The Great Nicobar project, one of India’s most ambitious infrastructure and development proposals in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, has come under sharp scrutiny amid allegations that the Union Environment Ministry ignored scientific rigour and procedural norms during its appraisal and approval stages. The project, which envisions a trans-shipment port, an airport, a township and associated infrastructure, aims to transform the strategically located island into a global logistics hub. However, criticism from scientists, environmental groups, and policy observers continues to intensify.

At the heart of the controversy is the claim that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), a cornerstone of responsible development, was rushed, incomplete, and failed to adequately address the fragile ecological realities of Great Nicobar Island. The region is a biodiversity hotspot—home to endemic species, mangroves, coral reefs, and the critically endangered Nicobar megapode—making any large-scale intervention particularly sensitive. Critics argue that such a complex ecosystem required extensive multi-seasonal studies, but the assessments relied on limited data, selective inputs and outdated baselines.

Additionally, concerns have been raised about the project’s potential impact on the Shompen tribe, one of the most isolated and vulnerable Indigenous communities in the world. The tribe depends heavily on the forest and local ecology for survival. Several experts believe that the consultation process with tribal communities lacked transparency and did not meet the standards of free, informed and meaningful consent. The fear is that massive forest diversion, land acquisition and human activity may irreversibly disrupt the tribe’s life and cultural continuity.

Procedural issues have also surfaced in the decision-making process. Environmentalists claim that the Ministry’s Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) approved the project’s components in unusually rapid succession, often within single meetings, despite receiving incomplete documentation. Such fast-tracked approvals raise questions about whether due diligence, independent scrutiny and competitive scientific review were compromised to push the project forward.

The project’s scale involves the diversion of more than 130 square kilometres of pristine forest, which includes old-growth rainforest that supports thousands of species, many yet to be fully documented. Scientists have repeatedly warned that clearing such land in a seismically active, climate-sensitive island chain could increase the risks of coastal erosion, habitat loss and long-term ecological instability. Great Nicobar lies close to the epicentre of the devastating 2004 tsunami, and altering the landscape without thorough modelling could carry unknown consequences.

Supporters of the project argue that its strategic value for national security, international shipping and regional development is essential. They highlight the potential for job creation, economic growth and enhanced connectivity. However, critics counter that development cannot come at the cost of ecological collapse and procedural shortcuts.