Narrowed posture: On Karnataka and the Kasturirangan Report

The Kasturirangan Report bears a pro-development attitude that allows human occupation and a range of economic activity across the Western Ghats, yet the Karnataka Assembly unanimously repudiated its recommendations. A grievance concerned the accuracy of the remote-sensing and satellite data from 2012 that the Report uses to distinguish natural from human-dominated landscapes. Another concern was its recommendation that an entire revenue village be placed within an ‘ecologically sensitive area’ (ESA) if at least 20% of its area is sensitive. This could bring farmland and human settlements within the ESA even when sensitive areas occupy only a fraction of the village. Following the Centre’s directive to States in 2013-14 to begin ground-truthing the Report’s recommendations, Karnataka faced bipartisan opposition centered on concerns about livelihoods, with vested interests, including stakeholders of activities both the Gadgil and the Kasturirangan Reports restrict/ban such as mining, allegedly fanning fears of displacement. The State thus elected to resist the ESA framework. Although the Assembly’s resolution proposes returning to the unfinished task of producing an alternative map, the government’s posture also faces a wider challenge.

The Centre’s interim directions in 2013 preserve some protection for the ecosystems that the State stewards, but for the government and the businesses within potential ESAs, the delay may prolong uncertainty over what forms of planned development will ultimately be permitted. Broadly, particular States confront the economic and political consequences of local resistance and foregone development while the country as a whole will capture much of the national benefit of conserving the Ghats, so States have an incentive to negotiate the ESAs’ extent down. However, as of mid-2026, Gujarat was reportedly close to an agreement with the Centre, Tamil Nadu had no substantive disagreement, Kerala wanted 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 (such as they are), 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. Specifically, Karnataka’s ability to continue rejecting the framework as a whole becomes harder to sustain if it does not also produce an equally considered alternative. Karnataka needs to reconcile the apprehensions of its farmers and workers with the responsibilities accruing to the State with the largest share (by area) of the proposed ESAs.