“Trees are not obstacles standing in the way of development. They are critical infrastructure in their own right. They absorb carbon dioxide, recharge groundwater, prevent soil erosion, stabilise slopes and moderate local temperatures. In a state where hills, forests and water bodies form an interconnected ecological system, large-scale tree loss can have consequences that extend far beyond the immediate project area.
Highway authorities have rightly pointed out that the final number of trees to be cut may be significantly lower once the alignment is finalised. This assurance is welcome, but it must not become a procedural formality.”
The proposed four-laning of the NH-66 stretch from Bendordem to Polem has once again brought Goa to a familiar crossroads: development versus environmental protection. The ₹952-crore project promises improved connectivity, safer travel, better infrastructure and economic growth in the state’s southernmost region. Few would argue against the need to upgrade a national highway that serves as a critical transport corridor linking Goa with Karnataka and beyond.
Yet, the possibility that up to 6,500 trees could be felled for the project raises a question that policymakers can no longer afford to ignore: how much environmental damage is acceptable in the name of development?
The timing of this debate is particularly significant. Across the world, the effects of climate change are becoming increasingly visible. Extreme weather events, rising temperatures, water scarcity and changing rainfall patterns are no longer distant warnings from scientists. They are realities affecting communities every year. Goa itself has not remained untouched. Unpredictable monsoons, extended dry spells and growing concerns about water availability have become recurring issues.
In such a context, the removal of thousands of mature trees cannot be dismissed as merely an unavoidable consequence of progress.
Trees are not obstacles standing in the way of development. They are critical infrastructure in their own right. They absorb carbon dioxide, recharge groundwater, prevent soil erosion, stabilise slopes and moderate local temperatures. In a state where hills, forests and water bodies form an interconnected ecological system, large-scale tree loss can have consequences that extend far beyond the immediate project area.
Highway authorities have rightly pointed out that the final number of trees to be cut may be significantly lower once the alignment is finalised. This assurance is welcome, but it must not become a procedural formality. Every possible effort should be made to minimise tree felling through innovative engineering solutions and careful route planning.
The proposed 1.24-km viaduct is a positive example. By crossing valley sections instead of resorting to extensive hill cutting, it demonstrates that infrastructure can be designed to reduce environmental damage. The same approach should guide every aspect of the project. If alternatives exist that can preserve hundreds or even thousands of trees, they must be seriously considered, even if they increase costs or extend planning timelines.
Development cannot be measured solely by the number of lanes added to a highway or the speed at which vehicles move. True development improves people’s lives without compromising the natural systems that sustain them. A wider highway may reduce travel time, but if it contributes to ecological degradation, groundwater depletion and increased vulnerability to climate impacts, the long-term costs could outweigh the short-term benefits.
The public consultation process has already highlighted concerns about wildlife movement, cattle crossings and environmental safeguards. These concerns deserve more than token acknowledgement. Dedicated wildlife underpasses, ecological corridors and scientifically designed mitigation measures should become mandatory components of the project rather than optional additions.
Equally important is transparency. Authorities must place detailed environmental assessments in the public domain and clearly explain why specific alignments are being chosen. Citizens should not have to rely on estimates and assurances alone. They deserve evidence that environmental impacts have been carefully evaluated and minimised.
The debate over NH-66 is not about opposing development. Goa needs better roads, safer transport networks and modern infrastructure. Economic growth and public convenience are legitimate goals. However, the state must move beyond an outdated model that treats environmental protection as a hurdle to be overcome rather than a foundation for sustainable progress.
Climate change has fundamentally altered the development equation. Every major infrastructure project must now be judged not only by its economic benefits but also by its environmental footprint. The challenge before Goa is not whether to develop, but how to develop responsibly.
The forests and trees that stand along the proposed highway corridor are not renewable within a political term or a construction cycle. Many have taken decades to grow. Once lost, they cannot simply be replaced by saplings planted elsewhere.
Goa’s future depends on finding a balance between infrastructure and ecology. The NH-66 project will be a test of whether that balance is genuinely possible or whether development will continue to come at a price future generations will be forced to pay.
