Where Do We Go from Here ... !!!!

Dhamra Port, Ports and Turtles, Turtles and Ports, turtly portly, arguments and counter-arguments: A Perspective

The Dhamra port has been a contentious issue for quite a many years, with a history of mistrust, misconception and hysteria. Perceived to be one of the largest ports in Asia when complete and one of the few projects actually being implemented in Orissa, without being held up by social upheavals, legal encumbrances or caught in a political feeding ground, this port is actually owned by the state government of Orissa, India, a perception not realized by many dissenters.

The Dhamra Port Company Ltd. is a Special Purpose Vehicle assigned to build own operate and transfer (BOOST) the port to the Orissa government, the ultimate owner. Regardless of the fact that the EIA of the port project has undergone a fire test under an appeal at the National Environment Appellate Authority, the only judicial body mandated to look into environment clearances, wherein the NEAA has upheld the environment clearance the port faces constant and directed criticism at various quarters. Its association with IUCN is looked at with derision and cynicism, once again regardless of the fact that this is the first such association of conservation science and Indian industry. Efforts are constantly being made to dissuade IUCN and a particular business house which is one of the promoters, from its association with DPCL. Some of the criticism has been very personalized against this business house, targeted against the Chair of this house. Conservation scientists and conservation workers in India have traditionally maintained a cynicism of the corporate sector, and research and industry have never mingled together due to a history of mistrust. Very little conservation research is actually applied in the field in managing the protected areas of India. In this back drop we have a port which is coming up near turtle habitat. Conservation efforts for the olive ridley in Orissa have never been able to stem the 9000 – 10,000 recorded turtle deaths every year due to trawl fishing even with judicial interventions, as the conservation approach was fundamentally faulty, enforcement and conservation need a fine balanced approach which was never there resulting in the alienation of the trawl fishermen and a stake for turtle conservation was never felt by the trawl fishermen. We need to ask ourselves can the port help in turtle conservation in a coordinated effort. Can conservation be directed to involve all stakeholders in consolidation to drive conservation efforts to bring results?

We need to ask ourselves whether and how ports harm turtles, are there other ports which are close to turtle habitats. Yes there are the ports of Brisbane, Angola, the 90 riverine ports of US and especially the Canaveral Harbor in Florida near Cape Canaveral a situation strikingly similar to Wheeler Island and Dhamra port. What are the measures taken by them? Who takes these measures? Do these measures minimize intake of sea bed life? Yes sir they do, and who implements them? In the US, the US Army Corps of Engineers and National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration have been doing pioneering work on dredging with safeguards for the last 27 years. Are these measures being followed by the Dhamra port? Yes sir they are. But the EIA process is flawed? Why, because it was not obtained from the Ministry of Environment and Forests. Why? Because the procedure of environment clearance warranted that the EIA be cleared by an Empowered Committee for Environment Clearance (ECEC) of the Ministry of Surface Transport (MOST) and the MOEF would have naturally directed the EIA clearance application to ECEC of MOST which had members from the MOEF too. But that’s not the right way; the traditional way would have been the MOEF clearing the project. But if MOEF delegates the power to MOST for port projects what does one do? Moreover the EIA application submission of 1997 has fundamental flaws like port location. But wasn’t the original EIA submission supplemented by additional study reports as some of the same questions were asked by the ECEC during the two years of scrutiny undertaken, yes but the answers are never satisfactory and the debate goes on.

So where do we stand now? Where do we direct our collective energies? Criticize and condemn this unique and pioneering association between industry and science for working together towards conservation in India. What would be in the best interests of conservation science, letting the industry build the port without any guidance as has been the traditional approach of conservationists in India? Where does all the research lead us to? Musty government corridors gathering dust in government shelves or we try to apply this research in the field and especially in the industry. Would conservation be better off without the port having the scientific expertise of the IUCN, is the question we need to ask ourselves.

What has been the result of years of turtle conservation since the discovery of the arribadas in Orissa coast (Bustard, 1974; Bustard, 1976). Nothing much except the alienation of the trawl fishermen, we haven’t been able to convince them in using the Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs), because we have been shoving down laws and fishing bans down their throats, alternate livelihoods for them were also never implemented during the fishing ban. Can the port and its promoters help in changing the perceptions of the trawl fishing community and work towards conservation? Yes they can, but only in a collaborative effort together with conservationists and conservation science, and only when conservation science and industry can come together for conservation.

References:

Bustard, H.R., 1974: India—A Preliminary Survey of the Prospects of Crocodile Farming (Based on the work of Dr.HR Bustard). FAO, Rome.

Bustard, H.R., 1976: World’s largest sea turtle rookery? Tigerpaper Vol. 3 (3), 25.

Pandav, B., & Choudhury, B.C., 2000: Conservation and management of olive ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) in Orissa. Final report. Wildlife Institute of India

Shanker, K., Pandav, B., & Choudhury, B.C., 2003: An assessment of the olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) nesting population in Orissa, India. Biological Conservation Vol .115 (2003) 149–160.

Weblink:http://cms.iucn.org/about/union/secretariat/offices/asia/asia_where_work/india_programme_office/dhamra_port/index.cfm

Greenpeace EIA anaylsis and the facts

Comparison of the Greenpeace Critique of the EIA and the Facts

S.No.	As per the Greenpeace critique of the EIA	Facts
1	“The total “land take” is estimated at 9,200 acres exclusive of the intertidal area proposed, according to the EIA.”	The total “land take” for the port is 912 acres and 2033 acres for the rail road corridor
2	“ This Assessment has been used as the basis for the Orissa Pollution Control Board issuing a No Objection Certificate to the proposed development. On the Same basis, the Prinicipal Secretary, Environment and Forest to the Government of Orissa has given the project Environmental Clearance	The Environment Clearance was granted by the Ministry Of Surface Transport (the competent authority)
3	“Accordingly, it is questionably as to whether a study which considers in detail only issues within a 10 km radius of the proposed development with more general treatment over a 20km radius is sufficient to capture the full impacts likely to flow from the development”	The study area of 25 km radius around the port expansion of Dhamra port has been considered as the general study area. An area of 5 km on either side of the proposed rail alignment from Dhamra to Bhadrak has been considered separately for study purpose
4	“Moreover, The EIA considers two options for the port’s location, one on the Kanika Sands itself, and the other on the mainland, before discarding the mainland option in favour of Kanika Sands. The EIA then goes on to evaluate impacts on the basis of the port location on Kanika Sands. However, the project as it is currently being implemented locates the port on the mainland and not Kanika Sands.”	The EIA clearance is an elaborate process, which is not based on the submission of a single document namely the EIA report. The queries raised by Greenpeace regarding the intended location of the port (as mentioned in the EIA report -original submission, being Kanika Sands are in fact similar to the ones asked by the Empowered Committee of Environmental Clearances (ECEC) for port projects. Subsequently, addenda to the original EIA report were submitted in December 1998. In fact Kanika sands was not chosen as the site, because of its vicinity to Gahirmatha WLS and also would have resulted in large-scale decimation of the mangroves in Kanika Sands.

reply to http://mekhala.blogspot.com/2008/05/dont-sat-tata-to-turtles-follow-up.html

'" Turtles can be found all along the Orissa Coast " , there are a few reproductive patches. Instead of quoting people out of context to confuse the issue let us try to restate the undisputed facts in a fresh perspective and try to answer a few questions:

1. Turtles visit the east coast of India, and specially the coast of Orissa for nesting during the season which is generally between November to March.
2. As per WII studies and graphically reproduced by in a study of Pandav,B. & Choudhury, B.C. [2000] (www.reseau-tortues-marines.org/IMG/pdf/Conservation_olive_ridley_Orissa_2000.pdf) they nest sporadically or en masse almost along the entire Orissa coast except the portion north of river Dhamra .
3. The WII studies (Pandav,B. & Choudhury B.C. [2000] ; Pandav B, Choudhury B.C. & Kar, C.S. [ 1994] ) divide the coast south of river Dhamra into seven sectors which are visited by turtles for nesting.
4. Olive Ridley turtles which are classified as Endangered (IUCN 2008; refer www.redlist.org for olive ridleys and http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/categories_criteria for classification criterias) come in hundreds of thousands. Major nesting was reported in the years 1993-94, 1990-91& 1986-87 Kartick Shanker et. al. (2003) > 600,000 and since only females visit for nesting and get counted there may be as many males which also visit the coastal waters for mating and congregation.
5. When the total number is so large( > 600,000) , and the total coast line visited so long (7/8ths of orissa's coast), sighting a turtle near the coast anywhere along Orissa's coast is not such a big event either to be reported or made out as evidence to prevent the construction of port.
6. Now we know that turtles nest south of Dhamra, chiefly at Gahirmatha, Devi and Rushikulya but sometimes at other places also.
7. We know that they do not nest north of river Dhamra.
8. We know from WII reported study of 2000 (Pandav,B. & Choudhury B.C. [2000]) that the mating concentration as far as Gahirmatha nesting ground is concerned is south of Dhamra, but close to Gahirmatha in an area of 54 sq. km within the Gahirmatha Marine Sanctuary.
9. As per available knowledge and local information, turtles do not come from the north (West Bengal or Bangladesh) but from south (Sri Lanka, or maybe further south)

Now lets try to answer the following questions based on the above information

1. If the entire coast south of river Dhamra (sectors 2-7 refer map above) are visited by turtles for nesting which location, one south of river Dhamra and south of Gahirmatha or one north of Gahirmatha would be safe in respect of turtles?
2. We admit that the port location is not where turtles nest, we add but what if they dont nest they have been seen there / they would be foraging there / they would be mating there. if the WII report is to be believed they do not congregate to mate there. Accepting for the sake of argument that they can be seen / foraging there where would they be seen / foraging more south of Gahirmatha where they certainly nest, mate and south being where they come from or north of Gahirmatha and north of river Dhamra where they do not nest and north being not where they come from.
3. Do ports really harm turtles? Has anybody any proof or reasoning for that. As already said more turtles are likely to be found, and they indeed are found south of Gahirmatha along the coast of Orissa. Numerous studies indicate (with the latest being Tripathy & Pandav [2008]) that turtles often nest in multiple nesting beaches) and a busy major port (Paradeep) in the sector II of map above has not harmed the turtles habitat during the last forty years.
4. Gahirmatha has atleast an earmarked sanctuary of 1400 sq km. while the other nesting beaches like Devi and Rushikulya do not have any sanctuary at all, should not the conservationists be more worried about having sanctuaries delineated there than what is happening beyond north of a nesting beach which has an earmarked sanctuary to take care of its needs.
5. We know that trawl fishing is the chief cause of turtle mortality as turtles get caught in fishing nests and die of asphyxiation. That is precisely why trawl fishing is prohibited near the coast during the season. Thus it is banned even in Paradeep where a port exists and where port activities are not banned near the coast during the season. What is the point in asking how can you have a port where trawl fishing is banned. That is because fishing can kill turtles. Ports do not.

Reference :

1) Pandav , B and Choudhury, B.C. (2000) : Conservation and management of olive ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) in Orissa. Final report. Wildlife Institute of India.

2) Pandav , B., Choudhury, B.C. & Kar, C.S. (1994) : A status survey of olive ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) and their nesting beaches along the Orissa coast, India. Report published by the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

3) Tripathy, B and Pandav, B (2008) : Beach fidelity and internesting movements of olive ridley turtles (lepidochelys olivacea) at Rushikulya, India. Herpetological Conservation and Biology Vol 3(1):40-45.

The Story so Far …

The following is a brief chronology of the Dhamra port project….

Pre – Mughal period :

Not many are aware of the rich maritime heritage of Orissa with historic trade links to the Mediterranean World on the west and Southeast Asian islands, Sri Lanka, Burma, China in the east. Orissa had a number of ancient ports during the reign of the Hindu dynasties in the pre-Mughal period namely the Mauryan dynasty, the Chola, the Khushana and the Gupta period, especially the Kalinga before the invasion of Ashoka. The annual festival of Bali Yatra bears testimony to the maritime legacy of Orissa, when the mariners of Orissa the ‘sadhabas’ would set sail to their trade destinations. Dhamra port is nothing but a part of that legacy.

Circa 1800: -

While many of the ancient ports were forgotten with the ravages of time, this port was vibrant even during the British Raj and was an important link for trade and commerce between Bengal, Orissa and the South East Asia and the first official notification defining the limits of the port dates back to 28.3.1881 published in the Calcutta Gazette. The port limits were subsequently extended on 09.06.1931 and again redefined on 1998.

Ports are infrastructural assets catering to the need of a nation and in this case a need for a deep water port was felt to cater to the needs of North Orissa, Jharkhand and West Bengal.

The Government of Orissa (GOO) explored the possibilities of a deep water port in Orissa and IIT, Chennai was requested to suggest possible deep water port sites. IIT, Chennai suggested Dhamra as the best possible location for the development of a deep water port.

The GOO then commissioned a feasibility study through RAIL India Technical & Economic Services (RITES) for a deep water port project.

A study report is submitted by RITES to the GOO for development of a deep water port at Dhamra, which has been functioning as a fishing jetty.

The GOO then started looking for interested developers who could undertake this port project and a concession agreement is signed on 2^nd April 1998 with International Seaports Private Ltd., a joint venture of L & T, SSA International
Inc., and Precious Shipping Public Company Ltd. The project is proposed to be implemented in a SPV viz Dhamra Port Company Pvt. Ltd. (DPCPL), and all rights and obligations of ISPL would be assigned to and assumed by DPCPL for the duration of the concession agreement (34 years).

ISPL engages Berger and Abam, an US Consultancy to prepare a Detailed Project Report (DPR) for the dhamra port project. Kirloskar Consultants are then entrusted with the EIA study. and the EIA study is completed by Oct 1997 when the EIA report is submitted to ISPL by Kirloskar Consultants.

2.04.98: The port area being under CRZ – I(ii) in accordance with CRZ notification dtd 19.2.1991 ^[2], GOO applies for environment clearance to the Ministry of Surface Transport for the Dhamra Port Expansion Project ^[1], the mandated authority as per powers delegated by the MOEF vide notification dated 9^th July 1997, wherein the Empowered Committee for Environmental Clearances (ECEC) for port projects was constituted by the MOST comprising of experts from both MOST and MOEF for this purpose.

The ECEC undertook two years of scrutiny as described below before the environment clearance was granted as described below –

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

^[1] MOEF notification 9.6.97 : “Provided that for expansion or modernization of existing ports and harbours including fishing harbors, operational constructions for ports and barbours and construction of jetties, wharves, quays, slipways, Single Point Mooring and Single Buoy Mooring; and for reclamation for facilities essential for operational requirements of ports and harbors in areas within the existing port limits, except the areas classified as category CRZ – I (i), shall require environment clearance from the GOI in the MOST, which shall take decision on these activities on the basis of the EIA report.

^[2] As per clause 6(1) of the Coastal Area Classification and Development Regulations under the CRZ notification 1991, all area between low tide line and high tide line is classified as CRZ – I throughout India. However this does not prohibit the construction of ports in this area. As per clause 3(2)(ii) Constructions of ports and harbours are permitted in CRZ areas. Further it must be noted that all ports in this country can be constructed in some intertidal zone only (classified as CRZ – I)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11.12.98: One of the first voices of dissent, Mr. Banka Bihari Das (Orissa Krishak Mahasangh) writes to MoEF against giving Environment Clearance to Dhamra port bringing up the issue of turtles among other contentions. Causing the GOI to seek clarifications from the GOO on these contentions.

18.12.08 : The ECEC in its seventh meeting calls for further clarifications including that of the location of the port.

30.12.98 : Govt of Orissa replies to the Government of India along with

Further addendum to EIA covering the final location

Report of Chief Wildlife Warden of Orissa [30.12.1998]confirming that the site of the proposed port is outside the boundary of Bhittarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary, further that the sanctuary is separated from the port site by the Dhamra river and further that no crocodile is seen on the coast close to the port. The report also confirms that the proposed port site is away from the Olive ridley nesting site at Gahirmatha by as much as 15 kms as the crow flies and 30 kms by water route. This report also confirms that there is no other endangered marine life in the close vicinity of the proposed port site and that there is no likelihood of the port affecting the nesting of the sea turtles.

Addendum on Updated Impact Assessment

Addendum on Updated Environment Management Plan.

14.01.99 : The Govt of Orissa clarifies to the GOI the CRZ status of the port site, which is CRZ-I(ii).

02.02.99 : GOO further clarifies to GOI on points raised by Shri Banka Bihari Das

Along with

copies of original notification of the Dhamra port dated 30.3.1881 and 9.6.1931

Communication from the Ministry of Defence conveying their no objection to the project

09.02.99 : GOI seeks further clarification from GOO.

27.09.99 : GoO furnishes clarifications along with

Communication from the Director, Environment on CRZ status

Copies of original notification of the Dhamra port dated 30.3.1881 and 9.6.1931

Communication from the Ministry of Defence conveying their no objection to the project

Further addenda to the EIA in respect of EIA of new navigation channel.

EIA with respect to Marine Living Resources

Plan on Greenbelt development

8.11.1999: Ultimately after due scrutiny and examination, in the 11^th meeting of the ECEC for port projects it was decided to grant environment clearance for the Dhamra port expansion project.

04.01.2000: MOST conveys the Environment Clearance of GOI to GOO.

31.03.2000: The Beach Protection Council, Orissa files appeal with the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) with contentions raised regarding the competency of the MOST to grant environment clearance, on the CRZ status of the area and it being detrimental to olive ridleys. Contentions similar to that being voiced at present by Greenpeace India and others.

7^. 05. 2000: In a detailed order by the NEAA describing the due inquiry conducted, the NEAA dismisses the appeal filed by the Beach Protection Council concluding that the environment clearance granted was well within the powers delegated to the MOST and having found “no mangroves or forests or breeding grounds of turtles” and “With the area between the High Tide Line and the Low Tide Line to be covered by Dhamra Port Expansion Project being of clay soil and very sticky and could never become a breeding centre for turtles” The NEAA in its order also scrutinized the CRZ classification and the competency of ECEC (MOST) and conducted examination of witnesses and exhibits submitted to the NEAA.

Construction commences in the Dhamra port project, but eventually stops due to the lack of interest by foreign partners contributed by economic recession and other factors.

2004 :

Meanwhile from 2002 to 2004, the CEC (Central Empowered Committee) had been taking active interest and pro-active measures in turtle conservation in Orissa issuing interim directions on 19.12.02 and 7.03.03. During this phase it had also visited the nesting sites of Orissa numerous times to oversee the compliance of its interim directions by the State Govt. It was on one of these visits (in Feb 2004) accompanied by Mr. Bittu Sehgal and Mr. V.R. Chitrapu (both special invitees) that the CEC most possibly unaware of the order of NEAA on dhamra port made some observations regarding the port project. The CEC was also unaware of the port project location, the orientation of our navigational channel and these observations have to be interpreted in the light in which they were stated i.e. as ‘observations’.

TATA Steel evinces interest in the Dhamra port project which was in limbo all this while and the feasibility of reviving this port project is explored. Eventually due diligence is conducted and TATA Steel enters into a Joint Venture with Larsen & Toubro for implementing this project.

However in the face of dissenters and opposition to the port in conservation circles, TATA Steel holds several meetings and discussions with key conservationists in Bombay, and agrees to a proposal for a further study of the impact of the port on turtles.

01.09.04 : TATA Steel approaches WWF – India for “Monitoring the impact of the Dhamra port on Ecology of the marine and island eco-system”

29.10.04: The Shareholders and Subscription Agreement is signed by TATA Steel for the port project.

14.12.04: TATA Steel invites and arranges a meeting with all concerned NGOs to discuss their concerns regarding the port project attended by M/s Bittu Sehgal, Bivash Pandav, Kartik Shanker, Deepak Apte (BNHS), Ms. Aarti Sridhar, Ashish Fernandes,

The promotors were represented by M/s Indronil Sengupta, D. Chakraborty ( L & T), R.K. Jain (L & T), Ram Agarwal and S.M.R. Prasad.

There was a clear consensus that more biological studies especially on turtles is needed and should be carried out in the project site, including satellite tracking of turtles. And that re-location to the north would make the port unviable needing break water and a long navigational channel.

28.12.04: MD, TATA Steel meets with Mr. Bittu Sehgal and though perceptions of the port project differ, both agree that more studies need to be done on this subject.

15.01.05 : Aarthi Sridhar, Kartik Shanker (ATREE) and Bibhash Pandav (WII) submit statement of views on impact of port on the marine environment and terms of engagement for assessing environmental impacts of the proposed port project.

24.01.05 : Work order is issued to WWF – Orissa for study of spatial distribution of turtles namely “Monitoring the impact of the Dhamra port on Ecology of the marine and island eco-system”.

21.04.05: TATA Steel approaches BNHS and BNHS convenes a meeting of concerned NGOs attended by MD, TATA Steel and CEO, DPCL at the Hornbill House. The immediate need to conduct further studies was again expressed in this meeting by the promoters and the modalities of the study were discussed. It was agreed that BNHS would carry out the study and complete the same by March 2006 and also that the construction of the port will proceed and if the study reveals that the port will have adverse effects on the turtles, the construction will be stopped.

09.05.05 : WWF – India does a volte-face and expresses its inability to carry out the study without giving any specific reason for doing so.

21.06.05 : BNHS submits the final terms of reference and the financial requirement to undertake the EIA.

01.11.05: TATA Steel (DPCL) agrees not to start sea-side construction activities till the end of March 2006 (until completion of study) as suggested and insisted on by BNHS.

25.11.05: BNHS returns the money accepted by them for conducting the study on grounds that land acquisition has already begun, a long drawn out process conducted by the State Govt, the eventual owners of the port.

During this time the GOO also replies to the CEC inviting latter’s attention to exercise completed in respect of environmental clearance, visit of NEAA and actual location of port stating that it is not necessary to shift the location of the port.

23.02.05: MD, TATA Steel requests Mr. Bittu Sehgal to help in resolving the log jam regarding the study to be conducted pointing out the delays in starting the studies by BNHS and the assurance of TATA Steel of not starting construction till March 2006 the scheduled completion of the BNHS study.

08.03.06 : Chairman, TATA Sons replies to ED, Greenpeace India mentioning that commitments have to be honored on both ends, pointing out that while construction was withheld for the proposed study which was supposed to have started in November 2005 and completed in March 2006, the study never saw the light of the day.

July 2006: Aban Marker Kabraji, IUCN Regional Director for Asia meets Mr. Ratan Tata, Chairman of the TATA Sons in Mumbai to discuss various aspects of environment and corporate social responsibility for TATA’s operations, This also includes the conservation of turtles in view of the impending development of Dhamra Port in Orissa State, on the east coast of India. The ensuing communication exchanges between IUCN and TATA Steel & DPCL leads to an agreement between DPCL and IUCN for the latter to undertake a mission for scoping out the issues.

31.05.07: Greenpeace organizes a press conference in Mumbai and release a critique of the Dhamra port EIA and also a study of North Orissa University.

01.07.07: NOU in a press conference in Bhubaneswar alleges that Greenpeace has tampered with the original report of the university. And that no such report as claimed by Greenpeace India was prepared by North Orissa University.

05.07.07: Greenpeace hold a press conference to clarify their stand but fail to convince the press and face demonstration from the people of the Bhadrak District.

4.10.07: DPCL associates itself with the World Conservation Union (IUCN) in a formal association with IUCN. This is the first such association in India and an Indian context. IUCN with its unique membership drawn from states and civil society, its convening mandate and role in addressing difficult often controversial conservation and development issues, its scientific knowledge base, its ability to link policy and action and its unparallel access to high quality conservation expertise resident in its 10,000 members strong six scientific commissions, as well as in its global network of secretariat staff, members and partners starts guiding and advising DPCL to form a sound environment management practice in an active advisory capacity. Currently IUCN experts, who have been working with ports and turtles, are in a continuous process of experience of working with the effects of ports and port operations on sea life and especially turtles are in the process of bringing about one of the best port environment governance in India.

Since then …

Dhamra Port Company Ltd. with the active guidance and assistance of IUCN which brings with itself the scientific expertise of over 10,000 scientists under its various species survival commissions has been working towards implementing the best port environment practices in Indian shores. The two major concerns identified by IUCN experts have been dredging and lighting.

IUCN’s dredging and lighting experts have carried out a thorough review of the dredging operations as well as the construction lights being used and have suggested a series of recommendations based on similar practices being followed in the numerous riverine ports of US, which have careful protocols to be followed in dredging projects and are implemented and enforced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the US Army Corps of Engineers.

IUCN reports and recommendations can be seen in the following link at the IUCN website

http://cms.iucn.org/about/union/secretariat/offices/asia/asia_where_work/india_programme_office/dhamra_port/index.cfm

And www.dhamraport.com under the environment section..

Regardless of this Greenpeace India has been univocal in its criticism of the port project and has been insisting on relocating the port. Greenpeace India has a full fledged campaign addressing a prominent business house which is one of the promoters of the project. This campaign relies on a 30 day study off-season which itself is mired in controversy because of there being two study reports of the North Orissa University which had conducted this study. The campaign also relies on our original EIA submission and not the additional study reports which were submitted to the Empowered Committee for Environment Clearances of the MOST during the course of scrutiny of our environment clearance application.

DPCL and IUCN have been working together since the past one year on evolving the environment practices of the dhamra port towards better environment management. DPCL is committed on turtle conservation and bringing about conservation results aiming towards reducing the annual turtle mortality in Orissa coasts. This is the first such instance in Indian shores where a port company is indeed working towards wildlife conservation.

Dhamra Port and Turtles

PRESS NOTE

THE DHAMRA PORT PROJECT – A STATUS NOTE

Dhmra is one of the most ancient ports in the eastern coast which continued to function till after the British rule when it fell into disuse except for fishing purposes. The Government of Orissa conceived a plan in early nineties to develop it into a modern deep port to cater to the needs of the mineral rich hinterland of Orissa, Jharkhand and West Bengal. The nature of cargo of this hinterland called for large size vessels, and consequently deep draft ports for which the existing ports of Haldia and Paradip proved inadequate. A feasibility study was undertaken which finally led to the formation of Dhamra Port Company Limited to undertake the development of the port on a Build, Own, Operate, Share and Transfer (BOOST) basis. Initially, a joint venture of L&T & two foreign companies, DPCL is now a 50:50 joint venture of L&T and Tata Steel.

Situated north of river Dhamra at a place called Doshinga, the Dhamra port has been conceived as a deep draft port which can accommodate super cape size vessels. The project includes construction of a 62 km rail link between Dhamra and Bhadrak on the Howrah – Chennai main line and a jetty of 700 meter in the first phase with fully mechanized facilities for loading and unloading. The project is estimated to cost Rs.2463 crore in the first phase, and more than 25% of the work has already been completed. The port is scheduled to become operational by April 2010. A number of steel plants apart from Tata Steel coming up and planned in the three states of Orissa, Jharkhand and West Bengal have evinced interest to use the port, especially for import of coking coal and limestone and export of finished steel..

The project has received all statutory clearances including the environment clearance from the Government of India and NOC from the Pollution Control Board of the state government. The clearance had been challenged before the National Environment Appellate Authority on certain grounds including its effect on olive ridley turtles and the NEAA after a visit to the site has upheld the clearance with a clear finding that the place being muddy and silty is unsuitable for turtle nesting.

The olive ridley turtles come in hundreds of thousands to nest along the coast of Orissa. Studies undertaken by Wildlife Institute of India divide the Orissa coast into eight sectors and suggest that turtles nest along all the seven sectors south of river Dhamra either sporadically or en mass, with Gahirmatha, Devi and Rushikulya serving as mass nesting beaches. The only sector of the Orissa coast which is not visited by turtles for nesting is the northern most stretch of Orissa coast which is north of river Dhamra This is because the turtles look for sandy beaches where they can dig holes to hide the eggs whereas the coast north of river Dhamra is muddy and silty. The proposed port is situated in this sector, or in other words, the only sector of Orissa coast which is not visited by turtles. The above was considered by the Empowered Committee which gave the clearance and confirmed by the Appellate Authority which visited the site to verify the truth.

This has however not deterred environmental groups including Greenpeace from raising voices of concern and the port developers have always heeded such voices with open mind. The developers at one stage invited them to undertake further study at the former’s cost and even withheld construction for one full season to facilitate such study. The ones that did agree to undertake such study subsequently backed out, presumably under pressure of those who do not want the truth to be revealed so that the campaign against the project can continue. The developers on their own have invited IUCN, world’s premier scientific body for conservation of wildlife to help the developers assess the situation, identify potential areas of possible effect and take adequate precautions. The IUCN have identified such areas and have been helping the port to adopt appropriate dredging methods and lighting manuals. The port authorities with IUCN have also undertaken an awareness campaign amongst fishermen for using TEDs in fishing nets which is the real cause of large scale turtle mortality in the state.

The port developers fail to understand the recently intensified campaign of Greenpeace. The Greenpeace were invited for discussion at Mumbai in January last when they had summarized in their own words their concerns into seven points. The DPCL had in a detailed reply answered these points. A perusal of the Greenpeace concerns and DPCL replies which can be seen at the DPCL website www.dhamraport.com would suggest that there is no unresolved issue which would justify such a belligerent campaign with acrimonious attack on personalities. A lot of disinformation in the form of untruths and half truths are being systematically circulated through the internet to make bloggers and e-group members sign petitions at the click of a button which do not reflect their informed opinion. A large number of these reach us through the host address (i.e. Greenpeace)only without the mail address of the sender so that we cannot directly reply to them and let them know the truth. DPCL would like to make it be known that it is fully aware of and sensitive to its social and environmental responsibilities and would continue to undertake the task of building the public infrastructure it has taken upon itself in the best spirit of sustainable development.

also check link

http://cms.iucn.org/about/union/secretariat/offices/asia/asia_where_work/india_programme_office/dhamra_port/index.cfm