Posted on June 13, 2022
A more holistic approach needs to be adopted, keeping the aspirations and apprehensions of the local communities in mind while employing sustainable urban development.
Thirty-seven percent of the world’s population lives within 100 km of the coast. The World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report 2019 sheds light on the issues concerning rising seas, with 90 percent of the world’s coastal areas facing high risk by2050, including 570 cities and 800 million people. Whilst we deal with climate change and threats to landed properties, coastal cities worldwide have expanded urban coastal infrastructure development. Rapid urbanisation and coastal tourism have been globally marred by contestations, calling for serious mediation. Although protests provide scope for discussion of discounted issues, interventions can pave the way to learn and emerge from coastal confrontations for reframing ideas of sustainable urban development and environmental justice. Such initiatives will lead the way for building an international community towards a sustainable world.
Contestations at the fault lines
Urban and peri-urban development that focuses on the coastal areas places acute pressure on coastal peoples. For instance, the initial Draft Development Plan for Greater Mumbai 2034 released by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority did not include boundaries indicating where Mumbai’s coastal Koliwadas (villages) were located. This led to the understandable anxiety amongst Koliwada residents that Koliwadas did not exist in the plans to develop the city. Similarly, a plan-stage community involvement could have addressed the concerns of Mumbai’s coastal fishers, who are resisting the city’s Coastal Road Project design as they believe it will directly impact their traditional livelihood and ancestral spaces.
The initial Draft Development Plan for Greater Mumbai 2034 released by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority did not include boundaries indicating where Mumbai’s coastal Koliwadas (villages) were located.
Likewise, trawling policies against mechanised industrial trawlers worsened the struggles of the Mukkuvar fishers from coastal villages near Kanyakumari. In response, the Mukkuvar fishers approached the State to direct their issues, while defying local power politics and the church, their religious authority. In a similar example, the pleas of the fishers in anti-nuclear protests against the Kudankulam project were altogether dismissed, leading up to a larger organised resistance and late-stage administrative intervention. In all these cases, timely intervention by giving agency to the community at the formulation stage could have significantly shortened the project development curve and halted unrequired expenditure.
Locating concerns at the source
Coastal settlers, especially the fisher communities, have lived near the coast for generations and have an emotional, cultural, religious, and spiritual attachment to conserving marine ecosystems. Despite a decline in fishing, these relationships form an essential part of their community identity, memories, rituals, and myths[1]. At the non-sacral level, common fisher areas are used for community activities and drying and marketing fish, repairing nets and boats, fish auctions, and storing nets, boats, engines, spare parts, and ice.
Neoliberal urban coastal development demands constant amendments to coastal regulation norms. In addition to the degradation of marine ecologies, depletion of natural resources, loss of land rights, commercial fishing, and overfishing, these adjustments often inadvertently disregard indigenous fisher knowledge and socio-cultural bonds with the seas. This marginalisation is heightened due to the oversight of the planners who frequently employ a unidimensional approach to development. While being vulnerable to the discourse of ‘development’, coastal communities are susceptible to pressures from environmental groups and political interests. The increasing agitations by coastal settlers are indicative of communities mobilising themselves to lay claim to rightful spaces and their environment, and planners must take note. The pressures on coastal inhabitants are evident in their recent collaborations with diverse support groups outside their communities to make their voices heard.
The increasing agitations by coastal settlers are indicative of communities mobilising themselves to lay claim to rightful spaces and their environment, and planners must take note.
A factor often overlooked by urban planners in socio-economic transformation is that coastal communities have not necessarily remained homogenous. People within a single community may be characterised by different needs depending on their current occupation, ambitions, and preferences. Such differences also lead to internal disagreements and divided political aspirations. Thus, a uniform standardised policy for negotiations such as compensation for loss of primary livelihood, skill development programmes, or forced rehabilitation becomes unfair and redundant. Whilst investments in large-scale coastal infrastructure projects have become inevitable for the future of cities, institutions must play a crucial role in re-engaging with ‘development’ through more humanitarian and sustainable strategies in response.
The development imperative and social impact
The imperatives for coastal development and the global stress on boosting the blue economy mean that policies have to be redesigned to initiate dialogues with communities at the level of inception. It needs to be factored in that coastal communities are rarely against development. In fact, as traditional inhabitants, these communities hold economic interests and also possess deep native knowledge of their ecosystems. They are keen to integrate that into the coastal development discourse. Today, these self-governed groups feel relegated to dominant discourses and seek participation, representation, and collaboration in the decision-making and implementation of projects that directly impact them. Socially inclusive and locally mediated approaches to coastal development mandate a need for a profound change of mindset at the research and policy level, both nationally and globally.
Furthermore, the complexities of cultural relationships with marine ecologies and increasing heterogeneities amongst traditional coastal peoples are often left out of development discussions. The current situation places special and immediate emphasis on the serious evaluation of and investment in the cultural and social consequences of development—both positive and negative. This calls for engaging with specialist organisations such as the International Association for Impact Assessment to devise exclusive and in-depth Social Impact Assessment (SIA) strategies to understand the concerns of coastal communities beyond environmental assessments. Given the urban fascination with the coast, a lack or omission of SIA essentially denies the advantages of social change to the already marginalised coastal peoples. Though integrated approaches have been developed and applied to integrate environmental and social impacts, it is also critical to consider how that information was collected for evaluation.
Given the urban fascination with the coast, a lack or omission of SIA essentially denies the advantages of social change to the already marginalised coastal peoples.
As a prerequisite to development, the outcomes of SIA can help mitigate socio-economic-environmental adversities and help better design innovative techniques to measure the cost-to-benefit ratio for all stakeholders. Understanding that development is essential, more regional and contextual definitions can be considered in the modified Sustainability Livelihoods Framework (SLF) to identify the needs of the coastal poor and artisanal fishers for better livelihoods. Subsequently, SLF could provide the structure for developing tailored sustainable, and equitable solutions.
Finding middle grounds
Disproportionate consequences of development necessitate intensified SIA planning to counter the inadequacies of development plans. Integrating SIA within urban coastal planning will make itself intrinsic to the development narrative. Constructs such as the European Commission’s emphasis on social impact, Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act that includes cultural aspects of the environment, or Hong Kong’s Urban Renewal Strategy for a district-based community approach offer templates for framing more comprehensive concepts for public participation. However, a periodic review of the overall accountability and local relevance of such procedures is essential.
The Coastal 500, which globally unites 500 mayors and local governments for action on coastal fisheries, provides an alternate framework to reach out to fisher communities.
Coastal community-led development can set the course of action for participatory methodologies for which some frameworks have already emerged. For instance, The Coastal 500, which globally unites 500 mayors and local governments for action on coastal fisheries, provides an alternate framework to reach out to fisher communities. Likewise, the model of the Soufriere Marine Management Association in Saint Lucia creates interlinkages between local resource users and stakeholder institutions. Similarly, the participatory model pioneered by indigenous groups in northern British Columbia, who received a 10 percent ownership stake in the US $6.7-billion Coastal GasLink pipeline, provides valuable insights into exploring collaborative possibilities. Viable models have emerged within India as well, such as the one co-created with Puducherry fishers to outline local adaptation methods for risks from climate change. These mediation efforts inspire social impact leadership and investment.
