The Madhav Gadgil Committee, formally the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP), is a concept defined by the report of an environmental research commission established by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) in 2010. The committee, chaired by ecologist Professor Madhav Gadgil, was created to assess the ecological status of the Western Ghats, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and global biodiversity hotspot, and recommend measures for its conservation and sustainable development. The committee submitted its report to the Government of India on August 31, 2011.
The core mechanism of the report was to designate the entire Western Ghats region, spanning six states, as an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA). It proposed classifying the 142 taluks within the Western Ghats boundary into three levels of protection: Ecologically Sensitive Zone 1 (ESZ 1), ESZ 2, and ESZ 3, with ESZ 1 having the highest sensitivity. Key provisions included a complete ban on new mining licenses, phasing out existing mines within five years in ESZ 1 and 2, and prohibiting new thermal power plants, large-scale storage dams, Special Economic Zones (SEZs), and new hill stations in the most sensitive zones. The report also recommended a shift to decentralized governance, granting more power to local authorities like Gram Sabhas, and proposed the creation of a statutory Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA) under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
The Gadgil Committee report was never officially adopted due to widespread opposition from the six concerned states and stakeholders who viewed its recommendations as too stringent and impractical. Consequently, the MoEF constituted a replacement, the High-Level Working Group (HLWG) under Dr. K. Kasturirangan, in August 2012 to re-examine the WGEEP report. The Kasturirangan Committee report, submitted in 2013, significantly reduced the proposed protected area, designating only 37% of the Western Ghats as ESA, compared to the Gadgil report's recommendation to treat the entire region as an ESA. The Kasturirangan report, which aimed for a balance between conservation and development, became the basis for subsequent government action, though it also faced criticism for potentially watering down the original conservation efforts.