Experts urge govt to reconsider Great Nicobar project, call it 'exploitative commercial proposal'

New DelhI | Over 70 scientists, environmentalists and former bureaucrats on Monday urged the government to reconsider the Rs 92,000-crore Great Nicobar Island project, claiming that it is "an exploitative commercial proposal" being "wrongly portrayed as a strategic defence project".

The mega infrastructure project, titled Holistic Development of Great Nicobar, involves the construction of a transhipment port, an international airport, a township and a power plant over more than 160 square km of land.

This includes around 130 square km of pristine forest inhabited by the Nicobarese, a Scheduled Tribe (ST), and the Shompens, a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG), whose population is estimated to be between 200 and 300.

In a detailed letter to Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav, the signatories said it was "disingenuous to label what is essentially a commercial project as a strategic one and invoke national security whenever questions on the project are raised".

They cautioned that the massive diversion of forest land and displacement of indigenous communities due to the project would cause "grave and irreversible" ecological and social damage.

"The only component of the proposed project that was made defence-related, and that too after the public hearing, is the dual-use military-cum-civilian airport," the letter said.

"The remaining 160 square km, including 130.75 square km of rainforest and 2.98 square km of sea, proposed to be reclaimed, is being done for a commercial transhipment port, an associated power plant and a sprawling township." The signatories to the letter said the township alone would house 3.5 lakh people, over 40 times the island's current population of about 8,000, and occupy more than 80 per cent of the project area.

"This will likely become a liability rather than an asset for the nation," they warned.

The group said the project involves diverting 15 per cent of Great Nicobar Island's forest area, including about a million rainforest trees. They said the 1.82 per cent figure cited by the minister was "mathematically accurate but ecologically misleading".

The forests of Great Nicobar are "our country's last remaining old-growth forest" and "the only home to approximately 24 per cent of all species found there", the letter said.

Raising questions about the project's economic rationale, the signatories to the letter alleged that its viability had not been demonstrated.

"Considering the stiff competition from existing transhipment ports in the region, including one proposed to be built at Sabang (Indonesia), just 190 km from GNI (jointly by India and Indonesia)... sustained capital investments would be required just to ensure viability, let alone profitability or economic prosperity of the nation," the letter said.

On the social impact, the signatories claimed that the project would result in the third displacement of the island's indigenous communities.

"Since the tsunami of 2004, the Great Nicobarese have remained internally displaced citizens on their own island... Why does the country only take land away from the most marginalised of its citizens?" they asked.

The letter highlighted that the island continues to lack basic facilities such as proper roads, healthcare, teachers and regular transport.

Refuting the minister's statement that tribal policies had been fully respected, they alleged, "This statement is far from true. The rights accorded to the indigenous communities under the Forest Rights Act have been violated.

Even the provisions under the ANPAT Regulation (1956) and the Shompen Policy (2015) have been wholly ignored in the rush to grant clearances." The signatories alleged that the Environmental Appraisal Committee ignored anthropological and ecological objections and that "Galathea wildlife sanctuary was denotified, and three new sanctuaries were notified without any consultation with the Great and Little Nicobar islanders".

They described the move as a "hollow exercise intended solely to satisfy Environmental Clearance conditions for enabling the project".

The letter also claimed a "glaring conflict of interest" in the involvement of government institutes in both preparing and monitoring the environmental management plans.

"It does not inspire confidence when the very institutions that have prepared management plans will be monitoring their implementation," they wrote, adding that "a few scientists from these institutes have said they were pressured to prepare reports in favour of the project".

"Portraying the ICTT as a defence project, when it is in fact an exploitative commercial proposal with a dubious and unviable economic future, as well as destructive of rich and diverse ecosystems, is unwarranted and irresponsible," the signatories claimed.

They urged the environment minister to set aside political considerations, focus on the grave and irreversible negative implications of the proposed project and take serious note of the need to reconsider it.

The signatories include Padma Bhushan Ramachandra Guha, Padma Shri Romulus Whitaker, wildlife biologist Ravi Chellam, nature conservationist Asad Rahmani, scientist Sharachchandra Lele, and former Gujarat PCCF Ashok Kumar Sharma, among others.