Forest dept flags ‘liberal’ SGNP draft plan, seeks revisions

SGNP authority asks BMC to follow Union ministry’s 2016 ESZ notification, says draft plan will open the door to rampant construction

MUMBAI: The state forest department has raised a series of objections to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) Draft Zonal Master Plan for the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) surrounding Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP), cautioning that relaxed development norms could undermine wildlife protection efforts and worsen human-animal conflict around the protected forest.

Forest dept flags ‘liberal’ SGNP draft plan, seeks revisions

Chart.

In a detailed five-page communication from October 1, signed by Anitta Patil, director, Sanjay Gandhi National Park, addressed to the BMC commissioner, and accessed by HT, the SGNP authority has called for amendments before the plan is finalised, not deviating from the Union ministry’s 2016 ESZ notification. The notification regulates construction activity within the ESZ, allowing only regulated residential properties.

The master plan has divided the ESZ into three categories. ESZ-1 is tagged as a “settlement zone”. The plan permits full-scale development including residential, commercial, institutional and industrial projects, with curbs only on certain industries.

ESZ-2, the largest portion, is a “regulated development zone”. It allows development activities similar to ESZ-1 unless specifically prohibited, despite higher ecological vulnerability.

ESZ-3 is the “ecologically fragile zone” and does not allow any form of construction, protecting the region from development due to the presence of mangroves and water bodies, closer to the SGNP boundary.

The department notes that the draft plan permits hotels, commercial complexes, retail establishments and conflicting activities such as ready-mix concrete plants, mining, dyeing units and other industrial operations within the notified ESZ, adding that these conflicting activities must be dealt with in line with the regulations of the 2016 ESZ notification.

“Only eco-friendly tourism activities are allowed in the zone but as seen in the plan, regulations prescribed over different activities in ESZ-1 are more liberal and inclusive,” reads the letter. It adds that this could pave the way for rampant construction, greater human presence and disturbances adjacent to SGNP’s boundary, posing risks to wildlife, forest corridors and ecological integrity.

The forest department has recommended that a 1-km-wide buffer be strictly enforced, prohibiting new commercial structures within that zone, except those explicitly allowed under ESZ rules, such as regulated residential buildings. It has also requested the municipal and revenue authorities to mark encroachments and slum expansion accurately in the final zonal plan.

Another major concern relates to solid waste management, with the department seeking a plan to tackle waste generated from human presence and address the human-wildlife conflict.

The forest department has further pointed out discrepancies in village boundaries, survey maps and categorisation of private and forest land parcels, urging corrections to prevent potential misuse and boundary-related disputes.

A senior SGNP official, confirming the letter and its concerns, told HT, “After reviewing the entire plan, we reached out to the BMC commissioner in writing because we found a few discrepancies that needed to be corrected. Since the commissioner is the chairperson of the ESZ Monitoring Committee, the plan cannot bypass us. It requires our approval and it cannot bypass the committee.”

The official added that the forest department is prepared to hold further discussions if the BMC has queries.

Crucially, the department has demanded that all ongoing or pre-existing activities be evaluated based on whether they existed before December 5, 2016, the ESZ notification date, and that any structures or industries that were built later be treated as illegal and dealt with accordingly.

A senior BMC official told HT, “We received the task of devising the plan after the forest department requested us to formulate it. It was originally their responsibility after the notification was declared in 2016. However, currently we will definitely take the objections and make the necessary changes.”