Greenpeace activists blockade Bombay House, headquarters of the TATA Group, demanding Mr. Ratan Tata halt construction on TATA’s Dhamra port in Orissa, which threatens the olive ridley sea turtles, an endangered species.
Activists dressed in turtle costumes blockaded the building and
vowed not to move until they received a commitment from the TATA
Management. Present also were Greenpeace volunteers distributing
fliers and carrying laptops, from where, concerned members of the
public signed onto an ongoing online campaign, and join 90,000 other cyber activists,
who have asked Mr. Tata to relocate the port (1).
Greenpeace has been campaigning for several years now to demand
that the TATAs drop their plans to build a controversial port at
Dhamra, Orissa. The port is in the close proximity of the
Gahirmatha Marine Sanctuary and the Bhitarkanika National Park
(India's second largest mangrove forest and home to the saltwater
crocodile). Gahirmatha is one of the largest and last mass breeding
and nesting sites for the Olive Ridley Turtles in the world (2).
Its location, for years has been a matter of serious concern to
conservationists, hundreds of scientists and academics, including
turtle experts, as well as fisher groups such as the National
Fishworkers' Forum and the Orissa Traditional Fishworkers Union
(3).
Speaking to the media, Areeba Hamid, Oceans Campaigner,
Greenpeace India said, "The TATA's track record on this issue is
far from good. In 2004-2005, when they got involved, they
repeatedly voiced the opinion that turtles are not found near the
port site, and hence it poses no threat. They had even stated that
they would reconsider their involvement if there was evidence of
environmental or ecological significance of the area. Now that the
evidence of turtle movement and ecological significance of the port
site has grown (4), the company's stance has shifted to mitigation,
with earlier promises forgotten, a convenient and not very ethical
shift in goal posts".
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Study, done in 1997,
considered a port with
significantly different specifications from the project
currently being built. The initial proposed capacity was 20 million
tonnes per annum (mtpa) where as the proposed capacity is now 83
mtpa. The original project was to handle bulk carriers up to
120,000 deadweight tonnage (dwt); the revised plan proposes
handling ships up to 180,000 dwt. As if this isn't bad enough, the
EIA has no accurate baseline ecological data. And shockingly the
1997 EIA considered a different port site, on the nearby Kanika
Sands, whereas the port is now being built on the mainland, north
of the Dhamra river mouth.
Despite its ecological significance, the Dhamra area was
purposely excluded from Bhitarkanika and Gahirmatha Sanctuaries to
facilitate the Dhamra Port (5). In March 2007, the Department of
Forest - Wildlife, Government of Orissa, proposed the notification
of an eco-sensitive and eco-fragile area around Bhitarkanika, which
includes the Dhamra port area. Predictably, the top brass of the
State Government has once again ignored this proposal.
In April 2008, international banking giant BNP Paribas had
confirmed to Greenpeace that it is no considering refinancing a
part of the Dhamra Port. This announcement came after the bank had
commissioned an unnamed independent expert to look into
environmental and social aspects concerning the project.
Shockingly, despite the public furore, Tata Steel's corporate
sustainability report boasts that, "…there are no national
parks/wild life sanctuaries/CRZ/other sensitive and notified areas
within 10 kms of any current or proposed sites..." This, despite
the fact that the Dhamra port is less than 15 kms away from the
nesting site in the Gahirmatha Sanctuary and less than 5 km. from
Bhitarkanika National Park (6).
"Scientists are opposed to the port, conservationists are
against it, international lending institutions clearly want to
protect their reputations, and now nearly one lakh Indians - most
of them TATA customers - are asking Mr. Tata to place the survival
of this species above increasing TATA profits. What more does
Mr.Ratan Tata need? If the TATAs want to maintain their reputation
for being sensitive to social and environmental concerns - they
have no choice but to withdraw from this ecologically disastrous
project. Only this can keep the TATA legacy intact", added
Areeba.
For further information, contact
Ashish Fernandes, Greenpeace Oceans Campaigner, +91 99801 99380, 
Sama Adil, Greenpeace Communications, +91 99009 70627, 
Notes to Editor
(1) Log onto http://www.greenpeace.org/turtles
(2) Under India’s Wildlife Protection Act, all species of marine turtles, including Olive Ridleys, are accorded with a Schedule I status of Protection, on par with the tiger.
(3) Refer to http://www.mangroveactionproject.org/news/action-alerts/stop-port-construction-save-ridley-sea-turtles-sept-oct-2007/ and http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1541/t/4058/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=835
(4) In 2007, a survey commissioned by Greenpeace and conducted by Dr. S.K. Dutta of the North Orissa University established the presence of rare species of amphibians and reptiles at the port site. The study also revealed the presence of over 2,000 turtle carcasses on, and near the area (http://www.greenpeace.org/india/press/reports/greenpeace-biodiversity). Moreover, the Wildlife Institute of India conducted a study in 2001with 4 turtles fitted with satellite transmitters. Of these, one is reported in the waters off the Dhamra Port. To date, this is the only concluded telemetry study carried out on turtles in coastal Orissa for which the results are publicly available (refer to http://www.wii.gov.in/webs/satindex.html)
(5) The Orissa State Govt. in December, 1997 issued a fresh proclamation under Section 21 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act to exclude the proposed port area from Bhitarkanika Sanctuary. When the final notification for Bhitarkanika was issued in September 1998, the area was reduced from 367 sq km to 145 sq km. Further, when the proposal for the Gahirmatha Marine Sanctuary was being drawn up by the Wildlife Department in 1997, the Orissa state government ordered (vide letter 11693 dated 20/6/97) that the proposed Dhamra Port area be excluded from the draft notification of the sanctuary.
(6) Refer to http://www.tatasteel.com/hindi07/corporatesustainability/sustainability05-06/page-053.htm).