No final forest nod yet for Great Nicobar project

Hindustan Times

Context

The article reports that Stage-II (final) forest clearance for the ₹81,800 crore Great Nicobar “Sustainable Development Project” has not yet been granted. Only in-principle approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act has been given. Questions have been raised regarding tribal consent, withdrawal of the Tribal Council’s no-objection certificate (NOC), and compliance with the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. The matter is reportedly sub judice before judicial forums.

Key Arguments in the Article

Absence of Final Forest Clearance
The government clarifies that only Stage-I approval exists. Stage-II clearance, which is mandatory before diversion of forest land, has not been granted.

Concerns Over Tribal Consent
Questions have been raised about whether:

• The Tribal Council issued a “surrender certificate” earlier.
• The NOC was withdrawn in 2023.
• Free, prior and informed consent under FRA was meaningfully obtained.

Sub Judice Status
The matter is pending before the National Green Tribunal and the Calcutta High Court, suggesting legal scrutiny of environmental and tribal rights aspects.

Ecological Sensitivity
The project area lies in the Sundaland Biodiversity Hotspot, with significant forest diversion including tribal reserve land.

Author’s Stance

The tone is investigative and procedural. It does not outright oppose the project but highlights compliance gaps and institutional processes. The emphasis is on:

• Due process under forest and tribal laws
• Environmental sensitivity
• Judicial oversight

The framing subtly foregrounds tribal rights and ecological safeguards over strategic or economic imperatives.

 Possible Biases

Procedural and rights-centric framing
The article prioritises legality and rights compliance but gives limited space to strategic arguments such as maritime security, transshipment hub potential, or infrastructure integration.

Environmental risk emphasis
The biodiversity hotspot reference strengthens conservation concerns, which may shape reader perception against the project.

Pros and Cons of the Project (Beyond the Article’s Frame)

Pros

• Strategic location near Malacca Strait enhances maritime presence
• Potential to develop a major transshipment terminal reducing dependency on foreign ports
• Infrastructure boost in a remote island region
• Strengthening India’s Indo-Pacific strategy

Cons

• Large-scale forest diversion including tribal reserve land
• Threat to PVTGs such as the Shompen and Nicobarese
• Biodiversity loss in an ecologically fragile zone
• Seismic vulnerability of the Andaman-Nicobar region

Policy Implications

Forest Governance and Clearances
Stage-I and Stage-II approvals reflect the layered environmental governance structure. Skipping or diluting procedural safeguards risks legal invalidation.

FRA Compliance and Tribal Consent
The Free, Prior and Informed Consent principle is central. Any perceived coercion or procedural lapse can undermine legitimacy and lead to prolonged litigation.

Strategic Development vs Environmental Sustainability
This case exemplifies the tension between:

• National security and economic strategy
• Ecological conservation and indigenous rights

Judicialisation of Environmental Policy
Frequent resort to courts indicates trust deficit in executive decision-making processes.

 Real-World Impact

• Delays may affect investor confidence and cost escalation
• Unresolved tribal concerns could trigger social unrest
• Ecological damage, if not mitigated, may be irreversible
• Strategic infrastructure timelines may be slowed in a competitive Indo-Pacific environment

UPSC GS Paper Alignment

GS Paper II – Governance & Polity

• Forest Rights Act, 2006
• Role of NGT and judicial review
• Centre-State relations in Union Territories

GS Paper III – Environment & Security

• Biodiversity conservation
• Environmental impact assessment
• Infrastructure development in strategic zones

GS Paper I – Geography

• Island ecosystems and vulnerability
• Sundaland Biodiversity Hotspot

Essay Themes

• “Development vs Environment: False Binary or Real Trade-off?”
• “Strategic Infrastructure and Indigenous Rights”

Balanced Conclusion and Future Perspective

The Great Nicobar project sits at the intersection of strategy, sustainability, and social justice. The absence of final forest clearance reflects institutional caution and ongoing legal scrutiny rather than outright rejection.

Going forward, three imperatives are essential:

1. Transparent compliance with FRA and environmental laws
2. Scientifically robust ecological mitigation strategies
3. Meaningful engagement with indigenous communities

If executed with legal integrity and ecological prudence, the project could become a model of sustainable strategic development. If procedural shortcuts prevail, it risks becoming a case study in avoidable institutional conflict.