Minister of state for civil aviation Praful Patel has done well to raise the alarm over the delay in Mumbai’s planned second airport — due to come up at Navi Mumbai — which also revived the old question of the tradeoff between development and environment. Many in India share his view that this country is at a stage of development where environmental standards cannot be observed as strictly as in the West if we are to grow — and quickly. In Navi Mumbai, what is at stake is the proposed destruction of 400 acres of age-old mangroves and the diversion of two rivers. Both could potentially have a devastating impact. The mangroves along the coast protect the city from floods when heavy rains coincide with high tides, while the rivers — if diverted — can cause havoc with lives and property. Mumbai saw this just two years ago in the case of the Mithi river. It is in this context that minister of state for environment Jairam Ramesh asked Cidco, which is responsible for implementing the airport project, as well as the Maharashtra government for explanations, which are yet to be provided. Mumbai’s need for another airport is undeniable: crores of rupees and precious fuel are being lost ever day with planes having to circle the airport for up to an hour to find landing space, and even having to divert to other cities in some cases.
This instance apart, the larger environment-development question is more crucial than ever now, with the government going full speed ahead with infrastructure projects — roads, ports, airports, freight corridors. It is undeniable that in some cases environmental clearances have taken so long that much-needed projects have got stuck, or their cost has gone through the roof. A mechanism needs to be urgently devised so that these priorities can be balanced. A case in point is Mumbai’s iconic Bandra-Worli Sea Link, where the cost almost doubled due to delays caused by objections from environment bodies. The delays also mean that when such a project eventually comes up, it often proves inadequate for the purpose it was developed.
Mr Ramesh also stirred a hornet’s nest in Mumbai when he announced that the setting up of new private helipads would not be permitted — infuriating many, but also earning the support of other citizens. The Maharashtra government had sought clearance for four helipads — to be used in emergencies as well as for security purposes. Mr Ramesh has said he will give permission only for government-owned helipads but not privately-owned ones to be built on rooftops of highrise buildings. At present, some businessmen have their own helipads while many others are interested in acquiring them. Rather than take a rigid stand against private ownership of facilities which in emergencies can be used for the public good, Mr Ramesh and other likeminded public functionaries would do well, on their next visit to any major world city of the kind Mumbai aspires to be, to check out how a network of private and publicly-run facilities dotted across a large metropolis can be instantly mobilised in an emergency — as seen most dramatically in New York’s 9/11 and London’s 7/7 attacks. The safety and noise pollution issues that the minister has raised are no doubt important — but these only call for effective regulators to enforce exacting standards for all users, whether public or private.
It would be interesting for the rest of the country to see how these issues get resolved in Mumbai as other cities in India will also, sooner rather than later, have to deal with such competing claims of infrastructure development and environmental protection.