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.

Everything you wanted to know about Artificial Reefs and were afraid to ask

This article originally appeared in the TRINet December 2010 Newsletter. It can also be accessed here.

Underwater sculpture by Jason de Caires Taylor for an artificial reef project in Grenada

Our oceans are full of tiny organisms constantly sinking down towards the sea bed, attaching to any hard, secure surface such as a rock outcrop. These attachments are a kind of colonisation that creates the basis of a natural reef system. Only 10 to 15% of the sea bed has a solid enough substratum that allows the formation of reefs. Reefs attract and harbour diverse forms of marine life and also provide sanctuary for marine life to breed. 

Artificial reefs are human-made underwater structures that allow and harbour marine life in featureless ocean beds. Some artificial reefs can improve hydrodynamics that promote surfing and sometimes contain sea erosion. They also ease the pressure on existing reef systems that have been over-fished or over-visited, and provide new habitat for marine life. They are usually constructed with secure, durable and environment friendly material and can form naturally in wrecks of sunken ships and submerged parts of oil platforms. 

Artificial reefs for fish aggregation go way back in history. During the 17th century reefs of building rubble and rocks were used in Japan to grow kelp, while the earliest recorded construction of artificial reef in the US is from 1830s when logs from huts were used off the coast of South Carolina to improve fishing. 

Shark hunters of Thuthoor, Kanyakumari, who fish along the entire Indian coast know locations of sunken ships and hook sharks and other fish from the waters around these wrecks. They say the Bombay High offshore drilling platforms are rich in marine life but they cannot fish there for security reasons. In the 80s and early 90s, several artificial reefs were laid on the south east and south west coasts of India. These were primarily done to aggregate fish for traditional fishermen. 

In the Trivandrum Kanyakumari coast, artificial reefs were first laid out in the late 80s and early 90s. In Thumba, Kannanthura and Puthiyathura villages, triangular concrete modules were laid at a depth of 12 to 14 fathoms, and in Adimalathura, bamboo modules were used at 14 fathoms, with financial and technical support from the Trivandrum based Programme for Community Organisation (PCO). In Puthiiyathura, the modules were laid out near a natural reef so it could help regenerate the reef.

Between 1988 to 1994, artificial fish habitats were laid in a number of villages in Trivandrum – Marianad, Thumba, Kannanthura, Valiathura, Adimalathura, Puthiyathura, Paruthiyoor and Kollemcode.

In Kanyakumari, despite the coastline having a number of rock outcrops, fishermen have been laying artificial reefs. In Mulloorthara and Enayam, reefs were laid out under financial and technical assistance from SIFFS, an NGO that also played a major role in laying reefs with common ownership in the Trivandrum area.

On the east coast, around the same period, MCRC and CreNIEO were the two NGOs supporting the laying reefs in two villages, Olcotkuppam and Chinnandikuppam, in Chennai. Concrete rings and palm fronds and leaves were used in combination to attract both bottom and pelagic fish.

Artificial reef made of limestone

Fish aggregating devices and artificial reefs were primarily used by beginners and aged fishermen who operated rowing or sailing craft. It was an easy way of finding some fish for subsistence. These devices also came handy in lean months providing traditional fishermen with some fish to eke out a living. They are also seen as a way of supporting non-motorised fishing communities by providing them new resources close to the shore. The international demand for cuttlefish has seen a surge in the fishing of these cephalopods that are found mainly in reefs. Now, about 90% of the cuttlefish is brought in by trawlers and artificial reefs can balance the scales in favour of traditional fishermen.

Artificial surfing reefs have been created for surfing, coastal protection, habitat enhancement and coastal research. The world's first attempt was made in El Segundo, near Los Angeles, in California. An artificial surfing reef constructed of over 400 massive, geo-textile bags (each one larger than a bus) filled with sand was constructed in 2000 at Narrowneck on the Gold Coast of Queensland, Australia. This artificial reef had two objectives: stabilizing beach nourishment and improving surfing conditions.

In India, the first attempt at creating an artificial surfing reef was carried out at Kovalam, Kerala, a popular rocky beach, by ASR, a New Zealand company. The reef was laid, earlier this year, in a cove formed by the lighthouse and the beach where waves often criss-crossed due to the bay effect. Giant geo-textile bags with a life of over 40 years and filled with sand are the building blocks of the reef. The crest of the 500-metre-long reef has been placed just below the low tide line. It has been placed at a depth of 3 to 7 m so that the reef will block breakers more than one-metre high, leaving only small waves to wash up the shore.

This project was mired in controversy over the usage of tsunami rehabilitation funds for recreational purposes, in the name of coastal protection. The project's initial cost of Rs.4 crores was hiked to Rs.8 cores midway. An EIA was not carried out, allege environmentalists and fishermen groups. To add to this, some geo-textile bags of the reef washed up on the beach provoking further outrage from coastal communities in the region and spurring activists to demand for a judicial enquiry.

The laying of the Boscombe surfing reef

Surfing reefs have never quite managed to achieve their objectives anywhere in the world. The Boscombe surf reef by ASR, in the UK failed to generate the required waves for surfing. The impact of such reefs cannot be assessed easily as there are many factors at play when the ocean breaks on a beach. In Kovalam, beach combers say the reef works only if the waves are high. "Waves are more regular and unbroken at the Light House Beach,” says Rajendra Prasad, an aquaculture consultant who works in Kovalam.”Before, waves used to be erratic and there were fewer surfers," he says; "the washing up of geo-textile bags was a tragedy. They should do a follow up and set things right." 

Despite all negative feedback, proponents of artificial reefs should be lauded for their efforts towards the protection of the coasts and beaches - they haven't quite reached there but they will, as this can be a lucrative way of protecting coasts and reviving reef ecosystems. Commerce has driven many successful maritime innovations in the past so there may be light at the end for artificial reefs in an ocean that's being exploited at an alarming rate.  

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.

New dawn in the Palk Bay - Alliance for the Release of Innocent Fishermen

By V VIVEKANANDAN

I would like to share with you an initiative that I am currently pre-occupied with. It is the forthcoming dialogue between Indian and Sri Lankan fishermen. This dialogue, if successful, could provide useful ideas for resolving the long standing problem of trans-border fishing in the Palk Bay.

One of the many hats I wear is that of the Convener of ARIF (Alliance for Release of Innocent Fishermen). ARIF started life in 1997 as a network of Central Trade Unions, some NGOs and some Tamil Nadu fishermen associations, with SIFFS as the secretariat. Its main objective is to find a solution to the problems associated with trans-border fishing on the Indo-Sri Lankan maritime boundary. The term “innocent” only means that we have sympathy for all fishermen who are not guilty of any offence other than fishing across borders!

Very soon after getting involved, I realised it was essentially a fisheries management problem, obscured by the civil war and the geo-politics associated with it. This also meant that a solution was difficult as long as there was a civil war. ARIF therefore settled down to the rather tedious job of providing assistance to virtually every fisherman arrested for crossing borders in both countries. Jail visits, buying cigarettes, lungis, etc., was one routine set of activities. Following up cases in the courts was another. Lobbying with the various Govt offices to withdraw the case and release fishermen was probably the most important part of the work. We built up linkages in Sri Lanka to help us get the Indian fishermen and boats released. Often Governments on both sides were happy to release fishermen into our custody till they could be repatriated. However, our reach was limited and did not include Sri Lankan fishermen arrested in Andhra Pradesh, Orissa or the Andamans.

An opportunity to find a solution came up in 2004 when there was truce between the Govt of Sri Lanka and the LTTE and the peace talks brokered by Norway. With Sri Lankan fishermen of the Northern Province starting normal fishing, the nature of the conflict changed from that of Indian fishermen vs. the Sri Lankan Navy to that of Indian fishermen vs. Sri Lankan fishermen. With both sides having a common language and long history of close contacts (and marriage links), the idea for a dialogue between the fishermen on both sides of the Palk Bay was mooted by Tamil political leaders on the Sri Lankan side.

This resulted in a “Goodwill Mission” by a 21-member fishermen team, including myself, visiting Sri Lanka in May 2004 and conducting a dialogue with Sri Lankan fishermen in Colombo. Though an interesting agreement came out of the meeting, it could not bear fruit due to many difficulties. The tsunami and the revival of the civil war put an end to that episode.

With the end of the civil war in May 2009, the fishermen vs. fishermen scenario resumed. So, the idea of resuming the fishermen to fishermen dialogue has come up again. Though we had started planning for this in October 2009 itself, it is only now that our efforts have become successful.

It appears that this initiative has not come a day too soon. Last month, two Indian trawlers were sunk by irate Sri Lankan fishermen using petrol-bombs after asking the fishermen in the boat to disembark. Meanwhile, one Indian fisherman from Nagapattinam died in an incident of Sri Lankan Navy brutality. In Sri Lanka, a group of small trawlers in Mannar and Jaffna that have been prevented from fishing through a ban by both community and fisheries department, have been threatening to start fishing if the Indian trawlers are not stopped from fishing in Sri Lankan waters.

A 25-member Sri Lankan fishermen delegation is arriving in Trichy on the 16^th August and will be in Tamil Nadu till 23^rd Aug. The team will visit Rameswaram, Jagadapattinam and Nagapattinam before ending up in Madras for a three day meeting with fishermen representatives from the four Palk Bay districts of Tamil Nadu. The meeting is expected to come up with some short term solutions as well as long term ones (like the reduction of the trawl fleet). Obviously, the Governments have to then be influenced to accept the fishermen solution.

In 2004, the two Governments did not take us seriously. Still we managed to get junior officials from the Sri Lankan fisheries Department and the India High Commission as observers. This time around, the response from the two Governments has been very encouraging. There seems to be even excitement about it in Govt circles. The Fisheries Department of Sri Lanka is sending two senior officials as part of the 25 member delegation. The Tamil Nadu Fisheries Dept is sending three officers to the dialogue in Madras as “observers”.

For the final session of the Madras meeting, the DG Fisheries of Sri Lanka will himself come down to receive the recommendations on behalf of the Sri Lanka Govt. In fact, the Minister himself had wished to participate but had to pull out at due to new commitments. From the Tamil Nadu side, we are hopeful that the Fisheries Minister himself will participate. Fortunately for us the new Fisheries Secretary had encouraged the Goodwill Mission in 2004, when she was the Director of Fisheries. So, we expect good support from the Fisheries Department.

 ARIF Proposals for solving the problem

While the long term solution that emerges should be on the basis of agreements by fishermen and Governments, the following are some of the proposals from ARIF that are feasible and somewhat acceptable to the fishermen.

• Reduction of the trawl fleet on the Indian side of Palk Bay on the basis of appropriate studies and schemes to provide alternative employment or compensation to trawl owners and workers
• Allowing vessels on both sides that use eco-friendly/traditional/small scale fishing methods to fish across the borders, given the limited area of the Palk Bay and the impracticability of fishing in a very narrow area on either side. Management measures will have to be devised that will ensure that the Palk Bay is not overfished and the sharing of the resources by the two fleets are equitable. Security concerns will also have to be addressed.
• Licensing of the Sri Lankan multi-day fishing vessels by India, legalising their operations in Indian waters; number of licences could be limited or quotas fixed for exploiting tuna in Indian waters. Possibility of Joint Ventures between fishermen on both sides could also be promoted as alternative to industrial vessels India has been trying to introduce in its EEZ for deep sea fishing
• While both the Palk Bay problem and the problem of the Sri Lankan multiday fishing boats needs to be tackled, they also need to be handled separately in view of the differences in the actors involved. This proposal essentially deals with the strategy and set of activities to deal with the Palk Bay problem. ARIF intends to work out a separate strategy for the problem of multi-day fishing boats, once Palk Bay initiative gets underway.

A road map for solving the problem in the Palk Bay

The following are the important steps in finding a solution.

1. Dialogue between fishermen on both sides of the Palk Bay and reaching some understanding on the principles behind a solution and the various options available. To come up with both short term and long term solutions.
2. Sensitising the relevant Govt departments, key officials and key political leaders on the issue in both states. Pressing the two Governments to agree to work for a solution on the lines proposed by the fishermen.
3. National level policy dialogues between fishermen and Govt to work out the position of each country on this matter and the kind of changes that have to be made in each country.
4. Govts on both sides to take up formal dialogue and come to an agreement based on the previous steps. At this stage, the role of the fishermen associations and NGOs will depend upon the need felt by the respective Govts to involve them.

Can the fishermen come up with a creative solution that has been eluding the two Governments so far? Will this lead to a new dawn in the Palk Bay? In a fortnight from now, the Madras meeting will surely have some answers.

A Profile of Machhimar Adhikar Sangharsh Sangathan (MASS)

By SAJITH SUKUMARAN

The Origins:
Machhimar Adhikar Sangharsh Sangathan (MASS) came up as a result of the community mobilisation and capacity building that 'Setu' has been doing among the traditional fishing communities of Kutch at Bhadreshwar village in Mundra Taluk of Kutch district. 'Setu' is a programme of Kutch Nav Nirman Abhiyan.

Kutch Nav Nirman Abhiyan had evolved from the civil society initiatives for providing relief to the people affected by the 1998 cyclone. When Gujarat had another cyclone in 1999, Abhiyan proved a highly useful platform for NGOs as well as the people during the relief stage. When the earthquake hit Kutch in 2001, Abhiyan emerged as a crucial agency playing a pivotal role in providing relief to the affected families, and also in coordinating the efforts of governmental and civil society agencies.

'Setu', literally meaning 'bridge', has been the flagship programme of Abhiyan after the 2001 earth quake. 'Setu' acts as a bridge between the communities and the outside world. Abhiyan set up a network of Setus in the district, each one of them catering to a cluster of villages. Each Setu also has a thematic focus as well. The Setu at Bhadreshwar has its focus on the fishing communities and coastal issues.

Over the last few years, the Kutch coast has been witnessing massive industrialisation centred around Mundra Port. A large stretch of the Mundra coast is being developed through the setting up of the 7400 crore multi product Special Economic Zones (SEZ) by the Adani Group. The coast has already seen the destruction of large tracts of mangroves and filling up of vast areas of land for infrastructure development. The way this whole process has been progressing led to the fear that the fishing communities may lose their livelihoods, and the entire coastal ecosystem could be in peril in no time.

As a result of the Bhadreshwar Setu's work, the Wagher fishing community got organised to address the imminent threat to their livelihoods. Setu helped the community organise 'Bandar Panchayats', an institutional structure formed around the bandars where the Wagher families move in from different villages and stay for the entire fishing season. Bandar Panchayats were innovative as in they provided a much needed common platform for them to address the issues that they faced at the bandar level.

MASS: The Early Days
Machhimar Adhikar Sangharsh Samiti (MASS, later renamed as Machhimar Adhikar Sangharsh Sangathan) was initiated in early 2007. The Samiti was formed as a forum for organising the fishing communities for struggles to protect their rights to their livelihood in the wake of the fast development around the Mundra Port. It was thirteen fishermen leaders, representing the various villages and bandars on the Mundra coast, who came together to form MASS.

The first major issue that MASS addressed was the need to uphold the rights of the pagadiya fishermen, who go fishing on foot in the intertidal zone, for access to the seashore. The Adani Group had laid an air strip along the coast within the premises of the proposed SEZ. The air strip blocked the traditional pathway used by the pagadiya fishermen of Sekhadiya village. MASS organised an agitation against this. Starting on 10th February 2007, a long struggle evolved, with fisher people continuing a sit in strike for 35 days. Finally, Adani Group had to make amendments to their plans, ensuring the protection of the pathway for the Sekhadiya fishermen. MASS was on its way.

MASS plunged into the national level issues and campaigns by joining and playing an active role in the all India agitation initiated by NFF in May 2008. Led by the late leader Harekrishna Debnath, the struggle was organised in the form of a rally that covered the entire coast starting from Kutch and ending with West Bengal, citing the pertinent issues affecting the fishing communities and demanding the protection of the coasts, culminating with a rally in Delhi on 11th November 2008. MASS was on its way to developing a national perspective of coastal issues.

In 2008, MASS took up large scale awareness campaigns against the massive destruction of mangroves along the Kutch coast by the Adani Group. It held various agitations raising the issue of the rights of the fishing communities to livelihoods. It organised a district level campaign April 2009. The high point of the campaign was a rally in Mundra town on 17th April, which was addressed by several leaders including Fr. Thomas Kochery. In 2009 August, MASS actively involved with the collective action against the proposed power plant to be set up close to Randh bandar, the largest bandar of traditional fisher folks on the Mundra coast.

Since 2008, MASS has been part of the state level and nation wide campaigns and agitations organised or supported by NFF. These included campaign against displacement of fishing communities as part of setting up SEZs, campaigns related to CRZ/CMZ, coastal protection, struggles against destruction of mangroves, campaigns relating to the newly introduced Fisheries Bill, and for protecting the rights of the fishing communities in the wake of massive industrialisation along the coast line.

The case of Mochanam, the missing fishing boat

On 31 May 2010, a deep sea fishing boat, Mochanam, with seven crew members set out to sea from Kolachel harbour in Kanyakumari. The monsoon had just set in, the sea was moderate to rough and the men were bound for the Wedge Bank, a favoured fishing ground this time of the year, for a full week of fishing. A week later when the men didn't return, anxious next of kin and friends began searching for the missing boat and by 08 June, the coastguard and all officials were alerted. All search parties returned without finding the men or the boat. A few days later a piece of the bow of the boat was found floating in the sea by a fishing boat and was towed back to the harbour. The name of the boat was visible on the piece of the recovered debris.

When a boat disappears at sea, we can only guess the possible causes of mishap as no one has actually lived to tell the tale. In this case, the recovery of a piece of the boat has given us some clue of the nature of the mishap. It points somewhat clearly to a mid-sea collision (at night) with a large ship.

In the daytime, men are working on deck and so an approaching ship would be spotted by any of the seven crew members but at night, the situation is different. In most of our fishing boats, all crew members go to sleep at night while anchored and if you ask them why, they say they worked very hard all day so they deserve rest. The argument is watertight but it’s a dangerous thing to do while at sea.

During periods of darkness, a light must always burn on the boat and one man has to stay vigilant for other ships or boats that may approach on collision course and to ensure the light is burning alright, all night long. The movement of the boat or even some rain or spray may get into the light and put it off. Night watches can be shared among the men ensuring all of them get sufficient rest.

On a clear day or night, standing on the deck of Mochanam, one could possibly see a ship or its light from as far as 8 to 10 nautical miles. This is roughly Mochanam's visible horizon. If someone on board Mochanam was vigilant and keeping a look-out, he would have spotted the ship on a collision course 8 to 10 miles away and would have enough time to take corrective action -- either move away or attract the attention of the approaching ship.

Most merchant ships post extra look-outs (besides the navigator) while in coastal waters, particularly at night, so there was someone on board the ship keeping a look-out while the crew of Mochanam was fast asleep after a hard day's work probably anchored in the middle of a shipping route. Since speeds of approach are slow, there are no sudden surprises at sea. Everything moves at a slow pace so there is enough time to take action if we are vigilant.

Depletion of our inshore resources has pushed fishermen into shipping lanes leading to navigation conflicts with merchant ships. Small boat fishermen do not have to fear collisions with ships as they get washed away by the wake of the ship but bigger boats like Mochanam offer more resistance and get beaten down.

A review of accidents in the small scale fishery showed Kanyakumari topping the list with the largest incidents of collision, followed by Tuticorin, Nagapattinam, and Cuddalore. These are collisions with large boats and/or boats of the same size. A review of accidents among larger boats may throw up interesting findings on collisions especially with merchant ships.

Mani (53), Essak (52), Cleetus (48), Biju (36), Shaji (29), Binu (26) and Satheesh (18) are the Kanyakumari fishermen who went down with Mochanam. Collisions are just one among twelve types of commonly reported accidents in the Tamil Nadu fishery and fifth in terms of human casualties. Mochanam is an example of one of the risks and dangers fishermen face daily -- an example that took seven lives.