India Environment Portal Knowledge for change

About us Contact us
downtoearth-subscribe

Browse by subjects

CAN DO

  • 14/03/2006

CAN DO Tendering is the tip of the iceberg. The major problem about the Sethusamudram project involves environmental, economic and livelihood issues. Experts are now questioning its raison d'etre and economic viability. The manner in which the project obtained mandatory clearances is also being examined, especially given the politics surrounding the project, the adverse impact on fisherfolk and biodiversity, and post-tsunami issues.

The eia report is one of the most contentious of issues. The final eia report was submitted by neeri to tpt in May 2004. It was paid Rs 1 crore to put together the eia and the techno-economic feasibility report. About a year earlier, neeri had submitted a rapid eia. Many activists and professionals believe that the same was later submitted as the comprehensive report. "Only on a careful reading of the eia document does this become clear . Many sources of data including biodiversity are outdated,' says Ossie Fernandes, co-convenor, Coastal Action Network (can). "The report is essentially a rapid assessment report and not a comprehensive eia report. The report itself mentions that the comprehensive eia report will be prepared later based on the primary data collection for the region,' writes Aarthi Sridhar, research fellow, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bangalore.

In fact, the final eia filed by neeri said that it was a rapid eia and a comprehensive study would be done later. This point was raised by can in a writ petition filed before the Madras High Court in November 2004. Project authorities dismissed the claims saying that it was called a rapid assessment on account of an "editing error'; the report was indeed a comprehensive eia. can says it wasn't just in one place that there were such inconsistencies.

The second controversial issue concerning the eia is that the assessment has mostly used secondary data. "How can a project which will pass through a biological hotspot and is likely to have so many impacts be assessed on the basis of secondary data?' asks Sudarshan Rodriguez, a Chennai-based marine conservation management analyst. " neeri had collected very little primary data on its own. And in rare cases where it did, it was restricted to the canal alignment and surrounding areas were ignored. This is illogical because dredging activity is bound to have impacts on the surrounding areas as well,' he adds. "Most of the data on which the eia was based was secondary data dating as far back as 1976. Primary data was collected only for one or two seasons with regard to a sub-chapter in marine environment and socio-economic and health environment,' says a can release. Many say that neeri was biased in favour of the project even before it did the eia.

"The impact assessment starts with biased information supporting the proposal rather than emphasising the importance of its actual social and environmental impacts. In the introductory part itself, the eia says: "Proposed canal will bring benefits like surge in the development of coastal trade and development of industries. However, there is no data supporting this statement. It is clear that the project proponents, in this case, have sought to only provide a makeshift document to primarily overcome the

  • Tags:

Related Content