Pages

Saturday, August 25

46. DRAFT CRZ NOTIFICATION 2018: AN ANALYSIS | I.A.S. 2019 | 46TH GS EPISODE




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