The repeated delay in finalising the Western Ghats ESA notification reflects the tension between conservation and development. Critically examine with reference to the Gadgil and Kasturirangan reports.

The Western Ghats are a global biodiversity hotspot. More than a decade after two expert reports, they still have no final Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) notification under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The delay does reflect a clash between conservation and development, but weak governance explains it just as much.

Two reports, two models

• Gadgil (WGEEP, 2011): treated the entire Ghats as ecologically sensitive, graded into three zones. It wanted decisions taken bottom-up through gram sabhas, Forest Rights Act (FRA) community rights and a reformed EIA process [1].
• Kasturirangan (HLWG, 2013): found that about 60% of the area was cultural landscape (farms, plantations, settlements). It limited the ESA to about 37%, used the village as the unit, and banned only the most damaging activities: mining, quarrying and red-category industries [2].

How the delay reflects the tension

• Livelihood fears: Kerala's slopes are densely settled and planted. The Keralam Assembly unanimously asked MoEFCC to accept the State's revised, smaller ESA proposal [3].
• State pushback: after the 2018 draft, all six States agreed the Ghats need protection but disputed the area and the activities covered [4].
• Ecological cost: GSI linked the 2024 Wayanad landslides to extreme rainfall on fragile slopes [5]. Every year of delay leaves such risks unmanaged.

Where the framing falls short

• A false binary: the HLWG model does not evict people or ban farming [2]. Much of the resistance comes from fear of rules that are not in the drafts.
• Federal design flaw: the Centre notifies the ESA, but the States hold the land records. Each draft goes back to the States for objections, so the cycle keeps repeating [4].
• Mapping gaps: satellite-based village maps lump plantations together with forest [2]. Disputes are therefore about boundaries rather than about protection itself.
• Participation gap: Gadgil's model of decisions led by gram sabhas has never been tried [1].

Way forward

• Check disputed villages on the ground and publish village-level maps.
• Test every exclusion request against GSI landslide-hazard data [5].
• Require gram sabhas to be consulted on quarries, and settle pending FRA claims first.

The delay shows that the ESA has been handled as a fight over boundaries rather than as shared governance. A hybrid model could resolve it: Kasturirangan's realism on area, Gadgil's participatory approach, and science-based mapping. Such a model would honour Articles 48A and 51A(g), protect livelihoods under Article 21, and advance SDG 15.