Answer

Introduction

The Great Nicobar Island Development Project aims to establish a transshipment hub and strategic base but threatens one of India’s most biodiverse and fragile ecosystems. The project exemplifies the growing tension between economic development goals and ecological sustainability in India’s coastal and forested regions.

Body

Environmental and Ecological Risks of the Great Nicobar Project

• Loss of Primary Tropical Rainforest: The project will divert nearly 8.5 lakh trees in an ecologically sensitive area, one of India’s last remaining tropical rainforests.
  Eg: The loss threatens critical habitats for endemic species like the Nicobar Megapode, Nicobar Macaque, and Leatherback Turtle nesting sites.
• Threat to Marine and Coastal Ecosystems: Dredging and port construction endanger coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass beds vital for marine biodiversity and carbon sequestration.
  Eg: The Campbell Bay region, part of the Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve, is a UNESCO-recognised biodiversity hotspot.
• Disruption of Indigenous Tribal Habitats: The Shompen and Nicobarese tribes, classified as Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs), face cultural and livelihood displacement.
  Eg: The Anthropological Survey of India (2022) cautioned that external interference could destroy their isolated ecosystem balance.
• Seismic and Climate Vulnerability: Located in Seismic Zone V, the island is prone to earthquakes and tsunamis, as seen in 2004. Large-scale infrastructure could exacerbate disaster risks and impede natural recovery processes.
• Loss of Carbon Sink and Ecological Services: Forest removal undermines India’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) for carbon sequestration and biodiversity protection under the Paris Agreement.
• Weak Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Process: Clearances were reportedly fast-tracked under the “strategic importance” clause, sidelining scientific scrutiny.
  Eg: The NBWL approval (2022) overlooked objections from the Zoological Survey of India and Wildlife Institute of India regarding turtle nesting zones.

Development–Environment Conflict Illustrated by the Case

• Economic Growth vs. Ecological Stability: The project aims to create a global shipping and logistics hub but jeopardises natural capital an example of short-term economic gain at long-term ecological cost.
• Strategic Priorities Over Environmental Safeguards: National security and geopolitical ambitions in the Indo-Pacific often override conservation imperatives.
  Eg: The government cites China’s presence in the Indian Ocean as justification for accelerated development.
• Inadequate Implementation of Environmental Justice: The lack of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) from tribal communities violates environmental justice principles under Forest Rights Act (2006).
• Regulatory Dilution and Institutional Bypass: Fast-track clearances reflect the weakening of EIA norms, echoing similar trends in other ecologically fragile zones.
  Eg: Comparable dilution seen in Etalin Hydroelectric Project (Arunachal Pradesh) and Dibang Valley clearances.
• Misalignment with India’s Sustainability Commitments
  Projects like GNI contradict India’s pledges at COP-28 to pursue “Green Development” and net-zero by 2070.
• Reflection of a Broader Governance Dilemma The GNI project symbolises India’s larger conflict between the ease of doing business and ease of breathing.
  

Conclusion

The Great Nicobar case highlights the urgent need to balance strategic and economic priorities with environmental stewardship. Sustainable development must rest on scientific assessment, tribal participation, and ecological safeguards, ensuring that national progress does not come at the cost of irreplaceable natural heritage.

DOWNLOAD PDF