On paddy field conservation in Keralam

The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, or KCPWA, is a State law enacted in 2008. Its purpose is to conserve paddy fields and wetlands by restricting their conversion to buildings, commercial uses, or other non-agricultural purposes. The law recognises these lands as more than private property. They form a socio-ecological system that supports water management, biodiversity, farming, and local climate regulation.

The Act requires a verifiable databank of paddy fields. It also creates rules for monitoring land use, controlling reclamation, and processing any permitted changes. These safeguards are intended to prevent illegal conversion and ensure that decisions consider water conservation.

Its protection has weakened in practice. Amendments, circulars, incomplete records, and revenue-led regularisation have made conversion easier. The article argues that political and administrative goodwill, a completed databank, stricter monitoring, and ecologically informed penalties are needed to fulfil the Act’s original purpose.

Keralam had 8.82 lakh hectares of paddy fields in 1974-75. By 2024-25, only 1.76 lakh hectares remained. That means the State lost about 7.06 lakh hectares, an overall decline of 80% in five decades. The change is one of the clearest signs that conservation has not stopped land-use transformation.

The article links this decline to several pressures. Farmers shifted crops, while housing, commercial growth, development needs, and speculative land markets increased demand for land. Conversion also became easier through administrative changes and regularisation procedures after the KCPWA was enacted.

The current figure matters beyond agriculture. Paddy fields regulate local water flows, support biodiversity, and influence microclimates. Their continuing loss therefore increases ecological risks while reducing the land available for rice cultivation. The article calls for stronger enforcement and reliable records to slow further decline.

After the KCPWA was enacted, legal and administrative changes gradually weakened its conservation logic. The Kerala Finance (No.2) Act, 2015 added Section 3A, allowing unauthorised conversions made before 2008 to be regularised for a nominal fee. This effectively legitimised reclamations between the 1998 cut-off used in earlier circulars and the 2008 enactment.

In 2016, the State removed Section 3A. In 2017, the LSGD withdrew circulars that had used 1998 as the regularisation cut-off and had restricted later land transactions after housing permits. From 2016 onward, revenue and LSGD orders also encouraged faster disposal of conversion applications and expanded eligibility for building permits on unnotified land.

These changes shifted administration from prevention toward processing and regularisation. Applications could be handled rapidly, even in clusters, while water-conservation requirements received less attention. The result was a procedural path that made conversion easier despite the law’s original protective purpose.

The KCPWA requires a verifiable databank listing paddy fields. That record should help officials check whether a parcel is protected before approving construction or land-use changes. However, the databank remains incomplete. The article therefore says many districts lack a reliable source for verifying land status.

This gap particularly affects “unnotified” land. These parcels appear as paddy fields in revenue records but are absent from the conservation databank. The KCPWA (Amendment) 2018 and subsequent revenue circulars have facilitated conversion of larger areas of such land for residential, commercial, and other uses. Applications can proceed because the missing listing makes enforcement harder.

The incomplete record turns an administrative failure into a legal loophole. Officials may struggle to detect illegal reclamation or establish what protections apply. Completing an accurate databank would provide a common evidence base for monitoring, permit decisions, and legal action.

The Revenue Department became the primary authority monitoring paddy-field conservation after the KCPWA, replacing the Agriculture Department’s earlier central role. This gives Revenue responsibility for protecting land from conversion and deciding whether applications for category changes or regularisation should proceed.

At the same time, the Department collects fees from regularising converted paddy fields. The article reports that it earned up to ₹1,606 crore from paddy-field regularisation by 2024. The same institution therefore has a conservation duty and a financial interest in approving conversions. That arrangement can make strict enforcement harder.

This is a structural conflict, not simply an individual failing. Regularisation produces revenue, while refusal protects wetlands but does not generate comparable income. The article says the dilemma has contributed to enforcement that appears focused on recategorisation, widened eligibility, and faster processing rather than conservation. Clearer safeguards and stronger oversight are needed.

Paddy fields and wetlands function as a connected socio-ecological system. When they are converted into buildings or other uses, the landscape loses part of its capacity to manage water, support local biodiversity, and influence the microclimate. The change also reduces land available for rice cultivation, which matters during rising food insecurity.

The article does not present a single flood total caused by conversion. Instead, it identifies paddy fields as regulators of the hydrological cycle and warns that their neglect is occurring amid rising floods. Replacing wet fields with built surfaces can also reduce natural water storage and increase fast runoff, a well-established wetland effect.

The consequences reach beyond individual parcels. More conversion can weaken local ecological resilience, increase pressure on food production, and worsen flood vulnerability. The article therefore calls for strict monitoring, completion of the databank, and penalties that reflect ecological damage rather than treating conversion as an ordinary administrative change.

Wetlands and paddy fields help manage water by temporarily holding rain and surface flows. This storage slows the movement of water during heavy rainfall, reducing sudden runoff and flood pressure. Water can also infiltrate the ground, helping replenish groundwater. These functions are why the article treats paddy fields as part of a wider hydrological system rather than merely agricultural plots.

Their value extends beyond storage. Wet fields provide habitats for local biodiversity and influence the surrounding microclimate. Paddy cultivation also keeps land connected to seasonal water cycles. When fields are filled, built over, or recategorised, these natural functions become weaker and water moves through the landscape differently.

The article specifically identifies paddy fields as regulators of the hydrological cycle, biodiversity, and microclimate. It warns that their neglect is serious amid rising floods and food insecurity. Protecting them therefore requires reliable mapping, strict monitoring, and careful ecological review of conversion requests.