Kerala’s Western Ghats ESA Proposal: Conservation, Livelihoods and Federal Consultation

What Kerala has sought

The Assembly’s unanimous resolution asks the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to accept the revised ESA proposal and confine restrictions to scientifically determined, clearly demarcated boundaries. Coverage across revenue villages should not be confused with automatic inclusion of every parcel within those villages; the final notified boundaries would determine the regulated area.

Kerala also seeks exemptions for specified activities and exclusion of the Cardamom Hill Reserve, citing its long-standing cultivation, settlements, infrastructure and existing legal restrictions. The source does not establish that the Centre has accepted any of these requests.

• Requested exemptions include milk processing units and common sewage treatment plants.
• The resolution seeks exemptions for diesel generator systems in hospitals, medical colleges and industrial parks, and for new healthcare institutions.
• Pumped storage hydropower projects and disaster-rehabilitation townships exceeding 50 hectares are also included in the exemption demands.
• The stated objective is to combine long-term ecological conservation with protection of farmers, traditional agriculture, settlements and necessary infrastructure.

Legal framework: notification, not an Assembly resolution, creates the restrictions

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 provides the central legal framework. Section 3 empowers the Union government to take environmental protection measures; Section 3(2)(v) specifically enables restrictions on areas in which industries, operations or processes may operate, including operation subject to safeguards. Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 provides the framework for prohibiting or restricting their location, ordinarily through draft publication and consideration of objections.

An Assembly resolution communicates a State’s position but does not itself amend a Union environmental notification or create an enforceable exemption. The final notification must specify the geographical coverage, prohibited or regulated activities, conditions and implementation arrangements.

Article 48A directs the State to protect and improve the environment, while Article 51A(g) establishes a corresponding citizen duty. Judicial interpretation of Article 21 links environmental quality with the right to life. Forests and protection of wild animals and birds are Concurrent List subjects, but ESA notification powers arise specifically from environmental legislation.

• ESA designation does not, by itself, mean land acquisition, eviction or a blanket prohibition on all farming.
• An exemption from an ESA restriction would not automatically waive other applicable forest, wildlife, pollution-control or environmental-clearance requirements.
• A State’s participation is essential for workable implementation, but consultation should not be equated with a general legal veto over Union notification powers.

Conservation and livelihoods: distinguish activities, not merely locations

Kerala’s demands highlight the difficulty of governing a mixed-use mountain landscape. Unclear boundaries or undifferentiated restrictions can create uncertainty for households, farmers and public institutions. Conversely, excluding ecologically important areas solely because cultivation or habitation exists could weaken habitat connectivity and watershed protection.

Public purpose is relevant but does not establish ecological harmlessness. Healthcare infrastructure, sewage treatment and disaster rehabilitation require an enabling approach, while their location, design and residual impacts still need scrutiny. Pumped storage projects require site-specific assessment of reservoirs, water regimes, slope stability and associated infrastructure.

The Cardamom Hill Reserve request should therefore be assessed against both existing land use and ecological functions. Existing legal restrictions are relevant, but whether they adequately address the risks targeted by ESA regulation requires examination rather than assumption.

• Use ecological sensitivity and actual project impacts to distinguish permissible, conditional and incompatible activities.
• Assess cumulative impacts rather than evaluating each project as an isolated intervention.
• Ensure disaster rehabilitation does not relocate people into fresh hazard exposure.
• Recognise that environmental degradation itself threatens farming, water security and local livelihoods.

Centre–State consultation: make the boundary-making process credible

The Union supplies the statutory framework and landscape-wide conservation perspective; the State contributes land records, implementation capacity and knowledge of settlement patterns. Local governments and affected communities can identify errors and livelihood dependencies that broad-scale mapping may miss.

The central governance task is to connect ecological mapping with transparent, ground-verified boundaries. Revenue villages are useful administrative references, but ecological features and project impacts do not necessarily follow their limits. A reasoned response to inclusion, exclusion and exemption requests would improve both legal defensibility and public trust.

• Publish accessible maps showing the proposed boundaries and the criteria used.
• Enable objections and map corrections through local-language consultation.
• Explain why each major exclusion or exemption request is accepted, modified or rejected.
• Coordinate with neighbouring States because watersheds and ecological connectivity extend beyond State boundaries.