Let me jump straight into each recommendation.
1) Delineation and demarcation of ecologically sensitive area in Western
Ghats region
I have no problem with this. Of course, if there is a common notion that Western Ghats need to be protected (my ideas about that notion is slightly different, but I respect the notion of the rest of the world), you need to demarcate the areas and bring in some restrictions. How do you demarcate - that's the problem. For example, Kerala is heavily populated, even in the Ghats, unlike other states. The parameters that you apply for Gujarat may not be viable for Kerala. I do not see that Kasturirangan has made any accommodations in that respect. The schematics of ESA identification is given in Page 56. A close observation can immediately tell you that a place very populated, but the biological diversity is very high, is marked as ESA. That is why places like Udumbanchola & Vythiri (more than 400 people per sqkm) came under ESA, while many highly populated places in other states escaped. Reason? The farmers in Kerala maintained the biological diversity when they did their farming (Ignorant peole, they should have eliminated some diversity a few decades back, so that they could have escaped this!!).
Now, here is an interesting thing: Page 96 "The remote sensing derived vegetation maps are not without limitations. For instance under-story plantations (for eg. cardamom) or naturalized forest plantations cannot be discriminated."
What the report essentially is saying that their ESA categorization may not be accurate due to technical limitations. If that is so, it would have been either the panel's or the State government's duty to refine the ESA areas by doing it manually. Why didn't nobody bother? My information is that the farmer's organization has indeed raised this question with MoEF & State government. But nobody acted.
My suggestion: Redraw the ESA by eliminating areas with more than 100 people per sqkm, irrespective of biodiversity. DO NOT PUNISH PEOPLE FOR MAINTAINING THE BIODIVERSITY.
A note on the number 100. I don't know how HLWG came up with that number. It is said - "The
reason that less than 100 person/km2 was chosen because in hilly areas the usual density is<100 persons/km2 (Page 57)." Well, I don't see that as a very convincing logic. But, anyway, I concede that.
1) Delineation and demarcation of ecologically sensitive area in Western
Ghats region
I have no problem with this. Of course, if there is a common notion that Western Ghats need to be protected (my ideas about that notion is slightly different, but I respect the notion of the rest of the world), you need to demarcate the areas and bring in some restrictions. How do you demarcate - that's the problem. For example, Kerala is heavily populated, even in the Ghats, unlike other states. The parameters that you apply for Gujarat may not be viable for Kerala. I do not see that Kasturirangan has made any accommodations in that respect. The schematics of ESA identification is given in Page 56. A close observation can immediately tell you that a place very populated, but the biological diversity is very high, is marked as ESA. That is why places like Udumbanchola & Vythiri (more than 400 people per sqkm) came under ESA, while many highly populated places in other states escaped. Reason? The farmers in Kerala maintained the biological diversity when they did their farming (Ignorant peole, they should have eliminated some diversity a few decades back, so that they could have escaped this!!).
Now, here is an interesting thing: Page 96 "The remote sensing derived vegetation maps are not without limitations. For instance under-story plantations (for eg. cardamom) or naturalized forest plantations cannot be discriminated."
What the report essentially is saying that their ESA categorization may not be accurate due to technical limitations. If that is so, it would have been either the panel's or the State government's duty to refine the ESA areas by doing it manually. Why didn't nobody bother? My information is that the farmer's organization has indeed raised this question with MoEF & State government. But nobody acted.
My suggestion: Redraw the ESA by eliminating areas with more than 100 people per sqkm, irrespective of biodiversity. DO NOT PUNISH PEOPLE FOR MAINTAINING THE BIODIVERSITY.
A note on the number 100. I don't know how HLWG came up with that number. It is said - "The
reason that less than 100 person/km2 was chosen because in hilly areas the usual density is<100 persons/km2 (Page 57)." Well, I don't see that as a very convincing logic. But, anyway, I concede that.
No comments:
Post a Comment