The recent decision of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to uphold the environmental clearance for the ₹80,000-crore Great Nicobar project marks a significant moment for the islands. The Tribunal stated that it found no “good ground” to interfere with the clearance, noted the project’s strategic importance, and directed that all safeguards attached to the approval must be strictly implemented.
With that order, the debate moves from approval to implementation.
The proposed project covers approximately 166 square kilometres of southern Great Nicobar and involves diversion of nearly 130 square kilometres of forest land. It includes a transshipment port, an integrated township, a dual-use airport, and a power plant. The environmental clearance includes conditions intended to protect leatherback sea turtles, Nicobar megapodes, saltwater crocodiles, and other endemic species. It also specifies that shoreline stability must be maintained and that sandy nesting beaches should not be lost.
For the people of the Nicobar Islands, the central issue is no longer whether the project will proceed, but how these safeguards will function in practice.
Island ecosystems operate within tight ecological limits. Freshwater is typically stored in shallow aquifers that rest above saline groundwater. These freshwater lenses are highly sensitive to over-extraction and changes in forest cover. Once saltwater intrusion occurs, recovery is slow and often incomplete. Large-scale land-use change therefore has direct implications for water security.
The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami remains a reminder that Great Nicobar is geologically dynamic. Coastal landforms shifted. Agricultural areas were salinised. Indira Point subsided significantly. Infrastructure planning in such a context requires long-term risk modelling that accounts for seismic activity, shoreline change, and cyclone exposure.
The Tribunal’s reference to a “balanced approach” carries particular weight in an island setting. Balance cannot remain a conceptual term. It must translate into measurable hydrological assessments, transparent biodiversity baselines, and independent ecological monitoring that continues well beyond the initial approval stage. Implementation agencies now carry the primary responsibility. Safeguard conditions should not be treated as procedural requirements to be documented once and filed away. Monitoring data — on groundwater quality, shoreline stability, forest regeneration, and species protection — should be publicly accessible. Periodic independent audits would strengthen institutional credibility and public confidence.
Great Nicobar will undergo change. The Tribunal has clarified that development may proceed under specified conditions. The durability of that decision will depend on whether safeguards are enforceable, transparent, and responsive to ecological feedback. Island territories require development models that recognise geological memory, hydrological limits, and biodiversity sensitivity. These are not obstacles to progress; they are defining characteristics of the landscape. The legal position has been clarified. What follows must demonstrate ecological accountability in practice.
Deepanjana Saha is a biodiversity and ecosystem services researcher from the Andaman Islands, currently based in Bengaluru.