Thursday Jul 04, 2024
Thursday Jul 04, 2024
Wednesday, 29 April 2015 01:10 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
The Port City as proposed by CCCC, located adjoining and to the south of Colombo South Harbour, involves the reclamation of 233 hectares (576 acres) from sea bed. Of the reclaimed land Sri Lanka will own rights to 125 hectares, 108 hectares will be allocated to the developer, of which 20 hectares will be held by CCCC, and 88 hectares to be sold to potential investors on 99-year lease[/caption]
Background
The first proposal for a Port City originated in 1998. The proposal was further developed by a Singaporean company CESMA with a local team in 2004, as ‘Western Region Megapolis’ for implementation by 2030 and was promoted by Ranil Wickremesinghe.
However, the concept could not be implemented due to the vast cost in building the breakwater in deep water to protect the reclaimed land. The Port City became financially feasible only when the breakwater was integrated with the Colombo Port Expansion Project.
The Colombo Port City
The Port City as proposed by CCCC, located adjoining and to the south of Colombo South Harbour, involves the reclamation of 233 hectares (576 acres) from sea bed. Of the reclaimed land Sri Lanka will own rights to 125 hectares, 108 hectares will be allocated to the developer, of which 20 hectares will be held by CCCC, and 88 hectares to be sold to potential investors on 99-year lease.
With the sale of reclaimed land the company is expected to cover its investment costs, marketing, and promotion costs and make profits. The project is expected to cost $1,337 million as construction expenditure. Of the land reclaimed under the project, 63 hectares is reserved for common facilities such as water area, roads and parks.
The land reclamation and establishment of common facilities of Port City is expected to take three to four years and thereafter land would be offered to prospective developers; and they may take three to five years to implement their individual investments. Thus the promised 90,000 employment opportunities would be six to nine years away. Meanwhile, there would be employment opportunities in the construction sector from engineers to skilled workers.
Public concerns
The public and the environmental groups have raised large number of issues over the project. Some of their concerns are:
1. The project’s granite requirement at five million cubic meters would be obtained from 20 quarries in Kalutara District. These quarries would create environmental hazards as drying up of underground water resources. The blasting of rocks is causing cracks in houses and a health hazards both to people and animals.
2. In order to reclaim 575 acres, there should be a bed of at least 1,000 acres. According to sources 120 million cubes of stone were required.
3. The project will have a damaging impact on the coastal belt due to dredging of sand from the sea. Already excavation of large amount of sand from the sea off Negombo has caused numerous problems to traditional fishermen who depend on the shallow seas for their livelihood. The fishermen complain that the fish breeding grounds have been disturbed and have expressed fear that continuous digging for sand will intensify sea erosion and destabilise the coastal area.
4. Doubts exist whether there is enough sand in offshore deposits to satisfy the need for reclaiming land and the need for a study to evaluate the impacts on the marine life due to the exaction of sand.
5. The proposed project, if done without a proper assessment, will adversely impact the western coastal line including Panadura, Angulana, Mount Lavinia, Uswetakeyyawa and Negombo. The filling of the sea area would lead to coastal erosion, altering the marine biodiversity. The sand, rock and debris dumped into the sea would also impact the natural coral formations, weeds in the seabed leading also to a depletion of mangrove coastal areas as well as sea grass habitats.
6. As it stands the Environmental Impact Assessment has only been done for the filled up area and therefore they have to do another EIA to determine the amount of sand they need to fill the reclaiming area. They have to get sand from the offshore sand deposits and we are not sure if there is enough sand in these deposits.
7. The country’s largest private investment in history has the potential of becoming one of Sri Lanka’s biggest environmental nightmares: Altering entire ecosystems and causing other serious environmental problems and, by extension, endangering the millions who inhabit this country. We simply cannot sacrifice the environment in exchange for temporary economic gain. The creation of the artificial city on a reclaimed maritime land affects species in the sea, some endangered, water quality, and may increase the likelihood of earthquakes.
8. Water supply, sewage disposal and energy needs; it has been pointed out that Colombo’s water supply and the 200-year-old sewerage disposal system cannot cope with the increased demand from the new development.
9. With the additional 575 acres of prime land into Colombo’s market, what would be the effect on land prices?
Environmental approval
According to the environmental approval procedure, the project proponent requests environmental approval from the Central Environmental Authority (CEA). The CEA may refer the application to another authority most relevant to act as Project Approving Agency (PAA).
The project proponent for the Colombo Port City, Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) as a State organisation discussed the project with the CEA and the CEA appointed the Coast Conservation Department as the PAA.
The SLPA commissioned the University of Moratuwa in 2010 to undertake an Initial Technical Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study the Port City Development Project. The EIA was completed in April 2011, and was submitted for approval to Coast Conservation Department (CCD). In September 2011, as required by law, CCD published the EIA application for public comments for a month’s period. Acting on behalf of the SLPA, the University of Moratuwa clarified all public inquiries collected by CCD.
Months later, the project was expanded supposedly for hydraulic considerations, maintaining geometric similarity and within the specified physical boundaries. Given the nature of the changes, the CCD instructed that SLPA to provide a detailed addendum to the previous EIA. The EIA addendum was submitted by the SLPA to CCD in September 2013.
In November 2013, CCD issued the ‘No Objection Letter’ to the SLPA. In September 2014, Geological Survey and Mines Bureau issued a sand mining license to SLPA and in October 2014, the Coast Conservation Department issued final approval for the EIA pertaining to the Port City Development Project. Subsequently the formal approval for the project was granted by the Standing Cabinet Appointed Review Committee.
When the Chinese President inaugurated the Port City Project on 17 September 2014, SLPA had received almost all approvals as per EIA procedure and the project could be termed legal.
Additionally, an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for monitoring the project’s environmental and coastal impact was submitted by CCCC as per the requirements of the EIA. This EMP was approved by the CCD in December 2014.
In the approval document concerns were expressed on the possible obstructions to water exit from the spillway by the old Parliament building.
CCCC’s involvement
with Port City
According to CCCC, in April 2011, the company submitted an unsolicited bid to SLPA for the Port City Development Project. This was reviewed by the Standing Cabinet Appointed Review Committee (SCARC) in September 2011. The role of SCARC is to assess unsolicited or standalone development proposals and decide the manner in which such proposals could be proceeded with, and advise the relevant line Ministries or the Government agencies on matters relating to such proposals. SCARC instructed the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with CCCC. Both parties entered into a MoU in September 2012.
In October 2012, CCCC submitted a detailed proposal pertaining to the Port City Development Project to the SLPA. After clarifications with CCCC, the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) submitted an evaluation report to SCARC in January 2013. Thereafter, SCARC submitted a report to the Cabinet recommending that the SLPA and CCCC enter into the Concession Agreement after obtaining clearance from the Attorney General, and the committee also recommended that it proceed as a Strategic Development Project.
In January 2014, the Cabinet approved terms of the Concession Agreement for the Port City in Colombo to proceed as a Strategic Development Project. In September 2014, the Cabinet gave approval to the Secretary to the Ministry of Highways, Ports and Shipping to enter into an Agreement on behalf of the Government of Sri Lanka with CCCC, with a Concession Agreement with the SLPA, as an Annex. The Agreement and the Concession Agreement were approved by the Attorney General and subsequently signed on 16 September 2014.
Port City and Colombo South Port
The proposed Port City is located adjacent to the Colombo South Port (CSP) and comparable sizes are important in environmental aspects. CSP has been constructed to the west of original harbour into the sea. While the old port was partly sheltered by the land mass ending at the light house, the new port constructed beyond the breakwaters of the old port is protected only by the breakwaters.
According to the Port Chairman, the new CSP is among the largest artificial harbours in the world. CSP is safeguarded by 6.8km of breakwaters and encloses 600Ha and 325Ha would be filled up for accommodating equipment, storage, etc.
CSP has a ship entrance channel 570m wide, 20m deep and extends 20km, allowing two large ships to cross each other. This channel is in addition to the channel in the old port which allowed only one ship. Both channels are dredged continuously to remove depositing sand. In the next stage of CSP development the channel would be dredged to 25m to allow still larger ships.
Raised environment issues
1. Requirement of rock
According to concerned groups, the rock (granite) needs varies from five to 50 million cubic meters (MCM). However Chinese sources confirm that the rock requirement is only four MCMs. If this quantity is obtained from 20 suppliers, each supplier would excavate one Ha to a depth of 12m. The CSP breakwaters are 6.8km long (compared to 3.25 in Port City) and located in deeper seas would have consumed well over twice the quantity of rock, raised no concerns from environmentalists.
In the Western and Southern Provinces, almost all hills have underneath rock which is gneiss, an extremely hard rock. Gneiss does not allow water seepage and drying up water resources is not practical. In Uma Oya, water sources were disturbed where underneath is limestone. Cracking of houses can occur only when they are nearby; with locals having resorted to court action, most operating quarries are located away from housing.
2. Sand requirement
Port City’s 233 hectares would be filled with sea sand and SLPA has earmarked two locations 10km (seven miles) from the shore. According to the developer, the total sand requirement is 70MCM. However, the developer’s requirement of sand to-date had been obtained from dredging of the 20km long shipping channel of the CSP. As such, public claim of erosion of coastal areas and disturbance to fishing are only imagination and not due to developer’s extraction of sand from the sea.
If the developer proceeds to deepen the ship access channel to a depth of 25m (additional five m) as envisaged in CSP’s next stage, the excavation will yield 57MCM out of the total of 70MCM. The natural filling of sea-channel by currents over the three year development period may give the balance 13MCM and the developer may not require to extract sand from the SLPA designated deposits at all.
3. Impact on marine life
An article in a Sunday paper states: “NARA Marine Biological Resource Division Head Dr. Rekha Maldeniya, who was part of a team that carried out a basic study on the impact on marine life, has that according to their study, there were no major environmental impacts due to the reclaiming of land for the Colombo Port City project. She said that the sand extraction area from Kepumgoda to Palangathure area is around seven miles away from the shore. ‘It is basically a sand deposit and there is no marine life there. We deployed divers to survey this area and they reported that there were very negligible amounts of marine life,’ she said.”
4. Earthquakes
It is feared that intensive loading on a particular location could result earthquakes. Due to the minor earth tremors in the up-country, some have pointed fingers at large reservoirs built over the last half century. Sri Lanka is not in an earthquake zone, and minor tremors may be a possibility.
5. Water and energy needs
The water and energy requirement and disposal of waste from Port City Project as well as the large number of newly-developing projects need to be addressed by the Government with or without the Port City. Colombo’s 200-year-old sewerage disposal system cannot cope with the increased demand from the new developments.
6. Effect on Colombo’s land market
The additional 575 acres of prime land into Colombo’s market will definitely have an effect on land prices. However, the experienced developer in making such a huge investment is confident in attracting a new range of wealthy overseas customers, which would escalate Colombo’s land prices.
The environmental impact
Can the Port City project create an environmental disaster as claimed by the so-called environmentally concerned groups and the protestors? The project is a construction in the sea and definitely will have an impact. But Port City is less than half the size of CSP and is completely sheltered by its 6.8km long breakwater.
The above shows the Colombo Port City had been promoted by SLPA which commissioned University of Moratuwa in 2010 and CCCC entered the picture in October 2012. The project proposal had gone through the relevant Government organisations and finally received Cabinet acceptance. As required by law, in September 2011, the EIA application had been gazetted for a month for public comments.
Most allegations by so-called environmentalists are either due to them being unaware of the project details or deliberately attempting to mislead the public. The so-called protestors were given an opportunity to protest over the project long ago. But possibly due to the political climate then, the public has been reluctant to actively participate. In the current more open atmosphere, the public is questioning, but can the developer be held responsible for the country’s past problems?
Even in the past, the development projects of the country as Upper Kotmale, Samanalawewa reservoirs, Kandalama Hotel and Norochcholai were among others delayed due to public protests manipulated by supposed-to-be environmental organisations, which were found to be false.
Statement by Deputy Minister of Investment Promotion
According to the Daily FT of 25 April, “The Deputy Minister of Investment Promotion has stated that the final decision on whether the controversial Colombo Port City Project will go ahead will only be made after the Cabinet appointed sub-committee delivers its final assessment report.”
The statement would be watched closely by the prospective investors to Sri Lanka, a precedent, an approved project could be suspended, taken up for review during the implementation period and possibly be cancelled. A very poor example indeed, from none other than the Deputy Minister of Investment Promotion.
Developer’s concerns
The company had stated they have submitted all requested papers within two working days and claims it is losing $ 380,000 per day. Over 200 metres of the breakwater constructed have been damaged due to the suspension. The project employed approximately 1,000 direct personnel and a further 4,000 indirect employees, of which almost all are Sri Lankans and the sustainability of this workforce is a concern for the company.
From the developer’s point of view, he has followed the correct procedure and obtained all legal requirements and approvals for the project. The tax holiday agreement under the ‘Strategic Development Project’ needed to be accepted by Parliament within three months of commencement, but the present Government refused to submit the necessary papers to Parliament for acceptance. As such, the tax holiday would be in question, but the construction is legal.
Spillway water exit
In the approval document for the Port City, concerns were expressed on the possible obstruction to water exit from the spillway by the old Parliament building. The concern is quite visible today and shows an accumulation of a sand-bank extending almost 50m to the south, obstructing the water flow. The collection of sand during the past couple of months is an indication of the possible expansion of ground adjacent to Galle Face. As such the water flowing from the spillway needs free passage by a parallel rock-fill.
The Port City detailed map released by the developer under http://icaruswept.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/IMG_1850.jpg shows a proposed structure to the south of spillway outlet as ‘submerged groyne,’ which has not been constructed yet.
Concerns
Although the project had been approved, concerns still remain. The distribution of reclaimed land between the developer and the Government is not clear. The developer’s documents show a different types of land usage, which would require agreement between the developer and the UDA.
The project promoter is the SLPA and hence the Government is responsible for all approvals. The Cabinet has agreed to temporarily suspend development, claiming relevant approvals from the concerned institutions were not received, which has been found to be untrue.
However, there may be some deficiencies in the EIA documentation and the new Government spent nearly two months since the developer submitted documents. The period should have been sufficient to improve the documents, or does the Government wants to drag the issue until dissolution of Parliament?
Galle Face Green
People would remember how GalleFace Green reduced in size over the past decades, the installation of S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike statue, resulting diversion of the Galle Road into the grounds, road widening, and installation of parking and walkways. Currently, the biggest obstacle faced by visitors to the green is the limited parking. A possible solution is suggested below.
The Chinese contractor could be requested to build a rock filled breakwater, extending the proposed groyne, over the five m contour parallel to the shore, up to Galle Face Hotel and fill the gap with sea-sand up to sea level. The existing ground adjacent to the road could be excavated to build an underground car-park and be covered with grass. The excavated earth could be used to fill over the extended beach above sea level, yielding more grounds to the green. In addition to vehicle parks, restaurants and public conveniences could be established, giving the populace a more spacious Galle Face Green.
Way forward
Colombo's poor infrastructure facilities including its 200-year-old sewage disposal system, water, electricity and transport services catering to numerous projects under development would need immediate attention and China would be willing fund some projects at reasonable terms. Improvement to GalleFace Green would allow citizens to relax from the stressful life and would be appreciated by every citizen.
Any construction activity will have some environmental effects, but negative effects need to be weighed against benefits to the country. Colombo is considered among the least-developed capitals and the Port City would improve Colombo's standing. The employment generation and exposure to a higher level of business would benefit the country. The countries which preach environmental concernsreached their present standing by exploiting other countries, using child and slave labour and uncontrolled usage of natural resources, which led to the world’s environment calamity.
A distorted allegation against the Port City by Ranil Wickremesingheduring the pre-election campaign is understandable. The suspension of the Port City Project was based on a Cabinet memorandum submitted by the Prime Minister that a committee has found the project did not receive EIA acceptance. Now it is clear that the Prime Minister's claim to the Cabinet is untrue. Therefore, the suspension of the Port City Project is baseless and needs to be lifted immediately, with an apology from Ranil Wickremesinghe.
The case clearly highlights the need of the proposed Right to Information Act and the information being accessible to public, which could be most conveniently over the internet.
(The writer is a Chartered Civil Engineer graduated from Peradeniya University and has been employed in Sri Lanka and abroad. He was General Manager of State Engineering Corporation of Sri Lanka. He can be contacted on [email protected].)
