“Across Goa, coastal areas have witnessed construction, commercial activity and encroachments that have repeatedly triggered complaints from citizens and environmental groups. In many instances, action appears to come only after public protests, complaints or court intervention. By then, the damage may already have been done.
That cannot be called effective coastal management.
The purpose of a regulatory authority is to prevent violations before they become permanent. It is not enough to issue notices after a structure has come up, conduct inspections after citizens complain or pass demolition orders that remain pending for years.
An authority is ultimately judged by what it prevents and what it enforces.
Goa’s coastline is not merely a tourist attraction. It is one of the State’s most valuable natural assets, an ecological shield and a living part of its identity. Yet, the continuing growth of encroachments and alleged illegal constructions along the coast raises a disturbing question: who is actually protecting Goa’s coastline?
The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, created to regulate activities in the Coastal Regulation Zone, appears to have failed in one of its most fundamental responsibilities. The latest allegations by a citizens’ group are only the latest indication of a problem that has been visible for years.
The issue is no longer about one illegal structure or one disputed construction. It is about a pattern.
Across Goa, coastal areas have witnessed construction, commercial activity and encroachments that have repeatedly triggered complaints from citizens and environmental groups. In many instances, action appears to come only after public protests, complaints or court intervention. By then, the damage may already have been done.
That cannot be called effective coastal management.
The purpose of a regulatory authority is to prevent violations before they become permanent. It is not enough to issue notices after a structure has come up, conduct inspections after citizens complain or pass demolition orders that remain pending for years.
An authority is ultimately judged by what it prevents and what it enforces.
This is where the GCZMA faces serious questions.
If an illegal construction can come up inside a regulated coastal area, remain there for years and continue to function despite complaints, then the enforcement mechanism is clearly not working. If demolition orders are passed but structures remain standing, the message sent to others is equally dangerous: violate first and deal with the authorities later.
That is precisely the culture Goa must avoid.
The coastline cannot be treated as ordinary private property where violations can eventually be regularised or settled. Coastal regulations exist because these areas are environmentally fragile and because uncontrolled construction can have consequences far beyond the particular property involved.
Goa’s beaches, dunes, wetlands, mangroves and other coastal ecosystems provide natural protection against erosion, flooding and extreme weather. Once destroyed, they cannot simply be recreated by spending money on another government project.
There is also a larger question of equality before the law.
Coastal regulations must apply equally to everyone. A small local structure cannot be demolished while a larger commercial establishment escapes action simply because it has greater influence or resources. The credibility of the entire regulatory system depends on consistent enforcement.
The government must therefore stop treating coastal violations as isolated disputes.
There should be a publicly accessible record of every major CRZ violation reported to the GCZMA. It should state when the complaint was received, what inspection found, what action was ordered and whether the order was actually implemented. Such transparency would immediately tell citizens whether the system is functioning or merely generating paperwork.
There must also be accountability for delayed enforcement.
If an authority has the power to order demolition, there must be a mechanism to ensure that the order is executed within a reasonable timeframe. Otherwise, an order becomes little more than a piece of paper.
The latest criticism should therefore not be dismissed as another environmental dispute. It should be treated as a warning.
Goa cannot claim to be serious about sustainable tourism while allowing its coastal areas to be steadily altered by illegal construction and encroachment. Tourism itself depends on the very coastline that uncontrolled development threatens to destroy.
Development and environmental protection are not enemies. Goa can have tourism, businesses and infrastructure while protecting its natural heritage. What is unacceptable is development that takes place by ignoring the rules designed to protect that heritage.
The GCZMA now needs to demonstrate that it is more than a regulatory body on paper.
It needs to act decisively, enforce its own orders and make it clear that Goa’s coastline is not available for capture by whoever manages to construct first.
For too long, citizens have watched the coast change while authorities debate violations.
Goa has already lost enough of its natural landscape to unplanned and unlawful development.
The time has come to ask the uncomfortable question openly: if the authority entrusted with protecting the coast cannot stop encroachments and illegal constructions, who will protect Goa’s coastline?
