New JNPT terminal may plunge ‘delicate’ coastline into danger

In the first phase, JNPT will reclaim 200 hectares of land along the shore as well as 19.5 hectares of land covered by dense mangroves, for rail and road access. “The same area needs to be diverted for non-forest activities by diverting the mangrove vegetation,” says an application filed by JNPT in the Bombay High Court, dated September 22, 2015.

JNPT is proposing to re-plant the mangroves elsewhere, and has deposited Rs 3.4 crore towards compensatory afforestation.

Express photo by Narendra Vaskar

Along the coast at Uran, reclamation activity has already begun, truckfuls of earth being dumped daily along the shore. Fishing communities in the hamlets of Sheva, Nhava, Gavhan, Belpada, Sonari, Jaskhar, Panje, Dongri, Funde, Uran and Elephanta will be affected by this reclamation, fishermen say. The creeks and other water bodies around these coastal villages serve as grounds for fish spawning in a rich marine ecosystem.

While parts of these areas are under CIDCO which has a Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP), JNPT acquired a part of land for setting up its port back in 1989.

Along this stretch, while a pungency in the air marks the influx of container ships to the three busy JNPT terminals on one side, a lush band of vegetation on the other side becomes visible as the tide ebbs. If the seaward side is threatened by the port construction, steady construction on the landweard side is set to change the area forever as CIDCO starts executing its Smart City plans. Empty buildings with “To-Let” and “flat available” signs stand where once lay mudflats and salt pans, says Dilip Koli, a local fisherman.

JNPT Chairman Anil Diggikar told The Indian Express that despite the proposals, the agency is keen to protect mangroves. “We have to abide by all the existing laws of NGT, Environment Department. All the necessary clearances are taken and only then work commences,” Diggikar said.

Express photo by Narendra Vaskar

Niteen A Deshpande, Manager of JNPT’s Port Planning and Development Department, clarified that permission being sought from the court is only for the mangrove transplantation. “For reclamation, permission is not required,” he said. “Work has not yet started as far as removal of mangroves goes.”

Deshpande, who has filed the application in the High Court on behalf of the JNPT, says the removed vegetation will be “transplanted” to another area. However, an observation made by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) while deciding on a matter between the local fishermen and various government authorities shows otherwise.

On March 22, 2014, the NGT had directed officials of the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority, JNPT, CIDCO and representatives of the fisherfolk to visit a proposed reclamation site. Though JNPT then promised to transplant mangroves that were uprooted due to expansion of existing jetties at Nhava Creek, this was not done. The NGT, in an order dated MAY 27, 2014, observed: “At the above site, MCZMA team observed that debris is only partially removed from the creek by the JNPT, due to which, restoration of the width of the creek and natural flow of tidal water is not achieved.”

The NGT also pointed out that the expansion of port activities and the fourth container terminal project, after narrowing the creek-let between Nhava and Sheva, would create an artificial bottleneck for tidal water flow. This, the NGT said, would make it difficult for fishermen’s boats to have egress and ingress into the sea.

“The record shows that reclamation of land in the area is likely to cause environmental damage to flora and fauna. The stock of fishes, spawning, breeding and marine culture will diminish stock of fishes and variety thereof within the area of sea, near the creek. The traditional fishermen would be at the receiving end,” the order observed.

Express photo by Narendra Vaskar.

Ramdas Koli, a local fisherman who petitioned the NGT, says around 80 per cent of the mangrove land in the area has fallen prey to continuous reclamation. “Uran is within a radius of 10 km of Mumbai and this reclamation and destruction of wetlands will have a direct consequence on the tidal flow in Mumbai,” he said.

The local fishermen have unanimously objected to the port’s expansion saying their fishing area is being reclaimed. They also say they’re being stopped from fishing near the site of the project. They point to a significant fall in quantity of large fish and crustaceans, citing the mangrove destruction as the prime cause.

“With the destruction of mangroves, crabs, lobsters and other big fish that used to come and lay eggs in the mangroves have reduced in large numbers affecting business considerably,” says Dilip Koli.

Environmentalist Debi Goenka, whose Conservation Action Trust is one of the petitioners in the case, says JNPT’s permissions dated 2008 for the fourth container terminal project from the Ministry of Environment and Forests should be considered as expired, following the passage of five years.

Express photo by Narendra Vaskar

“The ministry renewed it in 2014 on the lines of the earlier environmental clearance. In between, a new CRZ notification had come in 2011 that was not taken into consideration.” Secondly, in 2014, the JNPT changed the project profile without seeking fresh environmental clearances, he says. “Importantly, the CZMP which was approved by MoEF in 2005 specifically says the mudflats and mangroves cannot be destroyed. Here this project involves 200 hectares of mudflats and mangroves. So, the ecological and hydrological impact has not even been considered,” he says.

The mouth of the creek near JNPT used to be 1,500 metres wide, now down to 400 metres following reclamation activities, Goenka says, adding that flooding in Mumbai appears inevitable. After Chennai this year and Mumbai’s encounter with floods in 2005, Goenka says, prolonged reclamation of low-lying wetlands will put Mumbai in dire straits.

THE LEGAL TUSSLE

In 2005, a landmark Bombay High Court judgment emphasised preservation of the ever-shrinking mangrove wetlands. Besides ordering a “total freeze” on the cutting of mangroves across Maharashtra, it asked the state government to use remote sensing to demarcate mangrove land. Regardless of the ownership of such land, the government was directed, construction within 50 meters on all sides of mangroves had to be stopped.

In 2010, however, these norms were relaxed considerably. Though the court said no non-forest activity should take place in such areas, nothing prevented the authorities, private bodies and their contractors from approaching the competent authorities to seek permission for their projects that were likely to affect mangroves.

The court reasoned that neither had the government notified these areas as ordered nor had it distinguished lands that fell in private and public ownership. Later, in 2014, JNPT filed an application seeking a reprieve on the basis of court’s 2010 order. It sought the court’s nod to develop a standalone container with a jetty of length 330 meters.

During one of the hearings of JNPT’s request on the fourth container, the Bombay Environment Action Group informed the court that re-transplantation of mangroves, as promised by JNPT, is proposed in an area which is a not a coastal zone but a forest area. The JNPT has maintained in its plea that it has never violated laws on environment protection in the area nor has it carried out any non-forest activities.