The repeated rejection of Western Ghats ESA drafts by States reflects a deeper conflict between ecological imperatives and livelihood concerns. Discuss with reference to Karnataka.

On 22 September 2026, the Karnataka Legislature unanimously rejected the Kasturirangan report "in its current form". This was the State's seventh rejection of a draft notification declaring parts of the Western Ghats an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) [1]. Karnataka accepts that the Ghats are fragile but disputes where the line is drawn. The deadlock is therefore about how much protection people can live with, not about whether protection is needed.

Ecological imperatives

• Scientific basis: The MoEFCC set up the Gadgil-led WGEEP and then the Kasturirangan-led HLWG to review it, both to conserve a global biodiversity hotspot [2].
• Already a diluted plan: The HLWG limited the ESA to about 37% of the Ghats, the part it classed as "natural landscape" [3]. Rejecting even this smaller version leaves almost no area protected.
• Cost of delay: The Ghats remain exposed to quarrying and forest fragmentation, and disasters like the Wayanad landslides (2024) show what that can cost.

Livelihood concerns (Karnataka)

• Largest share: Karnataka's proposed ESA spreads over 10 districts, the most of any State. Malnad villages protested over fears of displacement and loss of livelihoods [1].
• Demarcation flaws: The HLWG drew the line using remote sensing and treated the whole village as the unit [3]. As a result, homes and coffee and arecanut plantations fall inside the ESA.
• Consultation deficit: The line was drawn from above without ground-truthing, so local people see the ESA as imposed from Delhi.

The deeper conflict: federalism and trust

• Wanting speed but blocking it: In 2020 the States asked for early notification, yet they kept disputing the extent of area and the activities covered [4].
• Cycle of lapsing drafts: Each fresh draft notification [5] restarts the objection round without settling which villages are in dispute.
• Overstated fears: The HLWG's restrictions target mining, quarrying, red-category industries and thermal plants, not farming [3]. This gap between perception and the text is a failure of communication.

Way forward

• Notify the undisputed forest areas now, and verify the disputed edge villages on the ground.
• Gram sabha validation, the bottom-up approach the WGEEP recommended [3], along with a minimum area that no State can cut below.
• Pair the ESA with livelihood support under existing conservation schemes [2].

Repeated rejection shows a failure of process rather than a denial of ecological value. Consultative, ground-verified zoning can reconcile Article 48A and SDG 15 with Malnad's livelihoods. That would turn the Ghats from a contested line on a map into a jointly owned conservation effort.