seaturtle.org : MTN : ARCHIVES : Sign In
In brief, concern has been expressed that the project would create a major port facility, and result in ancillary industrial development, within 5 km of a national park and close to some of Orissa’s world-renowned turtle nesting beaches.
Scientists concerned about the potential environmental impacts of the port development circulated a petition in January 2008 seeking a new, comprehensive environmental impact assessment; urging relocation of the proposed port to a less ecologically sensitive area; and calling for the IUCN Marine Turtle Specialist Group (MTSG) to reconsider its involvement in various mitigation aspects of the project. See IOSEA website feature of 20 January 2008: Petition calls for halt to deepwater port project in Orissa, India (<http://www.ioseaturtles.org/feature_detail.php?id=227>).
The controversy resurfaced in the last month with a renewed appeal by some to re-examine the MTSG’s involvement in the project, raising questions about transparency and an apparent lack of consultation of Indian conservationists, including MTSG members. The various exchanges of view are reproduced below. The two sides of this fascinating debate draw attention to a number of fundamental challenges facing the “sustainable development” paradigm.
On the one hand, legitimate concerns have been articulated about the potential ecological and social impacts of this particular development within the context of wider industrial activity along the Orissa coast. On the other hand, the project presents an unusual opportunity to pro-actively engage industry in measures to mitigate the effects of development that is probably inevitable, sooner or later.
Leaving aside purely altruistic motivation, one might suggest that the developer’s willingness to invest in mitigation stems from a vested economic interest in not harming the environment (i.e., thereby avoiding future punitive sanctions, fines etc). But, taking a more cynical view, even if the company’s main aim was merely to deflect ongoing criticism, it could still be argued: Why not make the most of its “environmental sensitivity” to try to maximise the benefits for (or, rather, minimise the damage to) the environment, in the face of India’s inexorable quest for economic prosperity.
Added to this already complex mixture is the human element, which is rarely lacking from any controversy in the real world of conservation, where organisations and individuals compete for scarce resources. Beyond the honourable stated aims of environmental protection and pro-active engagement of industry, questions will always arise as to who is benefitting -- or not -- from a given relationship and in what way. The Dhamra port case is no different.
In the various interventions reproduced below, questions have been raised about the nature and legitimacy of the IUCN MTSG’s association with the project; and of the actions of the developer in allegedly representing this relationship as a “green badge of approval” from a respected NGO. The report of an IUCN ‘Scoping mission to the Dhamra Port project’ (<http://www.dhamraport.com/download/dhamraport_iucnreport.pdf>) reveals an awareness and understanding of these particular sensitivities. At the same time, it is open to speculation as to whether those opposing the development in its current form would have felt compelled to engage in this public dialogue -- and would have been quite as outspoken -- if they, likewise, had been offered a “seat at the table” early on in the process.
Human nature being what it is, there might be too much water under the bridge to reconcile the various opposing interests, but it might not be too late to try. A truly representative Dhamra port stakeholders meeting and a well-constituted, transparently-operated environmental review panel might be a good starting point.
1Originally published online 25 Apr 2008 on <http://www.iosea.org>; reprinted with permission