“The MPA’s claim rests on a loose and expansive interpretation of port limits, resurrected from older maps and inserted into a contemporary planning exercise without adequate explanation. A port authority exists to manage a port, not to govern villages kilometres away from its operational footprint. There is a qualitative difference between navigational channels and inhabited coastal settlements. Blurring that distinction may serve institutional ambition, but it undermines both planning logic and environmental law.
What makes the situation more troubling is the erosion of local self-governance. Panchayats are constitutional bodies, not advisory clubs. When land use decisions are transferred to an authority that is neither locally elected nor locally accountable, democratic control is hollowed out.”
The Cavelossim Gram Sabha’s rejection of the draft Coastal Zone Management Plan is more than a routine protest against a flawed map. It is a sharp democratic rebuke to an expanding culture of bureaucratic overreach that treats coastal villages as administrative conveniences rather than living communities. At the heart of the dispute lies a fundamental question that the state has so far failed to answer convincingly. How can the Mormugao Port Authority claim jurisdiction over villages that have no functional, historical, or economic relationship with port operations?
The new CZMP draft attempts to bring large parts of Cavelossim, Mobor, and adjoining areas under MPA limits. Once classified as a port area, the legal character of the land changes dramatically. The No Development Zone, a hard-won protection for beaches, dunes, and riverbanks, effectively ceases to apply. Control shifts from elected local bodies to a centrally governed authority whose mandate is cargo, dredging, and maritime infrastructure. For coastal villages dependent on tourism, fishing, and small businesses, this is not a technical adjustment. It is a direct threat to their future.
The MPA’s claim rests on a loose and expansive interpretation of port limits, resurrected from older maps and inserted into a contemporary planning exercise without adequate explanation. A port authority exists to manage a port, not to govern villages kilometres away from its operational footprint. There is a qualitative difference between navigational channels and inhabited coastal settlements. Blurring that distinction may serve institutional ambition, but it undermines both planning logic and environmental law.
What makes the situation more troubling is the erosion of local self-governance. Panchayats are constitutional bodies, not advisory clubs. When land use decisions are transferred to an authority that is neither locally elected nor locally accountable, democratic control is hollowed out. The gram sabha’s role is reduced to reacting after the fact, instead of shaping decisions that affect land, livelihoods, and ecology. This is precisely the top-down planning model that coastal regulation was meant to move away from.
There is also an environmental contradiction at play. Coastal regulation exists to protect fragile ecosystems from unchecked development. Port limits, by their very nature, are designed to facilitate intensive activity. To place ecologically sensitive beaches and river mouths under a regime meant for industrial maritime use is to invert the logic of conservation. It signals that environmental safeguards are negotiable when powerful institutions are involved.
Equally concerning is the process. The draft CZMP was presented with tight deadlines and minimal explanation, placing an unreasonable burden on villagers to decipher complex technical documents. Consultation became a formality rather than a meaningful dialogue. Planning by ambush erodes trust and invites resistance. If authorities are confident in the legality and necessity of expanding MPA jurisdiction, they should be willing to defend it openly, with data, law, and reasoned argument. Silence and haste suggest otherwise.
The Cavelossim gram sabha’s unanimous stand is therefore significant. It asserts that coastal villages are not passive spaces waiting to be claimed. They are social, economic, and ecological systems with their own histories and rights. Jurisdiction cannot be imposed simply because a map allows it. It must be grounded in law, relevance, and public consent.
For the state government and coastal authorities, this moment demands introspection. Goa’s coastline has already paid a heavy price for unbalanced development. Repeating old mistakes under the guise of new plans will only deepen conflict and environmental damage. The draft CZMP must be revisited, port limits rationalised, and local bodies treated as partners, not obstacles.
If coastal planning becomes a contest of power rather than a process of protection, the losers will not just be villages like Cavelossim. It will be Goa itself.
