What a township, a power plant, and an airport can do to an island

When I was looking for a resident of Great Nicobar to articulate their feelings about the Great Nicobar township and development project, I approached someone who had worked in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands for over a decade before moving to Mumbai and continues to track the developments in the islands. But he couldn’t think of anyone who would be able to articulate their concern about the project or explain its impact on the region’s unique biodiversity.“Sometimes I wish birds, animals and corals could speak. Unfortunately, there is no voice from Great Nicobar that can capture what this project will do to the Island and how its ramifications will be irreversible,” he said over a phone call. This is mainly because the impact of the project will be mainly on endemic, rare wildlife, biodiversity and primitive tribes who do not interact with mainstream communities.The ₹72,000-crore Holistic Development of Great Nicobar Island at Andaman and Nicobar Islands project proposed by the Niti Ayog involves building an International Container Transhipment Terminal, the Greenfield International airport with a proposed capacity of handling 4,000 passengers, a township and area development as well as a 450 MVA gas and solar based-power plant over an extent of 16,610 hectares in the Great Nicobar Islands.An area of 166.10 sq km is required for developmental activities in the first phase. This includes around 130.75 sq km of pristine tropical rainforests which are expected to be diverted for the project.It has been embroiled in controversy ever since the Union environment ministry’s expert appraisal committee (EAC) recommended it for grant of terms of reference (TOR) in May 2021. Grant of TOR is one of the first steps in the environmental clearance process and involves assessing the environmental impact of a project based on the scope and details disclosed by the applicant.The EAC raised concerns about the site selection of the project, the minutes of its meetings dated April 5 and 6, 2021 revealed. “The Committee notes that the site selection for the port component has been done keeping primarily the technical and financial viability in place. The environmental aspects were not given much weightage while selecting the site. The Island has a large number of endangered species including the Leatherback Turtle at Galathea Bay.”On January 27, 2022, the Andaman and Nicobar administration held a public hearing on the project at Campbell Bay which was attended by around 138 persons and was chaired by the deputy commissioner of Nicobar, Hari Kallikkat. The public hearing report made public by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration’s Pollution Control Committee captured some of the main contentions surrounding the project. Thereafter, the EAC considered the project in its 293rd meeting held on March 24 and 25, 2022, as well as in its 297th meeting held exactly two months later. Based on the replies submitted to its queries, the EAC took a look at the proposal again in its 306th meeting held on August 22 and 23. It granted environmental clearance to the project on November 4. It was cleared with certain mitigation measures.To preempt the possibility of massive impact on biodiversity and wildlife, the EAC said a conservation plan devised by the Wildlife Institute of India (WWI) will have to be implemented for 10 years. The conservation plan will have to be implemented in two phases. Phase 1 involves monitoring nesting of turtles, tracking their movements, identification of high use areas in the breeding sites and non-breeding regions, determining foraging areas, population genetic structure of leatherback turtles, and assessing vulnerability of turtle nesting beaches. Phase 2 of the conservation plan will develop site-specific actions for conservation of sea turtles.In the case of the Nicobar Megapode, a ground-dwelling bird endemic to the region and extremely vulnerable to loss of habitat, coordinated and collaborative research will have better a outcome, the EAC concluded, adding that for crossing by arboreal animals and passage of snakes, crabs, crocodiles etc, safe wildlife corridors will be needed at eight locations along the eastern side of the island connecting forest and seashore through via-ducts in the north-south arterial road in the master plan.WII recommended other mitigation measures, such as a series of Ecological Marker Buoys for every 200 m along the proposed extended breakwater line. Such an arrangement will clearly mark the ‘AREA TO BE AVOIDED TO AID TURTLES’, warn restriction of the navigational route, thereby neither ships nor boats can enter the ‘TURTLE NESTING AREA.’These recommendations in fact suggest the enormous impact the project is likely to have on flora and fauna here.The project was granted stage 1 forest clearance on October 27, 2022 for diversion of 130.75 sq km of rainforest. HT reported on November 28 last year that the loss of forests in Great Nicobar Island on the Bay of Bengal will be compensated by afforestation in Haryana’s Aravallis. The Aravallis is over 2,400 km away in a different ecological zone from Great Nicobar, but rules allow for such remote compensatory afforestation.In the meanwhile, Mumbai-based Conservation Action Trust and ecologist Ashish Kothari appealed in the National Green Tribunal against the environment and forest clearance granted to the project.On April 3, the NGT constituted a high powered committee headed by the secretary, Union environment ministry to revisit the environmental clearance granted by the environment ministry to the Great Nicobar township and area development and other infrastructure projects involving an area of 16,610 ha in the ecologically fragile islands.NGT issued this order on April 3 after several discrepancies were pointed out by appellants in the grant of forest and environment clearances. The NGT order added that further work on environmental clearance will not progress until the committee’s findings are submitted except “for the work which may not be of irreversible nature.” Legal experts and activists pointed out why NGT’s order may not help Great Nicobar.Debi Goenka, executive trustee of Conservation Action Trust, a non-profit working in the environment sector, said, “Our concerns were not even heard before passing this order. The issues we have raised in our petition have also not been addressed. And more importantly, how can a subordinate authority headed by the secretary, environment revisit the EC granted by their own ministry?” he asked. “In the Great Nicobar plea, the NGT advices you to not take ‘hypertechnical approach’; asks one to be liberal towards developmental needs of the country; and set up a committee headed by the Secy of same Ministry which granted the permissions to review the EC,” tweeted Debadityo Sinha, lead- climate and ecosystems, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, a Delhi-based think-tank. “NGT was established to ensure executive permissions follow this and critically examine the decisions from an environmental perspective. It is unfortunate and painful to see the situation. I’ve no reservation in saying that as an institution, NGT has lost its teeth!” he added.Dream developmentThe Centre believes that Great Nicobar will be ideal for large scale infrastructure development. Some of the reasons cited by the government include the need for a strong presence in the Indian Ocean Region to counter pressure built by foreign powers and to develop a new economic hub, improving connectivity with the Indian mainland and other global cities, and promoting sustainable tourism. The ICTT [International Container Transhipment Terminal] will allow India to participate in the regional and global maritime economy.“A mixed-use urban development in the vicinity of these major infrastructure works will also be necessary to support quality of life for the residents that will generate and enable growth in the various economic sectors over time. This will require the development of simultaneous primary and secondary urban infrastructure networks such as roads, public transport, energy and electrical power, as well as water, wastewater, and storm water facilities and services, which will form the skeleton of the proposed township master plan. It is estimated that after the project is fully implemented, it has the potential to generate around 128,558 jobs opportunities,” the Centre’s contention in NGT stated.Hard-sell, but too many variablesAndaman and Nicobar Administration’s public hearing report which came out on January 3, 2023 states that members of the Tribal Council welcomed the project as it would generate ample employment and increase tourism activity in Great Nicobar. Great Nicobar-based Barnabas Manju, Chairman of the Tribal Council for example, said there will be no loss to tribal communities as they were relocated and settled in a Tsunami shelter seven kilometres away.But the public hearing report is silent on the impact on Shompen people, a primitive tribal group and coastal dwelling community Nicobarese (ST) who have settlements in the area that is to be diverted and de-notified.Around 81.74% of the island covers national parks, reserves and forests. The environmental impact assessment (EIA) said 15.02% of the forest land has to be diverted for the project. This includes 84.10 sq km of land under tribal reserved areas, inhabited by the Nicobarese and Shompen tribes with a population of 1,094 and 237 respectively. An area of 11.032 sq km of the tribal reserve also falls within revenue villages and is required to be de-notified. The administration has proposed to re-notify 45.23 sq km of land in Campbell Bay and Galathea National Parks and 31.73 sq km of land outside the project area de-notified in 1972 to compensate for the loss.Shompens live in small groups in dense interior forests of the island and are entirely dependent on forest resources and sea products for their sustenance. They probably migrated into this area several hundred years ago from nearby Malaysian regions. The Mongoloid Shompen Tribe, about 219 in number, is living within the Biosphere Reserve. They are shy in nature and avoid contact with outsiders, according to a Zoological Society of India report published in 2021. The EAC has allayed fears on the impact on these primitive tribes by stating that the project will not disturb or displace any Shompen/Nicobari tribal or their habitation as there will be a clear demarcation of land so that there is no scope of conflict arising in future, and the habitat rights of the tribal persons will be recognised in the long run.Not everyone’s convinced. The public hearing report enclosed 13 letters by experts, scientists, social scientists, and students that went deeper into what the project would do to the natural physical environment of the islands. For example, on January 18 last year Janki Andharia, professor and dean of Jamsetji Tata School of Disaster Studies wrote to member secretary of ANPCC, VV Dinesh Kumar that the island lies on a major fault line and is also seismically active. Geological considerations become important in assessing disaster risks. While the draft EIA records the occurrence of earthquakes in this region at several places, a systematic risk assessment is missing in the draft EIA Report on the project, which merely states mechanisms for disaster response with a detailed scientific note on earthquake risk in Great Nicobar.The Madras Naturalists’ Society (MNS), a 43-year old Chennai-based body of conservationists, pointed out several demerits of the EIA which prove that the site is in fact unsuitable for large scale infrastructure projects. For example, on the proposal for a new city, the EIA stated: “The development is proposed outside the Campbell Bay National Park and Galathea National Park. On account of a permanent change from an age-old tropical rainforest to the power plant, the project is going to cause damage to dense forests in 39 Ha. Major negative impacts of the project on terrestrial Ecology and Biodiversity are the loss of a small patch of thick forest. However, compensatory afforestation as per the FC act has been proposed”.The MNS responded stating: “Old rain forests will be permanently damaged and can never be replicated through compensatory afforestation as they are complete natural ecosystems with innumerable interdependent species with special climatic and soil requirements.”Kalpavriksh, an environmental organisation stated in their letter that there are significant scientific inaccuracies in the EIA along with many instances of incorrect, incomplete and inconsistent data. “This is particularly important because Great Nicobar is a very unique island from an ecological point of view and is home also to two indigenous communities who have the highest protection accorded by the Indian constitution. The EIA report is insensitive to the needs of this unique ecological and social situation and allowing it to be the basis of the public hearing is a violation in letter and spirit of the Environment Protection Act, and of the very purpose of producing an EIA report,” it said. Objections were also submitted by the Indian Anthropological Association, Association of Indian Primatologists and the Bombay Natural History Society among several others.Greater Nicobar Island has tropical wet evergreen forests, mountain ranges reaching a height of nearly 650m above sea level, and coastal plains. There are 11 species of mammals, 32 species of birds, seven species of reptiles and four species of amphibians that are endemic including the Crab-eating Macaque, Nicobar Tree Shrew, Dugong, Nicobar Megapode, Serpent Eagle, salt-water crocodile, marine turtles and Reticulated Python. The region also has coral reefs with varied thicknesses and diversity. In a few areas, new coral recruits have also been seen. Along the coastal beaches of Nicobar Island, Leatherback and Olive Ridley turtles are known to nest.For the natural world, the stakes are too high.

QUICKREADS

Join Hindustan Times

Create free account and unlock exciting features like