Applicability of Environmental Clearance to Highway Projects

[Vikrant A. Kulkarni]

Dear All,

As per EIA Notification 2006 and its amendment on 22nd August 2013, highway expansion projects require Environmental Clearance if, Expansion of National Highways greater than 100 km involving additional right of way or land acquisition greater than 40 m on existing alignments and 60m on re-alignments or by-passes.

Kindly clarify the interpretation of this.

1. Whether highway expansion greater than 100 km and more than 40 m additional ROW require EC.

OR

2. Whether highway expansion greater 100 km irrespective of width of ROW require EC.

In view of this, whether expansion of 150 km long highway with 30 m additional ROW need EC or not? 

[Dr. Sandeep Gabhane]

Nicely explained jomcy, good observations

[Satish Saini]

Yes, explained with good observations. 

JOMCY MATHEW said:

Hi, 

Please note the word "involving" in the amendment. This means that, Environmental clearance is required for a National Highway expansion project only if both the conditions specified in the amendment are applicable. i.e., It should be more than 100 km in length and the additional ROW requirement should be more than 40 m on existing alignments and 60 m on re-alignments or bypasses. 

Many Consultants and even project proponents have misunderstood / misinterpreted this sentence and insists for environmental clearance for NH expansion projects just because the length is more than 100 km. You need to know the background of this amendment to understand it properly. This amendment was brought by MoEF based on the demand from NH implementing agencies to bring most of the NH expansion projects out of the purview of EIA notification to avoid delay in implementation. Highways is an item in the schedule of the EIA Notification which has got maximum number of amendments since 2006. 

After this particular amendment, there is a drastic reduction in the number of NH projects reaching MoEF for EC. We can see the details of applications submitted to MoEF for EC after 2014 in the website www.environmentclearance.nic.in . The number of NH projects are very less in this list. Some of the projects in this list are there because they require CRZ clearance and the same EAC is appraising the CRZ projects. Some of the projects are there because of misinterpretation of the amendment. MoEF never rejects an application for EC even if it doesn't require EC. It will be submitted to the EAC for decision. The number has reduced not just because now NH projects are planned with less than 100 km length. It is because the additional ROW requirement is less than 40 m on existing alignments and 60 m on re-alignments or bypasses for most of the projects even though the length is more than 100 km.

In fact, these ROW limits were suggested cleverly based on the fact that no NH expansion project will have a requirement more than this. It is because the expansion will be either from two-lane to four-lane or from four-lane to six lane. In both the cases, there will be sufficient ROW available so that the additional LA can be limited within these numbers. But one thing we have to take care here is that the additional LA requirement should be less than 40 m even for toll plazas. This is because the amendment specifies "additional right of way or land acquisition". So if there is a land acquisition more than 40 m even at toll plaza location, the project will require EC. Staggered toll plazas can be designed to keep the LA within the specified limits.  

After all, this shows the failure of EIA Notification in defining projects which require EC. It should be based on impact and not just based on length or width or just based on the name of the road. Any agency can construct a road with even 100 m ROW without EC if it is not named as a "State Highway, National Highway or Expressway" because these are the only three categories covered in the Notification.