What is Karnataka’s objection to the ESA? | Explained
What did the Karnataka Legislature decide on September 22? Why has the State repeatedly rejected the ESA draft? What did the Kasturirangan Committee recommend? How much of the Western Ghats was proposed as ESA? What has Karnataka proposed as the way forward?
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
The Karnataka Legislature has unanimously passed a resolution rejecting the seventh draft notification by the , which seeks to declare specific parts of the Western Ghats as an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) based on the report. The State government is demanding a physical survey of the proposed ESA, citing concerns over the impact on livelihoods and agricultural activities in the region.
UPSC Perspectives
Environmental
The Western Ghats is a and a globally recognized biodiversity hotspot. The (Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel) initially recommended declaring the entire Western Ghats (approx. 1.29 lakh sq. km) as an ESA, dividing it into three zones with varying restrictions. Facing strong opposition from state governments, the (High Level Working Group) was formed. It recommended a reduced area (approx. 60,000 sq. km) as ESA, differentiating between 'natural landscapes' (biologically rich, low population) and 'cultural landscapes' (human-modified). The proposed ESA restrictions include a total ban on mining, quarrying, sand extraction, red-category industries, and large-scale thermal power plants, while heavily regulating other development projects. UPSC aspirants must differentiate between the approaches of these two committees: Gadgil prioritized strict ecological conservation across the entire region, while Kasturirangan attempted a compromise by focusing only on the most pristine natural landscapes.
Federalism and Governance
This issue highlights the tension between centralized environmental policymaking and state-level economic realities, a core theme in . The uses its powers under the to notify ESAs. However, states like Karnataka argue that the boundary demarcation relied on satellite imagery rather than physical ground surveys, leading to the erroneous inclusion of agricultural lands, plantations, and human settlements within the ESA. Karnataka is advocating for the 'Kerala model', where a state-led physical verification significantly reduced the proposed ESA area. This underscores the necessity for decentralized governance and genuine stakeholder consultation in environmental decision-making. Aspirants should note how a top-down approach can lead to prolonged policy paralysis—this is the seventh draft notification since 2014, yet finalization remains elusive due to state objections.
Socio-Economic
The controversy stems from the conflict between environment conservation and livelihood security. The classification of an area as an ESA brings significant regulatory burdens. Karnataka contends that the report fails to provide alternative livelihood options for those affected by potential restrictions. The state argues that land issues such as (unauthorized cultivation on government land), claims, and deemed forests must be resolved before finalizing the ESA. The fear is that ESA notification will lead to a depreciation in land value and hinder day-to-day agricultural activities, despite assurances that house building and renovation are not restricted. This is a classic Environment vs. Development debate. For Mains, this case study is crucial for discussing how conservation efforts must integrate socio-economic impact assessments to ensure sustainable development.