❈ ❈ ❈

Adani Ports: The Tamil Nadu Villagers Taking on a Billionaire’s Port Plan

K. Subagunam

Thousands of villagers in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu are fighting a proposal to expand a port owned by billionaire Gautam Adani, one of the world’s richest men.

The villagers, most of whom make a living through fishing, say the port expansion in Kattupalli – a small village located in Tiruvallur district along the Bay of Bengal coast – would submerge their lands and wreak havoc on their livelihoods. Adani Ports denies this.

The 330-acre multi-purpose port – originally built by Indian conglomerate Larson & Toubro (L&T) – was acquired by Adani Ports in 2018.

The company later proposed to expand it more than 18-fold to an area of 6,110 acres by claiming portions of land along the coast.

According to the company’s master plan, the expansion would increase the port’s cargo capacity from 24.6 metric tonnes to 320 metric tonnes per year and develop new rail and road networks that would boost trade connectivity in the region.

But fisher people in at least 100 towns and villages located on the coast say this would gravely impact their work. “The number of fish varieties found here has already gone down significantly. Any kind of expansion would further deplete its population,” claims Rajalakshmi, a fisherwoman from the region.

The expansion has met with resistance from environmentalists as well, who claim the plan would lead to massive coastal erosion and a loss of biodiversity, especially of the indigenous fish species and the crabs, prawns and small turtles found in the region.

Environmentalist Meera Shah claims it could also “destroy” Pulicat lake, the second-largest saltwater lake in the country.

At the moment, the coastal stretch acts as a barrier between the lake and the Bay of Bengal. But the region has been experiencing widespread environmental pollution and coastal erosion in recent years, Mr Shah added.

If more construction is undertaken here, the coast would shrink further, “leading the lake and the sea to merge”.

A spokesperson from Adani Port, however, rejected the allegations and called them “misplaced”.

A senior company official, who wanted to stay anonymous, told BBC Tamil that locals “are not against the expansion of the port” and alleged the protests were being led by people “with ulterior motives for publicity”.

“Individuals opposed to the expansion do not base their claims on any primary data. Some good NGOs involved in protecting the environment may have some genuine questions, which will be addressed during the [mandatory] environmental clearance process,” the official added.

Protests against the port expansion first broke out in 2018 and have continued intermittently over the years.

The agitation intensified again in September, when the state government started the process of giving environmental clearance to the project, paving the way for the expansion work to begin.

In the same month, the state’s Pollution Control Board was forced to postpone a mandatory public hearing for the project amid strong protests.

According to the master plan, of the 6,110 acres needed for the expansion, 2,000 acres would be acquired from the sea, while the remaining land would be taken from the coastal area.

The company says it will reclaim parts of the sea by filling it with sand and include them in the port area. It also plans to deepen a portion of the sea and create a sea wall around it so that more ships can move along the coast.

Experts warn this could have devastating consequences for the region’s ecology.

The east coast of India – and the Tamil Nadu coast in particular – does not have the geographical landscape suitable for port construction, let alone an expansion, claims Dr Ilango Lakshmanan, a professor of hydrogeology at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras.

“This would disrupt the coastal topography and lead to more sea erosion,” he added.

A senior company spokesperson rejected the claim and said that sea erosion in the region could not be linked to the port’s construction alone.

“States like Gujarat and Maharashtra, where some of the major ports in the country are located, have lower rates of sea erosion compared to the east coast,” the spokesperson said.

But some industry experts also say the expansion plan should not be dismissed entirely as it would benefit the state’s economy and bring more employment.

“Kattupalli port was facing losses and started making profits only after the Adani takeover. An expansion would bring in more ships, which, in turn, will increase its economic scale,” Valliappan Nagappan, the former president of Hindustan Chamber of Commerce, an independent trade organisation, said.

“However, the company must ensure that locals are well-compensated and relocated [if required] properly, without any impact on their livelihoods,” Mr Nagappan added.

But protesters say they are not convinced.

“We are ready to face anything in our fight against the project. Our livelihoods should be protected at all costs,” Vijaya, a fisherwoman from Pulicat, said.

Protesters blame the Tamil Nadu government for not doing enough to safeguard their interests.

Many claim that before the state elections, Chief Minister MK Stalin repeatedly promised he would scrap the expansion plan, but nothing has happened since he came to power in 2021. The BBC has reached out to the chief minister’s office and the state’s environment minister for comment.

This is not the first time that a port run by Adani Ports has invited protests.

In 2022, massive protests erupted in the fishing villages of the neighbouring state of Kerala against the construction of a port managed by the company in partnership with the local government.

The protest was later called off in December after the state government promised to pay each of those who were to be displaced a monthly compensation.

At Kattupalli, port authorities have been wooing the local community by offering them free medical aid and promising them jobs.

“We are in touch with the villagers and communities around the port area and they are very much interested in the project and getting jobs,” the unnamed Adani Ports senior executive cited above said.

The protesters, however, say that they are being cautious.

“If they want to give us medicines and take our land, we will not let it happen,” one of them said.

(Courtesy: BBC News.)

❈ ❈ ❈

From a Kerala Port, a Citizens’ Report Provides Proof of ‘Destructive Development’

Ramachandra Guha

Of all the Indian states I know, Kerala has the most active civil society organisations that flourish independently of governments and political parties. These groups work in many spheres, including science, health, education, and – not least – environmental sustainability. The work of these groups is often enriched by the participation of scholars and scientists. This interaction between academics and the wider public is perhaps more engaged and constructive in Kerala than anywhere else in our Republic.

In the last 30 years, I have visited Kerala at least two dozen times, where, in public meetings on a range of themes, I have witnessed at first-hand the vigour and dynamism of the civil society space in the state. My most recent visit was last month, at the invitation of the Janakeeya Samara Samithi, an organisation representing the fisherfolk of the southern part of the state.

The Samithi had been active for some years in opposing a massive port being built at Vizhinjam. The state government claims this port will be no less than “the Singapore of India”, bringing a surge of prosperity in its wake. The people of the region, however, have been decidedly sceptical of these claims, seeing it rather as a prime example of what is known as “destructive development”.

To understand the seaport project more thoroughly, the Janakeeya Samara Samithi commissioned a group of scholars to study its impact. The report this group produced is a model of its kind. It represents the best kind of interdisciplinary research, bringing together the perspectives of ecologists, earth scientists, climate scientists, sociologists, and economists.

The text is buttressed with a great deal of empirical data and by telling visuals of the area before and after the port construction began. The report draws upon an extraordinarily large number of scientific studies on all aspects of the area. The analysis is further enriched by fresh field research, interviews, surveys, and public consultations.

The report that these fine, and public-spirited, scientists of Kerala have produced bears the title: Our Beaches, Our Sea: Heritage of Fishing Communities, Usufruct of all Citizens: Impact of the Vizhinjam International Seaport on the Beaches, Coastal Sea, Biodiversity, and the Livelihoods of Fishing Communities in Thiruvananthapuram District. Few universities in India would be capable of conducting such a rigorously-researched study, and certainly no government department. The data and analysis presented here comprehensively show that the Vizhinjam seaport will bring more harm than benefit to the people of Kerala.

Before the port construction began, Vizhinjam was the largest and most important fishing village in Kerala. It was home to some 4,500 fishing families and several thousand boats. It also served as a safe harbour for fisherfolk from other villages during the monsoon. The report significantly observes that “many educated youths within the community have deliberately chosen to remain engaged in fishing due to its viability as a sustainable and profitable self-employment option. They adopt modern, small-scale, technology-driven fishing techniques and have developed innovative approaches to directly connect with consumers through their established institutional systems. The

The report documents how the promoters, Vizhinjam International Seaport Limited, suppressed, manipulated, and misrepresented data to get the requisite environmental clearance. The corporation’s Environmental Impact Assessment report downplayed the project’s impact on biodiversity, radically underestimated the loss of fishing livelihoods, minimised the negative consequences for tourism, ignored the coastal erosion that the project would cause, and disregarded the aesthetic value of cliffs and beaches that, after the port was built, would be forever lost to humanity.

The scientists’ report meticulously demonstrates how the proposed project – whose promoters are the Adani Group – is grievously flawed across four major categories, as explained below:

With regard to economics, the project has been plagued by time delays, cost overruns, and inflated future benefits;

With regard to society, the project shall intensify inequalities through the displacement of fisherfolk and the widening of the gap between the rich and the working class. The project shall increase the burden on the women of the coastal villages who may be forced to go elsewhere and work as domestic servants for survival;

With regard to ecology, the project shall have deeply damaging effects through the destruction of beaches and of marine life and the pollution of water sources. These ecological costs shall further hurt the livelihood prospects of fisherfolk. Coastal ecosystems are inherently fragile, and such mega projects can cause irreversible damage. Besides, the threat of climate change already looms over us; unpredictable weather events such as cyclones will now wreak even greater devastation on the area if they strike it.

The scientists’ report calculates that the loss of ecosystem services, which include activities like fishing, coastal protection, tourism, water quality, preservation of culture and aesthetic values and so on amount to an estimated Rs 2027 crore every year. This figure in itself makes the project economically unviable for Kerala;

Finally, with regard to politics, the project was pushed through by the use of secretive, non-transparent, and altogether anti-democratic means. The Bharatiya Janata Party government at the Centre and the Congress-led and Left governments in Kerala were all culpable in this gross violation of democratic principle and procedure.

In this manner, this report demonstrates that from the standpoints of economic viability, social justice, environmental sustainability and democratic procedure, the Adani-sponsored VISL project is antithetical to the citizens of Kerala and of India.

And there are other considerations that militate against it too. There is, for example, the aesthetic dimension, the fact that the project will destroy many beaches which currently serve as a “shared haven for every citizen”, a space for social and spiritual nourishment, a venue for music, sport and festivals.

Finally, there is the national security dimension, the fact that the Adani Group already controls 13 seaports and eight airports. Permitting and encouraging a single private firm to have such a decisive say in the flow of human, commercial, and vehicular traffic across India, and between India and the world, surely constitutes a grave risk to the security and safety of the country.

Of the area which will be adversely affected by this ill-conceived project, the report observes: “These communities, deeply rooted in the coastal regions, have been the guardians of the seas for generations. Their experience in sustainable fishing practices is a beacon of ecological wisdom that safeguards the marine resources and ensures food security in the form of the tasty seafood delights which most Keralites cannot do without! Their labour also generates valuable seafood exports which earns the country substantial foreign exchange. Their traditions enrich the cultural tapestry of Kerala, making it a unique and attractive destination for tourists.”

Elsewhere, the report remarks: “We emphasize that the beaches are more than just sandy terrains at the confluence of land and sea. They should not be treated as commodities for private interests or subject to inappropriate infrastructure development. Beaches and the adjacent coastal waters must be recognized as the foremost entitlement upholding the fundamental right of active fisherfolk to sustain their livelihoods, and patrimonial right, and, importantly also affording all our nation’s citizens the opportunity to cherish and enjoy these vital resources.”

Significantly, the report is not animated merely by the spirit of critique. It thus offers a series of constructive suggestions to mitigate the social and environmental impacts of the project. The authors state that their report “is not a quest to block development”; rather, “it is a plea for environmentally and socially sustainably development that is the only viable path for Kerala.” They add: “What we face is a mega project devoid of environmental safeguards, a behemoth controlled by corporate interests driven solely by private profits, with little regard for the fragile ecosystem and the loss of traditional occupations.”

The authors further note: “Much of the investment is made by the Government of Kerala, drawing from its own finances, and borrowing heavily from financial institutions, while the livelihoods of fishing communities and the sustainable interests of the common people are recklessly mortgaged.”

This report of the scientists of Kerala is available online. I urge interested readers to consult it. I am sure they will be as impressed as I was by the depth of its documentation and the strength of its arguments. The report is a great public service, not just to the people of Kerala but also to every democratically-minded Indian who should be more alert to the spurious and distorted claims made by large corporations and the political regimes that support them.

(Ramachandra Guha is an Indian historian and writer. Courtesy: The Telegraph.)