Shailesh Nayak Committee

Related with Coastal Zone Regulation

Major Highlights:
  • Recommended reduction of the “no development zone” (NDZ) as specified under the coastal regulation zone (CRZ) notification 1991.
  • Proposed for allowing housing infrastructure and slum redevelopment activities, tourism, ports and harbour and fisheries-related activities in coastal regulation zones
  • The report proposes the devolution of powers to state and union territory governments along with local authorities as sought by several states.
  • The Committee is of the opinion that the MoEF&CC should restrict itself to policy making in the area of coastal management and monitoring of activities. Clearances for small projects could be undertaken by the State/UT Governments or other agencies
  • The committee found that the 2011 regulations, especially with regard to construction, have affected the housing, slum redevelopment, redevelopment of dilapidated structures and other dangerous buildings.
All Recommendations:
  • The committee has made some recommendations that could dilute several aspects of protection to CRZ areas. For instance, the committee suggests that buildings can be constructed behind existing structures and roads in CRZ II (built up cities and towns) areas as per existing Town and Country Planning norms.
  • It divides CRZ III (relatively undisturbed areas including rural areas) areas into densely populated rural areas and rural areas with lesser regulation through the reduction of the “no development zone” to 50 metres.
  • The “no development zone” (NDZ) is 200 metres from the high tide line as per CRZ notification 1991. The committee has recommended allowing tourism facilities and other constructions within the NDZ.
  • The report also allows for housing infrastructure and slum redevelopment activities in CRZ II and tourism in CRZ III areas based on town and country planning norms and other state regulations.
  • The committee recommends “temporary tourism facilities in the NDZ. But if the NDZ falls on the landward side of a national or state highway, it suggests permitting construction of permanent tourism facilities.
  • The committee also mentions reclamation of the sea bed in CRZ IV (coastal stretches in the Andaman & Nicobar, Lakshadweep and small islands, except those designated as CRZ-I, CRZ-II or CRZ-III) area for “ports and harbour, fisheries-related activities and other infrastructure required in the larger public interest such as bridges, sea-links on stilts, roads, important national installations related to coastal security, tourism.”
  • The committee mentions the identification and delineation of “ecologically sensitive areas” (ESAs) in CRZ I (ecologically sensitive) along the coasts, which includes mangroves, beaches, coral reefs and others. It suggests that state and union territories prepare coastal zone management plan (CZMP) as per guidelines suggested by the committee. All ESAs should be notified under the environment protection act 1986 by state governments
  • The Committee has acknowledged that there are  ambiguities that exist in key baseline data, including the demarcation of high and low tide lines and the coastal zone boundary, which has affected the preparation of Coastal Zone Management Plans
  • Transferring control of development in the CRZ-II zone from the Environment Department to State Town Planning authorities, as proposed, would mark a radical shift in governance
  • Suggestion that construction and other activities could be taken up in CRZ-III zones just 50 m from the high tide line in densely populated rural areas under State norms (with the responsibility to rescue and rehabilitate during natural calamities left to local authorities) could be based on an over-estimation of the capacity in such bodies



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top