From the first draft notification issued on March 10, 2014, based on the Kasturirangan report, to the seventh issued on July 27, 2026, Kerala’s handling of the Western Ghats ESA (Ecologically Sensitive Area) issue has largely been a case of papering over the cracks. Neither the Kasturirangan committee nor the Oommen V Oommen committee that followed prepared its report after visiting the inhabited areas of the Western Ghats or understanding the concerns of the people living there. What these reports, focused largely on data, appear to overlook are the lives of lakhs of people who inhabit the Western Ghats. The move to implement the ESA has only heightened their sense of insecurity and anxiety.

What is even more unfortunate is that, 12 years after the first draft notification, Kerala’s political leadership has never considered it important enough to find a way to end this uncertainty and free the people of the Western Ghats from constant fear.

The latest draft notification issued by the Centre identifies 9,993.7 sq km across 131 villages in Kerala as ESA, while the state government’s proposal covers 8,712 sq km across 98 villages. The inclusion of a substantial number of inhabited areas even in this proposal has also raised public concern.

If the Centre’s proposal is implemented, Kerala could effectively see two categories of citizens emerge: those living in ESA villages and those outside them. Even activities involving revenue land in ESA villages could require clearances from the environment department, Pollution Control Board and forest department. In the high ranges, people have already started mentioning in property deeds and other documents that their land does not fall within an ESA or any other environmentally sensitive area.

There is also growing concern that such restrictions could make it difficult for people to raise loans against their property to meet expenses such as their children’s education, marriage or medical treatment. Over time, this could affect the economic and social development of ESA villages and push more families towards financial hardship. Education, marriage, farming and employment opportunities could all be affected, creating a situation in which residents of ESA villages are treated differently from other citizens of the state.

The larger problem, meanwhile, is that many of the studies on the issue have not adequately reflected the realities on the ground. The Gadgil committee report, for instance, had identified 72% of Kerala’s geographical area as ecologically sensitive, triggering anxiety among more than two crore people living in these areas. The Kasturirangan report later brought the figure down to 34%. By comparison, the figure is around 5% in Tamil Nadu, where population density is lower, and around 11% in Karnataka.

Yet Karnataka, taking into account the concerns of farmers, took a clear position that it would not implement the ESA proposal. So, has Kerala, where the issue affects people across 34% of the state’s geographical area, still not grasped the seriousness of the situation? Or is it merely choosing to look the other way?

The Kerala government should, at the earliest, follow the Karnataka model, convene a special Assembly session and pass a resolution opposing implementation of the ESA proposal and convey its position to the Centre. The possible way forward is to restrict the ESA declaration to forest land under the control of the forest department and keep revenue land outside its ambit.

Revenue land falls entirely within the state government’s jurisdiction. A firm stand by the state would make it difficult for the Centre to impose restrictions unilaterally. But what is required is political resolve.

Kerala already has a strong environmental record. Forests account for 29.6% of the state’s geographical area, while forest cover stands at 54%. None of the other states through which the Western Ghats pass has comparable forest cover. Kerala has achieved 54% forest cover at a time when India’s national policy target is 33%. The state has also achieved 60% tree cover despite its high population density, much of it sustained by the greenery in the homesteads of high-range farmers and the sweat and toil that goes into maintaining them.

Why, then, should these people be made to pay the price in the name of ESA? That is the question the people of the high ranges will certainly keep asking.
(The author is chairman , Kerala Independent Farmers Association)