ESA row heats up in Pathanamthitta as Keralam government’s proposal offers partial relief
State govt.’s move to seek exclusion of inhabited areas and farmland from Ecologically Sensitive Area regime has failed to soothe tempers in the district amid concerns that the revised proposal offers no complete exclusion for any of the seven villages covered by the Centre’s draft notification
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
The Kerala government has submitted a revised proposal to the Centre, seeking the exclusion of inhabited areas and agricultural lands from the proposed Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) regime in the Western Ghats. However, residents and political parties in Pathanamthitta district remain dissatisfied, as none of the seven villages covered by the Centre’s draft notification have been proposed for complete exclusion, sparking protests and concerns over livelihoods.
UPSC Perspectives
Environmental
This issue is rooted in the conservation of the Western Ghats, a global biodiversity hotspot. The Centre’s draft notification aims to demarcate Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs) based on the recommendations of the , which succeeded the . The goal of an ESA is to regulate or prohibit specific activities, such as mining, quarrying, and large-scale infrastructure projects, to prevent environmental degradation. The challenge lies in balancing ecological conservation with the realities of human habitation. The state’s proposal attempts to refine the ESA boundaries by excluding settled areas and farmlands, reducing the total ESA in Pathanamthitta from 1,543.01 sq km to 1,308.25 sq km. For UPSC, understanding the differences between the Gadgil and Kasturirangan reports, the criteria for demarcating ESAs, and the implications of the is crucial.
Polity
The controversy highlights the complex dynamics of federalism and environmental governance in India. While environmental protection is a concurrent subject, the power to declare ESAs lies with the Central government under the . However, the implementation and on-ground realities require state cooperation. The state government acts as an intermediary, advocating for its citizens' interests (farmers and settlers) while complying with national conservation goals. The current friction stems from the perception that the central notification does not adequately account for local socio-economic conditions, leading to political mobilization and protests. This scenario illustrates the tension between top-down environmental regulations and bottom-up demands for livelihood security, a frequent theme in environmental federalism debates.
Economic
The core economic conflict is between environmental regulation and livelihood security. The residents of the affected villages are primarily settler farmers who fear that the ESA tag will impose severe restrictions on land use, potentially halting agricultural activities and hindering regional development. The presence of existing projects, such as hydroelectric schemes, further complicates the situation. From an economic perspective, the ESA designation creates uncertainty, which can depress land values, restrict credit access for farmers, and stall local economic activities. The state’s proposal to exclude agricultural lands aims to mitigate these economic shocks. UPSC aspirants should analyze the economic impact of environmental regulations, particularly on rural agrarian economies, and the concept of sustainable development that seeks to harmonize economic growth with ecological preservation.