The National Green Tribunal (NGT) recently refused to block the Great Nicobar Island project. It concluded that the project provides adequate safeguards for current environmental gaps. This decision follows a long court battle over coastal regulation compliance. These regulations typically prohibit large developments in sensitive coastal zones. However, the NGT found no reason to interfere with the 2022 clearance.
The tribunal pronounced its official order on February 16. This occurred after the court reserved its judgement for several months. The project has faced sharp criticism from many environmentalists and sociologists. Members of the political Opposition also expressed significant concerns regarding the island. Great Nicobar is a sensitive part of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
The Scale of the Great Nicobar Project
This massive development requires an investment of ₹81,000 crore. The project includes an international container trans-shipment port. Furthermore, plans involve an airport and a gas and solar power plant. A new township will also be established on the island. These components aim to transform the region into a major hub.
However, the environmental costs are substantial. The project will lead to the felling of one million trees. Additionally, the port sits on a leatherback turtle nesting site. Critics argue that this destruction will have long-term ecological consequences. They believe the impact on local biodiversity will be disastrous.
Strategic Importance and National Security
The Indian government strongly defends the project’s necessity. Officials argue it will take advantage of Malacca Strait trade routes. This location is vital for global shipping and commerce. Consequently, the project could strengthen India’s economic position.
The government also cites national security as a primary driver. The project aims to counter growing pressure from foreign powers. Their presence is increasing in the surrounding maritime region. The NGT explicitly noted the “strategic importance of the Project” in its ruling. This factor heavily influenced the court’s decision to allow development.
The History of Legal Challenges
Environmental activist Ashish Kothari first challenged the project in 2022. He targeted the project’s initial environmental clearance (EC). In the first round of litigation, the NGT noted “certain unanswered deficiencies.” Kothari then filed a second case regarding these specific issues.
He argued that these deficiencies violated coastal regulation notifications. Specifically, he cited India’s Island Coastal Regulation Zone (ICRZ) rules. These rules protect mangroves, coral reefs, and nesting grounds. The NGT then ordered a High-Powered Committee (HPC) to revisit the clearance.
The High-Powered Committee Controversy
The NGT directed the HPC to investigate three specific deficiencies. First, it looked at an incomplete translocation plan for corals. Second, it questioned the use of only one season’s data. Finally, it examined if the project fell into prohibited CRZ 1A zones.
However, the HPC report remains hidden from the public. Officials cited national security reasons for keeping the report secret. The committee claimed there were no shortcomings in the clearance. Notably, the HPC included members from the Ministry of Environment. It also included representatives from Niti Aayog and the Ministry of Shipping.
Disputed Environmental Data
The HPC accepted findings from a ground truthing exercise. This exercise denied that the project fell into CRZ 1A areas. However, previous administrative maps showed a different result. Maps from the Andaman and Nicobar administration marked these as sensitive zones.
The National Marine Turtle Action Plan also lists the area as CRZ 1A. This is due to the presence of leatherback sea turtle nesting sites. Furthermore, the Zoological Survey of India made a controversial claim. They stated that no coral reefs exist at the proposed port site. They argued that scattered corals could be “easily” translocated elsewhere.
Political and Public Reaction
The NGT’s ruling has sparked a heated public debate. Former Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh called the outcome “deeply disappointing.” He posted his concerns on the social media platform X. Ramesh argues that the project will have disastrous ecological impacts.
He also questioned the effectiveness of the NGT’s safeguards. In his view, these conditions cannot prevent long-term environmental damage. Many activists share this skepticism regarding the project’s oversight. They fear the loss of unique island ecosystems is permanent.
Future Outlook for Great Nicobar
Despite the controversy, the government plans to move forward. The project remains a central piece of India’s maritime strategy. Construction will likely proceed under the established environmental conditions. However, monitoring the impact on turtles and corals will be critical.
The legal battle has highlighted the tension between security and ecology. Strategic projects often receive priority in high-level judicial reviews. Great Nicobar represents a test case for India’s environmental laws. The world will watch how the island manages this massive transformation.
A Sanctuary Under Significant Threat
The project area resides within the Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve. This UNESCO-recognised site covers eighty-five percent of the island. Furthermore, the reserve provides a sanctuary for twenty-four percent of local species. The government plans to clear approximately one million trees from this rainforest. Consequently, this destruction will devastate a critical and sensitive ecosystem.
Impact on Regional Climate and Monsoons
The tropical rainforest regulates the regional monsoon cycle through evapotranspiration. Therefore, mass deforestation will likely disrupt vital weather patterns. The government proposes compensatory afforestation in Haryana and Madhya Pradesh. However, scientists describe this plan as scientifically meaningless. These distant areas cannot replicate the unique ecology of the islands.
Marine Habitat Destruction in Galathea Bay
The proposed port at Galathea Bay will devastate extensive coral reefs. These marine habitats are essential for ocean health. The Environmental Impact Assessment suggests translocating these delicate organisms. Nevertheless, this translocation method has unproven success in real-world applications. Corals worldwide are already reaching a tipping point due to warming.
The Danger of Coral Translocation
Ocean warming and bleaching already cause significant stress to coral reefs. Consequently, translocation would likely result in widespread mortality for these species. The loss of reefs affects the entire marine food chain. This poses a long-term risk to regional biodiversity and environmental stability.
A Crisis for Endemic Wildlife
The island’s forests host six hundred and fifty different plant species. Many of these angiosperms and ferns are endemic to the region. The unique fauna includes eleven species of endemic mammals. Additionally, thirty-two species of endemic birds reside on the island. Seven species of endemic reptiles also face the loss of their habitat.
The Fate of the Leatherback Turtle
Galathea Bay serves as a vital nesting ground for the Leatherback Turtle. This species is currently listed as globally endangered. The construction of the port means their habitat would be irrevocably lost. Such a loss represents a profound failure in international conservation efforts.
The Geological Gamble of Great Nicobar
This region remains under permanent tectonic strain, which creates high vulnerability to frequent seismic activity. Developing large-scale infrastructure in such a zone involves extreme risks for both human safety and financial investment.
The proposed International Container Transhipment Port and the new township are located in a climatically hazardous area. These projects face an existential threat from constant land-level changes and predicted sea-level rises. Consequently, the very logic of placing a permanent, sea-extending port in this location is being questioned by experts.
Understanding the Cycle of “Uplift and Subsidence”
The geological mechanics of Great Nicobar follow a predictable yet hazardous cycle of strain buildup and release. This process involves a movement known as “slow uplift and sudden subsidence”. During the quiet periods between major earthquakes, tectonic strain slowly accumulates in the earth’s crust. Recent GPS data confirms that the land actually uplifts over several years during this interval.
However, this built-up stress must eventually be released during a major seismic event, known as the coseismal phase. When this happens, the land can subside abruptly and violently. For instance, the 2004 magnitude 9.2–9.3 megathrust earthquake caused the Great Nicobar region to drop by 3 to 4 metres. This cyclical movement inherently destabilises any engineered structures built along the coast. Such instability makes the long-term integrity of a port or airport fundamentally untenable.
A History Written in Earthquakes
Great Nicobar is located perilously close to Banda Aceh, Indonesia, the epicentre of the catastrophic 2004 earthquake. History shows that the 2004 event was not an isolated incident but part of a recurring pattern. The region sits near a segmented megathrust fault along the Sumatra-Andaman plate boundary. Each segment of this fault is capable of generating great earthquakes independently from the others.
The historical record provides a chilling timeline of massive seismic events affecting the Nicobar region. In 1861, a Nias-Simeulue earthquake reached a magnitude of approximately 8.5. Just twenty years later, in 1881, the Nicobar Islands experienced another 7.9 magnitude quake. Following the 2004 disaster, another major earthquake struck Sumatra in 2007 with a magnitude of 8.4. This history demonstrates a continuous and high level of tectonic strain variability around the island.
The Threat to Vulnerable Communities
The geological risks are particularly concerning for the indigenous Shompen and Nicobari communities. The Shompen tribe has lived on the island for over ten thousand years and is considered particularly vulnerable. Large-scale infrastructure failure during an earthquake could devastate their ancestral lands and cultural heritage. Experts argue the project proceeds without the free and informed consent of these tribal groups.
Building a new city in a hazardous zone places these communities at the front lines of geological instability. The tectonic strain on the island means that their very survival could be threatened by sudden land changes. The legal and ethical failures of bypassing tribal rights are compounded by these undeniable physical dangers. Ensuring the safety of these residents should be a primary concern for any national development project.
The Rights of Indigenous Communities
The island is the ancestral home of the Shompen and Nicobari communities. The Shompen have lived there for over ten thousand years as a vulnerable group. However, the project proceeds without their free and informed consent. Experts argue this brazenly bypasses the Forest Rights Act and other legal safeguards.
Bypassing these rights threatens the very survival of these unique cultures. Their cultural integrity and ancestral lands are being sacrificed for commercial interests. This is viewed by many as a profound ethical and legal failure. Protecting these tribes should be a primary concern for any national project. Instead, they find themselves at the front lines of unwanted development.
Climate Change: The Double Jeopardy
Great Nicobar faces a dual threat from both tectonic shifts and climatically driven sea-level rise. As global temperatures rise, the sea level is predicted to increase, putting pressure on coastal infrastructure. When combined with the sudden subsidence caused by earthquakes, the risk of permanent flooding becomes extremely high. This “double jeopardy” makes the island one of the most hazardous zones for mega-scale development.
Engineered structures like ports and airports are designed for stability, but this environment offers none. The ongoing tectonic cycle means the ground beneath the infrastructure is constantly moving. Over time, these subtle and sudden shifts can cause structural fatigue, leading to catastrophic failure. The logic of investing ₹81,000 crore in such a volatile environment remains a point of intense debate
Economic Viability: A Dubious Future?
Many experts have collectively written to the Union Minister regarding the project’s future. They describe the Great Nicobar plan as an exploitative commercial proposal. Furthermore, they claim the project has a dubious and unviable economic future. This assessment challenges the government’s narrative of national progress and growth.
Experts believe the project is both unwarranted and irresponsible in its current form. They argue that the destruction of rich ecosystems cannot be justified by uncertain trade benefits. This economic skepticism adds another layer of complexity to the debate. If the financial rewards are not guaranteed, the ecological sacrifice becomes even harder to accept. Consequently, the project’s long-term sustainability remains a point of intense contention.
Lessons from the Himalayas: A Tragic Parallel
The current situation in Great Nicobar draws parallels to past development programs. Experts specifically point to strategic road-widening projects in the state of Uttarakhand. In those cases, the projects were defended in court as essential for national defence. This is similar to how the trans-shipment port is being defended today.
Despite expert objections, those Himalayan projects were pushed through the courts. This led to an unsustainable influx of tourists and subsequent ecological disasters. Massive death tolls and widespread devastation occurred following these environmental failures. The letter to the Union Minister warns that history is now repeating itself. They fear that ignoring experts today will lead to similar tragedies tomorrow.
The Paradox of Global Environmental Leadership
India’s leadership has often expressed strong environmental commitments on the global stage. For example, Prime Minister Narendra Modi received the UN Champions of the Earth Award in 2018. During his speech, he stated that climate and calamity are directly related to culture. He emphasized that calamity cannot be prevented if climate is not the focus.
The Prime Minister also included nature in his vision of “sab ka saath.” Such statements generate significant hope for a “green development model” in India. However, the pursuit of the Great Nicobar project seems to contradict these professed values. This paradox creates a wide chasm between stated principles and concrete actions. Observers wonder how a dedication to sustainability leads to the destruction of natural assets.
Public Health and Ecological Consequences
The project’s environmental impact has been documented in previous assessments. Construction requires the felling of approximately one million tropical rainforest trees. This mass deforestation will likely disrupt the regional monsoon cycle. Furthermore, the loss of these trees affects the island’s ability to regulate climate. These environmental changes pose a direct risk to future public health.
The project also threatens the globally endangered Leatherback Turtle. Its nesting grounds in Galathea Bay would be irrevocably lost to port construction. Additionally, the island hosts hundreds of endemic species found nowhere else on Earth. The loss of this biodiversity is a critical hit to global environmental stability. These ecological costs are permanent and cannot be reversed by current mitigation plans.
Tectonic Instability and Infrastructure Risks
Great Nicobar sits in one of the world’s most seismically active zones. The region is under permanent tectonic strain and faces constant land-level changes. Historical data shows a cycle of slow uplift and sudden subsidence. During the 2004 earthquake, the island subsided by three to four metres.
Building a massive port and township on such unstable ground is hazardous. Experts argue that the integrity of this infrastructure is fundamentally untenable. A sudden earthquake could cause catastrophic failure and mass casualties. This geological reality presents an existential threat to anyone living or working there. These risks are compounded by the predicted climatically driven sea-level rise.
Important Questions and Answers
What is the primary purpose of the Great Nicobar Island project?
The project aims to build a trans-shipment port and airport. It leverages trade routes along the Malacca Strait. This strengthens India’s strategic presence against foreign powers.
Why are environmentalists concerned about the leatherback turtles?
The proposed port is located on a known nesting site. These turtles are sensitive to coastal development and habitat loss. Activists fear the project will destroy these vital grounds.
What was the role of the High-Powered Committee (HPC)?
The NGT ordered the HPC to review deficiencies in the clearance. The committee claimed the environmental clearance had no shortcomings. Their report was not made public for security reasons.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: How many trees will be cut for the project?
A: Plans indicate that one million trees will be felled.
Q: What is the total cost of the Great Nicobar development?
A: The project has a budget of ₹81,000 crore (₹810 billion).
Q: Why was the project’s data questioned?
A: Critics argued the clearance used only one season of data. They claimed this was insufficient to track coastal erosion.
Q: Can coral reefs be translocated?
A: The Zoological Survey of India claims scattered corals can be translocated. However, environmentalists often dispute the success of such plans.
Q: Is the project located in a prohibited zone?
A: Administrative maps previously showed it in CRZ 1A areas. The HPC recently denied these specific findings.
