Assignment submitted by:

Haarika Reddy K
RICS – CPM (Batch 04)

Managing People Stakeholders

Topic:

Q1. Study the Bandra Worli Sea Link Project and identify the stake holders. Find out if the
project delay was caused due to improper stake holder engagement and how that
stakeholder / stake holders could have been managed better

Project introduction:

The Bandra–Worli Sea Link (officially known as Rajiv Gandhi Sea Link) is a bridge that links
Bandra in the Western Suburbs of Mumbai with Worli in South Mumbai. It is a cable-stayed
bridge with pre-stressed concrete-steel viaducts on either side. It is a part of the proposed
Western Freeway that will link the Western Suburbs to Nariman Point in Mumbai's main
business district.

This bridge was commissioned by the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation
(MSRDC), and built by the Hindustan Construction Company.

The sea-link of 5.6 kms reduces travel time between Bandra and Worli during peak hours
from 20–30 minutes to 10 minutes. As of October 2009, this sea link had an average daily
traffic of around 37,500 vehicles.
The schedule of this project was delayed by about 5 years and cost over-run by about 5
times the initial estimate. The cost of the project was 1634 crore rupees as against the initial
estimated cost of about 300 crore. Construction began in the year 2000. The first four of the
eight lanes of the bridge were opened to the public on 30 June 2009. All eight lanes were
opened on 24 March 2010. Charging a toll of almost Rs 70 (for a car) for the 5.6-km sea link
is one of the highest tolled roads in the state.

Stake holders involved:

The various stake holders are involved with this project are:

Stakeholder Role

Internal – Primary Stake holders – with high interest in the project

Maharasthra state Government Stake keeper and supervision

Maharasthra state road development
Initiator of the project
corporation(MSRDC)

Contractor
Hindustan construction company (HCC)
Dar-Al Handasah Project mangers

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Initiator and planner for the city
Central Water and Power Research Station
(CWPRS) Research and feasibility
Jacob engineering India pvt limited Design consultants

Lachel Felice & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical engineering

Ratan J Batliboi Architects PVT Limited Consulting architect

Consortium of Sverdrup Civil Inc., Original project management

Briham Mumbai municipal corporation (BMC) Municipal corporation of the city

Bajaj electrical Subcontractor

Internal – Secondary Stake holders – with less interest in the project

Central government Stake keeper

Ministry for environment and forest (MoEF) Stake watcher

State pollution control board (SPCB) Mediator

Shrikhande Consultants, Consultants

KPMG Consultants

HNTB Consultants

Mott Mc Donald Consultants

Schlaich Bergermann Consultants

Public Works Department (PWD)

Guidance
Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) Feasibility study

W.S. Atkins World bank consultants

Kirloskar pvt ltd

Consultants
External Stake holders

Bombay youth Association Has opposed the project

Society for Clean Environment (SOCLEEN)

Environmentalists
Bombay high court Stake keeper

Save Worli sea-face Samitee In opposition of the project

Stakeholder as residents of the
Akhil Maharashtra Machhimar Kriti Samiti (AMMKS)
vicinity
Maharashtra State Electricity Board Service provider

Media Stake watcher

Bombay Environmental Action Group Activist group watching the
(BEAG) project
Shivaji Park Dakshita samiti Activist group
Indian People’s Tribunal on Environment and Human
Rights (IPT) Activist committee

Walkers ecological movement

Environmentalists
Challenges/ Issues due to improper Stake holder engagement:

 Some of the External stake holders mentioned above had approached Ministry of
Environmental Affairs with claims/ objections on following issues:

Akhil Maharashtra Machhimar Kriti

Samiti (Fishermen)

Save Worli Sea face committee

(Residents of Worli Sea Environmentalists
frontage)

Ministry of
Environmental
Affairs

 Illegality of the Project in terms of permissions, clearances and transparency.

 Impact of the Project on Livelihood of Fishermen
 Impact on Environment due to threat on protected species and ecological
imbalance and risk due to blockage of Mithi River.
 Impact on traffic due to congestion in South Mumbai
 Undesirability of the Project due to absence of realistic projections on cost
recovery.

 Some of the internal stake holders’ decisions which impacted the project progress:
 Improper pre-feasibility analysis
 Selection process of the design consultant and subsequent change of the Design
consultant
 Change in design from “Arch Bridge” to “Cable tray” – resulted in delay in
completion of Stage-IV of the project
 Violation of various environmental compliances like not holding a mandatory
public hearing prior to environmental clearance
 Delay in commencement of works on account of IPL filed by the external stake
holders though project was awarded in year 2000 by MSRDC
 Dynamic stake holder influence is observed as the progress of the project:
 The activists who were external stake holders gained interest and power as the
project progressed with the help of media.
 The activists’ power reduced as the High court resolutions were passed in favour
of the project decisions and environmental clearances.
 The internal-primary stake holders like MSRDC, BWSL and HCC initially had high
power but the same reduced as the project progressed
 The recovery of the financed project costs is a matter questionable even today
hence resulting in loss the internal stake holders’ power.

Stake holder Management:

Starting from its planning phase BWSLP lacks proper management, it has violated various
norms for environmental compliances that has to be followed in India. And they are as listed
below:

 Public hearing:
 It is to be noted that public participation is an extremely crucial component of
governance and has to be treated seriously. Above all the affected population
has a right to be informed about any project that has been undertaken. But all the
members of local community and other concerned citizens have stated that they
were not consulted.
 Bombay environmental action group initiated and sent a letter to Mumbai
municipal road development authority (MMRDA) regarding their objections,
comments and suggestions however no response was received.
 BEAG also sent a letter dated 8th of September 1998 to ministry of environment
and forest stating their objections and suggestions and even this time there was
no response.
 All these incidents clearly point to the fact that the environmental clearance was
given to the project without holding a mandatory public hearing.

 Project report not accessible for public:

 According to schedule(iv) of notice dated 10th April 1997 issued by ministry of
environment and forest, whoever applies for environmental projects has to submit
 20 sets of summary of the salient features of the project to the concerned state
pollution control board. So that it can be made accessible for public hearing. But
no particulars, maps or other information was furnished to BEAG by MoEF.

 Coastal regulation zone violation:

 The state of Maharashtra and MMRDA gave an undertaking that no reclamation
should be carried out in the Bandra-Kurla complex area and no mangrove in the
Mithi River or its estuary would be destroyed. However there has been a blatant
violation of the terms and conditions of the environmental clearance dated 7th
January 1999.

 Local communities not consulted:

 The fishermen affected by this project were neither consulted nor their consent
obtained. No attempts were made to adequately rehabilitate and compensate
these fishermen for the resultant loss of their livelihood. Reclamation caused
change in the regular parking of boats in the near the Mahim bay to shift further
away causing the fishermen to walk more to reach to their boats.

 Environmental impact assessment:

 EIA is a tool to ensure that finite natural resources are utilized within the carrying
capacity of the ecosystem. It is used to minimize the harmful effects of the
development activity on the environment. According to the notification dated 10th
April 1997 issued by the MoEF, the Impact assessment agency should prepare a
set of recommendations based on the technical assessment of documents and
data furnished by the project authorities and supplemented by data collected
during visits to factories and sites if undertaken and details of the public hearing.
Further EPA of 1986 and CRZ of 1991 were also not considered.

Stakeholder Engagement plan:

The various aspects of Stakeholder management in the project given above indicate that a
better stakeholder engagement plan would have resulted in handling the project in a better
way. Hence, the following stake holder engagement plan is recommended.
Involve the general public and residents to reduce the dissatisfaction by way of conducting:

Public briefings

Community fairs

Field trips

Media releases

The above would have resulted in saving time and money of the internal stake holders.

The following are to be organised for the stake holders who are legitimate and have great
interest in the project:

Citizen committees

Fish bowling

Consensus

The following are to be organised for the stake holders who have little power and have less
interest in the project:

Public involvement

Scenario testing

Consensus conferences

Conclusions:

The project is definitely a success in Engineering and Architectural aspect, but has failed
in terms of Financial and Stakeholder management. Better project planning and improved
stakeholder engagement would have saved costs, time and resources and would have
resulted in better project cost recovery.