TNM Exclusive: Nicobar tribal council opposes creation of wildlife sanctuaries

Tribal council of Great Nicobar and Little Nicobar Islands has opposed the creation of three wildlife sanctuaries to ‘compensate’ biodiversity loss due to a NITI Aayog mega project as they fear loss of land rights.
Traditional home of the Nicobarese people
Traditional home of the Nicobarese peopleCourtesy: X handle of Port Blair Municipal Council of A&N
Written by:

The Union government is set to invite bids for the first phase of NITI Aayog’s Rs 72,000 crore mega project on Great Nicobar island next month. The project aims to build a transshipment terminal, an international airport, tourism facilities and a power plant but it entails massive destruction of local ecology. 

The transshipment terminal is planned to be set up in Galathea Bay, a prime nesting site of the giant leatherback turtle. The Galathea Bay Wildlife Sanctuary and the Megapode Wildlife Sanctuary were de-notified in January, 2021, in all likelihood to make way for the mega project. 

Megapodes are fowl-like terrestrial birds. The Nicobar megapode is a type of scrubfowl found only on Nicobar islands. Both the Nicobar megapode and the giant leatherback turtle are vulnerable species. There are also other endemic species on Great Nicobar island like the Great Nicobar crake, Nicobar tree frog etc. 

More broadly, the project entails the diversion of about 130 sq kms of rainforests on the island. To ‘compensate’ for such loss of rich biodiversity, the government has proposed the creation of three new wildlife sanctuaries as part of the environment clearance process for the project. 

In May 2022, the Andaman and Nicobar (A&N) administration issued three public notices stating an intention to create three wildlife sanctuaries: Leatherback Turtle Sanctuary at Little Nicobar Island, Coral Sanctuary at Meroe Island and Megapode Sanctuary at Menchal Island. 

Two months later in July, the A&N administration issued an order stating it has not received any objection to the creation of the three sanctuaries. The order concludes that since no objections were received, “no person has any rights within the limits of the three sanctuaries” and also that there will be “restrictions” on entering the islands.

Finally, on 3rd October, the department of environment and forests under the Andaman and Nicobar administration issued official notifications declaring the three sanctuaries: 13.75 sq. kms on Little Nicobar and the whole of the Meroe and Menchal islands comprising 2.73 sq. kms and 1.29 sq kms, respectively. The area includes surrounding waters. 

But the local tribal council has objected to the creation of the sanctuaries saying they were never consulted in the first place. 

“I saw the order [stating intention to create sanctuaries] on the notice board when I went to the office of the assistant commissioner [of Campbell Bay in Great Nicobar]. We were not given a copy of the order,” Barnabas Manju, chairman of the tribal council of Great Nicobar and Little Nicobar Islands, told The News Minute. 

In August, the tribal council wrote to the Deputy Commissioner for Nicobar district saying they are "distressed and aggrieved” by the decision to declare sanctuaries “so quickly and suddenly.” They also expressed “shock” because “the decision was made without any consultation with us, the original dwellers and the traditional owners and caretakers of these islands.”

Letter by the Tribal Council
Letter by the Tribal Council

A copy of the letter was also sent to various other officials, including the chief secretary of the Andaman and Nicobar administration, the lieutenant governor of the islands and the divisional forest officer at the Andaman and Nicobar forest department. None of them responded. Instead, two months later in October, they issued official notifications to create the three wildlife sanctuaries.  

“No one listens to us,” Manju lamented. “No one gives attention. They [government officials] have their own view of development and they will go ahead.”

The tribal council letter states “We have never been asked how these wildlife species continue to persist on our beaches… coral reefs, megapodes, saltwater crocodiles, or leatherback sea turtles among so many other wildlife which exist on our islands, we are aware of their presence and have coexisted with them… We do not have a wildlife department within our community, but we have traditional rights, laws maintained and enforced by our elders, and also traditional practices due to which these species continue to persist and prosper on our islands…”

Ritwick Dutta, environmental lawyer and co-founder of Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment said “It is important that the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act are followed in letter and spirit. The declaration of sanctuaries must be done in a way that ensures the affected community is informed about the intention to constitute an area as a sanctuary.” 

Dutta added that the law is clear in terms of ensuring effective participation of the local community in the decision-making process but what has occurred with respect to the creation of the three sanctuaries on the islands is “rapid, absurd and nothing but an empty formality”. 

Land and resource rights in peril 

About 800 people live in Little Nicobar, while Meroe and Menchal are uninhabited. Worth noting that the order stating intention to declare wildlife sanctuaries on all three islands was displayed at offices of public authorities on Great Nicobar island, not Little Nicobar where some of the affected communities live. 

Elaborating on the implications of declaring a sanctuary at Menchal and Meroe islands, tribal council chairman Manju said local communities have been using them as resource islands for generations. “We have coconut plantations [on the islands]. These lands are also sacred for us,” Manju added. The harvested coconuts are used to feed pigs reared by the Nicobarese and also to make copra. Hunting is taboo on Meroe and Menchal because the community believes spirits guard them. These islands also have customary caretakers to ensure sustainable use of resources.

But with the creation of the wildlife sanctuaries, rights of entry and access to these islands now stand legally restricted. 

On the creation of wildlife sanctuaries on Little Nicobar and Menchal for the conservation of leatherback turtles and megapodes, Manish Chandi, a social ecologist with two decades of experience on the island, said “Galathea Bay is full of megapodes and leatherback turtles. It makes no sense to destroy this area and create new sanctuaries to compensate. This is a disservice to conservation.”

Chandi also added that on Menchal, there are only about two pairs of megapodes and given so, said “what is the purpose of creating a sanctuary for such a small population? Rights of local communities are being violated for nothing. This is a separation project… of people from wildlife. There is no social ecology here.”

Echoing similar concerns, Dutta said “The reasons for declaring an area as a sanctuary must be stated clearly. If there are no threats or likely threats from local communities, there is no purpose in restricting access.”

We sent an email to officials in the department of forest and environment, Andaman and Nicobar administration on 5th January, 2023 seeking a response to concerns raised in the tribal council letter. We also asked them for copies of surveys conducted and other related data to substantiate the necessity to create wildlife sanctuaries for corals, megapodes and leatherback turtles and also wildlife management plans for each of them. We sent a follow-up query on 8th January. We have not received any response yet. 

Over a phone call, Kamal Dutta, additional principal chief conservator of forests dismissed questions raised by this reporter related to customary land and resource rights. He said “How are you related to this project? What is your locus standi? There are channels to seek information called RTI. You cannot call up senior officials like this."

Interestingly, the on-paper reason for de-notification of Galathea Bay wildlife sanctuary is stated as non-settlement of rights. “The irony is that while a whole sanctuary was denotified on the ground that rights could not be settled and therefore peoples right has to be given primacy over the interest of wildlife, in the case of the new sanctuaries a complete about turn has been taken wherein no concern has been shown as to whether the impacted community has been consulted and their consent taken,” Dutta explained.

The settlement of rights involves a series of steps which, taken together, satisfy the legal requirement of free and prior informed consent. “This has clearly not been done in the case of declaring new sanctuaries,” Dutta pointed out. 

Rishika Pardikar is a freelance environment journalist based in Bengaluru.

Related Stories

No stories found.
The News Minute
www.thenewsminute.com