The Navi Mumbai Airport proposal, which had triggered a spat between Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel and Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, appears to be heading for a resolution with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh throwing his weight behind the project. The Ministry of Environment has been holding back clearance, saying it could adversely impact the ecology of the region identified for the project.

The Prime Minister seems to be of the view that environmental issues should not be allowed to come in the way of the project, particularly when he had ambitious plans to convert the country’s financial capital into an approximation of Shanghai. A group of MPs from Mumbai and adjoining areas met Singh early this week and sought his immediate intervention for removing the hurdle. A section of the government, however, still maintains that the reservations expressed by the Ministry of Environment are valid.

Developing the airport would result in the destruction of 400 acres of mangrove, diversion of two rivers and blasting of a 80-feet hillock. The destruction of the mangrove forests is of particular concern as they act as a natural buffer against the sea and coastal erosion. The impact of the destruction of mangrove forests from other parts of the city was witnessed during the devastating monsoon floods of July 2005. The 80-feet hillock, which will have to be blasted, also serves as a natural buffer for the coastline. The diversion of the Gadhi and Ulwe Rivers will affect the natural drainage of the region, like the impact of the diversion of the Mithi River was evident during the 2005 floods.

The Navi Mumbai Airport project was given ‘in-principle’ approval by the Union Cabinet in May 2007. But the environmental impact assessment report, submitted in June this year, did not address issues regarding compliance with coastal zone regulations, impact of diversion of rivers and clearing of mangrove forests. A fresh report was submitted for the perusal of the Environmental Appraisal Committee (EAC), which met in late July this year. The committee had asked state government and project proponent, City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO), for further details and information. The proposal put forward by CIDCO also did not include a social impact assessment study. This is a requirement under the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy 2007.