The label says:

Giving Back MORE WATER Than We Take
We call it “Positive Water Balance”.
To help save a precious resource that is fast depleting in India. Through rain-water harvesting, community water-sheds, and water conservation in agriculture, we at PepsiCo India saved 836 million litres* more water than we consumed in 2009.
To know more, log on to www.tomorrowbetterthantoday.com 
*As confirmed by an independent audit

Credit: India Resource Centre

Is there more to it than meets the eye?  India Resource Centre, the NGO which has been campaigning against the likes of Coca-Cola Inc to achieve water justice for communities in India has issued a press release questioning the claims. Without credible answers to these, one would have to dismiss the label as nothing less than ‘bluewash.’

Pepsico’s Water Claims in India Misleading and Deceptive: Report by India Resource Centre

New Delhi, India. November 30, 2011  Pepsico is claiming that it has achieved “positive water balance” in India.  Pepsico prominently states on its bottled water in India that Pepsico is “Giving Back MORE WATER Than We Take.”

Pepsico’s claims are erroneous, misleading and deceptive.  The company does not give back more water than it takes.

A detailed report was released today by the India Resource Center and the Community Resource Centre examining Pepsico’s claims.  Pepsico’s claims of “positive water balance” do not hold water when subject to scrutiny.

Pepsico’s claims fail for a number of reasons, some of which include:

1. Pepsico Has Severely Understated the Amount of Water it Uses in India.  Pepsico’s “positive water balance” claim is based on the company’s assertion that it used just 5 billion liters of water in 2009.  Our calculations, however, estimate that Pepsico is responsible for at least 50 times more water than it admits.

The audit assuring that Pepsico had achieved “positive water balance” stated that Pepsico used or counted as “debit” 5168 mml of water (or 5.168 billion liters) in India in 2009. And Pepsico claims to have saved or counted as “credit” 6004 mml of water (6.004 billion liters) in 2009, hence a positive balance of 836 million liters.

Pepsico only added up the water used in their beverage and food factories, and such a measure is completely inadequate for measuring a companies’ water impact or footprint.

It takes 21.82 billion liters of water to produce 75,000 tons of potatoes that Pepsico used in India. And yet, Pepsico reports using only 5.168 billion liters of water in India, about 4 times less.

From our research, we can estimate that Pepsico uses at least 90,000 tonnes of sugar annually.

It takes about 2,374 liters of water to make 1 kilogram of refined sugar in India, according to the Water Footprint Network⁶, the initiative that Pepsico claims to be a “sponsoring partner” of.

As a result, Pepsico is responsible for 214 billion liters of water used in production of sugar alone used in its products. And yet, Pepsico reports using only 5.168 billion liters of water in India, about 40 times less. (From India Resource Centre’s detailed report)

2. Pepsico’s Water Balance Accounting is Illogical and Flawed.  In its accounting for “positive water balance,” Pepsico has declined to take responsibility for the water used in the supply chain of its products, such as potatoes grown through contract farming for Pepsico alone, or the sugar used in its products.  At the same time, Pepsico liberally takes responsibility for saving water outside the supply chain, and in agriculture in particular.  Close to 80% of the “positive water” that Pepsico claims to have saved do not come from water reductions in their supply chain or operations.  Instead, Pepsico is paying others to save water, and using that to claim that Pepsico has saved water.

4.7 billion liters of water that Pepsico says it “saved”, or 78% of the total water it claims as “credit” in the audit, comes from their promotion of Direct Seeding among farmers in paddy fields in India (as opposed to transplanting method). Pepsico has paid for the entire “agricultural intervention”, including the seeds, the seeding machine and consultancy.

Pepsico itself has NOT reduced its own water usage along its supply chain to claim these credits. Instead, Pepsico has paid for others to save water – and used that “saved” water to claim that Pepsico has saved water, and therefore Pepsico should be credited positively towards its water balance.

78% of Pepsico’s water savings come from such a disingenuous intervention and accounting.

Although Direct Seeding decreases water use in paddy farming by 16% when compared to transplanting, Direct Seeding also requires more herbicides and pesticides and for this, “PepsiCo recommends use of post-emergence herbicides manufactured by reputed companies like Bayer CropScience, Dupont India and Pesticide India.” Direct Seeding also requires more diesel, according to a study provided to us by Pepsico. (From India Resource Centre’s detailed report)

 

3. Water Issues are Local Issues – Pepsico Doesn’t Get It.  Having a “positive” relationship with water entails water stewardship at the local, watershed level.  To our surprise, only 15% of the water conservation projects conducted by Pepsico are in the same watershed where Pepsico operates.  Of all the water that Pepsico says it saved in 2009, only 2% came from “in-plant water recharge and harvesting.”

Credit: Nadia Khastagir, India Resource Center

4. One in Four Pepsico Plants Operating in Water-Stressed Areas in India.  A primary measure of a company’s water sustainability practices is to examine whether the company is operating in areas that are already water-stressed.  Of the 34 operating Pepsico plants in 2009, 9 plants – over 25% – were located in areas that the government has classified as water stressed (semi-critical, over-exploited and critical) – hardly a picture of a “positive” water company.

In addition, there were serious concerns raised about the amount of wastewater generated by Pepsico, 2.56 billion liters alone in 2009.  Pepsico’s wastewater finds no mention in its audit and its accounting of “positive water balance.”

“Pepsico’s claims of positive water balance makes a mockery of the science and logic behind water stewardship. It also insults the Indian public by making claims that are erroneous, misleading and deceptive,” said Nandlal Master of the Community Resource Centre from Varanasi who has campaigned against Pepsico plants in India.

“Pepsico’s claims of positive water balance are nothing more than a public relations exercise to blunt the growing and real criticism of its water management practices in India and elsewhere,” said Amit Srivastava of the India Resource Center.

“These are business and reputational risk management maneuvers and their claim of “positive water balance” aims to give Pepsico the right to use “positive” or additional water, much needed as it plans aggressive expansion in water-challenged India.  All this while not doing anything substantial to conserve water themselves, such as in their factories and supply chain, or limiting the needless growth of water guzzling soft drinks or the unhealthy junk food they peddle. We refuse to accept such logic and practice.”

The detailed report, “Deception with Purpose: Pepsico’s Water Claims in India” is available at http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2011/pepsipositivewater.html

For more information, visit www.IndiaResource.org

***********

Our bigger question is also whether bottled water is required at all, given the wasteful use of plastic,  and the fossil fuels required in its distribution, apart from the use of a community’s water resource.  In addition, given that processed beverages and foods are mostly a concoction of artificial chemicals, harmful sugars and salts (that are unhealthy for consumers and the environment), labels only serve to detract rather than answer the fundamental question of whether products such as these are indeed required for society’s wellbeing.

Share/Save

We bring here a synopsis of the International Coastal Cleanup, a yearly effort to clean up the coastlines of the world and improve ocean health. Each year on the third Saturday in September (in 2011, it’s on 17th September), several hundreds of thousands of volunteers clean up litter from lakes, rivers, and beaches around the world.

We also cover the efforts being taken for International Coastal Cleanup in Singapore. Your participation with friends, family and colleagues would make a big difference in cleaning up coastlines and also generating awareness about how our consumption habits are linked to ocean trash, and the effects it has on marine life.

The International Coastal Cleanup is a yearly campaign by The Ocean Conservancy, a Washington D.C, US based non-profit organisation. The Ocean Conservancy was founded in 1972, with goals to promote healthy and diverse ocean ecosystems, and to oppose practices that threaten oceanic and human life.

OVER THE PAST 25 YEARS, Ocean Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanup has become the world’s largest volunteer effort for ocean health. Nearly nine million volunteers from 152 countries and locations have cleaned 145 million pounds of trash from the shores of lakes, streams, rivers, and the ocean on just one day each year.

Along with the cleanup, every item found is weighed, counted and recorded, and cumulative data from the countries are compiled, giving a clear picture of the kind of items that affect humans, wildlife and economies.

The Ocean Conservancy’s 2011 report, ” Tracking Trash: 25 Years of Action for the Ocean” summarises what the data collected over 25 years shows and how it has inspired action.

The information collected is quite telling:

• During the 25th annual Cleanup in 2010, over six hundred thousand (615,407) people removed more than eight million (8,698,572) pounds of trash.
• In 2010, volunteers collected enough tires to outfit almost fifty-five hundred (5,464) cars.
• In 2010 the amount of cigarettes/cigarette butts collected is equal to nearly ninety-five thousand (94,626) packs of cigarettes.
• The eight million pounds of trash collected during the 2010 Cleanup would cover about 170 football fields.

Highlighted Results from the Past 25 Years of Cleanups

• Fifty-three million cigarettes/cigarette filters that have been found would fill 100 Olympic-size swimming pools.
• Appliances collected over 25 years of Cleanups (117,356) would fill 32,600 dump trucks.
• Over 863 thousand (863,135) diapers would be enough to put one on every child born in the UK last year.
• Over the past 25 years, more than eight and a half million (8,763,377) volunteers have removed one hundred and forty-five million (144,606,491)pounds of trash in 152 countries and locations.
• Volunteers have collected enough cups, plates, forks, knives and spoons over 25 years to host a picnic for 2 million people.

(Summary from ICCS)

TAKE ACTION: Action begins with each of us. Join schools and organisations within your country or city participating in The International Coastal Cleanup, or Plan your own International Coastal Cleanup Event.

Here are 10 things you can do to stop marine debris recommended by The Ocean Conservancy.

 The International Coastal Cleanup in Singapore (ICCS) 2011

If you’re in Singapore on 17th September 2011,  do join the International Coastal Cleanup here as an independent volunteer. Bring your family, friends and colleagues along too.

Interestingly, today Vincent Kang had posted a comment in Today Online about the sudden surge in trash found in the East Coast.  So your helping hands will be much appreciated!

If you’ve missed the briefing conducted on August 27th by N. Sivasothi, National Co-ordinator, International Coastal Cleanup Singapore 2011, here’s a full recording of the session where he gives an excellent overview of marine life in Singapore, the experiences from past cleanup events, and tons of housekeeping tips on what to do on September 17th, as regards to safety tips and data collection and recording.

Ria Tan summarises the efforts of ICCS well in today’s Wildshores post.

ICCS is NOT just about picking up litter. It is about educating people and collecting data about the litter on our shores. Like Vincent Kang asked in his letter above, ICCS helps answer the question: where does the litter come from?

Marine Debris at Changi - Photo: Wild Singapore

ICCS involves thousands of people. It is the single most important event in the year to raise awareness about marine litter. All the shores are targeted. From mangroves to recreational beaches. Remote shore to accessible shores.

Trash on our shores costs us money. More than $1million to be precise. And that’s just on the recreational shores. A report for the 21 APEC economies reveals a conservative estimate of damage caused by marine litter to be US$1.265 billion. This is just the cost to fishing and boat industries. This does NOT include costs to wildlife, loss of tourism and lost capital development opportunities, like building a hotel or resort. It also does NOT include the clean-up bill.

Marine debris KILLS! In Jun 2011, a dead sea turtle was found to have swallowed 317 plastic pieces in Australia. Even something as seemingly innocent as balloons, often released in masses during celebratory events, can kill. More about how balloons and soft plastic kill sea turtles slowly and painfully.

You CAN make a difference. Individual sign up is open for 17 Sep 2011 (Sat) 8am – 12pm. More details on the ICCS website with online registration.  You can also sign up with the ICCS mailing list or subscribe to theICCS blog or twitter for updates.

Further links you may be interested in:

TED Talks:

1. Capt. Charles Moore on the seas of plastic

2. Sylvia Earle’s TED Prize wish to protect our oceans

3. Chris Jordan pictures some shocking stats

Share/Save

Please read the original article here. The official reply given by Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) to emails and letters from the public is published in bold below. ACRES have given their counterarguments in italics to the statements made by RWS.  Please continue to support the campaign by sharing this message, joining the Facebook page, and by writing to RWS

From ACRES:

Those of you who have written to RWS would have received their standard reply. Please find attached below our response to RWS’ standard reply. RWS’ statements are in bold.

Greetings from Resorts World™ Sentosa.

We note your feedback. There will also be differing views on dolphins in facilities, but please let us explain why we believe that our animals have an important role to play and that they will have a good quality of life in our facility.

ACRES is not against the keeping of animals in captivity in-principle, but we must focus on keeping animals that can cope with captivity. ACRES and the over 7,400 people who have joined us (in less than a fortnight) in this campaign are not campaigning for the closure of the Marine Life Park.

We agree that zoos have an important role to play but, again, we are calling for RWS to focus on housing species which can cope with captivity and to also run an attraction that can indeed play a proper role in education and in-situ conservation.

Dolphins (and whales) are the only grouping of animals which governments have banned zoos from keeping in captivity. Progressive countries such as Chile and Costa Rica have banned the capture and display of dolphins, recognising that these animals belong in the vast open oceans.

We should also note and learn from other country’s experiences. Mexican Senator Jorge Legorreta Ordorica (Chairman, Committee of Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries) was so dismayed at the plans of RWS that he wrote to Singapore’s National Development Minister about it. Senator Jorge wrote that Mexico’s international reputation was dented as a result of its importing 28 Solomon Islands dolphins in 2003. At least 12 of the dolphins have since died.

“Mexico’s experience with this single import led to our government imposing an outright ban on importation and exportation of live cetaceans for entertainment purposes and this ban is still in place,” the Mexican Senator said. He urged Singapore to consider Mexico’s experience and ‘the disturbing mortality’ of the animals when evaluating applications for the permits to import such dolphins.

Over 150 millions of Guests pass through aquaria and zoo facilities in the United States alone each year. Well run facilities providing strong conservation takeaways have inspired many to take on the championing of marine mammal conservation. Reports and testimonials have shown that some have even gone on to illustrious careers in animal care and veterinary science. Television documentaries play a great role in advancing the conservation cause, but nothing beats getting up close with the animals, learning about their behavior, care and need for conservation of their species first-hand from their caregivers. The Marine Life Park will strive to continue with this conservation mission.

Since RWS is using the United States as an example, should it not also follow the progressive example set by facilities in the United States with regard to dolphin captures? In the late 1980s, facilities in the United States implemented a voluntary moratorium on collection of bottlenose dolphins from the wild, and this remains in place.

As mentioned above, we do agree that zoos have an important educational role to play, but they must walk the talk and must focus on ethical practices- both in terms of animal care and animal acquisition.

In addition, the reality is: What can RWS really teach its visitors about dolphin protection? Would it not be an irony and contradiction for RWS to ask their visitors to protect dolphins when they themselves obtained 27 individual dolphins from the wild and two have now died?

Bottlenose dolphins can thrive in facilities. It has been documented that dolphins in marine parks have lived well over 40 years old, twice the average life span of dolphins in the wild. Life in the wild is not as carefree as you think. Dolphins fight for survival from predators, fishing boats, and pollution. Dolphins have also been bred successfully in facilities, an important measure of successful adaption of dolphins to human care. Today, many dolphins have been bred in facilities, providing us valuable insights and knowledge into the propagation of this species.

If the above was true, why didn’t RWS acquire their dolphins from captive sources instead of buying dolphins caught from the wild?

It is true that wild dolphins do not enjoy a carefree life, but they do enjoy freedom and the choice of where to go, what to eat (live fish), who to socialise with and they will not be forced to perform behaviours they don’t want to do.

If dolphins can thrive in captivity, why then did two of RWS wild-caught dolphins die? The explanation should not just be that dolphins die in the wild as well.

RWS has stated that they have “a world-class team of experienced professionals and animal experts” and it is their “mission to provide our animals with top-class care, and to treat them with respect.” RWS has also stated that “its dolphin enclosure will ‘far exceed’ internationally recognised minimum space requirements for the animals” and that “care and well-being of the dolphins are of paramount importance”. RWS further mentioned that bottlenose dolphins “are very adaptable to living in controlled environments”.

ACRES has consistently reminded RWS of the difficulty in keeping dolphins in captivity. Despite our appeal, RWS went ahead and purchased wild-caught dolphins. Two of the dolphins (in Langkawi), of the species which RWS had stated is “very adaptable to living in controlled environments”, have now died.

Should we still trust RWS now that we know that RWS housed the dolphins in appalling conditions in Langkawi during training? The dolphin enclosures failed to meet the European Association for Aquatic Mammals Standards for Establishments Housing Bottlenose Dolphins.

The enclosures failed in terms of: Not meeting minimum pool dimensions, poor maintenance, failure to provide shelter, excessive noise, poor water quality, not having sufficient/adhered to emergency procedures and not having a sufficient/adhered to programme of measures for illness prevention and control.

Besides the small size of the enclosures, the location of the enclosures was a major concern. The location was completely unsuitable for dolphins due to the high boat traffic (from a jetty and a private marina).

We also like to share that Marine parks provide an important source of funding and expertise for marine mammal science. Today, marine parks and aquaria around the world have strong and frequent links to exchange scientific knowledge and expertise. Many of these parks have established laboratories, veterinary care and husbandry practices. These parks have also conducted many research projects. Marine parks are able to provide long-term, structured and committed efforts to advancing marine mammal science. The Marine Life Park is committed to these research programmes, which range from field research, water quality studies to marine mammal reproduction and physiology, as well as rescue rehabilitation.

Marine parks are indeed an important source of funding and RWS should focus on funding in-situ conservation work (in the wild) instead of contributing to one of the threats dolphins face in the wild. (According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a leading authority on the environment and sustainable development, the threats facing the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins include live capture for oceanariums.)

Furthermore, catching more dolphins might drive species such as the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin towards extinction. IUCN states that “their preference (Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins) as a captive display species makes them vulnerable to depletion from such catches.”

If RWS is truly committed to marine conservation, should it not focus on protecting wild dolphins?

We could go on and on about why we believe our animals have a special role in the area of conservation. We are 100-percent committed to provide them the best care. We are starting exciting educational and conservation projects, and will definitely be sharing information on those projects in the coming months.

Thank you for taking the time in writing to us.

Warmest Regards,
SaravananSinniah
Guest Correspondence Team
Resorts World™ Sentosa

ACRES would welcome more reassuring and concrete explanations from RWS to justify why they are not responding to the public’s call for them to release the wild-caught dolphins.

To get involved:

• Visit the campaign website at www.saddestdolphins.com
• Support the campaign on Facebook
• Share the original campaign song with your friends
• Write a message or shoot a video about what you think of RWS’s dolphin programme and send it to ACRES
• Write directly to RWS

Further links you may be interested in:

Campaign video for you to share:

Video link here

Letter from Richard O’ Barry to Resorts World Sentosa on dolphins

The Straits Times: Free the Dolphins (Ric O Barry’s plea – full feature on The Sunday Times)

Share/Save

By Howard Lee

At the turn of this year, I interviewed Louis Ng, the Executive Director of the Animals Concerns and Research & Education Society (ACRES), and one of the questions was what ACRES plan to do for the coming year. Ng affirmed ACRES’s commitment to campaign for the release of the dolphins headed for Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) as part of its interactive dolphin spa programme.

On 27 May 2011, ACRES delivered on that promise with the launch of the ”Save the World’s Saddest Dolphins” campaign, which aims to create awareness about the plight of the dolphins through music videos, hence urging people to take action through their own video petitions.

Perhaps they might not really be the saddest dolphins in the world to date, but you can’t really doubt the ingenuity of the campaign in exploiting social media. You definitely will not doubt the tenacity of ACRES.

The campaign pivoted on the release of an undercover video of the remaining 25 dolphins (two have died in captivity) in Ocean Adventure marine park in Subic Bay, the Philippines. The filming was not without its challenges. “The main obstacle was getting caught doing it undercover but we managed to view the dolphins and successfully completed the investigations,” said Ng.

Video link here

The campaign goes beyond highlighting the plight of the dolphins in captivity, being trained and prepped for their eventual life at RWS. ACRES’s efforts are backed by a detailed report that outlines the errors and pitfalls of keeping wide-ranging wild animals in captivity, including the dangers associated with transmitting diseases to humans. It is not just an animal rights and environmental issue.

We must remember that these dolphins, including the two dolphins who died, are sentient individuals who only about a year ago swam freely in the vast open oceans. We need to also consider the impact of taking twenty-five dolphins from the wild in the Solomon Islands, on the survival of this species in Solomon Islands. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a leading authority on the environment and sustainable development and the largest global environmental network, had advised against the export of dolphins from Solomon Islands and urged countries to not allow the importation of any dolphins from the Solomon Islands

- Louis Ng (From his previous interview with The Online Citizen)

The main campaign music video features children and members of the public urging RWS to free the dolphins. Local and foreign bands have produced different covers of the campaign song. “Using social media and by approaching this issue more creatively, we will be able to engage the public more effectively and reach out to a wider audience,” said Ng.

“ACRES hope that members of the public will join ACRES in our mission to end this injustice. They may not love animals but they should feel a sense of injustice happening at our doorstep. The dolphins have endured being removed from their homes in the Solomon Islands and stressful transportation. Some of the dolphins watched their family members die, were subjected to living in small, rusty enclosures and endured a year of training sessions. The only thing in store for all of them now is the final stressful transportation to Singapore to entertain RWS guests.”

AsiaOne reported that “RWS, which runs Singapore’s first casino as well as the adjacent Universal Studios theme park, had no immediate reaction, saying it was studying the campaign’s allegations in detail.”

“ACRES hopes that RWS makes a moral decision and let the dolphins go. They believe strongly in CSR (corporate social responsibility) and marine protection and should walk the talk. They should note that even Chris Porter, who sold the wild-caught dolphins to RWS, called for RWS to ‘review its motivation for using these animals as a tourist draw’. He was concerned that ‘RWS is using the animals primarily to make money while telling the public that its aim is to educate the public on marine conservation.’”

But the message is meant not just for RWS, but also for our government, as our representative in the global community. Ng hopes that “the Singapore government will follow the progressive example set by other countries (such as Chile and Costa Rica) and ban the capture and display of dolphins, recognising that these animals belong in the vast open oceans.”

“They should also heed the advice given by Mexican Senator Jorge Legorreta Ordorica (Chairman, Committee of Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries) who urged Singapore to consider Mexico’s experience and ‘the disturbing mortality’ of the animals when evaluating applications for the permits to import such dolphins,” Ng says.

With an extensive online campaign, “Save the World’s Saddest Dolphins” does have its non-cyberspace initiatives, as ACRES will also be embarking on a series of roadshows. The first roadshow was held at Far East Plaza (Level 2 Concourse) from 27 to 29 May 2011 at Far East Plaza, Level 2 Concourse.

To get involved:

• Visit the campaign website at www.saddestdolphins.com
• Support the campaign on Facebook
• Share the original campaign song with your friends
• Write a message or shoot a video about what you think of RWS’s dolphin programme and send it to ACRES
• Write directly to RWS

Video link here

About the Writer:

Howard Lee is a corporate communication professional and volunteers with a local marine conservation group. He is a freelance writer with The Online Citizen where this article first appeared.

Further links you may be interested in:

The Sunday Times: Scientists say dolphins should be treated as ‘non-human persons’

Save the Solomon Dolphins.org

Letter in 2008 to Mah Bow Tan, ex-Minister for National Development, Singapore from Mexican Senator Jorge Legorreta Ordorica (Chairman, Committee of Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries) “urging you to consider our experiences and the disturbing mortality suffered by these animals when evaluating permits for live dolphin imports from Solomon Islands.”

Letter from Richard O’ Barry to Resorts World Sentosa on dolphins

The Straits Times: Free the Dolphins (Ric O Barry’s plea – full feature on The Sunday Times)

Update: Geordie Wilks from The Good Paper has given an excellent summary on the “Save the Dolphins” concert held on August 28th, 2011 at Speakers’ Corner, Singapore

Share/Save

Wiki photos: Marina Beach in the morning

Mention Chennai (formerly known as Madras) – the state capital of Tamil Nadu, India and the image of the long Marina beach along the Bay of Bengal conjures up immediately in one’s mind.  In a city where much urban development has taken place in a hurried, haphazard way, the beach offers a welcome respite to its chaos, noise and dust.  Thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people throng the beaches, especially during the weekends.  The beaches however are far from clean. They bear the heavy footprint of human visitations - numerous plastic remnants, soles of shoes, countless clutter from wares sold on the beach and debris washed up from the seas.

Rahul Muralidharan talks about why Chennai beaches need help more than ever, and an urgent campaign which needs public support.

Wiki photo: Sunday evening crowd at Marina beach

Reclaim Our Beaches, or ROB is a community of volunteers which set out a few month ago, to do just what the name implies – reclaim our democracy through reclaiming our public spaces, starting with the beach.  The community believes that the beach is unfortunately one of the few places where people from all sections of society can gather to have some fun and enjoy rare commodities as as clean air, without having to pay for it.
A new elevated express highway is now being planned for 7.5 km is being proposed along the beach.  Specific details are as below:

* The highway is planned between the lighthouse and Kottivakkam, joining the East Coast Road and joining ECR and designed in 2 phases..

* In the  first phase – a 6 lane highway running from the lighthouse to Besant Nagar will pass through Santhome, the estuary, the backside of the Theosophical Society backside joining 5th Avenue.

* In the second phase – a 4 lane highway running from Elliots at Besant Nagar to Kottivakkam and passing behind Kalakshetra, Thiruvanmiyur and Valmiki Nagar and Thiruvalluvar beaches and joining ECR near Kottivakkam Kuppam

Plastic everywhere

The beaches of Chennai are in bad shape as it is, because of the high level of plastic and waste remnants. The social and environmental impacts of the highway will be quite devastating:

* The serenity of the only open public space in Chennai will be gone forever. Imagine the noise, grime, dust, fine particulate emissions from 60,000 private vehicles expected to ply on the highway every day.

* As Sharada Shankar, an activist with ROB mentions in the newsreport below (only the first 4 minutes relate to the story), the highway is only likely to serve a small section of the population. Only 2% of Chennai’s population owns private vehicles. No public transport is going to be allowed on this expressway. So it is not going to benefit 98% of the population. This interview was given on the day the campaign was releasing a petition to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.

* 14 fishing hamlets along the coast will be evicted, and tens to thousands of homes will be destroyed. Going by past track records, proper resettlement may not happen. Even if resettlement is done, traditional livelihoods of fisherfolk who have depended on the coast line will be affected.

*  The ecosystem – the flora and fauna of the Adyar estuary will be disturbed, with the destruction of the mangroves. Bird counts are expected to drop. The endangered Olive Ridley turtle breeding grounds are likely to completely disturbed.

* Some religious shrines will be demolished.  World renowned cultural centres such as the Kalakshetra (a centre for learning of Indian Fine Arts) and the Theosophical Society, will lose their calm and serene ambience.

HUMAN CHAIN

If you are in Chennai on July 31st 2010, kindly join the Human Chain which will be formed to peacefully protest against the proposed highway. The chain is planned at 4 pm(Saturday) on Elliots Beach. Spread the word around and inform friends and family in Chennai who may be able to participate in this. For further information, please write to beachcampaign@gmail.com

Further links you may be interested in :

Facebook group: Reclaim Our Beaches

Let’s Reclaim Our Beaches : Olive Ridley Turtles, a being out of the blue” :

Wiki photo: The endangered Olive Ridley Turtle

“Olive Ridley turtles have now been listed as an endangered species. Since the 1960s, the overall turtle population has gone down by 50%. Some possible threats include the destruction of beaches which are used for arribadas, directed harvest of turtles, and bycatching, which can happen when turtles are accidentally caught in nets.

One such problem occurs on the coast of Tamil Nadu in Southeastern India. Currently, the government is creating several projects to beautify the coastline. First, they are trying to build docks extending far into the ocean, which will eventually cause erosion of the beaches around it to increase, destroying the nesting sites of these turtles. To add to that, they are thinking of putting streetlights near the beach, unaware of the devastating effect it will have on the turtle population. When baby turtles hatch and dig themselves out of the sand, they get back to the ocean by following light sources such as the stars, the sun, and the moon. However, if they hatch at night, they may mistake the streetlights for these light sources and waddle onto the road, where they may get run over by cars or eaten by dogs. Also, several fishermen illegally use gill netting, in which turtles are caught as bycatch.”

Share/Save