The Dhamra port will be located in an ecologically sensitive
area, 5 km. from the Bhitarkanika Sanctuary and less than 15 km.
from the Gahirmatha nesting beaches, the world's largest mass
nesting site for Olive Ridley turtles. Given the sensitive nature
of the location, it is essential that the EIA be scientifically
credible, accurate, detailed and unbiased, but Greenpeace has found
that it fails on all these fronts.
"This EIA is a totally inadequate tool when it comes to gauging
the port's environmental impacts," said Ashish Fernandes, Oceans
Campaigner, Greenpeace. "The main flaws relate to poor baseline
ecological data, a complete omission of the impacts on turtles,
impacts of noise and chemical pollution and a poor hazard analysis
and emergency plan. To top it all, the EIA considers a port site
that is completely different from the one currently being
developed!"
The EIA considers the port site on Kanika Sands, whereas the
site now being developed is on the mainland. The environmental
impacts for both the sites will also vary. For example, the new
site requires the dredging of a 19 km. long shipping channel,
whereas the length of the dredged shipping channel for the earlier
site would have been considerably less. There are also significant
differences between the size and scale of the project that received
Central government clearance and the one now being developed.
Little is yet known of the ecology of the mudflats in the port
area and the kind of life they might hold. There is evidence of
turtle movement near the Dhamra river mouth and Kanika Sands, close
to the port site and the proposed shipping channel. A satellite
telemetry study, done by the Wildlife Institute of India in 2001,
showed turtle movement near the port. There are also reports of
turtle sightings from fishermen and researchers, as well as turtle
sightings north of Kanika Sands by Greenpeace in 2006.
"It is amazing that such a large project is going ahead in an
ecologically sensitive area on the basis of such a shoddy EIA",
said Dr. Johnston from Exeter. "The most important problems with
the EIA relate to a failure to describe fully the baseline
ecological conditions, a failure to identify fully the potential
ecological impacts and a failure to consider potential extreme
weather events, not to mention the potential impacts of global
warming, both of which the Orissa coast is prone to."
Greenpeace has sent a copy of the critique to Mr. Ratan Tata,
Chairman and Managing Director, Tata & Sons, and Mr.
Muthuraman, Managing Director, Tata Steel, asking for a response.
None has been forthcoming thus far.
"It is time for TATAs to live up to their claim of being an
environmentally responsible corporation", Fernandes emphasised.
"The message is crystal clear. Greenpeace demands that TATAs state
publicly what they intend to do to avoid a fait accompli, that is,
the port is constructed or under construction and then science
shows adverse impacts. In the absence of credible scientific
evidence of a lack of impacts, all construction activities should
be stopped. Commissioning a comprehensive study while construction
simultaneously goes ahead is unacceptable", he added.
For further information, contact
Ashish Fernandes, Oceans Campaigner +91 99801 99380 <
>
Saumya Tripathi, Media Officer +91 93438 62212 <
>
Dr. Paul Johnston, Greenpeace International Science Unit, UK +44 78 1389 0492 <
3>script type="text/javascript">3>script type="text/javascript">>script type="text/javascript">>
Notes to Editor
1. For copies of the document, please visit www.greenpeace.org/india/press/reports/critique-of-the-environmental