46 COASTAL REGULATION ZONE
Contested Coasts
The Draft CRZ Notification, 2018
There have been efforts to
protect the coastal areas of India since 1991. Till date, there have been two
iterations of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification (CRZ Notification)—in
1991 and 2011—which have themselves been amended, interpreted, and modified
several times. The Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEFCC)
has now proposed a new draft CRZ Notification to replace the existing legal
framework, based on the recommendations of the Shailesh Nayak Committee.1
CRZ NOTIFICATION 1991
One of the main criticisms of the
1991 notification was that the public had played a limited role in its
formulation and implementation. It remained largely unimplemented, drawing the
criticism of the Supreme Court, which observed that the 1991 notification had
been ignored and violated with impunity (Indian Council
for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India 1996).
CRZ NOTIFICATION 2011
In contrast, the process leading
up to the 2011 notification was appreciably more consultative. It included
several rounds of public hearings before the drafting, and comments were
invited from the public on a pre-draft and the draft notification.
Consequently, both the process and the final version of the 2011 notification
signalled a strong belief in a participatory framework of governance (Sharma
2011).
The implementation, however,
remained weak. This has been ascribed to three broad reasons: the delayed and
insufficient demarcation of baselines and ecologically significant areas; the
lack of institutional capacity; and the frequent dilution of the notification
through amendments. The lack of engagement with a broad range of stakeholders
and affected communities characterised all three points of failure of the 2011
notification.
The implementation of the coastal
regulatory framework hinges on the demarcation of the high tide line (HTL) and
low tide line (LTL), which form the baseline for regulated coastal areas. The
National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM), appointed by the
MoEFCC, completed the process of demarcation of the HTL as recently as 2017.
The minutes of the 32nd meeting of the National Coastal Zone Management
Authority (held in November 2017) indicate that states are in the process of
ratifying this demarcation. Notably, the demarcation process was not opened to
the public at any stage. Where civil society organisations have been able to
access the maps through right to information (RTI) filings, it has been pointed
out that large stretches of ecologically sensitive areas (ESA) have been left
out, possibly “erroneously” (Chaitanya 2018).
The 2011 notification also
required the demarcation of ESA, critically vulnerable coastal areas (CVCA),
and the hazard line, keeping in mind vulnerability to coastal threats and
changes. These demarcations have not been completed till date.
There are other counts on which
the 2011 notification has not been effective. The preparation of coastal zone
management plans (CZMPs)—tied to the demarcation of the different categories
under the notification—has not been comprehensive or complete.2 In
addition, the institutional capacity for the implementation of the 2011 notification,
particularly at the district
level, has been far from adequate (Menon et al 2015).
Simultaneously, the 2011
notification has also undergone several amendments. The tendency to insidiously
pursue amendments without public consultation was evident in these instances as
well. As one study indicates, there was not even a draft notification for eight
of the 12 amendments to the 2011 notification (Kapoor and Dinesh 2017).
CRZ NOTIFICATION 2018
SHAILESH NAYAK COMMITTEE REPORT
2018 draft notification accepts
the demarcation of the HTL by the NCSCM, Chennai. The uncritical acceptance of
NCSCM’s HTL demarcation can possibly be explained by the fact that the HTL
demarcation was conducted by a committee that was also chaired by Shailesh
Nayak.
2018 draft notification does not
address this. Rather, it omits any mention of the hazard line altogether,
leaving a large area out of the regulatory purview of the proposed CRZ
Notification. The omission of the hazard line in the 2018 draft notification is
surprising as it is arguably a significant marker for climate and associated
risks faced by coastal communities.
Given this state of affairs, it
may be argued that the coastal regulatory framework needs to be re-examined.
More than a decade ago, the 2006 National Environment Policy highlighted that
the deeper causes for the degradation of coastal areas was the lack of
institutional capacity and the non-participation of local communities in
coastal governance. The draft notification does not just fail to address these
concerns, it exacerbates them. A careful reading shows the deliberate exclusion
of a wide range of stakeholders from the process of formulating the text of the
final draft.
The Shailesh Nayak Committee has
conducted four stakeholder meetings in all, and only with the officials and
chief ministers of the coastal states. There was no other meeting or
consultation to include any other viewpoint. Interestingly, not even
representatives of the bodies responsible for implementation of the CRZ
Notification at the state or district level were consulted.
Unsurprisingly, then, the changes
in the proposed draft respond only to the needs flagged by the government
officials of the coastal states. These are overwhelmingly in favour of
shrinking the areas under protection and opening up coastal areas for more
activities, with significantly diluted safeguards.
Ironically, most of these changes
have been justified as “enhancing coastal livelihoods.” It is disappointing to
note that this is at best lip service. In fact, by increasing the pressure on
coastal areas by reducing existing safeguards, it is possible that livelihoods
dependent on natural resources may be further disadvantaged. A contentious
issue relating to coastal livelihoods has been the impact of polluting or
poorly planned coastal projects. Coastal communities have been vocal in their
concern about the impact of celebratory “monuments” that would restrict their
navigation and reduce the availability of fish stocks (Chatterjee 2016). The
draft notification implicitly allows such projects to go ahead, ignoring these
concerns.
The draft notification also
proposes specific changes that limit or remove the requirement to engage with
the public and other stakeholders. Most significantly, the 2011 notification
had a clearly outlined public consultation in the preparation of the CZMP;
state governments have a specific responsibility to revise the draft CZMP after
incorporating suggestions and objections received from stakeholders (Para
5[viii]). This provision has been omitted in the 2018 draft notification. Other
provisions, like consulting the traditional fishing community for construction
of dwelling units (Para 8[III]A[ii]), or requiring a public hearing for
specific projects in the CRZ area (Para 4[e]), have also been omitted.
WAY AHEAD
It is important and urgent to
re-examine how we approach our coastal areas. These highly productive and
extremely fragile ecosystems are increasingly crowded and contested
social-ecological systems. A strong, well-informed, and participatory framework
is essential for effective and equitable governance (Fung 2006). Before the
existing framework is reworked, the underlying causes for the suboptimal
implementation of the 2011 notification should be examined critically. Not only
does the draft notification fail to address these issues, it poses a very real
possibility of weakening even the existing safeguards and protections.
No comments:
Post a Comment