The National Green Tribunal (NGT) on Thursday directed the Goa government to ensure that while undertaking the construction of the third bridge over River Mandovi, there is no destruction of mangroves in the area of the project and the adjoining area and also asked the government to submit the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report undertaken by them to the petitioner- Goa Foundation.
The NGT has slated the final hearing for September 2. The ruling has put a question mark on the legality of the third bridge over the Mandovi waters. The construction of the third bridge has been challenged by Goa Foundation alleging that it is being constructed without an EC. It also challenged the destruction of some 247 mangrove trees for constructing ramps (roads) to access the bridge.
Goa Foundation pleaded for a stay on the construction in the absence of proper environment studies and an environment clearance. The petitioner stated that the construction of the bridge is without necessary prior Environment Clearance, environmental studies, Environment Management Plan (EMP) or other environmental safeguards.
It says that the construction of the bridge spans more than 20,000 sq.mts and the bulk of it falls within the CRZ. The applicant has submitted that the project is proceeding without an EC or adequate environmental studies and this is an unacceptable procedure and a violation of the law.
The petition says that the GCZMA NOC was given in a hurry and the entire project was cleared in just one sitting.
“The entire bridge proposal was cleared on environmental grounds in the space of two weeks simply on the grounds that a state government’s project was involved,” the petition says.
Speaking to Herald, Claude Alvares of Goa Foundation states that no assessment of the impact of human action on the banks and in the river has been carried out by the State government despite the fact that the massive bridge is proposed between the two existing bridges.
“The impact is difficult to visualize, pending a thorough scientific study and EIA,” he says adding, “Also, the total number and location of the columns or piers of the third bridge with respect to the ones of the existing two bridges is not known, even to the GCZMA, as such a plan was never submitted.”
Goa Foundation, in the petition, also stated that since the clearance of the bridge will be 12 meters higher than the existing bridges, much greater damage will occur to the river bed for obvious reasons since the load bearing pillars or piers will be massive.
“Also to be noted is the impact of the foundations for the third bridge on the existing foundations in close vicinity, which is simply not considered,” Alvares says.
Alvares points out that the project also involves felling of large number of trees and cutting of mangroves. “It must be noted that impact assessment of the project vis-a-vis felling of trees and removal of mangroves was not considered by the GCZMA when it granted conditional NOC for the project,” he says.
The GSIDC approached the Goa State Biodiversity Board (GSBB) for an NOC for the felling of trees/mangroves. The board responded saying, “The mangrove pockets in the project area are the habitat of a large population of flying foxes and also supports other allied mangrove flora and fauna.” They recommended restoration of habitat after completion of the project and that efforts to strenuously minimise the damage and restore the said area to its original condition after completion of the project should be made.
Further, Alvares states, taking cognizance of the approval accorded to felling of mangroves by the GSBB, the GCZMA subsequently approved the destruction of mangroves.
“No directions were issued as to how the damage caused is to be minimized and how the area is to be restored to its original condition after completion of the bridge,” he said adding, “CRZ notification does not permit destruction of mangroves and no power is granted to the GCZMA or any other State authority to allow such felling, as it would amount to (and result in) a change in CRZ classification”.
“Therefore, any approval granted for destruction of such mangroves would be in violation of the CRZ notification,” he explains.
He further went on to say that the EIA, if done fairly, might indicate unsuitability of site.
“The only ‘EIA’ under EPA laws and CRZ statute is a two page photocopied format filled in by one of the expert members. It strains the imagination how such a procedure can be accepted as compliance and how a state government can conduct a review of the environmental impact of a massive bridge on such a major state river in such a summary and scanty manner,” he asserted.
