Combing through 400 pages of the draft zonal master plan for eco-sensitive or buffer zone in Mumbai’s Sanjay Gandhi National Park and interpreting it meant that environmentalists and activists were engaged in public interest or social work for more than a month, all the while doing their professional work and keeping home fires burning. Individually and collectively, they realised that the plan was riddled with faults. For example, streams were missing and so were many padas or Adivasi settlements.
It became clearer by the day that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) had not placed the ecology of the place – its defining characteristic – as priority at all. In fact, the plan was a design to disrupt and destroy the ecology that was in the eco-sensitive zone which forms about half the SGNP. Nearly 34 percent of the eco-sensitive zone had been encroached or constructed upon, the BMC admitted in the plan, but instead of clearing these it pressed ahead to open up the rest of the eco-sensitive zones for housing, infrastructure projects, and eco-tourism facilities. The illegal lavish bungalows of the Yeoor would also get regularised.
Many of the Adivasis, who should have been participating in the preparation of the plan, did not know about it and could not read English. Reaching out to them, collectivising amongst themselves, and generating public opinion to file objections and suggestions in time was not easy. The Borivali-based School of Environment and Architecture (SEA) organised workshops to help the interested people understand the implications of the zonal master plan which urban designer, teacher and geospatial analyst Abhijit Ekbote conducted. He along with Yash Marwah, co-creator of Let India Breathe, an environmental advocacy collective, and Nishant Bangera, founder of Muse Foundation, a youth organisation, speak about the unceasing struggle to save the SGNP greens.
About the draft zonal master plan
Abhijit Ekbote: The Adivasis got to know about the master plan through advertisements. Some NGOs and activists got to know that the Adivasi padas are being listed as or compared with slums in the plan which means the Adivasis will be treated as slum dwellers and possibly evicted. The Adivasi padas will get erased too, that’s the threat. The Adivasi padas have been existing for hundreds of years; people grow medicinal plants according to the seasons and practise their local traditional medicine-making.
Then, some migrants came in and the Adivasi padas started growing. So, there’s a thin blur between the padas and the slums. But if you look at the house type, you can easily understand the difference. They have a padvi, they have a verandah, whereas a typical slum house will have just basic walls and roof. What the master plan is trying to do is equate the padas with these slums which gives the authorities a reason to relocate them outside the natural forest. This means the end of their local practices which are embedded within the landscape of this area, which allows them to grow certain plants, and so on.
They also have around 12 Adivasi padas within the eco-sensitive zone 2 which is the maximum, maybe around 85 percent of the entire eco-sensitive zone area. The emphasis is on this part. The plan gives the authorities an opportunity to do anything that they want. By showing that they are doing good for the people here, they can evict anyone they want. That’s one problem. Another problem is the method and approach they have used for mapping is not based on ecological sensitivity. A key question should have been how sensitive are these areas from the ecological analysis. The plan is vulnerability based, in terms of how suitable it is for development and not how sensitive the forest ecosystem is.
Yash Marwah: It’s a very extensive document and 30 days were not enough for anyone to read, form an opinion, and respond to the BMC. The SGNP and its eco-sensitive zone, this is our urban commons. It needs to be discussed publicly, with all the intersectionalities. Around six of us including environmentalists, architects, lawyers, urban planners, social activists and some Adivasis met to discuss this in the limited time there was. We realised that the plan was just not for the Borivali side of the SGNP but Yeoor in Thane, Palghar, and Ghodbunder. Then, we started reaching out to people, raising awareness through ground campaigns at Borivali railway station, Borivali metro station, and outside the SGNP itself.
We demanded that the master plan was brought out in Marathi, Gujarati and Hindi, and that public discussions were held. It’s important that they talk to the stakeholders – the Adivasis and the common people who benefit from the SGNP in terms of clean air, water, less heat, and pollution. It’s also important to talk to all of us before coming out with a draft. So, that is the broader, democratic side of demands.
Nishant Bangera: A general notification was issued in 2016 based on which the authorities were supposed to prepare the draft zonal master plan within two years. But the BMC took nine years to prepare a draft, and then published it only in English, not in any local language. Large populations are directly and indirectly dependent on this plan and how it unfolds. The eco-sensitive zone was marked out to keep the forest away from the cities, it was a buffer between the two. This is now being used for various kinds of development and constructions.
Photo: Sameer Patel
Flaws in the draft zonal master plan
Abhijit Ekbote: The land use has not been taken into consideration at all in the draft master plan because they have not done a detailed existing land use mapping. They marked it light green saying it is ESZ-2 or eco-sensitive zone 2. The padas are not marked. There are agricultural areas, there are gardens, there is poultry, and Adivasis always have a bhaag which has to be marked and shown on the map. Their relationship with the landscape is different. They cannot be equated with slum dwellers who can be easily evicted.
The Pranob Sen Committee report in 2000 recommended that the government define ecologically sensitive areas on some 12-14 criteria. If these criteria are present, then that area is supposed to be tagged as ecologically sensitive. These parameters are not mentioned or used in the BMC plan which means it has perhaps not looked at them. Wildlife corridors, geomorphology of the place, endemism and steep slopes are not even mentioned in the plan. Also, the small A4 size maps don’t really show anything. Detailed mapping is missing, that’s the first objection.
The next is that the plan is not published in Marathi. Adivasis do not understand what is happening. We have to translate it to them which is not correct. The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act mentions that suggestions and objections have to be called for in a local language. This has not been done. We submitted around eight pages of suggestions and objections. One objection was about the language and the draft being only in English. Then, we objected that the approach and method used to understand ecological sensitivity is vulnerability-based and not sensitivity-based, as it should be.
A detailed mapping of the existing land use has to be done to understand each and every element of land use that’s happening. One can’t use the same industrial, commercial, mixed use, residential sort of classification. A much more granular classification has to emerge. That is missing. The third point is that the detailed mapping should cover all the parameters mentioned in the Pranob Sen Committee report.
Yash Marwah: The zoning system does not work for flora and fauna. Wildlife and trees do not follow this 1-2-3 system of classification. The eco-sensitive zone was meant as the buffer zone but the forest is the same. The eco-sensitive or buffer is supposed to take care of the core. This is important because it’s not an area to be constructed on. Does the BMC even know the effects of eco-tourism and residential buildings? Eco-tourism broadens roads, more trees need to be cut for that, concrete will be added, there will be more excavations. All this will affect the aquifers, the kinetic movement. Ultimately, everything is affected. So, what are the analyses and how will the BMC limit constructions, are some questions we have asked in our objections and suggestions.
The plan and the authorities are randomly clustering slum areas and tribal areas. Adivasi padas are identified as a slum; at some places, where there are no tribal padas or presence, the plan shows Adivasi padas. What does this mean? The authorities perhaps want to protect or regularise slums under some political influence. The illegal constructions are being protected too. I must state that all of us who have registered objections and suggestions are not against slums. We absolutely believe in human rights, rights of labour, rights of citizens, but the authorities are doing a sly thing. In this confusion, eventually, the people here will have no rights.
The SGNP is a coastal, moist deciduous forest and semi-evergreen forest, and it does not have perennial streams. So, a lot of the streams are not counted as such. Maybe the planners did not even come down here and see the streams. But the point is that once they are not marked, basically the size of the river is reduced. Streams are very much a part of the rivers and they recharge groundwater and aquifers. This entire topography needs a proper census.
Nishant Bangera: There’s already so much development that has happened inside the SGNP. About 30-33 percent of (eco-sensitive zone) land is used. The idea behind this is faulty. It’s about destruction and a message to people. This is why we folks came together and organised meetings. People identified gaps in the draft plan like natural springs were not marked on the plan or a particular pada is not on the map. Abhijit Ekbote built a tool where one can see which area is coming under which zone.
Photo: Abhijit Ekbote
The workshop and the tool
Abhijit Ekbote: The intent of the workshop at the School of Environment & Architecture was to familiarise people, especially those who live in the eco-sensitive zone 1 and 2, with this interface I designed. The interface was designed in such a way that you can draw over it, you can make polygons, lines, points. You can even assign attributes to the polygon or whatever feature you are adding, and later you can download them as geo-spatial files. You can see them using your GIS software or Google Earth. You can use it as a screenshot.
We created a format in PowerPoint in such a way that there were four columns. One was what’s currently there, which zone it falls in, what does it mean, and our objections and suggestions. I gave a demo in the workshop of how the Adivasis could use this tool to understand whether and how their Adivasi padas will get affected by the draft zonal master plan. The aim of the workshop was also to get all the Adivasis to understand the issues they are facing.
The campaign and the road ahead
Abhijit Ekbote: We are exploring a possibility of doing a pilot, of showing the government that this is how it can be done. It is not very difficult if you have ecologists, geologists, sociologists, some expertise in GIS and ground mapping. We will take up one area, do a sort of a trial free of cost, and show them that this is how it can be done and this is how granular one can be. And then propose another master plan. Let’s see.
Yash Marwah: We submitted a signed petition of around 26,000 people. We want the BMC to understand that so many people have spoken and take this into consideration. We also demand a Marathi translation and, if possible, translation in two other languages as well. We demand that there should be discussions with all stakeholders. We demand that a new master plan is drafted. Then, give at least 60 days for people to read and understand it, and then there can be a public hearing. I imagine a lovely way of public discussions, going through Ganpati Mitra Mandal, Durga Puja Mitra Mandal, parishes, dargahs, because our holy books talk about nature. How will we reach that stage if the BMC does not give us time at all? But this is exactly why they don’t give us time – because they don’t want genuine suggestions.
Nishant Bangera: The first leg of the campaign was to mobilise people to send their objections. Thousands of emails and signatures have been sent to the BMC. There is also a fear that the BMC will not show the real picture – if ten people’s letters were submitted at once with similar content, it is showing as one objection. This is definitely going to be a people’s movement, it has always been. And if the authorities don’t understand that, then judiciary is the only option.
Cover photo: The Adivasi padas in SGNP sustain life in the forest.
Credit: Nikeita Saraf
