After the NGT order, safeguards will now decide Great Nicobar’s future

The recent decision of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to uphold the environmental clearance for the Rs 80,000-crore Great Nicobar infrastructure project marks a pivotal moment in India’s environmental governance. The Tribunal stated that it found no “good ground” to interfere with the clearance, noted the project’s strategic importance, and emphasised that the safeguards attached to the approval must be strictly implemented. It described the approach as “balanced.”

With that order, the debate shifts from legality to implementation.

The project covers approximately 166 square kilometres in southern Great Nicobar and entails diversion of nearly 130 square kilometres of forest land. It proposes a transshipment port, an integrated township, a dual-use airport and a 450-MVA power plant. Environmental clearance under the 2006 EIA Notification, forest diversion approvals under the Forest (Conservation) Act, and compliance requirements under the Island Coastal Regulation Zone (ICRZ) Notification, 2019 together form the regulatory backbone of the project.

The NGT order places weight on the conditions embedded within these approvals. These include safeguards for species such as the leatherback sea turtle, Nicobar megapode, saltwater crocodile and other endemic fauna; directions to ensure no net loss of sandy nesting beaches; and requirements that shoreline changes and erosion be prevented. Coral protection and translocation measures have also been referenced in proceedings.

The durability of this decision now depends on whether these safeguards operate effectively within an island ecosystem that has limited ecological margins.

A complex ecosystem

Island systems differ fundamentally from mainland landscapes. Freshwater in small islands typically exists as shallow aquifers—freshwater lenses resting above saline groundwater. These systems are highly sensitive to over-extraction and to changes in forest cover that influence recharge. Once saltwater intrusion occurs, recovery is slow and often incomplete. Monitoring groundwater salinity levels and recharge rates will therefore be critical, especially if population levels increase significantly over time.

Forest diversion at the proposed scale also carries hydrological implications. Primary tropical forests regulate runoff, stabilise soil, and sustain microclimatic balance. Compensatory afforestation elsewhere may satisfy procedural requirements, but ecological functions—particularly those linked to island hydrology—are location-specific. Monitoring must extend beyond plantation targets to measurable indicators such as forest regeneration rates, canopy density, soil stability and watershed health.

Great Nicobar’s geological context adds another layer of complexity. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami permanently altered parts of the island. Indira Point subsided, coastal tracts were inundated and agricultural lands were salinised. Shoreline dynamics remain sensitive in a seismically active zone along the Sunda subduction boundary. Infrastructure planning in such terrain requires long-horizon risk modelling that integrates seismic vulnerability, cyclone exposure and projected sea-level rise.

The NGT’s invocation of a “balanced approach” carries particular weight in this context. Balance cannot remain conceptual. It must translate into measurable hydrological modelling, transparent biodiversity baselines and independent ecological monitoring that continues throughout the project lifecycle—not only during the clearance phase.

Implementation agencies now bear primary responsibility. Environmental clearance conditions should not be treated as one-time compliance documents. Monitoring data—on groundwater quality, shoreline stability, beach width, forest regeneration, coral health and key species populations—should be periodically published and subject to independent review. Adaptive management frameworks should allow corrective action if ecological thresholds are approached.

The ICRZ framework requires protection of ecologically sensitive coastal stretches. Ensuring that port and foreshore development do not alter sediment transport patterns or accelerate erosion will require continuous coastal geomorphological assessment. Beach profiling, sediment flow studies and erosion-rate monitoring should be institutionalised rather than reactive.

Strategic arguments for the project focus on maritime positioning and economic opportunity. These considerations form part of national planning. However, resilience is itself strategic. Infrastructure in seismically active and cyclone-prone regions must be designed and governed with ecological constraints in mind. Failure of safeguards in such systems carries disproportionate consequences.

The social dimension must also remain central. The Shompen and Nicobarese communities inhabit landscapes that are ecologically and culturally interlinked. Consultation mechanisms should remain continuous and adaptive as project phases unfold, particularly where land use patterns intersect with traditional territories.

Beginning, not the end

The NGT has clarified the legal position: the project may proceed subject to specified safeguards. The strength of that decision will be judged by how transparently and rigorously those safeguards are enforced.

Great Nicobar will change. The issue is not whether development occurs, but whether it proceeds within the biophysical limits of a small island ecosystem. Once aquifers are salinised, nesting beaches narrowed or primary forests fragmented, restoration becomes partial at best.

In fragile island systems, environmental clearance is not the conclusion of scrutiny—it is the beginning of ecological accountability. The coming years will determine whether “adequate safeguards” remain procedural language or become measurable protection in practice.

Deepanjana Saha is a biodiversity and ecosystem services researcher from the Andaman Islands, currently based in Bengaluru.

Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth