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.