Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has recently constituted a high-powered committee to re-examine the environmental clearance granted to Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation(ANIDCO) for the multi-component mega project in the Great Nicobar Island.

The Eastern Zone bench of the NGT constituted a High-Powered committee to revisit the clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEF&CC).

The mega project was to be implemented at the southern end of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The project includes an International Airport, and an international container transhipment terminal. The project also involves the development of a military-civil, dual-use airport, a gas, diesel, and solar-based power plant, and a township over an extent of 16,610 hectares of land.

The NGT was hearing appeals against forest clearance and environmental clearance provided to the project proponent (PP) ANIDCO. Earlier on January 11, it had sought a response from the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) and the PP.

A bench of chairperson Justice A K Goel along with judicial members Justice Sudhir Agarwal, Justice B Amit Sthalekar and Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi and expert members Dr A Senthil Vel and Dr Afroz Ahmad said that there was a need for adequate studies on the adverse impact on coral reefs, mangroves, turtle nesting sites, bird nesting sites, other wildlife, of erosion, disaster management and other conservation and mitigation measures.

The appellants had alleged that the location of the port, which is part of the project, is expressly prohibited in the CRZ-IA area due to the presence of a huge number of coral colonies.

They had also claimed that it will also lead to erosion of the coast. Only one season's data has been taken for the assessment, whereas a comprehensive impact assessment requires data to be collected for three seasons, they had asserted. 

Regarding this, the bench held, “There can be no two views about the need for adequate studies of adverse impact on coral reefs, mangroves, turtle nesting sites, bird nesting sites, other wildlife, of erosion, disaster management and other conservation and mitigation measures.”

Moreover, the bench underlined some “unanswered deficiencies” such as a threat to 4,518 coral colonies, impact assessment being of only one season as against the mandated three seasons and a part of the project being in the area where a port was prohibited.

“These aspects may call for revisiting the EC by a high-powered committee (HPC) we propose to constitute. The same will be headed by Secretary, MoEF&CC,” the bench said.

The appellants had further submitted that the government policy required the isolation of Shompen tribes and Nicobari communities, which had not been considered in this case and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) had not been conducted by an accredited consultancy.

It was the appellants' claim that the two national parks - Campbell Bay National Park (in the North) and Galathea National Park (in the South) were to be adversely impacted which was opposed by the respondent- MoEF&CC and the Project Proponent, who had submitted that the project is of great significance for defence, national security, and strategic purposes, as well as for the holistic development of Great Nicobar Island.

It was the argument of the respondents that the project would strengthen India’s presence in the Andaman Sea and in Southeast Asia and create an economic hub with a major cargo trans-shipment terminal and a global tourism destination. "It presents immense opportunities to further strengthen India's trading position in the world by developing an International Trans-shipment terminal," they had said.

Taking the submission of both the parties into account, the Tribunal decided that there were no grounds to interfere with the Forest Clearance. It stated that there was a need not only for economic development but also for national security and that these factors are not shown to be irrelevant.

With regards to the issue of Environmental Clearance, the Tribunal opined that the laid-down procedure had been followed, including holding public hearings, preparing an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), undertaking an EAC evaluation, protecting wildlife habitats, considering Tribal welfare, and planning necessary conservation measures.

Other members of the high power committee include the Chief Secretary of Andaman and Nicobar, Zoological Survey of India, Botanical Survey of India, Central Pollution Control Board, the Director of Wildlife Institute of India and nominees of Vice Chairman of Niti Aayog and Secretary, Ministry of Shipping.

Asking the MoEF&CC’s secretary to appoint a nodal officer, the tribunal directed the committee to meet within two weeks and finalise its proceedings within two months.

The NGT said, “The Committee may meet within two weeks from today and finalise its proceedings within two months. It will be open to the Committee to associate with any other institution/expert. In the light of the report of the Committee, the EC or its conditions may be re-looked into by the competent authority.”

The Tribunal directed all parties to not proceed with further work in pursuance of the impugned EC, except for the work that may not be of irreversible nature.

Case Title: Conservation Action Trust &Ors. v. The Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change &Ors.

Statute: Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation of 1956, Forest Rights Act of 2006