Western Ghats Ecologically Sensitive Area: 6th Draft Notification 2026, Kerala's Push to Exclude 131 Villages, and the Conservation-Livelihood Debate

Why in News

The Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) issued its 6th draft notification on July 25, 2026, proposing to designate over 56,825 sq km of the Western Ghats as an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) — also called an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ). The 60-day public objection window closes on September 24, 2026, making this a live issue. The Kerala state government has announced it will seek exclusion of 131 villages and approximately 9,993 sq km from the proposed ESA limits. The Centre maintains that, except for the Palakkad Gap, no part of the Western Ghats should be excluded to preserve ecological continuity. This issue has been unresolved for over a decade, set against the backdrop of the devastating Wayanad landslide of July 2024 (over 300 deaths), which reinvigorated calls to formally notify the ESA.

Background

What are the Western Ghats?

The Western Ghats (also known as Sahyadri) is a mountain range running along India's western coast, spanning approximately 1,600 km from Gujarat in the north to Kerala/Tamil Nadu in the south. Key facts:

• One of the world's 36 biodiversity hotspots (Conservation International, 2011 update)
• UNESCO World Heritage Site: 39 serial property sites across the Ghats were inscribed in 2012
• Home to over 7,000 species of flowering plants, 139 mammal species, 508 bird species, 179 amphibian species
• Source of major river systems: Godavari, Krishna, Kaveri, and numerous westward-flowing rivers
• Regulates monsoon rainfall patterns for peninsular India
• 6 states: Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu

Expert Panel Recommendations

Two expert bodies have assessed the Western Ghats ESA question:

Chronology of Draft Notifications

• 1st Draft (2014): Based on Kasturirangan report; 59,940 sq km across 6 states
• 2nd Draft (2015): Modified; reduced area in some states
• 3rd Draft (2017)
• 4th Draft (2018)
• 5th Draft (2022): Area reduced further to approximately 56,825 sq km; following Wayanad floods
• 6th Draft (July 25, 2026): Current notification — 56,825+ sq km; objection deadline September 24, 2026

Each successive notification was followed by objections from states, particularly Kerala, Karnataka, and Goa, citing livelihoods and human settlements.

Current Developments

• MoEFCC's 6th draft notification: July 25, 2026 — proposes 56,825 sq km as ESA across 6 states
• Objection deadline: September 24, 2026 (60-day window from July 25)
• Kerala Minister T. Siddique announced the state will submit objections seeking exclusion of 131 villages and 9,993 sq km
• Kerala aims to completely exclude 30+ villages and remove residential/agricultural zones in the remaining villages from ESA limits
• Kerala CM V.D. Satheesan engaged the Western Ghats Environmental Expert Committee; Revenue Minister A.P. Anilkumar stated: "The government will not take any stand which will adversely affect the people"
• Centre's position: The Palakkad Gap is the only permissible exclusion — excluding other areas would break the ecological corridor
• Key contention: Idukki district — Centre objects to exclusion of Udumbanchola taluk villages (cardamom-growing areas settled ~100 years ago with government support)

Key Facts

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 48A (Directive Principle): The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard forests and wildlife
• Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duty): Every citizen has a duty to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife
• Article 21: Right to life, interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to a clean and healthy environment (Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, 1991)
• Seventh Schedule, Entry 17-A, Concurrent List: Forests
• Seventh Schedule, Entry 17-B, Concurrent List: Protection of wild animals and birds
• Entry 13, Union List: Participation in international conferences and implementation of treaties (relevant for UNESCO World Heritage obligations)

Legal Framework

• Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EPA): Section 3(2)(v) empowers the Central Government to restrict areas in which industries/operations may be carried out; basis for ESA notifications
• Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986: Rule 5 provides procedure for prohibiting/restricting certain industries in specific areas
• Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: Governs diversion of forest lands
• Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: Governs protected areas (National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, Tiger Reserves) within Western Ghats
• Biological Diversity Act, 2002: National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) framework; Western Ghats holds 100+ Biodiversity Heritage Sites
• Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006: Rights of tribal communities in ESA-proposed areas must be settled before notification
• National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: NGT has jurisdiction over Western Ghats ESA-related petitions

Institutional Framework

• Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC): Nodal ministry for ESA notification
• Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP / Gadgil Committee): Submitted report 2011
• High Level Working Group (HLWG / Kasturirangan Committee): Submitted report 2013; recommendations form basis of current draft
• National Biodiversity Authority (NBA): Under Biological Diversity Act 2002
• UNESCO World Heritage Committee: Monitors India's obligations regarding the 39 inscribed WG properties
• National Green Tribunal (NGT): Multiple orders on Western Ghats protection
• State-level ESA Expert Committees: Each state government has a committee reviewing the draft

Economic Dimensions

The ESA debate involves significant economic stakes:

• Agriculture: Cardamom, coffee, tea, rubber — Kerala's Idukki, Wayanad, Munnar districts are major plantation zones within proposed ESA
• Tourism: Western Ghats generates substantial eco-tourism revenue (estimated ₹8,000+ crore/year)
• Quarrying and construction: Restriction on quarrying will increase construction material costs in 6 states
• Hydropower: Large hydro projects restricted — Kerala's power generation plans affected
• Tribals and forest dwellers: ~5 lakh families in Kerala alone depend on forest produce and agriculture in proposed ESA zones

Banking & financial angle: ESA restrictions reduce collateral value of agricultural land in notified areas; impact on Kisan Credit Card (KCC) limits; Rural banking NBFCs active in plantation lending face regulatory uncertainty.

Environmental Dimensions

• Western Ghats stores and regulates inter-seasonal water flows for 245 million people across six states
• Carbon sequestration: Forests store ~6.8 billion tonnes of carbon; ESA helps maintain this sink
• Climate change vulnerability: IPCC reports flag Western Ghats as highly vulnerable — increased rainfall intensity, more frequent landslides
• The Wayanad landslide (July 2024), which killed 300+ people, was linked by experts to deforestation and encroachment in ecological corridors
• Delay in ESA notification = continued unregulated quarrying, construction, and encroachment
• SDGs relevant: SDG 15 (Life on Land), SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 6 (Clean Water)

Social Dimensions

• Over 50 lakh people live within the proposed ESA zone across 6 states
• Tribal communities (particularly Adivasi groups in Kerala, Karnataka) have rights under the Forest Rights Act 2006
• Long-settled farming communities (cardamom growers in Idukki — settled ~100 years ago) argue they cannot be displaced
• Social justice concern: ESA restrictions without rehabilitation = pauperisation of marginal farmers and forest dwellers
• Women-led self-help groups (Kudumbashree in Kerala) depend on agro-forestry produce from proposed ESA zones

Challenges

• Political economy: All 6 states have strong political constituencies in areas within proposed ESA — no government wants to restrict livelihoods
• Legal limbo: 12+ years of draft notifications without final notification undermines legal certainty for landowners, investors, and conservationists
• Forest Rights Act vs. ESA: Forest rights of tribals must be settled before ESA is notified — a prerequisite that is incomplete
• Palakkad Gap: Centre agrees to exclude this corridor; but disagreement on Idukki and other patches threatens the entire ecological continuity model
• Enforcement gaps: Even after notification, ground-level enforcement in rugged terrain is weak
• Compensation mechanisms: No Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) framework to compensate landowners who forgo development rights

Government Initiatives

• National Mission for Green India (GIM): Under NAPCC; targets increasing forest/tree cover by 5 million hectares
• Biological Diversity Act 2002: Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) at gram panchayat level in WG states
• CAMPA (Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority): Funds for afforestation, including in Western Ghats
• NGT suo motu action orders on illegal quarrying in Western Ghats
• SECURE Himalaya / Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats: Analogous models that could be adapted for Western Ghats
• States have established state-level Biodiversity Boards (e.g., Kerala State Biodiversity Board) as mandated by Biological Diversity Act

Way Forward

• The Kasturirangan Committee (2013) itself recommended a participatory approach — local communities should be partners, not adversaries, in conservation
• Implement a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) framework: compensate landowners who forgo development rights within ESA — recommended by the Economic Survey 2023–24
• Settle pending Forest Rights Act claims of tribal communities before final notification — a legal prerequisite to avoid future litigation
• The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission (2nd ARC) recommended decentralised, community-based natural resource management — apply this principle to ESA governance
• Establish a Western Ghats Development Authority (analogous to Brahmaputra Board) for coordinated management across 6 states
• NITI Aayog has recommended shifting from command-and-control to incentive-based conservation — ESA management should incorporate this
• Finalise the notification without further delay — 12 years of indecision has emboldened illegal land use changes

Possible Mains Questions

1. "The Western Ghats Ecologically Sensitive Area notification has been delayed for over a decade because of the tension between conservation imperatives and livelihood rights. Analyse this tension and suggest a way forward that balances both." (GS-III, 250 words)
2. "The Gadgil Committee and Kasturirangan Committee offer sharply contrasting visions for Western Ghats conservation. Compare their approaches and evaluate which is more suitable in the Indian context." (GS-III, 200 words)

Possible Prelims MCQs

1. Under which Act does the Central Government derive its power to notify Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESA)? → Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
2. The Kasturirangan HLWG proposed declaring what percentage of the Western Ghats as ESA? → ~37% (59,940 sq km)
3. Which of the following is NOT a state covered by the Western Ghats ESA proposal? (a) Gujarat (b) Goa (c) Telangana (d) Kerala → (c) Telangana
4. Article 51A(g) of the Indian Constitution relates to — (a) Right to education (b) Fundamental duty to protect natural environment (c) Right to healthy environment (d) Directive Principle on forest conservation → (b)
5. The Western Ghats was inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in — (a) 2004 (b) 2007 (c) 2012 (d) 2016 → (c) 2012

Essay Dimensions

1. Ecology and economy as competing imperatives: can India afford to protect the Western Ghats?
2. The price of biodiversity: why India must urgently operationalise Payment for Ecosystem Services
3. Federalism and environment: when state interests conflict with national ecological obligations
4. The Wayanad landslide as a wake-up call: disaster, deforestation, and development myopia
5. Local communities as stewards of biodiversity, not adversaries of conservation

Interview Questions

1. The Western Ghats ESA notification has been pending for 12 years. As a District Collector in Idukki, how would you balance the interests of cardamom farmers and ecological conservation?
2. What is the Palakkad Gap, and why does the Centre insist it is the only permissible exclusion from the ESA?
3. How does the Forest Rights Act 2006 create a legal prerequisite before the Western Ghats ESA can be finally notified?
4. Compare the Gadgil and Kasturirangan reports on the Western Ghats. Which would you recommend, and why?
5. Is India meeting its UNESCO World Heritage obligations regarding the Western Ghats? What are the consequences of non-compliance?

FAQ

Q1. What is an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA)?

An ESA (also called Eco-Sensitive Zone) is a buffer zone around Protected Areas or ecologically important regions, notified under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Within an ESA, certain activities (mining, quarrying, large industry) are prohibited or strictly regulated to protect the ecosystem.

Q2. Why has the Western Ghats ESA notification been delayed since 2014?

Six states have repeatedly submitted objections — particularly Kerala, Karnataka, and Goa — citing concerns about livelihoods, agricultural land, and human settlements within the proposed zone. Unsettled Forest Rights Act claims and political economy factors have contributed to 12+ years of draft notifications without finalisation.

Q3. What does Kerala want excluded and why?

Kerala seeks to exclude 131 villages and 9,993 sq km, particularly in Idukki, Wayanad, and Palakkad districts, where communities have farmed (cardamom, coffee, rubber) for generations — many settled there with government support over 100 years ago. The state argues imposing fresh restrictions on long-inhabited areas is unacceptable.

Q4. What is the Palakkad Gap?

The Palakkad Gap is a natural break in the Western Ghats mountain range in Kerala, through which the Chennai-Coimbatore railway and highways pass. It is the one area where even the Centre concedes the ESA ecological continuity argument does not apply — and it remains open to exclusion.

Further Reading

• MoEFCC official website — draft notification
• UNESCO Western Ghats World Heritage Site
• Kasturirangan HLWG Report (2013) — available on MoEFCC website
• Gadgil WGEEP Report (2011) — available on MoEFCC website