Background and Approach
The High-Level Working Group on the Western Ghats, commonly known as the K. Kasturirangan Committee, was constituted in 2012 under the chairmanship of scientist K. Kasturirangan.
It was appointed after several states and stakeholders raised concerns about the recommendations of the Madhav Gadgil Committee.
The committee submitted its report in 2013. Unlike the Gadgil Committee, which treated the entire Western Ghats as ecologically sensitive, the Kasturirangan Committee divided the region into:
- Natural landscape, including forests, wildlife habitats and other relatively undisturbed ecosystems
- Cultural landscape, including settlements, plantations and agricultural areas shaped by long-term human use
It recommended stricter protection mainly for the natural landscape.
Ecologically Sensitive Area
The committee recommended declaring about 37% of the Western Ghats, covering nearly 60,000 square kilometres, as an Ecologically Sensitive Area.
The proposed area extended across six states:
- Gujarat
- Maharashtra
- Goa
- Karnataka
- Kerala
- Tamil Nadu
The identification of sensitive areas relied substantially on satellite imagery, land-use data and scientific mapping.
The committee sought to protect ecologically important forests and wildlife habitats while excluding most settlements, plantations and cultivated lands from strict regulation.
Major Recommendations
The committee recommended a complete ban within the Ecologically Sensitive Area on:
- mining and quarrying;
- sand mining;
- thermal power plants;
- highly polluting industries classified as red-category industries.
Existing mines were to be gradually phased out according to prescribed conditions.
Hydropower projects were not completely prohibited, but they were to be considered only after cumulative environmental assessment, maintenance of ecological flows and examination of their impact on river systems.
The committee also recommended:
- strict environmental regulation of large construction projects;
- protection of forests and wildlife corridors;
- promotion of sustainable tourism;
- improved monitoring through remote sensing and scientific data;
- participation of local communities in conservation;
- incentives for sustainable agriculture and plantation practices.
Gadgil and Kasturirangan Committees
| Basis | Madhav Gadgil Committee | Kasturirangan Committee |
| Area proposed as sensitive | Entire Western Ghats | About 37% of the Western Ghats |
| Classification | Three graded ecological zones | Natural and cultural landscapes |
| Approach | Highly decentralised and conservation-oriented | Development–conservation balance |
| Method | Field knowledge and local participation | Greater use of satellite mapping |
| Local institutions | Strong role for gram sabhas | Comparatively greater role for expert and state institutions |
| Development restrictions | Wider and more graded | Concentrated mainly in identified natural areas |
The Kasturirangan approach was considered less restrictive and more acceptable to state governments, but environmentalists argued that it excluded many ecologically valuable plantation and settlement landscapes.
Criticism and Significance
The report faced opposition from local communities who feared restrictions on farming, housing and daily economic activities.
Major criticisms included:
- excessive dependence on satellite imagery;
- inadequate recognition of small settlements and mixed land use;
- exclusion of plantation landscapes with ecological value;
- insufficient participation of local communities;
- lack of clarity regarding village-level boundaries;
- possibility of development pressure shifting to excluded areas.
At the same time, supporters argued that its narrower and more practical framework offered a better chance of implementation.
The committee remains important because it shaped subsequent government proposals for notifying Ecologically Sensitive Areas in the Western Ghats.
Conclusion
The Kasturirangan Committee attempted to balance ecological protection with the developmental needs of people living in the Western Ghats. Its central challenge was to protect fragile natural landscapes without treating the entire inhabited mountain region as subject to uniform restrictions.
