UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 3 – Ecology and Environment And Infrastructure
Introduction
Supporters claim a mega port at Galathea Bay will make India a regional hub for security and trade. Critics warn of risks to indigenous communities and fragile ecology. A closer look shows advantages are overstated and structural flaws are ignored. The question is whether the promises of economic and strategic transformation match on-ground realities. The Mirage of Port-led Development in Great Nicobar.
About Great Nicobar Island Development Project
The Great Nicobar Island Development Project involves a comprehensive Rs 72,000-crore infrastructure upgrade on Great Nicobar Island. It is being implemented by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation (ANIIDCO).
The Great Nicobar Island Development project includes development of following:
- An International Container Transshipment Terminal (ICTT)
- A greenfield international airport
- Two greenfield cities
- A coastal mass rapid transport system
- A free trade zone
- International cruise terminal (New addition)
- A ship breaking yard (New addition)
Concern related to the port-led development in Great Nicobar
- Weak demand logic: Building capacity will not by itself attract traffic. Hubs grow from networks, feeder links, cargo base, and carrier loyalty.
- Missing logistics ecosystem: Great Nicobar has no hinterland or industry, and sits ~1,200 km from the mainland. Everything—fuel, staff, and provisions—must be shipped, which raises costs and disrupts routes.
- Overambitious volume targets: Colombo ports handles under eight million TEU with established networks. Great Nicobar aims to double that without committed lines. This lacks credibility.
- Strategic rationale misaligned: INS Baaz already enables surveillance in the Indian Ocean. A commercial port is unnecessary for those security functions. If stronger defence posture is needed, state it openly and pursue it directly—not justify it as commercial development.
- Not a linchpin for a “maritime arc”: Vizhinjam and Vadhavan are mainland ports with their own routes and markets. Great Nicobar is too distant and has no local cargo to connect or anchor them. So it cannot act as the central link of any single, seamless network.
- Ecological risk: The Andaman & Nicobar Islands are a major global biodiversity hotspot and a carbon reservoir; the mega-plan will affect 13,000 hectares of pristine forests, threatening island ecology.
- Forest rights & due process: Serious doubt whether the Tribal Council of Little and Great Nicobar was allowed to certify settlement of rights under the Forest Rights Act beforeforest diversion; a report alleges false representation that rights were settled.
- Pattern of “planned disasters”: The project echoes a wider pattern where big multipurpose projects proceed despite environmental law failing to protect ecology.
- Undermining international obligations: The Galathea Bay Wildlife Sanctuary located in the Great Nicobar Island forms part of a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Hence the preservation of this pristine biodiversity is an International Obligation of India.
- Seismic Vulnerability: The proposed port which is an integral part of this project, is located in a seismically volatile zone, which experienced permanent subsidence of around 15 feet during the 2004 tsunami. This raises concerns about the safety and viability of constructing such a large-scale infrastructure project in a high-risk, disaster-prone area.
Way forward
- Build networks first: Prioritise carrier ties, feeder services, pricing, and turnaround before adding capacity. Publish credible traffic paths, realistic timelines, and clear subsidy limits so lines see reliable savings and lower risk.
- Choose viable sites with full safeguards: Complete ecology assessments, community consent (including FRA compliance), and lifecycle-cost reviews. Prefer locations with lane proximity, logistics bases, and organic cargo; avoid sites needing permanent subsidies.
- Respect tribal rights: Follow Shompen Policy (2015) and ensure rights take priority over large projects.
4.,Separate security from commerce: If security upgrades are required, pursue them transparently and independently of commercial port claims.
- Learn from past failures: Use lessons from Tehri, Koel Karo, Sardar Sarovar to insist on community-centred decisions and island-appropriate safeguards.
- Eco-friendly construction: The construction of infrastructure should be done using eco-friendly practices like strict adherence to GRIHA code for building construction.
- Transparency in data and process: The government should release the data on the rationale, the process of creation, consulted groups etc. in public domain. This will give a holistic view to critics and supporters.
- International cooperation: India should enhance Cooperation with countries like Japan, South Korea etc. This will help in developing successful island development models.
Conclusion
Great Nicobar’s plan overpromises and underprepares. Without networks, cargo base, cost advantages, and clear consent and safeguards, capacity will idle. Separate security from commerce, choose viable, low-risk sites, and insist on transparent economics and ecology reviews. Otherwise, the project risks becoming a costly lesson, not a regional catalyst.
Question for practice:
Examine the main concerns about the port-led development in Great Nicobar.
Source: The Hindu
