Why has NGT cleared the Nicobar project? | Explained

The story so far: The National Green Tribunal (NGT) recently concluded a high-stakes legal battle over the ‘Holistic Development of Great Nicobar Island’, and ruled that all environment safeguards are in place for the Great Nicobar Island Project. This integrated project, estimated to cost ₹80,000-90,000 crore, has been at the centre of a debate between national interests and the preservation of one of the world’s most sensitive ecosystems.

What is the Great Nicobar project?

The project is an integrated infrastructure development plan proposed by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation Limited (ANIIDCO). It consists of four major components: an International Container Transshipment Terminal (ICTT), a 450 MVA gas and solar-based power plant, a large-scale township and area development, and an international airport. Building all of this would require diverting 130.75 square kilometres of forest land — roughly 18% of the total area of the Great Nicobar Island. It is projected to generate over 1.28 lakh jobs by the time it is fully implemented in 2052. However, the inevitable environmental impact of this project has prompted global outrage.

What is the history of the project?

The project’s regulatory journey began in May 2021 with a Stage-I forest clearance granted in October 2022, followed by environmental and Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearances on November 11, 2022. These clearances were challenged in a “first round” of litigation in 2022. On April 3, 2023, the NGT found “unanswered deficiencies” regarding coral conservation, the adequacy of environmental data, and zoning violations. The tribunal then formed a High-Powered Committee (HPC) to revisit these issues. The final order issued this month is the result of the “second round” of litigation, where the tribunal reviewed the HPC’s findings and the government’s subsequent actions.

Why is it a ‘national necessity’?

The government maintains that the project is of extraordinary strategic, defence, and national importance. The Great Nicobar is located just 40 km from the Malacca Strait, a critical international shipping lane. The area is seen as a vital location to counter the “growing presence” of foreign powers in the Indian Ocean. By establishing a major cargo transshipment hub, India can participate more fully in the global maritime economy and save significant costs on cargo that is currently transshipped through foreign ports. A permanent, robust presence on the island is expected to curb the poaching of marine resources by foreign entities.

What about Nicobar’s ecology?

The island is a biodiversity hotspot, and the project faces several ecological challenges. Initial surveys identified 20,668 coral colonies in the vicinity. While Island CRZ regulations prohibit the “destruction of corals”, the project involves the translocation of 16,150 colonies to suitable recipient sites. The island is home to the Leatherback Sea Turtle, the Nicobar Megapode, and the Saltwater Crocodile. Critics argued that the construction would destroy nesting grounds in Galathea Bay. A major point of contention was whether the port layout overlapped with Island CRZ-IA areas, which are the most ecologically sensitive zones (like mangroves and sand dunes) where heavy construction is strictly prohibited. Environmentalists argued that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was based on only one season of baseline data, which they claimed was insufficient for a project of this magnitude. Critics have also raised concerns that the environmental impact studies downplay the seismic risks of the region, which is located in a high-activity tectonic zone.

How will it affect the tribal populations?

The island is inhabited by the Shompen and Nicobari tribes. The NGT noted the following regarding tribal rights — the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC), which advises the Centre on environmental clearances, found that the project is designed not to disturb or displace any tribal habitation. The tribunal stated that the habitat rights of the tribes would be protected under the Forest Rights Act, though as recently as last month some of the leaders of the tribal council said that they were being “coerced” to sign ‘surrender’ certificates noting that they have no objection to their lands being given to the government. ANIIDCO is required to provide funds to the A&N Tribal Welfare Department for the welfare and protection of the tribal groups.

What was the NGT’s reasoning?

The tribunal ultimately upheld the environmental clearance, adopting a “balanced approach” that weighed environmental safeguards against national security. The NGT ruled that while EIA procedures are mandatory, they should not be used to adopt a “hyper-technical approach” that ignores ground realities and national security. It accepted the Zoological Survey of India’s (ZSI) finding that no “major” coral reef exists in the direct work area of Galathea Bay, only “scattered” colonies. It ruled that translocation would effectively protect the colonies. Following a site visit by the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM), the tribunal accepted that no part of the port project fell within the prohibited ICRZ-IA zone. The tribunal also ruled that one-season data was sufficient because the islands are not classified as a “high erosion” stretch where multi-season data is mandatory.

With the NGT according legal clearance, the ANIIDCO can move ahead with project development. The Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways is also expected to move on port development activities.