What is the issue?
- Dredging to deepen the estuarine natural harbour of Mormuga, Goa was started in early 2016.
- The massiveness of the projects threatened the environment and fishing in the region, triggering public outrage.
- Subsepuently ‘National Green Tribunal’ gave its verdict that barred further work in September 2016, which was later upheld by the Supreme Court.
What was the need of a deep navigational channel?
- Mormugao Port, a major port under the Ministry of Shipping has a 14 m draft canal depth.
- It imports 12 million tonnes of coal annually and aims to raise this figure to 51 million tonnes by 2030.
- So deepening the shipping channel to a depth of 19.5m is necessary to to facilitate the entry of ‘capesize vessals’.
- Currently, only private ports have depths of 18 m or more, and a deeper draft is the first step towards port expansion.
- The overall EXIM (export-import) boost due to better transport economics is being touted as a net-positive.
What was the method proposed to deepen?
- Capital dredging was being done.
- It involves tearing up the seabed and extracting its sediments to create greater depth.
- This is different from maintenance dredging in which there is no sediment extraction.
- About 15 million cubic metres of Seabed was to be dredged, and an 18 km-long navigational channel was to be deepened.
- Some 65% of the work had been completed by September 2016.
Why was the project opposed?
- There was no clarity on whether a geomorphological study of the shipping channel undertaken.
- The study on the ‘benthic activity’ of the deep ocean ecology in the region wasn’t brought out.
- As there is a risk of sediment erosion form the estuaries into the trenches created by dredging, these aspects needs further study.
- The approval of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) was not taken.
- Concerns flagged by ‘Goa Coastal zone Management Authorities’ were ignored.
- ‘Ministry of Environment’ bypassed the mandatory public hearing before project commencement.
- It was feared that aquatic life, sea bed ecosystem and livelihoods of fishermen would be affected.
- Also, it was felt that subsequent infrastructure upgrades like roads, increased traffic and store houses needed scrutiny.
What was the Tribunal’s verdict?
- NGT passed its final order in spetember 2016, accusing the port authorities of several irregularities and banned further work.
- It noted that mandatory provisions were treated as mere formalities as work had commenced even before Environmental Clearance was sought.
- Authorities were held responsibly for irreversiblily damaging the environment and geomorphology of the sea-bead.
- The MoEF’s decision to bypass public consultation was labelled arbitrary and a violation of norms.
- The tribunal stressed that policy or administrative decisions cannot bypass or subvert statutory provisions of existing acts.
- The importance of transparency and accountability in public administration was highlighted.
What is the situation now?
- A committee has been appointed by by the tribunal to monitor maintenance dredging at the port.
- Following the NGT order, the public hearing finally took place in March 2017.
- The Tribunal is now hearing a matter related to the restoration of the seabed and new set of recommendations is expected.
Source: The Indian Express
