Dear Reader,
While much has been said and discussed on the role of IUCN in Indian Shores, please read this links and form your own opinion on the role of IUCN , whether this is progressive or regressive.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Response to Greenpeace statement
Dear Reader,
you are here because you must have been looking up Dhamra Port and turtles, well for the last couple of months you must have been bombarded with emotional appeals and passionate pleas and calls to SIGN LETTERS to the head of a particular business house.
we hope you would like to know more about the controversy and our response to the same, here is the link to the Greenpeace site, , which says response to facts and fabrications,
dear reader, please bear in mind that there are two stakeholders here. Actually three but the third is not targeted in this campaign , guess which is the third one.. L & T ,, Whys is it not targetted is an answer only Greenpeace can answer, if you ask them most probably you will be told that that this is a promise the house of Tatas have not kept ,, the targetted two are DPCL and Tata Steel but then its left for you to decide ..Why only Tata Steel ( and in particular RNT) is targetted in such a personal way,,,
Anyways read on,,, here is our response to the facts and fabrications response of Greenpeace. This letter was addressed to a campaign signatory, and a part of correspondence with her,
Dear _______,
May I compliment you on taking interest on the subject and trying to know all the facts. It is easy for a campaigning organisation to confuse the general public by taking advantage of the fact that most of them would not know the details or try to cross check. Having started a campaign that the port is going to be a threat to the turtles, they would want to deny any clarification or explanation that we may give and would like to perpetuate the myths they have created. We shall attempt below to remove some of these.
First, the ground truth. No development can ever claim that it shall not have any impact on environment. One has to find out whether such impact is mitigable or not, and if it is so, undertake the development with safeguards and precautions. This is what sustainable development is all about.
Coming to the campaigners’ response point wise ;
1. Location:
If 12 to 15 KM is not too far it is also not too close. And this distance is not only from the nesting beach but from the outer boundary of a large 1400 sq. km marine sanctuary which has a “core” area and a “buffer” area to protect the area of “turtle congregation”, which includes mating, nesting etc. from any outside activity as most such activities are banned inside that area. This includes nearly a 70 km beach from north of Paradip to south of Dhamra where no development is allowed. Do we want to ban all development even outside these limits even if it is possible to carry out such developments in a sustainable manner?
The Greenpeace assertion about bio-diversity is based on a rapid survey of doubtful scientific validity, listing animals (frogs, snakes, crabs etc.) which have not been classified as endangered and has no basis or support by any other study. The report itself was mired in controversy as the report published by Greenpeace was different from one available with the university and the university took exception to it. The bio-diversity of Bhitarkanika sanctuary is of course well known. But this sanctuary which includes a national park is again south of river Dhamra and the clearance was given after the considered opinion of the Wildlife Authorities that the port which is on the sea north of river Dhamra is not going to affect the bio-diversity of the sanctuary or the national park
Turtles visit Orissa coast not in small numbers but in hundreds of thousands. Locating a turtle any where off Orissa coast is never a big issue nor does it prove anything. One can find turtles within the port waters of existing busy Paradip port. It is easy to mislead public by saying that a turtle was located near Dhamra port. Turtles co-exist with ports in other parts of the world also. It is a well known fact that thousands of turtles get killed along the Orissa coast for various reasons the chief of which is getting trapped in fishing nets. Port or shipping activity – there already is a busy port at Paradip which is between two nesting beaches – is not known to be a cause of turtle mortality. Greenpeace sensationalizes the so-called “discovery” of 2000 dead turtles. Figures greater than this are part of official record. As far as the tally of dead turtles in the Greenpeace published NOU report is concerned, the original university report said that these turtles must have been washed ashore by northward wind meaning thereby that they have been killed further south. The Greenpeace report changes these words into saying that most of these must have been killed north of Kanika sands. There is no limit to how campaigners can distort truth to suit their campaign.
2. Port waters and dredging area and turtle presence:
The campaigners are again trying to sensationalize the fact of the presence of a turtle. The Olive Ridley turtle which appears in the “vulnerable” list of IUCN (a notch lower than “endangered”) is not a rare animal that its presence should make news. The same study also located turtle near Paradip port. What is important is whether the port site is one where turtles nest or near where turtles congregate for mating etc. that would be disturbed by the port activity. All available studies show that these activities take place inside the sanctuary limits. (See WII report 2000 http://www.wii.gov.in/publications/researchreports/2000/conseration_oliveridley.pdf)
What do the campaigners mean by “the fact that waters off the port site are foraging grounds of the turtle”. Do they have any single study or proof to establish this? How easy it is to make truthful sounding statements to support a campaign the objective of which is the campaign itself.
And what do the campaigners mean by saying that it is a known fact that turtles do not nest in the port area? Do they mean that being or not being a nesting place is of no importance?
The campaigners did in fact try to suggest that no mass nesting in Gahirmatha has taken place since the dredging started, and as if in retaliation of this false campaign, the turtles came in thousands (1.7 lakh) to mass nest at Gahirmatha only two days after the campaigners said it boldly in newspaper advertisements.
3. Impact on Bhitarkanika National Park:
The Bhitarkanika National Park is well south of river Dhamra (the river is more than 1 km wide.. Between the port site and the national park are thickly populated villages, then the river and then more villages. Known for crocodiles and a rich variety of mangroves and other species of flora and fauna it is a separate land mass with river and creek systems and is in no way connected with the port which is on the sea further north of the mouth of river Dhamra. The port site is surrounded by agricultural fields and populated villages with no forests. The EIA did in fact take into account the bio-diversity of this area and this issue was considered by the Empowered Committee for Environment Clearance who had called for a report from the Chief Wildlife Warden and Director Environment, Orissa.
4. Environmental Impact Assessment:
The campaigners have again resorted to intellectual dishonesty by either not knowing or not disclosing the full facts about the EIA which was supplemented by further reports and documents during the two year process of environmental clearance. No one would ever build a port in a different site from the one for which clearance was obtained. The National Environment Appellate Authority in fact had visited the site. The other numbers and figures are the campaigners’ own without reference to all the various documents produced before the Authorities for environmental clearance.
EIA is not the only study which goes into building a port. A four season study of currents, bathymetry and other geomorphologic aspects is undertaken to ensure that the port is designed and constructed in a manner that it causes least disturbances to the natural surroundings. For such disturbance can be harmful to the stability of the channel and the port installation itself.
The environmental clearance very clearly required authorized institutes to be involved during dredging to ensure that it does not adversely affect marine productivity and the port has been doing so. While the Regional Research Laboratory is monitoring the water quality, the National Institute of Oceanography is monitoring the geo morphological aspects.
5. Environment Management:
The campaigners would like one to understand that what they say is correct and everything else, whether it is EIA or EMP is based on invalid facts. The truth is, no port developer would risk its investment before properly studying such aspects as impact on erosion and on shoreline etc., for if at all such impacts are there, the first casualty would be the channel and the land on which the port is developed for those would be the nearest from the area of dredging. The truth is that Dhamra is one of the most natural ports where the jetty and the channel are so designed that they will have least impact on surrounding geomorphology. The channel is along the natural course through which the northern part of the river flushes itself into the sea. In other words, the dredging is merely a deepening of an existing stream. While we are being advised by the IUCN scientists in taking all such measures as would mitigate any possible adverse impact on marine life, and we are successfully taking those measures as no port developer of the country had ever done in the past, we are also constantly monitoring the impact of dredging by reputed institutions like RRL and NIO
Yes. The campaigners did ask our scientific advisers as to whether there is a need to stop construction and they have received a definite reply that there is no need. If campaigners hide such information, there is nothing one can do about it.
Similarly, the campaigners are misguiding the public by calling a a study report a guideline (what is mentioned in a study partly funded by WII does not become a MOEF guideline) and observations as recommendations, ( the CEC observation has been replied to by the State Government after which no observation on the matter has been received), just to suit their campaign. They should also know that the Regional Office (East) of MoEF is part of the monitoring mechanism who regularly receive our progress reports and periodically inspect the implementation of EMP.
And finally, are we worried about the result of study? Why would we agree to a further study in the first place ( not once but thrice) if we were worried about the result.
you are here because you must have been looking up Dhamra Port and turtles, well for the last couple of months you must have been bombarded with emotional appeals and passionate pleas and calls to SIGN LETTERS to the head of a particular business house.
we hope you would like to know more about the controversy and our response to the same, here is the link to the Greenpeace site, , which says response to facts and fabrications,
dear reader, please bear in mind that there are two stakeholders here. Actually three but the third is not targeted in this campaign , guess which is the third one.. L & T ,, Whys is it not targetted is an answer only Greenpeace can answer, if you ask them most probably you will be told that that this is a promise the house of Tatas have not kept ,, the targetted two are DPCL and Tata Steel but then its left for you to decide ..Why only Tata Steel ( and in particular RNT) is targetted in such a personal way,,,
Anyways read on,,, here is our response to the facts and fabrications response of Greenpeace. This letter was addressed to a campaign signatory, and a part of correspondence with her,
Dear _______,
May I compliment you on taking interest on the subject and trying to know all the facts. It is easy for a campaigning organisation to confuse the general public by taking advantage of the fact that most of them would not know the details or try to cross check. Having started a campaign that the port is going to be a threat to the turtles, they would want to deny any clarification or explanation that we may give and would like to perpetuate the myths they have created. We shall attempt below to remove some of these.
First, the ground truth. No development can ever claim that it shall not have any impact on environment. One has to find out whether such impact is mitigable or not, and if it is so, undertake the development with safeguards and precautions. This is what sustainable development is all about.
Coming to the campaigners’ response point wise ;
1. Location:
If 12 to 15 KM is not too far it is also not too close. And this distance is not only from the nesting beach but from the outer boundary of a large 1400 sq. km marine sanctuary which has a “core” area and a “buffer” area to protect the area of “turtle congregation”, which includes mating, nesting etc. from any outside activity as most such activities are banned inside that area. This includes nearly a 70 km beach from north of Paradip to south of Dhamra where no development is allowed. Do we want to ban all development even outside these limits even if it is possible to carry out such developments in a sustainable manner?
The Greenpeace assertion about bio-diversity is based on a rapid survey of doubtful scientific validity, listing animals (frogs, snakes, crabs etc.) which have not been classified as endangered and has no basis or support by any other study. The report itself was mired in controversy as the report published by Greenpeace was different from one available with the university and the university took exception to it. The bio-diversity of Bhitarkanika sanctuary is of course well known. But this sanctuary which includes a national park is again south of river Dhamra and the clearance was given after the considered opinion of the Wildlife Authorities that the port which is on the sea north of river Dhamra is not going to affect the bio-diversity of the sanctuary or the national park
Turtles visit Orissa coast not in small numbers but in hundreds of thousands. Locating a turtle any where off Orissa coast is never a big issue nor does it prove anything. One can find turtles within the port waters of existing busy Paradip port. It is easy to mislead public by saying that a turtle was located near Dhamra port. Turtles co-exist with ports in other parts of the world also. It is a well known fact that thousands of turtles get killed along the Orissa coast for various reasons the chief of which is getting trapped in fishing nets. Port or shipping activity – there already is a busy port at Paradip which is between two nesting beaches – is not known to be a cause of turtle mortality. Greenpeace sensationalizes the so-called “discovery” of 2000 dead turtles. Figures greater than this are part of official record. As far as the tally of dead turtles in the Greenpeace published NOU report is concerned, the original university report said that these turtles must have been washed ashore by northward wind meaning thereby that they have been killed further south. The Greenpeace report changes these words into saying that most of these must have been killed north of Kanika sands. There is no limit to how campaigners can distort truth to suit their campaign.
2. Port waters and dredging area and turtle presence:
The campaigners are again trying to sensationalize the fact of the presence of a turtle. The Olive Ridley turtle which appears in the “vulnerable” list of IUCN (a notch lower than “endangered”) is not a rare animal that its presence should make news. The same study also located turtle near Paradip port. What is important is whether the port site is one where turtles nest or near where turtles congregate for mating etc. that would be disturbed by the port activity. All available studies show that these activities take place inside the sanctuary limits. (See WII report 2000 http://www.wii.gov.in/publications/researchreports/2000/conseration_oliveridley.pdf)
What do the campaigners mean by “the fact that waters off the port site are foraging grounds of the turtle”. Do they have any single study or proof to establish this? How easy it is to make truthful sounding statements to support a campaign the objective of which is the campaign itself.
And what do the campaigners mean by saying that it is a known fact that turtles do not nest in the port area? Do they mean that being or not being a nesting place is of no importance?
The campaigners did in fact try to suggest that no mass nesting in Gahirmatha has taken place since the dredging started, and as if in retaliation of this false campaign, the turtles came in thousands (1.7 lakh) to mass nest at Gahirmatha only two days after the campaigners said it boldly in newspaper advertisements.
3. Impact on Bhitarkanika National Park:
The Bhitarkanika National Park is well south of river Dhamra (the river is more than 1 km wide.. Between the port site and the national park are thickly populated villages, then the river and then more villages. Known for crocodiles and a rich variety of mangroves and other species of flora and fauna it is a separate land mass with river and creek systems and is in no way connected with the port which is on the sea further north of the mouth of river Dhamra. The port site is surrounded by agricultural fields and populated villages with no forests. The EIA did in fact take into account the bio-diversity of this area and this issue was considered by the Empowered Committee for Environment Clearance who had called for a report from the Chief Wildlife Warden and Director Environment, Orissa.
4. Environmental Impact Assessment:
The campaigners have again resorted to intellectual dishonesty by either not knowing or not disclosing the full facts about the EIA which was supplemented by further reports and documents during the two year process of environmental clearance. No one would ever build a port in a different site from the one for which clearance was obtained. The National Environment Appellate Authority in fact had visited the site. The other numbers and figures are the campaigners’ own without reference to all the various documents produced before the Authorities for environmental clearance.
EIA is not the only study which goes into building a port. A four season study of currents, bathymetry and other geomorphologic aspects is undertaken to ensure that the port is designed and constructed in a manner that it causes least disturbances to the natural surroundings. For such disturbance can be harmful to the stability of the channel and the port installation itself.
The environmental clearance very clearly required authorized institutes to be involved during dredging to ensure that it does not adversely affect marine productivity and the port has been doing so. While the Regional Research Laboratory is monitoring the water quality, the National Institute of Oceanography is monitoring the geo morphological aspects.
5. Environment Management:
The campaigners would like one to understand that what they say is correct and everything else, whether it is EIA or EMP is based on invalid facts. The truth is, no port developer would risk its investment before properly studying such aspects as impact on erosion and on shoreline etc., for if at all such impacts are there, the first casualty would be the channel and the land on which the port is developed for those would be the nearest from the area of dredging. The truth is that Dhamra is one of the most natural ports where the jetty and the channel are so designed that they will have least impact on surrounding geomorphology. The channel is along the natural course through which the northern part of the river flushes itself into the sea. In other words, the dredging is merely a deepening of an existing stream. While we are being advised by the IUCN scientists in taking all such measures as would mitigate any possible adverse impact on marine life, and we are successfully taking those measures as no port developer of the country had ever done in the past, we are also constantly monitoring the impact of dredging by reputed institutions like RRL and NIO
Yes. The campaigners did ask our scientific advisers as to whether there is a need to stop construction and they have received a definite reply that there is no need. If campaigners hide such information, there is nothing one can do about it.
Similarly, the campaigners are misguiding the public by calling a a study report a guideline (what is mentioned in a study partly funded by WII does not become a MOEF guideline) and observations as recommendations, ( the CEC observation has been replied to by the State Government after which no observation on the matter has been received), just to suit their campaign. They should also know that the Regional Office (East) of MoEF is part of the monitoring mechanism who regularly receive our progress reports and periodically inspect the implementation of EMP.
And finally, are we worried about the result of study? Why would we agree to a further study in the first place ( not once but thrice) if we were worried about the result.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The National Appellate Authority Judgement on Dhamra
Few people are aware that in the year 2000 an appeal was filed at the only Appellate Authority mandated to scrutinize Environmental Clearances granted to industrial projects, this is the National Environment Appellate Authority ( NEAA) which in the year 2000 had gone into detail scrutiny of the environmental clearance of the Dhamra Port and had upheld the clearance.
For more information on the NEAA refer
In fact this has been the only judgement of NEAA till date and there has been numerous criticism and a recent order by the Delhi High Court regarding the vacancies in the NEAA, but in the year 2000, the NEAA had indeed looked into the matter with a site visit and examined witnesses from the Ministry of Environment & Forests and the issue of the CRZ grading of the area.
A Site visit by NEAA is unusual , but the NEAA in its jurisprudence thought it was neccessary to look into all aspects pointed out by the appellant (Banka Bihari Das of the Beach PRotection Council),
The NEAA judgement was in the favour of the Dhamra port and it also ruled that a patch of mangroves in the southern part of the port be protected with the cost borne by the project proponent (port authority) and that a Environment Monitoring Committe be formed to look into the compliance of the Environment Clearance granted to the Dhamra Port.
The Environment Monitoring Committee has been constituted and has started monitoring the environment aspects of the port. The port has been active in the constitution of this Committee as compliance to the NEAA judgement.
For more information on the NEAA refer
In fact this has been the only judgement of NEAA till date and there has been numerous criticism and a recent order by the Delhi High Court regarding the vacancies in the NEAA, but in the year 2000, the NEAA had indeed looked into the matter with a site visit and examined witnesses from the Ministry of Environment & Forests and the issue of the CRZ grading of the area.
A Site visit by NEAA is unusual , but the NEAA in its jurisprudence thought it was neccessary to look into all aspects pointed out by the appellant (Banka Bihari Das of the Beach PRotection Council),
The NEAA judgement was in the favour of the Dhamra port and it also ruled that a patch of mangroves in the southern part of the port be protected with the cost borne by the project proponent (port authority) and that a Environment Monitoring Committe be formed to look into the compliance of the Environment Clearance granted to the Dhamra Port.
The Environment Monitoring Committee has been constituted and has started monitoring the environment aspects of the port. The port has been active in the constitution of this Committee as compliance to the NEAA judgement.
Created by OnePlusYou - Free Dating Sites
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Rushikulya
Great News,
Just got the news that Olive Turtle Hatchlings have started emerging out of Rushikulya Beach,, it has been a great year for turtle nesting , both Gahirmatha & Rushikulya have seen mass nesting this year.
Amlan
Just got the news that Olive Turtle Hatchlings have started emerging out of Rushikulya Beach,, it has been a great year for turtle nesting , both Gahirmatha & Rushikulya have seen mass nesting this year.
Amlan
Friday, March 27, 2009
Gahirmatha Arribada : nesting season of 2008-09
Dear Members,,
we just got the news that the first wave of arribada happened saturday night, and according to forest dept sources 75000 turtles have nested. The details are not very clear but initial reports suggest that nesting happened in Nasi I
Last year when arribada didnt happen many voices were raised on dredging of dhamra port having affected turtles, while the truth is average reproductive effort of a female olive ridley is 4 years, i.e. in other words a female turtle comes to nest once only in 4 years, it takes that much time for the egg folicles to develop and make the pan-oceanic trip worthwhile for the females,, while the males do come to mate every year, so if arribada has not happened doesnt mean that the dredging of last year and this year caused some disturbances,, it would have been something which took place 4 years ago,,, and the fact is arribada didnt take place in many instances since the discovery of arribada in the 1970s ( Bustard, 1976 : World's largest sea turtle rookery? Tigerpaper 3: 25)
and these years are 1982, 1988, 1997, 1998 and 2002. (Kartik Shanker et. al. Biological Conservation 115 (2003) 149-160) was the dhamra dredging happening then??
Amlan
we just got the news that the first wave of arribada happened saturday night, and according to forest dept sources 75000 turtles have nested. The details are not very clear but initial reports suggest that nesting happened in Nasi I
Last year when arribada didnt happen many voices were raised on dredging of dhamra port having affected turtles, while the truth is average reproductive effort of a female olive ridley is 4 years, i.e. in other words a female turtle comes to nest once only in 4 years, it takes that much time for the egg folicles to develop and make the pan-oceanic trip worthwhile for the females,, while the males do come to mate every year, so if arribada has not happened doesnt mean that the dredging of last year and this year caused some disturbances,, it would have been something which took place 4 years ago,,, and the fact is arribada didnt take place in many instances since the discovery of arribada in the 1970s ( Bustard, 1976 : World's largest sea turtle rookery? Tigerpaper 3: 25)
and these years are 1982, 1988, 1997, 1998 and 2002. (Kartik Shanker et. al. Biological Conservation 115 (2003) 149-160) was the dhamra dredging happening then??
Amlan
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
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
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
Friday, July 4, 2008
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. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
