Article 1: Narrowed posture
Why in news: The Karnataka Assembly has rejected the Kasturirangan recommendations, highlighting concerns over ESA mapping, livelihoods and development. The decision has renewed debate on balancing Western Ghats conservation with local economic interests.
Key Details
- Kasturirangan approach: The report seeks to protect ecologically valuable areas while permitting settlements and regulated economic activities in less-sensitive regions.
- Mapping concerns: Karnataka has questioned the reliability of 2012 satellite and remote-sensing data used to identify ecologically sensitive areas.
- Village-level issue: Under the proposed approach, an entire revenue village could fall under ESA regulations when 20% or more of its area is identified as ecologically sensitive.
- Livelihood concerns: Farmers, workers and other residents fear that ESA restrictions could affect agriculture, construction and local economic activity.
- Federal challenge: Since the Western Ghats extend across six States, conservation requires coordination while recognising different States' development needs and local concerns.
Kasturirangan Report and Development
- The Kasturirangan Report seeks to balance environmental conservation with economic development in the Western Ghats.
- It permits human settlements and several forms of economic activity while identifying ecologically sensitive areas.
- However, the Karnataka Assembly unanimously rejected its recommendations, mainly over concerns about livelihoods and development.
Concerns Over ESA Identification
- Karnataka questioned the reliability of 2012 remote-sensing and satellite data used to distinguish natural landscapes from human-dominated areas.
- The Report proposes declaring an entire revenue village as an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) if at least 20% of its area is ecologically sensitive.
- This could bring farmlands and settlements under ESA restrictions even when sensitive areas cover only part of the village.
Livelihood and Political Concerns
- Karnataka faced bipartisan opposition to the ESA framework, particularly because of concerns over farmers’ and workers’ livelihoods.
- Stakeholders linked to activities restricted under the Gadgil and Kasturirangan frameworks, including mining, were also accused of increasing fears of displacement.
- The State has therefore preferred to resist the existing ESA framework and consider an alternative mapping exercise.
Inter-State Coordination Challenge
- The Centre’s interim directions since 2013 continue to provide some protection to Western Ghats ecosystems, but delays have created uncertainty over future development.
- Different States have adopted different positions: Gujarat is reportedly nearing agreement, Tamil Nadu has no major disagreement, while Kerala, Maharashtra and Goa seek changes to the proposed ESA areas.
- Since the Western Ghats extend across six States, conservation requires coordination between the Centre and all concerned States.
Karnataka’s Need for an Alternative
- The Centre’s 2024 decision to notify ESAs State by State increases pressure on Karnataka to clarify its position.
- Karnataka is not legally bound to follow the choices of neighbouring States, but continued rejection of the framework requires a credible alternative proposal.
- The State needs to balance the livelihood concerns of farmers and workers with its responsibility to conserve the Western Ghats, where Karnataka has the largest share of the proposed ESA area.
Conclusion
Conservation of the Western Ghats cannot succeed through uniform restrictions alone. Policy must be based on accurate ground-level mapping, scientific evidence and meaningful consultation with local communities. At the same time, States must recognise their wider ecological responsibilities. A cooperative federal approach, supported by sustainable livelihoods and carefully differentiated regulations, can protect fragile ecosystems without imposing disproportionate costs on local populations.
Descriptive question:
The conservation of the Western Ghats involves a complex trade-off between ecological protection and livelihood security. Discuss the challenges in implementing the Kasturirangan Committee recommendations. (150 words, 10 marks)