Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Aarthi Sridhar
Planning for Vulnerability
Dak
shin
Fou
ndat
ion 2010
The Hazards and Setbacks in Coastal Legislation
Citation: Sridhar, A. 2010. Planning for Vulnerability: The Hazards and Setbacks in Coastal Legislation. DakshinFoundation, Bangalore, p11.
Aarthi SridharDakshin FoundationEmail: [email protected]: www.dakshin.org
Cover photo: Photograph of the heavily eroded Puri coast line in Orissa, India. July 2010.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this publication are solely the author’s and not necessarily that ofeither Dakshin Foundation or DMNCT.
Abbreviations
CMZ Coastal Management ZoneCRZ Coastal Regulation ZoneMoEF Ministry of Environment and ForestsNFF National Fishworkers’ Forum
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the research assistance provided by Tanvi Vaidyanathan and Seema Shenoy.
I am also grateful to Manju Menon and Sudarshan Rodriguez for providing comments and ideas on anearlier draft of this report.
The publication of this report was made possible by a grant to Dakshin from the Duleep Mathai NatureConservation Trust.
planning for vulnerability
The Indian state has accumulated a veritablesmorgasbord of legal lexicon to govern a range ofhuman activities. Nearly all ecosystems in India haveseen enough destruction to warrant visible effortsfrom the state to reverse and prevent such anoccurrence or recurrence. Laws pertaining tospecific ecosystems and their use made anappearance over the last three decades and thelaw pertaining to coastal spaces – the CoastalRegulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 1991specifically decides what people can and cannot doon the coastal stretches of the country. This mainlyincludes where people can live, whereestablishments can be set up and the nature ofactivities permissible on the coast. The basis foreach of these regulations is ascribed to certainconcerns, principles and concepts and coastalmanagement has seen several shifts and changes inthese. The concern around ‘vulnerability’ has seenthe emergence of ideas and responses such asintroducing ‘setbacks’ for development andestablishing ‘hazard lines’.
More than 10,000 people in India lost their lives tothe Indian Ocean tsunami that struck the regionon December 26, 2004 and the damage to propertywas computed at about one billion USD (WorldBank 2005). Rehabilitation and reconstructionefforts were all extremely conscious of the factthat building close to the seafront was fraught withdanger. As a parallel, a great deal of concern wasalso raised about fisher houses being located inthe hinterland where they would not have quickaccess to the coast and visibility of the sea(Rodriguez et al. 2008). In fact in many areas, fishingcommunities in Tamil Nadu accepted the newrehabilitation sites in the hinterland but alsoattempted to occupy their earlier lands on theshore, particularly the community lands (Menon etal. 2008). Questions about the legality of buildingon the coast arose and the complications involvedin existing CRZ regulations also became apparentto aid agencies (Sridhar 2005). It was around thistime that the CRZ, 1991 became a subject of intensepublic debate – beginning as concerns around themassive rehabilitation efforts in the southern Indianstates, but thereafter focusing on the inconspicuous
Reconstructing fragilityprocess of coastal legislation reform that theMinistry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) hadinitiated in July 2004, just prior to the tsunami.
The Swaminathan Committee, set up by the MoEFto review and revise the CRZ Notification, 1991,submitted its report in February 2005, with new‘scientific’ constructs for a revised legislation.Coming in the wake of the tsunami, the mostsignificant aspect of this review report was that itdropped the earlier system of ‘coastal regulation’and advocated ‘coastal management’ instead, basedon vulnerability of coastal areas to natural hazards.This report examines the application of the keyconcepts related to vulnerability that theSwaminathan report of 2005 and the subsequentdraft notifications introduced.
The evolution of law is continuous, and it oftenkeeps time with changes in government. This reportexplains how these ideas around coastalvulnerabilities found their way into the debates oncoastal management and the implications of itsproposed formulation in legislation. In doing so, thisreport also evaluates how government authoritiesand committees have articulated these conceptsand whether the present efforts towardsincorporating these ideas into legislation will actuallyresult in enhanced protection for coastalcommunities and ecosystems.
Re-forming the CRZ NotificationThe CRZ Notification was officially declared by theMinistry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) onFebruary 19th, 1991, under the provisions of theEnvironment (Protection) Act of 1986 and theEnvironment (Protection) Rules, 1986. The ideabehind the 1991 CRZ Notification was to:
i. Arrive at a balance between development needsand protection of natural resources in coastal areasii. Prohibition and regulation of activities that areharmful to both coastal communities and theirenvironment.iii. Sustainable management of coastal ecosystemsthereby ensuring the protection and survival ofmillions of livelihoods.
Although the CRZ Notification was very well-known and its implementation was prompted bythe active participation of several environmentalorganisations and judicial action, its overallachievements in terms of the above objectives havebeen extremely poor. The original notification wasamended about 25 times with each amendmentdiluting it further (Menon & Sridhar 2007). Thecommittee headed by Prof. M.S. Swaminathan toreview it and make necessary changes to strengthenit had the following terms of reference:
a) To review the reports of various committeesappointed by the MoEF on coastal zonemanagement, international practices and to suggestscientific principles for an integrated coastal zonemanagement that would best suit the country(b) To define and enlist various coastal and marineresources and recommend the methodology fortheir identification and the extent of safeguardsrequired for conservation and protection;(c) To revisit the CRZ Notification, 1991 in the lightof above and recommend necessary amendmentsto make the regulatory framework consistent withrecommendations on (a) and (b) above, and theEnvironment (Protection) Act, 1986.
The final chapter and annexes of the SwaminathanCommittee report suggested a new legislativeframework for coastal management, albeit quitecontradictory in tenor and design from the main
text of the report (Sridhar et al. 2005). It was fromthis suggested framework that the Coastal ZoneManagement (CZM) Draft Notification, 2007 wasdeveloped by the MoEF (Menon et al. 2007). Thisnew framework for the management of coastsspoke of a ‘setback line’ that permitted commercialactivities on the seaward side of the setback lineand pushed back all dwelling units of fishercommunities to the landward side of the line. Itproposed a dangerous situation of transferring thetraditional ownership of and access to beach-frontsfrom fisher communities to non-coastal agencieswith commercial interests. Furthermore, theframework had no mention of rights and protectingthe livelihood of fisherfolk (Menon et al. 2007;Rodriguez 2010). This draft met with tremendousopposition from various quarters.
Later the same year (2007) a concept note wasintroduced by the MoEF which was similar to theearlier draft but contained a few modificationsparticularly on the subject of setbacks andvulnerability assessments. The note was shroudedin controversy because the meeting conducted bythe MoEF to discuss the concept note was heldwithout key fishworker leaders andenvironmentalists (MoEF 2007). The subsequentdraft Coastal Management Zone (CMZ)Notification, 2008, (S.O. 1070 (E)), raised the hacklesof citizens once again. A number of aspects in thedraft CMZ Notification 2008 like its premise,objectives, monitoring mechanisms, jurisdiction andthe concept of the setback line have come underscrutiny (Sridhar et al. 2008).
After the 15th Lok Sabha elections in May 2009, thenew minister Jairam Ramesh sought to undo thedamage caused by the earlier notification draftingattempts. Another committee again chaired by Prof.Swaminathan, produced a new report, popularlyreferred to as the ‘Final Frontier Report’1 on July16, 2009 (MoEF 2009). It recommended, amongother things, the following:
It noted that coastal areas were doublyvulnerable, particularly to climate change relateddevastation.
1 The full title of the report is ‘Report of the Expert Committee on the draft Coastal Management Zone (CMZ) Notification– The Final Frontier’
planning for vulnerability
The CMZ Notification, 2008 should be allowedto lapse. Amendments are incorporated in the existing
CRZ Notification, 1991 for better coastalmanagement. Protection to fishing communities and families
for habitat and livelihood security is enhancedthrough amendments in the CRZ Notification. It also recommended that policies should be
introduced to cope with and adapt to the futuredangers from sea level rise and increasedvulnerability of the coasts.
After the MoEF allowed the CMZ 2008 Notificationto lapse, it undertook another series of publicconsultations to gather opinions aboutrecommendations of the ‘Final Frontier’ report andincorporating appropriate suggestions beforebringing in further amendments to strengthen theexisting CRZ 1991. The Centre for EnvironmentEducation (CEE) was commissioned by the MoEFto hold public consultations on the subject, takinga total number of public consultations held on thissubject to 35. Despite the limited scope theseconsultations provided for discussion andsubstantive debate on the provisions of the reportor ideas to strengthen the CRZ (NCPC 2010a),the MoEF announced its decision to promulgate anew notification. In April 2010, the MoEF introduceda pre-draft CRZ Notification, 2010. Despite thetime, effort and concern expressed about the entireprocess of reform, the MoEF had really notincorporated any of the public opinions. This pre-draft was met with a significant amount of protestmainly on account of the fact that it did notincorporate any of the suggestions made duringpublic meetings, on account of permitted non-coastal activities that did not require the waterfrontor foreshore and finally for not really providing asafeguard for fishing communities over their homes,settlements and coastal commons (ibid).
Despite the public resentment and disappointmentexpressed by environmentalists and fisherfolk overthe pre-draft the MoEF announced the draft CRZ
2010 in September 2010 containing more or lessthe very same clauses as the pre-draft. Fisherfolkand environmentalists pronounced this as the ‘laststraw’ and on 29th October 2010, the entire countrywitnessed mass agitations by fisherfolk across eachcoastal state, rejecting the notification anddemanding that earlier regulations as per theoriginal 1991 notification be reinstated (NCPC2010b).
planning for vulnerability1
Vulnerability, Setback and HazardVulnerability: the early days...
While the present debates on vulnerability of coastsand setbacks for activities are all concerned withthe Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification,1991, there were state-level regulations which dealtwith these ideas preceding this. Antecedents forprotection of coasts through legal provisions canbe traced back to building rules (under local townand country planning laws) or the land revenue code(NST, 2000). Section 15 of the Karnataka LandGrant Rules, 1969, prohibited the granting of landsnear the coast upto 200 mts from the high watermark. The attempt was to regulate the kind offactories and vegetation encouraged in the area.On May 11, 1993, Rule 15 was amended to extendthe area of no grants of land upto five hundredmetres (ibid). Goa already had a legislation relatedto building near coastal stretches (MatanhySaldanha, pers. Comm, August, 2010).
Environmentalists regard the year 1981 as alandmark for coastal protection, when Mrs. IndiraGandhi, the Late Prime Minister issued a directiveexpressing her concern at the high degree ofpollution of India’s ‘fragile coasts’ and the need tosafeguard these spaces from pollution. Variouscitizen environmental groups are to be creditedwith having raised this concern are said to havebrought this to her notice (Chainani 2007). Thisletter is said to have prompted the Beach ProtectionGuidelines – which later evolved into the CoastalRegulation Zone Notification rolled out in 1991.Mrs. Gandhi’s letter to all chief ministers expresseddistress at the degradation and ‘mis-utilisation’ ofbeaches. In the letter, Mrs. Gandhi suggested thatupto 500 mts from water level at maximum tidebe kept clear of all activity. This could be consideredone of the first attempts at issuing setbacks.
Following this, working groups were set up in 1982,and in July 1983, the MoEF issued the EnvironmentalGuidelines for the Development of Beaches. Theseguidelines required that the state governments
prepare status reports on the respective coastalarea, which were then to be followed by a masterplan identifying the areas required for conservation/preservation and areas where infrastructuredevelopment was possible. In 1986, an inter-ministerial committee was formed to scrutiniseproposals for setting up of tourist resorts alongthe west coast. However, all these efforts stoppedshort of being the law2(NST 2000).
The legislation that finally emerged from Mrs.Gandhi’s directive was the Coastal Zone Regulation(CRZ) Notification, introduced in 1991 by the MoEF,with the idea of preventing unregulateddevelopment in coastal zone areas. However, overthe years, due to a lack of regulation andimplementation of the CRZ Notification, manyitems initially prohibited in this area were permitted.The CRZ definitely contained a component ofsetbacks but this did not apply to all kinds ofactivities. The 1991 notification also did not usethe actual terms vulnerability, hazards or setbacks.
The 1991 notification employed a system ofdifferential setbacks for various activities. Thenotification mostly deals with regulatingdevelopment on the coast and is not based solelyon the idea of its vulnerability to natural hazardsalone. It has more of a focus on man-madevulnerabilities due to over-industrialisation andpollution. The only natural hazard mentioned is sealevel rise, for which the notification requires suchareas to be declared CRZ -I or no developmentareas.
2 Shyam Divan and Armin Rosencranz, in their book Environmental Law And Policy, mention the case of Sergio Carvalho v.State of Goa 1989 (1) when a PIL sought to enforce Mrs. Gandhi directive against a hotel resort in Goa. It was rejected bythe Bombay High Court on the grounds that the directive was just an “executive fiat” without authority of law (NST 2002).
2
One concept that has undergone change from itsintroduction in the Swaminathan report of 2005to the present draft 2010 notification is that of the‘vulnerability or setback line.’ The SwaminathanCommittee proposed a ‘scientific approach’towards the development of coastal land-usemanagement using a form of vulnerability or hazardmapping that would define the spatial distributionof activity in the coastal zone (Pethick 2005). Thesetback line clearly was to decide how, what andwhere development activity could be located alongthe coast, and this decision was to be based on theidea of vulnerabilities of coastal populations andecosystems to both man-made and natural hazards.
The report paid a great deal of attention to theproblems of coastal erosion. It thereforerecommended that coastal construction activitieswhich could potentially interfere with beachprocesses do not initiate or aggravate beacherosion. However, it was acknowledged that it maynot always be possible or successful to avoid suchactivities because the location of structures suchas ports and harbours are often determined byeconomic or geographic needs, which may override the risks involved. The report suggested thatthe consequences of such activities would thereforehave to be ‘managed’. Such activities which wereconsidered a ‘necessity’, were to be allowed beyondthe setback line.
The report also recommended that buildings andinvestments, e.g. housing, roads or plantations, couldbe protected by locating them away from the zoneof probable worst-case erosion. This particular ideawas considered to be the primary objective of thesetback line. The report exhibited a general biastowards shoreline erosion narrowing down thedefinition of vulnerability as largely being driven bythe problem of erosion. It however mentioned theneed to redefine areas of the coast wheredevelopment could put people and property at risk. The report also recommended that a coastal mapbe developed to show hazard lines based on a 100year return interval.
Although the Swaminathan Report, 2005 suggeststhat the ideas of vulnerability also include man-madehazards, the report failed to illustrate amethodology for actually doing so, and its finalrecommended legal scheme completely ignored thisaspect.
As a follow up to the Swaminathan CRZ ReviewReport of 2005, an expert advisory committee wasformed comprising of Dr. M.Baba (Director, Centrefor Earth Science Studies), Dr. Shailesh Nayak(Director, Space Application Centre), Prof. Pethick,J.(Advisor, Government of United Kingdom) and arepresentative from the Ministry of Environmentand Forests (MoEF). In order to map thevulnerability of different coastal stretches to naturalhazards and to replace the original ‘arbitrary’concept of the 500 m differential setbacks that theCRZ imposed on coastal activities, in 2005, theMoEF set up the Expert Committee for Evolving theMethodology for Demarcation of the Vulnerability Line.The setback line was defined in the presentationsmade at these meetings as a line demarcated alongthe coast based on its vulnerability to natural andman-made hazards (Pethick 2005).
Prof. Pethick, a member of the committee noted inhis report that it was the role of the governmentto supply coastal communities with sufficientscientific information to allow them to make adecision as to whether the disadvantages of livingin high risk areas far outweigh the advantages andlocate themselves and their infrastructuresaccordingly. He however noted that this by itselfwas a complex task and therefore it was imperativethat, initially, central government provide the factualbasis for decision-making in a simple manner, andcombine this with an education programme.
An important point to note from the Committee’srecommendations was that there was shift fromthe term vulnerability line, employed by theSwaminathan Committee to the use of hazard linesor hazard mapping as a means to decide on activities
Post-tsunami ideas of vulnerability
3
on the coast such as the location of settlementsand infrastructure. The idea of vulnerability in theSwaminathan Report was broad enough to includeeven man-made hazards. This concept was modifiedin subsequent draft notifications and eventually theidea of mapping vulnerability to man-made hazardshas been completely dropped. In fact the entireidea of mapping a vulnerability line has given way
planning for vulnerability
One of the concepts introduced in theSwaminathan committee report of 2005 was thatof the setback line, to be demarcated to based onvulnerability to natural and manmade hazards. Thesetback line in the Swaminathan review was to bebased on 7 parameters and was applicable only forthe CMZ II and CMZ-III areas, based on vulnerabilityto both manmade and natural hazards. However,the setback line in the subsequent 2007 draftnotification was based on 6 of those parameterswhile the 2007 concept note and 2008 draftnotification considered only 4 parameters.
Planning for vulnerability through years of reform
With subsequent draft notifications that markedthe reform process, the concept of the setback linehas been replaced by the hazard line, as suggestedby the MoEf's Expert Committee and its applicationhas become hazy, with the number of relevantparameters in defining and demarcating the line alsohaving undergone changes. A brief summary of thechanges in the various parameters considered tomap the setback line within the SwaminathanReview, 2007 CMZ Draft Notification, 2007Concept note and the 2008 CMZ Draft notificationare given in Table I.
to the mapping of a hazard line thereby onlyemphasizing the need to assess the impacts ofnatural hazards and not man-made ones.The important recommendation of the committee,that the MoEF provide sufficient factual basis fordecision-making has not yet been attended to, asseen in the subsequent draft notifications.
Table I: Comparison of parameters used for defining the setback / hazard line in key reports and draft notificationsof the CRZ reform process.
Swaminathan Report 2005
CZM 2007 Draft Notification
Concept Note 2007
CMZ 2008 Draft Notification
Pre-draft CRZ 2010
& the CRZ 2010 Draft Notification
Appendix –I SETBACK LINE The setback lines in the zones categorized as CMZ –II and III will be based on vulnerability of the coast to natural and manmade hazards. For the purpose of mapping the vulnerability of the coast, seven parameters are taken into account: elevation, geomorphology, geology, sea level trends, horizontal shoreline displacement (erosion/accretion), tidal ranges and wave heights
Appendix –I SETBACK LINE The setback line can be defined as “a line demarcated along the coast based on its vulnerability along the coast.” For the purpose of mapping the vulnerability of the coast, six parameters are taken into account: elevation, geomorphology, sea level trends, horizontal shoreline displacement (erosion/accretion), tidal ranges and wave heights
Appendix-I SETBACK LINE Definition remained the same as in the CRZ 2007. However, for the purpose of mapping the vulnerability of the coast, four parameters are taken into account: elevation, geomorphology, sea level trends and horizontal shoreline displacement (erosion/accretion).
Appendix-I SETBACK LINE For the purpose of mapping the vulnerability of the coast, four parameters are taken into account: elevation, geomorphology, sea level trends and horizontal shoreline displacement (erosion or accretion).
The term setback line is dropped altogether in this pre-draft CRZ 2010, in favour of the terms hazard line and hazard mapping. Para 5.1 states that (i) Hazard mapping – The hazard line shall be mapped by MoEF through Survey of India all along the coastline of the country. The hazard line shall be demarcated taking into account 4 parametres - tide, waves, sea level rise and shoreline changes.
4
With regard to vulnerability mapping, the term‘vulnerability’ was not defined in the original draftand the usage in Appendix (i) of the CZM 2007draft notification was fairly narrow (Menon et al.,2007).
On the whole, the entire process of CRZ reformand the development of the concept of the setbackline appears rather arbitrary since many of thedecisions regarding the development of theparameters or their methodologies are still unclear.The process right from the Swaminathan report of2005 leading upto the CMZ 2008 draft was in factmarked by a lack of transparency and publicparticipation (Menon et al. 2007) .
At no time in any of the notifications, has therebeen any indication as to whether the setback /hazard line developed would be constant ordynamic. A reliable time frame also seems to beabsent from any of the notifications, which is ofconcern since the line is to act as a regulatory line.While the Swaminathan review had 7 parametersfor ‘vulnerability mapping’, important parameterslike data on wind speeds and previous extremeweather events till date are lacking, which are alsodirectly indicative of coastal hazards. The subsequentCMZ 2007 draft notification, in addition to windspeed and prior weather anomalies, also excludedgeology as a parameter. Geology ‘identifies the rocktypes for all coastal segments’ (Annexure ISwaminathan Committee Report) and plays a vitalrole, along with bathymetry, in determining theimpact of certain hazards such as tsunamis (Menonet al. 2007). While the setback line was to bedemarcated based on vulnerability to both naturaland manmade hazards, the Concept Note and 2008CMZ Draft Notification further reduced thenumber of parameters to four. These 2 notificationsremoved tidal range and wave heights from the listof parameters, and the alteration of theseparameters according to a report of the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)would be the main effects of climate change withsea level rise (Nicholls et al. 2007). Also, accordingto the Initial National Communication of theGovernment of India as part of its requirement tothe United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change, areas with maximum vulnerabilityalong the Indian coastline were identified based onthe integration of physiographic evaluations, site
specific sea level changes, tidal environment,tectonics, hydrography and physiography of theareas (MoEF 2004). While the setback line was tobe based on vulnerability to manmade and naturalhazards, ultimately parameters relating to manmadehazards were excluded from all the notifications.
With the costs for vulnerability line demarcationusing satellite imagery reaching an astronomicalfigure of 150 crore rupees (MoEF 2008), thefeasibility of the mapping exercise was beingquestioned. In addition, obtaining data forparameters like sea level rise, tidal range and waveheights was acknowledged by the MoEF’s ExpertCommittee to be a ‘Herculean task’ because thedata could not be uniformly obtained (MoEF 2008).
Despite the numerous consultations that took placefrom 2008 till 2010, and despite the fact that the2008 CMZ notification was withdrawn, the idea ofthe hazard line remains although in a much indistinctshape and form. The draft CRZ 2010 notificationdoes not give any detail of the justification andobjective of the use/ purpose of the hazard line.The provisions on the same are ambiguous andseem to imply that it takes precedence over the500 m line in determining what sort of developmentcan take place. The Ministry has also not given anyclear explanation as to how the hazard line fits intothe CRZ framework and what sort of regulationswill emanate from this inclusion.
Interestingly, the scientific methodology for thedetermination of the hazard line is not clarified andinstead, only some basic parameters are listed. Only4 parameters (tide, waves, sea level rise andshoreline changes) are to be considered for this, asagainst 7 which were contained in the SwaminathanCommittee Report on the CRZ (elevation, geology,geomorphology, sea level trends, and horizontalshoreline displacement, tidal ranges and waveheights). Through the removal of key parametersof bathymetry, geology, wave heights and tidal rangesfor hazard line determination, the MoEF has invitedcriticism over the rigour of the science it employs.In fact the entire section on the methodology ofthe preparation of the hazard line has been omitted.
5planning for vulnerability
CRZ
Not
ifica
tion
, 199
1 Sw
amin
atha
n Re
port
–
2005
Fi
nal F
ront
ier R
epor
t 200
9 Pr
e-dr
aft C
RZ 2
010,
Apr
il 20
10
Dra
ft C
RZ 2
010,
Sep
tem
ber
2010
Prem
ise
The
1991
not
ifica
tion
empl
oyed
a s
yste
m o
f di
ffere
ntia
l set
back
s fo
r va
rious
act
iviti
es. H
owev
er,
this
was
not
bas
ed o
n vu
lner
abili
ty to
nat
ural
ha
zard
s al
one.
The
repo
rt b
roug
ht fo
cus
tow
ards
the
vuln
erab
ility
of
the
coas
ts d
ue to
nat
ural
ha
zard
s in
the
wak
e of
the
2004
Indi
an O
cean
tsun
ami
and
its d
evas
tatin
g im
pact
s.
It in
trod
uced
the
idea
of
vuln
erab
ility
, a h
azar
d lin
e an
d se
tbac
ks. M
ainl
y it
reco
mm
ende
d re
gula
ting
deve
lopm
ent t
hrou
gh th
e de
mar
catio
n of
a
'Vul
nera
bilit
y Li
ne' o
r a
Setb
ack
Line
It no
ted
that
coa
stal
are
as
wer
e do
ubly
vul
nera
ble,
pa
rtic
ular
ly to
clim
ate
chan
ge re
late
d de
vast
atio
n.
It al
so re
com
men
ded
that
po
licie
s sh
ould
be
intr
oduc
ed to
cop
e w
ith a
nd
adap
t to
the
futu
re d
ange
rs
from
sea
leve
l ris
e an
d in
crea
sed
vuln
erab
ility
of t
he
coas
ts.
The
notif
icat
ion
stat
es in
its
prea
mbl
e th
at it
dra
ws
exte
nsiv
ely
from
the
reco
mm
enda
tions
of t
he
Fina
l Fro
ntie
r and
ear
lier
repo
rts
- on
e of
whi
ch is
the
conc
ern
rela
ted
to s
ea le
vel
rise
and
incr
easi
ng c
oast
al
haza
rds.
The
notif
icat
ion
stat
es in
its
prea
mbl
e th
at th
e pu
rpos
e of
the
CRZ
is to
ens
ure
prot
ectio
n to
coa
stal
po
pula
tions
and
str
uctu
res
from
risk
of i
nund
atio
n fr
om
extr
eme
wea
ther
and
ge
olog
ical
eve
nts.
The
1991
not
ifica
tion
mos
tly
deal
s w
ith re
gula
ting
deve
lopm
ent o
n th
e co
ast
and
is n
ot b
ased
sol
ely
on
the
idea
of i
ts v
ulne
rabi
lity
to n
atur
al h
azar
ds a
lone
. It
has
mor
e of
a fo
cus
on m
an-
mad
e vu
lner
abili
ties
due
to
over
-indu
stria
lisat
ion
and
pollu
tion.
The
onl
y na
tura
l ha
zard
men
tione
d is
sea
le
vel r
ise,
for w
hich
the
notif
icat
ion
requ
ires
such
ar
eas
to b
e de
clar
ed C
RZ -I
or
no
deve
lopm
ent a
reas
.
The
repo
rt m
entio
ns a
few
na
tura
l haz
ards
suc
h as
co
asta
l ero
sion
, sea
leve
l ris
e du
e to
gre
enho
use
effe
ct,
cycl
ones
and
sto
rm s
urge
s,
flood
ing,
sal
t wat
er in
trus
ion
and
tsun
amis
.
Pa
ra 2
(iii)
of th
e pr
e-dr
aft
stat
es th
at th
e CR
Z sh
all
incl
ude
the
land
are
a fa
lling
be
twee
n th
e ha
zard
line
and
50
0mts
from
HTL
on
the
land
war
d si
de. I
t def
ines
the
haza
rd li
ne a
s m
eani
ng th
e lin
e de
mar
cate
d by
Min
istr
y of
Env
ironm
ent a
nd F
ores
ts
(MoE
F) th
roug
h Su
rvey
of
Indi
a (S
oI) t
akin
g in
to
acco
unt t
ides
, wav
es a
nd s
ea
leve
l ris
e an
d sh
orel
ine
chan
ges.
Para
2(ii
i) of
the
pre-
draf
t st
ates
that
the
CRZ
shal
l in
clud
e th
e la
nd a
rea
falli
ng
betw
een
the
haza
rd li
ne a
nd
500m
ts fr
om H
TL o
n th
e la
ndw
ard
side
. In
case
of
seaf
ront
, thi
s w
ould
be
the
area
bet
wee
n th
e ha
zard
line
an
d 10
0mts
line
in c
ase
of
tidal
influ
ence
d w
ater
bod
y.
It de
fines
the
haza
rd li
ne a
s m
eani
ng th
e lin
e de
mar
cate
d by
Min
istr
y of
En
viro
nmen
t and
For
ests
(M
oEF)
thro
ugh
Surv
ey o
f In
dia
(SoI
) tak
ing
into
ac
coun
t tid
es, w
aves
and
sea
le
vel r
ise
and
shor
elin
e ch
ange
s.
Tabl
e 2:
Com
pari
son
of p
rem
ise
and
appr
oach
to v
ulne
rabi
lity
in k
ey re
port
s and
dra
ft no
tific
atio
ns o
f the
CRZ
refo
rm p
roce
ss.
6
CRZ
Not
ifica
tion
, 199
1 Sw
amin
atha
n Re
port
–
2005
Fi
nal F
ront
ier R
epor
t 200
9 Pr
e-dr
aft C
RZ 2
010,
Apr
il 20
10
Dra
ft C
RZ 2
010,
Sep
tem
ber
2010
G
ener
al d
esig
n
For p
rohi
bite
d ac
tiviti
es, t
he
dist
ance
of t
he C
RZ li
ne w
as
cons
ider
ed a
set
back
line
Vuln
erab
ility
map
s in
the
U.S
ar
e pr
epar
ed a
ccor
ding
to 7
pa
ram
etre
s an
d th
is is
the
basi
s on
whi
ch e
ven
the
vuln
erab
ility
line
pro
pose
d he
re s
hall
be b
ased
. (pa
ge
25).
The
repo
rt n
otes
that
it is
im
pera
tive
that
the
Min
istr
y un
dert
ake
a pr
ojec
t to
dem
arca
te th
e vu
lner
abili
ty
and
haza
rd li
ne a
long
the
coas
t. Th
is w
ill ta
ke in
to
acco
unt p
rese
nt a
nd fu
ture
ris
ks b
ecau
se o
f pro
ject
ed
sea
leve
l ris
e an
d ot
her
thre
ats.
Onc
e do
ne, t
he
dem
arca
ted
vuln
erab
ility
an
d ha
zard
line
mus
t be
inco
rpor
ated
into
the
CRZ
1991
. Thi
s w
ill in
itiat
e st
eps
to im
prov
e pr
otec
tion
of
criti
cal i
nfra
stru
ctur
e an
d th
ickl
y po
pula
ted
area
s. T
he
stud
y w
ould
als
o pr
ovid
e po
licy
dire
ctio
ns fo
r ad
apta
tion
stra
tegi
es in
co
asta
l are
as.
Ther
e is
abs
olut
ely
no
men
tion
of th
e vu
lner
ablit
y lin
e in
this
not
ifica
tion.
In
stea
d th
e en
tire
notif
icat
ion
talk
s on
ly a
bout
th
e ha
zard
line
and
its
map
ping
.
Sam
e as
the
CRZ
pre-
draf
t of
Apr
il 20
10
Th
e se
tbac
k lin
es in
the
zone
s ca
tego
rized
as
CMZ
–II
and
III w
ill b
e ba
sed
on
vuln
erab
ility
of t
he c
oast
to
natu
ral a
nd m
anm
ade
haza
rds.
Thi
s pr
oced
ure
is
follo
wed
in m
any
coun
trie
s in
clud
ing
USA
whe
re th
e co
ast h
as b
een
map
ped
for
vuln
erab
ility
to c
oast
al
haza
rds.
Th
e id
ea o
f a s
etba
ck li
ne
was
dro
pped
alto
geth
er.
Inst
ead
the
earli
er 1
991
prin
cipl
e of
regu
latin
g ac
tiviti
es w
ithin
the
500
m
mar
k w
as re
sort
ed to
. H
owev
er, m
any
mor
e no
n-fo
reso
re a
nd w
ater
fron
t re
quiri
ng a
ctiv
ities
wer
e pe
rmitt
ed. T
he id
ea o
f a
haza
rd li
ne w
as in
trod
uced
al
thou
gh n
othi
ng w
as
clar
ified
abo
ut it
s ro
le in
re
stric
ting
deve
lopm
ent.
Sam
e as
pre
-dra
ft C
RZ, A
pril
2010
Tabl
e 3:
Com
pari
son
of th
e ov
eral
l des
ign
and
appl
icat
ion
of th
e id
ea o
f vul
nera
bilit
y in
key
repo
rts a
nd d
raft
notif
icat
ions
of t
he C
RZ re
form
proc
ess.
7planning for vulnerability
Swam
inat
han
Repo
rt –
200
5 D
raft
CM
Z N
otifi
cati
on 2
008
Pre-
draf
t CRZ
201
0, A
pril
2010
D
raft
CRZ
201
0, S
epte
mbe
r 201
0
Par
amet
ers
Elev
atio
n: -
The
elev
atio
n da
ta s
hall
be o
btai
ned
from
the
avai
labl
e co
asta
l top
oshe
ets
sate
llite
dat
a su
rvey
s.
Ele
vatio
n: -
The
elev
atio
n da
ta s
hall
be o
btai
ned
from
the
avai
labl
e co
asta
l top
oshe
ets
sate
llite
dat
a su
rvey
s.
For t
he p
urpo
se o
f dep
ictin
g th
e flo
odin
g du
e to
tide
, wav
es a
nd s
ea
leve
l ris
e in
the
next
fift
y/hu
ndre
d ye
ars,
the
cont
our m
appi
ng o
f the
co
astli
ne s
hall
be c
arrie
d ou
t at 0
.5m
in
terv
al u
pto
7km
from
HTL
.
Para
5(ii
i) st
ates
that
For
the
purp
ose
of d
epic
ting
the
flood
ing
due
to
tides
, wav
es a
nd s
ea le
vel r
ise
in th
e ne
xt fi
fty
and
hund
red
year
s, th
e co
ntou
r map
ping
of t
he c
oast
line
shal
l be
carr
ied
out
at 0
.5m
inte
rval
up
to 7
km fr
om H
TL o
n th
e la
ndw
ard
side
.
Geo
logy
: - T
he g
eolo
gy id
entif
ies
the
rock
type
s fo
r all
coas
tal s
egm
ents
.
Geo
mor
phol
ogy:
- the
land
form
s w
ill
be id
entif
ied
on th
e m
aps
base
d on
th
e av
aila
ble
topo
shee
t and
rem
ote
sens
ing
data
. Ba
thym
etry
to b
e de
rived
from
nav
al
Hyd
rogr
aphi
c Ch
arts
on
loca
tion
spec
ific
surv
eys
Geo
mor
phol
ogy:
- the
land
form
s w
ill b
e id
entif
ied
on th
e m
aps
base
d on
the
avai
labl
e to
posh
eet a
nd re
mot
e se
nsin
g da
ta.
Bath
ymet
ry to
be
deriv
ed fr
om n
aval
H
ydro
grap
hic
Char
ts o
n lo
catio
n sp
ecifi
c su
rvey
s
Sea
leve
l tre
nds:
- Th
e se
a le
vel t
rend
da
ta s
hall
be o
btai
ned
from
the
data
av
aila
ble
in th
e M
inis
try
prep
ared
ba
sed
on p
rimar
y da
ta p
ublis
hed
by
Surv
ey o
f Ind
ia.
Sea
leve
l tre
nds:
- Th
e se
a le
vel t
rend
da
ta s
hall
be o
btai
ned
from
the
data
av
aila
ble
in th
e M
inis
try
prep
ared
ba
sed
on p
rimar
y da
ta p
ublis
hed
by
Surv
ey o
f Ind
ia.
Hor
izon
tal s
hore
line
disp
lace
men
t: -
The
eros
ion/
accr
etio
n da
ta u
sed
for
horiz
onta
l sh
orel
ine
disp
lace
men
t sha
ll be
ob
tain
ed fr
om lo
ng te
rm
info
rmat
ion
deriv
ed fr
om S
urve
y of
In
dia
Topo
grap
hic
map
s (1
967)
and
th
e la
test
sat
ellit
e da
ta.
Hor
izon
tal s
hore
line
disp
lace
men
t: -
The
eros
ion/
accr
etio
n da
ta u
sed
for
horiz
onta
l sh
orel
ine
disp
lace
men
t sha
ll be
ob
tain
ed fr
om lo
ng te
rm
info
rmat
ion
deriv
ed fr
om S
urve
y of
In
dia
Topo
grap
hic
map
s (1
967)
and
th
e la
test
sat
ellit
e da
ta.
The
shor
elin
e ch
ange
s sh
all b
e de
mar
cate
d ba
sed
on h
isto
rical
dat
a by
com
parin
g th
e pr
evio
us s
atel
lite
imag
erie
s w
ith th
e re
cent
sat
ellit
e im
ages
.
Par
a 5(iii)
Sho
relin
e c
han
ges
shal
l be
dem
arcat
ed
base
d on h
isto
rical
dat
a
by c
om
paring
the p
revi
ous
sate
llite
imag
eries
with t
he r
ecen
t sa
telli
te
imag
eries.
Tida
l ran
ges:
- Ti
de ta
ble
publ
ishe
d by
the
Surv
ey o
f Ind
ia.
Tabl
e 4
Com
pari
son
of th
e ov
eral
l des
ign
and
appl
icat
ion
of th
e id
ea o
f vul
nera
bilit
y in
key
repo
rts a
nd d
raft
notif
icat
ions
of t
he C
RZre
form
pro
cess
.
8
CONCLUSION
Vulnerability is variously defined. The MoEF’s expertcommittee on demarcating the vulnerability linedefined vulnerability as “the potential for adverseconsequences caused by a hazard and includes thepotential to suffer harm, loss or detriment from a humanperspective” (Pethick 2005), which could bemeasured both quantitatively (e.g. using economicmethods) or qualitatively (e.g. using relative indices).
The focus of vulnerability assessment in coastalzones as seen in the Swaminathan Committeereport of 2005 appeared to be largely on erosionand land loss due to sea-level rise. Present daymethodologies of addressing vulnerability nowincreasingly consider the wide range of climate andimpact variables that play a part in determiningcoastal vulnerability, as well as non-climaticdevelopments. As Klein and Nicholls (1998) havestated, vulnerability to impacts is a multi-dimensional concept, encompassing biogeophysical,economic, institutional and socio-cultural factors.
Although the entire basis of a revised coastalregulation as suggested by the Swaminathan Report,2005 was to be based on responding to thevulnerability of coastal populations and ecosystems,in actuality, it really only focused on natural hazards.The MoEF’s Expert Committee’s suggestion that ashift be made in terminology from mapping a‘vulnerability line’ to the idea of mapping the ‘hazardline’ found support as seen in the subsequent draftnotifications.
The MoEF expert committee defined this linestating that “the term ‘hazard’ refers to the potentialfor future events (natural) to adversely affecthumans or things valued by humans. Hazards arenormally considered to be episodic and thereforetheir frequency of occurrence is expressed as aprobability. Risk is expressed as the product of thelikelihood of a hazard and its adverse consequences.The MoEF’s expert committee defined risk as being“based on coastal hazards with a one percent (1%)probability of occurrence in any given year, afteraccounting for the median estimates of mean sea levelrise and horizontal shoreline displacement in the nextone hundred (100) years’ (Pethick 2005).
That the hazard line would then define alldevelopment alone was evident but how it woulddo so was certainly not clear. For instance, in theCMZ-II areas (developed areas) as defined by theCMZ Notification, 2008, it was not clear how thesetback line would apply to ‘Areas of ParticularConcern’. In this zone while ‘new houses andsettlements’ were only permitted on the landwardside, ‘new constructions’ or ‘new developments’which are not settlements and houses, would beallowed on the seaward side. Fisherfolk requireaccess to the coast for their day to day livelihoodactivities (Bharathi 1999; Praxis 2005; Salagrama2006), and the building of new houses on thelandward side of the setback line is likely to lead toclashes dealing with caste and with non-fishingcommunities (Sridhar 2008). It also became evidentthat this setback line did not apply newconstructions or developments such as hotels,resorts and industries. This only served to heightenthe suspicion that fisherfolk were being alienatedfrom coastal spaces.
While the setback line was introduced with theidea of protecting the coasts and the people livingalong it, so far little good seems to have come ofthis concept. With a reduction in the number ofkey parameters in determining the vulnerability ofan area, from 6 to 4, the MoEF’s draft CMZnotification 2008 faced a lot of criticism. Further inthe present notification, it is not clear whatmethodologies are being employed to address notjust the challenge of mapping natural hazards, butalso measuring shoreline displacement.
Questions about the availability of accurate datato study the various parameters involved indemarcation of the hazard mapping suggested inthe present Draft 2010 remain unanswered.
Clear monitoring mechanisms and specific deadlinesby which the data on the various parameters shouldbe available do not exist. The setback line wasoriginally thought of with lofty aims and solidscientific backing, but the subsequent lack ofimplementation seems to have derailed the entirepurpose.
9planning for vulnerability
Despite the services of an expert advisorycommittee from around the world, a majority ofthe suggestions originally made seem to have beenleft out from the current notification. The rationalebehind these exclusions has not been explained tothe public and without proper justification publicskepticism is bound to increase. An increased publicparticipation, especially from the fishingcommunities, should be high on the priority list.The government also needs to be more transparentregarding its rationale to allow development by non-coastal agencies. Without rethinking the entireconcept of vulnerability, from both the scientificand social angle, the idea seems doomed to failure.
Several coastal processes such as shorelinedisplacement, cyclones and storm surges aredynamic and although scientific advances have madeit possible to predict these, the timeframes andcosts involved make it difficult to base a regulatoryframework for coastal areas purely on these facts.The CRZ Notification of 1991 required that theHigh Tide Line be demarcated all along the coast,both by means of a map as well as on the ground,to enable the implementation of this law. This hasnot been undertaken successfully in a single coastalstate and the reason for the same can hardly beascribed to the lack of funds.
The CRZ Notification in its original version wasnot alien either to the idea of ‘setbacks’ nor to theconcern around the vulnerability of coastalecosystems and coastal populations. But its entirehistory is replete with evidence of poorimplementation and the vested interests that causedthis. Almost all of the 25 amendments of thenotification diluted it and permitted more non-coastal activities on the coast. Coastal spaces aretoday highly coveted lands. While climate changescenarios indicate that most of these coastal spacesmight be high risk areas, business today is movingtowards these spaces at a rate that has concernedthe fishing community whose common lands andsources of livelihood are being targeted. Againstthis backdrop, the battle for settling disputes overdevelopment on the coast has both gained andsuffered from the CRZ Notification 1991,
depending on how legal cases were fought and howclauses were interpreted.
The reports, draft notifications, the expertcommittees and indeed the myriad projects thatwill constitute the coastal regulation reform processhowever has not been based on an assessment onwhy the CRZ 1991 was not allowed to perform inthe first place. The present draft contains the sameamendments and dilutions made to the 1991 law.It also does not address coastal vulnerabilityconcerns in a fully comprehensible or transparentmanner.
There have been several committees and publicconsultations and of course nearly 6 years havepassed since the Swaminathan report wasintroduced. Having examined the script and the plotof active legal reform that began in 2004, it is hardto imagine that the current draft CRZ 2010, actuallyrepresents an improvement over the arbitrarinessof the 1991 Notification’s design.
10
Anonymous 2005a. Update on the World BankResponse to the Tsunami Disaster. World Bank.April, 2005.
Anonymous. 2005b. Report of the CommitteeChaired by Prof. M.S. Swaminathan to Review theCRZNotification, 1991. MoEF, New Delhi. 122 p.
Bharathi, S.B., 1999. Coromandel fisherman: Anethnography of Pattanavar subcaste. PondicherryInstitute of Linguistics and Culture, Pondicherry.
Chainani, S. 2007. Heritage & Environment, AnIndian Diary. The Urban Design ResearchInstitute. November 2007.
Divan, S. and A.Rosencraz. 2001. EnvironmentalLaw and Policy in India, Cases, Materials andStatutes. Second Edition, Oxford University Press,New Delhi.
Klein, R.J.T. and Nicholls, R.J.: 1998, ‘Coastalzones’, in J.F. Feenstra, I. Burton, J.B. Smith, andR.S.J. Tol(eds), Handbook on Methods for ClimateChange Impact Assessment and AdaptationStrategies, Version2.0, United NationsEnvironment Programme and Institute forEnvironmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit,Nairobiand Amsterdam, pp. 7.1-7.35.
Menon, M., S.Rodriguez and A.Sridhar, 2007.Coastal Zone Management Notification ’07-Better of bitter fare? Produced for the Post –Tsunami Environment Initiative Project, ATREE,Bangalore, pp 31.
Menon, A; Karuppiah, S and Stephen, J (2008).‘Reconfiguring the Coast’, Economic and PoliticalWeekly, 43(16), April 19-25.
MoEF (Ministry of Environment and Forests),2004. Government of India’s Initial NationalCommunication in fulfillment of thecommitments to the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change. New Delhi.
MoEF (Ministry of Environment and Forests),2007. Minutes of the meeting with NGOs todiscuss the concept note on the proposedCoastal Zone Management Notification, held on23.11.07 in Bombay. pp3
MoEF (Ministry of Environment and Forests),2008. Response No.20-68/2008-IA-III. Dated 11th
August, 2008 to an RTI application filed by DebiGoenka.
NCPC (National Campaign for the Protection ofCoasts). 2010a. Letter from the NCPC to theMoEF providing comments on the CRZ- pre-draft, dated April 2010. Letter dated 27th May2010.
NCPC (National Campaign for the Protection ofCoasts). 2010b. Letter from the NCPC to the MoEFon the Draft CRZ- 2010 dated September 2010.Letter dated 13th November 2010.
Nicholls, R.J., P.P. Wong, V.R.Burkett, J.O.Codignotto,J.E.Hay, R.F.McLean, S.Ragoonaden andC.D.Woodroffe, 2007. Coastal Systems and low-lying areas. Climate Change 2007: Impacts,Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution ofWorking Group II to the Fourth Assessment Reportof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,M.L. Parry, O.F.Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van derLinden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, UK, 315 – 336.
NOAA, 2006. Vulnerability AssessmentTechniques and Applications. USA.
NST. 2002. NST Compilation of the CRZNotification. Nagarika Seva Trust, Bangalore. 67 p.
Pethick, J. (2005). An approach to redefining theCoastal Regulation Zone Notification based on theSwaminathan Report. Paper presented to Ministryof Environment and Forests, India, on June 2005.
References
11planning for vulnerability
Praxis, 2005. The land of opportunity, experiencesof resettling a fishing community inland. Availableat: http:// www.tsunami2004-india.org/downloads/Praxis_brief.pdf
Sridhar, A., M. Menon, S.Rodriguez, and S.Shenoy.2008. Coastal Management Zone Notification ’08-The Last Nail in the Coffin. ATREE, Bangalore. pp81.
Sridhar, A, R Arthur, D Goenka, B Jairaj, T Mohan, SRodriguez and K Shanker (2006): Review of theSwaminathan Committee Report on the CRZNotification, UNDP, New Delhi.
Rodriguez, S., G. Balasubramanian, M. P. Shiny, M.Duraiswamy and P. Jaiprakash. 2008. Beyond theTsunami: Community Perceptions of Resources,Policy and Development, Post-TsunamiInterventions and Community Institutions in TamilNadu, India. UNDP/UNTRS, Chennai and ATREE,Bangalore, India. P 78.
Rodriguez, S. 2010. Claims for Survival: Coastal LandRights of Fishing Communities. Dakshin Foundation,Bangalore, p 42.
12
Dakshin Foundation is a non-profit, non-governmental organisation registered as a charitable trust. Ourmission is to inform and advocate conservation and natural resource management, while promoting andsupporting sustainable livelihoods, social development and environmental justice. We adopt interdisciplinaryand transdisciplinary approaches in our research and conservation interventions, drawing from thefields of ecology, conservation biology, sociology, economics, and law. Our work aims at building communitycapacities for conservation and enhancing community stakes and rights in environmental decision-making,towards strengthening networks and supporting advocacy campaigns. Our goal is to promote ecologicallyand socially appropriate approaches to conservation and management in coastal, marine and mountainecosystems in India.
www.dakshin.org
The basis for many legal regulations is often ascribedto certain concerns, principles and concepts.Coastal regulation legislations has seen several shiftsand changes in these ideas. The concern around'vulnerability' has seen the emergence of ideas andresponses such as introducing 'setbacks' fordevelopment and establishing 'hazard lines' withincoastal regulation law. This report explains howthese ideas around coastal vulnerabilities foundtheir way into the debates on coastal managementand the implications of its proposed formulation inlegislation. In doing so, this report evaluates howgovernment authorities and committees havearticulated these concepts and whether the presentefforts towards incorporating these ideas intolegislation will actually result in enhanced protectionfor coastal communities and ecosystems.
