Coastal Regulation in India – from bad to worse?

(This article was first published in the TRINet October 2010 newsletter, and can also be accessed here)

Fisherman mending ring seine nets in Malabar, Kerala

India has a 7500 km coastline that shelters around 250 million people of diverse, traditional communities whose livelihoods are dependent on the sea and the coast. Pressures of development, population and climate change are felt more along coastal regions than anywhere else. Conserving coastal ecosystems and resources, preserving the rights of coastal communities and regulating development along the coast are indeed a challenge to planners and policy makers.

Timeline of coastal regulation in India:

1972: India becomes signatory to the UN conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm.

1986: Environment Protection Act enacted to implement decisions taken at the UN conference on the Human Environment.

1981: Prime Minister Indira Gandhi sends an advisory to coastal state governments to protect beaches - an advisory not implemented by the states as it did not have statutory backing.

1991 - the MoEF formulates the Coastal Regulation Zone notification under the EPA of 1986; all coastal states asked to submit Coastal Zone Management Plans before February 1992 – the states drag their feet on this as they felt their rights and privileges were diluted by the notification.

1993 – 1996: In response to a PIL filed by the Indian Society for Enviro-Legal Actions, the Supreme Court forces state governments to submit Coastal Zone Management Plans.

1996: Central government approves the management plans subject to certain revisions and modifications and requests states to submit the final, revised plans which they didn’t.

2004: Committee of scientists and academics headed by MS Swaminathan appointed to review the regulations; Asian tsunami wreaks havoc on the southern coast of India.

2005: Committee recommends integrated coastal management approach, a vulnerability line, inclusion of territorial waters into the regulatory zone, and changes in the boundaries of the zones, among other things.

2008: Coastal management Zone notification released with guidelines for management and permitted activities triggering widespread protests from fish workers, environment and fishermen collectives, fisheries scientists and the governments of 8 coastal states. A National Campaign against CZM Notifications comprising of a range of civil society and fishermen organizations against the CZM also took shape. 

2009: MS Swaminathan heads another committee that recommends retaining the CRZ 1991 notification with amendments to suit various stakeholders in a report titled, The Final Frontier. The 2008 CMZ notification is allowed to lapse and campaign groups reach a broad consensus with the government on the condition that rights of fishers and other coastal communities would be preserved.

A series of public consultations were then held in all coastal states the end of which saw the ministry announce a new draft of the CRZ 1991, in March 2010. Fishermen groups objected to this on the grounds that the public consultations only provided a platform to air their grievances and there have been no discussions or debates on many of the substantive issues. The government responded to this by issuing a pre-draft notification, with a concept note – a step to elicit comments and views before beginning the statutory process of issuing a draft notification.

The National Coastal Protection Campaign (NCPC), formerly known as the National Campaign against CZM Notifications, rejected the pre-draft notification and submitted an analysis of the notification to the MoEF.

 

Young boys from a coastal village in Rameshwaram

The original notification gave access to industry and other projects only if they required water front and foreshore facilities. This has been misinterpreted in many ways, since the inception of the CRZ, to permit all kinds of non-coastal industries and development in coastal areas. This resulted in large scale industrialization and construction within the CRZ without any sensitivity to the coastal ecology and natural resource based coastal livelihoods, says the NCPC. The pre-draft not only legitimizes violations of the CRZ but also sets the pace for future violations by permitting atomic energy projects, IT projects, construction of airports and the provision for housing projects within the CRZ.

There are 300 ports proposed along the coast of India of which over 200 are already notified. This would mean one port every 20 – 25 km of coastline and a port is often accompanied by other projects like highways, railway lines, industries, housing projects etc that would expose more of the sensitive coast to development pressures. The pre-draft seems to respond to short term development pressures and fails to engage in credible and scientific planning that would determine ecological limits of the coast and its resources, the NCPC adds.

About rights of traditional fishing communities, the NCPC says, concessions are not what fishermen want; they would like to be part of the coastal management and protection process. This requires a fundamental shift from the ‘doling out concessions’ mode that the pre-draft reeks of. Fishing communities deserve rights and space in the coastal governance network and providing facilities like auction halls, fish drying centres etc are simply not enough.

In the enforcement and implementation part, the pre-draft is silent on the numerous violations of the CRZ ever since it was conceived. The reason for failing to implement coastal regulations in the past was the lack of will among decision makers and the implementing agencies, the NCPC says. The re-structuring of coastal zone management authorities doesn’t really mean anything unless there is widespread debate on development and environment protection priorities, and the inclusion of local communities in the decision making process. Bureaucratic and institutional structures have failed in the past to prevent violations and some soul searching needs to be done as to why they failed.

The pre-draft proposes a fresh zonation of the coast (CZMPs) with new baselines from 2010 and also provides for periodic revisions that may throw more of the coast open for development. Thus, de-forested mangroves and denuded sand dunes could very well be re-classified and opened up for large scale development, the NCPC adds.

The NCPC also objected to the placing of the island territories out of the CRZ regime and strongly recommends the retaining of the island territories within the CRZ of 1991. They also pointed out that the local populations of the islands were not consulted by the MoEF and the introduction of an Island Protection Zone is a contrary to the ministry’s supposed policy of public consultations with stakeholders and their participation.

The Hazard Line Mechanism, a carry over from the lapsed CZM notification, is ambiguous and may take precedence over the 500 meter line in determining what sort of development can happen, the NCPC says, and goes on to strongly advocate the dropping of the current proposal.

The MoEF received about 200 comments on the pre-draft notification that was put up on the ministry’s website and after allegedly taking into account these comments, it published a draft of the CRZ 2010 on 15^th September 2010.

A carefully drafted press note on the CRZ 2010 draft highlights the apparent changes that have been introduced as the ministry’s response to the comments and public consultations. The inclusion of the aquatic part – pertaining to tidal bodies of water, with the 12 mile seaward zone; a revision in the Hazard Mapping Mechanism; action plants to mitigate pollution and the discharge of effluents; classification of erosion zones; new classification schemes; and special regulations for Greater Mumbai, Kerala, the Sunderbans and Goa; deadlines for grant of clearance; harmonizing the clearance process with EIA 2006 standards; post clearance monitoring and enforcement; preparation of Coastal Zone Management Plans; facilities for fisherfolk; and the creation and maintenance of a website to maintain the transparency of CZMAs.

This draft was promptly rejected by fishermen groups on the grounds that the changes, if any, are only cosmetic and do not benefit traditional coastal communities. The National Fishworkers Forum (NFF) has rejected the draft and called the public consultations a colossal waste of public funds.

Fishworker groups like the NFF and the KSMTF are launching a nationwide agitation against the CRZ 2010 notification. They demand a withdrawal of the notification and a new legislation that seeks the betterment of the fishing community. A sit-in protest and a Satyagraha will be organised from October 20 to 28 in district centres of all coastal states in the country. “This notification is unfair to fishermen communities,” says T Peter, State President of the KSMTF. “It is a deliberate move by the ministry to convert coastal land into Special Economic Zones leading to wanton construction and tourism activities.”

Only cosmetic changes have been made to the pre-draft notification despite all the objections, public consultations and comments received. The MoEF seems determined to go ahead with its plans to open up the coast for development paying only lip service to traditional communities, environmentalists and fishermen groups. This notification also seeks comments within a period of 60 days from publication and considering the track record of the MoEF, there is very little doubt that this is another meaningless exercise. When public consultations and a participatory approach fail or become flawed, traditional fishermen communities have no recourse but to agitate – the next obvious step in the democratic process. Meanwhile, the fate of 7500 km of the Indian coast remains unresolved.