Compare the Gadgil and Kasturirangan Committee approaches to Western Ghats conservation. Why has the latter also faced sustained opposition from states?

The Western Ghats, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and biodiversity hotspot, has been assessed twice — by the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (Gadgil, 2011) and the High Level Working Group (Kasturirangan, 2013) [1][2]. Though the latter substantially diluted the former, both remain unnotified, revealing a deeper federal deadlock.

Comparing the two approaches

• Extent: Gadgil treated the entire Ghats as ecologically sensitive (~64%, graded into ESZ I, II and III); Kasturirangan separated "natural" from "cultural" landscape and confined the Ecologically Sensitive Area to ~60,000 sq km (37%) across six states [1][2].
• Method: Gadgil relied on field-based, participatory ecological assessment; Kasturirangan used remote-sensing/satellite demarcation of contiguous natural cover — faster, but desk-based [1].
• Regulation: Gadgil proposed graded, activity-wise phase-outs; Kasturirangan imposed a blanket ban on mining, quarrying, red-category industries and thermal power within the ESA, while sparing plantations and settlements [1].
• Governance: Gadgil envisaged a decentralised Western Ghats Ecology Authority with gram sabha consent; Kasturirangan left implementation to MoEFCC notification under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 [3].

Why opposition persists

• Method, not conservation: satellite imagery cannot distinguish coffee or areca plantations from natural forest, so Karnataka has consistently demanded village-level ground verification before notification [1][4].
• Unequal burden: Karnataka carries the largest state share (~20,668 sq km), spanning over a thousand villages [1][5].
• Federal friction: land and agriculture are State subjects, yet restrictions flow from a Central notification, leaving states to absorb the political cost [3].
• Prolonged uncertainty: successive draft notifications since 10 March 2014, repeatedly re-issued and lapsed, keep village lists shifting — depressing land values and fuelling farmer anxiety in Malnad and coastal districts [3][5].

The dispute is therefore procedural rather than anti-ecological. A final, ground-truthed notification prepared jointly with states, preceded by settlement of claims under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, can convert fear into cooperation — securing both the Ghats' hydrological lifeline and the livelihoods it sustains.