the focus needs to shift to the manner in which the premier regulatory body, to prevent and monitor coastal zone violations, has been ad hoc and casual about such a big ticket project. As Herald was the first to report, the construction work on the ongoing bridge may come to a halt since the deadline for getting a CRZ clearance gets over on August 8, but the term of the current authority which will grant the license is over. It is baffling that a premier institution like the GCZMA can display such institutional insensitivity towards a big ticket project which is a clear environmental challenge
As Herald has reported, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has slammed Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) for the manner of their approach towards the project, which falls under the coastal regulation zone (CRZ). NGT, while disposing off the petition filed by Goa Foundation, in its final judgment noted that it is manifest that the entire controversy over the project arose due to the ineffective regulatory role played by GCZMA.
However, this massive indictment hasn’t quite affected the Authority, which has committed a series of blunders. The NGT did not find fault with the GSIDC though.
The Authority had granted No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the project proponent (the bridge contractor) in 2014, which was challenged before NGT. “At this stage, we do not prime facie find much fault with the project proponent i.e. GSIDC for the simple reason that they had approached Regulatory Authority of the GCZMA for necessary permission and GCZMA has given them NOC on 4th March 2014 and only thereafter, they have started the construction,” in a clear message to the coastal zone regulatory authority, the NGT said.
“It is manifest that the entire controversy arose due to the ineffective regulatory role played by GCZMA. We are not aware under what circumstances, without critical information about impact of the project, how GCZMA thought it prudent and necessary to grant the NOC,” it added.
But even the NOC is baffling. A conditional NOC was issued however which perplexed the NGT. “We are perplexed to understand this particular communication as the NOC directs GSIDC to obtain information available with National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) regarding impact on river bank morphology, bathymetry and sedimentation,” the order states.
The GCZMA has not even considered EIA report and the NOC was granted within a month. The NGT, meanwhile, has directed GSIDC to apply to GCZMA for fresh CRZ clearance for the project.
It is absolutely critical that the new GCZMA is constituted urgently and a fresh look is taken on the CRZ aspect of the third Mandovi bridge. For too long, bodies like the GCZMA have worked as friendly arm of government and not that of a regulator. While there is a need for a third Mandovi bridge, the impact of the construction on the Mandovi river bed, the destruction caused by existing debris of the old bridge and the presence of mangroves and other flora and fauna need serious study before construction can restart.
