NGT Forms High Powered Committee To Revisit Environmental Clearance Granted To Great Nicobar Island Project
The Eastern Zone bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has constituted a High-Powered Committee to revisit the Environmental Clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) for the project by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation (the project) in Great Nicobar Islands.It is a mega project to be implemented at...
The Eastern Zone bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has constituted a High-Powered Committee to revisit the Environmental Clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) for the project by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation (the project) in Great Nicobar Islands.
It is a mega project to be implemented at the southern end of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The project includes an International Airport, international container transshipment terminal; township development, and a 450 MVA gas and solar-based power plant over an extent of 16,610 hectares on the island.
The NGT was hearing the appeal filed by the Conservation Action Trust and others against the Environment and Forest Clearances granted by the MoEF&CC for the project, including the clearance for the diversion of 130.75 sq. km of forest land under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, on Great Nicobar Island.
The bench of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel (Chairperson), Justice Sudhir Agarwal (Judicial Member), Justice B.Amit Sthalekar(Judicial Member), Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi (Judicial Member), Dr. A. Senthil Vel (Expert Member), Dr. Afroz Ahmad (Expert Member) said that,
“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.”
The main contentions on behalf of the appellants are that the project will have adverse impact on rich biodiversity of the area and damage the habitats of the endangered species.
The appellants highlighted 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. 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.
The appellants also submitted that the government policy requires the isolation of Shompen tribes and Nicobari communities, which has not been considered in this case. This aspect ignores the Forest Rights Act of 2006 and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation of 1956. Additionally, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has not been conducted by an accredited consultancy.
There are two national parks - Campbell Bay National Park (in the North) and Galathea National Park (in the South) which also will be adversely impacted, added the appellants.
On the other hand, the stance of respondents MoEF&CC and the Project Proponent is 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.
The project will strengthen India’s presence in the Andaman Sea and in Southeast Asia and create an economic hub with a major cargo transshipment terminal and a global tourism destination. It presents immense opportunities to further strengthen India's trading position in the world by developing an International Transshipment terminal, argued the respondents.
After hearing both sides, the Tribunal decided that there were no grounds to interfere with the Forest Clearance, stating that there is a need not only for economic development but also national security, and that these factors are not shown to be irrelevant.
On the issue of Environmental Clearance, the Tribunal opined that the laid-down procedure has 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.
Both MoEF&CC and the PP stated that the area proposed to be part of the Port, falling in the prohibited area as per the CRZ notification, will be left out, there will be no coverage of eco-sensitive areas, corals will be protected, and all other necessary measures will be taken.
The Tribunal further decided that , “However, there are some unanswered deficiencies pointed out by the appellants which need to be addressed. By way of instance, it is pointed out that out of 20668 coral colonies, 16150 are proposed to be translocated without any mention of threat to remaining 4518 coral colonies. It is pointed out that ICRZ Regulations prohibit destruction of corals. Further, data collected for impact assessment is only of one season as against requirement of three seasons. It is also shown that part of the project is in CRZ IA area where Port is prohibited. These aspects may call for revisiting the EC by a High-Powered Committee (HPC) which we propose to constitute.”
The HPC constituted by the Tribunal will be headed by Secretary, MoEF&CC, GoI. Other members will be Chief Secretary, Andaman & Nicobar, Zoological Survey of India, Botanical Survey of India, Central Pollution Control Board, nominee of Vice Chairman of Niti Aayog, nominee of Secretary, Ministry of Shipping and Director, Wildlife Institute of India. Secretary, MoEF&CC may appoint a nodal officer, not below the rank of Joint Secretary, for facilitating functioning of the Committee.
The NGT said that, “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 any other institution/expert. In the light of report of the Committee, the EC or its conditions may be re-looked into by the competent authority.”
The Tribunal has directed that further work in pursuance of the impugned EC should not proceed, except for the work that may not be of an irreversible nature.
Case Title- Conservation Action Trust & Ors. v. The Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change & Ors.
Counsels for Appellants- Mr. Kaustav Dhar, Advocate a/w Ms. Ajeeya Choudhury (in Appeal Nos. 29 to 31/2022/EZ)
Mr. A. Yogeshwaran, Advocate a/w Ms. Poongkhulali B., Advocate, Mr. Santanu Chakraborty (in Appeal No. 32/2022/EZ)
Counsels for Respondents- Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG a/w Ms. Suhasini Sen, Advocate, Mr. Aman Jha, Advocate, Mr. Apurba Ghosh, Advocate and Ms. Manisha Chava for R-1 M
Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG a/w Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Advocate, Mr. Ramendu Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi, Advocate for R-2 & 3, Ms. Dhriti Banerjee, Director, ZSI.