For the past four years, civil society and experts have united in opposition to the South Western Railway's (SWR) project to double the railway track from Kulem in Goa to Castle Rock in Karnataka, cutting through Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary (BMWLS) and Mollem National Park (MLP) in the Western Ghats. This project also impacts connectivity with the Kali Tiger Reserve (KTR) in Karnataka.
Pan-Goa protests since that time saw fruition last year when the Supreme Court (SC) issued an order against the project executed by Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd (RVNL). However, despite the order, RVNL has pressed forward in most parts of Goa, only halting work in ecologically sensitive areas.
It is now seeking environmental clearance for the remaining portion, prompting concerns from Goan environmentalists.
In August 2017, the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) conducted a biodiversity and environmental assessment for RVNL. Criticised for omissions and errors, the IISc report faced scrutiny in December 2020 during a peer review by 31 scientists, highlighting misidentifications, under-reporting of biodiversity, sparse camera trap usage, lack of multi-season studies, and information omissions.
In May 2022, the SC set aside the wildlife clearance issued by the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) Standing Committee due to the concerns over the Western Ghats biodiversity, calling for a fresh assessment by the Wildlife Institute of India (WII). Concerns arise about the credibility of the new study and fears that the EIA will serve as a formality to secure clearance rather than conducting a thorough evaluation for decision-making.
The study by WII faces a conflict of interest, as RVNL dictates the study's scope, reminiscent of the IISc study. Notably, one term implies an assumed project development, emphasizing mitigation over avoidance, contrary to the primary impact assessment principle.
Legal experts liken this to a student creating an exam paper, highlighting concerns that assessments set by project developers make the process a formality — an exercise for justification instead of a genuine impact assessment.
A third significant concern arises from the letter of acceptance of WII's financial proposal for the study, where the railway company proposes deciding on the environmental management and monitoring plan during the project's initiation in the wildlife sanctuary area. This ignores protocols according to which such plans are required before the project can begin. Obtained through RTI by the Amche Mollem (AM) citizens group, legal experts say this raises questions about potential bias in the NBWL’s standing committee's decision on fresh wildlife clearances.
The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) that was appointed by SC had strongly criticized the double-tracking project, finding no justification for jeopardising the fragile ecosystem of the Western Ghats — a globally recognised biodiversity hotspot and vital wildlife corridor. The committee emphasised that the project would minimally enhance the capacity of the inefficient railway section, traversing ecologically sensitive areas holding a Tiger Reserve, wildlife sanctuaries, and a national park.
As of now, it remains unclear whether the WII study has been finalised and submitted to the NBWL.
Here's what those who were instrumental in the agitations against the double-tracking project in the state have to say:
Goa Foundation
Claude Alvares, director of the Goa Foundation (GF), the key petitioner in the case before the SC that led to the appointment of the CEC, frowned on what was happening with the WII study. But he also pointed to the recent HC order on the tiger reserve, which he believes has to be taken into consideration before the Railways try and get their wildlife clearance.
“The WII study is in the nature of a sponsored study. There is the double burden of proving itself right since its first study was questioned by the CEC. They will therefore be very keen to prove themselves right, protect their reputation (which is already quite seriously damaged), and can be expected to go out of their way to ensure the report looks technically sound. However, most wildlife enthusiasts are already quite sceptical that they will be independent and fair,” said Alvares.
“If they come out with a study saying mitigation is not possible, they have to explain why they wrote the first study which was based on mitigation strategies. In my opinion, the study is a lost cause. It is a desperate measure of the railways keen on continuing with their project of seriously harming
the national park and wildlife sanctuary,”
Alvares added.
He also emphasised that WII would have to take into consideration the recommendations of the CEC, and warned that if they had failed to do so, the study would definitely be challenged.
GF, which has also successfully approached the HC regarding designating the Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary as a tiger reserve, felt this aspect would impact the WII
study too.
“When the study was commissioned, the tiger issue was not paramount. Now, we have a judgment of a constitutional court (HC) which has issued directions for setting up a tiger reserve. The core area of the tiger reserve includes the proposed railway line,” said Alvares.
“The terms of reference of the study are therefore outdated, if they do not take the judgment into account. Karnataka and the Union of India are already aware of the impact of the tiger judgment on the proposed diversion of the Mhadei's waters,” he said.
Rainbow Warriors
Rainbow Warriors (RW) which have organised numerous of meetings as part of their campaign against the three linear infrastructure projects, felt the WII study appears to more of a formality and forgone conclusion rather than a legitimate EIA that could stop the double-tracking project in its tracks as hoped for by thousands of Goans.
“The WII study is an eyewash from the inception since the letter of acceptance and terms of reference ask for mitigation measures as if the project is already approved. The study is meaningless unless a cost-versus-benefit analysis and assessment of alternatives (from Krishnapatnam Port instead of Mormugao Port) are included and independent conclusions are reached on whether the project should be permitted or rejected,” said RW founder, Abhijit Prahbhudesai.
He is one of the few persons who have been charged by both the Railway Police
and Goa police for his alleged role in the Chandor protests against double-tracking in November 2020.
Goencho Ekvott
Orville Dourado, founder of Goencho Ekvott (GE), a group that has been at the forefront of the anti-coal agitation and is presently fighting off double track works in the coastal belt of Mormugao, laid emphasis on what the SC said so that the WII study does not dilute the essence of the SC
judgement.
“Based on the factual assessment of its CEC, the learned judges of the SC had pointed out the glaring gaps in the reports prepared by IISc, among others, with regard to the proposed railway double-tracking between Castle Rock in Karnataka and Kulem in Goa, and had demanded a cumulative impact assessment as the proposed route was passing through an ecologically sensitive tiger corridor like the Anshi-Dandeli Tiger Reserve in Karnataka and BMWLS in Goa, both abutting Goa, Maharashtra and Karnataka,” said Dourado.
“Given that RVNL has drawn up the scope of works and time period for WII to complete the mitigation plan for a handsome sum, we naturally have apprehensions that the mitigation report will be biased towards the RVNL and a mere eyewash to ensure that the double-tracking works will recommence even though the Western Ghats extends right up to Gujarat in the north, and passes through Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka and Kerala, up to Tamil Nadu,” he said.
Dourado further said, “We at GE (along with the rest of the civil society) condemn such a gross farce on our environment wherein the accused sets the tone of the case, results which are clearly intended to mislead the SC judges to pave the way for double-tracking works to resume."
Amche Mollem
The AM citizens group, which has been spearheading a collective grassroots campaign, both offline and online, also came down heavily on these developments.
“Firstly, there is a conflict of interest because the scope of the (WII) study has been set by the project proponents themselves, the RVNL. The study has been directed to showcase mitigation measures as if already assuming that the project will be passed. This is not the sole function of the EIA and shows a clear bias towards the project,” said AM.
“The proposed tiger reserve in Goa is a new and important consideration that will have to be addressed, given the railway line cutting through Goa's primary protected area as well as the KTR in Karnataka. This goes to show that the EIA is biased towards the railway project and in contravention to the role of the WII itself,” it added.
Goyant Kollso Naka
A group that was formed specifically to protest against coal transportation through Goa and the destruction of the environment, Goyant Kollso Naka (GKN) has also questioned the intent of the WII study.
“The comprehensive report by the SC-appointed CEC and the reports of the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) should be the basis of any future studies through sensitive areas like BMWLS and the Dandeli-Anshi tiger reserve,” said Felix Furtado, GKN member.
“Why our government is hell-bent on destroying Goa and its ecology is beyond comprehension. RVNL should not be allowed to prepare any assessment reports independently. Environmentalists from civil society should be part of the teams conducting the assessment. Involvement of RVNL, which is the project proponent, smacks of arriving at biased decisions, which should not be accepted by the SC, Furtado added. “It is reliably learnt that WII has appointed some scientists and engineers to the Interview Committee, without making the proposal public. It is not known whom they have interviewed or consulted. Everything is hush-hush. If any report is prepared, the contents should be available for public scrutiny and review."