NGT clears ₹92,000-cr. Great Nicobar project
Context: The tribunal disposes of a batch of applications over environmental clearance for the project;says ‘adequate safeguards’ are provided in EC conditions and finds no good ground to interfere
- A Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) cleared the way for the ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar Island mega-infrastructure project, noting that “considering the strategic importance” of it and “other relevant considerations”, “we do not find any good ground to interfere”.
- It disposed of applications related to the environment clearance (EC) for the project, with a direction to authorities “to ensure full and strict compliance of EC conditions”.
- The project includes a transshipment port, an airport, a power plant, and a township.
- The Bench was hearing a batch of applications related to the EC, which was granted in 2022. An earlier NGT Bench had in 2023 called for the formation of a high-powered committee (HPC) to address certain issues concerning the protection of coral reef colonies, nesting sites of leatherback turtles, and the allegation that parts of the project are located in ecologically protected zones.
- The applicants argued that the government had erred in limiting the terms of reference for the HPC to three issues and that the terms were “factually incorrect”. They said the issues had not been properly examined. The NGT said “adequate safeguards” had been provided in the conditions specified in the EC, which the tribunal had already refused to interfere with in its 2023 order. It said the remaining issues had “been dealt with” by the HPC.
- “A balanced approach is required to be adopted while considering the issue of allowing development of the port on a strategic location and taking adequate steps to carry out the activity strictly in terms of the ICRZ Notification, 2019 instead of prohibiting the activity if the objection is based on apprehension,” the NGT said in its order.
- The NGT Bench, headed by its Chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava, noted that it found no error in the drafting of the terms of reference for the HPC, adding that the applicants did not point out “any other substantial issue” that should have been examined by the HPC.
- Further, noting the Union government’s stance against public disclosure of the HPC report, given that it is “of strategic, defence and national importance and has confidential and privileged information”, the NGT said, “The above disclosures reveal that the project is very important for India.”
- The NGT order said that to ensure “full and effective” compliance with the EC conditions, the Environment Ministry “will undertake all measures to protect the coral reefs along the coastal stretch and will also ensure coral regeneration through proved scientific method for regeneration”. The NGT asked the Environment Ministry to prepare and approve an “implementation plan” in this regard
‘Responsibility of Environment Ministry’
- On erosion of shorelines of the Great Nicobar Island, the NGT said it “will be the responsibility” of the Environment Ministry to “ensure that on account of proposed constructions which includes foreshore development, there is no erosion/shoreline change”. On protecting coral reefs, the Bench relied on the government’s submissions that “no coral reef exists within the work area of the project.”
- The applicants had also submitted that the Environmental Impact Assessment for the project was conducted for just one season, as opposed to three seasons as mandated by regulations. On this, the NGT noted the government’s submissions that “since there is no high erosion site in Andaman & Nicobar, therefore, three-season data is not required”.
- While the project’s environmental clearance was under challenge before the NGT, aspects of the project’s forest clearance are currently under challenge before the Calcutta High Court. Apart from the alarm raised by conservationists and activists about the project’s potential damage to the ecology , locals on the island have objected to the project’s approval, alleging that their consent for it had not been taken lawfully.
- The locals — the Nicobarese and the Shompen — have alleged that their rights on forest lands which are supposed to be used for the project had not been settled.