​Troubled waters: on the Great Nicobar Project

Context & The Gist

The Great Nicobar Project (GNIP) is in the news following a National Green Tribunal (NGT) order that largely supports the project, citing environmental safeguards and ‘strategic utility’. The project, encompassing a trans-shipment port, airport, and township, has drawn criticism regarding its potential environmental damage and impact on indigenous communities. The core issue revolves around balancing development with environmental protection and respecting the rights of tribal populations, echoing historical precedents of resource exploitation in remote territories.

The article highlights a tension between economic development and environmental/social concerns surrounding the GNIP. The NGT’s decision, while acknowledging concerns, prioritizes the project’s perceived strategic importance, raising questions about the thoroughness of the environmental appraisal process.

Key Arguments & Nuances

• Environmental Concerns: The project necessitates felling approximately nine lakh trees across 130 sq. km of pristine forest, potentially causing significant biodiversity loss and disrupting leatherback turtle nesting grounds and coral reefs.
• Tribal Rights: Concerns exist regarding the full settlement of community rights of the Shompen and Nicobarese tribes under the Forest Rights Act, with allegations of coercion to sign ‘surrender certificates’ for land diversion.
• NGT’s Stance: The NGT order essentially validates the government’s appraisal process without independent verification of concerns, relying on the government’s commitment to conscientious execution.
• Historical Parallel: The article draws a parallel with the phosphate mining on Nauru and Banaba islands in the early 20th century, where extensive mining led to environmental devastation and forced displacement of the native population. This serves as a cautionary tale against prioritizing economic logic over environmental and social considerations.
• Development vs. Environment: The project exemplifies the classic conflict between development and environmental preservation, raising questions about the long-term sustainability of such large-scale projects in ecologically sensitive areas.

UPSC Syllabus Relevance

• GS Paper 2: Government Policies & Interventions – Analysis of infrastructure projects, environmental clearances, and their impact on vulnerable populations.
• GS Paper 3: Environment & Ecology – Biodiversity conservation, environmental impact assessment, and sustainable development.
• GS Paper 3: Inclusive Growth – Issues relating to the development and management of tribal areas, implementation of the Forest Rights Act.

Prelims Data Bank

• National Green Tribunal (NGT): Established in 2010 under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, to provide for the expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources.
• Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006: Recognizes the rights of forest dwelling tribal communities and other traditional forest dwellers to forest resources.
• Leatherback Turtles: Listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List, these turtles are particularly sensitive to habitat disturbance during nesting.
• Trans-shipment Port: A port where goods are unloaded from one ship and loaded onto another for onward transportation.

Mains Critical Analysis

The Great Nicobar Project presents a complex interplay of economic, environmental, and social factors. A PESTLE analysis reveals the following:

• Political: The project is framed as strategically important, potentially influencing the prioritization of development over environmental concerns.
• Economic: The project aims to boost trade and economic activity in the region, but the long-term economic benefits must be weighed against the environmental costs.
• Social: The project raises concerns about the displacement and cultural disruption of indigenous communities, requiring careful consideration of their rights and livelihoods.
• Technological: The project involves advanced infrastructure development, but the environmental impact of construction and operation needs to be minimized through appropriate technologies.
• Legal: The NGT order highlights the importance of adhering to environmental regulations and the Forest Rights Act, but the effectiveness of these safeguards remains questionable.
• Environmental: The project poses significant threats to biodiversity, forests, and marine ecosystems, necessitating robust mitigation measures.

A critical gap lies in the lack of independent and transparent assessment of the project’s environmental and social impacts. The NGT’s reliance on the government’s appraisal process raises concerns about potential bias and inadequate consideration of dissenting voices. The potential for a repeat of historical injustices, as exemplified by the Nauru and Banaba case, underscores the need for a more cautious and participatory approach.

The project's success hinges on balancing economic gains with environmental sustainability and social justice. A failure to address these concerns could lead to irreversible environmental damage and the marginalization of indigenous communities.

Value Addition

• Samarendra Das Committee (2023): This committee was formed by the NGT to assess the environmental impact of the project.
• MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987): This landmark SC case established the principle of ‘polluter pays’ and emphasized the importance of environmental protection.
• Best Practice: The concept of ‘Free, Prior and Informed Consent’ (FPIC) – a principle established by the UN – emphasizes the right of indigenous peoples to give or withhold their consent to projects that affect their lands or resources.

Context & Linkages

Both articles highlight the challenges of balancing economic development with environmental sustainability and the rights of local communities. The Manipur case demonstrates how weak enforcement and economic incentives can lead to illegal and environmentally damaging activities. Similarly, the Great Nicobar Project raises concerns about the potential for environmental degradation and the marginalization of indigenous populations despite regulatory frameworks.

This article, like the one on Manipur, underscores the recurring theme of illegal resource extraction and the difficulties in enforcing environmental regulations. The emphasis on community monitoring and alternative livelihoods in the Meghalaya context offers valuable lessons for the Great Nicobar Project, suggesting the need for a more participatory and sustainable approach to development.

The Way Forward

• Independent Environmental Impact Assessment: Conduct a comprehensive and independent EIA, involving experts from diverse fields and incorporating local knowledge.
• Strengthen Community Consultation: Ensure meaningful consultation with the Shompen and Nicobarese tribes, respecting their right to FPIC.
• Robust Mitigation Measures: Implement stringent mitigation measures to minimize environmental damage, including reforestation, coral reef restoration, and turtle conservation programs.
• Sustainable Development Alternatives: Explore alternative development models that prioritize ecological sustainability and the well-being of local communities, such as eco-tourism and sustainable agriculture.
• Transparency and Accountability: Enhance transparency in the project’s implementation and establish mechanisms for accountability to ensure compliance with environmental regulations and social safeguards.