|
|
|
  |
| Sunday, 22 May 2005 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Sethusamudram ship canal project : Humanitarian issues by Rohan Mathes The tsunami tragedy and its destruction on Boxing day, was a classic eye-opener and an indicater that we have not researched and monitored our marine environment. However, we have not a maritime strategy or a national policy on the same. We have not had a research vessel to explore our maritime zones. Apart from appointing committees to address the relevant issues, it seems as though the subject Ministers have not been briefed adequately on the relevant issues, by the experts. The long-awaited Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project (SSCP), which had been on hold for over 140 years under various regimes in India, is a very relevant and pertinent issue in the minds of all citizens of Sri Lanka and India today. The Sethusamudram Corporation, a special purpose vehicle floated for the implementation of the SSCP in Tamil Nadu, is to dig-up a 300 metre wide canal, linking the Palk Bay and Mannar Bay. It will involve massive dredging. An estimated 85 million cubic meters of sand and soil will need safe disposal in the process. The SSCP will undoubtedly change the face of Sri Lanka and our regional super power and friendly neighbour, India. Comprehensive study Certain quarters of the Indian shipping fraternity, the state and the Tuticorin Port Trust (TPT) has all praise for the SSCP. They have done a comprehensive study on the project and seems to be overjoyed in pursuing a flourishing trade route in commercial shipping, by claiming a host of advantages. They hold the view that the vessels will save almost 30 hours of sailing time, 300 odd nautical miles navigating distance and fuel by passing via the Sethusamudram canal, instead of circumnavigating the Sri Lankan coast off Dondra Head. Nonetheless, analysts in the local shipping industry have pointed out that in the Indian study, they have projected an irrelevant and limited shipping route, from Cochin to Madras, where a 25 hour saving is realised. This case in point does not reflect the realities of the shipping industry as a whole. If they had considered a more relevant and unlimited passage at sea, say from Singapore to Aden, or whatever, the so-called 'saving' may be almost negligible if not an undue deviation. The study has failed to realise that it would take considerable time in transiting the canal, with the convoy of ships, from the time the canal pilot is picked up and dropped down, and other additional lapses in time and accompanying expenditure, such as high canal fees, pilotage costs and shipping agency fees. Critics argue that in the use of other shipping canals in the main sea routes of the world, such as the Suez Canal, Panama Canal and the Kiel Canal, the commercial advantages accrued are of a much more beneficial nature to the shipping community. A merchant vessel bound for Europe from the Far East and vice versa, sailing via the Suez Canal instead of sailing around the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa, at an economical speed, will save over 30 days in time and not merely a few hours, as in the Sethusamudram analogy. Similarly, a vessel going through the Panama Canal instead of going around the American continent, will save over 20 days and again not a few hours. This is the comparison in its true perspective. Furthermore, due to the limited depth and draft requirements of the Sethusamudram canal, deep-draft vessels, such as large grain and bulk carriers, oil and gas tankers and container vessels would have to bypass the canal. Apparently, vessels carrying more than 2000 Teus (containers), will not qualify to transit the Sethu canal. The Indian officials seemed to have deliberately miscalculated the distance, time and the expenditure saved by transiting the canal, compared to circumnavigating around Sri Lanka. Under the mistaken illusion of reshaping the commercial shipping routes of South Asia, they have dismally failed to recognise and disclose the facts, as to the viability of the project, to Sri Lanka and the international community as well. UNCLAS India should also recognise and abide by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLAS) of 1982, which they have ratified and acceeded to. Albeit the canal is built within the territorial waters of India, under the convention, India is obliged to consult their neighbour country Sri Lanka, in all its operations and deliberations pertaining to the canal. The tsunami clearly showed that although oceans were within the territorial waters of certain countries only, their impact and influence spread to the whole world if not the region. If India goes ahead unilaterally with the proposed project, to which they have already given the green light, India then would be violating the UNCLAS to which they are also signatories and vowed to uphold. Leading Environmentalists in the region point out that the SSCP would cause wanton destruction to the environment and the biodiversity in the region. It would drastically damage the marine ecosystem. It would cause sound pollution, oil spills and pollution and climatic changes among others. The project may exacerbate the possibility of sudden natural disasters such as tsunamis, tidal waves and cyclones. It could also give rise to conditions where slow disasters such as the devastation of the ecological system of the Gulf of Mannar or the Palk Bay. The livelihoods of millions of fishermen and farmers in Tamil Nadu and North Eastern Sri Lanka will be jeopardised by the gradual increase of salinity of the groundwater. Pollution due to marine accidents, war or subversive group actions which could lead to slow processes of pollution and cause disastrous effects on marine life, fisheries and the virgin beaches of both countries, could not be ruled out. Ironically though, the politicians of both countries have given little thought to the sentiments of the fishing and farming community of the region. They appear to be competing for political glory and credit sans understanding the gravity of the economical and ecological disasters as well. For unknown reasons, other than money and power, politicians and ministers of the Indian Government seem to be rushing into the project, investing US $ 400 million. Any opposition is being callously disregarded to the extent where people even question the independence of the regional judiciary. Humanitarian issues Its time both the Indian and Sri Lankan political exigencies gave adequate respect and consideration to the humanitarian issues of the fishermen and the farmers as well as the ecological destruction the proposed construction of the SSCP would cause. Our island nation of Sri Lanka holds the reputation of having enough and more laws and regulations in its statute books, both in the local and international arena. Ironically however, Sri Lanka has been too slow in its implementation. |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
