S. Jagannathan v. U.O.I. .

PETITIONER:
S. JAGANNATH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/12/1996
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH, S. SAGHIR AHMAD.

ACT

HEADNOTE

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.

Shrimp (Prawn Culture Industry is taking roots in India. Since long the fishermen in Indian have been following the traditional rice/shrimp rotating acqua culture system. Rice is grown during part of the year and shrimp and other fish species are cultured during the rest of the year. However, during the last decade the traditional system which, apart from producing rice, produced 140 kgs. of shrimp per hectare of land began to give way to more intensive methods of shrimp culture which could produce thousands of kilograms per hectare. A large number of private companies and multi-national corporations have started investing in shrimp farms. In the last few years more than eighty thousand hectares of land have been converted to shrimp farming. India’s Marine export weighed in a 70,000 tonnes in 1993 and these exports are projected to reach 200 thousand tonnes by the year 2000. The shrimp farming advocates regard acquaculture as potential savior of developing countries because it is a short-duration crop that provides a high investment return and enjoys and expanding market. The said expectation is sought to be achieved by replacing the environmentally benign traditional mode of culture by semi-intensive and intensive methods. More and more areas are being brought under semi-intensive and intensive modes of shrimp farming. The environmental impact of shrimp culture essentially depends on the mode of culture adopted in the shrimp farming. Indeed, the new trend of more intensified shrimp farming in certain parts of the country - without much control of feeds, seeds and other inputs and water management practices - has brought to the fore a serious threat to the environment and ecology which has been highlighted before us.

This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India - in public interest - has been filed by S. Jagannathan, Chairman, Gram Swaraj Movement, a voluntary organisation working for the upliftment of the weaker section of society. The petitioner has sought the enforcement of Coastal Zone Regulation Notification dated February 19, 1991 issued by the Government of India, stoppage of intensive and semi-intensive type of prawn farming in the ecologically fragile coastal areas, prohibition from using the waste ands/wet lands for Prawn farming and the constitution of a National Coastal Management Authority to safeguard the marine life and coastal areas. Various other prayers have been made in the writ petition. This Court issued notice by the order dated October 3, 1994. On December 12, 1994, this Court passed the following order:-

"Ministry of Environment and

Forests, Govt. of India issued a

Notification dated February 19,

1991, under Clause (d) of Sub-rule

(3) of Rule 5 of the Environment

(Protection) Rules, 1986 wherein it

was declared that the coastal

stretches of seas, bays, estuaries,

creeks, rivers and backwater which

are influenced by the tidal action

(in the landward side) upto 500

metres from the High Tide Line

(HTL) and the land between the Low

Tide Line (LTL) and the HTL are

Coastal Regulation Zone. The

Central Govt. has imposed various

restrictions in the said

Notification. Mr. Mehta, learned

advocate appearing for the

petitioners states that despite the

issue of the Notification

unauthorised industries and other

construction is being permitted by

various States within the area

which has been declared as Coastal

Regulation Zone

................Meanwhile we direct

all the respondent States not to

permit the setting up of any

Industry or the construction of any

type on the area at least upto 500

metres from the sea water at the

maximum High Tide. The above said

area i.e. from the High Tide Level

upto 500 metres shall be kept free

from all construction of any type".

The Union of India and States/Union Territories of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Orrisa, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Goa, Pondicherry, Daman/Deu, Andaman/Nichobar and Lakshdeep have filed replies to the writ petitions. This Court on March 27, 1995 passed the following order:-

"This Public Interest petition is

directed against the setting up of

Prawn farms on the coastal areas of

Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and

other coastal States. It is alleged

that the coastal States are

allowing big business houses to

develop prawn farms on a large

scale in the Ecologically fragile

coastal areas of the States

concerned in violation of

Environment Protection Act, 1986

and the rules framed thereunder and

various other provisions of law. It

is also alleged that establishment

of prawn farms on rural cultiviable

lands is creating serious

environmental, social and economic

problems for the rural people

living along with the coastal bed

specially in the east

coast.................. Meanwhile,

we direct NEERI, Nagpur through its

Director to appoint in

investigating team to visit the

coastal areas of the States of

Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu and

give its report to this court

regarding the various farms which

are being set up in the said area.

In case the investigating team

finds that the ecologically fragile

area is being environmentally

degraded then it shall suggest the

remedial measures in that respect.

The NEERI team shall keep in view

the Notification dated February 19,

1991 of the Ministry of Environment

and Forests, Govt. of India, issued

under the Environment Protection

Act, 1986 and also the provisions

of the Tamil Nadu Agriculture

(Regulation) Act, 1995. The NEERI

shall submit its report before

April 30, 1995".

Pursuant to the above quoted order, the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur (NEERI) submitted its report dated April 25, 1995 before this Court. This Court further directed NEERI to send an expert team to the coastal areas in other States and file its report within two months. the report was filed in this Court within the specified time. This Court on May 9, 1995 passed the following order:-

"This matter be listed for final

hearing on 4th August, 1995.

Meanwhile we direct that no part of

agricultural lands and salt farms

be converted into conmmercial

aquaculture farms hereinafter. We

further direct that no ground water

withdrawal, be allowed for

aquaculture purposes to any of the

industries whether already existing

or in the process of being set up.

No further shrimp farms or any

acquaculture farms be permitted to

be s et up in the areas in dispute

hereinafter.

We direct the respective State

Governments (the Collector

concerned or any other Officer

appointed by the Government) to

provide free access through

acquaculture units to the sea coast

to the fishermen/tourists after

hearing the parties concerned.

Mr. Mehta has contended that due to

these farms occupying the most of

the coastal areas it has become

difficult for the villagers to

search for fresh water. The State

Govt. may examine this aspect and

provide water by way of tankers

wherever it is necessary.

So far as the farmers in the State

of Tamil Nadu are concerned they

are all represented through of

Kapil Sibal and his team. We direct

the State of A.P. to send a copy or

the order of this Court to all the

aquaculture farms in the State of

A.P. informing them that the matter

shall be taken up by this Court for

final hearing on 4th August, 1995.

This may be done by the State of

A.P. by the end of June, 1995.

We direct the Pondicherry

Administration to send a copy of

the order of this Court to all the

aquaculture farms in Pondicherry

informing them that the matter

shall be taken up by this Court for

final hearing on 4th August, 1995.

This may be done by the Pondicherry

Admn. by the end of June 1995.

We further direct the

Superintendent of Police and the

collector of the areas concerned to

see that the order of this Court

specially the directions given are

meticulously complied with by all

the farms."

Before finally hearing this matter, this Court passed the following order on August 24, 1995:-

"We are of the view that it would

be in the interest of justice to

have full representation before us

so far individual aqua-farms in

various States/Union Territories

are concerned. We, therefore,

adjourn the hearing to October 17,

1995. Meanwhile, we direct the

coastal States/Union Territory

Governments, through their learned

counsel who are present in the

Court, to issue individual notices

to all the aqua-farms which are

located in their respective

territories. It may be stated in

the notices that the same are being

issued under the direction of this

Court. it should also be

specifically mentioned that if they

want to be heard in these matters

by this Court, they be present

through their

counsel/representatives in the

Court, on the next date of hearing,

which is October 17, 1995. We also

direct the Marine Products Exports

Development Authority (MPEDA),

through its counsel Mr. Harish N.

Salve, to do the same exercise at

its level also. Apart from that, we

further direct all the State

Governments/Union Territories to

issue public notices in this

respect in daily newspapers which

have circulation in the coastal

areas, informing the aqua-farms

regarding the hearing of these

matters in this Court, on October

17, 1995. This may be done on two

consecutive days.

Notices and publication be

completed within 3 weeks from

today. Meanwhile, we direct all the

State Governments/Union Territories

not to give fresh

licences/permission for setting

up/establishment of any aqua-farm

in their respective Territories

till further orders."

Coastal Pollution, universally, is an emerging problem. So far as India is concerned it has already become a serious environmental problem. Besides direct dumping of waste materials in the seas discharge through marine outfalls, large volumes of untreated of semi-treated waste generated in various land-based sources/activities ultimately find way to the seas. The coastal waters directly receive the inland waters, by way of surface run-off and land-drainage, ladden with myriad of refuse materials - the rejects or wastes of the civilisation. Apart from inputs from rivers and effluent-outfalls, the coastal areas are subject to intensive fishing, navigational activities, recreations, ports, industrial discharge and harbours which are causative factors of water quality degradation to varying degrees. Contrary to the open sea, the changes in the quality of coastal waters, are much greater due to river discharges under tidal conditions.

With noticeable increase in marine pollution and the consequential decline in marine resources, serious concern was expressed in the United Nations’ Conference on Human Environments in Stockholm (1972) attracting global attention towards the urgent need of identifying the critically polluted areas of the marine environments, specially in coastal waters, for urgent remedial actions. The Conference unanimously resolved that the littoral States should take early action at their National level for assessment and control of marine pollution from all sources and carry out systematic monitoring to ascertain the efficacy of the pollution regulatory actions taken by them. In the background of the Stockholm Conference and in view of 1982 Convention on the "Law of the Sea" defining jurisdiction of territorial waters, a model comprehensive Action Plan has been evolved under the United Nations’ Environment Programme (UNEP). Keeping with the international commitments and in greater National interest, the Government of India and the Governments of the coastal States are under a legal obligation to control marine pollution and protect the coastal-environments.

According to the facts placed on record by the Central Pollution Control Board the Board the coastline of India’s mainland is about 6000 km long. But or the total landmass of about 3.28 million sq. kms nearly 0.15 million sq. kms of coastal land-belt (considering 25 km landward distance) girdles three sides of the Country’s sea front which in turn underlays about 3.13 million sq. km sea-bed upto the territorial limit. The Country being riverine, has 14 major, 44 medium and 55 minor rivers which discharge annually about 1566 thousand million cubic meters of water through land drainage into the seas transporting a wide range of pollutants generated by land-based activities. Nine out of fourteen major rivers meet the sea in the east coast (Brahmaputra through Bangladesh) and the remaining five in the west coast (Indus through Pakistan).

Besides land drainage, there are large number or marine coastal out falls discharging directly or indirectly industrial and municipal effluents into seas. Uncontrolled disposal of land-based waste into the seas, through rivers and effluent outfalls, is a major cause of pollution of coastal waters. There are nine coastal States and one Union Territory (UT) in India namely, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry (UT), Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal, More than one-fourth of the total population of the country is settled in the coastal areas. The Board in its report regarding "Pollution Potential of Industries in Coastal Areas of India" dated November, 1995 gives the following date regarding aquaculture farms:

"The effluent generation from

aquaculture farms in the east coast

only, in absence of data on west

coast farms, is to the tune of 2.37

million cubic meters per day, out

of which Andhra Pradesh has the

lion share of about 2.12 million

cubic meters per day.... It may be

noted that in all the States, in

most cases, the effluent discharge

is indirect (through estuaries,

creeks, canals, harbours). It may

also be noteworthy that the

effluents from aquaculture farms

are discharged directly/indirectly

into the coastal waters practically

without any treatment. For disposal

of solid waste, on the other hand,

open dumping and land filling is a

common practice."

In marine pollution control utmost importance has t b given to the beaches. The beaches and other areas of special interest are to be maintained aesthetically and at permissible levels of enteric bacteria. Protection of ecologically sensitive areas and land-sea interface resource areas is equally important. The Central Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution (Central Board) in its report "coastal pollution control series COPOCS/1/1982" recommended as under:-

"- the mangrove forest at

Pichavaram, the bird sanctuary and

forest areas at Point Calimere and

Coral reef at Mandapam are

ecologically sensitive areas

warranting special watch and

preservation.

- recreational coastal portions

of some sector of the stretch under

investigation such as Marine and

Elliot beaches at Madras,

Mahabalipuram, Pondicherry beach at

Pondicherry and Poompuhar at the

confluence of the river Cauvery

with the sea are to be maintained

at appropriate quality level.

- Continuous monitoring of the

coastal waters especially heavy

metals and pesticides in the biota

should be carried out to detect

possible biomagnification of some

toxic chemicals and to provide

early warning."

The Central Board in its report "Coastal Pollution Control Series COPOCS/S/1986-87" sought protection of the ecologically fragile areas in the following terms:-

"The mangrove forest and the

wildlife sanctuary in Coringa

Island, the Pulicat lake and the

bird sanctuary at Nelapattu are the

ecologically sensitive areas

warranting special attention and

protection. No industrial activity

which may pose a danger to the

ecosystem in these areas should be

permitted.

At Pulicat Lake Area,

Machilipatnam, Naupada and

Ichapuram, salt pan irrigation is

practised. No water polluting

industry should be allowed nearby.

The domestic sewage and the

industrial effluents entering the

Kolleru Lake through various drains

be properly treated so that no

pollutants enter the coastal water

through Upputeru drain".

Shrimps are basically marine. Shrimp are also called Prawns. In commercial jargon, marine prawns are referred to as shrimps and freshwater ones as prawns. Prawns and shrimps are invertebrates and are decided crustaceans. Sea is their home and they grow to adulthood and breed in the sea. The progeny start their life by drifting into estuaries and such other brackishwater areas for feeding. In about 4-6 months the larvae grow into adolescence and go back to their real home of birth, the sea.

Aquaculture has been practised for many centuries by small farmers and fisher folk in Asia to improve their living conditions. However, there is a vast difference between eh traditional methods and the new commercialised system. The traditional aquaculture, including shrimp, is usually small-scale, using low inputs and relies on natural tidal action for water-exchange. In some countries, such as India, Bangladesh and Thailand, there is a tradition of rice/shrimp rotating, with rice grown part of the year and shrimp and other fish species cultured the rest of the year. Chemicals, antibiotics and processed feeds are not used in the traditional method. In this low-yield, natural method, the harvest is small but sustainable over long periods. It has no adverse affect on the environment and ecology. The modern method, on the other hand, is larger is scale and intensive or semi-intensive in nature. It is owned and operated by commercial and often foreign-owned companies which mainly export the shrimp. In intensive aquaculture, selected species are bred using a dense stocking rate. To maintain the very crowded shrimp population and attain higher production efficiency, artificial feed, chemical additives and antibiotics are used.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAU) - an organ of United Nations Organisation (UNU) - published a report in April, 1995 on a Regional Study and workshop on the Environmental Assessment and Management or Aquaculture Development. Copy of the report has need placed on record by Mr. Santosh Hedge, learned counsel for the State of Karnataka. India was one of the 16 countries participated in the workshop. Dr. K. Alagarswami, Director, Central institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture, Madras presented a paper titled "the current status of aquaculture in India, the present phase of development and future growth potential". (hereinafter called Alagarswami report). It has been published as an Annexure to the workshop-report published by the FAO. Para 5.1.2 of Alagarswami report gives various types of technologies adopted by the aquaculture industry in India. It would be useful to reproduce the same hereunder:-

"5.1.2 Types of technology -

changes in technology with time

Traditional: Practised in West

Bengal, Kerala, Karnataka and Goa,

also adopted in some areas of

Orissa. Coastal low-living areas

with tidal effects along estuaries,

creeks and canals; impoundments of

vast areas ranging from 2-200 ha in

size. Characteristics; fully

tidally-fed; salinity variations

according to monsoon regime; seed

resource of mixed species from the

adjoining creeks and canals by

auto-stocking; dependent on natural

food; water intake and draining

managed through sluice gates

depending on local tidal effect; no

feeding; periodic harvesting during

full and new moon periods;

collection at sluice gates by traps

and by bag nets; seasonal fields

alternating paddy (monsoon) crop

with shrimp/fish crop (inter

monsoon); fields called locally as

bheries, pokkali fields and Khazan

lands.

Improved traditional: System as

above but with stock entry control;

supplementary stocking with desired

species of shrimp seed (P. monodon

or P. indicus); practised in ponos

of smaller area 2-5 ha.

Extensive : New pond systems; 1-2

ha ponds; tidally fed; no water

exchange, stocking with seed; local

feeds such as claims, snails and

pond-side prepared feed with

fishmeal, sova, oilcake, cereal

flour etc.; wet dough ball form;

stocking density around 20,000/ha.

Modified Extensive System as above;

pond preparation with tilling,

liming and fertilisation; some

water exchange with pumpsets;

pellet feeds indigenous or

imported; stocking density around

50,000/ha.

Semi-intensive New pond system;

ponds 0.25 to 1.0 has in size;

elevated ground with supply and

drainage canals; pond preparation

methods carefully followed; regular

and periodic water exchange as

required; pond aerators (paddle

wheel) at 8 per ha; generally

imported feed with FCR better than

1:1.5 or high energy indigenous

feeds; application of drugs and

chemicals when need arises; regular

monitoring and management stocking

density 15-25/m2.

Intensive Ponds 0.25-0.50 ha in

size; management practices as

above; 4 aerators in each pond;

salinity manipulation as possible;

central drainage system to remove

accumulated sludge; imported feed;

drugs and chemicals used as

prophylactic measures; <??> control

and management; stocking density

20-35/m2

Changes in technology: As already

indicated. The initial concept and

practice was to develop tide-red

systems, this slowly gave way to a

pump-fed systems. Presently, the

emphasis is on seawater based

farming systems for P. monodon with

a water intake system extending far

into the sea with submerged

pipelines, pier system and gravity

flow. From sandy clay soils, the

present coastal farms are located

in sandy soils also with seepage

control provisions."

Alagarswami report further states as under:-

"The Ministry of Environment and

Forests, Government of India issued

a Notification S.U. No.114 (E) in

1991, under "The Environment

(Protection) Act, 1986" declaring

coastal stretches as Coastal

Regulation Zones (CRZ) and

regulating activities in the CRZ.

This Notification ha simplications

for coastal aquaculture,

particularly those activities

within 500 m from the High Tide

Line.... No regulations to control

the use of chemicals and drugs

exist. Pollution Control Board

general regulations on effluent

discharges include hazardous

substances, but they are not

specific to aquaculture. In some

regions, there is indiscriminate

use of chemicals and pesticides,

particularly in shrimp farms....

Under the Notification of Union

Ministry of Environment and

Forests, each maritime State is

expected to have its own coastal

zone management plan, which would

consider aquaculture zonation

requirements, along with shoreline

development. The zone up to 500

metres from the waterline along the

sea is restricted against any

construction activity."

Alagarswami report high lights various environmental and social problems created by the Coastal Acquaculture. The relevant part of the report is as under:-

"Physical factors

Shrimp farming along the coastal

area of the whole country is

developing at a rapid rate. Huge

cylone protection dykes and

peripheral dykes are constructed by

the shrimp farmers. In many cases

as in Kandleru creek (Andhra

Pradesh), the farm areas are the

natural drainage areas for floods.

Due to physical obstruction caused

by the dykes, the natural drain is

blocked and flood water acumulates

in the hinterland villages.

Protests are being made by people

in some of the villages against

such dykes. The ponds are

constructed right on the bank of

the creeks without leaving any area

for draining of flood water.

Right of passage of coastal

fishermen

The shrimp farms do not provide

access to the beach for traditional

fishermen who have to reach the sea

from their villages. As farms are

located and entry is restricted,

the fishermen have to take a longer

route to the sea for their

operations. This is being objected

to by traditional fishermen.

Drinking water problems

The Corporate sector has purchased

vast areas adjoining the villages

which, in some cases, include

drinking water public wells of the

villages. The villagers cannot use

these wells anymore as they are

located in private land owned by

the farmers. This is causing social

problems.

Salinisation

It is reported that salinisation of

land is spreading further landwards

and the wells yield only saline

water. In Tamil Nadu and Andhra

Pradesh protests have been voiced

against salinisation. Some of the

socially conscious shrimp farm

operators are providing drinking

water to the affected villages by

laying a pipeline from their own

freshwater source wherever

available. Apart from wells. The

agricultural farms adjoining the

shrimp farms are reported to be

affected. However, there is

increasing conversion of paddv

fields as in the Bhimavaram area of

Andhra Pradesh and even on the

fringes of Chilka Lake into shrimp

farms.

Mangrove areas

The status report on mangroves of

India published by the Ministry of

Environment and Forests (GO1, 198/)

is shown in Table 5. In the earlier

years, vast areas of mangrove were

destroyed for agriculture,

aquaculture and other uses. In the

more recent years, the mangroves

have been protected by law.

However, the satellite imagery

pictures show destruction of

mangroves in Krishna and Guntur

Districts of Andhra Pradesh for

construction of shrimp farms.

Gujarat State is planning major

shrimp culture programmes in the

Narmada region adjoining Gulf at

Cambay. Protection of mangroves

should receive attention.

Alagaraswami report further indicates that the demand for shrimp seed is growing with the expansion of shrimp culture and hatchery production is unable to meet it. Exploitation of natural seed resources is growing unabated, particularly in West Bengal, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh. Large quantity of fry by-catch are discarded by the fry collectors because their value is insignificant. The report states "elimination of fry in the fry by-catch is not only detrimental to the predators thriving on them, but it also creates an ecological imbalance".

Agitations by the environmentally conscious people of the coastal-areas against polluting acquaculture technologies has been noticed by Alagaswamy report as under:-

People’s awareness

People in general have become aware

of the environmental issues related

to aquaculture. A current case in

point is the agitation against a

large commercial farm coming up in

Chilka Lake (Orissa). People have

demanded an EIA of the project.

People in Nellore District in

Andhra Pradesh have raised

environmental issues and called for

adoption or environmentally-

friendly technologies and rejection

of "imported" technologies from

regions which have suffered

environmental damage. Protests have

been voiced by the local people in

Tuticorin area in Tamil Nadu. Both

print and visual media take up

environmental issues with a great

deal of zeal. This appears to augur

well for regulating coastal shrimp

farming with eco-friendliness".

The intensive-farming technique and the pollutants generated by such farming have been noticed by Alagaswamy in the following words:-

"In intensive farming, stocking

densities are on the increase. In

one instance, P. Indicus was

stocked at 70 post larvae/m2,

almost reaching the levels of

Taiwan before the disease outbreak

in 1988. This necessitates heavy

inputs of high energy feeds, the

use of drugs and chemicals and good

water exchange. The organic load

and accumulation of metabolites in

the water drained into the sea

should be very high as could be

seen from the dark-brown colour and

consistency of the drain water."

The Alagaswamy report further states that paddy fields are being converted to shrimp farms, as in some parts of Andhra Pradesh (e.g. Bhimavarami, Some paddv lands along the fringe of Chilka Lake have been last to shrimp farming.

The report suggests future management strategies - quoted hereunder - for farms and Government in resolving any conflicts or environmental problems:-

"As shrimpfarming is developing

fast, the following strategies have

been developed for avoiding

problems which have arisen in other

countries (or reducing their

impact):

1. India needs to boost

production of shrimp through

aquaculture with environment and

development as a unified motto.

2. Since the area available is

vast, this can be achieved by

application of environmentally -

friendly technologies for optimal

production rates against maximum

production rates.

3. Sustainable development or

shrimp aquaculture should be guided

by the principles of social equity,

nutritional security, environmental

protection and economic development

with a holistic approach to achieve

long-term benefits.

4. New definitions and parameters

of extensive, semi-intensive and

intensive culture systems as suited

to Indian conditions and Government

policies rather than copying models

of other countries (particularly

those which have rushed and

suffered) and the development or

guidelines thereof.

5. Diversification of species

among shrimps and to integrate fish

wherever possible to suit the

different agro-climatic and aquatic

zones of the country.

6. Careful development of Coastal

Zone Management Plans under CRZ to

meet the requirements of coastal

aquaculture development plans with

some flexibility (as required) for

specific areas.

7. Indentification of aquaculture

zones or careful consideration and

provision of buffer zones against

possible impact on other land uses:

also intermediate buffer zones

within aquaculture zones.

8. Consideration of the living,

social and vocational needs of

local people in villages/towns in

aquaculture plans in order to avoid

conflicts.

9. Development of sets or

regulations on use/ban of drugs and

chemicals, including antibiotics,

in hatcheries and farms; on

abstraction of groundwater and

salinisation problems.

10. Development of standards for

effluent discharge as applicable to

local conditions.

11. Development of viable

technologies for secondary

aquaculture to gainfully utilise

nutrient enriched farm effluents

and encourage farmers to adopt such

technologies with the necessary

support.

12. In view of the fact that

coastal farms are located generally

in remote areas and cannot be

monitored by external agencies on a

reasonably effective basis,

farmers/group of farmers should

equip themselves with facilities to

monitor possible important

parameters at periodic intervals

and maintain such records for their

own benefits and for production to

inspecting agencies.

13. Brackishwater Fish Farmer

Development Agencies to be

strengthened in all respects,

including environmental management

and disease diagnosis, prevention

and control, through appropriate

training and setting up district

level laboratories for essential

analytical and diagnostic work.

14. Manpower development at

managerial and technical level.

15. Research-extension-farmer

group meet for appropriate

technologies and feedback.

16. Effective monitoring and

enforcement of regulations, use of

nets and fishing in any specified

water for a period not exceeding

two years. Thus, legal provisions

were made on fisheries matters in

India nearly a century ago"

Alagarswami’s report identifies salinisation or land salinisation of drinking water wells, obstruction of natural drainage of flood water, passage of access to sea by fishermen and public, self-pollution or ponds, pollution of source water, destruction or mangroves land subsidence and pressure on wild seen resources and consequences thereof as environmental issues in shrimp culture. Para 6.2 of the report lists the following preventive measures:-

"6.2 PREVENTION

(i) Aquaculture units causing

harmful changes to the environment;

and

(ii) Non-aquaculturists from

modifying the environment to the

detriment of aquaculture production

units.

1. Enforcement of legal

provisions under the relevant Acts

of the Government.

2. CRZ regulations to consider

specific needs of aquaculture as an

expanding production activity and

the Coastal Zone Management Plans

of the States/Union Territories to

carefully plan taking into

consideration present situation and

future needs.

3. Early development of

regulations on permissible levels

of most significant parameters of

water quality keeping in view the

limited intervention of aquaculture

for promoting growth of stock in

the medium.

4. Environment Impact Assessment

(EIA) and Environmental Monitoring

Plan (EMP) to be insisted upon for

larger units and self

assessment/monitoring for smaller

units, subject to verfication at

inspection.

5. Zonations and appropriate

siting of farms; not to proliferate

indiscriminately but to develop in

a planned manner for sustaining

production (Alagarswami, 1991).

6. More hatcheries to be

encouraged and supported to meet

seed demands to reduce pressure on

wild seed resources.

7. Feed mills to maintain quality

of feeds and to ensure water

stability as required;

self/external inspection mechanism

to be introduced to maintain

specific standards.

8. Mangrove forests not to be

touched for aquaculture purposes."

The FAO report - based on Alagaswami report states the impact of aquaculture on the environment, in India, as under:-

"The impact of aquaculture on the

environment are as follows;

By shrimp culture: Loss of

agricultural land and mangroves,

obstruction of natural drains,

salinisation, destruction of

natural seed resources, use of

drugs and chemicals, and extraction

of groundwater. Social conflicts

have arisen."

Alagarswami report - quoted by us extensively - is an authentic document relating to the functioning of shrimp culture industry in India. It has rightly been suggested in the report that sustainable development should be the guiding principle for the shrimp aquaculture. The industry must develop under the unified motto of Environment and Development. Environmentally-friendly technologies are to be adopted with a view to achieve optimal production. The report calls for a ban on the use of drugs, chemicals and antibiotics in the shrimp culture farms. The report clearly indicates that except the traditional and improved traditional, the other methods or strimp aquaculture are polluting and as such may have an adverse impact on the environment.

Mr. M.C. Mehta, learned counsel for the peititoner, has taken us through the NEERI reports and other voluminous material on the record. He has vehemently contended that the modern - other than traditional - techniques of shrimp farming are highly polluting and are detrimental to the coastal environment and marine ecology. According to him only the traditional and improved traditional systems of shrimp farming which are environmentally friendly should be permitted. Mr. Mehta has take us through the Notification dated February 19, 1991 issued by the Government of India under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (the Act) (URZ Notification) and has vehemently contended that setting up of shrimp farms on the coastal stretches of seas. Days, estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwaters upto 500 meters from the High Tide Line (HTL) and the line between the Low Tide Line (LTL) and the HTL is totally prohibited under Para 2 of the said notification. The relevant part of the notification is as under:

"2. Prohibited Activities:

The following activities are

declared as prohibited within the

Coastal Regulations Zone, namely:

(i) Setting up of new Industries

and expansion of existing

industries, except those directly

related to water front or directly

needing fore-shore facilities.

(ii) Manufacture or handling or

storage or disposal of hazardous

substances as specified in the

Notifications of the Government of

India in the Ministry of

Environment Y Forests No.s. 0.59.1

(E) dated 28th July, 1989, S.O.

966(E) dated 27th November, 1989

and GSR 103/(E) dated 5th December,

1989:

(iii) Setting up and expansion or

fish processing units including

warehousing (excluding hatchery and

natural fish drying in permitted

areas):

(v) Discharge of untreated wastes

and effluent from industries,

cities settlements. Schemes shall

be implemented by the concerned

authorities phasing out the

existing practices, if and within a

reasonable time period not

exceeding three years from the date

of this notification.

(viii) land reclamation, punding or

disturbing natural course or sea

water with similar obstructions,

except those required for control

of coastal erosion and maintenance

clearing of waterways, channels an

for prevention of sandbars and all

except for tidal regulators. Storm

water drains and structures for

prevention of salinity ingrease and

for sweet water recharge.

(x) harvesting or drawal of ground

water and construction of

mechanisms therefore with 200 m of

HTL; in the 200 m to 500 m Zone it

shall be permitted only when do

manually through ordinary wells for

draining, horticulture, agriculture

and fishering."

According to Mr. Mehta the shrimp culture industry is neither "directly related to water iron" nor "directly needing fore-shore facility" and as such is a prohibited activity under Para 2(1) of the CRZ Notification. Mr. Kapil Sibal on the other hand has argued that a shrimp farm is an industry which is directly related to water front and cannot exist without fore-shore facilities. Relying upon Oxford English Dictionary Mr. Sibal contended that "water front" means land abetting on the sea, that part of a town which fronts on a body of water. According to him "Foreshore" in terms of the said dictionary means the part of the shore that lies between the High Tide and the Low Tide. According to Webster Comprehensive Dictionary. International Edition the expression ‘foreshore’ means "that part of a shore uncovered at low tide".

It is, thus, clear that the part of the shore which remains covered with water at the High Tide and gets uncovered and become visible at the Low Tide is called "foreshore". It is not possible to set no a shrimp culture farm in the said area because it would completely sub-merge in water at the High Tide. It is, therefore, obvious that foreshore facilities are neither directly nor indirectly needed in the setting up of a shrimp farm. So far as "water front" is concerned it is no doubt correct that shrimp farm may have some relation to the water front in the sense that the farm is dependent on brackish water which can be drawn from the sea. But on a close scrutiny, we are of the view that shrimp culture farming has no relation or connection with the ‘water front’ though it has relation with brakish water which is available from various water-bodies including sea. What is required is the "brakish water" and not the ‘water front’. The material on record shows that the shrimp ponds constructed by the farms draw water from the sea by pipes, <??> etc. It is not the ‘water front’ which is needed by the industry, what is required is the brakishwater which can be drawn from any source including sea and carried to any distance by pipes etc. The purpose of CRZ notification is to protect the ecological fragile coastal areas and to safe guard the aesthetic qualities and uses of the sea coast. The setting up of modern shrimp aquaculture farms right on the sea coast and construction of ponds an other infrastructure thereon is per se hazardous and is bound to degrade the marine ecology, coastal environment and the aesthetic uses of the sea coast. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the shrimp culture industry is neither "directly related to water front" nor "directly needing foreshore facilities". The setting up of shrimp culture farms within the prohibited areas under the CRZ notification cannot be permitted.

Para 2(viii) of the CRZ Notification quoted above, prohibits the bunding or disturbing the natural course of sea water with similar obstructions. A band is an embankment or dyke. Alagarswami report in para 4.3.2 (quoted above) has specifically mentioned that huge cyclone protection dykes and peripheral dykes are constructed by the shrimp farmers. The report further states that due to physical obstruction caused by the dykes the natural drain is blocked and Flood Water accumulated in the hinterland villages. The report notices that the shrimp ponds are constructed right on the bank of the creeks without leaving any area to draining of flood waters. A shrimp farm on the coastal area; by itself operates as a dyke or a band as it leaves no area for draining of the flood waters. The construction of the shrimp farms, therefore, violate clause (viii) of para 2 of the CRZ Notification, in view of the findings by the Alagarswami report it may be useful to hold an inquiry/investigation to find out the extent of loss occurred, if any to the villages during the recent cyclone in the State of Andhra Pradesh because of the dykes constructed by the shrimp farmers.

Annexure-1 to the CRZ Notification contains regulations regarding Coastal Area Classification and Development. The coastal stretches within 500 m of HTL of the landward side are classified into four categories, namely, CRZ-I, CRZ-II, CRZ-III and CRZ-IV. Para 6(2) of the CRZ Notification lays down the norms for the development ht or construction activities in different categories of CRZ areas. In CRZ-III Zone agriculture, horticulture, gardens, pastures, parks, playfields, forestry, and salt manufacture from sea level may be permitted upto 200 m from the high vide line. The aquaculture or shrimp farming has not been included as a permissible use and as such is prohibited even in this zone. A relevant point arises at this stage. Salt manufacturing process like the shrimp culture industry depends on sea water. Salt manufacturers can also raise the argument that since they are wholly dependent on sea-water theirs is an industry "directly related to water front" or "directly needing fore-shore facilities". The argument stands negatived by inclusion of the salt manufacturing industry in CRZ-III Zone under para b(2) or the CRZ notification otherwise it was not necessary in include the industry therein because it could be set-up any were in the coastal regulation zone in terms of para 2(1) of the CRZ Notification. It is thus obvious that an industry dependent on sea water cannot by itself is an industry "directly related to water front" or "directly needing fore-shore facilities". The shrimp culture industry, therefore, cannot be permitted to be set up any where in the coastal regulation Zone under the CRZ notification.

We may examine the issue from another angle. Sea coast and beaches are a gift of the nature to the mankind. The aesthetic qualities and recreational utility of the said area has to be maintained. Any activity which has the affect or degrading the environment cannot be permitted. Apart from that the right of the fisherman and farmers living in the coastal areas to eke their living by way of fishing and farming cannot be denied to them. Alagarswami report states that "the shrimp farms do not provide excess to the beach for traditional fishermen who have to reach the sea from their villages. As farms are located and entry is restricted the fishermen have to take a longer route to the sea for their operation. This is being objected by traditional fishermen".

The Alagarswami report further highlights drinking water problem, salinisation and destruction of mangrove by the shrimp culture industry. The relevant paragraphs have already been quoted above. The increase of stocking densities, heavy inputs of high energy feeds, use or drugs and chemicals result in the discharge or highly pulluted effluent into the sea, creeks etc. and on the sea coast by the shrimp farms. It is, therefore, not possible to agree with Mr. Sibal that commercial shrimp farming has no adverse affect on environment and coastal ecology.

We may at this stage refer to the two investigation reports dated April 23, 1995 and July 10, 1995 by NEERI regarding the Ecological Fragile coastal areas of India.

The report dated April 23, 1995 states that a 13 member team of scientists, lead by Dr. A.S. Ball and Dr. S.K. Kaul inspected the shrimp farms situated on the ecological fragile coastal areas in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu between April 10 and April 19, 1995. It is further stated that the coastal areas in the Union Territory of Pondicherry were also inspected by the team. Regarding the CRZ Notification, the report states as under:-

The MEF’s notification dated

February 19, 1995 stipulates that

the aquaculture farms on the

coastal areas should not be

constructed within 500 m from the

high tide line (HTL) of the seas.

The hatcheries however, may be

constructed between 250 and 500 m

from HTL of the sea.

The inspection team observed during

field investigations that the MEF’s

norms for location of aquaculture

and hatcheries have been violated

in the States of Andhra Pradesh,

Tamil Nadu, and the union territory

of Pondicherry........ There is an

urgent need to ensure scrupulous

implementation of the provisions

made in the MEF’s notification

dated February 19, 1991 in the

States and Union Territory

inspected by the team. In addition,

the damage caused to the land and

water ecosystems by coastal

aquaculture activity, as detailed

in the report, must be restored to

its original ecological State. The

cost for eco-restoration of the

coastal fragile area must be borne

by individual entrepreneurs of the

coastal aquaculture farms in

keeping with the Polluter-Pays

principle........ Further, no

activity of commercial coastal

aquaculture should be undertaken

even beyond 500 m HTL unless a

comprehensive and scientific

Environmental Impact Assessment

(EIA) Study has been conducted by

the entrepreneur, and the

Environmental Management Plan

approved by the respective State

Department of Environment,

Pollution Control Board, Shore

Development Authority, and also by

the Ministry of Environment and

Forests. Appropriate terms of

reference for EIA have been

incorporated in the report."

Regarding the socio-economic assessment of acquaculture in the area, the report gives the in following finding:-

"A socio-economic assessment of

aquaculture in the ecologically

fragile coastal areas in the States

of AP and TN has been conducted by

the NEERI team. This assessment,

detailed in the report, indicates

that the cost of ecological and

social damage far exceeds the

benefits that accrue out of coastal

aquaculture activities."

The adverse impacts of acquaculture farming on the environment and the ecologically fragile in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and union territory of Pondicherry have been stated in the report as under:-

"3.0 Observations on the Impacts of

Aquaculture Farming on Ecologically

Fragile Areas in States of AP, TN,

and Union Territory of Pondicherry

Coastal aquaculture units are

situated within 500 m of high Tide

Line of the sea. This is not in

consonance with the MEF’s

notification dated February 19,

1991.

It is a common practice to convert

agricultural land, and land under

salt production, into coastal

aquaculture units which infringes

the fundamental rights to life and

livelihood.

Conversion of agricultural farms

and salt making lands into

commercial aquaculture farms is

rampant in the fragile coastal

areas of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu

and Union Territory of Pondicherry.

Brackish aquaculture units have

been installed in deltaic regions

which is a ecologically unsound

practice.

Natural saline canals which travel

from sea to the mainland are being

used for brackish aquaculture

farming. The flow of the natural

saline canals is being obstructed

due to prawn farming activity which

has resulted in the spread of

brackish water over agricultural

farms resulting in loss or

agricultural lands, and potable

water.

Villages situated along the sea

coast, deltaic regions, and natural

saline canals are under threat due

to diversion of land to aquaculture

farms.

Traditional fishermen have lost

their landing grounds for fish

catch.

Coastal aquaculture has resulted in

loss of mangrove eco-systems which

provide protection against cyclones

and other natural hazards, and

which provide natural habitats for

spawning or marine <??>

Indiscriminate destruction of

mangrove areas in and around the

creeks, estuaries, and sea has

resulted in loss of natural

breeding grounds for shrimps.

Natural Casuarine plantations have

also been destroyed. This may

result in increasing damage from

cyclons, and intrusion of saline

water into mainland.

Coastal aquaculture farms have not

been scientifically designed and

located, resulting in excessive

ecological damages.

No proper peripheral drainage has

been provided around the

aquaculture farms.

The saline water intake and

effluent discharge points from

aquaculture farms are located in

close vicinity, resulting in

contamination of feed water to the

aquaculture units threatening their

productivity.

Three types of saline water supply

systems are in vogue for the

aquaculture farming, viz.

- direct pumping from the sea,

creek, and estuary

- direct pumping from deep sea

with jetties

- using high tides of sea for

carrying saline water through

excavated canals.

These activities for feed water

supply to the aquaculture ponds

have resulted in:

- loss of fish catch (except in

the case of feed water supply

through sea water canal system)

- loss due to damage of fishing

nets.

- degradation of fragile coastal

land.

Large commercial aquaculture farms

have installed fencing in and

around the farms resulting in

blockage of free access for the

fisherman to the sea shore.

The wastewater discharge from the

aquaculture farms released into the

creeks is not properly flushed out

of the creek during low tides

thereby leads in the accumulation

of pollutants in the creek,

affecting the quality of intake

water to aquaculture farm with

concommittant loss in productivity,

and damage to creek ecosystem.

Disappearance of the native fish

species due to increase in salinity

of the creek water has been

observed by the team, and reported

by the fishermen. Increase in

salinity has also reduced the

ingress of shrimp seedlings in the

creek.

Indiscriminate catch of natural

shrimp seedlings from the coastal

waters, creeks, and estuaries has

resulted in reduction of their

availability, which in turn has

forced the commercial aquaculture

farmers to import the seeds.

Unscientific management practices

adopted by the commercial

aquaculture farmers, and improper

design of aquaculture farms

including inadequate drainage

systems have resulted in skin, eye,

and water borne diseases in the

contiguous population.

Commercial aquaculture farm owners

have not contributed to any social

infrastructure facilities for the

villagers.

Employment avenues of the

contiguous population have

considerably reduced due to the

commercial aquaculture farming. The

unemployed villagers are seeking

employment in nearby towns and

cities.

Owners of the commercial

aquaculture farms are using various

means to encroach upon the

Government lands and also forcing

the agricultural land owners/salt

making villagers to sell their

lands. In addition, the fishermen

are also being forced to migrate to

other coastal areas."

Regarding the socio-economic status of the ecologically fragile coastal areas in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, the report states as under:-

"During the inspection of the

aquaculture units located on the

Ecologically Fragile Coastal Areas

of AP and TN, the inspection team

collected data and information, and

discussed the issues related to

socio-economic status of the

affected people with the farmers,

fishermen, GNASH, and Government

officials.

The basic socio-economic issues are

presented in Table 4.1 which also

lists the parametric values in the

assessment of the damage caused by

the aquaculture units located in

the Ecologically Fragile Coastal

Areas. Tables 4.2 and 4.3 present

the socio-economic assessment or

aquaculture in the Ecologically

Fragile Coastal Area of the States

of AP and TN.

Tables 4.2 and 4.3 bring forth that

the damage caused to ecology and

economics by the aquaculture

farming is higher than the earnings

from the sale of coastal

aquaculture produce."

The NEERI has, thus, given a positive finding that the damage caused to ecology and economics by the acquaculture farming is higher than the earnings from the sale of coastal acquaculture produce. The finding is based on the assessment keeping in view fourteen parameters listed in Tables 4.2 & 4.3 regarding the States of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu respectively. The parameters taken into consideration are <??> equivalent wages for the farmers to be earned, equivalent amount of agricultural produce <??> loss due to cutting to Casuarina in terms of fuel, loss in terms of grazing grounds, loss involving <??> loss caused by cyclones due to cutting of <??> in a forests, loss due to desertification of land, loss in terms of potable water, total loss <??> destruction, loss in rising income, loss due to damage of fishing nets and man-days loss due to <??> approachability to sea-coast. These losses are computed in money are are then compared with the total earnings from the sale of coastal acquaculture produce. In the basis of the assessment of socio-economic status of acquaculture in a systematic manner the NEERI has reached the conclusion that the damage caused to ecology and economics by the acquaculture farming is higher than the earnings from the sale of coastal aquaculture produce.

Paras 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of the report clearly show the environmental degradation caused by the shrimp culture farming by its adverse impact on surface water, contamination of soil and ground water and destruction of mangrove vegetation. The said paragraphs are reproduced hereunder:

"6.1 Impact on Surface Waters

Mangrove vegetation is

important in protecting marine and

terrestrial ecosystem. This

vegetation is also important as it

removes the pollutants like carbon

nitrogen, phosphate and other

nutrients, as also certain toxic

compounds. The importance of

mangrove plants especially

Vettivera zaizonoids is known is

reduction the impact of pollution

due to discharge of aquaculture

pond effluents, and the Cavery

Delta Farmers are now propogating

the cultivation or this species in

estuaries. Mangrove vegetation also

acts as a barrier of floods, an

provides spawning grounds and

nesting places for fishes; it also

supports avian fauna (birds) thus

maintaining the nature ecosystem.

The observations on the water

quality in the aquaculture ponds

show that the pond water harbors a

dense algal bloom compared to the

water in estuaries, creeks or sea

indicating eutrophic nature of pond

effluent. When water in large

volumes, from the ponds is

discharged during flusing of ponds,

in a creek or estuary, the

pollutants remain stagnated in the

estuary or near-sea coast due to

the typical tidal activity in

creeks. As a result, the raw water

source to the ponds gets

contaminated in course of time. The

wastewater discharge from the ponds

warrant proper treatment before

discharge. Uncontrolled discharge

of wastewater triggers a series of

deleterious impacts, e.g.

- With the increase in

eutrophication levels, there is a

shifiting in dominance of

phytoplankton Flora in pond

effluent from diatoms to blue-green

algae. Decomposition of dead blue-

green algae may lead to the

generation of toxic substances, eg.

ammonia, hydrogen sulphide etc.

Further, some of the blue-greens

also excrete biotoxins in large

quantities which are toxic to

aquatic animals, <??> prawns in

ponds or fishes in estuaries or

coastal waters. Large amount of

blue-green algae was recorded by

the inspection team in Sirkali area

(eg. S&S Industries & Enterprises

Ltd; High Tide Sea farms) and

Killai area (Aqua Gold Shrimp Farm;

MRVAqua Farm; Mohi Aqua Farm). The

presence of Oscillatoria,

Microcystis and some other

filamentous blue-green algae is

undesirable in the pond effluent as

they chock the gills of fishes.

- The suspended solids released

from the ponds are laden with

unconsumed food and other organic

contaminants. Accumulation of these

organics in the intake water

creates problems in the intake

water quality when the intake and

discharge points are in close

proximity.

6.2 Contamination of soil and

ground water

The shrimp farms are

constructed well above the ground

levels. Seepage of pond effluent to

the surrounding fields was noted by

the inspection team in a number on

farms. Seepage of pond effluent

<??> the soil quality in the

adjoining aquacultural fields. It

has also contaminated potable water

in surrounding villages.

Deterioration of ground water

quality in villages that over one

km away from the pond sites was not

noticed. This observation is based

on analysis of bore well water at

three sites by the inspection team.

This observation justified the

locational constraints on

aquaculture farms in coastal areas.

6.3 Destruction of Mangrove

vegetation

The inspection team noticed

destruction of mangrove vegetation

at most of the prawn farming sites

for the development of shrimp

farms.

Significant destruction of

mangrove forest was observed hear

the Aqua Gold shrimp farm at

village Vellar in Killai taluk of

South Arcot district similarly on

Pichavarum estuary in village <??>

in Killai taluk of South Arcot

district of TN, the shrimp farms

are constructed by clearing

mangrove vegetation. Mangrove

vegetation in Kuchipalam village is

also facing threat due to the

expansion of prawn farming

activity.

The final conclusions and recommendations are in para 5 of the NERI report which is as under:-

"8.0 Conclusions and

Recommendations on the attenuation

of the Impact of Aquaculture

Farming on Ecologically Fragile

Ares in States of AP, TN, and Union

Territory of Pondicherry.

Socio-economic assessment of

aquaculture in the ecologically

fragile areas in the States or AP

and TN reveals that the cost of

ecological and social damage far

exceed the benefits that accrue out

of the coastal aquaculture

activities.

The MEF’s norms for location

of aquaculture and hatcheries have

been violated in the States of AP,

IN, and Union Territory or

Pondicherry.

The current practice of

installation of coastal aquaculture

farms within 500 m HTL violates the

fundamental rights and livelihood

or people in the States AP and TN,

and the Union Territory of

Pondicherry.

The current practice of

installation of coastal aquaculture

farms within 500m HTL violate the

fundamental rights and livelihood

of people in the States AP and TN,

and the Union Territory of

Pondicherry.

The State of AP has adopted

twenty point guidelines as ad hoc

measures for management of

aquaculture in the district of

Nellore. These guidelines have not

been made mandatory in the State of

AP as a whole. Also, these

guidelines do not address all

socio-economic, and ecological

aspects of coastal habitats.

The State Government of TN has

enacted a Bill of provide for the

regulation of coastal aquaculture

on April 10, 1995. This Bill is not

in consonance with the MEF’s

notification dated 19, 1991 as it

allows the construction of

aquaculture units within 500m of

HTL of the sea.

The cost of eco-restoration of

the coastal fragile area must be

borne by the individual

entrepreneur of the commercial

aquaculture farms in keeping with

the polluter-pays principle.

No commercial coastal

aquaculture activity should be

undertaken even beyond 500m HTL

unless a comprehensive and

scientific environmental impact

asessment (EIA) study has been

conducted by the entrepreneur, and

the environment management plan

(EMP) approved by the respective

State Department of Environment,

Pollution Control Board, shore

Development Authority, and also by

the Ministry of Environment and

Forests.

Agricultural lands are being

converted into commercial

aquaculture farms, which causes

unemployment to the landless

labourers and also in loss of

cultivable land.

Commercial aquaculture farms

are being installed near the

cultivated lands and the salt water

from the farms damages the

productivity of the adjoining

lands.

Groundwater also gets

contaminated due to seepage of

impounded water from the

aquaculture ponds.

Desertification of cultivable

land is on the increase due to

salinity intrusion.

Due to commercial aquaculture

farms, there is a loss of

- mangrove ecosystems

- causarina plantations

- grazing grounds for

cattle

- potable water to

contiguous

population

- fish catch

- fishing nets

- agricultural produce

- manpower loss due to non-

approachability of

fishermen to sea shore

directly.

There is a perceptible

increase in the diseases of skin

and eye, and water borne diseases

in the contaguous population.

The designs of the

acquaculture farms are inadequate.

No provision has been made for

wastewater treatment facility

enabling recycling and re-use of

wastewater.

Prohibition on conversion of

agricultural lands and salt farms

into commercial aquaculture farms

must be enforced with immediate

effect.

No groundwater withdrawal must

be allowed for aquaculture

purposes.

Free access through

aquaculture unit to the sea coast

must be provided to the traditional

fishermen.

No aquaculture farm based on

brackish water should be installed

on inland brackish water bodies.

Wild seed collection from

creek and sea must be prohibited.

Seed must be procured from

hatcheries. If seed collection is

noticed it must immediately be

seized and dumped back into the

creek.

A eco-restoration fund must be

created by collecting the

stipulated fees from the owners of

acquaculture farms. In addition,

one per cent of total export

earnings per annum must also be

collected from commercial

aquaculture farm owners and used

for rejuvenation of coastal eco-

system with special reference to

plantation of mangroves and common

eco-sensitive zones. The wastewater

treatment system with reuse and

recycle must be installed by all

units. The smaller units can form a

co-operative and treat their water

through common effluent treatment

plant. The aquaculture units must

be closed down if the wastewater

treatment system is not functioning

to its design efficiency.

The second NEERI report dated July 10, 1995 states that a 19 member team of scientists lead by Dr. A.S. Ball and Dr. S.N. Kaul inspected the shrimp farms situated on the ecologically fragile coastal areas in the States of West Bengal, Orrisa, Kerala, Karnataka, Goa, Maharashtra and Gujarat during May 20 and June 10, 1995. The summary of salient comments in the report regarding acqua-farming in the State of West Bengal is as under:-

- organic pollution in creeks

and estuaries with respect to BOD

deterioration

- microbiological of water

quality

- accumulation of organic carbon

and heavy metals in the sediments

of shrimp farms

- Shannon Weaver index values

less than 3 indicate organic

contamination

- borewell water characteristics

near M/s Index Port Ltd., Sarberia,

Basanti, North 24-Paraganas, show

intrusion of salinity in drinking

water source

- conversion of land, and

traditional fish farm at M/s Index

Port Ltd., North 24-Paraganas

- conversion of land,

traditional fish farm, and mangrove

plantation at M/s Sundarban

Aquatics, South 24-Paraganas

- violation of CRZ regulations

regarding high tide line (HIL) has

taken place at M/s Sundarban

Aquactics, South 24-Paraganas. In

addition, violations of CRZ for

setting up the aquafarm on creeks

have taken place at the following

places:

- M/s Index Port Ltd., North 24-

Paraganas

- M/s Sundarban Aquatics, South

24-Paraganas

- All shrimp farms developed by

BWFD at Ramnagar, Midnapore."

The comments regarding the acqua-farming in the State of Orissa by the NEERI team are as under:-

"* Organic pollution in crecks

and estuaries with respect to BOD

* deterioration of

microbiological water quality

* accumulation of organic carbon

and heavy metals in the sediments

of shrimp farms

* Shannon Weaver index values

less than 3 indicate organic

contamination

* characteristics of borewell

water samples near M/s Sundeep

Aquatics, District Bhadrak and M/s

Suryo Udyog Pvt. Ltd., District

Balasore, show intrusion of

salinity into drinking water

* conversion of cultivable land

for the establishment of

aquafarms/hatcheries in all

districts

* violation of CRZ regulations

by all aquafarms on creeks in the

districts of Balasore and Bhadrak.

Hatcheries have been

constructed/under construction

within 200m of high tide line (HIL)

in contravance of CRZ regulations."

The status of acqua-farming in the State of Kerala as indicated in the NEERI report is as under:-

"The comments on aquafarming in the

State of Kerala are presented in

the footnotes of Tables 2.2.1.7.

Summary of the salient comments is

given hereunder:

* organic pollution in river,

creeks and estuaries

* deterioration of

microbiological water quality

* accumulation of organic carbon

and heavy metals in the sediments

of shrimp farms

* Shanon Weaver index valued

less than 3 indicate organic

contamination

* well water characteristics in

the vicinity of M/s Agalapuzha

aquafarm, Kozhikode show the

intrusion of salinity in drinking

water source

* conversion of land, and

traditional fish farm by M/s Vasu

Aquafarms at Kozhikode

* conversion of land,

traditional fish farm, and mangrove

plantation by M/s West Coast

Aquafarms Irinavu, Kannur

* violation of CRZ regulations

regarding the location of aquafarms

on creeks has taken place at the

following sites.

- M/s Consolidated Aquafarm,

Poyya, Trissur

- M/s Jaladhi Aquafarm, Cherchi

- M/s Keetodiyal Aquafarm,

Arookutty Alleppey

- M/s Mejovi Fisheries, Irinavu,

Kannur".

The report further indicates the status of acquaculture in the State of Karnataka as under:-

"Organic pollution in river,

creeks, and estuaries

Shanon Weaver index values less

than 3 indicate organic

contamination

well water charactristics in

vicinity of M/s Raja Ram Bhat

Aquafarm, Hanmav, Kumta show the

intrusion of salinity in drinking

water source

conversion of agricultural land

into shrimp farms was observed at

- M/s Popular Aquafarm, Tallur,

Kundapur

- M/s Raja Ram Bhat Aquafarm,

Hanmav, Kumta

- M/s Shri Arya Durga Aquafarm,

Karwar

destruction of mangrove vegetation

by M/s Popular Aquafarm, Tallur,

Kundapur was observed by the

inspection team

violation of CRZ regulations by

aquafarms situated on the creek of

Razadi river at Kundapur, Hanmav

creek at Kumta, and Hgnashree

creeks were noted by the inspection

team."

The comments of the NEERI report regarding acqua farms in the State of Goa are as under:-

"* organic pollution in river,

estuary and discharges from ponds

* Shanon Weaver index values

less than 3 indicate organic

contamination

* well water characteristics in

vicinity of M/s Govt. Prawn farm,

Choraho indicate salinity intrusion

* conversion of agricultural

land into shrimp farm was observed

by the inspection team at M/s Sky

Pak Aquafarm Ltd., Paliyam, Goa

* violation of CRZ regulations

by all the aquafarms on the creeks,

viz. Masem creek at Kankun, and

Chahora at Pernem were observed by

the inspection team.".

Summary of the salient comments on acqua-culture in the State of Maharashtra is as under :-

"* organic pollution in river

estuary and discharges from ponds

* microbiological deterioration

of water quality

* accumulation of organic carbon

and heavy metals in the sediments

of shrimp farms

* Shanon Weaver index values

less than 3 indicate organic

contamination

* conversion of agricultural

land into shrimp farms

* violation of CRZ regulations

regarding location of shrimp farm

on creeks, viz. Dharamtar, Satpati,

and Dahanu."

The comments regarding to State of Gujarat are as under:-

"organic pollution in river,

estuary and discharges from ponds

destruction of mangrove and shrubs

in the marine zone by M/s GFCCA,

Onjal and M/s Sea Crest Pvt. Ltd.,

Mendhar

violation of CRZ regulations for

setting up the shrimp farms on the

creeks, viz. Kanai, Ambika, and

Purna."

Para 3 of the NEERI report dated July 10, 1995 gives in detail the impact of acquaculture farming on ecologically fragile coastal areas of India:- <sls>

"3.0 Observations on the Impacts of

Aquaculture Farming on Ecologically

Fragile Coastal Areas of India

3.1 East Coast

* The shrimp farms at Ramnagar,

Midnapur district are located right

on the creek, and therefore, are

not in consonance with the CRZ

regulations

* No wastewater/sediment

treatment facilities exist at any

of the aquaculture farms

* No direct withdrawal of water

from creek/estuary

* No conversion of land has

taken place except in cases of M/s

Index Port Ltd., North 24-Paraganas

and M/s Sundarban Aquatic Farms

Ltd., South 24-Paraganas

* wild shrimp seedling

collection by villagers including

children is a common practice

* M/s Index Port Ltd., North 24

Paraganas has created the following

problems;

- design of aquaculture farm is

not proper, and no

wastwater/sediment treatment

facility exists in this shrimp farm

- intensive mode of operation

creates wastewater problems.

Presently, there is no treatment

facility existing for reuse and

recycle of treated wastwater

- deposition of clay in the

intake water reservoir, and no

proper mechanism exists for its

disposal

- seepage from the bunds create

additional problems around the farm

- inspection team observed that

groundwater in the vicinity of this

aquaculture farm has become saline

- conversion of agricultural

land, and traditional fishing farm

- barbed wire fencing along the

periphery of the farm has resulted

in restriction to free access for

the farmers, fishermen and cattle

to the creek

- M/s Sundarban Aquatic Farms

Ltd., South 24-Paraganas has

created the following problems ;

- conversion of agricultural

land, traditional fish farming, and

mangrove plantation

- the aquafarm is located below

ground level. Therefore, it is

difficult to assess the seepages

from this farm unless peizometers

are installed around the aquafarm

- a well designed sedimentation

tank is being used as a wastewater

treatment system. However, it is

not adequate. Necessary arrangement

have to be made for recycle and

reuse of wastewater

- no provision exists for

treatment of sediments

- the location of the aqua-farm

is not as per MEF notification

dated February 19, 1991, keeping in

view high tike line, and minimum

distance from the creek

The important areas of

environmental concern regarding

shrimp farming in the State of

orissa are

World Bank Aided Projects -

Narendrapur, Bhadrak District

World Bank aided project comes

within the national park area.

Therefore, it is desirable that

this project proposal must be

dropped. It was also informed to

the inspection team that two

private shrimp farms are in

operation at present near the

proposed World Bank Aided Project

which must be closed immediately,

in view of proximaty of the

national park

- Beidipur, Bhadrak District

There are plans to construct large

shrimp farms. It is necessary to

mention that this area is prorusely

covered with wild sea weeds, which

has direct relationship with the

ecology of the marine biota.

Keeping this aspect in view, a

detailed EIA is required before

finalizing the development of

shrimp farms in the area which must

include private farms in the region

In addition, there is a salt dyke

which prevents the flow of sea

water into the agricultural lands.

It is worth mentioning that more

than 50 shrimp farms, 1 ha, each

have come up in this area. This

leads to conversion of fertile

agricultural lands into

brackishwater based shrimp farming

resulting salinity, intrusion and

desertification of land

- Jagatjore - Banapada,

Kendrapara District

Construction work of shrimp farm is

in progress. Mechanised systems for

excavation, and construction are

being used. In addition,

inhabitants are prosecuted. There

is a signpost "Trespassers will be

prosecuted". It was informed to the

inspection team by the nearby

villagers that this place was used

for agriculture. Farmers,

fishermen, and cattle had free

access to the nearby creeks. Now it

has been limited to a large extent.

In addition, the inspection team

was informed about indiscriminate

cutting of mangrove bushes around

the area. This project must be

reviewed critically keeping Bhitar

Kanika Wild Life Sanctuary in view

Local entrepreneurs have started

small shrimp farms of about 1 ha

each. This will cause waterlogging

problems in the area. Finally, the

high tide line (HTL) just touches

the saline dyke. Therefore, world

Bank project proposal and other

shrimp farms fall within 500 m of

HTL, and do not conform to the

MEF’s notification dated February

19, 1991

* Chilka Lagoon

The silt carried by two main

rivers, viz. Daya and Bhargabi gets

deposited in the lagoon. There is

little exchange of water from the

sea because the mouth of the lagoon

(35 km long) has been blocked by

three factors, viz.

- silt

- improper mixing, and

- large clusters of shrimp farms

hinder the pasage of water into/out

of the lagoon

The bird sanctuary at Nalaban has

also been affected by siltation and

shrimp farming activities. 35 km of

the canal mouth of the lagoon needs

immediate attention, because the

exchange of sea water into and from

the lagoon is vital from ecological

considerations. In additions

deposited silt has to be removed,

Shrimp farms must be closed down

immediately to restore the Chilka

lagoon, to its original ecological

condition by application of

scientific management practices

* Subarnarekha Mouth

A large number of shrimp farms have

come up on both sides of the lower

reaches of the Subarnarekha river

to utilise the tidal brackish water

as observed by the inspection team.

It was reported to the inspection

team by local people that this has

resulted in water logging in upper

reaches of Subarnarekha river

* The inspection team observed

that the shrimp farming is at least

three times more than what has been

presented by the State Govt. of

Orissa

* All the shrimp farms do not

observe the MEF notification dated

February 19, 1991. The

creek/estuarine water based shrimp

farms are also not observing the

CRZ guidelines of MEF

Agricultural land is being

converted to shrimp farming because

of Land Reform Act of Govt. of

Orrisa

* Artificial creeks are being

constructed to allow high tides of

creek/estuarine water into the

large reservoir. In addition, this

factor must result in flooding of

low lying areas

* Reservoirs act as a setting

cum concentration basin. Therefore,

it is necessary sometimes for the

shrimp farmers to dilute this water

by withdrawing groundwater,

resulting in depletion of

groundwater resources in the nearby

villages. In addition, groundwater

has become saline. This is

confirmed by the situation in

Adhuan village in Bhadrak district

* The shrimp farming has

resulted in several social problems

viz.

- denial of free access to

fishermen

- denial of job opportunities

- conversion of agricultural

land to shrimp farming

- social displacement

- salination of groundwater

- reduction in grazing ground of

cattle, and free access to

creek/estuarine water

* Wild shrimp seedling

collection is still in practice.

This will have detrimental effect

on the ecology of the sea, creek,

and estuarine waterbodies

* Direct pumping from the

creel/estuarine water system is

being practiced. This results in

reduction of fish catch and most of

stopped immediately

* No shrimp farm had any type of

wastewater and sediment treatment

systems including hatcheries

* All hatcheries are located

within 200 m of the HTL in

contravance of the MEF’s

notification dated February 19,

1991. It is necessary to stop the

commissioning of all new hatcheries

which are not being constructed as

per CRZ regulations

* Intake points and wastewater

discharge channels of the prawn

farms are nearby. This is not a

scientific water management of

shrimp farms

* It has been observed by the

inspection team tat some shrimp

farms have barbed wires along the

periphery of project site, e.g.

- M/s Deep Sun Culture Pvt. Ltd.

- M/s Surya Udyog Pvt. Ltd.

- M/s Manas Prawn Farm

Therefore, there is no tree

access to creek and estuarine water

for the fishermen and cattle.

3.2 West Coast

* The shrimp farming activity in

the west coast is mostly confined

to the traditional extensive type

of farming. Limited number of

commercial shrimp farms having

areas more than 5 ha, working on

the semi-intensive type have been

installed in the coastal areas

since last 3 years.

* Though in limited numbers,

prawn farms working on the semi-

intensive type specifically in the

States of Karnataka, Maharashtra,

and Gujarat are situated within 500

m of high tide line of the sea,

which is not in consonance with

MEF’s notification dated February

19,1991

* Incidence of conversion of

agricultural land into coastal

aquaculture units, which infringes

the fundamental right to lite and

livelihood, could be noticed in

States of Karnataka (Kumta taluk),

Maharashtra (Ratnagiri district,

and Palghar taluk) and in Gujarat

(Valsad district)

* In States situated on the west

coast of India brackish water

aquaculture units have been mainly

installed along the estuaries and

river banks, where impounded

backwater is being used for shrimp

farming. Such practices of

extensive type of farming may not

have significant adverse impact on

environment due to the fact that

limited quantities of brackish

water are required for recharging

these ponds, and the wasterwater

generation is negligible. However,

this practice of utilisation of

backwaters will prove to be unsound

if carried out for large scale

farms using semi-intensive type of

farming

* Villages situated along the

sea coast, and backwater zones,

specifically at Gunda, Kumta and

Karwar (Karnataka), Palghar and

Dahanu (Maharashtra), and Valsad

(Gujarat) are under threat due to

conversion of land into aquaculture

farms

* In the State of Karnataka, the

inspecting team observed that M/s

Murudeshwar Food and Export Ltd.

Prawn aquafarm units are located

within 100 m of HTL

The intake and discharge points of

M/s Samudra Aquafarms and M/s

Skyline Biotechnologies Pvt. Ltd.,

Kagil, Kumta are very close to each

other which may create problems or

contamination in the ponds. The

prawns grown in these farms were

reported to be affected by vital

infection. Disposal of sediments

from the ponds was also observed to

be carried out on the side of the

river

* It was also observed by the

inspecting team in the State of

Karnataka that aquafarm of M/s

Rajaram Bhat Pvt. Ltd. at Monnavar

in Kumta taluk has been installed

on the periphery of the village.

The bunds constructed for making

the ponds have obstructed the free

flow of storm water, and domestic

wastewater from the village to sea

and this has created health hazards

for the villagers. Intrusion of

saline water in the soil was also

observed, and reports on damage o

coconut plantations in nearby areas

were also received. Contamination

of drinking water sources due to

saline water intrusion was observed

* In the State of Karnataka, M/s

Agnasana Aquafarm Pvt. Ltd. has

come up adjacent to a school in

village Gunda, and the constructed

bund of the pond touches the

compound of the school. Seepage of

saline water from the bund and

subsequent damage to the foundation

of the school building, and damage

to coconut plants in nearby areas

was observed. Such practices of

allowing the ponds to come up near

residential and public utility

places must be stopped immediately

* Coastal aquaculture has

resulted in loss of mangroves

ecosystems to a limited extent of

the west coast. However,

significant destruction or

mangroves could be noticed in the

coastal areas of the districts on

Karwar a Kumta (Karnataka), Palghar

& Shrivardhan (Maharashtra), and

Valsad (Gujarat). Since the

mangrove ecosystems provide natural

habitat for spawning of marine

biota, the practice of

indiscriminate destruction of

mangrove ecosystem due to

installation or shrimp farms must

be stopped

* No proper peripheral drainage

has been provided around the

aquaculture ponds following semi-

intensive mode of farming in the

States of Kerala, Karnataka &

Maharashtra, and the wastewater

from the ponds was observed to be

discharged into the receiving

bodies without treatment

* The brackish water intake and

effluent discharge ponds for the

ponds are located in close vicinity

resulting in contamination of feed

water of the aquaculture units. The

situation is predominant at Kumta

(Karnataka), Palghar (Maharashtra),

and Valsad (Gujarat) where a large

number of medium and large

aquafarms have been installed

* Since large number of medium

and big farms have been installed

on the coastal areas at places

mentioned above, the wastewater

discharged into creeks and back

water zones is not properly flushed

out during low tide, thereby,

affecting the intakes water quality

of aquaculture farms.

* The situation in the State of

Goa has not reached such an

alarming situation as yet due to

limited number of farms, and

abundant quantities of backwater

available in the riverine zones of

Zuari and Mandavi rivers. However,

future expansion of the shrimp

farming practices warrant careful

control, in view of tourism

potential of the State

* Shrimp farming activity in the

State of Gujarat is presently

confined to the coastal areas of

Valsad, Bharuch, and Surat. Two

large commercial shrimp farms are

proposed to be installed in the

Jamnagar district where salt farms

are being operated currently.

Sanctions for such installations

warrant careful consideration to

avoid damages to the highly

ecosensitive coral reef zones near

this coast.

The conclusions and recommendations as given in para of the NEERI report are as under:-

"7.0 Conclusions and

Recommendations on the attenuation

of adverse Impacts of Aquaculture

Farming on Ecologically Fragile

Coastal Areas

7.1 East Coast

* The shrimp farming activity in

east coast is mostly confined to

the traditional and extensive mode.

However, a large number or

commercial shrimp farms have

started functioning on modified

extensive, semi-intensive; and

intensive modes since last three

years

* The large scale shrimp farms

and hatcheries have violated CRZ

notification of MEF dated February

19, 1991 in the States of West

Bengal and Orissa

* Incidence of conversion of

agricultural land into coastal

aquaculture units which infringe

upon the fundamental rights to life

and livelihood were <??>

particularly in the State or Orissa

* It is desirable to establish

aquaculture farms on modified

extensive mode. Semi-intensive and

intensive mode of aquaculture must

not be adopted in the States or

West Bengal and Orissa

* Maintenance of quality of the

feed, and stocking of healthy seed

from the government approved

hatcheries associated with

appropriate water management

practices warrants proper attention

in the prawn farming activities of

the coastal areas

* The proposed guidelines for

shrimp farming in the State of West

Bengal do not address all socio-

economic, and ecological status or

coastal habitats.

* The State of Orissa has not

formulated any guidelines related

to aquaculture practices

* The cost of eco-restoration of

the coastal fragile area must be

borne by the individual

entrepreneurs of the commercial

farms in keeping with the polluter

pays principle with specific

reference to.

- Sunderban Mangrove/Littoral

Forest, West Bengal

- Chilka Lagoon, Orissa

- Bhitar Kanika Wild Life

Sanctuary, Orissa

- National Park, Orissa

- Subarnarekha Mouth, Orissa

No commercial coastal

aquaculture activity should be

undertaken even beyond 500 m HTL

unless a comprehensive and

scientific environmental impact

assessment (EIA) study has been

made by the entrepreneur, and the

environment management plan (EMP)

approved by the respective State

Department of Environment,

Pollution Control Board, and also

by the MEF

* Agricultural lands are being

converted into commercial

aquaculture, which causes

unemployment to the landless

labourers and also in loss of

cultivable land

* Groundwater also gets

contaminated due to seepage of

impounded water from aquaculture

farms

Due to commercial aquaculture

farms, there is a loss of

- mangrove ecosystem

- grazing grounds for cattle

- potable water to contiguous

population

- fish catch

- agricultural produce

- economic loss due to non-

approachability of fishermen to

creek, estuary and sea directly

* the designs of the aquaculture

farms are inadequate. No provision

has been made for wastewater

treatment facility enabling

recycling and re-use of wastewater

in shrimp farms and hatcheries to

minimise water exchange. In

addition, there is a necessity to

treat deposited sediments from the

shrimp farms. Sediments can be

converted into manure for land

application after proper treatment

* Prohibition on conversion of

agricultural land must be enforced

with immediate effect

* Wild seed collection from

creek, estuary, and sea must be

prohibited. Seed must be procurred

from hatcheries

* An eco-restoration fund must

be created by collecting the

stipulated fees from the owners of

aquaculture farms. In addition, one

percent of total export earnings

per annum must also be collected

from commercial aquaculture farm

owners, and used for rejuvenation

of coastal eco-system. The

wastewater treatment system

including sediment control with

reuse and recycle must be installed

by all unites. The smaller units

can form a co-operative, and treat

water through common effluent

treatment plant. The aquaculture

units must be closed down if the

wastewater treatment system

including sediment control is not

functioning to its design

efficiency

* A strict vigilance by the

State Departments of Fisheries and

Pollution Control Board is required

to keep a check on pollution

abatement measures, it may be

mentioned that even a small, one

<??> shrimp farm can be <??> to

i.e. modified-extensive; semi-

intensive, and intensive.

Therefore, strong control measures

for production and pollution

(wastewater and sediments) are

essential

* Water (from sources such as

creek, estuary or sea) cess must be

charged from the shrimp farm owners

* Cultivable lands must not be

converted for aquaculture. There is

a perceptible difference between

cultivable and not cultivated land.

Thus, even if aquaculturist buys

agricultural land and keep them

fallow for say 2 or 3 years that

does not mean that the land has

become non-cultivable. Currently

almost all the farms that exist are

cultivable lands except those in

Midnapur district (7 aquafarms in

wastelands). Even these farmers who

do not sell their land to prawn

farm owners, are affected due to

lack of drainage from paddy fields

which in turn cause flooding of the

crop during rainy season

* The location of shrimp farms

in Midnapur district on wasteland

developed by the Department of

Fisheries, Govt. of West Bengal

fulfills all scientific conditions

except ;

- CRZ guidelines for creeks

- Wastewater & sediment

management practices, and

- Mode of operation which is

mostly semi-intensive and intensive

* There are two commercial

aquaculture units in the State of

West Bengal, viz, M/s Sunderban

Aquatic Farm Ltd., and M/s index

Port Ltd., which are violating CRZ

regulations of MEF dated February

19, 1991 as discussed hereunder.

- M/s Sundarban Aquatic Farms

Ltd.: Conversion of agricultural

land & traditional fish farm, and

destruction of mangrove plantation

have taken place. In addition, this

farm falls within 500 m from HTL.,

Further, CRZ regulations for

location of aquaculture farm near

the creek have also been violated

- M/s Index Port Ltd.;

Conversion of agricultural land &

traditional fish farm have taken

place. Groundwater has become

saline around the farm. Shrimp

farms are not well designed

resulting in seepage. Barbed wire

fencing has restricted free access

to farmers, fishermen and cattle to

the creek. In addition. CRZ

regulations for location of

aquaculture farm near the creek

have also been violated

No treatment facilities have

been provided by both the farms

It is necessary to review the

World Bank aided projects and

commercial shrimp farms in and

around Chilka Lagoon, keeping in

view the MEF norms dated February

19, 1991 in the State of Orissa,

viz.

- Narendrapur project must be

abandoned as it is within the

National park. Also the existing

commercial farms in operation must

be closed down

- Bideipur project requires EIA

studies. Several farms have come up

on the other side of the saline

dyke which must also be included

for evaluation in the EIA studies

- Jagatjaore-Sanaspada project

is within 500 m HTL. Farmers,

Fishermen and cattle earlier had

free access to the nearby creek,

which has been limited to a great

extent due to the commercial shrimp

farming activity. Also

indiscriminate cutting of mangrove

bushes has been reported. This

project must, therefore, be

reviewed critically keeping Bhitar

Kanika Wild Life Sanctuary in view

* The commercial shrimp farms in

Chilka Lagoon must be abandoned

keeping in view the ecological

condition of the lagoon and also

the location of National Bird

Sanctuary.

7.2 West Coast

* MEF’s norms for location of

aquaculture farms and hatcheries

have been violated at many places

in the States situated on west

coast of India

The current practice of

installation of coastal aquaculture

farms within 500 m HTL violates the

fundamental right and livelihood of

people in the coastal States

* The States of Kerala,

Karnataka, Maharashtra and Gujarat

have neither formulated nor adopted

any guidelines in consonance with

CRZ-notification, Ministry of

Environment & Forests (MEF), Govt.

of India for scientific control and

management of the shrimp farms in

the respective States. These States

must formulate and adopt

legislative Acts for proper

management and regulation of

existing shrimp farms in the

respective States

* The State Government of Goa

has enacted a bill dated November

17, 1994 in order to regulate,

promote and manage the shrimp farms

in this State, in a scientific

manner. However, this bill is <??>

in consonance with the MEF

notification dated February 19,

1991 as it allows the construction

of aquaculture units within 500 m

of HTL of the sea. The <??> is

limited to the guidelines

pertaining to the allotment of

lands for the entrepreneurs

* The cost of eco-restoration of

the coastal fragile area must be

borne by the individual

entrepreneur of the commercial

aquaculture farms in keeping with

the polluter pays principle

* No commercial coastal

aquaculture activity should be

undertaken even beyond 500 m HTL

unless a comprehensive and

scientific environmental impact

assessment (EIA) study has <??>

conducted by the entrepreneur, and

the environment management plan

(EMP) approved by the respective

State Department of Environments

Pollution Control Board, Shore

Development Authority, and also by

the Ministry of Environment and

Forests

* Commercial aquaculture farms

are planned to be installed near

the cultivated lands in all the

States of west coast. Salt water

from the farms results in damage to

the productivity of the adjoining

lands

* Groundwater also gets

contaminated due to seepage of

impunded water from the aquaculture

ponds

* Desertification of cultivable

land can result in increased saline

intrusion on west coast

Due to commercial aquaculture

farms, there is a loss of

- mangrove ecosystems

- casurina plantations

- grazing grounds for cattle

- potable water to contiguous

population

- fish catch

- fishing nets

- agricultural produce

- economic loss due to non-

approachability of fishermen to sea

shore directly

* The designs of the aquaculture

farms are inadequate. No provision

has been made for wastewater

treatment facility enabling

recycling and re-use of wastewater

* Prohibition on conversion of

agricultural lands and salt farms

into commercial aquaculture farms

must be enforced with immediate

effect

* Wild seed collection from

creek and sea must be prohibited.

Seed must be procured from

hatcheries

* An eco-restoration fund must

be created by collecting the

stipulated fees from the owners of

aquaculture farms. In addition, one

percent of total export earnings

per annum must also be collected

from commercial aquaculture farm

owners and used for rejuvenation of

coastal eco-system with special

reference to plantation of

mangroves and common eco-sensitive

zones. The wastewater treatment

system with reuse and recycle must

be installed by all units. The

smaller units can form a co-

operative and treat their water

through common effluent treatment

plant. The aquaculture units must

be closed down in the wastewater

treatment system is not functioning

to its design efficiency

* Drainage canals must be

constructed around the existing

ponds to collect seepage from the

pond which will prevent the

intrusion of saline water into the

adjoining agricultural fields &

residential areas. The design and

construction of the drainage

canal/bund must be undertaken

scientifically based on the

topographical features of the area.

This will avoid the flooding of the

area with saline water, and will

help in restoration or hygienic &

sanitary conditions in the nearby

residential areas."

The two NEERI reports clearly indicate that due to commercial acqua-culture farming there is considerable degradation of the Mangrove eco-systems, depretion of Casurina plantations, pollution of potable waters, reduction in fish catch, and blockage of direct approach to the seashore. Agriculture lands and salt farms are being converted into commercial acqua-culture farms. The ground water has go contaminated due to seepage of impounded water from the acqua-culture farms. Highly polluted effluents are discharged by the shrimp-farms into the sea and on the seacoast.

A report titled "Expert Committee Report on Impact of Shrimp Farms Along The Coast of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry" has been placed on the record, Justice M. Suresh, a retired judge of the Bombay High Court, Mr. A. Sreenivasan, Joint Director of Fisheries (retd.), Dr. A.G.K. Menon, an Ichthyologist, Mr. V. Karuppan I.A.S. (retd.), Dr. M. Arunachalam, Lecturer, Centre for Environmental Sciences, Manommaniam Sundaradar University, Tamil Nadu and Dr. K. Dakshinamoorthy, a medical surgeon constituted the "expert committee" (Suresh Committee). Although the investigation by the Suresh Committee was done at the instance of "complaint against shrimp industries" but keeping in view the status of the committee members and the factual data collected and relied upon by the committee it would be useful to examine the same. The Suresh Committee visited various villages in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry and gave its findings based on the evidence collected by the Committee. Some of the findings of Suresh Committee are as under:-

"The farmers of Perunthottam told

us that they have sold nearly 140

acres of their own lands to the

Bask company and 40 acres to the

Bismi company. Evidence was also

given to us showing in the lands

purchased by Bask Farms, where

three or two crops were being

cultivated. It also revealed that

the percentage of yield was as much

as <??> Details regarding this are

found in Annexure 15. The Bismi

company has erected a pipe line

till the boundary of the farm for

draining sea water. It is yet to be

connected to the sea.

The Bask company is situated

at a distance of 150 m from the

scheduled caste households. Bask

Aqua Farm is situated within 500 m

from the sea and the distance of

Bismi Aqua farms is just 25 m from

the sea. During our visit, we found

Bask farms engaged in construction

of Prawn farms on agricultural

lands that had been purchased

(Photo No. 23 & 24) .........

representative of Perunthottam

village also shared before the

Expert team that the yield obtained

from the fields adjacent to prawn

farms were affected. Moreover the

villagers have lost their access to

potable water as the water tables

have become alkaline due to the

seepage of sea water from the prawn

farms. Bask farms have been using

ground water for nearly two years

crop. The Managing Director

confirmed this before the Expert

team."

The Committee visted Pichavaram Vedaranyam on July 13th/15th, 1995 and observed as under:-

"It was observed that the palmyrah

trees in this area which is the

most drought resistant tree has

dried after the onset of prawn

farms in this area. Majority of the

coconut trees have dried up and few

remaining have stopped yielding

fruits.

The unanimous opinion of the

people is that most of the mangrove

species are on the decline. These

mangroves serve as a source of <??>

wood for domestic purposes, grazing

ground for animals, water way for

locals and tourists and an

important habitat for fisheries

increasingly polluted because of

the effluent discharged by the

shrimp farms. They also brought to

our notice the greater value of the

mangrove as a stabliser of the

coast and how, because of this

being disturbed by the destruction

of the palmyrah, coconut and

casuarins grooves, coastal erosion

has become common."

Regarding visit to Pudhupetti, the Committee stated as under:-

"We visited Pudhupettai on 14th

July in order to get a first hand

knowledge about the impact of

Farisa Aqua Farm details of which

was narrated by the Pudhupettai

representative to the expert team

on 13th July at Nagai. We saw the

pucca construction of the <??>

farm’s Jetti into the sea to enable

the pumping of the sea water. This

clearly is acting as a hindrance

for the free mobility of the

finishing community and their

access to sea and

land................All these three

farms are situated within 25 m from

the sea. Further these farms are

closely situated to the dwelling

houses also. Coastal Enterprises is

situated at a distance of 20 m, the

Farisha Aqua farm at a distance of

250 m and Blue Base Aqua farm at 20

m from the dwellings of

perumalpettai the next fishing

village from Pudupettain. There is

a fourth enterprise namely Abhirami

Aqua farms which owns about 150

acres of wet land has not commenced

work as yet...........Pipes have

been laid to discharge effluent

either to the sea, or adjoining dry

lands belonging to the village or

to the water channel used by

villages for bathing. Effluent is

also being discharged close to the

dwelling houses. In particular,

"effluent is being collected right

in front of my house" said

Kalvikarasi a resident of

Pudupettai village who made a

representation to the Expert team

on July 13th. She said that

"Drinking water in the village is

now turning salty".

................the advantages of

shore seine net fishing is the

abundant catch of "Anchovy" fish

which has commercially viable

market. The construction of

permanent jetties has eliminated

the ‘shore seine net fishing. Shore

seine net fishing needs

uninterrupted coastline and it has

become an impossibility in

Pudupettai. About 10 shore seine

nets are idle in the village. The

construction of pipe to discharge

effluent is a permanent one. By

construction of the permanent

jetties, the natural sand dues in

the village were destroyed. These

sand dunes are a natural cyclone

barriers. Hence a threat of cyclone

barriers. Hence a threat of cyclone

is imminent since these natural

cyclone barriers are destroyed.

The construction of pipelines

ending in the sea for pumping in

sea water has damaged nearly 10

nets worth Rs.60,000/-. Details of

nets damaged is given in Annexure

19. The Coastal Enterprises Ltd.

has encroached the burial ground of

Pudupettai and Blue Base Aqua Farms

has encroached the burial ground of

Perumalpettai.

The Committee visited the Pullicat take area on July 18, 1995. The findings of the Committee are as under:-

"Ecologically the Tamilnadu part of

the Pulicat lake is important since

it has the only opening of the lake

into the sea thus functioning as

the migratory route of these

spawning animals like prawns, fish

and mud crabs. The mud rlats of

Pulicat lake harbours a number of

winter migratory birds. e were told

that the water fowl sanctuary at

Pulicat is slowly being destroyed,

.........We observed that Prawn

farms are located all around the

wetland. In the northern region of

the lake prawn farms are situated

even in the lake-bed. Maheshwari

Export India Ltd is constructing a

Prawn Farm across the Pulicant lake

bed clearly violative of the

Tamilnadu Aqua Culture Regulation

Act. We also noticed water being

pumped out from the lake into the

Prawn farms.

According to Dr. Sanjeeva Raj,

Pulicat lake has two bird

sanctuaries namely Yedurapattu and

Nelapattu. It is estimated that

nearly 10-15 thousand of flamingoes

and other rare birds visit the

Pulicat lake for four months only

for feeding all the way from Rann

of Kutch. Other water birds like

pelicans, Cormorants, Egrets and

Herons breed at Nelapattu and feed

at this Pulicat Take. At

Yedurapattu, Painted Storks,

Pelicans, and Open Bills also feed

here. In 1993 it was estimated that

there was 10000 to 15000

Flemingoes. By 1994 this has been

reduced to less than 1000. The

reason for this can be attributed

to the effluent from prawn farms

which kills the organisms on which

the Flamingoes feed. The depletion

of natural feed could have caused

this reduction. ..........The

Tamilnadu forest Department is

establishing a third sanctuary in

the southern tip of Pulicat lake.

We were told that due to the noise

of oil engines, bulldozers and

other disturbances by the prawn

farms many birds especially painted

storks have deserted this lake

Dr. Sanjeeva Raj also states

that Pulicat is ecologically very

sensitive and fragile. The east

coast is vulnerable to cyclones,

With the hundreds of prawn farms

along the coast excavating sand

along the coast line every

possibility existed for inviting

the sea to enter and destroy the

water table. Further, prawn farms

destroys sand dunes and vegetations

and in times of tidal waves sea

water could enter in a big way.

Further, Dr. Sanjeeva Raj said

that Pulicat lake is fairly shallow

with an average depth of about 1.5

m. It can be described as a saucer.

The pumping of water by aquafarms

up of the lake. Added to this the

road, from Sulurpet that has been

constructed for reaching the

Shriharikotta rocket launching site

through the lake has obstructed

free flow of water. It is generally

claimed by the prawn farm owners

that the land on the eastern <??>

of the road is not the part of

Pulicat lake and hence prawn farms

can be constructed. This is false

as all this land area is part of

the Pulicat lake. The tragedy is

that if prawn farms are erected on

the higher side of the lake, the

effluent from the prawn farms will

flow back into the lake causing

serious damage to marine and

estuarine biota..........Pasiapuram

Rajiv Gandhi Nagar has a dalit

hamlet Edamani. This hamlet had a

water tank which provided water to

the nearby 35 villages. The source

of water was the villages. The

source of water was the village

ground water. But due to the impact

of the adjoining farm the water

became saline making it unsuitable

for consumption.

An eminent danger by the prawn

companies is to the village called

Jamila Badh. This village has 150

muslim families (fisher). They were

originally living in the land on

which the Shriharikotta Space

Research Station is built. These

families were relocated by the

Government promising jobs and

providing free housing site near

the Pulicat lake. The built their

own huts at the cost of Rs.5000

each. These huts today face serious

flood threat since on both sides of

the village two prawn enterprises

have obstructed the Ponneri lake

water to flow in to the sea. This

obstruction due to the construction

of Prawn farms floods the village.

From 1991 till date every year

water reaches the boundary of the

village and before it could enter

inside nearly 2000 village people

manudily divert the water to the

sea. Though the village people have

made representation and protested

to the owners, they use their

economic and Political Power to

scare the fishing People and make

them live in a permanent state of

fear, People also told us that they

areaffected by itching, scabies,

and lever which could be due to the

dischargeof effluent."

The Committes’ observations regurding Karaikal district Pondicherry are as under:

"As quoted by the Pondichery

Science Forum, :Karaikal region has

only 20 Kms of coastal stretch.

This coastal stretch is of

environmental significance as the

area and its environs have creeks

and lagoons beaches with dunes,

coasted Platns, natural reeves,

Flood plain and is also the tail

end of the Cauvery river basin,

Karaikal is considered as the

granary of Pondicherry and has main

irrigation canals like NIni

Kattalai Pidari Kattalal and

Arasapuram:.

The ground water reserves of

Karaikal is Frightfully meagre but

for the only sweet water aquifer at

about 10 to 20 ft deep there is no

other Potable aquifer. This water

source cannot be expionted

continuously since it takes time to

recharge and Poses danger of sed

water intrusion. Only manual hand

Pumps are being used to tap this

water at Present.

It is in this context Karaikal

is Posed with the serious danger of

loosing this sweet water aquiter as

most of the small Prawn farms are

in the process of deriving water

during the high tides from the

rivers like. Mullaiyar,

Thirumalairayananar. Arasalar

Nandalar and Pravidayanar and also

use ground water for Shrimp

culture. This continuous withdrawal

of fresh water will alter surface

water resources. So, there is no

Possibility for the recharging

mechanisms as the wet lands near

these river basnis are converted to

aquafarms and these wet lands have

lost their function of absorbing

rain water and recharging the

aquifer zones."

The conclusions reached by the Suresh Committee under various headings indicating the impact of shrimp culture farming on environment are reproduced hereunder;

"(a) Effluent Pollution

As Shrimp Culture using high

protein feeds is a highly polluting

activity. Presently 78,000 tonnes

feed is used in India in Shrimp

Culture. This is bio-degradable, if

properly treated. It leaves behind

responded solids (organic) and the

decomposition liberates inorganic N

and P.77.5% of N and 86% of P from

the feed are worked and enter the

pond environment. 1 ton or

P.monodon production results in a

pollution load of 56.3-48.1 Kg N

and 13.0-24.4 Kg P. (Phillips et at

1993. ICLARM. Conf. Proc 31 1/1

198).

Excess amounts of P and N are

detrimental to environment (<??>

1994 SACMONID XVII (4); 10-14).

These lead to "hyper

eutrophication" resulting in

massive algal blooms and oxygen

depletion which are harmful to

aquatic like. These blooms such as

"Red tide" cause fish mortality.

The effluent quality during

harvesting the shrimp <??> is:

total nitrogen 1900-2600 ppm, total

0 48-110 PPM and organic carbon

7.3-13.7 ppm. The impact of this is

the reduced oxygen, hyper

nitrification, alteration of

community structure, sedinextation,

changes in besithic communities

etc. (Phillips et al 1993).

Further "Self pollution"

results from feed wasted, which

becomes unmanageable (lmre Csavas

1994. Shrimp News International,

March-April 1994). Organic wastes,

solid matter, dissolved metabolites

like ammonia, Carbon-dioxide are

produced. Decomposing organic

matter depletes oxygen from water.

Admittedly being biodegradable the

effluents consume oxygen and so

denude the water of its oxygen.

When there is oxygen deficit, fish

avoid such low oxygen zones and

move further away to oxygen

saturated zones and when there is

oxygen depletion fish die en-masse.

Fishing village near whose coast

shrimp ponds have come up - fish

have become scarce and the

artisanal fishermen have to go

further away from shore to catch

fish. Population of fish and their

diversity decrease.

............With regard to farm

effluents being treated and

discharged into the sea and other

water bodies. We did not see or

hear about any such scientific

process of effluent treatment

having been set up by prawn farms.

In m/s Bask farms we were shown two

partially dry sedimentation tanks.

We saw untreated effluents from m/s

Amaigam shrimp farm being

discharged <??> the beach (not even

into the sea causing degradation of

the <??> shore with dark brown,

four smelling organic matter, which

is a <??> hazard. The Joint

Director, MPLDA itself has stated

that "most of the farms have not

set up effluent treatment systems.

(b) Slinisation

The dominant species of Shrimp

cultured is Penaeus monodon the

tiger prawn and next comes the

white prawn, P. indicus. Both are

marine prawns. P.monodon grows best

at salinities of 10-20 p.pt (20%)

but tolerate slightly higher or

lower salinities. P. indicus

requires higher salinity 20-30 ppt.

Thus seawater is the primary medium

of growth. Seawater or salinity 55-

36 ppt is taken into the ponds. The

growing period ranges from 120-150

days. Sea water is periodically

replaced. Sea water is periodically

replaced. Sea water remaining in

the pond for a long period seeps

into neighbouring areas where

agriculture is practiced and

salinizes the soils which therefore

lose their productivity for crops

and become unfit for agriculture.

Even assuring that the 500 m

zonation is enforced it will not

solve the problem of salination.

Agriculture lands, inwards (towards

inland) of shrimp ponds will become

saline and the chain reaction will

continue. ............ Many shrimp

industries assert that they are

taking only sea water for shrimp

culture and do not use ground

water. Sea water has a salinity

around 35 ppt. It is mostly Penaeus

monodon the tiger shrimp. This

needs a salinity in the range of

15-20 ppt for optimum growth. 30

the shrimp producer have

necessarily to dilute it to bring

down the salinity by adding fresh

water. Let along ground water, we

have even seen river water being

pumped near Poompuhar into to

shrimp ponds. ..............

Salinization is not only possible

but has actually happened all over

the world. The Bhagwathi Institute

of Environment and Development,

analysed numerous samples of water

adjacent to shrimp farms in Sirkali

Taluk, TN, and found that in most

of them Chlorides exceeded the

permitted limits even by over 100

times for eg.15265 mg/1 in drinking

water source near Suryakumar Shrimp

co. Mahendrapalle. In Kurru

village, Nellore District, drinking

water became saline after four

shrimp farms were established and

500 people of this village had no

drinking water (Vandana Shiva 1994,

"Social and Environmental impact or

Aquaculture). Dr. Alagarswami,

Director CIBA identifies

salinization of drinking water,

wells, dwelling units adjoining

agriculture lands and aquifers as

critical issues in shrimp culture.

(National Workshop on Transfer of

Technology for sustainable shrimp

Farming, Ms. Swaminathan Foundation

Madras, January 9-10, 1995) Dr. V.

Gopalakrishnan, former FAO export

says "salt water seepage problem

appears to be genuine and such area

should be avoided for establishing

new shrimp farms" (Fish &

Fisheries, Newsletter No 4 January

1995). Dr. Sanjeevaraj noted that

in Political lake, saltwater from

Prawn ponds was known to be seeping

into drinking water tables

(COPDANET NEWSLETTER winter 1994).

........... We have noted the

salinization of drinking water in

Pudukuppam, Naicker Kuppam,

Poompuhar, Perunthottam, Pudupet,

etc in Sirkali Taluk caused by

large shrimp units and also in a

very acute manner in

Pattinamarudur, iluticorin, VOC

district which is sandwitched

between two large farms viz. DTC

and MAC Aqua farms Ltd.

(c) Feed and wastes

In a moderate 3 t/ha yield of

shrimp, 4-6 t/ha feed is applied

while for a yield of 5t/ha it is

15t/ha. The magnitude of

putreseible organic matter from

these wastes is enormous. Hence,

the practice of discharging such

effluents into common water bodies

needs to be strongly discouraged

because of the strongly polluting

effect (Mackintosh. D.J. INFOFISH.

International 6/92. 38/41). Feed

wastes are more toxic than sewage

and this is a sufficient ground for

banning industrial Shrimp Culture.

..............The Team found that

Amalgam marine Harvests, was

blatantly discharging the effluents

into the foreshore narrow sandy

breach at Pudukuppam. This has

spoiled the aesthetic appearance of

the beach. The area is dark brown

in colour and foul smelling. This

will pose a serious hazard to

Public Health. The wastes also

enter "Uppanar" stream hardly 5 m

away from discharge point. This is

illegal and affects the health of

villages. Settleable solids silt up

the ponds and canals. Over

accumulation of detritus leads to

profusion of protozoa, and

ciliates, which cover the body of

Pisa, Respiratory diseases, loss of

appetite, black gill disease, shell

disease, foul smell of internal

parts, tail rot etc are caused on

such unhealthy pond conditions. The

quality of effluents discharged

into the environment are so poor

that biological methods will not be

sufficient to treat them. Most of

the environmental troubles are

caused by the industrial shrimp.

The coastal zone used for culturing

aquatic organisms is only a narrow

strip on the continental shell and

on the low lying flatlands. Hence

the very fragile nature of the

coatal ecosystem is getting

destroyed.

(d) Fertilizers and therapeutants

Large quantities of feeds are

being used and fertilizer

applications are generally minimal.

Lime is regularly used but

continued use of lime impoverished

the soil. It also hardens the soil.

However, it is the use of

therapeutants that is highly

destructive of the environment. A

very incisive account of the use of

drugs in aquaculture is available

from P. de. Kinklein and C. Michael

(INFOFISL International 4/92; 45-46

1992) and an exhaustive report is

provided by Fred P. Meyer, an

authority on the subject. (Review

in Aquaculture sciences Ve 1 (4):

693-710 1989). However the use of

drugs has only aggravated the

damage to environment. Sulpha

drugs, Tetracyclines, Quinolones,

Nitrofurans, macrolids (for <??>

erythromycin). Chloramphenicol, and

dozens of similar drugs are in use.

Organophosphorus compounds like

Dichlorvas are also used. Formalin,

malachite green copper sulphate,

quaternary ammonium compounds,

Iodophores, chloramine -I etc., are

used as sanitizers.

Viruses cannot be treated by

any of the drugs. Renibacterium sp

is also resistant to drugs.

Chemotherapy leads to transit of

drugs and their long persistence.

Rebase of drugs or their

metabolites into the environment

affects the non-target organisms.

Uses of steroids (Di-dehyl in ponds

has carcinogenic effect on humans.

Use of chloramphenicol has

unpredictable risks for human

beings. Effluent treatment and

self-recovery are hampered by the

drugs by suppressing saprophytic

bacteria involved in purification

processes. Softs accumulate drug

residues.

(e) Loss of Mangroves and

Biodiversity

We observed that removal or

destruction of these important

mangrove habitats for establishing

shrimp farms is becoming

increasingly common along the coast

of Tamilnadu. From the Photographs

(No. 40-45 showing the destruction

of mangroves-bunds are already

built), it is evident that there

are several shrimp farms on the

banks of Pitchavaram Mangrove

forests a valuable Habitat. For the

farms, water intake from the

habitat will lead to virtual

dryness of the habitat and the loss

of biodiversity in this valuable

reaim. It is evident that the

consequences are felt by the

existing farms (Palmyarh and

coconut trees in nearby farms are

withering - Photograph No.46 & 47).

The destruction of the mangroves

(Photo No. 40-42) for shrimp farm

will be a major cause for the loss

of habitat diversity along the

coastline of Tamilnadu. We are

going to lose a valuable gene pool

and thus conservation of mangroves

genetic resources from the

activities of shrimp industry is a

matter of primary urgency.

(f) Loss of Biodiversity in

Cauvery flood plain and delta

The stagnation of water in

this lower reaches is due to the

illegal damming at several places

along the course and the

obstruction of feeder canals and

distributors to the main river.

Once considered a best estuary and

the delta of cauvery are now

vanished (Photo No.48 showing the

ill fated Cauvery). Also in the

lower reaches in Nagai district,

Tamilnadu, low land drains

regulator has been used for their

effluent release (Photo No.49)

showing the block and the P.W.D.

feeder canals are either blocked by

the farm owners or using as

drainage for effluent release by

Amalgam Marine Harvests Ltd at

Pudhukkuppam (Photo No.50) from the

farms. These canals and drains once

used as a freshwater resource for

bathing and rechargers for the

wells for the fisher folk in

several villages now become saline

because of the cessation of flow

(example : Pudukuppam village of

Sirkali faluk district; Pudupettal

village Tharangampadi faluk.

............Seed collection of

Peneaus monodon (tiger prawn) by

children is a regular practice in

these canals now. During their

collection of seeds the children

picked only the tiger prawn seeds

and threw away all other shrimp and

fish seeds, thus depleting the

estuarine and coastal fishery

resources. One child get paise 0.10

for the tiger prawn seed and one

earns about Rupees one hundred

(Rs.100 per day and 40-50 children

are engaged in seed collection).

This involves child labour and

depletion of fishery resources and

the loss of biodiversity in coastal

and beltaic regions of Cauvery.

Nursery grounds for shell and fin

fishes are lost in this ancient

river delta.

(g) Threatened Wetlands of

National and International

Importance

The marshy swamps of

Vedaranyam are now as threatened

habitats with the formation of

shrimp culture all along the

brackish water zones and in the

marshy swamps ............Another

wet land of national importance,

which is being threatened is

Pulicat lake. Report A (1992) by

the Ministry of Environment and

forests, Government of India

clearly stressed the need of

conserving these wetlands of

national importance. ..........In

the Government of India Report

Pulicat Lake has been identified as

an important lagoon (p.8 of the

Report). This fragile ecosystem has

been under great threat by the

industrial shrimp farming. In the

main brackish water area,

construction of bunds is going on

(Photo No.55 to 66). From the

photographs it is evident that the

marshy lands with its typical

marshy vegetation is the only area

left and almost all the marshy

areas are being lost because of the

upcoming shrimp culture ponds.

These areas of marshy vegetation

act as spawning/nursery grounds for

a variety of estuarine/marine

invertebrates, and fishes. These

areas also provide wildlife

habitats to several migrant birds.

(h) Impact on agriculture

Dr. Alagarswami, Director CIBA

identifies "indiscriminate

conversion of agricultural lands

into shrimp culture" as a critical

issue. Most shrimp farmers in

coastal areas have converted

agricultural lands is the fact

ponds. More relevant is the fact

that shrimp industry causes

salinisation of crop lands,

Seawater (Salinity around 35 ppt

i.e.35%) is pumped into the shrimp

ponds. The growing period is from

120-150 days. This long detention

of saline water in the shrimp ponds

seeps into the adjacent crop lands

and salinizes them resulting in

reduction or productivity of even

barrenness. Then this

"Unproductive" land (so declared by

the shrimp industries) is converted

into shrimp ponds

We are concerned that

conversion of paddy fields to

shrimp ponds is already adversely

affecting local rice production. In

all the places we visited in NUM

district pattinamarudur of

luticorin, Pulicat of Chengai MGR

districts Etc; most of the shrimp

ponds are constructed on fertile

agricultural land or on marginal

lands where on crop is raised.

Owing to the recent shortage of

Cauvery water (dispute between T.N.

and Karnataka) the yield of crops

has been affected. Taking advantage

of this, Shrimp industries have

been buying up agricultural land

through inducement,, persuasion and

high pressure on revenue

authorities. Salinization of soil

and water adjoining the shrimp

farms is very well documented for

Perunthottam village. As per the

cultivation record for land

purchased by <??> Bask farms we see

clearly that the ands purchased

were fertile agricultural lands

with an average of two crops having

a 60% harvest yield.

(i) Denial of potable water

"Nagai, Q.M. districts of

Tamilnadu, the erstwhile granary of

South" is today threatened with

pollution, ecological imbalance and

land alienation because of the

arrival of large number of private

companies and translational

corporations that have been

investing heavily in shrimp farms

etc" (Mukul Sharma: Interpress

service November 11 1994). Drinking

water in the vicinity of shrimp

farms has become saline, wherever

such farms were operated. Shrimp

culture may increase salinity

through facilitating the flow of

saline water inland and discharge

of saline effluent (Phillips, Kwel

lin and Beveridge 1993.) Water

samples from 7 villages in Sirkazhi

near the shrimp farms were analysed

by Bhagwathi Environment

Development Institute at Dindigul.

It was found that the water from

bore wells and hand pumps were

unpotable (see Annexure) The

villages affected were

Mahendrapatti, Neithavasal,

Pudukuppam, Eranyimedu, Keelaiyun,

Thirunagari, nirajimedu etc. This

was also confirmed by the Bharatiya

Mazdoor Sangh in Kurru village.

Nellore Dt where all the freshwater

wells became saline and unpotable

after 4 shrimp farms were

established. The proof of this was

the fast that the District

Collector, Nellore ordered the

supply of drinking water through

tankers, to these villagers. Dr. P.

Sanjeev Raj (COPDANET NEWS LETTER

winter 1994) also found that salt

water from shrimp pond seeped into

drinking water sources. Dr. Vandana

Shiva, after visiting some villages

recorded that "shortage of drinking

water and deterioration of its

quality have resulted in the

neighbourhood of shrimp farms".

Protection of ground water

sources may be viewed as

nontradeable capital, as once

contaminated, they may prove

impossible to rehabilitate (mark

Eyvarard 1994).

As per the study done by BEDI,

Water sample from a drinking water

well in Naikarkuppam had a IDS of

2164 mg/1 and a chloride content of

99 mg/1 in addition to excessive

quantities of MG and Ca. Samples

collected from a drinking water

hand pump near Shriram Shrimp farm

now Amalgam farms had an

exceedingly high TDS of 357/8 mg/1,

hardness of 7506 mg/I which is as

bad as seawater. Unacceptably high

Ca, Mg and sulphate were recorded.

Another hand pump near the same

farm had a TDS of 1466 mg/ and a

chloride content of 656 ppm which

are unpotable.

Drinking water from a handpump

near the shrimp farm of Coastal

Enterprises Ltd had a TDS of 7694,

chloride of 3879, hardness or 24/0

mq/I and so was unpotable."

The three reports discussed above give a rather depressing scenario of the shrim industry. While the production increases and export earnings of the industry are well publicised, the socio-economic losses and environmental degradation affecting the well-being of coastal population are hardly noticed. The traditional production systems are being replaced by more intensive ones. This have been ecouraged by increasing demand from high income countries. Shrimp yield per hectare in many areas increased within a few years from an average 100 kg/ha per harvest to an average of 1000 kg/ha/crop for semi-intensive shrimp farms and to between 2000 and 10000 kg/ha/crop for intensive type of production. The social and environmental costs of the expanding shrimp industry are closely inter-related. Pollution and other types of natural resource degradation induced by shrimp farming have been considerably, highlighted in the NEERI reports and other material quoted and discussed by us. Social and environmental changes resulting from expanding shrimp industry in coastal areas are largely due to the conversion into shrimp farms of the lands, waters and forests which were earlier dedicated to other uses. In fact, shrimp farms are developing at the expense of other agriculture, acquaculture, forest uses and fisheries that are better suited in many places for meeting local food and employment requirements. Intensive and semiintensive types of shrimp production hardly seem to meet these requirements.

Mangrove forests constitute an important component of coastal eco-systems. They thrive in tidle estuaries, salt marshes and muddy coast lines. Conversion of mangrove to shrimp farms significantly reduces the natural production of wild capture shrimp as well as other fisheries. More over, their production role for low-lying coastal regions is rapidly dimnishing by their replacement by shrimp ponds. The Sunder Bans, which constitute one of the biggest mangrove areas in the world, covered in the early 1990s about 12000 sq. kms. in India and Bangladesh. In the West Bengal part of Sunder Bans large mangrove areas have been replaced by the shrimp ponds.

The increasing need for land by shrimp enterpreneurs has meant a dramatic rise in land prices in many areas. After the installation of shrimp farms near village lands, prices rise estronomically. Local farmers can no longer afford to purchase land, while indebted farmers are tempted to sell their holdings. Much of the coastal land recently converted into shrimp farms was previously used for food crops and traditional fishing.

The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development in colloboration with the World Wide Fund for Nature International has conducted a study and published a report dated June 19, 1995 called "Some Ecological and Social Implications of Commercial Shrimp Farming in Asia". The report is prepared by Solon Barraclong and Andrea Finger - Stich (the UN Report).

The UN Report gives the following picture regarding polluted waters and depleted fisheries:-

"Polluted waters and depleted

fisheries: Shrimp farms use both

sea and fresh water to replenish

their ponds. This brings them into

competition with other users of

these water resources. In areas

where commercial shrimp ponds have

been constructed there is

frequently insufficient fresh water

left to met customary needs for

irrigation, drinking, washing, or

other household and livestock

related uses, and water supplies

may be contaminated, or both.

Groundwater salinization has been

reported in several places. This

often means that people - most of

the time women - have to bring

water from more distant wells. In a

village in Tamil Nadu (Nagar-Quaid-

e-Millet district, Pompuhar

region), for example, women have to

walk two to three kilometres to

fetch drinking water that

previously was available nearby

before the expansion of shrimp

farms on about 10,000 hectares

(Bhagat, 1994). In Andhra Pradesh,

a case study conducted by Vandana

Shiva reports that, in the Nellore

district, there was no drinking

water available for the 600

fisherfolk of the village of Kurru

due to aquaculture farms salinizing

groundwater. She adds that "after

protest from the local women,

drinking water was supplied in

tankers" (Mukul,

1994).........Local stocks of

native fish and crustaceans are

being depleted in many places

because of the removal of mangroves

which served as nurserybeds, and

also as a result of indiscriminate

overfishing of wild shrimp fry

(over 90 per cent of randomly

caught fry are often wasted [Gujja,

1994]). Natural fisheries are also

frequently damaged by pollution

caused by overloads of nutrients,

sediments and chemicals from shrimp

farms. In another Indian coastal

village, Ramachandrapuram,

fishermen reported that the value

of their average catch of shrimp

used to be Rs.50,000 per catamaran

per month, but after one year of

operation of nearby aquafarms their

catch was ten times smaller (Mukul,

1994). In the Chokoria part of the

Sundarbans’ of Bangladesh,

fishermen report an 80 per cent

drop in fish capture since the

destruction of the mangroves and

building of dikes for shrimp

farming (Sultna, 1994). Frequently,

fisherfolk protest because their

traditional access to the coast has

been restricted or because stocks

of wild crustaceans and fish have

disappeared.

All the reports referred to by us clearly indicate that the expansion of modern shrimp ponds in the coastal areas has meant that local fishermen could only reach the beach by trespassing at great risk on shrimp farms or by taking a long detour. Local people have not only lost access to their fishing grounds and to their sources of riverine seafoods and seaweeds, but they also have to relinquish social and recreational activities traditionally taking place on their beaches. The UN Report gives the following picture regarding natural resource degradation as a result of shrimp farming:-

"In areas densely covered with

intensive shrimp farms, however,

the industry is responsible for

considerable self-pollution and

particularly for bacteriological

and viral contamination. Each

hectare of pond produces tons of

undigested feed and fasecal wastes

for every crop cycle. This induces

the growth of phytoplankton,

protoza, fungus, bacteria and

viruses (like the Vibrio group

growing in shrimp faeces and in

large part responsible for the 1988

collapse of Tasiwan’s production)

(Lin, 1989). The overuse of

fertilizers and of veterinary and

sanitary products such as

antibiotics adds to the water

pollution problem. It also

contributes to the decreasing

resistance of the shrimp stock.

Where intensive shrimp farms are

densely spaced, waste laden water

tends to slosh from one pond to

another before it is finally

discharged into the sea. Shrimp

producers are extremely concerned

about assured supplies of clean

water as it is vital for their

immediate economic returns.

Large amounts of sedimentation

in intensive shrimp ponds is posing

serious disposal problems for

shrimp farmers. From 100 to 500

tons of sediment per hectare per

year are apparently accumulating.

Since only some 10 tons of feed is

used to produce about 5 tons of

shrimp per hectare per year, this

raises questions about where such

incredible quantities of sediment

come from (Rosenberry, 1994a;42).

Ponds are cleaned after each crop

cycle and the sediments are often

discarded in water ways leading

into the sea, or they are sometimes

used to build dikes. Their

putrefaction inside and outside the

ponds causes foul odours,

hypernutrification and

eutrophisation, siltation and

turbidity of water courses and

estuaries, with detrimental

implications on local fauna and

flora. .............Biodiversity

losses: The impacts of semi-

intensive and intensive shrimp

aquaculture on biodiversity ("the

totality of genes, species and

ecosystems in a region") are

multiple. This is because of the

land area they cover; the water

they pollute; the water circulation

systems they alter; the wild fish

and crustacean habitats they

replace; the risks they pose of

disease transfer; the impacts of

released raised shrimp on the

genetic diversity and resilence of

indigenous shrimp and possibly also

their negative impacts on other

native fauna and flora.

..........Health hazards: Health

hazards to local populations living

near or working in shrimp farms

have been observed in several

places. For instance, in Tamil Nadu

(Quaid-e-Milleth district near

Pondicherry) an approximately 1,500

acre large shrimp farm has been

reported to have caused eight

deaths from previously unknown

diseases within a period of two

months following the installation

of the aquaculture farm (Naganathan

et al., 1995:60/). There are

numerous hazards to public health

along the shrimp production chain

from the farmers through the

various processors to the often

distant consumers. The workers

employed on shrimp farms handle

several potentially dangerous

chemicals, and may be exposed to

unsanitary working conditions."

According to the UN Report - intensive ponds have a maximum life of only 5 to 10 years. Abandoned ponds can no longer be used for shrimp and there are few known alternative uses for them except some other types of acquaculture. Apparently they can seldom be economically rehabilitated for other uses such as crop land. The extent of abandoned areas by the shrimp industry has been indicated by the UN Report in the following works:-

"After a production cycle of about

four of five months, shrimp ponds

under intensive use are cleaned and

disinfected and the polluted sludge

is removed and often disposed for

unsafely. This treatment, however,

does not usually surfice to

maintain the ponds’ productivity

for more than five to ten yn years

(Ibid., Annex III/12).

Entrepreneurs then move to other

areas because of pollution and

disease. This mode of production

has been called "rape and run"

(Csavas, 1994b). The altered milieu

of these abandoned ponds inhibits

the spontaneous regeneration of

vegetation and their use for

agriculture, forestry, other

aquaculture or related fishing

activities. These abandoned areas

do not appear in worldwide

estimastes of areas used for shrimp

farming, which for 1993 were

estimated to include 962,600

hectares, of which 847,000 hectares

were in Asia. In December 1994

these areas were estimated to have

increased worldwide to 1,147,500

with 1,017,000 hectares in Asia

(Rosenberry, 1993 and 1994a).

Globally, areas affected by the

industry’s practices over the last

decade are probably at least one

third larger, or even more if the

total infrastructures surrounding

the ponds are accounted for."

The UN Report pithily sums up the "conflicts and externalities" as under:-

"A major portion of the conflicts

arising from the expansion of

shrimp farming are the result of

environmental and social

degradation that is not included in

the costs of shrimp production.

Where the industry assumes no

responsibility for damages to other

groups arising from its activities,

economists call them

"externalities". For example,

abandoned ponds are usually

virtually unusable for other

purposes for indefinite periods

without costly rehabilitation,

which is seldom undertaken.

Mangrove destruction, flooding of

crops, salinization or pollution of

land and water associated with the

expansion of shrimp farming all

affect the local people depending

on these resources"

Alagarswami has divided the shrimp-farm technology into six types. We have already quoted the relevant paragraph 5.1.2 of the report. Although different experts have given different nomenclature to different types of shrimp farm technologies, we are of the view that the types indicated by Alagarswami in his report are based on the functioning of the shrimp culture industry in India and as such are acceptable. Keeping in view the NEERI report and other material quoted and discussed by us, we are of the view that the traditional and improved traditional types of shrimpfarm technologies - defined by Alagarswami - are environmentally benign and pollution free. Other types of technologies - extensive, modified extensive, semi intensive and intensive - create pollution and have degrading affect on the environment and coastal ecology. Such type of shrimp farms cannot be permitted to operate.

We may refer to constitutional and Statutory provisions which mandate the State to protect and improve the environment. Article 48-A of the Constitution of India states that "the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country". Article 51-A of the Constitution imposes as one of the fundamental duties on every citizen, the duty to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (the Act) was enacted as a result of the decisions taken at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockhorm in June, 1972 in which India participated. The Indian delegation was led by the then Prime Minister of India. The Statement of objects and reason to the Act is as under:-

"The decline in environmental

quality has been evidenced by

increasing pollution, loss of

vegetal cover and biological

diversity, excessive concentrations

of harmful chemicals in the ambient

atmosphere and in food chains,

growing risks of environmental

accidents and threats to life

support systems. The world

community’s resolve to protect and

enhance the environmental quality.

Found expression in the decisions

taken at the United Nations

Conference on the Human Environment

held in Stockholm in June, 1972,

Government of India participate din

the Conference and strongly voiced

the environmental concerns. While

several measures have been taken

for environmental protection both

before and after the Conference,

the need for a general legislation

further to implement the decision

of the conference has become

increasingly evident."

Section 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) and 2(e) of the Environment Act are as under:-

2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless

the context otherwise requires,-

(a) "environment" includes water,

air and land and the inter-

relationship which exists among and

between water, air and land, and

human beings, other living

creatures, plants, micro-organism

and property;

(b) "environmental pollutant"

means any solid, liquid or gaseous

substance present in such

concentration as may be, or tend to

be, injurious to environment;

(c) "environmental pollution"

means the presence in the

environment of any environmental

pollutant;

(e) "hazardous substance" means

any substance or preparation which,

by reason of its chemical or

physico-chemical properties or

handling, is liable to cause harm

to human beings, other living

creatures, plants, micro-organism,

property or the environment;"

Section 7 and 8 of the Environment Act are as under:-

"7. Persons carrying on industry,

operation, etc., not to allow

emission or discharge of

environmental pollutants in excess

of the standards.- No person

carrying on any industry, operation

or process shall discharge or emit

or permit to be discharged or

emitted any environmental pollutant

in excess of such standards as may

be prescribed.

8. Persons handling hazardous

substances to comply with

procedural safeguards.- No person

shall handle or cause to be handled

any hazardous substance except in

accordance with such procedure and

after complying with such

safeguards as may be prescribed.

Section 15 of the Act makes contravention of the provisions of the said Act punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both. If the failure or contravention continues beyond a period of one year after the date of conviction, the offender shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years. The effluents discharged by the commercial shrimp culture farms are covered by the definition of Environmental pollutant, environmental pollution and hazardous substance. The NEERI reports indicate that the effluents discharged by the farms at various places were excess of the prescribed standards. Unfortunately, no action is being taken by the authorities under the Act.

Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 (the rules) have been framed under the Act. Rule 2(i) of the rules defines "hazardous wastes" to mean categories of wastes specified in the Schedule appended to the rules. Waste category No.12 under the Schedule to the rules is as under:-

"SCHEDULE

Categories of Hazardous Waste ------------------------------------------------------------ Waste Categories Types of wastes Regulatory quantities ------------------------------------------------------------

1 2 3

= = = Waste category No.12 Sludges arising Irrespective of

from treatment of any quality.

waste waters

containing heavy

metals, toxic

organics, oils,

emulsions and spend

chemicals and

incrineration ash."

Rule 5 of the rules makes it obligatory for every occupier generating hazardous wastes to obtain authorisation as provided under the said rule. Rule 5(4) requires the State Pollution Control Board not to issue and authorisation unless it is satisfied that the operator of a facility or an occupier, as the case may be, possesses appropriate facilities, technical capabilities and equipment to handle hazardous waste safely.

Mr. Mehta has vehemently contended that the shrimp culture farms are discharging highly polluting effluent which is "hazardous waste", under the rules, Mr. Mehta relying upon the NEERI reports and other reports placed on record has contended that none of the farms have obtained authorisation from the State Pollution Control Boards.

The Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act. 1974 (the Water Act) has been enacted to provide for the prevention and control of water pollution and the maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Water Act, inter alia, state as under:-

"The problem of pollution of rivers

and streams has assumed

considerable importance and urgency

in recent years as a result of the

growth or industries and the

increasing tendency to

urbanization. It is, therefore,

essential to ensure that the

domestic and industrial effluents

are not allowed to be discharged

into the water courses without

adequate treatment as such

discharges would render the water

unsuitable as source of drinking

water as well as for supporting

fish life and for use in

irrigation. Pollution of rivers and

streams also causes increasing

damage to the country’s economy."

Section 2 (j) & (k) of the Water Act are as under:-

"2. Definitions.- In this Act,

unless the context otherwise

requires,-

(j) "stream" includes-

(i) river;

(ii) water course (whether flowing

or for the time being dry);

(iii) inland water (whether natural

or artificial);

(iv) sub-terranean waters;

(v) sea or tidal waters to such

extent or, as the case may be,

to such point as the State

Government may, by

notification in the Official

Gazette, specify in this

behalf;

(k) "trade effluent" includes any

liquid, gaseous or solid substance

which is discharged from any

premises used for carrying on any

[industry operation or process, or

treatment and disposal system],

other than domestic sewage.

Section 25 of the Water Act provides that no person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board establish any industry, operation or process, of any treatment and disposal system which is likely in discharge sewage or trade effluent into a stream on well or sewer or on land. There is nothing on the record to show that the shrimp culture farm owners are even conscious of the statutory provisions which require them to obtain the necessary consent/authorisation from the concerned Pollution Control Boards.

There are other legislations like Fisheries Act 1987, Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Forest Conservation Act, 1980 which contain useful provisions for environment protection and pollution control. Unfortunately, the authorities responsible for the implementation of various statutory provisions are wholly re-miss in the performance of their duties under the said provisions.

At this stage we may deal with a question which has incidentally come up for our consideration. Under para 2 of the CRZ notification, the activities listed thereunder are declared as prohibited activities. Various State Governments have enacted coastal acquaculture legislations regulating the industries set up in the coastal areas. It was argued before us that certain provisions of the State legislations including that of the State of Tamil Nadu are not in consonance with the CRZ notification issued by the Government of India under Section 3(3) of the Act, Assuming that <??> so, we are of the view that the Act being a Central legislation has the overriding effect. The Act the Environment Protection Act, 1986) has been enacted under Entry 13 of list 1 Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. The said entry is as under:-

"Participation in international

conferences, assessment and other

bodies and implementing of

decisions made there at."

The preamble to the Act clearly states that it was enacted to implement the decisions taken at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm in June, 1972. The Parliament has enacted the Act under Entry 13 of List 1 Schedule VII read with Article 253 of the Constitution of India the CRZ notification having been issued under the Act shall have overriding effect and shall prevail over the law made by the legislatures of the States.

This Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India & Ors. JT 1966 (7) SC 375 has dealt with the concept of "sustainable development" and has specifically accepted "The Precautionary Principle" and "The Polluter Pays" principle as part of the environmental laws of the land. The relevant part of the judgment is as under;

"The traditional concept that

development and ecology are opposed

to each other, is no longer

acceptable. Sustainable Development

is the answer. In the International

sphere "Sustainable Development" as

a concept came to be known for the

first time in the Stockholm

Declaration of 1972. Thereafter, in

1987 the concept was given a

definite shape by the World

Commission on Environment and

Development in its report called

"Our Common Future". The Commission

was chaired by the then Prime

Minister of Norway Ms. G.H.

Brundtland and as such the report

is popularly known as "Brundtland

Report". In 1991 the World

Conservation Union, United Nations

Environment Programme and World

Wide Fund for Nature, jointly came

out with a document called "Caring

for the Earth" which is a strategy

for sustainable living. Finally,

came the Earth Summit held in June,

1992 at Rio which saw the largest

gathering of world leaders ever in

the history - deliberating and

chalking out a blue print for the

survival of the planet. Among the

tangible achievements of the Rio

Conference was the signing of two

conventions, one on biological

diversity and another on climate

change. These conventions were

signed by 159 nations. The

delegates also approved by

consensus three non binding

documents namely, a Statement on

Forestry Principles, a declaration

of principles on environmental

policy and development initiatives

and Agenda 21, a programme of

action into the next century it

areas like poverty population and

pollution. During the two decades

from Stockholm to Rio "Sustainable

Development" has come to be

accepted as a viable concept to

eradicate poverty and improve the

quality of human life while living

within the carrying capacity of the

supporting eco-systems.

"Sustainable Development" as

defined by the Brundtland Report

means "Development that meets the

needs of the present without

compromising the ability of the

future generations to meet their

own needs". We have no hesitation

in holding that "Sustainable

Development" as a balancing concept

between ecology and development has

been accepted as a part of the

Customary International Law though

its salient features have yet to be

finalised by the International Law

Jurists.

Some of the salient principles or

"Sustainable Development", as

culled out from Brundtland Report

and other international documents,

are Inter-Generational Equity, Use

and Conservation of Natural

Resources, Environmental

Protection, the Precautionary

Principle, Polluter Pays principle,

Obligation to assist and cooperate,

Eradication of Poverty and

Financial Assistance to the

developing countries. We are,

however, of the view that "The

Precautionary Principle" and "The

Polluter Pays" principle are

essential features of "Sustainable

Development". The "Precautionary

Principle" - in the context of the

municipal law - means:

(i) Environment measures - by the

State Government and the statutory

authorities - must anticipate,

prevent and attack the causes of

environmental degradation,

(ii) Where there are threats of

serious and irreversible damage,

lack of scientific certainty should

not be used as a reason for

postponing measures to prevent

environmental degradation,

(iii) The "Onus of proof" is on the

actor of the

developer/industrialist to show

that his action is environmentally

benign.

"The Polluter Pays" principle

has been held to be a sound

principle by this Court in Indian

Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs.

Union of India JT 1996 (2) 190. The

Court observed, "We are of the

opinion that any principle evolved

in this behalf should be simple,

practical and suited to the

conditions obtaining in this

country". The Court ruled that

"Once the activity carried on is

hazardous or inherently dangerous,

the person carrying on such

activity is liable to make good the

loss caused to nay other person by

his activity irrespective of the

fact whether he took reasonable

care while carrying on his

activity. The rule is premised upon

the very nature of the activity

carried on". Consequently the

polluting industries are

"absolutely liable to compensate

for the harm caused by them to

villagers in the affected area, to

the soil and to the underground

water rand hence, they are bound to

take all necessary measures to

remove sludge and other pollutants

lying in the affected areas". The

"Polluter Pays" principle as

interpreted by this Court means

that the obsolute liability for

harm to the environment extends not

only to compensate the victims of

pollution but also the cost of

restoring the environmental

degradation. Remediation of the

damaged environment is part of the

process of "Sustainable

Development" and as such polluter

is liable to pay the cost to the

individual sefferers as well as the

cost of reversing the damaged

ecology.

The precautionary principle

and the polluter pays principle

have been accepted as part of the

law of the land. Article 21 of the

Constitution of India guarantees

protection of life and personal

liberty. Articles 47, 48A and

51A(g) of the Constitution are as

under:

"47. Duty of the State to

raise the level of nutrition and

the standard of living and to

improve public health. - The State

shall regard the raising of the

revel of nutrition and the standard

of living of its people and the

improvement of public health as

among its primary duties and in

particular, the State that

endeavour to bring about

prohibition of the consumption

except for medicinal purposes of

intoxicating drinks and of drugs

which are injurious to health.

48A. Protection and

improvement of environment and

safeguarding of forests and wild

life. - The State shall endeavour

to protect and improve the

environment and to safeguard the

forests and wild life of the

country.

51A(g). To protect and improve

the natural environment including

forests, lakes, rivers and wild

life, and to have compassion for

living creatures."

Apart from the constructional

mandate to protect and improve the

environment there are plenty of

post independence legislations on

the subject but more relevant

enactments for our purpose are :

The Water (Prevention and Control

of Pollution) Act, 1974 (the Water

Act), The Air (Prevention and

Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

(the Air Act) and the Environment

Protection Act, 1986 (The

Environment Act). The Water Act

provides for the constitution f the

Central Pollution Control Board by

the Central Government and the

constitution of the State Pollution

Control Boards by various State

Governments in the country. The

Boards function under the control

of the Governments concerned. The

Water Act prohibits the use of

streams and wells for disposal of

polluting matters. Also provides

for restrictions on outlets and

discharge of effluents without

obtaining consent from the Board,

Prosecution and penalties have been

provided which include sentence of

imprisonment. The Air Act provides

that the Central Pollution Control

Board and the State Pollution

Control Boards constituted under

the Water Act shall also perform

the powers and functions under the

Air Act. The main function of the

Boards, under the Air Act, is to

improve the quality of the air and

to prevent, control and abate air

pollution in the country. We shall

deal with the Environment Act in

the later part of this judgment.

In view of the above mentioned

constitutional and statutory

provisions we have no hesitation in

holding that the precautionary

principle and the polluter pays

principle are part of the

environment law of the country.

We are of the view that before any shrimp industry or shrimp pond is permitted to be installed in the ecology fragile coastal area it must pass through a strict environmental test. There has to be a high powered "Authority" under the Act to scrutinise each and every case from the environmental point of view. There must be an environmental impact assessment before permission is granted to instal commercial shrimp farms. The conceptual framework of the assessment must be broad-based primarily concerning environmental <??> linked with shrimp farming. The assessment must also include the social impact on different population strata in the area. The quality of the assessment must be analytically based on superior technology. It must take into consideration the inter-generational equity and the compensation for those who are affected and prejudiced.

Before parting with this judgment, we may notice the "Dollar" based argument advanced before us. It was contended before us by the learned counsel appearing for the shrimp acquaculture industry that the industry has achieved singular distinction by earning maximum foreign exchange in the country. Almost 100 per cent of the produce is exported to America, Europe and Japan and as such the industry has a large potential to earn "Dollars". That may be so, but the farm-raised production of shrimp is much lesser than the wild-caught production. The UN Report shows the world production of shrimp from 1982 to 1983 as under:-

Table 1: World Production of Shrimp ------------------------------------------------------------

Thousands of matric tons ------------------------------------------------------------ Year Farm-raised Wild-caught Total ------------------------------------------------------------ 1982 84 1,652 1,756 1983 143 1,683 1,626 1984 174 1,733 1,907 1985 213 1,906 2,121 1986 309 1,909 1,218 1987 551 1,909 2,264 1988 604 1,914 2,518 1989 611 1,832 2,518 1990 633 1,968 2,443 1991 690 1,968 2,601 1992 721 2,118 2,912 1993 610 2,100 2,710" ------------------------------------------------------------

It is obvious from the figures quoted above that termraised production of shrimp is of very small quantity as compared to wild-caught Even if some of the shrimp culture farms which are polluting the environment, are closed, the production of shrimp by environmentally friendly techniques would not be affected and there may not be any loss to the economy specially in view of the finding given by NEERI that the damage caused to ecology and economics by the acquaculture farming is higher than the earnings from the sale of coastal acquaculture produce. That may be the reason for the European and American countries for not permitting their sea-coasts to be exploited for shrimp-culture farming. The UN report shows that 80% of the farm - cultured - shrimp comes from the developing countries of Asia.

We, therefore, order and directed as under: 1. The Central Government shall constitute an authority under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and shall confer on the said authority all the powers necessary to protect the ecologically fragile coastal areas, sea shore, water front and other coastal areas and specially to deal with the situation created by the shrimp culture industry in the coastal States/Union Territories. The authority shall be headed by <??> Judge of a High Court. Other members preferably with expertise in the field of acquaculture, pollution control and environment protection shall be appointed by the Central Government. The Central Government shall confer on the said authority the powers to issue directions under section 5 of the Act and for taking measures with respect to the matters referred to in clauses (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x) and (xii) of sub-section (2) of Section 3. The Central Government shall constitute the authority before January 15, 1997. 2. The authority so constituted by the Central Government shall implement "the Precautionary Principle" and "the Polluter Pays" principles. 3. The shrimp culture industry/the shrimp ponds are covered by the prohibition contained in para 2(1) of the CRZ Notification. No shrimp culture pond can be constructed or set up within the coastal regulation zone as defined in the CRZ notification. This shall be applicable to all seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwaters. This direction shall not apply to traditional and improved traditional types of technologies far defined in Alagarswami report which are practised in the coastal low lying areas. 4. All acquaculture industries/shrimp culture industries/shrimp culture ponds operating/set up in the coastal regulation zone as defined under the CRZ Notification shall be demolished and removed from the said area before March 31, 1997. We direct the Superintendent of Police/Deputy Commissioner of Police and the District Magistrate/Collector of the area to enforce this direction and close/demolish all acquaculture industries/shrimp culture industries, shrimp culture ponds on or before March 31, <??> A compliance report in this respect shall be <??> in this Court by these authorities before April 15, 1997. 5. The farmers who are operating traditional and improved traditional systems of acquaculture may adopt improved technology for increased production productivity and return with prior approval of the "authority" constituted by this order. 6. The agricultural lands, salt pan lands, mangroves, wet lands, forest lands, land for village common purpose and the land meant for public purposes shall not be used/converted for construction of shrimp culture ponds. 7. No acquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture ponds shall be constructed/set up within 1000 meter of Chilka lake and Pulicat lake (including Bird Sanctuaries namely Yadurapattu and Nelapattu) 8. Acquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture ponds already operating and functioning in the said area of 1000 meter shall be closed and demolished before March 31, 1997. We direct the Superintendent of Police/Deputy Commissioner of Police and the District Magistrate/Collector of the area to enforce this direction and close/demolish and acquaculture industries/shrimp culture industries, shrimp culture ponds on or before March 31, 1997. A compliance report in this respect shall be filled in this Court by these authorities before April 15, 1997. 9. Acquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture ponds other than traditional and improved traditional may be set up/constructed outside the coastal regulation zone as defined by the CRZ notification and outside 1000 meter of Chilka and Pulicat lakes with the prior approval of the "authority" as constituted by this Court. Such industries which are already operating in the said areas shall <??> authorisation from the "Authority" before April 30, 1997 failing which the industry concerned shall stop functioning with effect from eh said date. We further direct that any acquaculture activity including intensive and semi-intensive which has the effect of causing salinity of soil, of the drinking water or wells and/or by the use of chemical feeds increases shrimp or prawn production with consequent increase in sedimentation which, on putrefaction is a potential health hazard, apart from causing silication turbidity of water courses and estuaries with detrimental implication on local fauna and flora shall not be allowed by the aforesaid Authority. 10. Acquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture ponds which have been functioning/operating within the coastal regulation zone as defined by the CRZ Notification and within 1000 meter from Chilka and Puliket Lakes shall be liable to compensate the affected persons on the basis of the "polluter pays" principle. 11. The authority shall, with the help of expert opinion and after giving opportunity to the concerned polluters assess the loss to the ecology/<??> the affected areas and shall a individuals/families who have suffered because of the pollution and shall assess the compensation to be pain to the said individuals/families. The authority shall further determine the compensation to be recovered from the polluters as cost of reversing the damaged environment. The authority shall lay down just and fair procedure for completing the exercise. 12. The authority shall compute the compensation under two heads hardly, for reversing the ecology and for payment to individuals. A statement showing amount to be recovered, the names of the <??> whom the amount is to be recovered, the <??> recovered from each polluter, the persons to whom the compensation is to be paid and the amount payable to each of them shall be forwarded to the Collector/District Magistrate of the area concerned. The Collector/District Magistrate shall recover the amount from the polluters, if necessary, as arrears of land revenue. He shall disburse the compensation awarded by the authority to the affected persons/families. 13. We further direct that any violation or non-compliance of the directions of this Court shall attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act in addition. 14. The compensation amount recovered from the polluters shall be deposited under a separate head called "Environment Protection Fund" and shall be utilised for compensating the affected persons as identified by the authority and also for restoring the damaged environment. 15. The authority, in consultation with expert bodies like NEERI, Central Pollution Control Board, respective State Pollution Control Boards shall frame scheme/schemes for reversing the damage cause to the ecology and environment by pollutions of the coastal States/Union Territories. The scheme/schemes so framed shall be executed by the respective State Governments/Union Territory Governments under the supervision of the Central Government. The expenditure shall be met from the Environment Protection <??> from other sources provided by the respective State Governments/Union Territory Governments and the Central Government. 16. The workmen employed in the shrimp culture industries which are to be closed in terms of this order, shall be deemed to have been retrenched with effect from April 30, 1997 provided they have been in continuous service (as defined in Section 258 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) For not less than one year in the industry concerned before the said date. They shall be paid compensation in terms of Section <??> of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. These workmen shall also be paid, in addition, six year’s wages as additional compensation. The compensation shall be paid to the workmen before May 31, 1997. The gratuity amount payable to the women shall be paid in addition.

The writ petition is allowed with costs. We quantify the costs as Rs. 1,40,000/-(Rupees one lac forty thousand) to be paid by the States of Gujarat. Maharashtra, Orissa, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal in equal shares of Rs. 20,000/- each. The amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- realised from the seven coastal States shall be paid to Mr. MC Mehta, Advocate who has assisted <??> in this case throughout. We place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr. Mehta.