Great Nicobar Island Infrastructure Development Plans

In 2025, the Union Shipping Ministry proposed infrastructure project on Great Nicobar Island. This project aims to establish a global port-led city and enhance high-end tourism facilities. The project has a budget of ₹72,000 crore and includes various components such as an international cruise terminal, a ship-breaking yard, and a military-civil airport. However, the government has denied numerous Right to Information (RTI) requests regarding environmental clearances, citing national security and strategic concerns.

Project Components

The Great Nicobar project encompasses multiple developments. These include an international container transshipment port at Galathea Bay, a new airport, and a power plant. A large greenfield township and tourism project will cover 130 square kilometres of pristine tropical forest. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation Ltd (ANIIDCO) is responsible for implementing the project.

Recent Proposals

In April 2024, the Shipping Ministry requested an additional 100 acres of land for ship repair and shipbuilding facilities in Campbell Bay. This area is the administrative headquarters of Great Nicobar Island. The Ministry also proposed declaring Campbell Bay an export-import port to facilitate the import of construction materials for the transshipment terminal.

Environmental Concerns

Environmentalists have raised alarms about the impact of the project on local ecosystems. The coastline is classified under a Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ 1a), which protects coral reefs. The ANIIDCO has expressed concerns that ship repair activities may conflict with tourism development plans. Additionally, there are ongoing debates about the environmental clearances granted for the project.

Strategic and Security Issues

The government has consistently denied RTI requests for information regarding the project, citing national security. The Ministry of Home Affairs has classified the airport as a dual-use facility under the operational control of the Indian Navy. Critics argue that the refusal to disclose information lacks justification, especially concerning non-military aspects of the project.

Contradictory Objectives

The Shipping Ministry’s recent proposals appear contradictory to the stated security concerns. The push for a cruise terminal and increased tourism may undermine the strategic objectives cited for limiting information disclosure. Activists warn that these developments will open Great Nicobar Island to foreign influence, challenging decades of isolation policies.

Government Responses

Responses from the Andaman and Nicobar administration indicate hesitance to fully commit to the Shipping Ministry’s proposals. They have suggested that the Ministry engage a specialised consultant to explore the feasibility of the cruise terminal and discuss the export-import port with relevant authorities.

Public Sentiment

Local and national conservation groups have voiced opposition to the project. They argue that the environmental risks outweigh potential economic benefits. The situation remains contentious, with ongoing scrutiny from environmental activists and legal challenges.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Critically analyse the implications of the proposed developments on indigenous ecosystems in Great Nicobar Island.
2. Estimate the potential economic benefits versus environmental costs of establishing a global port-led city in Great Nicobar Island.
3. What are the strategic interests of India in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands? Discuss how these interests may conflict with tourism initiatives.
4. Point out the historical context of foreign access to Great Nicobar Island and its impact on local communities and ecosystems.

Answer Hints:

1. Critically analyse the implications of the proposed developments on indigenous ecosystems in Great Nicobar Island.

1. Proposed developments include land diversion (130 sq km), threatening local flora and fauna.
2. Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ 1a) status indicates high ecological sensitivity, particularly for coral reefs.
3. Ship repair and ship-breaking activities could lead to pollution and habitat destruction.
4. Increased human activity may disrupt migratory patterns and breeding grounds of local wildlife.
5. Environmental assessments and clearances have been questioned, raising concerns about transparency and ecological impact.

2. Estimate the potential economic benefits versus environmental costs of establishing a global port-led city in Great Nicobar Island.

1. Economic benefits include job creation and increased tourism revenue from high-end facilities.
2. Infrastructure development could enhance trade and connectivity, benefiting local and national economies.
3. Environmental costs involve loss of biodiversity, degradation of ecosystems, and long-term ecological damage.
4. Potential for conflicts between economic growth and sustainable practices, risking local livelihoods dependent on natural resources.
5. Long-term economic viability may be jeopardized by environmental degradation, leading to higher restoration costs.

3. What are the strategic interests of India in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands? Discuss how these interests may conflict with tourism initiatives.

1. Strategic interests include national security, maritime dominance, and monitoring maritime trade routes.
2. The islands serve as a military base for the Indian Navy, enhancing defense capabilities in the region.
3. Tourism initiatives may lead to increased foreign presence, raising security concerns for the government.
4. Development of tourism infrastructure could conflict with military operations and environmental protection efforts.
5. Balancing economic development with strategic security needs poses challenge for policymakers.

4. Point out the historical context of foreign access to Great Nicobar Island and its impact on local communities and ecosystems.

1. Historically, Great Nicobar Island has been isolated from foreign influence to protect indigenous communities.
2. Past foreign access has led to disruption of local cultures and exploitation of natural resources.
3. Isolation has preserved unique ecosystems, which are now threatened by proposed developments.
4. Changes in policy allowing foreign access could lead to cultural dilution and loss of traditional practices.
5. Local communities may face displacement and loss of livelihoods as a result of infrastructure projects.