Wildlife Sanctuaries in Nicobar Islands
Context:
Recently, the Nicobarese Tribal Council has demanded the immediate revocation of three newly notified wildlife sanctuaries on Little Nicobar, Menchal and Meroe islands in the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The Council alleges that the Union Government bypassed mandatory consultation processes under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 and ignored the community’s ancestral ownership, cultural practices and spiritual connection with these islands.
About Conflict over Wildlife Sanctuaries:
The sanctuaries were notified as part of an environmental mitigation strategy linked to the ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar Island Development Project in Great Nicobar Island, which includes a container port, airport, and township. The objective is to offset ecological damage from large-scale infrastructure expansion.
Islands at the Centre of the Dispute:
Little Nicobar Island (Ong)
-
-
- Area & Status: About 140 km², part of the inhabited Southern Nicobar group.
- Significance: Biodiversity-rich island supporting endangered species and Nicobarese settlements.
- Sanctuary Proposal: Leatherback Turtle Sanctuary overlaps with traditional villages.
- Concern: Restricts access to ancestral and residential lands.
- Area & Status: About 140 km², part of the inhabited Southern Nicobar group.
-
Menchal Island (Pingaeyak)
-
-
- Status: Uninhabited, occasionally used for seasonal farming and fishing.
- Cultural Significance: Sacred island believed to host ancestral spirits.
- Sanctuary Proposal: Megapode Sanctuary for endemic bird conservation.
- Concern: Seen as complete exclusion from culturally important land.
- Status: Uninhabited, occasionally used for seasonal farming and fishing.
-
Meroe Island (Piruii)
-
-
- Status: Small island (~0.52 km²), uninhabited.
- Usage: Resource area for coconuts and fishing.
- Sanctuary Proposal: Coral Sanctuary for reef protection.
- Concern: Ignores customary ownership and traditional use rights.
- Status: Small island (~0.52 km²), uninhabited.
-
The opposition is based on legal, cultural, and livelihood concerns:
-
- Violation of FRA: No proper Gram Sabha consultations or consent processes were conducted before notification.
- Sacred Landscape: Menchal and Meroe are believed to be abodes of ancestral spirits, making access restrictions culturally significant.
- Livelihood Dependence: Islands support coconut and areca nut plantations, along with forest resources used for housing, tools, and traditional crafts.
- Limited Rights Concern: Authorities allow ritual hunting, but the community argues their rights include habitation, agriculture, and resource use.
- Tourism Opposition: Proposed eco-tourism is rejected; instead, locals demand jetties, water supply, and telecom connectivity.
- Violation of FRA: No proper Gram Sabha consultations or consent processes were conducted before notification.
Conclusion:
The dispute over wildlife sanctuaries in the Nicobar Islands highlights a major conflict between conservation-led mitigation and indigenous rights. While the sanctuaries aim to protect fragile ecosystems affected by development in Great Nicobar Island, the Nicobarese community sees them as an infringement on ancestral land, cultural identity, and livelihood security. The resolution will depend on balancing ecological protection with legal safeguards under the Forest Rights Act and indigenous rights in India.
