For Vizhinjam, business as usual is not an option

The revenue from the Rs 7,525-crore deepwater port and terminal in Vizhinjam, Kerala, can be justified only if the project provides adequate safeguards against ecological destruction and addresses the rights of families displaced by the project. Nowhere is this socio-environmental imperative greater than in Thiruvananthapuram because of its precarious ecology and coast-dependent economy. It is a politically difficult, but developmentally important, transition to port development mid-course with coastal management on a sustainable track.

a false dualism

Singapore, Shanghai and Dubai took advantage of ports to become hubs, generate income and drive economic growth. Vizhinjam’s proximity to east-west shipping routes, its natural uninterrupted draft of about 20 metres, and suitability for large ships all make it a unique site. But in a unilateral agreement, the Kerala government bears 67% of the financing and the concessionaire (extended to a generous 40 years) 33%, with a lower internal rate of 3.7% for the government and 15% for the concessionaire. Despite local advantages, Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd., finds the deal attractive with the addition of large real estate components to the Prime Port property. The financial picture of the enterprise is the best for the state of Kerala.

Another important point is that any revenue generation comes at the cost of a heavy human toll. Nearly 350 families, who lost their homes to coastal erosion last year, and those living in makeshift schools and camps are a taste of things to come if coastal erosion and extreme cyclones continue unabated. Port projects in China, Kenya and Vietnam have seen large-scale resettlement and livelihood outlays by owners during the life of the project.

Another threat is the irreversibly destroyed ecology, posing deadly threats to nature. Without adequate safeguards in a highly fragile ecology, ports destroy marine life and the livelihoods of the local population. Visakhapatnam and Chennai show how deepening port channels in ecologically sensitive areas can increase siltation, coastal erosion and accretion; This risk is greater for Vizhinjam by an order of magnitude.

Creating safeguards can potentially drive economic growth and socio-economic stability simultaneously. A 2017 study warned of the damage caused by building breakwaters and dredging to shorelines and marine ecosystems. But on the false premise that silt will be “negligible” with “minimum textural drift along the project site”, no funds have been earmarked for maintenance dredging within the operating expenses.

Equally, the project documents hardly address the port’s impacts on the precious marine ecosystem and biodiversity, which is a major priority for Kerala. Recent studies have identified the Vizhinjam-Poor section as a biodiversity hotspot and recommended that the area be recognized as a Marine Protected Area. The discussion of flora, fauna and lakes in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is purely pro-forma.

The critical shoreline assessment in the EIA, released in May 2013, has come under heavy criticism for factual errors. For example, apart from the destruction of some provinces at the project site, there is no mention of the ecological consequences of breaking two hills in the Western Ghats to provide rocks for the project.

A recently published study shows that during 2006-20, the sea alone occupied about 2.62 square kilometers or close to 650 acres off the Thiruvananthapuram coast. The rate of erosion is fast between Pozhikkara and Veli. Also, 0.7 km2 of land was acquired.

The latest shoreline report, based on beach profile and satellite analysis by the developer-appointed National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT), Chennai, shows significant erosion on the port’s northern coast (Punthura, Valiyathura, Shanghmugham, Veli). and accretion to the port area and south (Poor, Adimalathura) from 2015 to 2021 during port construction. Many spots were similar during 2015-21 as compared to the previous period, but new spots (Kochuveli, Cheriyathura) also emerged after 2015.

The NIOT report attributes erosion and accretion to climate change more than port activity, on the grounds that construction has been modest in scale. This, in fact, increases the risk that without safeguards, further dire consequences will appear for the activity to proceed. Anthropogenic climate change is undeniably raising sea levels along Indian coasts, but extreme stress north of the port cannot be explained by global warming, which has effects everywhere.

In fact, a study of shoreline changes in Kerala by the National Center for Sustainable Coastal Management attributes most of the drastic shoreline changes to structures built along its coast during 1972-2010. Two-thirds of Kerala’s coast is eroding, and caution should be exercised before building structures along its “eroded and vulnerable” coasts. Thiruvananthapuram has the highest percentage of erosion, ignoring the facts in the environment clearance.

As with a port, reform, dredging and building breakwaters further complicate erosion. The breakwaters have led to drastic changes in the shoreline in and around it. In almost all these areas, the coast north of the breakwater has been heavily eroded.

pollutant is responsible

A fundamental tenet of environmental regulation around the world is that pollution penalties should be high enough and borne by the creators of the damage. For large-scale infrastructure projects, the financier and borrower must implement adequate safeguards to avoid marine pollution and destruction. On the involuntary displacement of people that society is willing to accept in exchange for financial benefits, the project should allocate funds in recognition of people’s age-old right to the ocean and its resources.

There are many examples of projects that unnecessarily harm the environment or society, which can be learned from. In connection with the Vizhinjam venture to take just two, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) backed the 4,150-MW Tata Mundra Coal Plant (Gujarat) – the negligence too much and unnecessarily outweighed the harm to the local poor. Tata Mundra is one of the 50 largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions. And in a more recent case, Bravas Mining and Resources (an Adani unit in Australia) has begun construction of its Carmichael thermal coal mine in Queensland’s Galilee Basin to export massive amounts of coal to India – when the world fossil Running out of fuel. A desperate attempt to save the planet.

Whether there were pre-existing health conditions, when COVID-19 infection causes illness or death, the pandemic is said to be the proximate cause. Similarly, when port construction without adequate social and environmental safeguards harms lives and livelihoods, even in the presence of climate change, the project must take full responsibility for compensation. Corrective action through hard-engineering solutions such as seawalls and soft responses such as vegetation is in order.

steps to take

First order of business, as in infrastructure projects around the world, the project provides compensation to displaced people and restores their rights. Second, the gross disregard for the loss of invaluable marine biodiversity must be addressed with an acceptable EIA, which includes input from experts in biology, ecology and oceanography. Third, there is a need to conduct an independent assessment of the safeguards that the port authorities should set up as a pre-condition for any further construction.

A Turkish proverb says, “No matter how far you have gone on the wrong path, turn back.” In terms of unanswered financial, social and environmental risks, this means that business as usual is not an option. On the other hand, rejecting the project, approving it is politically difficult. The way forward would be for project management to take into account the spirit of learning from experience, red alert, and allow the government to continue with the project only with an agreement for a mid-course change including a legal contract. Making enterprise sustainable for Kerala.

Vinod Thomas is a former Senior Vice President, Independent Evaluation, World Bank and former Director General, Independent Evaluation, Asian Development Bank.