Greenpeace welcomed the news of return of mass-nesting of Olive Ridley Turtles at Nasi Islands off the Gahirmatha coast. Reports available from the Department of Forests – Wildlife, Government of Orissa suggest that over 100,000 turtles nested en masse at Nasi 2 – Islands (1). The last two seasons have however also witnessed unusually severe erosion of the Gahirmatha Beaches. The length of the Nasi nesting beach has now shrunk to less than a kilometre, thereby significantly reducing the nesting habitat available for mass-nesting of the turtles in the region.
“We are absolutely delighted to see the turtles return to Gahirmatha in tune with their annual sojourn after giving the region a miss in 2007-2008 turtle season.” said Ashish Fernandes, Oceans Campaigner, Greenpeace India. “However, this episode of mass-nesting cannot be used as a smoke screen by port promoters in projecting that all is fine. It would be dangerous to assume so since this nesting does not mean that the turtles and the adjoining ecologically sensitive areas, including the Bitharkanika National Park are safe .Our concerns, shared by scientists, academics and other conservationists over ongoing dredging operations for construction of the Dhamra Port, and its impacts on the turtles and adjoining areas, remain (2). In the absence of any credible and comprehensive assessment of dredging and port construction activities on these areas, the significant ecological threat persists” he added.
Earlier, on March 23rd, 2009, coinciding with the Indian launch of the TATA “Nano”, Greenpeace, in an open letter to Ratan Tata, in the Financial Times and the International Herald Tribune, reminded the TATAs of their environmental responsibilities, in line with the company’s professed environmental ethics, by raising the issue of “Placing the planet on par with profits, because there are some things that money just can’t buy back”. While the launch of the TATA Nano has generated significant excitement, this has coincided with disappointment among the public over TATAs’ reluctance to suspend dredging and commence an independent and comprehensive biological threat assessment. In the last few weeks alone over 10,000 people have faxed Mr. Tata, calling for a suspension of dredging at the port (3).
Heightened protests in 2008 forced the TATAs into a dialogue process with an alliance of environmental and conservation organisations. This hit a dead end in February 2009 after TATA refused to consider any suspension of construction or dredging work at the port (4). The negotiations involved the need to suspend construction, specifically dredging, pending an independent and comprehensive biological threat assessment of the Dhamra Port on the turtles and adjoining areas.
Commenting on the current impasse, Bittu Sahgal, Editor, Sanctuary Asia said “For Tata Steel to refuse to halt dredging operations, claiming they have scientific advice to the effect that this will not impact the turtles, amounts to embracing voluntary blindness. It not only defies common sense, but throws the tenets of the precautionary principle to the winds. JRD would strongly disapprove of the obstinate attitude of the Tata Steel management towards the fate of one of India’s most endangered species. Dredging must stop immediately and independent scientists must be asked to determine the extent to which the port will harm the turtles and other biodiversity.”
Over 100,000 people from across the world have already joined Greenpeace in reminding Mr. Ratan Tata of the need to put ecological and environmental imperatives on par with corporate profitability. In 2008, over 100,000 Greenpeace cyber-activists called on the TATAs to relocate the port. A Greenpeace snap-poll of nearly 5000 TATA customers, conducted in February this year, revealed that 98% believed that port construction should be stopped immediately (5).
The development of this port has been mired in controversy (6). Its location for years has been a matter of serious concern to conservationists, hundreds of scientists and academics, including turtle experts, who have opposed it (7).
Speaking on the TATA’s reluctance to suspend dredging and commence a study, Fernandes added “Scientists, conservationists and the general public are raising an outcry against this port. There is clear evidence of the ecological significance of the port site as well (8). What more does Mr. Ratan Tata need? If the TATAs want to maintain their professed reputation for being sensitive to social and environmental concerns - they have no choice but to suspend dredging and commence an independent and comprehensive assessment”.
Notes to Editor
(1) Under India’s Wildlife Protection Act of India, all species of marine turtles, including Olive Ridleys, are accorded with a Schedule I status of Protection, on par with the tiger.(2) Refer to http://greenpeace.in/turtle/category/docs(3) Refer to http://greenpeace.in/turtle/fax-tata(4) Refer to http://greenpeace.in/turtle/news/dhamra-port-controversy-dialogue-fails-tatas-refuse-to-suspend-dredging(5) Refer to http://greenpeace.in/turtle(6) Refer to http://greenpeace.in/turtle/the-story-so-far(7) Refer to http://greenpeace.in/turtle/docs/scientists-statement-opposing-dhamra-port-project(8) 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 Bitharkanika Sanctuary. When the final notification for Bitharkanika 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. In March 2007, the Department of Forest – Wildlife, Government of Orissa, proposed the notification of an ecosensitive and eco-fragile area around Bitharkanika, which includes the Dhamra port area. Predictably, the top brass of the State Government once again ignored this proposal.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). In a currently ongoing study conducted by the WII, initiated in 2006, 4 out of 11 turtles fitted with transmitters have been registered in theoff-shore waters, off the port site.
For further information
i. Ashish Fernandes, Oceans Campaigner, Greenpeace India, +91-99801 99380, afernand@greenpeace.orgii. Saumya Tripathy, Greenpeace Communications, +91-93438 62212, stripath@greenpeace.orgiii. Ankur Ganguly, Communications Manager, Greenpeace India, +91-98453 73818, aganguly@greenpeace.org
8 comments:
Thanks Samit for sharing the blogspot link with us.
Check this press release which is worth reading.
"Press Release from North orissa University
It has come to our notice that Greenpeace India have placed in their website a report under the title "Bio-diversity Assessment of Dhamra Port Site and Surroundings Areas, Orissa". The cover page of the report says that the report has been prepared by the North Orissa University. We would like to clarify that no report under the above mentioned title has been prepared by the North Orissa Unversity.
North Orissa University had prepared a report under the title "Rapid Bo-diversity Assessment of Dhamra Estuary, Orissa-India" and the same was submitted to Greenpeace India who were the funding agency.
A comparison of the report as it appears in the website of Greenpeace India and the authentic report of North Orissa University reveals that the Greenpeace India have doctored the authentic report by way of changing the title and its contents for motives best known to them.
We wish to further clarify that the impact of Dhamra Port on the environment and bio-diversity of Dhamra Estuary was not within the scope of our study.
For the sake of convenience we are enclosing herewith a copy of the authentic report of the University and the report as placed by the Greenpeace India in their website along with a comparison in a tabular form which would clearly indicate the changes/deletions/additions and interpolations made by Greenpeace India.
To conclude we take serious exception to such unethical conduct by Greenpeace India.
Sd/-
Prof. Sudarsan Nanda,
Vice Chancellor,
North Orissa University "
Dhamra Port Project is not only concern about the Orissa's economy or the society’s betterment but they are also concern about the environmental protection. A very nice video which you will definitely like to share with others
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXJ9x8_sEQQ
Light and lighting are crucial for any industrial project, both during construction and the operational phase. IUCN lighting experts and DPCL are also taking care of implementing lighting safeguards, which would also be turtle safe lighting and would be low pressure sodium vapor lights which have been proven by research to be the least disorienting to turtle hatchlings.
Source: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=296928&id=168851070709
"Expressing anguish over the Green Peace movement's single point agenda on stopping work on Dhamra Port project in Orissa, Tata Steel Chairman Ratan Tata reiterated that the company would in no way take up any project hazardous to Olive Ridley Turtles"
Mr Ratan Tata Chairman of TATA Steel to Greenpeace activists: "I invite you for a discussion and a visit to the port site in Dhamra."
Tata proved that Tata was always willing to have a best solution for country's industrial & economical development and they were always ready for solutions.
http://steelguru.com/news/index/2009/08/29/MTA5MDgw/TATA_Steel_invites_Greenpeace_activists_for_talks_on_Dhamra_Port.html
http://www.indopia.in/India-usa-uk-news/latest-news/661058/Business/4/20/4
http://www.newkerala.com/nkfullnews-1-100917.html
Greenpeace, the professed global environment campaign organization, in an instance of unmatched brazenness, falsified the report prepared by North Orissa University on Biodiversity Assessment of Dhamra Estuary. As a result, a group of forty MPs wrote to the Ministry Of Environment and Forests to call on the bluff of Greenpeace. The Orissa Govt. therefore initiated action against Greenpeace proposing a ban on all its activities in the state.
However, after the 102nd Annual General Meeting of Tata Steel in Mumbai, Greenpeace unabashedly has started their tricks once again. This time it has managed to rope in Retd Admiral Ramdas and his wife Mrs. Lalita Ramdas on the issue of Dhamra port but as far as scientific reasoning goes, the issues raised are totally unfounded. We can just hope that the visit of the Ramdas’ to the site will help to stop meaningless agitations and clear the situation once and for all.
Tata Steel has always maintained a strong focus on environment sustainability and environment management in all its operations. We have seen that in the issues regarding the construction of a deep-sea port at Dhamra in Orissa, the Company has been forthcoming in sharing the concerns of activists and ever willing to implement practical means of mitigating any adverse impact of port construction on the marine eco-system in that area. The Company has held at least eight to nine sessions of meetings with Greenpeace and other environmental organizations in the matter of Dhamra Port. Tata Steel has made it abundantly clear that it is willing to have further discussions in order to alleviate any unnecessary doubts that the dissenters may yet nurture against the project.
Here is an outline of events as they happened till date.
The JV agreement with L&T to build a port at Dhamra was signed by Tata Steel in 2004. At the very onset, discussions were initiated with WWF- India, BNHS, Mr Kartik Shankar, Mr Bittu Sehagal and others.
The company was duly concerned with the objections raised by different environmental organizations and agreed not to begin construction work till a detailed study was complete. Responding wholeheartedly to the demands of activists, Tata Steel agreed for a proposal for a further study of the impact of the port on turtles and on the marine and island eco-system.
In 2005, BNHS and WWF-India, with an unprecedented suddenness, reversed their stand and refused to conduct the assessment study as they had promised. However, the organisations did not provide any reasons for their turncoat attitude.
In March 06, in an address to ED, Greenpeace India, the Chairman of TATA Sons made it clear that commitments were meant to be honoured at both ends. The Company had fulfilled their promise by withholding construction work for the proposed study, which never actually took off. The MD of Tata Steel also met Greenpeace officials in their Bangalore office.
In January 2008 a meeting was subsequently conducted between Greenpeace and Tata Steel and a list of concerns was presented by Greenpeace with regard to Dhamra Port. DPCL on 8th March 2008, gave a detailed and comprehensive explanation to all the points raised by Greenpeace. Subsequent objections were allayed on 3rd May 2008.
Further on 23rd October 2008, MD, Tata Steel along with senior executives of Tata Steel, L&T and DPCL met Greenpeace, BNHS, WPSI, Wild Society of Orissa, Sanctuary Asia and other environmental organizations to discuss the concerns and the way forward on the subject with regard to Dhamra Port.
A team of Company Executives and environment experts visited Bhitarakanika National Park, Gahirmatha Marine Sanctuary and the Dhamra Port site on February 2009, supervising the ongoing dredging operations.
On fourth meeting on 20th Feb 2009 in Kolkata, Tata Steel, L&T and DPCL agreed to conduct the additional biological impact assessment in close collaboration with NGOs’ of environmental organizations team led by a mutually agreed upon Scientists team. However the NGOs’ in a further instance of unreasonableness, insisted upon complete cessation of on-going dredging operation of Dhamra Port even before the commencement of study. However DPCL, Tata Steel and L&T team showed it preparedness to adjust the schedule of works including dredging to facilitate the study after due recommendation by the Scientists team.
The 102nd AGM of Tata Steel had been attended by a number of Greenpeace activists who happen to be shareholders of the Company as well. The AGM highlighted Tata Steel’s interests in further conference with Greenpeace in the matter of the port in addition to an invitation to activists to visit the port site yet again.
From the sequence of events, it is absolutely clear that the only thing that Greenpeace wants is to prolong the situation of deadlock in the matter of Dhamra Port. Perhaps, due to a lack of other valid issues on their agenda, Greenpeace is carrying on with a stance of stiffness, lest they have to give in to valid scientific reasoning. The only deduction that may be drawn from Greenpeace’s lack of willingness in discussion is that they have lost their own conviction long before and fear that they will have to admit it as such in an open forum. It is indeed a very sorry state of affairs in which progress is kept at stake and the environment is being used as a pawn by people who profess themselves to be friends of the environment.
http://www.d-r-a-g.org/river-system-facts/greenpeace-failure-arribada-continues-at-gahirmatha-nesting-beach.
In the blog post it is clearly mentioned that -
In order to facilitate the movement of large size vessels, a deep-sea port was proposed on the north of the mouth of river
Dhamra, on the eastern coast of India....
Unfortunately, ever since its inception, certain groups and individuals, mostly campaigners like Greenpeace have expressed
unfounded and biased apprehensions to malign the project as an environmental threat....This video clearly narrates the
misconceptions that have been spread, and the actual facts to counter them.....
Post a Comment