Last December, Sri Lanka and India failed to warn their coastalinhabitants of the tsunami, in spite of past tsunamis in the IndianOcean, and 55,000 died. The blind spots of the establishment, soawfully exposed, should have led the Indian authorities to reconsiderthe Sethusamudram canal project. Yet, even though their plans hadoverlooked tsunami risks, they continue to rush into dredging thismassive canal between the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea.
Last year's tsunami also brought out how careless officials were inimplementing zoning and local government laws, in providing servicesto the vulnerable and the poor. The poverty of disaster riskmanagement and the limited attentivity of the scientific establishmentto crucial environmental problems were exposed.
It is on account of the repeated failures to anticipate complicationsof projects until too late that the "precautionary principle" is beinginstituted in international treaties. This principle merely statesthat one should not undertake actions that can lead to majorenvironmental and health impacts, if one cannot be sure that theproject is safe. For, when one tampers with ecosystems and habitatsthat have been sustained over millennia, the consequences may beunforeseen.
The canal plans do not adequately address hazards such as earthquakes,submarine landslides, cyclones, storm surges or denudation of themarine life and fisheries. The proposals claim that human-inducedhazards, such as oil spills, nuclear accidents and terrorist attacks,will be prevented. The plans overlook the unforeseen, in a regionwhere the oceanography, biology and geology are barely understood. Theproposals do not address a combination of hazards.
In this article, I review the history of this project, describe thehazards it poses, particularly the tsunami, military and nuclearhazards, while not repeating material from previous articles. TheIndian authorities did not submit their proposals for environmentalreview in Sri Lanka. I argue that the danger to Sri Lanka's habitatand security is so great and so long lived that it must pay attention,even if the threats seem remote.
A Brief HistoryIn 1997, a conceptual plan for the canal was drawn up by the IndianNavy, at the urging of the then Defence Minister George Fernandes, inthe Bharathiya Janatha Party led government. This was shortly afterthe demonstration of nuclear capability by India and Pakistan. Iidentified some of the hazards and called for a social andenvironmental review, based on the precautionary principle (CeylonDaily News, 07-04-1999 and The Island, 29-03-1999). After MinisterFernandes was removed from his post, the project lost momentum.
The DMK party in Tamil Nadu proposed to implement this project and itsupported the Congress Party which came to power last year. The DMKobtained the portfolios of Shipping and Environment in the Uniongovernment. Upon assuming office, the Shipping Minister said he wouldno longer wait for further approvals.
Subsequently, the Minister requested the Tuticorin Port Authority todo the groundwork. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) wasprepared by a consultant and it was approved with conditions by theTamil Nadu Pollution Prevention Board and the Central GovernmentsEnvironment Ministry. A summary of this EIA was released bereft of thetechnical details.
The report does not reassure when it comes to the serious risks. Forexample, the summary EIA report claims that no leakage or accidents ofships will be permitted in the channel. The risk of oil spills or thepotential of sabotage by rebels and smugglers were discounted. Theoceanographic possibilities were limited to a study of an idealizedcanal which discounted erosion, changes in regional oceanography,tsunamis and earthquakes.
The plans have left the residents of Tamil Nadu anxious, particularlyabout the fate of the ecosystems, fisheries and the fate of coralreefs and the marine park that shelters unique species, including seahorses and dugongs. The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu is against theproject and has bemoaned the politicized nature of its approval. Withall these objections, the track of the canal was shifted further andfurther away from the Tamil Nadu coast and it now skirts the line ofbisection of the Palk Straits.
Dr. Radhakrishnan Ramesh of Tamil Nadu, argues convincingly (Economicand Political Weekly of India, January 22, 2005) that common sense hadfailed in approving the project. The Indian Prime Minister has beensceptical of the blue skies scenarios presented by the Tuticorin PortTrust and its consultants.
Even though, the canal shall be in India, its impacts shall not beconfined to its territory. The currents, the suspended sediments anddredged toxins, the fish do not respect territorial boundaries. Yet,the project review has only been in India and for India. Last year, Ilisted hazards that were not addressed in the summary EIA (The Island,05-08-2004; The Daily Mirror, 05-10-2004).
The Sri Lankan Foreign Ministry reviewed the scientific expertise inSri Lanka last year. A technical team visited India and the responseof the chairman of the Tuticorin Port Authority was:
"Given the fact that the channel may affect economic and strategicinterests of Sri Lanka, Co-operation between India and Sri Lanka forutilizing the natural depths available in the Sri Lankan side of themaritime boundary is not feasible. Such co-operation would have led todrastic reduction in the capital cost of the project. When I made aproposal to this effect to the Sri Lankan delegation in January, 2005,I could see their shock and disbelief."
The project was formally inaugurated in July 2005, but the canal isnot built. It should not be taken as a done deal as projected by itschampions. The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and the Indian PrimeMinister have reservations and the PM has been quoted as saying thatany disputes shall be resolved in Sri Lankas' favour.
Disaster RisksThe EIA is based upon a decision to implement the project regardless.It is an exercise in justification, based on insufficient data, use ofscientific tools far beyond their limitations, limited to fewscenarios and with discounting of the risks of the unknown andunforeseen. These reports sidestep difficult issues, digress tomind-numbing detail on side-issues and are oblivious to or tendentiouson the unknown. For example, the proposals claim that if there is acyclone, there shall be warnings, due communication down the channels,due response, due mitigating steps and there shall be no damage. Thereis no room for failures. It is not grounded on how well India has donein the past with cyclones. There is no learning from the many failuresin the chain of command that led to 10,000 deaths from the cyclone inOrissa in 1999.
The EIA gives assurance that there shall be no accidents in the canal.The report assumes that there shall be no human errors, no sabotageand all officials will execute their assigned parts as they weretrained to.
Palk Bay and Gulf of Mannar are ecosystems that are not adapted toship traffic. There is a new risk of marine pollution, oil spills andrisks from ammunition in warships, perhaps with nuclear materials. Theproject plans do not address the consequences of accidents, similar tothe Exxon Valdez oil spill, in a region confined by two heavilypopulated coastlines.
The plans do not address the possibility of missiles targeting theregion – a likelihood given that India's Kalpakkam nuclear reactorsare close by. Indeed, given the strategic importance of the canal, itcould be a military target that eliminates a shelter for warships andimpairs mobility. The added nuclear risk from the Sethusamudaramproject should be addressed, as it can be even more dangerous than atsunami, since it can live long in the ecosystems and humans.
Can the Canal conduit a tsunami?When a leading Tsunami expert, Dr. Tad Murthy (who advised the IndianGovernment on Tsunami Warning Systems) raised the risk of tsunamis(Indian Express, 18 January 2005), the response from the TuticorinPort Authority was an attempt to dismiss him, rather address thetsunami risk.
Sri Lankas' Western Coast and Tamil Nadus' Southern Coast aresheltered from tsunamis, as the tsunami wave cannot traverse the PalkStraits at present. A canal through the Palk Straits can act as aconduit for tsunamis from the Andaman to Burma seismic fault zone.Computer simulations of the tsunami with an opening through the PalkStraits show a risk of tsunamis being conduited to the Western Coast.
Here are extracts from the Tuticorin Port Authorities web sitediscounting the risk from tsunamis:
"the animation models of the tsunami of 26.12.2004 available with thePort Trust indicates that tsunami waves would have entered the channelat its mouth near the Bay of Bengal, after being refracted bynorth-eastern and northern Sri Lanka, irrespective of where the mouthlay - towards the north-east or north. Reorienting the channelentrance to the north-west could be a better alternative but …. thisalternative would increase the capital cost significantly, take thealignment closer to the Indian coast and, therefore, the ecologicallysensitive Point Calimere Wild Life Sanctuary and Muthupet mangroves,besides reducing or virtually bisecting the fishing grounds, couldresult in increased maintenance dredging because of cross currents. …
Irrespective of orientation [of the canal] in its present form ortoward the north (as a possibility suggested by Dr. Murthy), tsunamiwave energy from Andaman Bay or Sumatra (the high risk areas wheretsunamis can originate) could enter Palk Strait and Palk Bay.Orientation towards the northwest may not be feasible economically,socially and environmentally."
In other words, since the proponent chooses to cut costs and is underpressure from Indian environmentalists, they shall simply pass on therisks of Tsunami to the coastal dwellers of Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka.The canal authorities focus on refuting one of Dr. Murthy'ssuggestions that the canal may leave Kerala at risk, while beingoblivious to the stripping of the protection of the sheltered coastsof Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka.
These sheltered coasts afford a locale for the development of ports,fisheries and coastal industries. This project also enhances the risksof coastal erosion, beach and marine pollution.
Tsunamis can be initiated not only from earthquakes but also fromsubmarine landslides. While earthquakes initiate only at seismologicalfault lines, a landslide can occur anywhere on the seabed where it isdisturbed or on a steep slope. Todate, the risks of tsunamis due tolandslides in the Indian Ocean, have not received due attention. Aretired Director of the Indian Geophysical Survey, Dr. D.N. Seshagiripointed out that the excavation of the Panama Canal led to severalsubmarine landslides (Decan Chronicle, 21 June 2005). TheSethusamudram project excavation shall exacerbate the submarinehazard.
What should Sri Lanka do?
The confluence of interests of those who matter at the moment: theIndian military and geopolitical strategists, a leader of the Congressparty with an unfortunate history with the LTTE, the businesses andpolitical agenda of the DMK, is driving this project hard. Yet, thepoor, along the Tamil Nadu coast, particularly the fisherfolks,environmental organizations and civic organizations are opposed to theproject. There are reservations at various levels in India but theytoo need the Sri Lankan authorities to speak up.
Sri Lanka has limited resources and these are difficult times for SriLanka in dealing with the tsunami, along with its fratricidalconflicts. In fairness, the officials have at least registered theirobjections. Yet, it is incumbent on the government of Sri Lanka torespond, as the consequences can be monumental. Protecting the life,security and livelihood of its citizens is, after all, the primaryrole of governments. But it has been slow to respond and far toosecretive and tentative so far.
Until the canal is built, the government and the public should lobbyto stop it. Alongside, the government should engage in fourdirections.
First, the government should publicize the viewpoints from Sri Lanka.At present, it seems to be the Shipping Minister of India who speakson behalf of Sri Lanka, in the press ('they are not objecting' he saidrecently). The newspaper reports in India about the Sri Lankanresponse have selectively highlighted support for this project from apolitician, historian, geographer and a geologist in Sri Lanka. Thisproject is a complex undertaking and one should be careful when somuch is unknown and the habitat of current and future generations areat risk, even if it seems unlikely.
Fortunately, last year, a review of the impacts for Sri Lanka wasinstigated by the Foreign Ministry and this report is based on wideexpertise. The consensus viewpoint should be communicated to thepublic, particularly those at risk, in a language that can be widelyunderstood.
Second, the legal ramifications of this project and the implicationsof International treaties such as the Law of the Sea and of bilateralagreements, should be pursued. If the project goes ahead, then theIndian government should be requested to back up their verbalassurances with binding guarantees of restitution and compensation.One needs to bear in mind that the project proponent, SethusamudramCorporation will certainly argue that they are not responsible fordamage in Sri Lanka, for they did not present the project for EIA inSri Lanka.
The Indian government must assure that fair and expeditiousremediation, if the plans go awry and, compensation for the affected,along with mutual agreement on arbitration. Recall that thehalf-a-million victims of the Bhopal disaster had not beencompensated, even after 25 years. The plight of the victims of theOrissa cyclone is unfortunately similar.
The government and the public should engage with scientific and civicorganizations and environmental lobbying groups in Sri Lanka, Indiaand Internationally.
Third, the environmental monitoring on the Sri Lankan side of the PalkStraits has to be ramped up. Fisherfolks have to be included in theresponse, so that they understand the consequences and could be alertto changes. The coastal residents should be alive to and prepare forchanges in currents, erosion patterns and of changes to fishinggrounds and to the fish. The government shall have to support them iftheir livelihood is affected.
Fourth, the risk of disasters has to be managed by reducing thecoastal vulnerabilities. The Western coast in Sri Lanka should beprepared for the loss of livelihood of fisherfolks, enhanced erosion,oil spills and contamination. The government should educate coastaldwellers in Jaffna and its islands, Mannar, Puttalam, Gampaha andColombo on the risks.
Sri Lanka should reduce the vulnerability to tsunamis on its Westerncoast, even if it did not experience it last December or, experiencedit only moderately as in Colombo.
The author is the coordinator of the Sri Lanka Meteorology,Oceanography and Hydrology Network and is attached to the EarthInstitute at Columbia University, New York.