The fiasco over the start of the Grape Escapade wine festival, an important hallmark mark in Goa’s tourism and social calendar as an event hugely attended by locals, doesn’t augur well for the smooth conduct of  draws like this, at a time when Goa’s tourism has been hit by a series of factors.

While activism and even the need to protect fragile areas under the Coastal Regulation Zone is certainly required there is perhaps the need to introspect whether the same events or festivals, held in the same venue year after  year, have to go through the same motions  each year and be subjected to petitions before the NGT on the day of the inauguration.

Suppose we accept the petitioner’s contention that this falls under a CRZ II area and permissions from GCZMA needs to be taken, the tourism department should have moved and got those permissions, but if simple logic is applied, why would the government knowing that these permissions have to be sought, willingly, put themselves in this situation. In their representation to the NGT, as a respondent, to the petition filed, asking for the event to be called off if CRZ permissions were not taken, the government made a case, stating “No permission is required for organising any festival under CRZ notification 2011 in CRZ II area”. This is because CRZ-II covers areas that have already been developed up to or close to the shoreline.

On the other hand, the government/GTDC too, owes an explanation, if the following is correct. 

That the GCZMA had withdrawn permission for the festival on April 19, (according to the petitioner), on the same day that it had accorded it. If this holds, then the GTDC has no defence, unless it proves that the GCZMA’s decision itself was in correct according to its own notification.

While the track record of the government in pursuing a clear, transparent line when it comes to environmental issues has been investigated and exposed, it really wouldn’t take the risk of using a false argument to push its case through because this would get caught out.

However, beyond the specifics of this case, there is a need - and this is non-negotiable - of getting blanket prima facie (or pre-approved) clearances for certain venues used regularly from the CRZ point of view. The Campal ground is one such venue, which issued for expo’s to festivals to rallies. Is there a need therefore, to reinvent the wheel, in this case?

It is high time that the government, the Coastal Zone Management Authorities do not work in cross purposes and draws up a list of absolutely clear venues and accord blanket permissions. The government may well take the view that if the areas fall under CRZ II, there is no need for any further protection. But there is. The need to actually name and establish all clear venues is the responsibility of both the government and coastal regulatory authorities.

After all, giving permissions for venues regularly used cannot be compared to the GCZMA or the forest or environment departments stepping in to prevent mega projects in fragile islands or coastal areas, which will take away land and damage the environment. The scale and impact ratio of either, has to be taken into account.

The hosting of festivals, which mean a lot to reviving up tourism and generate the feel good factor in a tourist state, cannot be understated. This needs facilitation within the ambit of law. At the same time, it is the responsibility of all parties to make not to take the other as “enemy” who has to be stopped at all costs. A greater transparency of all actions and complete clarity on decision making well before such events take place will avoid last minute jitters and the possibility of the loss of revenue and business. And above all, the final outcome of these cancellations will hit brand Goa which is struggling to keep itself relevant.