The Hindu | Staff Reporter | Andhra Pradesh | Nov 16, 2005
VISAKHAPATNAM: The Forum for Better Visakha (FBV) has asked the State Government to review its decision to go ahead with the work on beach road widening between Visakhapatnam and Bheemunipatnam.
The forum has stated that it is in favour of conducting a public hearing in the fishermen’s villages all along the beach road and a joint inspection of the proposed area by all the agencies concerned, along with representatives of fishermen’s organisations.
Forum coordinator E.A.S Sarma has also sought certain steps to prevent violation of Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) rules and guidelines issued as per the letter of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) dated March 4, 2005.
Mr. Sarma and representatives of NGOs like Samata, Space and Ankita Welfare Association, in a statement, said on Tuesday that they apprehended violation of CRZ rules following an advertisement by Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority to widen the road between Visakhapatnam to Bheemunipatnam.
“We as concerned citizens of Visakhapatnam would like to find whether the specific and general conditions outlined in the MoEF’s clearance letter were followed in true letter and spirit,” the statement said, asking the AP Pollution Control Board, the AP Coastal Regulation Zone Management Authority and VUDA to initiate measures to stop violation of CRZ rules.
The statement said that the original clearance accorded in the letter issued by the MoEF was only in respect of CRZ-III area. It alleged that following conditions were being violated: in the event of change in project profile or change in the implementing agency, a fresh reference will be made to MoEF; the tenders sought for work between 6th km. and 9th km. points passing through CRZ-I area (Survey No. 105, Yendada village and S.No. 336, Madhurawada) and no development zone (S.No. 13,12.7, 2 and 1 of Rushikonda village) violates conditional clearance given by MoEF.
The forum said a no-objection certificate should be secured before initiating any work and declared that the guidelines contained in the MoEF letter were meant for safeguarding the interests of fishermen living along the coast, protect the marine resources that provide them livelihood and preserve the ecology of their habitat.