Policy to compensate project-affected fishers raises a stink

Mumbai: A new state government policy to compensate fisherfolk whose livelihoods will be impacted by public infrastructure projects has drawn sharp criticism from stakeholders, who say that the policy fails to recognise the community’s customary rights

Mumbai: A new state government policy to compensate fisherfolk whose livelihoods will be impacted by public infrastructure projects has drawn sharp criticism from stakeholders, who say that the policy fails to recognise the community’s customary rights.

HT Image

It has also been pointed out that the policy does not contain a single mention of fisherwomen and their substantial contribution to the industry, which includes sorting, cleaning, distributing and selling the catch. The policy also excludes various allied workers, including migrant labourers, mechanics, net menders and ice sellers among others.

Approved by the state government in January and brought into effect on March 9, the policy will affect tens of lakhs of fishers across the Konkan, especially in rapidly developing areas like the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) where the fisherfolk and various authorities have locked horns over projects like the coastal road, Mumbai Trans Harbour Link, Colaba-Cuffe Parade Connector, Bandra-Versova Sea Link and the Thane Creek Bridge-III in recent years.

Notably, the 22-member committee tasked with drafting the policy did not include any fisherfolk representatives, despite this being mandated by the Bombay high court. Moreover, detractors have pointed out the text is not rooted in jurisprudence, but a 2015 National Green Tribunal (NGT) order – pursuant to the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link’s impact on local fisheries—which the amicus curiae of the HC had previously referred to as an “ad hoc” solution to the issue at hand.

“The NGT order does not contain any guidelines or principles and the conclusion in that order is an ad hoc amount awarded to the affected fishermen. That order cannot serve as a guideline for any policy,” the amicus curiae said in a submission that was upheld by the HC.

Atul Patne, commissioner of fisheries, Maharashtra, who played a central role in drafting the policy, said, “It is a very comprehensive document and we have put a lot of thought into it, taking guidance from the NGT order of 2015. If the community has any issues even now, we are open to their suggestions. But we also have to be careful about overcompensating them. Some fishers claim to be earning as much as ₹18,00,000 per annum. If that is really the case, how are they poor? We cannot give small groups of fishermen the power to hold up big projects of national interest,” he said.

The policy came in response to a petition filed in the HC by the Mariaayi Machhimaar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit—a registered fishworkers cooperative based in Vashi—on behalf of the fishing community from Vashi, Juhu, Koparkhairane, Ghansoli and Diva villages, whose livelihoods have been hampered by construction of the Thane Creek Bridge-III.

The HC on August 12, 2021, directed the state government to frame a general policy for compensation “not only for fishermen, but for compensating any community whose customary rights to carry out an activity for their livelihood is impacted by government infrastructure projects.”

Meanwhile, experts believe that fisherfolk have enough legal grounds to challenge the March 9 government resolution which puts this policy into action.

“The policy makes no effort to calculate and compensate for the actual extent of their loss, no effort to protect their customary rights, no effort to review similar policies from elsewhere in the country or the world, and there was no representation of the community, either in the drafting of the text or on various grievance redressal committees which are proposed to be set up. It is clearly made for the benefit of development-hungry parties, who have been given a seat at the table instead of those whom the policy claims to favour,” said labour-rights lawyer Sanjay Singhvi.

These parties include the MMRDA, MSRDC, MCGM, CIDCO, MMRCL, JNPA, NHAI, Railways, MMB, and ONGC, among others, who have a history of conflict with coastal communities.

Moreover, while the policy attempts to distinguish between various types of fishermen and their resources, it makes no such distinction between fisherwomen and their contributions to the industry. “The policy makes no assurance that a fisherwoman and fisherman belonging to the same family will be compensated for their combined loss of income due to a project. It fails to recognise that most of these families are all double-income families,” said Priyanka Akkar, a researcher with Tata Institute of Social Sciences’ (TISS) School of Habitat Studies, who has reviewed the document.

“The gist of the policy is that the loss of one fisher’s entire livelihood, passed down to him from generations, is worth a maximum, one-time, lump-sum payment of ₹6,00,000. Meanwhile, the fisheries department will get richer as they will pocket 2% of the project cost from various developers, up to a maximum of ₹50 crore. This is disrespectful to the entire community,” said Nandakumar Pawar, chairman, Maharashtra Small Scale Traditional Fishworkers Union, which has filed its objections on record.

BOX:

What will project affected fishers get in return for loss of livelihood?

1) Where fishing grounds are permanently destroyed: ₹6,00,000

2) Where fishing grounds are within 500 metres of a project: ₹4,00,000

3) If small-scale fishermen are impacted: ₹2,00,000

4) Permanent impact on daily fishing routine: ₹1,00,000

5) Temporary impact on daily fishing routine: ₹50,000

6) Damage to property (boats, nets) due to project work: ₹25,000