India's Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Rules, 2019: Balancing Development, Ecology, And Coastal Community Livelihoods

Policy Update

Neha Kumari

Background

India’s coastline is one of the most consequential stretches of land in the country. The country’s coastline was officially reassessed from 7,516.6 kilometres to 11,098.81 kilometres in 2025, following updated measurements using modern GIS software and high-resolution High-Water Line data. The revised figure reflects improved measurement techniques rather than a physical expansion of India’s coastline. Around 250 million people depend on India’s coastal areas for their homes and livelihoods, particularly through sectors such as fisheries, transport, and tourism. Mangroves, coral reefs, turtle nesting beaches, sand dunes, and estuaries provide important ecological and protective functions, while coastal ecosystems also support livelihoods and economic activity.

Governing this coastline has never been simple. The same stretch of coast must accommodate fisherfolk who have lived there for generations, tourism and commercial development, port infrastructure, strategic and defence requirements, and ecosystems that can be difficult or impossible to restore once degraded. The Coastal Regulation Zone framework, first established in 1991 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, has therefore sought to manage competing developmental, environmental and livelihood interests.

The CRZ Notification, 2019, notified by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on January 18, 2019, and based on the recommendations of the Shailesh Nayak Committee constituted in 2014, represented the third major iteration of India’s coastal regulation framework. It sought to simplify regulation, facilitate development in certain areas, and provide greater flexibility to coastal communities while retaining protections for ecologically sensitive areas.

Functioning

The CRZ Notification, 2019, operates through a four-zone classification system, with each zone carrying different levels of protection and permissible activity.

CRZ-I: Ecologically Sensitive Areas: CRZ-I is subdivided into CRZ-IA, covering ecologically sensitive areas such as mangroves, coral reefs, sand dunes, turtle nesting grounds, and saltpans, areas that serve as natural barriers against coastal hazards. CRZ-IB covers the intertidal zone between the Low Tide Line and the High Tide Line. These areas receive the highest level of regulatory protection.

CRZ-II: Developed Urban Coastal Areas: These are areas that have already been substantially developed up to or close to the shoreline and fall within municipal or corporation limits. One significant change under the 2019 framework was the removal of the earlier Floor Space Index restriction in CRZ-II areas, allowing redevelopment in accordance with applicable town-planning regulations.

CRZ-III: Rural Coastal Areas: CRZ-III was divided into CRZ-IIIA and CRZ-IIIB based on population density. CRZ-IIIA covers densely populated rural areas with a population density exceeding 2,161 persons per square kilometre and provides for a 50-metre No Development Zone from the High Tide Line, subject to the conditions specified in the notification. CRZ-IIIB covers comparatively less densely populated areas and retains a 200-metre No Development Zone.

CRZ-IV: Coastal Waters and Islands: CRZ-IV covers the water area from the Low Tide Line to the country’s territorial limit, as well as the coastal regulation framework applicable to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep, subject to the specific provisions of the notification.

Beyond zone classifications, the 2019 notification introduced several other significant changes. Tourism facilities such as temporary beach shacks, toilet blocks, changing rooms and drinking-water facilities were permitted in specified coastal areas. The notification also sought to streamline the clearance process by assigning approval responsibilities for specified projects to the relevant Coastal Zone Management Authorities, reducing reliance on central-level approvals.

Performance

The CRZ notification is critical to the lives and livelihoods of coastal populations. Assessing the performance of the 2019 notification requires distinguishing between the reforms it introduced, their intended effects, and outcomes that can be demonstrated with evidence.

Table 1: CRZ Notification: Evolution of Key Parameters

Parameter	CRZ 1991	CRZ 2011	CRZ 2019
NDZ in Rural Areas (CRZ-III)	200 metres	100 metres in specified areas	50 metres in CRZ-IIIA / 200 metres in CRZ-IIIB
NDZ for Islands	200 metres	200 metres	Subject to provisions applicable to island territories
FSI in CRZ-II	Frozen	Frozen	As per applicable town-planning regulations
Tourism Facilities	Restricted	Partially permitted	Expanded permissions in specified areas
Clearance Authority	Central	Central + State	Greater role for State/CZMA authorities
Public Consultation	Applicable	Applicable	Revised consultation process

Source: MoEFCC, CRZ Notifications 1991, 2011, and 2019

On the development side, the 2019 notification was designed to facilitate redevelopment and certain forms of economic activity in coastal areas. The removal of the FSI restriction in CRZ-II was intended to facilitate redevelopment in already developed urban coastal areas. Similarly, the notification expanded the range of temporary tourism facilities permissible in specified coastal areas, including beach shacks, toilet blocks, changing rooms and drinking-water facilities. These changes indicate a regulatory shift towards allowing greater economic activity in areas considered suitable for development.

The revised clearance mechanism also sought to streamline the approval process by assigning greater responsibility to State Coastal Zone Management Authorities for specified categories of projects. Rather than claiming that this reform definitively reduced project timelines across states, its more directly demonstrable effect was institutional devolution of certain approval responsibilities.

On the ecological side, concerns have emerged over whether greater developmental flexibility can be reconciled with coastal vulnerability. The National Green Tribunal has been examining challenges concerning the CRZ Notification, 2019, highlighting continuing institutional and legal contestation surrounding the framework. This suggests that the balance between development and environmental protection remains unsettled.

The consultation process has also attracted criticism. More than 3,000 representations were reportedly submitted by fishing communities, environmental groups and other stakeholders during the consultation process, with concerns subsequently raised regarding how these representations were treated. Rather than treating the consultation question as a parameter of the regulatory framework itself, it is more appropriate to examine it separately as part of the notification’s institutional and democratic legitimacy.

Impact

The CRZ Notification, 2019, has had implications across three closely connected dimensions: on coastal development, on ecology, and on coastal communities.

On Development: The 2019 notification sought to facilitate development through several regulatory changes. The removal of the FSI restriction in CRZ-II created greater scope for redevelopment in already developed urban coastal areas. The notification also expanded permissible tourism-related facilities in specified locations and introduced greater decentralisation in the clearance mechanism.

However, these provisions should not automatically be equated with demonstrated increases in investment, construction or tourism. Such outcomes would require project-level or state-level evidence. The more defensible conclusion is that the notification created a more permissive regulatory framework for specified forms of coastal development.

On Ecology: The ecological implications remain contested. The 2019 framework introduced greater flexibility in certain CRZ categories while retaining stringent protection for CRZ-IA areas, including mangroves, coral reefs and turtle nesting grounds.

At the same time, enforcement remains an important concern. For example, allegations of CRZ violations involving development close to ecologically sensitive areas have continued to result in regulatory scrutiny. Such cases illustrate the continuing challenge of translating regulatory protections on paper into effective enforcement on the ground.

India’s broader coastal vulnerability further complicates this question. The World Bank notes that approximately one-third of India’s coastline is vulnerable to erosion and extreme climate events, while coastal ecosystems face pressures from erosion, pollution, intensive fishing, mangrove degradation and urbanisation.

On Coastal Communities: The impact on fisherfolk and coastal communities is perhaps the most contested dimension of the 2019 notification. The population-density distinction under CRZ-III was presented as a measure that could provide greater flexibility to densely populated rural settlements, including fishing communities, particularly with respect to housing and local infrastructure.

However, greater development potential can also create competing pressures on coastal land. Fishing communities depend not only on residential space but also on access to beaches, landing sites, traditional fishing areas and other coastal commons. Consequently, a framework that facilitates development without adequately protecting customary livelihood spaces may produce tensions between investment and community interests.

The challenge is therefore not simply whether the CRZ framework permits construction but whether coastal development can occur without weakening the social and economic foundations of communities whose livelihoods depend directly on access to the coast.

Emerging Issues

Several structural tensions within the CRZ 2019 framework have become clearer in the years since its notification.

The Consultation Deficit: The Nayak panel operated without consulting non-governmental organisations, fisherfolk, or people living along the coast. The report was kept under wraps for two years and released only after explicit orders from the Central Information Commission. The 2019 notification was built on this exclusionary foundation. Terms like “strategic purposes”, “public utilities”, and “eco-tourism” were left undefined, creating open-ended phrases that can permit harmful activities near the coast without triggering formal environmental review.

Climate Vulnerability and Regulatory Direction: The 2019 notification reduced No Development Zones precisely at a moment when India’s coastal climate vulnerability is increasing. The Indian Development Report warns that 113 Indian cities could face partial submergence by 2050. International climate-assessment literature does not prescribe a single coastal management model. Instead, the IPCC identifies a range of adaptation strategies, including protection, accommodation, ecosystem-based adaptation and planned retreat. It also emphasises that avoiding new development in high-risk areas can reduce future exposure.

For India, this suggests that future CRZ policy should move towards risk-sensitive regulation, rather than relying exclusively on uniform distance-based restrictions.

The NGT Challenge: Institutional Uncertainty: Legal challenges to the CRZ Notification, 2019, have created continuing uncertainty around the future regulatory framework. Any substantial judicial modification of the notification could have implications for projects approved under its provisions.

This uncertainty itself highlights the importance of establishing a stable, transparent and scientifically grounded coastal regulatory system in which environmental safeguards and development requirements are clearly defined.

The Maradu Precedent: The Supreme Court-ordered demolition of four luxury high-rise apartment complexes in Maradu municipality, Kochi, in January 2020, demonstrated that violations of coastal regulation can result in severe consequences even after substantial investment has been made.

The case therefore remains an important reminder that compliance with coastal regulations cannot be treated as a secondary consideration in project planning.

Coastal Zone Management Plans: Still Incomplete: The CRZ framework depends on state governments preparing and notifying Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMPs), which identify coastal zones and provide the spatial basis for implementing regulatory provisions.

Where CZMPs remain incomplete, outdated or inadequately implemented, the effectiveness of the wider CRZ framework is weakened. A regulation that lacks accurate and updated spatial mapping cannot provide predictable enforcement or effective land-use planning.

Way Forward

The CRZ Notification, 2019, is not irredeemable, but it requires careful course corrections if India is to genuinely balance development, ecology, and coastal community livelihoods.

The most immediate need is completing the Coastal Zone Management Plans. Every coastal state and union territory must be given a firm statutory deadline to finish and notify its CZMP – with central funding and technical support where needed. A regulatory framework without complete maps is a framework without enforcement. Alongside this, any revision to the CRZ notification – and revisions are now inevitable given the NGT challenge – must be preceded by genuine public consultation with fishing communities, environmental groups, and coastal residents. What happened in 2018–19, where over 90% of submitted objections were disregarded, was not just a procedural failure. It was a democratic one.

On the ecological side, the No Development Zone framework needs to be updated to reflect India’s actual coastal climate vulnerability. A risk-based approach, with larger buffer zones in areas identified as high-risk for sea-level rise, storm surges, and coastal erosion, would be far more rational than the current uniform distance standard. The IPCC emphasises that coastal adaptation requires combinations of measures, including ecosystem-based approaches, accommodation, protection and, where necessary, planned retreat.

The situation of fisherfolk also requires a structural approach, not just rhetorical recognition. Legal protection of fishing community commons and traditional use rights within CRZ areas, modelled on what the Forest Rights Act 2006 did for tribal communities, would provide the security that the 2019 notification’s population-density split was supposed to deliver but has not. Finally, terms like “strategic purposes”, “eco-tourism”, and “public utilities” must be precisely defined. Open-ended language in environmental law is not administrative flexibility. It is an open door for misuse, and India’s coastal ecology cannot afford that.

The central question is not whether India should develop its coast. Coastal infrastructure, tourism, ports and urban development are essential to India’s economic and strategic interests. The real question is how development can proceed without transferring environmental and social costs to ecosystems and communities that are least able to absorb them.

References

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. (2019, January 18). CRZ Notification, 2019. Gazette of India Extraordinary. https://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CRZ-2019.pdf

IndiaSpend. (2020, February 26). Govt disregarded 90% objections to 2019 coastal zone law: Investigation. https://www.indiaspend.com/govt-disregarded-90-objections-to-2019-coastal-zone-law-investigation

The Leaflet. (2025, December). The degeneration of the CRZ notification. https://theleaflet.in/environment/the-degeneration-of-the-crz-notification

Frontiers in Marine Science. (2025, April 28). Adapting to sea level rise: Is India on- or off-track? https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2025.1516241/full

Ananta IAS. (2026, May). Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) UPSC: 2019 notification, zones, NDZ rules. https://anantamias.com/coastal-regulation-zone-crz/

Legacy IAS. (2026). National environmental legislation Part II UPSC notes – CRZ notification. https://www.legacyias.com/national-environmental-legislation-part-2-fra-ngt-crz-napcc-upsc-notes/

Deccan Herald. (2019). New CRZ rules may spell doom for our coasts. https://www.deccanherald.com/specials/insight/new-crz-rules-may-spell-doom-for-our-coasts-726065.html

Deccan Herald. (2025). PMO steps in after greens oppose NITI Aayog’s CRZ relaxation plan. https://www.deccanherald.com/amp/story/india%2Fpmo-steps-in-after-greens-oppose-niti-aayogs-crz-relaxation-plan-3770998

Mongabay India. (2026, May). How map scales impact coastal communities. https://india.mongabay.com/2026/05/how-map-scales-impact-coastal-communities/

Vajira Mandravi. (2026). Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ): Meaning, types, notification. https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/coastal-regulation-zone/

Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India. (2025). Coastline of the country. Press Information Bureau. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2198800

World Bank. (2025, September 10). New World Bank program to protect Indian coastline, provide more jobs for 100,000 people in states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2025/09/10/new-world-bank-program-to-protect-indian-coastline-provide-more-jobs-for-100-000-people-in-states-of-tamil-nadu-and-karn

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Cross-Chapter Paper 2: Cities and settlements by the sea. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/ccp2/

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Technical summary. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/technical-summary/

About the Contributor

Neha Kumari is a Research and Editorial Intern at IMPRI and a first-year M.A. student in Defence and Strategic Studies at the Central University of Gujarat. She holds an undergraduate degree in Social Management from the same university. Her research interests include governance, public policy, national security, and India’s foreign policy.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to IMPRI for providing me the opportunity to prepare this article and for fostering a rigorous learning environment that connects research with public policy practice. I also extend my sincere thanks to Dolly Kaushik and Lubina Dua for their valuable feedback.