Coast gets raw deal: Legislators, activists criticise Budget proposals

Mangaluru/Udupi/Karwar: The Karnataka state budget for 2026-27, presented by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on March 6, has sparked strong criticism from legislators and stakeholders in the coastal districts of Dakshina Kannada, Udupi, and Uttara Kannada, who claim the region has once again received a raw deal despite its substantial contribution to the state’s economy.

BJP legislator V. Sunil Kumar led the charge, accusing the Congress government of neglecting the development needs of coastal Karnataka, especially in fisheries, ports, and maritime infrastructure. “The coastal region drives significant economic activity through fisheries, ports, and exports, yet the budget lacks any major initiatives to unlock its true potential,” Sunil Kumar said. He described allocations for coastal infrastructure and the fisheries sector as “modest and fragmented,” falling short of longstanding demands from local representatives.

The three districts boast Karnataka’s entire 320-km coastline and support a thriving marine economy. The fisheries sector alone provides direct and indirect livelihoods to over two lakh people, while marine exports from the state surpass ₹7,000 crore annually, with key hubs at the fishing harbours in Mangaluru, Malpe, and Karwar.

Industry voices echoed the discontent, highlighting the absence of substantial new funding for critical upgrades. Representatives from the fisheries sector stressed the urgent need for modernisation of fishing harbours, estuary dredging, and enhanced cold-chain facilities to reduce rising operational costs for fishermen.

“The fishing industry sustains thousands of families along the coast, but the budget’s provisions do not match the sector’s economic importance,” said a spokesperson for the Dakshina Kannada Fisheries Federation. Without targeted investments, they warned, challenges such as outdated landing centres and inadequate storage would persist.

Trade bodies also voiced disappointment over the lack of major proposals for port-linked infrastructure. A representative from the Kanara Chamber of Commerce and Industry noted that stronger logistical support—including improved coastal roads, port connectivity, and industrial clusters—is vital to bolstering the region’s export competitiveness and potential in areas like marine products, ship repair, and tourism.

Critics further pointed to the Karnataka Coastal Development Board, which coordinates development across the three districts. Past annual allocations to the board have hovered around ₹12-15 crore, a sum legislators and activists deem woefully inadequate to tackle pressing issues such as sea erosion, coastal protection works, and tourism promotion along the vulnerable shoreline.

Social and environmental groups emphasised the broader livelihood and climate threats facing the region. An activist from the Coastal Karnataka Development Forum highlighted recurring monsoon damage to fishing hamlets due to erosion. “The budget should have prioritised robust sea protection measures and rehabilitation support for affected communities,” the activist said.

Although the government has included some welfare measures for fishermen and other groups, opposition figures argue these fall far short of what is required for a region central to Karnataka’s maritime strength. With mounting protests from legislators, trade organisations, and community representatives, the controversy over equitable resource distribution to coastal Karnataka shows no signs of abating and is expected to dominate political discourse in the weeks ahead.