With more than 45 years of experience working for the conservation and protection of India’s environment, well-known conservationist Debi Goenka has fought battles across forests, coastlines and courtrooms. As executive trustee of the Mumbai-based Conservation Action Trust (CAT), he has been directly involved in campaigns to protect mangroves, the Sanjay Gandhi National Park and has been instrumental in drafting the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notifications across the country. But few battles have consumed him as deeply as the one currently unfolding over Great Nicobar island.
The Environmental Cost is Unimaginable, says Debi Goenka
With more than 45 years of experience working for the conservation and protection of India’s environment, well-known conservationist Debi Goenka has fought battles across forests, coastlines and courtrooms.
Goenka spoke to Fozia Yasin about how the Great Nicobar Mega Infrastructure Project would cause irreversible damage to Great Nicobar’s pristine forests and affect one of Asia’s largest nesting habitats for Leatherback Turtles. He also questioned the reliance on the project’s strategic importance while emphasising that environmental oversight bodies are meant to protect ecosystems, not weigh strategic considerations. Calling out regulatory failures, he asked that the project be scrapped since it comes at an immeasurable and unquantifiable cost to the environment and the biodiversity and wildlife of the island. Edited excerpts:
What do you think are the most significant ecological risks associated with the project?
The loss of 130 sq km of forests that are home to species unknown to science is the greatest threat. Combined with the loss of the breeding grounds of Leatherback Turtles, tens of thousands of corals, mangroves, and the habitats of endemic species such as the Nicobar Megapode, the proposed project poses unimaginable risks to our environment.
Were existing environmental laws and procedures adequately followed when it came to the environmental clearance process for the project?
The entire process of environmental, CRZ, forests and wildlife clearances has been completely subverted. Hiding behind the fig leaf of ‘strategic’, vital information about the adverse impacts of the project has been concealed.Given the fact that there is already a defence establishment on Great Nicobar Island, there is no justification at all for claiming that a gas-based thermal power plant, a commercial port, a commercial airport and a township have strategic implications. In fact, these activities will actually open up the Great Nicobar island to foreign ships, foreign aircraft and foreigners.
The role of the National Green Tribunal [NGT] has been particularly condemnable; they have completely failed to do their job. Environmental courts are meant to protect ecosystems, not weigh strategic considerations, and they will go down in history as abject failures. Dismissing an application without hearing the applicants is unheard of, but this is exactly what a Bench comprising six judges has done to the application filed by the Conservation Action Trust.
Advertisement
How do you assess the strategic and economic case for the project?
The geostrategic importance of the proposed projects is imaginary and an afterthought. All that is required is for the defence agencies to expand their existing capabilities on the island. There is an airstrip that can be expanded as well as a port. There is absolutely no need to spend Rs. 90,000 crore of public money building these unviable projects at huge and irreversible damage to our environment. Labelling a project as ‘strategic’ does not grant it exemption from applicable environmental laws. Shipping experts are of the view that the commercial port that is planned is a financial non-starter. The existing ports in India and Sri Lanka are more than equipped to handle the transhipment requirements of our country. Also, the location of the proposed project is in an extremely high-risk seismic zone. This means that the cost of construction will increase exponentially, thus making it even more non-viable. I would be surprised if any insurance company would offer to insure it.
Advertisement
Critics often argue that environmental concerns are portrayed as obstacles to development. How would you respond to that characterisation?
This is a very convenient handle to beat environmentalists with. What development is is something still not understood by our decision-makers and even our courts. Development for whom and at whose cost was a question raised decades ago, and it still deserves a proper answer.
What lessons can policymakers learn from other large infrastructure projects in ecologically sensitive regions, both in India and internationally?
Clearly, there is a need to carry out a proper environmental impact assessment and critically examine the pros and cons of the proposed project. Conducting a detailed public consultation, as is mandatory, is required and should never be dismissed as a formality. There is also a need to incorporate the suggestions made at the public hearing in the environmental impact assessment report.
There have been no hearings, and no studies have been conducted to study the impact of the denotification of the tribal reserve that the Shompens are living in. It seems that the Shompens are dispensable and can be sacrificed at the altar of development.
It is shocking that the impact of Sea Level Rise [SLR]has not been considered while planning these projects. It is apparent that SLR will further aggravate the impacts caused by tsunamis, cyclones, etc. SLR will also result in flooding of turtle nesting beaches.
Advertisement
Is there a middle ground between complete cancellation and proceeding as planned, or do you believe the project requires a fundamental rethink?
We will waste a huge amount of money building unviable projects at a huge financial cost, as well as an immeasurable and unquantifiable cost to our environment, biodiversity and wildlife. There is no middle ground. The proposed project needs to be scrapped. I think the money can be better utilised to upgrade our defence infrastructure on the island. Our defence forces need every single rupee they can get to beef up our existing strategic assets on the island.
Can the environmental conditions attached to the project actually be enforced?
How will one monitor if the authorities are complying with these conditions? Six years later, if I go to the NGT and say that the Leatherback Turtle’s nesting ground has been destroyed, will the tribunal stop the project? I really doubt that. Environment clearance conditions for all projects remain on paper and are never fully implemented in letter and spirit. Given the fact that access to these islands is extremely expensive and restrictive, it is obvious that it will never be possible to independently monitor compliance with the environment clearance conditions.
Advertisement
Will the proposed port enhance India’s defence capabilities?
There is already a defence establishment on the island that the armed forces have been using for decades. I don’t see how a commercial port enhances defence. If anything, it undermines rather than strengthens our strategic position.
Published At:
Tags