MET Institute of Computer Science

(2013-15)

Subject: LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

Topic: LEGAL AND REGULATORY ASPECTS OF NAVI MUMBAI AIRPORT

Submitted By: NIKITA AHUJA AGRATA DHAKAR AHANA PARKER 42 47 58

SAIGAURAV PRABHU 16

INDEX SNO.
1. 1.1 2 2.1 2.2 3. 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.1.6 3.1.7 3.1.8 3.1.9 4. 4.1 4.2 5. 6. Introduction Need Overview Other options of Locations Chronological order of Events Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework Environmental Issues Mangroves Flattening of Hill Rehabilitation Farmers Compensation Karnala Bird Sanctuary Fight between Center and State to own Airport Land Chinchpada Village Flora and Fauna Noise Pollution Recommendations Mangrove Issue Diversion of Gadhi River and Ulwe water body Infrastructure Advantages of Navi Mumbai Airport

TOPIC

PAGE NO.
3 3 5 6 8 11 11 11 14 15 15 15 16 17 18 19 22 22 30 31 32

1. INTRODUCTION
Navi Mumbai International Airport (NMIA) is one of the worlds largest greenfieldstateof-the-art international airports, currently proposed for development, offering world-class facilities for passengers, cargo, aircrafts and airlines. The proposed second airport for Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) is located at Navi Mumbai for several reasons. Prominent among them is the fact that Navi Mumbai is expected to cater for the future growth in population, business and commercial activities of MMR. The availability of excellent physical and social infrastructure coupled with an environmentfriendly site with least resettlement and rehabilitation makes the Navi Mumbai Airport project both technically feasible and financially viable. The Airport master plan will be developed in modules, operated and managed to internationally recognised standards. The design and development of high quality facilities will provide enhanced service to passengers, airlines and other customers. The proposed greenfield international airport, is to be built in the Kopra-Panvel area of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region in India. The airport is being built through public-private partnership (PPP). The yet to be chosen private sector partner will hold 74% equity while the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and the Government of Maharashtra (through CIDCO) each holding 13%. The airport project, aimed at easing Mumbai's air traffic congestion, has been delayed due to property disputes. Its first phase was supposed to be operational by 2014, but that deadline will not be met, as construction had not even begun by July 2013.

1.1 Need:
The current airport at Mumbai, is fast reaching saturation level and scope for further enhancement of passenger and cargo handling facilities along with aircraft maintenance and city side facilities are very much limited. Enhancement of aviation facilities in MMR is essential for maintaining Maharashtra's leadership in attracting Foreign Direct Investment and cementing Mumbai's future as an International Financial Centre . Mumbai is experiencing congestion. The congestion of traffic particularly becomes excessive during the peak hours. Thus the airport has reached its saturation level. With the proposed expansion after modernisation, the capacity of this airport would
3

be 40 mppa capable of meeting the air traffic demand upto 2013-14. Thus there is a need to develop the second airport

2. OVERVIEW OF THE NAVI MUMBAI AIRPORT

The sea shore land required is about 11.4 km for the core airport activity and will have two parallel runways each 3700 metres long. It is to be located on highway NH 4B near Panvel, about 35 km from the existing ChhatrapatiShivaji International Airport . The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has already given clearance to the Navi Mumbai airport on technical parameters. The Airport construction is at global tendering stage The cost of the project, which is being developed through the public-private partnership route, is estimated at 52.6 billion (US$800 million). The airport will have a terminal area of 250,000 m and a cargo area of 100,000 m and handle 5055 million passengers annually.The site of airport is located in an area of 9.5 km accommodating two parallel runways for simultaneous and segregated parallel operation with provision of full length taxi ways on either side of the runways. The airfield has been designed to accommodate the new large aircraft compatible to aerodrome code 4-F. The new airport will cater to 10 million passengers a year in its initial phase (end-2014), 25 million by 2020, 45 million by 2025, and 60 million by 2030, according to CIDCO. The site had several environmental problems in dealing with mangroves and rain/storm water drains in Panvel. There is an NGO fighting government agencies regarding Panvel. The ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) gave its clearance for the Navi Mumbai international airport on 14 May 2008. The environmental ministry finally cleared the project on 23 November 2010.The location of the proposed airport at Navi Mumbai has been considered on several parameters. Prominent among these is the fact that Navi Mumbai is expected to absorb the future growth in population, business and commercial activity of the region. The availability of physical and social infrastructure coupled with environmental friendly site with minimum resettlement and rehabilitation makes the Navi Mumbai airport project technically and financially viable.

2.1 Other options of Locations:

The original option of locating near RewasMandwa: The proposed airport site is centred around the region of Rewas and Mandwa near Alibaug, where the original proposal of second international airport existed on all regionaldevelopment plans, and the location was commented to be the most fit and correct barring the excessive financial cost involved in building a sea-link/creek bridge over the Karanja Creek connecting Uran-JNPT area to the proposed airport at RewasMandwa. It is only at a distance of 20 nautical miles (37 km) by sea make it a viable location. If the current location at KopraPanvel does not go through, the one at Rewas - Mandwa location will have again to be considered for this Airport project. This option is now ruled out.

The other option of locating near Kalyan- Nevali: The second option includes the one off village Newali nearKalyan-Ambernath55 km awayfrom the current airport in Mumbai. There exists an old and abandoned air-strip of WorldWar II era and the Union Defence Ministry owns the 1,500 acres (6.1 km) of land on whichit is located. The proposal is now centred on 1,500 acres (6.1 km) of land. If the currentlocation at KopraPanvel does not go through, then the Kalyan-Nevali location would beconsidered for a futureKalyan International Airportwhich would serve as a much neededsecond International airport for the Mumbai Metropolitan region.

KopraPanvel Location: As a result of the recent objections being raised by the Union Ministry of Environment andForests on the current proposed location of theNavi Mumbai International airportnearKopraPanvelarea, apparently because the construction of the airport would involvereclamation of low-lying areas in an ecologically fragile zone as well as destruction of severalhectares of Mangroves. There are serious environmental issues. Its construction woulddamage mangrove cultivation in the 2,000 hectares, besides the diversion of Gadhi and Ulwerivers, which according to the Union Environment and Forests Ministry is a very seriousissue considering the destruction Mumbai faced during the 26th July 2005 floods. As a resultof these new developments other locations were considered.

Environment minister Jairam Ramesh had disfavoured the proposed Navi Mumbai Airportsaying it would have serious environmental implications and suggested an alternative

site forthe second airport in Mumbai. He said that the proposed airport construction in NaviMumbaiwill have serious environmental implications and the flooding ofPanvel could be one amongthem.Mumbai needs a second airport. But where that airport should be located is a matter that hasto be decided coolly, dispassionately, taking into account all environmental matters, Rameshsaid. Strongly refuting the charge that he was stalling the development of the city, theminister said environmental approval is not a mere formality and that he had no problem withNavi Mumbai. Environmental clearance is not a formality. It has to be gone through. CoastalRegulation Zone (CRZ) 1991 did not allow the building of an airport in NaviMumbai.Though it was amended in 2009, it was not to build an airport in Navi Mumbai, he said.The MPs told that 1,800 acres of land, available near Kalyan which is now in the possessionof the defence establishment, can be used for the second airport instead of Navi Mumbai. Theministers said there are three major environmental issues regarding the proposed NaviMumbai Airport site, with mangroves and diversion of two rivers being the most seriousissue.Recently, IIT-Mumbai had done a study on the environmental implications of theconstruction of the new airport and submitted their findings to EAC. On the basis of thatstudy, EAC sought clarifications from CIDCO, the developing agency. To a query, Rameshsaid the Expert Committee of Airport Authority of India (AAI) had found RewasMandwaasthe best site for a second airport in 1996. But later in 2000, following a recommendation fromMaharashtra government, AAI selected Navi Mumbai for the second airport taking intoconsideration the developed infrastructure and easy connectivity the location will provide,this site has been finalised.

The Airport is proposed to be developed in four phases. In the first phase, North runway & attached taxi way system, terminal building & concourse (2,69,000 sq. m.), Contact Gates 20; Remote Gates 5; General Aviation Apron 6,000 sq. m.; Technical building and ATC Tower; Cargo complex (part) are some of the main facilities proposed to be developed. The above facilities will be enhanced in modules to suit the air traffic demand.

Includes Cost of Pre-Development Works (Costs of Land Acquisition, R&R, Land Development, Shifting of EHVT Lines, Recoursing of Ulwe River.) of ` 4017 Crores.

2.2 Chronological event of Navi Mumbai airport:

Nov. 1997: Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA), Govt. of India (GoI) constituted a Committee to examine the various sites for second airport for Mumbai.

June 2000: The GoI Committee, which had a Member from the Ministry of Environment & Forest (MoEF) recommended Rewas Mandawa site as suitable, since Navi Mumbai Airport was proposed with one runway.

Sept. 2000: CIDCO / Govt. of Maharashtra (GoM) revised the original proposal to provide for two runways and submitted a feasibility report to MoCA.

Nov. 2000: A sub-Committee constituted by Airports Authority of India (AAI), examined the Navi Mumbai site and found it technically and operationally feasible and suggested carrying out a detailed Techno-Economic Feasibility Study (TEFS).

Sept. 2001: CIDCO / GoM submitted TEFS comprising various technical studies. The technical queries and clarifications raised by AAI were successfully answered by CIDCO. AAI then suggested carrying out a Simulation Study to examine the inter-operability of the two airports (Mumbai &Navi Mumbai) in a single airspace.

Aug. 2006: International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) conducted Simulation Study sponsored jointly by CIDCO / GoM& AAI. The Study confirmed that simultaneous operation of two airports is possible with appropriate procedures in place.

Feb. 2007: CIDCO / GoM submitted Project Feasibility and Business Plan Report to MoCA / GoI.

July

2007: MoCA obtained in-principle approval from the Union Cabinet for

the development of a second Airport for MMR in Navi Mumbai and conveyed the decision to GoM. GoI constituted a Steering Committee to oversee the structure and implementation of NMIA Project.

Aug. 2007: Development of NMIA by CIDCO approved by its Board. Aug. 2007: CIDCO made application to MoEF for approval of Terms of-Reference (TOR) for carrying out EIA.

Sept. 2007: CIDCO appointed IIT Bombay, for Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) study and CW&PRS, Pune for conducting required hydraulic model studies.

Nov. 2007: National Coastal Zone Management Authority (NCZMA) recommended amendment to CRZ Notification of 1991 to make Navi Mumbai Airport development permissible in CRZ areas with mitigation measures for environment damage.

Feb. 2008: Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) recommended the proposal for amendment to CRZ Notification of 1991 for NMIA with compensatory afforestation.

March 2008: CIDCO appointed consortium led by M/s. Louis Berger Group (LBG), Inc USA as Prime Consultant for the proposed Airport development.

July 2008: GoM granted approval for development of NMIA project on PPP basis and appointed CIDCO as the nodal agency for its implementation. Feb. 2009: MoEF directed CIDCO/GoM to obtain approval from Honble High Court Mumbai for amendment of CRZ regulations. April 2009: Honble Mumbai High Court allowed the Prayer of CIDCO / GoM for Amendment of CRZ Notification of 1991.

May 2009: MoEF issued notification amending the CRZ Notification of 1991 permitting Green Field Airport at Navi Mumbai in CRZ areas, subject to environmental safeguards.

June 2009: CIDCO submitted fresh application for approval of TOR for carrying out EIA Study to MoEF& MCZMA for CRZ clearance.

July 2009: MCZMA considered proposal of CRZ clearance for NMIA and recommended it to MoEF for approval.

Aug 2009: MoEF conveyed the TOR for carrying out EIA study and IITB, commenced the EIA Study work in consultation with Central Water Power & Research Station (CW&PRS), Pune, Dept. of Life Sciences, Mumbai University, Ground Water Survey Dept. Agency (GSDA), GoM, Gujarat Ecology Commission (GEC), Govt. of Gujarat, M/s. HemantSahai & Associates (Legal Consultant), M/s. DHI, India and M/s. Lewis Environmental Services, Inc. USA.

Dec. 2009: Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC), MoEF, visited the Navi Mumbai Airport site Feb. 2010: MoEF gave additional TOR for EIA study

Mar. 2010: CIDCO submitted draft EIA report to Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB), for conducting Public Hearing

May 2010: MPCB conducted Public Hearing and submitted the Public Hearing report to MoEF
9

June 2010: CIDCO submitted final EIA Report incorporating observations of Public Hearing to MoEF

July 2010: MCZMA in its 63rd meeting approved with minor modifications the Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) and recommended it to MoEF for approval

July 2010: EAC considered the proposal for granting Environmental and CRZ clearance to NMIA, in its 89th, 90th, 91st, 92nd and 93rd Meetings spread over 5 months, starting from 21st July 2010

Oct. 2010: Ministry of Defense (MoD), GoI granted Defense clearance to NMIA project Nov. 2010: Environment and CRZ clearance for NMIA project granted by MoEF.

May 2012: Civil aviation minister Ajit Singh met the deputy chairman of the Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Planning Commission advisor GajendraHaldea, to discuss the development of the Navi Mumbai airport under a Public Private Partnership (PPP) model.

June 2012:AjitSingh assured the CIDCO Chairman that a technical committee would be constituted soon to sort out the issues related to the long-pending project.

July 2012 : Aviation minister Ajit Singh assured Maharashtra Chief Minister PrtihvirajChavan of taking all necessary steps to expedite the construction of the Navi Mumbai International Airport. People from villages affected by the Navi Mumbai international airport have demanded the government and project developers to provide them 40 per cent of the developed land as compensation.

August 2012: The Chairman of Maharashtra government-run urban planning agency CIDCO, PramodHindurao sought Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's intervention for speedy approvals and financial aid for Navi Mumbai International Airport (NMIA).

10

3. POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

The principal Environment Regulatory Agency in our country is theMinistry of Environment & Forest (MoEF). The environment policies andenvironment clearances process for various projects are laid down by MoEF.The State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) grants No Objection Certificate (NOC)and consent for establishment and operation of the project.As per the EIA Notification of MoEF issued on 14th September, 2006 anairport project is treated as Category A which requires Environment Clearancefrom Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) for which an EIA/EMP study isa primary requirement. The assignment of preparing the Comprehensive EIAstudy has been assigned to The Centre for Environmental Science andEngineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay.

3.1 Environmental Issues:

3.1.1 Mangroves: Issues related to presence of Mangroves In order to carry out the proposed development within the Airport Zone, deforestation of these mangroves appears to be imperative. However, destruction of mangroves is expressly prohibited by the orders andjudgment of the Honble Bombay High Court3. It is clear, therefore, that destruction of any mangroves for the development of the NMIA will require a prior approval of the Bombay High Court.

Steps to be taken by CIDCO in view of the judgment of the Bombay High Court. This order was passed pursuant to the cited Public Interest Litigation filed by NGOs like Bombay Environmental Action Group (BEAG) and others for protection of mangroves. Areas having mangroves and which were identified as government owned, were to be declared as Protected Forests and the areas having mangroves and which are identified as privately owned were to be declared and notified as Forests.

The order directed that : (i) there shall be a total freeze on the destruction and cutting of mangroves in the entire State of Maharashtra;

11

(ii) All construction and rubble/ garbage dumping on the mangrove areas shallbe stopped forthwith; (iii) Regardless of ownership all construction taking place within 50 metres on all sides of all mangroves shall be forthwith stopped; (iv) No development permission whatsoever shall be issued by any authority in the State in respect of any area under mangroves;

The Court also clarified that CIDCO would have to obtain the required environmental clearances, for implementation of all the projects undertaken by them & CIDCO will have to give an undertaking that it would abide by the termsand conditions. Further more the CIDCO wasdirected to approach the competent authority under the MoEF and the Authorities constituted there under.

Training & Diversion of Rivers Study A study was carried out in accordance with the TOR specified by MoEF onthe diversion and training of the rivers, cost implication for providingengineering solutions and design changes in order to avoid change in theriver coarse. The following paragraphs narrates the details of the studiescarried out.

Background The Navi Mumbai International Airport has been planned with twoindependent parallel runways placed at 1.85 km. apart with a design capacityof 60 MPPA. With the above configuration of runways, an area of about1615 Ha. is required for airport zone in which the various aeronautical andnon-aeronautical activities will be located for the efficient functioning ofairport. Two rivers viz. Gadhi and Ulwe are flowing through the airport zone. The Ulwe river runs from South to North passing through almost the middle of the airport crossing both the runways and finally meet to Panvel Creek. The total area covered under these rivers is about 245 Ha. To make the land available for airport zone admeasuring about 1615 Ha., the option available is to retain the rivers as it is and to built the airport over this or divert or train these rivers suitably. The diversion of the two rivers is a very serious issue considering the unprecedented flooding Mumbai faced in July, 2005. A similar fate could befall on Panvel and its adjoining areas if
12

the rivers are diverted, environmentalists fear. A study conducted by the Mumbai IIT concluded that the development of the airport without diverting the Ulwe and the Gadhi rivers is not technically feasible or viable, as this option would cost about Rs 16,000 crore and defeat the very purpose of retaining the geomorphology of rivers and its aquatic life and mangrove. Nevertheless, after the prompting by the prime ministers office, the experts appraisal committee (EAC), under the environment ministry, directed CIDCO to submit maps that would enable a proper study of the impact on the coastal zone and changes in land use pattern. On its part, the civil aviation ministry has promised to look at the environment ministrys suggestion for design changes, including considering a runway on stilts so that diversion of the Ulwe and Gadhi rivers can be minimized. Need for Training & Diversion of Rivers The first option of retaining both the rivers, as it is, is examined taking intoconsideration the various factors, such as; the construction of airportdevelopment on stilt, runway orientation, security, operation & maintenance,environment and cost implication are described below: i) Airport on Stilt: The development of airport partly on stilt and partly on firm ground to the extent required have not been experimented inanywhere in the world, because of its unique behavior and problemsassociated with it, which would be difficult to simulate to work out anengineering solution.Theentire area of 245 Ha. is required to be built onthe pillars numbering about 6000 going upto the rock strata and coming at a level where the rivers can be desilted and maintained by use ofmechanical means. This 245 Ha.of land on which no structure abovewill be allowed, otherwise this will increase the airport developmentlevel further to suit the structural requirement of activities coming over this. As such the airport loose the utilisation 20 percent it valuable land affecting design capacity of airport.

ii) Runway orientation: Based on air traffic forcast, designed capacity ofairport is 60 million passenger per annum for which two independentrunways with 1.85 km spacing between the runway is required.Assuming that Ulwe river will cut across the airport by constructingbridges at many locations and keeping the alignment of Gadhi riverunchanged, would amount to reducing the length of Northern runway byhalf, thereby making the airport a single runway airport. The capacity ofairport will drastically reduce to 30 MPPA warranting the construction ofthird airport for Mumbai. Possibility of changing the runway
13

positiontowards South is also examined and the same was ruled out because ofnonavailability of space and presence of road, railway and Karnala hill. iii) Security: The large area below stilt admeasuring about 245 ha needsto be secured from all sides on 24X7 basis which is costly andimpossible task owing poor accessibility and it will adversely affectfinancial health of the airport. The security requirements prescribed by Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, Ministry of Civil Aviation preventssuch type airport development. iv) Operation & Maintenance: Both the rivers are required to disilted atregular interval owing to obstruction created in terms of large no pillarsto maintained its discharging capacity. Maintaining rivers below stills willrequire special technique and skills associated with cost burden on theairport. Similarly the maintenance of stilt structures and support in terms of pillars will pose another difficulty owing to the salineenvironment. v) Environment: Development of part of the Airport on stilt requiring largenumber of pillar foundations would defeat the very purpose of retainingthe geomorphology of rivers. There is a equal chance of alteration inthe hydraulic regime of the rivers. More over, it will prevent growth ofmangroves, vegetation and may affect adversely the aquatic lifebecause of absence of sunlight and proper ventilation. vi) Cost implication: The construction of part of the airport on the stilt willbe a task by itself. A rough estimate based on the number of pillars,beams/girders, deck slab at the rate of Rs.70,000/Sqmt for 245 Ha. Ofairport area works out to Rs.16,000 Cr. Besides this there will berecurring expenditure at the rate of 2% per annum would be Rs.336 Cr.This cost once included in the project cost would make the airportproject totally unviable.

Based on the above parameters, the optionavailable is to make available the airport land by training the Gadhiriveralong the eastern boundary of airport and diverting the Ulwe river on theSouthern boundary of the airport.

3.1.2 Flattening of hill:The Navi Mumbai airport, will be built from the rubble generated from razing the 90-metre hillock. The airport has to be built seven metres above mean sea level and the ground will have to be levelled. The Environment Ministry cleared the levelling razing of the hillock which would be needed for flights to take off and land. Whatever earth is generated from flattening the

14

hillock, it will be used to level the airport ground. Its needed to raise the airport level to seven metres above mean sea level. The entire earth from the hillock would be used. About 60 million cubic meters of earth will be generated out of the hillock which will all be used at the airport. That is just enough to level the airport. This will ensure that it will not need to get truckloads of earth for the airport as it will all be in the airport perimeter.

3.1.3Rehabilitation: About 14 villages fall within the operational area of airport which are to be shifted to suitable locations. The population of these villages is in the range of 20,000 to 30,000. Rehabilitation of such a large population by shifting from their original villages appears to be a difficult task considering the stiff opposition from the local population.The villagers allege that the sites chosen for rehabilitation are not compatible with theirtraditional fishing practices. Also, villagers allege that the land belongs to private owners. Theyalso fear that land filling will worsen the tidal flooding in the area.SumanKoli of Maharashtra MachimarMahasanghsaid, they needed their demands met firstbefore we hand over our land to them or else we will launch a protest campaign.

3.1.4 Farmers CompensationIssue: Just when the momentum picked up for the Navi Mumbai International Airport after a two yeardelay over environmental clearances, theres a brand new threat to the mega project. Local farmers, who collectively own more than 1,000 acres of land thats earmarked for the airport, are now demanding a whopping 20 crores per acre, which is five times more that of themarket rate plus rehabilitation and jobs.Though, The City and Industrial development Corporation of Maharashtra's (CIDCO)rehabilitation proposal looks promising, the villagers have certain allegations to put onauthorities. According to the proposal, the villagers would be shifted to three sites in nearby villages.

3.1.5 Karnala Bird Sanctury: The fragile eco environment in Matheran hills and Karnala bird sanctuary is unlikely to beaffected by the proposed Navi Mumbai airport coming up at the Panvel site. Sources indicated that the report of the City
15

Industry

and Development

Corporation

(CIDCO)suggesting mitigation measures to the Ministry of Environment is expected to point out that thedanger of noise pollution from aircraft affecting the fragile eco system in Matheran was remote.The aircraft are at a height of about 2,000 ft when they are over the Matheran region so the noisepollution will not be felt.

3.1.6 Fight between centre and state to own airport land: The state government had plans to float the project tender for international bidding. However, it has not been possible as the civil aviation ministry is yet to give its approval to the tendering process as well as the detailed project report (DPR). This is in addition to the challenge of acquiring around 24% of the remaining project land, which belongs to peasants, after deciding on their compensation. While an empowered group of ministers (EGOM) is yet to be formed to approve the tendering and development process, highlyplaced sources say differences have cropped up between the state and the Centre over the project. At the heart of this row is a basic question. Who will be the owner of the land acquired for the airport -City and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (CIDCO) or the civil aviation ministry? Airports Authority of India (AAI) and CIDCO were to have 13% equity each in the Rs 14,000-crore greenfield project; the remaining 74% belongs to the developer. After recovering the cost and recording profits over a 40-year period, the developer is supposed to hand over the project and the land to CIDCO and AAI. This is where the Centre and the state are at odds, it has been learnt. While the Centre reportedly wants the entire land to be transferred in its name, CIDCO has said the matter will be decided at the time of finalizing the developer. The Centre wants the entire land to be handed over to the civil aviation ministry and also to control further development. CIDCO has already placed a proposal, which clearly states that it will develop the project along with the developer and AAI. These differences are delaying formation of the EGOM and further approvals, said an MP from Mumbai on condition of anonymity. Meanwhile, CIDCO has proposed that formation of the EGOM be avoided; instead, the steering committee should supervise the tendering and development process. It has argued that this is possible if the project is taken up under the new greenfield policy, which does away with the need for an EGOM. The Navi Mumbai airport project is being implemented under the old rules as the proposal was made years ago.

16

CRZ AMENDMENT Special Cases: The CRZ notification provides for the uniform regulation of the entire country irrespective of the diversity, socio economic conditions, developmental pressures etc. However, it is proposed, in light of certain special circumstances, toprovide special consideration for the following: Greater Mumbai and Navi Mumbai Mumbai and Navi Mumbai are one of the most thickly populated coastal areas. The coastal stretch is under tremendous pressure due to various developmental activities. A sizable population of Mumbai and Navi Mumbai live in slums abutting the coastal stretches. These slums are not only polluting the environment but are also at great risk from being so close to the shoreline. About 136 slums areas exist within 500 mts from the coast. Mumbai and Navi Mumbai also have good mangrove areas along the coastal stretches which act as a green buffer. Further, almost the entire city sewage including effluents from industrial units are let out into the creeks and the sea. In view of the above issues, Mumbai and Navi Mumbai require a special dispensation. As recommended in the Swaminathan Committee Report, the new CRZ shall provide for redevelopment of specified buildings in some specified areas. The Private-developer based building projects in CRZ areas shall be considered subject to providing public finance for housing.

Construction of stilt roads to protect Mangroves in Mumbai: In some of the urban areas classified as CRZ-II, there is large mangrove growth especially in Mumbai, Navi Mumbai, Goa etc. Due to expansion of the urban infrastructure these mangroves are systematically being destroyed especially for laying of peripheral.

Facilities for Fisherfolk: Keeping in view the difficulties faced by fishing communities, basic facilities such as fish drying yards, auction halls, net mending yards, traditional boat building yards, ice crushing units, fish curing facilities etc., shall be provided in the NoDevelopment Zone of CRZ-III areas.

3.1.7Chinchpada Village which will be affected by the Navi Mumbai International Airport: These projects have carried out Environment Impact Assessments (EIAs), but on an individualbasis. In normal circumstances this would have been acceptable, but the proximity
17

of theseprojects to each other has to a great extent nullified the individual EIAs. As far as the naturalenvironment is concerned, the effect that will be felt will be a cumulative one. Hence the BNHS'call for a Cumulative Environment Impact Assessment report.TheKonkan coast has maintained its pristine nature to a great degree. Mangroves, mudflats andbreeding sites of fish, turtle, birds and molluscs flourish here. There are stretches of coral reefs,and migratory birds are still drawn to the region. There are dolphins and porpoises; even spermwhales have been sighted. In fact, Apte and his team were intent on mapping this coastal ecologywhen they became aware of the planned industrial development in the region and the damage thatcould ensue. Their yearlong study culminated in a preliminary report on the Diversity of Coastal Marine Ecosystem of Maharashtra,which highlighted the region's natural riches and theimmense destruction the industries can cause.The report was submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) with the strongrecommendation that a Cumulative Environment Impact Assessment study was crucial to thesurvival of the region's biodiversity. The MOEF agreed to this. The assessment will be the first of its kind in India.The BNHS report shows that at least 11 eco-sensitive sites will be severely damaged from thethermal discharge from the power plants. Ministry regulations allow thermal discharge to be 7Celsius hotter than the ambient temperature of the sea water. After receiving the preliminary study, the MOEF altered the norm to 5 C, but Apte says even that will be destructive because of the volume of water.

The EAC will discuss the alleged CRZ violation by Posco as well. However, the beleagueredcompany has categorically denied having violated any provisions of the Environment ProtectionAct 1986.The 12 million tonne capacity steel plant is proposed to come up on a land of about 4,000 acres inOrissa, out of which 2,900 acres is forested land which requires special forest clearance.

3.1.8 Flora and Fauna: Environmental Issues/Impacts:Loss of local fauna Enhancement/Mitigation Measures: As there was no wildlife, observed during the fieldsurvey as well no mention of rare or endangeredwildlife species in the area in the reports of theState Forest Department, no

18

detailed mitigationmeasure is envisaged. However, the EMCpersonnel would be trained to be sensitive to thisrare issue Management Action: EMC Implementation Responsibilities: CIDCO/ SPC Environmental Issues/Impacts :Loss of trees &vegetation in theproject area Enhancement/Mitigation Measures: Compensation for the loss of vegetation would bethrough compensatory vegetation and plantationprogramme. It will be undertaken within the airportarea and the species selected would be local, fastgrowing, ornamental, provide shade and above allnon-fruit bearing so as to reduce any bird mishapsduring the operation phase. The proposed project activity does not involveclearing of any forest areas which act as the habitatfor wildlife, adverse effect on wildlife habitat(reduction / breaking). The project activities do notreduce or brake up wild life habitat. However, theEMC personnel would be trained to be sensitive tothis rare issue Management Action: Plantation Costs will beborne by CIDCO/SPC EMC will prepare adetailed Transplantationand Plantation plan andmonitoring theimplementation Implementation Responsibilities:CIDCO/ SPC.

3.1.9 Noise Pollution: Enhancement/Mitigation Measures: Noise will be generated due to blasting operations ofHills. It is a activity lasting for short duration and thenearest settlements are more than 1 km away, theimpact of the generated noise level on thesurrounding population will be negligible. However, following stipulations would be provided to thecontractor in the tender document. Blasting to be carried out as per the bestengineering practices and the use of moderntechnologies producing minimum dust and noise. Proper maintenance of equipment will beundertaken with suitable enclosures and intakesilencers.

19

Blasting should be well planned with largenumbers being fired infrequently than a few blastsdaily. No blasting will be carried out at night. Before controlled blasting, the surrounding villageswill be alerted and the villagers and domesticanimals will be offered safe place away from theproject site.

Stationary equipment such as ready mix plant, hotmix plant, cement storage plant will result in noisegeneration. The minimum distance of operationfrom stationary source for residential areasrequired for meeting CPCB standards is 113m. There are no residential areas within 113 m fromthe outer boundary of the project site and hence, no considerable impact is envisaged on the surrounding community during construction phase. However, the impacts will be significant on construction workers, working close to the machinery.

Construction activities involving operation of high noise generating machinery will be generally avoided between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. The construction personnel exposed to high noise levels will be provided with protective gears such as ear-muffs. Construction machinery and equipment will be maintained in good working condition so as to reduce noise. Proper maintenance of equipment will be undertaken with suitable enclosures and intake silencers.

DG sets used during the construction phase would have the mandatory noise enclosures. The use of damping materials such as thin rubber/lead sheet for wrapping the work places like compressors, generator sheds.

Management Action: CIDCO to make provisionin the contract to limit thenoise pollution.

Implementation Responsibilities:CIDCO/SPC

EnvironmentalIssues/Impacts:Noise pollution along the various transport corridors leading to and away from the airport Enhancement/ Mitigation Measures: Control on the vehicular noise level speed and vehicle conditions would be done by:

20

 Identification of structures and population vulnerable to noise level increase and remedial measures such sound proofing. Tree corridor and sound barrier at the NMIA boundary in containing noise level. Observation of no horn zone in NMIA Battery operated service vehicles within the airport. Management Action:EMC to monitor the noise pollution. Implementation Responsibilities: CIDCO/SPC EnvironmentalIssues/Impacts:Noise pollution due to the air traffic Enhancement/ Mitigation Measures: Air and Noise mitigation options will be implemented by defining the approach landing and takeoff procedures in a manner so as to minimize impact. Control on the aircraft noise level would be done by: a. Insistence of International code on noise level during takeoff and taxing by the Aircraft operators. b. Noise level contouring and identification of areas in the takeoff and landing sections. c. Discussion with people concerned over the run way operation and noise level reduction andexecution of mandatory activities of DGCA and ICAO. d. Based on the community consensus and noise studies an implementation plan based on noise abatement plan and noise compatibility plan maybe established. The most effective method of mitigating noise sources - other than cessation of the source activity or use of source controls would include installation of sound barriers or also called noise barrier or sound wall or sound berm or acoustical barrier. Management Action: SPC in consultation with the ATC, AAI design the arrival and departure procedure of flat tominimize the noise. CIDCO would control the land use by zoning regulation. Implementation Responsibilities:CIDCO/SPC/AAI

21

4. RECOMENDATIONS
4.1 Mangroves Issue:
The plantation and protection of mangroves over an area of 615 ha (245 hectares of good quality mangroves park shall be developed at Vaghivli on the north of the airport area + 60 hectare area located on the west side of the airport site around Moha creek and Panvel creek + 310 hectares area on the northeast of the airport site between Gadhi river, MankhrudPanvel rail corridor and National Highway 4B shall be declared as No- development zone and CIDCO shall under take the development as mangroves park/green belt area). Mangrove parks well before the airport project is initiated and its progress reported to the high level committee mentioned. CIDCO also openly admitted that over 160 ha of mangroves would be chopped and a hillock flattened, but the company was ecologically conscientious. As a trade-off, it announced compensatory plantation of 350 ha mangrove in Dahanu, about 200 km from the proposed airport site. During an informal meeting, a senior professor from IIT Bombay, consultant for CIDCO, informed about the plan to create a mangrove garden with various indigenous and imported tree species, which would later be turned into a major tourist attraction. Ecologists, however, warned that mangroves cannot be planted blindly. They are locale specific and give local benefits. The question of why Dahanu, an ecologically sensitive area notified by the Union environment ministry, should part with 350 ha for a mangrove garden remained unanswered.

GUJARAT ADANI INDUSTRIES CASE Mangroves Issue in Gujarat Kutch Area A similar case on mangroves had been faced in Gujarat also, the background of which is as follows. Located on the Gulf of Kutch, Mundra is a coastal taluka in the largest district of the state of Gujarat. The wide inter-tidal zone in the region creates a unique marine ecosystem dominated by mangroves and natural creek formations along the coast which the Waghers, a Muslim community, depends on for fishing. The inland areas of this coastal taluka are used for agriculture, horticulture (date orchards) and animal husbandry. The poorest of communities, mostly Muslims and Dalits, depend on coal-making from the scrub forests of Prosopisjuliflora,mostly growing on revenue wastelands and forest department lands. The
22

Adani group of industries started their operations in the area in 1998 with the construction of a jetty. A small-scale start was followed by consistent land purchases for the construction of warehouses, container terminals and other infrastructure. The full-fledged new private port was completed by 2000. Roads, rail and finally even an airport was set up in the area. All this was to eventually form a part of the Mundra SEZ plan, which was approved by the Ministry of Commerce, in April 2006. The total area around Mundra consists of no less than three contiguous SEZs held by the same Adani Group; Mundra Special Economic Zone (1082 hectares), GujaratAdani Port (2648 hectares) and Adani Power Private Limited (294 hectares). The company has recently obtained approval to merge the three zones to form one single SEZ in order to avoid the long drawn out paper work and administrative hassles. Further, the Adani Group has been granted the right to use and develop 1400 hectares of land around Mundra Port for 30 years under a concession agreement with the Gujarat government. This brings the total amount of land available to approximately 6300 hectares around Mundra to be developed into SEZs according to the company's own estimates. The legal status of land which now belongs to the Adani Group, can essentially be divided into four parts; government revenue and forest land under mangrove or scrub forests; government land being used and managed by panchayats under the category of gauchhar or grazing land;government revenue wasteland that lay waste or was being used for grazing; and patches of private land. A State Forest Department report, released in early 2007, claims that 340 square km(34000 hectares) of mangroves along the state coastline have either disappeared completely or are on the verge of disappearing. These drastic losses of mangrove forest stem mainly from industrial activities, specifically in the Gulf of Kutch. In certain areas like Mundra and Hazira, they disappeared overnight. Quoted in this report, the Mundra SEZ had 3000 hectares of mangroves out of a total of 13000 hectares and much of these had already been cleared. Apart from running excavators another technique being used by the company is to let the mangroves die a natural death by staving off sea water with bunds to deprive the mangroves of salt water essential for their growth. In addition, the mangroves are also suffering from port and industrial activity with threat from oil spills and pollution. Local NGOs, national and regional media have repeatedly carried news of the consistent destruction of forests and the fact that it is a clear violation of all forest conservation laws and yet it has not drawn adequate response from the state or central governments. With most of the mangrove land not notified as forest lands or on lands under the jurisdiction of the revenue department instead of the forest department, there has been unwillingness from either department to accept responsibility and take action against the
23

company. Despite strict legislations like the Coastal Regulation Zone disallowing construction activity the port was granted an environment as well as a forest clearance by the MOEF almost 7years ago. While the extended SEZ is yet to get an environmental clearance, bunding and land-clearing activities in the area continue. Apart from supporting migratory bird populations, mangroves also form the spawning grounds for many a fish species, thus supporting the local fishing communities, which form a significant population in the area. Mundra has almost 1000 families dependent on fishing who now live under the threat of losing their livelihoods as the port and jetties expand into their traditional fishing harbours. Since their shelters along the creek shores are transient, with no legal titles, staking a claim on lost fishing grounds is hard for them. As mentioned earlier, most of this land has been classified as un-surveyed seashore or revenue wasteland. The dredging activities at the port and movement of barges and large shipping vessels also affect fish catch. Last year, one fishing village, Shekhadiya stood up in protest as the land being acquired for the SEZ's air strip blocked their daily path to the creek. In 1997-98 when fish workers of Jahrpara village (using theNavinal creek) carried on a movement after being evicted forcefully from their fishing shelters by the company, they got no response from the government. Further, about 14 villages have lost more than 1400 acres of grazing land to the SEZ. TheMaldhari community, who graze cattle and camel on these lands as their main occupation have been badly hit as a result.The people of the area have also not gained in terms of employment. Local residents claim that at any point there are 10 to 15000 migrant and contract labourers in Mundra living in hutments and shanties along the roadside, without basic facilities like water and sanitation.The region surrounding MPSEZL has other mammoth projects like Kandla and Jamnagar Petrochemical SEZs where similar environmental, cultural and socio-economic fallouts are being borne out. Yet there is no cumulative environment impact assessment to evaluate the damage these developments are causing to the marine ecosystem of the Gulf of Kutch. Gujarat mangrove restoration : Activity-1: Sites for mangrove regeneration/ conservation with communities/CBOs, based on expert advice were selected and finalized A Selection of the site was carried out for assessing the current status of the site in terms of ecological & environmental condition. GEC appointed expert team based on the ToR as mentioned. The team surveyed the area and prioritized the sites based on the observations
24

made during the visit. Apart from the technical aspects, the survey also yield the socioeconomic status of the villages. This included results of GIS based maps (Mangrove), Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) exercises. Expert consultants were hired and they were entrusted with the responsibility of conducting the BLS, with the logistic support from GEC, and CBOs. The scope of the base line survey was identified through a workshop. The workshop wasattended by mangrove experts, officials from SPPC, MoEF, Bank and GEC. Through a participatory process of discussion involving all the stake holders, the entire scope for the base line survey was identified. Activity-2: Developed baseline information for the proposed project area, with maps for existing and anticipated effluent discharge points. The Base Line Survey included assessment of current status of the Mangrove Ecosystem in the project sites. Apart from technical aspects, the study also yield the socio-economic status of the villages. It also included the results of the thematic (Mangrove) Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) exercise. The consultants were hired who were entrusted with the responsibility of conducting the BLS, with logistic support from GEC, and CBOs. Activity-3: Develop Mangrove Plantation Based on the recommendations of the BLS, the potential locations on each of the selected Project Sites were decided. The exact area for the Restoration, Plantation and / or Conservation were demarcated. The activities to be carried out were differed based on the status of existing growth. In case of restoration, the main activities involved desilting of the existing canals or the feeder canals. This was supplemented by digging of rib canals or new canals. If there were need for plantation, the main activities were collection or procurement of seeds, developing the nursery and plantation of seedlings. Nurseries at the local level were developed subject to availability of seeds. If sufficient seeds were not available at the site, then seeds or seedlings were procured from other sites. In case of conservation, the main activity was developing norms for better management of the existing mangroves.

25

All the above activities were carried out by the members of community based organization with the help of identified NGOs. The management committee of the CBOs was entrusted with this responsibility. Technical Models of GEC During the course of project implementation, different technical models were tried in order to evolve the most cost effective model. It also ensured that better results are obtained. Based on the experience gained from REMAG project, following models was adopted. Nursery Raised Saplings or Potted seedlings This model was adopted due to its capacity to give better survival rate. Nursery beds were prepared in the inter-tidal belts of the selected areas. The nursery operations started from the Month of August and continued till the month of November-December 2007. Earthen Mound Technique This Model was adopted and preferred due to its cost Effectiveness. It was also easy to implement where large areas are to be brought under mangrove cover. The model had proved to be effective in terms of survival rate in adverse ecological conditions. Direct Dibbling This method was employed at the places where tidal current was low. Canal Plantation This Model was adopted at the places where the water inundation took place once in 10 days as well as in hyper saline area. Activity-4: Training CBOs in technical aspects of mangrove plantation and maintenance (Technical Trainings). All Partner Community Based Organizations were trained in the technical aspects of mangroves such as ecology of Mangroves, scientific aspects of the Mangrove restoration, different techniques of the plantation through the renowned technical consultants. The inhouse capacity of GEC was used for imparting necessary trainings. Every implementation year this kind of training was imparted to the CBOs as well as ground level project staff. Activity-5: Alternative Fodder Development One of the ways of reducing the dependency of local community on the mangroves was by providing them with some alternative fodder and firewood. These reduced the pressure on the mangroves and enhance their growth. Keeping this in mind, fodder and firewood plantation

26

was developed in village wasteland and common land. The PRA reports gave an elaborate ranking about the fodder preferences of the villagers. Based on which, the species to be planted were decided. The seeds / seedlings were procured from different sources like the forest departments and private nurseries. The activities were planned and carried out by the villagers/CBOs for the technical aspects GEC/PMU and field functionaries provided support. Activity-6: Creation of Awareness among the various stake holders Awareness programmes about the mangroves and their ecological importance were undertaken for the village communities. The NGO representatives also took part in the whole exercise. The primary objective of the programme was to give an idea to the villagers about the mangroves and their usefulness. The mangrove experts identified by GEC carried out this exercise through different ways like street play, audio-visual shows, group meetings, yatra, rally etc. Mangrove Analysis, Plantation & Management Study: The terms of reference for carrying out EIA study given by the Ministry ofEnvironment & Forest has specified to examine and submit the details ofmangrove area, destruction of mangroves and management measures indetail with the help of satellite imagery of the last 15 years. The followingparagraph describes the field observation, analysis and location of mangrovelikely to be destroyed due to project, compensatory plantation and its Management. Management of Mangrove: a) Introduction: Formulation of a strategic management plan with an approach to mangrovedevelopment and sustainability of the mangrove ecosystem is essential. Theconservation of mangrove biodiversity and management plans may focus onseveral individual aspects such as historical ecology of the site, presentenvironmental conditions and other development cum conservation activities. But the sustainability and well being of an ecosystem largely depends onmanagement of three major factors such as Conservation, Resource andResearch at the study area. Thus it is obvious here to elaborate and discussthe management activities under these three facets. Similarly managementactivities required for betterment of this ecosystem can also be consideredunder two typical approaches viz. management on scientific and social insight.

27

Both these approaches are directly related to each other and will not work successful in isolation. With all the observations made around NMIA Project Site with specialemphasis on mangrove ecosystem, and after analyzing the records anddocuments, several management plans under different managing actionswere driven out to foster future development and sustainability of thismangrove ecosystem. Given below are some of the most important management plans to be undertaken for future development of the mangrove ecosystem under three different approaches: b) Conservation and Management: The management approach on conservation of biological diversity largelydepends on plantation of mangrove and protection given to them. i) Habitat management (a) Habitat management can be achieved under two aspects such ashabitat creation and habitat restoration. Basically habitat creationmeans the creation of a new habitat by developing new sites and linkingremaining patches. Similarly, restoration refers to modification ofexisting semi-natural habitat. As far as this mangrove concerned both these aspects would be quite applicable. (b) Communities that depend on these coastal resources face the longtermchallenge for their sustenance and after natural disasters in termsof economic crisis. Belated responses in initiating remedial action afterthe damage become apparent seen almost in all developing countries. Unfortunately, in spite of very rich scientific information action is usuallyinitiated only after irreversible destructive damage has occurred.In view of these critical situations, adoption of several preventivemeasures is essential to protect the coastal communities and for the conservation of these coastal ecosystems. Such defensive measuresshould cover all the activities of past, present and future, bearing inmind that the cumulative impact of these activities should not affect theexisting biodiversity in any way. To achieve these goals best option is toset up nursery at the site itself. ii) Establishment of a nursery (a) Direct planting of viviparous seedlings in appropriate locations whichare regularly inundated by incoming high tides, is an ideal way ofmangrove establishment in new areas. In some parts of the Country,raising the mangrove seeds for transplantation in a nursery establishedat the site or adjacent to it is considered to be ideal for successfulmangrove

28

establishment once planted. However, the techniques ofrestoration of mangrove areas (from their original degraded status) arerelated to civil engineering principles. (b) Locations which need to be restored will have to be surveyed for their topography, exposure to tidal inundation, tidal amplitude, soil typeincluding its salinity and anthropogenic pressures. Initial efforts could bemade to restore the degraded areas with indigenous species ofmangroves, which are found to be growing luxuriantly. (c) Planting native or already successfully established species would bemuch appreciable than introduction of a new species. Altering the siteby the introduction of strange species newer to the site will bedetrimental to the already established species.Thus, the species selection for plantation should be based on theexisting environmental conditions at the site rather than trying to imposenew species. iii) Public participation: (a) Mangrove management plans often collapse especially because they fail to fulfill the very basic requirement like involvement and aspirations of local communities. Priority should be given to participation of local rural people in mangrove-based plantation activities. Emphasizing on education to encourage them to the level of self-management, so that they involve themselves in protecting their own resources. (b) Involving local people reduces the information gap between local wisdom and knowledge systems available at different levels. Information about the coastal policies, coastal protection rules, laws and coastal acts can be taught to the inhabitants and to those involved in planting. Thus making local community literally well aware of coastal policies, leads to better management achievement. (c) Involving local people like the fishermen community, women self-helpgroups, youth clubs etc. motivates them to protect. Participants involvedin plantation should be sufficiently cohesive, dedicated and have acommon intention to plant and protect. Encouraging to plant mangrovesin adjacent inundated areas initiates them to safeguard the mangrove With selfintention.To achieve best biodiversity conservation objectives, improvedmethodologies towards raising seedlings, maintaining andtransplantation techniques should be practiced. Consequently, effectiveresearch projects and extension programs, which are critical andfocusing public participation in conservation and management of these typical coastal ecosystem should be given highest priority.

29

4.2 Diversion of the Gadhi River and the tidally-influenced Ulwe water body:
The proposed re-coursing of tidally influenced water body outlets from Ulwe river has a large cross sectional area at the middle with the river/creek on either end remaining unchanged with its natural coast. The whole system should function as was functioning earlier without airport project. Surface run off should not be let into the channel just because the area of cross section is large. The whole airport area will be reclaimed at the level raised to 7m whereas the existing level all around the airport will continue to be low in its natural state. There will be flow all around due to surface run off. These additional quantities must be collected by appropriate drainage system and let into Gadhiriver and not into the re-coursing channel. The recourse channel may be able to take it but not the river or creek on the either side of the channel. This aspect shall be examined by the Cidco in details to avoid the flooding of the low lying areas besides inducting hydrological and environmental studies. The entire system should be studied as one composite system with appropriate boundary conditions to reflect the worst conditions-minimum hundred years to be specified and compliance ensured such as flooding, surface run-off not only from the airport but also from surrounding areas as well, normal flow, tidal flow due to tidal surge having a long return period, possible obstructions to flow, tributaries joining the main river etc so as to take appropriate protections and remedial measures .Due to construction of recourse channels and due to tail end of the Gadhi and Ulwe rivers into Panvel creek, there is a need to prepare a comprehensive master plan for surface drainage and flood protection, keeping in view the proposed development. On the northern part of the airport there is a secondary channel of the Gadhiriver which will be filled up for the airport run way construction. This will be replaced by a shorter channel along the northern boundary of the airport. The channel should be designed appropriately through overall modeling study so that the channel provides tidal water to the mangrove park and moderate tidal flows under worst environmental conditions. The revised widths and depths of free course channels should be determined with modified drainage and worst rainfall/tide conditions including appropriate factors of safety. .

30

5. INFRASTRUCTURE

Metro connectivity: The two metro routes, which will directly connect NMIA, are Andheri-Ghatkopar-Mankhurd-Vashi-NMIA-Panvel, which is expected to

cost 13,000 crore, and Colaba-Siddhivinayak-Sewri-NMIA, likely to cost 15,000 crore. They will be aligned in a way that they intersect two or more other rail corridors. These modes of transport would be among several other road routes, monorails and suburban rail routes that have been proposed for ferrying over 10 million passengers to the new airport, once itbecomes part-operational by 2014.

Catamarans:Apart from these, two passenger water transport routes have been identified. The first one will be from Ferry Wharf in SoBo to NMIA/Belapur and the other from Radio Club at Gateway of India to NMIA/Belapur.They will be built at a cost of 250 crore approximately. Catamarans and hovercrafts would be used for the purpose. Until now, the government has failed to implement the water transport projects on eastern and western corridors. The approximate travel time anticipated to reach NMIA through the metro rails is 80 minutes, while the travel time taken via the water route is 30 minutes, excluding the waiting period at the terminals.

New fast corridors: Apart from these new routes, the report mentions the need for the proposed 1,300 crore fast rail corridor on CST-Panvel and Panvel-Uran routes, and the doubling of tracks on Panvel-Karjat route, in addition to increasing train services on Vasai-Diva-Panvel section.28000 crore is approximate cost of building metro corridors to connect NMIA with western suburbs and island city.

31

6. ADVANTAGES OF NAVI MUMBAI AIRPORT

Create Jobs: The newly appointed chairman of City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO), PramodHindurao, is expecting that 5 lakh jobs will be created in Navi Mumbai because of the upcoming international airport. Talking to media persons at his first press conference in Navi Mumbai, Hindurao said that the new airport in Navi Mumbai is designed to handle 6.10 crore passengers annually when it is completed. Comparatively, the existing Mumbai airport only handles around 2.6 crore passengers per year. Diverting Population into New Town: CIDCO was given a mandate to undertake all development as works and recoup the cost of development from the sale proceeds of land and constructed property. Based on the mandate, CIDCO set several broad objectives for itself. It aims to prevent population influx into Mumbai, diverting it to the new town, by providing an urban alternative which will lure citizens wishing to relocate to a city of peace and comfort. Immigrants are to be absorbed and efficient and rational distribution of industries is promoted by preparing a ground for them who otherwise could have opted for Mumbai. CIDCO plans to provide basic civic amenities to all and elevate standards of living for people of all social and economic strata. Moreover, it wants to offer a healthy environment and energizing atmosphere in order to utilize human resources at their fullest potentials.

Revenues for Investors: The growth in resident population in Navi Mumbai, rapid development of its Central Business District, coupled with economic activities such as Special Economic Zone, Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Thane-Belapur and Taloja industrial areas and the huge catchment area ranging from Pune to South Mumbai would assure a steady growth rate in traffic at the new airport, thus assuring steady revenues to the investors. In addition the project opens-up the states vast hinterland rich in agriculture, floriculture, hi-tech high value industries to world market. Thus, making the airport to act as a focal point for emergence of a trans-shipment centre in the Asian region.

32

BIBLIOGRAPHY
http://www.cidco.maharashtra.gov.in/ http://cidconmia.com/website/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navi_Mumbai_International_Airport http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/fullcover.cms?keyword=Navi%20Mumbai%20Airport

33