Citizen collective seeks pause on coral translocation amid data and methodology concerns
A citizen-led environmental group has urged the Andaman and Nicobar Islands forest department to withhold statutory clearance for the planned relocation of coral colonies from Galathea Bay on Great Nicobar Island, contending that the scientific and ecological basis for the exercise is incomplete and inadequately documented.
The representation, submitted by the group named There Is No Earth B, responds to figures published by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation (ANIIDCO) and the project’s Environment Impact Assessment (EIA). ANIIDCO recorded 20,668 coral colonies inside the proposed port footprint; of these, the EIA reportedly earmarks 16,150 colonies for translocation while keeping 4,518 under observation.
| Measure | Number of coral colonies |
|---|---|
| Total recorded within footprint | 20,668 |
| Proposed for translocation | 16,150 |
| Proposed for observation | 4,518 |
In its submission, the group questions several core elements of the EIA and the translocation plan. It says the assessment refers to "alternate suitable offshore habitats" and lists four west-coast sites, but does not provide maps or explicit location details that would allow independent evaluation of those choices. The representation also requests publication of baseline ecological data and the criteria used to determine site suitability.
“The EIA conducted over a period of just 9 days does not accurately capture the potential behaviour and impact on the corals of this abrupt relocation in habitat,” the group's representation said.
The citizen collective challenges the use of a 90% success rate cited in the EIA, arguing that the figure derives from a Zoological Survey of India (ZSI) project in the Gulf of Kachchh and is not necessarily transferable to Great Nicobar’s reefs without site-specific evidence. The representation also flagged the absence of reported genetic sampling to confirm whether the stock of corals proposed for translocation carries sufficient genetic diversity to re-establish viable colonies at the recipient sites.
There Is No Earth B pointed to what it described as conflicting assessments of coral presence in the project area. The group noted that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) on February 16 had dismissed petitions challenging the port project after relying on an initial ZSI finding that there was no major coral reef in the work area, and argued this contrasts with the later counts and translocation plans.
Key scientific and procedural gaps highlighted
- Absence of named, mapped and published alternate sites proposed for relocation.
- Short duration of EIA field work—reported as nine days—insufficient to capture seasonal or behavioural variability.
- Questionable applicability of a 90% success benchmark drawn from an unrelated project without local studies.
- Lack of disclosed genetic sampling to assess resilience and suitability of donor colonies for translocation.
The representation asks that no physical handling or movement of coral colonies commence until a long-term, site-specific scientific plan is published and peer-reviewed or made available for scrutiny by independent experts. It also seeks the release of baseline ecological inventories and the methodology used for assessing prospective transplant locations.
The project-related documents published so far, including the EIA, reportedly describe mitigation through coral translocation as a measure to compensate for habitat loss within the port footprint. Environmentalists and scientists caution that translocation is technically complex, context-dependent and often yields mixed outcomes unless accompanied by rigorous baseline surveys, monitoring and adaptive management plans tailored to local oceanographic and ecological conditions.
The Andaman and Nicobar Islands administration and the forest department have not been quoted directly in the representation reproduced in media reports. ANIIDCO’s tally of coral colonies within the footprint is the principal numeric basis for the proposed relocation plan referenced in the submission.
The issue draws attention to wider tensions between infrastructure development priorities and the conservation of sensitive marine ecosystems in the archipelago. Observers say decisions on coral handling and habitat modification carry long-term ecological consequences and merit transparent sharing of data and independent scientific review.
With the project under legal and administrative scrutiny in different fora earlier this year, the citizen group’s call for additional examination highlights continuing contestation over whether proposed mitigation measures are scientifically robust and operationally feasible on ground.
