1. Introduction

Coastal Adaptation Compensation Claims are claims for monetary compensation, rehabilitation, restoration costs, livelihood support, or other legal relief arising from damage or loss suffered by coastal communities, property owners, fishers, ecosystems, or public infrastructure because of coastal erosion, sea-level rise, cyclones, storm surges, flooding, coastal development, reclamation, pollution, or adaptation projects.

The expression is relatively new. Indian law does not presently create one independent statutory cause of action called “coastal adaptation compensation.” Instead, such claims may arise through a combination of:

• environmental law;
• Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) law;
• the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010;
• public-law remedies under Articles 21 and 226/32;
• the polluter-pays principle;
• absolute liability;
• land-acquisition and rehabilitation law;
• fisheries and livelihood protections;
• tort and contract principles;
• government rehabilitation schemes.

This distinction is important: compensation for climate-related coastal loss is not automatically payable merely because sea levels rise or a coastline erodes. A claimant normally needs to identify a legally recognized duty, causative activity, governmental failure, statutory violation, or compensable loss.

2. What Is Coastal Adaptation?

Coastal adaptation means measures undertaken to reduce vulnerability to coastal hazards.

Examples include:

• sea walls;
• groynes;
• breakwaters;
• beach nourishment;
• mangrove restoration;
• dune restoration;
• drainage systems;
• cyclone shelters;
• relocation of vulnerable communities;
• raising houses;
• relocation of fishing infrastructure;
• restoration of wetlands;
• managed retreat;
• climate-resilient infrastructure.

Adaptation can itself create disputes.

For example, a sea wall may protect one village but increase erosion elsewhere. A groyne may protect one stretch while interfering with natural sediment movement in another.

The NGT's decision in C.H. Balamohan v. Union of India specifically dealt with human-induced coastal erosion caused by hard structures and recognized concerns about transferring erosion from one coastal stretch to another.

3. What Is a Coastal Adaptation Compensation Claim?

A claim may arise where a person or community alleges:

A. Physical coastal damage

For example:

• destruction of houses;
• loss of agricultural land;
• loss of fishing infrastructure;
• damage to boats;
• erosion of private property.

B. Livelihood loss

For example:

• reduced fishing opportunities;
• destruction of fishing grounds;
• restricted access to the sea;
• loss of fish breeding areas;
• displacement of traditional fishing communities.

C. Environmental damage

For example:

• destruction of mangroves;
• destruction of wetlands;
• damage to beaches;
• degradation of estuaries;
• destruction of marine habitats.

D. Adaptation-project damage

For example:

• sea walls causing downstream erosion;
• groynes altering sediment flow;
• coastal roads damaging wetlands;
• reclamation changing tidal flows.

E. Pollution-related coastal damage

For example:

• oil spills;
• chemical pollution;
• industrial discharge;
• damage to fisheries.

F. Displacement and rehabilitation

Where coastal development or adaptation projects require relocation, affected communities may seek:

• alternative housing;
• livelihood restoration;
• rehabilitation;
• monetary compensation.

4. Indian Legal Framework

A. Article 21 of the Constitution

Article 21 protects life and personal liberty.

Environmental jurisprudence has interpreted the right to life broadly to include conditions necessary for a meaningful and dignified life.

For coastal communities, environmental degradation can affect:

• livelihood;
• housing;
• food;
• water;
• health;
• security;
• traditional occupations.

Therefore, serious coastal degradation can potentially acquire a constitutional dimension.

5. Article 48A

Article 48A directs the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife.

Although Directive Principles are not independently enforceable in the same way as fundamental rights, courts have repeatedly used Article 48A to interpret environmental obligations.

6. Article 51A(g)

Article 51A(g) imposes a fundamental duty upon citizens to protect and improve the natural environment.

Together, Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g) have contributed to India's constitutional environmental jurisprudence.

7. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

The Environment (Protection) Act provides the central statutory framework for environmental protection.

It enables the Central Government to regulate environmentally sensitive activities and issue notifications such as the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification.

Coastal development violating CRZ requirements can consequently generate:

• restoration proceedings;
• environmental compensation;
• cancellation or modification of permissions;
• rehabilitation-related directions.

8. Coastal Regulation Zone Framework

CRZ regulations are particularly important.

The framework regulates activities in coastal areas to protect:

• coastal ecosystems;
• mangroves;
• beaches;
• tidal areas;
• traditional fishing communities;
• environmentally sensitive coastal zones.

A coastal development project that violates CRZ conditions can become the basis of compensation and restoration proceedings.

The Supreme Court's decision in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India arose from concerns over degradation of coastal areas and emphasized enforcement of the Coastal Regulation Zone framework.

9. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 is particularly important.

Section 14 gives the NGT jurisdiction over substantial questions relating to the environment.

Section 15 empowers the Tribunal to grant:

• relief;
• compensation;
• restitution of property damaged;
• restitution of the environment.

This makes the NGT particularly important for coastal adaptation compensation claims.

A claimant may therefore seek compensation not merely for personal loss but also for environmental restoration where the statutory requirements are satisfied.

10. Polluter Pays Principle

The Polluter Pays Principle is central.

It means that the person responsible for environmental damage should bear the cost of:

1. compensating affected persons; and
2. restoring the damaged environment.

The Supreme Court recognized this principle in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India and subsequently applied it in numerous environmental cases.

Importantly, compensation is not necessarily limited to private economic loss.

It can include:

the cost of restoring ecological damage.

11. Precautionary Principle

Coastal adaptation claims frequently involve scientific uncertainty.

For example:

Will a proposed sea wall reduce erosion or merely shift it elsewhere?

The Precautionary Principle requires environmental decision-making to account for potentially serious harm even where scientific certainty is incomplete.

The Supreme Court recognized the Precautionary Principle as part of Indian environmental law in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India.

12. Sustainable Development

Coastal adaptation frequently requires balancing:

• economic development;
• infrastructure;
• environmental protection;
• fishing livelihoods;
• climate resilience.

The principle of sustainable development seeks to reconcile these interests.

An adaptation project cannot necessarily justify environmental destruction merely because it is described as “climate-resilient.”

13. Absolute Liability

Where a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity causes environmental harm, the doctrine of absolute liability may become relevant.

The leading case is:

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case).

The principle is stronger than ordinary negligence-based liability.

The enterprise may be absolutely liable for harm caused by its hazardous activity.

This principle can become relevant where industrial activity causes coastal pollution or ecological destruction.

14. Case Law 1 — Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212

Facts

The case concerned serious environmental pollution caused by industrial activity.

The Supreme Court considered the responsibility of polluting industries for environmental damage and the cost of restoring the environment.

The decision is particularly important in the context of environmental compensation.

Principle

The Court strongly affirmed the Polluter Pays Principle.

The responsible party can be required to bear:

• compensation to victims;
• restoration expenses;
• environmental remediation costs.

Relevance to Coastal Adaptation Claims

Suppose an industrial project:

• destroys coastal wetlands;
• contaminates fishing waters;
• damages mangroves;
• causes loss of fishing income.

The responsible enterprise may potentially be required to pay both:

(a) victim compensation, and

(b) environmental restoration costs.

The case is therefore foundational for coastal environmental compensation.

15. Case Law 2 — S. Jagannath v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 87

This is one of the most directly relevant Supreme Court cases for coastal compensation.

Facts

The case concerned intensive shrimp farming in environmentally fragile coastal areas.

The Supreme Court examined the environmental consequences of shrimp aquaculture, particularly around:

• Chilika Lake;
• Pulicat Lake;
• coastal areas;
• agricultural land;
• groundwater;
• traditional communities.

Holding

The Court emphasized:

• Precautionary Principle;
• Polluter Pays Principle;
• environmental impact assessment;
• protection of ecologically fragile coastal areas.

Importantly, the Court directed that compensation should be assessed for:

1. ecological/environmental damage; and
2. loss suffered by affected individuals and families.

The judgment contemplated compensation both for restoring ecology and compensating affected people.

Importance

This is extremely valuable for coastal adaptation compensation claims because it recognizes two distinct heads:

Environmental restoration + compensation to affected persons.

16. Case Law 3 — Ramdas Janardan Koli v. Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests, NGT

This is perhaps the most directly relevant Indian NGT authority concerning coastal communities and compensation.

Facts

Traditional fishermen from Maharashtra sought compensation and rehabilitation in connection with coastal development around the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT).

Approximately 1,630 fishing families alleged that:

• land reclamation;
• destruction of mangroves;
• interference with tidal flows;
• narrowing of navigational routes;
• destruction of fish-breeding areas

had impaired their traditional fishing livelihood.

The fishermen sought compensation for livelihood loss and rehabilitation.

Legal significance

The case treated traditional fishing rights and livelihood as important considerations in evaluating coastal development.

The Tribunal examined:

• CRZ obligations;
• environmental principles;
• traditional fishing rights;
• livelihood;
• rehabilitation;
• compensation.

Principle

A coastal project cannot be assessed purely in terms of its physical footprint.

Its impact upon:

traditional coastal livelihoods and ecological systems

must also be considered.

This is an important precedent for community-based coastal adaptation compensation claims.

17. Case Law 4 — C.H. Balamohan v. Union of India, NGT

Facts

The case concerned coastal erosion allegedly caused or aggravated by hard structures, including groynes.

The dispute involved coastal stretches in Tamil Nadu and the effect of structures on natural sediment movement.

Legal issue

The central question was whether coastal-protection structures could themselves create environmental harm.

Principle

The NGT recognized the scientific concern that:

a hard structure may protect one coastal stretch while causing or transferring erosion elsewhere.

The Tribunal emphasized the need for sustainable coastal-management approaches rather than simply constructing hard barriers.

Relevance

This is crucial for adaptation-project compensation.

A claimant may argue:

“The government built a coastal defence structure to protect one area, but that intervention caused measurable damage to our coastline.”

Such a claim would require:

• scientific evidence;
• causal connection;
• assessment of baseline coastal conditions;
• proof of resulting damage.

18. Case Law 5 — O. Fernandes v. Union of India, NGT

This case concerned coastal erosion affecting Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.

The coastal population included fishing communities whose homes and settlements were threatened by erosion.

The government proposed groynes as an emergency measure.

The NGT recognized the seriousness of the erosion problem and permitted temporary measures while examining the environmental consequences. Contemporary legal analysis of the decision records the Tribunal's recognition of the Government's duty to respond to severe erosion affecting coastal residents.

Principle

The State cannot simply ignore an immediate and serious coastal-erosion threat.

At the same time, adaptation measures must be scientifically justified.

Relevance

The case helps establish the relationship between:

State adaptation duty + environmental protection + protection of coastal communities.

19. Case Law 6 — National Green Tribunal Southern Zone v. Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu

This litigation arose from oil-spill-related coastal damage affecting fishermen.

The Tribunal examined:

• damage to the shoreline;
• aquatic life;
• fishing communities;
• environmental restoration;
• compensation.

The Joint Committee was directed to assess:

• the nature of environmental damage;
• effect on aquatic life;
• impact on fishermen;
• time required for restoration;
• restoration measures;
• appropriate compensation. 

Importance

The case demonstrates how coastal compensation can be scientifically calculated.

It is not enough to say:

“The coastline was damaged.”

Authorities must examine:

1. what damage occurred;
2. who suffered;
3. how long the damage lasted;
4. what restoration is necessary;
5. how much compensation is appropriate.

20. Case Law 7 — P. Somasundaram v. Union of India

This case involved extensive coastal environmental damage following an oil spill.

The proceedings recorded compensation claims of affected fishermen.

The Fisheries Department assessed losses and compensation was released under arrangements involving the shipping companies and the State.

The record indicates that approximately ₹141 crore had been released against a larger compensation assessment, with separate consideration of ecosystem restoration.

Principle

Coastal environmental compensation can include:

• individual livelihood loss;
• boat/craft losses;
• fishing losses;
• ecosystem restoration.

Importance

This demonstrates that a coastal compensation framework may require large-scale community-level claims administration rather than individual tort suits alone.

21. Case Law 8 — Zon Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, 2025 INSC 297

This recent Supreme Court decision is important for the procedure of environmental compensation.

Facts

The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority determined environmental compensation of approximately ₹2.04 crore concerning alleged illegal construction.

The affected party argued that:

• no show-cause notice had been given;
• no adequate hearing had been provided;
• compensation had been determined unilaterally.

The Supreme Court agreed that the original determination had to comply with natural justice and directed fresh determination after giving the affected party an opportunity of hearing.

Principle

Even where environmental compensation is justified:

The authority determining compensation must comply with natural justice.

The claimant/affected project proponent should ordinarily receive:

• notice;
• opportunity to respond;
• disclosure of relevant basis;
• reasoned determination.

Relevance

This is extremely important in coastal adaptation compensation disputes because compensation may involve substantial amounts and technical damage assessments.

22. Case Law 9 — Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action / Coastal CRZ Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court's coastal-regulation jurisprudence demonstrates that coastal environmental protection is not merely a planning preference.

In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, the Court dealt directly with enforcement of the CRZ regime and the need to prevent irreversible coastal ecological damage.

The case provides the foundation for arguing that:

• coastal ecosystems have public significance;
• regulatory authorities have environmental duties;
• violations can attract remedial consequences;
• restoration can be a component of environmental relief.

23. Case Law 10 — Rev. Dr. Fr. V.P. Joseph Valiyaveettil v. Union of India, Kerala High Court

This litigation concerned the condition of coastal fishing communities in Kerala.

The petition highlighted:

• alarming coastal erosion;
• inadequate governmental response;
• intrusion of resorts and hotels;
• inadequate disaster assistance;
• difficulties in implementing CRZ regulations;
• delays in benefits for fishing communities.

The case illustrates how coastal erosion can be presented as a matter involving livelihood, environmental protection and governmental responsibility.

It is particularly useful for understanding the public-law dimension of coastal adaptation claims.

24. Coastal Adaptation Compensation vs Environmental Compensation

These concepts should not be confused.

Environmental compensation

Usually imposed upon a person/entity responsible for environmental damage.

Example:

An industrial facility destroys a mangrove ecosystem.

The polluter may be ordered to pay restoration costs.

Coastal adaptation compensation

May refer more broadly to compensation or support arising from coastal vulnerability or adaptation-related impacts.

Example:

A fishing community loses access to traditional fishing grounds because of a coastal infrastructure project.

The legal basis may involve:

• rehabilitation;
• livelihood compensation;
• CRZ conditions;
• NGT jurisdiction;
• land acquisition;
• public-law relief.

25. Climate Change Alone and Compensation

This is a crucial limitation.

Suppose:

Sea level rises because of global climate change and a village gradually experiences erosion.

Can the villagers automatically sue a particular company for compensation?

Not necessarily.

They would generally need to establish a legally cognizable connection between:

• the defendant's conduct;
• the environmental harm;
• the claimant's loss.

A general climate phenomenon does not automatically establish liability of an individual defendant.

This becomes particularly important in cases involving attribution science.

26. Causation

Causation is usually the most difficult element.

A claimant may have to establish:

Step 1 — Baseline

What was the coastline like before the activity?

Step 2 — Intervention

What project or activity changed the coastal system?

Step 3 — Scientific connection

Did that intervention materially contribute to erosion/flooding?

Step 4 — Loss

What economic/environmental damage resulted?

Step 5 — Quantification

How much compensation is appropriate?

Scientific evidence may include:

• satellite imagery;
• shoreline-change maps;
• hydrodynamic modelling;
• sediment studies;
• environmental impact assessments;
• historical maps;
• fisheries data;
• expert reports.

27. Types of Compensation

A. Property Damage

Compensation for:

• houses;
• boats;
• fishing equipment;
• agricultural land;
• infrastructure.

B. Livelihood Loss

For:

• fishing income;
• tourism income;
• agriculture;
• coastal businesses.

C. Rehabilitation

May include:

• alternative housing;
• relocation;
• livelihood restoration;
• fishing infrastructure;
• access to fishing areas.

D. Environmental Restoration

Costs of:

• mangrove restoration;
• beach nourishment;
• wetland restoration;
• sediment restoration;
• habitat recovery.

E. Temporary Loss

Compensation may be considered where fishing or business activity is interrupted for a defined period.

F. Long-Term Loss

Where the community permanently loses:

• fishing grounds;
• traditional access;
• land;
• ecosystem services.

28. Compensation for Fishermen

Fishing communities require special consideration because their loss may not be reflected simply in land ownership.

A traditional fisher may lose income because:

• a creek is blocked;
• mangroves are destroyed;
• a port restricts access;
• fish breeding grounds disappear;
• coastal pollution reduces fish stocks.

Therefore:

Absence of formal title to the sea does not necessarily mean absence of a legally cognizable livelihood interest.

The Ramdas Janardan Koli litigation is especially important in this context.

29. Rehabilitation vs Compensation

These are different remedies.

Compensation

Usually means monetary payment for loss.

Rehabilitation

Means restoring the person's ability to live and earn after displacement or environmental disruption.

For example:

₹5 lakh compensation

is different from:

housing + fishing harbour access + livelihood restoration + training + monetary assistance.

Modern coastal claims may require both.

30. Adaptation Projects Can Create Liability

A very important principle is:

An adaptation project is not automatically environmentally lawful merely because its purpose is climate resilience.

For example:

A sea wall may protect:

Village A

but accelerate erosion at:

Village B.

Village B could potentially challenge the project if it establishes:

• environmental harm;
• inadequate assessment;
• regulatory violation;
• causal connection;
• resulting loss.

The C.H. Balamohan litigation illustrates this problem of hard coastal structures and transferred erosion.

31. Polluter Pays and Climate Adaptation

The Polluter Pays Principle can potentially finance adaptation where a specific polluter is responsible for environmental damage.

For example:

Industrial activity damages a mangrove ecosystem.

The polluter may potentially be required to pay for:

• restoration;
• compensation;
• monitoring;
• rehabilitation.

But the principle should not automatically be stretched to impose unlimited liability for every climate-related coastal loss.

There must ordinarily be a defensible causal and legal connection.

32. Environmental Compensation and Natural Justice

The Zon Hotels decision is important here.

Even where authorities have power to impose environmental compensation, the procedure must satisfy natural justice.

A proper determination should generally address:

1. nature of violation;
2. duration;
3. environmental impact;
4. causal relationship;
5. restoration requirement;
6. methodology;
7. financial amount;
8. opportunity of hearing.

33. Role of the National Green Tribunal

The NGT is particularly important because Section 15 permits it to award:

• compensation to victims;
• restitution of property;
• restitution of environment.

Therefore, a coastal claim may combine:

individual compensation + community rehabilitation + ecological restoration.

This makes NGT proceedings particularly suitable for large-scale coastal environmental disputes.

34. Limitation

Environmental claims before the NGT are subject to statutory limitation requirements.

A claimant cannot necessarily revive an extremely old claim merely by describing it as a continuing environmental injury.

Recent NGT jurisprudence has emphasized limitation in environmental-compensation proceedings.

Therefore, claimants should identify:

• date of damage;
• continuing cause of action;
• date of knowledge;
• statutory limitation period;
• whether restoration is still continuing.

35. Defences Against Coastal Compensation Claims

Respondents may argue:

1. No causation

The erosion resulted from natural processes.

2. Climate change

The damage resulted from broader climatic forces rather than the respondent's project.

3. Regulatory compliance

The project complied with:

• CRZ clearance;
• environmental clearance;
• approved plans.

4. Scientific uncertainty

The evidence does not establish that the project caused the alleged damage.

5. Contributory causes

Several independent activities contributed to the damage.

6. Limitation

The claim was brought too late.

7. Lack of standing

The claimant cannot establish the required legal interest.

8. Natural coastal processes

Erosion is naturally occurring and not attributable to the defendant.

36. Evidence Required

A strong coastal compensation claim should ideally contain:

• CRZ maps;
• satellite imagery;
• historical shoreline data;
• environmental-clearance documents;
• project plans;
• EIA reports;
• expert hydrodynamic studies;
• fisheries statistics;
• income records;
• property records;
• photographs;
• GPS data;
• government inspection reports;
• evidence of displacement;
• evidence of restoration costs.

37. Quantification of Compensation

Compensation can involve several components.

Livelihood loss

Annual lost income × relevant period

Property damage

Replacement/restoration cost

Environmental damage

Estimated ecological restoration cost

Rehabilitation

Housing + relocation + livelihood restoration

Ecosystem loss

May require expert valuation of:

• fisheries;
• mangrove services;
• flood protection;
• biodiversity;
• carbon sequestration;
• water filtration.

The methodology should be transparent and scientifically defensible.

38. Coastal Adaptation Compensation Claim — Hypothetical Example

Suppose a port expansion project:

1. reclaims coastal land;
2. removes mangroves;
3. alters tidal flow;
4. reduces fish breeding;
5. causes erosion;
6. destroys fishing access.

Affected fishermen could potentially seek:

Claim 1

Compensation for loss of fishing income.

Claim 2

Rehabilitation.

Claim 3

Restoration of mangroves.

Claim 4

Restoration of tidal channels.

Claim 5

Compensation for damaged fishing equipment.

Claim 6

Environmental compensation under the Polluter Pays Principle.

The Ramdas Janardan Koli case provides a particularly relevant conceptual framework for such claims.

39. Case-Law Summary Table

40. Important Legal Principles

For examination purposes, the most important principles are:

1. Coastal adaptation compensation is not yet a standalone statutory cause of action in India.
2. Claims may arise under environmental law, NGT jurisdiction, constitutional law, CRZ regulations, land acquisition and rehabilitation law, contract or tort principles.
3. Polluter Pays can require both victim compensation and environmental restoration.
4. S. Jagannath is a leading coastal compensation authority.
5. Ramdas Janardan Koli is highly relevant to traditional fishing communities and livelihood loss.
6. Coastal communities can have legally relevant livelihood interests even where they do not hold conventional private title to the sea.
7. Adaptation infrastructure can itself cause environmental harm.
8. C.H. Balamohan demonstrates the importance of studying downstream and upstream effects of hard coastal structures.
9. Scientific evidence is crucial in establishing causation.
10. Climate change by itself does not automatically establish liability against a particular defendant.
11. Environmental compensation and rehabilitation are distinct but may be awarded together.
12. The NGT can address both individual loss and ecological restoration within its statutory jurisdiction.
13. Compensation must be based on a rational and defensible methodology.
14. Natural justice applies when environmental compensation is administratively determined.
15. Zon Hotels confirms that a compensation determination cannot simply be imposed without appropriate opportunity of hearing. 
16. Sustainable development requires adaptation measures to protect both people and ecosystems.
17. Coastal resilience projects should consider cumulative and displacement effects.
18. Restoration of mangroves, wetlands and natural coastal buffers may be preferable to indiscriminate hard engineering.
19. Limitation can defeat stale environmental compensation claims.
20. The strongest claims establish duty + causation + environmental/livelihood loss + scientifically supported quantification.

41. Conclusion

Coastal Adaptation Compensation Claims represent an emerging intersection of climate change, environmental law, coastal regulation, constitutional rights, livelihood protection and environmental compensation.

Indian courts have not yet created a single, comprehensive doctrine under that exact name. Instead, the legal framework is being built from established principles such as:

• Polluter Pays Principle;
• Precautionary Principle;
• Sustainable Development;
• Absolute Liability;
• Public Trust Doctrine;
• Right to Life under Article 21;
• environmental restoration;
• rehabilitation of affected communities.

The most important authorities are S. Jagannath, Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action, and Ramdas Janardan Koli. In S. Jagannath, the Supreme Court expressly contemplated compensation both for affected individuals/families and for reversing ecological damage. In Ramdas Janardan Koli, traditional fishermen challenged coastal development that allegedly impaired tidal flows, mangroves, fish breeding and their traditional livelihood. More recent cases such as C.H. Balamohan demonstrate that even coastal-protection structures can themselves produce environmental consequences that must be scientifically assessed.

Thus, the central legal proposition is:

A coastal adaptation project or coastal-development activity should not be judged solely by whether it protects infrastructure; its effects upon coastal ecosystems, traditional livelihoods, displaced communities and neighbouring coastal areas must also be considered. Where legally attributable environmental or livelihood damage is established, compensation, rehabilitation and ecological restoration may become available.