MCZMA nod to reclaim 21 hectare more for Mumbai coastal road project
Proposal was recommended to the Union environment ministry for final clearance after the coastal authority laid down 16 conditions that need compliance by the BMC while commencing reclamation
The Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) has given its nod to civic body’s proposal for reclaiming additional 21 hectare (ha) area for the coastal road project, allowing the increase in the total length of the road from 9.98km to 10.58km.
The proposal was recommended to the Union environment ministry for final clearance after the coastal authority laid down 16 conditions that need compliance by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) while commencing reclamation, as per the minutes of the meeting published on MCZMA’s website on Tuesday.
The proposal was presented before MCZMA during a meeting held on October 27 and 28 as directed by the Supreme Court (SC) in October that no additional reclamation could be carried out by BMC until environmental clearance was granted by MCZMA and the environment ministry.
“There was a lot of back and forth since the meetings on October 27-28. The final decision to recommend the project was taken on December 2,” said a senior official from the state environment department, requesting anonymity, adding that members took into consideration every aspect (environmental, socio-economic, SC and Bombay high court orders etc.) over a month. “We understood that of the 21 ha proposed reclamation, 14.49 ha is meant for protection measures to build a seawall to curb erosion and reduce intense wave impact while remaining 6.51 ha involves necessary additional reclamation connecting the project along its right of way. Our objective is to ensure the protection of the coastline, and for that it is imperative we have a defence mechanism in the form of this wall. BMC has also been directed to explore how the marine ecosystem can be allowed to propagate in the intertidal area protected by this natural rubble mound wall.”
Environmentalist Debi Goenka said, “It is shocking that MCZMA, on the one hand, has quite rightly pointed out that they have no powers to grant post facto clearance in the case of the jetty at Guhagar. Yet, in the case of the coastal road, they have recommended that post facto clearance be granted for the coastal road project.”
Among specific recommendations, BMC was directed to prepare an environmental management plan adhering to recommendations by expert bodies in the environmental impact assessment for the project including the protection of corals and safe translocation of the marine organism. BMC had completed coral translocation earlier this month but has sought to translocate any more protected species for further reclamation since they have permission validity from the forest department till December 31, 2020.
Other recommendations included protection of the local fishing community’s livelihood from Worli and Haji Ali based on recommendations by the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI). BMC was also directed to set up an in-house environment management cell with a plan to monitor real-time changes of Mumbai shoreline for the next 15 years to assess erosion and sea-level rise, and also explore the development of an artificial coral reef to conserve marine biodiversity, the minutes read.
The coastal road is to be an eight-lane highway connecting Princess Street Flyover in south Mumbai to the southern tip of the Bandra-Worli Sea Link and seeks to reduce travel time between south Mumbai and western suburbs by 70%. The total cost of the project as per the proposal read ₹8,429.44 crore.
BMC had received coastal regulation zone (CRZ) clearance in July 2016 for reclaiming 90 ha of the south Mumbai coastline for the project. Now, BMC intends on reclaiming a total of 111 ha for the project and applied for fresh clearances for the 21 ha before MCZMA. As per the 2016 CRZ clearance, 90 ha included 20 ha for constructing the coastal road and 70 ha to be developed as green spaces used as parks, cycle tracks, promenade, butterfly park, bus depots etc.
“We will follow all recommendations and ensure the project is completed by July 2023 without any further delay,” said Vijay Nighot, chief engineer of the project.
At Priyadarshini Park, the MCZMA has accepted a submission made by senior advocate BA Desai that a water body (lagoon) should not be reclaimed and that the promenade should be constructed in such a way to allow the water to flow beneath it and carry out anti-sea erosion measures as the location was already facing erosion.
‘SUBMISSIONS BY ORIGINAL PETITIONERS NOT CONSIDERED’
On October 8, SC had directed the BMC not to undertake any reclamation beyond the 90-ha area for the project as mandated by the 2016 CRZ clearance. The SC bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde was hearing multiple applications by environment groups challenging the ongoing reclamation alleging that BMC had reclaimed far beyond what was required for the road. The SC allowed BMC to seek CRZ clearance from MCZMA and also directed original writ petitioners (before the Bombay High Court) to raise their concerns. While MCZMA’s minutes had a paragraph each from counsels and environmentalists, petitioners said their written submissions were not dealt with at all.
“The MCZMA has not dealt with any of the written representations and the written submissions submitted by the petitioners. They have only dealt with the oral submissions made by us. The written submissions made by us after the meeting were in response to the PowerPoint presentation made by BMC, and even these were not considered,” said Goenka.
Representations from petitioners such as Goenka, Nitesh Patil, Shweta Wagh, Stalin D, counsel Zaman Ali, Rishita Tanish, and many others pointed out the reasons why the fresh CRZ clearance should not be issued, that the coastal zone was high risk (a cyclone-prone area), the livelihood of fishers, inadequate traffic studies, and marine biodiversity conservation etc.
“BMC has successfully managed to divert the main focus of destruction to this issue of extra 21 ha, which was deliberately introduced to confuse and mislead the judiciary proceedings before the SC,” said Stalin D. Concerning the Priyadarshini Park decision, Goenka said, “This is the same point that we had made about the coastal road itself – there is no need to reclaim the land between the coastal road and the existing roads.”