What is Karnataka’s objection to the ESA? | Explained

The Western Ghats is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and a globally recognized biodiversity hotspot. The Madhav Gadgil Committee (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 Kasturirangan Committee (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.

This issue highlights the tension between centralized environmental policymaking and state-level economic realities, a core theme in Cooperative Federalism. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change uses its powers under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 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.

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 Bagair Hukum (unauthorized cultivation on government land), Forest Rights Act, 2006 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.