Mannar Wind Farm Project: Another folly like the Sinharaja Logging Project on the horizon?

By Prof. Emeritus Nimal Gunatilleke,
University of Peradeniya

A wind farm consisting of 30 towers generating 100MW (Phase 1- Thambapavani) was established on the southern coast of Mannar Island in 2020, with financial assistance from the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The widespread criticism of this project due to its positioning within one of the main bird migratory corridors in the Asian region (detailed elsewhere in the article) was largely overlooked or ignored due to the economic priorities that prevailed at the time, as it happened with the now infamous Canadian-funded Sinharaja Mechanized Logging Project of the 1970s.

During Sri Lanka’s worst health and economic crises in recent times, the billionaire Indian businessman Gautham Adani visited Sri Lanka and met the then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa followed by a visit to the proposed renewable energy project site in Mannar on a Sri Lankan Air Force Helicopter. Subsequently, the Ministry of Power and Energy, Sri Lanka agreed to receive an unsolicited proposal for awarding the construction and operation of the Mannar Wind Power Project (Phase-II) and another in Pooneryn to Adani Green Energy Sri Lanka Ltd., (AGESL), as Build, Own, and Operate (BOO) projects for a period of 25 years for an approximate Investment of USD 500 Million.

The proposed Mannar Wind Power Project (Phase-II) has a capacity of 250 MW and comprises 52 wind turbines of 5.2 MW capacity each. These are to be placed in parallel with the existing Thambapavani wind farm spreading across most parts of Mannar Island. The project is expected to generate 1048 GWh of Energy annually. The Annual Energy Production (AEP) of the proposed wind farm is around 6% of the country’s energy requirement.

Ecological Significance of the Mannar Island

Mannar Island and other islands on the Gulf of Mannar spanning India and Sri Lanka have been identified as being some of the most important migratory corridors and a Critical Wintering Site for bird species in the Central Asian Flyway. The ecological significance of Mannar and the wider Gulf of Mannar for the Central Asian Flyway is recognised by Birdlife International (Important Bird and Biodiversity Area, and Key Biodiversity Area), Wetlands International (Critical Site Network 2.0), and the Ramsar Convention (Vankalei Sanctuary is a Ramsar Wetland), as well as by the Government of Sri Lanka, which has declared three Protected Areas covering Mannar’s key wetlands, namely, Adam’s Bridge National Park, Vankalei Sanctuary, and the Vidataltivu Nature Reserve. Mannar also provides breeding habitats for eight species of seabirds, many of which are listed as Critically Endangered (CR) in the national Red List of Threatened Species. Sri Lanka, being a signatory nation to the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) has committed to safeguarding these migratory species.

We have a global responsibility and binding to protect about 15 million birds (of 250 species) visiting Sri Lanka from over 30 countries. Mannar alone gets about a million birds representing 150 species. There are clear evidence-based reports that Mannar Island provides overwintering ground and breeding habitats for numerous seabirds, water birds, and forest birds, some of which are classified as Critically Endangered in Sri Lanka’s national Red List of Threatened Species.

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and its Deficiencies

The EIA for this proposed 250 MW Mannar Wind Power Project (Phase II) was submitted to the Sri Lanka Sustainable Energy Authority in January 2024 by the Consulting Engineers & Architects (Pvt) Ltd. It was then made open for public review for 30 working days from 23.01.2024 to 06.03.2024 and is currently available on the web. (03.115.26.10/2023/EIA/Mannar%20Wind%20Power%20Project%20Phase%20II%20EIA%20Final%20-%20English.pdf).

Public opinion is beginning to appear in mass media about the conduct as well as on the findings of the EIA since it was made available on the web creating headlines, raising eyebrows, and causing much controversy. Public comments received during this period have now been collated and submitted by the CEA to the Sri Lanka Sustainable Energy Authority (SLSEA) for technical assessment and response. The CEA is expected in turn to undertake a technical review of the project’s environmental conformity under the National Environment Act.

This project reminds us of the controversies generated during the Sinharaja Logging Project around the 1970s where an overambitious project proposal prepared by the State Timber Corporation proposed to selectively log the Sinharaja Forest Reserve and the surrounding forests for the supply of peeler logs for the manufacture of plywood. This supply of plywood would be used for making tea chests to facilitate the export of tea – a mainstay of the Sri Lankan economy. The strong public opinion mounted within as well as outside the country against this logging project compelled the then Government to appoint a ministerial committee to report on the veracity of the public criticism and make recommendations on the continuation of the project.

The George Rajapaksa Committee reported that the logging project was unsuitable for the fragile terrain leading to excessive environmental (including biodiversity) damage, and insignificant benefits to local people, gross overestimate of its timber potential leading to literally creaming off Sinharaja and other forests in a 20-year vicious cycle. This project became an election issue at the 1977 general election and with the change of Governments, one of the first things that the newly elected prime minister did was to suspend the Sinharaja Logging Project. Interestingly enough, there are several parallels between the Sinharaja logging project and this wind power project which I intend to refer to at appropriate places.

In this review, I intend to bring together different viewpoints expressed by environmentalists, scientists, and some energy experts alike and suggest a way forward in addressing this environment/energy conundrum.

Environmental Impacts

The environmental activists solidly backed by evidence-based scientific information are intensifying their campaign against the proposed Adani wind farm in the Mannar Island. They have accused the Sri Lankan political parties of having ignored the disastrous environmental, social, and economic implications of the Adani wind farm to be established in Mannar.

According to environmental critics, this newly proposed Wind Power Project (Phase II) poses an even greater risk to the Mannar region than the Phase I Thambapavani project. Fifty-two (52) huge wind turbines are to be spread across most of the island, covering the entire northern half that is lodged among the most important migratory corridors for species in the Central Asian Flyway viz. Adam’s Bridge National Park, Vankalei Sanctuary (a Ramsar Wetland Site), and the Vidataltivu Nature Reserve (Figure 2).

Among the critics of the international conservation agencies, Martin Harper, Chief Executive Officer, BirdLife International writing to HE the President of Sri Lanka says, “Your wonderful country is situated at the southernmost tip of the Indian Subcontinent in the Central Asian Flyway, serving as a crucial over-wintering ground for an estimated 15 million birds, representing 250 species, migrating across 30 countries, from the Russian Far East to eastern Europe through South Asia. Sri Lanka, being a signatory nation to the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) has committed to safeguarding these migratory species.”

Martin Harper goes on to say in his three-page letter to President Ranil Wickremesinghe that BirdLife International along with FOGSL and their colleagues in the research community stands ready to support Sri Lanka’s energy sector in identifying nature-safe siting options so that Sri Lanka can meet its energy needs in an ecologically sensitive manner.

The EIA report, according to critics, fails to adequately address the project’s impact on migratory birds due to factors such as:

Inadequate timing and seasonality of bird observations, outdated methodologies used, negligence regarding international conventions and scientific literature, and the proposed project’s location neglects alternative sites with high wind energy potential and lower ecological impact:

It is clear that the potential ecological and economic repercussions of the project extend beyond Mannar Island, affecting bird tourism across Sri Lanka and hindering its burgeoning eco-tourism prospects while posing a great risk to migrants of the Central Asian Flyway.

The narrow ‘movement corridor’ (marked as a yellow band in the map given in the EIA Report) for millions of migratory birds proposed by the EIA seems highly arbitrary and lacks support from currently available information in the EIA report, itself. The corridor is proposed conveniently away from the proposed wind farm based apparently on – no study and no data!

Chris Goodie, Chairman of the Oriental Bird Club, urges a comprehensive review of the project and careful adjustment of the project location and requests the Sri Lankan government to identify ecologically safe zones for such renewable energy projects, guided by Strategic Ecological Assessments (SEA) and globally available tools like AVISTEP (The Avian Sensitivity Tool for Energy Planning). This would ensure that Sri Lanka would meet its vital energy demand while safeguarding its critical birdlife and, more importantly, without compromising the ecological and economic benefits for the citizens of the country.

Rohan Pethiyagoda, an internationally renowned biologist and a leading environmental activist in Sri Lanka, claims that the government must have an open and transparent bidding process for projects of this magnitude. The EIA doesn’t provide a socioeconomic cost-benefit analysis or any rational evaluation of alternative sites. In terms of the EIA process, it is incumbent on the proponent to demonstrate that they have looked at alternative sites and selected the one with the lowest impact. As it stands, he slams the EIA as just a whitewash.

Pethiyagoda goes on to argue that the EIA is obliged to consider sites at which the impact could be lower, but it has failed to do so. For example, he reasons out why this project cannot be located in a nearby less environmentally sensitive location such as Seelavatturai, Kondachchi, Arippu, or even Kalpitiya. “Where is the cost-benefit analysis, or the evaluation of alternative sites?” he asks. Multiple sites need to be evaluated and choose the one with the lowest environmental impact and greatest socio-economic benefits.

Likewise, the senior environmental lawyer Dr. Jagath Gunawardana also stresses this deficiency of the EIA. According to him, “In our preliminary observations, we have found that they have not adhered to the basic requirements of an EIA, not having looked at alternatives to the project in a meaningful manner as required under Section 33 of the National Environment Act. THEREFORE, THERE IS A CLEAR CAUSE OF LEGAL ACTION AVAILABLE TO ANY PARTY IN SRI LANKA.”

He goes on to say that the Sustainable Energy Authority had prepared a document on wind-power generation, where they had identified locations in seven districts as areas with high potential for wind-power generation and Mannar is not one of them. The island of Mannar has areas that have medium and lower potential. Ironically, the area is claimed to have valuable mineral resources and nearby offshore gas and oil fields of proven economic value.

It is quite clear from the above critiques that the ecological repercussions as a direct result of these ad hoc developments in Mannar are expected to severely impact the region’s economy and the potential for wildlife-based tourism planned by the Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority and Northern Development Framework as it happened with the Sinharaja Logging Project in the 1970s.

The energy experts counterargue that since Mannar already has an existing wind power plant (Thambapavani) which was established after a thorough vetting process of an EIA, preparing an EIA for the second phase of the project is only a formality and that there ideally shouldn’t be any concerns since the EIA of the first phase of the project has given green light to the establishing of wind power plants in Mannar.

However, the environmental impacts pointed out by knowledgeable people have largely been ignored in the Thambapawani (Phase I) project EIA. Any lessons learned since its implementation have been overlooked in the AGESL (Phase II) project EIA although it claims that certain negative impacts on the local environment, and mitigation measures to overcome them were identified for the EIA study and valued (P 17-EIA Summary).

Moreover, the proposed project’s location neglects alternative sites with high wind energy potential and lower ecological impact with a satisfactory benefit-cost analysis.

(To be continued )