Koodankulam Agitation and the Increasing Onus on Coastal Communities

This article was first published in the TRINet blog, part of the TRINet October 2011 Newsletter.

Photo: The Hindu

The anti-nuclear movement against the Koodankulam project began less than a month after India and the Soviet Union signed the deal on 20 November 1988. In 1989, during a demonstration in Kanyakumari by over a thousand people, organised by the National Fishworkers Union, the police opened fire and disabled the public address system. This angered the demonstrators further and many more meetings and protest marches were organised in the aftermath but it was the collapse of the Soviet Union that literally sunk the project into hibernation.

In 1998, the project was revived and in 2001, Dr.SP Udayakumar from Nagercoil founded a broad umbrella organization, People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE) with a focus on public education. They organised meetings, seminars and street gatherings among students, concerned citizens, associations of women, farmers, students, teachers, fishermen and religious leaders. Most of the people in the three southern districts of Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli and Thoothukudi were sensitized of the dangers posed by the Koodankulam project.  

When the first two phases of the project (Koodankulam 1 & 2) were finalised there were no mandatory provisions for an environment impact assessment and neither any windows for hearing people’s opinions for or against the project. The earliest official opportunity for local communities came in October 2006 and the administration was overwhelmed by hundreds of people who registered forcing it to abort the hearing.

Since then, the administration has relentlessly tried to suppress the agitating crowds failing completely to understand their concerns. Activists were targeted – they began receiving phone calls from the police and the Intelligence Bureau. Some were even taken into custody on false charges.

The unwillingness of the administration to heed to the concerns of local communities was even seen in the most recent of these ‘hearings’. The EIA document circulated was in English, incomprehensible to local communities, and was found to be flawed in many places.

This year, when plans to commission the project were announced, the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMAE) spearheaded an agitation involving 127 villagers including 20 women, 4 physically challenged and 7 members of the Catholic clergy who went on an indefinite fast from 11 September 2011.

At first, the administration tried to suppress the agitation but the overwhelming support of local communities, their elected representatives and the long shadow of the Anna Hazare campaign made them reconsider their strategy. The PM, Manmohan Singh sent an emissary, V Narayanasamy, but the agitating members of the community refused to meet him. The CM of Tamil Nadu, J Jayalalita defused the situation by persuading the PMANE to suspend the agitation for three months to give the Centre time to address the people’s concerns. The settlement terms gave the authorities time to consider the issues, and the protesters were free to resume the agitation if their expectations were not fulfilled.

The scientific community, meanwhile, has been batting for the project saying the plant had features such as better seismic and tsunami resistance and could withstand a Fukushima-like accident and others.

Talking to the press, Srinivasan, also a former Director, Projects, Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL), said, world over, countries such as China and Iran besides India were going full swing with the construction of atomic reactors. With India possessing 25 per cent of the world's thorium deposits, he added, it would help the country generate lakhs of megawatts of power in the next several decades

BRP Bhaskar, a political analyst of reckoning, writing in the Gulf Today, says, at current costs, generation of additional 15,000MW of nuclear power will involve an investment of no less than Rs.3,000 billion. It makes no sense to make an investment of that order on plants that are to be abandoned after three decades. It will be prudent to divert the money for development of alternative energy sources straightaway.

It has become increasingly clear that our elected representatives, the bureaucracy and scientific community have stopped listening to the very communities they are accountable to. Long term vision and impact on humans is on the back burner and the focus has now narrowed to their terms in office.

“I am increasingly getting concerned about the "short term ownership/ caretaker" mentality of the so-called elected representatives of the people and the attitude of bureaucrats who pander to those in power, the govt staff and academia who are only bothered about anything adversely affecting their lifelong pensions,” says Annie George, CEO, Bedroc, an NGO based in Nagapattinam. “So who is the final owner? Who holds the commitment to long term issues and long term development,” she asks.

The rising stock market and a relatively stable economy is pushing the government to compromise on the environment. The environment and local communities have never before been so much threatened by wanton development. The POSCO project where a well established agrarian economy is being destroyed to accommodate a steel plant, is another example of such violations spearheaded by the government. Defending humanity seems to be the last thing on their minds. The onus of protecting the environment now seems to be upon the people more than the administrators, and this is indeed a matter of grave concern that needs to be addressed urgently.  

Oceans at Risk, say Scientists but Indian Fisheries Seem to Thrive

This article was first published in the TRINet Newsletter July 2011.

The future of marine life in the oceans is bleak and marine degradation is happening at an unprecedented rate, if we believe a report released by the International Program on the State of the Ocean in concert with the International Union for Conservation of Nature, in April this year, at a workshop held at the University of Oxford, London.


We now face losing marine species and entire marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, within a single generation, the report said. Corals were particularly at risk from the bleaching effect caused by rising sea temperatures and from acidification, which deprive the tiny organisms of the calcium carbonate they need to build their homes.

The key points underlying this conclusion, according to this report, are:

1. Human  actions  have  resulted  in  warming  and  acidification  of    the  oceans    and  are  now  causing  increased  hypoxia.
 
2. The magnitude of the cumulative impacts on the ocean is greater than previously    understood. Interactions between different impacts can be negatively synergistic (negative impact greater than sum of individual stressors) or they can be antagonistic (lowering the effects of individual impacts).

3. Timelines for action are shrinking.
The longer the delay in reducing emissions the higher the annual reduction rate will have to be and the greater the financial cost. Delays will mean increased environmental damage with greater socioeconomic impacts, costs of mitigation and adaptation measures.

4. Ecosystem collapse is occurring as a result of both current and emerging stressors.
Stressors include chemical pollutants, agriculture run-off, sediment loads and over-extraction of many components of food webs which singly and together severely impair the functioning of ecosystems.

5. The threat of extinction to marine species is rapidly increasing.
The main causes of extinctions of marine species to date are overexploitation and habitat loss. However climate change is an increasing threat to species, as evidenced by the recent IUCN Red List Assessment of reef‐forming corals. Some other species ranges have already extended or shifted pole-wards and into deeper cooler waters; this may not be possible for some species to achieve, potentially leading to reduced habitats and more extinctions.

In India too, the impact of climate change on fish species has been perceived with extension of range of some species.  Analyzing data on sea surface temperature (SST) and other parameters from a variety of global sources, scientists found warming of the sea surface along the entire Indian coast. The SST increased by 0.2 deg C along the northwest, southwest and northeast coasts and by 0.3 deg C along the southeast coast during the 45-year period from 1960 to 2005.

The oil sardine and the Indian mackerel accounted for 21 percent of the marine fish catch in 2006. These small pelagics, especially the oil sardine, have been known for restricted distribution – between 8 and 14 deg N latitude and 75 and 77 deg East longitude (Malabar upwelling zone, along the southwest coast of India) where the annual average SST ranges from 27 to 29 deg C. Until 1985, almost the entire catch was from the Malabar upwelling zone; there was little or no catch from latitudes north of 14 deg N. During the last two decades, however, catches from latitude 14 - 20 deg N are increasing. In 2006, catches in this area accounted for about 15 percent of the all-India oil sardine catch.

The higher the SST, the better the oil sardine catch. The surface waters of the Indian seas are warming by 0.04 deg C per decade. Since the waters in latitudes north of 14 deg N are warming, the oil sardine and Indian mackerel are moving to northern latitudes. It is seen that catches from the Malabar upwelling zone have not gone down. So, in effect, sardines are extending northward, not shifting northward. The Indian mackerel is also found to be extending northward in a similar way.

According to CMFRI, the catch of oil sardines along the coast of Tamil Nadu has gone up dramatically. The presence of the species in new areas is a bonus for coastal fishing communities.  Besides exploring northern waters, the Indian mackerel has also been descending deeper as well. The fish normally occupies surface and subsurface waters. During 1985-89, only 2 percent of the mackerel catch was from bottom trawlers, the remainder was caught by pelagic gear such as drift gillnet. During 2003-2007, however, an estimated 15 percent of the mackerel has been caught by bottom trawlers along the Indian coast. It appears that with the warming of sub-surface waters, the mackerel has been extending deeper and downward as well.

Communities of humans living along the coasts of developing and poor countries, and their dependence on marine resources don’t figure anywhere in this workshop largely dominated by concerns for conserving ecosystems and marine life. There are large swathes of unregulated fisheries thriving along the coasts of our oceans. Their sustainable management is as urgent as the concerns for bleaching corals and mass extinctions. Let us hope that strategies for adaptation to climate change will include enhancements to livelihoods and economic outputs as well as the safety of ecosystems, and holistically move towards conserving marine life, the oceans and enhancing livelihoods of coastal communities.

(Sources: Summary of the conclusions and recommendations of the international Earth system expert workshop on ocean stresses and impacts, IPSO IUCN WCPA; Bay of Bengal News: March - June 2008)

Is the Ocean turning into a Plastic Soup?

This was first published in the TRINet blog, part of the TRINet newsletter for March 2011

Map showing ocean gyres where floating garbage accumulates

The ocean has become a repository of most of the waste humans generate. Every year, a large amount of plastic debris that enters the oceans releases persistent bio-accumulating and toxic compounds into the sea. Most of the plastic in our oceans is buoyant and lightweight so they get transported by ocean currents and gather in convergence zones in the sea. These zones have been called ocean landfills, garbage patches and even plastic soup by the media and environmental activists. Though this accumulation of plastic is visible and an indicator of the larger issue of marine litter, a majority of the plastic polluting the sea are small fragments that are not visible and hence not detected by satellite imagery for monitoring and studying.

It is almost impossible to quantify the exact amount of plastic debris that enters the oceans but land based sources of these inputs include poorly managed landfills, riverine transport, untreated sewage and storm water discharges, wind-blown debris, industrial and manufacturing facilities with inadequate controls, recreational use of coastal areas and tourist activities. In general, more litter is found near areas of thick human populations and consist mainly of consumer plastic items like bottles, shopping bags and personal hygiene products. Offshore sources of plastic pollution include fishing and recreation vessels, cruise liners, merchant shipping, oil and gas platforms and aquaculture facilities.

Studies have shown that plastic production had a steady growth rate since the 1950s till 2008 where the economic downturn saw a drop in 25% of production.

It’s not only the surface of the ocean that has plastic accumulating. The Census of Marine Life program, completed in 2010, reported finding plastic debris at abyssal depths. Plastics at these depths will take much longer to fragment due to lack of ultraviolet (UV) penetration and much colder water temperatures.

Plastics have also found their way into the stomachs of seabirds that feed offshore. Studies have shown that in the 1980s, industrial plastic found in stranded birds peaked, and in the 1990s, consumer plastics in stomachs of birds tripled and then decreased. Smaller fragments of plastic in the sea will increase chances of ingestion by birds and marine life while larger debris will trap and entangle them.  

The social and economic cost incurred by plastic pollution is always borne by the affected rather than those responsible for the pollution. The most obvious economic impacts of plastic debris are on fishing boats – fouled propellers, removing plastic debris from nets and blocked engine water intakes bring about losses in fishing opportunities.

Cleaning up of beaches and waterways can also be quite expensive. In the Netherlands and Belgium, approximately US$13.65 million per year is spent on removing beach litter. Cleanup costs for municipalities in the United Kingdom have increased by 38 per cent over the last ten years, to approximately US$23.62 million annually. It is estimated that removing litter from South Africa’s wastewater streams effectively would cost about US$279 million per year.

The Global Program of Action (GPA) for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land based Activities, whose Secretariat is provided by UNEP, is the only global initiative that directly addresses the link between watersheds, coastal waters and the open ocean. Activities have included collaboration with the Ocean Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanup (ICC) to raise awareness of the marine debris issue in regions and to encourage greater public education and engagement. The 18 Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans could serve as platforms for developing common regional strategies and promoting synergies, mainly at the national level, to prevent, reduce and remove marine litter.

Despite all efforts to curtail littering of the oceans and water bodies, the problem of plastic and other pollution still persists. 

Not only the oceans but even backwaters and rivers are also affected. A study on the sources of pollution of Vembanad Lake in Kerala has shown that plastics and inorganic waste dumped from houseboats is third on the list of sources of inorganic pollution, after effluents from nearby factories, and emissions, oil leaks from motor boats.

Developed countries have managed to curtail land based sources of plastic pollution quite effectively but developing countries like India are still far behind. Annie George, CEO, BEDROC, feels this will continue till a critical level of industrialisation is achieved by developing countries and then, gradually, the incomes accrued will be channeled to improving efficiencies and pollution control measures. If we accept this logic, she adds, then we need to be thinking about ring fencing traditional livelihoods and take urgent measures to safeguard our rivers and other water bodies too.

Chennai based Dr. Ahana Lakshmi, who has a PhD in environmental science, also feels our fresh water resources and backwaters are more critical and sensitive to pollutants than the sea. Water for drinking, industries and agriculture is provided by these water bodies and if they are polluted, then we have more to lose, she says. Safeguarding traditional livelihoods and the agrarian economy therefore becomes a lot more important today than ever before, she adds.

Not everything is bad news for plastics. Studies have shown that plastic has improved physical or chemical properties compared with alternatives; low cost; mass production capability; and a reduction in the use of resources. Moreover, life-cycle  analysis has shown that using plastic, rather than alternatives, often results  in significant reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in applications ranging from food containers to vehicles and  aircraft.

Pollution to all water bodies is a looming threat facing humankind. Improved waste management operations have to be urgently implemented across the board. Use of plastic materials reached approximately 100 kg per year per capita in North America and Western Europe in 2005 and is expected to increase to 140 kg by 2015. While developing Asian countries use only around 20 kg plastic per year per person which is estimated to increase to 36 kg by 2015.

If plastic is treated as a valuable resource, then its secondary value, after the first intended value, can be tapped through sustainable recycling methods like using of high temperature furnaces with strict emission controls. Successful pollution prevention steps must be taken at all levels – international, national and local. Outreach programs targeting key users must be implemented, new waste management revenue streams must be set up for communities and municipalities. Political commitment, investment and integrated approach at all social levels, to prevent litter from reaching our water bodies will help us move towards a cleaner earth.

Primary source: UNEP Year Book Emerging Issues in our Global Environment 2011

CRZ 2011 - THE BETRAYAL OF FISHERS?

This piece was first published in the TRINet blog, part of the TRINet newsletter for February 2011.

NFF rally at Azad maidan 

The long awaited, much discussed and fought over CRZ 2011 notification was finally issued on 07 January 2011. For the very first time, an Island Protection Zone Notification 2011, that covers all island territories, was also issued. 

The notification has special provisions for Greater Mumbai, Goa and Kerala, and has identified Critically Vulnerable Coastal Areas (CVCAs) like the mangroves of Sunderban; Chilka and Bhitarkanika in Orissa; Gulf of Khambat and Gulf of Kutch in Gujarat; Malwan in Maharashtra; Karwar and Kundapur in Karnataka; Vembanad in Kerala; Coringa, East Godavari and Krishna Delta in Andhra Pradesh and the Gulf of Mannar in Tamil Nadu.

Other new features of this notification include the inclusion of 12 nautical miles of coastal waters and all coastal water bodies affected by tides such as creeks, rivers, estuaries etc without any restrictions on fishing within this zone; coastal zone management plans to be made after consultations with traditional coastal communities; a hazard line will be demarcated in the next five years; and a proposed mapping of the shoreline through time-series satellite images with no development in high erosion foreshore areas.

The reduction of the ‘no development’ zone from 200 m to 100 m to meet increasing demands of housing for fishing and other traditional coastal communities; clear, time bound procedures for obtaining CRZ clearances were stipulated along with post-clearance monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, and measures to combat pollution in coastal areas. All violators of the CRZ 1991, barring fishermen families, will be identified and brought to the book in four months, under the new notification, says Jairam Ramesh, in a press release issued with this notification.

The Convenor of the National Coastal Protection Campaign (NCPC) and a member of the negotiation team that held discussions with the ministry, V Vivekanandan, told media persons that despite all public hearings and assurances from the minister, concerns of fisher communities were not reflected in this notification. There were no clear-cut procedures, timeline and format for obtaining clearances; no post-clearance monitoring mechanism or an enforcement mechanism to check future violations, he added.

The allocation of FSI (Floor Space Index), concessions for slum rehabilitation and renovation of old buildings in Mumbai is another area of contention. The FSI has been increased from 1.33 times to 2.5 times - the extra FSI in CRZ area will help the construction lobby to grab more area, build extra flats and rake in huge profits, says Vivekanandan

There are about 3.52 million fishers occupying the 3,202 fishing villages spread across the Indian coastline. They are not so visible and often poorly represented in public debates. The minister had promised, during discussions, to have at least three representatives from fishing community organizations in the state and national coastal management authorities none of which have been incorporated in the notification.

The reduction of the ‘no development’ zone from 200 m to 100 m to meet increasing demands of housing for fishing and other traditional coastal communities comes with a catch. The notification says traditional communities including fishing communities but fails to mention who these traditional communities are. This might open up sensitive areas of the coast to non-fishing communities and their proxies, it is feared.

Then comes the issue of permitting roads on stilts or elevated roads over sensitive coastal ecosystems like mangroves etc. Environmentalists feel these roads will destroy green areas along the coast.

Certain exemptions built into this notification have also come under flak. Coastal areas are to be segregated by levels of erosion – high, medium and low level erosion areas. This might provide exemptions for projects like ports, service industries etc to worm their way into the low erosion areas because they are deemed ‘stable’.

On 25^th January, the MoEF issued a directive to all states to identify violators of the CRZ 1991 notification within four months, and to take action against them under the Environment Protection Act (1984) within the next four months of identifying the violators. The ministry has also asked the states to publish details of violations and the action taken against violators, online. This fixed timeline for identifying and acting against CRZ violations has been welcomed as a move in the right direction.

The delineation of the hazard line has also been welcomed by members of the NCPC. The new CRZ – 1 ‘no development’ zone is now 500 meters and if the hazard line mapping shows a larger area, then the CRZ would expand and more area of the coast will be regulated and hence protected. The rules also say fishing communities already occupying such zones will not be evicted. 

The NCPC is now stepping up the pressure on Jairam Ramesh. The National Fishworkers Forum (NFF) has written to the minister pointing out how the ministry has ignored pleas by fishing communities and brought out this draft notification as per the ministry’s wishes. The letter requests the ministry to make necessary changes and not to force fishermen to hit the roads yet again on CRZ issues. They have offered to cooperate with the ministry in implementing progressive provisions in CRZ 2011 and to identify violations of the CRZ 1991 notification. The NFF is launching a national level agitation on February 25^th to protest against provisions that are unfavourable to fisher communities.

With the NFF now seriously considering reviving the four year old agitation against CRZ notifications, the fate of our coastline remains unclear. The ministry has been paying only lip service to the demands of fishing community organizations and environmentalists. Chinks are now appearing in the hype generated around Jairam Ramesh and his environmental crusades. He has stated that our coasts have an economic significance besides the ecological one and that an approach that takes both into consideration is the way ahead. From the recent CRZ notification, it seems the scales are tilted away from fishing communities and favour other interests of the ministry.  This leaves fishers with no recourse but to agitate, and the campaign for the rights of traditional fisher communities, the original inhabitants of our coasts, continues.