The Indian government has framed the initiative interpreting it as critical for the country’s economic and geopolitical positioning in the Indo-Pacific. However, the project has been criticized by environmental scientists, policy experts, and civil society groups as it has the potential of damaging environmental impact, procedural irregularities, and also threats to Indigenous communities.

The project covers approximately 166 square kilometres, nearly one-fifth of the island’s total area. This will require the diversion of over 130 square kilometres of forest land, including 84.1 square kilometres currently designated as tribal reserve, according to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report. There would be high rate of demographic transformation too.

Currently the population in the island is just over 8,000, but now, is expected to increase more than 80-fold if the township reaches projected capacity, risking an overpopulation crisis. At present there is hardly seen much human presence other than its Indigenous communities. Over 85 percent of Great Nicobar is designated as a biosphere reserve and part of UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere Programme, home to tropical rainforests, coral reefs, and more than 1,700 endemic species of fauna.

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has proposed the grant of environmental and Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance for the project. This will lead to the diversion of 130 square kilometres of forest land, with a possibility of almost 852,000 tree s could be felled.

There has also been pointed out the serious adverse effect the project would have upon coastal and marine ecosystems. The planned transhipment terminal is located at Galathea Bay, one of the most important nesting sites for the endangered giant leatherback turtle in the Indian Ocean. This species is listed under Schedule I of India’s wildlife protection framework and is globally classified as vulnerable.

Also the EIA points out that because of port construction, dredging, and breakwater development, the effective entry width of the bay, which is currently around 3.8 kilometres, would also face adversity. This would have direct implications for turtle nesting access.

The Zoological Survey of India, the Wildlife Institute of India, the Indian Institute for Science have also contributed towards preparation for the EIA report that include restricting construction during nesting season, reducing artificial lighting, and installing physical deflectors to guide turtles. However, these steps have been criticised vehemently by marine biologists as insufficient and lacking empirical validation. This is because, unlike other turtle nesting sites cited in the EIA, Galathea Bay is unique in India that supports actively leatherback populations, making ecological disruption here particularly consequential.

In addition to marine impacts, the EIA confirms that coral reefs in the project area will likely be damaged due to dredging. While the report proposes coral transplantation as a mitigation strategy, it fails to provide site-specific plans or evidence of feasibility at the required scale.

Recent conservation practices linked to the project have further raised concerns; this year, hatchlings of leatherback and olive ridley turtles were released at B-Quarry Beach, a site where no turtle nesting has been recorded. Established conservation protocols require hatchlings to be released at their natal beaches to ensure imprinting and future nesting fidelity.

According to experts, such releases may be an attempt to artificially shift nesting patterns away from Galathea Bay, where the port is planned. However, scientific evidence indicates that turtle nesting behaviour is influenced by long-term ecological factors, including beach morphology and sand composition, making such interventions highly ineffective. Nevertheless, removal of an existing hatchery at the project site further indicates that conservation infrastructure is being adjusted to accommodate development rather than the reverse.

There has been almost no consultation over the significant implications for Indigenous populations, particularly the Shompen tribe, classified as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG), maintain a semi-nomadic lifestyle and have minimal contact with the outside world. The diversion of tribal reserve land and the influx of a large external population pose risks of disease exposure, cultural disruption, and loss of habitat.

The EIA explicitly states that interaction between the Shompen and outsiders is “undesirable,” yet it proposes mitigation measures such as relocating labour camps and physically restricting access to tribal areas. The entire endeavour leaves a grim impact. Great Nicobar Island hosts globally unique biodiversity that could be irreversibly damaged. The government’s argument of compensatory afforestation is bogus as security experts have suggested that strategic objectives could be met without large-scale environmental disruption.

Nor do the ecological assessments cited by the Union government to clear the Great Nicobar Island Development Project fulfill the statutory requirements. The baseline data referred to is grossly inadequate. These assessments are an insult to science and make a mockery of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) process.

It is because of this reason that the government must publicize the report of the High-Powered Committee (HPC) constituted on directions of National Green Tribunal (NGT) on the project. .Study must be done taking account for seasonal variations in biodiversity and ecological processes, requiring data collection across at least two to three seasons. In fact, the ecological assessments of government violate even the Environment Ministry’s own sector-specific EIA manual, which prescribes multi-season data for physical, chemical and biological parameters, along with oceanographic inputs. (IPA Service)