Coastal regulation draft ignores ecological issues

After the tsunami of 2004, the government was forced to rethink its policies on the Indian coastline. And hence, the coastal management zones (CMZ) were established.

This move affected about 100 million people living along the approximately 7500 km long coast.

Strangely, while recognising the importance of coastal areas in protecting coastal people, the CMZ encouraged increased development, and diluted the existing laws that prevented industrialisation of the coastline. After vociferous protests from across the country including fishermen’s unions, NGOs and scientists, the government reconsidered these guidelines.

A committee headed by MS Swaminathan was set up to spearhead the modification of these regulations and make recommendations for a new policy. Accordingly, a new draft was drawn up in 2009.

The recent draft of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification specifically recognises the existence and rights of fishing communities in the six mainland states and two island union territories by defining two-fold threats to their way of life. It identifies conservation of biodiversity and rapid (capital-driven) development as the most significant dangers to coastal people.

While the struggle between marine protected areas and fishing communities has been covered, the issue of fishermen versus modern development is usually sidelined. Even while highlighting this issue, the draft falls short as it does not empower these communities to deal with the purchase and conversion of shorelines. In fact, it specifically allows the conversion of natural shores to ports, ‘non-polluting’ industries and elevated roadways.

While these land conversions are subject to Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), the history of both assessments and the organisations performing them are sketchy. It is odd that the new draft would base itself on the fundamentally flawed premise of the existing EIA procedure
The history of impact assessments, as seen in the case of Vedanta’s plans in Orissa or the Lavasa issue in Pune, sets a bad precedent.

Most organisations do not invest the time or expertise necessary to collect in-depth data on the existing ecosystem, let alone make good predictions of how the land conversions will affect the system or the people. In most cases no trained ecologists or sociologists are employed. A more ecologically disastrous consequence of the proposed bill is that not only does it ignore biodiversity conservation initiatives, but also encourages environmentally disturbing coastal development such as roads on stilts.

While elevated highways may not be as harmful as roads laid at sea-level, there is no quoted research on the benefits of laying concrete columns in the ecologically fragile inter-tidal zone of the sea. Pouring cement as required for concrete columns into such a delicate system that is already being threatened by extensive human use, could spell its doom.

Given the future scenario of sea level change, shifting sandbars and increased storms, surges or tsunamis, the maintenance of such coastal roadways is likely to prove extremely expensive both financially and in terms of human lives, completely outweighing the benefits.

For such a notification to be applicable in the long term, it should follow a multi-pronged approach, trying to link short-term developmental requirements with long-term coastal sustainability and conservation.