On the morning of Good Friday a loud message that emerged from the Mapusa Church enjoining people to remain alert against any government enacted law and government organisations and departments that go against society and the environment.
“When there is an attack on our environment and when the government enacts unwarranted laws, many people pretend to look the other way. Why does it have to be this way?” the message said. About a 100 km away in Loliem in Canacona, about 100 landlords assembled on Wednesday to protest against a move by the forest department to notify a major portion of land as private forest. A survey was conducted in 161 plots of land and 472 notices were dispatched to landlords. A representation, which labeled the move as ‘anti-people’, was submitted to Agriculture Minister Ramesh Tawadkar.
One side wants people to protect the environment while the other side wants forests on private lands to be left free for development. These are the two sides of the progress coin. One side represents development while the other bears the face of the environment.
How does one reconcile
these two contradictory positions?
The most glaring example of
this contradiction is the law which
de-classified the coconut tree in order
to give plantation owners leeway
to take quick decisions without
having to plod through red tape in
the forest department. The law was
welcomed by plantation owners but criticised by activists who
are making a desperate attempt to turn it into a political issue.
The regional plan is another example where stakeholders are
at loggerheads over the quantum of land that should be allocated
for development and what should be reserved as no-development
zones. The matter has not been resolved and the
government recently constituted a team to sift through thousands
of requests from stakeholders.
This clash of interests has fragmented society into several
interest groups with those in favour of development far outnumbering
those against it. In 2007, at the height of the regional
plan agitation, the positions were quite different and
those in favour of restricting land for development held sway.
Sadly, inability of activists to recognise and accommodate other
stakeholders led to the rejection of the regional plan which
has now been reopened for more conversion. Another place
where those rooting for the environment and those lobbying
for development clashed was in Vanxim. The islanders wanted
development because they were the ones bearing the brunt
of backwardness while the green lobby opposed it without
even taking the trouble to ask what Vanxim islanders wanted.
The challenge that lies before Goa is reconciliation of these
two seemingly opposite views. In this respect the February 2015
judgement of the principal bench of the National Green Tribunal
might hold promise. While disposing a petition challenging
construction of an eight-lane bridge across the Yamuna in
Delhi, the bench balanced public purpose with interest of the
environment. Holding that the bridge was being constructed
in public interest, the bench refrained from staying construction
or ordering its demolition, but directed the respondents
to obtain an environment clearance. The bench directed the
State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) to
put such terms and conditions as may be necessary to ensure
that there are no adverse impacts on environment, ecology,
biodiversity and environmental flow of River Yamuna and its
floodplain. The SEIAA was also directed to impose conditions
containing remedial measures to be taken by the Project Proponent
to ensure that there is no environmental degradation.
A fine balance, indeed.
