The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) in March 2010, keeping in view the ecological significance of the Western Ghats and the possible impact of climate change, constituted a 14-member Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) to initiate the process of demarcating ecologically sensitive areas (ESAs) in the Western Ghats region. Chaired by revered ecologist Madhav Gadgil, a key mandate of the panel was to assess the current status of the ecology of the Western Ghats region, demarcate the areas that are to be labelled as ecologically sensitive under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, and make recommendations for the conservation, protection and rejuvenation of the region.
The panel submitted its final report in 2011 and it concluded that the entire Western Ghats region be designated as an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA). Within the ESA, it demarcated the regions into three levels of ecological sensitivity—Ecologically Sensitive Zone (ESZ) 1, 2 and 3 (ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3). The Panel proposed regulatory norms and promotional activities fine-tuned for the particular ESZs.
This report when published, met with a great deal of criticism, especially and mainly from powerful lobbies, catholic priests, lucrative business interests of those engaged in the quarry, construction, mining industries etc. Politically motivated rumours fed fears to thousands of farmers that they would be stripped off of their lands and displaced, and their daily lives would be affected.
In 2012, the then environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan constituted a High Level working committee under Kasturirangan to “examine” the Gadgil committee report in a “holistic and multidisciplinary fashion…” and more subtly to provide a diluted version of the Gadgil report.
The High Level working group headed by Kasturirangan did away with the graded approach in terms of ecological sensitivity and classified the Ghats region as comprising cultural and natural landscapes. The natural landscape was about 60,000 sq. km or 37 percent of the Western Ghats region and as per the committee, represented “a more or less continuous band of natural vegetation”, “with very high or high biological richness, low fragmentation and low population density.” It was only this natural landscape comprising 37% that the committee identified as ESA. The ESA identified by the Kasturirangan committee thus covered 37% of the Western Ghats or about 60, 000 sq. km. Later, the Environment Ministry issued a draft notification, demarcating an area of 56, 285 sq.km in the Western Ghats as ESA. This was less than 59,940 sq.km recommended by the Kasturirangan committee.
Anthropocentric Values
If I were to question you about what obligations do you have concerning the natural environment and you would simply answer that we, as human beings, will perish if we do not constraint our actions towards nature, then this ethic is considered to be ‘Anthropocentric’. An anthropocentric outlook is one which regards humanity as the centre of existence. A simple example would be refraining from hunting a particular breed of fish to extinction as none would be available for our consumption in the future. Hence, hunting must be stopped as interests of our fellow humans and ours are at stake.
The fundamental anthropocentric assumption is that only human beings can have direct moral value and that we can value other natural things only in relation to human purposes and goals. It is a belief that value is human centered and that all other beings are means to human ends.
Given the focus on human values and interests, anthropocentrism is widely considered as a key cause of environmental destruction.
In the present case, adopting recommendations of Kasturirangan committee and not Gadgil panel can certainly be seen as a decision guided by anthropocentric motivations. Privileging our own welfare and promoting interests of our species at the expense of the interests or well-being of other species or the environment, this by its very definition is the anthropocentric ethic.
However, I wish to argue that while we humans are the visible agents of environmental destruction, referring our behaviour as ‘anthropocentric’ conceals the seldom admitted fact that we cannot talk about the whole of humanity in such generalised terms.
It is implausible to say that those doing harm to the environment are being ‘Human centered’.
Inequality among humans is an important factor to remember when considering the biodiversity loss. I feel it is unfair to criticise human kind in general for practices carried out by a limited number of people, when many others may in fact oppose them. Blaming anthropocentrism for environmental degradation in every case would mean putting blame for biodiversity loss on all humanity, rather than the over exploitative elites.
In this case, demarcation of a portion of the Ghats region and not the entire region as ESA should not be seen as an anthropocentric problem since it involves only certain groups of people, mainly powerful lobbies, people who stand to lose their sand mining and quarrying industries, businesses that would suffer from restrictions on transport, infrastructure and wind energy projects, businessmen who would lose their businesses because of a complete ban on new polluting industries etc. These activities are carried out not in the interest of the overall welfare of the entire population of the Ghats, but to further the interests of some quite narrowly defined groups. Such activities are in fact condemned by a majority of other humans who see the practice as not serving the human interest in general. Anthropocentrism, by its very definition is a conduct which appeals to human welfare and not of a group consisting of wealthy elites.
The cases of hunting down a species to extinction, destruction of forests, banning industries in sensitive ecological zones cannot be appropriately seen as ‘anthropocentric’ because they involve not the whole human kind, but only a fraction of those who derive economic benefits from ecological destruction. Such activities can never be in the interest of human kind. Benefits of such activities are not intended for humans generally.
What we usually see around is Development by Exclusion hand in hand with Conservation by Exclusion. Despite the 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution that have devolved powers of making decisions relating to development to Panchayat Raj Institutions and Nagarpalikas, all development decisions are thrust upon the people and they have no say in the final policy decisions which will affect them the most.
However, the tone of the Gadgil report was a benign one. Largely misunderstood, what they had really proposed was development by inclusion. Gadgil committee realised that the present system of governance of the environment should be changed and that people’s participation is vital to achieving environment and people friendly development. The soul of Gadgil report was that the Gram Sabhas or the local people themselves would take the final decision on the kind of development that should be permitted in any ecologically sensitive area.
V.S.Vajiyan, a member of the Gadgil committee said “The basic idea is ecological protection and to identify ESAs in such a way that local communities, tribal people and farmers would stand to gain from it.” Gadgil report also suggested constitution of a separate body for management of ESAs, instead of bureaucratic set-up. Their idea was establishment of democratic decision making bodies at the local level to identify the ESAs.
However, there were no such recommendations or measures in the Kasturirangan’s report. It continued with its top-to-bottom approach excluding all the locals from the decision taking process. Gadgil himself criticised the approach of Kasturirangan panel, claiming that the report “shockingly dismisses our constitutionally guaranteed democratic devolution of decision-making powers, remarking that local communities can have no role in economic decisions.”
If one were to follow an ‘anthropocentric’ ethic approach, then one would invariably choose Gadgil report over Kasturirangan report, as only the former truly tried to achieve what anthropocentrism demands for most – protection of environment for the benefit of human kind. Criticising a report which encourages participation of local people in decision making, condemns corrupt practices, and destroys mining, quarrying and allied industries is far from being anthropocentric.
Conclusion
The core of the problem is the character and origin of the ‘human’ around which this particular thinking may be centered. Does it equally embody all human capacities and needs, or a particular subset of these?
While criticising anthropocentrism as the major cause of damage to the ecological fabric of the world, we should remember that the world is driven by dramatic inequalities, and different segments of humanity have vastly different impacts on the environment. Burden of conservation has never been shared equitably across the world.
Proposed Solution
“Everything starts with man and his ability to think. All values, all concepts are derived from man” – Rene Descartes
We have a potential to ultimately reach a solution, but our current development paradigm is not even close to anything like sustainability. In fact our development is increasingly reducing the scope of sustainability. In a society where attitudes towards environment have not yet changed, there will always be an opposition ready to exploit any unconceivable opportunity. Sustainable Development requires significant changes to our philosophical and religious attitudes.
We must stop living like rulers. We must start living like tenants of the earth.