Critically compare the Gadgil and Kasturirangan approaches to conserving the Western Ghats. Why has neither been implemented?

The Western Ghats are a global biodiversity hotspot spread across six States. Two expert bodies have proposed how to protect them. The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) was chaired by Madhav Gadgil, and the High Level Working Group (HLWG) that reviewed it was chaired by K. Kasturirangan [3]. They differ sharply in method. Yet more than a decade later, neither has become a final notification [1].

Gadgil (WGEEP, 2011): holistic and bottom-up

• Merit: It treated the entire Ghats as ecologically sensitive and used graded zones of protection, not an in-or-out line [3].
• Merit: Zoning was to be decided with gram sabhas (village assemblies), so local communities would have a say in conservation [3].
• Demerit: Its wide coverage restricted development in densely inhabited plantation belts, so States saw it as unworkable.

Kasturirangan (HLWG, 2013): pragmatic and top-down

• Merit: It used remote sensing to separate "natural" from "cultural" landscape (farms, plantations, towns). Only about 37% of the Ghats was marked as ESA [3].
• Merit: It banned only the most damaging activities: mining, quarrying, red-category industries, thermal plants and very large buildings. Farming and plantations stayed outside the ban list [3].
• Demerit: It treated the village as the smallest unit, so a whole village is included if part of it is sensitive. It also dropped Gadgil's participatory method [3].
• Demerit: The line was drawn from satellite images, not checked on the ground, so homes and farmland can be included by mistake.

Why neither has been implemented

• Dispute over the map: The first ESA draft came in 2014. Drafts have lapsed and been re-issued ever since, and the latest is the seventh (July 2026) [1].
• Federal friction: The States agree the Ghats need protection, but they contest the extent of area and the list of banned activities [2].
• Livelihood fears: On 22 September 2026, the Karnataka Legislature unanimously rejected the HLWG report "in its current form", citing livelihoods in Malnad [1].
• Consultation deficit: Without a gram-sabha role, local people see the ESA as imposed from outside, which has fuelled protests [1][3].

The deadlock shows that science alone cannot secure conservation without local legitimacy. The way forward is to notify the undisputed core now. Disputed villages should then be verified on the ground with gram sabhas, subject to a minimum area that no State can go below. This would combine the HLWG's workable scope with the WGEEP's participatory method, in line with Article 48A and SDG 15 (life on land).