The plan for the ”holistic development” of Great Nicobar Island (GNI), has become the centre of numerous conflicts, with environmentalists, civil society organizations and former civil servants expressing diverse concerns and viewpoints. The plan is centered around the development of a greenfield city which includes development of four projects: an International Container Transhipment Terminal (14.2 million TEU) along with a Greenfield International Airport (4000 Peak Hour Passengers-PHP, dual military-civilian function), a Township & Area Development and a 450 MVA Gas and Solar based Power Plant in a total area of 16,610 hectares. The project will be implemented by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation (ANIIDCO) in the Nicobar district.

While the government claims that the locals will not be displaced by the project, it has said in the Parliament that the project will use about 7.114 sq. km of tribal reserve forest land, where the Shompen, a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG), and the Nicobarese reside. However, the government has denotified 84.10 sq km of tribal reserve area in the Island and renotified already protected forest area as tribal reserve area to paveway for half the project area; thus only counting 7.114 sq. km loss of tribal area.  

The Nicobarese tribe residing in the area have raised concerns about the potential infringement on their ancestral lands and disruption of their traditional way of life. As it is, many of the residents are yet to be relocated into their old habitats after they were displaced in the aftermath of the Tsunami of 2004. On 25 August 2022, the Nicobarese[ had written](https://greentribunal.gov.in/sites/default/files/news_updates/Rejoinder filed by the Applicant in Appeal 32 of 2022 (EZ) Ashish Kothari Vs. The MOEFCC & Anr.pdf) to the Lieutenant Governor requesting relocation to their pre-tsunami villages which are now falling within the proposed project sites. But despite their insistence on returning to their ancestral lands, both forest clearance and environment clearance were granted to the project in October and November 2022, respectively.

The Andaman and Nicobar administration has also not implemented the Forests Rights Act 2006 justifying it on the grounds of the existence of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Act, 1956 (PAT56).
Under PAT56, forest land has been marked as Tribal Reserves in the island, over which local tribespeople have been given rights to use and collect resources as and when needed for their daily sustenance. By using land falling under the Tribal Reserves the proposed project will be violating the indigenous rights.

In November 2022, the Tribal Council of Great Nicobar and Little Nicobar retracted its no-objection certificate (NOC) for the project, citing the administration's lack of transparency regarding the use of tribal reserve lands and the hasty process of obtaining consent from tribal communities. 

Citing violations under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, among others, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) in April 2023 issued notice to the district authorities in Andaman and Nicobar Islands on grounds that the project will significantly affect the rights of local tribespeople and that the NCST was not consulted. 

During the preparation of the social impact assessment, neither the tribal council nor the Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTGs) were consulted or addressed. They had no representation even during the recent public hearing on 28 June 2024. This violated a 2015 order that restricts ecotourism in the places frequented by the Shompen tribes. Meanwhile, the settlers of the Island demanded better compensation. 

Environmentalists have voiced strong opposition to the projects citing potential ecological damage to the delicate marine ecosystem and the destruction of critical habitats for endangered species such as the Leatherback turtles, Nicobar megapode (a flightless bird endemic to the Nicobar Islands), Nicobar Macaque and saltwater crocodiles. They argue that the construction of the port, along with the associated infrastructure, could lead to irreversible environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity in the Greater Nicobar region. The project will divert over 130 square kilometres of forest land and the felling of around 8.5 lakh trees. It is also likely to affect the mangrove cover and coral reef in the area.

The project is strategically important for India amid China’s expanding footprint across the Indo-Pacific region, especially Malacca, Sunda, and Lombok. Given its geographical location, the A&N Islands would be the first eastern line of offence for India’s maritime security. 

Critics have questioned the government’s move to reduce the Eco-Sensitive Zones of the Campbell National Park and Galathea National Park from 10 km to 0-1 km radius in October 2020 as well as the denotification of the 11.44 sq km Galathea Bay Wildlife Sanctuary in January 2021, just two months before the MoEFCC signed the National Marine Turtle  Action Plan that notified Galathea wildlife sanctuary as the largest of the four habitats for endangered leatherback turtle in Indian Ocean. 

Critics have also questioned the economic viability and sustainability of the project. They argue that the expected benefits, such as job creation and economic growth, may not outweigh the potential costs and negative impacts on the environment and local communities. There are also concerns about inadequate consultation and lack of transparency in decision-making, leading to distrust among stakeholders. The administration has now tried to stall the entry of outsiders to the islands by denying entry to non-islanders.

The National Green Tribunal has not intervened in the environment clearance for  the mega project, but constituted a high-powered committee to revisit the environmental nod granted to the project. The status of the report remains unclear till date.

The conflict highlights the complex interplay between the economic development aspirations of India partnering the private parties and also  with its defense ambitions on the one hand and environmental conservation, questions of sustainable practices and the activism surrounding the same, which needs to be balanced with the rights of its indigenous communities. Balancing these competing interests and finding a mutually beneficial solution will decide the outcome of the project.