Coastal Management

-Coastal Zone Management in India: An Environmental Law Perspective-
Introduction
A number of anti-pollution statutes establish limitations on noxious effluents or
emissions from any particular point-source. As valuable as these statutes are in protecting
the environment, they are inherently limited in scope. They are directed at only one of the
objectives of environmental land use planning; they have little, if any, efficacy as a
means of ensuring the integrity of ecosystems such as coastlands and wetlands, of
guarding against the dangers of flooding, and of preserving scarce resources for the
future. Even as a device for controlling pollution, statutes regulating point-source
emissions or effluents are not completely satisfactory in the absence of land use control.
First, since the strongest sources of pollution, such as heavy industrial plants, often are
grouped together territorially, substantial pollution still may result even if all individual
polluters meet the statutory limitations. Second, the ambient air and water quality
standards established by federal pollution statutes can impose serious constraints on land
use in areas where pollution already is near the prescribed limit so that an immediate
barrier to high-pollution development is erected. These considerations strongly suggest
the need for some kind of integrated land use planning to supplement individual point-
source controls and to ensure that the most desirable land uses are pursued within
acceptable air and water quality standards.
India has been blessed with over 6,000 km of coastline1, and being a peninsula, naturally
it has seen a lot of commercial nautical activity throughout history. The Indian coastline
supports almost 30% of its human population2. The Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea
are rich fishing grounds3. India continues to be the 7th largest marine fishing nation in the
world4. A large portion of this coastline is vulnerable to sea erosion and tidal overflow.
Only a portion of the vulnerable sea coast has been protected so far and lot of efforts are
required to be made to protect the remaining part within the limitations of the availability
of funds and other constraints. The Central Government had been providing assistance to
1
https://cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html, last visited on 18-07-2009
2
Id
3
Id
4
Id
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1692296

States for coastal protection upto 1991. But, subsequently the scheme was discontinued
and a new project under the banner of the Central Water Commission and Chairman
(CPDAC) called „National Coastal Protection Project (NCPP)‟ was to be formulated.
However, finally in 1991, the Government issued a notification known as the Coastal
Regulation Zone Notification 19915 which essentially stems from the powers under the
Environment Protection Act, 1986 and governs all aspects of coastal zone management in
India.
Internationally, there exist documents such as the Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone
Management in the Mediterranean6 and a Proposal for a Model Law on Sustainable
Management of Coastal Zones together with a draft European Code of Conduct for
Coastal Zones7. The purpose of model laws is to provide a standard text that states can
use as a basis for national legislation. The Model Law and the Code of Conduct do not
have the status of international conventions, since there is no obligation on any state to
apply them, and they can be modified to suit national circumstances 8. Of course there are
different countries across the globe who have enacted municipal laws regarding the same.
This paper comments on the coastal management in India that relates to the management
of resources on the coast. Almost all problems that are encountered in coastal policy fall
into three major domains of coastal policy problems: (i) those that relate to resource use
conflicts, (ii) those that relate to resource depletion and (iii) those that relate to pollution
or resource degradation. Policies for developments that relate to the coast have to be
sensitive to these three problems. Using this as an analytical lens, this paper aims to
critically analyze the coastal zone management program including a look at legislation,
judicial exposition and suggestions. Separate chapters of the Model Law are dedicated to
the creation of a database on the state of the coastal zone, financial instruments for
5
Infra
6
Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean, adopted at Barcelona 16 February
1976, and amended on 10 June 1995, http://195.97.36.231/dbases/webdocs/BCP/ProtocolICZM08_eng.pdf,
last visited on 22-07-2009
7
Available at http://www.unesco.org/csi/act/russia/legalpro5.htm#model, last visited on 22-07-2009
8
Id
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1692296

management, land ownership, free access to the shore, development and planning,
recreation, conservation of ecosystems, etc.9
Coastal Pollution and its Effects

Coastal pollution is a change in the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of
water & sediments. It causes degradation of the natural quality of the coastal
environments. It affects the health and survival of all forms of life.10
Coastal environmental resources comprise a diverse set of natural and manmade assets,
including mangroves, coral reefs, estuaries, coastal forests, genetic diversity, sand dunes,
geomorphologies, sand beaches, land for agriculture and human settlements, coastal
infrastructure, and heritage sites. These provide habitats for marine species, which, in
turn comprise the resource base for large numbers of fisher-folk, protection from extreme
weather events, a resource base for sustainable tourism, and agricultural and urban
livelihoods. In recent years there has been significant degradation of coastal resources,
for which the proximate causes include poorly planned human settlements, improper
location of industries and infrastructure, pollution from industries and settlements, and
overexploitation of living natural resources. In the future, sea level rise due to climate
change may have major adverse impacts on the coastal environment.
The causes of coastal pollution can be blamed on three main factors which are population
growth, industrialization and urbanization.
As per the figures given by the National Institute of Oceanography, Goa11, the major
annual pollutants by quantity are:
9
Gibson J., Legal and Regulatory bodies: Appropriateness to Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Final
report on behalf of MacAlister Elliott & Partners Ltd. October 1999, p.98 Web: http://www.macalister-
elliot.com
10
Supra.
11
National Institute of Oceanography, Dona Paula, Goa, India- March 2008, available at http://saarc-
sdmc.nic.in/pdf/workshops/goa/india/COASTAL%20AND%20MARINE%20POLLUTION.pdf, last
visited on 22-07-2009.
3
Input / Pollutant Quantum –Annual
Sediments 1600 Million Tonnes

Industrial effluents 50 x 106m3
Sewage -largely untreated 1.41 x 109m3
Garbage and other solids 34 x 106 Tonnes
Fertilizer –residue 5 x 106
Synthetic detergents –residue 1,30,000 Tonnes
Pesticides –residue 65, 000 Tonnes
Petroleum hydrocarbons (Tar balls residue) 3,500 Tonnes
Mining rejects, dredged spoils & sand extractions 0.2 x 106 Tonnes
Thus it is clear that a major chunk of coastal pollution in India arises mainly from land
based resources.
Another modern harmful cause of pollution and destruction of delicate coastal ecology is
the setting up of Special Economic Zones in coastal states like Gujarat which have left a
tremendous impact on the system.12
National Environmental Policy:

The National Environmental Policy, 200613 mentions that “Development activities in the
coastal areas are regulated by means of the Coastal Regulation Zone notifications and
Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) plans made under them. However, there is
need to ensure that the regulations are firmly founded on scientific principles, including
the physical, natural, and social sciences. This is necessary to ensure effective protection
to valuable coastal environmental resources, without unnecessarily impeding livelihoods,
or legitimate coastal economic activity, or settlements, or infrastructure development.
Islands offer unique ecosystems and coastal planning and regulation in their case needs
12
Manshi Asher, SEZs: Stirring up a Storm along the Indian Coast, July 2007,
http://infochangeindia.org/200707096062/Trade-Development/Analysis/SEZs-Stirring-up-a-storm-along-
the-Indian-coast.html, last visited on 22-07-2009
13
http://www.envfor.nic.in/nep/nep2006e.pdf, last visited on 22-07-2009.
4
to take into account features such as their geological nature, settlement patterns,
volcanic or coral nature of the island, size of the habitations, unique cultures, livelihood
patterns, etc. Adequate environmental safeguards should be built into development
projects in the islands, in particular those relating to tourism, high value agriculture,
deep sea fishing, prospecting for oil and natural gas, etc.”
Therefore as per the policy, the following actions had been proposed by the Government:
a) Revisit the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notifications to make the approach to
coastal environmental regulation more holistic, and thereby ensure protection to coastal
ecological systems, coastal waters, and the vulnerability of some coastal areas to extreme
natural events and potential sea level rise. The Integrated Coastal Zone Management
(ICZM) plans need to be comprehensive, and prepared on strong scientific basis by
experts with the participation of the local communities both in formulation and
implementation. The ICZM plans should be reviewed at pre-determined intervals to take
account of changes in geomorphology, economic activities, settlement patterns, and
coastal and marine environmental conditions.
b) Decentralize, to the extent feasible, the clearance of specific projects to State level
environmental authorities, exempting activities, which do not cause significant
environmental impacts, and are consistent with approved ICZM plans.
Coastal Zone Notification

Experts in the field are of the opinion that any approach to coastal management has to be
integrated involving a cross-sectional approach and resulting from „a temporal interaction
between scientists, policy makers, people, administrators and intellectuals‟14.
14
R. Sudarshana, Cross sectoral approaches to integrated coastal management / Alang and Bhavnagar
Bhal-India, available at http://www.csiwisepractices.org/?read=4, last visited on 23-07-2009
5
The Indian definition of coastal zones is given in the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ),
notification of 1991 which was in turn issued under the Environment Protection Act,
1986 and Environment Protection Rules, 1986 - Rule 5(3). Thus in India, till date, instead
of a specific legislation like the U.S.A15 or the UK16, the CRZ takes care of the coastal
zone management. The salient features of the main Notification are that a number of
activities were declared as prohibited in the Regulation Zones, which are as follows:
i) setting up of new industries and expansion of existing industries, except those directly
related to water front or directly needing foreshore facilities;
ii) manufacture or handling or storage or disposal of hazardous substances as specified in

the Notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests
No. S.O. 594 (E) dated 28.7.1989, S.O. 966(E) dated 27.11.1989 and GSR 1037 (E) dated
5.12.1989;
iii) setting up and expansion of fish processing units including warehousing (excluding
hatchery and natural fish drying permitted areas);
iv) setting up and expansion of units mechanisms for disposal of wastes and effluents,
except facilities required for discharging treated effluents into the water course with
approval under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 except for
storm water drains;
v) discharge of untreated wastes and effluents from industries, cities or towns and other
human settlements. Schemes shall be implemented by the concerned authorities for
phasing out he existing practices, if any, within a reasonable time period not exceeding
three years from the date of this Notification; vi) dumping of city or town wastes for the
15
Coastal Zone Management Act, 1972. Also see The Environmental Protection Agency and Coastal Zone
Management: Striking a Federal-State Balance of Power in Land Use Management, 11 HOUS. L. REV.
1152, 1156 (1974); Developments in the Law-Zoning- Environmental Land Use Regulation, 91 Harv. L.
Rev. 1578 (1978)
16
Marine and Coastal Access Bill, 2008. Also see Brian Greenwood & Sherryll L'oken, Marine and
Coastal Access Bill, E.L.M. 2009, 21(1), 47-48; Sarah Wotton, The UK draft Marine Bill, Env. Liability
2008, 16(3), 99-103;
6
purposes of land filling or otherwise; the existing practice, if any, shall be phased out
within a reasonable time not exceeding three years from the date of this Notification;
vii) dumping of ash or any wastes from thermal power stations;
viii) land reclamation, bunding or disturbing the natural course of sea water with similar
obstructions, except those required for control of coastal erosion and maintenance or
clearing of waterways, channels and ports and for prevention of sandbars and also except
for tidal regulators, storm water drains and structures for prevention of salinity ingress
and for sweet water recharge;
ix) mining of sands, rocks and other substrata materials, except those rare minerals not
available outside the CRZ areas;
x) harvesting or drawal of ground water and construction of mechanisms therefore,

within 200 m of HTL; in the 200 m to 500 m zone it shall be permitted only when done
manually through ordinary wells for drinking, horticulture, agriculture and fisheries;
xi) construction activities in ecologically sensitive areas as specified in Annexure-I of this

Notification;
xii) any construction activity between the Low Tide Line and High Tide Line except
facilities for carrying treated effluents and wastes water discharges into the sea, facilities
for carrying sea water for cooling purposes, oil, gas and similar pipelines and facilities
essential for activities permitted under this Notification; and
xiii) dressing or altering of sand dunes, hills, natural features including landscape changes
50 per cent of the plot size and the total height of construction shall not exceed 9 metres.
The provisions of this notification are discussed further on in detail through the judicial
exposition and discussion.
In view of the various representations from diverse interest groups pointing out the
inadequacies of the notification from the point of view of both conservation as well as
7
sustainable livelihoods, a number of Expert Committees had also been constituted by the
Central Government in the past to look in to these representations and a number of
amendments have been made in the notification since 1991 for addressing various
concerns. However, the need for a comprehensive review of the notification to ensure
that the management of the coastal resources is based on sound scientific principles has
remained. Therefore, as part of the Central Government‟s initiative for the review of all
environmental regulatory systems, the Ministry constituted an Expert Committee under
the Chairmanship of Prof. M.S. Swaminathan in July, 2004 to review the existing CRZ
Notification. The Terms of Reference of this Expert Committee included:
a) To review the reports of various Committees appointed by the Ministry of

Environment and Forests on coastal zone management, consider international practices,
and suggest the scientific principles for an integrated coastal zone management best
suited for the country;
b) To define and enlist various coastal and marine resources and recommend the
methodology for their identification and the extent of safeguards required for
conservation and protection;
c) To revisit the CRZ Notification, 1991 in the light of the above and recommend
necessary amendments to make the regulatory framework consistent with
recommendations on (a) and (b) above and the Environment (protection) Act, 1986
The Committee had come out with various recommendations which included a complete
overhaul of the 1991 system and pursuant to this a draft notification had been circulated
in May 200817 for objections and suggestions. However, this draft notification could not
be implemented and on 22nd July 2009 the notification lapsed18.
The other legislations concerned with coastal pollution to a certain extent include the
Shore Nuisances (Bombay and Kolaba) Act, 1853 and the Indian Fisheries Act, 1897.
17
S.O.No.1070(E), Ministry of Environment and Forests Notification,
http://www.envfor.nic.in/legis/crz/so-1070(e).pdf, last visited on 17-07-2009
18
Lapsing of the Coastal Zone Notification 2008, http://moef.gov.in/divisions/iass/2009-07-
24%20Press%20Release%20-%20CMZ%20Lapse.pdf, last visited on 25-07-2009
8
Coastal Zone Management Authority

The Government of India post the orders of the Supreme Court in various litigations19
established a National Coastal Zone Management Authority20 in 1998 as well as various
Coastal State Authorities as per the directions21.
The Central Authority has the power to take various measures for protecting and
improving the quality of the coastal environment and preventing, abating and controlling
environmental pollution in coastal areas including coordination between the state
authorities22, examination of the proposals for changes and modifications in classification
of Coastal Regulation Zone areas and in the Coastal Zone Management Plans23 and
review of cases and complaints24.
Judicial Exposition
i. Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action v. Union of India25
The Petitioners filed a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution out
of concern for the environment and the proper implementation of the CRZ notification of
1991.
19
Infra
20
S. O.991 (E)., Ministry of Environment and Forests Notification, available at
http://www.envfor.nic.in/legis/crz/so991.htm, last visited on 25-07-2009
21
Infra
22
Clause II (i), of S.O.991(E), Supra
23
Clause II (ii) of S.O.991(E), Supra
24
Clause II (iii) of S.O.991(E), Supra
25
(1996) 5 SCC 281 hereinafter the CMZ Implementation Case
9
The main grievance in this petition was that a Notification dated 19.2.1991 declaring
coastal stretches as Coastal Regulation Zones (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulation
Zones which regulates the activities in the said zones had not been implemented or
enforced. This had led to continued degradation of ecology in the said coastal areas.
There was also a challenge to the validity of the Notification dated 18.8.1994 whereby
the first Notification dated 19.2.1991 had been amended, resulting in further relaxations
of the provisions of 1991 Notification and such relation, it was alleged, would help in
defeating the intent of the main Notification itself.
In view of the allegations made, the Apex Court delved into a history of what went
behind the said notification right from 1981 to the setting up of the research committees
to the final promulgation of the guidelines for beaches and last the promulgation of the
notification of 1991 itself.
As part of the notification there were provisions that provided for regulation of
permissible activities. Further more, the coastal States and Union Territory
Administrations were required to prepare, within one year from the date of the main
Notification, Coastal Zone Management Plans (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Management Plans') identifying and clarifying the Regulation Zones areas within their
respective territories in accordance with the guidelines contained in the main Notification
and those plans were required to be approved, with or without modification, by the
Central Government, Ministry of Environment and Forests. The main Notification also
stipulated that within the framework of the approved management Plans, all
developments and activities within the Regulation Zones, except the prohibited activities
and those which required environment clearance from Ministry of Environment and
Forests, Government of India, were to be regulated by the State Government, Union
Territory Administration or the local Authority, as the case may be, in accordance with
the guidelines contained in Annexures I and II of the main Notification.
Annexure I consists of Clause 6(1) which relates to the classification of coastal regulation
zone. The norms for regulation activities in the said zones are provided by Clause 6(2) for
10
regulating development activities. The Coastal stretches within 500 metres of HTL of the
landward side are classified under Clause 6(1) into four categories, which are as under:
a) Category I (CRZ-I) includes the areas that are ecologically sensitive and important,
such as national parks/marine parks, sanctuaries etc., areas rich in genetic diversity, areas
likely to be inundated due to rise in sea level consequent upon global warming and such
other areas as have been declared by the Central Government or the concerned authorities
at the State/Union Territory level from time to time. In ' addition thereto, CRZ I also
contains the area between the LTL and the HTL.
b) Category II (CRZ II) contains the areas that have already been developed upto or close
to the shore line. This is the area which is within the municipal limits or in other legally
designated urban areas which is already substantially built up and which has been
provided with drainage and approach roads and other infrastructure facilities, such as
water supply and sewerage mains.
c) Category III (CRZ III) is the area which was originally undisturbed and includes those
areas which do not belong either to category I or Category II. CRZ III includes coa zone
in the rural areas (developed and undeveloped) and also areas within the municipal limits
or in other legally designated urban areas which are not substantially built up.
d) Category IV (CRZ IV) contains the coastal stretches in the Andaman & Nicobar
Lakshadweep and small islands except those designated as CRZ I, CRZ II or CRZ III.
In the Writ Petition, specific allegations were also contained to the effect that Ministry of
Environment and Forests. Government of India had issued another Notification dated
20.6.1991 under Clause (5) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act declaring Dahanu
Taluka, District Thane, Maharashtra as an ecologically fragile area. The main
Notification was issued so as to ensure that the development activities are consistent with
the environmental guidelines for beaches and coastal areas and to impose restrictions on
the setting up of industries which have detrimental effect on the coastal environment.
This Notification also required the Government of Maharashtra to prepare a master plan
or regional plan for the Dahanu Taluka based on the existing land use of Dahanu within a
11
period of one year from the Notification and to get the said plan approved by the Ministry
of Environment and Forests. The master plan and the regional plan was to demarcate all
the existing green areas, orchards, tribal area and other environmentally sensitive areas in
the said Dahanu Taluka. Industries which were using chemicals above the
limits/quantities prescribed by the Act or by Rules were to be considered hazardous
industries. The hazardous waste was required to be disposed of in the identified areas
after taking precautionary measures. This Notification also required the Government of
Maharashtra to constitute a monitoring committee to ensure the compliance or conditions
mentioned in the Notification in which local representatives may be included.
According to the petitioner, the Maharashtra Government has not implemented the
directions contained in the said Notification and has permitted development activities
which have resulted in new polluting industries being established in the coastal area,
thereby seriously endangering the ecology. The industries which are operating in Dahanu
are stated to be balloon manufacturing units, buffing and chromium plating units and
chemical units. There has been a failure to make the master plan or the regional place for
the said Dahanu Taluka and indiscriminate licenses have been issued and consent given
to new industries by the State Government and the predominately agricultural area is
slowly being converted into an industrial area in complete disregard of environmental
laws, guidelines and notifications.
According to Clause 3(i) of the main Notification, the coastal States and Union Territory
Administrations were required to prepare the Management Plans within one year from the
date of the main Notification. This was essential for the implementation of the said
Notification. According to the Apex Court, “The lack of commitment on the part of these
States and Administrations, towards the protection and regulation of the coastal
stretches, is evident from their inaction in complying with the aforesaid statutory
directive requiring the preparation of Management Plans within the specified period. In
view of the fact that there had been a non-compliance with this provision, this Court on
3.4.1995 directed all the coastal States and Union Territory Administrations to frame
their plans within a further period of six weeks thereof.”
12
A status report was filed in court by the Union of India which showed non-compliance of
Clause 3(i) by practically everyone concerned. While some of the States and Union
Territory Administrations submitted their plans, though belatedly, except in the case of
Pondicherry, none of the other plans were approved by the Central Government. Some
modifications were suggested and those States and Union Territories had to resubmit
their plans. The State of Orissa had only partly complied with this Court's order dated
3.4.1994 inasmuch as the plans submitted by it were only for a small part of a coast. The
State of West Bengal only submitted as preliminary concept while States of Andhra
Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka and Kerala did not care to submit any plans at all. Therefore,
the Court held that these six States namely, Orissa, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh,
Gujarat, Karnataka and Kerala have to be answerable for non-compliance with the
directions issued by this Court on 3.4.1995.
The Court expressed its disappointment with the affidavits and explanations given by the
state for the delay and stated that “If the mere enactment of the laws relating to the
protection of environment was to ensure a clean and pollution free environment, then
India would, perhaps, be the least polluted country in the world. But, this is not so. There
are stated to be over 200 Central and State Statutes which have at least some concern
with environment protection, either directly or indirectly. The plethora of such
enactments has, unfortunately, not resulted in preventing environmental degradation
which, on the contrary, has increased over the years.26”
Further they said that the “Enactment of a law, relating to protection of environment,
usually provides for what activity can or cannot be done by people. If the people were to
voluntarily respect such a law, and abide by it, then it would result in law being able to
achieve the object for which it was enacted. Where, however, there is a conflict between
the provision of law and personal interest, then it often happens that self-discipline and
respect for law disappear. Enactment of a law, but tolerating its infringement, is worse
than not enacting law at all. The continued infringement of law, over a period of time, is
made possible by adoption of such means which are best known to the violators of law.
Continued tolerance of such violations of law not only renders legal provisions nugatory
26
¶ 25 of the CMZ Implementation Case, Supra
13
but such tolerance by the Enforcement Authorities encourages lawlessness and adoption
of means which cannot, or ought not to, be tolerated in any civilized society. Law should
not only be meant for law abiding but is meant to be obeyed by all for whom it has been
enacted. A law is usually enacted because the Legislature feels that it is necessary. It is
with a view tp protect and preserve the environment and save it for the future generations
and to ensure good quality of life that the Parliament enacted the Anti-Pollution Laws,
namely, the Water Act, Air Act and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. These Acts
and Rules framed ar.d Notification issued thereunder contain provisions which prohibit
and/or regulate certain activities with a view to protect and preserve the environment.
When a law is enacted containing some provisions which prohibits certain types of
activities, then, it is of utmost importance that such legal provisions are effectively
enforced. If a law is enacted but is not being voluntarily obeyed, then, it has to be
enforced. Otherwise, infringement of law, which is actively or passively condoned for
personal gain, will be encouraged which will in turn lead to a lawless society. Violation
of anti-pollution laws not only adversely affects the existing quality of life but the non-
enforcement of the legal provisions often results in ecological imbalance and
degradation of environment, the adverse affect of which will have to be borne by the
future generations.”27
Therefore they held that present case also showed that having issued the main
Notification, no follow-up action was taken either by the coastal States and Union
Territories or by the Central Government. The provisions of the main Notification appear
to have been ignored and, possibly, violated with impunity. The coastal States and Union
Territory Administrations were required to prepare Management Plans within a period of
one year from the date of the Notification but this was not done. The Central Government
was to approve the plans which were to be prepared but it did not appear to have
reminded any of the coastal States or the Union Territory Administrations that the plans
had not been received by it.
The Court then went on to the issue of the amendment to the notification after
reprimanding the states and discussed how it was not possible to have environmental
27
¶ 26 of the CMZ Implementation Case, Supra
14
legislation to have the same rigid norms for the whole country. It dealt with the
modifications each one by one and upheld some and held some to be ultra vires.
As part of a general conclusion, they stated “With rapid industrialisation taking place,
there is an increasing threat to the maintenance of the ecological balance. The general
public is becoming aware of the need to protect environment. Even though, laws have
been passed for the protection of environment, the enforcement of the same has been
tardy, to say the least. With the governmental authorities not showing any concern with
the enforcement of the said Acts, and with the development taking place for personal
gains at the expense of environment and with disregard to the mandatory provisions of
law, some public spirited persons have been initiating public interest litigations.28”
Accordingly they ordered that any further doubts regarding the notification were to be
challenged in high courts, that there were to be constituted State Coastal Management
Authorities in each State or zone and also a National Coastal Management Authority to
unload the burden of the pollution control boards, and the states were ordered to comply
with the notification requirements.
ii. S. Jagannath v. Union of India29
The petition was filed by S. Jagannath who was the chairman of Gram Swaraj Movement
under Article 32. In the petition, the reliefs sought included enforcement of Coastal Zone
Regulation Notification dated February 19, 1991 issued by the Government of India,
stoppage of intensive and semi-intensive type of prawn farming in the ecologically fragile
coastal areas prohibition from using the waste lands/wet lands for Prawn farming and
Constitution of a National Coastal Management Authority to safeguard the marine life
and coastal areas.
28
¶ 35 of the CMZ Implementation Case
29
AIR 1997 SC 811, hereinafter The Shrimp Case
15
Under an order dated December 12, 1994, all the respondent States were directed to not
permit the setting up of any Industry on the area at least upto 500 metres from the sea
water at the maximum High Tide. The above said area i.e. from the High Tide Level upto
500 metres shall be kept free from all construction of any type.
Under another order dated March 27, 1995, the Supreme Court directed NEERI(National
Environmental Engineering Research Institute ), Nagpur through its Director to appoint
an investigating team to visit the coastal areas of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil
Nadu and give its report to this Court regarding the various farms which are being set up
in the said area.
In yet another order under the proceedings dated May 9, 1995, the Court directed directed
that no part of agricultural lands and salt farms be converted into commercial aquaculture
farms hereinafter, that no ground water withdrawal, be allowed for aquaculture purposes
to any of the industries whether already existing or in the process of being set up. No
further shrimp farms or any aquaculture farms be permitted to be set up in the areas in
dispute hereinafter and directed the respective State Governments (the Collector
concerned or any other Officer appointed by the Government) to provide free access
through aquaculture units to the sea coast to the fishermen/tourists after hearing the
parties concerned.
Finally by an order dated August 24, 1995, the Supreme Court directed the coastal
States/Union Territory Governments, to issue individual notices to all the aqua-farms
which are located in their respective territories that if they want to be heard in these
matters by this Court, they be present through their counsel/representatives in the Court
and directed the Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA), to do the
same exercise at its level also. In addition it also directed all the State
Governments/Union Territories to issue public notices in this respect in daily newspapers
which have circulation in the coastal areas, informing the aqua-farms regarding the
hearing of these matters in the Apex Court, on October 17, 1995.
16
Aqualculture in the traditional form is usually small-scale, using low inputs and relies on
natural tidal action for water-exchange. Chemicals, antibiotics and processed feeds are
not used. Thus there are no adverse affect on the environment. However when done in the
modern way, it is larger in scale; intensive or semi-intensive in nature, owned and
operated by commercial and often foreign-owned companies for export. In intensive
aquaculture, selected species are bred using a dense stocking rate and artificial feed,
chemical additives and antibiotics are used.
The Supreme Court while delivering its final judgment, analyzed and relied on a number
of environmental reports including one by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)
- an organ of United Nations Organisation (UNO) which published a report in April,
1995 on a Regional Study and workshop on the Environmental Assessment and
Management of Aquaculture Development30. Mr. Alagarswami, Director, Central
Institute of Brackish water Aquaculture, Madras presented a paper titled "the current
status of aquaculture in India, the present phase of development and future growth
potential", (hereinafter called Alagarswami report)31
The Algarswami report analyzed the aquaculture through the following perspectives
including Physical factors, Right of passage of coastal fishermen, Drinking water
problems, Salinisation and Mangrove areas.
The Problems:
As per the report “Shrimp farming along the coastal area of the whole country is
developing at a rapid rate. Huge cyclone protection dykes and peripheral dykes are
constructed by the shrimp farmers. In many cases as in Kandleru creek (Andhra Pradesh),
the farm areas are the natural drainage areas for floods. Due to physical obstruction
caused by the dykes, the natural drain is blocked and flood water accumulates in the
hinterland villages. Protests are being made by people in some of the villages against
30
¶ 10 of the Shrimp Case, Supra
31
Id
17
such dykes. The ponds are constructed right on the bank of the creeks without leaving
any area for draining of flood water ”32
The shrimp farms did not provide access to the beach for traditional fishermen who had
to reach the sea from their villages. As farms are located and entry is restricted, the
fishermen had to take a longer route to the sea for their operations. This was being
objected to by traditional fishermen.33
The Corporate sector had purchased vast areas adjoining the villages which, in some
cases, included drinking water public wells of the villages. The villagers could not use
those wells afterwards as they were located in private land owned by the farmers. This
was causing social problems.34
It was reported that salinisation of land was spreading further landwards and the wells
yielded only saline water. In Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh protests had been voiced
against salinisation. Some of the socially conscious shrimp farm operators did provide
drinking water to the affected villages by laying a pipeline from their own freshwater
source wherever available. Apart from wells, the agricultural farms adjoining the shrimp
farms were reported to be affected. However, there was an increase in conversion of
paddy fields as in the Bhimavaram area of Andhra Pradesh and even on the fringes of
Chilka Lake into shrimp farms.35
In the earlier years, vast areas of mangrove were destroyed for agriculture, aquaculture
and other uses. In the more recent years, the mangroves had been protected by law.
However, the satellite imagery pictures on record36 showed destruction of mangroves in
Krishna and Guntur Districts of Andhra Pradesh for construction of shrimp farms.
Gujarat State was planning major shrimp culture programmes in the Narmada region
32
Id
33
Id
34
Id
35
Id
36
Id
18
adjoining Gulf of Cambay. Therefore it was urged that protection of mangroves should
receive attention.37
The Alagarswami report also further indicated that the demand for shrimp seed was
growing with the expansion of shrimp culture and hatchery production was unable to
meet it. Exploitation of natural seed resources was therefore growing unabated,
particularly in West Bengal, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh. Large quantity of fry by-catch
were discarded by the fry collectors because the then-value was insignificant. The report
stated "elimination of fry in the fry by-catch is not only detrimental to the predators
thriving on them, but it also creates an ecological imbalance"38.
The Supreme Court also relied on the NEERI report which stated the following39:
 Conclusions and Recommendations on the attenuation of the Impact of

Aquaculture Farming on Ecologically Fragile Areas in States of AP, TN, and
Union Territory of Pondicherry.
 Cost of ecological and social damage far exceed the benefits that accrue out of the
coastal aquaculture activities.
 MEF's norms for location of aquaculture and hatcheries have been violated in the
States of AP, TN, and Union Territory of Pondicherry.
 Current practice of installation of coastal aquaculture farms within 500 m HTL
violates the fundamental rights and livelihood of people in the States AP and TN,
and the Union Territory of Pondicherry.
Another NEERI report found that40
 State Government of TN‟ Bill to provide for the regulation of coastal aquaculture
on April 10, 1995 is not in consonance with the MEF's notification dated 19, 1991
as it allows the construction of aquaculture units within 500 m of HTL of the sea.
37
status report on mangroves of India published by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (GOI, 1987)
shown in Table 5 provided in the Shrimp Case, Supra
38
39
40
¶ ¶ 27 ,28 of the Shrimp Case, Supra
19
 The cost of eco-restoration of the coastal fragile area must be borne by the
individual entrepreneur of the commercial aquaculture farms in keeping with the
polluter-pays principle.
 No commercial coastal aquaculture activity should be undertaken even beyond
500 m HTL unless a comprehensive and scientific environmental impact
assessment (EIA) study has been conducted
 Commercial aquaculture farms are being installed near the cultivated lands and
the salt water from the farms damages the productivity of the adjoining lands.
 Groundwater also gets contaminated due to seepage of impounded water from the
aquaculture ponds.
 Desertification of cultivable land is on the increase due to salinity intrusion.
 Due to commercial aquaculture farms, there is a loss of
 - mangrove ecosystems; casuarina plantations; grazing grounds for cattle; potable
water to contiguous population; fish catch; fishing nets; agricultural produce;
manpower loss due to non-approachability of fishermen to sea shore directly.
 There is a perceptible increase in the diseases of skin and eye, and water borne
diseases
 No provision has been made for wastewater treatment facility enabling recycling
and re-use of wastewater.
 Prohibition on conversion of agricultural lands and salt farms into commercial
aquaculture farms must be enforced with immediate effect.
 No groundwater withdrawal must be allowed for aquaculture purposes.
 Free access through aquaculture unit to the sea coast must be provided to the
traditional fishermen.
 No aquaculture farm based on brackish water should be installed on inland
brackish water bodies.
 Wild seed collection from creek and sea must be prohibited. Seed must be
procured from hatcheries. If seed collection is noticed it must immediately be
seized and dumped back into the creek.
20
Thus the two NEERI reports clearly indicated that due to commercial acquaculture
farming there was considerable degradation of the mangrove eco-systems, depletion or
Casuarina plantations, pollution of potable waters, reduction in fish catch, and blockage
of direct approach to the sea-shore. Agriculture lands and salt farms were being converted
into commercial acquaculture farms. The ground water had got contaminated due to
seepage of impounded water from the acquaculture farms. Highly polluted effluents were
discharged by the shrimp-farms into the sea and on the sea-coast41.
It was also highlighted that certain provisions of the State legislations, including that of
the State of Tamil Nadu were not in consonance with the CRZ notification issued by the
Government of India under Section 3(3) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the Act
being a central legislation had the overriding effect. The Act (the Environment Protection
Act, 1986) had been enacted under Entry 13 of List 1 Schedule VII of the Constitution of
India from which the notification flows.
The Court thus directed that the Central Government was to constitute an authority under
Section 8(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and shall confer on the said
authority all the powers necessary to protect the ecologically fragile coastal areas, sea
shore, water front and other coastal areas and specially to deal with the situation created
by the shrimp culture industry in coastal States Union Territories. The authority so
constituted by the Central Government was to implement "the Precautionary principle"
and "the Polluter Pays" principles. The shrimp culture industry/the shrimp ponds were
covered by the prohibition contained in para 2(i) of the CRZ Notification. No shrimp
culture pond could be constructed or set up within the coastal regulation zone as defined
in the CRZ notification. Further no part of the agricultural land and salt farms could be
converted into aqua culture farms, all the infrastructure set up within the CRZ such as
shrimp culture farms was to be demolished and removed; aquaculture industry
functioning within one km of the Chilika and Pulicat lakes were compensate the affected
persons; all employees/workmen engaged in the shrimp culture industry for less than one
year were to be retrenched and those employed for more than one year paid compensation
41
21
and aquaculture industry functioning outside the CRZ should obtain clearance from the
authority within a specified period failing which they must stop their operations
Lacunae in the System

Upon a detailed analysis of the policy regarding coastal zone management in India, there
are a few obvious loopholes that stand out.
To begin with, India lacks a definite legislative framework that provides a holistic
approach to the protection and preservation of its rich cultural resources.
As we have seen the notification, which is under the Ministry of Environment and Forests
has been prone to amendments that tend to be extending loopholes within the notification
rather than bridging the gap. Even through the various litigation that has reached the
Supreme Court the extent of the problem is clear42.
Even the much hyped 2008 notification43, which was drafted based on the
recommendations of a high profile committee under the chairmanship of Dr. M.S.
Swaminathan44, has a lot of loopholes still to be fixed:
 need for approval (against endorsement) of the ICZMP areas by the Central
government45,
 requirement of coastal/offshore desalination plants and wind farms along the
coastal belt to mitigate drinking water and energy needs in future of the vast
population,
 necessity to include underwater heritage sites in CMZ-III46 and ship
wrecks/underwater oceanoriums in CMZ-II47,
42
Dighi Koli Samaj Mumbai Rahivasi Sangh v. Union of India; Public Interest Litigation No. 42 of 2009
and Decided On: 09.07.2009; Goan Real Estate and Construction Ltd. and Anr. v. People's Movement for
Civic Action and Ors. 2008 (11) SCALE 684; The Goa Foundation v. Ramesh Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd.
and Ors MANU/ MH/ 0686/ 2008; Shri David D'souza v. The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority,
(2005) 107 BOM LR 807; Goa Foundation v. Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Ors 2000 (1) SCALE 407
43
Supra Note
44
http://www.casmbenvis.nic.in/sdnp/policy.htm, last visited on 25-07-2009
45
Clause 6 (ii) of the Notification. Supra.
22
 relevance of finalised ICZMP against abnormal surges like tsunami effects,

 need for more seaward roads to improve connectivity in future,
 need to shift Fish Processing and Aqua Culture to CMZ-II48,
 include coastal and sea surveys in CMZ-III49,
 need to have Ship Navigation facilities (including Light Houses) in CMZ-III50
Conclusion and the Way Ahead

It has been stated that India‟s beaches are now facing an imminent danger of disappearing
as result of many factors51.
If the threat is anywhere close to what it is stated to be, immediate protective measures
need to be taken by the state if they have to be saved at all.
In addition, specially keeping in mind the fact that the notification of 200852 came under
severe scrutiny53, which eventually never materialized from its draft form and lapsed54; it
is now more than ever that India needs an all encompassing legislation which protects,
preserves and manages effectively its lengthy coastline, the importance of which cannot
be stressed enough55
In the meantime, the following efforts can be pursued in order to mitigate the damage:
46
Appendix III, Id
47
Appendix IV, Id
48
Supra Note 34
49
Supra Note 35
50
Id
51
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/new/NDTV-Show-Special.aspx?ID=169; Goa‟s Disappearing
Coastline, http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/new/Ndtv-Show-Special-
Story.aspx?ID=169&StoryID=NEWEN20090097349&ch=615200981400AM; Gujarat‟s Mangroves under
Threat, http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/new/Ndtv-Show-Special-
Story.aspx?ID=169&StoryID=NEWEN20090096611&ch=69200962100PM , last visited on 25-07-2009
52
Supra
53
New Coastal Policy Threatens Fishermen, http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/new/Ndtv-Show-
Special-Story.aspx?ID=169&StoryID=NEWEN20090097253&ch=6132009105200PM, last visited on 25-
07-2009
54
Supra
55
Kalidas Sawkar, Coastal Management Policy in India: A Commentary, Coastin, September 2001, p.5-9
23
 Public awareness
 Cleaning programme
 Setstandards for effluent discharge
 Minimal use of pesticides
 Strict implementation of polluter pays principal
 Strict implementation of laws pertaining to prevention & coastal zone
management before establishing new industrial units on the coast
In order to preserve & protect the coastal environment Judicious and responsible
application of scientific knowledge on all aspects of pollution is essential.
24

Coastal Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coastal Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

-Coastal Zone Management in India: An Environmental Law Perspective-

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1692296

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1692296

Coastal Pollution and its Effects

Input / Pollutant Quantum –Annual

Sediments 1600 Million Tonnes

National Environmental Policy:

Coastal Zone Notification

ii) manufacture or handling or storage or disposal of hazardous substances as specified in

vii) dumping of ash or any wastes from thermal power stations;

x) harvesting or drawal of ground water and construction of mechanisms therefore,

xi) construction activities in ecologically sensitive areas as specified in Annexure-I of this

a) To review the reports of various Committees appointed by the Ministry of

Coastal Zone Management Authority

ii. S. Jagannath v. Union of India29

 Conclusions and Recommendations on the attenuation of the Impact of

Another NEERI report found that40

Lacunae in the System

 relevance of finalised ICZMP against abnormal surges like tsunami effects,

Conclusion and the Way Ahead

You might also like