The announcement that the Nauxim marina project has been dropped, is the third reversal of a proposal made by the government this month. The first was shifting the Indian Institute of Technology from Shel-Melauli, the second was the withdrawal of the ordinance on municipal laws, which has been followed by the Nauxim announcement. The Nauxim marina has been in the news for long, with the people of the village and those on the southern bank of the River Zuari joining in to oppose the project. Faced with this much opposition the government was left with little choice but to bow down to the wishes of the people.
The reasons for the opposition of the marina were that the project was proposed in the mouth of River Zuari, just close to the place where it empties into the Arabian Sea. This area is rich in shell fish, the famed window pane oyster, fishes and there is a substantially large traditional community that is dependent on fishing in the area for their livelihood. Nauxim is a fishing hamlet and to the villagers the marina would be an interference in their traditional lifestyle. Most of the residents earn their livelihood through traditional fishing methods, and they could not see the practicality of changing tradition for the sake of a modern marina. Their fear was that the marina could lead to pollution – especially leakage of oil – from the boats that would sail into the bay to dock at the marina. There was also the fear that the dredging of the Zuari Bay up to a depth of 3.5m over a lakh square metres would have caused irreversible damage to sea life comprising mostly of prawns, mussels, crabs, oysters and other local species of fish that spawn here.
This, however, is not just about the marina that had been proposed in Nauxim. This is a larger issue involved here. As pointed out by activists, the government is only reacting to the demands of the people, and there is need to change this. After the announcement of the marina being scrapped, civil society termed it as a people’s victory and demanded that the government place all project proposals before the people so as to get their opinion and take decisions after taking the local people – those who will be affected – into confidence. This is what Herald has been advocating for a long while – that the dialogue between the government and the people be heightened so that there is a participatory democracy at work on the ground rather than only on paper.
This brings the issue back to the theme of sustainable development. Goa has limited land resources, and these have to be used judiciously. What is often glossed over is the fact that Goa, when compared in size to other States, is minutely small and so a different set of yardsticks are required to be used when proposing development projects. There are districts of other States that a much larger in area and with bigger populations than Goa. Any major project that is land heavy will have an impact on the State and will meet with opposition. The people are aware of this, why isn’t the government on the same page with the people?
In the three instances what has stood out is that people’s power has prevailed with the government agreeing to the demands. It would serve all better if the government would first touch base with the people on proposed projects before agreeing to them. It would save a lot of time, the government would be on a firmer footing and project proponents from the private sector would also not stand to lose on their investments. Perhaps these instances can bring about a change in the system that is currently being followed.
