Gahirmatha's seas are one of the worlds largest breeding areas for the Olive Ridley Turtle. The Dhamra port could signal the end of this habitat forever.
Mumbai, India — Responding to these concerns, Mr. Tata said that he remained committed to reconsidering the Dhamra project if evidence of ecological significance was presented. Ironically, Greenpeace presented this evidence over a year ago via a study done by the North Orissa University (1). The Orissa state government and Dhamra Port Company Limited later attempted to discredit the report by leveling baseless allegations against Greenpeace (2). There was no reply from TATA to the scientific report presented in June 2007. Mr.Tata also attempted to dismiss Greenpeace’s online campaign by saying that the nearly one lakh emails sent were orchestrated. Shockingly, after their offer to dialogue on the controversial issue, Mr. Tata in a sudden turnaround at AGM, when reminded of an open, transparent, and on-record dialogue with him, refused to meet Greenpeace on this issue and said, “…meet Mr. B. Muthuraman or meet our lawyers”. This response summed up the TATA group’s demonstration of a complete lack of environmental sensitivity on this issue.
The AGM was preceded by a SLAPP (1) suit filed by TATA against Greenpeace on August 26th, 2008 seeking a prohibitory order on any protest or activity by the environmental group. However, in an order passed by Justice V.M. Kanade, at the Bombay High Court, the environmental group’s democratic right to peaceful and non-violent protest was upheld.
“I have acquired TATA Steel shares as much for the company’s reputation as a socially responsible corporate, as for its financial reliability. I am deeply disappointed to see my company abdicating its environmental responsibilities on this project and not honouring its commitments” said Mallika R, a TATA Steel shareholder and lawyer from Mumbai. “Alternatives that do exist – the expansion of the Paradip Port or development of a port at other locations need to be seriously considered by the company, instead of dismissing the growing protests as publicity stunts,” she added. “I am also shocked that Mr. Tata has dismissed my email and those of thousands others sent via Greenpeace. We sent him a letter as we are concerned and expect a response.”
Greenpeace has been campaigning for several years to get the TATAs to drop their controversial port at Dhamra, Orissa. On August 20, over 50 Greenpeace volunteers blockaded the TATA headquarters of Bombay House. Following this, TATA issued a media statement proclaiming their willingness to discuss the issue with Greenpeace (2), but have yet to communicate this directly with Greenpeace. Aside from ecological concerns, questions were also raised at the AGM on the financial consequences of the project. With 70% of the project’s cost of 2,460 Crores being debt financed, the project represents a significant financial liability to TATA Steel, particularly when it is looking to fund the acquisition of British Steel firm Corus. Ongoing legal battles at both the High Court and Supreme Court over the Dhamra project only add to the financial risk the project entails, opine market watchers.
“The TATAs have demonstrated concern over their brand image, but not about the impacts their port construction will have on the turtles and their habitat. They do not seem to care that close to one lakh TATA customers have asked that the port be shifted, or that over 200 national and international scientists and academics, including over 30 turtle experts, have called for the port to be stopped. They are not bothered about the fact that fisher forums, representing the interests of thousands of fishermen in Orissa have called for the port to be halted (3)” said Ashish Fernandes, Oceans Campaigner, Greenpeace India.
Adding pressure to the growing campaign, MPs across party lines have written to the Ministry of Environment at the Centre, raising concerns over the port’s impacts and seeking its intervention. (4)
“The TATA’s track record on this issue is far from good. In 2004-2005, when they got involved, they repeatedly voiced the opinion that turtles are not found near the port site, and hence it poses no threat. They had even stated that they would reconsider their involvement if there was evidence of environmental or ecological significance of the area. Now that the evidence of turtle movement and ecological significance of the port site has grown (5), the company’s stance has shifted to mitigation, with earlier promises forgotten, a convenient and not very ethical shift in goal posts. If the TATAs want to maintain their reputation for being sensitive to social and environmental concerns – they have no choice but to withdraw from this ecologically disastrous project”, concluded Fernandes.
This post is tagged Dhamra, ecological significance, environmental group, environmental responsibilities, olive ridley turtle, sanctuary, Tata, tata group, tata shareholders, Tata steel, tatas, turtles
