




































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 4 (2): 119– 147, July 2021 

RESEARCH PAPER 

Economic Transformation of the Nicobar Islands 

Post-tsunami: A Material Import–Export Analysis 

Shaina Sehgal1 and Suresh Babu2 

Abstract: Natural disasters can have lasting impacts on regional economies. Island 
economies, in particular, have protracted recoveries from disasters due to their 
location, size, and economic dependence on trading partners. As imports and 
exports are especially explicit and discernible in ports, islands facilitate 
investigations on the long-term effects of disaster relief, reconstruction, and 
redevelopment on trade. In this paper, we examine the transformational impact of 
the 2004 Indian ocean earthquake and tsunami. We examine changes to physical 
imports and exports in the archipelago to reflect on the social, economic, and 
ecological impacts of the 2004 disaster and subsequent recovery. We analyse 
disaggregated physical import and export data for 2003–2017 from revenue ports in 
the Nicobar Islands in India along with data from field surveys and interviews 
conducted on the islands. We find that while the archipelago’s physical trade 
balance has been continuously growing since 2003, it increased at a higher rate after 
the disaster and thereafter stabilized to levels comparable to the pre-tsunami 
period. However, further analysis indicates that the nature and quantity of physical 
imports during this period, such as of fuel and construction materials, are 
unprecedented; and there are diverging trajectories of redevelopment within the 
archipelago. By highlighting the key features of the relief, reconstruction, and 
redevelopment efforts following the tsunami, we argue that the development policy 
and imports post-2004 have qualitatively transformed production practices and 
trade in Nicobar and simultaneously reinforced historical trajectories of the 
development of certain ports and islands. 

                                                        
1 Research Scholar, School of Human Ecology, Ambedkar University Delhi, Lothian Road, 
Kashmere Gate, Delhi – 110006; ssehgal.13@stu.aud.ac.in. 

2  Associate Professor, School of Human Ecology, Ambedkar University Delhi, Lothian 
Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi – 110006; suresh@aud.ac.in. 

Copyright © Sehgal and Babu 2021. Released under Creative Commons Attribution-

NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of Economic 

Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581-6152 (print); 2581-6101 (web). 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v4i2.331  

mailto:ssehgal.13@stu.aud.ac.in
mailto:suresh@aud.ac.in
https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v4i2.331


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [120] 

Keywords: Physical Trade; Nicobar Islands; Economic Transformation; Natural 
Disaster; Tsunami. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Catastrophic events, particularly natural disasters, have altered the 
developmental trajectories of economies and transformed island nations 
and areas (Pelling, Özerdem, and Barakat 2002). Small islands are 
particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts, sea-level rise, and extreme 
disasters (Mimura et al. 2007). Climate change models indicate that the 
frequency, intensity, and unpredictability of such disasters will continue to 
increase (IPCC 2007). Natural disasters can cause simultaneous sectoral 
expansions and contractions in island economies. A study on sectoral 
redevelopment responses after cyclone incidences in 28 Caribbean-basin 
countries between 1970 and 2006 found that the construction sector 
expanded (presumably due to reconstruction) while tourism, agriculture, 
and allied sectors suffered the most losses (Hsiang 2010). Furthermore, 
these significant sectoral impacts appeared to persist beyond the year of the 
initial event. Empirical evidence indicates the negative short-run economic 
effects (direct and indirect) of natural disasters and the negative long-run 
effects of hydro-meteorological disasters (Botzen, Deschenes, and Sanders 
2019). Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and offshore islands are 
especially vulnerable due to their small size, insularity, remoteness, and 
frequency of natural hazards that impact key sectors of their economy, such 
as agriculture, fishery, and tourism3 (Pelling and Uitto 2001).  

Imports and exports are explicit and discernible in island settings because of 
the clearly demarcated ports of entry and exit. An analysis of trade on 
islands can provide insight into their economies. However, conventional 
analyses of trade pose significant methodological limitations to 
understanding embodied sociopolitical and ecological processes 
(Schaffartzik et al. 2014). A significant development in trade analyses has 
been the move towards evaluating the physical dimensions of commodities, 
typically on a national scale (Dittrich and Bringezu 2010). Analysing the 
movement of materials (as opposed to their monetary value) facilitates 
reconciling society and ecology with production and trade. This approach 
draws its theoretical basis from socio-ecological systems and social and 
industrial metabolism (Martinez-Alier and Schlüpmann 1987; Schandl and 

                                                        
3 The Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are a distinct group of 52 small island countries 
that face unique social, economic, and environmental vulnerabilities, while offshore islands 
refers to islands that are economically and politically subordinated to a mainland or main 
island. 



[121] Shaina Sehgal and Suresh Babu 

Schaffartzik 2015). However, social (or societal) metabolic analyses have 
been critiqued for their methodological emphasis on material or energetic 
interactions between “nature” and “society” to the exclusion of analytical 
connections with social processes (Fischer-Kowalski and Hüttler 1998; de 
Molina and Toledo 2014). Novel approaches for finding ecological 
processes embodied in commodities, or in indirect flows of traded 
products, include using “cradle-to-product” coefficients for various 
commodities or input–output calculations for product groups (Dittrich, 
Bringezu, and Schütz 2012, 33). Contemporary advances in the field have 
also highlighted how the ecosystem is embodied in trade through analyses 
of virtual land use (Würtenberger, Koellner, and Binder 2006), virtual water 
(Ansink 2010), embodied carbon flows (Sato 2014), energy flows, and 
ecological footprints (Moran et al. 2009). These studies shed light on 
environmental variables embodied in traded commodities (especially natural 
resources) that are otherwise not visible in trade economics. 

The dominant theoretical models for explaining the indirect economic 
impacts of disasters and post-disaster recovery on the macroeconomy 
employ social accounting matrices, neoclassical growth theory, or 
endogenous productivity, and have been criticized for ignoring regional 
geography (Botzen, Deschenes, and Sanders 2019). Further, few studies use 
regional development models to measure economic impacts over multiple 
decades. We, therefore, follow a regional perspective to analyse the 
medium-term impact of the disaster and recovery process in an offshore 
island setting in the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands in 
India.  

The Andaman and Nicobar Islands’ economy relies predominantly on 
tertiary (tourism and public-sector employment) and primary-sector 
activities (agriculture and fishery) (Planning Commission 2008). The share 
of the primary sector in the gross state domestic product (GSDP) has been 
decreasing steadily since 2014, while the secondary and tertiary sectors have 
been expanding (Directorate of Economics and Statistics, n.d.-c.). 
However, the Nicobar group’s economy relies mainly on the primary sector 
(dominated by coconut plantations) as economic possibilities in the 
Nicobar Islands are mediated by critical concerns pertaining to tribal 
welfare and environmental protection. The Nicobar Islands are a tribal 
reserve as per notifications under the Andaman and Nicobar (Protection of 
Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation, 1956 (ANPATR), although some parts were 
denotified to permit the creation of revenue areas.4 In the tribal reserve 

                                                        
4  Pigeon, Megapode, Isle of Man, and parts of Car Nicobar, Kamorta, and the Great 
Nicobar Islands are excluded vide Notification No. ANPATR/3(1)/1, dated April 2, 1957, 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [122] 

areas of the archipelago—basically all of the Nicobar Islands—there are 
additional levels of governance and politics that shape development and 
trade. ANPATR has been pivotal in determining the role of local 
governance institutions (namely, the Nicobarese Tribal Council and 
panchayats), which regulate developmental interventions by the state. In 
addition, environmental legislations that govern national parks and 
sanctuaries regulate the unbridled development of these islands. The 
Nicobar Islands are a hotspot for biodiversity and are, therefore, part of 
India’s protected area network.  

The Nicobar Islands have a turbulent history of colonization and post-
Independence settlements along with policies that effectively regulated and 
curtailed free trade. European trading companies, including the Danish, 
Austrian, and English East India Companies, were largely unsuccessful at 
colonizing the Nicobars between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries 
(Sehgal 2021). However, British colonization of the Nicobars from 1869 
onwards marked a distinct chapter with the creation of the Nancowry penal 
settlement and implementation of trade regulations (Vaidik 2010). Car 
Nicobar emerged as a key port due to interventions by the British colonial 
state in the pre-Independence period, while Campbell Bay port and other 
revenue areas in Great Nicobar were created in the 1960s and 1970s for 
strategic reasons (Singh 2003). The historical trade relations between 
Nicobarese society, the state, and markets were unequal in terms of 
embodied labour (Singh and Ramanujam 2010). The island development 
policy acknowledges these historical legacies and contemporary concerns 
and conceives of a diversity of interventions (Planning Commission 2008). 
However, recent projects envisaged for the islands appear to have deviated 
from this understanding (Sekhsaria 2021). 

The production and trade of horticultural and marine produce in the 
Nicobar Islands are deeply embedded in the cultural and ecological 
landscape of the islands. A key example is the coconut (Cocos nucifera), which 
is a major crop of the Nicobar Islands. In addition to being an export 
commodity, the drupe, trunk, and leaves of the coconut palm have 
historically been used for food, fuel, medicine, shelter, trade, and rituals in 
Nicobarese communities, as demonstrated through analyses of their diet, 
vocabulary, folklore, rituals, traditional medicine, and lifestyles (Dagar and 
Dagar 1986; Roy and Roy 1969; Man 1886). Nicobarese dietary staples 
historically include coconut, pandanus (Pandanus leram), yams, fish, pig, 

                                                                                                                            
and Notification No. 62/72/F.No.81-9/71-J (1), dated April 20, 1972, issued by the 
Andaman and Nicobar Administration, Chief Commissioner’s Secretariat, printed in the 
Andaman and Nicobar Gazette, Port Blair. 



[123] Shaina Sehgal and Suresh Babu 

poultry, and imported rice. Recently, coconut plantations were ranked 
highest overall in analyses of the economic, nutritional, social status, 
ceremonial, functional, and substitutability attributes of important material 
resources in Nicobarese society, indicating their centrality in Nicobarese 
culture (Chandi 2016). These production relations were impacted by the 
2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. The Nicobar Islands were the 
epicentre of an earthquake measuring Mw 9.3 on the Richter scale and were 
the first landmass to encounter the resulting tsunami waves that reached up 
to 1,000 m inland. This disaster took the lives of over 3,500 people and 
destroyed and inundated coastal villages and plantations (Ministry of Home 
Affairs 2006; Sankaran 2005; Ramanamurthy et al. 2005). 

In view of the social and ecological underpinnings of Nicobar’s economy, 
we pose the following research questions:  

1. What were the transformations in Nicobar’s economy after the 
2004 disaster?  

2. What are the social and ecological underpinnings of these changes?  

To reflect on the economic transformations in the Nicobar archipelago and 
the associated social and ecological underpinnings, we study changes in 
physical imports and exports as proxies (disaggregated by port and key 
categories) and draw on field surveys and interviews we conducted on the 
islands. This study, to our knowledge, is the first of its kind to use port-wise 
cargo data available from Indian port authorities to analyse physical trade at 
the sub-national or regional scale. 

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we briefly introduce the 
study area and dataset and outline our analysis. Subsequently, the physical 
trade balance and important material imports and exports of the Nicobar 
Islands are disaggregated port-wise and analysed in Section 3. The post-
tsunami redevelopment and trade are situated within the socio-ecological 
context of the islands and discussed in Section 4, followed by a conclusion 
in Section 5. 

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS 

2.1. Study Area 

The Nicobar archipelago comprises 22 islands in the Bay of Bengal, 
between 92° to 94° E and 6° to 10° N, over 1,200 km off the east coast of 
India. They are separated by channels of open sea from the Andaman 
archipelago in the north and Indonesia in the south (Figure 1). The Nicobar 
Islands were declared a tribal reserve as per the ANPATR, which 
recognizes the rights of indigenous dwellers to their land and resources and 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [124] 

regulates all trade by using permits.5 The archipelago has a population of 
36,842 people (Census of India 2011) comprising indigenous Nicobarese 
and Shompen communities, mainland Indians and international refugees 
originally settled by the state, and a floating population of government 
employees and migrant labour. Both the Nicobarese and descendants of 
settlers cultivate and export coconut.  

The archipelago is designated as a district under the Union Territory of the 
Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The Nicobar district consists of three sub-
divisions (tehsils)—Car Nicobar, Nancowry, and Campbell Bay—which 
encompass the northern, central, and southern groups of islands (Figure 1 
inset). Car Nicobar Island is the district headquarters. There are four 
revenue ports in the Nicobars—Car Nicobar, Katchal, Nancowry, and 
Campbell Bay. Car Nicobar and Katchal are the eponymous ports of their 
respective islands. Nancowry refers to the port on Kamorta Island in the 
harbour formed by the Kamorta and Nancowry islands, and Campbell Bay 
is the port on Great Nicobar Island. 

 

Figure 1: Map of the Nicobar Islands in the Indian Ocean 

 
Figure 1: Map of the Nicobar Islands in the Indian Ocean 
Source: Author 

The islands have a tropical climate and experience both the south-west and 
north-east monsoons. The Nicobar Islands have a high degree of endemic 
flora and fauna across tropical rainforests, grasslands, mangroves, and coral 

                                                        
5 Access to the tribal reserves in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands is not permitted without 
a tribal area permit issued by the deputy commissioner of the relevant jurisdiction. 



[125] Shaina Sehgal and Suresh Babu 

reef ecosystems, and are part of the Sundaland biodiversity hotspot (Myers 
et al. 2000; Saldanha 1989). Of the total land area of 1,841 km2, 84% is 
protected forestland (Directorate of Economics and Statistics, n.d.-c.). The 
protected areas in the Nicobar Islands form two national parks, four 
wildlife sanctuaries, one biosphere reserve, and seven community-protected 
marine areas (Patankar et al. 2015). 

The Nicobar Islands are in a seismically active region. On 26 December 
2004, these islands were the first landmass to be devastated by the Indian 
Ocean tsunami that followed an undersea Sumatra–Andaman Mw 9.3 
earthquake at 6:29 AM IST on the subduction plate boundary (3.7° N, 95° 
E), where the Indian and Australian plates converge and plunge below the 
Sunda plate (Thakkar and Goyal 2006). In that month, 55 more earthquakes 
with magnitudes of over 5 on the Richter scale occurred in the vicinity of 
the Nicobar Islands (Directorate of Economics and Statistics, n.d.-d). 
According to government sources, at least 3,513 people died in the Nicobar 
Islands (Ministry of Home Affairs 2006). Tens of thousands of people were 
evacuated to relief camps, with over 5,000 brought to the mainland (Relief 
Commissioner 2005). In the months that followed, villages and plantations 
were inaccessible, and residents were discouraged from returning to them. 
Survivors had to cope with the loss of loved ones, homes, livelihoods, 
infrastructure, and years of protracted recovery. 

The earthquakes destroyed physical structures, and the tsunami decimated 
coastal villages and plantations. Infrastructural damage to the power and 

water supply systems, ports, ships, roads, and bridges was estimated at ₹11 
billion (USD 249.4 million) 6  (Relief Commissioner 2005). The islands 
experienced an uplift of 1–1.5 m in the north (Diglipur, North Andaman 
Island) and a submergence of 3 m in the south (Indira Point, Great Nicobar 
Island) (Rajendran et al. 2007; Rajendran et al. 2008). Seawater ingress in 
several locations destroyed plantations, farms, and mangrove forests. The 
tsunami damaged 7,556 km2 of agricultural land in the Andaman and 
Nicobar Islands, affecting 6,324 farmers (Hassan 2010). Over 70% of this 
damage was to the Nicobar Islands.  

2.2. Data Collection and Analysis  

We compiled the dataset from the annual reports for 2003–04 to 2016–177 
brought out by the four revenue ports of the Nicobar Islands, i.e., Car 
Nicobar, Katchal, Nancowry, and Campbell Bay, maintained by the Port 

                                                        
6 2005 INR to USD exchange rate of USD 1 = INR 44.1. 

7 Data on Nancowry Island for 2003–04 was unavailable. 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [126] 

Management Board (PMB), Andaman and Nicobar Administration.8 We 
limited our study to the period 2003–2017 due to the unavailability of data 
for the pre-tsunami period, as several records stored in the PMB offices 
were destroyed during the 2004 disaster. The data were cleaned for an 
exploratory analysis in R (R Core Team 2018; Grolemund and Wickham 
2017). The PMB records the mass of cargo loaded and unloaded in ports 
annually in a standard template (48 commodities in 23 categories). We 
calculated the physical trade balance, defined as imports less exports 
(measured in metric tonnes or MT), for the Nicobar Islands and examined 
the trends in imports and exports for all 48 commodities disaggregated by 
port. Thereafter, we shortlisted commodities into seven categories: 
construction materials; agricultural commodities; food stuff; general cargo; 
petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL) (including petroleum crude); scrap 
items; and others (for the list of commodities, see Appendix, Table A1). We 
also analysed secondary data on infrastructure from statistical publications 
of the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Andaman and Nicobar 
Islands Administration. The relevant results of our analysis are presented in 
the next section; the vertical dotted line in the graphs indicates the 
earthquake and tsunami in December 2004. 

The primary observations concerning production and trade were derived 
from interviews with farmers, local leaders, and government officials, as 
part of the authors’ respective doctoral research on the Great Nicobar 
Island between 1999–2009 (SB) and 2014–2018 (SS). 

3. RESULTS 

Nicobar’s physical trade balance has been increasing since 2003–04 (or the 
financial year 2004), but it grew at a substantial rate after the earthquake and 
ensuing tsunamis in December 2004 (Figure 2). There was a decline from 
2007–08 till 2011–12, after which the physical trade balance appears to have 
stabilized to levels comparable to the pre-tsunami period. As an analysis of 
the physical trade balance alone obscures the qualitative transformation in 
economic processes, the quantities and nature of physical imports and 
exports are visualized in Figures 3, 5, 6, and 7.  

 

 

 

 

                                                        
8 We consulted records at the PMB offices in Port Blair and Campbell Bay between 2016 
and 2018. 



[127] Shaina Sehgal and Suresh Babu 

 

Figure 2: Physical Trade Balance in the Nicobar Islands (2003–
2017) 

 
Figure 2: Physical Trade Balance in the Nicobar Islands (2003–2017) 

Construction materials were the principal category of material (or physical) 
imports into the Nicobar Islands every year between 2003 and 2017. 
Agricultural commodities were the main physical exports from the Nicobar 
Islands, except for four years—the two years following the tsunami, and 
2014–2015 and 2015–16—when they were surpassed by general cargo and 
construction materials, respectively, owing to trans-shipments to smaller 
islands. The Nicobar Islands largely export to Port Blair on South Andaman 
Island; they also export some agricultural and marine products to other 
islands within the group. We further disaggregated key imports and exports 
by the four revenue ports in the archipelago into four categories, i.e., 
construction materials, fuel, food stuff, and agriculture. 

Construction materials such as bitumen, cement, stone, sand, steel, timber, 
and heavy machinery were imported in large quantities after the tsunami 
(Figure 3). The quantity of construction materials imported for post-disaster 
reconstruction dwarfs all other imports to these islands. These materials 
have been used to create economic infrastructure, such as jetties, houses, 
schools, health centres, government schools, offices, and the extended road 
network on the islands (see Table 1 and Figure 4). However, the 
reconstruction efforts have not been evenly spread across the islands. For 
example, bitumen, cement, and finished steel imports into Car Nicobar 
were larger and took place before imports to other islands, as it was the 
Nicobar district headquarters and the most populous island in the group 
(Figure 3). 

  



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [128] 

 
Figure 3: Construction Material Imported into the Nicobar Islands (2003–04 to 
2016–17) 

The construction of the economic and social infrastructure of the islands 
continued for over a decade after the tsunami. Challenges associated with 
construction included the distance from the mainland (which made 
importing materials difficult), a very short dry season of four months for 
the construction work, and unavailability of jetties for cargo ships in 
Nancowry tehsil. Therefore, loading and unloading of cargo were largely 
done through stevedoring. Select indicators of infrastructure built are given 
in Table 1. Permanent housing shelters and community buildings 9  were 
constructed by the Central Public Works Department after deliberations on 
their design with the tribal councils and panchayats. Extension of medical 
and education facilities was also prioritized. The number of these 

                                                        
9 Community buildings include community halls, recreation halls, and customary birth and 
death houses in the Nicobarese villages. 



[129] Shaina Sehgal and Suresh Babu 

institutions in 2016–17 obscures the fact that there are now fewer villages in 
the Nicobar Islands, which has resulted in a concentration of administrative 
and development focus. In the Campbell Bay tehsil, for example, survivors 
from the eight Nicobarese villages and hamlets on the west coast of Great 
Nicobar were eventually relocated to three permanent villages created on 
the island’s east and north coasts; the two east coast villages are connected 
by road. The newer and fewer villages in the Nicobar Islands have now 
been brought into a closer embrace with state-led development.  

 

Figure 4: Physical Trade Balance in the Nicobar Islands (2003–2017) 

POL products and liquified petroleum gas (LPG) are key sources of fuel in 
the Nicobar Islands, and their imports have increased rapidly in the post-
tsunami period (see Figure 5). LPG cylinders are used as household cooking 
fuel, while petrol and diesel provide fuel for power generation, construction 
machinery (such as road rollers, earthmovers, asphalt and cement mixers), 
and transport vehicles. As seen in Table 1, LPG connections on the islands 
have increased by 13 times between 2005–06 and 2016–17, while the 
installed power capacity has increased by 21 times. We observed that the 
number of private, government, and commercial vehicles on the islands, 
such as fishing boats, trucks, buses, cars, and motorcycles, have also 
increased. Consequently, fuel imports into Car Nicobar, Nancowry, and 
Campbell Bay ports are at unprecedented levels as compared to the pre-
tsunami period; moreover, they are unlikely to decrease. 

 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [130] 

Table 1: Select Indicators of Infrastructure in the Nicobar Islands  

Category 2005–06 2016–17 

Housing 

Permanent shelters NA 7,001 

Health 

Medical institutions10 41 46 

Education 

Schools 70 59 

School enrolment 7,103 6,587 

Fuel and power 

LPG connections 230 3,329 

Installed capacity 562 KW (kilowatt) 12,193 KW 

Electrified villages 91 98 

Industry 

Small-scale industries 71 72 

Telecommunication11 

Broadband connections 0 371 

Transportation 

Country craft (fishing boats) - 338 

Mechanized fishing boats 175 170 

Surfaced road length 85.23 km 282.23 km 

Storage 

Fair price shops 41 52 

Godowns and warehouses 8 17 

Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics (n.d.-a.; n.d.-b.; n.d.-e.; n.d.-f.); 
“Status Report of Permanent Shelters in A&N Islands” (n.d.) 

 

                                                        
10 Medical institutions include hospitals, community health centres, primary health centres, 
dispensaries, and sub-centres. 

11 Mobile telecommunication was introduced in the post-tsunami period. 



[131] Shaina Sehgal and Suresh Babu 

 
Figure 5: Fuel Imports into the Nicobar Islands (2003–04 to 2016–17) 

Food stuff is a critical import; it includes food grains, oil, salt, sugar, tea, 
fruits, and vegetables. Food imports increased in the post-tsunami period 
due to relief efforts and stabilized thereafter (see Figure 6). Car Nicobar 
receives the largest volume of food imports in the group as it is the most 
populous island in the archipelago. The quantum of wheat imports into 
Campbell Bay reflects its diversity in population and their food culture. 
 
Agriculture and fishery (and stone quarrying to a limited extent) are the 
main export sectors of the Nicobar Islands.12 Other exported items 
represent the movements of cargo or material flows from the islands but 
not those originating from it. These exports include construction material 
and general cargo for trans-shipments and scrap material from the islands, 
including debris from infrastructure destroyed by the earthquake and 
tsunami which was removed from the islands from 2009 onwards (see 
Appendix, Figure A1). 

                                                        
12 Commercial harvest of timber and non-timber forest products is not permitted in the 
Nicobar Islands and therefore absent from documented exports. From our fieldwork, we are 
aware that limited quarrying for rocks was permitted following the tsunami on the Great 
Nicobar Island. 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [132] 

 
Figure 6: Food Imports into the Nicobar Islands (2003–04 to 2016–17) 

The rubber plantations of Katchal were established by the Rubber Board in 
1968 and transferred in 1983 to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Forest 
and Plantation Development Corporation Limited (ANIFPDCL). 
ANIFPDCL was closed in 2017 after incurring losses since 2001, when 
forestry activities were suspended by a Supreme Court order (Dhingra 2005; 
Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs 2017). Katchal also experienced 
the largest damage by area to its agricultural plantations (Hassan 2010). 
Consequently, the island was depopulated in subsequent years and has 
reduced material flows. 



[133] Shaina Sehgal and Suresh Babu 

 
Figure 7: Agricultural Exports from the Nicobar Islands (2003–04 to 2016–17) 

While Car Nicobar leads the archipelago in copra exports, Campbell Bay 
has emerged as an exporter of desiccated coconut powder in recent years. 
This followed the establishment in 2011 of a small-scale desiccated coconut 
powder industry in a revenue village on Great Nicobar Island, the exports 
of which are unfortunately not recorded separately in the dataset. The 
tonnage alone, therefore, masks the value of the processed goods that are 
exported and may even show a declining trend (such as in the recent copra 
exports from Campbell Bay). Local respondents attribute the boost in fruit 
and vegetable exports from Campbell Bay in recent years to the tenant 
cultivators who came to Great Nicobar as migrant labourers for post-
tsunami reconstruction. Several original plantation owners either emigrated 
to the mainland after the tsunami or leased their plantations and diversified 
into transportation and as contractors for expanding civil works (i.e., the 
infrastructure in Table 1). 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [134] 

4. DISCUSSION   

The tsunami is widely considered a watershed moment for the Nicobar 
Islands and is categorized as a socio-ecological disaster in scholarship 
(Tripathi 2018). The flows of relief material brought government and aid 
agencies in contact, resulting in uneasy donor-aid relationships; this period 
has been referred to as a “tsunami of aid” (Ramani 2010). The nature of aid 
and implementation of humanitarian relief ran counter to Nicobarese 
norms of reciprocity and effected social hierarchies within communities. 
Thus, the influx of multilateral aid and protracted residence in relief camps 
after the 2004 disaster reconfigured Nicobarese institutions and social 
structures such as the tuhet (Ramanujam, Singh, and Vatn 2012). These 
social changes have affected traditional natural resource use and 
management in the post-tsunami period (Patankar et al. 2015). As the 
creation, management, and harvesting of new coconut plantations are 
labour-intensive activities that are facilitated by reciprocal labour relations 
among kin, the social changes resulting from the tsunami have also altered 
the social embeddedness of Nicobarese coconut production and trade 
(Chandi 2016). 

Physical imports into these islands between 2003 and 2017 were dominated 
by construction materials and fuel, which steadily increased on all islands in 
the post-tsunami period. The island infrastructure was rebuilt and 
expanded, and this redevelopment manifested as an improvement in the 
lives of residents. The infrastructural changes also enabled new 
consumption patterns in the Nicobar Islands, with larger volumes of 
consumer durables and assets such as transport vehicles and consumer 
electronics entering the marketplace. These are reflected in trends in general 
cargo imports, which is a catch-all category for the movement of household 
and commercial cargo material by passenger and cargo vessels in the 
islands. After the initial wave of relief material in the years following the 
disaster, there was a steady flow of general cargo imports into all four 
revenue ports in the archipelago. These results indicate the reinforcement 
of the economic dependency of the islands on the mainland, which is a 
common problem facing offshore islands (Royle 1989). Island studies 
scholars highlight how “islandness” is a central quality of islands, defined by 
boundedness, smallness, isolation, and fragmentation, which become 
amplified in compressed island spaces (Baldacchino 2018). Scholars 
therefore advocate rethinking conventional mainland economic models for 
islands in favour of those encouraging greater economic autonomy and self-
determination (Stratford 2017). 

Post-disaster rebuilding is not an isolated project as it interfaces with the 
social and ecological systems of islands. The Nicobar Islands are a tribal 



[135] Shaina Sehgal and Suresh Babu 

reserve and biodiversity hotspot located in the Indian Ocean and, as such, 
economic production models and development policy have to contend with 
these social and ecological realities instead of considering them as 
constraints to production and trade. In the Nicobar Islands, therefore, the 
study of economic exchange alone is inadequate to understand historical 
and contemporary agrarian practices and exchanges (Singh et al. 2001; 
Reddy 1982). We discuss these aspects through the main sector in 
Nicobar’s economy—agriculture. 

The export of key agricultural and plantation crops, such as coconut, 
betelnut, rubber, fruits, and vegetables, is dependent on social and 
ecological considerations; both considerations were reconfigured by the 
tsunami and post-tsunami relief and redevelopment. Traditional coconut 
plantations thrive in coastal zones, can take 8–12 years to attain maturity, 
and thereafter provide consistent yields. As the tsunami destroyed coastal 
plantations, the export of perennial crops across the islands suffered and 
took over a decade to recover. The cultivation of annual fruit and vegetable 
crops by tenant cultivators in recent years has led to an increase in exports 
from Great Nicobar Island. Cultivators in Katchal, Little Nicobar, and 
Great Nicobar also have to contend with crop-raiding by the endemic 
Nicobar Long-tailed Macaque (Macaca Fascicularis Umbrosus) (Pal et al. 2018).  

Coconut plays a central role in Nicobarese culture and homesteads, in 
addition to being the archipelago’s main export. Coconut and pandanus 
drupes are an important part of Nicobarese food culture, providing food, 
cooking oil, and cooking fuel despite alternatives such as rice, cooking oil, 
LPG, and kerosene stoves. Their persistence is partly due to their relevance 
in society as more than an economic commodity. Coconuts play a 
significant role in ceremonies marking all phases of life—birth, coming of 
age, marriage, death, and afterlife. They are also an important source of 
livestock feed, chiefly for poultry and pigs, which in turn are also important 
for cultural practices. This affects coconut trade volumes from Nicobarese 
plantations, as the other cultivator communities (in Great Nicobar) do not 
have similar demands on their output. A sub-community of tenant 
cultivators in Great Nicobar has increased the fruit and vegetable exports 
from Campbell Bay port in recent years and made the island a regular 
supplier to Car Nicobar.13 Meanwhile, coconut cultivators in the revenue 
areas of Great Nicobar have found an alternative to making copra—they 
sell coconut to a small-scale coconut processing unit set up in a revenue 
village in 2011. This unit produces dry coconut powder using dehusked 

                                                        
13 Imports of agricultural inputs also increased in the post-tsunami period (see Appendix, 
Figure A1). 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [136] 

coconut drupes and ships a steady monthly production to Port Blair in 
cargo ships. 

While post-disaster recovery seeks to prevent any further loss of lives (with 
a focus on rescue and relief), subsequent redevelopment aims to remedy 
losses to livelihoods and assets through redevelopment (Roy 2008). 
Infrastructural development, however, has had a mixed impact on 
agricultural livelihoods. It has led to increased availability of farm labour 
and tenant farming and addressed logistical bottlenecks such as last-mile 
connectivity to plantations and frequency of shipping services. The 
expanding infrastructure has simultaneously resulted in revenue area 
cultivators moving out of agriculture and into civil contract works. As has 
been seen elsewhere, through the stages of recovery and redevelopment, 
political actors find opportunities for gaining or losing political legitimacy 
and effecting transformative changes to local economies (Oliver-Smith 
1996). Transformative changes are limited by institutional capacity and 
mediated through historical contingency and the resilience of the local 
culture (Hunter 2016). 

The nature of key material exports has shifted; for example, the main type 
of coconut export from Campbell Bay port in Great Nicobar Island has 
changed from copra to desiccated coconut powder since 2011–12, and this 
shift is not reflected in the otherwise declining copra exports (see Figure 7). 
As it takes approximately twice as many coconuts to produce copra 
compared to desiccated coconut powder, the establishing of the industrial 
unit reflects a value addition to the coconut supply chain. Processing 
increases the shelf-life of, and adds value to, the coconut, whether 
processed manually into copra or at an industrial scale into desiccated 
coconut powder. Furthermore, the industrial unit has a consistent supply 
for cargo vessels vis-à-vis copra traders, which is important for the supply 
chain and ensures regularity of cargo vessels to Campbell Bay. 

Reconstruction efforts were not spread evenly across the islands. There is a 
historical contingency to the metabolic build-up of materials flows for 
development at certain ports, such as Car Nicobar and Campbell Bay (Singh 
2003), and development interventions after the tsunami have further 
emphasized this trajectory. Several key elements of trade that were 
historically insignificant in the Nicobar Islands have gained prominence in 
the post-tsunami years, and many of these changes, such as infrastructure 
development, have qualitatively transformed production practices and trade 
on the islands. Along with the cultural transformation of the Nicobar 
Islands, observable in the disintegration of the tuhet system and the influx of 
consumer durables, mobile telecommunication, and internet services, these 
changes in production practices and trade have led to a reconfiguration of 



[137] Shaina Sehgal and Suresh Babu 

ecology–society relationships on the islands. Overall, these changes signal a 
socio-economic transformation underway in the Nicobar Islands and merit 
further investigation. 

This study is a methodological exploration of the response of local or 
regional economies to environmental disturbances and identifies structural 
changes brought about by disasters. In situations where conventional 
economic analysis may be difficult, an approach encompassing physical 
trade can provide insight into social and ecological systems, especially where 
valuation is problematic. The valuation of environmental goods and 
services compresses complex and interrelated attributes of the environment 
into simplified monetary metrics and results in the loss of information that 
is non-randomly distributed in society (Vatn and Bromley 1994).  

5. CONCLUSION  

The relief, reconstruction, and redevelopment efforts following the tsunami 
have resulted in unprecedented changes in the Nicobar Islands, and our 
analysis of physical exports and imports points towards a transformation of 
the Nicobar Islands’ economy since 2004. In the post-tsunami period, 
imports were predominantly for relief and redevelopment. Thereafter, the 
quantum of material imports stabilized. The resulting infrastructure and 
consumption patterns are shaping the new development trajectory of the 
islands. The metabolic impact of these new developmental trajectories is 
indicated by the substantial imports of and dependence on fossil fuels and 
construction materials from the mainland. We therefore argue that the 
development policy and imports in the post-tsunami period have 
qualitatively transformed production practices and trade in the islands. 

The primary exports from the Nicobar Islands are (cultivated and 
harvested) natural resources from the agricultural and marine sectors and 
building materials such as rocks briefly permitted for quarrying on Great 
Nicobar Island. While the physical trade balance reflects changes on a 
regional level, it masks economic disparities across different island groups 
and categories of imports and exports. The post-tsunami relief, 
reconstruction, and redevelopment reinforced historical development 
trajectories of ports and islands in the Nicobar group. 

The limitations to production on these islands, posed by protected forests, 
protected areas, and tribal reserves, are manifestations of legitimate 
considerations for conserving the environment and indigenous tribal 
cultures. Consequently, economic development is only seen in certain 
sectors, such as in the increasing material exports from the marine, 
agricultural, and stone-quarrying sectors. Furthermore, we see that the 
nature and value of the key material exports from Great Nicobar Island 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [138] 

have changed; for example, the primary coconut product exported has 
changed from copra to desiccated coconut powder. This new value chain 
excludes Nicobarese cultivators, and thus the politics of this redistribution 
needs further examination. 

In this paper, we investigated the transformational impact of the earthquake 
and tsunami of 2004, which includes the event itself as well as the relief, 
rehabilitation, and redevelopment efforts in the years that followed. The 
social and ecological embeddedness of production and trade in the Nicobar 
Islands was severely impacted by the 2004 disaster and subsequent 
interventions. Aid and imports in the post-tsunami period have eroded 
Nicobarese kinship systems and have physically modified the production 
systems into new metabolic regimes that critically depend on imports from 
mainland India. 

  

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

We acknowledge the support of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration 
for this research, including the tribal area permits and logistic support 
provided by the offices of the Deputy Commissioner of South Andaman 
District, Deputy Commissioner of Nicobar District, and Assistant 
Commissioner of Campbell Bay Tehsil. SS also acknowledges logistical 
support and assistance from the Andaman and Nicobar Command and 
support for data collection from the Port Management Board and 
Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Andaman and Nicobar 
Administration. Our research was financially supported by Ambedkar 
University Delhi. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their 
feedback and to our copyeditor Ms Chitralekha Manohar for improving this 
manuscript. 

 

REFERENCES 

Ansink, Erik. 2010. “Refuting Two Claims about Virtual Water Trade.” Ecological 
Economics 69(10): 2027–2032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.001.  

Baldacchino, Godfrey, ed. 2018. The Routledge International Handbook of Island Studies: 
A World of Islands. Oxon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315556642 

Botzen, WJ Wouter, Olivier Deschenes, and Mark Sanders. 2019. “The Economic 
Impacts of Natural Disasters: A Review of Models and Empirical Studies.” Review of 
Environmental Economics and Policy 13(2): 167–188. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez004.  

Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs. 2017. “Cabinet Approves Closure of 
Andaman & Nicobar Islands Forest and Plantation Development Corporation 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.001
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315556642
https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez004


[139] Shaina Sehgal and Suresh Babu 

Limited (ANIFPDCL), Port Blair.” New Delhi: Press Information Bureau, 
Government of India. https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=170013.    

Census of India. 2011. “Primary Census Abstract Data Tables for Andaman & 
Nicobar Islands.” http://www.censusindia.gov.in/.  

Chandi, Manish Mathai. 2016. “Constancy and Change: Disturbance to Natural 
Resources, Sharing Mechanisms and Control: A Study of Natural Resource 
Management in the Nicobar Islands.” PhD Diss., Manipal University. 

Dagar, HS, and JC Dagar. 1986. “Some Observations of the Ethnology of the 
Nicobarese with Special Reference to Cocos Nucifera Linn.” Journal of the Bombay 
Natural History Society 83(2): 306–310. 

de Molina, Manuel González, and Víctor M Toledo. 2014. The Social Metabolism: A 
Socio-ecological Theory of Historical Change. London: Springer. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06358-4.  

Dhingra, Kiran. 2005. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands in the Twentieth Century: A 
Gazetteer. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. 

Directorate of Economics and Statistics. n.d.-a. “Basic Statistics 2016–17.” 
Accessed 6 Nov 2017. http://andssw1.and.nic.in/ecostat/basic_statistics1617.php.  

———. n.d.-b. “Basic Statistics 2018–19.” Accessed 10 June 2020. 
http://andssw1.and.nic.in/ecostat/basic_statistics1819.php.  

———. n.d.-c. “Basic Statistics 2019–20.” Accessed 27 May 2021. 
http://andssw1.and.nic.in/ecostat/basic_statistics1920.php.  

———. n.d.-d. “Earth Quake Shocks Magnitude of > 5.0 and Felt Shocks in A&N 
Islands.” Accessed January 29, 2018. 
http://andssw1.and.nic.in/ecostat/Earthquake/Earthquake2004.pdf.  

———. n.d.-e. “Statistical Handbook on Andaman District and Nicobar District 
2005–2006.” Vol 13. Port Blair, India: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 
Andaman and Nicobar Administration. 

———. n.d.-f. “Transport Statistics 2003–2004 to 2005–2006.” Vol 11. Port Blair, 
India: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Andaman and Nicobar 
Administration. 

Dittrich, Monika, and Stefan Bringezu. 2010. “The Physical Dimension of 
International Trade. Part 1: Direct Global Flows between 1962 and 2005.” Ecological 
Economics 69(9): 1838–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.023.  

Dittrich, Monika, Stefan Bringezu, and Helmut Schütz. 2012. “The Physical 
Dimension of International Trade, Part 2: Indirect Global Resource Flows Between 
1962 and 2005.” Ecological Economics 79 (July): 32–43. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.014.  

Fischer-Kowalski, Marina, and Walter Hüttler. 1998. “Society’s Metabolism: The 
Intellectual History of Materials Flow Analysis, Part II, 1970–1998.” Journal of 
Industrial Ecology 2(4): 107–36. https://doi.org/10.1162/jiec.1998.2.4.107.  

Grolemund, Garrett, and Hadley Wickham. 2017. R for Data Science: Import, Tidy, 
Transform, Visualize, and Model Data. Sebastopol, Canada: O’Reilly.  

https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=170013
http://www.censusindia.gov.in/
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06358-4
http://andssw1.and.nic.in/ecostat/basic_statistics1617.php
http://andssw1.and.nic.in/ecostat/basic_statistics1819.php
http://andssw1.and.nic.in/ecostat/basic_statistics1920.php
http://andssw1.and.nic.in/ecostat/Earthquake/Earthquake2004.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.023
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.014
https://doi.org/10.1162/jiec.1998.2.4.107


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [140] 

Hassan, MM. 2010. “Rehabilitation of Agricultural Activities in Tsunami Affected 
Areas of Andaman and Nicobar Islands.” In National Workshop on “Coconut Based 
Farming System in Andaman and Nicobar Islands” (pp. 126–128), edited by MA Salam et 
al. Port Blair, India: High Value Agriculture Development Agency. 

Hsiang, Solomon M. 2010. “Temperatures and Cyclones Strongly Associated with 
Economic Production in the Caribbean and Central America.” Proceedings of the 
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107(35): 15367–15372. 
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1009510107.   

Hunter, Janet. 2016. “Earthquakes in Japan.” Modern Asian Studies 50(1): 415–435. 
https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0026749X15000219.  

IPCC. 2007. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, 
Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment 
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by Martin L Parry, 
Osvaldo F Canziani, Jean P Palutikof, Paul J van der Linden, and Clair E Hanson, 
7–22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  

Man, Edward Horace. 1886. “A Brief Account of the Nicobar Islanders, with 
Special Reference to the Inland Tribe of Great Nicobar.” The Journal of the 
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 15: 428–51. 
https://doi.org/10.2307/2841823. 

Martinez-Alier, Juan, and Klaus Schlüpmann. 1987. Ecological Economics: Energy, 
Environment and Society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 

Mimura, Nobuo, Leonard Nurse, Roger F McLean, John Agard, Lino Briguglio, 
Penehuro Lefale, Rolph Payet, and Graham Sem. 2007. “Small Islands.” In Climate 
Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to 
the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by 
Martin L Parry, Osvaldo F Canziani, Jean P Palutikof, Paul J van der Linden, and 
Clair E Hanson, 687–716. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Ministry of Home Affairs. 2006. “Annual Report 2005–06.” New Delhi, India: 
Ministry of Home Affairs. 

Moran, Daniel D, Mathis C Wackernagel, Justin A Kitzes, Benjamin W Heumann, 
Doantam Phan, and Steven H Goldfinger. 2009. “Trading Spaces: Calculating 
Embodied Ecological Footprints in International Trade Using a Product Land Use 
Matrix (PLUM).” Ecological Economics 68(7): 1938–1951. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.11.011.  

Myers, Norman, Russell A Mittermeier, Cristina G Mittermeier, Gustavo AB da 
Fonseca, and Jennifer Kent. 2000. “Biodiversity Hotspots for Conservation 
Priorities.” Nature 403(6772): 853–858. https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501.  

Oliver-Smith, Anthony. 1996. “Anthropological Research on Hazards and 
Disasters.” Annual Review of Anthropology 25(1): 303–328. 
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.25.1.303.  

Pal, Arijit, Honnavalli N Kumara, Partha Sarathi Mishra, Avadhoot D Velankar, 
and Mewa Singh. 2018. “Extractive Foraging and Tool-aided Behaviors in the Wild 
Nicobar Long-tailed Macaque (Macaca Fascicularis Umbrosus).” Primates 59(2): 

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1009510107
https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0026749X15000219
https://doi.org/10.2307/2841823
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.11.011
https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.25.1.303


[141] Shaina Sehgal and Suresh Babu 

173–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-017-0635-6.  

Patankar, Vardhan, Elrika D’Souza, Teresa Alcoverro, and Rohan Arthur. 2015. 
“Erosion of Traditional Marine Management Systems in the Face of Disturbances 
in the Nicobar Archipelago.” Human Ecology 43(5): 697–707. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-015-9781-x.  

Pelling, Mark, Alpaslan Özerdem, and Sultan Barakat. 2002. “The Macro-economic 
Impact of Disasters.” Progress in Development Studies 2(4): 283–305. 
https://doi.org/10.1191/1464993402ps042ra.  

Pelling, Mark, and Juha I Uitto. 2001. “Small Island Developing States: Natural 
Disaster Vulnerability and Global Change.” Environmental Hazards 3(2): 49–62. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1464-2867(01)00018-3.  

Planning Commission. 2008. “Andaman and Nicobar Islands Development 
Report.” New Delhi: Academic Foundation. 

R Core Team. 2018. “R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.” 
Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-
project.org/.  

Rajendran, CP, Kusala Rajendran, R Anu, Anil Earnest, Terry Machado, PM 
Mohan, and Jeffrey Freymueller. 2007. “Crustal Deformation and Seismic History 
Associated with the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake: A Perspective from the 
Andaman–Nicobar Islands.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 97(1): 174–
191. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050630.  

Rajendran, Kusala, CP Rajendran, Anil Earnest, GV Ravi Prasad, K Dutta, DK 
Ray, and R Anu. 2008. “Age Estimates of Coastal Terraces in the Andaman and 
Nicobar Islands and Their Tectonic Implications.” Tectonophysics 455(1–4): 53–60. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2008.05.004.  

Ramanamurthy, MV, S Sundaramoorthy, Y Pari, V Ranga Rao, P Mishra, M Bhat, 
Tune Usha, R Venkatesan, and BR Subramanian. 2005. “Inundation of Sea Water 
in Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Parts of Tamil Nadu Coast During 2004 
Sumatra Tsunami.” Current Science 88(11): 1736–1740.  

Ramani, Venkat Ramanujam. 2010. “Gifts Without Dignity? Gift-giving, 
Reciprocity and the Tsunami Response in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 
India.” PhD Diss., University of Cambridge. 

Ramanujam, Ramani Venkat, Simron Jit Singh, and Arild Vatn. 2012. “From the 
Ashes into the Fire? Institutional Change in the Post-tsunami Nicobar Islands, 
India.” Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal 25(11): 1152–1166. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.669516.  

Reddy, G Prakash. 1982. Scarcity and Survival: A Study in Culture Ecology of Chowra 
Island in Nicobar Archipelago. Delhi, India: D. K. Publications. 

Relief Commissioner. 2005. “Memorandum on Earthquake/Tsunami Damages.” 
Port Blair, India: Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration, Government of 
India. 

Roy, JK, and BC Roy. 1969. “Food Sources, Dietary Habits and Nutrient Intake of 
the Nicobarese of Great Nicobar.” Indian Journal of Medical Research 57(5): 329–33. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-017-0635-6
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-015-9781-x
https://doi.org/10.1191/1464993402ps042ra
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1464-2867(01)00018-3
https://www.r-project.org/
https://www.r-project.org/
https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050630
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2008.05.004
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.669516


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [142] 

Roy, Tirthankar. 2008. “State, Society and Market in the Aftermath of Natural 
Disasters in Colonial India: A Preliminary Exploration.” Indian Economic and Social 
History Review 45(2): 261–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/001946460804500204.  

Royle, SA. 1989. “A Human Geography of Islands.” Geography 74(2): 106–116. 

Saldanha, Cecil J, ed. 1989. Andaman, Nicobar and Lakshadweep: An Environmental 
Impact Assessment. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. 

Sankaran, Ravi. 2005. “Impact of the Earthquake and the Tsunami on the Nicobar 
Islands.” In The Ground Beneath the Waves: Post-tsunami Impact Assessment of Wildlife and 
their Habitats in India (Vol. 2: The Islands), edited by Rahul Kaul and Vivek Menon, 
10–77. New Delhi, India: Wildlife Trust of India. 

Sato, Misato. 2014. “Product Level Embodied Carbon Flows in Bilateral Trade.” 
Ecological Economics 105 (September): 106–117. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.05.006.  

Schaffartzik, Anke, Andreas Mayer, Simone Gingrich, Nina Eisenmenger, Christian 
Loy, and Fridolin Krausmann. 2014. “The Global Metabolic Transition: Regional 
Patterns and Trends of Global Material Flows, 1950–2010.” Global Environmental 
Change 26(1): 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.03.013.  

Schandl, Heinz, and Anke Schaffartzik. 2015. “Material Flow Analysis”. In 
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), edited by 
James D Wright, 760–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.91060-2.  

Sehgal, Shaina. 2021. Putting Nicobar Islands on the map: Intersections of colonial 
knowledge, trade and colonisation. Indian Journal of History of Science. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43539-021-00002-4. 

Sekhsaria, Pankaj. 2021. “Green Panel Allows Great Nicobar Plan to Advance.” 
The Hindu, May 9. https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-
environment/green-panel-allows-great-nicobar-plan-to-
advance/article34521310.ece.  

Singh, Simron Jit. 2003. In the Sea of Influence: A World System Perspective of the Nicobar 
Islands. Lund, Sweden: Lund University. 

Singh, Simron Jit, Clemens M Grünbühel, Heinz Schandl, and Niels Schulz. 2001. 
“Social Metabolism and Labour in a Local Context: Changing Environmental 
Relations on Trinket Island.” Population and Environment 23(1): 71–104. 
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017564309651.  

Singh, Simron Jit, and Ramani Venkat Ramanujam. 2010. “Exploring Ecologically 
Unequal Exchange Using Land and Labor Appropriation: Trade in the Nicobar 
Islands, 1880–2000.” In International Trade and Environmental Justice: Toward a Global 
Political Ecology, edited by Alf Hornborg and Andrew K Jorgenson, 19–48. Nova 
Science Publishers, Inc. 

n.d. “Status Report of Permanent Shelters in A&N Islands.” Accessed November 
8, 2014. www.and.nic.in/shelterP/islandwise.  

Stratford, Elaine, ed. 2017. Island Geographies: Essays and Conversations. New York: 
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315686202.  

https://doi.org/10.1177/001946460804500204
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.05.006
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.03.013
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.91060-2
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43539-021-00002-4
https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/green-panel-allows-great-nicobar-plan-to-advance/article34521310.ece
https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/green-panel-allows-great-nicobar-plan-to-advance/article34521310.ece
https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/green-panel-allows-great-nicobar-plan-to-advance/article34521310.ece
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017564309651
http://www.and.nic.in/shelterP/islandwise
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315686202


[143] Shaina Sehgal and Suresh Babu 

Thakkar, MG, and Bhanu Goyal. 2006. “Historic Submergence and Tsunami 
Destruction of Nancowrie, Kamorta, Katchal and Trinket Islands of Nicobar 
District: Consequences of 26 December 2004 Sumatra–Andaman Earthquake.” 
Current Science 90(6): 989–994. 

Tripathi, Punam. 2018. The Vulnerable Andaman and Nicobar Islands: A Study of 
Disasters and Response. New Delhi: Routledge India. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351059473. 

Vaidik, Aparna. 2010. Imperial Andamans: Colonial Encounter and Island History. 
London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230274884. 

Vatn, Arild, and Daniel W Bromley. 1994. “Choices Without Prices Without 
Apologies.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26(2): 129–148. 
https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1994.1008.  

Würtenberger, Laura, Thomas Koellner, and Claudia R. Binder. 2006. “Virtual 
Land Use and Agricultural Trade: Estimating Environmental and Socio-economic 
Impacts.” Ecological Economics 57(4): 679–97. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.06.004.  

 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351059473
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230274884
https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1994.1008
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.06.004


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [144] 

APPENDIX 

The Port Management Board records the commodities imported and exported at 
revenue ports using a standard national template (48 commodities in 23 categories). 
These were revised into seven analytical categories, i.e., construction materials, 
agricultural commodities, food stuff, general cargo, petroleum, oil, and lubricants 
(POL) products (including petroleum crude), scrap items, and others, as per Table 
A1.  

Table A1: Categories of Exports and Imports Used in the Data Analysis 

No. Commodities (PMB data) Categories (PMB data) 
Revised 
categories 

1 Petroleum crude* Minerals POL products 

2 POL products Minerals POL products 

3 Thermal coal* Minerals Others 

4 Cooking coal* Minerals Others 

5 LPG Minerals LPG 

6 Bitumen Minerals Construction 
materials 

7 Others* Minerals Others 

8 Cement Building materials Construction 
materials 

9 Cement clinkers Building materials Construction 
materials 

10 Timber Building materials Construction 
materials 

11 Timber products Building materials Construction 
materials 

12 Sand Building materials Construction 
materials 

13 Stone products Building materials Construction 
materials 

14 Others  Building materials Construction 



[145] Shaina Sehgal and Suresh Babu 

No. Commodities (PMB data) Categories (PMB data) 
Revised 
categories 

materials 

15 Rice Food grains Food stuff 

16 Sugar Food grains Food stuff 

17 Wheat Food grains Food stuff 

18 Pulses Food grains Food stuff 

19 Iron ore* Ores Metals 

20 Feldspars* Ores Metals 

21 Others Ores Metals 

22 Fertilizer finished Fertilizers Others 

23 Rock phosphate* Fertilizers Others 

24 Fertilizer raw material 
(excluding rock phosphate)* 

Fertilizers Others 

25 Sulphur* Fertilizers Others 

26 Others* Fertilizers Others 

27 Liquid ammonia* Chemicals Others 

28 Phosphoric acid* Chemicals Others 

29 Other chemicals (solid and 
liquid)* 

Chemicals Chemicals 

30 Liquor  Chemicals Liquor 

31 Fruit and vegetables  
(dry and liquid) 

Fruit and vegetables  
(dry and liquid) 

Agricultural 
commodities 

32 Edible oil Edible oil Food stuff 

33 Hard brigated iron* Iron steel Others 

34 Finished steel Iron steel Others 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [146] 

No. Commodities (PMB data) Categories (PMB data) 
Revised 
categories 

35 Machineries Machineries Construction 
materials 

36 Other metal products* Other metal products Others 

37 Salt Salt Food stuff 

38 Tea Tea Food stuff 

39 Coffee* Coffee Food stuff 

40 Oil cake* Oil cake Others 

41 Frozen shrimp Frozen shrimp Food stuff 

42 Rubber Rubber Agricultural 
commodities 

43 Copra Copra Agricultural 
commodities 

44 Betelnut Betelnut Agricultural 
commodities 

45 Others (not specified above) Others  
(not specified above) 

Others 

46 Logs Logs Construction 
Materials 

47 Scrap items Scrap items Scrap items 

48 General cargo General cargo General cargo 

 
Commodities with an asterisk (*) indicate negligible physical imports or exports in 
the dataset. 

We calculated a linear interpolation (i.e., a simple average) for missing values for 
Figure 3 and Figure A1, indicated by the dotted line in both series. 



[147] Shaina Sehgal and Suresh Babu 

 

Figure A1: Select Physical Imports and Exports in the Nicobar Islands (2003–04 
to 2016–17) 

 


