Gadgil and Kasturirangan reports

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) is a parallel framework to the species-level Red List — it applies standardised criteria to evaluate the risk that an entire ecosystem will collapse, much as the species Red List evaluates extinction risk for individual taxa. This landscape-level approach is distinct and complementary to species assessments. Statement 2 is correct. The RLE operates at the ecosystem or habitat level: a forest type, wetland, or grassland mosaic can be classified as Critically Endangered based on criteria such as historical area loss, rate of decline, or degradation of biotic and abiotic components — independently of whether constituent species have been individually Red-Listed. For example, Kerala's tropical riparian evergreen forests have been assessed as Critically Endangered under IUCN criteria based on an 83% areal loss over a century, even though species-level assessments within them may be incomplete. Statement 3 is incorrect. The RLE framework uses five standardised criteria specifically designed for ecosystems — covering reduction in geographic distribution, restricted geographic distribution, environmental degradation, biotic disruption, and quantitative analysis of collapse probability. These are structurally different from the IUCN Species Red List criteria (which focus on population size, rate of decline, and probability of extinction). The two frameworks are analogous in logic but not identical in criteria; they were developed separately to address different units of biodiversity (species vs. ecosystems).

Explanation

The Gadgil Committee (Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, 2011) recommended declaring the entire Western Ghats as an Ecologically Sensitive Area, dividing it into three Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ-1, ESZ-2, ESZ-3) with graded levels of restriction — the most stringent for the most ecologically sensitive parts. The Kasturirangan Committee (High Level Working Group, 2013), set up partly because Gadgil's recommendations were seen as too restrictive for communities and development, proposed a more limited demarcation: only about 37% of the Western Ghats — defined as the 'natural landscape' — would be notified as ESA, while the remaining 'cultural landscape' (comprising villages, agricultural land, plantation areas) would not be subject to ESA restrictions. This distinction between total ESA coverage (Gadgil) and partial natural-landscape coverage (Kasturirangan) is the central conceptual difference between the two reports, and the basis for the ongoing debate about permitting micro and small development projects in the Western Ghats.

Explanation

All three pairs are correctly matched. First, the WGESA is proposed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 — the parent statute that empowers the Union government to declare Ecologically Sensitive Areas and issue related restrictions. Second, the Gadgil Committee (Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, 2011) recommended treating the entire Western Ghats as an ESA and graded it into three zones using a decentralised, village/panchayat-level approach — the most expansive framework proposed. Third, the Kasturirangan Committee (High Level Working Group, 2013) took a more selective approach: it identified a smaller 'natural landscape' covering roughly 60,000 sq km (about 37% of the Western Ghats) and recommended confining ESA restrictions to that footprint, explicitly excluding densely populated and agricultural areas. The successive MoEFCC draft notifications — now in their seventh iteration — are broadly based on the Kasturirangan framework, covering approximately 56,825 sq km across six states.