Listen to Barun Mitra (above) talk about the Forest Rights Act of 2006 as he shares his experiences of working with grassroots communities and civil society organisations working on the ground, contextualising his work within the larger framework of property rights.
The talk was organised by the Land Rights Initiative at Centre for Policy Research.
Despite the enactment of successful policy reforms, India is struggling to translate legislative successes into effective gains for citizen groups. Drawing on his extensive field research on forest and land rights, Prakash Kashwan argues about the importance of integrating external social, political and economic factors within the understanding of institutional change to ensure effective delivery.
Listen to the full talk (above) by Prakash Kashwan, and visit the event page for the full presentation.
Watch the full video recording (above), where Mike Raco discusses his paper on diversity planning in London, how it is conceptualised in urban policy frameworks, and its implications for citizens and policy priorities. He argues that diversity narratives are underpinned by radical ambiguities, and discusses both pros and cons.
To listen to the lively discussion that followed, tune in to the Q&A session here.
Watch the full video (above) of the fourth discussion in the series on the central features of populism and cronyism, and their consequences for economic and social development, featuring Michael Walton and James Crabtree.
Populism has emerged in various forms in many parts of the world in recent years. While it is typically associated with an anti-establishment and anti-elite narrative, it is striking how it often coincides with cronyism – favored relations between the state and (some) big business.
The talk draws on both an ongoing comparative study of state-business relations in India, Egypt, Turkey and South Africa and secondary literature on the history and contemporary features of cronyism and populism.
Michael Walton teaches at the Harvard Kennedy School, and is a Senior Visiting Fellow at CPR. James Crabtree is a writer, journalist and author living in Singapore. He is currently an associate professor of practice at the Lee Kuan Yew School at the National University of Singapore, and a senior fellow at the school’s Centre on Asia and Globalisation.
The question and answer session that followed can be accessed here.
About the CPR-TCPD Dialogues
This was the fourth event in the CPR-TCPD Dialogues on Indian Politics series, launched in a partnership between Centre for Policy Research and Trivedi Centre for Political Data (TPCD) at Ashoka University. This is a monthly event that brings together academicians, policy and political practitioners, and civil society actors to grapple with important social and political issues in India. It provides a forum for intellectually rigorous, non-partisan commentary to strengthen public discourse on politics in India. In these polarised times, debates on politics in India have tended to be increasingly noisy, blurring the lines between critical engagement and partisan endorsement. This dialogue series is an effort to carve out a space for critical, nuanced engagement to understand the changing dynamics of Indian political parties, the impact of new and emerging social movements and the use of new instruments of mobilisation in our polity.
Talk on the US-EU GM crops controversy: A case for epistemic subsidiarity? by Sheila Jasanoff
FULL AUDIO RECORDING
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS CLIMATE RESEARCH
Listen to the full audio recording (above) of the talk by Sheila Jasanoff, where she discusses the historical context of the contrasting stance of the US and the EU on the GM crops debate. Jasanoff elaborates on how the US policymakers dismiss the European reaction as based in scientifically ungrounded fears, while the European anti-GM forces view the US posture as founded on inadequate science.
Additionally, visit the event page to access the presentation.
Listen to the full audio recording (above) of the talk by Sheila Jasanoff, where she discusses the historical context of the contrasting stance of the US and the EU on the GM crops debate. Jasanoff elaborates on how the US policymakers dismiss the European reaction as based in scientifically ungrounded fears, while the European anti-GM forces view the US posture as founded on inadequate science.
Additionally, visit the event page to access the presentation.
Watch the full video (above) of the special talk featuring Prof Langdon Winner and Ambassador Vijay K Nambiar as part of the ‘Metamorphoses-Talking Technology’ series. Metamorphoses is a modest effort to try and bridge the gap between digital technologies, which are transforming our lives, and our understanding of their multiple dimensions. The series is a joint initiative between NITI Aayog (the Government of India’s think tank), India International Centre (IIC) and Centre for Policy Research (CPR).
The talk aims to answer pertinent questions at a time when expectations that the Internet would provide a suitable place for the flourishing of democracy have encountered some grave setbacks. The rise of monopoly control within platforms of communication has greatly magnified the economic and political power of oligarchies. Techniques for harvesting personal data to fuel targeted ‘computational propaganda’ threaten to undermine the integrity of elections and to erode citizen confidence that their outcomes are fair. While both roots and possible remedies for these maladies exist within large institutions, the erosion of democracy may have origins closer to home – in the activities and experience of selfhood on the Net. After all, who are we on the Internet? Looking for connection and community, do we now encounter something entirely different?
Prof Langdon Winner is Thomas Phelan Chair of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of Science and Technology Studies, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.
Ambassador Vijay K Nambiar is former UN Secretary General’s Special Advisor on Myanmar.
Opening remarks were delivered by Air Marshal (Retd.) Naresh Verma, Director, IIC.
We are delighted to announce that the Ministry of Jal Shakti (MoJS), Government of India, has appointed Dr Srinivas Chokkakula, MoJS Research Chair at CPR, as a Member of the Drafting Committee for revising National Water Policy.
The Drafting Committee is entrusted with the task of revisiting the National Water Policy to address new and emerging challenges of water governance. It was last reviewed in 2012. The ten-member committee includes Shashi Shekhar [Former Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation (MoWR)], A B Pandya (Former Chairman, Central Water Commission) and Dr R C Panda (Former Secretary, Government of India) among others as Members. The Committee is expected to submit its report within a period of six months from the date of its constitution.
The appointment strengthens CPR’s continued engagement with national policymaking. In August 2018, The MoJS (formerly MoWR) signed a Memorandum of Understanding with CPR for establishing the ‘MoJS Research Chair – Water Conflicts and Governance’ at CPR. Srinivas Chokkakula took over as the Research Chair in October 2018. The Research Chair is mandated to pursue research in the broader area of water policy and governance with particular focus on transboundary river water governance, and extend advisory inputs to the Ministry.
Listen to the full CPR podcast ThoughtSpace (above) featuring Research Professor Bharat Karnad about his new book, Staggering Forward: Narendra Modi and India’s Global Ambition.
The book analyses Prime Minister Modi’s foreign and military policies in the context of India’s evolving socio-political and economic milieu, global power politics featuring other strongmen-alpha male leaders (Trump, Putin, Xi, Erdogan, Shinzo Abe), and of Modi’s persona and style of governance, and offers a critical perspective that helps explain why India has not progressed much towards becoming a consequential power.
The book was released by Yashwant Sinha, former Minister of Finance under Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and former Senior Leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party.
This was followed by a panel discussion between Yashwant Sinha, Admiral Arun Prakash, Jairam Ramesh, Shivshankar Menon and Bharat Karnad and was moderated by Ajai Shukla.
The full video of the panel discussion can be accessed here. The question and answer session that followed can be accessed here.
Book reviews of Staggering Forward: Narendra Modi and India’s Global Ambition can be accessed below:
‘Staggering Forward-Narendra Modi and India’s Global Ambition’ review: Foreign policy in a hurry by Suhasini Haidar, The Hindu
The Reality of Narendra Modi’s Foreign Policy Failures Laid Bare by Shivshankar Menon, The Wire
The Governments of coastal states and union territories saw the CRZ review by Shailesh Nayak Committee as a window to slip through ‘development’ activities that side-step coastal conservation and traditional livelihoods.
This piece can also be accessed in: മലയാളം
Review of the CRZ Notification 2011
The CRZ Notification governs development on the Indian coastline. It demarcates the first 500 metres of land from the sea as Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and divides it into ecologically sensitive areas, water areas, urban and rural areas. It also includes the area in the sea up to 12 nautical miles. Acknowledging the vulnerability of coastal ecosystems, it delineates the first 200 metres of the rural areas of CRZ as No Development Zone (NDZ).
In June 2014, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) directed a review of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2011. To conduct this review, the ministry constituted a committee under the chairmanship of Dr Shailesh Nayak, the then director of the Ministry of Earth Sciences. The key mandate of the committee was to suggest measures to address the concerns of state governments regarding the notification, which had been given a limited role in project approvals and coastal planning in the existing Coastal Zone Notification of 2011 (see our report on CZMAs for more details). It held high-level meetings with the officials of the governments of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala in July and August 2014. It also met with representatives of governments of all coastal states and union territories in New Delhi in October 2014. Based on these meetings, the committee submitted its report to the MoEFCC in January, 2015. The MoEFCC did not make the report of the committee public until a Right to Information appeal reached the Central Information Commission (CIC) and the CIC ordered the Ministry to make the report available (Read details here).
Below is a summary of the representations made by the state governments as documented in the committee report. It indicates that the CRZ Review unleashed the aspirations of coastal state governments for development as well as their desire to have a bigger role in planning, approving and implementing projects on the coast. It sidestepped the conservation aspects of the Notification. The Review also consulted only the state governments instead of doing an objective assessment of the CRZ implementation process, which should have included the Coastal Zone Management Authorities – institutions responsible for the implementation of CRZ since 1996.
Changes in Zoning and NDZ Reduction
Karnataka demanded that like Kerala, CRZ limit for offshore islands in Karnataka should also be limited to 50 metres. It also suggested that all its ports and dense villages should be classified as urban areas. Urban areas in CRZ Notification have fewer restrictions compared to rural areas.
Maharashtra suggested that not all mangrove areas should be classified as ecologically sensitive. Criteria for notification of such areas should include the minimum area of mangrove patches. Currently, any area with mangroves qualifies to be notified as ecologically sensitive. It also suggested that Koliwadas (colonies of Kolis, the traditional fisherfolk) and Goathans (traditional village sites), which are currently categorised as rural areas should be recategorised as urban areas.
Karnataka and Kerala governments requested the committee to reduce the overall limit of the NDZ in the CRZ. While Karnataka recommended that the NDZ be reduced to 50 metres in all rural areas, Kerala suggested that the NDZ around the banks of water bodies should be limited to 50 metres.
Relaxations for local communities and fishery-related activities
Karnataka state government stated that the construction of houses, toilets and stores, which are not allowed in the NDZ, should be permitted since these are required for earning livelihood. It also suggested that dwelling units for local communities should be allowed after 50 metres from the sea in highly eroding rural areas and 10 metres from the sea in backwaters. Currently such constructions are allowed in rural areas only beyond a distance of 100 metres from the sea.
Many small union territories (names not provided) demanded that abandoned saltpans in the CRZ be allotted for fishery related activities. Karnataka sought that mechanised fishing, aquaculture and mariculture be allowed in water areas of CRZ, which is currently prohibited.
Relaxations for tourism activities
Karnataka demanded that temporary tourism structures be allowed on the seaward side of existing roads and buildings in the NDZ, while permanent tourism structures be allowed on the landward side in the NDZ. Currently, the CRZ Notification does not allow constructions in the NDZ except repair and reconstruction of existing houses. Karnataka also sought relaxation in CRZ norms for 23 of its beaches, which it planned to notify as ‘special tourism zones’.
Kerala stated that many tourist facilities fall within the NDZ, so NDZ should be reduced to 100 metres for beach stretches to allow for the construction of tourism structures. It also stated that CRZ norms for areas with tourism potential should be revisited. Further, it suggested that guidelines for building resorts and hotels in the CRZ should not be applicable for ‘urban’ areas under the CRZ. Currently, these guidelines include requirements like maintaining space between two structures to allow public access to beaches, and restriction on withdrawal of ground water within the first 200 metres of land from the sea to avoid saltwater intrusion in water aquifers.
Other state governments (names not provided) also sought relaxations for permitting tourism structures.
Relaxations for buildings in coastal towns and cities
Puducherry sought that existing town and country planning guidelines be applicable to urban areas of CRZ. Maharashtra made a similar demand for redevelopment of dilapidated buildings.
Maharashtra also sought that the new development plan for Mumbai be made applicable in urban CRZ areas as well. It would mean that provisions of the development plan take precedence over CRZ norms for those areas of Mumbai where both the laws apply.
Relaxation for Mining
The Government of Gujarat stated that the Gulf of Kutch and Saurashtra have vast limestone mining reserves. It shared that cement industries set up prior to 1991, need limestone but CRZ notification does not permit mining. The state sought relaxation for mining of limestone outside of ESAs (ecologically sensitive areas) with subject to mitigation measures.
Besides these, state governments also sought changes in the CRZ clearance procedures to make them simpler with more powers provided to them; help in preparation of coastal zone management plans; and a clear revised list of activities permitted and prohibited in the CRZ.
Many of the suggestions given by the states such as relaxations for tourism projects and buildings in coastal cities and towns, and the width of the NDZ to be decided as per the density of population in an area, made it to the final recommendations of the Shailesh Nayak Committee. These suggestions disregarded the significance and sensitivity of marine ecosystems and the livelihoods of millions of traditional coastal communities dependent on those. They seem to be directed towards ensuring that coasts become available for unhindered ‘development’. If these suggestions make their way into the CRZ Notification, the Notification will only be doing lip service to its original objectives of coastal conservation, protection of coastal livelihoods, and sustainable development of the coast.
Ignored State Coastal Zone Management Authorities (CZMAs)
While the State governments were consulted at length, the state coastal zone management authorities, institutions responsible for implementation of the Notification at the state level, were not made part of the review. They have been the primary institutions for the enforcement of the provisions of the notification for almost 20 years now. On the CRZ review and the recommendations of the committee, Dr Antonio Mascarenhas, Scientist, National Institute of Oceanography, who was a member of the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority at that time (till July 2016), says:
 Image: Dr Antonio Mascarenhas, Scientist, National Institute of Oceanography |
‘Who reviewed the notification? For a long time, Goa CZMA had no news of it. The entire process was kept under wraps. The Ministry should have informed us of the review. The draft notification as suggested by the Shailesh Nayak Committee reeks of commercial activities. Its first part was fantastic! It was about the scientific and ecological importance of coasts. I am a scientist myself, so I appreciated that part. But the remaining three parts of the report watered down the arguments made in the first part. The entire document mentions the word ‘mangrove’ some 140 times but ‘sand dunes’ is mentioned, say only 15 times. From an ecological point of view, sand dunes and beach systems are fragile ecosystems. A beach may not come back easily, mangroves can come back wherever a substrate is available. Conservation and restoration of these ecosystems is not stressed enough in the report.’ |
The other pieces in this series can be accessed below: