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 a place called 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 seeming 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 recently the government 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 once bearing the brunt of backwardness while the green lobby opposed it without even taking the trouble to ask what Vanxim islanders wanted for themselves.
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.
