A while ago I received several frantic messages from a group of Panaji activists. The issue of the week: an alleged blocking of St. Inez Creek. The activists pointed to the concretisation of the waterfront along Art Park Campal, arguing that the construction will block the flow of the creek. This allegation is slightly misplaced, as it diminishes a larger issue that has slipped under the surface. The flow of the creek has been blocked for over a decade – in fact, the sandbar which we now call Art Park could only form because of obstructions to the creek. This is not poor waterfront engineering, but a complete u-turn by state agencies and their chosen consultant on basic, sensible solutions.
CONCRETE ON A SANDBAR? NONSENSE!
The concretisation of the sandbar displays a disregard for information and data that these very departments collected less than a decade ago. In 2013 the Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation (GSIDC) appointed LKS, a Spanish engineering and architecture firm to develop a “Holistic MasterPlan for Panaji”. Part-II of the MasterPlan details critical urban problems and gives solutions. One of the many major issues noted in the plan is the steady “reduction of the river mouth” due to sand accumulation. The attached image (from the report) clearly illustrates the growth of the sandbar over the last decade. In 2003 the creek opened directly to the river. Over the last two decades, an area has ballooned in the Mandovi. Today the bar measures 250 meters long, and covers an area of six acres. Trees have now grown there, it is hard to distinguish the sandbar from the rest of the park. The report advises the state to do a further study. It warns that the accumulation is already threatening the creek’s sustainability. A sensible landscape architect or engineer would review this document and say one thing: avoid any permanent infrastructure on this piece of land.
After consulting a few civil and environmental engineers in India and at the University of Michigan, two solutions came forward. The first, a mechanical or “hard” solution, is to dredge the creek and remove the sandbar. This will give a better slope to the creek and provide immediate relief – but it will be very expensive. The second solution – a “softer” one – is to reduce dumping of garbage and sewage, clear the creek of garbage, and landscape all the water’s edges with reeds and certain water plants (riparian systems). This should help the creek to flow more naturally – and in turn, the sandbar will reduce over time. While the soft option is cheaper, its success is more uncertain than the hard solution. No professional I spoke to advocated for building a bridge over the mouth of the creek and developing a paved waterfront. This is a serious environmental issue. By pouring concrete on the problematic sandbar, the Smart City corporation and the GSIDC have followed a completely unscientific methodology and set Panaji several steps behind.
OUTSOURCING URBAN PLANNING
What irks me the most are reports that the project consultant is LKS. The same firm that highlighted the creek’s issues in a report less than ten years ago, is now compounding the problem! Consultant-contradiction is a serious issue. Today, most urban planning work is given to multinational consulting firms. This is because the government has introduced minimum turnover clauses, which make it hard for local professionals to compete and this policy benefits mega-corporations. Not only do multinational firms have no connection to client cities, but they also have rapid staff turnover – the average retention rate is less than two years. Most holistic planning projects take longer to finish. These firms underbid each other and set unrealistic timelines for urban projects. They all lead to sub-par planning, especially in smaller states and cities like ours.
None of these reasons are valid to not consult one’s own prior work when recommending solutions. Credible sources estimate that 80% of Panaji will be underwater by 2050. Our goal needs to be adapting and resisting this future. Environmental planning and engineering mishaps work in opposition to adaptation goals.
Is this the level that we have reached? Consultants looking at their bottom line, churning out projects through young, underpaid employees. The state, not caring, not checking, believing that a foreign consultant will give a better solution. Most importantly, not consulting locals, not tapping local knowledge, not even referring to its own records.
Goa deserves better.
This article first appeared as an editorial in the oHeraldo Newspaper on December 25, 2022.
