What is Karnataka’s objection to the ESA?

1. At a Glance

• On September 22, 2026, the Karnataka Legislature unanimously passed a resolution rejecting the K. Kasturirangan Committee report on the Western Ghats "in its current form" [1].
• The resolution responds to the seventh draft notification (July 27, 2026) declaring parts of the Western Ghats an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) [1].
• Karnataka's objection in brief: the State accepts the Ghats are ecologically sensitive, but says the ESA would hurt lives and livelihoods, especially in the Malnad region [1].
• Why it matters for UPSC: it brings together environmental federalism, the Gadgil vs Kasturirangan debate, the conservation vs livelihood trade-off, and biodiversity hotspot governance.

2. Why in the News

• July 27, 2026: the Union Environment Ministry published the seventh draft ESA notification for the Western Ghats [1].
• The draft gave States a 60-day window to file objections [1].
• September 22, 2026: the Karnataka Legislature's unanimous resolution marked the seventh time the State has rejected the draft [1].
• There have been widespread protests over fears of livelihood loss, and public consultations were held in the Malnad region [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) came first. It is commonly called the Gadgil panel (chair: Madhav Gadgil) (unverified) [S1 names the WGEEP only].
• High Level Working Group (HLWG): chaired by space scientist K. Kasturirangan and tasked with reviewing the WGEEP report [1][3].
• HLWG recommendation: notify identified areas in six States as ESA: Kerala, Karnataka, Goa, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu [2][3].
• Timeline:
• 2011: WGEEP report submitted (unverified).
• 2013: HLWG report submitted (unverified).
• 2014: first ESA draft notification [1].
• October 2018: a draft notification specified the areas to be notified [2][4].
• The Ministry issued a fresh draft notification at least once in between [5].
• 2020: States said they wanted early notification of the Western Ghats ESA [2].

• July 27, 2026: seventh draft [1].

• Pattern: the drafts keep lapsing and being re-issued because the six States have not reached consensus [1][2].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

• Economic
• The ESA would restrict mining, quarrying, sand mining, red-category industries and large construction (unverified).

• Malnad plantation economies (coffee, arecanut) worry about spillover restrictions. This is inferred from the livelihood protests [1].

• Social

• People in ESA villages fear displacement and livelihood loss, which triggered widespread protests [1].

• The State argues that the HLWG's remote-sensing-based demarcation wrongly includes inhabited villages and farmland (unverified).

• Environmental

• The Ghats' ecological sensitivity is accepted by successive Karnataka governments [1].

• Delay in notification leaves a hotspot exposed to landslides and forest fragmentation. The Union government has run separate schemes to protect the Western Ghats [6].

• Governance / Federalism

• Rejecting the draft seven times is an example of State pushback against a Union environmental notification [1].
• Ground-truthing and consultation are demanded before notification [1].

• In 2020, States said they wanted early notification. That sits uneasily with their repeated rejections [2].

• Administrative

• Each draft has to be reconciled with State physical verification. The MoEFCC held meetings with States on the Western Ghats ESA [4].

• Legal

• A draft ESA notification lapses if not finalised, so it must be re-issued. This is why there have been seven drafts (unverified mechanism) [1].

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• July 27, 2026: the seventh ESA draft is published, with a 60-day objection window [1].
• 2026: public consultations are held in the Malnad region and protests break out [1].
• September 22, 2026: the Karnataka Legislature unanimously rejects the Kasturirangan report in its current form [1].
• What Karnataka proposes as the way forward: covered in the source article, but the text was cut off before that section, so no content could be retrieved [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• On Sept 22, 2026, the Karnataka Legislature unanimously rejected the Kasturirangan report in its current form [1].
• The July 27, 2026 draft is the seventh Western Ghats ESA draft [1].
• The first Western Ghats ESA draft was published in 2014 [1].
• States got a 60-day window to object to the draft [1].
• Karnataka has the largest ESA area among the six States, across 10 districts [1].
• The HLWG was chaired by K. Kasturirangan, a space scientist and not an ecologist [1].
• The HLWG was set up to review the WGEEP report [1][3].
• The six ESA States are Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Telangana and Andhra Pradesh are not among them [2].
• A draft notification specifying ESA areas was issued in October 2018 [2][4].
• The issuing ministry is MoEFCC [5].
• The Malnad region of Karnataka is the centre of the protests [1].

8. Why Karnataka Says the Map Is Wrong

• The fight is about the map, not about whether the Ghats need protection
• Karnataka accepts that the Ghats are ecologically sensitive [1].

• What it disputes is which villages the line is drawn through. A Karnataka minister called the Kasturirangan report 'unscientific' for this reason [7].

• The HLWG drew the line from satellite images, not by visiting villages

• The HLWG (High Level Working Group) used remote sensing (maps made from satellite pictures) to split the Ghats into 'natural landscape' (forests, grasslands) and 'cultural landscape' (farms, plantations, towns) [3].

• About 37% of the Ghats, the most intact part of the natural landscape, was marked as ESA [3][10].

• The village is the smallest unit, so whole villages fall inside

• The HLWG put an entire village inside the ESA if a set share of its area was ecologically sensitive [3].
• So a village with a forest patch at one edge goes in completely, along with its houses and plantations.

• This is why Malnad villagers feel the rule covers their homes, and why the State keeps asking for ground-truthing (checking the map on the ground) [1][4].

• Every State wants its own area cut, so the final map never gets agreed

• Parliament was told that the final notification is held up because States keep asking to reduce or change their ESA area [8].
• Karnataka has the largest share, spread over 10 districts [1]. So its objection matters most, and every cut it wins makes the other five States ask for the same.

9. What Twelve Years of Draft Notifications Have Cost

• A draft notification does not protect the land for good
• The first draft came on 10 February 2014 and covered 56,825 sq km across six States [8].
• Twelve years and seven drafts later, there is still no final notification [1][8].

• Each time a draft lapses and is re-issued, the 60-day objection round starts again, and the same objections come back [1].

• The Ghats stay open to the activities the ESA was meant to stop

• A decade after the Union accepted the Kasturirangan report, no State sharing the Ghats has finalised its ESA [9].
• Down To Earth warns that more Wayanad-type landslides could follow across the range [9].

• The Wayanad disaster (2024) is the clearest example of what delay can cost in lives [9].

• States ask for speed and then block it

• In 2020, the States told the Union Ministry they wanted early notification [2].
• Yet each draft since then has met the same demand to cut or change area [8], and Karnataka has now rejected it for the seventh time [1].

• A Mains answer can use this gap: States agree that the Ghats need protection in principle but block it in practice.

• The courts have not stepped in to force a decision

• The Supreme Court dismissed a plea against both the Gadgil and Kasturirangan reports [11].
• So the choice stays with the Union and the States. Nobody outside them is forcing a deadline.

10. Karnataka's Strongest Argument, and Where It Falls Short

• The strongest case for Karnataka
• Lakhs of people live inside the proposed ESA, and a line drawn from satellite images can include farms and homes by mistake [3][7].
• A rule that local people see as imposed from Delhi will be resisted on the ground. The Malnad protests show this [1].

• The State government knows its villages better than a map drawn in Delhi. This is a real federalism point: under the Constitution, land and agriculture are State subjects.

• What is right about it

• Consultation has been weak. Seven drafts in twelve years show that the Union has kept re-issuing the same map without first settling the disputed villages with the States [1][4].

• Where it falls short (1): the Kasturirangan report is already the softer option

• The Gadgil panel wanted no fresh industrial activity anywhere along the Ghats [10].

• The HLWG cut this down to about 37% of the area [10][3]. Rejecting even this smaller version leaves almost nothing in place.

• Where it falls short (2): the ESA does not ban farming

• The HLWG's list of banned activities targets mining, quarrying, red-category industries (the most polluting kind), thermal power plants and very large buildings [3].

• Farming and plantations such as coffee and arecanut are not on that list [3]. So the fear that Malnad farms will be shut down goes further than what the draft actually says.

• Where it falls short (3): 'reject' is not a plan

• Karnataka opposes the report 'in its current form' [1] but has not had its own map notified in twelve years [8].
• A State that only says 'no' leaves the forest with no protection at all [9].

11. What Could Break the Deadlock

• MoEFCC should notify the areas nobody disputes now and keep negotiating the rest
• Most of the delay is about disputed villages at the edges of the map [8].
• MoEFCC has already held meetings with States on checking the ESA on the ground [4].

• The villages that are clearly forest could be notified now, while the disputed ones are checked village by village. That ends the cycle of drafts lapsing.

• Karnataka should send a ground-checked map, as Kerala did

• Kerala checked its ESA villages on the ground and sent revised recommendations to the Union [12].
• But Kerala's own panel was criticised for trying to dilute the Kasturirangan report [13].

• So MoEFCC needs a fixed minimum area that a State cannot go below, or ground-checking just becomes a way to cut forest out of the map.

• Bring back the Gadgil idea of local say

• The WGEEP wanted zoning to be decided with gram sabhas (village assemblies), not only from above [3].
• The HLWG dropped this bottom-up method [3]. That is one reason Malnad villagers see the ESA as an order from outside [1].
• Letting gram sabhas confirm the village lists would answer Karnataka's consultation complaint without shrinking protection.

12. Anchors for Answers

• Data: The first draft ESA notification (10 February 2014) covered 56,825 sq km across six States. It is still not final [8].
• Data: The HLWG marked about 37% of the Western Ghats as ecologically sensitive [10][3].
• Report/Committee: Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (Madhav Gadgil), 2011. High Level Working Group (K. Kasturirangan), 2013 [3][9].
• Law/Case: The Supreme Court dismissed a plea challenging the Gadgil and Kasturirangan reports, leaving the decision with the Union and the States [11].
• Comparison: Kerala checked its ESA villages on the ground and sent revised recommendations [12], but it was criticised for diluting protection [13].

13. Mains Relevance

• GS-III: Conservation, environmental pollution and degradation, environmental impact assessment.
• GS-II: Federal relations and Centre-State issues, government policies and interventions.
• GS-I: Geography, including the physiography of the Western Ghats.
• Possible question stems: 1. 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. 2. Critically compare the Gadgil and Kasturirangan approaches to conserving the Western Ghats. Why has neither been implemented? 3. Environmental federalism in India requires consultative, bottom-up zoning. Examine in the context of Ecologically Sensitive Areas.

14. Related Topics to Study Next

• Gadgil (WGEEP) report: the stricter, participatory predecessor that the HLWG reviewed.
• Eco-Sensitive Zones around Protected Areas: a different instrument from the landscape-level ESA.
• Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: the source of the notification power.
• Biodiversity hotspots and UNESCO World Heritage (Western Ghats): the Ghats' global conservation status.
• Wayanad landslides (2024): the ESA debate revived after this disaster.
• Forest Rights Act, 2006: the rights and livelihood side of the conservation debate.
• Cultural vs natural landscape (HLWG classification): the core of the HLWG method.

15. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Mixing up WGEEP and HLWG: Gadgil chaired the WGEEP and Kasturirangan chaired the HLWG, which reviewed it [1].
• Confusing ESA with ESZ: an ESA is a landscape-level notification, while an ESZ is a buffer around a National Park or Sanctuary.
• Wrong number of States: six States are covered, and Karnataka, not Kerala, has the largest ESA share [1][2].
• Wrong ministry name: it is MoEFCC. Don't copy the article's "Environment, Ecology and Climate Change" [1][5].
• Wrong reading of Karnataka's stand: Karnataka rejected the report "in its current form". It did not deny that the Ghats are ecologically sensitive [1].