EAC did not consider our objections on Mumbai coastal road clearance: Green group

The Conservation Action Trust (CAT), a city-based non-profit environment group, wrote to the Union environment ministry on Wednesday, objecting to the amended Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance for the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) coastal road (south Mumbai), that were recommended by a Central expert committee

The Conservation Action Trust (CAT), a city-based non-profit environment group, wrote to the Union environment ministry on Wednesday, objecting to the amended Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance for the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) coastal road (south Mumbai), that were recommended by a Central expert committee.

Work underway at the coastal road tunnel construction site, under Priyadarshini Park. (HT Photo)

HT had reported, on March 17, that the ministry of environment, forest and climate change (MoEFCC) expert appraisal committee (EAC) for CRZ clearances has approved an amendment in the coastal regulatory zone (CRZ) clearance granted to the contentious infrastructure project. Once ratified by the Centre, this approval will give legal sanctity to the BMC’s move to reclaim an additional 21 hectares (ha) of land for a stretch of coastal road between Marine Lines and Worli.

The CAT’s letter, authored by executive trustee Debi Goenka, states, “The proposed amendment to the coastal road project (south Mumbai) was discussed at the 257th EAC CRZ meeting held on March 5, 2021. We had submitted our representation to the committee on March 4, 2021. We had also requested that we be heard by the EAC. The minutes of the meeting of 257th EAC (CRZ) do not record any of the concerns reflected in our written representation and written submissions submitted to MCZMA, MoEFCC, and EAC. We were not given an opportunity to be heard.”

The CAT is currently one among at least four petitioners that have opposed the coastal road project in the Bombay high court, on grounds that it will lead to widespread ecological destruction and loss of marine biodiversity along Mumbai’s coastline. The CAT has also maintained that the project will benefit only a small section of the city’s population and that it will not be able to solve the city’s traffic woes, which is one of its main objectives. These points, among several other contentions, have been detailed in their representation dated March 4, a copy of which has been reviewed by HT.

Goenka’s letter, dated March 17, also states that “many members of the MCZMA were not present for the meeting” held on October 2020, when the Authority was to hear citizens’ concerns during its 147th meeting. Moreover, Goenka points out that the additional municipal commissioner and deputy chief engineer of MCGM “attended the meeting as members of the authority instead of recusing themselves because of the conflict of interest.”

A member of the EAC, on the condition of anonymity, said, “The committee has followed due process. As far as the petitioner’s letter is concerned, I have not seen it yet. It would be best to direct any enquiries to the recipients of the letter.”