|
-
SETHUSAMUDRAM SHIP CANAL PROJECT -
Manitham urges investigation by
'Independent International Experts'
cont.....
UN Law of Sea Convention, 1982:
The dangers posed by the project violate the UN Law of Sea Convention, 1982.
- Part II, Section2, Article 6 deals with Reefs, Article 9 tells on Mouths of
Rivers, Article 10 speaks about Bays.
- Part V, Article 61 - Conservation of the living resources, Article 64 - Highly
Migratory species.
- Part V, Article - 65 and Part VII, Section 2, Article 120 also speaks on
Marine Mammals.
- Part VII, Section 2, Article 116 speaks on fishing rights.
- Part XI, Section 2, Article 145 and Article 237 emphasizing that protection of
Marine Environment is obligatory. In the same part Article 146 urges the need
for protecting the Human life, Article 149 and Part XVI, Article 303 both deals
with Archaeological and historical objects.
- Part XIII, Section 3, Article 254 dealt with Rights of neighboring land-locked
and geographically disadvantaged States.
Considering our Neighborhood, Sri Lanka:
- Till now the Indian Government has not even officially notified to Sri Lanka
of SSCP proposal even as a matter of courtesy.
- There were no clear markings of the territorial waters belonging to India and
Sri Lanka. As such, the criterion upon which it was announced that the entire
project would remain within the Indian waters is still unclear.
- Jaffna Peninsula in Sri Lanka and Rameswaram in India are linked via Miocene
era lime stone reefs. And if, for the purpose of SSCP dredged, there is a notion
that half of Jaffna peninsula & nearly 85 islands on the western and north
western coast of Sri Lanka and half of Rameswaram [The Honourable Dr. A P J
Abdul Kalam, President of India's Birth place and where his family is still
residing] in India will go under water.
- There is a fear that a sizable fisher folks in North and North western part of
Sri Lanka will also be affected and there is also fear that Republic of Mal
Dives fishermen also be affected.
- Indian Government should have considered obtaining "no objection" from the
Government of Sri Lanka as per UN law of Sea Convention, 1982.
'Manitham' Survey Report:
We, "Manitham", undertook extensive travel through Tamil Nadu Coastal areas and
gathered opinions of persons from various walks of life such as: fishermen,
educationalists, politicians, Human Rights Activists, experts from marine engineering, oceanographers,
environmental consultants etc. We started survey from Nagoor in Nagapatinam on
18-07-2004, Rameswaram- 19-07-2004, Tuticorin, Tirnelveli & Nagarkoil -
20-07-2004, and ended on 21-07-2004 at Thiruvanandapuram.
The following are the results:
- Most of the persons we met just know name of the project and do not know
anything else. Those who know they will be affected oppose this project.
- Swami Pranavanda of Rameswaram opposed this project during the year 2000. He
wants to transfer the project borderline to the east of Sri Kothandaram Temple
located at Rameswaram. He organised a signature campaign and passed it to the
then Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee to Defense Minister George Fernandes. Mr.
Fernandes also visited Vivekanda Kudil, where Swami Pranavanda lives ["Kumudam-Reporter",
20-05-2004].
- At Tuticorin, a bore well was recently laid 0.5 kms from Sea Shore in which
soil was seen up to 23 feet while there were only shells from the next 10 feet.
At Eral village we can see even now that only shells are available in the ground
level itself.
- According to retired Marine Engineers whom we met, revenue-wise also the
project will not be a profitable one. For example, as per Government of India,
the 36-hour voyage time can be saved by SSCP. Here we have to look after the
following limitations and constraints:
a] Only 30 feet draft ships can be allowed to cross SSCP.
b] The ships have to reduced its speed to half, while crossing SSCP.
Practically speaking, a ship will take at least 20-24 hours to cross SSCP. Also,
ships have to pay toll charges for crossing and a pilot boat, with payment has
to install to lead the vessel. Naturally, ships visiting
Chennai and Visakhapattanam need to use this way, we have to assess how many
ships would be daily sailing through SSCP. According to retired marine Engineers
who worked in Tuticorin port hardly 2 or 3 ships won't be crossing daily?
Therefore, even in revenue terms, the project cannot be treated as a
profitable/feasible one.
|
SSCP
Chairman
Mr. Ragupathy IAS |
- We met the Nodal Agency Chairman Mr.Ragupathy
IAS at his office on 20-07-2004. However, he and his associates refused to
give information on SSCP. He simply directed our team to his PRO, who appeared
to, do not know anything about this project. The Chairman also told us to
attend the public hearing, if any, conducted by the Nodal Agency in future.
[We received information that the Public Hearing
will be held on August, 24 & 25, 2004]
- We also met Environmental Consultants. In general they accepted that there
will be a small impact on environment and this project definitely affect the
coral reefs, coastal people, marine mammals etc.
History of World Canals:
We have also conducted a small study on canals. Before 4000 B C, King Menc built
a canal in Upper Egypt, which was considered to be the first of its kind. In
1666 A D, the Pierre Paul Riguet dredge, Languedoc canal [also known as 'Canal
Du Midi'], was constructed to connect Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea,
which was the first canal that connects two seas. The man-made waterway, the
Suez Canal of present, was originally 15 meter deep to allow 50 feet of draft to
pass. The work was started to increase this to 22 meter deep by 2010 so as to
allow super tanker passage. In the Suez Canal, in particular, only 90% sand and
10% rock were dredged. Notably, out of total 1.5 million Egyptians who worked on
Suez Canal, 1,25,000 had died. The above canals were dredged on land and not on
coral reefs as in our area.
Controversial SSCP issue:
The project was criticized by Mr. Ti. Shamugarasa in his article in Dinamani
(26-07-1999).
In Tamil Nadu coastal region, the 'Tamizhaga Meenaver Tennurimai Iyyakkam'
conducted agitation in 2000 against this project.
An article by Bangkok-based online daily 'Asian Tribune' Editor K.T.Rajasingham,
'India-canal the Genocidal SSCP', and another article 'A Canal.....and an
Island' it carried (both on 28-08-2002), reflected natural calamities that might
result out of this project.
MANITHAM's Demand:
Manitham is not totally objecting SSCP. Instead, we only want to know the
absolute truth behind SSCP. We are asking, as we have a right under UN Law
of Sea Convention, 1982 Part XI, Article 169 - before implementation [of the SSCP],
consultation should be held with Independent International NGO's on this project
for perfect clearance in all forms and terms. On this criteria, we want
'Independent International Experts' be allowed to give a fair report on SSCP.
Suggestion:
We suggest that a canal to qualify as a ship canal must have a minimum depth of
at least 5 meter [16 .4 feet]. Therefore, at present, we can do the minimum
depth so as to avoid big environmental problems.
Conclusion:
We request that before issuing 'no objection certificate' by the Tamil Nadu
Pollution Control Board, Tamil Nadu Department of Forests and Environment, and
Union Ministry of Environment, to make the Nodal Agency to come forward to clear
all the lingering issues connected with this project with the help of
'Independent International Experts' Report'.
- THE END -
__________________________________
Interim Report published on 30-07-2004.
A copy of this report submitted to :
1. Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, India
2. Department of Pollution, Tamil Nadu
3. Department of Environment, Tamil Nadu
4. Nodal Agency, SSCP, Tuticorin
5. Ministry of Environment, New Delhi
6. Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi |
