The Goa Government till date does not have any distinct or separate programme for conservation and use of biodiversity. Neither do official planning documents indicate any thinking in this regard. There is a complete dearth of specific biodiversity focussed policies. The only serious attempt was a Task Force report called "An Eco-Development Plan for Goa" under the Planning Commission in 1982.
The statutory Regional Plan for Goa, 2001 A.D. notified under the provisions of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 touched on some issues of habitat conservation but the plan was altered several times. A new draft Regional Plan for 2010 has now been prepared which, in terms of biodiversity concerns, is a regression since its authors display little or no consciousness of the problems facing biodiversity in the State.
However, biodiversity issues have recently been taken up within the framework of the ICMAM project of the Central Government. It may be noted, however, that this project is largely focused on the sustainable development of coastal areas only.
At the policy and legal levels certain observations can be made.
The State Government has a specific law that forbids use of fishing nets below a specific mesh size in order to allow small fish to get out of the nets. There is also a law that explicitly bans trawling within specified limits from the shore in order to protect traditional fishing. There has been a ban in force prohibiting mechanised fishing during the monsoon period. Traditionally fishing has never been conducted between June and September 31st. All these laws and regulations reflect concern for marine ecology and maintenance of a steady and utilisable population of fish stocks.
Efficacy: However, due to recent pressures from the trawler owners (some of whom are Members of the Assembly), efforts have been successfully made to reduce the period first to the 31st of August and thereafter to the 24th of July each year. In June 2000, the High Court intervened and banned fishing upto 15th August each year. The State Assembly thereafter unanimously passed a law whose intent was to take the matter out of the jurisdiction of the Courts. The Governor however refused to sign the bill. The State Government has now finalized the ban date from June 10 till August 15th or Narali Poornima, whichever comes earlier. The High Court has recorded this decision in its judgement while disposing of the PIL relating to the ban on monsoon fishing.
The NIO submitted detailed data to the High Court explaining that the ban was necessary to protect the fish during the breeding season for the principal varieties that constituted the main staple for Goans, e.g mackerel and sardines.
The State Fisheries Department acknowledges that the seas off Goa are saturated with trawlers and that the government is now maintaining a fixed limit of trawlers. However, it claimed it was unable to enforce the High Court ban on fishing during the monsoon since it does not have adequate staff or patrol boats. That difficulty has now been overcome. The High Court has directed that those fishing during the period of the ban will have their licences cancelled permanently.
The Ministry of Agriculture has been directed by the High Court to frame a uniform monsoon ban for all the coastal states on the West coast. Consensus among fishing authorities is that such a ban is absolutely necessary, since fishing boats can always fish in waters of other states.
Other important determinants of sustainable marine biodiversity extraction should be mentioned:
There are two forms of aquaculture in the State of Goa. One is the traditional aquaculture system in which water is circulated through natural energy of the tides. The other is the more recent version which is generally called semi-intensive or intensive. The latter kind has been banned from 1996 in the CRZ and other ecologically sensitive areas by the Supreme Court due to various reasons, one of them being the impact of pollution and disease from aqua-farms on wild stocks. The Supreme Court also considered the impact of collection of wild fry and the impact of these practices on decline in the wild stocks.
While traditional aquaculture is based on a mixed bag of fish varieties, modern aqua-farms only use one or two species. Thus, the expansion of modern farms vis-a-vis the traditional farms is not desirable since it leads to rapid decline of biodiversity.
The State Government has brought in a Brackish Water Farming Act in 1992 to regulate modern aqua-farms. However, after the Supreme Court Judgement and the setting up of the Aquaculture Authority of India at Chennai, the Act has become largely redundant.
Efficacy: Recently the aqua-farms banned and closed by the Supreme Court in 1996 have been reopened as "traditional improved aquafarms" by the Aquaculture Authority of India which has become the major lobby for the promotion of shrimp aquaculture in the country. However, aquafarms in the State are being asked to maintain a low stocking rate of between 4-6 seedlings per cm to avoid the pollution problems associated with such operations.
The Agricultural Department for the last 30 years has a one-point programme for substituting the indigenous varieties of rice with exotic hybrid varieties, even though the records of the department indicate that the indigenous varieties performed better than the high-response varieties. The department does not have any focus on preservation of indigenous rice seeds and several of the native varieties, for example, the purple varieties of rice have disappeared from cultivation in as recent a past as the last 3 to 4 years. The department as a matter of policy feels that its only mission is to replace the local biodiversity species with 2 or 3 varieties from agricultural labs, even if those practices have had a highly negative impact on indigenous rice varieties.
Efforts to protect, for example, local millets are practically non-existent. There is not even documentation available on the different types of millets grown in Goa particularly by the rural or peasant communities. The production of ragi for instance has registered a sharp and consistent decline.
In the sphere of horticultural produce, the department has attempted to propagate 2 or 3 varieties of mango and similarly with coconut and cashew. The basic intent has been to reduce the space occupied by indigenous varieties which were exceedingly diverse. There was no effort made to preserve germ-plasm of the wild varieties. In some areas like coconut, because the new varieties have failed, the department has now reverted to local varieties particularly from Calangute and Benaulim.
Over the last 10 years the department has even sought to introduce exotic oil palm to cater to the needs of an industrial house (Godrej).
The department does not have any policy in relation to conservation of vegetables traditionally grown in Goa and the biodiversity of vegetables is maintained by individual persons who provide their seeds for sale in the local markets and who maintain local vegetable gardens during the rabi season.
The most serious aspect of agriculture in Goa is the thoughtless conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural purposes. Collectors and town planners routinely approve conversion of paddy fields for a whole lot of purposes including construction and industry. Such decisions cause irreversible changes in agriculture as the areas go permanently out of cultivation.
There are several legal regimes protecting the forests and forest areas in Goa. The Forest Conservation Act does not permit any diversion of forest land to non-forestry purposes without prior approval from the Central Government. The Goa Protection of Trees Act, 1984 does not permit felling of trees in private properties without permission from the Tree Authority. By orders issued by the Goa government under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, no person may even break open ground in any private forest without prior approval from the forest department.
However, the most significant legal tool which has been used in Goa in this context is the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Under this legislation, except for illegal poaching, almost absolute protection is available to the plant and animal stock from depredation by human beings.
The two new sanctuaries notified in June 1999 (Madei and Netravalli), together with the four declared earlier, bring the area under the protection regime to 52% of the forest cover of the State. (85% of forest land is owned by the Government of Goa.) This is automatic legal protection afforded to the State’s wild biodiversity, particularly its wild plants and animals.
Stricter enforcement of Wildlife protection laws, however, is required in Goa to prevent continuing capture and destruction of wildlife. Every week, for example, dozens of wild snakes are brought to the flea market at Anjuna for the entertainment of tourists. Despite repeated efforts which have involved seizure of the snakes and setting them free in the jungle area, the trade continues. The Forest Department is considerably weak in law enforcement, and more often too soft on offenders.
Efficacy: The State Government notified the Madei and Netravalli wildlife sanctuaries in June 1999. The notifications specifically state that these areas are being carved out for protection because of their enormous significance as hotspots of biodiversity. However, due to apprehensions of people that their livelihoods were threatened by the notifications, and also due to pressures from the mining lobby, the State Government took a Cabinet decision in July 2001 to delete 75% of the areas of both these wildlife sanctuaries originally notified in June 1999. The decision, however, has to be ratified by the Indian Board of Wildlife and also consented to by the Supreme Court of India. Till that happens, the denotification decision remains a piece of paper, since no formal notification denotifying the areas can be issued. The Madei/Netravalli areas are ecologically sensitive from several indicators. Therefore it is important to work for a scenario where the protection envisaged is maintained, while protecting the interests of the people affected.
In relation to private forests, the State Government set up an Expert Committee in January 1997 to demarcate forests, degraded forest areas and plantations in the State of Goa. The Committee identified 47 sq.kms. of private forests in its final report. Subsequently a new Committee has been set up, which is now going into additional areas, particularly vast areas owned by Comunidades.
In September 1996 the Coastal Zone Management Plan for the State of Goa was approved by the Central Government under the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. In the order approving the Plan, the Central Government has required the State Government to demarcate all ecologically sensitive areas on the basis of the following sources of information:-
National Parks, Sanctuaries and Marine Parks – Information published/available with the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MOEF), Govt. of India (GoI).
All reserve forests and protected Forests – As marked in the Forest Atlas updated through Bienniel Forest Report Status published by Forest Survey of India (scale 1:50,000).
Mangroves, Mudflats, Corals – Maps prepared on the basis of Satellite Imagery in the scale of 1:25,000 by Space Application Centre, Ahmedabad and the information as published by MOEF, GoI.
Breeding grounds for turtles – Wildlife Institute, Dehradun.
Areas rich in genetic diversity – Information published/ available with the MOEF, GoI.
In addition to these, mangroves upto 1000 mts. from the HTL have also been classified as CRZ I.
Efficacy: The implementation of the CZMP is in the hands of the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority. The Authority, for the moment, appears to have become focused only on granting development permissions or in looking into CRZ violations. It does not appear to have the time or the funds or the staff to plan the development of coastal areas in terms of the approved CZMP and its demands relating to protection of biodiversity.
The case of sand dune vegetation needs separate documentation. Sand dune vegetation is characteristic of sand dune areas and its role in stabilising sand dunes is well recognised. The major assault on sand dunes has come from the tourism industries which has removed them for construction of resorts. A protection regime for the sand dunes has come only with the approval of the Goa Coastal Zone Management Plan in which sand dunes are declared as CRZ I category.
Efficacy: Despite such statutory protection, the sand dune areas are not being demarcated. The GCZMA had asked the NIO to do the demarcation but since the NIO requires to be paid for this work, it remains undone with the result that in many areas sand dune vegetation continues to be regarded as a weed to be removed for other purposes. The GCZMA is a poorly equipped and poorly staffed authority which is largely preoccupied with approvals of constructions within the CRZ and with violations. It has yet to formulate plans for the protection of ecologically sensitive areas.
There are several initiatives at the NGO level which have emerged in recent years. Sacred groves, for example, have been listed and documented largely by NGOs. Such groves have now been declared as ecologically sensitive by the Expert Committee of the Ministry of Environment.
Similarly, on three Goan beaches, Morjim, Agonda and Galgibag, local communities together with NGOs and assisted by the Forest Department, have initiated a successful programme for the conservation of the Oliver Ridley Turtles’ nesting sites and this has happened over the last 3-4 years with the number of sites increasing every year.
A major NGO initiative has been the proposal by the Sahyadri Ecology Forum (SEF) to declare certain stretches of the Western Ghats as ecologically sensitive areas. The NGO initiative seeks to combine the resources of environment groups of Goa, Maharashtra and Karnataka to successfully lobby with Government for declaring approx. 8000 sq.kms. of the Western Ghat areas as "Sahyadri Ecologically Sensitive Area" (SESA). The proposal has been submitted to the Central Government in July 2002 and is under the active consideration of the Government.
Efficacy: NGOs have been fairly successfully in highlighting several major biodiversity issues facing the State from extinction of mushrooms and rain trees, to successful campaigns to protect the nesting sites of the Olive Ridley. The State of Goa is considered the environmentally most aware state in the Indian Union and this environmental awareness is seen as part of the positive ecological endowment of the State.
There are serious gaps in terms of the following:
Table 3 Habitats so far poorly explored to document biodiversity
| 1 | Waterfalls in the western ghats and rocks subjected to dry/wet cycles |
| 2 | Wind blown sea-side cliffs and vertical forests in the western ghats |
| 3 | Khazan agroecosystems |
| 4 | Intertidal rock pools and rock niches |
| 5 | Coastal islands |
| 6 | Myristica swamps |
| 7 | Hypersaline environments of salt pans |
| 8 | Mineral springs |
| 9 | Sacred groves |
| 10 | Caves-natural and man-made, caverns and tunnels |
| 11 | Various soils, sediments, sands and fossil beds |
At Scientific Level:
There are serious gaps in information flow within the formal set up existing in the State. For example, Goa University does not have in one place the reports on the studies conducted by it, by its different researchers and departments, on biodiversity related issues. Information is scattered in various documents (most of them unpublished). There are no pointers to this specialized data, hence key actors are often not aware of these resources.
Availability of information at a single source also will not solve the problem, as there is no trained manpower to interpret the available data. Even where the expertise is available it is not immediately available due to various intrinsic factors.
There is still too little or no interaction between various agencies that generate data and who seek to utilize or apply the data. There could be far better interaction between the University and its affiliated colleges. If one takes the case of fishing alone, there is little or no interaction or sharing of knowledge between the Goa University, the NIO, the Directorate of Fisheries and the Central Marine Fisheries Institute at Mangalore and Kochi. While there is some interaction between the ICMAM project and the DSTE, this interaction does not involve the Goa University or the NIO in any formal way. There is no exchange between NGOs and the formal knowledge set-up; it is very difficult for NGOs and members of the public to access data with these institutions. For this reason, there is enormous duplication of efforts and waste of time and public money.
At the General Level:
The Goa Steering Committee, like perhaps other steering committees dealing with SAPs, is firmly convinced that more serious efforts need to be made to make available information relating to biodiversity to many key actors defined as village communities, urban wards, communidades, academically active sections, entrpreneurs, citizens’ groups and NGOs. This is because, in a project of this kind, it is far easier to circulate such information put together by the project through the Internet where it will circulate (and be readily exploited) by powerful, organised groups than it is among the informal sectors. The latter are usually ignored by default. If knowledge about biodiversity in the State of Goa is readily made available only to formal sectors with no prior emphasis given to the non-formal sectors, this would defeat the purpose of the entire initiative. One method to tackle this would be to come out with a number of small booklets on local area biodiversity in the vernacular for use by communities.
Much of the knowledge on biodiversity remains with the grassroot level stakeholders, viz. the forest and coastal communities and can be accrued only by facilitating an interaction between the scientific community and lay people. This would require mandatory participation of user groups in generating a database, with an assured backflow of information and protection of community intellectual property rights.
Historically, however, there has also been very little interaction between the formal knowledge systems and key actors within local communities and NGOs. The two continue to live in separated worlds. This leads to the creation of two separate bodies of knowledge relating to biodiversity — one which is purely formal, text- and report-oriented and the other which remains at the verbal or oral level and is not available beyond the local community or NGO. The result is that neither set of actors benefits from the other’s activities and each operates in its own vacuum. Those who consider themselves as experts within the modern knowledge system tend to retain a superior attitude which is possible and goes unchallenged due to the clout of the middle class sections of the population, even while most persons are willing to concede that persons from the village and tribal communities have a far greater knowledge of the possible and potential uses of biodiversity resources in their environments.
These gaps are primarily due to the manner in which the education system is organised in this country. If the biodiversity project can overcome these hurdles in making available information to key actors, it would also thereby help modify many current educational prejudices and biases, and this would be a lasting contribution indeed.
Biodiversity studies are carried out based on various parameters such as expertise, need and funding. Many a times it is an individual’s interest (based on expertise) which determines the type of work on biodiversity. A single agency that visualizes various aspects of biodiversity at broader level and that realises the need for the study and generation of data is lacking at the present moment. And there is no suitable mechanism to co-ordinate, fund research as well as develop expertise in the areas where it is lacking. The gap in this integrated approach is too wide.
There is in reality a major chasm between those involved in official decisions either in Government or in industry and those whose survival depends on their ability to exploit biodiversity. The recent discussion on biodiversity is largely located within urban and university sectors with some of it overflowing into the NGO sector. Many NGOs working on biodiversity issues are also urban-based. The result is that much of the biodiversity documentation exercises have been largely carried out by such urban based agents or actors, educating themselves about such issues without they being actually affected or having any day-to-day interaction with them.
There is a lack of expert taxonomists in various areas of plant and animal science, particularly in marine biology. There is a need to encourage serious training in the field of taxonomy, if biodiversity studies are to be successful and authentic.
As those involved in serious biodiversity discussions have only recently educated themselves about such issues, there is admitted inability to either look at such issues in the long term or even consider the inherent value of such biodiversity resources. This is even more so with the Government sector. Almost all the departments, with the exception of the Forest Department, have a predominantly development approach. This is clearly seen in the case of Fisheries and Agriculture where the dominant trend continues to be replacement of biodiversity with monocultures (one or two species of shrimp and a few high response varieties of rice). In such cases, even the very capacity for vision has been seriously dented, since such authorities have long since either relegated the tasks related to biodiversity (if they are aware of them) to formal scientific institutions like gene banks or are long since convinced that all indigenous genetic resources have at some stage to be replaced by the products of modern scientific research institutions or modern technology.
Basic to proper implementation of sustainable use of biological resources, is some understanding of the availability of the resource, whether it is renewable, prolific, or in decline due to over-exploitation. The case of mushrooms, for example, is a good illustration. Some species are certainly endangered due to over-exploitation. Similarly with canes in the forest, where some controls have now been imposed. Unless there is a body of research opinion on what constitutes sustainable use, policies in this regard would be difficult to justify or implement. We feel that in all such discussions, those utilising biological resources should as a rule be actively involved in evaluating the sustainability of the resource, though this has not worked in the case of fishing, where powerful trawler owners have insisted that there is no danger to fish stocks from fishing in critical spawning periods.
In this context, the following specific actions are needed:
Sustainability studies to be carried out by professionals regarding exploitation of certain controversial species including clams, mushrooms, wildlife, marine species, wild plants and herbs.
The lack of vision within the Government system in relation to biodiversity is naturally reflected in the total absence of public policy regarding biodiversity issues. Critical departments like agriculture, fisheries and the PWD continue to plan, design and execute their projects without even the awareness, let alone acknowledgement, of their impacts on biodiversity. As stated earlier, there are no discussions on biodiversity in any of the Goa Planning documents and none of the development plans which include the regional plans regulating land use in the State or even the Outline Development Plan reflect awareness of such issues.
The gap in policy is consistent in practically all sectors except perhaps at the level of the Forest Department. There too, there is no clear focus on biodiversity conservation as such or perhaps it is not seen clearly under that label since many of the activities of the Department in fact deal with conservation of such biological resources. The tension between the different forestry models, viz. conservation model and utilisation model remains unresolved. However, it would be helpful if even in such departments there evolves an explicit focus on biodiversity which compels them to think in such terms.
In contrast to the lack of vision, there is a far better legal structure in force for conservation of biodievrsity. For example, the Goa Wildlife Act, 1965 and the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 provided a very elaborate protection of species to be found not only in protected areas but elsewhere as well. The various schedules of the Wildlife Protection Act apply in the State of Goa just like they apply in other parts of India as well. In Goa, in addition, specific Government orders have been issued in the past for protection of very specific biodiversity rich resource areas or habitats. For example, there is a detailed Government order banning the felling of mangrove species listed in the order. There is also a detailed order issued by the Ministry of Industries at the Central Government, which in Goa protects the Western Ghat area from possible location of ecologically destructive industries within such an area. Also the CRZ Notification and the Goa Coastal Zone Management Plan are statutory and provide ample protection, where needed, for biodiversity rich areas, like coral reefs, mangroves and sand dunes.
As stated earlier, 52% of Goa’s official forest area has been granted legal protection as wildlife sanctuary (some as recent as June 1999) but there are, in addition, various protections available under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the Indian Forest Act of 1927 and the Trees Act, 1984. However, such protections are largely available only to forest stretches and sanctuaries and therefore one has to look elsewhere for biodiversity resources outside these areas. For example, the schedules given in the Wildlife Protection Act deal with species whose protection is required at the national level and therefore such lists do not necessarily include species of importance to local biodiversity endowments.
Finally, there are also the local bodies, which have been delegated, under the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments, wide-ranging powers to deal with biological resources within their respective jurisdictions. However, neither the Goa Panchayat Act, 1993 nor the Municipalities Act, 1968, reflects any concern about biodiversity conservation nor do they empower these local bodies with specific powers to deal with biodiversity issues. This is a serious lacunae. Statutory civic authorities like the panchayats, zilla parishads and municipal councils have to be sensitised to the biodiversity resource potential of the areas in their jurisdiction, to enable them to perform better as custodians of this living wealth. This may require the existing legislations to incorporate issues concerning Biodiversity. Knowledge about this should be part of their sensitisation and training before or after they assume office.
The goals of institutions are varied. Depending on such goals, they either carry out intensive biodiversity research or deal only at the peripheral level. Institutions like the Botanical Survey of India and the Zoological Survey of India have a direct interest in biodiversity and hence have a built-up capacity to do biodiversity inventorisation. Even so, because of lack of adequate human resources and due to the broader geographical area, their research is restricted to only a few selected groups.
The goal of academic institutions is mainly imparting education and doing research. Due to smaller sizes of the departments and due to various sub-disciplines in biological sciences, it is hard to see a person who specializing in biodiversity which by definition almost is a multidisciplinary area. Even if one is available, field intensive studies required to be done are problematic to carry out due to his/her regular academic schedule. Any research in academic institutions is supposed to be carried out without disturbing the regular academic calendar. Hence, even the meagre expertise available is also incapacitated.
Biodiversity research should be supplemented with the construction of herbaria, museums, databases etc. for quick retrieval of information stored. As most biodiversity research is carried out in project mode (a maximum of three years), there is no resource capacity to maintain such projects after they are completed.
Basic research into biodiversity does not attract students as it involves difficult fieldwork. The bureaucratic procedures of institutions further dampen the spirit of biodiversity researchers.
A serious issue that has come to the fore in recent years are new CSIR regulations that control institutions like the NIO, which require payment for research conducted by the organisation. Since such institutions are now forced to raise resources themselves, either through EIAs or consultancy studies, the focus invariably is only on those aspects of work that will generate income. This also affects the quality of research produced. Reports paid for, are not allowed to be circulated, despite the fact that the professionals in such institutions are paid from the public exchequer. It is essential that EIA reports and consultancy studies be made available to the communities themselves.
The principal problem among the government departments relates to the collection of primary data. While in other States, primary data on agricultural and fish production is collected from the field. In Goa such a system does not exist, and if it did, it has now fallen into disuse. There is a whole lot of secondary data circulating within the departments and between those who are dependent on such data, and it drives out any need to generate empirically verified data. Most data is now generated on desk, in the office.
In relation to human capacity, the trend in education is away from biodiversity related research. Because of the predominance of the electronic media, particularly computers, more emphasis is now placed on research that fits the electronic format which is best suited for data processing. This has devalued actual data collection and field research and visits. While physics, chemistry and computer sciences take the bulk of students, botany and zoology departments find it difficult to attract students. This is bound to have serious impacts on our ability to raise knowledgeable professionals aware of biodiversity issues and able to monitor them on behalf of society.
Finally, we can note that staff and volunteers attached to various NGOs are inhibited due to lack of formal training and lack of resource material in carrying out biodiversity related surveys and works, even if they wished to. Efforts should be made to enhance their awareness of these issues and their competence to generate and carry out relevant programmes in the field.
The gaps enumerated in section 7 above relate to research and availability of information to key actors, gaps in policy and legal structures and institutional and human capacity.
The following strategies are recommended for meeting these gaps and inadequacies and for placing biodiversity protection on a firm footing within the State of Goa
The preliminary exercise will have to be in the direction of exposing the perceptions of the official system to issues raised in the Goa SAP report. Only after such legitimacy has been established, can we expect some significant progress in handling these issues. A major objective in this exercise will be to keep the government system, including the administration, continually abreast of biodiversity issues and problems keeping to the framework in which these have been discussed within the Biodiversity Convention. The Convention has three main thrust areas: conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of biological resources and equitable sharing of benefits.
The Forest Department has cooperated fully in the preparation of the SAP. The Department of Environment has not had the time to get fully involved, though it is aware of these issues and has independently funded research into various aspects of biodiversity in the past. This is because it is already heavily engaged in several environmental problems and taking on an additional task does not appear feasible at this stage.
There is a formidable knowledge vacuum existing within the government system that must be remedied and filled. This can be achieved by calling for an official discussion on the Goa SAP once this is finalised and submitted. The Goa Biodievrsity Protection Council (GBPC) can undertake a publication of the main features of the report in English and Devnagari. This can be made available to all government departments and their advice sought on the action points of the report. Once the major stake-holders are aware of the Goa SAP, there is far better feasibility of its being implemented through the official system.
Efforts will have to be made to get the Goa government to adopt the SAP as a policy document of the State. This can be achieved by having formal and informal consultations on the final SAP with different departments involved in biological resources.
In concrete terms, this would involve the following actions:
Agencies Responsible: GBPC, as the nodal successor agency to the State Steering Committee
Time Frame: 1 Year
The work on the Goa SAP and review of work already carried out by professionals earlier have thrown up significant gaps in our knowledge of aspects of biodiversity in the State. If there is a focus on the unknown or little known areas, with the University or colleges requested to deal with such areas within the framework of its on-going research activities, a more complete picture will be available.
In this context, the following specific actions are needed:
Synthesis of existing data and removal of uncertainties and ambiguities. This can only be done by a body or a consultant or a Board devoted exclusively to the conservation of biodiversity endowments of the State. Pending the constitution of a biodiversity board, this action should be initiated by the State Government departmentally.
Inventorisation in mission mode is the need of the hour. Commissioning of surveys in areas where biodiversity is least documented. This is best achieved through the University research system, with major departments given the responsibility for generating specific research projects.
Re-assessment of habitat extents and changes, including changes which are in the nature of threats to specific species.
Review of the current uses of habitats and impacts. This is important from the view of their sustainable uses and for enforcing limits where it is deemed to be required. In both inventorisation and review, it is necessary to prioritise species or habitats so that critical areas get urgent attention. Clam and mushroom population studies are good examples. Equally major is the evaluation of available fish resources and sustainable production. The khazan ecology likewise is in dire need of protection from wholesale destruction in some areas.
One notable suggestion is to have a conservation value index for the region (TERI). Using a multi-stakeholder approach, a biodiversity conservation value index, not just in terms of numbers (species richness), but the types of species (species composition) such as endemic species, economically important species, keystone species, indicator species and exotic species can be worked out giving different weightages to different types. GIS mapping of this index for the region can show the conservation value of each area. Accordingly, areas having higher conservation value can be offered protection.
Assessment of future requirements of society in terms of biodiversity and executable plans for achieving goals is also a need.
In the interim period, the Goa Government should request Goa University to pool its considerable data on biodiversity from its different departments and from the affiliated colleges and have this evaluated. This need not be a costly effort, as the principal departments involved are Zoology, Botany, Microbiology and Marine Sciences. The help of village panchayats can be taken for maintaining biodiversity registers.
Agencies: Departments of Goa University including Zoology, Botany and Marine Science. Departments of Environment and Forests. Directorate of Fisheries. National Institute of Oceanography. College Departments.
Time Frame: 2 Years
The present crisis in fisheries has thrown up major problems related to biodiversity. Bulk of fish consumed today is largely two varieties: sardine and mackerel. Protection for these two species is now grudgingly available with the monsoon ban from June 10 till August 15. However, none of the other varieties of fish that breed outside the monsoon period are protected by bans that protect their breeding periods.
The following specific actions are therefore needed:
Agency: Directorate of Fisheries; National Institute of Oceanography
Time Frame: 2 Years
Traditional knowledge and practices are declining for a variety of reasons, even though they have proven their value in terms of required conservation ethics and meeting the demands of human welfare. A multi-pronged strategy is needed to revitalise these knowledge systems and practices.
The Government must take a serious enough view on the status of traditional knowledge. Right now, the area is open for grabs, with corporates foraging in such traditions for dollar spinning ideas and without having to pay or even acknowledge them. It is therefore mandatory that local biodiversity knowledge registers are prepared. Once such registers have been prepared, these should be declared as public heritage by the statutory bodies in the area particularly panchayats and Councils, so that they cannot be privatised and exploited for profit. Present patent and copyright laws allow mere declaration of ownership to be adequate for the purposes of preventing companies or corporates from stealing, and later patenting, such information.
It has been found that Devrais in the state and in different parts of the country have helped in the conservation of the biodiversity. Therefore development of new Devrais which will foster the bio-diversity conservation through the traditional customs, beliefs, etc. should be promoted through resources assistance. This could be an important activity of conservation of bio-diversity through community participation.
The following actions need to be taken:
Agency: Goa University, Departments of Sociology and Anthropology. Department of Science, Technology and Environment; Forest Department.
Time Frame: 3 Years
There are several policy changes required to give effect to these strategies and action points.
The Biodiversity Convention already mandates governments to undertake specific programmes for conservation of biodiversity. But this is yet to be reflected in the municipal law and development plans and programmes in the State of Goa.
A comprehensive biodiversity law is a paramount need of the hour. Statutes are important because they compel the government to carry out certain measures irrespective of section interests. The Panchayat and Municipal Acts must be amended to compel the local authorities for conducting adequate programmes for protection of biodiversity within their respective jurisdictions.
The following actions need to be taken:
a. A comprehensive Central law for the protection of biodiversity is waiting to be introduced in Parliament. Such a law would also provide for protection of such endowments from piracy. At present, the bill envisages establishment of a State Biodiversity Board. Such a Board would have powers to restrict certain activities violating the objectives of conservation etc. It is important that the Bill is made into law as soon as possible.
It will devolve on the Biodiversity Board to undertake to remove many of the institutional gaps that have been described above. The Bill should ensure that the proposed Biodiversity Board is designed to have on it representatatives from all the major stakeholders in the State. If this is ensured, coordination will be improved once the Board is set up and starts functioning. The Board should comprise of:
b. It will be the paramount duty of the Board to prepare and get published an annual Status Report on Biodiversity in Goa. The Report will emphasise specific problem areas. The Board should have both scientific programmes for investigating biodiversity issues raised in the gap analysis section of this SAP, but it may also propose development programmes based on utilisation of biodiversity reserves.
The Board should also ensure that all department projects take biodiversity parameters into consideration while designing and implementing development works at the design stage itself.
c. Amendments to Panchayats and Municipal Acts are necessary to enable the local authorities set up under these Acts to incorporate biodiversity aspects within the framework of their development plans. Relevant amendments would also enable local bodies to claim ownership, if necessary, of biodiversity resources as an integral part of the public trust doctrine. Some villages have set the lead in declaring village registers of biodiversity as common heritage.
Agency: Central Government; Director of Panchayats; Director of Municipal Administration
Time Frame: 1 Year
It is imperative that there is radical shift in the present agricultural policies which are based on gradual replacement and extinction of local biological resources. While there can be no objection to introduction of new varieties, care must be taken to ensure that older cultivars and varieties do not go out of use. This can be done by identifying certain groups of farmers who will continue to grow older native varieties, if necessary, with monetary support. The concept of in situ gene banks is well-established.
In the case of domesticated animals, Goa does not have recognised breeds of indigenous cattle. Whether one speaks of cattle, and other bovines, and poultry, the breeds that have been popular are local, nondescript breeds with no special features. However, the characteristic feature of these breeds is that they are highly resistant to some of the diseases that affect introduced species. Hence it is necessary that they are given protection and that there are appropriate programmes to ensure their improvement and conservation through selective breeding programmes.
The Goa SAP committee should also oversee the publication of a directory of seed-keepers. These should include all those local actors, particularly women, who have been traditionally maintaining and selling local seeds, ranging from vegetables to horticultural crops including coconut. It should also document other specific local varietal innovations including species of mango and coconut.
A project can be prepared to promote the conservation and sustainable usage of wild vegetables. One of the activities supporting these can be "wild food festival" where different traditional items of wild vegetables, fruits and roots can be presented. Also a state-level cooking competition can be held with attractive prizes, recipes of these items may be published. A separate competition can be held for new items and recipes –- new non-traditional items and recipes from wild stuff.
A project of development of nursery of various wild varieties through which the propagation of the wild varieties through natural dissemination methods and sustainable harvesting methods can be promoted. Suitable resources should be made available through this activity which can be done through Department of Forest as well as NGOs.
In this context, the following specific actions are needed:
Agency: Agriculture Department; GBPC
Time Frame: 2 Years
No action has been done in respect of conservation and sustainable use of micro-organisms in the State of Goa by the Goa SAP. However, the Microbiology Department of Goa University and ICAR, Old Goa, have competence to deal with this issue, as and when it is taken up by the GBPC or the Biodiversity Board.
Agency: Goa University; GBPC
Time Frame: 2 Year
Gender participation and sharing of benefits from biodiversity use is often best ensured by legal means. Gender representation of women in the Panchayat in terms of percentage of membership, chairpersonship of the Panchayat, etc have had certain significant consequences.
Women must be nominated to the Biodiversity Board and to other institutions being created for the conservation and use of biodiversity, as they handle a great deal of the operations dealing with conservation of biological resources. Their role in conservation and use of such biological resources must be documented and disseminated. They must be given charge of village level biodiversity registers.
In the State of Goa, due to the provisions of the Civil Code in operation from Portuguese times, women already have automatic 50% of the share of total marital assets by law. Such automatic guarantee of shares in biodiversity endowments, schemes and projects would go a long way to ensure equitable sharing of benefits.
In this context, the following specific actions are needed:
Agency: State Commission for Women, Women NGOs
Time Frame: 2 years
The Goa State Steering Committee which prepared the Goa BSAP is proposed to be converted into the Goa Biodiversity Protection Council (GBPC).
The GBPC will function as a monitoring and pressure group on biodiversity issues and will comprise all the NGOs and individuals that are willing to extend time and money for the purpose. The monitoring group can meet once in six months and generally act as a pressure group for the purposes of highlighting biodiversity issues and demanding that any such issues should be kept in mind when deciding (particularly large) development projects.
The nodal agency, Goa Foundation, will take responsibility for communicating to the various stake-holders and the general public the various issues raised in the SAP, through publications, mobile exhibitions and other effective means.
The Goa SAP steering committee has worked on the concept of a mobile exhibition to deal with the specific problem of making biodiversity and knowledge about biodiversity available to key actors from local communities, urban wards, comunidades and NGOs. (A detailed idea of the mobile exhibit is provided in the Annexure 13). Government funding for the exhibit has been sought and is under consideration.
The SC has also decided to organize a yearly food festival which will highlight local Goan foods and food recipes from the various talukas of Goa. The festival will of three day’s duration and will be held in the principal cities of the State. Such events organised in Delhi, for example, have been not only appreciated, but been financially successful as well. The food mela would encourage people who attend the mela to sample the richness of the biodiversity basket used by the tribals and communities in the State.
A museum exhibiting various traditional uses of the diverse Biotic resources along with documentation can be a project of considerable interest for the tourists, urbanites and prosperity. Also it will be a resource for the researcher in organic sciences, ethnology, anthropology, etc
1) Borkar, Dr. Manoj R. – Community Knowledge of Lesser Known Fauna of Goa, with special reference to Mormugao and Salcette talukas.
2) Desai, Dr. Kasturi N. – Biodiversity of Goa: A Check-List
3) D’Souza, Harvey – Birds of Goa: A Checklist for Various Habitats
4) Gomes, Dr. Bernadette – Biodiversity and Resource Use in the Areas of Salcette, Quepem and Sanguem
5) Kerkar, Rajendra P. – A Report on Sacred Groves and Rivers of North Goa
6) Kulkarni, Nirmal U. – Man-animal and man-reptile relationships in Sattari taluka
7) Mayekar, Bhalchandra – Local knowledge of reptiles: Survey of Sanguem, Sattari, Bicholim and Pernem talukas
8) Paryenkar, Prakash – Biodiversity, traditional knowledge and traditional occupations in Sattari and Sanguem talukas (in Konkani)
9) Phaldessai, M. & Prabhugaonkar, V. – Information on traditional occupations, seeds, biodiversity, and traditional nature conservation in Canacona, Quepem and Sanguem talukas (in Marathi)
Alvares Claude (Ed.), Fish, Curry and Rice: 2002.
Blasco, F., Mangroves in India, Inst. FR. Pondicherry, Trav. Sec. Sci. Tech., 14: 180. 1975
Blatter, S.J.E., The Mangrove of Bombay Presidency and its biology, J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 16: 644-656, 1906
Bruun P. and Nayak B.U.,Manual on Protection & Control of Coastal Erosion, NIO, Goa l980.
Chapman, V.J., Mangrove biogeography. In `Proceedings of the Intern. Sympo. on Biol. and Management of Mangroves' Vol.I (Eds. G.E. Walsh, S.C. Shedakar, H.J. Teas), Gainesville, Univ. Florida, pp.3-22. 1975
Cooke, T., The Flora of Presidency of Bombay, Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta, 1980
Desai B.N. and Parulekar A.H., Coastal Zone: Shelf-EEZ and Land Sea Interface, Sustainable Management of Natural Resources, Malhotra Publishing House, l992.
Deshmukh, S.V., Ecological Studies of Mangroves in Bombay, Ph.D Thesis submitted to Bombay University, pp. 153, 1990
Deshmukh, S.V., Eco-Development of Mumbai Coast, Technical Report published by Agriculture Finance Corporation, Mumbai, R.C. NAEB, MoEn & F pp. 105, 1997
D’Souza, Joe and Kenkre, Vibhavari – Environmental Impact Assessment of Shrimp Farming in Goan Estuaries, in: Ecol. Env. & Cons. 4(3): 1998, pp. 91-97
D’ Souza, J.D. and Cudchodcar, S. - Studies on the Impact of Chemical Pollutants on Diseases of Fish in Goan Estuaries, in: Proc. Natl. Symp. Frontiers in Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 11-13 Dec., 1995
Gadgil Madhav and Malhotra K.C., Report of a Field Study conducted on behalf of the Committee on Legislative Measures and Administrative Machinery for Environmental Protection, 1980.
Gazetteer of India, Union Territory of Goa Daman & Diu, District Gazetteer, Part I: Goa, 1979.
Geological Survey of India, Hyderabad, Earth Resources for Goa’s Development, 1985.
Government of Goa, Town & Country Planning Department, Master Plan for Tourism in Goa, l987.
Government of Goa, Town & Country Planning Department, Regional Plan for Goa 2001 A.D., 1988.
Government of Goa, Daman & Diu, Wild Animals and Wild Birds Protection Act, 1965.
Government of Goa, Conservator of Forests, Wildlife Protected Areas of Goa, 1992.
Government of Goa, Conservator of Forests, Greening of Western Ghats, Goa, Directorate of Information and Publicity, 1990.
Government of Goa, Daman & Diu. Panjim, Report on the Marketing Survey on Kokum in Goa, l98l.
Government of Goa, Daman & Diu, Preservation of Trees Act, 1984.
Government of Goa, Daman & Diu Forest Department, Goa Forest - A Statistical Study, 1977.
Government of India, Forest (Conservation) Act, l980, with Amendments, l988.
Government of India, Planning Commission, Delhi, Report of the Task Force on Ecodevelopment Plan for Goa, l982.
Government of India, The Wild Life (Protection) Act, l972.
Government of India, Ministry of Industry, Identification of Protected Districts (circular), February 17, l987.
Hooker, J.D., Flora of British India, L. Reeve and Co., Kent, London, 1-7 volumes, 1975.
Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, A Survey of Natural Resources of Goa, 1974.
Kamat Nandkumar and Varde N.P.S. (Ed.), Report of the Agricultural Land Development Panel, 1992.
Killips, P- A Guide to the Flora and Fauna of Goa, 1998
Lattoo, C.S., Ecological observations on the vegetation of Elephanta Island, 1987.
Mascarenhas, Antonio et al. – The Distribution of and Impacts on Sand Dune Systems of Rajebhag, Canacona, NIO, 1998.
Nair, Sathis Chandran, The Southern Western Ghats, INTACH, l99l.
Navalkar, B.S., Succession of mangrove vegetation of Bombay and Salsette Islands, J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 50 (1): 157-160, 1952.
Navalkar, B.S., Geographic distribution of the halophytic plants of Bombay and Salsette Islands, J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 53 : 335-343, 1956.
Nyabuto H.N., Vegetation of Goa, Parisar, November-December 1992.
Paranjpye Vijay, Selaulim Dam, GRID, April 1991.
Parulekar A.H., Fauna of the Mangrove Ecosystem
Parulekar A.H. et al, Effect of Mining Activities on the Clam Fisheries and Bottom Fauna of Goa Estuaries, Proceedings of Indian Academy of Sciences (Animal Sciences), Vol.95, No.3, June 1986.
Parulekar A.H. et al, Status and Prospects of Fish Farming in Goa, Proceedings of Symposium on Coastal Aquaculture, NIO, Goa, l984.
Rail India Technical Services Limited, Environmental Impact Assessment for the Section of the Konkan Rail Line in Goa State, Government of India, l992.
Rangel J.F., Working Plan for the North Goa Forest Division, 1979-80 to 1988-89, Vol.1, Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, 1980.
Rao Rolla Seshagiri, Flora of Goa, Diu, Daman, Dadra and Nagarhaveli, Vol. l and 2, Botanical Survey of India, l985.
State Wild Life Advisory Board, Carambolim, Department of Information and Publicity, Government of Goa, l989.
State Wildlife Advisory Board, Cotigao, Department of Information and Publicity, Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, 1986.
State Wildlife Advisory Board, Dudhsagar, Department of Information and Publicity, Government of Goa, 1985.
State Wildlife Advisory Board, Kesarval, Department of Information and Publicity, Government of Goa, l989.
State Wildlife Advisory Board, Goa, Vagheri, Department of Information and Publicity, Government of Goa, l988.
Thomas Cherian and Bellarmine K.C., Aquaculture and the Environment, l993.
Untawale A.G., How to Grow Mangroves, NIO, Goa.