www.civilsocietyonline.com

January 2008 Edition

Comment on this story

 

 

Rina Mukherji
Kolkata

THE National Fishworkers’ Forum (NFF) is most upset with the government’s 2007 Coastal Zone Management (CZM) notification. The NFF sees the new notification as a sinister attempt to remove fishermen and bring in Special Economic Zones (SEZs), tourist resorts and ports all along India’s golden coastline. The CZM notification will replace the older 1991 Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) rules. The new CZM has been drafted on the basis of recommendations made by the MS Swaminathan Committee. Environmentalists and NFF feel the earlier CRZ rules, which restricted development close to the sea and recognised the rights of fisherfolk, made more sense. With sea levels rising, the coast needs protection.

The NFF says the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) did not bother to consult them. It did arrange a meeting in Mumbai but only it’s chosen few were called and even the chairman of NFF, Harekrishna Debnath, was left out. Since August, NFF has been leading a ‘National Campaign against CZM Notification.’ Protests were held on World Fisheries Day. Civil Society spoke to Harekrishna Debnath, who is also Convener of the National Coastal Protection Campaign.

Why are you agitating against the new Coastal Zone Management notification?

The new notification is most objectionable. Its provisions do not regulate, but aim at managing the coast. Of course, we have no problem with that. But then, when you read between the lines, you notice that it leaves room for all kinds of manipulation. The CRZ had recognised the customary rights of fishermen but the CZM has no mention of these rights. Rather, it says that fishermen’s homes willbe shifted beyond the setback line (a line demarcated along the coast, based on its vulnerability to natural hazards). The regulatory aspect of the 1991 notification has been totally diluted in the CZM. Under the CRZ, 200 metres from the high tide was demarcated as a no-development zone and the next 200- 500 metres was a zone where development could be undertaken with permission. The only establishments allowed were those that needed a waterfront, like harbours, fish processing plants and defence establishments. Drawing of groundwater was disallowed. In short, it protected the coastline against any unplanned development. But now under the new CZM notification,groundwater can be drawn, while areas of special economic interest can justify development along the coast. This clause can easily be used to make way for hotels, resorts and SEZs. A major shift is that of allowing local panchayats the power to give permission for such development. We all know how vulnerable these local bodies are. Actually, the CMZ notification brings in everything that the fishing community has opposed. Fishermen had always supported the 1991 CRZ notification since it sought to regulate all development and protect the fragile ecosystem which nururtures our catch. But everyone else, especially the builders’lobby, the hospitality industry and sundry business groups rallied to violate the CRZ rules, since they saw it as a stumbling block. Now the CZM has overturned the CRZ, and let us down.

You did have some representatives at the MoEF meet in Mumbai to discuss such issues.

There was just token representation from Gujarat, Bengal and Orissa. Judge for yourself, how representative the group was if there was no one from Kerala and Andhra Pradesh. According to a Ministry of Fisheries survey in 2005, there are 3,200 recognised fishing villages all along the coastline. But were they all invited? Definitely not. Out of 86 individuals, just 78 came from fishing villages. And out of the 78 fishermen invited, 69 came from Tamil Nadu. Kalpavriksh was not invited. Neither was Equations, an NGO. In spite of being the chairman of the National Fishworkers Forum, I was not invited. Even from Tamil Nadu, the South Indian Federation of Fishermens’ Societies and International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF) were left out. In fact, there are allegations that all the invitees from Tamil Nadu are beneficiaries of the MS Swamination Research Foundation (MSSRF). Since the CZM notification is in keeping with the controversial recommendations made by the Swaminathan Committee, you know where the connection lies. Besides, even as the MoEF put up a pretense on consultations, the government had gone ahead and applied for a World Bank loan on the basis of this notification. The loan is to fund a pilot project on integrated coastal zone management from March 2008 in West Bengal, Gujarat and Orissa. This is highly irregular, to say the least.

But there were some representatives from West Bengal and Orissa.

Yes, there were. But the invitations were posted only a few days before the meet. Travel arrangements were to be made by the invitees. No travel allowance was given. This would deter many from participating, right? Besides, the questionnaire circulated was in English. If you are serious about knowing the fisherman’s point of view, why don’t you print it in the local language? How can you expect an average fisherman to read it? If the MoEF was earnest about the issue, it should have convened meetings in each of the coastal states and had discussions at the local level.

The government is bringing in SEZs all along the coast. It is saying these will bring employment, boost exports, increase the GDP…you can’t deny that, can you?

They will also flout labour laws and be a law unto themselves. As for jobs, let me tell you, fishing employs a crore of people all over the country, and generates exports worth Rs 8,000 crore annually. And this when only 10 per cent of the three million tonnes of fish netted in the sea is exported. Mine is a zero investment industry, and yet we feed the most essential protein to the Indian population. It is our solemn duty to nurture and protect this wealth that nature has bestowed on us. Yet, there is every move afoot to destroy this advantage.You talk of SEZs. Let me tell you, Bengal was a historical SEZ that exported muslin since time immemorial. Once the British arrived, 20,000 weavers had to lose their thumbs to make way for the cheap cotton from Manchester. Our cottage industry collapsed, and our muslin survives in museums today. To me, the SEZ dream is nothing but an illusion best kept away from. It will only render one crore people jobless.

Fishermen have been making use of beaches on the basis of customary rights. Have you thought of this?

You are right. We are demanding legal titles to land being used by fishermen in the 3,200 fishing villages that the Ministry of Fisheries has recognised in its survey. This is the official figure. The real figure may be even higher. After all, we need a waterfront for our livelihood. Traditional fishermen leave in their fishing craft from the coast and then return with their catch to the coast. You cannot impose the trawlerbased western model on us.

After the tsunami, fishing communities are being moved away from the coast….

Yes, I know. Seawalls are being mooted to prevent erosion. But wherever this has been done, it has never lasted beyond 20-25 years. If erosion is prevented in one place, it moves to another location. Preventing erosion, of course, gives way to accretion causing the beach to move further away. This is dangerous and bodes ill for the ecosystem. This is shortterm planning and can never work. Moving communities away is also designed to help resorts and SEZs come up along the waterfront. There are vested interests at work here.

Are you against an integrated coastal zone management regime?

Please do not get me wrong. We do want an integrated coastal zone management system. But it has to be on the basis of a participatory approach where every decision taken is in keeping with the needs of the stakeholders. We demand proper representation in the decisionmaking committees. We also demand legislation that recognises and imparts protection to the customary rights of fishermen and, most importantly, one single comprehensive legislation that will take care of the sea and coastal areas as one ecosystem. As of now, there are several separate legislations to take care of each of the various issues involved.

Want to give feedback on this article

Name Email Subject Feedback (Not more than 250 character)

 

Disclaimer

The views expressed here are strictly personal and civilsocietyonline.com does not necessarily subscribe to them. We shall endeavour to upload/publish as many of the comments that are submitted as possible within a reasonable span of time, but we do not guarantee that all comments that are submitted will be uploaded/published. Messages that harass, abuse or threaten other members; have obscene, unlawful, defamatory, libellous, hateful, or otherwise objectionable content; or have spam, commercial or advertising content or links are liable to be removed by the editors. We also reserve the right to edit the comments that do get published. Please do not post any private information unless you want it to be available publicly.

 

About Us | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | ©2007 Civil Society

.
........................................Webmaster Vishwanathan ( vishu4@rediffmail.com )