On a holiday, the road around Madayippara can become a parking lot.
Hundreds of vehicles line the roadside as visitors make their way towards the biodiversity-rich laterite plateau in Kannur, drawn by its seasonal flowers, open landscape, and photographs of the place that have increasingly found their way into tourism promotions and social media feeds.
But for those fighting to protect Madayippara, the crowds are a warning.
The concern is not merely about litter, traffic or the inconvenience caused by visitors. It is about what happens to a fragile ecosystem when a landscape never meant to accommodate mass tourism begins attracting it in growing numbers, even as commercial projects emerge around it.
Madayippara is a flat laterite hillock spread across around 365 hectares near Payangadi, about 22 km north of Kannur town. Once known mainly for its religious, cultural and ecological significance, it has increasingly become a tourist attraction, drawing visitors from Kerala and elsewhere, including tourists from outside India.
That anxiety brought residents, environmentalists and others together for a rally on August 22, demanding to drop the proposed Eco Park project in the area and for a greater protection of Madayippara.
“The panchayat secretary has temporarily issued a stop memo for the eco-park as a result of our protests,” environmentalist VC Balakrishnan told The News Minute.
The stop memo has not, however, ended the larger concerns surrounding the plateau. According to Balakrishnan, even with police preventing vehicles from entering Madayippara following a High Court order, the number of people arriving remains high.
“On holidays, there are often between 500 and 900 vehicles parked along the roadside there. Earlier, vehicles used to be allowed to enter Madayippara, but now the police are maintaining vigilance based on a High Court order, and vehicles are not being allowed to enter Madayippara,” he said.
“However, huge crowds still come. Thousands of people, especially on holidays, visit the place.”
That is at the heart of the activists’ argument: Madayippara, they say, is being treated as a tourist destination when it is actually a living ecosystem.
“Our argument is that Madayippara is not a tourist centre. It never was,” Balakrishnan said.
The plateau had long been associated with local religious and cultural life and was visited by residents, researchers and nature enthusiasts. Its growing popularity has changed the nature and scale of human activity there.
Balakrishnan says social media and tourism promotion have played a major role in that transformation.
“The media and people on social media have promoted it by calling it things like ‘Neelavasantham’ and portraying it as something extraordinary. People are coming to see it because of that. We cannot really blame the people,” he said.
The problem, he added, is that most visitors may not realise what they are walking through.
“People are not aware of these ecological aspects. They do not know that Madayippara is an important habitat for birds, or that there are around 700 species of flowering plants there,” he said.
The roughly 600-700-acre laterite plateau above the Kuppam river near Pazhayangadi, is home to nearly 666 flowering plant species. More than 140 butterfly species and 182 bird species have been recorded, along with hundreds of moth species and a range of dragonflies, grasshoppers, spiders, amphibians and other organisms.
“If you compare it area-wise with places such as Silent Valley or Mathikettan Shola, nearly 700 flowering plant species have been recorded from this 3.5-square-kilometre area alone,” Balakrishnan said.
The pressure from visitors is particularly concerning because some of Madayippara's biodiversity exists at ground level.
Balakrishnan says around 19 species of birds that nest and lay their eggs on the ground are found in the area, including the red-wattled lapwing and the thick-knee.
“There are also birds that forage on the ground, along with grasshoppers and other small insects. Altogether, there are around 40 species of birds,” he said.
The movement of people across the plateau can disturb nesting birds and interfere with their ability to feed.
“The large number of visitors is causing problems for the breeding of these birds and also affecting their ability to find food,” Balakrishnan said.
The problem is compounded by the kinds of activities visitors undertake when there are few restrictions on where they can walk. Kite flying, parties and birthday celebrations are among the activities taking place on the open stretches of the plateau.
Earlier, vehicles were allowed to enter the plateau. That has changed, but activists say keeping vehicles outside is only one part of the solution. People can still move freely across sensitive areas on foot.
The activists therefore want the fencing that once marked parts of the landscape to be restored.
The Malabar Devaswom Board had earlier taken the initiative to install wire fencing, Balakrishnan said, but much of it has since deteriorated.
“We have submitted a memorandum to the Devaswom Board seeking its restoration. Our activists also submitted a memorandum when the minister visited,” he said.
“If the fencing is restored, people can move along the roads, but they will not be able to move randomly across the plateau.”
The debate acquired a new urgency after an amusement-cum-eco park began operating in the vicinity of Madayippara on July 31.
Environmental activists have questioned the project's permissions and its implications for an already pressured landscape. For them, the issue is not simply whether the establishment has approvals. It is whether another commercial attraction should be added to an ecosystem already struggling with visitor pressure.
The phrase “eco-park”, they argue, cannot by itself make a project environmentally benign.
More visitors can mean more vehicles, waste, noise, lighting and demand for roads and other infrastructure. Each intervention may appear limited when considered separately. Together, activists fear they could change the character of the plateau.
Balakrishnan points to one such concern: artificial lighting.
According to him, the lights at the eco-park remain on until 11 pm. Such lighting can affect insects and, in turn, the birds that feed on them.
“Once there is light pollution, it affects insects and, consequently, insect-eating bird populations,” he said.
The issue of artificial light, he added, is still poorly understood by the public.
“We generally know about different forms of pollution, but people in Kerala are still not sufficiently aware of the effects of light pollution,” he said.
Balakrishnan recalled an earlier proposal by the Madayi panchayat to install powerful high-mast lights along the main routes in Madayippara. Environmentalists intervened after raising concerns about their ecological impact.
He referred to studies, including work by Jaffer Palot and others, documenting insect mortality associated with artificial lighting. One study recorded around 200 aquatic insects or water bugs, he said, highlighting the potential consequences when such species are exposed to intense light.
For activists, this is precisely why Madayippara cannot be assessed project by project.
The question becomes more complicated because parts of Madayippara are privately owned.
Environmental lawyer and activist Harish Vasudevan argues that private ownership cannot be the sole basis for deciding how such ecologically important land is used.
“Madayippara in Kannur harbours invaluable reservoirs of biodiversity. Science also has a great deal to learn from these ecosystems,” Harish Vasudevan said.
In his view, the government's responsibilities under environmental and biodiversity laws mean environmentally sensitive private lands may require restrictions on their use.
“No government can view such land in the same way as it would any other private property, particularly because governments have acquired certain responsibilities following the enactment of the Biodiversity Act and the Environment Protection Act,” he said.
“Environmentally sensitive private lands will therefore require restrictions on how they can be used. That is only natural.”
Harish Vasudevan argues that even development planning at the district-level should not allow such land to be used entirely according to an owner's discretion.
“There needs to be a comprehensive, scientific approach to land use, backed by policy and law in general, while specific sites may require statutory notifications,” he said.
“This should not be reduced to a dispute of opinion between a few environmental activists and private landowners. The government must take an urgent decision on the matter,” he said.
He believes the decision could have consequences beyond Madayippara.
“I am certain that this will also become a major milestone in shaping the tourism map of the Western Ghats in the future. I stand with the Madayippara Conservation Committee on this issue,” he added.
For protestors, one of the most practical solutions is to give Madayippara a formal protected status. A large part of Madayippara belongs to the Madayikavu Devaswom and is currently under the control of the Malabar Devaswom Board.
Balakrishnan suggests declaring the area either a Biodiversity Heritage Site or a Conservation Reserve.
A Conservation Reserve would bring the area under the regulatory control of the Forest Department. A Biodiversity Heritage Site, he points out, could protect the ecosystem without requiring a change in land ownership.
“There is no need to interfere with the ownership of the land, whether it belongs to the Devaswom, local residents or areas where rituals and ceremonies are conducted,” he said.
Such a designation could also allow authorities to identify the most ecologically sensitive parts of the plateau and restrict access to them.
“There are certain areas where endemic species are found in greater numbers. Those areas can be marked and protected. Small fences or similar measures may have to be put up,” Balakrishnan said.
“Ordinary visitors should not be allowed into such sensitive areas. At the same time, special provisions can be made for people who need to enter for research purposes, as is done by the Forest Department in protected areas.”
The process, he said, does not necessarily require a complicated beginning. The panchayat and its Biodiversity Management Committee can pass a resolution seeking Biodiversity Heritage Site status.
“The Biodiversity Board is ready for this,” he said, adding that members of the board had indicated their willingness to move forward given Madayippara's current condition.
“What is required is the approval of the panchayat and the BMC, or a resolution from them. We see that as the best way to conserve Madayippara.”