|
CRZ
- Regulating People's Lives Haribabu, (1997) in EQUATIONS
Anletter, June, Vol5, Issue 1
The debate
on Coastal Regulation Zone Notification has taken a new turn. For the
past two and a half years, there has been a tussle between coastal communities
and people's groups on the one hand and the big industries on the other.
Certain coastal states also disagreed with the notification. Their complaint
is that distinctive features of their respective coasts had been overlooked.
But now, taking cognisance of the situation, Central government takes
the role of protecting the interests of the industry. It is evident
now that the claims about protecting and preserving the coast were a
mere eyewash.
Historically, coasts have been considered as common property without
anyone making visible legal claims. Any project - whether defence or
harbour related - had its claim only within the area assigned for it.
The community along the coast and the general public used the coast
without worrying about ownership rights. The fishing community usually
believed and practised a common property system. Whatever land they
use permanently is for small hutments. The coasts were primarily their
 workspace,
free and exclusive.
The CRZ notification of 1991 brought into focus the debate on future
use-pattern of the coast. For the first time in history, coasts were
divided into zones. Regulations were also drawn to determine permissive
and prohibitive activities, both for industry and community use. All
these together brought different user - rights for different groups
on the coast.
At the heart of this much debated issue lies the question of this user-right.
People who had drawn up the notification had given exclusive settlement
rights to coastal communities and traditional users of the coast in
the CRZ III zone. The communities along the coast deserve this recognition
since they are the rightful inheritors of the coast. What the planners
of the notification had overlooked, quite unwittingly is the existence
of other interest groups like tourism and large industries. These industries
were eligible to get clearance from the Ministry of Environment and
Forests (MoEF) for setting up their projects in the CRZ III zone. At
the same time, communities have the legal right to approach a court
of law against any violations of CRZ or intrusions into their living
and occupational space by these industries.
 A
close look at the Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMPs) prepared by
coastal states would provide a better picture. Even after deliberate
manipulations to limit the land area under CRZ III an average of around
60% of the coasts come under this zone, thanks to the strict parameters
for zoning. To site a few examples: in Keralam, the total area under
CRZ is 498.579 square kilometres. Of this, CRZ III is 341.825 square
kilometres, CRZII 68.748 square kilometres and CRZI 88.006 square kilometres.
In Karnataka it is 274.04, 172.71, 15.70 and 54.98 square kilometres
and in and in Andhra Pradesh it is 3674.73, 2526.6, 27.41 and 1121.66
square kilometres respectively.
CRZ II consists of already developed areas where further development
is comparatively impossible and economically unviable when space and
land prices are taken into account.
Of course tourism and other industries that require a waterfront can
use the CRZII I
zone provided they get the clearance from the MoEF. The industry makes
use of political connections and big money in getting a clearance. What
worries the industry is that even after obtaining the permission, it
has to face the community which has exclusive rights there. In this
era of judicial activism, the industry knows that any written law can
be very crucial. The increasing awareness of environment and ecology,
the efforts made by people's groups to educate people on coastal zone
regulations are also a potential threat. They are aware that any violation
in this region would bring the community, NG0s and peoples' groups to
the war front.
At least two major global power generating giants have found the regulation
to their disadvantage. Interestingly, both are multinational power giants
- Enron in Mumbai, Maharashtra and Cogentrix in Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka.
CRZ regulations play a very important role both in people's struggles
and legal proceedings against these industries. A number of other violators
of the regulation were taken to court and many of them were found to
be guilty and their constructions face demolition orders.
The Supreme Court in its judgement had asked the coastal states for
strict implementation of the CRZ notification. In another landmark judgement
dated 11 December 1996, the Supreme Court ordered demolition of all
aquaculture prawn farms within 500 Mts. of high tide line and 1000 Mts.
of the HTL in Chilika lake in Orissa and Pulicat lake in Tamilnadu respectively.
Among other arguments, Coastal Zone Regulations played the crucial role
in this judgement. At present, it is these two judgements that alarm
the industrial lobby. The Central government sensing the threat against
the liberalisation policy took the issue into their hands. They realise
that the beg way to tackle this threat would be to do away with the
regulation itself.
 It
is surprising to note that a minority government - a coalition of 13
parties of different political shades have been able to conspire in
circumventing even the Supreme Court judgement. This essentially testifies
their attitude towards the economic liberalisation. Narrow political
determinism prevents even the 'left' parties to critically understand
who would benefit from this nefarious move.
The anti-people move of this government does not stop with the attempt
to amend CRZ notification alone. The Central government constituted
an aquaculture authority in a desperate move to overcome the crisis
posed by the Supreme Court judgement. The Lok Sabha passed a bill on
17th March 1997 to constitute an Environmental Appellate Auth-ority.
This authority will be merely an extension of the existing government
bureau-crats. How authoritarian this body could be is evident in Clause
I of the bill that entitles only a person or any association of persons
likely to be directly affected, by the grant of environmental clearance
as an appellant. Further in clause 12(1) "...the authority shall have
power to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of places and
times of whether to sit in public or private". There is yet another
ordinance issued by the President of India on Land Acquisition for National
Highways that the Lok Sabha passed on 18th March 1997. The National
Highways Laws (Amendment) Bill amends the National Highways Act of 1956
and the National Highways Authority of India Act of 1988. This bill
gives the right to governments to acquire under public purpose any land
required for building, maintenance, management or operations of a national
highway or part there of. The only legal space allowed is for disputes
on compensation.
The new debate on CRZ notification and the move to amend the same has
to be looked at in this light. It is correct to attribute these changes
to the economic liberalisation. Yet the fallout is more fundamental
and severe The state is becoming increasingly authoritarian. It takes
away given and existing rights from the poor. It also narrows down the
space for democratic interventions.
|
