Author: cprindia

RESEARCH SHOWS HUGE GAPS AND ERRORS BETWEEN MAPS AND COASTAL AREAS, SEVERAL VIOLATIONS IN CONSULTATION PROCEDURES
COASTAL GOVERNANCE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

The CPR-Namati Environmental Justice Program submitted comments on the Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMPs) of Karnataka and Gujarat. The research identified huge gaps and errors between maps and coastal areas and several violations in consultation procedures.

CZMP, the reference document that guides development on the coast, is currently under preparation across the nine coastal states and four union territories (UTs) of India. The deadline for the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to approve the CZMPs was September 30, 2018. While the CZMPs of Karnataka, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and Daman and Diu have been approved by the National Coastal Zone Management Authority, the plans for other states and UTs are currently in the making. The states of Maharashtra and West Bengal are incorporating the suggestions made by the National Coastal Zone Management Authority (NCZMA) and have received in-principal approval on their respective plans. Public consultations are currently ongoing in Gujarat, Goa and Andhra Pradesh.

Paralegals of the CPR-Namati Environmental Justice Program took part in the public consultations in the districts of Kachchh, Devbhumi Dwarka, Vapi and Gir Somnath in Gujarat and the Uttar Kannada district in Karnataka. They also submitted their comments to the respective State Coastal Zone Management Authorities highlighting the procedural violations, missed on-ground realities and other anomalies.

The submissions made to the Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority regarding the draft CZMPs can be accessed here.

The submissions made to the Gujarat State Coastal Zone Management Authority can be accessed here.

FIND OUT HOW THEIR GRASSROOTS MODEL OPERATES IN INDIA
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

CPR-Namati Environmental Justice Program’s work on grassroots legal empowerment won the 2016 Skoll Award for Social Entrepreneurship. CPR researchers explain their work in India, and why this model makes a difference.

CPR and Namati’s work won the 2016 Skoll Award for Social Entrepreneurship. Can you tell us more about the work you do in India?

Since 2012, Namati and CPR have a unique partnership. Together we work to implement an action research project on legal empowerment for environmental justice in India. The project aims to improve the understanding of the institutional mechanisms and regulatory practices for protecting citizens from environmental impacts of industrialization and land use change.

We collect empirical data on how grievances or complaints are handled by specific agencies and what outcomes it leads to. The data from these cases helps us make evidence-based policy recommendations for institutional reform.

The legal empowerment method involves working through these cases with the involvement of those affected through trained community paralegals. Our trained paralegals work with the affected communities and the government, helping in crafting remedies that are meaningful.

Can you tell us more about the legal empowerment work on the ground, and what makes this model unique?

Namati practices the legal empowerment approach to solve some of the gravest justice problems of our time. In each of its programs, trained community grassroots legal advocates or paralegals, (also called grassroots legal advocates) treat their clients as empowered citizens rather than victims requiring an expert service. Instead of ‘I will solve this problem for you,’ Namati’s message is: ‘We will solve this together, and you will grow stronger in the process.’

Together, the paralegals and clients use different strategies and methods to determine the most effective ways to address justice challenges. In India, for example, we have worked on over a 100 cases related to pollution, loss of access to livelihood resources and damage to property. In all cases, the problems have existed for several years or have occurred repeatedly.

Paralegals trained by the program have been instrumental in bringing regulatory attention to these cases and assist in shaping effective remedies. Since we track every case systematically, we are able to use this information for systemic changes, like better policies for environmental regulation.

Plans for CPR-Namati, going forward?

Our plan over the next few years is that we hope to develop scalable models of participatory environmental regulation that focus on the experience of the environment by citizens and their resultant needs. We will work to implement these models in India and share what we have learned with legal empowerment practitioners around the world.

As a program that would like to respond creatively and productively to global environmental challenges, the goals for the Namati-CPR program are ambitious. There could not have been a better place than India to test this approach and learn from because India has a rich tradition of environmental values as well as a robust set of environmental laws. CPR’s long-standing research experience and engagement with national, regional and international policy is a unique asset to this program.

Which are the other countries in which you do similar work? And what areas do you span?

Namati and its partners currently work in eight countries: India, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Mozambique, Liberia and Uganda. We focus on enforcing environmental law, protecting community lands, and securing the rights to citizenship and effective healthcare. We also convene a global network of over 600 legal empowerment groups from 150 countries. The members are learning from one another and working together to make justice a reality for the billions of people who live outside the protection of the law.

To learn more about CPR-Namati Environmental Justice Program’s work, visit the dedicated page here.

Read Namati CEO Vivek Maru’s reflection on receiving the Skoll Award here.

CURATED COMMENTARY BY CPR FACULTY
SOUTH ASIA

The recent state of emergency imposed by President Abdulla Yameen in the Maldives followed by an arbitrary political crackdown has led to calls from the Opposition in the country, led by former President Mohammed Nasheed, for Indian military intervention – harking back to a similar intervention by India in 1988. However, the domestic and geopolitical context today is very different, especially given Yameen’s closeness to China. In these circumstances, CPR faculty analyse the choices India has – in the curated commentary below:

G Parthasarathy writes in The New Indian Express that ‘Yameen’s insensitivities to India’s security and economic concerns should be addressed imaginatively.’
‘With China seeking to capitalise on its support’ for Yameen, the Maldivian crisis has become a ‘defining moment’ for India, writes Brahma Chellaney in Project Syndicate, suggesting that ‘India’s best option is to hold out a credible threat of military action’, while simultaneously imposing economic sanctions with other democratic powers. Chellaney further elaborates on these sanctions in another article in the Hindustan Times.
In an interview with The Wire, Shyam Saran says that India should proceed cautiously unless China entrenches itself in the region, which is of strategic significance location wise.
In a discussion on NDTV, Zorawar Daulet Singh says that the Maldivian crisis should be a moment for India to think through the role it wants to play in South Asia, while G Parthasarathy adds that even though India does not have the economic and military power to balance China, China’s own behaviour is helping India get partners.

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE PANEL DISCUSSION HELD AS PART OF THE CLEARING THE AIR SEMINAR SERIES
AIR POLLUTION ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

On 23 February 2018, the Initiative on Climate, Energy and Environment (ICEE) at the Centre for Policy Research (CPR) organized a panel discussion on ‘Crop Burning as a source of Air Pollution in NCR’ as part of the ongoing Clearing the Air? Seminar Series on Delhi’s Air Pollution. The panel was moderated by Harish Damodaran, Rural Affairs and Agriculture Editor, The Indian Express, and the panelists were Dr ML Jat, Senior Cropping Systems Agronomist and CIMMYT-CCAFS South Asia Coordinator, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT); Pritam Singh, farmer from village Urlana Khurd, Panipat, Haryana; and Dr Rajbir Yadav, Principal Scientist, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI).

The panel explored the genesis of the problem of crop residue burning, why it has become a particularly thorny issue in the last few years, and what are the possible technological interventions available? It also discussed some of the key political, scientific, economic and social drivers that need to be considered while designing a long-term solution to the problem of crop burning.

We have identified some important points that came up during the panel discussion and presented them in the form of a Q&A below. The video of the panel discussion, and further details about the speakers, are available here.

Why has crop residue burning become particularly salient – environmentally and politically – in the last few years? Why is this problem witnessed particularly in Punjab, Haryana and parts of Uttar Pradesh, and not in other parts of the country?

Harish Damodaran: Punjab, Haryana, western Uttar Pradesh and parts of Uttarakhand have nearly 4 million hectares of rice and wheat cropping area. This area produces 34 million tons of rice stubble in a year and 23 million tons of residue is burnt. After the paddy is harvested starting mid-October, wheat has to be sown latest by mid-November. This is because in order to obtain maximum yield from the wheat crop, it has to be sown by mid-November to attain required growing period of 140- 150 days before it is ready for harvest in mid – April. The paddy stubble also has little economic value as animal feed. Therefore the most viable option available to farmers to prepare the field for wheat crop in such a short window period (15-20 days) is to burn the standing stubble. This short timespan in which the stubble is burnt coincides with the Diwali season in the country, adding to the winter time pollution woes experienced in the capital.

It a complicated problem but the solution has to come from within the agricultural community. As the farmer is the main stakeholder, for any policy design to succeed, he has to be part of the solution.

Dr ML Jat: Crop residue burning is a global problem. It is burnt in all parts of the country where combine harvesters are used and there are no incentives for the retrieval of residue from the field. It is done even in Bihar, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh and the southern states. It is witnessed in other parts of Asia as well. There is a strong correlation between the use of combine harvesters specially for rice harvesting and burning activity as the rice stubble produced from combines is of little economic value to the farmer. The use of combine harvesters without considering the fate of the residue after taking out the grain is a case of ‘half innovation’ where a technology is introduced without holistically evaluating the benefits as well as the negative effects, which often prove detrimental in the long run.

Rice-wheat cropping system, wherever it prevails, leads to stubble burning, especially in areas where rice is harvested using combines. In southern India, burning is not as prevalent. Farmers there follow a rice-rice cropping system, and farmers resort to puddling (which is tillage of paddy field in the flooded soil conditions). However, in coastal parts of Andhra Pradesh and parts of Tamil Nadu, water scarcity is leading to a shift from rice toward maize cultivation, which in turn, is resulting in stubble burning.

Are there concerns regarding the available technological interventions to reduce crop burning?

Pritam Singh: The practical implications of the use of technology are often not accounted for. It is imperative to consider the farmer’s perspective before professing a new technology. Promotion of new technology also demands a change in the mind-set of farmers while creating awareness. The farmers need to be properly educated about the new interventions and community examples should be set to enable a wide spread use. For example, with the use of the Happy Seeder, the cost of production has gone up due to increased demand of urea in the field. The technology is also not economically viable due to the increased use of diesel. These inferences are drawn from practical application of the technology.

Dr Yadav: It is essential to let the farmers modify the techniques according to their needs as the diverse agricultural conditions in the country demand. Poor investment capacity of farmers, lack of machinery and herbicides, lack of awareness, lack of knowledge about the CA varieties and hybrids etc., are some of the pertinent issues that demand action. Also, the focus of the research in agricultural technology should be to design machinery compatible with small land holdings as the number of small farmers outweigh the big farmers in India.

What are the technological interventions and best practices possible to deal with the issue of stubble burning?

Dr ML Jat: Both in situ and ex situ agricultural management practices can be adopted to manage crop residue. Ex situ practices involve taking the residue away from the field and converting it to compost or baling rice residue for power plants (Lohan et al., 2018). However, there are trade-offs for ex-situ management of crop residues, and they are not always economically viable or sustainable. Labour availability and costs are a problem, and therefore composting is not an economically viable option for the farmer. Baling is also not a viable option as the baler costs more than 10 lakhs, and the operational window to use it is 10-15 days. For the rest of the year it lies unused, and even the depreciation costs cannot be recovered. Moreover, taking out residues from the field and not recycling them back are counterproductive for soil health.

The in-situ practices involve managing the residue at the site of production. There are technologies like Rotavator, and mulcher but they are not entirely suitable and could lead to higher production costs and delayed planting of wheat crop. The concurrent use of super Straw Management System (SMS) and Turbo Happy Seeder efficiently takes care of the residue and also brings down the operational cost of preparing the field for the next crop. It performs three operations at one go hence increasing time efficiency: shredding the harvested crop, spreading the stubble across the swath and simultaneously sowing the wheat seeds (Sidhu et al., 2015). Scientific studies have shown that it saves approximately 10 lakh litres of water on day one of seeding crop, increases profit amounting to Rs 20,000 – Rs 25,000 per hectare per year for a farmer. Gradually, it also leads to a reduction in the use of nitrogen fertilizers by the farmers. It eventually results in reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases from the agricultural fields. In situ management with technology that takes care of the crop residue, not only comes with multiple benefits to the farmer, but also helps them in reducing risks and increasing profitability and can be the plausible solution to prevent burning.

Dr Rajbir Yadav: The practice of Conservation Agriculture (CA) involves sowing of wheat seeds in the field with the standing residue. The immediate sowing not only increases the growing period of wheat but also helps the crop to deal with the lodging and heat stress. It is a very cost-effective measure that saves the cost of tillage operations and results in a benefit of Rs 2000 per acre to the farmer, along with higher yield which is generally 1-5 quintal per hectare due to prolonged duration of wheat crop. This practice can also be a viable method for managing stubble and prevent burning. In particular, planting two varieties of wheat namely HDCSW 18 and HD 3117 (developed at IARI) in CA conditions can comprehensively mitigate the need for crop residue burning.

The government also has to make environmental friendly technologies and measures rewarding for he farmers. Right now the farmers in these areas are forced to grow rice because that is economically most attractive. Some form of subsidies should be introduced. Crops like pearl millet (bajra) that have a much lesser ecological footprint should be made economically attractive to the farmers.

Harish Damodaran: One way to deal with the issue of rice stubble burning is to propose crop and varietal diversification. For farmers in the north western region, growing Basmati and Parmal varieties of rice is economically profitable. The problem of crop burning is mainly due to the Parmal variety of rice – which has high yields and brings a good price. Thus, farmers can be weaned away from growing that variety only if an equally lucrative alternative is presented. Maize is often proposed as an alternative, however, yields for Kharif maize are low. The government is promoting winter maize which gives a high yield. However, the winter maize matures in May-June when there is water scarcity. But moving from rice to ragi or bajra is not going to happen overnight. People are not willing to pay good prices for these crops and the government will not procure them. The solution has to come from within the agricultural community.

How can these interventions be made more economically viable for the farmers?

Dr Jat: Farmers’ income can be increased by reducing the cost of production. However, with the use of expensive machines, the cost of production increases and the burning also reportedly increases. Also, with the introduction of the GST, the cost of agricultural machinery has increased further. It is not only the issue of eliminating burning but the solution should essentially come along with multiple economic benefits to the farmer. Recently, the Union Finance Minister made an announcement in his budget speech to provide a subsidy of Rs 1000 crore to promote in situ management scheme to manage crop residue. According to the scheme, individual farmers will receive 50% subsidy and cooperatives groups will receive 80% subsidy for investments in farm machinery like Happy Seeder, Straw Management System (SMS) etc. This subsidy scheme has been proposed keeping in view inability of small and marginal farmers to make such investments and to promote a business model and service window through collective groups that have the potential to provide more services, covering more farmers and more area.

Lohan et al., ‘Burning issues of paddy residue management in north-west states of India’ 81 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2018) 693–706

Sidhu et al., ‘Development and evaluation of the Turbo Happy Seeder for sowing wheat into heavy rice residues in NW India’ 184 Field Crops Research 201-212 (2015).

PART 4 OF A SERIES ON ‘COASTAL REGULATION’ BY THE CPR-NAMATI ENVIRONMENT JUSTICE PROGRAM
COASTAL GOVERNANCE RIGHTS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) conducts a ‘stakeholder meeting’ on 20 March 2017, to discuss the ‘Marine Coastal Regulatory Zone (MCRZ) Notification.

Spate of changes to CRZ Notification, 2011

The CRZ Notification regulates activities in the sea up to 12 nautical miles and on 500 metres of land (from the High Tide Line – HTL) adjoining the sea. It also governs development on the area between the 500 metre line and the hazard line (hazard line demarcates areas that are vulnerable to sea level rise and other climate change impacts). It does so by dividing these zones into ecologically sensitive areas (CRZ I), urban areas (CRZ II), rural areas (CRZ III) and water areas (CRZ IV). The first 200 metres of CRZ III is demarcated as ‘No Development Zone’ (NDZ) to reduce the negative impacts of development on fragile ecosystems such as sand dunes, corals, mangroves, etc.

Since early 2014, the MoEFCC has taken a number of steps to review, discuss and revise the CRZ Notification, 2011. The CPR-Namati Environment Justice Program has prepared a chronology of the MoEFCC’s activities below.

Month

Action

June 2014

MoEFCC constitutes CRZ Review (Shailesh Nayak) Committee

Nov 2014

The CRZ review Committee presents its findings

Nov 2014- April 2016

MoEFCC issues eight amendments to and two clarifications regarding the CRZ Notification, 2011

Jan 2015

The CRZ review committee submits its report

Dec 2016

On 7 and 8 Dec, MoEFCC organises a meeting with MPs and decides that CRZ Notification, 2011 would be revised

March 2017

-On 4 March, in an internal meeting, the MoEFCC decides the steps to notify the MCRZ Notification

-On 9 March, the MoEFCC announces a separate web portal for CRZ clearance

-On 20 March, MoEFCC organizes a meeting with ‘stakeholder ministries’ and presents the proposed MCRZ Notification and asks the ministries to submit their comments in the next 15 days

In earlier pieces, we have discussed the review process, the amendments that the CRZ Notification has been subjected to, and the impact of the changes proposed to the Notification. This piece relates to information received through the Right to Information application seeking details on the process of drafting a new Marine and Coastal Regulation Zone Notification to replace the current Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2011.

Discussions on MCRZ Notification in lieu of CRZ Notification, 2011

The MoEFCC organised an inter-ministerial meeting on 20 March 2017. As per the minutes provided by the Ministry (available here), the Secretary, Environment, Forests and Climate Change chaired the meeting. It was shared in the meeting that the MoEFCC has decided to revise the CRZ Notification 2011 based on the views of:

The governments of all coastal states and union territories through the CRZ review (our piece gives details of the state governments’ suggestions to the CRZ review committee).
The Members of Parliament as shared in a meeting held on 7 and 8 December 2016 (Details of the meeting are not provided).
Changes proposed in the MCRZ

Below is a list of key changes the MCRZ proposes in different zones of the CRZ. Also provided are the corresponding provisions of the current CRZ Notification, 2011, and recommendations of the Shailesh Nayak Committee.

Proposed MCRZ Notification

Current CRZ Notification, 2011

Shailesh Nayak Committee Report

HTL Demarcation

Authorises National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM) to carry out tidal demarcation for the Indian coastline

Authorises seven agencies to carry out tidal demarcation

Recognises NCSCM’s role in carrying out tidal demarcation

CRZ Limits

Limits CRZ to first 500 metres of land from HTL and not till the hazard line (in case the hazard line falls beyond the 500 metre line)

Notifies area between 500 metre line and hazard line on the landward side of the HTL as CRZ

Terms the area between 500 metre line and hazard line as Hazard Management Zone. The Zone is to have hazard management measures, which would be drafted by the respective state governments.

CRZ I

Permits ‘essential amenities’ such as sewage treatment plants, link roads and coastal roads and ecotourism projects in CRZ I

Prohibits construction of sewage treatment plants, coastal roads, link roads and tourism projects in CRZ I (recent amendments allowed sewage treatment plants in CRZ I areas of Mumbai)

Permits construction of sewage and effluent treatment plants and temporary tourism structures in CRZ I

CRZ II

Applies the prevailing town and country planning norms for construction of buildings in CRZ II areas

Freezes town and country planning norms for construction of buildings in CRZ II areas to 1991 level, when the CRZ Notification was first issued.

Applies the prevailing town and country planning norms for construction of buildings in CRZ II areas

CRZ III (including NDZ)

Provides an NDZ of 50 metres from the HTL in CRZ III areas

Provides an NDZ of 200 metres from the HTL in CRZ III areas

Provides an NDZ of 50 metres for ‘densely populated’ CRZ III areas and an NDZ of 200 metres in other ‘rural areas’ of CRZ III

Allows construction of houses for local communities in CRZ III areas beyond the NDZ (50 metres from HTL)

Allows construction of dwelling units for coastal communities after first 100 metres from HTL in CRZ III

Allows construction of houses for local communities in CRZ III areas beyond the NDZ (50 or 200 metres from HTL)

Allows construction of temporary tourism facilities in NDZ

Prohibits construction of temporary tourism facilities in NDZ

Allows construction of temporary tourism facilities in NDZ (limits them to 33% of total area in NDZ)

CRZ IV

Limits CRZ for offshore islands to 20 metres from the HTL on the landward side of the sea

Demarcates 500 metres (50 metres, for islands in backwaters of Kerala) from the HTL on offshore islands on landward side of sea as CRZ

Not mentioned

In this meeting, the Ministry shared that it held an internal discussion on 4 March 2017 with all the environment secretaries and environment directors and decided that the Ministry would present the proposed MCRZ notification before the ‘stakeholder ministries’ and take their views on it (Copy of the proposed MCRZ Notification is not provided).

Views of the ‘Stakeholder’ Ministries

The MoEFCC invited the Ministry of Tourism, Ministry of Shipping, Ministry of Urban Development, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, NITI Ayog, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ welfare, Ministry of Rural Development, and Ministry of Earth Sciences for an inter-ministerial consultative meeting on 20 March, 2017. Comments of the representatives of these Ministries as shared in the meeting minutes are provided below.

Ministry of Tourism

-Revised notification should open up main islands for their tourism potential.

-NDZ should be reduced further from 50 metres.

-Development of inland islands should be made possible.

Ministry of Shipping

-NDZ should be reduced further from 50 metres.

-For development of ports in Andaman and Nicobar (A&N) islands, special provisions should be made

-More delegation from State Coastal Zone Management Authorities (SCZMAs) to state governments for clearance/approval should be allowed.

Ministry of Urban Development

-Effluent and Sewage Treatment Plants should be permitted in CRZ I areas

-The deadline of 2 years for setting up of treatment plants in all coastal states should be changed to 3 years.

-NDZ should be reduced further from 50 metres.

Observations

Beginning from the CRZ review by Shailesh Nayak Committee to the proposed MCRZ Notification, each review/revision process has only diluted the coastal regulation. The MoEFCC opened the CRZ Notification to review but with a narrow scope – it limited the Terms of Reference of the Shailesh Nayak Committee only to address state governments’ grievances. Other stakeholders were kept out and the review thus conducted was obscure and skewed without an objective, inclusive and participatory assessment of the CRZ Notification. The inter-ministerial meeting does not fare any better.

It seems the MoEFCC is seeking legitimacy for the changes to the CRZ Notification using the report of the Shailesh Nayak Committee, which itself is a result of a one-sided process. However, the changes that the MoEFCC is trying to slip through will make the original Notification even weaker than what the committee suggested. For instance, the Shailesh Nayak committee suggested a differential NDZ width of 50 meters and 200 metres based on the population density of coastal areas but the draft MCRZ Notification proposes an NDZ of 50 metres in all CRZ III areas regardless of the population density.

All three ministries that commented on the MCRZ demanded further reduction in the NDZ and more infrastructure on the coast (either for tourism, sewage and effluent treatment or ports). This hardly comes across as a surprise as the mandate of these ministries has always been in conflict with the objectives of coastal conservation and livelihood protection.

The other pieces in this series can be accessed below:

Coastal commons for private tourism and entertainment?
Is it the end of participatory coastal planning?
States ask Review Committee to loosen up the Coastal Regulation
Crucial aspects of proposed Marine Coastal Regulatory Zone Notification revealed
In conversation with Dr Shailesh Nayak – the man who led the review of coastal regulation
The proposed Marine Coastal Regulation Zone (MCRZ) Notification
A tale of two reviews: How two governments amended a coastal land use law
The Supreme Court’s guiding principles for coastal regulation
Coastal Regulation Zone Disputes before the National Green Tribunal
CRZ drives a wedge between communities in Mumbai

PART 10 OF A SERIES ON ‘COASTAL REGULATION’ BY DR CHITRA VENKATARAMANI FOR THE CPR-NAMATI ENVIRONMENT JUSTICE PROGRAM
COASTAL GOVERNANCE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE RIGHTS

Asymmetric rights to the coast fosters identity politics and housing insecurity.

One of the central tensions in the Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) Notification as it plays out in relation to the complex land politics of Mumbai, is the question of development in fishing villages and slums. This essay highlights the new tensions and boundaries created between urban communities by the notification as it confers different rights to slum dwellers and fishers.

At the heart of the problem, is not only the government’s inability to embrace complexity in its mapping and planning process for the coast, but also its avoidance of an important problem Mumbai faces – that of well-designed, sustainable, and accessible low-income housing.

Untenable categories

The 2011 CRZ categorises ‘Koliwadas’ (fishing villages) as CRZ III where as ‘slums’ are categorized under CRZ II – each category leads to different developmental potentials. Under the differing guidelines for these categories, those recognised as slum-dwellers have access to housing under the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA). However, those who claim their residential areas as ‘Koliwadas’ have the opportunity, albeit vaguely worded, to self-develop: to improve the conditions of their residential areas in line with the city’s development regulations. While on paper, such a plan might seem workable, it is hard to draw boundaries and clearly define areas as Koliwadas or slums on ground.

Fishing communities in Mumbai are often located within larger, hybrid, informal settlements, making it hard – if not impossible – to draw such strict boundaries around them based on identity. Since the CRZ places the burden of proof on the fishing communities and because of a lack of documents and surveys that clearly identify the location and extent of the Koliwadas in the city, the city’s fishers face the very concrete threat of displacement into SRA schemes. That is, unless they are clearly able to claim the identity of “traditional fishers,” they stand to not just lose the opportunity to develop their residential areas, but could also end up getting displaced as a result of a combination of factors that include developmental pressure, lack of infrastructure, and the unsustainability of fishing as a livelihood in the city.

At the heart of the problem is the form and process of the SRA, which has been severely criticised by many urban planners and advocates. For example, Rahul Srivastava and Matias Echanove write that not only does the SRA offer poor living conditions, it also cuts off avenues for informal economies to thrive and destroys complex living-working spatial relationships.

Creating tensions

In evoking the SRA as a solution for housing in urban coastal areas, the CRZ opened the doors for identity politics and this created new tensions between communities living side-by-side. While this pushes us to ask broader questions regarding the lack of low-income housing in the city, better policies and provisions for those who live in informal settlements (their identities and community affiliations notwithstanding), it is also important to trace how this different distribution of rights came to be, and what CRZ surveys and plans have to do with it.

In December 2004, when the Swaminathan Committee was still in the process of reviewing the 1991 CRZ, the Indian Ocean tsunami struck, leaving a trail of devastation along the country’s coast. This event had a significant impact on the committee and this is evident in the opening paragraphs of the report it eventually released a month after the tsunami. Indeed, the committee writes of the catastrophe caused by this event as one of the foundational reasons for having a robust policy that would safeguard the coast, its ecology, and coastal residents. Cognizant of the deep impact of natural disasters on low-income coastal communities, the CRZ was to provide the means for better housing and livelihood for this vulnerable population, while safeguarding the coast against exploitation through sustainable development.

The committee recommended that the previous restriction on constructing SRA schemes on coastal land be lifted for two main reasons: firstly, to provide some measure of protection for slum residents given their precarious living conditions, and secondly, because it identified slums as harmful and polluting to coastal and urban environments. It is important to note that the idea of the slum as ‘polluting’ is deeply problematic especially since a large part of Mumbai’s waste is released untreated into coastal waters. By contrast, the fisher communities were to be given land rights and housing provisions as a result of their dependency on the coast. Thus, the notion of vulnerability resulted in two radically different solutions in the CRZ notification, the SRA for slum dwellers and coastal land-rights for fishers. These steps obscured the interconnections between these communities and also shaped the subsequent political rhetoric of rights claiming after the 2011 notification was released.

Threat to Mumbai’s Koliwadas

The 2014 Shailesh Nayak committee solidifies the threat of displacement of fisher communities as it proposes to categorise all of the city’s Koliwadas under category II, opening up these areas for redevelopment under the SRA. It also reinforces and deepens the boundaries between those who live in the different informal settlements along the coast. The committee circumvents a central question: can we think of equitable, sustainable, pro-poor, pro-fisher housing and development models?

In order to answer this question, the CRZ Notification – particularly its maps and plans, which determine how the law will unfold across the urban terrain and in people’s lives – has to engage with the complex conditions and relations on the ground. Instead of shying away from complexity, the CRZ plans have to acknowledge and work with the interconnectedness of communities and the intricate relations between people, landscapes and the environment.

Chitra Venkatramani is an anthropologist at the National University of Singapore and is currently working on a book on cartography and the politics of the CRZ in Mumbai.

The previous pieces in this series can be accessed below:

Coastal commons for private tourism and entertainment?
Is it the end of participatory coastal planning?
States ask Review Committee to loosen up the Coastal Regulation
Crucial aspects of proposed Marine Coastal Regulatory Zone Notification revealed
In conversation with Dr Shailesh Nayak – the man who led the review of coastal regulation
The proposed Marine Coastal Regulation Zone (MCRZ) Notification
A tale of two reviews: How two governments amended a coastal land use law
The Supreme Court’s guiding principles for coastal regulation
Coastal Regulation Zone Disputes before the National Green Tribunal

 

A STUDY
COASTAL GOVERNANCE

The Centre for Policy Research – Namati Environmental Justice Program has recently completed a three-year-long study, the first of its kind, titled CZMAs and Coastal Environments: Two Decades of Regulating Land Use Change on India’s Coastline, analysing the functioning of Coastal Zone Management Authorities (CZMA).

Coastal Zone Management Authorities (CZMAs) were first constituted to regulate coastal land use and environments following an order of the Supreme Court (WP 664/1993) to implement the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification. While the CRZ Notification has gone through detailed reviews by eight committees and over 25 amendments, there has been no comprehensive review of the functioning of the CZMAs.

This study addresses a critical gap. Read the full report, the executive summary, and the CRZ report cards here.

CPR FACULTY REACT TO TREE FELLING IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
AIR POLLUTION ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CPR VIEWS

BUREAUCRACY
The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs recently faced the ire of citizens for its decision to cut down at least 14,000 trees for the redevelopment of seven government colonies in the National Capital Region (NCR). While orders from the National Green Tribunal, and subsequently the Delhi High Court put off the felling indefinitely, these did not apply to all areas. Given the high degree of pollution the residents of Delhi grapple with, few agreed with the Centre’s plan to plant a larger number of saplings, citing that they cannot replace full-grown trees. The move raised several environmental concerns and sparked public debate and protest.

In this second edition of ‘CPR Views’, CPR faculty and experts share their comments on this key development.

Manju Menon,
Senior Fellow, CPR Kanchi Kohli,
Researcher, CPR
‘For the last three weeks, Delhi’s citizens have been debating tree felling, compensatory plantations, public participation and urban design in venues like public parks, footpaths, newspapers and television studios. While the trigger was the felling of over 14,000 trees for the ‘redevelopment’ of seven government housing areas in the heart of the capital, the #DelhiTreesSOS and #MyRightToBreathe campaigns have pushed the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) to relook into the project’s design. For now the courts have restrained the felling of trees.

One question that has eluded the discussion so far is whether the construction activity that will be spread over Netaji Nagar, Sarojini Nagar, Nauroji Nagar, Kasturba nagar, Thyagraj Nagar, Sriniwaspuri and Mohammadpur, are part of one, two or seven projects (explained below)? These colonies comprise a contiguous area of 571 acres of government housing north and south of the Ring Road near the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).

In July 2016, the union cabinet approved the development of seven colonies together, giving the sense that this is one large redevelopment plan. The urban development ministry then signed one Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the NBCC (National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd.) for ‘the project’, clubbing three housing colonies Sarojini, Netaji and Nauroji into one, so that the fully commercial World Trade Centre at Nauroji and large commercial hub at Sarojini could finance government housing and offices. The other four were contracted to the Central Public Works Department (CPWD).

However environment clearances under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 have been pursued for the seven separately. Depending on their size, they have or are in the process of taking an approval from the central environment ministry or the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). This leads to two questions – should the seven be treated as one real estate project? Secondly, if they are separate projects, should they have also been put through a cumulative impact assessment for all the integrated components?

On 24th December 2010, the environment ministry issued an office memorandum (No. J-11013/41/2006-IA.II (I)) for ‘consideration of integrated and inter related projects for grant of environmental clearance.’ If this were to be applied to ‘the project’ in question, then each of these redevelopment projects would need to carry out both individual EIA as well ‘prepare a common EIA report.’ This would allow the expert committees appraising these projects to examine ‘the overall impact of the project as a whole.’

In the present case this has not happened. It is important for the environment ministry to urgently respond to this as citizens have raised fears of increased air pollution, water stress, traffic and loss of green spaces due to these projects. It is still possible for government departments to invoke the precautionary principle and to deliberate on these issues in a transparent manner. This will allow for better and inclusive decisions to be taken.’

Longer articles by Manju Menon and Kanchi Kohli can be accessed in The Hindu’, ‘Scroll’. The Wire carried four articles: ‘Under Garb of Govt Housing, Delhi Redevelopment Project Legalises Grabbing Public Property’, ‘Compensatory Afforestation Is Not the Ultimate Solution to Delhi’s Tree Fellings’, ‘The Circular Timeline of Environmental Approvals for Delhi’s Redevelopment’ and ‘In the Shadow of Delhi’s Redevelopment’. ‘ThePrint’ and ‘The Hindu’ carried their opinions, and Kohli’s comments can be found in articles in ‘Firstpost’, ‘Outlook’ and the ‘Times of India’.

Manju Menon and Kanchi Kohli also wrote a letter to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, highlighting the violations and lacunae in the Ministry’s grant of the environmental clearances for the redevelopment of four GPRA (General Pool Residential Accommodation) colonies.

Manju Menon and Kanchi Kohli also wrote a letter to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal urging him to revive Delhi Tree Authority (DTA) and not selectively implement Delhi Tree Preservation Act, 1994.

Manju Menon and Kanchi Kohli’s comments on Delhi Government’s Draft Tree Transplantation Policy, 2019 can be read here.

Mukta Naik,
Senior Researcher, CPR
‘Development vs. environment will always be a topic of debate, and given the lived experience of Delhi and its problems with air quality, there is no doubt that we must re-think development projects to minimise environmental damage.

However, the decision to cut over 17,000 mature trees in Delhi is symptomatic of a larger malaise that afflicts the urban development paradigm in India today. This malaise has to do with minimum transparency and lack of public consultation on one hand, and on the other, a dangerous crafting of erroneous design in the language of popular global urban development models like the compact city, transit-oriented development and land value capture to make them palatable.

In the case of the redevelopment projects in question in Delhi, propounding the merits of increased density in the city core and the resulting carbon savings to ‘sell’ them is simply wrong. The reality is that these new developments are car-centric in design, else they would have not been gated communities for government babus but integrated with the city fabric. A compact city model would have included affordable housing, walking and cycling infrastructure and public spaces that are accessible to all. Delhi’s violent past of evicting slum-dwellers from the core and resettling them at the periphery, is proof that the city planners do not have the compact city in mind at all. Designing around trees is essential, but not adequate. The Ministry of Urban Affairs must go back to the drawing board and redesign these projects such that they kickstart a changed urban narrative towards improved liveability.’

Mukta Naik participated in a television debate on ‘NDTV’, which can be accessed here.

Arkaja Singh,
Fellow, CPR
‘It is ironic – in context of all the recent discussion about the land redevelopment projects in Sarojini Nagar, Nauroji Nagar and Netaji Nagar, and before that in East Kidwai Nagar – that the Guidelines for the Smart Cities Mission of the national government name East Kidwai Nagar as one of two examples (the other is the Bhendi Bazar redevelopment project in Mumbai) of what a land redevelopment project supported by the Mission could look like.

The East Kidwai Nagar, Sarojini Nagar, Netaji Nagar and Nauroji Nagar projects follow a particular model, in which government-owned land occupied for housing for government employees is given over for redevelopment, to be converted into new government housing (replacement of existing stock and creating new stock) and commercial real estate – which is to be sold to recover the overall cost of the project. Considering all the questions that have been raised about the projects recently, we wonder why it is touted as a ‘model’ project for Smart Cities all over the country?

With respect to a model redevelopment project, government projects are in any case something of a cop-out to all the complexities of land ownership, and of convincing multiple users and owners of the value of the project. In these projects, the government owns all the land, and it is also the custodian of the city master plan and is responsible for giving all the planning permissions and environmental clearances involved. The contract for project development was awarded to a government agency, without any form of public competition, and on conditions that are described on the contract document in the broadest possible terms. And even then, is it worthwhile to redevelop several hundred acres of prime urban land (and that too with a rich green cover of old trees that will be lost) with the sole purpose of creating some 7,000 additional units of housing for government employees?

In strictly legal terms, the government is free to do this, without even a public consultation, if it could comply with its own environmental and planning conditions (which we now know have been blatantly flouted). But is this a legitimate way to dispose off public resources? What would be the appropriate norms for establishing public purpose, transparency, accountability and best value for the dealing of government land? The government’s power to deal with land in high-handed ways has been called into question by protest movements time and again – but all too often these are battles of rural and poor people, far removed from city imaginations. The emergence of a distinctly urban dimension to similar questions underscores the need for much greater public engagement with the government’s handling of its power in relation to land.’

A longer article co-authored by Mukta Naik and Arkaja Singh in ‘ThePrint’ can be accessed here.

The first edition of CPR Views can be accessed here.

FULL VIDEO OF SESSION AS PART OF CPR DIALOGUES
CPR

Watch the full video of the session on ‘CPR Youth Awards: A Youth-Driven Agenda for Change’, organised as part of CPR Dialogues, featuring Eric Gonsalves, Pradeep Nair, Mukta Naik and Swati Janu.

Over half of India’s population is below the age of 25. Their perceptions and ideas – not just their labour – will shape the country’s future. Today, ahead of the 2019 polls, youth employment and political participation are receiving unprecedented attention. Identifying the youth as a key demographic for policy interventions, CPR researchers have been studying formal and everyday politics among young people as well as their labour market opportunities and migration pathways, especially as rural youth move increasingly ‘off the farm’. Could the curiosity and talent of these aspirational, informed and passionate young people we met in our field sites be harnessed towards improved research hypotheses as well as innovative solutions to their everyday problems?

It is in this context that CPR is delighted to announce start of the CPR Youth Awards, a program designed to interact, collaborate and mentor young men and women across the country to understand what their concerns, their perceptions of the environment and society, and to help them take steps towards addressing problems they are motivated to solve. Tapping into CPR’s own network of NGO partners, we have worked with youth groups aged 18-25 in three locations: Mangolpuri, a resettlement colony in north-west Delhi; Keonjhar, a tribal region in Odisha; and in peri-urban Jaipur. Over the last two months, facilitators from partner NGOs have worked with an experienced mentor to design and execute programs in these three locations involving intensive workshops to help youth groups articulate problem statements and impart to them design-thinking, research and presentation skills.

At this time, these groups are using smartphones to create short videos documenting their projects. For example, in Keonjhar, young men and women are petitioning Block Development Offices to help implement their ideas on improving agricultural productivity. In Mangolpuri, one group is forming support groups online for girls facing sexual violence while in Jaipur, teams are exploring pathways to more effective local governance in areas like waste management. Showcasing the best projects at the CPR Dialogues, our real takeaway has been the importance of placing young people at the centre of conversations, innovations and interventions.

Eric Gonsalves is Chairperson, Governing Board at CPR.

Pradeep Nair is Regional Director at Ford Foundation.

Mukta Naik is a Fellow at CPR.

Swati Janu is the Awards Mentor.

Watch all videos as part of the CPR Youth Awards 2018 here.

Watch all other sessions of the Dialogues below:

The International Climate Change Regime: Looking Back to Look Forward
Research for Policy Action on Air Pollution, in collaboration with CECFEE
India’s Technology Transition: The Present and the Possible
The Emerging World Order and India’s Role
India’s 21st Century Transitions
Understanding India’s Energy Transition in Global Context
Is the Urban Future Metropolitan? Big Cities in Urban Systems
Geopolitics and Geo-Economics in a Changing South Asia

FULL VIDEO OF THE WORKSHOP
URBAN ECONOMY URBAN SERVICES

Watch the full video (above) of the CPR- Centre de Sciences Humaines (CSH) Workshop on ‘Delhi without Borders: Contradictions and Conflicts of a Delirious City Region’ featuring Nitin Bathla.

The 1962 masterplan of Delhi introduced a critical intertwining between Delhi and its region. Not only did this initiate the restructuration of Delhi’s metropolitan processes into a continually expanding territory, but more importantly it forged a land-based economic relationship between the city and its region. Thus, concomitant to the radical transformations in Delhi, profound acts of ecological dispossession, enclosure, and infrastructure violence have also been taking shape in its region.

The delirious city-region today represents a tapestry of stark disparities; of sparsely occupied luxury condominiums popping up next to dense settlements housing masses of labour migrants, of industrial-logistic spaces set amidst remnants of agro-pastoral landscapes, of operational landscapes set within sacred ecologies, and of ever new infrastructure networks set in bypass to the perpetually incomplete existing ones. This churning of territory for urban production is revealing a palimpsest of subaltern and planetary dynamics, sedentary and nomadic practices, and urban and agrarian societies, thus revealing unique socio-spatial conflicts and political compromises.

This presentation brought together observations, conclusions, and findings from over two years of ethnographic inquiry by the speaker in an attempt to unpack contradictions and conflicts in the urbanisation of a Delhi without borders.

Nitin Bathla is an urban researcher, artist, and educator based at ETH Zurich where he is currently pursuing his doctoral studies on a Swiss Excellence Fellowship.

The question and answer session that followed can be accessed here. Find all the available videos of previous workshops, here.