সাইদুর রহমান চৌধুরী

It is going to be a humongous project, taking decades to reach its final phase; nevertheless the cabinet has in principle given green signal for going ahead with the proposed Sonadia Island Deep Sea Port recently. I never had a question in mind whether we need a facility like this; however, I wonder if the cabinet can give a ‘go ahead’ without repealing the Ecologically Critical Area (ECA) declaration first. Sonadia Island has been declared by the Director General of the Department of Environment as an ECA in 1999 along with six other sites under the provisions of the Bangladesh Environmental Conservation Act, 1995 (BECA, 95). The declaration as an ECA was understandably justifiable considering the fact that it was “threatened to reach a critical state” in terms of ecosystems, and the need for conservation as a national wealth and for future generations. Sonadia Island received importance as a candidate for ECA for its last remnants of mangrove forest in the eastern coast of Bangladesh, which is phenomenally different than the Sundarbans and all its artificially forested cousins in its species composition and salt tolerance. It has been the house of a large number of birds including some rare migratory species which were spotted only here, turtles, crabs, and molluscs including the largest oysters more than 30 years old again found here alone. It was no surprise that the Island and its ecosystems were taken into account for protection and conservation, but now it is surprising how the cabinet writes a death sentence while the BECA, 95 and ECA declaration are still in effect. I wonder whether the cabinet can disregard an existing law and legal statute made under a law. Without reverting the ECA declaration giving a green signal for the Deep Sea Port at Sonadia Island must be considered a dismal disregard of Law by the cabinet. So am I asking for repeal here? Yes, and No. To remain legally appropriate the cabinet must first arrange a repeal of the ECA declaration, but then again the government must convince its people that the ECA declaration was made based on ‘false’ judgments at the first place, or the critical conditions have changed since 1999 to call for a withdrawal of status – neither of which, I suppose, would be scientifically justifiable. Here is why a ‘No’ for a repeal of law, ‘No’ for a shovel in Sonadia.