Unaware of what is going on between GMR & NHAI: Natarajan

Highway regulator NHAI is all set to drag the Environment Ministry to the Supreme Court over delay in granting clearances. The move comes at a time when developers like GMR and GVK have pulled out of big ticket highway projects citing delay in grant of environmental clearance.

The Environment Ministry on its part has hit back at the NHAI over GMR terminating a highway contract. The Ministry says the highway regulator had submitted incomplete application regarding the project and the highway regulator is yet to get complete information.

However, Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan says the ministry isn't aware of what is going on between GMR and NHAI. She reiterates that the Ministry has received information from Rajasthan but not from Gujarat.

"Gujarat government hasn't given all information on the GMR project. Roads secretary wrote to environ secretary on GMR project on November 24. Application for environmental clearance is still incomplete and incomplete applications cannot be processed," she says in an interview to CNBC-TV18.

GMR-NHAI tiff may set rules for sectors, projects: Experts

Back her own ministry, Natarajan stresses that no one can blame MoEF for lack of growth, development and infrastructure. She adds that the ministry needs 10 days to get all stakeholders' view on GMR project.

Below is the edited transcript of Natrajan's interview to CNBC-TV18.

Q: The blame game has begun. GMR is blaming the NHAI and has walked out of that project that it was awarded in 2011. NHAI is blaming the environment ministry saying the environment ministry hasn’t expedited or moved on providing environmental and forest clearances. Where does the buck stop?

A: As I am not the minister for road transport, I am not aware of the development that is going on between GMR and NHAI. As far as this project is concerned, the Kishangarh, Udaipur, Ahmedabad section - was supposed to be one of the longest roads in India comprising two states - Gujarat and Rajasthan. Forest clearance for this road was already given. The issue is that it has to be a complete application form in all respects.

We have received a letter from minister of road transport dated January 1. We have already received information from Rajasthan on November 15, 2012, but no information from the Gujarat government.    

Before giving forest and environment clearance, it is important to know what the territory is like, whether land acquisition procedures are complete, forest rights have been settled and alignment is okay.

Q: You mean till January 1, 2013 you didn't hear from the ministry of roads and transport as far as expediting environmental clearances or forest clearances for the GMR project were concerned?

A: For the GMR project, secretary of road transport wrote to secretary of environment on the December 24, 2012 –about 10 days before to mention that, we know that the application is incomplete. You have received the information from Rajasthan government. You have not yet received this from Gujarat because of election code of conduct being in place. You will receive it from Gujarat shortly and we want this important project to be expedited.

Minister wrote to me on January 1, requesting that this project be expedited. We received communication from the Gujarat government about last week – which is still incomplete. Finally, legally I require at least 10 days time to put up all the information on the website so that all the stakeholders can convey objections. This is an order passed by the Central Information Commissioner (CIC).

Those mandatory 10 days are not yet over. So, the moment those 10 days are over – the information however is still incomplete. So although, the process might have been active even earlier – the complete application even according to the ministry of road transport was not available to us.

Q: If you mean that you were asked to expedite matters with regards to the GMR project only on the January 1 2013, who do you blame then for the tardy process because in 2011 GMR was awarded this project?

A: I cannot apportion responsibility or enter a blame game. I am responsible to see that there are no delays in environment clearances. Even at this minute I can say that the application is still not complete.  

I want to say very categorically that forest and environment clearance are pillars of our development. Unless they are properly done there will be no true progress. If I have an incomplete application, I cannot process it and therefore there is no question of the ministry of environment being blamed for delays. As far as I am concerned there is not one day, one hour, one minute’s delay in the GMR project – in processing it.

Q: The NHAI may move the SC against the MoEF not just with regards the GMR project but 22 other projects. The contention that the NHAI has is that the environment ministry decided to link the forest and the environment clearance because of two notifications issued on March 31, 2011 and April 16, 2011. There have been several inter-ministerial meetings on de-linking these two notifications to expedite the process of forest and environment clearances. Has there been any breakthrough on that front because that seems to be what has held back projects worth almost Rs 20,000 crore?

A: I think you will be the first to agree that environment and forest clearance go hand in hand. The Lafarge Judgement is an order of the Supreme Court. According to the Lafarge Judgement, one cannot de-link it for this reason - that if somebody gets an environment clearance and proceeds to build a plant of road or a highway and then is denied forest clearance, then he has lost a lot of money. On the other hand, if somebody comes and tells me that just because I have built this road, plant or factory - you have to convert your forest. I don't think it's a fair reason. It presents me with a fair complete situation which the Supreme Court wanted to avoid.

_PAGEBREAK_

Q: On September 19, 2011, a meeting was convened by the law secretary, road secretary, environment secretary, mine secretary as well as the NHAI chief and it was decided that the ministry of environment and forest will actually modify and approach the Supreme Court to try and de-link these two notifications to try and clear the logjam.

A: I am not aware of any such meeting because ministry of environment was a party in the Lafarge Judgement and we can hardly refuse to obey a judgement in which we were a party.

Q: What will if indeed the NHAI is to move against the MoEF? What will your ministry’s position and stand be because the NHAI our sources tell us blames the logjam as far as clearances are concerned and all of these projects being stuck on lack of clearances by the environment ministry?

A: Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. (You should not worry about things that might happen in the future.; It is enough to worry about things that are happening today).

Q: Do you believe that this could also perhaps be a way for private operators who perhaps are not particularly happy with the sustainability of the project now to find exit option for themselves by terminating this contract?

A: I certainly don’t know enough about such areas to comment on it. I would prefer to stay out of that debate. All I can guarantee, is that no concessional will walk out because of delays in the ministry of environment.

Q: That is an assurance you are giving?

A: Absolutely.

Q: If that were to actually mean the environment ministry approaching the Supreme Court to try and de-link your earlier notifications, is that something you are willing to do? Is that something the environment ministry will consider?

A: I believe environment clearance and forest clearance should not be de-linked. As the environment minister, I have to say that no environment clearance should really be valid unless there is a forest clearance in place. Otherwise, as a citizen, you would have wasted your money if forest clearance was not forthcoming. No forest clearance should be forced to be given merely because the environment clearance was given earlier. I believe that they should be linked.

Q: We understand that the environment ministry had raised objections on the structure and the scope of the cabinet committee on investment (CCI) or the now CCI are you now satisfied with the way things have panned out as far as the CCI is concerned? Do you believe that the cabinet committee on investment will in fact be able to fast-track infrastructure projects where again there has been a lot of talk of environment clearances coming in the way of getting them going?

A: Nobody in the ministry of environment has been passing the buck and not since the UPA government took over. Since I took over as minister, I put out on my website the amount of clearances that we have given sectorally where the capacity utilisation is far less than the amount of clearances that have been given. So, nobody can really blame the ministry of environment for any lack of infrastructure, lack of growth, or lack of development.

As far as the CCI is concerned, whatever discussions, thoughts I had on this were certainly shared with the Prime Minister and with my senior colleagues. I believe that the CCI as it exists now, will be a valuable forum for us to share our thoughts on how to take this process further, how to address valid environment concerns which are part of the day-to-day lives of ordinary Indian citizens, so that it reaches the last Indian.

Growth is not just about corporates and about big business. When we achieve reforms, we achieve quick growth, the industry is happy and we are able to move forward in a transparent and accountable way.

Q: What is different about the cabinet committee and the way that it is structured today that makes you less apprehensive when talking about the NIB?

A: Being a member of the government, I can’t actually discuss what went on between us, but whatever concerns I had, were certainly addressed. Now, I believe that we will be able to protect all sections of the society including my own mandate as the environment minister.

 

Q: You hope that no concessional would actually walk out of any other project. GMR ofcourse, has already served the termination notice to the NHAI. CP Joshi, had written to you seeking meeting to expedite the GMR environmental clearances. What now? Are we likely to see the NHAI, the road ministry and your own ministry try and soak this issue out?

A: For me, there is nothing to resolve. I am absolutely ready and willing to go out of the way to conduct. This is cleared by a committee called the forest advisory committee, to have the committee meet as often as necessary, to have more committees appoint it subject to the mandatory notice. I am not blaming anybody. I cannot deal with incomplete applications. The applications have to be complete. This is my mandate. All I can promise is that there will not be any delay in processing once we have completed the applications in front of us.