Dear Friends,

We write to you with an urgent appeal to endorse a representation to the
Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests to not take any steps to replace
the Coastal Zone Regulation Notification with the comprehensively weakened
amendment - the Coastal Zone Management Notification.  The reasons why your
endorsement is immediately required is detailed in the enclosed note.

Environment Support Group is issuing this appeal on behalf of Kerala
Swatantra Matsya Thozhilali Federation (Kerala Independent Fishworkers
Federation).

All endorsements must include your Name, Organisation, Place and other
contact details. Endorsements may be rushed immediately to:
Peter.ks...@gmail.com<http://202.146.198.11/cgi-bin/sqwebmail/login/ksmtf%40keralafish workers.org/5D9FAD8268C7C58AD67E1716CEC2E0AA/1245122931?folder=INBOX&form=n ewmsg&to=Peter.ks...@gmail.com>and
a copy marked to
nand...@esgindia.org. <nand...@esgindia.org>

Thank you for your continued cooperation and support.

Sincerely,

Leo F. Saldanha and Bhargavi S. Rao

Environment Support Group

Bangalore, India

*Why opposed the proposed Coastal Zone Management Notification*

Over the past decade, as the world has worked to strengthen environmental
regulations and norms, India has worked to dilute them.  The process began
with the BJP led NDA government at the Centre setting up the Govindarajan
Committee on Investment Reforms in the late 1990s which was essentially a
bureacrat and technocrat led initiative.  The Committee's mandate was to
identify bottlenecks for investment growth and they zeroed in on
environmental, forest and coastal zone regulations as obstacles in assisting
India's economic growth.  No other consideration, including growing concerns
over climate change, seems to have affected the implementation of the
Govindarajan Committee recommendations.  Subsequent governments have
unquestioningly endorsed the Committee's recommendations.

Soon after, the World Bank gave a large IDA grant to the Ministry of
Environment and Forests, utilising which the Committee's recommendations
were systematically transformed into legislative and policy changes. The
most critical changes were to dilute the already weak Environment Impact
Assessment Notification and the Coastal Zone Regulation Notification.  Both
were subordinate legislations, hence any modification and comperhensive
amendments were proposed without Parliamentaty oversight and based
essentially on consultations with industrial and investment lobbies.
Assisting this process was the National Environmental Policy, which was
evolved without any discussion on public platforms, legislatures or the
Parliament.  In 2006, the EIA Notification was comprehensively amended
including several undemocratic features to make the clearance mechanisms
investment friendly.  A thorough analysis of its weaknesses and potential
impacts is available in a book ESG published, entitled "Green Tapism".
(This book can be downloaded for free from: *www.esgindia.org*.  Print
copies are available for sale.)

One of the key reforms that MoEF initiated during this time was to set up
the M. S. Swaminathan Committee on Coastal Zone Management.  The functioning
of this Committee was highly undemocratic and designed to respond to inputs
from bureaucratic, technocratic and investment lobbies.  The result was the
draft Coastal Management Zone Notification to replace the CRZ Notification,
issued on 22 July 2008 by MoEF.  Fisher communities across India strongly
opposed the Swaminathan report and the CMZ proposals on grounds it would
open up the beaches, which are commons, to intense commercialisation,
infrastructure development, and consequent displacement of traditional
communities besides causing widespread and irreversible environmental and
social impacts.  A Parliamentary Committee has endorsed these concerns and
categorically stated that " Govt. should not make haste in implementing the
CMZ notification without addressing the conflict of interests between the
stakeholders – mainly the fisher folk/coastal communities and all out
efforts must be made first to assuage their feelings and meet their concerns
which the Committee feels, is not unfound, through education, social
mobilization and their active participation and involvement in decision
making. Panchayats can play a crucial role in generating awareness among
them. For this, Govt. should get the CMZ notification translated into local
languages and circulated widely in every village/hamlet so that the local
communities are made aware of the actual implications of the notification
and are not swayed by hearsay or guided by misgivings about it. Govt. may
also seriously think of bringing out a legislation to ensure protection of
rights of coastal communities to coastal resources on the lines of the one
meant for forest dwellers."

Excerpts of the Committee's Report finalised in March 2009 are enclosed and
the full report can be accessed at:
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/content/parliamentary-standi...

Mr. Jairam Ramesh, India's Minister for Environment and Forests, has made
some very clear and categorical statements clarifying that MoEF will not
allow environmental priorities to be subordinated to investment concerns.
Soon after his appointment he has travelled across the country meeting
various interest groups and communities, and demonstrated a zeal to
implement progressive reforms to conserve our environment and livelihood
rights.  This is a much desired and refreshing change in a Ministry which
has largely been a victim of political opportunism, bureaucratic
manipulation to advantage investors, and rarely, over the past decade,
served the purpose for which it was established.  Mr. Ramesh even confirmed
in a meeting with us in Bangalore that the further dilution of the EIA
Notification (pending since January 2009) by wasy of introducing "self
certification" mechanisms for industries to invest and expand, would not be
allowed.*  However, on the issue of the draft CMZ Notification , Mr. Ramesh
has proposed that a "hybrid" law would be introduced by July 09.  Clearly,
this is a highly retrograde step and goes against the very specific
recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee not to make haste*.

In this context, it is highly critical that Mr. Ramesh must be convinced of
the wrongful intent of the CMZ Notification and the critical importance of
adopting the steps proposed by the Parliamentary Committee.  He must also be
encouraged not to yield to strong pressures from industrial and investment
lobbies to open up our coastline for what would ultimately be reckless
development.

This is why we urge you to immediately endorsed the enclosed representation
developed by the Kerala Swatantra Matsya Thozhilali Federation (Kerala
Independent Fishworkers Federation).

*Due to the urgency of the situation, we request you to take steps to
immediately endorse this Petition* by emailing your Name, Organisation and
Contact Details to
Peter.ks...@gmail.com<http://202.146.198.11/cgi-bin/sqwebmail/login/ksmtf%40keralafish workers.org/5D9FAD8268C7C58AD67E1716CEC2E0AA/1245122931?folder=INBOX&form=n ewmsg&to=Peter.ks...@gmail.com>and
marking a copy to
nand...@esgindia.org.

Excerpts from the DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS TWO HUNDRED AND SECOND REPORT
ON COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMMES; 20 March 2009
___________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________
"2. Efficacy of CRZ notification has been assessed differently by different
stakeholders. While NGOs – proactive in protecting coastal environment and
local communities feel that it is an effective tool and stringent
enforcement mechanism should be put in place to implement the notification,
the pro-development ideologists – which include industries, tourism sector
and Central as well State Govt. to a certain level take it to be a taboo. To
sum up the issue it may be said that the working of the notification has
been a mix of success and failure. The onus of failure lies on those who are
the saviours. It is more the absence of firm resolve and strong will-power
to enforce the regulation that has failed the notification rather than the
notification itself – as is the case with most of the environmental
legislation. CRZ rules are being observed more in the breach rather in
adherence and this had the tacit support of the administration – Central or
State or both. A number of violations of CRZ area have taken place.
Destruction of sensitive ecology such as mangroves, coral reefs, breeding
sites of endangered species, illegal constructions in ‘No Development Zone’
without adhering to the norms are some of the major violations of the
notification. State Govts. have their own alibi in not having sufficient
infrastructure to take strict action against violations."

“This Notification raised a lot of heat and dust/unrest among the coastal
communities and they became very restive and agitated, since they felt that
it is an attempt on the part of the Government to deprive them of their life
and livelihood by displacing them from coastal areas, which has
traditionally sustained their life and livelihood. It was in this background
that the Committee decided to take up this subject for consideration and
examination. Besides inviting memoranda/views/comments from the individuals/
organizations...”

“The Committee finds that for a community of nearly 250 million people
living within a distance of 50 kms. from the coast, CEE could manage to
organise 35 public consultations in nine coastal States and was able to
interact with 3714 individuals belonging to various stakeholder groups...”

“10. Around 20 per cent of the population in the country dwells in coastal
areas and they depend mainly on fisheries to eke out their livelihood. It is
estimated that the fishermen population living along the coastal areas of
the country is around 67,30,300 as per livestock census of 1992. The
Committee is of the opinion that development should be people and not solely
economics oriented. As such the concerns of the poor and marginalized
sections of the coastal communities, the Committee feels, must be reflected
and addressed in State Policy. No attempt should be such as to divorce the
people from their cultural life-style and traditional livelihood or
interfere with practices that have sustained communities over three
millenniums and more. The Committee is of the opinion that in a country like
ours, where a large number of populace depend on natural resources for their
survival, social dimensions of livelihood security and biodiversity
conservation should be pivotal to all decision making pertaining to
development or economic considerations of revenue generation. But the
Committee is constrained to observe that these dimensions have not been
adequately incorporated in implementation of environmental laws and
regulations by the State as a result of which interventions by vigilant
public interest groups supported by the positive attitude of the judiciary
have played a key role in protecting and conserving environmental resources.
India’s natural resources – land, water, forest and air are getting depleted
and polluted at an alarming pace and the communities who live on them for
their livelihood are being constantly marginalized and displaced.”

“11. The Committee is of the opinion that Govt. should not make haste in
implementing the CMZ notification without addressing the conflict of
interests between the stakeholders – mainly the fisher folk/coastal
communities and all out efforts must be made first to assuage their feelings
and meet their concerns which the Committee feels, is not unfound, through
education, social mobilization and their active participation and
involvement in decision making. Panchayats can play a crucial role in
generating awareness among them. For this, Govt. should get the CMZ
notification translated into local languages and circulated widely in every
village/hamlet so that the local communities are made aware of the actual
implications of the notification and are not swayed by hearsay or guided by
misgivings about it. Govt. may also seriously think of bringing out a
legislation to ensure protection of rights of coastal communities to coastal
resources on the lines of the one meant for forest dwellers.”

“12. The Committee, in view of the above, recommends that the implementation
of CMZ notification be kept pending/in abeyance till
mechanisms/instruments-executive and legislative are put in place for
inclusion and integration of coastal communities through participative,
decision making and control instruments.”

*Appeal issued by KSMTF:*

Dear Friends,

The Kerala Swatantra Matsya Thozhilali Federation (Kerala Independent
Fishworkers Federation) would like to draw your attention to certain
alarming developments with respect to coastal policy reforms. We urge you to
join us in immediately resistance.

As you might be aware, the ten-month period that the Ministry of Environment
and Forests (MoEF) had given itself to vet public comments received on the
Draft Coastal Management Zone (CMZ) 2008 Notification comes to an end in
June. This Draft, based on the recommendations of the much-criticized
Swaminathan Committee Report, was an attempt to dismantle existing coastal
regulation and open up coastal regions for fast-paced, destructive economic
development. It was opposed not only by coastal communities, environmental
groups, women’s organizations, trade unions, NGOs but also by several
coastal state governments. The most recent caution against introducing such
a coastal management regime came in March 2009 from a high-powered
Parliamentary Standing Committee.

In the face of such opposition, the MoEF appears to be resorting to
underhand and devious methods to launch the CMZ. The Minister, Jairam Ramesh
has announced that on July 16 a fresh ‘hybrid’ rule will be issued that will
combine existing rules with the recommendations of the Swaminathan Committee
Report. This is nothing but the CMZ in the guise of existing rules, that is
to say, illicit new wine in an old bottle!

We must stand united in opposing this appalling move of the MoEF. A
statement to this effect is given below which we urge you to endorse. Please
write back to us with your endorsement and also do gather and send us
endorsements from other organizations.

The email address for responding is given below.

In solidarity,

T.Peter,

President,

Kerala Swatantra Matsya Thozhilali Federation (KSMTF)

Peter.ks...@gmail.com<http://202.146.198.11/cgi-bin/sqwebmail/login/ksmtf%40keralafish workers.org/5D9FAD8268C7C58AD67E1716CEC2E0AA/1245122931?folder=INBOX&form=n ewmsg&to=Peter.ks...@gmail.com>,
mobile:09447429243

www.keralafishworkers.org<http://202.146.198.11/cgi-bin/sqwebmail?timestamp=1245124896&md5=iOtY...>,
www.alakal.net<http://202.146.198.11/cgi-bin/sqwebmail?timestamp=1245124896&md5=iOtY...>

*Letter to Mr. Jairam Ramesh for Endorsement:*

*SAVE THE COASTS! OPPOSE BACKDOOR CHANGES TO COASTAL REGULATION NORMS!*

We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the planned move of the Ministry of
Environment and Forests (MoEF), as recently reported in the press, to
introduce by July 16, a new, ‘hybrid’ set of coastal regulatory rules which
will combine existing regulation and new rules based on the recommendations
of the Swaminathan Committee. This is completely unacceptable and we are
outraged by what appears to be a brazen attempt by the MoEF to introduce
through the backdoor, pro-industry and anti-people coastal reforms that are
being bitterly opposed by fishing and other coastal communities,
environmental organizations, women’s organizations, trade unions and NGOs.

The report of the Swaminathan Committee had recommended that existing
coastal regulation be dismantled and the coasts opened up to allow a wide
range of economic activities; that ‘no-development zone’ restrictions be
lifted in sensitive core areas and that the coastal zone be extended up to
12 nautical miles into the sea to make way for Notified Tourism Areas,
Special Economic Zones, mining projects, industrial estates, power plants,
ports and harbours. The report was rejected by the people who saw it as
facilitating the illegal takeover of coastal land from the poor. It was an
attempt to clear the path for unchecked coastal commercialization that did
not hesitate to put 10 million fisher people in harm’s way; to destroy
fragile and life-sustaining coastal ecosystems, and to significantly
increase the potential for global warming and climate change through opening
up coastal land for grabs.

The irresponsible and scheming recommendations subsequently formed the basis
of a Draft Coastal Management Zone (CMZ) 2008 Notification to which
objections were invited in May 2008. Several coastal state governments
opposed the draft. It was opposed by fishing communities, environmental
organizations, women’s organizations, trade unions and NGOs in every coastal
state. The recent report submitted by the Parliamentary Standing Committee
on Science, Technology, Environment and Forests clearly recommends that the
CMZ 2008 Notification be kept in abeyance. The Parliamentary Panel
criticized the Government’s attempt to bring new coastal legislation through
an undemocratic and non-participatory process. It has urged the Government
to ensure the “inclusion and integration of coastal communities through
participative, decision making and control instruments”.

The MoEF statement however indicates that while the CMZ 2008 Notification
will be kept pending, the existing 1991 Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ)
Notification to be issued on July 16 will now include the highly
objectionable Swaminathan Committee recommendations. This is nothing but
bringing the CMZ Notification through the backdoor! Was the public
engagement on the issue no more than mere eyewash to manage dissent? We
strongly condemn this underhand move of the newly formed UPA Government!

Reworking coastal rules to accommodate neo-liberal policies will endanger
both the coasts and the lives of 250 million coastal dwellers, including 10
million fisher people. Fisher women, whose main activities are
shoreline-based, are already suffering due to violations of existing norms
which have allowed exploitative economic activities, like mining, tourism
and hazardous industries to mushroom in coastal areas. Fisher women are
aware that if coastal policy is amended to legitimize full-scale
liberalization, they will have to bear the brunt of the resulting livelihood
insecurity, coastal erosion, unavailability of basic services, cultural
disintegration as well as increased sexual exploitation.

No change to coastal legislation can take place without proper consultations
with fishing populations, including women; complete consensus from all
coastal states; proper parliamentary discussion and national debate. We
therefore reiterate that the only way forward is to:

   1.

   Scrap any moves towards introducing the CMZ 2008 Notification
   2.

   Reject the Swaminathan Committee report recommendations
   3.

   Implement the 1991 CRZ Notification in its original form
   4.

   Immediately identify and punish violations of the original 1991 CRZ
   Notification
   5.

   Immediately recognize and uphold the traditional and customary rights of
   fisher people to housing, coastal lands as well as sea and marine resources.

Kerala Swatantra Malsya Thozhilaly Federation(KSMTF)

*Kerala Theeradesa Mahilavedi*

_______________________________________________
Bangalore_issues mailing list
Bangalore_iss...@lists.esgindia.org
http://lists.esgindia.org/mailman/listinfo/bangalore_issues

--
SAMALOCHANA
For Youth-For social justice
Dno 14-25-7,
KVR Naidu street
Anakapalle-531001
Visakhapatnam dist-AP
ph-(08924)329787

"We are realists. We dream the impossible." - Ernesto CheGuevara