The Major Port Authorities Bill 2016 has been mooted as part of a long pending reform in the ports sector by reorienting their governance model in line with global practices and greater autonomy in use of assets, determination of tariffs and revenue generation. Having received the Union Cabinet’s nod for incorporation of official amendments based on Parliamentary Committee recommendations last month, the bill could be considered and passed in the ongoing session of Parliament.
The legislation is important for success of the ambitious ‘Sagarmala’ project aimed at promoting port-led development along India’s coastline. Major ports will now have smaller boards comprising independent professionals with government and port worker representatives. The port authority will don the role of a “landlord”, while private companies would carry out port operations. Even port hospitals and fire and rescue services are likely to be outsourced.
Expectedly, trade unions have given it a thumbs down. They claim it undermines labour interests, would ruin public sector ports and foresee their corporatization in the near future. Government has sought to placate them by increasing the port worker representation on the Board from one to two, including a serving Port employee.
However, the proposed legislation has grave consequences for a small state like Goa. If it becomes law, the “Mormugao Port Authority” will exist like a “State within a State”.
Port limits of Mormugao Port, declared by the Government of India in 1963, encompass the entire Zuari River from Cortalim ferry ramp up to Dona Paula; the coastline of Mormugao Taluka upto and including Arossim beach; and the coastline on both sides of Betul Port. In addition, MPT is in possession of about 22 lakh square metres of prime land within and around Mormugao Port and Vasco da Gama town, which includes illegally reclaimed land.
The consequences and impact on Mormugao Port, and thereby on the State of Goa, lie in the provisions of S. 19 (2) and (3) and S. 22 of the Bill. S. 19 (2) empowers the Board of the Major Port Authority to use and develop its assets (including land assets) as per its own regulations and master plan to the exclusion of local town planning and development laws. Sub-section (3) empowers the Board to erect, construct and build civil structures “in the national interest” within the port limits for which no regulatory license or approvals from the State authorities would be required. S. 22 empowers the Board to carry out various constructions and development works including reclamation of foreshore within port limits for the purposes specified therein.
The two provisions would cumulatively enable unrestricted and arbitrary powers in the hands of the Port Board to carry out construction and development activities on its land assets and within port limits without any reference to local town planning and development laws.
Under the federal structure, major ports come under the Union List; but land, and consequently, town and country planning, are items in the state list. Likewise, urban planning including town planning, regulation of land use and construction of buildings are among powers and duties of urban local bodies under the Constitution’s 74th amendment. The bed of the sea and of harbours, rivers and creeks belong to the state government.
The Regional Plan of Goa will not apply to development projects undertaken by the port authority on its lands and within port limits. These areas will ipso facto be excluded and exempted from purview of the Town and Country Planning Act, Municipalities Act, Public Health Act, Preservation of Trees Act and a host of other State regulatory legislations. Land revenue is a state subject; however the proposed law would entitle the port authority to convert its lands, etc to non-agricultural purposes without prior consent of the District Collector under Land Revenue Code. The proposed legislation will impinge on turf of the state government and local bodies.
The proposition to keep the reins of port development exclusively with the port authority could prove detrimental for want of specific knowledge of local conditions, interests of fishermen and other stakeholders, and its ecological and socio-economic impact. The State Government, and thereby, the people of Goa, will have no say whatsoever in the development works undertaken by the port authority.
Privatization of port operations would lead to substantial retrenchment of MPT’s largely Goan workforce, besides diminution of secure employment opportunities for Goan youth.
Naysayers may argue that provision for one representative of State Government on the Board would be adequate to protect its interests. The Major Ports Act 1963 also provides for such representation, but the experience over the last 50 years has been that cognitive inputs of the representative, usually an IAS officer, in expansion of the port and safeguarding the State’s interests, has been virtually non-existent.
Considering the sheer extent and size of MPT limits and land assets and its privatization and corporatization on one hand, and Goa’s small size on the other, the provisions of the Bill are bound to have a grave impact on public-participatory, planned and sustainable development in the state. Our government must act quickly and decisively in the interest of Goa and Goans.
