Environ Dev Sustain

DOI 10.1007/s10668-016-9779-6

Urban development, environmental vulnerability

and CRZ violations in India: impacts on fishing
communities and sustainability implications
in Mumbai coast

Hemantkumar A. Chouhan1 • D. Parthasarathy1 •

Sarmistha Pattanaik1

Received: 15 April 2015 / Accepted: 17 March 2016

 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Abstract Coastal Regulations in India are traced back to the UN Conference on Human
Environment, held in Stockholm in 1972. The Environment Protection Act (EPA) 1986
was enacted to implement India’s commitments as a signatory. The Coastal Regulation
Zone (CRZ) Notification of 1991 was made under the provisions of the EPA in order to
protect coastal environments and social and livelihood security of fishing community. This
paper assesses the effects of CRZ rules and violations in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region,
which has experienced tremendous growth due to the rapid industrialization and urban-
ization. This process has led to the destruction of mangroves and other important species of
fish which play a crucial role in sustaining the coastal ecology and urban biodiversity; high
population density and uneven growth have exacerbated adverse environmental and
socioeconomic consequences. The Koli (fishing community) in this region faces huge
problems of survival and sustenance in small-scale fishing, due to the rampant commercial
fishing by big trawlers and large-scale dumping of waste materials by the industries sur-
rounding the vicinity into the sea. In small but significant ways, the fishing communities
through their traditional commons-based resource management and livelihood systems
protect the coastal ecology and help the cities in reducing their carbon footprints. On the
basis of primary field research in Thane–Mulund Creek Bhandup, Chimbai, and Sewri, this
paper attempts to assess CRZ violations taking place on coastal areas and is causing
damage to the coastal ecology. The research specifically has focused on the particular
fishing-related activities and spaces—such as: jetties, parking of boats, access to sea,
weaving and drying of nets, landing grounds, drying and cleaning of fish that are more
affected by encroachment of seashore area and by CRZ rules violations. It evaluates the

& Hemantkumar A. Chouhan

hchemant7@gmail.com; hemant7@iitb.ac.in
& D. Parthasarathy
ben.dp@iitb.ac.in; bendp@rediffmail.com
Sarmistha Pattanaik
spattanaik@iitb.ac.in
1
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India

123
 H. A. Chouhan et al.

actions taken by Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority and Bombay Municipal
Corporation while implementing rules and making Integrated Coastal Zone Management
plan for management of marine environment. It raises broader issues relating to the con-
tradictions and complementarities involved in ICZM plans vis-a-vis management of bio-
diversity, within a larger context of rapid urbanization and demands for real estate growth.
The paper argues that urban biodiversity management requires clear valuation of the long-
term ecological and socioeconomic benefits of sustenance of coastal ecology and related
livelihoods.

Keywords Urban development
Environmental vulnerability
CRZ violations

Sustainability

1 Introduction

This paper is an attempt to study the implementation of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ)
rules, their violations, and impact on coastal ecology, particularly fishing-related activities
and spaces within the CRZ I zone in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region. The current CRZ
Notification was officially notified on January 6, 2011. While it uses the 1991 notification
as its base, it also codifies the 25 amendments to the notification. Its stated objectives are
primarily to ensure livelihood security to the fishing communities and other local com-
munities living in these coastal areas and to conserve and protect coastal stretches. In
addition, it tries to promote national development in a sustainable manner based on sci-
entific principles taking into account the dangers of natural hazards and induced hazards
such as rising sea level as a result of global warming. The notification defines the CRZ to
include the land area from the high tide line (HTL) to 500 m on the landward side as well
as the land area between HTL to 100 m or width of the creek, whichever is less, on the
landward side along tidal-influenced water bodies connected to the sea (Sharma 2011). As
in the 1991 notification, the 2011 notification classifies the 0- to 500-m coastal strip into
four categories: CRZ I (ecologically sensitive areas), CRZ II (built-up areas), CRZ III
(rural areas), and CRZ IV territorial waters and tidal-influenced water bodies (Sharma
2011).
This study focuses on the Mumbai Metropolitan Region which is the largest coastal city
in India; the region has experienced tremendous growth due to rapid economic growth and
urbanization. Mumbai is also the major center of business and financial activity in India.
As a result, there has been continuous and constant influx of population from the rest of the
country. The high population density and uneven growth rate have resulted in environ-
mental as well as socioeconomic problems due to unplanned and non-integrated coastal
developmental activities over the years. These problems need to be addressed in devel-
oping a coastal management plan for the MMR region (Murthy et al. 2010). Studies show
that there are about 3.52 million fishers occupying the 3202 fishing villages spread across
the Indian coastline (Vivekanandan 2007). According to the Fisheries Census of 2005
(CMFRI1 2006), there are around 50,000 fish workers in Greater Mumbai but activists
working with fish workers have estimated the population as more than 100,000 in the

1
Central Marine Research Institute.

123
Urban development, environmental vulnerability and CRZ…

Mumbai Metropolitan Region 1 (MMR)2 as a whole. There are thousands of other fish-
eries-dependent people (Parthasarathy 2011).
The paper seeks to achieve different research objectives on the basis of primary field
research in Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Thane–Mulund Creek, Bhandup, Chimbai, and Sewri in
Mumbai. In attempting to assess CRZ implementation and violations in coastal areas that
are damaging the coastal ecology, this research specifically focuses on particular fishing-
related spaces such as, jetties, parking areas for boats, landing grounds, access to sea, and
fishing activities such as weaving and drying of nets, drying and cleaning of fish, and fish
markets that are all affected by encroachment of external activities on the seashore and due
to violations of CRZ rules. It evaluates the action taken by the Maharashtra Coastal Zone
Management Authority (MCZMA) and BrihanMumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC)
who together implement the CRZ rules; the former is responsible for making the Integrated
Coastal Zone Management plan (ICZMP) for marine environment; Against a larger context
of rapid urbanization and demands for rising real estate demands, the study argues that
urban environmental management requires clear valuation of the long-term environmental
and socioeconomic benefits of sustaining coastal ecology and related livelihoods.

2 The new CRZ 2011: a brief history

The genesis of Coastal Regulations in India can be traced back to the United Nations
Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm in June 1972. The Environ-
ment Protection Act (EPA) 1986 was enacted to implement decisions taken at this con-
ference to which India was a signatory. The Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF
2009) now renamed as Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change
(MoEFCC) issued the CRZ Notification of 1991 under the provisions of the EPA with the
purpose of preserving the coastal environment, and in particular, the ecologically fragile
areas, by regulating use along the coastal areas. However, the 1991 CRZ Notification was
not implemented properly and it diluted the comprehensive measures of protection and
conservation of coastal environment; hence, several criticisms emerged from environ-
mentalists and activists working with fishing communities. The 1991 Notification proposed
uniform regulations for the entire Indian coastline which includes 5500 km of mainland
and 2000 km coastline of the islands of Andaman and Nicobar and Lakshadweep. The
1991 notification failed to factor in the high levels of diversity along the Indian coastline in
terms of biodiversity, hydrodynamic conditions, demographic patterns, natural resources,
and geomorphological and geological features. It failed to provide clear procedure for
obtaining CRZ clearances, and no time lines were specified for implementation and exe-
cution of the rules (Jamwal 2010). There was no clearance monitoring mechanism or clear-
cut enforcement mechanism to check violations. Mapping of violations, encroachment,
pollution, and the different zones was not done effectively. The more than 25 amendments
to the rules over a two-decade period diluted the core objectives of the CRZ Notification.
In consequence, CRZ 2011 attempts to address all these issues in a comprehensive manner

2
Mumbai is here used variously to refer to the city limits of the Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation,
the Mumbai Urban Agglomeration as used by the Census of India, and the Mumbai Metropolitan Region as
it has been administratively defined by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority. So it
includes a number of cities, towns and villages outside the island city and outside the limits of the Greater
Mumbai Municipal Corporation.

123
 H. A. Chouhan et al.

and also aimed to incorporate the recommendation of the. M.S. Swaminathan committee
set up to review the 1991 notification (Chouhan and Parthasarathy 2015).3
The CRZ Notification 2011 was officially notified on January 6, 2011. While it uses the
1991 notification as its base, it also codifies the 25 amendments to the notification. Its
stated objectives are to ensure livelihood security to the fishing communities and other
local communities living in coastal areas. In addition to earlier provisions, the CRZ now
also includes for the first time the water and bed area between the low tide line (LTL) to the
territorial water limit (12 nautical miles) in case of the sea, as well as the water and the bed
area of tidal-influenced water bodies, such as creeks, rivers, and estuaries. This new
notification reconciles three objectives:
1. Protection of livelihoods of traditional fisher communities
2. Preservation of coastal ecology
3. Promotion of economic activity that have necessarily to be located in coastal regions.
Four categories of Coastal Regulation Zones have been identified in the CRZ 2011
Notification.

2.1 Category-I (CRZ I)4

This includes areas that are ecologically sensitive and important, such as national
parks/marine parks, sanctuaries, reserve forests, wildlife habitats, mangroves, corals/coral
reefs, breeding and spawning grounds of fish, and other marine life. This has been termed
as ‘‘No Development Zone’’.

2.2 Category-II (CRZ II)

Under this category, there are areas that are already developed close to the shoreline.

2.3 Category-III (CRZ III)

These areas are relatively undisturbed and include areas which do not belong to either
category I or II. These include coastal zones in the rural areas (developed and undevel-
oped) (DNA 2011).

2.4 Category-IV (CRZ IV)

Coastal stretches in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, and Small Island
except those designated as CRZ I, CRZ II, CRZ III5 are included in this category.
The new Coastal Regulation Zone 2011 norms, released by the MoEF, have already
begun attracting criticism. The then Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh (2011) had
identified ‘‘protection of livelihoods of traditional fisherfolk and promotion of economic
activity for this coastal community’’ as one of the prime objectives behind the new norms
(Sharma 2011). Fisherfolk, however, have raised objections against certain clauses
claiming that these seriously ‘‘compromised livelihood and habitation rights’’. Not
everyone is apprehensive, however, about the new regulation. Builders and real estate
3
For more details, see: http://www.moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/FAQ-CRZ.pdf.
4
MoEF 6 Jan 2011, Times of India 8th Jan. 2011.
5
Sridhar UNDP (2005).

123
Urban development, environmental vulnerability and CRZ…

developers are viewing it as a positive step. But the fishing communities along the
7500-km long coastline are distressed, especially as many of their inputs were not included
in the notification; environmentalists fear that unchecked development of coastal zones
will destroy precious natural buffers and biodiversity (Table 1).

3 Violations of CRZ Notification in Maharashtra and Mumbai

Using development rhetoric, the state has permitted various kinds of projects in the coastal
areas of Maharashtra. These include power plants, amusement parks, a sea-link bridge, an
airport, several harbors and ports, and a chemical industries zone. These activities con-
tribute to pollution, encroach upon fishing areas, and displace fisher communities in almost
the entire stretch of the coastal belt of Maharashtra. Details of some major projects that
have come up on violation of coastal regulation norms are given below:
• The EsselWorld Amusement Park at Gorai in Mumbai This project has destroyed 700
acres of mangrove fields by spraying chemicals in Gorai village in Mumbai. The
company is trying to reclaim the mangrove fields in the CRZ I, to which fisher people
have enjoyed traditional and customary access, and local fishers are prevented from
fishing in the area. The Maharashtra Machhimar Kriti Samiti (an organization of fish
workers in the state) and the National Fish workers Forum have been agitating against
this company through blockades and strikes and have asked the company to vacate the
700 acres of mangrove fields, and pleaded to be allowed to fish in proximate areas. It is
estimated that five hundred Koli fishing households are affected through loss of
livelihood in this case.
• Thermal Power Plant at Dahanu This project has reclaimed vast wetland of more than
1000 acres for construction of the plant and dumping of ash. Around 1000 fisherfolk,
who fish in the wetlands at high and low tides, are affected by this project. Ash
dumping pollutes the coastal waters, and several species of fishes have disappeared,
further affecting fisher livelihoods.
• Bandra-Worli sea-link bridge in Mumbai For this project, 70 acres of estuary area of
the Mithi River at Mahim have been reclaimed. Fishermen of the area who were
picking clams, oysters, crabs, and creek fish during high and low tides have been

Table 1 Positive and negative aspects of CRZ Notification 2011

Positive aspects of CRZ 2011 Negative aspects

Imposes restrictions on activities in the coastal zone
Prohibits setting up of new (or expansion of
existing) industries as well as units for power
generation
Flow of untreated wastes and effluents into the
coastal ecology and water bodies are prohibited
Construction activities in CRZ I area are prohibited
Provision for construction of jetties, dispensaries,
schools, public rain shelters, community toilets,
bridges, roads and provision of facility of water
supply, drainage and sewerage for local
communities
Equation (2008)
Allows non-polluting industries such as industrial
technology (IT) services as part of special
economic zones (SEZ)
Foreshore facilities for thermal power plants are
allowed
In SEZ areas, beach resorts and recreational
facilities are permitted
CRZ 2011 seems to favor the interests of real estate
lobby, tourism, infrastructure sector, and
industries, rather than the fishing community
Notification is badly structured and organized;
difficult for common people to understand
(Panigrahi and Mohanty 2012)

123
 H. A. Chouhan et al.

displaced, and the coastal ecosystem has been greatly damaged affecting both the catch,
and access for fishing boats. This marks a clear violation of the traditional and
customary rights of the fisher people.
• The Tarapur–Mahad–Parashram–Lote chemical industrial zone Large-scale pollution
of the river, creek, and sea has been observed affecting fishing grounds and drinking
water wells in fisher villages.
• Bombay High oil wells in the deep sea: The digging of wells for oil by the Government
of India in the deep seas has encroached on several fishing grounds, in addition to
polluting the sea, and affecting fish catch.
• Industrial fishing vessels in the deep sea, the Enron power project, and the mega-airport
at Rewas-Mandawa are other examples of environmentally destructive projects which
simultaneously affect fisher livelihoods and habitats.
• The Nagothana-Vadhavan mega-harbor in North Maharashtra and tourism and
aquaculture projects are also affecting the coastal ecosystem, marine environment,
and fish resources (Chouhan et al. 2015).
In view of such large-scale encroachments and violations, fisher people are quite dis-
turbed at the ways in which protective environmental legislation such as those relating to
CRZ are being undermined with detrimental consequences for their lives, livelihoods, and
dependent ecosystems. One of their leaders narrated the outcome of urban development
projects thus: ‘‘this model of development does not benefit the fishermen in any way, but
creates uncertainties for their survival and livelihood. For the protection of the coastal
ecosystem, and the management of fish resources, community rights over the water bodies
should be entrusted with the local fisher folk’’ (Patil 2001).
With reduced oxygen levels and high levels of pollution affecting marine life in loca-
tions such as Bandra and Mahim creek. Monsoon fishing as a source of livelihood and
income supplement in the traditionally lean months have been affected. Fishers practice a
ban on fishing in the sea during the monsoon as it is the breeding season, and the practice
ensures a sustainable supply of fish. At Versova, dead fish are being washed ashore because
of untreated effluents polluting the water. Outside the city, fisher people have gone to battle
over projects ranging from five star hotels (Velaghar Beach), commercial complexes
(Andheri), huge port facilities for foreign vessels and trawlers (Vadhavan), and a thermal
power station (Kelve). In Alibag, a popular weekend getaway for the city’s middle-class
and elite, fourteen Koli villages are threatened with displacement due to tourist, real estate,
and other impending projects (IGIDR 2006).
At present, there are more than 27 Koliwadas and more than 88 Gaothans in greater
Mumbai. Among them, more than 16 Koliwadas and 23 Gaothans are CRZ affected.6 Most
are located on the seashore or coastal zones. Although each Koliwada is unique, they share
common characteristics and problems. Pollution, lack of basic amenities, declining catch,
increasing costs, inadequate housing and space for trade related activities are issues, have
affected most Koli families (Warhaft 2001). On the other side, there is also encroachment by
migrants and CRZ violations in fisher villages. Thus, the main problems affecting CRZ
areas in Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) coastal region include land use pattern,
residential and industrial water supply and waste disposal, transportation-related air, soil
and noise pollution, coastal marine pollution, and depletion of important coastal habitats
like wetlands and mangroves (Vijay et al. 2005). Parts of the coastal zone of MMR have also

6
Researcher collected information from BMC Record 2012, provided by Assistant Engineer, in the month
of May 2012.

123
Urban development, environmental vulnerability and CRZ…

become increasingly susceptible to human-induced environmental stresses and ecological

damage by natural geophysical factors such as erosion, siltation, and coastal flooding in part
due to climatic change. The waste generation and disposal pressures due to domestic and
industrial activities have further contributed to the deterioration of coastal marine water
quality and coastal fisheries (Singh and Somvansi 2004). It is necessary to assess the status
of various sectors that are associated with these problems before deciding appropriate
strategies to address them through Integrated Coastal Management (IACM) measures.

4 Coastal management and CRZ violations (fieldwork) in Mumbai

The MMR coastal region is the economic and industrial capital of India with around 9000
industries ranging from chemicals, fertilizers, iron and steel, oil refineries, and thermal
power located here. Industrial pollution in the MMR has not been fully assessed, but the
main sources are gaseous emissions, solid and liquid wastes, and toxic and hazardous
wastes (Murthy et al. 2010).
The Koli fishing community, the vast majority of whom practice small-scale artisanal
fishing, are implicated in a developmental regime, wherein the state and central govern-
ments authorize and support gigantic projects which have continuously affected their
resource base. Marine pollution comprising industrial and domestic loads as well as
hydrocarbons and tar deposits has spoilt of most of the beaches and coastal waters around
Mumbai. Mangroves are an important component of the coastal ecosystem that keeps the
shoreline intact against tidal currents by preventing soil erosion. They also provide habitat
for several wildlife marine species, including birds, shrimps, and fishes (Murthy et al.
2010). Parthasarathy notes that during the 2005 floods, mangroves and salt pans in the
eastern suburbs mitigated the scale of disaster. Destruction of mangroves was a key ele-
ment of flooding in the Western Suburbs. Density of mangroves is important to accrue
ecological and environmental benefits, but these have been under constant threat from
development incursions in the city7 (Parthasarathy 2011). Unplanned development, and
high population density, imposes severe restrictions on resources and leads to conflicts
among different stakeholders (Warhaft 2001). These problems are further exacerbated by:
(a) the use of wetlands and mangroves for land development with negative impact on port
management, damages due to coastal erosion and effects on fishery resources, (b) waste
disposal activities affecting the coastal water quality, fisheries, recreation, and tourism,
(c) unplanned land reclamation procedures leading to the loss of tidal flushing resulting in
polluted beaches. Thus, coastal problems cannot be managed successfully as separate
issues, such as pollution or wetland loss or fisheries depletion. These issues are all inter-
related and need to be addressed as such (Murthy et al. 2010).
In order to therefore understand the larger implications and consequences, as well as
contributing factors to the scenario and outcomes described above, research was conducted
in the MMR using structured and unstructured interviews, observation, and focus group
discussions (FGD’s). Affected locations in the region were identified for case studies of
areas affected by encroachments on coastal spaces; the main focus was on impact of CRZ
violations on small-scale fishery and their impacts on fishing livelihoods and environment.
The areas selected include Badhwar Park, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Chimbai Koliwada,
Thane–Mulund creek, and Sewri, and CRZ violations have been observed in all these

7
The term ‘‘development’’ is widely used by urban planners and builders as an abbreviation for real estate
development. In other words, for developing a built environment.

123
 H. A. Chouhan et al.

areas. During site visits, interviews were conducted with officials and members of fisher
cooperative societies, community leaders, environmental activists, NGO personnel, and
researchers in the field. Table identifies the research areas, specifies the CRZ category
under which each site falls, and provides a brief outline of the nature of CRZ violations in
these sites (Table 2).

4.1 CRZ violations in Badhwar Park, Cuffe Parade

Before 1965, the Badhwar Park, Cuffe Parade area was under the seawater where the
fishing community was engaged in small fish catching. This is where they caught their fish
and did their related activities of fish catching such as weaving nets and drying the fish.
However, they resided at Azad Nagar, Sudan Zopadi, and Jamshedji Bandar in the Colaba
area. In the year of 1965–1966, the government began reclaiming this area for the con-
structing residential and commercial buildings for the rich. The fishing community

Table 2 CRZ categories, features, and their location in Mumbai

CRZ categories and features Research areas in Mumbai CRZ violations in brief

CRZ I—ecological sensitive area,
declared as ‘‘No Development
Zone’’ (NDZ); contains national
parks/marine parks, sanctuaries,
reserve forests, wildlife habitats,
mangroves, corals/coral reefs,
close to breeding and spawning
grounds of fish and other marine
life, rich genetic biodiversity;
constitutes low and high tide line
as defined in the CRZ
Notification
CRZ II—areas already developed
up to or close to the shoreline;
developed areas refer to
substantially built-up urban
areas and are provided with
drainage, approach roads and
other infrastructural facilities
such as water supply and
sewerage mains. Up to 500 m
from the coastline
CRZ III—this zone refers to
undisturbed areas, and rural
areas (developed and
undeveloped); areas within the
municipal limits or in other
legally designated areas which
are not substantially built up;
Gaothans and Koliwadas
Source: Sridhar UNDP (2005)
Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Thane–
Mulund creek, Sewri
Badhwar Park, Colaba Koliwada,
Bhandup Village, Chimbai
Koliwada
Some Koliwadas and Gaothans
in the MMR come under CRZ
III. Sion Koliwada, Mahim
Koliwada, Dharavi Koliwada,
Worli Koliwada, ect.
Encroachment by non-fisher
migrants leading to pollution
and restricted access to open
spaces used by fishers.
Restricted space for jetty, boat,
and net repair, drying of fish,
etc. and other fishing-related
activities. In Thane–Mulund
creek, 137 acre of marine
ecology destroyed for
construction of SEZ even though
SEZs are not allowed in CRZ I
area. In Sewri, there is violation
by the Bombay Port Trust (BPT)
for storing coal in the seashore,
due to which fish breeding has
been affected
Chimbai Koliwada is under severe
pressure from real estate
developers. Constructions have
violated the floor space index
(FSI) norms imposing pressure
on fragile ecologies in CRZ
areas. Fisher spaces used for fish
market, and other activities have
been encroached upon
Encroachment by non-fisher
migrants, restricted space for
fishing-related activities

123
Urban development, environmental vulnerability and CRZ…

consisting of 200–250 affected families protested this reclamation as it took away the sole
means of their daily livelihood.
The present day Nariman Point, Oberoi Hotel, and other posh residential areas have
supplanted the fishing area since 1973. As part of the protest, the dependent families
shifted their residence here to put an end to the further reclamation. Initially, the entire
residents of the Colaba area that is the 200–250 families to Cuffe Parade. However, the
number of the families increased and by 2011 more than 1500 families reside in this area;
among them, 80 percent are totally dependent on fish catching even today.

4.2 CRZ violation in 134 acres of land in the Thane Creek in Mulund–Thane
belt

The Mulund–Thane belt falls under CRZ I. However, there is a dispute presently as to
whether it belongs to CRZ I or CRZ III. The dispute arose around 2005 as a SEZ was
earmarked on a 134 acre mangrove belt between Mulund and Thane. According to CRZ
1991 and 2011, a SEZ is not allowed on a CRZ I area. The proposed land for the SEZ
project is barely 200 m off the Thane Creek. It was surrounded by a thick cover of
mangroves on three sides, some of which have been cleared for construction of the SEZ.
Intertidal waters can be seen in and around the plot. Thane and Mahim creeks are probably
the most polluted locations. Mahim bay and Thane creek were once bestowed with good
fisheries, flourishing oyster beds, and lush fringing mangroves. Due to the recent industrial
and domestic activities and high pollution concentrations, fisheries are nonexistent. Mas-
sive increase in benthic productivity and depletion of coastal biodiversity shows the
damage done by pollution to the coastal environment. Thane creek exhibited low values of
dissolved oxygen and that has further destroyed the marine flora and fauna.8

4.3 CRZ violation in Chimbai Koliwada

The Chimbai Koliwada beach that is part of CRZ I is a 1-km stretch between Joggers’ Park
and Bandra Bandstand. The fishing community forms around 80 % of the existing popu-
lation. They are mostly small-scale fishers who have been involved in subsistence fishing
for many decades. The prime location of the Chimbai beach and its water front possibilities
is attracting many builders to the area. A number of legal and illegal constructions have
come up on the beach in the last decade. According to local fishermen, Suresh Chimbaikar
of Chimbai village,9 these builders and their construction process have severely violated
the CRZ norms. The community has been fighting against such rampant illegal con-
structions for several years now. The BMC and the District Collector apportion blame for
these illegalities and violations on each other. In addition to the construction, the debris
from the construction sites is dumped near the seashore. Encroachments have increased
over these years. In addition, fisherfolk are also resisting a state-supported beautification
plan for area with an aim to improve its environmental conditions, but in reality
encroaching on the fishing village and creating amenities for non-fisher residents of the
city.

8
Information collected by local fishermen Mr. Pawar. From Bhandup Village Mumbai.
9
Interview of fish workers in Chimbai village, on May 9th, 2012.

123
 H. A. Chouhan et al.

4.4 CRZ violation in Sewri Creek

Sewri area (popularly/commonly known as Shivdi) is a small hamlet on the eastern shore
of Mumbai. It comes under CRZ I because of its mangrove cover. The fishing community
in these parts has been staying here since the colonial period dependent on small fishing as
a livelihood. According to local respondents, the state government after independence
reclaimed this area for the Bombay Port Trust. Currently large parts of Sewri belong to the
Bombay Port Trust along with harbor facilities. The mangrove swamps of Sewri were
declared a protected ecology, as the Sewri Mangrove Park by the BPT on January 15, 1996.
This park consists of 15 acres of mangroves in the mudflats between Sewri and Trombay.
These mudflats are near the Sewri jetty which is a 20-min walk from the Sewri railway
station on the harbor line. The area is of ecological importance as flamingoes from other
parts of India come to these mangroves to breed. They arrive at the mudflats from the
months between October and March every year. BPT has taken a number of measures to
protect the area ecologically. In 1995, the BPT had undertaken to protect this area from any
new construction or dredging activity. It had also declared its intention to influence the
chemical industries along the coastline to check air and water pollution by reinforcing
effluent control measures. The Trust further planned to protect the park from residents of
nearby areas who cut down trees for fuel, as well as from real estate developers who
indulged in sand mining, thereby weakening the grip of anchor roots. In all these activities,
the BPT was more successful than was expected. However, more than a decade later, from
2007, this wetland habitat is in danger of being wiped out by the planned Mumbai-Nava
Sheva road link. In recent years, a lot of construction activity has been taking place in this
area due to opening up of mill lands and the Mumbai Port Trust area. The Sewri-Nhava
Sheva Trans Harbour Link, which is being planned by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region
Development Authority (MMRDA) in this area, threatens the habitat of the migratory
flamingoes. Dumping of coal on coastal belt affects the fish species, fisher livelihoods, and
dependent ecosystems.
In the next section, the manifold impacts of pollution, encroachment, and development
activities in the above sites are described in more detail to elaborate their consequences for
fisher livelihoods and dependent ecosystems.

5 Multiple impacts of pollution, encroachment, beautification, and CRZ

violations on fishing livelihoods

Fishers in the sites surveyed revealed a number of specific links between developments-
related impacts and their livelihoods, resulting from pollution of coastal ecologies,
encroachment, and displacement.

5.1 Pollution

(a) The increased dumping of plastics, household and industrial wastes, and chemical
effluents are leading to a drastic decline in fish species and declining catch in all of
the areas surveyed. Due to these impacts, small fish workers are forced into the deep
sea up to 10 nautical miles on small boats for fishing. Since they cannot go deeper
into the sea, they face both competition with trawler fishing and the declining catch

123
Urban development, environmental vulnerability and CRZ…

closer to the shores. Their smaller nets often get entangled with the bigger trawler
and purse seine nets which damage their nets, resulting in further financial costs.
(b) In the Thane–Mulund Creek, the main reasons for coastal pollution are industrial
construction and mixing of storm water and sewerage pipeline both of which let
effluents into coastal zones, destroying mangroves which are an importing spawning
ground for fish, and protect coastal ecologies. A large number of industries let
untreated effluents flow into coastal creeks, backwaters, streams, and drains which
are part of the estuarine system. This has led to health hazards and breeding of
mosquitoes. A fish worker complained that ‘‘now it is mosquitoes that are
multiplying not fish’’.
(c) In Sewri Creek, the discharge from the BPT includes coal and oil which are directly
dumped into the sea. Due to this, mangroves are drying up and gradually dying. To
protect the mangroves from extinction, the local fishers have attempted to restore the
mangrove ecosystem.
(d) Due to gradual destruction of the mangrove ecosystem, the ecology of the coastal
area is drastically affected. Mangroves are nurseries for marine life; they provide
food for wetland birds and mammals. They filter toxins like heavy metals and
prevent its entry to the food chain. Hence, they are important for fish breeding. The
leaves of mangroves are food for small fishes and for crustaceans that are also an
important source of livelihood. Hence, degradation of mangroves directly affects
species health and thus fisheries-based livelihoods (Chouhan et al. 2015).

5.2 Depletion and decline of fish population and species

(a) Coastal pollution is one of the main reasons for the extinction of fish in Mumbai’s
coastal regions. In Mulund–Thane creek, many varieties of fish are no longer to be
found in big quantities. These include Jitadi (Sneeper), Chimbori (Crabs), Small sine
(Sins), Karpal (Tiger pounds), and Boi (silver fish). Some species of fishes such as
the Kullim has totally disappeared.
(b) In Chimbai Koliwada, also several fish species are declining. The lesser number of
fishing boats in the villages and the lesser quantity of fish catch are an indication that
fishing as an occupation is no more profitable in this area. According to local fishers,
each fishing family used to own 2–3 boats. However, now the number of boats has
decreased to 1 per household, resulting in lower catch. Landing grounds have also
been encroached upon, and they are increasingly finding it difficult to carry out
fishing operations. Fish workers also complain that big fishes such as Lekhru, Tamb,
and Prawns which were part of their catch earlier are on the decline. The number of
days when fishers have to return empty handed from fishing trips are on the increase.
(c) In Sewri Creek, fishers used to catch a wide variety of species such as Boi, Bangda,
Tarla, Tingala, Pale, Sewad, Kolambi, Pamplet, Goli, Rawas, Toli, and Wam. Most
of these species have disappeared, and fishers are reduced to catching crustaceans
such as crabs, or forced to go for deep sea fishing on their small boats.

5.3 Encroachment

In Sewri Creek, the port trust activities and other construction-related encroachment as
well as the Sewri-Nhava Sheva Trans Harbour Link have disturbed fisheries by taking
away landing grounds, fishing zones, and common areas used for fisheries. Access to their

123
 H. A. Chouhan et al.

villages and to land and water for fishing-related activities is greatly restricted due to a
number of projects and encroachments—both legal and illegal.

5.4 Beautification

In many fishing villages, new middle-class and elite urban activism has steadily increased
the number of beautification projects in the coastal commons. Land used for parking boats,
as landing grounds, for drying fish, repairing nets, and for fish markets has been taken over
by citizen groups such as Advanced Legislative Management Societies (ALMS) and the
municipal corporation as part of several beautification projects. The Jogger’s Park in
Bandra has been taken over for such purposes, and there appears to be a clear agenda to
drive the fishing population out of Chimbai Koliwada. Fishers in the area claim that their
access to the foreshore areas would be greatly restricted if such projects are allowed to
come up. Indeed, some parts of the coastal commons used by local fisherfolk have already
been taken over for such middle class led ‘‘bourgeois environmentalism’’ projects
(Baviskar 2005).

6 Fishing communities, livelihoods, and conservation

Historically, artisanal fishing has been practiced in a sustainable manner, both in terms of
conservation of marine resources and in terms of conservation of coastal ecosystems. This
is so for several reasons:
• The practice of a monsoon ban on fishing provides a period for fish breeding, ensuring a
healthy stock for the subsequent season.
• Mangroves are recognized as spaces where fish spawn and hence are protected; only
dried and fallen species of trees are taken for fuel wood.
• The use of small boats and prevention of other commercial and residential activities
ensured little or no coastal pollution.
• There was no pressure to overexploit coastal natural resources, and hence coastal
ecosystems were conserved.
In view of the above, it is essential that protection of artisanal fishing as a livelihood
option is closely tied to environmental conservation and better implementation of CRZ
rules. The protection of mangroves is especially imperative as mangrove forests are
among the most productive terrestrial ecosystems and constitute a natural and
renewable resource. Mangroves act as a buffer zone between the land and sea,
providing flood protection services, and prevent ingress of seawater during high tide.
Mangroves also protect against coastal erosion and ensure the health of coral reefs,
apart from enhancing biodiversity. Since mangrove water levels are shallow, and due to
other conducive features, they are ideal places for growing of sea algae and for
spawning of fish and other marine species. Mangroves are breeding, feeding, and
nursery grounds for many estuarine and marine organisms. They also provide
significant ecosystem services by absorbing and treating impurities and harmful heavy
metals.10

10
Documentation and information collected from Mr. D. Stalin (Project Director of Vanashakti Organi-
zation). See more details: http://www.vanashakti.in/.

123
Urban development, environmental vulnerability and CRZ…

It thus becomes evident that proper implementation of CRZ rules is crucial for the
ensuring the health of coastal ecosystems. However, it is seen that the state level MCZMA
has been lax on several levels in this regard. The state level MCZMA was constituted by
the MoEF under EPA, 1986. The authority has the power to adopt and implement nec-
essary measures for protecting and improving the quality of the coastal environment and
preventing, abating, and controlling environmental pollution in the coastal areas. A key
requirement to enable the MCZMA to carry out its mandated functions is an Integrated
Coastal Zone Management Plan (ICZMP). The complex impacts of encroachments,
environmental degradation, pollution, and biodiversity loss in a context where these zones
are the basis for livelihoods for thousands of fishers, creates a context for effective
development and implementation of an ICZMP. Due to the complex nature of human
activity along the coast, a holistic all-encompassing approach is needed for coastal zone
management.
However, the functioning of the MCZMA leaves much to be desired. In 2009, there
were 24 complaints registered against CRZ violation in Maharashtra, but the MCZMA has
only issued letters to such violators. No action has been taken against any of these
agencies. In 2010, there were 42 complaints registered, of which only 10 complaints are
under directive process, and the rest were only issued letters of clarification and show
cause. In 2011, 99 complaints were registered against CRZ violations, of which in only 3
complaints work stoppage was effected. The MCZMA has written to the Municipal
Commissioner on the matter of identifying Koliwadas in Mumbai for making an ICZMP
with participation of the local community on April 2011. However, till date the preparation
of detailed maps for CZ identification and implementation, the ICZMP itself has not been
completed. Clearly, there is much apathy with respect to the functioning and implemen-
tation of coastal management and regulation plans, norms, and laws in the Mumbai region,
which aid and abet rampant violation of CRZ rules, and continuous encroachments on the
coastal commons severely affecting the environment and fisher livelihoods.

7 Conclusion

There is considerable debate over the CRZ with the environmental concern and livelihood
security of fishing communities in India in general and the Mumbai region in particular.
The CRZ Notification was published with the intention of bringing a balance between
infrastructure development, preservation of ecosystems and to ensure livelihood security
for the coastal fishing community. However, from the very beginning, the enforcement
agencies have been quite apathetic in implementing the CRZ rules. One of the major
criticisms leveled against the CRZ Notification is that largely and deliberately ignores
public participation, and thereby neglects local (coastal) context and issues. In the case of
Maharashtra, it may be observed that the state coastal authority tasked with CRZ imple-
mentation (MCZMA) has not taken the implementation of the notification seriously.
Hence, the failure of the CRZ is because of the unwillingness of the government to enforce
it. In fact, the MCZMA has not even completed mapping of all CRZ areas in the state as
mandated by the CRZ Notification of 2011.
Fisheries ecosystem is destroyed by large-scale commercial fishing and their destructive
technologies. Modernization and commercial overfishing in India have marginalized,
impoverished, or simply wiped out many artisanal fishing communities. The resultant
process of marginalization and the loss of livelihood among the artisanal fishing

123
 H. A. Chouhan et al.

communities have turned them into ‘‘ecological refugees11.’’ However, it is striking to note
the total absence of any effectual policies measure as well to address such concerns. India’s
artisanal fisher people have been disaffected and displaced by capitalist development,
which has served only to further impoverish them (Warhaft 2001). The state has not
demarcated any limits for big trawler fishing, which are destroying the nets of small fish
workers.
The main focus of environmentalists in India has been to save or preserve biodiversity
of coastal area rather than livelihood of dependent people in coastal areas. Such an
approach fails to consider the interlinkages between coastal livelihoods and environmental
conservation. Fisher communities manage coastal zones in a sustainable manner as it is an
essential source of livelihood. Conservation of biological diversity is a common concern
and is integral for the addressing problems of development, disaster mitigation, and
environmental conservation. This lack of concern for dependent communities is leading to
growing commercial exploitation, reduction in the loss of biodiversity, continued alien-
ation of indigenous communities, and the creation of administrative, policy and legal
measures which remain paper tigers (Wani and Taraporvala 2012). It also has implications
for local participation in biodiversity and mangrove sustainability issues, due to which
local champions for environmental causes are absent on the ground, and conservation
remains an elite or middle-class motivation. The indigenous fishing community, which is
totally dependent on fisheries-related activities, is marginalized due to market forces and
state policies promoting encroachment in coastal zones (Warhaft 2001), leading to eco-
logical degradation and livelihood losses. Increasing encroachment leads to scarcity of land
(Parthasarathy 2011) and pushes out the Koli fishing communities out of fisheries-related
livelihoods (Ranade 2008). There is a need to have an effective Coastal Zone Management
committee which will better represent the interests, perspectives, and knowledge of the
local fisher community. The new CRZ Notification of 2011 is well intentioned, but faces
the problem of poor implementation and lack of political and administrative will.
Coastal problems cannot be managed successfully as separate issues or as a single issue,
such as pollution or wetland loss or fisheries depletion as these problems are interrelated. A
centralized establishment specializing in coastal and marine affairs whose function would
be to oversee the ongoing coastal activities and would coordinate between these agencies is
a necessary step in order to ensure biodiversity protection, and further deterioration of
Mumbai’s sensitive coastal ecological system as well as marginalization of the livelihoods
of the fishing communities. However, such an institution must ensure better cross-scale and
cross-institutional linkages to address, problems of diversity, differential needs of envi-
ronmental management and coastal livelihood sustainability.

References
Baviskar, A. (2005). Red in tooth and claw? Looking for class in struggles over nature in social movements
in India. In R. Ray & M. F. Katzenstein (Eds.), Poverty, power and politics (pp. 161–179). New York:
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Chouhan, H. A., & Parthasarathy, D. (2015). Urban development, environmental vulnerability and CRZ vio-
lations: Issues and challenges for fishing community in Mumbai (pp. 9–22). Saarbrucken: Scholars Press.
Chouhan, H. A., Parthasarathy, D., & Pattanaik, S. (2015). Evidence based management of coastal zone and
CRZ violations in Mumbai: Urgency of integrated coastal zone management plan (ICZMP) in
Maharashtra (pp. 546–551). New Delhi: Excellent Publishing House.

11
The term coined by Guha and Gadgil (1995).

123
Urban development, environmental vulnerability and CRZ…

DNA Daily News and Analysis. (2011). Kolis in Mumbai find new CRZ norms a fishy proposition. 8
January. http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_kolis-in-mumbai-find-new-crz-norms-a-fishy-propo
sition_1495061. Accessed 9 Jan 2011.
EQUATION. (2008). Coastal regulation in India, Why do we need a new notification? (pp. 59–62). Ban-
galore: EQUATIONS.
Guha, R. (1989). The unquiet woods. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Guha, R., & Gadgil, M. (1995). Ecology and equity. New Delhi: Delhi Oxford University Press.
IGIDR. (2006). State of environment: Maharashtra. Mumbai: Indira Gandhi Institute of Development
Research.
Jamwal, N. (2010). Backdoor democracy. Down to Earth. For details see www.downtoearth.org.in or http://
www.downtoearth.org.in/node/285. Accessed 25 June 2010.
Ministry of Environment & Forest (MoEF). (2009). Final frontier: Agenda to protect the ecosystem and
habitat of India’s coast for conservation and livelihood security. New Delhi: Ministry of Environment
and Forest, Government of India.
Murthy, R. C., Rao, Y. R., & Inamdar, A. B. (2010). Integrated coastal management of Mumbai
metropolitan region. Ocean and Coastal Management, 44, 355–368.
Panigrahi, J. K., & Mohanty, P. K. (2012). Effectiveness of the Indian coastal regulation zones provisions
for coastal zone management and its evaluation using SWOT analysis. Ocean & Coastal Management,
65, 34-50.
Parthasarathy, D. (2011). Hunters, gatherers and foragers in a metropolis: Communizing the private and
public in Mumbai. Economic and Political Weekly, XLVI(50), 54–63.
Patil, R. (2001). Coastal zone conflicts in Maharashtra. In International Collective in Support of Fishworkers
(ICSF) International Ocean Institute (IOI), India (pp 156–157).
Ranade, S. (2008). The Kolis of Mumbai at crossroads: Religion, business and urbanization in cosmopolitan
Bombay today. In Paper Presented at the 17th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of
Australia, Melbourne, 1–3 July.
Sharma, C. (2011). CRZ Notification 2011: Not the end of the road. Economic and Political Weekly,
XLVI(7), 31–35.
Singh, V. V., & Somvansi, V. S. (Eds.). (2004). Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)—A viable
approach for sustainable resource utilization from Large Marine Ecosystem of Mumbai (pp. 494–496).
Mumbai: Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute.
Sridhar, A. (2005). Statement on the CRZ Notification and post-tsunami rehabilitation in Tamil Nadu (pp.
27–30). New Delhi: UNDP.
Times of India. (2011). New coastal regulation zone 2011. 16 January. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
topic/coastal-regulation-zone. Accessed 17 Jan 2011.
Vijay, V., Biradar R. S., Inamdar, A. B., Deshmukhe, G., Baji, S. & Pikle, M. (Eds.). (2005). Mangrove
mapping and change detection around Mumbai (Bombay) using remotely sensed data. Indian Journal
of Marine sciences, 34, 310–315.
Vivekanandan, V. (2007). Changing climate of the livelihood and rights of fishermen on the coast. In
Presentation made at the workshop on ‘Combating Coastal Challenges (pp 7–8). Organized by Citizen
Consumer and Civic Action Group (CAG), Chennai.
Wani, M., & Taraporvala, P. (2012). CoP-11 on biodiversity: An opportunity to go beyond business as usual.
Economic and Political Weekly, XLVII(38), 10.
Warhaft, S. (2001). No parking at the bunder: Fisher people and survival in capitalist Mumbai. South Asia:
Journal of South Asian Studies, 24(2), 213–223.

123