There is no denying that another international airport is urgently needed, given the growing pressure on Tribhuvan International Airport, Kathmandu, due to increasing traffic congestion. Perhaps foreseeing the current situation, feasibility studies were done twenty-five years ago for the construction of another international airport.
And of the eight places, Nijgadh was identified as the most suitable for another international airport. However, not much progress has been made on the airport construction project. Against this backdrop, a Korean company has conducted a detailed feasibility study (DFS) for the Nijgadh airport construction project. But the study report has not been made public yet.
Two years back, the Ministry for Tourism and Environment launched the study of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and the Ministry of Forest and Environment approved the report in June earlier this year. Based on the report, the government has allocated fund for felling 2.4 million trees.
As the proposed airport construction site lies near Nepal-India border, the two countries have not reached any agreement to cover the technically required Indian airspace for flying planes. The project, which was shelved for 25 years, has suddenly run into controversy after the plan to clear the forest was made public.
The talk about cutting down 2.4 million trees including 200,000 fully-grown sal trees and 600,000 big trees has not only stoked debates and interests—not just within the country but also at international level. Some serious questions and doubts have been raised after the government made up its mind to clear such a huge swath of forest without even preparing the Detailed Project Report (DPR) of the project.
Q 1: Why should the forest be cleared without the DPR and investment decision?
The process has made everyone suspicious about the project. For a mega project of this kind, it is a general practice to conduct feasibility study, analysis of alternatives, detailed study of the project, study of its social and environmental impacts, cost estimation, market study, necessary agreements for launching the project, and then only the work is initiated by arranging the budget. But the project’s DPR has not been prepared yet.
The Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN) directly conducted the EIA and allocated the budget for felling the trees. This is the point that provided fertile soil for suspicion. Just like in the past, isn’t it an attempt to cut down the trees and settle land-less squatters there and ultimately the airport construction project would be aborted? If that’s not the case, then why is the rush to cut down trees before any other process?
Q 2: When will the airspace agreement signed with India?
It is necessary to sign airspace agreement between the two countries to use Indian sky for cross-border entry and exit point for aircrafts from the proposed international airport. However, the agreement has not been signed. It will be difficult to operate the airport without such agreement. Bhairahawa is the latest example of the problems likely to surface. There are still many issues mired in confusion due to lack of airspace agreement with India. Therefore, the construction of the airport project that is estimated to cost around US $ 9656 million—almost half of the country’s annual fiscal budget, shouldn’t be initiated without forging the airspace deal.
It is imperative to conduct feasibility study, analysis of alternatives, detailed study of the selected project, study of its social and environmental impacts, cost estimation, market study, pacts and agreements necessary to run the project, before initiating the work by making arrangement of the budget. Unfortunately, the detail study of the project has not been prepared as of now.
Q 3: Why the area and geography of the airport so huge in size?
Another highly controversial issue of the airport is the area of forest said to be cleared its geography. Nearly 85 percent of 8047 hectares of area selected for the airport construction is covered by the forest. The forest is extremely important in terms of its environment and geo-strategic. The forest is naturally tropical and sub-tropical and it is the last remaining dense forest connecting the national park in Nepal, besides being a migration corridor of endangered wildlife species like elephant and tiger. If we look at the biggest international airports, Bangkok’s airport is sprawled in an area of 3240 hectares, Singapore airport covers an area of 1720 hectares, Dubati airport covers an area of 2900 hectares, and New Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International Airport covers an area of 2066 hectares. In Nijgadh, 2000 hectares of land was monitored for airport and city, it has remained unanswered as to why 8000 hectares of area was surveyed for EIA and why it was planned to clear such a huge swath of forest.
Q:4 Where are the plans for mitigating floods, inundation, erosion, and destruction?
The proposed airport construction area lies in Kohallabi Municipality and Jeetpur Simara Sub-metropolitan of Province 2 and in between Bakaiya River and Pasaha River. The only surviving natural forest of mid Terai plays a vital role in maintaining water cycle, recharging underground water, controlling floods and landslides in the area, and the people living in the downstream have to rely on the same source for water. However, if the forest is destroyed, it is more deplete the underground water level of a huge swath of area from Birgunj to Malangwa and Bihar in India, thereby creating a water crisis. In addition, it will also increase the threat of floods and inundation to the area. Though the EIA has raised these issue, no concrete measures have been mentioned to manage and alleviate the possible damage. It hasn’t calculated the necessary budget.
Q 5: Why should the army be mobilized?
It is quite strange that the EIA report has indirectly indicated that Nepal Army will be handed over the responsibility to cut down the trees. Why should the state army, who has made a reputation for the conservation of national park and wildlife, be mobilized for destroying the forest? It will be disputable to mobilize the army for clearing forest at a time when comments have been made against Nepal Army.
Q 6: Weak Environmental Impact Assessment report?
Apart from the issues of floods and inundation, the EIA has recommended planting 600 compensatory trees at a ratio of 1:25 that requires 360 square kilometers empty land. But it has neither designated any place for plantation nor given any alternative ways. The study of such mega project is not complete. Most probably, the EIA should answer the questions raised now but it hasn’t happened. Thus, a new EIA should be done by involving international level consultants and stakeholders.
By taking into account all these factors, the most important things for now is the Detail Project Report (DPR), detailed EIA, airspace control agreement with India, redesigning and relocation, if needed, of the proposed airport. If only the 20 square kilometers area could be used on the southern side, 80 percent of the forest could be saved. Likewise, the impact could be lessened if only a single runway is built or the runway area is pushed on either West or East side.
The objective of starting this debate or raising the question is in no way a protest against the construction of airport. We are urgently in need of a modern international airport. All we are saying is that a state-of-the-art airport should be built through due procedure, thereby minimizing the damage of forest. For this, there should be deliberations and analysis from several aspects.
