EDITORIALS
Carving Out the Coasts
The CRZ , 2018 prioritises the pursuit of profits at the cost of the environment and fi shers’ livelihoods.
T
he Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ), 2018 notification
approved by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change (MoEFCC) has revoked some of its strin-
gent provisions to permit the expansion of development activi-
ties into the environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs), hitherto
deemed inaccessible by law. The salient features of the new policy
include the reduction of the CRZ limits and the no-development
zone (NDZ) area, and the classification of coastal zone areas,
according to the density of population. For the setting up of
“strategic projects,” for defence and public utilities, even the
most ecologically critical areas that fall under the CRZ I classifi-
cation have not been excluded. Nonetheless, what does the new
CRZ rule imply from the perspective of environmental justice as
well as distributive justice, with respect to the fishers?
By facilitating the large-scale intrusion of commercial and
industrial activities into the fragile coastal territories, the new
CRZ policy would upset the prevailing human–ecological balance.
This would lead to further degradation of marine ecosystems,
and disrupt the livelihoods of resource-dependent populations,
especially artisanal fishers living off the coasts. This, at a time
when coastal erosion and the hazards posed by the rising sea
level due to climate change have already endangered the lives
of populations inhabiting low-lying areas across the globe.
Regions that lie along India’s west coast and those adjoining the
river deltas on the east coast are known to be amongst the most
vulnerable areas. Whose concerns does the new notification,
then, seek to promote?
In effect, the policy would not only serve to facilitate the
unhindered implementation of the central government’s ambi-
tious Sagarmala project—which consists of a series of commer-
cial ventures envisaged at an outlay of `8.5 trillion—spread all
along India’s coastline, but also promote the development of
infrastructure, real estate and tourism, while permitting afford-
able housing along the coast. The utilitarian approach of the
policy reveals a clear bias favouring business interests, while
overriding the needs of coastal ecology, conservation and the
fishers, the centuries-old custodians of the coasts, who do not view
the sea merely as a resource. Hence, the concerns of the fishers
are often seen to be in conflict with those of other interest
groups that seek to corner profits from unfettered use and
commercialisation of coastal resources and commons.
In coastal cities, such as Mumbai and Chennai, increasing
urbanisation, changes in land use patterns, encroachments along
8 JANUARY 19, 2019
the coast, construction of coastal roads, and unabated pollution
have caused irreversible damage to low-lying areas, water-
bodies, and the sea. Consequently, studies have shown that the
impact of these processes has led to a decline in fish catch and
landings over time, which has adversely affected livelihoods,
especially of small-scale artisanal fishers, resulting in their
increasing alienation, while also leading to the widening of
inequalities within society.
But, by failing to recognise the traditional and customary
rights of fishers, the enactment of the new CRZ policy
would make legitimate the violations of the fishers’ customary
norms regarding the use of coastal commons. This would
intensify conflicts over resource use, eventually leading to the
large-scale alienation of fishers from the coasts, especially in
the absence of legislations protecting fishers’ rights and coast-
al rights. The fears voiced by fisher organisations of develop-
ment-forced displacement and disruption of livelihoods on a
large scale, therefore, are not utterly unfounded. The estab-
lishment of large development projects, such as international
container trans-shipment terminals and ports along the coast-
line, in the recent past, have also adversely affected marine life
and displaced thousands of fishers from coastal habitats with-
out the formulation and implementation of a proper rehabilita-
tion and resettlement policy. Thus, promoting the business
agendas of other interest groups at the cost of fisher livelihoods
would further impoverish a community that already has been
pushed to the margins of an unequal society.
The state, on earlier occasions too, paid no heed to the
demands of fisher organisations, as it has on most occasions
failed to implement or enforce the existing CRZ rules or check
violations along the coasts. But, the new lines of demarcation
altering the governance of coastal zones have revealed an
overt political process driven by the pursuit of private profit
that disregards socioecological concerns without engaging in a
proper dialogue with the fishers or their organisations, such as
the National Fishworkers Forum. Thus, the politics of policy-
making driven by corporate capital has failed to take into
account interrelated questions regarding the livelihoods of
resource-dependent populations and the conservation as well
as sustainability of coastal ecosystems. In the long run, this
would entail huge costs for society and, in turn, prove to be
detrimental to the cause of overall development by engendering
new forms of disenfranchisement.
vol lIV no 3 EPW Economic & Political Weekly