Karnataka's ESA standoff: Assembly rejects Kasturirangan Report as other States negotiate

The Karnataka Assembly has unanimously rejected the recommendations of the Kasturirangan Report on the Western Ghats, even though the report itself takes a broadly development-friendly approach that permits human settlement and a range of economic activity across the mountain range.

Two specific objections have driven the State's position. The first concerns the reliability of the remote-sensing and satellite data from 2012 that the report relies on to separate natural landscapes from those shaped by human activity. The second targets the report's proposal that an entire revenue village be designated an ecologically sensitive area (ESA) if at least 20% of its land is classified as sensitive — a threshold that could pull farmland and inhabited settlements into the ESA even when sensitive zones cover only a small part of the village.

When the Centre directed States in 2013-14 to begin ground-truthing the report's recommendations, Karnataka encountered bipartisan opposition rooted in livelihood concerns. Vested interests — including stakeholders in activities that both the Gadgil and Kasturirangan Reports restrict or ban, such as mining — are alleged to have amplified fears of displacement. The State ultimately chose to resist the ESA framework altogether. While the Assembly's resolution proposes returning to the unfinished task of drawing an alternative map, the government's stance faces a broader challenge.

The Centre's interim directions of 2013 preserve some protection for the ecosystems Karnataka stewards. For the government and businesses inside potential ESAs, however, the delay prolongs uncertainty over what forms of planned development will eventually be permitted.

More fundamentally, individual States bear the economic and political costs of local resistance and foregone development, while the country as a whole captures much of the national benefit of conserving the Ghats. That asymmetry gives States an incentive to negotiate the extent of ESAs downward. As of mid-2026, Gujarat was reportedly close to an agreement with the Centre, Tamil Nadu had no substantive disagreement, Kerala sought to reduce its already ground-truthed 9,993 sq. km to 8,805 sq. km, and Maharashtra and Goa wanted 378 and 21 villages omitted, respectively.

These instances of progress, the Ghats' continuity across six States, and the Centre's 2024 decision to allow ESAs in the region to be notified State by State increase pressure on Karnataka without legally binding it to its neighbours' choices. Karnataka's ability to keep rejecting the framework as a whole becomes harder to sustain if it does not also produce an equally considered alternative. The State needs to reconcile the apprehensions of its farmers and workers with the responsibilities that come with holding the largest share, by area, of the proposed ESAs.