The Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEFCC) made key dilutions in the law that regulates land use along India’s coastline after its draft was closed for public input, an IndiaSpend investigation shows. These dilutions in the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019, allowed for future easing of building restrictions in coastal cities and the development of airports in the wastelands’ of coastal villages. Documents accessed exclusively through a Right to Information application by IndiaSpend show that these changes made to the draft were intensely debated within the ministry and discussed at the level of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). The dilutions related to the: Future possibility of intensifying construction activity in urban coastal areas Development of airports in wastelands/non-arable lands in rural coastal areas. The CRZ Notification 2019 issued last year had ignored over 90% of representations objecting to the draft law, IndiaSpend reported in February 2020. The ministry had reasoned that the Shailesh Nayak Committee set up in 2014 to review the law had already addressed public concerns. Our story showed that the committee had consulted only the governments of coastal states and union territories and had not sought public inputs. However, we have found that the environment ministry not only ignored the public inputs, but also added several fresh provisions to the final law that were not present in the draft. These new provisions could alter rural and urban spaces in coastal areas and threaten traditional coastal occupations and preparedness for climate change-induced disasters, experts say. Urbanisation and developments closer to the sea increase the threat of floods manifold for an already vulnerable coastal population of about 36 million, we had reported. The future of many marginalised traditional communities is linked to the disaster-preparedness of the coasts, IndiaSpend reported in October 2019. The dilutions made in the law, besides adding to environmental vulnerability and jeopardising the livelihood security of traditional coastal dwellers, are also pertinent from the viewpoint of policy making, especially at a time when a new law on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is open for public inputs, said experts. IndiaSpend emailed a set of questions to the joint secretary, CRZ, MoEF&CC, six months ago and followed up with another email and three phone calls requesting an explanation for why changes were made to the law after the draft was closed for public input. No reply was received. The story will be updated when a response is received. Bypassing public scrutiny More than 10 amendments were made to the CRZ 2011 law, and more than 30 amendments to the EIA Notification 2011–without the mandatory public notice. Even when the draft policies were opened up for scrutiny, public opinions were ignored, as demonstrated in the case of the CRZ. The draft, issued in 2018, had suggested eco-tourism activities in ecologically sensitive parts of the coast, intense development in urban areas and reduction in development restrictions for dense rural areas. Fisherfolk along with environmentalists, NGOs, marine experts, urban planners and researchers had rejected the draft. The timing of the draft’s issue came at a busy time–the traditional coastal communities were busy attending public hearings and highlighting the errors in the draft coastal zone management plans, which each state had drawn up district-wise to implement the CRZ Notification. These plans–and the land-use delineated in them–are the documents that regulators refer to while making developmental, regulatory and enforcement decisions for the coast. Fisherfolk needed to ensure that their villages and the spaces for parking boats and drying fish were correctly marked on the CRZ maps and plans. But in January 2019, the MoEFCC finalised the draft and as it did so, it slipped in some significant changes, which further endangered the ecology, resilience and traditional livelihoods of the coast, as we mentioned earlier. And since these dilutions were added after the draft was closed for comments, the public did not get to review and comment on them. Increased scope for overbuilding Two measures, the Floor Space Index (FSI) and Floor Area Ratio (FAR), determine the total covered area including all floors vis-a-vis the total size of a property. In the 2011 law, these building development standards had been fixed to the 1991 level. The draft proposed to de-freeze them and apply the FSI/FAR ratio prevailing at the time of the notification for constructions and reconstructions in urban areas. This part did not change in the final notification, but a phrase was added to the effect that if a state/union territory seeks to alter these standards further, it could approach the Centre. The Centre would examine various aspects such as available public amenities, environment protection measures, etc. and make a decision. An internal note signed by the then joint secretary, Ritesh Kumar Singh, on August 8, 2018, stated that the Shailesh Nayak Committee had recommended that local town and country planning regulations determine the FSI norms. It highlighted that the draft CRZ law implied that in future, the FSI/FAR would not be adjusted automatically’ according to the local regulations. The note found merit in state governments’ grievances, particularly from Maharashtra, about the non-alignment of CRZ norms and local building regulations. It suggested that prevailing as on the date of this notification be replaced with prevailing from time to time. This, according to the note, would bring the notification in line with the Shailesh Nayak Committee report too. However, Arun Kumar Mehta, the then additional secretary of the environment ministry, disagreed. In response to the note, he reasoned that the freezing of the FSI was required to ensure that coastal areas were not overpopulated as they would be subject to extreme weather events/sea level rise, etc. He added that although the norms were being relaxed now, the population on the coast still needed to be restricted. He provided two reasons for it: reducing vulnerable population and mitigating pollution levels. Thus he suggested that the clause should be linked with the date of the notification i.e. freeze the FSI/FAR as on the date of notification. However, the issue could not get resolved till the end of August 2018. Harsh Vardhan, the then environment minister, found a middle ground: He suggested that while the notification freezes the FSI/FAR to 2019 level, a rider’ could be added that if change is needed, state governments could approach the MoEF&CC through the coastal authorities. The final note with this change was approved by the Union cabinet at the end of 2018…