A proposal by the Karnataka State Policy and Planning Commission (KSPPC) to construct a 350-kilometre-long ‘green wall’ across five districts in North Karnataka has drawn sharp criticism from a senior power and climate policy analyst, who has urged the state government to prioritise protection of existing natural forests over launching what he termed a “grandiose and uncertain” afforestation initiative.
The planning panel recently recommended building a green corridor from Belagavi to Bidar to check desertification in the arid and semi-arid regions of North Karnataka. The proposal envisions a continuous stretch of plantations cutting across five districts as a climate adaptation measure.
In a detailed representation dated February 25 and addressed to the Deputy Chairperson and Chairperson of the Commission—who also serves as Chief Minister—Shankar Sharma, a Karnataka-based Power and Climate Policy Analyst, questioned both the ecological rationale and implementation feasibility of the project.
While acknowledging that the proposal may increase green cover in some districts, Sharma argued that large-scale “green wall” models have had limited proven success globally and within India. He expressed concern that such projects often rely on monoculture plantations, suffer from low sapling survival rates beyond 10–15 years, and face weak long-term protection mechanisms. He also cited what he described as the state’s poor track record in forest conservation and compensatory afforestation, suggesting that authorities have struggled to safeguard even existing forest lands.
Instead of a linear plantation belt, Sharma recommended strengthening decentralised social forestry initiatives across taluks, towns and cities, with an emphasis on drought-resistant, native species that require minimal water and support biodiversity.
A major thrust of the representation focuses on forest diversion in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats, a UNESCO World Heritage region and the origin of many of Karnataka’s rivers. Sharma argued that with nearly 70% of Karnataka officially classified as arid or semi-arid and over half marked as drought-prone, preserving natural forests in the Ghats should be the state’s top ecological priority.
He noted that Karnataka’s total forest and tree cover currently stands at about 23%, well below the 33% target set under the National Forest Policy. According to him, the figure has not exceeded 26–28% for decades, even as successive governments have permitted diversion of forest lands for infrastructure and energy projects. Sharma claimed that project proposals under various stages of approval in the Western Ghats could result in the felling of over 20 lakh trees.
In his letter, Sharma highlighted several major projects that allegedly involve diversion of forest land, including the proposed 2,000 MW Sharavati Pumped Storage Project in the river valley, which he said could affect around 400 acres of tropical rainforest; a 1,500 MW pumped storage project in the Varahi river valley involving forest land within wildlife sanctuaries; a 1,500 MW project in the Malaprabha river catchment area reportedly requiring felling of over 50,000 trees; the Mekedatu balancing reservoir project involving more than 10,000 acres of forest land, including significant portions within a wildlife sanctuary; and diversion of forest land in the Kali region for a 400 kV power transmission line.
Sharma contended that many such projects are either non-essential or have feasible alternatives that would require little or no forest diversion. He specifically advocated consideration of Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) as an alternative to large pumped storage projects in ecologically sensitive zones.
Linking the debate to climate change, Sharma argued that loss of natural forest cover is often the first step toward desertification. He warned that if deforestation continues unchecked, even parts of the Western Ghats could face long-term ecological degradation. He called for a holistic review of the green wall proposal in light of projected climate risks and the state’s rising electricity demand. Rather than investing thousands of crores in what he described as a vague project, he urged the government to prevent diversion of existing high-value forests and apply rigorous cost-benefit analysis to all major infrastructure proposals.
As a more sustainable strategy, Sharma recommended a time-bound plan to raise Karnataka’s overall forest and tree cover to 33% within the next 8–10 years through district-level afforestation programmes tailored to local ecological conditions. He also requested that the Commission convene discussion sessions involving civil society groups, environmental experts and energy planners to deliberate on biodiversity protection, freshwater management and the state’s future energy pathway. Two discussion papers have reportedly been submitted to support informed deliberations.
There was no immediate response from the Commission or the state government to the concerns raised. The green wall proposal is expected to figure in upcoming policy and budget discussions, even as environmental groups signal that the debate over balancing development, energy security and ecological preservation in Karnataka is likely to intensify in the weeks ahead.
Comments