Great Nicobar Project

Great Nicobar Project – Key Issues Explained

1. What happened?

• On 30 October 2025, the Union Environment Ministry admitted before the NGT that the Great Nicobar mega-project will have a significant ecological impact on this sensitive island ecosystem.

  
  

• The ₹92,000-crore project involves a transshipment port, airport, power plant, tourism project, and a township.

Ministry’s admission (2025 NGT hearing)

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati admitted that Galathea Bay, the port site, contains:

• 20,000+ live coral colonies

• 50+ nesting mounds of the endangered Nicobar Megapode (Schedule I species)

• Active nesting site of the Giant Leatherback Turtle

  
  

• Ministry claims it is “aware” of these impacts and has prescribed mitigation till 2052.

Issue: Mitigation is being presented as if the project were inevitable, masking questionable clearance decisions made earlier.

3. Fundamental Contradiction Highlighted

The Ministry’s stance is contradictory because:

(A) Wildlife Sanctuary was removed

• In 2021, the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) denotified the Galathea Bay Wildlife Sanctuary, which was originally created (in 1997) to protect:

  • Leatherback turtles

  • Coral colonies

  • Megapode nesting

  • Mangroves & crocodiles

    
    

• The same institution first removed protection and later argued for “mitigation” instead of preventing harm.

  
  

4. CRZ-1A Issue (Coastal Regulation Zone)

CRZ-1A areas include:

• Coral reefs

• Mangroves

• Turtle nesting beaches

• Seagrass beds

• Bird nesting grounds

• Protected areas (sanctuaries, national parks)

Galathea Bay qualifies on all counts, meaning:

➡️Port construction is legally prohibited.

But a major inconsistency arises:

NGT’s Observation (April 2023)

• The area had 20,668 coral colonies

• The port falls in CRZ-1A, where such construction is banned

  
  

  → NGT appointed a High-Powered Committee (HPC).

  
  

NCSCM’s “Ground Truthing” Survey

• The HPC relied on a confidential NCSCM report claiming:

  • The port site is NOT CRZ-1A, but CRZ-1B (where ports are allowed).

• This conclusion was based on circular reasoning:

  • Since CRZ-1A disallows ports and the project layout contains a port, therefore it "cannot be CRZ-1A".

    
    

Problem:

Neither the NCSCM report nor the HPC report is publicly available. The Ministry claims “defence” reasons, even though denotification was done for commercial purposes.

5. Ecological Reality Contradicts These Claims

Ms. Bhati’s own admission confirms that Galathea Bay still contains:

• Live corals

• Turtle nesting beaches

• Megapode populations

  
  

Data from the Andaman Forest Department shows:

• 600+ leatherback turtle nestings in 2024 — among the highest ever.

➡️ This directly contradicts the claim that the area is not CRZ-1A.

This raises concerns about:

• Scientific integrity

• Transparency of reports

• Environmental governance

  
  

6. Core Issue

The Ministry:

1. Removed protection (sanctuary denotification)

2. Downgraded CRZ status

3. Cleared a project in a prohibited zone

4. Now argues for mitigation instead of reconsidering legality and ecological necessity.