Activists of Greenpeace, dressed in turtle costumes, staged the demonstration demanding that Tata Steel, a partner in joint venture company Dhamra Port Company Limited(DPCL), should first stop work on the port project and then hold discussions with them on the issue pertaining to protection the sea turtles.
In a statement issued soon after the Greenpeace protest, Tata Steel condemned the agitation saying that the demonstration had made it clear that the organisation was trying to gain publicity for itself through agitations instead of addressing the issues they have across the table.
“Tata Steel is aware of certain concerns being voiced about the future welfare of turtles in the Bay of Bengal as a consequence of the development of a port in Dhamra, off the coast of Orissa . Since 1994 various studies have been conducted on the nesting habits of the Olive
Ridley Turtles along the coast of Odisha , including in the Gahirmatha area. Based on these studies it can be clearly established that the port limits of the upcoming Dhamra port are clearly outside the turtle nesting area as well as the National Marine Sanctuary and the Bhitarkanika National Park . This has also been confirmed by the National Environmental Appellate Authority, who had visited the site,” the company said in a statement.
“DPCL is working in partnership with IUCN, the world conservation union, to explore all possible ways to avoid any harm that the port development may cause to wildlife in the area. Various steps are being undertaken to ensure that adequate protective measures are deployed as per their advice,” the company added.
The company further said that it had held discussions with Greenpeace on Dhamra port and the issue of turtles and all issues stood clarified.
“Tata Steel would be willing to engage in further discussions, should Greenpeace desire to do so,” according to the statement.
On the other hand, Sanjiv Gopal, campaign manager, Oceans, Greenpeace said: “While Greenpeace had been voicing concern over the project for four years, there was no upfront dialogue between the two sides”.
|