In Bada village of Kumta taluk in Uttara Kannada district, stands a sea-facing resort stretched over 56 acres of coastal land, a mere 75 metres away from the seashore. Plans for the construction of the resort were sanctioned within eight months, in 2017. On the other hand, it took two years for the family of Kusuma Ambiga, a resident of the nearby Mirjan village, to get started on the home of their dreams. The family had to run from pillar to post to get approval for the construction of their house, on their own land. As her village is located in the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ), Ambiga had to struggle to obtain approvals from the gram panchayat, revenue department and the Karnataka Coastal Zone Management Authority (KCZMA).
“The resort too needed approvals from the same authorities but it was done in a short period as it was a tourism project of ‘greater interest’,” says Ambiga. Her woes did not end there. By the time all the approvals came in, “the government had withdrawn our name from the Matsya Ashraya Scheme as we failed to construct our house in the stipulated time,” recalls Ambiga. It was only in 2020 that she was able to see her hope come to life. Such discrepancies in how coastal zones are managed have struck the lives of the residents of Uttara Kannada, Udupi, and Dakshina Kannada.
Hundreds of families, like that of Ambiga, have several traumatic experiences to share. These zones were set up by the Union Ministry of Environment in 1991 with the intention of preserving coastal ecology, protecting the livelihoods of fisherfolk and regulating economic activity. However, inaccurate mapping of high and low tide lines, the fishing community’s habitats and ecologically sensitive areas has created many obstacles for residents. The 1991 Act was amended 25 times over the years and was revised in 2011.
In 2014, the Shailesh Nayak Committee was formed as debates in coastal states emerged against the CRZ regulations. The committee recommended the proper management of ecologically sensitive areas, checking coastal pollution and the economic development of fishers. However, these suggestions were not incorporated effectively, even in the new CRZ notification issued in 2019, say fisherfolk and experts.
“If the 2011 norms complicated the lives of fisherfolk, the 2019 norms were worse as the new plans relaxed the buffer zone from 500 m to 50 m, allowing the construction of ports, allied industries and temporary tourism-related structures in ecologically sensitive areas. Most of the time, these turned into permanent structures,” says Prakash Mesta, a Kumta-based marine researcher and activist. In 1991, coastal land up to 500m from the High Tide Line (HTL) and a buffer zone of 100 m from the HTL along banks of creeks, estuaries, backwaters, wetlands, mangroves, and other water bodies was considered a CRZ.
In the 2019 plan, to boost the ‘blue economy’ through the Sagarmala project and port construction, the state coastal authority has reduced the buffer zone in CRZ-III to just 50 m. Mesta fears that the recent modification to the plan will convert beaches, estuaries, rivers fronts and backwaters into ‘no entry zones’ for locals while exempting the construction of ports and resorts.
This would not only damage the coastal ecosystem but will also effectively hand over the coastal commons to corporations at the cost of the livelihood of fishing communities, he says. The coastal zone management plan, as part of CRZ, is drafted by the national, state and district level authorities to formulate an integrated plan governing the use of land near the coast. In 2022, Karnataka became the second state in the country where the coastal management plan was approved to accommodate further ‘development’ on its 320-km coastline.
In theory, the Karnataka Coastal Zone Management Authority (KCZMA) is required to release draft maps and plans for each CRZ after consulting with fishermen, port authorities, the pollution control board, environmentalists and subject experts. For the 2019 draft plan, “none of the officials even came to our village to conduct surveys or identify the fishing areas,” says Ganapathi Tandel, a fisherman from Haldipur in Kundapur taluk, Udupi district.
“When the final map was released, our residence area was identified as a port area,” he adds. The government announced a proposal to construct a minor port in the village in 2014 as a part of the Karnataka minor ports authority. Locals regret being left out of the consultation process. The meetings were held in district administration offices with selected members and the physical maps were not made available in gram panchayats to make suggestions. An RTI query by Vidyadhar Durgekar, former deputy commander of the Indian Coast Guard, proved that only 14 of the 64 villages impacted by the CRZ plans were visited by officials.
The publication of the plans during the pandemic-induced lockdown widened this consultation gap, says Vikas Tandel, a member of the Uttara Kannada District Fishermen Association Forum. “In September 2022, the final draft was also released without serious stakeholder consultation,” he adds. Inconsistencies in the various plans caused further confusion. “The draft plan released in 2019 did not mark out the port area. But when the maps were released in 2022, most of the region was marked as the port area,” Tandel explains.
The maps also fail to identify revenue villages, eco-sensitive areas, river mouths and no-development zones. Of the 12 ecologically sensitive areas that were protected under the 2011 coastal management plan, one has been dropped as officials say it does not fulfil the criteria of including mudflats. And in the remaining 11, plans have been presented to set up temporary eco-tourism facilities.
In 2015, nearly 18% of the coastal areas of the three districts was marked under ports, tourist areas and recreational centers, according to Vinod Patagar, an activist who has conducted a survey on CRZs. Now, experts say nearly 60% to 70% of the state’s coastal area has witnessed a relaxation of buffer zones as they have been identified as port areas. Even Karwar’s naval base — Sea Bird (Kadamba) — has been mapped as a port area. Ramachandra Bhat, a retired economics professor at the College of Fisheries, Mangalore was once a part of the KCZMA. He says that officials seemed to come to meetings with vested interests. “We were not allowed to air our opinions.
Instead of addressing the concerns of coastal areas, the officials seemed more interested in relaxing rules to benefit tourism and other development projects that were detrimental to the sea,” he says. A close look at the plans approved between 2011 and 2022 shows that tourism projects were prioritised over fishermen’s needs, he adds. For instance, in Karwar, the KCZMA had approved the construction of a hotel on the famous Rabindranath Tagore beach by claiming it was a bay area (which requires only 50-m buffer zone) and not a seafront (which requires a 500-m buffer zone).
Durgekar has filed a complaint against the KCZMA at the National Green Tribunal. He claims the district administration has received a strict warning from the tribunal to demolish the hotel, as well as all illegal structures on Karwar beach within two months. Diffused responsibility The regional director of the Udupi District Coastal Zone Management Committee, Sripathi B S, refuted the criticism put forth by experts and the fishing community. “We have documents to prove that there was wide consultation and publicity at the local level regarding the draft maps.
The new plans were drafted only after taking stakeholder suggestions,” he says. However, several fishermen told DH that they were not included in these consultations. Suggestions from the district coastal management authorities were passed on to the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management, Chennai, for the formulation of the maps, says KCZMA Member Secretary Gokul R. “The Chennai-based institute prepared the maps based on scientific study. Utmost importance has been given to protecting ecology,” he adds.
While the buffer zone has been reduced in one category — CRZ-III, no other modification has been made, Gokul points out. However, 13 out of 14 of the new ports proposed in Karnataka are scheduled in CRZ-III areas. Karnataka may lose out on the majority of ecologically sensitive beaches. This is not limited to Honnavar. Ecologically sensitive areas such as Netrani Island, Basavaraj Gudda, Kurma Ghad and Paduvani-Someshwar beach stand to be impacted. The area is home to 34 critically endangered and unique species, including three varieties of sharks, two types of dolphins and two species of whales that come under the International Union for Conservation of Nature red list.
Lackadaisical attitude The 2019 plan will not just affect local fishermen, but also disrupt the fragile marine ecology of Karnataka’s coastline. “Analysing the maps shows that SCZMA has diluted the very purpose of having the regulated zone. Protection of estuaries, mangroves and river mouths, which play a vital role in marine ecology, has been compromised,” says M D Subash Chandran, a professor at the Indian Institute of Sciences. River mouths of the Kali, Gangavali, Aghanashini and Sharavathi, which are safe havens for nearly 80 varieties of fish because of varying salinity, will be damaged due to reduced buffer zones, explains Chandran, also a former member of the SCZMA committee.
Sripathi says the committee has taken every step to preserve the salinity and natural flow of the Swarna, Sita, Varahi, Kedaka, and Chakra rivers. “There will be no alteration in the protection status of these rivers and river mouths. The state pollution control board will keep regular checks on the projects implemented,” he adds. The initial intent of the coastal zone management plans was to mitigate the impact of cyclones and other natural disasters, says V N Nayak, a marine biologist.
“The wider the shoreline, the lesser the impact of cyclones and gusty winds on land,” he says.. He also adds that the reduction in buffer zones will impact the life cycle of marine creatures. Take the example of Kasarkod Tonka in Honnavar taluk, where a private port was proposed. The beach is the nesting ground for the critically-endangered olive ridley sea turtle.
“As per the new plan, the beach is part of port land, which means only 50 m of the beach area is a non-development zone. However, the turtles are known to lay their eggs some 200 m to 300 m from the sea,” Nayak says. Ultimately, a plan to protect the flora and fauna that have made their home in the sea and the coasts and the communities that depend on them, has fallen short of protecting either. A collaborative and consultative process, that takes all stakeholders into confidence, is the only way forward, particularly as the threats of climate change and food insecurity loom.
