Kamal Ghorui
In Nicobar or in Aravalis, narrow approach to measure environmental impacts is a serious problem
NGT’s dismissal of concerns over the environmental cost of the Great Nicobar project is almost certain to be challenged in Supreme Court. The scale of the project – a port, power plant, airport and township – has deeply alarmed conservationists for long. Great Nicobar’s biological wealth and evolutionary significance rival that of Galapagos Islands, often described as a living museum of evolution. It is, to say the least, not an ordinary landscape.
NGT upheld that no coral reefs were found at the precise project footprint and that nearby reefs would be “relocated” for protection. Of the 20,668 coral colonies identified, 16,150 are to be translocated, while the “threat” to the remaining 4,518 will be studied. The relocation plan, first documented in 2019, is projected to take 30 years, with the initial decade alone costing ₹55cr. This technocratic framing echoes the incremental weakening of safeguards seen in the Aravalis over decades. Institutions tasked with environmental protection often reduce complex ecological realities to narrow definitional thresholds – hills above 100m in Aravalis, “no coral reef, no nesting” in Galathea Bay. Both claims on Galathea Bay are contested. But even if accepted, corals enjoy the same legal protection as tigers and elephants. That protection must mean preservation in situ, not displacement.
Marine ecosystem is already under stress from climate change – warming waters, bleaching events and mangrove loss. Dredging Galathea Bay, with inevitable silt displacement, and felling rainforest will only intensify these pressures. Afforestation cannot replicate the intricate web of a mature ecosystem. Nicobar’s strategic imperatives are real but they cannot justify a narrow reading of environmental risks that can irreversibly damage biodiversity and ecological balance.
END OF ARTICLE
