Captain H BalakrishnanSetu channel makes NO nautical sense -- Capt.H.Balakrishnan. Govt affidavit on setu channel in SC should be withdrawn.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sethusamudram_Shipping_Canal_Project#cite_note-10Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project
The Rediff Interview/Captain (retired) H Balakrishnan
'The Sethu Samudram does not make nautical sense'
October 01, 2007
Continuing our series on the Sethu Samudram Shipping Canal Project, Shobha Warrier speaks to Captain (retired) H Balakrishnan of the Indian Navy to know a mariner's view of the project. Captain Balakrishnan has been associated with the navy for 32 years.
He was one of the first batch of three Indian naval officers to do specialisation in anti-submarine warfare in the erstwhile USSR Naval War College.
Out of interest, he did a study on the Sethu Samudram Shipping Canal Project from a mariner's point of view. Ever since the series appeared in the Indian Express, the captain has been much sought after for his interesting calculations.
Why did you get interested in the Sethu Samudram Shipping Canal Project?
I don't belong to any political party. It was purely a mariner's interest that made me research the project. There were many reports and statements in the media but I found that the mariner's point of view was not talked about at all. It is sad that even today the entire discourse on the project has got completely side tracked from the main issue; that is, the project is for ships and the shipping industry.
As a mariner, how do you describe the Sethu Samudram project?
The Sethu Samudram project, if I can put it simply from a mariner's stand point, does not make any nautical sense.
Why do you say so?
I have worked on the project from three different perspectives, all concerning the nautical world. I analysed the project in the backdrop of the environmental factors that would impinge the safety of the ship and also the safety of lives at sea. Number two was the security aspects which is maritime terrorism as it stands today. And the third was certain aspects of general navigation.
What does your research on the environmental factors say?
We mariners call the coast between Rameswaram and Cuddalore the cyclone coast. The India Meteorological Department has assigned this coastline as a high risk probability. To site one example, in 1964, the Pamban Bridge was washed away by a severe cyclonic storm.
A ship is safe when she is moving at the onset of a cyclone. Imagine a ship waiting to pick up its pilot as it approaches the Palk Straits to enter Sethu Samudram. No captain will wait for the pilot; his safety lies in heading south, towards Sri Lanka [Images].
The wind and waves bring in a large amount of silt and wash it ashore. The same thing is going to happen to the Sethu Samudram Canal. This brings me to another point. Marine scientists have identified five areas on the Indian coastline they call high-sinkage pits, and one of them happens to be the Palk Straits.
What is left unsaid by the Sethu Samudram authorities is that maintaining the 12 metre depth (of the channel) will entail round the year dredging. Once you establish the channel, you have to maintain it.
You mean other than the capital expenditure, there will be maintenance expenditure too. Will that be expensive?
Naturally. But this cost is not mentioned anywhere. This is the hidden cost which the authorities will have to pay to the dredging company. It is a high siltation and sedimentation area. So, what you pick up today is going to get filled up the next day.
What is the security threat you spoke about?
The Sea Tigers of the LTTE have control of that area off the Jaffna coast. What the Sea Tigers may do is difficult to say. Piracy exists even today.
Those who are against the project say the 12 metre depth of the Canal is not enough for big ships to pass through the canal. As a mariner, what is your opinion on this?
It is quite true. If you take global shipping trends today, to reduce operating cost, they go in for larger ships of the order of 60,000 deadweight tonnes and above. A 60,000 deadweight tonne carrier will need anything in excess of 17 metres of draft.
And as far as tankers go, the days of the super tanker are gone and you see only very large crude carriers of the type of 150,000 and 185,000 tonnes. It makes more sense to have such big tankers as in one voyage, you are bringing in more cargo and reduce your operating cost.
None of these big ships will ever be able to use the Sethu Samudram. So, the question is, for whom are you building the canal? 30,000 tonnes was alright when Sethu Samudram was conceived in the early fifties and the sixties.
That leaves you with only the coastal bulk carriers that carry coal from Kolkata, Paradeep and Visakhapatanam to Chennai or Tuticorin.
How much time and money are saved if the ships go through the Sethu Samudram Canal instead of going round Sri Lanka?
I plotted physically on a chart what we call 'passage planning' for a bulk carrier on passage as it happens today from Kolkata to Tuticorin; one of them circumnavigating Sri Lanka as is happening today and the other one going through the canal.
The voyage distance from Kolkata to Tuticorin around Sri Lanka works out to 1227 nautical miles. If you went through the canal, it is 1098 nm. So, you are saving just 120 odd nm.
The story doesn't end there. The majority of our bulk carriers go at a speed between 12 and 13 knots. That is the average speed at sea. I have checked with my friends who currently sail. They all said they do 12 knots. However, I worked in a bracket of 12-15 knots. So, if you are going around Sri Lanka at 12 knots at constant speed at sea, the time taken to reach outer anchorage at Tuticorin is 102 hours and 15 minutes.
When you go through Sethu Samudram, the point to be remembered is, you cannot proceed at the speed at which you are sailing at sea. The reason is the shallow water effect or what we call the 'Squat Effect'. So, the moment you enter Sethu Samudram, you have to reduce the sped by 50 per cent or more depending on the conditions prevailing at that particular time. So, I worked on a speed bracket of 6-8 knots. But many of my friends tell me 8 knots is too high for a 30,000 tonne bulk carrier. In all my calculations, I gave the benefit of doubt to the Sethu Samudram project.
The second aspect is, it is not an open seaway; it is like entering a port. A pilot boards the ship, who is a local mariner with greater knowledge of the marine environment. The same thing has to be done at Sethu Samudram also. I have given one hour delay for the ship to reduce speed for the pilot to climb aboard. You repeat the process at the other end too for him to disembark.
With this 6 knots speed and 2 hours pilotage delay, my time to Tuticorin via Sethu Samudram works out to 100 hours 30 minutes. If you went around Sri Lanka, it is 102 hours 15 minutes! So, your net savings in time by going through Sethu Samudram is 1 hour 45 minutes! Is it worth spending Rs 2,400 crore to save 1 hour 45 minutes?
You spoke of travel time. What about the cost?
The Sethu Samudram project from the media reports and the statement given by the finance minister will cost at Rs 2,400 crore, of which Rs 971 crore is through a special purpose vehicle. The debt portion has been pegged at Rs 1,465 crore. Assuming an interest burden of 10 per cent, the interest payment on Rs 1,465 crore is Rs 146 crore per annum. Twenty to 25 years is the time given for repayment.
Assuming 25 years for Rs 1,465 crore, capital repayment works out about 56 crore per annum. So, Rs 146 crore for interest burden and Rs 56 crore as repayment works out to roughly Rs 204 crore per annum which is what the authorities will have to repay to any financial institution. This is only to break-even. But the web site says it is a profitable industry and it is going to make 'mammoth profit'.
As the earning is going to come only from ships, I asked, how many ships are going to transit in a year through the canal? Ships that can use the canal will be coal carrying bulk carriers as long as the Tuticorin thermal power plant exists.
Having made the calculation, I feel they are rather optimistic in their figures. They have given a mean value of about 3,055 ships meant to use the canal in the year 2008 and by the year 2025, they expect it to go to in excess of 7,000 ships. Mind you, for 12 metres of depth! But I can't see more than 1,000 ships using the Sethu Samudram canal in a year.
If you take Rs 204 crore as annual repayment, and 1,000 ships use it, your per ship cost works out to Rs 22 lakhs pilotage charge to break even. There is an interesting comparison done by K S Ramakrishnan, former deputy chairman, Chennai Port Trust. He pegs around Rs 50 lakh as pilotage rate per ship if you have to make a profit.
Then I calculated the fuel consumed. These ships consume 1 metric tonne of fuel per hour, which costs Rs 24,000. For the Sethu Samudram canal, you have to add the pilotage cost too. In effect, if a ship goes through the canal, a shipping company loses Rs 19 lakh per voyage. It is more cost effective to circumnavigate Sri Lanka from the point of view of the shipping industry.
Therefore, neither are you saving time nor is it viable economically. These are the two aspects that need to be highlighted. So, there is absolutely no advantage to the ships and the shipping industry. So, what are we gaining by spending Rs 2,400 crore of tax payers' money? It is a white elephant in the making.
So, you must be against realignment which some political parties are talking about.
Any course, any realignment, is going to prove uneconomical to the shipping industry. If it is of no use to the shipping industry, why build it? You can bring about better economic progress to the southern districts of Tamil Nadu by building expressways. That is why I say the Sethu Samudram shipping canal project makes no nautical sense. That is the tragedy of the project.
Those who support the Sethu Samudram Canal compare it to the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal and say the Sethu Samudram is the Suez of the East.
In the case of the Suez and the Panama canals, ships save thousands of nautical miles in sailing distance and hundreds of hours in sailing time vis-a-vis the Sethu Samudram where a ship will probably save a few hundred miles and at the most twohours in sailing time. This is the difference.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/oct/01inter.htm
Comment in Times of India by H.Balakrishnan (Chennai)
9 hrs ago
Sir, I regret to state that the media has been concentrating on 'irrelevant aspects' regarding the Sethusamudram Shipping Channel Project (SSCP).'FAITH' has taken pride of place. Followed by ecology, fishing etal. In the process, the USP of the SSCP has been given the go-by !! To rejig the memory of the media, UPA-1 approved the SSCP on the basis of the following nautical factors : (a) - The SSCP reduces the voyage distances for ships on passage from the East to West Coasts of India and vice versa; (b) - This reduction in voyage distances leads to a shortening of voyage time; (c) - This reduction in voyage time leads to fuel savings for ships; (d) - This savings in fuel leads to profits for the concerned shipping company; (e) - For good measure, the USP also stated that the Sethusamudram Shipping Channel Corporation, the Special Purpose Vehicle, created for this project would also be profitable. As a former mariner, I had produced a 10 Part research on the SSCP, IN 2007/2008. My research was purely from a nautical standpoint. I had plotted various voyages on a navigational chart, through the SSCP and circumnavigating Sri Lanka, as at present. By calculating the voyage times and thus the fuel costs and adding 'possible tariffs' that could be levied for transitting through the SSCP, I concluded - "THE SSCP MADE NO NAUTICAL SENSE".I also found that the SSCP was economically unviable. My study is now with the Supreme Court. It was also given to the Pachauri Committee. Also, the dredged depth of the SSCP is limited to 12 meters. In such a scenario, only 30,000 DWT vessels can use the SSCP. World shipping, however, is trending to large vessels - like 70,000 DWT Bulk carriers, and 2 lakh DWT and above crude oil carriers. None of them can use the SSCP !! So, my plea to the media - stop publishing the 'sensational and Controversial aspects' of the SSCP. Lets forget for the moment whether "Rama was an Engineer" or " Which Engineering College did Rama study in ?" or "Rama was a drunkard". Please concentrate on the nautical aspects. Remember the SSCP is a "SHIPPING CHANNEL" !! Despite all these facts,IF the UPA-2 goes ahead with the Project, get set for 'ONE MORE SCAM' !! Regards
Umakanth (Hyderabad) replies to H.Balakrishnan
2 hrs ago
Dear Bala, I completely agree with you. This SSCP is nothing but another scam and loot the tax payers money. Even if the government demolishes Rama Sethu and builds a sea channel there, it isn't going to fetch anything to the TN or Indian Goverments. Being from a shipping background, I know that most of the container lines or huge DWTs don't want to use SSCP as they are comfortable with the present mode of sea transport.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/usrmailcomment2.cms?msid=18683355&mailon_commented=1&usercommentid=14188471#toreply14188471
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sethu-project-Govt-scraps-panel-report/articleshow/18683355.cms Sethu project: Govt scraps panel report
ByDhananjay Mahapatra, TNN | Feb 26, 2013, 01.49 AM IST
NEW DELHI: The Centre has informed the Supreme Court that it intends to go ahead with the Rs 25,000 crore Sethusamudram shipping channel project, which had raised a political storm after it was revealed that the mythical Ram Sethu would face dredging.
After the controversy over the Centre's affidavit in 2007 doubting the existence of Ramayana and Ram, a statement which was quickly withdrawn following waves of protest, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had appointed an expert group headed by environmentalist R K Pachauri to study the economic and ecological viability of the planned shipping route and the alternative alignment.
The expert committee, after a detailed study, said that "neither alignment 4A (the alternative one) nor alignment 6 meet the benchmark Internal Rate Return (IRR) of 12% for the range of scenarios examined".
The committee said it would be difficult to rule out the possibility of oil spills completely, even with the most stringent measures and precautions. "In conclusion, the Pachauri committee has found the project unviable both from the economic as well as the ecological angles," the Centre said in its affidavit.
It said the government had approved and commenced implementation of the project based on well researched technical studies and after getting the necessary clearances including environmental clearances.
Citing favourable reports of the National Environment Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), project consultant as well as the Committee of Eminent Persons, the Centre said, "The project has economic, navigational and strategic advantages and, therefore, the government of India has been pursuing the project. An expenditure of Rs 829.32 crore has already been incurred on the project as on June 30, 2012. Given the advantages of the project, the government of India intends to pursue implementation of the project.
The centre also requested the Supreme Court "to resolve the contentious issues raised by the petitioners".
Petitioners, including Tamil Nadu CM J Jayalalitha, had sought realignment of the shipping channel to save Ram Sethu from any damage. Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy had requested the court to declare Ram Sethu a national monument.
The SC had on August 31, 2007 restrained the government from damaging Ram Sethu while dredging for the Rs 25,000 crore project, which was inaugurated in July 2005 by PM Manmohan Singh. The court later suggested that the government examine an alternative route through Dhanuskodi to avoid dredging Ram Sethu.
Then solicitor general R F Nariman on July 2 last year had informed a bench headed by Justice H L Dattu that the ministry of shipping had accepted the report rejecting alignment 4A as an alternative route and it would now be placed before the Union Cabinet.
The Centre had in February 2008 filed an application seeking resumption of work on Sethusamudram project which, when commissioned, would allow ships to sail through the Palk Strait from either coast, saving the vessels from circling Sri Lanka.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sethu-project-Govt-scraps-panel-report/articleshow/18683355.cms
Brief note on arguments advanced before earlier Bench of SC:
Mr. Parasaran said, "The excess stanza does not fit into the context." Referring to the argument that "Ramar Sethu has been cut into three parts by Lord Ram with his bow," he said "Ramar Sethu is still considered holy. It does not cease to be holy merely because it has been broken. Feelings of believers of Ramar Sethu will be hurt and injured if it is touched. A large section of people feels that it is holy and merely by looking at it people's sins are washed off. It should be protected."
In his reply, Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy, one of the petitioners, reiterated that the project should be scrapped altogether if the government could not proceed further without destroying Ramar Sethu. It was not economically viable as was pointed out by the Planning Commission. He said the Centre not complying with the court directions to find out whether Ramar Sethu was an ancient monument or not would result in an adverse inference.
Dr. Swamy pointed out that the Centre wrote to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation, urging that the Majuli Island in Assam be declared an ancient monument. Similarly the Brahmasarovar in Punjab was declared a national monument as people believed that Lord Brahma had a bath here. "What is held to be sacred by a large number of people of this country must remain sacred and no sacrilege must be allowed by destroying Ramar Sethu."
Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal and M.N. Krishnamani, appearing for petitioners, maintained that the faith of millions of people that Ramar Sethu was built by Lord Ram could not be questioned and the court could not sit in judgment on the belief.
http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/31/stories/2008073161581100.htm
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:30 PM, S. Kalyanaraman
Further arguments:
Rameshwaram Island and Rama Setu meet the criteria set out, for declaration as Protected Monuments and Monument of National Importance, in Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958:
Section 2. 2.Definitions.-
In this Act unless the context otherwise requires-,
(a) "ancient monuments" means any structure, erection or monument, or any tumulus or place of interment, or any cave, rock-sculpture, inscription or monolith, which is of historical, archaeological or artistic interest and which has been in existence for not less than one hundred years, and includes-
(i) the remains of an ancient monument.
(ii) the site of an ancient monument,
(iii) such portion of land adjoining the site of an ancient monument as may be required for fencing or covering in or otherwise preserving such monument, and
(iv) the means of access to, and convenient inspection of, an ancient monument;
...
(i) "protected area" means any archaeological site and remains which is declared to be of national importance by or under this Act;
(j) "protected monument" means an ancient monument which is declared to be of national importance by or under this Act.
(b) "antiquity" includes-
(i) any coin, sculpture , manuscript, epigraph, or other work of art or craftsmanship.
(ii) any article, object or thing detached from a building or cave,
(iii) any article, object or thing illustrative of science, art, crafts, literature, religion, customs, morals or politics in bygone ages,
(iv) any article, object or thing of historical interest, and
(v) any article, object or thing declared by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to be an antiquity for the purposes of this Act.
which has been in existence for not less than one hundred years;
Section 3.Certain ancient monuments, etc., deemed to be of national importance.-
All ancient and historical monuments and all archaeological sites and remains which have been declared by the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act, 1951 (71 of 1951), or by section 126 of the States Reorganization Act, 1956 (37 of 1956), to be of national importance shall be deemed to be ancient and historical monuments or archaeological sites and remains declared to be of national importance for the purposes of this Act.
Criteria for declaring 'Monument of National Importance'
A monument or a site is declared to be of National Importance by the Archaeological Survey of India provided it meets the following requirements
The monument or archaeological site is not less than 100 years old.
It has special historical, archaeological or artistic interest, making it worthy of declaration as of national importance.
It qualifies under specified provisions of definition of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
The interested public do not have major objections to such declaration.
The authenticity and integrity of the ancient monument or archaeological site and remains have not been damaged
It is free from major encumbrances.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:12 AM, S. Kalyanaraman
I have also sent a formal request on behalf of Rameshwaram Ramasetu Protection Movement, to ASI (1. Director General and 2. R. S. Fonia, Director, National Mission on Monuments and Antiquities, Archaeological Survey of India GE Building, Red Fort Complex, Delhi - 110 006) for Rameshwaram Island and Ramasetu, Gulf of Mannar to be entered in National Register as National Monument and Antiquity.
I have cc-ed the request to you.
kalyanaraman
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:10 AM, S. Kalyanaraman
Two more points.
1.Kurukshetra is declared a pilgrimage site where no MEAT can be served. Similarly, Ramasetu and Rameshwaram islands should be declared pilgrimage sites.
2. No canal project can come without STATE Govt. clearance by TN Pollution Control Board. Without consulting the TN Govt. Centre cannot suo moto initiate any alternative route. Present CM, Jayalalithaa and AIADMK had asked for the SetHuchannel project to be CANCELLLED and WITHDRAWN by the Centre since it offers no benefits to the coastal people of Tamil Nadu.
Kalyanaraman
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:04 AM, S. Kalyanaraman
The arguments to declare Rameshwaram, Ramasetu as National Heritage Monuments:
(Two documents: 1. UNESCO Underwater Convention and 2. Ramesetu book --based on Intl. conf. in Chennai -- are attached)
( Constitution of India enjoins the State to protect monuments and places and objects of national importance (Article 33). Article 51A enjoins a fundamental duty to value and preserve the rich cultural heritage of our composite culture.
2. The National Commission for Heritage Sites Bill, 2009 is slated to be enacted in Budget Session 2012. Ramasetu should be declared a national and world heritage monument by the proposed National Commission. ASI should be asked to respond to this appeal for declaration.
3. India is a signatory to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted in 2001. Ramasetu is an underwater cultural heritage.
RRRamasetu is Underwater Cultural Heritage.
4. Gulf of Mannar is declared in 1989 as a National Biosphere corresponding to IUCN Category V Protected areas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_reserves_of_India It is the state responsibility to protect this Marine Bioreserve in the Gulf of Mannar
5. Union of India should declare and protect a) the Rameshwaram island as a National Biosphere and National Monument and b) the Ramasetu as World Underground Cultural Heritage.
6. There are village revenue records showing villages ON the Ramasetu beyond Dhanushkodi (India) and Talaimannar (Sri Lanka). These should be declared National Monuments by the proposed National Commission for Heritage.
7. Beyond Dhanushkodi is the temple for Vibhishana and a shivalinga set up by Sri Rama and is a sacred monument. Entire Rameshwaram island should be declared a Pilgrimage Island. Dhanushkodi tip is used for performing puja for the Ramasetu temple by drawing a dhanush (bow) on the sands, by building shivalingas in sand and after sankalpa/puja immersing these sand pratimaa into the Setusamudram ocean in memory of Sri Rama who saved Dharma by saving Devi Sita from the clutches of the Asura Ravana. Ramasetu or Setubandha is an abiding monument remembering Sri Rama as vigrahavaan dharmah as stated by Valmiki. Senior Advocate Parasaran argued before the earlier SC Bench how he visits Dhanushkodi 3 or 4 times a year to perform this puja in Dhanushkodi sands.
8. No canal structures by ANY ALTERNATIVE route, should be permitted which will destroy or anyway affect these monuments. If need be, the already existing Pamban canal (between Ramanathapuram and Rameshwaram, which also has a cantilever bridge on the Palk Strait which connects Rameswaram Pamban island to mainland India) which is being used and can continue to be used for transport of small sized vehicles between Tuticorin and Nagapattinam to transport goods from the westcoast to eastcoast.
9. Fishermen and those engaged in aquaculture in the region – of all communities -- if they pull out any stone together with the algae they collect for use as medicines, do prayascittam (penance) in Ramapadam temple for the mistakes committed by them in destroying/desecrating part of the Ramasetu structure. This is a milennial tradition and culture and should be respected by the State. The coastal people should continue to perform the acquisition tasks of procuring sacred conch (turbinella pyrum) which is used for making sacred bangles as marriage badges in Orissa and Bengal. Kizhakkarai in Rameswaram island accounts for this industry which is worth Rs. 25 crores per annum income for the coastal people. Any canal structure which impinges on this life-activity should be declared illegal.
Constitution of India: Directive Principles of State Policy Includes Right to Culture:
3.33.1 Article 49 of the Directive Principles requires the State to protect monuments and places and objects of national importance. For the purpose of protecting culture in all its facets and in developing it, the State has to set apart necessary resources.
3.33.2 More than five decades of experience with the working of our Constitution and the laws has borne out that democracy in a meaningful sense, depends on a pluralistic ethos permeating the polity. Our national life must be accommodative of the myriad variegations that make up the unique mosaic of India's society. The framework of our many and elaborate structures of government must exemplify the architecture of an inclusive society and one of the means is to promote civil society initiatives for inter-religions and social harmony.
3.33.3 All considered, as advised by experience and by present and emerging needs, it is felt that a mechanism may be brought into being which can advance the cause of inter-faith harmony and solidarity. This can be done under the auspices of the National Human Rights Commission.
3.37.1 Ten Fundamental Duties of the citizen are incorporated in article 51A, Part IVA of the Constitution. Inserted by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976…
Article 51A in The Constitution Of India 1949
…
(f) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture;
The Budget Session, 2012 of Parliament (10th Session of the Fifteenth Lok Sabha and the 225 th Session of the Rajya Sabha) commenced today, the 12th of March, 2012 and subject to exigencies of Government Business, the Session will conclude on Tuesday, the 22nd of May, 2012. The following Bill is scheduled for passing:
Bills for Consideration and Passing…11. The National Commission for Heritage Sites Bill, 2009. http://mpa.nic.in/preb12.pdf
The Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on February 26, 2009 and was referred to the Department-related Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism and Culture (Chairperson: Shri Sitaram Yechury).
Highlights of the Bill
The National Commission for Heritage Sites Bill, 2009 seeks to constitute a National Commission for Heritage Sites to give effect to UNESCO Convention, 1972. India ratified the Convention in 1977.
The central government may notify heritage sites and enter the description of these sites in a heritage sites roster. The Commission shall maintain the roster.
The functions of the Commission include (i) recommending policies with respect to conservation, protection, and management of heritage sites; (ii) laying down standards for the development of scientific and technical institutions and courses; and (iii) creating guidelines for conservation and management of heritage sites.
The Commission may issue directions to any person who is the owner or controls a heritage site to provide access to such site for its maintenance. The person may be directed to not endanger or damage the site. Any person who fails to comply will be subject to a fine of up to Rs 10 lakh.
Key Issues and Analysis
While the Bill has new definitions in line with the UNESCO Convention, the definitions in the existing laws which protect monuments have not been amended. The Bill combined with existing Acts do not fully conform to the provisions related to conservation under the UNESCO Convention.
With one exception – of the power to direct owners of sites to permit access and related penalties – the functions of the Commission do not need legislative backing. An alternate formulation to the Bill is to set up the Commission through notification, and to amend existing laws to provide for penalties and directions.
The Bill creates a national roster for heritage sites of national importance, to be maintained by the Commission. The National Mission on Monuments and Antiquities was set up in 2007 with a fiveyear term to prepare a national register of built heritage, sites and antiquities. The Commission’s work partly duplicates this initiative.
Both the Preamble of the Bill as well as the Statement of Objects and Reasons mention that the Bill seeks to fulfil India’s obligations under the 1972 UNESCO Convention. However, many of the obligations are not addressed by the Bill.
India is a signatory to UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted in 2001
Underwater Cultural Heritage encompasses all traces of human existence that lie or were lying under water and have a cultural or historical character. Recognizing the urgent need to preserve and protect such heritage, UNESCO elaborated in 2001 the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/
“Underwater cultural heritage” means all traces of human existence having a cultural, historical or archaeological character which have been partially or totally under water, periodically or continuously, for at least 100 years…
2001 Convention, Art. 1 para. 1(a)
Full text of the convention is at http://www.unesco.org/culture/underwater/infokit_en/ (To read online)
http://www.unesco.org/culture/underwater/infokit_en/files/gb-2001convention-infokit%2007-2009.pdf (Copy attached)
Excerpts:
The richness of the world’s underwater cultural heritage is often underestimated. While over the last century, archaeological sites on land have yielded an abundance of information on the development of civilizations, the oceans, which cover the larger part of our planet, still retain many of their secrets. However, they contain a unique testament to the spirit of our ancestors for exploration; and many shipwrecks and ruins of cities lost to the waves are much better preserved than similar sites found on land. Nonetheless, looting of underwater cultural heritage and the destruction of its context are increasing rapidly and threaten to deprive humanity of this heritage. The waves have protected shipwrecks and ruins for centuries, but improvements in diving technology have made them more accessible and therefore increasingly vulnerable. The pillaging and dispersion of archaeological heritage is no longer restricted to land-based sites with treasure hunting now taking place under water. Nevertheless, while many States have heightened the preservation of their heritage on land, most of their underwater cultural heritage remains unprotected.
The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, adopted by the UNESCO General Conference in 2001, intends to enable States to better protect their underwater heritage.
Dr. S.R. Rao, eminent archaeologist, Emeritus President, Society for Marine Archaeology in India, who discovered the underwater submerged Dwaraka City had this to say about Ramasetu s Underwater Cultural heritage:
Protect Ram Sethu--and Protect Under Water Cultural Heritage.
Hari OM!
Dear Ones,
Our present Indian Governmet want to destroy Ram sethu. This is a supporting article by Sri S.R.Rao.. and appeared in Haindava Keralam Website.
S.R.Rao,Former Scientist emeritus President- Society for Marine Archaeology in India
Submerged sites and towns as well as ship-wrecks constitute a very important cultural heritage of mankind; which the UNESCO wants the states to explore, list and protect them under a UN convention approved by the U.N. the ICOMOS international committee on underwater cultural heritage (ICUCH) consisting of "Underwater Cultural Heritage".
The ILA's Definition on underwater Cultural Heritage includes all underwater traces of human existence, which are of historical or cultural importance including sites, buildings, shipwrecks, together with their archaeological and natural context. The Ram Sethu comes under this category. It is refereed to in the Epic Ramayana and in the Puranas. At the site known as Ram Sethu, the natural rock and the 'piles of stone' laid on it have been submerged with the rise in sea level over 5000 years or more.
This rise of sea level was not confined to Dvaraka of Mahabharata period in Saurashtra. The underwater exploration by Marine Archeology centre (MAC) in NIO Goa along west coast has revealed that the prehistoric ports of Somnath and Prabhas were also submerged as is evident from the submerged channel waylaid for bringing ships and the presence of anchors and mooring stones in it. In the ElephantaIsland , the early historic brick structures of 1st century B.C to 3rd century A.D. have been submerged. The Buddhist period port of sopora is also submerged. On the east coast of India, traces of poompuhar port town have been found in the sea as well as intertidal zone.
The rock of Ram Sethu must have been in the intertidal zone and stones must have been piled up to enable the army to cross the sea easily. Over thousands of years small size stone blocks of bridges must have been transported by waves and currents. The frequent textual references to Ram Sethu are not to be dismissed as myths. (Mr.R.Subbarayalu has compiled two millennium old references found in Tamil literature in a 200 page book 'Sethu Bandhanam').
Even the submergence of Dvaraka was considered a myth until the buildings were discovered. The national institute of Oceanography in cooperation with ASI should be asked to undertake the survey listing and protection of important underwater sites and shipwrecks. This works must be undertaken by the Government of India and State Governments as laid down in UN Convention on Protection of Underwater cultural heritage.
Ram Sethu must not be damaged but saved and protected. The MAC had initiated certain steps for survey and listing of underwater cultural Heritage of India and even published a tentative map showing shipwrecks sites and submerged parts. Before further damage is done by nature and men to this vast underwater heritage of India, immediate survey listing of Sites with a brief note on each wreck or site should be done , giving highest priority to Ram Sethu
link: http://www.haindavakeralam.com/HkPag...=5879 & SKIN=B
The historical documentation related to Ramasetu as heritage site are contained in the book edited by Dr. S. Kalyanaraman, President, Rameshwaram Ramasetu Protection Movement (based on an international seminar held in Chennai) and presented to Hon’ble Supreme Court. The book as pdf document is attached.
An appeal was also made by Retired Justice of SC, Shri VR Krishna Iyer to protect Ramasetu by not causing any damage by a canal across Setusamudram.
Rameswaram Ram Setu Protection Movement is privileged to publish this letter of 30 March 2007 from Dr. S.R. Rao addressed to Hon'ble Minister for Shipping and Transport, Govt. of India.
Dr. S.R. Rao is Former Advisor, Marine Archaeology Centre, National Institute of Oceanography, Goa, Member of UNESCO-sponsored International Committee for Underwater Cultural Heritage (ICUCH) and President of Society for Marine Archaeology ( Goa).
In this remarkable letter, Dr. SR Rao earnestly request the Hon'ble Union Minister to save the traditionally-known Rama Setu mentioned in various Puranas as a bridge built by the legendary Hero of Ramayana. He notes that it is of great emotional value as a sacred tirtha. He argues that both from marine archaeological and traditional points of view Rama Setu deserves to be declared as an UNDERWATER WORLD HERITAGE SITE.
Dr. Rao sites the archaeological and technological criteria for recommending Rama Setu to be a World Heritage site consistent with the criteria listed on page 77 of the Journal of Marine Archaeology 1997-98 for structures of archaeological as well as memorial significance (copy of the excerpt attached).
Dr. Rao requests the Hon'ble Union Minister to see that the cutting of the rock or any kind of damage to the rock is avoided and adds, "It is no less important than Swami Vivekananda Rock where a memorial is built. Alternate routes suggested by experts (vide Route 4 in Fig. 1 enclose) may kindly be considered in the interest of saving the Underwater Cultural Heritage of India namely Rama Setu or Adam's Bridge. My study of the submergence of Poompuhar shows that most of the ancient sites on east coast are being swallowed by the sea. The latest victim is the shore temple at Tarangambadi. During my two visits to Sri Lanka, as a member of the ICUCH I visited the Rama Setu site and had discussions with Commander Devendra Somasiri, another member of ICUCH from Sri Lanka about its importance as a Heritage site."
The copy of Dr. S.R. Rao's letter with attachments is downloadable from http://rapidshare.com/files/29786224/srrao.ZIP.html
Underwater Archaeology Wing
India has 7,516 km long coastline, 1197 islands and 155,889 sq. km of territorial waters and 2,013,410 sq. km exclusive economic zone. The vast water area of the country is rich in underwater cultural heritage. The importance of underwater archaeology was realized as early as in the VI five-year plan.
Beginning of underwater archaeology in India can be traced back to 1981. Off shore explorations in the country have generated a lot of popularity to this discipline. Establishment of the Underwater Archaeology Wing (UAW) in the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in 2001 marked a major step towards the development of the subject.
Since its inception the UAW is actively engaged in conducting underwater archaeological studies in the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal.
The UAW is engaged in –
Documentation of underwater sites and ancient shipwrecks
Training of professional archaeologists, young researchers and students
Conduct of seminars to discuss various aspects and to bring awareness
Protection of underwater cultural heritage
UAW collaborates with other government organizations for the study and protection of underwater cultural heritage. Collaboration with India Navy (IN) has been a success.
Protection of underwater cultural heritage and regulation of underwater activities aimed towards the cultural heritage is one of the main concerns of the UAW. Adoption of “Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage” by UNESCO in 2001 displays the global concern about the protection and management of underwater cultural heritage. UAW has initiated steps for the protection and preservation of the underwater cultural heritage.
Contact:
Vasant Swarnkar
Superintending Archaeologist ( I/c)
Underwater Archaeology Wing
Archaeological Survey of India
Red Fort, Delhi – 110006
+91-11- 23262006
+91 - 9868794808
uaw.asi@gmail.com
SATURDAY, MAY 3, 2008
Analysing the economic viability of the SSCP from a shipping perspective on the basis of official reports
Analysing the economic viability of the SSCP from a shipping perspective on the basis of official reports – Part 7 by Capt. (Retd.) H. Balakrishnan, I.N.
Introduction
1. Over the past year (2007), much has been written and stated, in the media, about the viability or otherwise, of the SSCP. The statements have also highlighted the economic benefits that would accrue to the Southern districts of Tamil Nadu on account of the SSCP.
2. This paper analyses the economic viability of the SSCP, from a shipping perspective, on the basis of information contained in various ‘official documents’ and reports such as:
(a) The website of the Sethusamudram Corporation Ltd. (SCL)
(b) The ‘Report’ submitted by the ‘Committee of Eminent Persons’ to the Govt. of India. This ‘Report had formed the basis of the revised affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, by the Govt. of India.
(c) The ‘Information Memorandum of Sept. 2005’ prepared by the then UTI Bank (now Axis Bank), the lead Bank for arranging the financial loan for the execution of the Project.
Economic viability of the SSCP
SCL Website
3. The website, in addition to highlighting various USPs of the project, states: “Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project, which envisages digging a ship channel across the Palk Straits between India and Sri Lanka, is finally taking shape. The project will allow ships sailing between the East and West Coasts of India to have a straight passage through India’s territorial waters, instead of having to circumvent Sri Lanka. This will lead to a saving of upto 424 nautical miles (780 kms) and upto 30 hours in sailing time.” It further states: “The project will become self-sustaining over a period of time. According to conservative estimates, about 3055 vessels will be using the canal annually. This will inevitably go up further.”
4. The foregoing statement in the website implies that the SSCP is envisaged as a profitable undertaking which would lead to its self-sustenance in the years ahead.
Information Memorandum of the UTI Bank (now Axis Bank)
5. From this document, the annual expenditure for the SCL can be calculated. The main items forming this expenditure are summarized below.
6. Operation and Maintenance Costs (O&M Costs). From item 10.2 of the ‘Information Memorandum’, the budgeted figures for the O&M costs are as follows:
(a)Maintenance Costs
(Rs. in millions)
-- Maintenance of Vessel traffic Management Scheme (VTMS) 50
-- Maintenance dredging 200
(Note: For the 3rd and 4th year Maintenance Dredging has been
pegged at Rs. 170 million and from the 5th year onwards it
stabilizes at Rs. 140 million)
-- Civil Maintenance 10
-- Tugs and launches 100
-- Plant and Machinery 10
(b) Operation costs
-- Administration and staff costs 50
--VTMS 8.5
--Tugs and Launches 68
-- Plant and Machinery 20
(d) Contingency and Project Management costs
-- Contingencies 25.8
(Note: For the 3rd and 4th year, this has been pegged at
Rs. 24.3 million. From the 5th year onwards, it stabilizes at
Rs. 22.8 million).
7. Details of the financial loan. From Item 14 of the Information Memorandum, entitled ‘Indicative Term Sheet,’ the following are the details of the financial loan:--
(a) Rupee loan
-- Amount Rs. 4369 million
-- Interest rate 8%
-- Loan period 13 years
-- Moratorium period 5 years
-- Principal repayment 16 ‘equal installments’ from the end of 5 years
(b) US Dollar loan
-- Amount USD 100 milion
-- Interest rate Libor + 125 to 175 basis points = 5%
-- Loan period 20 years
-- Moratorium period 8 years
-- Principal repayment 24 ‘equal installments’ from the end of 8 years
(c) Zero coupon bonds
-- Amount Rs. 5826 million
-- Interest rate NIL
-- Loan period 30 years
-- Moratorium period 18 years
- Principal repayment 12 ‘annual instalments’ beginning from the end of 18 years
8. Profitability. A profit margin of 9% has been assumed for the project to build reserves.
9. Thus, the ‘Income to be generated’ by the SCL to become a self-sustaining undertaking, on an annual basis, is tabulated at Appendix A. The Zero Coupon Bonds have not been taken into account for the purposes of this analysis.
10. Ship tariff. As the SCL website anticipates an annual shipping traffic of 3055 ships to pass through the SSCP, the possible tariff to be levied on individual ships has been calculated and tabulated at Appendix A.
Time and fuel cost savings
11. The Report submitted by the ‘Committee of Eminent Persons’ (Chapter 8, para 8.2.5), gives the voyage distances between the ports of ‘Origin’ and ‘Destination’. The voyage speeds in the ‘open sea’ as also through the ‘SSCP’ have been given in this Report (Chapter 8, para 8.2.13).
12. On the basis of the foregoing, the following have been tabulated: (a) Fuel cost savings—Appendix B; (b) Time savings –-Appendix C
Analysis of the Appendices
13. The Report by the ‘Committee of Eminent Persons’, in Chapter 8, Para 8.2.7 states: “The approach followed by the consultants to propose tariff @ 75% of savings in one of the alternatives, may result in a scenario where the channel charges may be higher than the savings. As the tariff rate @50% of savings has been proposed, in the base case I.R.R., such a situation has been avoided. However, the savings to some ships will be more than 50%, while for some, it will be lower.”
14. In the light of the foregoing, comparison of the possible tariff to be levied on individual ships as calculated at Appendix A, and 50% the Fuel Cost Savings at Appendix B (column ‘q’), will clearly reveal that the SCL will NOT be able to recover its expenditure burden in the FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION ITSELF.
15. On the other hand, if the SCL decides on a higher tariff regime, as in the case of the major ports of India (e.g. Chennai Port Rs. 1.11 lakh/km for 7 kms of ‘pilotage’), then the fuel cost savings achieved by navigating through the SSCP, will be nullified for the shipping companies.
16. The ‘Time Savings’ tabulation at Appendix C debunks the claim of the SCL website of ‘Savings upto 30 hours in sailing time’. The same is the case in ‘Savings in Voyage distances’ also.
17. Cost escalation. A report in the economics daily ‘MINT’ of 25 Sept. 2007, entitled ‘Money runs dry for Sethusamudram’, stated the cost of the project has ‘Skyrocketed to at least 4000 crores, interest rates have crawled higher and old loan terms have lapsed.’ In a word, higher tariff regime for ships other than indicated at Appendix A.
Conclusion
18. In my earlier 6 Part analysis of the SSCP, I had concluded that the ‘SSCP just does not make any nautical sense.’
19. The present analysis, on the basis of official reports, has only served to reinforce the earlier conclusion.
20. The SSCP is a nautical folly.
Appendices:
(A) Income Generatin and Possible ship Tariff
(B) Fuel Cost Savings
(C) Time Savings
References:
(1) Sethusamudram Corporation Ltd. Website URL: www.sethusamudram.gov.in
(2) Report by the ‘Committee of Eminent Persons’
(3) Informatin Memorandum of the UTI Bank (Axis Bank) URL: http://sethusamudram.gov.in/Images/InfoMemo.doc
Appendix A,B,C at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2867143/appendixabcssc
http://setubandha.blogspot.com/2008/05/analysing-economic-viability-of-sscp.html