Call Us Now

+91 9606900005 / 04

For Enquiry

legacyiasacademy@gmail.com

Environment impact study for Nicobar project downplays earthquake risks

The 72,000-crore Great Nicobar Infrastructure Project has raised serious concerns over inadequate seismic risk assessment in a highly geo-dynamic region. Experts warn that the Environmental Impact Assessment downplays the threat of future mega-earthquakes and tsunamis, despite the area’s known vulnerability.

Relevance : GS 3(Infrastructure , Environment and Ecology)

Project Overview

  • Cost: ₹72,000 crore
  • Components:
    • Transshipment port
    • International airport
    • Township development
    • 450 MVA gas and solar-based power plant
  • Clearances: Environmental and preliminary forest clearances granted by the Centre.
  • Legal Challenge: National Green Tribunal (NGT) ordered a review due to ecological and tribal concerns.

Core Concerns Highlighted

EIA Study Limitations

  • Conducted by Vimta Labs; based on secondary data.
  • Downplays risk of mega earthquakes (like the 9.2 magnitude quake in 2004).
  • Relies primarily on a 2019 IIT-Kanpur study without conducting site-specific field assessments.
  • Omits critical warnings from the IIT study about accumulated strain and earthquake unpredictability.

Seismic Vulnerability

  • The Andaman-Sumatra fault line is known for its history of massive earthquakes.
  • The return period estimated:
    • Mega-quakes (≥ 9): 420–750 years.
    • Large quakes (>7.5): 80–120 years.
  • Earthquake recurrence is non-linear — long silent periods may precede devastating events.

Expert Warnings

  • Prof. C.P. Rajendran (NIAS, Bengaluru): GNIP is located in a “highly geo-dynamic” zone with local fault lines and unstable land elevations.
  • Prof. Javed Malik (IIT-Kanpur): Highlights the need for site-specific studies, warning that seismic impacts may vary based on epicentre location (e.g., Nicobar vs. Banda Aceh).
  • Sediment analysis showed 7 tsunami events in the last 8,000 years, indicating seismic volatility.

Data Gaps & Omitted Evidence

  • The EIA omits key findings from the IIT study, including:
    • Evidence of strain accumulation.
    • A 2,000-year gap in sediment record, adding unpredictability.
  • No on-ground seismic studies were conducted for GNIP, raising questions about the adequacy of risk assessments.

‘Calculated Risk’ Approach by Government

  • Ministry of Earth Sciences acknowledges the lack of site-specific studies.
  • Admits unpredictability of seismic events.
  • Supports a “calculated risk” model — design buildings to seismic codes but proceed with development.

Ecological and Indigenous Concerns

  • Potential for:
    • Massive biodiversity loss.
    • Tree-felling in pristine ecosystems.
    • Disruption to resident indigenous tribes (e.g., Shompen).
  • NGT ordered a reappraisal due to these environmental and social concerns.

Strategic Takeaways

  • Strategic location of Nicobar Islands must not blindside planners to environmental and geological fragility.
  • Long-term sustainability and safety require:
    • Robust, site-specific seismic studies.
    • Transparent, multi-disciplinary environmental assessment.
    • Greater involvement of independent scientists, not just private EIA consultants.

Nicobar Islands

  • Part of the Andaman & Nicobar Union Territory; located in the southeastern Bay of Bengal.
  • Comprise 22 islands, with Great Nicobar being the largest.
  • Home to ecologically sensitive zones and tribal reserves (e.g., the Shompen tribe).
  • Lies along the Andaman-Sumatra subduction zone, a seismically active fault line.
  • Rich in biodiversity, designated as part of a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve.
  • Strategically located near the Malacca Strait, a key global maritime chokepoint.
  • Infrastructure development is restricted due to environmentaltribal, and geological vulnerabilities.

July 2025
MTWTFSS
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031 
Categories