the goan I network
PANAJI
Goa Bachao Abhiyan (GBA) has strongly protested against several provisions in the Draft Coastal Regulations Notification. Members of the GBA have put in writing their objections, while at the same time urging the government not to enforce the proposed draft.
GBA has observed that the amendment to the Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) seems to be a political diktat for quick economic gain with no scientific or long-term economic foresight.
They have objected to several provisions in the draft notification. Firstly, they object to the reduction of coastal buffer zones to 50 meters and 20 meters from the high tide line.
Even at 100 metres, high tide line (HTL) areas sometimes get inundated, the GBA noted and maintained that it was a documented fact that water enters shacks and businesses when there is a surge in the sea. These shacks have even sought compensation, they added.
Secondly, they object to the proposed treatment facilities for waste and sewage and conveyance of treated effluents. The area within 100/200meters of the HTL is provided as a buffer due to the porous nature of river banks and coastal areas. GBA says that a study of the sewage run-off in the temporary shacks of Goa, as well as groundwater contamination of coastal wells in Calangute, is proof of this. They feel that it is unacceptable to encourage the building of schools, dispensaries and community toilets in buffer zones. As per the law, only in the rarest of the rare cases, when absolutely no other land is available, may this be allowed, with backup safety mechanisms clearly laid out, and full scrutiny from all central government mechanisms before clearance.
The group also objected to proposed tree huts in mangrove areas under the guise of ecotourism. A human intervention that requires any type of lodging such as huts/tree huts requires infrastructure like toilets, sewage, food and garbage. GBA feels that as this is damaging to the environment, it must be prohibited. Furthermore, it should not even be considered in such ecologically sensitive areas.
The notification they said, was malicious in its intent to ‘do away with public hearings if the site is located away from human habitation.’ The words “located away” were not defined, nor did they take into account eco-sensitive habitats that would indirectly or directly affect human habitation and, therefore needed public hearings nevertheless. The last point of the draft notification overlooks a citizen’s right to environment and must be deleted, the GBA insisted.
They also strongly objected to the point in the draft which said that self-dwelling units up to an area of 300 square meters would be approved by the concerned local authority, without recommendations from the Coastal Zone Management Authority (CZMA). They felt that allowing local authorities to sway over this without the scrutiny of the CZMA will allow the rampant destruction of Goa’s coasts, and was not acceptable in a document that was ideally about ‘Coastal protection.’
The activist group’s next objection was to CRZ of 20 meters from the HTL for inland backwater islands and islands along the mainland coast. They pointed out that the document did not define ‘Unique coastal systems’ and ‘space limitations’.
GBA also pointed out that the in the notification, for the “no buffer zone” area specified for the protection of protected species like turtles and horseshoe crab, it was only mentioned that ‘No activities should be taken up in or around...’ The notification did not specify the buffer zone or type of activities.
