Fast forward

Fast forward

The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (tnpcb) has refused to grant the sscp a no-objection certificate (noc). Though the criticism of the project has been widespread, it's all been ignored. It's been cleared by the Union ministry of environment and forests (moef) and the prime minister's office (pmo). Raghupathy explains that, statutorily, the state's noc isn't required for the projects listed under schedule i of the eia notification.

On June 9, 2004, the tpt chairperson applied to the board for the noc. Public hearings were held between September 7, 2004, and February 2, 2005, in six coastal districts to be affected. Due to widespread protests, three rounds of public hearings were required. tnpcb admits there were large-scale objections from fisherfolk and civil society groups, including bnhs and the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation. Fishing communities say their concerns were never really heard.

The first round of public hearings had to be adjourned in the districts of Nagapattinam, Thiruvarur and Pudukottai because of protests. At Tuticorin and Ramanathapuram, the panel members called for additional documents. "Fisherfolk understood that the project would destroy their livelihood. When we explained the details, including the amount of dredging that would take place, they were completely opposed to the project," says Jesu Rethinam, convenor of can. "At Tuticorin, several people including Rethinam and Unnithan weren't allowed to enter the hearing site. They were called outsiders. But a large number of dmk workers were outsiders. Why were they allowed in?" asks B Samikkanu, resident of Serutham village and member of can. He says he was manhandled at the Pudukottai hearing by dmk and Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (mdmk) workers. "We and fisherfolk were put into a bus and forced to leave the area by the police," says Samikkanu.

A second round of hearings was held between November 19 and November 30 in the six districts. For the second time, hearings at Nagapattinam and Thiruvarur could not be held due to protests. "Fisherfolk came in large numbers at Nagapattinam. So dmk workers could not enter. They alleged the collector was favouring the fisherfolk. All this required a third round," says Samikkanu. "The hearings at other places were hardly 'public'. There were separate hearings for political parties, social groups and fisherfolk," says Rethinam.

Raghupathy attributes these controversies to politics: "We analysed and found that it was basically political." Politics does come into it, critics agree, but in a different way (see box: Murky waters). "Yes it was political, but only for those who campaigned for the project," rues Rethinam. A number of other people who attended the hearings say political workers of dmk, mdmk, Pattali Makkal Katchi and other parties supported the project.

On December 24, 2004, tnpcb issued notices for the third round of hearings at Nagapattinam and Thiruvarur on January 28, 2005, and February 2, 2005, respectively. Then, on December 26, the tsunami struck. "We wrote to the tnpcb and other authorities to postpone the hearings in the wake of destruction caused in Nagapattinam. But this was not done," says Rethinam. Not many fisherfolk could attend the third round. By mid-February, tnpcb received the reports of the hearings held in all the six districts. Without waiting for the tnpcb to examine the hearing reports and the objections raised in them, moef issued directions to the board, under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, on March 2. It instructed them to forward the reports. The board obliged on March 4. moef cleared the project in a big hurry on March 31.

On the day tnpcb forwarded the minutes of the hearing to m o ef, the board decided to investigate the issue. It formed an expert technical group headed by M Ravindran, former director, National Institute of Ocean Technology (niot), Chennai. The panel's report, which hasn't been made public, blasted neeri's eia (see box: Indictment).

In November 2004, while the public hearing process was underway, can approached the Madras High Court for a stay on the hearing process. In December, the court dismissed the petition as "premature" and ordered that "the Sethusamudram ship canal project be completed as expeditiously as possible". The court went ahead and made a number of other controversial observations (see box: Courtspeak ).

In January 2005, after the tsunami, pmo invited a number of experts to discuss the issue of setting up of a tsunami warning system. Among them was Tad S Murty, an authority on tsunamis and chief editor of the journal Science of Tsunami Hazards. In several media interviews, he said the route of the sscp channel should be reoriented eastwards. Otherwise, there was a chance that it could create a deepwater route for another devastating tsunami that could cause huge destruction in the eastern coast including Kerala.

pmo asked the shipping ministry to clarify. On March 8, 2005, pmo released another non-official note, questioning neeri's report on various aspects. It wanted a re-look into the project as the information about the effects of tsunamis and cyclones on the project were "incomplete" and there were "huge gaps in the current knowledge about the sedimentation regimes existing in the various micro regions of Palk Bay". At that time, a neeri official told Down To Earth they were not the experts on tsunami and related issues and that theirs was not the only study to be commissioned by tpt. Later, neeri's director reportedly said that they had not considered the issue of sedimentation and the likelihood of a tsunami in their report.

mos and tpt didn't see a future tsunami as a threat to the channel. T R Baalu, the shipping minister, was quoted as saying that the project's technical feasibility had been settled. But several experts were worried about the impact of a tsunami. "All the eight animation models done on tsunami so far by international as well as Indian experts have clearly indicated that the Sethu Canal, had it been there, would have faced total demolition by the December 26 tsunami," says Ramesh. But many feel that political pressure rather than technical and economic imperatives played a major role in getting the project cleared. Baalu had been pushing for the project for a long time. dmk 's political opponent in Tamil Nadu, the aiadmk had, however, distanced itself from the project and was publicly criticising the way in which the central government was pushing the project at the cost of fisherfolk. 12jav.net12jav.net