The media is the most
powerful entity on earth. They have the power o make the innocent guilty and to
make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of
the masses.
Malcolm X
On Sunday 27th October 2019 Ashwin Tombat
wrote thought provoking article about Marina at Nauxim in Marathi daily Lokmat. Points
he raised are translated into English deserves closer scrutiny. English version of his article is available online here.
The First point Tombat communicates is an assumption: Europe has mare than 4000 marinas with 5
lakh berths but still waters there are healthier than Goa waters.
What is the evidence to prove this has not be supplied are
even hinted so we need to cross check it this is indeed true. In Goa release of
urban waste untreated and treated waste into rivers as well as mining run-offs
into rivers has created intense pollution of rivers in Goa. Role of mining
industry in polluting Goa’s rivers is recorded in first meeting of the Goa
State Pollution Control Board and available online. However comparative study
between Europe and Goa waters with regard to Pollution standards needs to be
shared by Ashwin Tombat publicly based on which he has made this assumption.
Second point that Tombat communicates is a question: When a small nations like Monaco and
Singapore can have so many marinas then what harm will be done if Goa has one
Marina?
Goa State Biodiversity Board (GSBB) - decided against
Sancoale Marina proposal few years prior in 2013. In a letter dated 30th
December 2013 GSBB filed its objections before GSPCB citing several reasons for
rejecting proposal to set up marina named ‘Yatch Haven (Goa)’ in Sancoale bay
in Zuari river. One of the reason is the EIA ignoring of the existence schedule
specie Window Pane Oyster (Placuna
Placenta) and diverse other marine organisms such as the pistol shrimp,
clams, fiddler crabs, etc at the proposed site for marina. Further GSBB
expressed apprehension and concern on the likely impact during constructional
and operational phases on the general ecology, hydrodynamics, sedimentology,
and livelihood potential that the bay has traditionally offered to the locals
for the last several decades. GSBB pointed out the fall outs from dredging of
the rivers that will interfere with nutrient flux and bentho – pelagic coupling
in the bay. Huge ecological damage was found to be intrinsic to the marina project proposal. Further project proponent
Umaji Chowgule was not able to furnish details on the carrying capacity of
Sancoale Bay for Yatch density and berthing facility. During the meeting a the
records in the minutes ‘A member of the Board categorically pointed out that
NIO who had carried out the impact study on the said proposal at the site was
also engaged for a study on the biodiversity of the Chicalim Bay, NIO in its
report had highlighted its rich biological endowment and in particular that
this bay was not only a habitat but also a breeding site for the Window Pane
Oyster a schedule species as per the Wildlife Protection Act 1972.’ After
hearing Project Proponent and experts GSBB reached consensus on seven counts
before rejecting the Sancoale Marina. It’s worth noting them as they have
serious repercussions on coastal fishing communities as follows (a) Far from
being ecologically benign, (b) The proposed facility would largely cater to the
demands of the elite tourism, (c) The integrity of this habitat would be
challenged both during constructional and operational phases, (d) There would
be obvious repercussions on the marine biota particularly in the benthic zone
and some species with precarious conservation status could be further
pressurized and even locally decimated, (e) The traditional livelihood options
exercised by the local would cease, displacing the locals culturally, (f) The
project will have repercussion of the intertidal and the landward zones, and
(g) There is a possibility of inadvertent introduction of invasive species from
foreign water. All the above objections
for Sancoale Marina from GSBB are applicable to the Nauxim Marina as well even
though GSPCB has not passed on the file of Nauxim Marina to GSBB.
The third point that Tombat communicates is public objection
perceived by him: Goa is too small for
marina.
It is not the issue is Goa is small or big but the fact
stated in EIA that Nauxim marina is basically meant to serve needs of the
Luxury tourism. The issue then is should needs of Luxury tourism be allowed to
override Goa’s economy destroying all nature based economies? In the present
case Draft EIA report on pages 5.9 and 5.10 through Table 5.2 (Coefficient
values for impact assessment) and Table 5.3 (Impact quantifications) admits on
major permanent long term irreversible negative impact on fisheries of Zuari
river with double coefficient of -2. This means fishing in Zuari river will be
completely disrupted and fishing communities will be squeezed out of their
fishing spaces.
The fourth Point that Tombat makes is danger o fishing by
mechanised trawlers: real danger to
fishing in Zuari is from mechanised trawlers. It is true and several
complains are filed before Goa Fisheries department. However danger from marina
is as real as mechanised trawlers and it cannot be ignored as the dangers are
confirmed by draft EIA report quoted above at point three response. In addition
several complaints are received by Goa fisheries department to cancel the water
sports NOC to Aquasail distribution that operate from Hotel Grant Hyatt for disrupting
fishing activities near Nauxim where Marina is planned. NOC was revoked for nine
months but was restored after political pressure by then Chief Minister Manohar
Parrikar. Tombat claims that workers on trawlers release human
excreta in waters creating pollution. He however is silent as to why Nauxim
Marina will support these very trawlers as recorded in Draft EIA on page 3.15
that reads “Development in the fishing activity as there would be
development and maintenance of jetty, market would be available at the door
step, availability of fuel for the trawlers shall be easy.” When there is not a single trawler
in Nauxim then whose trawlers this marina is going to fuel? This indicate that
Marina promoters have entered into under the table deals to support very
trawlers that Tombat fiercely criticised so that illegal fishing in Zuari as
well as pollution pointed out by Tombat increases. Tombat is also silent on
construction of special fishing Jetty for trawlers at MPT who has leased out
Zuari waters. Performance budget 2010-2019 of the Directorate of Fisheries on
page 61, point 61 (Fishing Berth – MPT) records “An outlay of Rs. 1000.00 lakh
is provided towards Other capital Expenditure in the State Budget 2018-19 for
construction of fishing berth at MPT, Vasco.” Why do MPT creating facility
supported by Goa Government for the trawlers that pollute rivers by open
defecation in waters as pointed out by Tombat? Why Tombat is silent on this
nexus for pollution of marine waters?
Draft EIA
report on Nauxim Marina points out real dangers to Zuari and Mandovi at page
4.24 as follows:
“Zuari
is the longest river with second largest basin and Mandovi is the second
largest river with largest basin in the state of Goa. The urbanization and Iron
ore transfer activities have polluted both the rivers very badly and the water
as such is highly polluted. The sewage disposal ito the rivers from habitations
have contaminated the rivers with heavily with microbial contamination.
The bilated barges in the Zuari river is found continuing
the manganease contamination in the estuarine complex and a heavy metal threat
to the marine environment.
The contamination in the Water Environment of the project
location is very alarming with both organic and inorganic contamination which
requires cleaning or decontamination to preserve and protect the marine
diversity of the estuarine complex of both Zuari and Mandovi.”
EIA report does
not mention anything about pollution of Rivers by trawlers that Ashwin Tombat
pointed out. This means Draft EIA report is not genuine in its assessment of
Goa’s rivers particularly Zuari and Mandovi, or Ashwin Tombat is not genuine. One of the two has to be the
case.
Tombat must
introspect that what is claimed above as real dangers for fishing that includes
Trawlers, purse seiners, pollution through urban sewage disposal, mining
triggered pollution as well as Marina are in vogue due to non-implementation of
SSF Guidelines or VG-SSF (Voluntary Guidelines for securing sustainable
small-scale fisheries in the context of food security and poverty eradication)
signed by 143 countries including India in July 2014. India through Article 54
of the National Policy on Marine Fisheries 2017 has called for enforcement of
SSF Guidelines. There is great expectation and hope that the enforcement of SSF
Guidelines will improve conditions of fisheries that includes health of aquatic
ecosystems and human rights of small scale fishers. It is here that efforts of
Ashwin Tombat are needed: to criticise everyone for non-implementation of SSF
Guidelines.
The fourth point that Tombat makes is an allegation: Trawler owners are misguided traditional
fishermen that marina will affect their livelihood.
If trawler owners have misguided traditional fishermen that
marina will affect their livelihood then why proposed Marina at Nauxim supports
their trawlers by making fuel easily available as pointed above? It is clear
that Tombat has not read the Draft EIA and speaking from his hat rather than
head. This is not a healthy practice for a Journalist as it results in
proliferation of confusion that blurs quest for truth for sometime as all the
people cannot be fooled all the time and truth ‘escapes from the cracks in the
wall’ as Rousseau wrote in his ‘Confessions’.
The fifth point that Tombat makes is factual status on Marina at Nauxim: Its true that one lakh square
meters of water front will be covered by Marina.
The acceptance of this truth simultaneously means one lakh
square meters of water front will be denied for fishing activities. This
amount of space will be deepened through dredging by blasting of existing rocks
as per draft EIA report. And this will decimate marine life as reported in GSBB
report quoted above. And it is not one lakh square meters of water front but minimum one lakh square meters of water front as per draft EIA documents.
The sixth point that Tombat makes is assumption: Marina
construction will boost Xinanneos and
Calvam harvesting. With rocks blasted
off through dredging as guaranteed in Draft EIA report where Calva and Shinanneo to grow? Tombat is ignorant of
marine environment required for the growth of the two referred. By the way what
about rest of over 185 marine species identified by ICAR studies through
collaborative research work with fishing communities of Nauxim, Cacara,
Siridao, Bambolim and Odxel?
The seventh point Tombat makes is semi-factual: Marina will affect fishing during
construction phase but after completion, in the long term it will cover up all
the loss caused.
This claim is contrary to the Draft EIA report as reported
above that fishing will have long term irreversible negative impact on fishing
activities.
The Eight point Tombat is making is an assertion: Marina at Nauxim will have no impact on
Cacra, Odxel and Siridao.
Interview with fishing communities of the villages of Cacra,
Odxel, and Siridao reveal that Nauxim river front is their a favorite fishing
site. Marina at Nauxim will destroy their fishing based livelihoods.
The ninth point is a question: How is that opponents of Marina has not noticed pollution caused by
trawlers to river waters?
Bharat Mukti Morcha as an opponent of Nauxim Marina has
filed several objections against trawler operation in Zuari river. Tombat can
access these complaints from Goa Fisheries department, Panjim. Trawlers not
only cause pollution by oil spill but also dig out river bed and Goa’s own
marine ecologists Aaron Lobo has been quoted in our letters pointing to the
damage that trawler are carrying on to river bed. Oil spill from water sports
boats in Zuari river too has been observed and objected to. Tourism department
has written to Goa Fisheries department that it has no hesitation if Fisheries
department withdraws NOC granted to water sports boats in rivers for
disrupting fishing activities. Draft EIA report on Marina has also indicated
release of oil, grease and paints into the waters of Zuari river during Marina
operations.
Tenth point is out of context of draft EIA report: Marina sewage from Nauxim will be sent to
Panjim at Tonca for effluent treatment. This information is not there in
draft Marina EIA report that claims EIA treatment plant construction in Nauxim
itself and use of treated waste water for Gardening in Nauxim on 50,000 square
meters of land will be reclaimed from Zuari river. Have Panjim Municipal
Corporation permitted use of their facility for Marina facility at Nauxim? Or
will Nauxim will be merged with Panjim city to facilitate this?
Eleventh point is prescriptive: Local Representatives of People must negotiate with Marina management
and get jobs for locals at Nauxim Marina.
Currently Zuari river through fishing activities provides
jobs to local at Nauxim and neighboring coastal villages. Public
representatives are doing well in opposing Marinas to retain these jobs.
Bambolim Panchayat has opposed Marina, their Gram Sabhas too has opposed, MLA of
St. Andre Constituency too in a letter to Goa Chief Minister has conveyed his
opposition to Marina citing among other terrorist threat that Goa will face
from Nauxim Marina. So Public representatives have not degenerated into brokers
that Tombat desires.
Twelfth point of Tombat is a promise: Locals employed will be sent abroad to work on Marina for higher
salaries. So this confirms that the jobs offered in Marina will paid low or
poorly so that they will require to be sent abroad for higher salaries. These
fishing communities has refused to move out anywhere else for employment. Even
when India’s shipping Minister Nitin Gadkari offered one trawler on loan for
every four families to go to high sea for fishing they refused. And Tombat
expects them to leave fishing and join Marina and then join Marina abroad.
Thirteenth point that Tombat makes: Marina is an opportunity that has come walking to them.
Local see Nauxim Marina as an aggression against their
fishing economy imposed on them by India’s Ministry of Shipping though Mormugao
Port Trust (MPT) who has pushed this Marina only to assert their ownership of
Zuari river as per MPT Board meeting annexed with draft EIA report with zero
safe guard to fishing communities. In fact in lease agreement with Kargwal Constructions pvt ltd not even existence of fishing activities in Zuari river is mentioned.
Then in conclusion Tombat raises two questions. The first
one: What is the reason to object Public
Hearing fixed for November 02, 2019?
The environmental governance in India is guided by bullying
as proved by the Mopa International Airport hearing and the details the
contents of the Judgment of 29th March 2019 wherein SCI division
bench consisting of Justice Dr. Dhannajaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hemant
Gupta suspended the EC granted on 28th October 2015 to Mopa Airport
by EAC of MoEFCC. Views expressing dissent to Mopa Airport of public in complaints filed and verbal depositions never reached
Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) and Environmental Clearance was granted. Even people from Nauxim, Cacra, Odxel, Bambolim and Siridao had filed objections against Mopa Airport construction.
It
took enormous amount of effort for Rainbow warriors to challenge the malady at
various levels and finally after cutting down over 54,000 trees EC got
suspended. All this required tremendous amount of efforts and funds as EAC is proved to be grossly deficient in its functioning as an expert body and decides in
favour of corporate interests as proved in this judgment referred as Rainbow
Warriors versus Union of India. After knowing the way EAC functions and firm
on the determination to oppose Marina at Nauxim call has been given to cancel Public
Hearing and stop further process at this moment itself.
Tombat’s second question: If locals want to protect their interests, then shouldn’t locals
communicate their interests during Public Hearing?
As replied above it has proved that EAC is biased against
Environment as well as local people as per evidence contained in the above
cited Judgment relating Mopa airport. Environmental Governance has failed as
per the Judgment and Supreme Court of India had to intervene to restore. Even
then Central Government Minister Piyush Goyal during his Goa visit in mid October 2019 criticized people and NGOs going
to Supreme Court and restoring Environmental governance in India. Goyal even
called for a mass movement against individuals and NGOs approaching Courts and
restoring environmental governance. First of all it is costly affair to
approach the Court and then Central Minister instead of awarding Padma Bhusan to those brave individuals
and NGOs who approached Supreme Court of India in Mopa Airport case has called
for mass movement against them. This is truly the case of governance by bully
that is truly worthy of condemnation. Locals in the context of gross corruption,
bullying and their justifications are
far sighted in calling for cancellation of Public Hearing and put an end to the
process to grant Environmental Clearance for which Public Hearing is
compulsory. Example of Croatia cannot be
replicated in Goa to satisfy the needs of luxury tourism.
One last observation on Ashwin Tombat’s writings: Silence on
joint tagging of villagers of Cacra, Nauxim and Odxel as ‘Shudras’ in draft EIA
on page 4.78. Silence on Tombat’s part may mean consent if he doesn’t object
and broadcast worldwide just the way he has done in his 27th October 2019 article on
Marina at Nauxim.
A week ago he had written another article on Marina and its linked here.
Links to the complaints from Bharat Mukti Morcha is here.
Sebastiao Rodrigues
Convener, Bharat Mukti Morcha, Goa State
Member, National Council, National Platform for Small Scale
Fish Workers (Inland)
Vice-President, Dialogue, Empathic Engagement and
Peacebuilding Network (India)
