Kasturirangan report on Western Ghats causing fear among farmers: Shivakumar

1. At a Glance

• The Kasturirangan Committee report (2013) proposes declaring ~60,000 sq km (37% of the Western Ghats) across six states as an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) [2].
• Karnataka CM D.K. Shivakumar told the Legislative Assembly (Sept 2026) that implementing the report could threaten livelihoods in 10 districts, calling the proposal-induced anxiety an "atmosphere of fear" among farmers [3].
• Directly tests environment vs. livelihood federalism, ESA governance, and Centre-State friction over land-use restrictions — a recurring UPSC theme (GS-II/III).
• Static base (Gadgil-Kasturirangan reports) + a live 2026 trigger (Karnataka Assembly debate, Centre's Sept 27 deadline) make this a high-yield current-affairs-cum-static hybrid.

2. Why in the News

• On 22 September 2026 (reported), CM Shivakumar addressed the Karnataka Legislative Assembly during a special session/debate on the Kasturirangan report, warning of livelihood threats in 10 districts and describing farmer anxiety as an "atmosphere of fear" [3].
• He cited that "more than six rivers" originate/flow through the Western Ghats and that "unscientific measures" proposed had caused widespread livelihood anxiety [3].
• The Union Government (Centre) has asked Karnataka to convey its decision on the report by 27 September 2026, and has reportedly reissued a seventh draft ESA notification proposing 56,825.7 sq km nationally [3][2].
• Farmers, per Shivakumar's consultations in the coastal and Malnad regions, demanded rejection of the report, a new committee, scrapping of the ESA classification, and adoption of the "Kerala model" [3].

3. Background & Evolution

• 2010: Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) set up the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) under Madhav Gadgil, which submitted its report in 2011, recommending ~64% of the Western Ghats (~1,29,037 sq km) be declared an Ecologically Sensitive Area with graded zoning (ESZ 1/2/3) [1].
• The Gadgil report faced state-level opposition for being too restrictive on development.
• August 2012: MoEFCC constituted a High-Level Working Group (HLWG) chaired by Dr. K. Kasturirangan to review the Gadgil report [1].
• 15 April 2013: Kasturirangan panel submitted its report, scaling down the ESA proposal to ~59,940–60,000 sq km (37% of the Western Ghats) across six states — Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu [1][2].
• Since 2013, the Centre has issued multiple draft ESA notifications (reportedly up to a seventh draft, proposing 56,825.7 sq km), each contested and revised amid state objections [2].
• Kerala constituted its own Oommen V. Oommen Committee, which reduced Kerala's ESA area to ~9,900 sq km from the Kasturirangan-proposed 13,108 sq km covering 123 villages — cited by Karnataka farmers as a preferable ("Kerala model") template [2].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Environmental

• Western Ghats is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and one of the world's biodiversity hotspots; the ESA proposal aims to curb mining, quarrying, and polluting industries to protect river origins and endemic species.
• Shivakumar himself invoked the Ghats' hydrological role — "more than six rivers" originate there — as grounds for protection but objected to the manner of restriction [3].

Economic

• Restrictions on mining, quarrying, and red-category industries directly affect livelihoods dependent on plantation agriculture, quarrying, and allied occupations in Malnad and coastal Karnataka.
• Farmers fear loss of land-use rights and property value depreciation upon ESA notification.

Social

• Farmer distress and "atmosphere of fear" reflect anxieties over relocation, restricted land transactions, and loss of traditional livelihoods in ESA villages.
• Coastal and Malnad region consultations show localized, community-specific concerns distinct from statewide environmental discourse.

Legal/Constitutional & Administrative

• ESA notification falls under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, administered by MoEFCC — a Central Act, creating Centre-State implementation friction since land and agriculture are State subjects.
• Repeated draft notifications (multiple drafts over a decade) reflect an unresolved federal negotiation process, with states demanding ground-truthing/physical surveys over the original satellite-imagery-based delineation.

Governance/Ethical

• Criticism centers on the report being based on remote-sensing data without adequate ground verification, raising due-process and consultation concerns before livelihood-affecting notifications.

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• September 2026: Karnataka Legislative Assembly held a special session/debate on the Kasturirangan report; CM Shivakumar warned of threats to livelihoods in 10 districts [3].
• Shivakumar toured coastal and Malnad regions before the Assembly session to consult affected farmers and residents [3].
• Farmers demanded rejection of the report, constitution of a new committee, scrapping of the ESZ classification, and adoption of the Kerala model [3].
• The Centre set 27 September 2026 as the deadline for Karnataka to convey its final decision on the ESA notification [3].
• Karnataka has reiterated its long-standing demand for physical/ground surveys of the Western Ghats rather than reliance on satellite-based demarcation [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• Kasturirangan report submitted on 15 April 2013.
• Chaired the review High-Level Working Group: Dr. K. Kasturirangan (former ISRO Chairman).
• Original expert panel (2011) chaired by Madhav Gadgil — Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP).
• Kasturirangan report proposed ~60,000 sq km (37%) of Western Ghats as Eco-Sensitive Area, down from Gadgil's ~64%.
• Six states covered: Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu.
• Karnataka's ESA area: 20,668 sq km, the highest share (~46.5%) among all six states.
• Nodal ministry for ESA notification: MoEFCC, under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
• Kerala revised its ESA downward via the Oommen V. Oommen Committee to ~9,900 sq km.
• Western Ghats is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and global biodiversity hotspot.
• Kasturirangan report recommended banning mining, quarrying, red-category industries, and thermal power projects in ESA zones.
• As of September 2026, Centre had reportedly issued a seventh draft ESA notification proposing 56,825.7 sq km.
• Centre's deadline for Karnataka's response on the 2026 draft: 27 September 2026.
• Key criticism of the report: reliance on satellite imagery over on-ground surveys.

8. Why Thirteen Years of Drafts Have Protected Nothing

• A draft notification has no legal force. Only a final one does.
• The Centre has issued six draft ESA notifications and each one lapsed, in 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2022, because the six states never agreed [4].
• The latest draft came on 31 July 2024 [4].

• Until a final notification is signed, the mining, quarrying and red-category bans the report recommends simply do not exist in law.

• So the activity the report wanted stopped carried on inside the very villages it listed.

• Kerala has 1,688 quarry sites. 90 of them sit inside the 123 villages the Kasturirangan report marked as ESA [4].

• In Wayanad district alone, 48 stone quarries operate across 49 villages; 15 of them are in the 13 ESA villages, and 9 are inside forests in two ESA villages [4].

• The existing rules were also not being enforced, so "we already have laws" is not an answer.

• A 2017 CAG report found that of 27 quarries inspected in Kerala, 21 broke the rules. Five districts, including Wayanad, had no system to check compliance at all [4].

• Why this matters for an aspirant: the delay is not a neutral pause. On 30 July 2024 the Wayanad landslides killed over 400 people in this same landscape [4]. Write the delay as a cost, not as caution.

9. Why Farmers Fear a Report That Does Not Ban Farming

• Read the actual restriction list first. The report bans mining, quarrying, red-category industries and thermal power in the ESA. It does not ban plantation crops, paddy or house-building.
• The fear comes from the uncertainty, not the text.
• Because no final notification has ever been issued, no farmer has ever been told in writing what he can and cannot do on his own survey number.
• Each new draft redraws village lists — the national figure has moved from ~59,940 sq km to 56,825.7 sq km across drafts [2].

• When the boundary keeps moving for thirteen years, banks, buyers and sub-registrars grow cautious about land inside "maybe-ESA" villages. Land value and loan access fall before any rule is applied.

• The village count itself is unsettled. Karnataka's ESA is quoted as 1,449 villages by the CM and 1,576 in other sources [3][1]. A farmer cannot check a list that does not agree with itself.

• The real grievance is method, not conservation. Karnataka's standing demand is for a physical ground survey instead of satellite-image demarcation [1]. A satellite cannot tell a coffee estate from natural forest cover — so plantations that people have farmed for generations can get counted as sensitive forest.

10. The Strongest Argument for the Protesting Farmers — and Its Limit

• The strongest version of the farmers' case is this, and it is partly correct:
• The land was mapped from satellite pictures, not by anyone walking the ground [1].
• The people affected were never asked before the lines were drawn. The report is a committee recommendation, not a law passed by any assembly.
• Karnataka carries the biggest burden — 20,668 sq km, about 46.5% of the whole national ESA [1]. It is fair to ask why one state absorbs nearly half.

• Kerala got its area cut from 13,108 sq km to about 9,900 sq km through its own Oommen V. Oommen Committee [2]. If one state can renegotiate, Karnataka asking for the same is not unreasonable.

• Where that argument breaks:

• The demand is not only for better maps — it is for rejecting the report and scrapping ESA classification entirely [3]. Those are different things. Bad mapping is fixed by re-mapping, not by abandoning protection.
• The "Kerala model" being held up as the answer did not protect Kerala. Kerala trimmed its ESA and still had 90 quarries inside its ESA villages and 400-plus deaths in Wayanad [4].

• The ban list targets quarrying and red-category industry — activities that concentrate profit in few hands — while the political argument is made in the name of small farmers. Note who actually loses from the ban.

• Balanced line for a Mains answer: the farmers are right about the process and wrong about the remedy.

11. Why the Courts Could Not Settle This Either

• A rolling draft cannot easily be challenged in court.
• A Kerala farmers' body, Krashak Shabdam, went to the Supreme Court against the demarcation of 56,825 sq km as ESA [5].

• On 12 September 2022 the Court dismissed the petition. Its reason: the 2018 draft being challenged had already been replaced by a newer draft of 6 July 2022, the petitioner had filed objections to that new draft, and the final notification was still pending. So the Court saw no reason to use its power under Article 32 (the right to move the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights) [5].

• What that means, in plain words: you cannot sue over a rule that is not final yet. Every time a draft lapses and a new one appears, the clock resets and the case becomes pointless.

• The governance lesson to carry: endless drafting is itself a way of avoiding accountability. Neither the farmer nor the conservationist can get a court ruling, because there is nothing final to rule on.

12. What Karnataka and the Centre Should Actually Do Now

• MoEFCC should issue a final notification, even a reduced one, instead of a seventh draft.
• Six drafts have lapsed since 2015 [4]. A seventh changes nothing on the ground.

• A final, smaller ESA that is legally enforceable protects more than a large ESA that exists only on paper.

• Karnataka should do what Kerala did on method, not on size.

• Kerala set up the Oommen V. Oommen Committee, did its own state-level review and submitted a revised map of about 9,900 sq km [2].

• Karnataka has demanded ground surveys for years [1] but should now submit its own verified village-by-village map before the Centre's 27 September 2026 deadline [3], rather than only asking for rejection.

• Fix enforcement of the rules that already exist, before arguing about new ones.

• The CAG found 21 of 27 inspected Kerala quarries violating rules, and five districts with no compliance monitoring [4].

• State mining and pollution control boards should publish quarry-wise inspection results. A ban nobody checks is the same as no ban.

• Settle land rights first, so the boundary stops frightening people.

• Under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, gram sabhas (the village assembly of all adult voters) record and settle individual and community claims over forest land.
• Recording those claims in ESA-listed villages before notification would tell each household exactly what it owns and keeps — which is what removes the "atmosphere of fear" [3] far better than another committee.

13. Anchors for Answers

• Data: 20,668 sq km of Karnataka proposed as ESA — about 46.5% of the national ESA, the highest share of any state [1][3]
• Data: 90 of Kerala's 1,688 quarry sites operate inside its 123 ESA villages; 48 quarries in Wayanad district, 15 of them in ESA villages [4]
• Data: Wayanad landslides, 30 July 2024 — over 400 deaths; the newest draft ESA notification was issued on 31 July 2024, a day later [4]
• Report/Committee: Gadgil WGEEP (2011) ~64%; Kasturirangan HLWG (2013) ~37%; Oommen V. Oommen Committee (Kerala) cut its ESA to ~9,900 sq km [1][2]
• Report/Committee: CAG 2017 audit — 21 of 27 quarries inspected in Kerala found violating rules; five districts including Wayanad had no compliance system [4]
• Law/Case: Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 — the enabling law for ESA notification; Forest Rights Act, 2006 for gram sabha-based claim settlement
• Law/Case: Supreme Court, 12 September 2022 — plea by Krashak Shabdam against the 56,825 sq km ESA dismissed; Court declined Article 32 jurisdiction as the draft had been superseded and no final notification existed [5]
• Comparison: Kerala's route — a state-appointed expert committee producing its own ground-verified map, accepted as a negotiating document, instead of outright rejection [2]
• Scheme: Six lapsed draft ESA notifications (2015, 2017, 2018, 2022, 2024) — a ready example of policy paralysis in cooperative federalism [4]

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-III: Conservation, environmental pollution and degradation, environmental impact assessment; also Land reforms/agriculture livelihoods.
• GS-II: Federalism — Centre-State relations, issues arising from design/implementation of policies affecting states' interests.
• Possible question stems: 1. Examine the Centre-State tensions in implementing the Kasturirangan Committee recommendations on the Western Ghats. How can ecological conservation be reconciled with local livelihood concerns? (GS-II/III) 2. Compare the Gadgil and Kasturirangan Committee approaches to Western Ghats conservation. Why has the latter also faced sustained opposition from states? (GS-III) 3. Discuss the significance of the Western Ghats as an ecological entity and the administrative challenges in notifying Ecologically Sensitive Areas. (GS-III)

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• Gadgil Committee (WGEEP) report — the predecessor report with more stringent recommendations; useful for comparison.
• Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 — the enabling legal framework for ESA notifications.
• UNESCO World Heritage Sites in India — Western Ghats' international conservation status.
• Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) around Protected Areas — a related but distinct regulatory mechanism under wildlife law.
• Biodiversity hotspots of India — broader conceptual framework (4 hotspots: Western Ghats, Himalaya, Indo-Burma, Sundaland).
• Forest Rights Act, 2006 — intersects with livelihood/tribal rights concerns in ESA-affected villages.
• Cooperative federalism and environmental governance — broader GS-II theme illustrated by this case.
• Kerala's Oommen V. Oommen Committee — comparative state-level response model cited by Karnataka farmers.

16. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Don't confuse Gadgil Committee (2011, WGEEP) with Kasturirangan Committee (2013, HLWG) — Gadgil proposed a much larger, stricter ESA (~64%); Kasturirangan scaled it down (~37%).
• Kasturirangan report is not a statute — it is a committee recommendation; actual notification requires MoEFCC to issue a formal ESA notification under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which remains in draft/contested form even in 2026.
• Do not conflate ESA (Eco-Sensitive Area) under this report with Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) around wildlife sanctuaries/national parks — different legal mechanisms, though similar terminology.
• K. Kasturirangan is a space scientist (former ISRO Chairman), not an ecologist by background — often a distractor in MCQs about panel composition.
• Village/area figures vary slightly across sources (e.g., 1,449 vs. 1,576 villages in Karnataka) — attribute the figure to its specific source/date when citing in answers.