Action against mangrove destruction taken? Panel asks CIDCO, collector

MUMBAI: The wetland grievance committee constituted by the Bombay high court (HC) has asked the Raigad collector and the City Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) to explain what action they have taken against large scale mangrove destruction at Uran. The committee, formed by the state government in 2016 in accordance with HC’S direction to address cases of wetland destruction in the Konkan region, said they have escalated the status of the case to ‘high priority’ considering the severity of the violations.

JR Gowda, member secretary of the HC committee, said, “The two bodies have been directed to undertake field visits and submit their responses by July 31, the next meeting date for the committee. Considering the scale of damages highlighted by the complainant, we have directed speedy enquiry and restoration of these sites.” Shree Ekvira Aai Pratishtan (SEAP), a Navi-mumbai based community group, told the committee that widespread destruction of mangroves, under the garb of infrastructure development, had destroyed fishing areas across four villages, Uran, Hanuman Koliwada, Gavhan, and Belpada, affecting 1,630 fishing families.

Nandkumar Pawar of SEAP had filed complaints with HC committee, attaching stories reported by HT on mangrove destruction in Uran in the first week of June. “Of the 32,000-hectare mangrove cover in the entire Uran area, 20,000 hectare has been lost. Rather than accepting the damages done, agencies such as Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) and CIDCO blatantly deny that they have done nothing wrong. The construction of a road by Bharat Mumbai Container Terminal Private Limited (BMCTPL) at terminal 4 has completely cut off tidal water to the trees, and the area has not been restored,” said Pawar, head, SEAP.

Officials from the forest department, after a visit to Hovercraft Jetty (container terminal 4) area, confirmed that 4,550 trees across a 4.5-hectare patch were ‘killed.’

JNPT officials maintained that the construction work received clearance from the state and central governments. In June, JNPT officials told HT that 15 hectares of the received 19.5 hectares of land was destroyed, and compensatory afforestation was done.

Vijay Suryawanshi, collector, Raigad district, said, “Mangrove plantations will be done postmonsoon. Our officers will conduct another field visit to check whether high tide water is blocked from wetland areas.”

Sanjay Upadhyay, environment lawyer and counsel representing JNPT, CIDCO and other bodies at the Supreme Court (SC) said, “The SC case is more of an appeal against the NGT order. NGT does not have the jurisdiction of the Mahul Creek Act, based on which they passed the earlier order for compensation to fishing community. As far as mangroves at JNPT area is concerned, an enquiry needs to be conducted to unearth the true facts of the case.”