Karnataka’s Stand on Kasturirangan Report

Context 

In September 2026, the Karnataka Legislative Assembly unanimously passed a resolution rejecting the implementation of the Kasturirangan Committee recommendations regarding the Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) framework in the Western Ghats. The state government has pointed out the significant differences in information gathering, the non-scientific method of zoning villages, and the underlying worries over local livelihoods in 10 districts.

Background: Committees on Western Ghats

The Western Ghats is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and one of the world’s eight “hottest hotspots” of biological diversity. Two key panels were formed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to safeguard it:

• Gadgil Commission (2011): Formally known as the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP). It suggested declaring the entire Western Ghats as an ESA and categorising it into three levels for Ecologically Sensitive Zone (ESZ), and enforcing a “no big commercial use” policy, starting from the top. It was criticized for being too restrictive and anti-development.
• The Kasturirangan Committee (2013): It was constituted as a High-Level Working Group to look into the Gadgil report. It called for a pro-development, balanced landscape approach, dividing the landscape into cultural (human-dominated) and natural landscapes. It recommended isolating only 37% (approx. 60,000 sq. km) of the Western Ghats as an ESA.

Understanding the Kasturirangan Report Framework

The Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) constituted the Kasturirangan Committee to find a balanced path after the 2011 Madhav Gadgil report (WGEEP) was heavily resisted for recommending that the entire Western Ghats be declared an ESA.

• Landscape Classification: The report categorised the Western Ghats into two types, the Natural Landscapes (41%) – pristine forests, and the Cultural Landscapes (59%) – human settlements, agriculture.
• 37% Target Area: It indicates that 37% of total area of Western Ghats (~60,000 sq km) should be covered as ESA area mostly in natural landscapes.
• Prohibited Activities: There are major restrictions on high impact activities—this includes mining, quarrying, sand mining, thermal power plants, and industries of the red category.
• Permitted Activities: The Gadgil report had excluded agriculture, plantations, and development of infrastructure; in this report, they were permitted with safeguards. 

Core Grievances of Karnataka Against the Report

• Reliance on Outdated Remote-Sensing Data: The Kasturirangan report used the information gathered from remote sensing and satellite data in 2012 to distinguish between natural landscapes and human-inhabited areas. Karnataka is against this baseline citing the fact that the physical landscape realities have radically changed in 14 years.
• Flawed “Village-as-a-Unit” Classification: The report mandates that if at least 20% of a revenue village’s area is deemed ecologically sensitive, the entire village must be brought under the ESA framework. Karnataka argues this is unscientific because it inadvertently traps massive swathes of non-sensitive agricultural land, plantations, and dense human settlements under stringent environmental regulations.
• Insufficient ground-truthing and physical surveys: The state government does not want to establish boundaries based solely on satellite images taken on a large scale. Requires a detailed physical survey, based on each individual land survey number, to establish the exact extent of forest land and private property and public utility.
• Bipartisan & Livelihood Pressures: Local fears are widespread about property rights issues, displacement and a complete cessation of development. At the same time, vested commercial interests (e.g., the timber lobbies, the mining and quarrying lobbies) have been reported to have exaggerated these fears and effectively paralyzed the implementation of the ESA.

The Path Forward Proposed by Karnataka

• Alternative Mapping: The Assembly proposes a 1-year extension from the Centre to conduct an independent physical measurement.
• Limited ESA Scope: The state would like the ESA to apply only to known forest areas, and not to human settlements, plantations, and farms at all.
• Financial Incentives: Requires a holistic solution in the field of alternative livelihoods and economic support for any groups that are limited by the framework.

Conclusion

The issues of deadlock over the Kasturirangan report reflect India’s current dilemma on ecological security and sustainable development. The demand for accurate ground truthing in Karnataka is easy to administer, but the complete rejection of the ESA under political and economic pressure may create more climate vulnerabilities, as there are repeated landslides and floods in this region. The only possible solution is a collaborative, survey-number-based delineation that pays local stakeholders.

Source: The Hindu

Download as PDF