in this issue................

• From the Director's Desk
• Prof. Upendra Baxi's Vision....
• Between us
• Legal Support Service for the Defenders of Environment
• Activities during the Trimester
• Have you Read These......?
• A note on: Computerized Network System
• Cyber Information
• Green Decisions updates
• The Doctrine of Public Trust.......
• A Jarring Note : Amending CRZ
• Calendar of Events
• Activities so far

CEERA, in the last couple of months, has been full of activities. It has conducted two courses for government officials from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, and members of the Pollution Control Boards, one course for law teachers and a Workshop on Bio-diversity. Environment itself is now a serious matter. It is much more than air, water and noise pollution. It entrenches into the very concept of nature and habitation involving food cycle, the biological diversity and various atmospheric, climatological and habitational environment. Therefore, the capacity building requires good governance as well as good citizens. It is true that the Constitution has provided for fundamental duty of every citizen to take care of the environment. But where government itself determines the economic activities including the development in industry, agriculture, trade and commerce, the leadership in environment protection lies with the government. The main actors relating to environmental protection obviously are the public officials who are government servants. It is therefore very important that all our public officials must be well conversant with the legal system. Most of our public officials in Central and State Pollution Control Boards are people having no legal background. It is not necessary that to understand environment and regulate it, one must necessarily be a lawyer. But where the job of a public official is concerned with running the State with an objective of protecting any interest, in this case environment, the public official must be thoroughly conversant with the regulatory mechanisms through which the protection of the public interest can be made possible. That requires intrinsic knowledge of natural sciences as well as deeper understanding of legal sciences. A person who is a public official has to be objectively satisfied that the environment is not in danger and that there is a protection of natural resources provided such as to meet inter-generational equity. He or she must also be competent in the subject to use law as an instrument of state craft. Therefore, CEERA's emphasis on preparing training materials for the public officials and conducting courses for them at regular intervals is praise-worthy and is a job of national importance. At the same time the deep interest in the totality of an environment leaves the members of the faculty interested in environmental legal regime to completely understand various issues in relation to the biological diversity and to critically analyse the Bill prepared on bio-diversity protection. India needs to preserve, protect and develop its biological, genetical and cultural diversities. This is a task that the CEERA Team, in addition to the above mentioned ones, should involve itself in a proactive way.

It has been two years into the execution of the Environmental Law Capacity-Building Project. It is two years since the magnificent obsession, CEERA, began taking concrete shape. The young team that organized over thirty activities, during the period, shows no signs of fatigue and exhaustion. It remains as enthusiastic and as fresh as it was in the beginning. The secret is the passion and excitement the members share among themselves as being part of a silent revolution of transforming the institutions and structures within the civil society into responsible and responsive managers of environment. This has been a mission for the team and it is the sine qua non of its very creation. There has been no time to celebrate, to relax and to gloat over its accomplishments Instead, at he end of two years, CEERA as a team looks forward to facing and accomplishing the seemingly herculean tasks ahead, with the confidence of a thorough professional and the humility of a green horn. While both the Government of India and the World Bank have been very supportive of the work of CEERA and appreciative of its efforts, the team desires to have its 'Performance Audit' taken, to constructive critique its work and guide its future activities. It believes, a periodic review of its working would do a world of good to this nascent outfit. The last of December, 1999, is the time set apart for this. The exercise is something to look forward to. Coming as it does at the threshold of a new era, it is hoped that it would strengthen the motivation and the inspirational bases that have made this Centre of Excellence in Environmental Law within the National Law School Family.

A World Bank Delegation would shortly be carrying out a Mid-Term Review of the execution of the project. To catalyze the working of the team, in accomplishing the tasks under the project, a few proposals are on the anvil. A scheme for providing "Legal Support Service for the Defenders of the Environment" and an elaborate "Computer Networking System" to link up Partner-Institutions are proposed. For the benefit of the reader, these proposals are outlined.

Our efforts in forging partnerships with Law Teaching Institutions are beginning to bear fruit. A detailed report in this regard would be carried in the next issue of the news letter. Also, starting from the next issue, profiles of Environmental Law academics in India, would be carried out in instalments, to introduce the Reader to the leading lights in this frontier of legal knowledge.

Two training programmes, for the enforcers of Environmental Law in India, were successfully carried out during this trimester. At its inauguration, while delivering the keynote address, Dr. Upendra Baxi, the doyen of legal academic fraternity, cautioned about "negative environmental governance capabilities". He desired that CEERA should wage " a war" on these Negative Capabilities, in building the Environmental Law Capacity in the functionaries of the State. Excerpts of the speech are carried in this issue for the benefit of all those concerned about better Environmental governance, any where in the world.

Words of appreciation are pouring in for the modest efforts of CEERA. While we feel encouraged and honored by such gestures, we also look forward to receiving constructively critical comments from our Readers and Well wishes. We intend to create a "Forum for Dialogue", "between us" (- you and CEERA), to facilitate such an interaction. We look forward to your contributions in this direction.

This is the revised proposal to the one submitted earlier during the 6^th meeting of the expert committee. The idea is essentially to broad-base the support service and to evolve a scheme of delivery of service that shall have practical utility for all the concerned.

1) Objectives: The objectives of the service are manifold and are aimed to realise the major objective of accomplishing the task of evolving pre-litigatory remedies of project. This device is essentially to put to test the gains of a series of exercises carried out under the project and to measure the extent up to which the capacity of the managers of environment is built in practical terms. It is also to service the long felt need of finding legal solutions without necessarily going through the formal justice delivery mechanisms. The venture is primarily targetted towards providing legal assistance to the functionaries of state, Local Self Government institutions, NGOs and Industrial Managers through the profession and with the help of partner institutions and environmental law experts (both in the profession and in the academies).

• Nature of Services: The services will be made available at two levels: on line computer networking and actual, physical consultative exercises. The services include

a) Tendering of advice on law, policy and implementation

b) Passing on all desired information through the process of networking with a number of institutions and individuals.

c) Consultative exercises to find solutions for environmental problems and strategies for better implementation of law.

d) Creation of forums to facilitate dialogue, mediation, conciliation and other modes of dispute resolution among various stake holders and assist programmes of sensitization in creating awareness about different aspects of the law and their utility in finding solutions for local environmental problems.

Co-ordination and implementation: A cell for co-ordinating the activities under the head is being created in law school. It will co-ordinate with

i) the community comprising of law practioners and justices having expertise in this area of law;

ii) the community of legal scholars drawn from different parts of India, who have gone through environmental law training at CEERA along with Partner Institutions.

iii) a group of NGOs (like ECONET, Pune, GEC, Baroda etc.) Who are involved in environmental advocacy;

iv) Training institutionsof both the Central and State Governments like Training institutes for Pollution Control Boards, Wild Life Training Institute, Dehradun, Institutions of training for Panchayat Raj Institutions, ASCI, Hyderabad etc.

v) Training institutions for industries and management like CII, Delhi and Chennai, IIMs at Ahmedabad, Calcutta and Bangalore.

Strategy of execution: All the partner institutions and the other collaborative institutions would be required to prepare a programme of action for 3 years along with budgetary estimates. After obtaining the required approvals, in co-ordination with CEERA, the respective institutions are to put into stream the execution of the proposed activity.

Stages of Implementation:

The idea is to implement this process at the following levels:

Level One: Implementation in environmentally sensitive areas (mining and coastal zone)

Level two: Implementation in the states of Karnataka, Maharashtra and Gujarat.

Level three: Implementation in the rest of India.

Levels one and two are to be simultaneously implemented and for the rest of the country in an incremental way.

Being the first of its kind, this ten days programme gave a comprehensive and critical overview of the law, policy and practice concerning the environment to the participants who were from MoEF, CPCB, SPCB. The training programme was aimed to enable these participants to enforce law effectively and efficiently and guide the other functionaries of the state in the better management of the environment. Case-study, problem solving and simulation exercises are some of the methods employed in this training progrmme. The training programme was aimed at Education, Information passing and Application of different aspects of Environmental Law. Set in a participatory learning mould and spread over 36 interactive sessions, the programme covered a wide range of environmental law that included analysis of environmental disasters; constitutional aspirations as to environmental governance; administrative accountability; land-related laws like acquisition, displacement and resettlement; pollution - control laws, bio-diversity related laws social movements, population participation and decentralized environmental governance and environmental justice delivery system. An international panel of experts, besides the members of the faculty of national Law School acted as a resource persons.

The ten days long training programme is the second in the series of training being imparted to the enforcers in environmental law. Twenty one officers drawn from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India and Pollution Control Boards of Delhi, U.P, M.P, Manipur, Orissa, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala, underwent the training. The training programme was aimed at Education, Information passing and Application of different aspects of Environmental Law. Set in a participatory learning mould and spread over 40 interactive sessions, the programme covered a very wide range of environmental law that included analysis of environmental disasters; constitutional aspirations as to environmental governance; administrative accountability; Land-related laws like acquisition, displacement and resettlement; pollution - control laws, Bio-diversity related laws social movements, population participation and decentralized environmental governance and environmental justice delivery system. An international panel of experts, besides the members of the faculty of National Law School acted as resource persons.

HAVE YOU READ THESE...........?

• Jayashree, S and Sadri S., "Leadership and Ethics of the Environment", Man and Development, 1-12, June 1999
  
• Porter, Gareth, "Trade Competition and Pollution Standards": "Race tot he Bottom" or "Stuck at the Bottom"?, Journal of Environment & Development, Vol.8(2), 133-151, June 1999

• Kashyap, S.P. and Niti Mathur, "Ongoing Changes in Policy Environment and Farm Sector": Role of Agro-Climatic Regional Planning Approach, Economic and Political Weekly, A-105-A-112, June 26, 1999
  
• Bharathi, M and Rao, R.S. "Linking Development to Displacement", Economic and Political Weekly, 1955-1956, July 10, 1999
  
• Bakshi, P.M., "Environmental Tribunals": An overview, The Lawyers Collective 13-14, July 1999
  
• Amita, Baviskar, "A Grain of Sand on the Banks of Narmada", Economic and Political Weekly, 2213-2214, August 7, 1999
  
• Claridge, C.L. and others, "The Environment, Development and Women":"What is the Connection"?, Vol.18(1), 1-27, 1999
  
• Rinku Pegu, "The eco-friendly", The Week, 54, August 15, 1999
  
• "Wildlife Protection and People's Livelihood": "Building Bridges", Economic and Political Weekly, 2305-2308, August 14, 1999
  
• Lyla Bavadam, "Resistance in the Valley", Frontline, 24-26, September 10, 1999    
  

  Or These ....................

  1. "Forest Bill" , Deccan Herald, 19^th July 1999.

  2. Radhakrishna Rao, "Acid rain threatening India", Deccan Herald 29^th August 1999.

  3. Lakshmi Salgame, "Go wild!", Deccan Herald 7^th August 1999.

  4. Sengupta, Nirmal, "A buzzword named 'development' I-II", Hindu 1^st September 1999.

  5. Seema Singh, "Green Bench may not be answer to pollution", The Times of India, 17^th August 1999,

From the Librarian's Shelf

Pushpa Kadam

A NOTE ON : COMPUTERIZED NETWORKING SYSTEM

The proposed computerized Networking system has the object of acting as a catalyst in the process of accomplishment of the following tasks under the project:

(a) Development of Environmental Law Data base;

(b) Updation and Dissemination Environmental Law knowledge;

(c) Legal Support Service for all the concerned as an aspect of evolving pre-litigatory remedies

(d) Establishment of forums for evolving prelitigatory remedies

(e) Strengthening the Environmental Law Material Base in Partner Institutions and

(f) Promotion of Research Work

CYBER INFORMATION

http://www.elaw.org

Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (E-Law)

E-Law is a network of environmental defenders in 50 countires using law to protect the environment. These public interest attorneys, scientists and other advocates help each other protect and restore the planet by exchanging legal, scientific and strategic information. Through the E-Law network, grassroots advocates around the world get the legal and scientific resources they need to build winning cases for the environemnt.

E-Law was founded in 1989 by lawyers in 10 countires who wanted to link public interest environmental advocates in a mutual support network to advance legalprotection for the environment. The network has grown to include advocates in a mutual support network to advance legal protection for the environment. The network has grown to include advocates in 50 countires, working together every day to bolster each others' cases to protect the environment. E-Law partners are leaders in public interest environmental law in their home countires; they represent the rights of citizens, communities and ecosystems affected by environmental degradation and promote sustainable solutions to environmental problems. E-Law is a network of equal, autonomous partners, each working in his or her home country, in the context of his or her cultural, legal and political systems to protect the environment.

For more information go surfing!.

B.E.Pushpa Kadam

GREEN DECISIONS UPDATE

P.Navin Kumar & Ors v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors

[1999 (3) LRI 57]

The petitioners, Indian Heritage Society and others filed Public Interest Litigation in Bombay High Court praying for an order to set aside all permissions granted by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Municipal Commissioner for the construction of new toilet blocks and the demolition of old toilet blocks near the Gateway of India. The High Court dismissed the case stating that it is not a fit case for interference under article 226 of the Constitution as toilet block is a must for human being at a place which is visited by large number of persons. The Court said that this facility would prevent nuisance because there could be unauthorized use of open spaces around the Gateway of India. In the appeal before the Supreme Court the petitioner did not challenge the construction of the new toilet block or relief for demolition of old toilet block. The main grievance of the petitioners was the observations made by the High Court relating the coastal Regulation zone. The High Court had made this observation that the area near the Gateway of India is fully developed up to the shoreline and it is within the Municipal limits of greater Mumbai. It is already built up and it has been provided with drainage and approach roads and other infrastructural facilities and hence cannot fall within the ambit of CRZ II. The High Court had also observed that in view of the Clause 1 of CRZ II it is clear that building cannot be permitted to the seaward side of the existing roads and proposed coastal zone management plan. So the construction of toilet block on existing road is not in violation of CRZ II norms. In their order, High Court had also made it clear that once an area is covered under CRXII it could not fall within the ambit of CRZ I or CRZ III. The Supreme Court as regards to the impugned High Court Judgement that the entire city of Bombay would fall within CRZ II held that the observations of the High Court were not warranted. It left the matter for the consideration of notification to the State of Maharastra as it did not find any conflict with regard to substantial laws of CRZ in this petition.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors 1999

[1999(4) SCALE 196]

The petitioner filed a public interest litigation in the year 1984 alleging that the foundries, chemical/hazardous industries and the refinery at Mathura are the major sources of damage to the Taj, priceless national monument of India. The Sulphur Dioxide emitted by Mathura refinery and industries when combined with oxygen - with the aid of moisture in the atmosphere forms Sulphuric Acid called Acid rain which has a corroding effect on the gleaning white marble. It was also stated in the petition that industrial/refinery emission brickkilns, vehicular traffic and generator-sets are primarily responsible for polluting the ambient air around Taj Trapezium. The court in their order after 13 years in 1997 held that the emissions generated by coke/coal consuming industries are air pollutant and damage effect on Taj. So the relocation of the industries in the Taj Trapezium is to resorted to only if the natural gas which has been brought at the doorstep of as a substitute for coke/coal. As the Gas Authority of India has already invited the industry to apply for natural gas connection, the industries which are not in a position to obtain gas connections for any reason shall stop functioning with the aid of coke and coal in this area and may relocate them by approaching corporation/govt for alternative plots. The court also made several directions in this regard for the protection of the Taj area.

Pursuant to this order the Gas Authority of India limited filed an application before the Supreme Court to extend the schedule for supply of gas to industries in Zone I of Agra city in such a manner that in respect of cup of a based industries supply of gas by GAIL coincides with the readiness of the consumer industries to drawn Gas and to direct non - cupola based industries in Zone I to draw gas latest by September 1999. The application also prayed for an direction to the Secretary PWD Government of U.P. and Secretory/Director General Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport to grant the permission for underpinning the gas pipeline to the Tumunal Road Bridge within four weeks so that GAIL may be able to the schedule for supply of Gas to Zone II and Zone II laid by the 30^th May 98 order of the Supreme Court. As there were 168 industries operating in this area and out of which 115 entered into agreement with GAIL for supply of natural gas the court observed that there is no justification for the other 53 industries to function in this area. It was placed before the court record that the rest are waiting for the technology to be developed by the National Metallurgical Laboratory. The court int heir earlier order on may 12^th 1999 had issued notice to 79 industries in Zone I requiring them to show cause why they were not availing the facility to be supplied by GAIL so the main question before the court was whether 79 coke/coal industries which are continuously using coke/coal to be allowed to pollute the air in and around Taj Trapezium. The court keeping in mind the NEERI and or Varadarajan report and affidavit filed by the industries directed 53 iron boundaries to be closed forth with unless they have shifted. The court could not also found any reason fort he non-cupola industries for not accepting the natural gas from GAIL and ordered for the closure of the same.

M.C. MEHTA V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Re: Airport Authority of India Ltd.JT 1999 5 SC 18

Hot mix plants; which were treated as hazardous industries were closed with effect from 1997 in pursuance of an order of the Supreme Court. The Airport Authority of India at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi filed an application for permission to install hot mix plants in the vicinity of the airport for a period of one year for resurfacing of the runways for the safe landing and take off of air crafts and for smooth handling of aircraft traffic. The application also stated that the resurfacing of the runways was last done in the year 1990-91, while surfacing of the secondary runway was carried out in 1993. It was further stated that due to the constant use of these runways by the ever increasing traffic both domestic and international racks have developed int eh runways due to which certain runways were showing sign of distress, all of which required immediate resurfacing. Owing to an extra ordinary exceptional and special circumstances it was prayed before the court to permit the setting up a not mix plant. The Airport Authority also set out a set of undertakings inform of an affidavit to be followed by them.

The important undertakings are ; (1)the hot mix plants shall be at least two kilometers away from populace and residential areas; (2)the hot mix plants shall be fitted with pollution control devices of international standard and shall meet all the requirement prescribed by the Central Pollution Control Board; (3) the hot mix plants shall be used only for the purpose of preparing premix material for resurfacing of runways and no for other purpose. The petitioner placed several documents containing the bad effect of installation of hot mix plants in these areas. The court after going through the submission made by the petitioner and applicant ordered for installation of hot mix plant in the I.G. Airport. The reasoning given by the court was resurfacing of Air Port Runways is a work of national importance and the Air Port Authority of India has already called for global tenders for the job in question in which one of the eligibility criteria is that the firm must possess an adequate capacity environment friendly not mix plant; electronically computerized paver finisher pneumatic and conventional rollers and tools and tackles.

Bibhu Prasad Tripathy

The doctrine of public trust has evolved over the years to emerge as a cardinal principle for the judiciary to determine the validity of governmental action that interferes with the use by the general public of certain natural resources. The application of the doctrine has resulted in the imposition of a check upon governmental authorities who seek to divest State control over such natural resources in favour of private interests. Though of ancient origin and of considerable vintage in the United States, it is only recently that the doctrine has been applied in India.

The antiquity of the doctrine of public trust:

The roots in history of the doctrine are traced to the Roman emperor, Justinian. In Book II of his Institutes, Justinian proclaims :

By the law of nature these things are common to mankind---the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea. No one, therefore, is forbidden to approach the seashore ...

The doctrine of public trust in the United States

The doctrine of public trust, in its modern form, is owed to the Courts of the United States. The case of Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Illinois [ ] has been identified as "the Lodestar in American Public Trust Law" . In that case, the legislature granted lands underlying Lake Michigan to a private company. A few years later, the legislature had second thoughts about the grant and repealed it. In an action brought by the state to have the original grant declared invalid, the Supreme Court of the United States stated that the title to the lands given in grant were different in character from that which the state holds in lands ...state that they may enjoy the navigation of the waters, carry on commerce over them, and have the liberty of fishing therein freed from the obstruction or interferences of private parties. Though the Court did not prohibit the disposition of trust lands to private parties, it stated that the state cannot divest itself of authority to govern the whole of an area in which it has responsibility to exercise its police power; to grant the entire waterfront of a major city (Chicago) to a private company is, in effect, to abdicate legislative authority over navigation. Subsequently, the superior Courts of some State like Massachusetts have modified the doctrine to suit the peculiar status and uses of public resources prevalent in those states.

The doctrine in India - M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath And Others

(1997)1 SCC 388

The Supreme Court of India applied the doctrine for the in the above case. The case involved encroachment of forest land and an attempt to change the course of the River Beas to facilitate the construction of a motel by a company reportedly having direct links with the family of Kamal Nath, former Minister of Environment and Forests.

The Supreme Court took notice of a news item regarding the above developments and proceeded to quash the prior approval granted by the central government for leasing out forest land and also the lease deed between the government of Himachal Pradesh and the company. The Court also directed the Government of Himachal Pradesh to takeover the entire area and restore it to its natural-original state. The company was directed to remove the construction made in the river bed and on the banks of the river, to pay compensation by way of cost for the restitution of the environment and ecology of the area and to prohibit from discharging untreated effluents into the river. While directing the company to construct a boundary wall separating the building from the river basin, the Court made it clear that the river bank and the river basin were to be left open for public use. The Court pronounced in categorical terms :

"The public trust doctrine, as discussed by us in this judgement is a part of the law of the land."

The public trust doctrine therefore furnishes a theoretical framework to the Courts in deciding those cases relating to the environment where a major community resource has been directed towards purposes and uses other than those for common enjoyment and benefit.

S.A. Karthik

A Note on Mining in Kudremukh National Park….

Kudremukh Iron Ore Company a Limited company (KIOCL) has been given a Temporary Working Permit (TWP), under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act 1980, to mine in Kudremukh National Park. (KNP). There is no provision of under the law (FC Act of 1980) for a TWP. This TWP was granted even after the Chief Wild Life Warden (PCCF Wild Life) had strongly recommended against giving permission.

Any activity, within a national park needs the permission of the Chief Wild Life Warden under Section 35(6) of the Wild Life Protection Action (WLPA) this activity is only for the purpose of advancing forest conservation measures. This has also not been obtained. In any case mining can hardly be construed to be a conservation measure.

Secondly for their mining purposes KIOCL needs explosives which would necessitate their storage and use in the National Park, which is a prohibited activity by Section 32 of the WLPA which bans any use or storage of explosives or injurious substances in a National Park and nobody can give permission for use of explosives, KIOCL has managed to get its magazines (Storage for explosives) licenses renewed till 31/3/2000. All the above things have left the local people, the environmentalists shocked at the blatant violation of the law of the land.

KIOCL has a history of violations and causing damage to the environment like the fact that they went ahead and raised the height of Lakhya dam without a permission and in the process submerged 340 hectares of Shola forests, that too outside their leased area, while prospecting for iron ore in neighbouring Nellibeedu they illegally felled trees built roads and buildings, the Bhadra river is also polluted by the iron tailings and the local inhabitants forced to drink the water also this river passes through the Bhadra Wild Life Sanctuary which is a Project Tiger Reserve. The KIOCL has not been penalised for these, neither have the forest officials who are responsible for these activities and can be imprisoned upto 15 days under Section 3 of the FC act.

The KNP has been notified on 2^nd September 1987, which includes a area of 600 sq. kms in the Dakshina Kannada and Chikmagalur districts. KNP includes the evergreen and semi evergreen and the last stretch of Shola vegetation in this part of western Ghats The KNP also is the northern most important refuge for the Lion Tailed Macaques in Karnataka, also it has endangered species like the Civets, Sloth Bear, Slender Loris, Indian Giant Squirrel, Indian Porcupine etc. And open cast mining within the National Park has already damaged the habitat and any further extension of the lease would only ensure the total destruction.

On one hand the government is permitting open cast mining, with use of explosives within the National Park and at the same time the Malekudiyas the tribes of the area are being threatened to be evicted in the name of National Park. Is this justified?

Mahalakshmi

Nagarika Seva Trust

A jarring note

Another wave of amendment - the 1999 Draft CRZ Notification

The Ministry of Environment and Forest has issued a draft notification on 5^th August 99 to amend the CRZ notification of 1991 as amended in 1994 and 1997.A closer reading of this notification reveals that the rationale behind such an amendment is to remove the difficulties faced by local inhabitants of coastal areas and to satisfy the needs for infrastructural facilities in these areas .The important objective feature of this notification it is to decreases the setback from tidal rivers ,estuaries ,creeks and backwaters to 50 metres for permitting construction of dwelling units for local inhabitants in this area subject to certain conditions. The conditions are; 1.the area must not fall under CRZ I category, 2. the availability of ground water is assured by the concerned authority of that State or Union Territory and certification for proper facilities for waste water and sewage also is given by local authority, 3. the proposed construction is not for commercial activity.

Apart from these conditions one more condition has to be fulfilled out of the five set out in the notification .These conditions are; (i) the area is classified as CRZ II (ii) the density of population in Panchyat/ Ward area is not less than 400 persons per sq kilometre (iii) the built-up area in the Panchayat/Ward is already one-third or more of the total area of the Panchayat/Ward (iv)the coastal land is a barrier island, sand bar or spit sandwiched between the sea or bay and rivers, creeks and backwaters or between rivers, creeks and backwaters provided that the average width of the barrier island, sand bar or spit is less than 1000 metres. (v)it is an area with an elevation of more than 10 metres from the Mean Sea Level at any point within 100 metres of the inland tidal water body.

This notification abolishes the concept of traditional rights and customary uses in the coastal region by substituting the same with the word local inhabitant. According to this notification person or his descendants who have been inhabiting in this coastal area prior to 1991 Notification is to be considered as local inhabitants. The second important feature of this notification is that the Central Government may now permit facilities of petroleum products and can allow construction of such storage facilities in all coastal areas except CRZ I area. The notification proposes 'no construction activity', except for salt harvesting by solar evaporation of sea water in the area between Low Tide Line and High tide line. But such harvesting shall not be permissible in category I of CRZ I areas. Now according to this notification construction or reconstruction of dwelling units between 200 and 500 metres of the High Tide Line is permitted in CRZ III areas. This also provides certain conditions to be fulfilled in this regard.

When numerous violations are taking place in the coastal regulated zone of India, the Draft Notification is perceived to be a further dilution if the CRZ laws. The traditional rights of the coastal inhabitants are not going to be protected if this notification comes into force. This is because, this notification is trying to legitimize some of the non-compliance of 91 notification. This in turn will benefit the industrialist and well off people of the society. In Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India the Supreme Court struck down the earlier recommendation of Vohra Committee to reduce 50 metres regulation in rivers creeks, estuary and backwaters. As the word commercial activity is not defined anywhere the present notification there is a clear danger for the fragile and dynamic coastal ecosystem of India. This may in effect, lead to varied interpretation by the inhabitants, industry and judiciary. This notification not only allows sewage and sanitation facilities fort he local inhabitants but also provides power to the Central Government or any designated authority which may permit construction of dispensaries, schools, public rain shelters, community toilets, bridges and roads in the CRZ III area. It seems from this notification that there is a move to convert the CRZ III area to CRZ II area. If this notification comes into force then the CRZ III areas because of its "substantially built up and infrastructural facilities" would be considered as CRZ II area. Extensive construction activities is not ruled out in this context. Keeping the serious repercussions of this amendment in mind; the need of the hour is to implement the existing notification in toto or to enact a separate legislation on coastal zone regulation and management.

Bibhu Prasad Tripathy

CALENDER OF EVENTS

ACTIVITIES SO FAR

Compiled by

Vijaya B. Pai