New Delhi: The ‘Holistic Development of Great Nicobar’, a Rs 72,000 crore “mega infrastructure project” for the Island, will continue as planned, with significant work already underway on the site, senior officials from the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) said. The latest objections raised by the Opposition will not impact the project “in any way”, officials added.
“They (the Congress) can say whatever, but the project has been cleared after taking all aspects under consideration and will progress as planned,” an official, who wished to not be named, told ThePrint.
The mega infrastructure project planned in the Great Nicobar Islands came under the scanner again after it became a bone of contention between Bhupender Yadav and Jairam Ramesh, the current and former Union environment ministers earlier this week. Ramesh alleged that the government has omitted Campbell Bay, the “least environmentally destructive site”, as a possible site for the project.
The implementation of the project—which will include the construction of an international container transshipment terminal, a greenfield international airport and a township, among other things—will require diversion of 13,075 hectares of forest land, which is 15 percent of the island’s area.
“On Aug 10, 2024, I wrote to the Hon’ble Minister of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change on the environmental and social impacts of the Great Nicobar infra project. On Aug 21st, 2024, he was good enough to send me a detailed response. I have now replied to his response. The debate will, I am sure, continue (sic),” the Congress leader wrote in an X post on 27 August.
In his latest letter to Bhupender Yadav, Ramesh said that an examination of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report of the Great Nicobar Island project raises “various red flags”.
“Chapter 5 of the EIA report, which describes alternate sites considered for the project, has omitted the least environmentally destructive site, Campbell Bay, and only included the other three sites, which are either as or marginally more environmentally sensitive than the Galathea Bay,” Ramesh’s letter read.
The former environment minister stressed that the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) highlighted this point—that the project location was chosen purely on technical and financial criteria, not considering the environment—in its 260th meeting held on 5 and 6 April, 2021.
On 10 August, Ramesh first wrote to Yadav, urging the immediate suspension of all clearances for the project, calling it a “grave threat” to the natural ecosystem likely to have “disastrous” human, social, and ecological consequences.
“The project can have catastrophic ecological and human consequences and has been pushed through by violating due process and sidestepping legal and constitutional provisions protecting tribal communities,” the 10 August letter by Ramesh said.
Yadav had responded to Ramesh’s detailed letter on 21 August, highlighting that the project was provided with an Environmental and Coastal Regulation Zone Clearance and a Forest Clearance by the environment ministry in 2022 after studying its environmental impacts in detail.
“The environment and forest clearances to the project proposal having strategic, defence and national importance as well as involving development of the Great Nicobar Island Project have been granted after due diligence and consideration of possible potential impacts on the ecology of the area and after ensuring that the legal safeguards and constitutional provisions related to the tribal communities have been duly followed,” Yadav’s response read.
The minister said that the government has “diligently considered” various aspects of the project, including the presence of rich biodiversity, economic importance, coral colonies, aboriginal tribes, and wildlife.
What the project includes
The government is hailing the Great Nicobar project as a “mega-infrastructure” upgrade. The project, being implemented by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation (ANIIDCO), will have an international container transshipment terminal, a greenfield international airport—with a peak hour capacity to hold around 4,000 passengers—a township and a gas and solar-based power plant.
A feasibility study pitched the project location as a suitable, strategic site because of its close proximity to Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and Singapore.
The project will also cost over 8.5 lakh trees and affect more than 1,700 people from the Shompen and Nicobarese tribes. Dredging the ocean to reclaim 300 hectares of land is also expected to impact over 20,000 coral colonies around the island.
Apart from Ramesh, environmentalists and anthropologists have also highlighted the potential risks of the project to the island’s ecology and tribal populations. Apart from trees, coral reef, wildlife and the local marine ecosystems are also likely to be damaged during the project.
“The project can potentially result in the genocide of the Shompen, an indigenous community classified as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group. The project has been rammed through in violation of all legal and policy safeguards for the protection of tribal groups,” Ramesh’s 10 August letter added.
Despite protests against the project, the government has insisted that “due process” has been followed.
Last month, a high-powered committee formed by the National Green Tribunal to reassess the green clearances provided to the Great Nicobar project said that the proposed transshipment port did not fall under the Island Coastal Regulation Zone (ICRZ-IA)—where ports are not allowed—but in an area where it is permitted.
This conclusion contradicted earlier information submitted by the Andaman and Nicobar Coastal Management Authority, which had noted during the environmental clearance process that parts of the port, township and airport fell under the prohibited zone.
“It is good that the project is being discussed again, and the opposition is raising it. We have written several letters to the ministry, based on our work and research in the area, highlighting how this project will be catastrophic for not only the environment, wildlife and marine ecosystems but even the indigenous tribal communities,” an ecologist who has been opposing the project told ThePrint on the condition of anonymity.
He added, “We support the points raised by (Jairam) Ramesh that the so-called clearances should be scrapped and reassessed by independent experts.”
(Edited by Zinnia Ray Chaudhuri)