Greenpeace activists blockade TATA HQ, demand that the Company demonstrate corporate environmental responsibility

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.