Context:
₹72,000-crore project includes a transshipment port, airport, cruise terminal, shipbreaking yard, and more. Threatens Great Nicobar’s UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and its ecological balance.
Relevance: GS 3 (Biodiversity)
Ecological Impact:
- Loss of 8–10 lakh evergreen trees, coral reefs, nesting sites for Leatherback turtles and Nicobar Megapodes.
- Denotification of Galathea Bay Wildlife Sanctuary for the project raises concerns over greenwashing.
Indigenous Communities:
- Southern Nicobarese and Shompen hold traditional rights over the islands, relying on them for sustenance and spiritual practices.
- Islands like Meroë (Piruii) and Menchal (Pingaeyak) are sacred and sustainably managed by community elders.
Conservation Colonialism:
- Declaration of wildlife sanctuaries on Meroë, Menchal, and Little Nicobar was unilateral, excluding indigenous consultation.
- Sanctuaries appear to offset criticism of the mega-project but fail to respect indigenous governance.
Social Impact:
- Risk of displacement and loss of traditional lands for the Shompen and Nicobarese.
- Disruption of livelihoods rebuilt after the 2004 tsunami.
Proposed Solutions:
- Empower Indigenous Stewardship: Legally recognize indigenous governance for sustainable conservation.
- Transparent Decision-Making: Ensure free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of local communities.
- Holistic Conservation: Integrate ecological and cultural preservation instead of exclusionary models.
- Environmental Oversight: Reassess the project’s impact and explore sustainable alternatives.
Protecting Great Nicobar’s biodiversity and respecting indigenous rights is essential for long-term ecological and cultural sustainability. Indigenous communities must be seen as stewards, not obstacles, to conservation.
