Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray had stayed the car shed construction work and appointed a four-person committee headed by Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) Manoj Saunik to evaluate alternative locations for Metro car shed. The committee recently submitted its findings, stating that there could be no substitute for Aarey as a car-shed because of financial, logistics, and legal reasons. However, experts, urban planners, scientists, and environmentalists find the report biased as it talks only about the financial implications of shifting a Metro car shed and doesn’t take into consideration the ecological, cultural, and environmental implications.
Shyam Asolekar, professor at Centre for Environmental Science and Engineering, IIT-Bombay along with Rakesh Kumar, director, National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, who were appointed members of the technical advisory committee by the Devendra Fadnavis government to find an alternative site to Aarey, had filed a dissenting note on locating the car shed there. Asolekar said the trend globally was to counter every argument to protect the environment by saying there is a technological solution. He says that “Technology cannot offer solutions for all environmental degradation. Social engineering and a business model based on equitable justice is the only way to get over confrontations and avoid environmental degradation.”
Hussain Indorewala, head (Research and Consultancy Cell), Kamla Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute for Architecture feels that the committee report is a classic case of rigging the deck to get the outcome you want - hardly a fair-minded assessment. He says that “It turns out that destroying a forest ecosystem is financially viable, but using public land for building the Metro car-shed (BKC) is not. If this is the logic that governs decision making, it is very easy to show that cutting forests, filling wetlands, reclaiming coastal ecosystems, levelling hills for any project is financially more viable than not doing them.”
Amrita Bhattacharya, one of the petitioners and members of Aarey conversation group said, "I wanted to meet the committee but they never met. The problem is the car shed and its nearby area is a catchment areas of Vihar lake, Oshiwara and Mithi rivers. The catchment area absorbs water from these rivers during heavy rainfall and also stores water. If there is no catchment area there will be huge flooding in Mumbai which will cost many lives. Its initial effects are already evident since we saw that the areas of Kurla and Marol were heavily flooded the last monsoon. It's not about the 33 hectare but about 62 hectare which will be given for construction purposes."
While arguing on the cost escalations submitted by the committee, Stalin Dayanand, NGO Vanshakti’s founder says “The economic value of a healthy tree with respect to its oxygen producing capacity is roughly Rs 23.72 lakh per year as per a report by NGO Delhi Greens. Rs. 72000cr (24x3000 trees cut) worth trees will be cut in Aarey for a Metro car shed worth Rs.300cr, is this economic wisdom?”
Hussain Indorewala questions the committee report saying “The Metro-III Detailed Project Report (DPR) itself considered four alternatives for the car-shed - Aarey, Kalina, BKC, and Mahalaxmi. Why were these not a part of the committee's TOR? He further said that “The Metro-III DPR provided four reasons for rejecting BKC as an alternative site for the Metro car-shed: (1) Notional loss due to use of property located in costly BKC area, which can be used more gainfully for property development / commercial exploitation, (2) Loss of revenue during construction, (3) Constraint on future development of the area that has tremendous commercial potential, (4) Opposition from buildings close to the site. Are these reasons sufficient to justify building the car-shed in Aarey? Are the Metro planners saying that real estate potential and commercial exploitation of land is more important than the conservation of forest ecosystems, environmental services, and livelihoods of Adivasi communities? Are the metro planners saying that the risk of flooding in downstream areas, and loss of forest cover is preferable to the possible commercial gains of property development?”
Even though the committee has cited logistical challenges, cost escalations and a delay in the commissioning of the metro rail corridor to justify allowing the car shed to remain at the present location, it found merit in the argument that increased construction activity inside the Aarey Milk Colony. The report cites the panel as stating that the project was impacting the flora and fauna in the region.
For detailed interview of Hussain Indorewala with CNBC TV 18, please click on the link below:
https://www.cnbctv18.com/economy/it-is-still-not-too-late-to-save-aarey-5158591.htm
For detailed article of Shyam Asolekar with Times, please click on the link below.
For detailed article on the economic value of the tree, please click on the link below: