Sea Port Construction Resumes at Vizhinjam

A large number of fisherfolk had been staging demonstrations outside the main entrance of the multi-purpose sea port at Mulloor near Thiruvananthapuram for over four months.

Thiruvananthapuram: With the fisherfolk calling off their over 130-day-long agitation, for now, against the Vizhinjam sea port here two days ago, construction resumed there on Thursday, December 8, with trucks full of material rolling into the project site.

Visuals of the project site shared by a source in Adani Group showed the trucks loaded with construction materials rolling in and the surrounding area being devoid of protestors who were camped there for over four months.

The agitation was called off on Tuesday, and on the next day, the protesters informed the Kerala high court that the tent set up at the protest site outside the port was being removed.

The submission was made during hearing of a plea moved by Adani Group for contempt action against the protesters for not complying with the court’s orders to not obstruct the way to the project site.

With the agitation being called off and the protesters assuring to remove the tent at the protest site, the high court had closed the contempt pleas.

Subsequently, on Thursday, the construction work commenced at the port and the source said that the barge movement will start soon and in a few days it will be working at full swing.

The priority would be given to completing the construction of the 2,960 metres long breakwater, of which around 1,400 metres have been completed, the source said.

Piling required for berth construction, main power sub-station, port operation building, gate complex, workshop and a third of the port approach road – including two bridges forming part of it – stood completed, the source added.

The source also said that 60% of the reclamation for backyard construction has also been completed.

The over four-month long protest was called off on Tuesday after discussions between the leaders of the agitation and chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan.

A large number of fisherfolk had been staging demonstrations outside the main entrance of the multi-purpose sea port at Mulloor near Thiruvananthapuram for over four months.

They had been pressing for their seven-point charter of demands that include stopping the construction work and conducting a coastal impact study in connection with the multi-crore project.

The agitators had been alleging that the unscientific construction of groynes, the artificial sea walls as part of the upcoming port, were some of the reasons for the increasing coastal erosion.

The protesters had attacked Vizhinjam police station on the night of November 27, injuring several policemen.

(PTI)

Kerala Police Step up Security Around Vizhinjam Port After Clashes

Construction at the mega port project in Vizhinjam has been halted for more than three months by the protesters, who blame the port’s development for coastal erosion that has hit their livelihoods.

Vizhinjam: Police in Kerala on Tuesday, November 29, ramped up security around the $900 million transhipment port being built by billionaire Gautam Adani’s conglomerate after scores of people were injured in clashes with protesters from a Christian fishing community.

Construction at the mega port project in Vizhinjam on the southern tip of India has been halted for more than three months by the protesters, who have blocked the site’s entrance with a makeshift shelter. They blame the port’s development for coastal erosion that has hit their livelihoods, an accusation the Adani Group denies.

Over the weekend, villagers stormed a police station to protest the arrest of some opponents to the project, and more than 80 people were injured during the clashes, including 36 police. To prevent fresh violence, Kerala state police were sending reinforcements to the Vizhinjam area, senior police officer Ajith V. told Reuters.

“We are getting ready to face any situation,” he said. At the station, located some 3 kilometre (2 miles) from the port, more than 100 police officers, some armed with batons, stood guard.

Another state police officer, who declined to be named, said security had also been increased around the port which is near Kovalam beach, an area popular with tourists.

The port is of strategic importance to both India and Adani, Asia’s wealthiest man and the world’s third-richest.

Once completed, it will become India’s first container transhipment hub, rivalling Dubai, Singapore and Sri Lanka for business on the lucrative East-West trade routes.

The first phase of construction was due to be completed by end-2024. The Adani Group has said in court filings that the protests have caused “immense loss” and “considerable delay”.

Also read: Despite Court Orders and Latent Tension, Vizhinjam Fishers Continue Protest

The company has lodged a lawsuit against the Catholic priests leading the protests, as well as the government of Kerala for not taking any action.

But despite court orders saying the protests should not interfere with construction, the villagers have refused to budge, saying they will only remove their shelter – a 1,200 square feet structure consisting of poles holding up a corrugated iron-roof – once the project’s construction is called off.

“The protests will continue,” one of the protest leaders, Joy Jerald, told Reuters near the shelter.

The Adani Group says the port complies with all laws and has cited studies that show it is not linked to shoreline erosion. The state government also says any erosion was due to natural causes.

Adani has earlier faced protests in Australia, where environmental activists had launched a “Stop Adani” movement to protest his Carmichael coal mine project in Queensland state. There, activists concerned about carbon emissions and damage to the Great Barrier Reef forced Adani to downsize production targets and delayed the first shipment from the mine by years.

(Reuters)

Kerala: After FIR Against Latin Catholic Priests, Attack on Police Station Injures Over 30 Cops

Multiple cases were registered against at least 15 Latin Catholic priests and over 100 people in connection with protests against an Adani seaport.

New Delhi: A mob attacked Vizhinjam police station in Kerala on the night of November 27, demanding the release of people who had been taken in custody a day ago during a protest against the construction of an Adani port. At least 29 to 36 policemen were injured and vehicles damaged, it has been reported.

Around 3,000 identifiable persons have been named in FIRs, it has been reported.

PTI has reported that the mob was allegedly led by the Latin Catholic church. The church has been leading a protest against the Adani seaport in the area for over three months.

The growing agitation against the port on India’s southern tip – seen as key to winning business from ports in Dubai, Singapore and Sri Lanka – has seen construction halted for more than three months. Protesters, mostly from the fishing community, blocked its entrance, blaming the development for coastal erosion and depriving them of their livelihoods.

On Sunday night, the mob targeted the police station using sticks and bricks, and attacked police officers after a person was arrested and a few other were taken into custody in connection with protests which turned violent on November 26.

The agitators also attacked a camera person working for the local channel ACV, Sherif M John. John’s camera was damaged and his cellphone was taken. He was taken to Thiruvananthapuram Medical College Hospital for treatment.

The district administration has initiated a peace talk with the church authorities. A representative of the latter, Father Eugene Pereira, said the church wants to maintain peace.

However, Reuters quoted Pereira as having called for a judicial inquiry into the incident and having alleged that, “Stones were pelted from even the station.”

Kerala Minister of Ports Ahammed Devarkovil said the government has been “very patient” till now where the protest was concerned, but if the agitation attains a “criminal nature” – where police personnel are attacked and injured and police property is destroyed – that was “unacceptable.”

Scuffle

Multiple cases were registered against at least 15 Latin Catholic priests and over 100 people over the clashes that broke out in Vizhinjam between two groups on Saturday, November 26. One person was arrested.

Also read: Why Fisherfolk Are Protesting Against Adani’s Vizhinjam Port in Kerala

The police said that the accused – metropolitan Archbishop Thomas J Netto, auxiliary bishop Father Christudas, Father Eugine Perera, and Lawrence Gulas, among others – have been charged with criminal conspiracy, unlawfully assembly and rioting.

Going against the assurances given to the Kerala high court, the protesters agitating in front of the under-construction Vizhinjam seaport had on Saturday blocked the trucks carrying construction materials to the site, it has been reported.

The protesters, led by the Latin Catholic church, had on November 22 assured the high court that they would not block any vehicles coming to the Vizhinjam seaport. The high court had told protesters that stern action will be taken against them if they failed to remove the obstructions.

During the blockade, a section of locals who are in support of the project opposed the presence of protesters, leading to a scuffle.

Indian Express reported that action council convener Father Eugene Pereira claimed that police remained lenient to employees of the port and Bharatiya Janata Party members. “The police have arrested the bishops and the priests in the criminal case, and charged them with conspiracy even though they were not part of the agitation. Saturday’s violence was unleashed by the men of Adani (group) with the connivance of police and BJP. We want a peaceful solution to the issue,’’ he said.

Meanwhile, Leader of Opposition, Congress’s V.D. Satheesan said the FIR against the Archbishop was unacceptable. “Cases have been registered against nearly 50 priests. This cannot be accepted. Now it seems like the Pinarayi Vijayan headed government will do anything for the Adani Group. The Latin Church’s allegation that the violence was orchestrated by the government is a serious one,” he said in a statement on Sunday.

Satheesan said the United Democratic Front had earlier pledged support to the protesters and will continue to do so.

Cases have been registered under section IPC 143 (Unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) 153 (Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot), 447 (criminal trespass), 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty).

The police have registered a case based on a complaint filed by people’s forum, a group of people, which supports the project, that the anti-seaport protesters attacked them.

Meanwhile, Father Eugine Perera has claimed that the state government was not ready to properly rehabilitate the members of the coastal community.

“The government which is not ready to properly rehabilitate us is now threatening us with police cases. We will not back down. Tomorrow, the government will move the court against us,” Perera told reporters.

He said the protesters will file an appeal against the court’s order on various matters related to the Vizhinjam protest.

The port, a Kerala government initiative, is currently being developed in a landlord model with a Public Private Partnership component on a design, build, finance, operate and transfer (‘DBFOT’) basis. The private partner, Adani Vizhinjam Port Private ltd, commenced the construction on December 5, 2015 at a cost of Rs 7,525 crore.

The Vizhinjam International Transhipment Deepwater Multipurpose Seaport authorities had said that 70% of the work has now been completed.

(With PTI inputs)

Note: This report is being updated as relevant news comes in.

Kerala: Rivals BJP, CPI(M) March Together Against Adani Port Protesters

This is the first time that BJP and CPI(M) politicians have united on a public platform. Thousands of protesters have been protesting against the upcoming Vizhinjam Port in the state, citing its capacity for causing coastal erosion.

New Delhi: The Adani Group’s upcoming Vizhinjam Port near Thirvananthapuram in Kerala, which has so far seen sustained protests against it by fisherfolk on Tuesday, November 1, saw a long march in support of it by the Bharatiya Janata Party and Communist Party of India (Marxist).

The two parties, in power in the Union and state governments respectively, are traditional and ideological rivals. In Kerala, their rivalry has often seen violence.

Times of India has reported that not only did district heads of the respective parties – CPI(M) district secretary Anavoor Nagappan and BJP’s district president V.V. Rajesh – address the march, but it also saw participation of members belonging to another rival party – Congress.

The march was formally led by the ‘Save Vizhinjam Port Action Council’ which aims to counter the agitation against the port.

This is the first time that BJP and CPI(M) politicians have united on a public platform.

Both Nagappan and Rajesh said that their respective parties will “provide support” to the Action Council to see the port plan to fruition. CPI(M)’s Nagappan ascribed “ulterior motives” to an unnamed group which he claimed was controlling the protests.

Thousands of protesters from nearby areas have been pressing for their seven-point charter of demands that include stopping construction work and a coastal impact study. The protesters have been alleging that the unscientific construction of groynes, the artificial sea walls as part of the upcoming Vizhinjam port, was one of the reasons for the increasing coastal erosion.

The Rs 7,500-crore international transhipment project was initiated in 2015, The Wire Science has reported.So far, the Left government in Kerala has remained steadfast in its decision to let construction continue.

“The price that coastal fishing communities could pay for the project could be high,” the detailed analysis of protesters’ impression of the environmental damage noted.

Also read: Why Fisherfolk Are Protesting Against Adani’s Vizhinjam Port in Kerala

The Kerala High Court on November 1 – the same day as the march – directed that obstructions placed by protesters on the road to the under-construction sea port have to be removed.

The direction by Justice Anu Sivaraman came during the hearing of contempt pleas of Adani Group and the company contracted by it to construct the port.

The protesters told the court that settlement discussions were being held and the talks were being mediated by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, and sought time.

Does South India Need Three Trans-Shipment Ports to Compete With Colombo?

Shipping industry experts fear the proposed Enayam port, proximate to the Vizhinjam port in Trivandrum and the Vallarpadam port in Cochin, may not be sustainable.

Shipping industry experts fear the proposed Enayam port, proximate to the Vizhinjam port in Trivandrum and the Vallarpadam port in Cochin, may not be sustainable.

An artist's illustration of the Enayam port, once ready. Source: YouTube

An artist’s illustration of the Enayam port, once ready. Source: YouTube

The confusion and controversy surrounding a port proposed to be set up at Enayam in Kanyakumari district, Tamil Nadu, refuses to subside. To be developed as a major international port, the Enayam International Container Trans-shipment Terminal, or the Enayam port, has been struggling since the 1990s. This was when the initial technical and economic feasibility studies for developing a port at Colachel (near Enayam) were carried out by the state government “to support industrial growth”.

After having been in limbo for almost 20 years, the Enayam port project was revived two years ago, when the Union cabinet approved the setting up of a new major trans-shipment port at Enayam to make “India a destination on the global east-west trade route” in principle.

The shipping ministry hired a consultant to prepare a fresh feasibility report. It was submitted in August 2015, and said that the “development of a deep Sea Port at Enayam near Colachel to handle larger Container vessels up to 18,000 TEUs [twenty-foot equivalent, a unit of container ship capacity] with 16m draught is technically feasible and financially viable”.

The port is to be built in three phases from 2017 to 2030 at a total cost of Rs 27,570 crore. The 840-acre piece of land for it is to be reclaimed from the sea through dredging. The detailed project report (DPR) of the Enayam port is expected to be finalised by this year’s end, after which the tender process for the construction of breakwaters and dredging is expected to begin.

However, shipping industry experts have been sounding notes of caution. “There are already two trans-shipment ports, Vallarpadam port in Cochin and the under-construction Vizhinjam port in Trivandrum. The proposed Enayam port is the third major trans-shipment port in the region. Having three major ports close to each other looks difficult from a sustenance point of view,” K. Ravichandran, the senior vice-president and sector head of corporate ratings at ICRA Ltd., an independent credit-rating agency, told The Wire.

The Kerala government has already expressed its displeasure at the Enayam port having received the go-ahead because it is barely 36 km away from the Vizhinjam trans-shipment port, which is being built with private funds from the Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd. (APSEZ). In turn, the Vizhinjam port is about 225 km from the government-owned Vallarpadam port, where the Dubai-based company DP World has been operating India’s first container trans-shipment terminal for the last six years. And according to the Indian Container Market Report 2017, the Vallarpadam trans-shipment port is running at only 49% of its total installed capacity.

There is already an oversupply in the global shipping market and some container companies have already gone bankrupt, Ravichandran said. The present container rates are not remunerative, so shipping liners very carefully control their the costs. “Realistically speaking, three trans-shipment ports close to each other are not needed. Maybe we can manage two – Vallarpadam and Vizhinjam. But these ports will also take a minimum of five to ten years to make any difference in the country’s trans-shipment business,” he explained.

The Enayam port has also been facing stiff opposition from local fishers, who fear the dredging and reclamation will adversely impact their livelihoods. “The coastal stretch where Enayam port is proposed has a fishers population of 1,101 per square kilometre. More than one lakh fishers are dependent on the sea for their livelihood,” said R.S. Lal Mohan, the chairperson of Conservation of Nature Trust, a non-profit based in Nagercoil, and a former scientist at the Indian Council of Agriculture Research. “The consultants tried surveying the area for preparation of DPR but the local people drove them away.”

Need for a trans-shipment port

In 2016, Indian ports handled about 11.3 million TEUs of containers, of which nearly 70% was gateway container cargo and 25% trans-shiped en route to a different destination. Trans-shipment is the act of off-loading a container from a large container ship (generally at a hub port) and loading it onto a second, smaller ship to be carried to the final port of discharge.

Global vessel sizes have significantly increased in the last decade and most main liner vessels have capacities of 10,000 TEUs or more, with the largest vessel reaching a capacity of 18,000 TEUs. Large container ships need deep-draft ports of depth 18-20 metres to berth and move containers.

India’s extant major ports do not have such deep drafts, so a quarter of all containers are trans-shipped through ports in other countries. Colombo (Sri Lanka), Singapore and Klang (Malaysia) handle more than 80% of India’s trans-shipment cargo; of them, Colombo alone handles about 43%.

Trans-shipment adds to the cost of handling cargo because of the extra port-handling charges. It has been estimated that the Indian port industry loses up to Rs 1,500 crore per year in revenue on trans-shipment cargo that is either originating from or destined for India. The additional cost is $80-100, or Rs 5,000-6,500, per TEU, and which wouldn’t be incurred if the container could imported/export directly from an Indian port, according to an August 2015 report.

Cranes at the Vallapardam port. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Cranes at the Vallapardam port. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

The report also claims that the Enayam port is an opportunity for India to become a large trans-shipment hub for trade between the US, the EU, Africa and Asia. Today, about 70% of the cargo from Bangladesh and Myanmar gets trans-shipped in Singapore. So a trans-shipment hub in the southern tip of India can save voyage time by five or six days for cargo bound to Africa, the EU or the US’s east coast. This, the report claims, will shave costs down 12-15%.

Based on traffic flow data, the total container cargo traffic at Enayam is expected to be 1.7 million TEUs by 2020. Of this, one million TEU will be gateway cargo and the rest, trans-shipment. The total cargo handled is projected to increase to 12.9 million TEUs by 2040. Coal berths have also been proposed at the Enayam port, with a capacity of 3.3 million tonnes in the second phase (2021-2025), which is to be increased to 6.6 million tonnes in the third (2026-2030).

“Trans-shipment adds to the cost of cargo handling and at a time when the global shipping industry is on a downslide, every penny counts. But merely building a trans-shipment port will not attract foreign liners,” said Neeraj Bansal, the deputy chairperson of the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT), Mumbai.

Competing with Colombo

To attract major shipping liners and compete with the Colombo port, the Enayam port needs to offer various incentives. The first would be to relax the cabotage law, as the 2015 recommends. Cabotage laws apply to merchant ships in most countries that have a coastline to protect domestic shipping from foreign competition.

A move in this direction was made last March when the Indian government lifted cabotage restrictions for ports that trans-ship at least 50% of the total container capacity handled in a year. However, the impact of the move is not fully understood.

“Cabotage rules act as a hindrance because they don’t allow foreign vessels to transport cargo between domestic ports. But at the same time, the Indian carriers do not have enough [ships] to transport the cargo,” said Ashwani K. Jhingan, the chairperson and managing director of the Mumbai-based Malaxar Shipping and Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. He added that countries like the US and the UK have their own cabotage rules to protect their domestic shipping industries.

Second: the Enayam port must keep port-related logistics costs lower than those at Colombo to make it economically viable for shipping lines to invest in altering their operations. The 2015 report recommends that “a minimum discount of 15% on the port charges of Colombo Port may be given for transshipment traffic for a time period of 5 years to establish minimum scale of traffic in Colachel [Enayam]”. It also recommends waiving the service tax, or offering discounted port charges to offset, extra the service tax at the Enayam.

“In India, ports have been privatised but there is no cargo. Our port handling charges are much higher than the trans-shipment ports at Dubai, Colombo, Singapore, etc.,” Jhingan said. “An Indian port charges almost twice as much trans-shipment charges as at Colombo port.”

Additionally, the customs approval process needs to be relaxed and shortened. For example, on an average, an import at an Indian port requires 10 forms and 22 signatures. At Colombo port, it is seven and 13, respectively.

Finally, the Enayam port’s success will depend on establishing the last mile road and rail connectivity for the gateway traffic. There has been a plan to develop a 11.7-km-long four-lane road connecting the port with NH47 at a cost of Rs 150 crore. The Centre has also been eyeing a 10-km-long railway line between Eraniel and Enayam at Rs 70 crore.

To be or not to be

“The same logic of competing with Colombo port was used while building the Vallarpadam trans-shipment port at Cochin and clearing the Vizhinjam trans-shipment port in Trivandrum. But Vallarpadam is running at less than half its capacity. Should we spend thousands of crores of public money to build a third port in the region?” asked Sudarshan Rodriguez, head of the Social and Ecological Stewardship Programme at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS).

Rodriguez, who has studied the growth of India’s port industry, said that the Rs 7,525-crore Vizhinjam port has already run into rough weather as the comptroller and auditor general has found that the interests of the state government were not adequately protected while drawing up the concession agreement with Adani Ports and SEZ Private Ltd.

“Large liners and a trans-shipment port definitely provide economy of scale, but will there be enough container traffic for these three trans-shipment ports coming up next to each other when there is a slowdown in the global shipping industry?” asked Rajeev Nayyer, chairperson of the Indian Institute of Marine Engineers, Mumbai. Jhingan fears that these three ports may end up competing with each other for the same cargo instead of competing with the Colombo port.

According to an official of the Shipping Corporation of India (SCI), competing with the Colombo port will not be easy. The Enayam port must have good infrastructure including proper storage yards, gantry cranes (for loading and unloading cargo), a separate section for refrigerated cargo, a repair facility, freshwater supply and fuel (for ships) at an internationally-competitive price if it has to compete with the Colombo port, he said while asking not to be named. “Port clearance also has to be much faster and port charges much lower. At present, a private Indian port [refusing to name it] charges Rs 8,670 for single entry. In contrast, the Colombo port charges $25 [about Rs 1,620] for more than one entry. Can the Enayam port compete with all this?” he questioned.

The Colombo port is already in expansion mode and is developing another deep draft (18 m depth), East Container Terminal.

Dredging costs

“To be a successful, any trans-shipment port in India should have a minimum draft of 20 me, though 24 m draft is preferable for large liners,” said Jhingan. But a deep-draft port means excess dredging, which is a costly affair. “And dredging is not a one-time cost, but a recurring cost, which increases the port handling charges,” said Ravichandran.

Take the case of Vallarpadam Container Terminal, whose annual dredging cost is Rs 110 crore. The Kerala government has sought a three-year dredging subsidy for this port, which is functioning at less than half its installed capacity. In Mumbai, the cost of dredging the harbour has shot up by 154% in the last one decade. The annual dredging cost of another private port in the country is Rs 450 crore. The Mundra port in Gujarat has to be dredged throughout the year to maintain the draft of 17.5 m.

John Jacob Puthur, a retired Indian Navy commander and a charge hydrographer (authorised to certify all types of hydrographic surveys), who has surveyed the entire Indian coastline, claims it is “foolish” of the Indian government to build the Enayam port. “The west coast of India is not suitable for building a trans-shipment hub, which needs a deep draft and an all-weather major port,” Puthur told The Wire. He has authored a book on coastal issues titled The Untold Story of a Coast.

A trans-shipment port is meant for a large liner that carries 20,000-25,000 containers and thus looks like a 10-storey building floating in the sea. Such ships need a safe berthing facility at the port. “In India, we receive four months of south-west monsoon, which is not just rains, but very high-speed winds. None of the three trans-shipment ports – Vallarpadam, Vizhinjam and Enayam – have natural protection from these winds. So imagine a number of 10-storey buildings swaying in the sea during the four months of south-west monsoon,” said Puthur.

According to him, the JNPT and Mundra port are safe because of their location in the creek and the gulf.

A general view of a container terminal is seen at Mundra Port in Gujarat April 1, 2014. Credit: Reuters/Amit Dave/Files

A general view of a container terminal is seen at Mundra Port in Gujarat April 1, 2014. Credit: Reuters/Amit Dave/Files

Apart from the monsoon winds, the west coast also faces heavy siltation, thereby increasing the dredging cost. “The Vallarpadam port is a disaster as it’s located on a marshy patch meant to be silted every year. Its natural depth of two to three m has been dredged to 14 m, which is not sustainable,” alleged Puthur. He claimed that the 4.5-m-high breakwaters of Vizhinjam port were not enough to protect 20-m-high loaded ships during the monsoon months.

Environmental costs

Apart from wasting public money, poorly-planned ports also have a high environmental cost, which the port authorities never take into account, said Rodriguez. Construction of structures such as ports, groyne and seawall blocks the movement of beach sands, leading to coastal erosion.

Pondicherry harbour is a classic example. “Pondicherry had a natural beach, which disappeared after the construction of the harbour,” said Probir Banerjee, president of PondyCAN (Pondy Citizens’ Action Network), a non-profit researching on beach erosion. According to him, beaches are not static; they are rivers of sand and the sand continuously moves in the north and south direction.

For instance, at the Pondicherry beach, nine months of the year, 0.6 million cubic metre of sand moves northwards. And in the remaining three months of the year, 0.1 million cubic metre sand moves southwards. “Because of the construction of the breakwaters, the sand cannot move northwards. Thus, almost 12 km coastline in the north of Pondicherry has disappeared. Salinity ingress is another major problem,” said Banerjee.

It is worth noting that 45% of India’s coastline is facing erosion. An official document (June 2017) of the Enayam port notes that the part of coastal stretch where the port is proposed “is already experiencing erosion”. But it assures people that “proper shore protection measures will be adopted to protect the shore line from erosion”.

The Wire had emailed a set of questions on the proposed project to senior officials of the Kanyakumari Enayam Port Ltd. The article will be updated as and when a response becomes available.

Nidhi Jamwal is an independent journalist based in Mumbai.

How POSCO Steel and Enayam Port Both Enshrine Development by Destruction

What really is the mandate of the environment ministry? And what is the state of India’s environmental governance?

What really is the mandate of the environment ministry? And what is the state of India’s environmental governance?

An artist's illustration of the Enayam port, once ready. Source: YouTube

An artist’s illustration of the Enayam port, once ready. Source: YouTube

The $12 billion Odisha project of South Korea’s steel behemoth POSCO was the darling of the liberalisation era, heralded as the largest foreign direct investment in the country. The project was formalised on June 22, 2005, with the signing of a memorandum of understanding with Odisha state government. Several hurdles – social, political, environmental, regulatory – came up that led to the downsizing of the plant: from 12 million tonnes per year to eight million tonnes, using about half of the 4,004 acres of land originally sought. Yet the project did not take off.

In 2015, POSCO put out this note: “The project could not make any substantial progress for the last 10 years due to the oppositions from some civil groups and local residents together with legal and administrative tangles. In particular, for the recent two years, the project has hardly seen any progress.” It finally threw in the towel and left in March 2017.

This project was once serenaded as a harbinger of ‘development’ to “bring prosperity and well-being” to the local people through big-ticket industrialisation and job creation. But the move faced strong resistance from a vigorous anti-POSCO movement by the people affected by it: forest dwellers, fishers, farmers, peasants, all apprehensive of losing their land and livelihood, as well as severe damage to the ecosystem.

POSCO’s deceit

The Union Ministry of Steel promoted the project and the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) went out of the way to give clearances. Meena Gupta, a former secretary of the MoEF who headed a four-member expert committee to iron things out, even resorted to manipulation. But the other three members – V. Suresh, a civil liberties lawyer; Devender Pande and Urmila Pingle, experts on forests and tribals – stood their ground. The project had also violated the Forest Rights Act, 2006, since no forest land can be allotted to anyone until all the rights of the people are protected and their consent obtained. In the event, the environmental clearance given by the MoEF was challenged in the National Green Tribunal, where the project faced a roller-coaster ride.

From the beginning, POSCO had resorted to deceit to obtain environmental and coastal regulation cone (CRZ) clearances. For this purpose, the massive project was deliberately unbundled into smaller parts and applications moved to secure their clearances, as though they were independent projects (e.g., four MTPA steel complexes, 400 MW power plants and a captive “minor” port). Even if they constituted one project and were situated within one complex, POSCO had clear intentions of ramping up production to the full capacity of 12 million metric tonnes per annum (MTPA) by 2011. These clearances were given on the strength of a single-season rapid environmental impact assessment instead of the mandatory full-year comprehensive variant.

The township project, requiring considerable additional land, as well as the huge water requirement for the project, were suppressed. Claiming the port to be a “minor” one was a major fraud. The port was designed for Capesize ships: 170,000 DTW capacity, each approximately 280 metres in length, indeed too huge to come into the ecologically sensitive Jatadhar creek!

This would require 12-km channels and tranquil berthing facilities and for which there would be massive sea walls built: one two-km and another 1.6-km long. The devastation that such massive infrastructure facilities might have caused is unimaginable, considering that the Jatadhar creek is an important nesting site for the critically endangered Olive Ridley turtles. This is also the region of the paan kethis (betel vine farms), where sand dunes provide sweet soil and water – and also protection during cyclones.

POSCO also did not come clean on the fact that it would raise the entire base of the 4,004-acre plant area by five metres by dumping millions of tonnes of sand dredged from the sea to protect the plant from a super-cyclone – like the one that slammed Odisha in 1999 (with wind speeds of 260 km/hr, waves 5.6 m high and 100 km wide). It had killed 15,000 people. The Odisha government had also suppressed critical concerns over the project’s environmental and social impacts. The expert committee had exposed all these and more.

The Enayam project

The main purpose of the project was to plunder the country’s natural resources and deprive the people of livelihood. The plant would have drawn massive quantities of water from the Mahanadi, posing a serious threat to drinking water supply to Bhubaneswar and Cuttack. The government was to allocate captive mines to exploit 600 million tonnes of iron ore for a pittance as royalty, which alone would have given POSCO a net profit of Rs 96,000 crore. The corresponding benefit to the local people was never properly defined.

Now that it is a closed chapter, the POSCO episode raises a critical question: What is the mandate of the MoEF and what is the state of environmental governance in India? Even now, similar ‘development projects’ are being pursued fervently by the Government of India, which in the process has resorted to misinformation and falsehoods. A case in point: the proposed Rs-27,750-crore ultra-mega port project called the Enayam International Container Transhipment Terminal, on the short but pristine sea coast of Kanyakumari at the mainland’s southernmost tip. The project is proposed to be implemented in three phases in the period 2017-2030 (with a total capacity of 127.05 MTPA).

Kanyakumari is among the smallest districts in the country, with an area of 1,684 km2. Of this, 30.2% is reserved forest. It is also a congested district, with a population density of 1,111 persons per km2. Its western coastline, along the Arabian Sea, is just about 60 kilometres long and has most of the 11 features of CRZ 1 outlined in the CRZ-2011 notification, issued under the Environmental Protection Act, 1986. More prominent among these are:

  • Mangroves
  • Corals, coral reefs and associated biodiversity
  • Sand dunes
  • Salt marshes
  • Turtle nesting grounds
  • Nesting grounds of birds
  • Areas or structures of archaeological importance and heritage sites

Thirty-six km out of the 60 km of this coast come under the Enayam Project Affected Area, which has numerous villages with several lakh people each. By area, half of the 980 km2-big port falls on land and the other half in the sea. The included length of coast is prone to high sea erosion and accretion, also having borne the brunt of the deadly 2004 tsunami. And as it happens, in CRZ 1 area, even minor construction activities are forbidden.

The Enayam port has the potential to severely damage, if not destroy, nature’s rich endowments in Kanyakumari. On the coast, these include the CRZ 1 features mentioned earlier as well as atomic minerals and other resources. The district’s plains host several water bodies, ponds, rivers and streams, fine paddy fields, flower gardens, coconut plantations, banana grooves, livestock and many others. The mountains (tail-end of the Western Ghats) have dense forests and the high-quality rubber plantation crops. The district also grows many kinds of spices and herbal crops.

But there is something bizarre and unreal about how this massive project ‘cropped up’ soon after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government assumed power at the Centre in May 2014. Strangely, the Union Ministry of Shipping, which is pushing the project, likes to call it the “Colachel Port at Enayam.” Colachel is a historical minor natural port on the Arabian Sea with a draft of 20 metres close to the coastline. Many feasibility reports were prepared in 1998, 2000 and 2010 to convert it into a major port, since it is barely four nautical miles from the international east-west shipping route. However, at some point in 2013, the then-Union Shipping Minister G.K. Vasan had stated in Parliament that the Rs-2000-crore proposal had been dropped because it would be infeasible.

At that time, negotiations had been underway for the Rs-7,600-crore Vizhinjam International Container Transhipment Terminal (backed by the Kerala government).It was slated to come up about 45 km northwest of Colachel and to be developed by the landlord-port model. Since the Adani Port Group was the sole bidder, the Kerala government was reluctant to close the deal. However, what did eventually clinch it for Adani was an open threat by Union shipping minister Nitin Gadkari: that the project would be moved to Colachel in Tamil Nadu if the contract for the port’s operation wasn’t given to Adani. And this, for a period of 60 years while other ports in the country tie up with private operators only for 30 years. Kerala buckled, and thus was born the Adani Vizhinjam International Transhipment Terminal.

Through misinformation and manipulation

And as soon as Adani won out, things moved at breakneck speeds to revive the defunct Colachel port, convert it into an ultra-mega transhipment terminal and locate it at Enayam which is just 30 km from Vizhinjam. For this purpose, Pon Radhakrishnan, the lone BJP MP from Tamil Nadu and representing Nagercoil constituency (where the project site falls)m was shifted from the industries ministry to shipping. He was made Minister of State with the mandate to get the Enayam Port going at any cost.

Radhakrishnan in turn moved fast and appointed V.O. Chidambaranar Port Trust at Tuticorin as the project proponent. V.O. Chidambaranar then sourced a ‘Techno-Economic Feasibility Report’ for the Enayam project from the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), US, and TYPSA Consulting Engineers and Architects, Spain. This again was in quick time (by August 2015).

A massive infrastructure project like this should actually satisfy five sets of feasibilities: technical, economic, financial, social and environmental. However, a plain reading of the BCG-TYPSA report shows only technical feasibility (that structures can be built given what the shore depth is). The other feasibilities are subject to stringent and/or non-practical conditions: heavy cargo underwriting for economic viability; a huge viability-gap funding for financial feasibility; and a massive displacement and loss of livelihood for social viability. Environmental feasibility is almost impossible.

Yet, in December 2015, the same consultants were given the task of preparing the detailed project report. On July 5, 2016, the Union Cabinet gave an ‘in principle’ approval for this project but without provisioning even a single rupee in the budget column. This was mainly meant to deceive the public and pressurise a reluctant Tamil Nadu government.

At the same time, a disinformation blitz has been unleashed. Several falsehoods – big-ticket industries in a pocket-sized agrarian district, creation of lakhs of jobs, no damage to the coast, no impact on fishers or fishing villages, total amount of Rs 27,750 crore already sanctioned, public support etc. – are being freely flaunted. Media advertisements are taken out for crores of rupees. The people who are going to be affected by the project are being bribed through seedy NGOs. So as the viability of the Vizhinjam port itself remains suspect (and requiring many years to settle), why this mad rush for a port four-times larger just kilometres away? Is there a hidden agenda?

The people in the area have aggressively protested against the project, rallying in large numbers (including on boats in the sea and on motorbikes) and undertaking day-long fasts, anticipating the dislocation of more than a lakh people – fishers and farmers – from their houses, a widespread loss of livelihood and near-destruction of the coast.

At the same time, the V.O. Chidambaranar Port moved MoEF on October 10, 2016, seeking a prior environmental clearance, requesting for a single-season rapid EIA instead of the mandatory full-year comprehensive EIA. In the form (no. 1) filed for this purpose, the project’s proponents masked almost all the salient features of the Kanyakumari coastal ecosystem. Several critical concerns over the economic, environmental and social impacts of the project have also been suppressed. MoEF then referred this to the expert appraisal committee (EAC), commenced the project appraisal process on November 24 – sans any preliminary checks.

These actions of MoEF and the EAC are illegal because the basic legal requirement for such an appraisal – Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) for Kanyakumari district – does not exist. The CZMP, notified in September 1996 under the original CRZ notification in 1991, expired on January 31, 2016. A fresh CZMP under the CRZ-2011 notification is being prepared according to the requisite procedures. But though MoEF and the EAC were aware of this, they have commenced the ad hoc, standalone appraisal process, evidently under duress. This is untenable.

Effectively, the common denominator between POSCO and Enayam is ‘development by destruction’. The Enayam shenanigans also raise the same critical question: What is the mandate of the MoEF and what is the state of India’s environmental governance?

Will they ever learn?

M.G. Devasahayam is a former IAS officer hailing from Kanyakumari district.

Immunity to International Finance Corporation Dilutes the Right of Indians to Seek Justice

The International Finance Corporation has funded projects in India that have caused large scale violation of environmental and social laws.

The International Finance Corporation has funded projects in India that have caused large scale violation of environmental and social laws.

A fisherman casts his net into the Kathajodi River in Cuttack district, about 25 km (15 miles) from Bhubaneswar December 8, 2012. Credit:Reuters/Stringer/Files

A fisherman casts his net into the Kathajodi River in Cuttack district, about 25 km (15 miles) from Bhubaneswar December 8, 2012. Credit:Reuters/Stringer/Files

In a recent move, India has extended the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947 (46 of 1947), which confers legal immunity akin to the kind enjoyed by foreign missions and diplomats, to the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private sector lending arm of the World Bank Group.

The United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947 (46 of 1947) gives effect to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations in India. Some of the few organisations the Act provides protection to are the International Civil Aviation Organisation, World Health Organisation, International Labour Organisation, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Universal Postal Union, International Telecommunication Union and World Meteorological Organisation.

This list of organisations is not exhaustive and has been extended to more organisations over the years through government notification.

The Act provides jurisdictional personality to the institution that it is granted to. It also provides immunity to the officials of the organisation in case of any disputes of a private nature and disputes involving any official of the organisation. This will provide immunity to the organisation and its officials against legal action in India.

The problem of an abuse of the immunities by the United Nations or specialised agencies is addressed not by municipal legal action, but through consultation, arbitration or in the case of failure of such process, by the International Court of Justice.

Past projects funded by World Bank Group

The Sardar Sarovar Project was conceived as the first in a series of some 30 projects that were designed to develop the Narmada basin in the 1980s and was supported by the World Bank’s government lending arm – the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD).

The bank’s support for the scheme took the form of a 10-year Dam and Power Project and a companion three-year Water Delivery and Drainage Project. Both projects were processed in parallel and were approved in 1985, two years before India’s Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change cleared the project.

In 1991, massive protests against the project led to an unprecedented independent review by the World Bank. The Morse Commission, appointed in June 1991 at the recommendation of the World Bank, conducted its first independent review of a World Bank project. This independent review stated that the “performance under these projects has fallen short of what is called for under bank policies and guidelines and the policies of the government of India”.

It further strongly criticised the bank and the borrower for paying inadequate attention to resettlement and rehabilitation, and to environmental protection. In order to save face, the World Bank put conditions for improving the state of rehabilitation. A day before the deadline, having failed to meet the conditions, the Indian government pulled out of its loan agreement with the World Bank. The World Bank’s participation in these projects was cancelled in 1995.

 Since then, the World Bank has funded a number of problematic projects in India. The IFC has in the recent past been involved with some of the most environmentally and socially damaging projects.

The Tata Mundra Ultra Mega Power Project (UMPP) sponsored by Coastal Gujarat Power Limited  in the coastal region of the state has been under the scanner for displacing fish workers and impacting their source of livelihood.

In June 2011, a complaint, representing the various potentially affected fishing communities, was filed with the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), the grievance redressal body of the IFC. The complaint raised issues related to the project’s social and environmental impact on fishing communities, specifically: deterioration of water quality and fish populations, blocked access to fishing and drying sites, forced displacement of fishermen, community health impacts due to air emissions and destruction of natural habitats, particularly mangroves.

The complainants also believe that the impact to their fishing communities were not adequately identified and mitigated, and the cumulative impact of the project was not adequately assessed.

 The CAO audit report validated the concerns raised by the community and an inadequate action plan was formulated, which was rejected by the community and is being monitored right now.

The Tata Mundra UMPP is not the first instance where the IFC has funded projects in India that have caused large scale violation of environmental and social laws, even by IFC’s standards. In Orissa, the GMR power project, which is funded by the IFC through a financial intermediary – Infrastructure Development Finance Company – has been responsible for a grave environmental and social disaster. A complaint regarding this was filed with the CAO, raising concerns about the disclosure of project information, environmental and social risks and human rights violations.

In Tata’s tea plantations in Assam and West Bengal, where the IFC investment comprises an equity investment of $7.8 million, there have been serious issues regarding labour law violations. A complaint was filed with the CAO by concerned NGO’s on behalf of tea workers raising concerns about the labour and working conditions at three different plantations.

In their complaint they specifically cited long working hours, unpaid compensation, poor hygiene and health conditions, and a lack of freedom to associate among plantation workers. Furthermore, the complainants have questioned the worker share-buying programme, contending that workers have been pressured into buying shares, often without proper information about the risks of such an investment. In all the above cases the CAO has gone ahead and given an audit report reinforcing the contentions of the complainants.

A complaint on IFC’s technical assistance to Vizhinjam port in Kerala is pending with the CAO.

Sabotaging the interests of its people

Immunity is oddly being granted to the IFC at a time when the people in India have, for the first time, taken a major step towards holding large financial institutions accountable.

The local fishing and farming community members from the villages affected by the Tata Mundra UMPP, filed a class action lawsuit in a US court holding the IFC responsible for causing the loss of their livelihoods, destroying their land and water and for creating a threat to their health by funding the coal-fired power plant in Gujarat.

Though the appeal was dismissed in the lower court, for the people it was a chance at seeking justice. A new appeal has been recently filed in a higher court in the US. This is the first time that a case is filed against a member of the World Bank Group anywhere in the world.

Immunity to the IFC in India has snatched away a medium to seek justice from the people who are affected by IFC funding within the Indian jurisdiction. Also, the move to extend the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act to an institution like IFC, which funds only private sector projects, seems not without a motive. By making this move, the government of India has opened a new door to lowering the environmental and social safeguard implementations, by taking away the rights of the affected people for holding IFC answerable for its investments.

Also, this underhanded way of bringing financial institutions under the Act is of serious concern. For any citizen, the judicial system of a nation is the most reverent space for seeking justice. By making this move, the government of India has gone ahead and compromised with the constitutional rights of its own citizens to seek justice in their own land and has made it easier for international financial institutions like the IFC to get an easy pass for the devastation that their projects have caused.

How can any institution be above the law of the land?