gram sabhas<\/em>) rather than a top-to-bottom one. It also asked for decentralisation and more powers to local authorities. It recommended constitution of a Western Ghats Ecology Authority as a statutory authority under the Ministry of Envi\u00adron\u00adment and Forests, with powers un\u00adder Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.<\/p>\nThe UPA government, however, decided against making the re\u00adport public. \u201cA misinformation campaign was started by vested interests,\u201d Professor Gadgil had reportedly said then. In 2012, under pressure from industries and the mining lobby, the government decided to set up another committee to look into the recommendation of the Gadgil Committee. This was headed by Dr K Kasturirangan and it submitted its report in April 2013.<\/p>\n
The Kasturirangan report reduced the ecologically sensitive area to 60,000 hectares, a stupendous 43 percent decrease from that recommended by the Gadgil report. \u201cThe Committee excluded the area already under private control from the protective regime to avoid unnecessary conflict,\u201d said Sunita Narain, head of the Centre for Science and Environ\u00adment and a member of the Kasturirangan Committee.<\/p>\n
This Committee recommended stringent checks on hydro-power projects, in\u00adcluding cumulative impact assessment of such projects and ensuring minimum water flow in the rivers in the lean season. It, however, recommended a ban on construction projects of over 20,000 sq m, but excluded those already undergoing the process of approval. The Committee also recommended that the centre provide incentives to states to promote sustainable development and maintain forest cover and encourage the setting up of a high-level committee to monitor the implementation of these recommendations.<\/p>\n
In 2014, the then ruling UPA government issued a draft notification asking six states to demarcate the ESA, clarifying it was a voluntary and non-binding exercise. The Kasturirangan Committee had recommended 13,108 sq km in 123 villages in Idukki district and 12 out of 14 districts in Kerala be protected as the ESA. In 2015, the Kerala government decided to demarcate the ESA in the state. It told the central government that only forest land protected by the forest depart\u00adment would be demarcated as ESA.<\/p>\n
According to a former Kerala Biodiversity Board chairperson and a member of the Gadgil Committee, VS Vijayan: \u201cThe state was trying to regularise the illegal forest encroachment.\u201d Environmental activists point out that there were large-scale encroachments by influential settlers who enjoy the backing of political parties and the Church.<\/p>\n
As the western side of the Western Ghats is granite-rich, rampant illegal quarrying has been taking place here. Though there is no government data on the total number of quarries, resear\u00adchers put the total number at 5,924 spread over 7,157.6 hectares. \u201cMost of the quarries are illegal,\u201d Gadgil had said.<\/p>\n
According to a study by the Indian Institute of Science, Kerala lost 9,06,440 hectares of forest land bet\u00adween 1973 and 2016, nearly half of its forest land. This increased incidents of landslides, especially during the monsoon. To add to this, the natural drainage system of the state was reduced by unmindful construction. The wetlands of Kerala, which acted as natural aquifers, were shrinking, increasing the impact of floods.<\/p>\n
The Kerala floods should be an eye-opener for the central and state governments which often cater to the demands of industries. Disaster-preparedness, risk mitigation and emergency planning need to be in sync with the rising number of extreme weather occurrences. Appropriate use of technology and data interpretation should be used to take preventive decisions to avoid large-scale destruction and loss. People should be made aware of the risks and dangers of unmindful development at the cost of environmental destruction. We have seen this in Chennai, Mumbai and in Srinagar. \u201cPeople\u2019s pressure can ensure that the government takes measures leading to favorable environment. Along with people\u2019s pressure, science and data should be used honestly and properly,\u201d remarked Gadgil.<\/p>\n
Such rampant destruction, along with extreme weather phenomenon, is a recipe for disaster. Kerala, the Konkan, Goa and coastal Karnataka usually account for 40-46 percent of the country\u2019s rainfall during the monsoon. Kerala received 1,606 mm of rainfall by mid-August 2017. This year, it received 2,191.11 mm rainfall, half of which was concentrated between August 8 and August 16. This accounts for 250 percent more rain in the stipulated period, causing water levels in the 61 dams to rise dangerously.<\/p>\n
In addition to the Gadgil and Kasturirangan reports, there have been other warnings of impending disaster in Kerala. According to the Rashtriya Barh Ayog, an estimated 8.70 lakh hectares of the total area of 38.90 lakh hectares in Kerala is prone to floods. And in May 2006, the Central Water Commission (CWC) had prepared Guidelines for Development and Implementation of Emergency Action Plans for Dams and circulated it to state governments for action. In 2011, the National Committee on Dam Safety of the central government notified several state governments to prepare emergency action plans for each of their large dams.<\/p>\n
Even central agencies have been guilty of not doing enough and that includes the CWC. It is responsible for flood forecasting and issuing alerts and warnings based on the data collected by them. The first forecasting station was established in 1958 at the old Delhi bridge to monitor the Yamuna. The CWC, however, has not established a single flood forecasting station in 15 states and Union Territories, including Kerala. Of the 184 flood forecasting stations, Kerala has none in spite of it being ranked the seventh most flood-prone state in the country.<\/p>\n
Even the Indian Meteorological Department had predicted the likelihood of extreme rain in Ke\u00adrala. And sure enough, Kerala received 30 percent more rain in August, while the district of Idukki received 70 percent excess rain, causing its dam sluice gates to be opened after 26 years.<\/p>\n
Then there is the issue of dam management for which Kerala has been criticised. Dr Amita Singh, chairperson, Special Centre for Disaster Management, JNU, reportedly said: \u201cThis flood was not caused merely by excess rain. The first function of dams is storage. The right thing to do with any storage system is to have a proper input and output, prediction and management.\u201d Himanshu Thakkar of the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People told India Legal<\/em>: \u201cDams can help control floods. However, if not managed properly, they can lead to devastation.\u201d<\/p>\nHowever, 57 percent of the dams in Kerala<\/a> are operated by the Kerala State Electricity Board and the rest by the irrigation department. For both the departments, the purpose of dams is electricity and irrigation. Flood control is not the main purpose.<\/p>\nThe lack of planning can also be seen in the Five Year Plans. During the Eleventh one over 2007-12, Kerala had proposed four Flood Management Programmers at an estimated cost of Rs 279.74 crore to the centre. The centre disbursed two installments totalling Rs 118.90 crore over the Eleventh and Twelfth Plans. However, CAG auditors noted that they did not find any specific proposal for flood management in these programmes.<\/p>\n
In short, this calamity was natural and man-made and vital lessons should be learnt from it for future generations.<\/p>\n
\u2014The writer is a communications consultant<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Above: An aerial view of the flood-affected regions in Chengannur, Kerala\/Photo: UNI This could well be the plaintive sentiment of the despairing people of God\u2019s Own Country as they battle the aftermath of the worst floods in a century. The warning signs were all there. Were they ignored?\u00a0 ~By Papia Samajdar The death, devastation and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":53518,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[189],"tags":[49115,47145,1133],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/d2r2ijn7njrktv.cloudfront.net\/IL\/uploads\/2018\/08\/25164331\/Cry-the-Beloved-Country.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53516"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=53516"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53516\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/53518"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53516"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53516"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53516"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}