Karnataka Houses adopt resolution against report on Western Ghats

Why in the News

The Karnataka Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council have adopted a unanimous resolution urging the Union government to confine the Ecological Sensitive Area (ESA) identified as per the Kasturirangan report on conservation of the Western Ghats to notified forests alone. The resolution follows the Centre’s seventh draft notification on the ESA in the State. It asks that the draft not be finalised for one year. A physical survey of the areas coming under the ESA would be completed in that period. It also asks that the final decision be taken only after the State submits its report and only after detailed discussion between the Centre and the State. The contest is between a delineation drawn from satellite data and a State claim that only a joint survey on the ground can fix which land belongs inside an ecologically protected zone.

What is the Ecological Sensitive Area proposed for the Western Ghats?

1. Source of the delineation: The ESA is the area identified for conservation as per the Kasturirangan report on the Western Ghats.
2. Route of notification: The Centre gives the ESA effect through a draft notification, and the draft issued on 27 July is the seventh in the series.
3. Extent in Karnataka: That draft covers 20,668 sq km, spread over 1,449 villages across 10 districts of the State.

What does the resolution ask the Centre to do, and on what terms?

1. ESA confined to notified forests: The resolution urges the Union government to restrict the ESA to notified forests, leaving other categories of land outside it.
2. One-year pause on finalisation: The draft notification should not be finalised for the next one year, by when the physical survey would be completed.
3. State report before any decision: The final decision on the ESA should follow the State’s own report and a detailed discussion between the Centre and the State.

Why does the State say the delineation is wrong?

1. Satellite data instead of a ground survey: The resolution alleges the ESA is not accurate, because it was determined from satellite data rather than a joint physical survey by the Forest and Revenue departments.
2. Scale of the correction sought: The State’s stand on the ESA would reduce the notified area to about 16,000 sq km.
3. High-level committee: Karnataka would constitute a high-level committee to suggest measures correcting the “lacunae” in the report through appropriate modifications.

Challenges to the Western Ghats ESA notification

1. A regime that never reaches finality: Successive draft notifications keep the protective regime provisional, so neither the conservation restriction nor land use certainty actually operates. Eg. The notification now in contention is the seventh draft on the ESA.
   The Fix: Fix a statutory outer date by which a draft must either be notified or withdrawn, so the interim period cannot be extended indefinitely.
2. Village boundaries decide household livelihoods: The ESA is applied over villages, so an error at a village boundary decides which households face restrictions on what they may do with their land. Eg. The draft covers 1,449 villages across 10 districts of Karnataka.
   The Fix: Publish the village-wise survey numbers proposed for inclusion, so an objection can be filed against a specific parcel rather than against the map as a whole.
3. Ecologically significant land outside notified forests: Confining the ESA to notified forests leaves out ecologically sensitive stretches that are recorded as revenue or plantation land. Eg. Karnataka’s stand would cut the ESA to roughly three-quarters of the area the Centre proposes.
   The Fix: Retain non-forest ecologically significant stretches under a lighter regulatory category, instead of removing them from the notification altogether.
4. A resolution carries no legal force: The notifying power sits with the Union government, so a State legislature can only urge rather than alter the instrument. Eg. Both Houses adopted the resolution unanimously and still had to address it to the Centre as a request.
   The Fix: Route the State’s objections through the formal objection process the draft notification itself provides, with the survey findings attached as the evidentiary record.

Conclusion

The question of who fixes an ecological boundary is now open between a Centre that holds the notifying power and a State that holds the forest and revenue records. Karnataka has committed itself to a survey it has yet to begin, and its demand for a pause is only as strong as that survey’s completion. The thing to watch is whether the Centre holds the draft for the survey year the resolution asks for, or finalises it as it stands.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2014] With reference to ‘Eco-Sensitive Zones’, which of the following statements is/are correct? 1. Eco-Sensitive Zones are the areas that are declared under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. 2. The purpose of the declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zones is to prohibit all kinds of human activities in those zones except agriculture. Select the correct answer using the code given below. (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 (d)”