Widening a Highway Through a Tiger Reserve Buffer
You are Collector and chair of the district wildlife advisory committee in a district adjoining a tiger reserve in Madhya Pradesh. The Public Works Department proposes widening a nine-kilometre stretch of state highway that passes through the reserve's buffer. Fourteen villages with about 6,000 residents depend on the road for ambulances and school buses, and 1,900 vehicles use it daily. Three tigers have been killed on this stretch in two years, and the National Tiger Conservation Authority has recommended a night traffic ban. The PWD says widening cuts travel time by 22 minutes; the forest department says wildlife underpasses and fencing would cost Rs 34 crore and delay the project by 18 months, while only Rs 11 crore is available. Local residents demand the road, and a public interest litigation is pending in the High Court.
1. What recommendation would you make to the committee, and how would you sequence it?
Read the worked answer
I would recommend conditional approval of widening with wildlife mitigation as a non-negotiable part of the project, sequenced so that safety works precede speed works. The sequence matters: first, speed calming, signage, and a night speed restriction on the existing road; second, a camera-and-patrol regime to identify crossing hotspots; third, construction of at least two underpasses at those hotspots with fencing, funded by combining the Rs 11 crore with a revised estimate from the PWD and compensatory afforestation funds. Widening of the running surface should begin only after the underpasses are operational.
The reasoning is that the road's social value is genuine, but a wider, faster road without crossings would increase wildlife mortality and eventually invite judicial closure, which would hurt residents more. Conditional sequencing converts a binary conflict into a staged decision and gives the High Court a credible compliance plan rather than an adversarial stance.
2. How would you handle the funding gap and the 18-month delay in a way that is defensible?
Read the worked answer
A funding gap is a reason to phase, not to drop mitigation. I would place three options before the committee: a revised project cost with the mitigation built in; a reduced widening scope on the most sensitive nine kilometres with full mitigation; and a realignment option, more expensive but potentially safer. Each should carry its cost, delay and expected mortality reduction. The committee should recommend the option with the best safety per rupee, not the cheapest headline cost.
On delay, I would be explicit that 18 months is an estimate for full underpass construction and that interim measures can be completed in weeks. The PWD should be asked whether construction can begin on the non-critical segments while underpasses are built. Transparency about the delay is essential, because concealing it would damage the project's credibility when the PIL is heard. The value here is intergenerational responsibility: the road serves today's residents, but the reserve is a public trust for those who come later.