2010-07-17
Environment minister Jairam Ramesh is back in the news for his crusading spirit, this time concerning aviation issues impacting Mumbai. His latest policy attack is on the aviation sector—he outrightly rejected the construction of private helipads on rooftops of Mumbai’s tall buildings. His ministry has issued an affidavit to the Bombay High Court, amounting to a policy statement. There does not appear to be any prior consultation with other ministries. A government department’s affidavit should be based on overall government policy and not the ministry’s own assertion. But, after a discussion with the chief minister of Maharashtra, he has allowed four public helipads for emergencies. While it is true that helicopters make noise, which is higher than the permitted levels for residential zones, it is also true that a lot of work is going on to reduce their noise levels. Noise from the tail rotor has been reduced considerably by putting a shroud around it and by increasing the number of blades from 2-4 to 8-12.
It may be stated that helicopters have a very important role to play in congested cities with tall buildings, especially for medical emergencies, evacuation and rescue. The Awaaz Foundation, which filed a PIL against helipads in Mumbai, seems to have forgotten the role helicopters played in the rescue operations for 26/11 victims. Construction of helipads, private or public, on top of tall buildings is an accepted practice in developed countries. Had there been more helipads, it is possible that rescue would have been faster.
Noise produced by such helicopters has to be regulated. But the environment ministry should not be concerned with private or public ownership, as this is best left to the ministry of civil aviation. It is the location of the helipad and the noise created that is the issue. For example, if a private building has an approach from the sea and the noise impact is on sea then there should be no problem giving them permission, from an environment angle. In fact, Mumbai will provide plenty such locations, being an island city. The minister has also been quoted separately in the press that private helipads do not make sense ‘when India is talking about equitable access to atmospheric space’. However, a full examination of all issues is necessary before airing a view in public by a minister.
In a similar vein, since Mumbai is the commercial capital of the country and its existing airport is inadequate, a new airport is essential for the city’s growth. The current airport cannot take a second parallel runway—a requirement to meet the growth in air traffic. The proposed location for the new airport has ecologically sensitive mangroves along the sea coast—40% of the land. The ministry of environment has refused permission on grounds that the mangroves will be destroyed. It is necessary to examine how stopping the destruction of about 400 acres of mangroves will compromise the growth of city. (A condition attached is to plant mangroves at an alternative site has been accepted by the new airport’s project proposal). Further, what is important is to stop the wanton destruction of mangroves for firewood, etc. It is easy for environmentalists to say that mangroves have a critical role in the ecosystem and act as a natural buffer against sea erosion. However, it is also true that this site has been selected by a due process as the most suitable site, keeping in view the distance from the city and availability of flat land. As this is a critical development requirement for Mumbai, the pros and cons have to be weighed to come to a decision, rather than airing opinions that first come to mind. The Mumbai airport has been an issue that doesn’t seem to have moved forward. The existing airport has over 1,00,000 shanties encroaching on its land, increasing its security risk. The state government has failed in its task of removing them. If a new airport does not get clearance now, Mumbai’s dream of being a commercial capital for the region will evaporate. The only alternative is to build an airport on the sea, as I had proposed earlier in these columns. In other countries, airports have been built on the sea and there is no reason why it can’t be done in Mumbai. The last such airport built was at Kansai in Japan and took only five years from the start of construction to the first aircraft landing. However, it is also a more expensive proposition. In any case, we don’t know whether even this will clear Ramesh’s environment compliance.
—The author is chairman of the International Foundation of Aviation Aerospace and Development (India Chapter)
No comments:
Post a Comment