Dec 15, 2015 (LBO) - The proposed Colombo Port City has a minimal environmental impact on the reclamation site and the coastal zone around the area, a supplementary environmental impact assessment, now available for public consultation, states.
Because of the impact of sand dredging north of the port city site, an income support program will be implemented for communities engaged in fishing, the report adds.
The report can be downloaded
here.
"Due to the construction of the Colombo South Harbour, the incremental environmental impacts from the construction of Colombo Port City is minimal/negligible at the reclamation site and the coastal zone to the North and South of the site," the report states.
Studies conclude that the Port City will also not cause coastal erosion.
Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake said recently that the government is satisfied with the EIA, according to a media report. The EIA is now available for public consultation.
“We have given all the necessary clearances. Now it is up to the investors to sort out the minor details,” Karunanayake, told the South China Morning Post newspaper.
The 1.4 billion US dollar Port City is to be constructed between the Southern edge of the new Colombo South Port and the Fort Lighthouse.The total area of land available under the project will be 269 hectares.
Developed over a 25-year period, the Port City will have three stages with 7 hectares released for development per year.
According to the plan, 63 hectares of marketable land and 96 hectares of common land will be for the government, equivalent to 59 percent of the total, or 159 hectares.
The project company will receive 41 percent of the reclaimed land for marketing to developers, equal to 110 hectares.
The plan envisages significant economic benefits to the island with foreign direct investment being the biggest approved by the BOI for a single project.
In terms of environmental impacts, sand extraction would occur at depths of 15m or more, thereby having no impact on coastal erosion, the report states.
"The Kelani River is believed to contribute some 100,000 to 200,000 m3/year to the sediment budget of the area. Historically this is believed to have been much higher, perhaps 400,000 m3/year, but has declined due to sand mining and development upstream," the report said.
"As a consequence there has been ongoing erosion to the coast to the north of the Kelani. Therefore, since Port City is in the shadow of the Colombo South Port breakwater, it has no impact on coastal erosion north of Colombo Port."
A total of 11 different quarry sites with required approvals located in Kaduwela, Hanwella, Padukka, Delgoda and Divulpitiya area have been surveyed for obtaining quarry material for construction of necessary structures to protect the reclamation, it said.
The 11 quarry sites represent around 7-9 percent of the total registered quarries in the Colombo and Gampaha districts.
The impact of this project on the national quarry material requirement would be negligible to the construction industry, the report states.
Sand dredging is expected to cause "local and temporary impacts on the biological environment due to the removal of benthic fauna and increasing turbidity as a result of an increase in suspended particles in water columns."
Due to this, 500 million rupees would be allocation to the Ministry of Fisheries for income support and benefits program for communities engaged in fishing, with supplementary funds allocated as needed.
This would be to uplift the socio-economic conditions and any loss of fishing grounds of fishermen impacted by the sand extraction, the report states.
In terms of impact on stock of fish, "there will be no reduction in fishing grounds in the reclamation area, since this is not an ideal habitat for fish breeding due to already silted conditions."
Several international consultants together with local specialists will advise on the project.
This includes Atkins of UK for master plan review, Aecom for utility design, road design and landscaping, Jones Lang La Salle and CB Richard Ellis for financial and marketing pre-feasibility, and CDR International of the Netherlands for technical review of designs of the contractor.
The land will be available for various purposes such as commercial, residential, health and educational developments but not for industrial activities.
The Port City will have around 45 ha of public parks, 9 times the size of Galle Face Green, anchored by a 22 ha central park.There will also be a beach with a lagoon suitable for swimming and water recreational activities.
The port city project, under a Chinese developer, stalled after the new administration questioned project approvals by the last regime.
The investor, China Communications and Construction Company (CCCC), is a public listed company in Hong Kong and a Fortune 500 construction and real estate company. The company has assets of over 100 billion dollars.
Total FDI in the reclamation stage of the Port City is envisaged at 1400 million dollars, the largest FDI approved by the BOI to date. The financial investment in the project requires no government guarantees.
The first thing that I see is that the terms of reference said to be contained in “Volume Two” are not to be seen…or at any rate I have not as yet been able to find them. One wonders why these terms of reference have not been included in the main document which has been made available to the public.Without access to these terms of reference it is difficult to understand the objectives of the assessment that has been done.I do not think that any analysis of the assessment that is not also based on the same terms of reference would do the assessment a grave injustice and tend to be misleading. I presume that the CEA has consciously decided to run this risk and the political consequences that may arise therefrom.
Interestingly I find on page four of the executive study the dictum “It is the prerogative of the Government Policy makers led by the Project Approving Agency (PAA) to decide on the scope of the environmental studies.”
No mention is made of the legislative enactment from which this dictum arises.
Far more serious is the very clear and very large conflict of interest involved. The government has a strong bias towards approving the project in pursuit of rapid development required for the generation of employment and for economic growth. The developers who seek approval have a strong bias toward securing such approvals in their search for as large a profit as they can secure. The cash flow is estimated at 1,400 million US Dollars and this is likely to be exceeded as the project progresses. It is therefore in the interest of the government as well as the project developers to have a very non demanding set of terms of reference for the EIA. It also leave plenty of room for the suspicion that undue incentives and influences towards a quick and easy passage of permission may be at play. This will also take us beyond paying lip service to the concept of “Open Governance” that we are said to have become party to.
From the point of view of the residents and property owners of Colombo it would be far better to have a citizens committee made up of Development Specialists, Legal Experts, Environmentalists, Anthropologists, Sociologists, Architects, Engineers, Epidemiologists and Community Health Specialists and other relevant professionals working voluntarily and free of charge, to set the terms of reference of these EIAs. After all it is our lives, livelhood and well being and those of our children that are going to be impacted.
“Colombo Port City won’t cause environmental disruption, says EIA”
that is a rubbish statement no matter who says it!!! just ask the Dubai government what happened after they filled the sea and built the Plam Jumeirah. one reason the project went on for so long and almost made Dubai bankrupt was due to the many issues that cropped up when man-made islands came up in the middle of the sea disrupting everything from the waves, currents, temperature, marine life , etc., not just near the palm but miles away from it in the natural dubai and abu dhabi coastline.
any change to the statusquo causes a disruption, how u handle that and provide remedies is the secret to success. people have been studying the impact of pollution for ages and still they only agree on onething – that the planet is heating. only time will tell what harm these people have caused by their narrow sighted actions.
…one of the interesting and useful elements pointed out by the SEIA is its statement that “Presently, Colombo is not a “Destination”, but primarily a transit point for tourists. The lack of vibrancy of Colombo in terms of shopping and entertainment is a significant deterrent to attracting South and East Asian tourists to Sri Lanka”.
It shows very clearly the “tourism centered thinking” of our government administrators just like the “tsunami centered thinking” of our disaster managers. Just as the fixation of disaster managers on tsunami leaves unprepared for the impact of an earthquake of magnitude 6 on the Richter Scale hitting Colombo with its hi rises that boast of being resistant to earthquakes of a magnitude of 2 on the Richter Scale (which is actually too low even to be felt significantly by humans let alone building) this fixation of our administrators on tourists and tourism shows how they have missed the wood for the trees.
The Colombo Port City is a “CITY” not a tourist park like disneyland. It is a place where people will come to live because their work will be done in the Colombo Business District close by. Some of them will regularly fly to various countries along the circle around the island formed by the regions of the IOR-ARC, SAARC, BIMSTEC and ANTARCTIC. The companies that they work for or own will be listed on the Colombo Stock Exchange and will raise capital for their operations in these regions through the Colombo Stock Exchange.
Countries from these regions will also maintain high ranking government staff on the island in order to ensure that all the needs of investors are met and these officials will also live in the Colombo Port City and work in the Colombo Business District….there is a great deal more…but let others do the telling since it is there job to do the talking rather than the thinking and conceptualizing and strategizing and negotiating…