-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear friends, In response to the call of National Fishworkers Forum(NFF), Kerala Swathanthra Malsyathozhilaly Federation (KSMTF) is organizing the protest against SEZs& CMZ (Dr.Swaminathan Committee recommendation) on 5th June 2007 at AG's office, Trivandrum at 2pm. The dharna will be inaugurated by Smt.Medha Patker, the leader of NBA& NAPM. We request you to collaborate and support the event. In solidarity, T.Peter, KSMTF Background on CMZ ================= MoEF is issued a Draft Notification on Costal Management Zones. It will replace the CRZ notification of 1991 and will open a floodgate of loot in the coastal zone and the territorial waters and destroy they coastal communities and environment. I am pasting bellow some reflections on the proposed notification. The full text of the Swaminathan Committee Report can be downloaded from the MoEF website http://envfor.nic.in/mef/crz_report.doc or http://envfor.nic.in/mef/crz_report.pdf Comments on CMZ (A). V.Vivekanandan Though based on the internationally accepted concept of integrated coastal area management (ICAM), the Swaminathan recommendations will create problems in India where the state is itself keen on diluting many of the CRZ provisions. The following are some of our main criticisms of the MOEF trying to introduce CMZ based on the Swaminathan Committee report. 1. The Committee report is only a starting point for a debate on how to manage the coastal zone and cannot be the basis for a new legislation immediately. In fact the committee itself seems to suggest this. 2. The committee report is based on inputs from many stakeholders, but the most important stakeholders, the fishermen who live on the coast and who depend the most on coastal resources, have not been consulted at all. The Chairman himself had suggested this but the MoEF had not facilitated the participation of the fishermen leaders in any of the meetings. So, the process is questionable. 3. There are many points in the report that only give the basic concept or idea but one is unable to comment without getting more details. One such point is the development of a vulnerability/hazard line. How this will be precisely fixed and who will fix it is not very clear. This will decide the no-development zone as well as the restricted development zone. 4. The inclusion of the territorial waters (upto 12 nautical miles) in the coastal zone has been done without much explanation and is very confusing. How this will affect the classification and implementation of the CMZ is not clear. For instance, if there is a mangrove in on the shore, and the area is designated CMZ I, will the sea area upto 12 nautical miles be also subject to CMZ I regulations? If there is a coral reef in the sea, will the land portion be also designated CMZ I? What will be rules governing fishing in the CMZ I, II, III and IV? Given that fish resources are mobile, how can fish resources be managed by a Panchayat or municipality with a narrow coastline? Our fear is that the sea upto 12 nautical miles has been included so that the local body will have the powers to give license for extracting of non living resources like sand and minerals to private parties. 5. While the logic of decentralisation and local resource management is good, it seems doubtful that Panchayats and Municipal Corporations can be straight away given these responsibilities. The experience so far in CRZ implementation, it is the local bodies that collude with vested interests and allow the illegal use of coastal resources. It is a high risk to straight away make this radical change. We suggest that pilot projects be run in all the states to demonstrate the CMZ concept before it is made into a national legislation covering the entire 8600 km coast of India. 6. The introduction of the CMZ is likely to be lead to a condoning of the past CRZ violations. This is completely unacceptable. 7. Another issue is that of departmental/ministerial jurisdictions. CMZ requires an interdisciplinary effort and cooperation across ministries and between the Centre and the State. The MOEF is not the only agency involved in the coast and is probably not the best agency to take up the responsibility to manage the coast. MOEF is largely the offshoot of the Forest Dept and the wildlife protection act. For instance, it is the Water Resources Ministry that is responsible for coastal protection (sea walls, etc.). The fisheries department, which is probably the entity that deals with fishermen, the key stakeholders on the coast, is nowhere in the picture and has not been consulted at all. At state level the MOEF deals only with the Forest departments and none of the state fisheries or revenue departments have given any feedback on the Swaminathan Committee report. In view of the above, it is better that CRZ implementation is strengthened and pilot projects to develop and demonstrate integrated coastal zone management are taken up. We also suggest that the MoEF bring out a policy note on the CMZ rather than say that it is bringing out a notification based on the Swaminathan Committee. Based on the policy note, the MoEF should conduct consultations across the country with all stakeholders before taking any decision on the CMZ notification. There is very little trust in the MoEF which acts arbitrarily and its positions are often violently contradictory and is subject to pressures from the environmental groups on one side and corporate sector on the other. (B) Chandrika Sharma I have had a quick look through the draft. The same concerns, as for the earlier draft, apply. There is unlikely that any action on post-1991 violations will be taken. Though the objective of the new Notification mentions the need to take into account the sustainable livelihoods of local communities, this is not reflected in any way in the rest of the Notification. In CMZ-I, it is likely that there will be severe restrictions on fishing, now that the 0-12 mile zone will be part of the coastal zone. CMZ-II is clearly a concession to commercial interests, and with the new provision that if appropriate coastal protection structures are in place, development on the seaward side of the setback line will be allowed, there is all likelihood of SEZs, tourism resorts etc., coming up right on the coast. No mention of EIAs. What is very disturbing is that there is no representative of the Ministry of Agriculture in the proposed National Board for Sustainable Coastal Zone Management. Very strange, given that now the 0-12 mile zone is also under the coastal zone. This will have major implications. Also, none of the experts to be on the board, are from fisheries. Some concerted action to highlight key concerns is clearly needed. Dear Medhaji, I am sending you the draft notification that the MoEF is all set to notify soon. It will replace the CRZ notification of 1991 and will open a floodgate of loot in the coastal zone and the territorial waters and destroy they coastal communities and environment. I am pasting bellow some reflections on the proposed notification. The draft and our earlier protest letter is in attachment. The full text of the Swaminathan Committee Report can be downloaded from the MoEF website http://envfor.nic.in/mef/crz_report.doc or http://envfor.nic.in/mef/crz_report.pdf Regards Harekrishna Debnath Comments on CMZ (A). V.Vivekanandan Though based on the internationally accepted concept of integrated coastal area management (ICAM), the Swaminathan recommendations will create problems in India where the state is itself keen on diluting many of the CRZ provisions. The following are some of our main criticisms of the MOEF trying to introduce CMZ based on the Swaminathan Committee report. 1. The Committee report is only a starting point for a debate on how to manage the coastal zone and cannot be the basis for a new legislation immediately. In fact the committee itself seems to suggest this. 2. The committee report is based on inputs from many stakeholders, but the most important stakeholders, the fishermen who live on the coast and who depend the most on coastal resources, have not been consulted at all. The Chairman himself had suggested this but the MoEF had not facilitated the participation of the fishermen leaders in any of the meetings. So, the process is questionable. 3. There are many points in the report that only give the basic concept or idea but one is unable to comment without getting more details. One such point is the development of a vulnerability/hazard line. How this will be precisely fixed and who will fix it is not very clear. This will decide the no-development zone as well as the restricted development zone. 4. The inclusion of the territorial waters (upto 12 nautical miles) in the coastal zone has been done without much explanation and is very confusing. How this will affect the classification and implementation of the CMZ is not clear. For instance, if there is a mangrove in on the shore, and the area is designated CMZ I, will the sea area upto 12 nautical miles be also subject to CMZ I regulations? If there is a coral reef in the sea, will the land portion be also designated CMZ I? What will be rules governing fishing in the CMZ I, II, III and IV? Given that fish resources are mobile, how can fish resources be managed by a Panchayat or municipality with a narrow coastline? Our fear is that the sea upto 12 nautical miles has been included so that the local body will have the powers to give license for extracting of non living resources like sand and minerals to private parties. 5. While the logic of decentralisation and local resource management is good, it seems doubtful that Panchayats and Municipal Corporations can be straight away given these responsibilities. The experience so far in CRZ implementation, it is the local bodies that collude with vested interests and allow the illegal use of coastal resources. It is a high risk to straight away make this radical change. We suggest that pilot projects be run in all the states to demonstrate the CMZ concept before it is made into a national legislation covering the entire 8600 km coast of India. 6. The introduction of the CMZ is likely to be lead to a condoning of the past CRZ violations. This is completely unacceptable. 7. Another issue is that of departmental/ministerial jurisdictions. CMZ requires an interdisciplinary effort and cooperation across ministries and between the Centre and the State. The MOEF is not the only agency involved in the coast and is probably not the best agency to take up the responsibility to manage the coast. MOEF is largely the offshoot of the Forest Dept and the wildlife protection act. For instance, it is the Water Resources Ministry that is responsible for coastal protection (sea walls, etc.). The fisheries department, which is probably the entity that deals with fishermen, the key stakeholders on the coast, is nowhere in the picture and has not been consulted at all. At state level the MOEF deals only with the Forest departments and none of the state fisheries or revenue departments have given any feedback on the Swaminathan Committee report. In view of the above, it is better that CRZ implementation is strengthened and pilot projects to develop and demonstrate integrated coastal zone management are taken up. We also suggest that the MoEF bring out a policy note on the CMZ rather than say that it is bringing out a notification based on the Swaminathan Committee. Based on the policy note, the MoEF should conduct consultations across the country with all stakeholders before taking any decision on the CMZ notification. There is very little trust in the MoEF which acts arbitrarily and its positions are often violently contradictory and is subject to pressures from the environmental groups on one side and corporate sector on the other. (B) Chandrika Sharma I have had a quick look through the draft. The same concerns, as for the earlier draft, apply. There is unlikely that any action on post-1991 violations will be taken. Though the objective of the new Notification mentions the need to take into account the sustainable livelihoods of local communities, this is not reflected in any way in the rest of the Notification. In CMZ-I, it is likely that there will be severe restrictions on fishing, now that the 0-12 mile zone will be part of the coastal zone. CMZ-II is clearly a concession to commercial interests, and with the new provision that if appropriate coastal protection structures are in place, development on the seaward side of the setback line will be allowed, there is all likelihood of SEZs, tourism resorts etc., coming up right on the coast. No mention of EIAs. What is very disturbing is that there is no representative of the Ministry of Agriculture in the proposed National Board for Sustainable Coastal Zone Management. Very strange, given that now the 0-12 mile zone is also under the coastal zone. This will have major implications. Also, none of the experts to be on the board, are from fisheries. Some concerted action to highlight key concerns is clearly needed. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGYuzhF+jWtLmEaycRAs6/AJ49wTZLZ9WO7Tzkwnt47qmtERJLEACgu/YG WugUDyuJ82Z/1VJia7qWYMk= =j5QT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ greenyouth mailinglist is the activist support mailinglist for kerala run by Global Alternate Information Applications (GAIA) To post to this group, send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
