​Troubled waters: On the Great Nicobar Project

Proponents of the controversial Greater Nicobar Project will be thrilled by an order from the Kolkata bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which has ruled that all environmental safeguards have been taken, the potential impact of this massive project on indigenous peoples inhabiting the area has been duly taken into account, and that the “strategic benefit” of the project is reason enough for the government not to be fully transparent about what it shares in the public domain. But the prevailing narrative around the project reflects the classic clash of development and environment, of a pristine Pandora devastated by the greed of distant mainlanders. The Greater Nicobar Island Project (GNIP) envisages a transshipment port, an international airport, township development and a 450 Megavolt-Ampere (MVA) gas and solar energy-based power plant. In the early 20th century, the British Phosphate Commissioners (a joint venture of the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand) introduced large-scale phosphate mining for fertilizer on Nauru and Banaba in the Pacific Ocean. By 1945 the island was so physically devastated by strip mining that it was considered uninhabitable. The indigenous Banaba people were forcibly resettled 2000 kilometers away on Rabi Island in Fiji. Today, Banaba is a desolate landscape of jagged limestone “peaks” and the displaced population struggles to rehabilitate its homeland. These serve as historical precedents for why economic logic alone cannot dictate actions in remote areas. Although an environmental and preliminary forest clearance has been accepted by the Union Environment Ministry, concerns over potential biodiversity loss, logging and impact on resident tribes have prompted the NGT to order a review of the environmental aspects of the project.

Independent scientists and environmental groups have said that cutting down untouched tropical forest areas (about nine lakh trees in 130 square kilometers) for this project will significantly damage the biodiversity of the region and constitute an irreparable loss. This does not include disturbance of leatherback turtle nesting grounds and attacks on coral. There was also the controversial issue of whether the community rights of the local Shompen and Nicobarese tribes had been fully resolved under the requirements of the Forest Rights Act. Recently, Tribal Council members said they were forced to sign “certificates of surrender” implying they consented to the use of much of their land for the project. The NGT order essentially puts its stamp of approval on the government’s evaluation process without independently examining the concerns raised. This only imposes the belief that the government will be the conscientious implementer of the project. Whether the Greater Nicobar Project is a ‘net benefit’ can only be assessed by future generations; But the lack of a process that provides a fair assessment of independent concerns is a bad sign for now.