Revised Coastal Regulation Zone Report

For the purpose of protecting and conserving the coastal environment, the Ministry of Environment and Forests issued  the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991 under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. This notification provides a unique regulatory framework without any parallel, globally speaking, for the conservation of the coastal resources by regulating development activities within the CRZ. However during the last 14 years of its implementation, the Ministry has received representations from diverse interest groups pointing out the inadequacies of the notification from the point of view of both conservation as well as sustainable livelihoods. A number of Expert Committees have also been constituted by the Central Government in the past to look in to these representations and a number of amendments have been made in the notification since 1991 for addressing various concerns. However, the need for a comprehensive review of the notification to ensure that the management of the coastal resources is based on sound scientific principles has remained. Therefore, as part of the Central Government’s initiative for the review of all environmental regulatory systems, the Ministry constituted an Expert Committee under the Chairmanship of Prof. M.S. Swaminathan in July, 2004 to review the existing CRZ Notification. The Terms of Reference of this Expert Committee included:

a)         To review the reports of various Committees appointed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on coastal zone management, consider international practices, and suggest the scientific principles for an integrated coastal zone management best suited for the country;

b)         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;

c)         To revisit the CRZ Notification, 1991 in the light of the 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 members of the above Committee was as follows:

The following experts were Co-opted by the Committee:

Dr. J.R.B Alfred, Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata. .

Dr. N. Sanjappa, Director, Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata.

Dr. Y.S. Yadava, Member Secretary, Aquaculture Authority, Chennai.

Cmdt. M.M. Sharma, Indian Coast Guards, New Delhi.

Shri Ronesh Ray, Heritage and Architecture, New Delhi.

Dr. S. Ayyappan, Director General, Fisheries, New Delhi.

Director, National Institute of Oceanography, Goa.

The Committee had also co-opted experts from Botanical Survey of India, Zoological Survey of India, the Indian Coast Guards, experts on Heritage & Architecture, Oceanography and Fisheries.

The Committee met four times and had detailed discussions, reviewed the reports of the previous committees and reports pertaining international practices in the area of coastal zone management. The Committee has also held extensive consultations with all the principal stakeholders, including NGOs.  On this basis, the Committee has come to the unanimous view that Coastal Zone Management requires cohesive, multi-disciplinary approaches as well as multi-dimensional vision. Sustainable human security in all its dimensions -ecological, economic, ethical, cultural and human well-being, in terms of the health and happiness of both man and nature, should be the goals of an enlightened Coastal Zone Management policy. The implementation of such a policy will require appropriate regulations supported by effective monitoring systems as well as education, public and political understanding of risks and benefits of development activities and above all, social mobilization through Panchayati Raj institutions. The Committee has also addressed itself to the issue of conservation of the coastal resources in the wake of the Tsunami disaster.

The Committee has evolved the following 12 basic guiding principles to govern future decisions on coastal zone management:

(1)        Ecological and cultural security, livelihood security and national security should be the cornerstones of an integrated coastal zone management policy.

(2)        The coastal zone will include an area of the sea to form territorial limits (12 nautical miles), including its sea-bed to the administrative boundaries or the biological boundaries demarcated on the landward side of the sea coast. The coastal zone management will also include the inland tidal water bodies influenced by tidal action and the land area along such water bodies. This area should be taken up for an integrated, cohesive, multi-disciplinary and multi-sectoral coastal area management and regulatory system.

(3)        Regulation, education and social mobilization should be the three major components of a participatory and sustainable Coastal Zone Management strategy. Panchayati Raj institutions in coastal areas should be fully involved in the educational and social mobilization programmes.

(4)        The protection and sustainable development of the marine and coastal environment and its resources should be in conformity with international law, as laid down in 1982 UNCLOS, as well as with the suggestions contained in Chapter 17 of Agenda 21. The Draft National Environment Policy of India also contains useful guidelines. Every effort should be made towards ensuring an Integrated Marine and Coastal Area Management (IMCAM) as prescribed in the 1995 Jakarta Mandate under the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity.

(5)        Coastal regulation needs to be based on sound, scientific and ecological principles and should safeguard both natural and cultural heritage. Heritage sites need particular care and should be conserved in their pristine purity. These include buildings, artifacts, precincts of spiritual, historical, aesthetic, architectural or areas of environmental significance such as richness of biodiversity and scenic beauty. Bird sanctuaries and parks and breeding grounds of migratory birds should be protected.

(6)        The precautionary approach should be used where there are potential threats of serious or irreversible damage to ecologically fragile critical coastal systems and to living aquatic resources. Scientific uncertainty should not be used as an institution for the unsustainable exploitation of coastal resources -both living and non-living as well as to prevent environmental degradation, injustice, and harm.

(7)        Significant or irreversible risks and harm to human health and life, critical coastal systems and resources, including cultural and architectural heritage, would be considered unacceptable. Ecological economics should underpin economic activities, so that present day interests and future prospects are not antagonistic. Significant biological, cultural and natural assets should be considered incomparable, invaluable and irreplaceable and should receive overriding priority in the allocation of resources for coastal area protection and conservation.

(8)        Coastal policy and regulations should be guided by the principles of gender and social equity as well as intra-generational and inter-generational equity, (i.e., the interests of future generations). They should be based on Mahatma Gandhi’s dictum, “Nature provides for everyone’s needs, but not for everyone’s greed.” All stakeholders should be involved in decision-making. Precious

biological wealth, coming under Marine Biosphere Reserves, should be managed in a Trusteeship mode, with all the stakeholders protecting the unique natural wealth of biosphere reserves as Trustees and not as owners. A case study should be made on how the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Trust is functioning, so that the Trusteeship pattern of sustainable management can be replicated by the principal stakeholders.

(9)        Coastal protection and bio-resources conservation policies should be guided by techno economic efficiency, the precautionary approach, ‘polluter-pays’ principle(s) and ‘public trust’ doctrine. There should be strict liability on the part of those engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous coastal activities, including the liability to compensate the victims of all human made hazards such as marine pollution and fish contamination. They should also bear the cost of restoring the coastal environmental degradation. The onus of proof in such cases should be on the developers/industrialists for demonstrating that their “development” activities are environmentally benign.

(10)       The principles contained in the Biodiversity Act (2002), should be applied to coastal bio-resources management. This will involve concurrent attention to conservation, sustainable use and equitable sharing of benefits. To address the issue of pressures on marine and coastal ecosystems, as defined in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (Part IV) adopted at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, every effort should be made to promote sustainable fisheries, prevent loss of biological diversity, prevent all forms of marine pollution and ensure that coastal area development and urbanization are eco-friendly.

(11)       The regeneration of mangrove wetlands, coral reefs and sea grass beds as well as the promotion of coastal forestry and agro-forestry will confer both short and long term ecological and livelihood benefits. Carbon sequestration through coastal bio-shields will make an important contribution to promoting a balance between carbon emission and absorption, in addition to offering protection during coastal storms and calamities like Tsunami. An important lesson taught by the tsunami disaster is that the rehabilitation of degraded mangrove forests and the raising of coastal plantations of salicornia, casuarina and appropriate species of halophytes will represent a “win-win” situation both for nature and coastal human habitations. No further time should be lost in initiating a national coastal bio-shield movement along the coasts of the mainland of India as well as islands. This can be a priority task under the National Rural Employment Guarantee and Food for Work Programmes.

(12)       The severe loss of life and livelihoods as well as property caused by Tsunami in Andaman & Nicobar Islands and in the coastal regions of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Pondicherry teaches us that short term commercial interests should not be allowed to undermine the ecological security of our coastal areas. Human memory tends to be short and neglecting the lessons of Tsunami will be equivalent to writing off the future of coastal communities. The Committee has also recommended a National Coastal Zone Management Action Plan with an

objective “to protect the coastal zone with people's participation, the livelihood security of the coastal fisher and other communities, and the ecosystem, which sustains the productivity of the coastal areas, while promoting sustainable development that contributes to nation’s economy and prosperity.” The salient features of the Committee’s recommendations are as follows:

The Committee has recommended the reclassification of the coastal zone into four Zones i. e.:

1. Coastal Management Zone-I -consists of areas designated as Ecologically Sensitive Areas such as Mangroves, Coral reefs, Sand Dunes, Inland tide/water bodies such as estuaries, lakes, lagoons, creeks & straits, Mudflats, Marine parks and sanctuaries, Coastal forests & wildlife, Coastal fresh

water lakes, Salt Marshes, Turtle nesting grounds, Horse shoe crabs habitats, Seagrass beds, Sea weed beds, Nesting grounds of migratory birds.

2. Coastal Management Zone-II -consists of areas identified as Areas of Particular Concern such as economically important areas, high population areas and culturally/strategically important areas. The administrative boundaries of these areas would be boundaries of CMZ-II.

3. Coastal Management Zone-III -consists of all other open areas including the coastal seas but excluding those areas classified as CMZ-I, CMZ-II and CMZ -IV.

4. Coastal Management Zone-IV -consists of Islands of The Andaman and Nicobar and Lakshadweep.

For the purpose of managing the above areas, the Committee has suggested Integrated Coastal Zone Management Approach. After taking into account the recent Tsunami, the Committee has laid emphasis on demarcation of vulnerability line all along the coastal areas and has suggested developmental activities to be regulated on the seaward side of the vulnerability line. Since the coastal management is a multi-disciplinary subject, the Committee has suggested a National Sustainable Coastal Zone Management Institute along with organisational structure to address issues relating to policy, law, conflict resolution and to creating public awareness. The Committee has laid special emphasis on developing bio shields all along the coastal areas by intensive plantation of mangroves, casuarinas, etc.

For the implementation of the recommendations, the report also suggests creation of an organisation:

The Ministry of Environment & Forests has broadly accepted the recommendations made in the Report and has initiated an action for implementing the recommendations. (For details: http://envfor.nic.in)