Feasibility Fraud: The Case of Kanyakumari International Container Transhipment Terminal March, 2018 Nityanand Jayaraman, Chennai Solidarity Group & K. Saravanan & Pooja Kumar, Coastal Resource Centre, Chennai 92, 3rd Cross Street, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Besant Nagar, Chennai 90 Introduction The Governments oF Tamil Nadu and India are trying to convince villagers in Kanyakumari district to allow consultants to conduct a survey to prepare a Detailed Project Report and Environmental Impact Assessment For the Kanyakumari International Container and Transhipment Terminal (KKICTT) proposed to be set up between Kovalam and Manakudy villages in the southern tip oF the district. Minister oF State For Shipping, Mr. Pon Radhakrishnan, two successive District Collectors and special revenue oFFicials From the Government oF Tamil Nadu are engaged in highlighting the bonaFides oF the proposed project in a bid to win over local Farmers and FisherFolk to the Sagarmala dream. Publicly available documents and a two-day Field visit to the project site and its surroundings suggest that the KKICTT project as it is conceived will be illegal and unviable iF the laws oF the land are to be taken seriously. IF allowed to come up at the current site, the project will also have several deleterious eFFects which have been vastly downplayed by consultants advising the Government and the proponents oF the project. Questionable Feasibility The project's proFessed Feasibility is Founded on a document titled “Addendum No. 1 to TEFR,” henceForth reFerred to as TEFR (Addendum). This document contains Falsehoods and Fraudulent statements including some that attempt to show as legal certain documents that have no legal sanction. As a result, the legally unviable KKICTT has been wrongly projected as Feasible; Further expense oF public money is justiFied on this wrong basis For preparation oF DPR and EIA. The enthusiastic and unquestioning reliance on such questionable documents suggests Fraud and high-level collusion between the project consultants Typsa, Boston Consulting Group India, Aether and Price Waterhouse Coopers, and the Central and State Governments, with the latter acting through the district administration and the Forest Department. The collusive eFFort is geared to making the legally untenable, and socially, Financially and environmentally Fraught proposal appear to be “viable.” Background The current location was chosen aFter Enayam -- the site identiFied as most Feasible by a Techno-Economic Feasibility conducted by Spain-based consultant Typsa – was abandoned in the Face oF intense opposition by local communities. The new location – a 2.4 km beach stretch between Kovalam and Manakudy estuary – was identiFied as the most Feasible alternative site and reFerred to as Kanyakumari-2. Between October 17, 2017 and November 17, 2017, the Enayam site that was earlier declared as Feasible was abandoned, a new site was identiFied and declared to be even more Feasible than the Enayam site on more counts than one. On 29.11.2017, the Ministry oF Shipping vide Letter No. E.No.PD-25021/13/2016-VoCPT directed the VOC Port Trust to expedite the preparation oF the Detailed Project Report For a port at the new location. On the same day, an application was made For prior Environmental Clearance For the port under the Environmental Impact Assessment NotiFication, 2006. Terms oF ReFerence For an Environmental Impact Assessment For the project proposal was issued by the Expert Appraisal Committee (InFra-2) oF the Ministry oF Environment, Forests and Climate Change on 15.12.2017. The DPR was expected to be completed by end oF March 2018. Viability Issues The project site is in Agasteeswaram taluk between Kovalam and Keel Manakudy. The TEFR (Addendum) justiFies the choice oF Kanyakumari-2 based on a Feasibility analysis that is designed to make the site appear to be the most Feasible. As oF 06.03.2018 – the date oF writing -- the survey For the DPR had not commenced owing to protests by Farmers and Fishers opposed to the project. This highlights the Failure oF the TEFR (Addendum) to accurately assess public acceptance oF or opposition to the project. The Following errors stand out egregiously: 1. CRZ 1 not CRZ 3: The TEFR (Addendum) declares that “There would not be any CRZ problems For development oF major port at this site.” It claims that the site Falls under CRZ 1 between Low Tide Line and High Tide Line, that the area between LTL and HTL is not ecologically sensitive, and that construction and operation oF ports are permissible activities under CRZ NotiFication, 2011. [Page 11 of Addendum to TEFR] The TEFR (Addendum) reFers to a “DraFt” Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) to and presents a map which describes the project site as intertidal zone within a CRZ 3 area. Based on this map, Typsa concludes that no CRZ 1 (containing ecologically sensitive Features) are aFFected within the project boundaries, and ascribes a score oF “0” (No impact) on “CRZ sensitive areas” For the proposed site. [Pages 75-76] The draFt “CZMP” was commissioned by the Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority (TNSCZMA). This draFt has no legal status and is not the correct document to be relied on For appraisal oF projects in the CRZ. This was clariFied by the MoEFCC by way oF a NotiFication dated 31 July, 2017, wherein it is stated that the validity oF the CZMPs already approved under the Coastal Regulation Zone NotiFication, 1991, was extended up to 31 July, 2018. http://envfor.nic.in/sites/deFault/Files/2-8-2017- notiFication%20CRZ.pdF The Goverment oF India-approved CZMP and CRZ map For the region, which was prepared and approved in 1996, describes the 2.4 km stretch where the port is to be located as CRZ 1 owing to the presence oF several ecologically sensitive Features, including turtle nesting grounds and sand dunes. The road-rail corridor Falls entirely within the 500 metre No Development Zone, and also crosses a CRZ 1 waterbody at the eastern edge of the port limit. The approved CZMP and CRZ map For the region downloaded From http://www.environment.tn.nic.in/images/newmaps/30.jpg on 04.03.2018 is in Annexure 1. A map oF the project area overlaid on approved CZMP is in Annexure 2. Had Typsa relied on this legal map, the proposed site would have scored “100” (Severe Impact) not “0” For the criteria “CRZ sensitive areas.” The Fact that this map has been suppressed even while the correct legal document is easily accessible From the oFFicial website is a serious lapse by Typsa, especially since the lapse has a materially signiFicant eFFect on the impact score For the project site. It conveys that Typsa has designed the TEFR (Addendum) to make Kanyakumari-2 the most suitable site. The draFt map relied upon by M/s Typsa was among several other sheets challenged in a case (OA 141/2014) beFore the National Green Tribunal (South Zone). On 29.09.2015, the NGT (SZ) ordered For the applicant and set aside the maps prepared by the TNSCZMA. 2. The TEFR (Addendum) claims: “The coast line is fairly linear and appears to be stable with vegetation. No evidences of shoreline changes on account of erosion or accretion. The project site Falls on stretch where the coast runs From East to West. Breakwaters – such as are planned For the port will trigger erosion on the eastern side oF the structure, and accretion to the west. The Kovalam-Manakudy stretch is classiFied as medium erosion as per the Status oF Shoreline Change due to Erosion/Accretion by the Institute oF Ocean Management. A physical veriFication oF the coastline east oF the proposed port, i.e. Kanyakumari town, reveals severe erosion already in progress. The eroding area contains heritage structures including Vivekananda Memorial Rock, Gandhi Mandapam, Thiruvalluvar Statue and Bhagavathy Amman temple. A structure constructed to view the sunset a Few years ago is now entirely inside the sea due to the landward advancement oF the sea. The threat to India's signature heritage structures like the Thiruvalluvar Statue and Vivekananda Memorial is already evident, and likely to be aggravated by the construction of the port. 3. The TEFR (Addendum) claims that “The high tide line is well defined and marked by survey stones.” The 2.4 km stretch where the project is proposed to be set up is devoid oF any HTL markers. HTL markers are present outside the eastern and western boundaries oF the project. The only survey stones along the length oF the proposed project site can be Found at a distance oF between 60 and 110 metres From the HTL. Even though these stones are not located on the HTL, they are prominently painted in green with the letters “HTL.” Local people allege that the letters “HTL” were painted sometime in November- December by persons engaged by VOC Port Trust. See map containing HTL as in CZMP and Freshly painted HTL stones with 80m marked in Annexure 3 4. The TEFR (Addendum) claims that “Shore land of about 80 m in width along the coastline is available for development of port related developments.” The entire area described as the “shore land oF about 80 m” is thickly vegetated sand dune, with casuarina, other dune vegetation and coconut groves that host a resident population oF peacocks. Portions oF the dune are classiFied as CRZ 1 (ecologically sensitive) in the Government oF India approved CZMP, and hence not available For any development activities including construction oF ports or related inFrastructure. 5. The TEFR (Addendum) claims that there is “No fishing activities and parking of fishing boats” on the site. Fishing in this stretch oF Kanyakumari, where the three oceans meet, is predominantly in the nearshore waters.