The Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991 is the most significant and specialized legislation guiding developmental activities along the coast and in islands. Since its inception, it has been amended 20 times, each time diluting its provisions further. In an unwarranted move, the Ministry of Environment & Forests is now proposing to replace the CRZ Notification with a Coastal Management Zone Notification based on recommendations of the Swaminathan Committee Report. There are many doubts and concerns that are raised because of this move. The critical ones being: the impact on coastal communities & ecosystems; conservation and sustainable development; and a complete lack of democratic processes in making the new law.
Background & context
The Indian coastal stretch is made up of diverse ecosystems - sand dunes, beaches, wetlands, mangroves, estuaries, backwater lagoons and coral reefs. Settlements of traditional people comprising about 10 million fisherfolk, are concentrated in these areas, as they mainly depend on coastal resources and seas for their survival. Several activities are affecting the coast such as unregulated tourism, polluting industries, infrastructure, aquaculture, sand mining, construction of sea walls and rapid urbanization pose serious threats to the health of these ecosystems and to lives and livelihoods of coastal communities. The recent 2004 tsunami has shown that the coast is a naturally vulnerable area and that these activities have worsened the impacts on coastal people.
The Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, issued in 1991 using the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is the most significant and specialized legislation regulating developmental activities along the coast.
The CRZ notification was introduced with three main principles:
· It is necessary to arrive at a balance between development needs and protection of natural resources ·
Certain activities are harmful for both coastal communities and their environment, and these should be prohibited or regulated. ·
If coastal ecosystems are sustainable managed, then the livelihoods of millions will be protected and their survival guaranteed.
The CRZ Notification includes the strip of coastal land abutting the sea all along the Indian coast and her islands. It extends 500 metres from the High Tide Line. In this narrow sensitive region, certain activities are regulated while other inappropriate ones are prohibited. This was a far-sighted law declared by the Central Government which recognized India’s need to protect the interests of millions of her coastal people while ensuring their overall development. What went wrong with the notification? The implementation of this critical notification was by and large ignored by many state governments. Vested interests from various lobbies such as the tourism and industrial lobby has constantly sought to get rid of this notification. The CRZ Notification has been amended 20 times, and each dilution rendered the law more impotent. The 26 December 2004 tsunami starkly demonstrated the impact of this gross neglect and innocent people paid dearly for this. Evidence of poor implementation
1. The Coastal Zone Management Authority has been completely ineffective as an implementing agency and has no representation of panchayats or qualified persons in its composition. The CZMA has not executed half its responsibilities such as the preparation of plans for ecologically and economically sensitive areas.
2. Coastal Zone Management Plans: Not a single coastal state or union territory has a fully approved Coastal Zone Management Plans. This document is critical to the implementation of the law as it identifies the various CRZ areas and therefore the range of activities that can be permitted or prohibited. Without this unregulated activities take place on the coast and this is true of the present state of the Indian coast.
3. The High Tide Line or the 500 m line is not demarcated in any of the states and it becomes impossible to determine the extent of the CRZ areas.
4. The CRZ has been continually amendment to permit activities that were initially prohibited such as storage for petroleum products (4th August 2000 amendment) and oil and natural gas exploration in CRZ-I (12th April 2001 amendment) IT and service industries through Special Economic Zones (21st May 2002 amendment) SEZs have been controversial and there are many concerns about labour and environmental norms in them.
5. The ‘deadline’ for permitting sand mining in erosion prone Andaman & Nicobar Islands has been meaninglessly extended 10 times with no promotion of alternative building materials. .
As Highlights of the Swaminathan Committee and its Recommendations In July 2004 the MoEF constituted the Swaminathan Committee with the Terms of Reference:
1. To review the reports of various Committees appointed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on coastal zone management, international practices and suggest the scientific principles for an integrated coastal zone management best suited for the country;
2. To define and enlist various coastal and marine resources and recommend the methodology for their identification and the extent of safeguards required for conservation and protection;
3. To revisit the CRZ, Notification, 1991 in the light of above and recommend necessary amendments to make the regulatory framework consistent with recommendations on
(a) and (b) above and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Committee submitted its report in February 2005. The Report: · Has been prepared in an undemocratic manner, with no representation of coastal community or civil society representatives · Is far from being a robust document and lacks clear direction and coherence · Initial chapters of analysis and recommendations are unrelated to final chapters on the structure and mechanism for coastal management · Suggests an Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan (ICZMP) as the panacea for all conservation and regulation related problems but fails to give an explanation in practical terms · Recommends a shift from ‘regulation’ to ‘management’ i.e. from ‘Coastal Regulation Zones (CRZ-I to IV)’ with ‘Coastal Management Zones’ (CMZ I to IV). Many groups have raised serious concerns on whether development should be regulated or should it be managed, no matter the volume · Is not clear on the relation between setback and vulnerability lines · Proposes CMZ concepts that are even more vague and weak than the CRZ Notification · Legitimizes all violations prior to 2004 · In its guiding principles: o Identifies the role of Panchayati Raj Institutions in educational and social mobilization programmes only (principle 3) o Acknowledges that the Draft NEP has useful guidelines (principle 4) o Fails to acknowledge traditional knowledge and practices of coastal communities in protecting coastal ecosystems (principle 5) o Suggests involvement of all stakeholders in decision making process, thereby removing decision making powers from local community/ institutions (rights-holders) and broadbasing it with all stakeholders (principle 8) o Recognizes that coastal protection and conservation should be guided by ‘techno-economic eficiency’, precautionary approach, ‘polluter pays’ principle and ‘public trust’ doctrine. There is no mention of livelihood security, safeguarding customary & traditional rights, access and resource use, protection or regulation of development (principle 9) · Many of the recommendations are general in nature without giving practical details for implementation · Seeks to shift decision making powers from community to other government agencies by ushering the concept of eco-development [rec 4.1.1.(vi)] · Encourages aquaculture [rec 4.1.1.(ix), 4.1.3.(xiii)], tourism [rec 4.1.3.(xviii)], ‘ecological’ mining [rec 4.1.2.(v)] and many other activities [Annexure V] on the landward side of the vulnerability and bans construction of huts and houses [rec 4.1.2.(xvi)] · Recommends bio-shields of exotic species [rec 4.1.2.(iv)] and encourages construction of earther bunds [rec 4.1.3.(xv)] · Attempts to centralize decision making with the MoEF · Ignores the role of district level agencies for coastal regulation · Disregards customary rights and traditional land use of the community in suggesting a coastal zone management concept. Concerns with the new CMZ notification The CRZ Notification is now under the threat of being abandoned and a draft CZM notification has been introduced by the MoEF based on the recommendations of the Swaminathan Committee. We are deeply concerned about this draft notification for the following reasons:
1. The most controversial aspect of the new notification it completely supersedes the previous notification. There is no explanation of how cases of earlier violations will be dealt with, implying they will be declared void.
2. The zonation and activities proposed within the zone called CMZ II is not acceptable. It clearly allows all activities that were prohibited earlier such as sand mining and industrial estates. We strongly advocate for the earlier zonation and regulations, as per the 1991 Notification, to remain in place. We also stress that coastal lands (within or outside municipal areas) used by fishing and other coastal communities should not be diverted for any purpose (SEZ, Ports, tourism, beautification of coastal areas, sand mining, industrial estates).
3. The recommendations from the Swaminathan Committee do not explicitly state the necessity of protecting traditional and customary rights of fishing communities in the coastal zone. These rights were recognized in the CRZ Notification.
4. The new notification expands the jurisdiction of the law to include territorial waters 12 nautical miles from the shore. The notification however has absolutely no provision on how these regions will be protected under the new regime. However, there is enough indication that developmental activities are being promoted with greater zeal under this new notification without corresponding attention to protective aspects. This has major implications for livelihoods of fishing communities and we are concerned that this law will allow the exploitation of the seabed and coastal resources which will impact coastal communities, particularly over 10 million fishers. Suggestions: - MoEF should bring out a policy note on the CMZ concept, accompanied by a Plan of Action detailing how the MoEF intends to implement the CMZ process. - Wide ranging consultations should be held with coastal communities, fisherfolk and other coastal community organizations as well as other stakeholders including State Governments, coastal panchayats, and relevant government departments, before any decision to replace/ modify the current CRZ Notification is undertaken. - The coast should be managed with full participation of fishing communities, and the primacy of their rights over these resources should be guaranteed. We summarily reject any attempts to replace the CRZ Notification in a hasty manner particularly in view of the fact that there has been no process of consultation with stakeholders, especially, coastal communities and their organizations, the traditional inhabitants of the coast, by either the Swaminathan Committee or the MoEF. Such attempts are clearly undemocratic, and will raise serious questions about the intention of the government on a matter that has serious long-term implications for the coastal communities. .
|
