Second, assuming that despite those caveats there will still be a significant saving of costs, the critics argue that this may be more than offset by the charges that the ships will have to pay to the channel authorities for using the channel. On the other hand, if those charges are kept low, the channel authorities may find their operations uneconomic. The argument is that (If in fact the ships do not save money, why should they use the channel?)

Third, it has been argued that only coastal ships of a modest size can pass through the channel; that it cannot be used by big ships; and that these will continue to go round Sri Lanka. It is of course possible that despite that limitation (if it is true) the channel may still make economic sense, but that is a proposition that needs to be established.

Assuming that there will be significant gains from the project, what price are we willing to pay for them? Apart from the financial costs, there are the ecological ones. During the construction stage the impact of the project on coral reefs and aquatic life is bound to be severe. Unfortunately, this is not one-time damage. Unlike the Suez and Panama canals which were built on land, this channel is being cut through the sea-bed. The sea will close it up again if it is not maintained. Maintenance here means continuous dredging through the life of the project. In other words, the violent disturbance of aquatic life and coral reefs will continue for ever. Another point that has been made is that the existing ridge, whether natural or man-made, affords a measure of protection to the coastal area from extreme events such as tsunamis, and that the project will destroy that protection.

... contd.