New hope for our beaches?

In 1986, a new harbour was built in Pondicherry. The breakwaters of the harbour disrupted the natural flow and movement of sand in the sea resulting, for much of the year, in an accumulation of sand to the south of the harbour but widespread erosion to the north. While the new harbour was equipped with a sand by-passing system to compensate for the disrupted flow, this system never operated well or for long periods.

Due to the erosion, within a few years the Pondicherry beaches north of the harbour had completely disappeared. The municipality responded by building sea-walls and groynes. While this stabilised the affected Pondicherry shoreline, it transferred the erosion several kilometres north to the beaches and shoreline of neighbouring Tamil Nadu.

It was at this point that Auroville’s beachside communities, including Quiet Healing Center, “Samarpan”, “Gokulam”, “Meera”, “Waves” and “Repos”, began to be badly affected, along with the local fishing communities. Today, the communities of “Repos and “Gokulam” have almost completely disappeared into the sea and other beach communities, like “Waves” and Quiet Healing Centre, have lost significant amounts of land. The erosion has even been experienced as far north as Sri Ma, albeit on a lesser scale.

The response

People in the local fishing villages were so badly affected – some of their houses disappeared into the sea and the fishermen had nowhere to put their boats – that they made a series of demonstrations and appealed to the Tamil Nadu Government for help. In October, 2012, the Government announced it was allocating 30 crore rupees to build a sea wall and some groynes along the most affected coastline. In January, 2013, the Tamil Nadu Public Works Department started to build a 400 metre sea wall along the beach between Quiet and “Samarpan”.

The project was stopped after the wall and six groynes were built by an interim injunction from the National Green Tribunal. This was in response to an appeal by the Chennai-based NGO, Coastal Action Network (TNCAN). They wished to prevent the building of further groynes and sea walls along the coast because they argued that these measures would not only not solve the issue of beach erosion but would aggravate it: the problem would only be pushed further along the coast. They also pointed out that this project had not received environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment.

Unfortunately, this injunction left the land immediately before and after the newly-built sea wall and groynes without protection and these areas consequently suffered from aggravated erosion. Within a period of two months, 70 metres of beach and private coastal land were lost in some of these areas and more houses in the coastal villages in Tamil Nadu were destroyed.

In November, 2012, after Cyclone ‘Nilam’ devastated some of the coastal communities, concerned Aurovilians approached L’Avenir and the Working Committee, urging them to take an active part in the planning and execution of erosion control along the beaches where Auroville communities are located. Subsequently, a core group formed that met with various government officials and expert consultants to discuss the options.

The group did extensive research on the implication of various protective measures. These included what are sometimes referred to as ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ measures. ‘Hard’ measures, like sea walls and groynes, tend to be permanent and solve erosion problems only in a specific locality: the problem is simply transferred elsewhere unless a sand replenishment programme ‘downstream’ is also included. ‘Soft’ measures rely upon natural methods, like beach nourishment, beach and dune restoration or planting mangroves, or use materials and techniques, like geotubes, that do not adversely impact the environment and can be replaced if necessary. Removing the Pondicherry breakwater, which was the cause of the erosion in the first place, was never seriously taken as an option, although it has been suggested that it could be remodelled to allow more sand to be transported around it.

While the Aurovilians initially favoured the use of soft measures, none of the ones explored offered an immediate solution to the ongoing erosion problem. On the other hand, a study of the area done by the Department of Environment of Annamalai University in consultation with DHI, an internationally renowned coastal engineering specialist, concluded that a series of nine additional groynes spread over the affected area (four kilometres) would provide optimum protection. The study suggested that sand replenishment should also be done to prevent further erosion downstream of the new structures.

Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Government announced a plan to build nine groynes between Tandriyankuppam (Banyan beach) and Pillaichavedy, which covers the area where most of the Auroville beach settlements are located. The groynes would be perpendicular to the shoreline, they would be tapered – the longest being 170 metres, the shortest 120 metres – and spaced 300-450 metres apart.

The proposal received Coastal Regulation Zone Authority permission (equivalent to Environmental Clearance) on 22nd January 2014, with the proviso that sand replenishment work would be undertaken downstream. This effectively eliminated the prime reason for granting an injunction to stop the work. However, the National Green Tribunal injunction has not yet been lifted. While several officials have recommended that Auroville be impleaded as a concerned party, this has not yet happened. It is not clear why.

Very recently, a beach erosion specialist has proposed a new option for our beaches. Sediment Accumulator Technology involves the use of artificial blocks placed on the beach to allow sediment to settle around them. This technology has already been employed at Mamallapuram and in Gujurat, where the consultant claims it has been successful. However, there are concerns about the cost as well as the possible damage to local fishing boats as the blocks would be made of concrete.

Pondicherry plans

Meanwhile, a process for restoring the beaches along the Pondicherry coastline has been taking place since 2012. This initiative has been called the Pondicherry Beach Restoration Project (PBRP).

Auroville is not directly involved in this. The Pondicherry Beach Restoration Project is the result of a joint collaboration between the Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES) through the National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT), the Government of Puducherry, and concerned citizens of Pondicherry represented by PondyCAN.

The project proposes massive sand replenishment in front of Pondicherry town and the construction of two artificial reefs, one offshore and one nearshore, to stabilise the beaches. The PBRP also recommends redesigning Pondicherry harbour to allow greater natural by-passing of sand around the entrance as well as maintaining sand nourishment of the beaches in years to come.

The Detailed Project Report was submitted and accepted in May 2016. While the PBRB is currently awaiting environmental clearance, in December a large dredger docked in Pondicherry to begin dredging the harbour mouth and channel (where sand for the proposed beach nourishment will come from).

The PBRP team is very aware of what is happening to the beaches in our area. They say they have taken great care to ensure that all the surplus sand will keep flowing along the shoreline towards the north and no harm will accrue to the beaches located there. In fact, they believe that beaches to the north of Pondicherry are likely to benefit from the fresh inputs of sediment that will be deposited on the Pondicherry beaches because from there some of it will flow north.

They also envisage that the PBRP could be expanded in future to restore the affected beaches in our area. This could be done by increasing sand nourishment along the Pondicherry coast so that a significant amount of surplus sand flows to the north of the northern reef; by direct sand nourishment to the affected and eroded beaches; and by the removal of structures, such as groynes, that are presently interrupting the natural flow of sand and replacing them with submerged reefs which will provide shoreline stability while allowing sand to flow freely.

They concede that the expansion of their project may take some time. In the meantime, because of the urgent need to arrest erosion on our beaches and neighbouring fishing villages, they recommend intermediate solutions that will cause no further damage to our shoreline. These include emergency beach nourishment and the employment of the least intrusive coastal protection structures.

Challenges

Why has it taken so long for our affected beaches to receive some kind of protection?

There are a number of reasons. One is that there has been unclarity about which option is the best to pursue. For the local fishing villages it is clear: they want groynes. Some members of the Auroville group that has been focussing upon coastal protection have also come to favour this. Jan, an Aurovilian engineer on the group, has clarified the advantages of this option. They include providing an effective protection against erosion of those beaches enclosed between groynes, a protection that remains effective even if no significanr sand-replenishment is undertaken.

Jan summarises, “If both Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry fulfill their obligations regarding sand-bypassing, then we will in future have a wonderful beach along the entire 15 kilometre stretch. If, however, the sand by-passing proves too difficult to maintain, then a series of groynes along the Auroville beaches would nonetheless put a stop to further erosion in this stretch.”

However, Aurofilio of PondyCAN is strongly against such measures as they merely transfer the problem elsewhere: they are not a sustainable solution for the while coastline. “To protect the shoreline from erosion, knee-jerk, ad hoc and piecemeal solutions have been adopted in the past, mostly in the form of coastal armouring structures such as seawalls and groynes. These structures have in turn been found to aggravate the problem of erosion by causing further disruption to the natural movement of sand, thereby accelerating and adding to the problem of erosion.

“A study of the performance of the six groynes built near Quiet beach shows that for every square metre of beach the groynes create, about 3-4 square metres of beaches get lost on the other side of the groynes: groynes create a net loss of beach land. Groynes built at Repos beach will only accelerate the erosion further north at Sri Ma and Eternity.”

He points out that worldwide the softer options for restoring beaches are increasingly favoured now as they are cost-effective and sustainable in the long run and offer a comprehensive solution.

Sunita Narain, Director General of the Centre for Science and Environment in Delhi, also supports this line. Some years ago, she attended a major coastal conference in Pondicherry where she gained the impression that the Aurovilians present were favouring groynes and seawalls. In an interview with Auroville Today she said she felt ‘saddened’ by this. “It’s always the biggest challenge when you want to fix the world and your own home is under threat. But if we start adopting the same damaging ‘solutions’ as everybody else, like groynes and seawalls, how can we ask anybody else not to do so?”

The problem is that none of the ‘soft’ options examined so far have promised adequate protection for our beaches against the scale of erosion they are facing, or else they involve huge technical challenges.

For example, one of those options is beach nourishing or replenishment – which proponents of groynes feel should also happen to mitigate the downstream effects of groynes. Beach nourishing can be achieved in several ways. Sand can be pumped from the upstream side to the downstream side of the groyne field, or sand from further out at sea can be pumped into the eroded area.

Both methods involve the use of mature technology, they require continuous operation and they cost a lot of money. Some time ago, AuroFilio estimated it would cost about 12 crores annually to replenish the beaches immediately north of Pondicherry harbour, and this would be a year-on-year expense. However, he points out that the expense of pumping is actually far less than the expense of constantly having to keep constructing new groynes and seawalls and repairing old ones, as well as the loss of livelihoods, homes and the environment caused by continuing coastal erosion.

However, sand pumping is tricky. Sand is very abrasive, causing pumping machinery to break down frequently. This is why even Sunita Narain has her doubts about taking this route. “I think we have to try and find a way to move beyond this as it’s going to be very difficult to depend on structures that have to continually pump sand. If our experience in India teaches us anything, it is that structures like these are the first to get shut down.”

A further complication when it comes to local beach replenishment is that the sea current changes direction during the year. For most of the year the current transports sand from the south to the north, but during the monsoon period the current reverses. As the local coastline spans two states – Pondicherry and Tamil Nadu – it would require one state to pump sand for some of the year, and the other state to take up that responsiblity for the rest.

In any case, given the geography, close inter-state cooperation is crucial for a sustainable solution for the whole shoreline. This may be difficult to achieve.

And then, of course, there is the challenge of financing beach protection. Jan’s report points out that the Government has already sanctioned the groynes option and allocated funding for it, so it could happen relatively quickly once the court injunction is lifted.

The Pondicherry Beach Restoration Project is primarily funded and managed by the Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES) through the National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT) and the Government of Puducherry. The PBRP group suggests that MoES/NIOT, as well as the Ministry of Water Resources may be approached by the Auroville group to provide know-how and financial support for work in our area.

Another factor that may militate against experimental soft options being government-funded or supported is the local situation. Sunita Narian points out there are vested interests in the construction of expensive groynes and seawalls; there is the apathy of engineers who know how to construct groynes but not redesign a harbour to facilitate sand movement; there is lack of political will; and there are bureaucrats who say that the Right To Information Act makes it impossible for them to take risks, to do anything different and imaginative.

The success of any of the proposed options is also tightly linked to the ability of the implementing agencies to supervise construction and technically maintain the projects. This is not an easy task. For example, the closest groyne to Auroville, at Tandriyankuppam, was badly built. It is only eight years old, but it has already eroded at the end.

If the planned nine groynes are constructed along the Auroville coastline, it is important that the Public Works Department and the contractor carefully oversee the sequence of building the groynes. Failure to do so might lead to aggravated erosion on Auroville land as happened after the sea wall was built.

But perhaps one of the most potent factors inhibiting protection of our beaches is a less visible one: a sense of fatalism among Aurovilians that, in the end, little can be done to curb the power of the waves. For many years, Bhaga lived by the sea in Repos, before a cyclone and the resulting erosion toppled her house on to the beach. At the time, she was saddened by what she felt to be a lack of community support and a passive acceptance of the situation.

“People could see, month after month, how the land here was being destroyed by the waves, but nobody lifted a finger ... When something bad happens people think it will continue that way and I have to tell people, ‘Stop imagining a horrible future. It doesn’t have to be that way; there are so many possible futures.”

A new beginning?

Recently the Working Committee and the Town Development Council has constituted a Sea Erosion Management Group to look once again at possible solutions to halt the erosion of the Auroville beaches. It plans an interaction with the National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT), Chennai, among others, and recently it viewed a presentation on Sediment Accumulator Technology. The group has promised to keep the community informed of their research and proposals.

We seem to have been here before. After all, the concerned Aurovilians’ group that formed in 2013 did extensive research on options and met with government officials and expert consultants, including those from NIOT. What is different this time?

Perhaps a number of things. Firstly, a full scale beach restoration project is about to begin in Pondicherry which may offer valuable lessons for the protection of our beaches. Secondly, the nine groynes project has funding and environmental clearance. It could be implemented relatively quickly once the court injunction is lifted. And thirdly, there are new technologies available now, like SAT, which may be promising if the cost and materials factors can be solved. The formation of the new beach restoration group may also signal a new awareness in the community of the value of our beaches and a renewed resolve to take effective action. The fact that this new group consists of members who favour different options may be an opportunity for the emergence of an integrated approach. Actually, the existing approaches are not so different.

As Jan points out, both the groyne proposal for our beaches and the proposed Pondicherry project utilise a combination of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ options.

Hopefully, the conjunction of all these factors will result in a comprehensive and sustainable solution being implemented very soon for our beaches and for the larger coastline. We have already waited so long ...