On the conservation of paddy fields in Keralam

“The structural and procedural amendments to the KCPWA show how even a strong conservation law can be watered down.” File | Photo credit: KK Mustafah

A conservation law meant to protect Kerala’s paddy fields is gradually becoming a tool to facilitate their decline. The state had 8.82 lakh hectares (ha) of paddy land in 1974–75, which has declined to 1.76 lakh ha in 2024–25, a decline of 80% due to crop shifts, residential and commercial growth, development needs and a speculative land market. Despite the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act (KCPWA) in 2008, the decline continues.

Also read | The law at the crossroads

Rather than ineffective enforcement, an improbable dilution of the logic of conservation is unfolding through ongoing bureaucratic reshuffling, carried out by numerous circulars and orders. This shift is astounding as the state has rightly recognized the ecological value of paddy fields under the KCPWA.

A case of legal dilution

The structural and procedural modifications of the KCPWA demonstrate how even a strong conservation law can be diluted. The Kerala Finance (No. 2) Act of 2015 amended the KCPWA by adding Section 3A which regulated unauthorized conversions of paddy fields prior to 2008 on payment of a nominal fee. This was contrary to the Local Government Department (LSGD) circulars of 2008 and 2011, which set 1998 as the cut-off year for the implementation of conservation standards, thus legitimizing reclamations between 1998 and 2008. In 2016, a state notification removed Section 3A without reference to regularization cases during the amendment period.

Also read | Kerala Revised Budget: Land Reforms Bill 2.0 opens up new political battle lines

Although the KCPWA mandates the development of a verifiable paddy field database, the process remains incomplete. As a result, there is no reliable source of data to verify soil conditions in many districts. This apparent administrative failure has become a legal loophole as the 2018 KCPWA amendment and subsequent tax circulars facilitate the conversion of a larger extent of unreported land (rice fields in revenue records but not included in the database) for residential, commercial or other purposes.

Building permits on non-notified land are made easier by expanding eligibility criteria and speeding up recategorization applications. In 2017, the LSGD withdrew its circulars of 2008 and 2011, which declared 1998 as the cut-off year for regularization, and its circulars of 2012 and 2013, which restricted land transactions after obtaining a housing permit. Despite a 2015 Supreme Court order to strictly follow the law in issuing building permits, since 2016 several LSGDs and revenue circulars have facilitated speedy processing of applications with little emphasis on water conservation mandates.

A 2016 report by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on the revenue sector identified non-detection of illegal rice paddy conversions, non-reporting of unauthorized reclamations, non-compliance with legislation and non-restoration of illegally converted land as major shortcomings. Control becomes a challenge as the state speeds up conversion applications by deploying more officials and infrastructure and processing land in clusters.

Until 2002, the Ministry of Agriculture, with a direct agroecological interest in the protection of wetlands, mainly monitored non-agricultural land use. After the KCPWA, the revenue ministry became the main monitoring body. The ministry’s dual role as conservation regulator and regularization revenue generator provides enormous power over land use decisions. By 2024, the department has earned up to ₹1,606 crore through regularization of paddy fields. Strict enforcement of the conservation law remains limited as the regulator derives steady income from rice paddy conversion, creating a structural dilemma.

Over the years, bureaucratic enforcement appears to facilitate the regularization of paddy fields—recategorization to non-wetland status, dilution of water conservation mandates, and expansion of eligibility for conversion—with limited focus on conservation. Neglecting rice fields as a socio-ecological system that regulates local biodiversity, hydrological cycle and microclimate represents a serious failure in the midst of increasing food insecurity and flooding.

Because the KCPWA is a progressive statute, political and administrative goodwill is needed to achieve its conservation goals. Completing a verifiable database of wetlands and rice fields, rigorous monitoring, and ecologically informed penalties for conversion are some of the immediate steps that can be taken.

Chitra KP is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Social Work, Central University of Tamil Nadu, Thiruvarur. Preetha KV is Assistant Professor, PG Department of Social Entrepreneurship, Madras School of Social Work, Chennai

Published – 21 Oct 2026 0:13 IST