The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority (JNPA) has sought the state forest department’s permission to divert 43.42 hectares of mangroves in Uran taluka of Raigad district to make way for an upcoming six-lane coastal road connecting Belpada wetland area to the port’s North Gate at Nhava Sheva.

The diversion of over 43 hectares of mangroves is in addition to 32.69 hectares of mangroves which have been proposed for diversion by the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO), for a coastal road between Amra Marg in Panvel and the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link (MTHL) junction at Nhava Sheva.

These roads are envisioned to provide better connectivity between Belapur, Kharghar and Nerul in the north and the JNPA special economic zone (SEZ) and upcoming Navi Mumbai International Airport (NMIA) in the south.

Despite handing over the majority of mangroves on its property last month, JNPA -- India’s largest container terminal -- had retained 70 hectares of mangrove land (equal to seven Azad Maidans in size) which are now proposed to be used for road building and port expansion.

The first phase of the project will connect Amra Marg to MTHL across 7.02 km, including a 1.2 km Navi Mumbai International Airport (NMIA) link. Phase two will join the MTHL to JNPT across 3.08 km. The project cost is pegged at Rs 1,031 crore, with around Rs 681 crore coming from CIDCO and Rs 350 crore from JNPA.

These coastal roads will also improve connectivity between South Mumbai and the proposed Navi Mumbai airport via the MTHL bridge. In the Ulwe area, service lanes are planned in addition to the six-lane carriageway so that nodal traffic can also benefit without disrupting the journeys of those travelling to and from the airport. Existing routes in the area along National Highway 4B and State Highway 54 will also be decongested as a result.

As per reports, about 43.4272 hectares of mangrove forest area needs to be diverted to non-forest activities in the above-mentioned project area. To date, no non-forest activities have taken place in the aforementioned area and there has been no violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 and its guidelines.