Jairam Ramesh, a senior Congress leader and a key environmental advocate, recently raised alarm over the government’s insistence on pushing forward with the Great Nicobar Project, despite growing concerns about its ecological and humanitarian ramifications. His strong statement came after reviewing the actions of the High-Powered Committee (HPC), which was constituted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) in response to the National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) directive. Ramesh expressed deep shock that the HPC, tasked with reviewing the environmental and Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearances for the Great Nicobar Project, failed to include any independent institution or expert in its review process.
Background of the Great Nicobar Project
The Great Nicobar Project is a large-scale development initiative aimed at transforming the remote and ecologically sensitive Great Nicobar Island, located in the Andaman and Nicobar archipelago. The project includes plans for the development of an international transshipment port, an airport, a township, and various tourism and industrial infrastructure. While the government has hailed the project as essential for India’s strategic and economic interests in the Indo-Pacific region, environmentalists and activists have raised serious concerns regarding its potential impacts on the island’s fragile ecosystem and indigenous communities.
The project’s approval has already faced multiple challenges, including legal battles in the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and widespread opposition from civil society, environmentalists, and tribal rights groups. These critics argue that the project’s environmental clearances were rushed, and due consideration was not given to the adverse consequences it may pose to biodiversity, local communities, and the overall ecological balance of the region.
Jairam Ramesh’s Criticism of the HPC
Jairam Ramesh, who previously served as the Minister of Environment, is well known for his outspoken views on environmental issues. He has consistently highlighted the need for a balance between development and environmental sustainability. His latest critique of the Great Nicobar Project was particularly scathing, as he accused the government of being “hell-bent” on pushing through the project, despite the potential ecological and humanitarian disasters it could trigger.
Ramesh’s central grievance was the composition and functioning of the HPC, which was tasked with reviewing the project in accordance with the NGT’s instructions. The NGT had directed the government to constitute a committee that would impartially review the environmental clearances granted to the project, particularly focusing on its compliance with CRZ regulations. The tribunal had also given the HPC the flexibility to include independent institutions and experts to ensure a comprehensive and unbiased assessment of the project’s impacts.
However, according to Ramesh, the HPC failed to involve any independent experts or institutions in its review. He expressed shock and dismay that the government disregarded the NGT’s provision to include external voices, particularly when the project’s potential for environmental destruction was so significant. Ramesh questioned the transparency and fairness of the review process and suggested that the government was deliberately sidelining experts who might raise inconvenient truths about the project’s ecological and humanitarian costs.
Environmental Concerns
The Great Nicobar Island is part of a biodiversity hotspot that harbors a wide array of endemic species, including some that are critically endangered. It is home to rich coral reefs, mangroves, and tropical rainforests, all of which play a crucial role in maintaining the ecological balance of the region. These ecosystems not only support a diverse range of flora and fauna but also act as natural barriers against extreme weather events like cyclones and tsunamis.
One of the main environmental concerns associated with the project is the large-scale deforestation it would necessitate. Initial estimates suggest that over 130 square kilometers of pristine rainforest would be cleared to make way for the development. This deforestation would result in the loss of crucial wildlife habitats, including those of species like the Nicobar megapode, a ground-dwelling bird that is endemic to the region. The destruction of these habitats could lead to irreversible biodiversity loss and disrupt the delicate ecological balance of the island.
Additionally, the project threatens the island’s coral reefs, which are already under stress from rising sea temperatures due to climate change. The construction of the transshipment port, in particular, is expected to involve extensive dredging activities, which could damage the coral ecosystems and increase sedimentation in the surrounding waters. This would not only harm marine life but also affect the livelihoods of local communities that depend on fishing and other marine resources.
The Great Nicobar Island is also prone to seismic activity, being located in a tectonically active zone. Environmentalists have pointed out that large-scale construction and deforestation in such a sensitive area could exacerbate the risks of landslides and tsunamis, putting both human lives and the environment at greater risk.
Humanitarian Impacts on Indigenous Communities
In addition to the environmental concerns, the project has sparked fears about its potential humanitarian impacts, particularly on the indigenous communities that have lived on the island for centuries. The Nicobarese and Shompen tribes, who are among the indigenous inhabitants of the island, have historically lived in harmony with nature, relying on the island’s resources for their sustenance and cultural practices.
The development of the Great Nicobar Project poses a direct threat to these communities, as it would disrupt their traditional way of life and force them to relocate from their ancestral lands. The loss of forests and other natural resources would deprive them of their primary means of livelihood, including hunting, gathering, and fishing. Furthermore, the influx of outsiders due to the construction of new infrastructure and the promotion of tourism could lead to cultural erosion and social marginalization for these tribes.
Jairam Ramesh emphasized the need for a more inclusive and participatory approach in the decision-making process, one that takes into account the voices of the indigenous communities who stand to lose the most from the project. He argued that the government’s current approach disregards their rights and fails to recognize the importance of preserving their cultural heritage.
Government’s Stance
The government, on the other hand, has defended the project as being crucial for India’s national security and economic development. The strategic location of the Great Nicobar Island, close to key shipping lanes in the Indo-Pacific, makes it an ideal site for the development of a transshipment port. The government believes that the project will enhance India’s maritime capabilities and boost trade by providing a modern logistics hub in the region.
In response to environmental concerns, the MoEFCC has argued that the project has been designed with sustainable development principles in mind. The ministry has promised to implement measures to mitigate the environmental impacts, such as afforestation programs and the creation of marine protected areas. However, critics like Ramesh have expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of these mitigation measures, given the scale of the proposed development.
The government has also sought to downplay the potential risks to indigenous communities, asserting that the project will bring economic benefits to the island and improve the standard of living for its inhabitants. Officials have pointed to the planned construction of modern housing, schools, and healthcare facilities as evidence that the project will lead to positive outcomes for the local population.
Conclusion
Jairam Ramesh’s forceful criticism of the Great Nicobar Project highlights the deep divisions between the government and environmentalists over the future of the island. While the government sees the project as a strategic and economic necessity, critics argue that it comes at an unacceptably high ecological and humanitarian cost. Ramesh’s concerns about the lack of independent oversight in the HPC’s review process further underscore the need for greater transparency and accountability in decision-making, especially when it involves such a sensitive and vulnerable region.
As the debate over the project continues, it remains to be seen whether the government will take steps to address the concerns raised by Ramesh and other environmental advocates. In the meantime, the fate of the Great Nicobar Island—and the communities and ecosystems that depend on it—hangs in the balance.