Great Nicobar Mega-Infrastructure Project: An Overview

The Great Nicobar mega-infrastructure project is a controversial initiative, posing significant risks to both local indigenous communities and the island's unique rainforest ecosystem. With a proposed expenditure of ₹72,000 crore, the project threatens the survival of the Nicobarese and Shompen tribes, and the rich biodiversity of the region.

Impact on Indigenous Communities

• The project area overlaps with the ancestral lands of two tribes: 
  • Nicobarese Tribe: Forced to evacuate during the 2004 tsunami, they face permanent displacement under the new project.
  • Shompen Tribe: A Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group, their existence is threatened by the project's denotification of tribal reserves and environmental degradation.
• The government failed to consult essential tribal bodies, such as: 
  • National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, as mandated by Article 338-A of the Constitution.
  • Tribal Council of Great Nicobar and Little Nicobar Island: The Council's concerns were initially overlooked despite a revoked "No Objection" letter.

Environmental and Legal Concerns

• Social Impact Assessment (SIA) omissions: The assessment failed to recognize the indigenous tribes as stakeholders, neglecting their rights under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
• Forest Rights Act (2006) violations: The act intended to empower tribes for forest management was disregarded.
• A staggering 15% of the island's trees face felling, endangering a globally unique rainforest ecosystem. Estimates suggest the destruction of 8.5 lakh to 58 lakh trees.
• Compensatory Afforestation: Proposed afforestation in Haryana, far removed from the island's ecology, is deemed inadequate and unsustainable.

Ecological and Seismological Risks

• Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) 1A Violations: Part of the planned port falls in restricted zones critical for turtle nesting and coral reefs. Government actions to reclassify these areas have drawn criticism.
• Wildlife Concerns: 
  • Nicobar long-tailed macaque: Experts have raised alarms over the project's impact, which have been largely ignored.
  • Dugongs and Sea Turtles: Flawed biodiversity assessments and inadequate surveying methods have cast doubts on environmental evaluations.
• Seismic Sensitivity: Located in an earthquake-prone region, the project's location poses dangers to infrastructure and human safety, as evidenced by past seismic events.

Conclusion

Despite these multifaceted threats, the project continues amid widespread opposition. It raises profound ethical questions about the responsibility towards indigenous communities and environmental conservation. The call to action emphasizes the need for public awareness and advocacy to prevent irreversible damage to human and natural heritage.