;ri~';"'r~:;"":l Qt,f~r;~
:~ rnptf}~,t-:i;ted ot,l" in Tho Oas! -(:ottO tl Spn(lr~;~ cultfvntrd in rht; :., :".... , ::r 7>JC """:':. S::i'C::." 1'[12 De';; cotte r. :0:["5 Go~,ypiiJm urborru/1t and Goss;ipiirli
';'"1(.;[;1
')1
- ..;~ n;)ri e b10C!ivf:~~:J;y
c,,- CJ~l:::~
;r!-.:-ji[ Llild_ c.(e kncj\~!n t o h ,~ve be2(1
-\{ "[ j'~ :\ ,'1 ~IC: ,[ ~:'iT\", v. h~t$~$V;;rT of ~'<t\r of the tVHive !nril:] Dt~5! cotton 'r(!>de!:; .~~~':':-:'/':':i~~.;:r: C'(l~( rc::.;rn !.lnd GJ5$.vpiurr; hf'rt.{;(e~rr,' ~peC:!E 5 getting gerr::r-tlC 2I 1ly c()nt~:rtin 2 t~'l~ :"" 1 c,,:~'l 2t,<~ttc;:'\ s,:: ~:f to ~Ut((~,"'~~~~~ the e~C[;:,~ilt b~odivt..r5!ty,
f',
J ' ,
~,' f;~! 2r.. ;G!i:'::-1 hvbr;tl~ ;~~'8 C', t'-12 /:d"(\2T.t.rn (:i.)",:ton SPl~cif':; C;ossypi . .Jmrur>r.,tlI,,' :cttm ,; i;'0::('~:;6;(j-'Sy.ti,'Hrl r,:rsIJrU!\: \'''a~ i;;trod ucpd bto !neji,j in l/(jO bV i r~,,: l~.c,..:t :~C::;d <.nd dt)6,S :"'(r.:{ ~rav~ rrii.,.;c:h oj'" tltH;l!t~:dl\, evolv~rl blodlv('r.~~lly in lhf" '.. TiC }i~~;~ .." cf .JII Ci'm~;YrA~':1! hirsutu!i'! vi;,rletles rilc:l werE:: di?vrloped ir\!h.:~ ((1:,lr:t!Y , " r-';~' t of the ArnG:ric~.n CO!tCin SPC;:if~S Gossypium hirSI)tum aVf)iiabl(l ill Inr!li) . ',.- _c ,l'~ ::,;-,.';t',:'vf.'d ciili). pr2S2rvfCl :i". (/"(;"" pyc, tom1 <Jt N(lPGR (h!aUol1ZiI Burt't1L! fur PI,"1:
-,' t ,:::"d,
. :,' :"L Er"'OC:.HU:S) (. '1(:

\.,~tt::'"l
(len ((s nn'2 i 1:"rHitU::C (c'r Cotmn RCS8Z!rch)
<inc! cr,;n b(' rntr!i'v(>C' ;"',
"'-'c' $)13':;;(,< Cc.".~J'r.,lum i',lrsutu(I) 1.$ ;:: r(,n:r~n'Did with Lhromc"orn~ nurnbr>r of '~n".S; , .~ ,- g'~n~T;\~~djv ;~1((cmp"'tib:~ w'th (h6 ::;'e.'ii 5PI',;(;",~ whil'.h arf! dlpioit:hi with chr(J[,to:;f, n--tC' -- " '2, ,:), ;?~.~?(; TI.~ t'ipk,ij 5fj2Ces arr 'lit' m)[ crt::ssril"!e vdlh l!":trHpioid 'iPNif'~ anr UIl, ';
. v.i~.Cl;\h:'[/ L1C:;;:-L):,';ILit::j,:; vJith ';:!-(~ tetr<~oIGiCI spt'C:if'~ (7(')~~l!pii.lm hir~ut"ilm,
':, cr-",,_. t'lc,r(>::'i no ,e:;ord Of;:,cClirrtnCe of ar.y tetraploid wnd cotton Spe(ir.c, in :rHli' 0 ~'. c.:hc:r t'li c.lliaCeOL'5 :;JGcles ~n InO!:;! Ct- iT1t:;r'~' 'ipc;c:fiudiy in ;lw W['st,~rn ghat", HUT "'[,_ . '.'.s2l~, -'-' C: Ufo''" rer.:0\.,;;ty IiK!:'iv [) t:(; (:cntnmir)iited with thE< Arn(' I',C:HI COitol 5pr:!~'(~, '""~. );:;(11 i':r.';ut"lT;' ci 81: (Cit(",".. (ic;llli;', there IS no re,,!>:Ot'i w'wtsQc>ver to f,>',h)t'Co c' ... 1 U: (-':::"i?ti::!1 of Gt cori:;:;;"; h1 th e l!.iestern ghat'S, I;:speCi::)liy ~iht(' t!1,:'I't:'I" rtc' ,,'~iC',J ti"e-i\i ('(J -::,1V few IT: D: bicdlve~it)' of !rtraploid tottDn SpE7cjp,> 0' r('i;::~('~", d I,;:d S '>?/:~65 v~~ ~"r;t in t ~' Vl-(~',;tem ghiH, Thprf'fcfE cuitiviltion of Sl cotL]!. Co. ,, :1(.1(:) r, \rvt".SL0!'f! ghat~ (foes riot tf'\reaten any blodivF.rsity sinn'; thf' tf'trnpoict Pc ;,','"'' unr c: :nntil'-n;r,ai:e rile C::pij:c! D!;>s: co':ton sp",ck~s, A blanket b:3n on IH :nttDl1 ir~ ;r,',;;,( T i~r;i.~s ;,'- :til an unrr'2sc.n.~bHs pn~tGKt Of 'threat to bicdivHsity' is not backnd hI' ',;:,i'nl>/I o ('f research ard thJ 's :";Jpp:"oprial{', It is <;llr;ge~t'(~d lhi'lt ,1 (tV fUWr(' cr~f P!\JP~h, .. 5 .-':o>! ':C: .:"l:orr::,,' Ctist:>l:iV t;)$i.1 CiDp$:1ding or: tha possiblo imp,H;1: [If thee .' ";'f~ i .:.r.. c ,: 'C ~.\ ,~~ ~ P cf tnc Wm5'~'(:i(n gh2ItS"
"!~-r'l:,j
~. L
r
D. p _~O :1.';
;i~
t><,C',nv:1\1 8: "cresto, :'c rt of i'" c.: c

. . /;.2
2V;~';:"3:--: ~:h~F"\a(
t~:~I~. !~~~
~:= ':.Q""j~:lflx i_}J,~t ;lO~:C
F.No.28-1/2012/NRM-I Government of India Ministry of Agriculture Department of Agriculture & Cooperation (Natural Resource Management Division) Shastri
Bhawan, New Delhi. Dated: 8th April, 2013
Sub: Revised comments of OAC on recommendation of Report of Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) - regarding.
Reference is invited to D.O. letter No.1/1/2010-RE (ESZ) dated 31.08.2012 of Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Member, Planning Commission, New Delhi addressed to Secretary (A&C) and this Departments' letter of even number dated 24.01.2012 and subsequent letter dated 21.09.2012 on the above subject. 2. As per the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, all matters related to land and agriculture comes under the purview of State Governments, therefore, it is for the State Governments of Western Ghats Region (WGR) to a~cept or reject recommendations of Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) in so far as they relate to shift from monoculture to polyculture / mixed cropping system, discontinuation of the use of weedicides, phasing out the use of insecticides and fungicides, agro-biodiversity conservation, crop improvement and making Western Ghats free of Genetically Modified (GM) crops, etc. 3. In view of above, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation (DAC) circulated extract of recommendations of report of WGEEP pertaining to agriculture sector to all States of WGR for comments. Based on the inputs received from all State Governments of WGR, revised comments on each recommendations relating to agriculture sector are as under:-
LL
VI: ___ ."..: .......",.'0. ......... -en. 0:-::
: C"'): ~:
.. : :

-,Zai
o >._ tV
000
Recommendation Landscape planning in select regions / locations.
Shift from monoculture to polyculture/ mixed cropping systems.
Revised comments of OAC Acceptable. Process of soil erosion and its formation are natural processes occurring simultaneously to maintain equilibrium in the natural eco-system. Landscape planning & its management can be achieved through integration of soil & water conservation measures, which are proven to be effective in prevention of soil erosion, land degradation and conserving natural ecology of the areas. Therefore, need based, site specific, hydrologically sustainable measures for ensuring sustainable foodgrain production should be adopted. In hilly and undulated terrains, interventions like terraCing, land leveling, protection wall etc. are required wherever loose boulder structures with agronomic practices are not sustainable. Acceptable in so far as promotion of practices for shifting from monoculture crops to mixed cropping systems, which depend on soil type, soil fertility, topography of the area, availability of critical inputs and economic return of farm .produce are concerned. Polyculture/ mixed cropping systems lead to enhancing livelihood security and increasing farm income and are accordingly supported. However such
1
shifts should not be made mandatory but should be promoted through a system of incentives, dissemination of & establishment of requisite improved practices infrastructure. Encourage/ Support Acceptable. Vegetative soil and water conservation ecological soil measures like, loose boulder structures with agronomical practices are insufficient in high runoff areas, therefore, conservation measures in the stone pitching, construction of waste weirs, nala stabilization Western Ghats. structures, drop-spill ways, stone walls will have to be constructed at vulnerable locations. Discontinue the use Discontinuation of use of weedicides in entire WGR in single of weedicides. phase may not be possible keeping in view the diversity of weeds. Effective, safe and environmentally sound methods as alternative to chemical weedicides need to be encouraged, so that use of weedicides is minimized. Phase out of the use Phasing out of the use of insecticides and fungicides of insecticides and may not be possible as this depends upon the efficacy of other measures relating to pest control and farmer's choice. fungicides. However, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) will have to be encouraged and technical capacity building, information generation and promotion of organic farming, setting up of fruits/ vegetables waste compost units and bio-fertilizers/biopesticides production units will have to be promoted to minimize use of insecticides and fungicides. Encourage use of It would not be practicable to phase out use of Chemical fertilizers. However, farmers are to be organic manures encouraged for balanced and judicious use of chemical fertilizers in conjunction with bio-fertilizers, promoting locally available organic matters such as farm yard manure, vermicompost and green manure etc. Supplementary use of chemical fertilizers based on soil test will have to be continued, as only organic farming may not be sufficient to meet increasing demand of foodgrains. Financial support to Acceptable. States are providing financial support to minimize gap between demand and production of organic organic farmers. inputs like bio-fertilizers, bio-pesticides and fruit & vegetable waste compost etc. Selection of crops Acceptable. States are encouraging promotion of suitable seeds through ongoing schemes for production and and varieties. distribution of quality seeds, besides, encouraging setting up of seed villages and boosting production of quality seeds through private sector for enhancing food production so that farmer will have a choice to adopt low input and high yielding varieties. Acceptable. Indian Council of Agriculture Research (lCAR) Agro-biodiversity conservation and and State Agricultural Universities are conducting research in the area of plant breeding for improvement of crop crop improvement production. These institutions are also taking care of development and improvement of traditional varieties suitable for each Agro-Ciimate Zone (ACZ). Adoption of High
')
Yielding Crop/Food Crop Varieties cannot be totally ignored to meet the ever increasing demand of foodgrains of ever increasing population. Promotion of drought resistant low input and less water & fertilizers requiring indigenous/local variety suitable to ACZ along with conservation and promotion of resource efficient technologies is the need of the hour. Make the Western Not acceptable. Use of bio technology for the development Ghats free of of plant, animal and fish varieties that are climate resilient, Genetically Modified resistance to biotic and a-biotic stresses and heat resistance (GM) crops, trees is necessary for food security. Use of Genetically Modified (GM), Bt-cotton hybrid cannot be discontinued, as this is and animals. being cultivated mainly in Gujarat and Maharashtra States of Western Ghats Region and its productivity is many fold higher as compared to Desi-cotton. Besides, Bt cotton cultivation does not require much use of insecticides/pesticides and does not threaten any biodiversity since the tetraplOid Bt cotton cannot contaminete diploid Desi cotton species. Awareness building. Acceptable. State Governments of WGR will have to undertake special awareness building activities, training and educating programmes by organizing Krishi Mahotsavs and other extension activities for educating the farmers regarding residual impact of use of high quantity of insecticides and pesticides and its impact on ecology of the region and would be motivated for minimizing such uses. Educating children OAC supports this view. about organic and ecological farming and their role in conserving the biodiversity of the Western Ghats. Forest corridors. Relates to Forest Department Forest patches within Relates to Forest Department and along the streams in the plantation. Community forestry is supported as long as it does not Community forestry. encroach upon existing agricultural land and reduces agricultural production & productivity. Wildlife problems. Preventing crop damage from wild animals may not be able to be fully addressed through compensation or discouraging farmers from growing crops that attract wild animals. States may explore suitable alternate crops acceptable to farmers that do not attract animals. For protection of crop/plantation, wherever possible physical barriers i.e . . stone boulder wall, cattle proof trenCh, Solar Fencing (delivers a mild but effective electric shock to animals that may happen to come into contact with it) need
3
to be encouraged. Solar Fencing has been tested as pilot project in Maharashtra and has proved to be a boon for farmers troubled by heavy crop damages due to intrusion of herbivores from forest. Acceptable. States will have to take steps for ensuring Marketing . agricultural marketing reforms to promote innovative marketing channels to offer remunerative prices to farmers, to reduce marketing costs by allowing direct marketing/ purchase of produce from growers. Promotion of formation of Farmers/ Producers Group or Cooperatives will be encouraged to collect and add primary value to produce quantity and quality-wise marketable. Model APMC Act has been formulated and circulated to the all the States including the States of WGR for adoption. Acceptable, Government has launched a scheme for Tribal farming. promotion of Nutri-Cereals under RKVY which is to be implemented in districts identified to be suffering from malnutrition several of which are in the tribal domtnated areas of the country. Acceptable. ICAR, Research Complex, Goa is mandated to Research. undertake research issues such as resource conservation, watershed approach for water conservation, conservation of biodiversity, integrated farming system approach incorporating horticulture, animal husbandry and fishery, climate change impact and mitigation strategies for agriculture and agro tourism for Western Ghats agricultural system. Institute has developed various site specific technologies including integrated farming system encompassing rice-fish-duckery-poultry-livestock for increasing profitability and livelihood generation of this region. Benefits of successful research are being popularized among the farmers by ICAR and State extension agencies etc. This issues with approval of Secretary (A&C). 4.
loint Secretary (NRM)
ks.s&)~
iaYTya9;,
Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Room No.41l, 4th Floor, CGO Complex,Lodi Road, New Delhi Copy for kind information to Dr.K. Kasturirangan, Member, Planning Commission, Yojana Bhawan, New Delhi with reference to d.o. letter NO.1/1/2010-RE(ESZ),~ed 31 st August, 2012 addressed to Secretary (A&C). /
(R.B. Sinha) loint Secretary (NRM)

4
F. No.- 3/1010/2012-PiantCoon]
Government Df !ndlia Ministry cf Commerce &. industry Department ()f Commerce [Plantation Division]
****
New Delhi, Dated: 1ih September, 2012.
OFFICE MEMORANDUru~
5_ ject:-
Report of Western Ghats Ecol()gy Expert Panel (WGEEP) headed by Prof. Madhav Gadgil- Comments thereon regardiing.
****
Th e undersigned is directed to refer to above-mentioned subject and to state : at in connection with the oral evidence of the representatives of the Department of Commerce before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce held on
~ 8.7. 2012, the Committee desired the reactions of this Department on the report of
1estern Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP). The Committee further desired the 'mpact on coffee cultivation and plantations in the Western Ghats if the recommendations of the report are adopted. Accordingly, it was decided to examine the recommendations contained in the report of the WGEEP in consultations with the Commodity Boards, viz. Tea Board, Coffee Board, Rubber Board
& Spices
Board and comments were sought from the Boards on the recommendations contained in the report.
2.
!t is mentioned that plantations are major economic activity in the VVestern
Ghats and there are livelihood issues for those connected with them historically, apart from issues of production and productivity of the plantation crops. The WGEEP has made far-reaching recommendations that will impact large number of people and it is noticed that Commodity Boards were not invited for stakeholder consultations that are stated to have taken place. The Boards have submitted their
f'.-
0.
~~:-,
-f2f
~9
e s a
e recommendations contained
In
the report. which are.
In
brief, as
er- -
a. The Boards were not consulted by the Panel although th e Report mentions that the stakeholder consultations were done. b. Among the recommendations on various sectors, the recommendations on Agriculture sector will have direct impact on the plantation sector crops in the Western Ghats region. c. Practicing organic farming over the entire area and phasing out all chemical fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides would make plantation crops unviable as there will be substantial decline in productivity of plantations due to depleted nutrient status of soil and likely flare-up of major pests. Certain use of chemicals (fertilizers, agricultural lime,
Bord ~ aux
mixture
etc) within the recommended levels is necessary to maintain the soil fertility, sustain the growth of plants and to control the pests and diseases. d. Coffee is cultivated with a good cover of overhead shade comprising of mostly native trees. The shade grown coffee agro-forests contribute significantly towards ecosystem services like bio-diversity conservation, carbon sequestration, rain water harvesting etc. e. Agro-forestry reduces the burden on natural forests for fuel wood, timber and provides fruits & medicinal plants and other livelihood options of the local population .
T. Adoption of integrated sustainable cuitivation of coffee has proved

successful for growing coffee commercially and these have been accepted by various international eco-certification programmes like
Rainforest Alliance, Bird friendly coffee (Smithsonian Migratory Bird Centre), UTZs Certified etc. g. More than 70% Of Indian coffee is being exported to countries including USA, Europe, Japan, Middle East, Gulf and Russia, where stringent measures are already in place as regards use of hazardous and other
chemicals. Unless there is a proven biological insecticides to control the major pest and diseases on coffee, phasing out of fungicides and pesticides will render the coffee cultivation unviable and unproductive. h. Coffee cultivation in the Western Ghats is not going to affect the biodiversity, flora and fauna of the region or is polluting the environment as feared in the Report. Coffee cultivation is an eco-friendly agricultural activity giving livelihood for nearly 2,82,000 coffee farmers and their families apart from providing employment opportunity for nearly one million workers directly and indirectly. i. Tropical evergreen forests of Western Ghats are the place of origin of spices like Cardamom (small) and black pepper as it is congenial for cultivation of these spices particularly. Gambodge and Kokum are spices, which are natural elements of these forests. Nutmeg and clove are also cultivated as intercrop in Western Ghats. j. The story of cardamom had a change from late 1990s after introduction of a high yielding variety called 'Njallani', which responds well to inputs especially chemical fertilizers, irrigation and pesticides applied at regular intervals. If the Report is implemented, cardamom cannot be cultivated in the present intensive way in the Western Ghats, especially in Kerala, where the variety cultivated is Njallani. If the old traditional varieties are brought back, we will lose the international market share and we cannot compete with Guatemala cardamom . k. It is also likely that the farmers may abandon cardamom cultivation which might lead to tree felling/ deforestation.
I.
Western Ghats accounts for 80% of pepper produced in India. If the Report is accepted, pepper cultivation has to be brought under organic system and there would be no reliable organic method to control foot rot disease.
m. In short, if the recommendations of Gadgil Committee are accepted, spices indigenous to India like cardamom, pepper and some of the tree spices might suffer heavily, which will adversely affect our spices trade. n. Rubber Board is of the view that the report is highly one-sided. It talks only about the ecology of the region and does not bother to consider the people living there. There is no concern in the Report on the livelihoods of millions of small and marginal agriculturists living in these ecologically sensitive zones of the country. These are concerns that are as important as the ecological concerns, but they go poorly addressed in the Report. o. Going 100% organic may not be logical, and it may be impractical and dangerous. The volume of organic matter to replace chemical fertilizers in the region if 100% of the plant nutrients should come Kom organic sources alone will be enormous and inaccessible. p. Natural rubber is a strategic industrial raw material. The demand for NR in India is projected to grow fast in the foreseeable future and there is an increasing scarcity for NR world over. If India does not produce enough NR, the country will be left with no option but to import this vital industrial raw material at exorbitant prices, if at all this is available elsewhere. q. Further, a decline in productivity on account of not using chemical fertilizers would render Indian rubber less competitive in the international market. It may also be noted that NR produced with 100% organic materials will not attract any price premium , as it is an industrial law material. r. Similarly, the recommendations about GM, no cultivation beyond certain slopes etc are also one-sided and not logical. There is considerable amount of research done on how NR cultivation has helped to continued degradation of the ecosystem and improve
p~event
economic
development in the region.
s. The region's economy is largely dependant on the plantation and spices crops cultivated in the niche ecosystems of the VVestern Ghats. There are practically no other areas in the country where these crops can be profitably cultivated (except certain patches in the Eastern Ghats, parts of sub-Himalayan North East etc.)
3.
It is learnt that Mlo Environment & Forests have set up an Expert Panel
Ilnder Shri Kasturirangan, Member Planning Commission to look into the Gadgi/ Committee recommendations. Accordingly, the Mlo Environment & Forests are requested that the comments of the Commodity Boards may be placed before the KCJsturirangan Pane! for its consideration.
4.
This issues with the approval of the Minister of State
(Commerc~ & Industry).
Ministry of Environment & Forests (Dr. T. Chatterjee, Secretary], Paryavaran Bhawan, Room NoA01, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-11 0003 .
Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India Telephone No. 011-23062510
/~dt:;;;
()~
URGENT
No.8/2/2012-M.V Government of India Ministry of Mines
****
New Delhi, the March,2013
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel Report-Regarding The undersigned is directed to refer to Secretary, Ministry of Envi ~onment & Forests DO letter no. 1/1/2010-RE (ESZ) Pt-NGT dated 7.03.2013 addressed to Secretary, Ministry of Mines on the above subject and to forward herewith the comments of this Ministry. 2. This issues with the approval of Hon' ble Minister for Mines.
(Rokhum Lalremruata) Director (Mines) Telefax: 23388345 Encl.: as above Ministry of Environment & Forests (Shri Ajay Tyagi, Joint Secretary) Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003 Copy to:
Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Member(Science) - w. r. t. DO no. 1-4/2012-RE, dated 19.2.2013 Planning Commission Yojana Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001
l\
1/
'b
;;1 /'-1
\
COMMENTS OF MINISTRY OF MINES
1. Eco-sensitive zone is an area around protected areas , such as national parks, wild life sanctuaries etc., which acts as a shock absorber. The area acts as a transition zone from high protection areas to areas involving lesser protection. Many of the existing protected areas have already undergone tremendous development in close vicinity to their boundaries, therefore , the extent of eco-sensitive zone around protected area has been kept flexible and confined to specifics of the protected area in question . 2. The thrust of the Report is on protection of ecologically fragile and sensitive zones of the environment. An omnibus ban on mining activity in the ecologically sensitive zones of the WG may not be appropriate. Even the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) admitted in the Report that there are still serious lacunae in the methodology for determining ecological sensitive zones (ESZs). In particular, their 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 their 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 (page 9 of the Executive Summary of the Report). Therefore, there is a need to re-Iook the defin ition of what constitutes an 'ecolog ically sensitive zone', to identify areas/zones which are in imminent danger to the flora/fauna. Once such areas are identified , we may ban all kinds of economic activities in the most ecological sens itive areas. 3. The requirement of economic development should be considered while formulating a policy for Western Ghat. With the advancements in technology and scientific management in mining, there is ample possibility to limit the adverse environmental impacts to acceptable levels. There are many environmental-friendly technologies available such as the use of ripper/ dozers or "surface miners" which obviates the need for blasting. In certain deposits , underground mining is an option in
which ' case environmental impacts are much less than in open-cast mining . Therefore, it is possible to embark on sustainable mining which would be safe and with least impact to the environment. There is definitely a scope for allowing such ecologically sustainable mining in the WG . 4. Of the 134 Talukas in 44 districts falling in Western Ghats, 83 talukas (62%) have been identified as falling in ESZ -1. To suggest a complete ban on mining activities in ESZ-1 needs to be understood from the perspective of the potential adverse impact on the economy. 5. Bauxite, Iron ore, Manganese and Gold are major minerals found in the Western Ghats. The other minerals found are lime s.one, chromite , china clay, laterite , fireclay etc. As on 1.4.2010 , mineral reserves of Iron ore, Bauxite and Manganese in the Western Ghats area are 7312 million tonnes, 86.8 million tonnes and 24.08 million tonnes respectively. A sizeable area of Western Ghats falls into Obviously Geologically Potential (OGP) area from minerals availability point of view, which was identified by GSI. GSI is undertaking geophysical and geochemical mapping of OGP area which may further lead to enhancement in the mineral resources in the Western Ghats . Therefore , exploration of mineral resources in the Western Ghats by GSI and MECL may be permitted irrespective of the area falling in any category. 6. Digging of minor minerals such as earth , sand , gravel etc. for construction or repair of own houses shall not be prohibited in any category of Ecological Sensitive Zone. 7. Specific Comments on recommendations with respect to each category of Ecological Sensitive Zone 1. WGEEP recommendations on ESZ-1 (i) No new licenses to be given for mining . (ii) Where mining exists , it should be phased out in 5 years , by 2016. (iii) Detailed plans for environmental and social rehabilitation of mines which are to be closed .
(iv) Illegal mining to be stopped immediately. Comments of the Ministry (i) In order to ensure that mining is undertaken in a responsible manner, new mining leases for minerals of national importance i.e . minerals contributing significantly to the economy of the country directly / indirectly such as iron ore , bauxite etc. [Minerals in part '<;' of First Schedule to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Act, 1957] and 'rare minerals' and 'atomic minerals' should be earth permitted/granted only to Central/State PSUs with 100% [ ': Government equity subject to the following stringent conditions: 1. Undertake underground mining to the extent possible . 2. Sustainable Development Mining which , inter-alia, includes: a. Incorporating Environmental and Social Sensitivities in mining operations; b. Managing adverse environmental impacts by following international best practices to minimize any adverse impact on environment such as ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems; c. Addressing Land, Resettlement and Other Social Impacts appropriately; d. Community engagement and contribution to socioeconomic development of surrounding areas ; and e. Scientifically Mine Closure and Post Closure; 3. Environmental Auditing as enumerated in ISO 14010, 14011 , 14012 on regular basis by an agency of repute. (ii) In respect of existing private sector working mining leases, mining should be allowed for maximum 5 years to continue till the known mineral reserve is exhausted . Existing lease area may be explored within one year to know available reserves . (iii) We may agree with recommendation . (iv) Yes , illegal mining shall not be allowed under any circumstance.
2. WGEEP recommendations on ESZ-2
(i) No new mining licenses will be granted . This moratorium can be reviewed on a case by case basis. (ii) Existing mining to adopt good practice mining and be under strict regulation and social audit. (iii) Detailed plans for environmental and social rehabilitation of mines to be closed. (iv) Illegal mining to be stopped immediately. Comments of the Ministry (i) Renewals or grant of new mining leases for mineral of national importance i.e. minerals specified in Part 'C;' of the First Schedule to the MMDR Act, 1957 and 'rare earth minerals' and 'atomic minerals' should be permitted subject to all conditions as mentioned above in the case of ESZ - 1. (ii) We may agree with recommendation. (iii) We may agree with recommendation. (iv) Yes, illegal mining shall not be allowed under any circumstance .
3. WGEEP recommendations on ESZ-3

(i) New mining may be taken up only for scarce minerals not available on the plains and should be under strict regulation and social audit, subject to free prior informed consent of tribal and other communities and in recognition of tribal rights. (ii) Existing mining to adopt good practice mining and be under strict regulation and social audit. (iii) Illegal mining to be stopped immediately. Comments of the Ministry (i) Renewals or new mining leases should be granted for all minerals subject to strict regulation and engaging community as mentioned above in the case of ESZ - 1. (ii) We may agree with recommendation. (iii) Yes, illegal mining shall not be allowed under any circumstance.
Most Immediate
No. 27/1/2012-H_1I
'Jfffif ~
Government of India
~ +1311<>14
Ministry of Power Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi _ 110001 Telephone No. 2371 5507; Fax No. 2371 7519 Dated: 07.09.2012
Office Memorandum
Subject: Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel Report- regarding . The undersigned is directed to refer to D.O. No. 1/112010-RE(ESZ) dated "V-31.08.2012 received from Shri K. Kasturirangan, Member, Planning Commission, I & Chairman of the High Level Working Group to examine the reports of WGEEP. In this connection, it is informed that the report submitted by WGEEPs was ~ examined by this Ministry in consultation with the Central Electricity Authority, a technical body under this Ministry. The comments of the CEA is enclosed at Annex-I. The CEA also referred the mailer to WAPCOS to furnish its comments on environmental aspects. The comment of WAPCOS has also been enclosed at Annex-II. As desired, the comments of both CEA & WAPCOS are forwarded herewith for further necessary action at your end.
Ene.: As above.
~'Jt..
'
-\--
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India

/'
(AI:
:~:';-1--'
Tel.: 23714169
Email: [email protected]
Ministry of Environment and Forest [Kind Attn: Sh. Ajay Tyagi, JS(MoEF) Member Convenor, HLWG on WGEEPl Paryavaran Bhawan CGO Complex, Lodi Road New Delhi-11 0 003
Background Note on Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel Report

The MoEF constituted Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) under the Chairmanship of Prof. Madhav Gadgil to, interalia, (i) demarcate ecologically sensitive areas in Western Ghats, (ii) recommend measures for management of these ecologically sensitive areas, (iii) recommend measures for preservation, conservation and rejuvenation of this environmentally sensitive and ecologically significant region and (iv) recommend modalities for the establishment of Western Ghat Ecology Authority under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. A report was prepared by Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) and was submitted to MoEF recommending broad sectoral guidelines for different ecosensitive zones in Western Ghats region. These guidelines covers important sectors such as agriculture, land use, mining, industry, tourism, water resources, power, roads and railways. Further, the WGEEP report also explicitly mentions about implementation of provisions of Forest Rights Act, 2006. The MoEF solicited the comments of Ministry of Power on the report of WGEEP. MoP forwarded the report of Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) for examination of comments of CEA. The report was examined in CEA and it was seen that WGEEP has given the following recommendations for Power/Energy Sector:
A. General Recommendations for PowerlEnergy Sector given in para 13:

1. Educate the energy consumer about the environmental and social impacts of energy production and for reducing" luxury" demand. 2. Encourage demand side management enhanced energy efficiency across sector. 3. Launch "smart" campaigns as key components of demand side management focusing on smart grids, smart buildings, smart power logistics and smart motors. 4. Promote decentralized electricity, use of solar power. 5. No diversion of streams / rivers allowed for any power projects and if already existing to be stopped immediately. 6. Catchment area treatment in a phased manner following watershed principles; continuous non-compliance of clearance condition for there years would entai l decommissioning of exiting project. 7. Dams and thermal projects that have crossed their viable life span (for dams the threshold is 30-50 years) to be decommissioning in phased manner. 8. All project categories to be jointly operated by LSGs by and power boards with strict monitoring for complication under DECs.
B. Recommendations for Thermal and Hydro Projects including other modes of Energy Generation in three Ecological Zones namely ESZ1,ESZ2 and ESZ3 given in para 13
WGEEP has given some recommendations in respect of Ecologically Sensitive Zone-l (ESZl), ESZ2 and ESZ3 which inter-alia denotes (1) Regions of highest sensitivity or
Ecologically Sensitive Zone (ESZl), (2)Regions of high sensitivity or ESZ2, and the (3) Regions of moderate sensitivity or ESZ3. ESZl: i) Allow run of the river schemes with maximum height of 3 m permissible which would serve local energy needs of tribal/local communities/plantation colonies subject to consent of gram sabha and all clearances from WGEA,SEA and DECs. ii) No forest clearance or stream diversion for new projects. iii) Run of the river schemes not allowed in first order or second order streams. iv) Promote small scale, micro and pico hydropower systems, that are people owned & managed and are off grid. v) New small hydropower projects (10 MW and below) are permissible. vi) No new thermal power plants. vii) Strict environmental regulation of existing thermal power plants. viii)Existing thermal plants to actively promote alternate uses of fly ash - such as in road making in addition to the existing practice of manufacture of fly ash bri~s . ix) No large scale wind power projects. x) Promote biomass based/solar sources for decentralized energy needs. ESZ2: i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) vii) Small bandharas permissible for local and tribal community use/local self government use. No new dams above 15 m or new thermal plants permissible. New hydro projects between 10-25 MW (up to 10m ht) permissible. All project categories subject to very strict clearance and compliance conditions through SEA and DECs of WGEA. Have run off the river hydropower projects but after cumulative impact study of the river basin is done. Regulated wind power projects but after cumulative environmental impact assessment (CEIA). Zero pollution to be required of existing Thermal Power Plants.
ESZ3: Large Power plants are allowed subject to strict environmental regulations including<t cumulative impact assessment studies carrying capacity studies minimum forest clearance (norms to be set by WGEA) based on assessment of flows required for downstream needs including the ecological needs of the river. ii) Exiting power plants subjects to strict regulation and social audit. iii) Zero pollution to be required for new thermal power plants. iv) Wind projects only after CEIA.
i)
v) For already exiting dams reservoir operations to be rescheduled for allowing more water downstream.
C. Recommendations for Athirappilly HEP and Gundia HEPgiven in para 15
Recommendations given by WGEEP in regard to Athirapally HEP

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.
Recommendations given by WGEEP in regard to Gundia HEP

1. The execution of the Gundia project in three stages and two phases will cause large scale land cover changes in this basin. The impacts on the habitat and biodiversity would come not only from submergence but also associated activity in<t\uding building constructions as well as roads to access the various project sites. 2. The project would alter the hydrological regime of the river basin. Kumaradhara River, a perennial source of water to the important temple-township at Subramanya, will lose water due to its diversion to the Bettakumari dam. This may have implications for the pilgrims visiting the temple. The implications of land cover changes on the catchment yield as well as diversion of waters as envisaged in the project are not clear. Current perennial streams could become seasonal (as has happened in the Sharavathi river basin), while the altered hydrology downstream . could affect livelihoods of local people. 3. The tunnel access to the main underground power house is located in an area of primary forest cover. This location is not desirable as it would cause disturbance to one of the few remaining patches of primary evergreen forests ofthe Gundia basin. 4. The proposed Gundia hydro electric project falls in an area that has been classified as Ecologically Sensitive Zone I by the WGEEP. WGEEP recommends that no large storage dams be permitted in ESZI. 5. The recommendation of the WGEEP is therefore not to permit the execution of the Gundia HE Project (in three stages and two phases) as the loss of biodiversity and environmental impacts would be significant.
Comments of CEA Thermal Projects:

The recommendations on thermal power as contained in para 13 of the report of WGEEP have been examined. As per these recommendations, no new thermal power plant may be permitted in ESZI and ESZ2. From Appendix II it is seen that talukas in Uttar Kannada district of Karnataka consisting of Honavar and Ankola have been assigned to ESZl and taluka Kumta has been assigned to ESZ2. In this regard it may be mentioned that Central Mines Planning and Design Institute Ltd (CMPDI), Ranchi has carried out a study on behalf of CEA for identification of potential sites for thermal power stations in the coastal zone of the state of Karnataka based on remote sensing data. CMPDI in their
report has identified potential sites for thermal power projects in the above mentioned three talukas namely Honavar, Ankola and Kumta. The sites have been identified taking into account the availability of land, sea water, infrastructure facilities, R&R issues and environmental aspects. In this regard, it may be mentioned that earlier many sites have been explored in Karnataka but no suitable sites could be finalized so far for the ultra mega power project (UMPP) in Karnataka. A team of officers from CEAI CMPDI and the state government agencies including state pollution control board propose to visit these sites identified by CMPDI to select one suitable site for the UMPP in Karnataka. It is suggested that WGEEP may review the recommendations in regard to location of thermal power plants in regard to the above mentioned talukas.
Hvdro Projects:
The recommendations on Hydro Projects as contained in para 13 of the report of WGEEP indicates that in ESZ 1, Run of the river schemes are not allowed in first order or second order streams and only New small hydropower projects (10 MW and belowRun of the River schemes with maximum height of 3 m ) are permissible while in ESZ2, New hydro projects between 10-25 MW (up to 10m ht) permissible. In ESZ3, Large Power plants are allowed subject to strict environmental regulations inc1uding cumulative impact assessment studies carrying capacity studies minimum forest clearance (norms to be set by WGEA) based on assessment of flows required for downstream needs including the ecological needs of the river.
In this connection" it is to mention that the first order and second order streams are not defined in the report and the categorization of ESZ 1,ESZ2 and ESZ3 have been done taluka- wise. No information is a'.'ailable in CEA regarding the schemes likely to be affected in these talukas. The information regarding the number of projects in the proposed ESZ at taluka level may be available in the respective States. Therefore, it is suggested that comments from the respective states in Western Ghat area may be obtained. Based on the information available in CEA , one hydro scheme namely Kundah Pumped storage scheme in Nilgiris district of TamilNadu ,whose DPR was returned by CEA in December'2007 is falling under the ESZ area. However, the same needs to be confirmed from respective State Govt. The Recommendation that Dams and Thermal projects that have crossed their viable life span (for dams the threshold is 30-50 years) should be decommissioned in phased manner, is worth considering. The Recommendation that there should be no diversion of streams I rivers for any power projects and if already existing tv be stopped immediately will hamper the hydro development in the country. Therefore, it is suggested that instead of putting a blanket ban, the merits and demerits of individual project may be examined and the decision should be taken on case to case basis. If considered necessary, environmental flows could be stipulated to maintain downstream environment instead of putting a blanket ban.
Status of Athirapilly Hydro Electric Project

Concurrence to Athirapilly Hydro Electric Project located in Kerala by Kerala State Electricity Board was accorded by CEA vide letter dated on 31.03.2005 with an installed capacity of (2x80 + 2x 1.5 = 163 MW) at an estimated cost of Rs. 385.6 crores at 2004-05 price level. Athi rapilly HEP envisages construction of a 23m high & 311 m long concrete gravity dam, a 210m long power tunnel intake, a 4690m long & 6.4m dia. power tunnel, a 57m hi gh & 20m dia. surge tank, a 102 m high & 6.4m dia. vertical pressure shaft, 464m long & 6.4m dia. high pressure RCC tunnel, 202m long & 5m dia. steel lined tunnel, 50m long & 3.4m dia 2 penstocks, a 2x80 MW main surface power house with vertical Francis Turbine, 59m long & 2.6m dia. penstock pipe for dam toe power house bifurcating into 2 nos. 1.96m dia each and a 2x 1.5 MW dam toe power house with tubular turbines to utilize the water release for maintaining the Athirapilly water falls. The combined annual energy generation of the project in 90% dependable year with 95 % machine availability IS 234.33 MU (226.24 MU from main power house and 8.09 ~U for Dam Toe Power house) with operating net design heads of 147.5m at main PH and 19.5 m at dam toe PH. MOEF have earlier accorded environmental clearance during July'2007 but subsequently issued notice to KSEB on issues regarding effect on Tribals and Biodiversity. The matter is under correspondence between MOEF and KSEB.
Status of Gundia Hydro Electric Project

Concurrence to Gundia Hydro Electric Proj.ect ?hase-I located in Karnataka by Mis Karnataka Power Corporation Limited was accorded by CEA vide letter dated on 25.04.2008 with an installed capacity I)f (1 x200 = 200 MW) at an estimated cost of Rs. 1119.56 crores at November, 2007 price level. Gundia HEP envisages construction of 15m high Yettina hole weir, 13m high Kerohole weir, 87m high Hongadhalla storage dam, 36m high Hongadhalla weir, 62m high Bettakumari dam, 4237m long & 5m dia. & 4895m long 5.5m dia. inter-connecting tunnels between Yettihole weir & Bettakumari clam Reach-l & Reach-2 respectively, 365m long cut & cover reach, 8060m long & 6.5m dia. head race tunnel, 122m high & 10m dia. surge shElft, nOm long & 4.25m dia. pressure shaft, 83m long (37m for phase-! + 46m for Phase-2) &. 3.2m dia. steel lined penstock, and 1 x 200 MW underground power house with Pelton turbine. Annual energy generation of the project in 90% dependable year with 95 % machine availability is 613 MU with operating net design head 600m.
Comments on Athirapilly and Gundia HEP

It has been mentionec that location of Athirapilly !-IEP and Gundia HEP falls in ESZl area. These two hydro electric projects are in advanced stage of development. Stopping these projects would further hamper the development of Hydro Power. It is suggested that decision on these projects may be reviewed and comments of concerned state Government may also be obtained.
ents on Environment Aspects
omments of WAPCOS on Environment aspects of the report have been solicited as has no expertise in assessing Environmenta:I Impact of the recommendations made - - e report of WGEEP.
Comments on Report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel-Hydropower related aspects The report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel has been reviewed. The outcome of the Report includes a set of recommendations for sustainable Development of the Region. On pages 16 to 19, section 9 of Volume-I, Report has recommended categorization of Western Ghats as below: ESZ1 : Region of highest sensitivity or ecologically sensitive zone ESZ2 : Region of high sensitivity ESZ3: Region of moderate sensitivity. The above categorization is recommended in addition to already declared protected areas, under regulations prescribed by various acts. The WGEEP has prepared maps covering the entire Western Ghats Region depicting Protected Areas, ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3. The report also confirms (Page 18 of Volume-I) that there still are serious lacunae w.r.t. data used for categorization of Ecologically Sensitive Areas. The database used to classify various categories of ecological sensitivity is weak in terms of habitat continuity, information on streams, river and other wetlands, as well as groundwater. However, on pages 45 and 46, the report gives recommendation for hydropower development. Without studying the river in details in terms of water availability, water quality and aquatic ecology, recommendations need not be made about hydropower development, as there is no basis for such recommendations. The recommendations given too are sweeping in nature, without considering the ground realities which can be attributed to absence of adequate studies. The response to various recommendations are given in Tables 1 to 3. Table-1 : Response to recommendations given for hydropower development for ESZ1 Category (Region of highest sensitivity or ecologically sensitive zonet Response Comment S.No. Allow run of the river schemes Basis of allowing maximum height of 3 m not 1. with maximum height 3 m clear. permissible which would serve to Correlation of project capacity with respect to meet local energy needs subject water availability after considering quantum to consent of gram sabha and all of water to be diverted in various seasons clearance for WGEA, SEA and needs to be made. This would have sufficient DECs Environmental Flows for sustenance of downstream water requirements. 0 This condition needs to be reviewed. No forest clearance on stream Contradictory to first recommendation. If 2. power project with dam height upto 3 m diversion for new projects requires forest clearance, then will the project be scrapped. e This condition needs to be reviewed..
2
I S.No.
4"
Comment Runoff the river schemes not allowed in first order or record order streams Promote small scale, micro and pico hydropower systems that are people owned and managed and are off grid
Response Accepted, as it is necessary for sustenance of riverine ecology including fish movement
5.
This concept is very good, but without state intervention, there will be difficulty in implementation of Environmental management Plan and Monitoring Programme. There will be a tendency to generate maximum energy, which will affect the release of adequate quantity of Environmental Flows. The implementation mechanism of this condition needs to be reviewed. New Small hydropower project (10 8 Basis of arriving capacity of 10MW is not MW and below are permissible clear. .. Contradictory to recommendations no. 1 and 2 If such projects require dam height greater than 3 m or need forest land acquisition, then these projects will have to be scrapped as per ['ssommendations given at S.No. 1 and
I:
2.
Limit on capacity of project be excluded Environmental Clearance to be taken as per the guidelines of EIA notification of September 14, 2006 and its subsequent amendments. Forestry Clearance as per the existing Fares'::y cleai ance norms I j - This condition needs to be reviewed.. -
Table-2: Response to recommendations given f.::,r hydropower development for ESZ2 Category (R' T't) Ig h SensllvnYJ eglon 0 f H' Resp,of1:se Comment S.No. Bandharas Permissible for Small 1. Sasis for sush a recommendation not given use/local " -:his rec.:Jmmendation needs to be excluded local/tribal/community self government use. Projects with strict clearance and compliance conditions be allowed. Environmental Clearance to be taken as per tile gJidelines of EIA notification of I September 14, 2006 and its subsequent 3',"it;,.dri'lents. i , .., I:: 0 n3stry Clearance as per the existing Forestry clearance norms recommendation needs to be Th:i~ reviewed. Basis for restriction of dam height to 15 m No new dams above 15 m 2. 1",0t giv, en permissible i lit This recommendation needs to be
I'
I'
S.No.
Comment
3.
Response reviewed. e Projects with strict clearance and compliance conditions be allowed. \') Environmental Clearance to be taken as per the guidelines of EIA notification of September 14, 2006 and its subsequent amendments. i J Forestry Clearance as per the existing F(Jn~stf\; clearance norms New hydropower projects between Basis for selection of dam height 10m is 10-25 MW upto 10m height CCi":tl"adictory to recommendation at S.No. 2, permissible as it allows dam upto 15 m height TfJis recommendation needs to be rf:'lI'l'ewed. III Basis 'for restriction to project capacity be~~'ieen 10-25 MW not given ~ l':~uj8ctS with strict clearance and compliance C0;',tiitions be allowed. Env!rc..r,mental Clearance to be taken as per tha gu:delines of EIA notification of St;~t-3mb3r 14, 2006 and its subsequent
a:r:(m::!n~ents.
<..l
[=O(0stry Clearance as per the existing ~"0:8SVy clearance norms 4. All project categories subj8ct to ,\CC;e ph3.d but it is contradictory to very strict clearance and I"ec.:':),fi'", lcndation No. 3, which limits the compliance conditions through calj{;t~it)1 d 11yc:ropower projects to 10-25 MW. SEA and DECs of WGEA . 5. Have run off the river hydropower Acu.:pt'2d, ~ " !owe\Jer, basi n study needs to be projects but after cumulative dOl';::; [~IJ' government institutes, research impact status of the river basin is ins}J',Vl:::" PSUs, who have experience in done COLC '~A : ;:: 'lG such studies. The TORs for such stulL " ;: ca:1 be formulated by WGEA in COI\'2,; ~t:.t:c,r: Nith Expert Appraisal Committee for Ri'. l7" \laIlE!Y Projects of MoEF. The study shcL:ld be done by one or more agencies and thE S~ ;dy Te8m should comprise of Experts I n ar ~?"y Ec,)Iogists, Forestry Expert, Fisheries L -_ _ _ _ _ _L -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ Ex;: "'i': Pvdroioaist, Environmental Engineers.
I '
--L
Table-3 : Response to recommendations given for hydropower development for ES 23 Category(Region of Moderate Sensitivity) S.No. Comment Response 1 Power plants are allowed subject Accepted and power projects should be allowed to strict environmental regulations based on a Basin study which should assess including the power potential of the basin. The study shall a) Cumulative Impact Assessment assess the number of projects that can be Studies allowed and for the identified' projects a b) Carrying capacity study CUi t1l1L~tiVI~: Impact Assessment study be done. 3a::in r.t.l':ly needs to be done by government instit~ltes ; research institutions, PSUs, who ha'/s e)~perience in conducting such studies. The T~Rs fc r such studies can be formulated by \II:GEA in consultation with Expert Appraisal COrY'lmi"ttee for River Valley Projects of MoEF. The S~~!rly should be done by onti or more agc:rcies and the Study Team should comprise I)f ~,(p:lrtf, namely Ecologists, Forestry Expert, l::is:--er:As Expert, Hydrologist, Environmental
:::n1~!1f:?rs .
c) Minimum forest clearance (norms to be set by WGEA)
dearance should be as per rorms of Ministry of Environment & I Forest". ,L\dditional norms can be suggested by , WGEA CC': be reviewed by MoEF and if : requ;~?-:I can be addressed during the course I of F~":>::'~ry Clearance.
e)~1:t;n~
Thp
f;::ir.:s~ry
2.
d) based on assessment of flows requires for downstream needs including (~cological needs of the river. Existing power plants subject to strict regulation and social audit
I AccelJted.
:
I
. I /\c("-:~ieci i
Conclusions and Recommendations Scientific basis for recommendations of norr;1slJ~dE,!i nes have not been given. As accepted in the report, the detailed data base on rivers, streams, etc. is not available. In view of this the recommendaticln seem
t, ,) ::":' ~I bitrary
:n nature.
The recommendations for projects in varicu$ categories of Ecological Sensitivity have been recommended on similar lines of cateori?s (Category -A, Category-B, CategoryC) given in EIA notification of September 14 . 2006.
No scientific basis for limit on
project sizes on various categories has ben given.
Various projects should be reviewed under existing Environmental and Forestry Clearance processes of Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). WGEA can suggest various measures for improvement of the process, which if applicable, can be addressed during the clearance process.
Projects with adequate Environmental Measures including clear free flow of river stretch and Environmental Flows be allowed after taking clearance from Forest Department or SEIAA or EAC of MoEF as per the EIA notification of September 14,2006.
Basin study should be conducted for each river basin in the Western Ghats Region. The basin study shall cover the following aspects:
Modification in hydrologic regime due to diversion of water for hydropower generation. Depth of water available in river stretches during lean season, and its assessment of its adequacy vis-a-vis various fish species.
Length of river stretches with normal flow due to commissioning of various hydroelectric projects due to diversion of flow for hydropower generation.
Impacts on discharge in river stretches during monsoon and lean seasons due to diversion of flow for hydropower generation.
Impacts on water users in terms of water availability and quality Impacts on aquatic ecology including riverine f1sheries as a result of diversion of flow for hydropower generation.
Assessment of maintaining minimum reieases of water during lean season to sustain riverine ecology, maintain wate( quality ar.d 'Tleet water requirements of downstream users.
~ ~
~
Impacts due to loss of forests Impacts on rare, endangered and

threatel1ed :;p,~cies
Impacts on economically important plant species Impacts due to increased human interferences
The key outcomes of the Basin study shall be to :arovide sustainable and optimal ways of hydropower development in the basin, keeping in vieVv of the environmental setting of the basin.
No. S-14017/112012-DDP Government of India Ministry of Rural Development Department of Land Resources (DDP Section) Block 11, 6th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Dated 17th September, 2012 Office Memorandum Subject: Comments on the Report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) constituted by the Ministry of Environment & Forests under the Chairmanship of Prof. Madhav Gadgil.
The undersigned is directed to refer to Shri Kasturirangan, Member, Planning Commission's D.O. letter No. 1I112010-RE (ESZ) dated 31.08.2012 on the subject noted above and to state that the Report of WGEEP has suggested proposed guidelines/ Summary Recommendations for Sector-wise activities for Ecologically Sensitive Zone (ES.rI), ESZ2 & ESZ3. The Department of Land Resources has been implementing three major area based programmes namely, Drought Prone Areas Programme (DPAP), Desert Development Programme (DDP) and Integrated Wastelands Development Programme (IWDP) on watershed approach since 1995-96. All the three programmes have been integrated and consolidated into a single modified programme called Integrated Watershed Management Programme (IWMP) with effect from 26.02.2009. Under IWMP, watershed projects are implemented on rain-fed/ degraded lands in the country. The major activities of the scheme are ridge area treatment, drainage line treatment, soil and moisture conservation, rainwater harvesting, nursery raising, afforestation, horticulture, pasture development etc. As the proposed recommendations contained in the Report of WGEEP are not clashing with Watershed Management Programme, the Department of Land Resources has no objection to the demarcation of Western Ghats into Ecologically Sensitivity Zones and guidelines for preservations of the biological diversity of the area.
Shri Ajay Tyagi, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Room No. 417, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
Manu Goe\ Executive Director/Heritage
~ ~, (tWt GlW) ~ ~-ii0001

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (RAILWAY BOARD) NEW DELHI-110 001
New Delhi, dated 4-10-2012
~~
No. 2012fHeritage/Western Ghats Dear Shri Tyagi,
Kindly refer to Shri K. Kasturirangan, Member, Planning Commission's letter No. 1f1f2010-RE(ESZ) dated 31.8.2012, addressed io Shri VinayReport. Mittal, Chairman, Railway Board, calling Ministry of Railway's comments on the Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP)
This Ministry fully shares the need for strict regulations and social audits before permitting new development in the Economic Sensitive Zone I, II & III. At the same time, this Ministry would also like to emphasize on the need for infrastructural development in the country and the role of the Railways as a vilal and indispensable instrument for such a development. With regard to the specific Raitway projects mentioned in the Report, the views of the Ministry are as under:A total of five rail prOjects are listed in the Report. Out of these, the following three projects have been sanctioned. These new rai/way lines are considered essential for the development of the region due to the following reasons:_ .. HublioAnkola NL(167 kms) - Hubli is an existing In. station on Hospet-Dharwad SL section. Ankola is an existing station on Karvvar-Udupi section. This will provide an alternate route to and from Konkan Railway and for Karwar port The ivlarmagao port is getting saturated and this project will facilitate movement of freight trains via alternate route. BangaloreoSatyamangalarnoMettypalayam - Bangalore is an eXisting station on Mysore-Yashwantpur section of South Western Railway. Mettupalayam is an existing station on IJr.-1e ,,'t1CiIDTl or 'Southern Railway. There is NarrnIY. G.:al.'.?JC 'iri'le CiI'Cili<JDle 'oetween Mettupalayam to Udagamandalam. Presently, Satyamangalarn is not on rail head. This will provide an alternate route from Bangalore to Down South and it will be utilized for passenger traffic. There is a steady growth of 6% passenger traffic in the last"one year and the trend is likely to continue during the XII & XIII Plan periods also because overnight and interCity travel will be the main stay for the passenger traffic for Railways.
'"
Coimbatore-Mettuf;lala~iIDJ. Sjt:>~~
SabrimalaoAngamali - Angamali is an existing station on Ernakulam-Shoranur Double Line section of Southern Railway. Presently, Sabrimala is not connected with rail head. This will cater to passenger traffic and also serve for pilgrimage purpose It is seen from the trend in the past that the pilgrimage traffic to all destinations in the country is going up steadily and there is constant demand for new trains and new connectivity for the pilgrimage places. The Mysore - Kannur and Talguppa-Honnavar lines are not yet Surveyed; hence no comments can be ,offered at this stage. Further, it is recommended that Ministry of Railways should also be represented in the proposed SUb-Committee on the transport sector under the Western qhat Ecology Authority so that exchange of information on Railway related prOjects can be ensured. With regards,
~
.
Shri Ajay Tyagi Joint Secretary Ministry of Environment & Forest Room No. 517, 41h Floor CGO Complex, Lodhi Road New Delhi -110003.
Yours ~nCereIY,
. /
OL~,\<J
(Manu Goel )
,~'Y
No. 12(13)/2012-RM-1 3lRC1 'fHCOhI{ Government of India

$'fQld d1:;lI(4l1
Ministry of Steel
~~,~~ Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi faGiiCOh / Date: 26.04.2012

OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) - regarding.
The undersigned is directed to refer to Ministry of Environment and Forest D.O. letter No.1I1/2010-RE-ESZ dated 4th January 2012 and to furnish the comments/ views of Ministry of Steel on the Report ofWGEEP as under: (i) For equitable growth of any region, economic development and environmental protection should go side by side. Due attention should be given to the integration of economic, trade, and environmental strategies so that they supplement and strengthen each other. Therefore, a sustainable and integrated approach may be adopted for the whole of the western region with due consideration to the economic and industrial development of the region, along with the environmental protection. It, however, appears that the recommendations of WGEEP regarding moratorium on mmmg activities and recommendations regarding industrial and infrastructural projects (including railway lines and roads) may have negative impact on the industrial growth of the region, as these stringent provisions may not only drift away the industries from the demarcated zones, but may also adversely affect development of requisite infrastructure in the region. (ii) It is agreed that the Western Ghats are rich in biological resources and are ecologically sensitive areas. However, while due priority needs to be given to their rich ecological heritage, this objective should not be achieved by closure or keeping moratorium on the economic activities but by maintaining a healthy balance between growth and ecological preservation. This Ministry is of the view that while taking measures for ecological safeguards, for ensuring industrial and economic development of the region industries may be allowed within the carrying capacity of the region! area, with suitable safeguards and measures for preservation of ecology, flora and fauna. (iii) Iron and Steel sector is one of the most important infrastructural sectors of the country, contributing significantly to overall economic growth and development of the nation. Iron and Steel Industry, which is a critical infrastructure for the country's growth, depends on the mining industry for fulfilling the requirement of various raw materials, including iron ore. -contd-
\()
~~ !A,qf'
~~\t" ~
/ rf\/
(Agtv".
-2-
(iv) Most of the magnetite iron ore resources in India (about 8 billion tonnes out of total about 28 billion tonnes of iron ore resources of the country) are located in the Western Ghats. Closure or moratorium on mining activities in this region would result in non-availability of this precious resource for use by the iron and steel industry ofthe country. This may not be in long term interest of the domestic iron and steel industry. Natural resources are national assets and their judicious use in the development of the country is of critical importance. This Ministry is of the view that possibilities of exploration of magnetite resources located in Western Ghats needs to be explored through underground and scientific mining using modern technologies, so that the precious mineral resources of the country may be made available for larger national interest, while at the same time not damaging the ecology and environment in any manner. This aspect needs to be kept in consideration, while acting on the report of WGEEP. It could also be explored whether some mining by the Public Sector Undertaking, having reputation for scientific and sound mining practices, could be allowed for providing raw materials for the local industry within the carrying capacity of the region, without causing any environmental degradation. (v) The report suggests the formation of a Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA), a statutory authority which enjoys the powers under the Environment (protection) Act. As the Western Ghats is an extensive region spanning over six States, it is desirable that the WGEA functions in a coordinated fashion with six constituent State Western Ghats Ecology Authorities (SWGEA), appointed jointly by the State Governments and the Central Ministry of Environment and Forests, to avoid administrative delays in environmental clearances. If required, Central PSUs like KIOCL Ltd and NMDC Ltd., which have extensive experience of working in the region could also be considered to be associated with WGEA and SWGEA. 2. This issues with the approval of Secretary (Steel).
,).~ vo\v ~~"'/).1 \~\

(Sanjay Mangal) Director Tele: 2306 3770
~try
of Environment & Forest {Kind Attn: Dr. G. V. Subrahamanyam, Advisor (RE&NMNH)} Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
ASITGOPAl DIRECTOR Tele: 01123070508
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA \iF! \i11 d) ~ <PPf 1f:mc>m MINISTRY OFTRIBAL AFFAIRS
mffi ffi. ~ ~110001

SHASTRI BHAWAN , NEW DELHI-110001
Dated: 7.11 .2012 Dear ~I Kindly refer to your DO letter No.1-4/2012-RE dated 11 .10.2012, addressed to Secretary, Tribal Affairs seeking comments of this Ministry on the identified issues related to the recommendations of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel Report.
2. It is observed that the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) in its report has made a number of observations/ recommendations relating to implementation of Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, administered by this Ministry. The comments of the Ministry on the observations/ recommendations of the Panel are given in the Annexure.
With regards , Yours sincerely,
(As it Gopal)
~W
Encls.: As above. vShri Ajay Tyagi, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Room No.417, 4th Floor, Paryavaran Bhawan , CGO Complex, Lodi Road , New Delhi-11 0003
ANNEXURE
Comments of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs on the observations/ recommendations relating to Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 contained in the Report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP).
SI.No. Observationsl recommendations Comments of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs 1. In Box 9 : A summary of feedback ~ As per the provisions of the Forest Rights Act, of citizens in Mahableshwar the onus of implementation of the Act lies with Panchgani ESZ, it has been stated the State/ UT Governments. that citizens are not informed of and no attempt is made to ~ These observations/ recommendations may be implement Acts that would involve brought to the notice of the Government of them actively in conservation Maharashtra for taking necessary action. efforts, ego Biological Diversity Act, Protection of Plc:nts Varieties and >- Ministry of Triba! Affairs is taking . up task of Farmer's Rights Act and awareness building at State level. Ministry of Community Forest Resources, Panchayati Raj may need to build capacity of PR Forest Rights Act. representatives. It is further stated that Gram Sabhas in small forest hamlets should be especially made aware of provisions like Forest Rights Act. 2.
In para 13 of Part 1 of the Report, the WGEEP has proposed certain guidelines/ summary recommendations for sector-wise activities. For sector "Forestry: Government lands", the Panel has recommended that the Forest Rights Act be implemented in its true spirit by reaching out to people to facilitate their claims and the Community Forest Resource provisions under FRA should replace all current Joint Forest Management Programmes.
~
This Ministry agrees with the recommendation of the Panel that the Forest Rights Act should be implemented in its true spirit by reaching out to people to facilitate their claims. Action in this regard is, however, to be taken by the concerned State Governments. As regards the other recommendation that Community Forest Resource provisions under FRA should replace all current Joint Forest Management Programmes, it may be mentioned that section 2(a) of FRA defines the term "community forest resource", section 3(1 )(i) recognizes the right of the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers relating to protection, regeneration or conservation or management of any community forest resource, and section 5(e) empowers the forest rights holders to ensure that the decisions taken in the Gram Sabha to regulate access to community forest resources are complied with. These provisions relating to community forest
resources under FRA are different from the Joint Forest Management Programmes implemented by the Ministry of Environment & Forests.
~
The Ministry has recently notified the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Amendment Rules, 2012 on 6.9.2012, laying down a specific procedure for recognition of rights relating to community forest resources under the Act. In view of the Amendment Rules, 2012, the claims relating to community forest resources have to be recogn ized and vested as per the laid down procedure.
~ The Community Forest Resource Provisions
under FRA and the Rules framed thereunder do not envisage replacement of current Forest Management Programmes.
3.
In para 13 of the Report, for the sector "Forestry: private lands", the WGEEP has recommended for recognition of rights of all small scale, traditional private land holders under FRA.
The FRA envisages recognition and vesting of the forest rights in the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers on the "forest land", as defined in section 2(d) of the Act. The FRA does not envisage recognition of forest rights of small scale, traditional private land holders It is observed from the composition of the (WGEA) , State Western Ghats Authorities and District Ecological Committees (DEC) that no representation has been given to a representative of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs or the State Tribal Welfare Department in these authorities/ committees.
4.
In para 14.1 of the Report, the WGEEP has proposed constitution of an apex authority for the entire Western Ghats, to be known as the Western Ghats Ecological Authority (WGEA) along with State Western Ghats Authorities for each State and within them District Ecological Committees (DEC) for addressing the various environmental challenges of the Western Ghats. The composition and the functions of these authorities have also been specified .
It is suggesied that, while a representative of Ministry of Tribal Affairs of the level of Joint Secretary may also be included as an Official Member in the Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA), a representative of the State Tribal Welfare Department may be included in the State Western Ghats Authorities and District Ecological Committees (DEC) .
In para 15 of the Report, the WGEEP has proposed that environmental clearance should not be given to any large scale storage dams in ESZ1 and ESZ2. While recommending that MoEF should refuse environmental clearance to Athirappilly and Gundia Hydel projects, the WGEEP has noted that the process of proper assignment of rights has not been completed in either of these areas and it is, therefore, quite improper to accord Environmental or Forest Clearances to these two projects. While examining the impact of Athirappilly Project on the tribal population, the WGEEP has observed that although most of the tribal dwellings in the area will not be affected by the project, there habitats will certainly be seriously affected . Further, no action has been taken as per the statutory provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, under which there are special provisions to recognize "rights over community tenures of habitat and habitation for primitive tribal groups and preagricultural communities".
In view of the fact that the process of proper assignment of rights of the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers has not been completed in the Athirappilly and Gundia Hydel project areas, as per the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, this Ministry agrees with the recommendation of the WGEEP that environment clearances or forest clearances for these two projects should not be given . MoEF should ensure that the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 for recognition and 'lesting of the forest rights of the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, residing in these project areas, are complied with before any environment clearance or forest clearance is accorded .
6.
In para 16 of the report, while . examining the issue related to ' development of mining, power production and polluting industry in Rantagiri and Sindhudurg districts of Maharashtra, the WGEEP has observed that an important Act empowering people in hilly, forested tracts like Ratnagiri Sindhudurg - Goa is Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest
This Ministry agrees with the recommendations of the WGEEP in this para of the Report .
Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, but regrettably, the correct state of implementation of FRA is characterized by a series of serious problems. The WGEEP has suggested that a careful Cumulative Impact Analysis of various development activities in these tracts must be immediately undertaken, which should ensure that people's deep locality specific knowledge of environmental issues and their developmental aspirations are taken on board . To this end , the MoEF should ask the State Forest Department to ' proactively assist the Tribal Welfare Department in implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The implementation of the Community Forest Resources provisions of this Act would greatly help create broad based stakes for people in safeguarding the environment of this region.
7.
In para 17 of the report, while reviewing the current moratorium on fresh clearances for mining in Goa, the WGEEP has recommended an indefinite moratorium on new environmental clearances for mining in ESZ 1 and 2 in Goa and a phasing out of mining to 2016 in ESZ 1, as defined by the Panel. While examining the governance issues in Goa, the Panel has observed that the total failure to implement the community forest resources provisions of FRA in Goa has absolutely no justification. Citing a specific case of the Devapon
In view of the lack of progress by the State Government in implementing the community forest resources provisions of FRA. as observed by the Panel; the Ministry agrees with the recommendation of the WGEEP that sanction of the Devapon Dongar mine of Caurem village in Quepem taluka of Goa, located on a hill sacred to the Velips, against serious local opposition , and without compieting the implementation of FRA is thoroughly inexcusable. The MoEF should , however, investigate the matter as to how the environment clearance or forest clearance for the above-said Devapon Dongar mine was accorded without compliance with the provision of FRA and take remedial measures.
Dongar mine of Caurem village in Quepem taluka of Goa, located on a hill sacred to the Velips, a Scheduled Tribe group, the Panel has pointed out that to sanction a mine on this hill against serious local opposition, and without completing the implementation of FRA is thoroughly inexcusable.
8.
In para 2 of Part II of the Report, the WGEEP, while discussing the key sectors relating to Western Ghats, in respect of the sector "Forest and Bio-diversity", has inter-alia made a number of observations, such as, i) Many people have misgivings about people oriented Acts, especially, FRA; ii) It is imperative that we strive to implement not only the letter but also the spirit of pro-people legislations such as Joint Forest Management (JFM), PESA, Protection of Plan Variety and Farmers' Rights Act (PPVRFA), Biological Diversity Act (BOA) and Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA) ; iii) All JFM areas as well as forests under exclusive village management should be claimed by the community under Section 3(1 )(i) of FRA and managed as a community resource . To facilitate this process, the Forest Department should provide protection and technical support, and be responsible for ensuring compliance with sustainable use
This Ministry agrees with the recommendation of the WGEEP that the FRA needs to be implemented not only in letter but also in the spirit. Towards this end, the Ministry has recently issued comprehensive guidelines to the State! UT Governments on 12.7 . 2~12 and also notified the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Amendment Rules, 2012 on 6.9.2012 to ensure better implementation of the Act. As regards the recommendation of the WGEEP that all JFM areas as well as forests under exclusive village management should be claimed by the community under Section 3(1 )(i) of FRA and managed as a community resource, it may be stated that the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Amendment Rules, 2012, notified on 6.9.2012 lay down the procedure for claiming rights to community forest resource under Section 3(1 )(i) of the Act. However, if the Gram Sabha or the community is not keen to take over management of JFM forests under FRA, or management claims are not accf;pied under FRA, the Act and the Rules framed thereunder do not permit the State Government to take suo mota action to place JFMs under the Gram Sabha;
and conservation regulations. In case the Gram Sabha or community is not keen to take over management of JFM forests under FRA, or management claims are not accepted under FRA, the Government should take suo moto action to place JFMs under the Gram Sabha; iv) In addition to guaranteeing that FRA is implemented in letter and spirit, three inter-related issues need to be addressed for ensuring that forest dwellers' livelihoods are supported and enrished by NTFPs, namely, how to increase NTFP production, how to improve access of the poor to NTFPs, and how to maximize their income through marketing. The Panel has observed that FRA has yet to be implemented in its true spirit and the State Forest Department need to be alerted to the fact that implementation of this Act is needed for future for forestry governance.
9.
In para 3 of Part II of the Report, the WGEEP, while focusing on the issues of governance and proposing specific measures towards multi-centered governance in the Western Ghats has inter-alia discussed poor implementation of FRA and the reasons for the same ; and recommended that there is a need for a 2nd phase of FRA implementation in all States, in which primary focus is on Community Forest Rights (CFRt) . Progress with CFRt implementation needs to be monitored as a special exercise, as
The Ministry agrees with the recommendation of the WGEEP that there is a need for a 2nd phase of FRA implementation in all States, in which primary focus should be on community forest rights (CFRt) . The comprehensive guidelines issued by the Ministry on 12.7.2012 and the FR Amendment Rules, 2012 notified on 6.9.2012 also focus on recognition on community forest ' rights. As regards monitoring of the progress of CFRt implementation , it may be stated that the Amendment Rules, 2012 notified on 6.9.2012 already prescribe a format for furnishing a quarterly report by the State Governments on the process of recognition, verification and vesting of
part of the overall monitoring process by the National Forest Rights Council. A simple "how to" guide on CFRt needs to be produced by MoTA which can be adapted by State nodal agencies as appropriate, and issued in large numbers to communities and relevant officials .
forest rights , including community forest rights and details of Community Forest Resources being managed . The Ministry is, however, in the process of reviewing the current reporting and monitoring mechanism (including formats) on implementation of FRA and developing comprehensive Reporting Formats (for State, District and Sub-division level) by the State/ UT Governments for assessing the implementation of the Act in the light of the guidelines/ Amendment Rules notified by the Ministry.
~
A guide containing Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) is also being prepared, which after finalization will be printed for circulation to States for adaptation in regional languages.
***********
Government of India Ministry of Tourism
(NT Division)
C-I Hutments Dalhousie Road New Delhi - 110011. - e NO.5. NT(8)/2011 12th September, 2012
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
-- -of COP 11 from 17-19 October. 2012
-~-------
~-~
"
SUbject YFiAafiZ;tion of draft background notes for the High Level Segment \
st
,I
August, 2012 from Shri K. Kasturirangan, Member, Planning Commission, New Delhi addressed to Secretary, Ministry of Tourism requesting comments from Ministry of Tourism on the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) Report to the High Level Working Group constituted by Ministry of Environment and Forests. The comments from the Ministry of Tourism on the WGEEP Report were earlier communicated to Dr.G. V. Subrahmanyam, Advisor (RE & NMNH) vide letter No. 3.NT(3)/2012 dated ih August, 2012. The copy of the same is enclosed herewith.
~h~ [~L}
'''------- ------Reference D.O. Letter No.l/l/2010-RE(ESZ) dated 31
"
\Lf 'b\ ,~'f\.
_-
~- ?i.
~
Shri Ajar Tyagi \ \.)\ Joint Setretary Minist'>i of Environment and Forests Room ~0.417, 4th Floor CGO c;t>mplex, Lodhi Road New ~elhi - 110 003
i
(17j)
(S.K. Chakrabarj;yf Deputy Secretary (Niche Tourism)
~~_H"t,
Encl ~ As above. Copy for information to Shri K. Kasturirangan, Member, Planning Commission, New Delhi
C.
l-1IT<:'f mcflR
r.p:f0'l ~
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF TOURISM
(NICIIE TOURISM DIVISION)

C-I Hutmcnts, Dalhousie Road, New Delhi- 110011 Tclcfax: 23012641 dvenka(a)gmail.com
~>mail:
Date: 7.0& .20' 2
TIl
Dr. (i.V. Suhrahmanyam :\(1\ isor UU:. & Nrv1NII) f'.fi nistry of Em'ironment and Forests Paryavaran Bhavan
('(iO Compkx. Lodi Road ~C\\ Delhi -IIO{)())
Sir.
Sub:
\Vestl~rn
(;hats
Ecolog~'
Expert panel Report - reg.
Kindl: retCr tn DO letter No. 11l /2010-RE-ESZ or Secretary (E&F). dated 41h January. 20 12 ~lI1d ~ubscquen[ correspondences (Letter No. I 120 IO-RE (ESZ). dated 2 1'1 Fl.?bruary. 2012 & Letter No . J/l /2010-RE (ESZ). dated 1'1 \'fa~. 2012),
lhl' undersigned is directed to inform you that the recommendations made by the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel. are similar to the Ministry of Touri:sm ':) Sustainable lourism criteria approach. Th~ l'vt inistry agrees with the recommendations contained in the n:port. Whik mentioning lhat a special cell be constituted in lhe Western Ghats h.:ological Authority: ror considering tourism issues. the cdl may have a repn:sentaliYC of the tvtinistry of Tourism.
Yours raithfully.
V~,-4u-9 (D. Vrnkatesan) Assistant Director General
\ '
II )( Tt'{ 1,1 )Ir "Hila
O:\CCC\Misc. Files\A-11020-S1012-CCC.docx
NO.A-11020/5/2012-CCC Government of India Ministry of Urban Development (Carbon Credit Cell) 202-A, CoWing, Nir;man Bhawan New Delhi, dated ~"t)ctober, 2012 Office Memorandum Subject:Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel Report - regarding
The undersigned is directed to refer to Planning Commission's D.O . letter No.111/2010-RE(ESZ)- dated 31 .8.2012 on the subject cited above and to say that the Ministry recommends to accept the spirit of the recommendations of 'The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel Report' subject to the following changes in respect of enforcement arrangements: a) The Report moots creation of a Regional Authority for the entire Western Ghats, chaired by a retired Supreme Court Judge and State Level Authority chaired by a retired High Court Judge. The fixation with 'retired judges' in such bodies needs to be revisited . If a person has retired, he/she should, as a general practice, go away from public offices. Else, Govt. should consider extending the age of retirement. Rather than retired judges as chairpersons, the other option given in the report (i.e. eminent experts) can be adopted. b) Notwithstanding, as above, the concept of proliferatton of authorities need to be reviewed, as those are seriously undermining the authority of Constitutional authorities such as the Central and State Governments and the Municipalities, Panchayats, DPC and MPCs. the approach should be to make specific laws for such regulations and require the same to be enforced by the respective CC:1sti!utior.al authorities, subject to sUPeiVision by the respective legislative Committees in one hand and legal bodies (Courts) on the other.
(Veena Kumari Meena) Director (LSG) 223062425 TO / ,Janning Commission (Kind Attn.: Shri K. Kasturirangan, Member) Yojana Bhawan New Delhi-110001 Ministry of Environment & Forests (KindAttn.: ShriAjayTyagi, JS) . Room No.417, 4th Floor (VO -T e CGO Complex, Lodhi Road New Delhi-110003 (w.r.f. their D.O. NO.1-4/2012-RE d Z:!e~ 1 ~ . i 0.-, 2)
1).{)!'Vb
d)-
'\ -l1l~\ol;-~
II \10 P- }
E..

കസ്തൂരി രംഗന്‍ സമിതി സമര്‍പ്പിച്ച റിപ്പോര്‍ട്ട്- ഒന്നാം ഭാഗം

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

കസ്തൂരി രംഗന്‍ സമിതി സമര്‍പ്പിച്ച റിപ്പോര്‍ട്ട്- ഒന്നാം ഭാഗം

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

കസ്തൂരി രംഗന്‍ സമിതി സമര്‍പ്പിച്ച റിപ്പോര്‍ട്ട്- ഒന്നാം ഭാഗം

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPORT OF THE HIGH LEVEL WORKING GROUP ON WESTERN GHATS

Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India 15 April 2013

Status Chairman Member

List of participants is annexed. Leave of absence was given to Shri

At the outset, Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Chairman of the High Level

Drawing attention of the

Thereafter, the Chairman requested Dr. G.V. Subramaniam, Advisor,

MoEF and Ex-Member Secretary of WGEEP, to make a brief presentation

Dr. Subramaniam in his presentation highlighted the main features of

the report and brought out the recommendations relating to:

The Group felt that WGEEP report is a comprehensive report on the

Thereafter, the Group deliberated at length on the way forward and

implications of implementing the recommendations of WGEEP.

The dates for these presentations would be conveyed in due course.

4. MoEFs comments may also be obtained on the following with 10 days :

Consultations with other stakeholders

Technical and Legal inputs

Mining of minerals including riverbed mining impact assessment issues

In Chair Member Member

Member Member Member Member

Member Convener Special Invitee

Minutes of the first meeting of HLWG were confirmed.

Action taken on the minutes of the previous meeting.

Identification and Clustering of work elements for HLWG Report

Special Invitee Special Invitee

Review of comments received on the WGEEP report and action taken

25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

Item 5. Reflections on the interaction with State Government of Maharashtra

44. 45. 46. 47.

Member Member Member

Member Member Member Member Member Member Convener Special Invitee

Member Member Member Member Member Member Convener Special Invitee

Member Member Member

The following were major comments of the Government of Karnataka

The list of HLWG members present during the meeting is at Annexure.

The categorisation of the ESZ itself needs to be scientifically validated.

We desparately need growth in the region. Please permit mining.

The WGEA will not serve any purpose.

The recommenda-tions of the WGEEP Report must be strongly endorsed

MoEF should consider recommendations of the WGEEP Report at the earliest.

Responses not in favour of the WGEEP Report

local toilers and Gram Sabhas.

source of water in that area.

Locals were not consulted during the preparation of the report

Wind power decommissionpossibel to construct dam

Suggestions should be made on climate change mitigation/adaption.

The proposal for no new hill stations is a harsh recommendation

the entire country.

highlighted in the report.

The zoning system is based on relative and not absolute values

The report should be rejected - confirm the taluks in the WG

Comments of Tamil Nadu

Complete ban on mining in ESZ 1

Comments of Tamil Nadu

Non conventional energy Wind energy etc.

No large scale wind power projects in ESZ 1

wind power needs to be promoted.

Comments of Tamil Nadu

Quarry and sand mining

No new licenses to be given for quarry and sand mining in ESZ 1