Thane dist panel decision blatantly wrong, activists say
assets/blog-post/Thane district committee conclusion is “blatantly wrong” since the twin wetlands are part of TCFS eco system, say greens
NAVI MUMBAI: The Thane district-level Wetland Committee has concluded that flamingo destinations NRI (Flamingo Point), T.S. Chanakya lakes do not qualify as wetlands under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, triggering strong objections from environmental groups.
The panel examined eight sites across Thane and Navi Mumbai and determined that none met the criteria for wetland classification, citing factors such as artificial origin, prior land use and existing development planning designations.
The district committee conclusion is “blatantly wrong” since the twin wetlands of NRI and TS Chanakya form part of the Thane Creek Flamingo Sanctuary (TCFS) satellite wetland eco system as per a state forest department’s report, NatConnect Foundation said in its objection.
Moreover, the Dehradun-based Wildlife Institute of India Under the Centre has also stressed the need to conserve the Navi Mumbai wetlands, along with the DPS Flamingo Lake, NatConnect said.
The findings also stand in contrast to an earlier order of the Bombay High Court in a Public Interest Litigation filed by the Navi Mumbai Environment Preservation Society (NMEPS), activists said.
The case, heard by Justices A.S. Oka and Riyaz I. Chagla, specifically dealt with the protection of wetlands and mangroves in Navi Mumbai and took note of the lake near T.S. Chanakya along Palm Beach Road as being under threat from dumping and degradation. The Court treated such water bodies as part of a sensitive ecological system requiring protection and restoration, directing authorities to prevent damage rather than exclude them from environmental safeguards, Sandeep Sareen of NMEPS said.
The district-level committee report, however, does not reflect the High Court’s observations or the fact that CIDCO has challenged the order before the Supreme Court, where the matter remains pending, the activists said.
The committee appears to have relied significantly on inputs from CIDCO, including Development Plan zoning, land reservation status and potential impacts on future development. This reliance has drawn criticism from environmental groups.
NatConnect Foundation director B N Kumar pointed out that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MLOEFCC) has clarified to him that CIDCO is not the right authority to identify wetlands, and that such determinations fall within the jurisdiction of the State Wetlands Authority.
Significantly, the state environment department has mandated the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM) under the MOEFCC to document the wetlands that figure in the national wetland atlas. The district review committee report cites NCSCM only to describe the size of water bodies — termed “plots” by CIDCO. But none of the final recommendations by the wetland committee refers on the MoEFCC’s scientific arm.
For the NRI or Flamingo Point site, the committee relied on CIDCO’s position that the area was part of a planned development zone where global tenders had been floated for a golf course. The site’s inclusion in Development Plan zoning and its overlap with CRZ and salt pan classifications were also cited in concluding that it does not qualify as a wetland.
A similar line of reasoning was applied to the T.S. Chanakya site, where existing institutional use and development considerations were cited as grounds for exclusion from wetland classification.
In the case of Lotus Lake, the committee noted that the area was previously used for paddy cultivation, later transferred for development under the Navi Mumbai project, and allotted to Indian Airlines in the 1980s. Inputs from CIDCO and the Maharashtra Remote Sensing Application Centre were cited to state that the site is not recorded as a wetland, while satellite imagery was interpreted to show the absence of a water body.
The Jewel of Navi Mumbai lake was rejected on the basis that it is an artificially created water body forming part of a stormwater management system and therefore does not qualify as a natural wetland.
NatConnect Foundation pointed out that the district committee has failed to consider the globally accepted definition of wetlands under the Ramsar Convention — to which India is a signatory — which includes areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt.
