KARSTEN MIRANDA
The environmental im pact assessment (EIA) for the pro posed railway double-tracking pro ject through Mollem has come under sharp scrutiny, with the Save Mol lem campaign alleging serious gaps, omissions, and inconsistencies in the study that now forms the basis for securing fresh wildlife clearance. The EIA was submitted in May 2025 by the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) for Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL).
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
The EIA assumes significance as it follows the Supreme Court’s 2022 order setting aside the earlier wildlife clear ance for the Castlerock–Kulem stretch and permitting a re vised proposal backed by a detailed assessment of ecologi cal impact. With the court having stressed the need for a compre hensive evaluation of biodiversity before reconsideration, the current study effectively becomes central to whether the project can proceed through the ecologically sensitive forests of Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary and Mollem National Park. Save Mollem has said the report “contains several unac ceptable gaps” and fails to present a complete and reliable picture of biodiversity along the railway corridor, adding that its findings will directly influence whether the project is allowed to go ahead.
The campaign has raised serious concerns over the avi faunal data in the report, pointing to multiple instances of misidentification and inconsistencies. “Species from entirely different geographical zones have been included,” it said, al leging that birds not found in the region have been listed in the EIA. Errors in scientific naming and inconsistencies in distri bution records have also been highlighted, along with the absence of commonly recorded local species such as the Malabar barbet and jungle babbler. “When errors appear in one of the most well-documented taxa, they raise serious questions about the reliability of the entire assessment,” the campaign said. Beyond data inconsistencies, the campaign has flagged major omissions in the biodiversity assessment. A key con cern is the complete absence of insect and arthropod stud ies. “Entire groups, including butterflies, moths, dragonflies, damselflies, bees, ants, and spiders, have not been studied,” it said, describing this as a fundamental gap in understand ing ecosystem health. Highlighting Goa’s biodiversity, Save Mollem said the state hosts at least 87 species of dragonflies, including endemic species, with several recent discoveries emerging from the Mollem landscape. It added that the EIA also fails to consid er how increased train movement—particularly noise and vibration—could affect insect behaviour and survival. The campaign has also pointed to the absence of a fresh water fish assessment, despite the railway alignment inter secting multiple perennial streams. “Freshwater fish, which are a cornerstone of aquatic biodiversity in the Western Ghats, have been completely ignored,” it said.
The Western Ghats support over 300 freshwater fish spe cies, many of them endemic. Save Mollem warned that con struction activities such as tunnelling and the dumping of ex cavated material could “smother spawning grounds and alter stream flow,” particularly in river systems such as the Dud hsagar, described as a critical feeding and breeding habitat. Species such as Bhavania australis and Balitora mysoren sis were cited as examples of vulnerable aquatic life not re flected in the study. On amphibians and reptiles, the campaign said the EIA captures only a limited snapshot of diversity. While the re port records 62 species, the Western Ghats support far high er numbers, especially among amphibians, with over 200 endemic species documented. It has also flagged concerns over the methodology, noting that surveys were largely conducted during July and August. “Restricting fieldwork to the monsoon period misses key seasonal activity patterns,” the campaign said, adding that several species are more active in the post-monsoon period and may have been overlooked. The study’s reliance on a narrow set of model species and limited tracking methods has also been questioned. “These approaches do not reflect the complexity of tropical eco systems,” Save Mollem said, adding that even where threats such as chytridiomycosis have been acknowledged, the re port does not examine how habitat disturbance linked to the project could worsen such risks. Mitigation measures proposed in the EIA—including fenc ing, culverts, and underpasses—have also come under criti cism. The campaign described these as “generic measures,” stating that no evidence has been presented to demonstrate their effectiveness in biodiverse forest landscapes like Mol lem. It has further said that the EIA does not adequately reflect the legal conservation status of species recorded along the project corridor, despite many falling under protected catego ries, thereby weakening the evaluation of ecological impact. Taken together, Save Mollem has maintained that the EIA is not merely incomplete but structurally unreliable as a de cision-making document. “This report will form the basis for whether the project proceeds in one of the most biodiverse forests of the Western Ghats,” it said, calling for closer scru tiny of its findings.
The railway double-tracking project, which has been at the centre of protests since 2020, continues to pass through one of the most ecologically sensitive stretches in the coun try. While work has progressed in less contentious sections, the forest corridor through Mollem remains tied to the out come of the current appraisal process. With the Supreme Court having called for a rigorous and credible assessment before any reconsideration, the current EIA now sits at the heart of that test. If its findings are found wanting, the very basis for allowing the railway line through the Mollem forest corridor could come under question.
