by Nadeera Seneviratne
While acknowledging the need for a port development in the south coast, the Nature Conservation Group [NatCog] questions the validity of having two major port developments [Hambantota and Galle] within 124 km of each other. Minister of Ports Development and Development of the South, Ronnie de Mel was recently quoted as saying that Galle would be made a regional port and Hambantota an international port.

The group also pointed out that along with the development of the South Colombo Port, there will be three major port developments within a few nautical miles of each other, inconsiderable in shipping terms. They recommend that the Galle port is not expanded and that Hambantota is developed, thereby restricting the damage to one point.

The ‘pleasing view’ or ‘buona-vista’ coral reef as the Portuguese called it, will be completely destroyed by the expansion of the Galle Port, according to the Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA] of the proposed development of Galle Port. The section on coral reefs of the EIA states: ‘The reef at the foothills of Rumassala [buona-vista] is within the project site’. Located on the Eastern periphery of the bay of Galle, the reef sits protected at the base of the Rumassala hill.

NatCog and Neo-synthesis Research Centre [NSRC] has done extensive research into the reef before and after the 1998 bleaching effects of El Nino and have found that the reef has had one of the best recovery rates over the last two years. The live coral cover of the reef they found in November 1999 to be >43 per cent compared to the slow or virtually non-existent reef recovery at Hikkaduwa and Unawatuna.

However, the EIA of the port development, of which the project proponents are the Sri Lanka Ports Authority [SLPA] states that the coral cover of the Rumassala reef is >20%. Prasanna Weerakkody of NatCog, speaking with ‘The Island’ said that this is because the studies had been carried out to the North of the reef which never contained significant live coral cover and not the South reef where one of the highest coral cover percentages in the country have been recorded.

The source for the data has been given as ‘annon 2000’, a suspicious fact by itself, according to Mr. Weerakkody. The NatCog/NSRC surveys carried out in 1999/2000 recorded 400 species of fish and over 400 species of invertebrates over the reef including 63 species of coral of which some are endemic. The average number of species recorded from the reef for a single day stands at 135. They question the authorship of the EIA section that states that the number of fish species are 52, coral 45 and the highly juvenile count of invertebrates as 6. Obviously, the EIA has been carried out in such a way as to fool the public totally, Mr. Weerakkody said.

‘The large amount of rock blasting that will take place and the dredging and sea reclamation activities will result in the destruction of the coral reef’, Mr. Weerakkody said. He also stated that the EIA does not commit on the exact extent or enforcement of the security zone. The statements that fishermen will be allowed to continue their activities within a major port he says is highly suspicious considering that the extended security zone in the Colombo port goes down to Wellawatte from the Kelani river estuary.

Mr. Weerakkody said that though a statement has been made that locals will be given preference for employment opportunities, it has also been noted that ‘they lack special skills or educational achievements for permanent kind of employment in the port’ in the EIA. There will be a loss of profitable income for many fishermen and the relocation of households has not been looked into, he said.

NatCog asks that the Coast Conservation Department [CCD], the approving authority of the EIA refrains from approving this highly environmental, archaeological and socially destructive project or at the least that the CCD calls for a fresh EIA that would contain all the relevant data and information as this EIA cannot be considered complete or acceptable in its present form.

Adequate publicity regarding the EIA and its public comments period was not done. The CCD should extend the public comments period scheduled to be over on January 11.