Rs. 27 b Yan Oya proposed project is not beneficial to anyone: FEO

By Rashika Fazali

The Federation of Environmental Organizations Sri Lanka (FEO) strongly claims that the Rs. 27 billion Yan Oya reservoir proposed project in the North Central Province cannot proceed under any terms due to the recently-released devastating Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report conducted by the appointed Chinese construction company, China CAMC Engineering Corporation. The EIA report clearly shows the project comes at a gigantic loss and is not beneficial to anyone.

At a press briefing conducted at the National Library and Documentation Services on Wednesday (5), Environmental Foundation Ltd. Director Vimukthi Weeratunga noted that firstly the EIA report was very unclear on the total area mass utilised for this project. Supporting this claim, he stated that the report showed two figures of area utilised – 6,002 ha and 9,402 ha.

Secondly, there is a negative result on the amount of hectares of paddy land that will be gained. The report states that 1,696.76 ha of existing paddy land will be inundated and a further 30.4 ha will be lost to the left bank canal, totalling to 1,727 ha lost. As this project aims to gain only 650 ha to develop new paddy lands, there is a heavy net loss of 1,077.16 ha of paddy land at a cost of Rs. 27 billion of public money, equalling to US$ 225 million.

Wildlife Conservation Society Galle Administrative Officer Nadika Hapuarachchi questioned, “Why are we spending Rs. 27 billion of public funds to destroy 1,077.16 ha of paddy lands?”

Calculating the amount per hectare, Weeratunga stated, “If we are to divide 650 ha from Rs. 27 billion, we will be able to see that the project spends Rs.41 million per hectare which is not worth,” stated Weeratunga. He further revealed that 248 small and medium tanks will be destroyed due to this project.

Hapuarachchi also addressed the miscalculations in the EIA report. The addition of 1,696.76 ha and 30.4 ha is shown as 1,697 instead of 1,727 ha.

The purpose of the Yan Oya reservoir project is seen in good light as it plans to increase the cropping intensity from 0.86 to 1 and to maximise the agricultural production of a number of failed irrigation projects at Pavdaviya and Wahalkada. It also aims to solve the water problems in the North Central Province including Kebithigollewa, Welioya and Medawchchiya which in turn will benefit 10,000 famer families.

Weeratunga also mentioned that no assessments had been done on the Pulmoddai mineral sand depositions on the coast; instead an ‘opinion’ was given. He added: “They have given it as an opinion that the mineral sand depositions comes from the Mahaweli River and not from Yan Oya. Without conducting research, you can’t give an opinion for such things.”

Furthermore, the damming of the Yan Oya will have a negative impact on the mineral sands and these valuable natural resources have not been included in the cost benefit analysis in the project.

The other disadvantage of this project is the potential sea erosion. He noted that the damming of the Yan Oya would increase sea erosion of the coastal area due to the lack of sand to replenish the beach. “No assessments have been done on this,” stated Weeratunga.

“The only consistency in the EIA is inconsistent and contradictable data. The most important factors have not been checked. Even the environment factors have not been checked,” stated Weeratunga. Other produce such as maize, cowpea, etc., have been given reduced prices deducing that such produce is not important and would not make an impact.

He further addressed why China CAMC Engineering Corporation was appointed to construct this reservoir instead of a Sri Lankan company. The EIA report was also done by the same company, which raises suspicion.

Speaking further on the disastrous evaluation of the Yan Oya reservoir project, Hapuarachchi explained that the cost of mitigatory measures and environmental monitoring costs of Rs. 494.2 million have not been included in the project. He claimed that this shows that no measures will be taken to proceed with these activities.

Mitigation of the human and wildlife conflict in the region coming at a cost of Rs. 540 million has also not been included in the report, totalling to Rs. 1034.2 million which has not been added to the project. Along with these amounts, the cost of the EIA report has also not been included in the total project cost.

Species Conservation Center President Pubudu Weerarathne also commented on the human and wildlife conflict, stating that with this reservoir construction, the elephants would be endangered and placed in a different area currently unknown to the FEO.

He added that 1,438 ha of forest area would be destroyed and in compensation 500 ha of forest land would be given from another area which has not been mentioned. The area will only be given after the completion of the project in one to five years. “During that period, where will the animals live?” questioned Weerarathne.

It has been stated that Rs. 30 million has been allocated for 500 ha of forest land, out of which Rs. 10 million has been set aside in search of a forest area. These amounts have also not been added to the project cost.

Hapuarachchi also noted that the cutting down of trees to provide timber valued at Rs. 511 million has been taken as a benefit although it is not. However, other hazardous factors – such as carbon sequestration that will produce 43 million tons of carbon dioxide – have also not been included in the EIA report.

In their biodiversity list, the scientific name for the shark catfish is entered as ‘Devario malabaricus’ instead of ‘Wallago attu’. This proves that the report was produced without a proper research stated Hapuarachchi.

The report also states that an Archaeology Impact Assessment (AIA) has not been carried out although there is no valid reason as to why such an assessment was not done especially in an area like the Yan Oya, which is full of historical value.

The EIA report also proposes removing the historical Yan Oya ‘Gal Palama’ (stone bridge) and placing it in a different place where people would use it, as this bridge would also be inundated.

Commenting on the report, Senior Environmental Lawyer Jagath Gunawardena stated that no one could take a blind decision to not carry out this assessment. Furthermore, to make matters worse, the name of the archaeologist who overlooked the archaeology sites has not been included in the project although every other consultant who has been a part of the project has been named. Gunawardena added that there seemed to be a conflict of interest.

“This project has incorrect and incomplete data. We request a fresh EIA report for the sake of the environment. This report is environmentally, socially and economically unacceptable.”

In conclusion, FEO Trustee Sunela Jayewardene told the Daily FT: “This project is an insult to the public. It is not profitable as it clearly shows from the EIA report that there is a greater loss of paddy land than gain. The project is completely conflicting and is a clear loss.”

“There is an ulterior motive and someone is going to gain from this, but it’s not the country. Who is really benefiting from this? That’s our question,” stated Jayewardene.