Economy

It is still not too late to "save Aarey"

Updated : January 30, 2020 08:53 AM IST

It was on October 4, 2019, when the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRCL) chopped off 2141 trees in the Aarey Milk Colony in a single night.

The contentious site was earmarked to be the Metro Car-shed way back in 2015.

It was on October 4, 2019, when the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRCL) chopped off 2141 trees in the Aarey Milk Colony in a single night. The contentious site was earmarked to be the Metro Car-shed way back in 2015. This set off a massive outcry by citizens and environmentalists alike. So, much so that all the major political parties except BJP, thumped their support for "Save Aarey" movement.

With the change of guard in the state in November, there was renewed hope that Aarey might be saved from the degradation. The new Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray stayed the car shed construction work and appointed a four-person committee headed by Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) Manoj Saunik to evaluate alternative locations. The committee recently submitted its findings, stating that there could be no substitute for Aarey as a car-shed because of financial and legal reasons. The report by the committee has once again brought the Aarey issue back in the limelight. The big question is whether CM Thackeray will accept the findings or reject it.

Hussain Indorewala, head (Research and Consultancy Cell), Kamla Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute for Architecture, in an exclusive interaction with Shashwat DC, discusses the Aarey issue in light of the new development. Working closely with community groups through the Collective for Spatial Alternatives (CSA), an action research and advocacy collective, Hussain has been an active participant in the movement to save Aarey. Excerpts.

The committee set up by the new Maha-Aghadi Government has reportedly endorsed that Aarey will be the location for Metro Car-shed. What is your reaction?

The committee's report that contains the TOR (terms of reference) given to them, all the submissions made to them, their reasoning, and their conclusions must be made public and responses sought before a final decision is taken.

According to media reports, the committee had examined two alternative sites to the Metro car-shed and found them financially unviable, how valid is the contention?

The argument of 'financial unviability' as being the sole criteria for decision making is very odd. 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, leveling hills for any project is financially more viable than not doing them. Notice that this sort of logic does not have room to consider - much less evaluate - the socio-ecological consequences of environmental destruction.

What were the alternative locations to Aarey?

There were quite a few. 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? This seems to be a classic case of rigging the deck to get the outcome you want - hardly a fair-minded assessment.

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?

What are the reasons that a Metro car-shed in Aarey will be detrimental to the ecology? What could be the repercussions?

Aarey is a hilly landscape of extensive forest cover, natural ecosystems, numerous Adivasi settlements, and primary occupations. It forms a much-needed buffer area to the Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP). Aarey is a part of Mumbai's ecologically vital hill complex along with the National Park and an important drainage basin, where streams and tributaries that feed two of four major rivers of the city originate: Oshiwara and Mithi. Projects such as the car-shed and others are likely to sever the contiguity of the forest and ecosystems of Aarey with the SGNP and affect wildlife movement. The construction activity and change in land use due to these new projects will disrupt hydrological processes and natural drainage patterns in the area. The extent and locations of these new projects will have serious socio-ecological impacts in Aarey itself and are expected to create downstream impacts, possibly increasing the scale and severity of urban floods.

Under the direction of the courts, the metro authorities had taken up the task of replanting trees and planting new ones. What do you make of this substitution?

Apart from the problem of survival of transplanted trees and suitable sites for them, it is essential to remember that a forest ecosystem cannot merely be reduced to its trees. As mentioned above, the SGNP and its buffer areas constitute a complex ecosystem, and an approach that is based on transplanting the trees or growing more trees elsewhere betrays a narrow technocratic mindset at best, and incredible ignorance at worst.

There is a view that since the trees have already been axed, we should go ahead with the construction. Since the damage has been done. Your take

Judging by the newspaper reports (we do not have access to the committee's report yet), the committee seems to be acting on the popular notion that "environmental damage in Aarey" = trees that have been cut. Another assumption is that once the damage is done, it cannot be remediated. Trees can regrow, forests can regenerate, damage can be undone. But once the project is built, the damage will be irreversible. Going ahead with construction of the car-shed in Aarey (land use and land cover changes) will cause an increase in the impermeable area on-site, and therefore increase in stormwater runoff, which will exacerbate the risk of downstream flooding.

If the equipment is removed and the construction done so far is undone, and the site is restored to its original state as much as possible, the forest cover can regenerate. Damage has been done, but at this point it can be undone. Shifting the car-shed to another location will be socio-ecologically more beneficial than keeping it in Aarey.

Metro trains are essential for public transport, and the gains that come from reducing cars are too seemingly large compared with the loss that comes from the destruction of trees, is a popular notion. How would you react to it?

There are many misconceptions about the benefits of a metro system - and much of the so-called 'gains' of car-reduction are highly exaggerated. There is ample empirical evidence from Indian cities showing that Metro passengers are usually captured from buses (but the reduction in bus traffic is not proportional) or from intermediate public transport (taxis and autos). There is very little shift from private car use. Metros do not seem to reduce traffic congestion or private transport use, because traffic rapidly grows to utilize the released road capacity. The only way to reduce private transport use is to reduce road space (dedicated bus lanes), and make car ownership and use expensive (on-street parking charges, congestion pricing, pollution taxes, restricted parking, etc.). Land use patterns that encourage walking and cycling and ease of access to public transport nodes are important for sustainable mobility.

Furthermore, the demographic profile of our cities demand low-cost mobility and short distance access to employment, which make Bus Based Public Transport (BBPT) most suitable for our cities. The Aarey controversy also shows that Metro systems are highly expensive, deploy massive construction (overground or underground), and are land-hungry. In contrast, BBPT is highly cost-effective, flexible, use existing infrastructure, and is more successful in achieving a behavioral shift towards public transport.

Finally, you have been part of the consultation group and involved in the movement to save Aarey, what do you think are the reasons why despite such massive public campaign (also endorsed by political parties) and opinion, there has been no shift in the destruction and debilitation of the ecological oasis. Why Aarey's end is more or less pre-destined? Can it be stalled?

Metros are highly capital-intensive projects, offering massive commercial gains for construction contractors and land developers. They can be presented as 'world-class' by the political class. This kind of infrastructure building frenzy has now become a standard model of urban governance. In an urban development paradigm with this kind of "monument fixation," it has been very challenging for advocates of sustainable and affordable public transport to build consensus on and promote city-making that is based on the ideals of public service, social equity, and universal access. This is a critical challenge for all of us.

But despite setbacks, the Aarey movement has managed to win significant victories. Organized action is our best chance and only hope. It is still not too late to "save Aarey."

Shashwat DC is Founder Editor at Sustainabilityzero.com. With deep interest in history, and mythology, he is also a passionate champion of the environment & bio-diversity. Using his keyboard, he highlights issues related to sustainability, ESG, CSR, and sustainable development.

Read Shashwat's columns here.