GBA Press Releases
Regional Plan 2021?!
Goa Bachao Abhiyan
77, Defence Colony, Alto Porvorim-Goa
goabachaoabhiyan@gmail.com
www.savegoa.com
Phone: 9767701245
GBA/2011/001
03 January, 2011
Press Release
The GBA had sought an appointment with the Chief Minister, head of Government and all the committees/boards concerned with the RP2021 for clarifications about the final Regional Plan specially the notified Taluka Plans for Pernem and Canacona.
The Chief Ministers has not yet given an appointment, hence we wish to share with the people of Goa our observations and queries that require answers from CM..
After studying the notified policy document and the village maps of Pernem and Canacona , we have found positive aspects such as mapping of eco-zones in these two talukas and improved mapping technique . However, there are no clear-cut guidelines for change in zone and we fail to understand sudden unexplained large scale insertions as settlement zones or Industrial Zones ( other than MIZ ) beyond what was present in the DRP 2021 maps and village maps submitted by the Panchayats
GBA has identified some these insertions which seem to have been done arbitrarily or perhaps at the behest of vested interests. There are other arbitrary policy decisions related to planning which did not follow the participatory process.
GBA lists some notable elements of these changes are as follows
Large Scale Insertions -
- – Mandrem has large settlement zone added belonging to “Maha Seer Hotels & Resorts Private Ltd” and others in Survey Nos 210 to 215 not shown in notified draft plan or village plans submitted.
- – Paliem has substantial new settlement zones marked which were not present in the village maps or DRP 2021,, and they are not continuous with any existing settlement.
- –Carasvorem has additional Industrial Estates not shown to the public in the draft plan.
- – Corgao has an Industrial Estate marked within CRZ limits of the river, which was not shown earlier in the draft map.
GBA has repeatedly asked for the mandatory 30 days public scrutiny of the Plan, as is the norm [sec 13 of TCP Act] for Government documents of such import, primarily to check for insertions, errors, and back door entry of projects under 16&16A and PPP.
Errors -
- – Village Panchayat Parcem is shown as VP1 in the notified final map whereas the notified 1document RP2021 Release 1 shows it as VP2.
- – Village Panchayat Casnem-Amberim-Poroscodem is VP2 in the final map while showing as VP1 in the notified document.
Projects under the Amendment 16&16A -
- – Dhargalim sports city was not shown in the draft plan however two large disconnected areas are marked in the notified map of Pernem.
Conflicting Policies-
Mining-
- – The Draft RP2021 showed 89 active mines whereas the current notified plan shows 129. This means that 40 mining leases would have been released in these three years itself.
- –Cola[Khola] now shows a bauxite mine which was not marked in the Draft RP or the maps sent in by the Village Panchayat .
This has been done despite the draft RP2021 clearly indicates a phasing out of mining in the interests of the health of the State.
Arbitrary Policy Decisions-
- – Village map of Virnoda as submitted in the draft has increased in area manifold in the final map released in the final Taluka Plan, now including parts adjoining Pernem village adjoining Pernem town. It is not clear whether the included areas will fall under the jurisdiction of the Virnoda Panchayat or the Pernem Municipality.
- – The introduction of Non-PDA ODP’s has been sprung as a surprise usurping the areas of village panchayats in many talukas [ not the 2 notified ]. The Mormugao taluka has no village panchayats marked as VP1 or 2 status n DRP 2021. eg Cansaulim
- –The authority for ODP’s is the PDA hence having a ‘Non-PDA ODP’ means accepting Development without a legal authority.
- – Cotigao which is largely a wildlife sanctuary area with little existing settlement has the highest projected population growth in the taluka ( 4065 from 3075 to 7140 for the year 2021 ). How is this possible when all the remaining villages are showing either a decrease in population or marginal increase of less than a 1000?
- – Rationalization of FAR does not follow any clear guidelines, with wildly varying population projections not following any logic. For example Virnoda has a projected decrease in population from 948 to 729, yet it has been given VP1 status along with increased settlement area. Cotigao with its 4075 increase has been given VP2 status.
- – Introduction of Eco-Tourism Zones were not put forward for discussion in the DRP 2021, in violation of true participatory spirit. Locations of areas can be traced to clear vested interests and not clear planning.
- –Micro Industrial Zones, however convincing, have not been through the process of debate with the people with the DRP 2021.
Vague policies -
- – The notified document talks of some policies but is silent on agriculture and other policies which are essential for sustainable development. Several policies which were suggested in the Draft RP 2021 finds no mention whether acceptd or not in the final notified document.
- – Growth hubs remain dots in the final plan without any detail.
The RP 2021 process began with a modicum of transparency with the Task Force on RP 2021 and the uploading of the village maps on the Goa Government website. However, now the links to the village plans have been deleted and the Pernem Taluka Plan is no longer available at the TCP’s Mapusa office, so designated in the Official Gazette of 25 November, 2010.
While the SLC was formed by an internal order for technical assistance to the Government, The constitution of the SLC and its mandate has not been notified in the Official Gazette like the Task Force on RP 2021 or other committees.
The policies formed are the mandate of the Government alone. These were done in contravention to the participatory process The arbitrariness of these insertions undermines good planning and opens doors for vested interests. After having involved the people with the promise of participatory planning the Government has rudely disregarded them.
That the Government is not serious is evident through its silence on changes to the TCP Act to include the 73rd and 74th amendment. The committee for review of the TCP Act has not met even once despite being formed 6 months ago.
GBA demands -
- – That the Government follows its obligation of process and people’s participation
- – Clearly spelling out the quidelines for finalization of plan
- –Remove the faulty and ill defined policies that have sprung up in the final notification.
- – Keep the plan open for 30 days prior to notification
Plan of action – GBA will -
- – Issue village alerts.
- – Seek clarification from the Chief Minister
- – Support groups in their demands for participatory planning and against irregularities.
Reboni Saha
Secretary - GBA
