IAS/UPSC Coaching Institute  

Article 1: ​Troubled waters

Why in news: The National Green Tribunal upheld environmental clearance for the Great Nicobar Project, endorsing its strategic importance despite biodiversity concerns and objections regarding tribal rights compliance.

 

Key Details

  • The National Green Tribunal (NGT) upheld environmental clearance, citing safeguards and strategic importance.
  • The project includes a trans-shipment port, international airport, township, and 450 MVA power plant.
  • Around 9 lakh trees across 130 sq. km of tropical forest may be felled, raising biodiversity concerns.
  • Potential risks include damage to leatherback turtle nesting sites and coral ecosystems.
  • Questions persist over tribal consent and compliance with the Forest Rights Act.

 

Great Nicobar Project: Supporters’ Perspective

  • Proponents welcome the ruling of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Kolkata Bench stating that all required environmental safeguards are in place.
  • The Tribunal observed that the impact on indigenous communities has been considered.
  • It held that the project’s strategic importance justifies limited public disclosure by the government.
  • Supporters see this as validation of the project’s national security and economic value.

 

Overview of the Great Nicobar Island Project (GNIP)

  • The Great Nicobar Island Project (GNIP) is a large-scale infrastructure initiative.
  • It proposes:
    • trans-shipment port
    • An international airport
    • Township development
    • 450 MVA gas and solar-based power plant
  • The project is often framed as a development vs. environment debate.
  • Critics compare it to the destruction of a pristine region for mainland economic interests.

 

Historical Precedent: Lessons from Nauru and Banaba

  • In the early 20th century, the British Phosphate Commissioners conducted extensive phosphate mining.
  • Mining operations devastated Banaba and Nauru.
  • By 1945, Banaba became largely uninhabitable due to strip mining.
  • The indigenous Banaban population was forcibly relocated to Rabi Island, over 2,000 km away.
  • Today, Banaba remains scarred, serving as a warning that economic logic alone cannot guide decisions in fragile, remote territories.

 

Environmental Concerns and Biodiversity Impact

  • Despite receiving environment and forest clearances, serious concerns persist.
  • Independent scientists warn that nearly nine lakh trees across 130 sq. km may be felled.
  • This could result in irreversible biodiversity loss in pristine tropical forests.
  • Potential damage includes:
    • Disruption of leatherback turtle nesting grounds
    • Harm to coral reef ecosystems
  • Environmental groups argue the loss would be ecologically irreparable.

 

Tribal Rights and Legal Issues

  • Questions remain over compliance with the Forest Rights Act.
  • Concerns relate to whether the rights of the Shompen and Nicobarese tribes were properly settled.
  • Members of the Tribal Council have alleged coercion to sign “surrender certificates” implying consent for land diversion.
  • Critics argue that genuine, informed consent may not have been ensured.

 

Criticism of the NGT Order

  • The NGT ruling is viewed by critics as largely endorsing the government’s appraisal process.
  • It did not independently evaluate several environmental and social objections.
  • The decision relies heavily on trust that the government will act responsibly.
  • The absence of a transparent and independent review process raises concerns about procedural fairness.

 

Conclusion

  • The Great Nicobar Project represents a complex trade-off between development, strategy, ecology, and indigenous rights.
  • Whether it proves beneficial in the long term will be judged by future generations.
  • However, the present lack of a robust, independent appraisal mechanism raises serious concerns about accountability and sustainability.

 

 

Descriptive question:

Q. Examine the environmental, strategic, and socio-cultural implications of the Great Nicobar Island Project. Discuss whether strategic considerations can justify ecological costs and concerns over tribal rights. (250 words, 15 marks)