Helpfull information

Between The Values Of Fishing Communities And Modern Tourism

The traditional fishing communities of Kerala, southern India, have culturally evolved differently from the rest of the mainstream of inland Kerala. Their livelihood has been entirely dependent on the sea. The relationship with the sea shaped their history, culture, social relations and economics. Irrespective of being part of different religions like Hinduism, Christianity and Islam; all the members of the fishing community worshipped the `Mother Sea’.

The notion of `State’ and `Private Property’ entered very late among the fisher folk in Kerala. Even today, in this era of globalization, you will find fishermen who do not think about monetary savings. The fisher folk, like adivasis believed in day to day needs to be met by day to day fish catch. The belief that the `Mother Sea’ is the protector and provider is still strong. If there is no catch for a few days, there must be some reason why the Mother Sea is angry, they feel. Some articulate that the loss of fish catch is due to over exploitation, mostly done by large vessels, trawlers and purse-seiners.
The relationship among the traditional fishermen during fish production is determined by the principle of sharing and not wages. The capitalist values of wage labour and capital are maintained only by a very small section of mechanized boats. Most of the owners of these boats are not from the fishing community. This explains a major difference in the values of production of the traditional fishing community and the remaining mainstream.
The traditional fisher folk of Kerala realize that environment has to be sustained for their own survival. Therefore, you can find a string of conservation values maintained and moulded through generations in the art of conservation of marine fish resources among the traditional fishing communities. For example, they do not normally use nets with small mesh holes which are used by the mechanized crafts which captures everything under the sea. While the mechanized crafts catch everything under the sea, the traditional fishing communities take only what they need. Unlike the modern technologies, there is no fishing technology among the traditional fisher folk to capture an entire fish shoal, since they do not believe in such massive destruction of the resources of the sea. Those who invest capital on the ocean’s resources can exploit labour and nature and move on to another field, while the lives of the traditional fishing communities are deeply connected to the sea for centuries. For them, fishing is not just an economic activity. It is also social, cultural, ecological and spiritual activity.
It is in this context that modern development with an entirely new set of values have stepped in. Nuclear plants, thermal power plants, mining and many other industries along with a major coastal tourism agenda have threatened the very existence of a large population of fisher people, who have normally lived with sustainable principles. Tourism and other industrial sectors are making an attempt to convert the coastal regions of Kerala as a resource for making quick profits. In this context, the contradiction of values between the perception of the coastal lands as a means for survival and the other perception of the coast as a means for profits step in. Modern tourism industry, unfortunately, is playing the lead in promoting a destructive model of `consumption of the coast’.
The Background of Tourism in Kerala
The root of modern colonialism in India can be traced back to Vasco De Gama. He was even referred as the one who `discovered’ India, by the European writers. Ironically, when Vasco de Gama landed in Calicut in north Kerala for the first time, he was surprised to see many Chinese, Arab, Persian and other traders. Calicut was already a small cosmopolitan town by that time. The Zamorine of Calicut who ruled the region, recognized all trade so long as he could get some meagure taxes. Calicut (Kozhikode) represented the gateway to colonialism of modern India.
What was interesting to note is the innocence of the native population with which they trusted outsiders and their capacity to be hospitable to the outsiders. With bitter experiences, this innocent welcoming character of the local population is turning into anger in modern times. It also takes a `utilitarian’ character some times for some members of the local population to use the economic superiority of the `outsider’ for immediate immediate use for survival . For the immediate economic benefit is the lesson some have learnt out of the invasion of modern development on the environment and traditional communities.
Transition to Modern Tourism in the Globalised World
The travel which was initiated for trade by the European world soon turned out to a conquest of the traditional lands. But even when the Britishers left, the coastal regions of Kerala remained more or less prestine. However, the modern invaders of development saw the coast as a major resource for profits. Though the modern tourism started much before than liberalisation, it entered an aggressive state of invasion of the coast in the post-globalised era in India. The coastal Kerala was seen as an ideal location for this experiment for aggression the `aggression of travel as a commodity’. The promoters of tourism branded Kerala as `God’s Own Country’. Thus they successfully represented the `nationality’ of God without His or Her permission through advertisements, with a single motive of quick profits for some people.
Due to such aggressive invasion of the coast by the post globalised tourism and other industries, seventy five per cent of the coast that belonged to the fishing communities is alieanated today. Since the values of the traditional fishing communities are not determined by stringent money values, it was easier for a combination of real estate business people and tourism industry to take over the coastal lands. The traditional fisher folk of Alleppey have already lost most of their coastal lands. The coast which was used by the fishing community for a number of social, cultural and economic activities stand alien to them. In some areas, if they have to enter the coast, they will have to get the permission from the tourism resort which captured the coast. Mararikkulam Beach Resort in Alleppey which invaded a large portion of the coastal land is a typical example for this.
The Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, (CRZ) 1991 in India provided certain spaces for the fishing communities to express their community rights in the coastal lands. However, with the pressure from tourism and other industries, the government diluted the notification several times till a moment came to remove the restriction altogether. The fisher people’s unions all over the country came together with environmentalists and social activists and fought a strong battle against such a move. As a result the Government of India backed out from the effort to a great extent. But it is still felt that the sharks of the main lands are still waiting for the right opportunity.
There are hundreds of CRZ violations all over Kerala by the tourism industry. However, there is no proper mechanism to punish the guilty and provide rights to the fishing community. Private beaches by the resorts are flourishing. The fishing community is finding it more and more difficult to find space for drying their nets, keeping their boats and involve in fishing practices like `Kamba’, an effort by the community to pull the net from the coastal land itself. With the pressure from the expansion of tourism many fishermen have already moved to the interiors. Their livelihood has been affected deeply due to this invasion.
The Contradiction of Principles
The tourism promoters in this country feel that the `prestine’ beaches in this country have to be `exploited’ properly for the benefit of increase of GDP. If you do not use them properly, they are `wasted’. The difference of the world view of the modern developmentalists and the fishing community is this: The environment for the fishing community is a part of their existence and they realize that the destruction of the environment will lead to their own destruction. For this, the community would conserve the environment with spiritual values, cultural traditions and traditional wisdom which motivated them for thousand s of years. For the industry, the environment can be respected to the limit of the immediate monetary flows from it. As a result, wherever tourism has aggressively invaded on a large scale through centralized development, massive destruction of the environment has taken place. Large usage of water for tourism development has affected local communities in a major way.
The Ministry of tourism in Kerala looks at the rate of increase of GDP as the representation of growth and development. The rate of increase of GDP is 8 to 9 per cent today. The question `whose growth and at whose cost’ is never asked by the industry or the ministry. India has some of the richest people in the world and some of the poorest people in the world. The rich are becoming richer and richer and the poor are becoming poorer and poorer with this model of growth. The development of tourism has provided more money to the industry and displacement, loss of resources, loss of livelihood, destruction of environment, child abuse, exploitation of women and beyond all, the loss of self respect and dignity to the fishing community in Kerala. This industry which has a pretension of `poverty alleviation’ has already generated large scale poverty in the coastal lands today. The environment is being looted in the name of eco-tourism.
Apart from the structure and character of growth of tourism in Kerala, the fundamental problem is also that the frame work of its expansion does not look into the optimum levels of growth of an industry in one area without affecting the environment and community. It is like a glass which can hold water only to the size of the glass. If you pour more water into the glass, it will definitely spill. The problem today with tourism is that it has already started spilling. The only answer is to this problem is a total restructuring of the framework of minds of the planners and the industry with respect to local cultures, community rights, environmental concerns and a respect for future generations as well as other species in this planet.

K.P Sasi is an award winning film director and a political activist

Mumbai set to go the Manhattan way?

The new Coastal Zone Regulation (CRZ) 2011 which has opened up construction along the sea has sparked off fears of Mumbai being ringed with high rises and mutating into a ‘desi' Manhattan. It has triggered furious debates on development and upset the fisherfolk who are planning to hit the streets across the country to agitate for better coastal protection.

Since 1991 when the first CRZ notification by the Ministry of Environment and Forests was issued, it was amended 25 times to make it less stringent. Lawyer and adviser to the Bombay Environmental Action Group, Gautam Patel said, “By not building, the problems of the city are not solved. In a coastal city where else can you build but on the coast? You cannot take a city like Mumbai and say ‘no' to development. In other coastal cities in Australia, the Caribbean Islands, South East Asia there is no such law putting a ban on construction. The first notification was anti-poor and anti-development — we have to square the circle.”
New features
The new notification has several new features. It has special provisions for Goa, Kerala, Greater Mumbai and critically vulnerable coastal areas (CVCA). Now water areas up to 12 nautical miles in the sea and the entire water area of a tidal water body such as a creek, river, estuary etc. will be included in the CRZ areas, without imposing any restrictions on fishing activities. This, and the fact that Special Economic Zones (SEZ) cannot be built in CRZ areas, are the only good things in the new notification, said Debi Goenka from Conservation Action Trust (CAT). Slum redevelopment benefited builders and not the poor, he remarked.
Union Environment Minister of State Jairam Ramesh said there are benefits for 146 slums in the CRZ-2 areas with 47,000 families which can now go in for slum redevelopment. In addition, 620 dilapidated and unsafe structures in CRZ-2 areas with 38,000 families can also rebuild their homes. A total population of 5 to 6 lakh living in the Greater Mumbai will benefit; 38 settlements of the Koli fishing community will be declared as CRZ-3 instead of CRZ-2. Thus, only the Kolis, who are said to be the original inhabitants of Mumbai, can carry out redevelopment.
Fresh criticism
A floor space index (FSI) of 2.5 would be permissible for slums and chawl redevelopment. The notification said that to meet the “increasing demand of housing for fishing communities and other traditional coastal communities, the No Development Zone which is of 200 metres from the high tide line is being reduced to 100 metres.” The “other traditional coastal communities” is not defined, attracting fresh criticism from fishing communities who have rejected the notification.
V. Vivekanandan, Convenor of the National Coastal Protection Campaign (NCPC), a collective comprising fish-workers' groups, including the National Fishworkers' Forum (NFF), said in December that there were three meetings with Mr. Ramesh and four more with Ministry officials and many things were agreed upon. “It's inexplicable to us how the Ministry could go back on some of the things that were almost certain. Then we were 90 per cent satisfied but now we are so upset,” he said.
Demand not met
While ports have been brought under the CRZ regime, the cumulative impacts of several ports on the coast will not be studied. That was one of the demands of the NFF, along with cumulative impact studies of thermal and other power plants on the coast. “We had asked for a roll-back on the road on stilts and they had agreed to drop it but did not finally,” he said. Housing has been a sore point and there was a pressing demand for some relaxations; but the reduction of the no-development to 100 metres was badly distorted, no one had asked for this, he said. A serious quarrel is that fisherfolk have not been given representation on the National Coastal Zone Management Authority or its State affiliates. In Mumbai, the new notification does not take into account the projected sea level rise due to global warming, while allowing development so close to the coast. It could increase the density along the coast in a big way, he feared.
Agreeing with this, Mr. Patel said the only drawback in the notification was the lack of a cap on FSI for slum rehabilitation and cessed buildings. CRZ-2011 is governed by the development control rules of 1991 that operate in Mumbai, which makes all sorts of exemptions for car parks, hospitals, hotels, cessed buildings and slums. However, he argued that there was nothing wrong with opening up affordable housing. “Don't confuse the interpretation of a statute with its implementation. The fact that you have governance issues and corruption does not invalidate the statute,” he pointed out.

While the notification has been attacked for providing leeway to builders, there are attempts to make them accountable. It provides that the Right to Information Act is applicable to redeveloping slums and dilapidated structures in Greater Mumbai. Central information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi, who was consulted in this process, said that permission will be given to builders to redevelop slums, provided they agree to be governed by the RTI Act and also agree to transparency and certain suo motu disclosures. While there is scepticism, the proposed stringent monitoring could be one way of ensuring that builders don't evict the poor and change the skyline.

Human Rights in Tourism

Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

Preamble – The Universal Declaration of human rights

Human rights are those basic standards without which people cannot live in dignity. Once legally established, a human right becomes the means by which an individual – as a right–holder – can bring legitimate claims against others – duty-bearers - when that right is not enjoyed or has been violated. In this way, those who have obligations and responsibilities – duty – bearers – can be held accountable.

The most widely accepted statement of human rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It states that governments have promised to uphold certain rights, not only for their own citizens, but also for people in other countries. In other words, national borders are no barrier to helping others achieve their rights.

Human rights and tourism

In the name of development, human rights are often neglected and violated. Tourism is no exemption from this and becoming a more serious human right issue in destinations. For meeting the innumerable requirement and demands of tourists and business, local communities frequently suffer severely. Tourism activities are usually based on existing unequal, exploitative relationships and consequently, the poorer and more vulnerable groups in the destination suffer from the negative impacts of tourism. Its impact on the environment, life and livelihood of vulnerable communities and their culture are immense. The inequalities and exploitation of the poor by powerful rich is inherent to the worst form of tourism practices. This results the serious violation of various rights of the local communities.

In mainstream tourism development, local resources and economic activities are mainly using for the development of the industry and not for the well being of the communities. The local communities do not have any role or say in the development taking place in these destinations. Local communities in these destinations feel that their fundamental human rights are taken away by the industry. Local communities right to land, water, natural resources, health care, education and housing is often denied by the tourism industry or tourist activities. They do not have any say in the development and kicked away from their land and livelihood. The communities’ especially marginalized communities are often forcefully evicted from their land for big tourism projects. Their agriculture and occupational land will be used for developing tourist infrastructure such as hotels, resorts and golf courses. Their land becoming the recreational space for the tourists.

Government policies and programmes are most of the time biased to the industry and facilitating human right violations instead of protecting the rights of the communities. In this context it is very important to place human right issues in tourism to a larger framework. As a civil society group we strongly call for:

• A stringent regulatory and right protection mechanism from governments that can ensure the human right of the communities in destinations.
• Implement the existing laws and legislation in favor of the local communities
• Ensure communities’ right to say no tourism development in their locality
• Access to all information (both negative and positive).
• Right to access and participation in policy making
• Right of the people who are working in the industry (both formal and informal sector)
• To monitor the accountability of the corporations and industry.
• In countries like India voluntary mechanisms are a welcoming step but not sufficient to monitor the human right violations.