Missing the Forest for the Trees, Why the NGT’s Great Nicobar Ruling Raises Troubling Questions
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has declined to interfere any further in the environmental review of the Great Nicobar Holistic Development Project, effectively greenlighting the ₹81,834.22 crore initiative. In doing so, it has accepted the Centre’s argument that the project is strategically important and that Great Nicobar, situated a thousand miles off the Indian mainland, offers a strategic location to develop a new economic hub. The government contends that the project will help improve connectivity with the Indian mainland and other global cities.
These are contentious claims that deserved more attention from the NGT. The larger question is whether the tribunal delivered on its remit. The NGT Act 2010 states that it is a law for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases related to environmental protection, conservation of forests and other natural resources, including enforcement of any legal right relating to the environment. National security, trade and connectivity are not its concerns.
That being the case, the NGT should have focused on the core issue at hand—the impact of the project on biodiversity, environment and vulnerable tribes—and taken an uncompromising view. It didn’t do that.
The Scale of the Project
The Great Nicobar Holistic Development Project is massive in scale. It envisions an international container transshipment terminal, an airport, a power plant, and a township. The total cost is pegged at over ₹81,000 crore, making it one of the largest infrastructure projects in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
Proponents argue that the project is strategically vital. Great Nicobar is India’s southernmost island, located near critical sea lanes of communication in the Indian Ocean. Developing infrastructure there could enhance India’s maritime presence, provide logistical support to the navy, and create an economic hub that connects India to Southeast Asia and beyond.
But the project also comes with enormous environmental costs. It involves the loss of 130.75 square kilometres of forests. Of this, 84.10 square kilometres is tribal land. For the Shompen, a particularly vulnerable tribal group, these rainforests are a foraging ground for food. The Nicobarese, another resident tribe, have stated that they have not consented to the acquisition of their commons.
The NGT’s Reasoning
The NGT’s final order largely agrees with the government’s submissions. For instance, it has blithely accepted the Zoological Survey of India’s submission that there is no major coral reef within the work area of the project, and that scattered ones exist only in adjoining areas. It has also accepted the government’s position that the site where the project is planned does not qualify as most vulnerable under Coastal Regulation Zone norms.
This conclusion is reached despite the site being a nesting ground for an endangered species of sea turtle and habitat for an endemic and endangered bird. The contradiction is stark: how can an area be deemed not vulnerable when it supports endangered species?
The tribunal appears to have taken a narrow view of its mandate, focusing on technical compliance with specific regulations rather than the broader ecological significance of the area. This approach misses the forest for the trees—literally.
The Human Cost
Beyond the biodiversity loss, the project carries a profound human cost. The Shompen are one of India’s particularly vulnerable tribal groups. They are hunter-gatherers who depend on the rainforest for their subsistence. The loss of 84 square kilometres of their foraging grounds threatens not just their way of life but their very survival.
The Nicobarese, who are more integrated into modern society but still maintain traditional relationships with their land, have made their opposition clear. They have stated that they have not consented to the acquisition of their commons. In a democracy, the principle of free, prior and informed consent for tribal communities is not just a good practice; it is a legal and moral obligation.
The government has not demonstrated that such consent has been obtained. The NGT did not insist on it.
The Trade-Off Question
Every large project involves trade-offs. Development inevitably comes at some environmental cost. The question is not whether trade-offs exist, but whether they are justified and whether those who bear the costs are adequately consulted and compensated.
In the case of Great Nicobar, the justification rests heavily on strategic and economic arguments. The project will enhance India’s presence in the Indian Ocean, create an economic hub, and improve connectivity. These are not trivial considerations.
But what if the survival of multiple species and the way of life of particularly vulnerable tribes are at stake? These are not costs that can be compensated with money. Once a species goes extinct, it is gone forever. Once a tribal way of life is destroyed, it cannot be reconstructed.
The jury is still out on whether the project is economically viable. Transshipment terminals require large volumes of cargo to be profitable. Will Great Nicobar attract enough traffic? Will the airport and township generate the expected economic activity? These are open questions.
The Procedural Failure
The NGT’s role is not to make strategic or economic judgments. Its mandate is environmental protection. By accepting the government’s strategic arguments without rigorous scrutiny, it has effectively outsourced its core responsibility.
The tribunal should have focused on the environmental impact assessment. Was it thorough? Did it consider cumulative impacts? Were alternative sites evaluated? Were tribal communities properly consulted? These are the questions the NGT should have asked.
Instead, the order reads as a rubber stamp. It accepts government submissions at face value. It glosses over contradictions. It minimises ecological significance. This is not what the NGT was created for.
The Bigger Picture
The Great Nicobar case is not an isolated one. Across India, infrastructure projects are approved with inadequate environmental scrutiny. The pressure to build quickly, to attract investment, to demonstrate progress, often overwhelms the slower, messier work of environmental assessment and community consultation.
The result is a cumulative erosion of India’s natural heritage. Forests shrink. Species decline. Tribal communities are displaced. Each project, considered in isolation, may seem manageable. But the cumulative impact is devastating.
The NGT was established precisely to provide a check on this process. It was meant to be a forum where environmental concerns could be raised and adjudicated by experts. If it fails in its mandate, who will speak for the forests and the tribes?
Conclusion: A Missed Opportunity
The NGT had an opportunity to set a precedent, to demonstrate that even strategically important projects must meet rigorous environmental standards. It chose instead to defer to the government’s arguments and greenlight the project with minimal scrutiny.
The loss of 130 square kilometres of forest in Great Nicobar is not just a local issue. It is a national loss. The endangered species that nest there, the endemic birds that live only there, the tribal communities that have called those forests home for millennia—these are not replaceable.
The NGT’s order may be legally sound within a narrow reading of its mandate. But it fails the larger test of environmental stewardship. It misses the forest for the trees. And that is a loss we will all bear.
Q&A: Unpacking the Great Nicobar Project Controversy
Q1: What is the Great Nicobar Holistic Development Project?
The Great Nicobar Holistic Development Project is a massive infrastructure initiative estimated to cost over ₹81,000 crore. It comprises an international container transshipment terminal, an airport, a power plant, and a township. Proponents argue it will enhance India’s strategic presence in the Indian Ocean, improve connectivity with the mainland and global cities, and create an economic hub. However, the project requires the loss of 130.75 square kilometres of forests, including 84.10 square kilometres of tribal land.
Q2: Why has the National Green Tribunal’s decision been criticised?
The NGT has been criticised for failing to adequately scrutinise the environmental impact of the project. Instead of focusing strictly on its mandate—environmental protection, conservation of forests, and natural resources—it accepted the government’s strategic and economic arguments at face value. Critics argue it glossed over critical issues such as the impact on endangered species (sea turtles, endemic birds), the lack of tribal consent, and the ecological significance of the area. The order is seen as a rubber stamp rather than a rigorous environmental review.
Q3: What are the concerns regarding tribal communities?
Two tribal groups are directly affected. The Shompen are a particularly vulnerable tribal group who depend on the rainforests for foraging and subsistence. The project threatens their way of life and survival. The Nicobarese, another resident tribe, have stated that they have not consented to the acquisition of their commons. The principle of free, prior and informed consent for tribal communities is a legal and moral obligation that the government has not demonstrated having fulfilled. The NGT did not insist on this.
Q4: What are the environmental concerns?
The project involves the loss of 130.75 square kilometres of forests, which is habitat for multiple species. The site is a nesting ground for an endangered species of sea turtle and home to an endemic and endangered bird. Despite this, the government and the NGT accepted the Zoological Survey of India’s claim that there is no major coral reef within the work area and that the site does not qualify as most vulnerable under Coastal Regulation Zone norms. Critics find this conclusion contradicted by the presence of endangered species.
Q5: What larger issues does this case raise about development and environmental protection in India?
The Great Nicobar case illustrates a recurring tension between infrastructure development and environmental conservation. Projects are often approved with inadequate environmental scrutiny, and the cumulative impact of multiple projects leads to the erosion of India’s natural heritage. The NGT was established to provide a check on this process, but its handling of this case raises questions about its effectiveness. The case highlights the need for rigorous environmental impact assessments, meaningful tribal consultation, and a proper weighing of trade-offs where the costs may be irreversible.
