“But there is a fundamental difference between demanding a safe waste treatment facility and opposing a project without accepting responsibility for the garbage generated by one’s own village. The first is a legitimate democratic demand. The second is a recipe for a statewide environmental disaster.
The Saligao development brings this contradiction into sharp focus. When a facility stops accepting waste, the garbage does not magically disappear. It has to be stored, transported or diverted elsewhere. If alternative arrangements are inadequate, the consequences are borne by residents through overflowing bins, foul smells, unhygienic surroundings and the growing possibility of illegal dumping.
Who suffers when the system breaks down? Ordinary citizens, sanitation workers and communities that have little control over the decisions that brought the waste to their doorstep.”
You cannot oppose every waste treatment plant in your backyard and expect someone else to live with your garbage.
Goa’s garbage crisis has once again exposed the hypocrisy at the heart of the state’s waste management debate. The decision of the Saligao waste treatment plant to suspend waste intake from eight local bodies for 25 days should serve as a wake up call for every village that has opposed the establishment of waste treatment facilities in its neighbourhood. It raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: if nobody wants a garbage plant near their home, where exactly should Goa’s waste go?
For years, villagers from Old Goa, Corlim, St Cruz, Merces and Chimbel have opposed the proposed waste treatment plant at Bainguinim. Their concerns about odour, pollution, public health and the impact on their surroundings cannot simply be dismissed. Residents have every right to demand environmental safeguards, scientific waste processing, transparent monitoring and accountability from the government.
But there is a fundamental difference between demanding a safe waste treatment facility and opposing a project without accepting responsibility for the garbage generated by one’s own village. The first is a legitimate democratic demand. The second is a recipe for a statewide environmental disaster.
The Saligao development brings this contradiction into sharp focus. When a facility stops accepting waste, the garbage does not magically disappear. It has to be stored, transported or diverted elsewhere. If alternative arrangements are inadequate, the consequences are borne by residents through overflowing bins, foul smells, unhygienic surroundings and the growing possibility of illegal dumping.
Who suffers when the system breaks down? Ordinary citizens, sanitation workers and communities that have little control over the decisions that brought the waste to their doorstep.
Not in my backyard, but somewhere else
Goa cannot solve its garbage problem through the politics of “not in my backyard”. Every village generates waste. Every household contributes to the problem. Every municipality and panchayat has a responsibility to ensure that the waste it produces is collected, segregated, processed and disposed of safely.
Yet, whenever a treatment facility is proposed, opposition often becomes a battle to push the problem into another constituency. Villagers fear that their neighbourhood will become a dumping ground, while those who oppose the project continue to expect the government to find another location.
This raises a simple question for the opponents of Bainguinim: if the plant is unacceptable in your backyard, why should the people of Saligao bear the burden of treating your garbage?
Residents of Saligao are entitled to the same clean air, healthy surroundings and quality of life that people in Old Goa, Corlim, St Cruz, Merces and Chimbel demand for themselves. Their concerns cannot be treated as less important merely because a waste treatment facility already exists in their neighbourhood.
The people of Saligao did not create the waste management challenge of every local body whose garbage reaches the plant. Nor should they be expected to shoulder an unlimited burden simply because their village has a treatment facility.
The suspension of waste intake, even if temporary, exposes the vulnerability of a system that depends heavily on a limited number of centralised facilities. It also demonstrates why waste management cannot be reduced to the question of where a plant should be located. It must address how much waste is generated, how much is segregated, how efficiently it is processed and what happens when a facility cannot operate at full capacity.
Bainguinim cannot remain a political football
The opposition to Bainguinim must now confront the practical consequences of its position. The proposed facility has remained contentious because of resistance from surrounding villages. But the Saligao situation demonstrates what happens when Goa fails to build and maintain adequate waste processing infrastructure across the state.
The irony is that the list of local bodies affected by the Saligao suspension includes Chimbel, Santa Cruz, Corlim, Old Goa and Merces, some of the very areas whose residents have opposed Bainguinim. According to the Times of India, the Saligao facility has reduced its daily processing capacity from 150 tonnes to 100 tonnes to accommodate essential maintenance, forcing eight local bodies to arrange alternative waste management for 25 days. <Cite refs={[“turn544869search0”,“turn544869search2”]}/>
This is precisely the vulnerability Goa must address. A plant undergoing maintenance should not push entire communities towards a sanitation crisis. Every local body must have a contingency plan, and the government must ensure that waste does not end up in open spaces, drains, fields or roadside dumping spots.
The government, too, must learn its lesson. It cannot expect people to trust waste treatment projects merely because officials describe them as scientific or environmentally safe. Independent environmental audits, public disclosure of monitoring reports, odour control, proper segregation and strict enforcement are essential. If Bainguinim is to move forward, the government must answer residents’ concerns with evidence rather than political assurances.
But opposition leaders and village representatives must also demonstrate that they have a workable alternative. If they reject Bainguinim, they should explain where the garbage will be processed, how much it will cost and how their proposed solution will protect the environment. Protests alone cannot constitute a waste management policy.
Garbage does not respect village boundaries
Goa cannot afford to treat garbage as somebody else’s problem. A household in Merces generates waste just as a household in Saligao does. A commercial establishment in Mapusa has the same responsibility as one in Calangute. The burden of managing that waste must be shared fairly, not transferred to communities that happen to host treatment facilities.
The Saligao episode should therefore be a lesson, not an occasion to celebrate the inconvenience of others. Nobody should wish the stench of unmanaged garbage upon another village. But neither should any village assume that its opposition can make the problem disappear.
The choice before Goa is stark. It can either develop a network of properly managed waste treatment facilities, supported by segregation at source and local processing, or continue allowing every proposed project to become a political and environmental battleground.
To those opposing Bainguinim, the question is simple: if not here, then where?
You cannot demand a clean neighbourhood while refusing to accept responsibility for the garbage you generate. Saligao’s burden should not become Goa’s permanent solution.
