New Delhi, Aug. 4 -- The Union government has not complied with the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) April 3, 2023 order on revisiting the deficiencies in the environmental clearance granted to the Great Nicobar Holistic Development project, a petitioner challenging the green nod to the key project has claimed before NGT. In a 39-page detailed submission made on July 24 by petitioner-environmentalist Ashish Kothari said the objective of this application is to seek the enforcement and implementation of the law. The petitioner highlighted that the three terms of reference for the NGT-appointed high-powered committee (HPC) were not met - specifically related to coral transplantation, environmental baseline data collection and review coastal regulation zone (CRZ) boundaries of the proposed port project. On April 3, 2023, NGT directed that clearance dated November 11, 2022 be revisited in the light of "some unanswered deficiencies" pointed out by the appellants which need to be addressed. "By way of instance, it is pointed out that out of 20,668 coral colonies, 16,150 are proposed to be translocated without any mention of threat to the remaining 4,518 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 the CRZ IA area where Port is prohibited," the NGT had said. HT had reported on April 7, 2023 that NGT had constituted a high-powered committee, headed by Union environment ministry secretary, to revisit the environmental clearance (EC) granted by the ministry to the Great Nicobar township and area development project. Experts, however, have questioned how a subordinate authority headed by the environment secretary revisit the green nod granted by its own ministry? In the submission to NGT, the petitioner has pointed out that several clauses of the Island Coastal Regulation Zone (ICRZ) Notification, 2019 and its annexure prohibit the destruction of corals. Annexure I to the notification prohibits destruction of corals, coral reefs and surrounding areas and allows coral transplantation activities only when necessary for regeneration after obtaining permission under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Activities like dredging and discharge of ballast water are also prohibited in and around coral reefs. "Even according to the MoEFCC, the HPC has only looked at the Zoological Survey of India's (ZSI) proposal to translocate coral colonies, and has agreed with the recommendation of ZSI. The mandate of the law, the fact that coral reefs are protected and that their translocation is not permitted by law etc. have not even been considered by the HPC," the submission said. Importantly, the petitioner has pointed out that fringing coral reefs around the island have been marked clearly in the draft ICRZ coastal land use plans prepared under the 2019 notification but they are not there in the approved land use plans. "Even according to the MoEFCC, the ZSI's report itself states that 16,150 coral colonies need to be translocated due to the port project. The ICRZ Notification, 2019 does not permit such transplantation to facilitate or clear the area for a port..." it added. It further claimed that the second aspect of TOR was also not met. "The MoEFCC and the HPC have failed to see that the requirement of comprehensive EIA, i.e, an EIA based on three season data collection, is mandated under the ICRZ Notification, 2019 and the EIA guidance manual itself requires data collection of more than one season..." it said, adding that the survey of ecology and biology was conducted between December 14 and 22, 2020, and the survey of leatherbacks was conducted between February 12 and 18, 2021 and hence the season was not covered. The third ToR was to "Review the boundaries of the port project with respect to ICRZ Notification, 2019." The tribunal in its April 2023 verdict has observed that "it is also shown that part of the project is in the CRZ IA area where Port is prohibited." The 2019 notification lists mangroves, corals and coral reefs, biologically active mud flats, turtle nesting grounds, nesting grounds of birds as CRZ IA - ecologically sensitive areas. "It is submitted that coral reefs, turtle nesting sites, megapode (bird) nesting grounds, mangroves, etc. do not and cannot magically disappear to suit the convenience of the project proponent. It is shocking that the HPC has relied only on a report of the NCSCM, the consultant of the project proponent, to come to the conclusion that no part of the project area falls under CRZ IA," the submission said. The petitioner also prayed that ecologically sensitive areas be excluded from project areas. "Unless this tribunal directs the exclusion of admitted CRZ IA areas such as coral reefs along the coast, turtle nesting grounds, megapode nesting grounds, biologically active mudflats etc. from the project area, they will be converted and destroyed," it said. The matter was heard by NGT's eastern bench on July 24. People aware of the matter said additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati submitted that the ministry did not violate any law and was aware of the sensitive nature of the island's environment and has ensured that sustainable development is achieved while keeping in mind the strategic requirements to ensure national security. The hearing was adjourned and the tribunal directed the MoEFCC to produce the revised layout which excludes all the CRZ-1A areas from the port, according to lawyers. The matter will be heard again on August 6. ASG Bhati did not respond to HT's request for a comment on whether the ministry will be making a submission on other concerns raised in the application....