The Western Ghats faces overlapping developmental and ecological pressures. Critically examine the adequacy of the existing legal and institutional framework — including the Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) notification and the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 — in protecting its biodiversity.

Q. The Western Ghats faces overlapping developmental and ecological pressures. Critically examine the adequacy of the existing legal and institutional framework — including the Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) notification and the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 — in protecting its biodiversity. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The Western Ghats, a ~1,600 km chain inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2012 and among the world's eight "hottest" biodiversity hotspots [1], is simultaneously a corridor of mining, hydropower and tourism expansion. Its protective architecture is substantive on paper but uneven in delivery.

Strengths of the framework - The ESA notification, based on the Kasturirangan HLWG (2013), proposes ~56,825 sq km across six states as ecologically sensitive, prohibiting mining, quarrying and red-category industries [2]. - The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 creates a three-tier structure — NBA, State Biodiversity Boards and local Biodiversity Management Committees — with People's Biodiversity Registers enabling community-led documentation [3]. - Supporting instruments — the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 protected-area network and the EIA regime — give statutory teeth to habitat protection.

Gaps that limit adequacy - Regulatory limbo: the ESA draft has been repeatedly re-issued since 2014 without ever being finalised, leaving prohibitions legally unenforceable [2]. Persistent federal friction among six states blocks consensus. - Species blindness: protection is skewed towards charismatic scheduled fauna. A 2021–23 survey across 144 sites recorded only 143 Odonata species against ~220 historically known — a 35% shortfall — despite dragonflies and damselflies being bioindicators of freshwater health [4]. - Data deficiency: most Western Ghats Odonata remain "Data Deficient" or "Not Evaluated" on the IUCN Red List [5] — a monitoring failure, not proof of safety. - Institutional fragmentation: documentation is split across ZSI, state forest departments and academia, with no unified freshwater monitoring programme; most BMCs remain under-capacitated.

The framework is therefore conceptually sound but operationally incomplete — strong in design, weak in notification, invertebrate coverage and data. Finalising the ESA notification through negotiated, village-level consultation, funding a national freshwater biodiversity monitoring mission, and empowering BMCs would convert intent into protection. This is essential if India is to credibly meet its 30×30 commitment under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework [6].

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. Western Ghats — UNESCO World Heritage List (Ref. 1342) — World Heritage inscription, ~1,600 km extent, "hottest hotspot" status 2. MoEFCC — ESA Notifications, Western Ghats — Kasturirangan-based ESA drafts, ~56,825 sq km, repeated re-issue without finalisation 3. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 — National Biodiversity Authority — NBA–SBB–BMC three-tier structure, People's Biodiversity Registers 4. "Western Ghats Odonata Odyssey", Biology Bulletin Reviews (Springer, 2026) — 143 species recorded at 144 sites against ~220 historically known 5. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species — Data Deficient/Not Evaluated status of most Western Ghats Odonata 6. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework — CBD — 30×30 target and species-level monitoring obligations