THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The Chennai-based National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT), appointed by the Adani Vizhinjam Port Ltd, in its latest report has admitted there was erosion on the northern coast of the port and accretion in the port area and its southern coastal villages from 2015 to 2021.
Both ground-truthing and satellite images show a similar trend, the report said. It is for the first time the agency has come up with such a finding, which appeared in public domain recently. The coastal erosion has happened on the northern side (Poonthura, Valiyathura, Shanghumugham) and sea accretion in the south (Poovar, Adimalathura) since the work on the project started.
Though the report said the impact of port activity on either side of the coast has less significance, it concluded by saying that continuous monitoring of the port activity and its impact on the coast has to be carried out.
“We approached the National Green Tribunal (NGT) challenging the environmental clearance. Our contention was that if the project is implemented, there will be coastal erosion on the northern side and accretion in south. The tribunal has accepted the contention and ordered for monitoring of the coast. The fourth report says exactly that,” said National Fishworkers Forum founder secretary A J Vijayan, who is a former researcher with the International Ocean Institute.
“But the report is not giving clear indication to link port construction to coastal erosion and accretion. It tries to give more importance to climatic events like cyclones and deep depressions even if they had happened in Bay of Bengal and gave less significance to port activities because, according to them, there was less work happening during the period,” he added.
Interestingly, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, in his speech in the assembly, also linked the erosion in north with weather events and was silent on accretion in south during the same period. While the protestors blamed the project for the impact on the coast, the agency under the Ministry of Earth Sciences has kept ambiguity all along the report. Yet the scientists and the protesters consider it as a significant observation even when the agency has come with three annual reports earlier.
Nevertheless, the protestors found the report important because it mentioned that the agency carried out the review because the expert committee of the NGT gave specific direction to study the impact on 10km of the coast. “The earlier reports did not acknowledge erosion-accretion phenomenon and it was not clear whether the expert committee reviewed it,” said Vijayan.
INDEPENDENT FIRM
The NGT has appointed an independent organisation to monitor each and every condition stipulated in the Environmental clearance and CRZ clearance granted by the MoEF, on September 16, 2016. It demanded monitoring of regular shoreline changes in the project area within 10km on either side at the cost of the concessionaire.