The ?72,000-crore Great Nicobar Infrastructure Project (GNIP) has come under scrutiny after experts pointed out that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) downplays the region’s tsunami and earthquake risks, despite scientific studies indicating high seismic vulnerability in the area.

Great Nicobar Island Infrastructure Project (GNIP)

Geographical & Ecological Context

• Great Nicobar Island (GNI)
  • Largest and southernmost island of the Nicobar group, part of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands UT.
  • Home to Galathea Bay, Campbell Bay, and Indira Point (southernmost point of India).
  • Declared part of Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve and UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme (MAB).
  • Biodiversity Hotspot: Tropical evergreen forests, endemic flora and fauna (e.g., Nicobar crab-eating macaque, leatherback turtles).
• Galathea Bay Wildlife Sanctuary (denotified in 2021)
  • Notified in 1997 to conserve nesting sites of leatherback turtles.
  • Falls under Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) 1A – highest ecological sensitivity.
  • Denotification contradicts the Marine Turtle Action Plan, 2021.

Project Overview & Strategic Relevance

• Key Components of the Project:
  • International Container Transshipment Terminal (ICTT) at Galathea Bay.
  • Greenfield International Airport
  • Gas and Solar-Based Power Plant (450 MVA)
  • Greenfield Township and Tourism Projects
  • Cruise Terminal, Ship Repair & EXIM Ports (recent additions)

Strategic Importance:

• Located close to Malacca, Sunda, and Lombok Straits — global maritime chokepoints.
• Enables India’s maritime surveillance against increasing Chinese activity in the Indo-Pacific.
• Aligns with:
  • Act East Policy
  • QUAD's Indo-Pacific Vision
  • Maritime India Vision 2030
  • AmritKaal Vision 2047

Major Concerns

• Environmental Concerns:
  • Deforestation: Over 130 sq. km of pristine forest to be cleared.
  • Tree felling: Actual numbers could exceed 10 million; initial estimates were under-reported.
  • Loss of coral reefs and marine biodiversity due to port construction in CRZ 1A
  • Compensatory afforestation in Haryana and Madhya Pradesh — ecologically non-equivalent.
• Legal & Institutional Concerns:
  • Violation of SC Guidelines from Shekhar Singh Commission (2002):
    • Ban on tree felling in tribal reserves.
    • Afforestation before clearance — not followed.
  • Violation of FRA, 2006: No Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC) of Shompen and Nicobarese tribes.
  • Lack of transparency: Environmental clearance details withheld under national security pretext.
• Procedural Gaps:
  • EIA conducted by private agency (Vimta Labs); questioned for downplaying tsunami risk.
  • IIT-Kanpur study (2019) flagged high seismic risk; this was not cited in EIA.
  • No site-specific seismic studies done, despite proximity to Andaman-Sumatra Subduction Zone (2004 tsunami epicenter nearby).

Tribal Rights and Socio-Cultural Sensitivity

• Shompen Tribe:
  • One of India’s Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs).
  • Live in isolation; depend entirely on forests.
  • Project threatens livelihood, culture, and existence.
• Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA):
  • Mandates Gram Sabha consent for any diversion of forest land.
  • Disregarded in project execution.

Way Forward: Policy Recommendations