Editorial-27/09/2026
Narrowed posture: On Karnataka and the Kasturirangan Report
Karnataka’s recent unanimous legislative resolution rejecting the Kasturirangan Committee’s Western Ghats framework reflects a defensible anxiety about livelihoods and land-use, but risks hardening into an unproductive refusal to engage with any ecologically sensitive area (ESA) regime. The State’s posture is “narrowed” not because it questions specific mappings or demands ground-truthing, but because it has repeatedly chosen blanket repudiation over producing a credible, science-based alternative that balances conservation with development.
Context: The Kasturirangan Report and the ESA framework
The Kasturirangan Committee (High Level Working Group, 2012–13) was set up to recalibrate the earlier Gadgil Panel’s Western Ghats conservation plan, which had proposed very wide restrictions. Kasturirangan recommended that about 37% of the Western Ghats—roughly 59,940 sq. km across six States—be designated as ESA, focusing on biologically rich, low-fragmentation, low-density areas, including protected areas and wildlife corridors. Unlike Gadgil’s near-comprehensive zoning, Kasturirangan distinguished “natural” from “cultural” landscapes and explicitly allowed continued human occupation and a range of economic activities outside the core ESA.
Its key proposals include: banning mining, quarrying, red-category industries, thermal power plants, and large township projects in ESAs; capping building construction at 20,000 sq. m; subjecting infrastructure and development within 10 km of ESAs to environmental clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006; and creating monitoring and decision-support mechanisms with incentives for “green growth”. In essence, it is a pro-development conservation template: it protects critical ecology while permitting regulated activity elsewhere.
Karnataka’s objections: genuine concerns and political economy
Karnataka’s objections cluster around method, scope, and livelihoods. First, the State contends that the ESA map relies on 2012 remote-sensing and satellite data without adequate ground verification, leading to misclassification of plantations, agriculture, and settlements as “sensitive”. Second, it opposes the rule that if 20% or more of a revenue village is ecologically sensitive, the entire village falls under ESA—potentially dragging farmland and habitation into a restrictive regime. Third, there are fears that zealous implementation could curtail routine activities—house repairs, farm expansion, local infrastructure—despite the report not banning ordinary housing or renovation.
These are not trivial concerns. Of the six Western Ghats States, Karnataka has the largest proposed ESA footprint—about 20,668 sq. km across 1,449–1,576 villages in 10 districts—so the political and economic stakes are highest here. Local protests in the Malnad region have amplified anxieties about land values, credit access for plantations, and perceived threats to farmers and workers. At the same time, vested interests linked to mining and other restricted activities have been accused of stoking displacement fears to block regulation.
The “narrowed posture”: why blanket rejection is self-defeating
The editorial’s critique is that Karnataka’s stance has narrowed from “we need better mapping and livelihood safeguards” to “we cannot accept the ESA framework at all”. This is problematic for three reasons.
- It forfeits leverage. The Centre’s 2024 decision to notify ESAs State by State means Karnataka can negotiate its boundaries and safeguards, but only if it table a serious alternative. Repeatedly rejecting drafts without a counter-map or detailed modifications weakens its bargaining position as other States move forward.
- It prolongs uncertainty. Interim directions since 2013 preserve some protection, but the long delay leaves farmers, businesses, and planners in limbo about what development will ultimately be permitted. Uncertainty itself depresses investment and planning more than a clear, calibrated regime would.
- It externalises costs. Conservation of the Western Ghats yields national benefits—water security, climate regulation, biodiversity—while the political and economic costs of restrictions are borne locally. This asymmetry incentivises States to shrink ESAs, but a total walk-away shifts the burden to the Centre and to neighbouring States that do comply, without solving the underlying ecological risk.
By mid-2026, other States were making progress: Gujarat was close to an agreement; Tamil Nadu had no major disagreement; Kerala sought to trim its already ground-truthed ESA from 9,993 to 8,805 sq. km; Maharashtra and Goa wanted specific villages omitted. Karnataka’s continued blanket opposition thus looks increasingly isolated and less defensible.
What Karnataka is now proposing—and what it must add?
On September 22, 2026, both Houses of the Karnataka Legislature passed a resolution seeking: (a) one year to conduct a physical, ground-truthing survey of the proposed ESA; (b) a freeze on finalising Karnataka’s ESA until that survey is complete; and (c) a high-level committee headed by a retired judge, with all stakeholders, to review shortcomings and recommend modifications. Legislators across parties have urged adopting a “Kerala model” of physical verification before final notification.
These steps are necessary but not sufficient. To move beyond a narrowed posture, Karnataka should:
What Karnataka is now proposing—and what it must add?
On September 22, 2026, both Houses of the Karnataka Legislature passed a resolution seeking: (a) one year to conduct a physical, ground-truthing survey of the proposed ESA; (b) a freeze on finalising Karnataka’s ESA until that survey is complete; and (c) a high-level committee headed by a retired judge, with all stakeholders, to review shortcomings and recommend modifications. Legislators across parties have urged adopting a “Kerala model” of physical verification before final notification.
These steps are necessary but not sufficient. To move beyond a narrowed posture, Karnataka should:
- Produce an alternative, evidence-based map. Use updated satellite imagery, field surveys, and participatory mapping to distinguish natural forests, plantations, agriculture, and settlements with precision.
- Refine the 20% rule. Instead of auto-including entire revenue villages, adopt micro-zoning at the hamlet or plot level, with clear buffers and transition zones that protect ecology without over-regulating inhabited areas.
- Codify livelihood safeguards. Explicitly exempt ordinary housing, farm improvements, and local infrastructure from ESA restrictions; create fast-track, transparent clearance windows for permitted activities; and establish grievance redressal to prevent overreach by officials.
- Address land tenure complexities. Integrate Bagair Hukum lands, forest rights claims, deemed forests, land grants, and pending legal cases into the mapping and clearance process so that rights-holders are not penalised by blanket classifications.
- Offer green-growth incentives. Align with Kasturirangan’s proposal for financial incentives, eco-friendly enterprise support, and monitoring mechanisms so that conservation is seen as enabling, not just restricting, local economies.
The larger lesson: conservation that earns local consent
The Western Ghats cannot be protected by fiat alone; durable conservation requires local consent built on accurate information, fair rules, and tangible benefits. Karnataka’s farmers and workers are right to demand that ESA boundaries reflect ground realities and that their livelihoods be secured. But the answer is not to discard the entire framework; it is to improve it.
A narrowed posture—defined by repeated, undifferentiated rejection—risks leaving Karnataka with the worst of both worlds: continued ecological degradation in sensitive zones and persistent policy uncertainty that chills responsible development. A broadened posture would couple rigorous ground-truthing with a credible alternative map, clear livelihood protections, and a commitment to green growth, allowing Karnataka to lead rather than lag in balancing ecology and economy in the Western Ghats.
