Last year, I had shared an article I found on the greenpeace site about how the port being build by TATA was being harmful to the Olive Ridley turtles.I was not aware of this issue at all, and I had felt that it was a rather black and white stance taken, so I shared it with readers here to find out what they think.
The post got an overwhelming response with comments still pouring in. As it was getting long, I am writing this post with my observations.
Most of the commenters felt that the campaign against the port construction was out of proportion with the actual concern. There was little proof of permanent damage to the turtles natural habitat, and one press release from the North Orissa University seems to be disputed as being doctored and significantly different from the origina. However, since the post fails to attach either report and only quotes the university, authenticity of that is difficult to establish either.
There have been news reports of the Olive Ridley Turtles have begun nesting near Rushikulya river mouth near the Bay of Bengal and the efforts made to safeguard the nests containing the eggs and a document about the port shared on a sharing site about the project.
Environmentalists think that its important not to “cry wolf” about extinction, as it will lessen the perceived need of long term protection strategies.
Essentially, I see this as a conflict of priorities, with each side blind to the concerns of the other, and willing to settle for nothing less. The pro-development people would like to see Orissa flourish from the jobs and trade that will open up as a part of the port. The conservationists want to remove all threats to the turtles. Essentially, its about what you value more. The people will gain, but the turtles will live. How can one decide either one over the other?
It is a difficult situation, with the extreme methods of Greenpeace drawing lines of division and making it an “either/or” issue.
What I think is needed, is like Amit Bhattacharya says – an independent study. One that doesn’t have a decision to sell through ‘proofs’ and is alive to both sides of the coin. I would add that the research should also be with the people of Orissa, their economic situation, and the impact that this progress would mean for them.
It is sad that we first decide a villain and then find the proof to crucify them, when our concern could be about the turtles and people of Orissa and finding out ways so that both prosper.
[...] and I have summarized them and my observations in a separate post for convenience. You may find it here. tweetmeme_url = [...]
There is a huge and continuing campaign by the Tatas, the Orissa government and related agencies to counter environmental concerns about the Olive Ridley turtles and general ecological degradation brought about by the Dhamra Port.
Much of this campaign is misinformation. For instance, Greenpeace has countered the allegation by North Orissa University referred to in your post, saying:
“If the contents of the final report published by Greenpeace India were not acceptable to NOU, how did the University permit the Principal Investigator as a senior representative of the University to not only attend the press conference but also address the media. Why has the University suddenly backtracked more than three weeks after the report was published? Is it because the powers that be, political and commercial, have suddenly realized the implications of these findings?”
For a link to the pdf file of the full response, click on this url – http://www.greenpeace.org/india/press/reports/email-exchange-on-report/summary-of-greenpeace-response?mode=send
Again, the link to “Environmentalists think that its important not to ‘cry wolf’ about extinction” in your post shows that turtle expert Kartik Shanker concedes that “drastic conservation actions were required in the early 1980s” to prevent extinction of the turtles. Are such drastic conservation measures being followed now in Orissa? So far we have had no such assurance, just widely circulated Tata/Orissa govt propaganda videos of turtles coming in to nest still (which you mention), which proves nothing. We have no idea of the numbers involved, whether they have reduced, whether they will continue to come in next year.
This “crying wolf” article also says “Most conservationists fear that the upcoming port could adversely affect the Olive Ridley turtles and their nesting areas”. In other words, there are very real concerns that are not being addressed, and once it is too late, it is just too late.
You say “it is sad we first find a villain” but it seems to me that despite the superficial attempt to be even-handed, your bias is revealed in your selective reading of the evidence you yourself cite.
The counterposing of jobs to environment is entirely misleading because the experience of such projects is that the promised jobs rarely materialize in the numbers projected, and very rarely benefit the local people who are displaced.
Some serious rethinking on what “development” means is long overdue. The earth is not going to wait much longer.
Hi Nivedita,
I appreciate your insights into the matter. You bring up several important points.
It is difficult for me to decide on any one perspective, and honestly, I’m not looking to decide anything. I am following this through concern and interest, and I acknowledge that it is beyond my capacity to authenticate the actions of either party, nor have I claimed to do so.
For example, I don’t know why the university has backtracked suddenly more than three weeks after the report was published. All I do know, is the statement I read. I don’t know if that is backtracking, or a genuine statement of where they are with respect to the report being quoted. Likewise, I don’t know how much of what TATA is doing is hype and how much is based on genuine interventions for the environment.
You say my bias shows. Maybe it does, but are you aware that you have one too? You seem quite oblivious to any thing that could be an issue with how Greenpeace is approaching things. Is it that this paragon of an organization is incapable of wrongdoing? Do you know them all that well? Your certainty about the evils of TATA also seems strange if you are all that unbiased, because you are speaking of the videos proving nothing, the project not helping people as claimed… on the basis of what? Is it entirely impossible for Greenpeace to filter facts to support the stand they choose and for TATAs to do the same, or for both organizations to have their own priorities?
You also speak of experience with “such projects” rarely materialize in the numbers projected and rarely benefit local people displaced. I wonder what kind of a research you have done which leads you to claim this, because, I feel certain this would add dimension to understanding the whole picture here. If you read my post, I have mentioned that the research should not just be about the turtles, but also about the people. Somehow, this seems to have escaped you in your wish to see me as firmly on one side of the fence.
I do agree with you when you say that serious rethinking is needed. However, I don’t see much thinking happening without a willingness to compromise and be flexible about seeing other perspectives on both sides. It needs us to be open to all kinds of possibilities for all, Greenpeace, TATA, NGOs, turtles, people… not just look at one organization as a saviour and another as incapable of any good, whichever one.
very simple thing ,let us involve the community in a planned way ,leran from them and have a definite strategy,
The second phase mass nesting of the endangered Olive Ridley sea turtles commenced at Gahirmatha since last couple of days with the arrival of over one lakh turtles on the beach to lay eggs.
The Olive Ridley sea turtles have turned up for the second time in a year en-masse to lay eggs at the tranquil beaches of Gahirmatha Marine Sanctuary.
Forest officials said over 1.87 lakh turtles had earlier this month arrived at the beach for mass nesting. They surprised the turtle lovers and experts by their sojourn again on the beach for the last three days and congregated at the south-eastern portion of Nasi-2 Island.
”Never before the Olive Ridley turtles have reappeared in Gahirmatha in such large number for a second phase of mass nesting,” Divisional Forest Officer of the Rajnagar Mangrove (Wildlife) Division PK Behera said, adding the sea turtles’ preference for Gahirmatha beach is indeed a significant development for conservation of these marine animals.
In a break from natural instinct of these sensitive marine species, there has been a repeat exercise of mass nesting which the species did not do every year, said wildlife personnel of Gahirmatha marine sanctuary.
Mr Behera said in the past, few thousand turtles were counted to have turned up for mass nesting but this time, the turnout is over a lakh, much larger than the previous years.
In a period spanning from February 24 to March 6, an estimated 1.87 turtles visited the South Nasi beach and laid eggs. The second mass nesting which commenced on the night of March 20 has surprised the forest officials who are expecting that the mass nesting would continue for couple of days more, Mr Behera said.