[Reader-list] Reg: Set - 6

[Rakesh Iyer]

Hi

I would not be able to put articles regularly, busy as I am with my
schedule. I would try and put up articles as and when I can.

Rakesh

Article Theme: The Excesses of Mining

Source: Frontline

Date:  *Volume 27 - Issue 14 :: Jul. 03-16, 2010*

Link:  http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20100716271400400.htm

Article Content:

*COVER STORY*

* Plunder & profit *

 VENKITESH RAMAKRISHNAN

 * Indiscriminate and illegal mining, aided by the corporate-political
nexus, causes extensive damage to livelihoods and the environment.

*

ON June 16, the Government of India constituted a Group of Ministers (GoM)
to address the issues thrown up by the draft Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Bill, 2010, formulated by the Ministry of Mines. The GoM was
set up ostensibly to look into the sharp differences among key Ministries
such as Law and Steel over the draft Bill, but the sequence of events that
led to its formation brought into focus the myriad problems in the mining
sector.

Experts and observers are unanimous in pointing out the contrasting
perceptions and conflicting interests within the government and outside that
dominate this sector, leading to lax or near-absent regulatory mechanisms,
which in turn cause environmental degradation and large-scale displacement
of people.

In this chaotic situation, corporates and other business-industrial entities
thrive, pursuing legal, extralegal and illegal mining or a combination of
all three. This context, characterised by the unbridled pursuit of wealth by
a few individuals and organisations at enormous environmental, social and
human cost, has also led to the growing alienation of tribal and other
indigenous people in the mining areas and to extensive Maoist penetration of
these localities.

It is a moot question whether the GoM will be able to address this overall
context. For, instances abound where the very agencies responsible for
bringing in regulation and ensuring its compliance have been found to dither
either by design or on account of negligence.

Barely three weeks before the GoM was formed, the Naveen Patnaik-led Biju
Janata Dal (BJD) government in Orissa was asked by the Supreme Court to
explain why it had allowed 215 of its 341 working mines to operate without
statutory government clearances or even a proper mining plan. The Central
Empowered Committee (CEC) set up by the apex court to look into complaints
about these mines was the one that came up with this piece of information in
its report.

The Orissa government is not alone in this criminal negligence to ensure
that rules and regulations are followed. A number of government agencies
have estimated that there are about 15,000 illegal mines spread across the
country as against 8,700 legal mines. In several parts of the country, the
boundaries between legal and illegal mining merge seamlessly. In such
situations, an individual or a corporate entity engages both in legal mining
with approvals and licences, and in illegal mining, more often than not with
political and bureaucratic patronage.

A case of seamless merger of legal and illegal mining was unravelled when
Madhu Koda, the former Chief Minister of Jharkhand, was arrested in
connection with a Rs.4,300-crore scam. More blatantly, the Gali Reddy
brothers – Karunakara Reddy, Janardhana Reddy and Somashekhara Reddy – of
Bellary district in Karnataka developed their own political clout in the
State and in Andhra Pradesh with the wealth gained from aggressive mining.

Karunakara Reddy and Janardhana Reddy are now Ministers in the Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP) government in Karnataka. They had tremendous influence
over the Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy-led Congress government in Andhra Pradesh,
too.
*

Breach of obligations
*

A recent study by Amnesty International on the Vedanta group's operations in
Orissa – the construction of the Lanjigarh alumina refinery and prospective
mining of the adjacent Niyamgiri hills – asserted that both the State and
the Central government had “breached obligations to respect and protect the
human rights of the Dongria Kondh and other communities affected by mining
and refinery projects”. It also pointed out that though the Orissa
government and its pollution control board had undertaken regular monitoring
of the refinery, they had failed to enforce laws to prevent the
contamination or pollution of water and air, leading to violations of the
right to water and health of the affected communities.

In Chhattisgarh, the Raman Singh-led BJP government is said to have scrapped
in 2006 a proposal for an elephant reserve in order to facilitate coal
mining by a number of industrial houses. The proposal was scrapped after it
was found out that about 100 square kilometres of a coal block fell within
the proposed reserve. Ironically, the elephant reserve was originally
conceived to house elephants migrating from Jharkhand and Orissa on account
of the increase in mining in those States.

The scale of political and bureaucratic assistance provided to mining
corporates and their associates is perplexing in many cases. In
Maharashtra's Ratnagiri district, which is a major producer of the Alphonso
variety of mango, a government-sponsored study on the environmental impact
of a thermal power station being set up by a steel major ruled out any
hazard from the plant to mango orchards. It even stated that orchards near
major roads with heavy vehicular traffic seemed to be healthier than those
situated further away and suggested that the emissions from the thermal
plant may actually improve the plantations in its vicinity. The impact of
wanton support to individual and corporate entities involved in mining
throughout the country has been delineated at length in “Rich Lands, Poor
People”, a seminal report brought out by the Centre for Science and
Environment (CSE) in 2008. The extensively researched report addressed the
issue of mining in different States and its impact on the environment and
people.
*

Devastation, displacement
*

The report presented a horrific picture of the devastation brought about by
mining in the country. It pointed out that in the first four and a half
decades of Independence mining had displaced about two and a half crore
people and that not even 25 per cent of them had been rehabilitated. Of the
displaced people, more than half were from tribal communities.

The report calculated that for every 1 per cent of the mining sector's
contribution to the country's gross domestic product (GDP), the activity
displaced three to four times more people than all development projects put
together. The report also stated that increase in mining activity in recent
years had led to an increase in the diversion of forest land. “An estimated
1.64 lakh hectares of forest land has already been diverted for mining in
the country. Iron-ore mining in India used up 77 million tonnes of water in
2005-06, enough to meet the daily water needs of more than three million
people. Mining of major minerals generated about 1.84 billion tonnes of
waste in 2006 – most of which has not been disposed of properly. Coal is the
main culprit: every tonne of coal extracted generates three to four tonnes
of waste.” The report also pointed out that air and water pollution is also
on the rise in the mining hotspots.

According to Sanjay Bosu Mullick of the Ranchi-based Bindrai Institute of
Research Study and Action (BIRSA) and the Jharkhand Mines Area Coordination
Committee (JMACC), the spread of Maoist extremism in many parts of the
country is the result of this large-scale ravaging of natural resources.
This plunder is leading to growing conflicts in India's mining zones and
informal estimates are that nearly 60 per cent of the country's mineral-rich
districts are under the influence of Maoist activity, he says.

A number of bureaucrats and non-governmental activists involved in studying
and observing mining-related activities pointed out that the socio-economic
climate of liberalisation and globalisation had contributed to this
excitement to help corporate players and their interests. “That is a factor
that has to be looked at comprehensively,” said a senior bureaucrat.

But according to Minister of Mines Bijoy Krishna Handique, the MMDR Bill is
the product of comprehensive analysis and thinking and will address all the
issues and problems relating to the mining sector. In his view, nobody can
run away from the need for reform and modernisation in the mining sector and
this, he believes, can be brought about only by encouraging investment. He
adds that the social costs of the mining projects will be met by ensuring
greater involvement of the local community in the projects and making it
legally imperative for the miners to provide 26 per cent of the profits to
the local community. He avers that the passage of the MMDR Act will strike a
blow for sustainable mining (see interview).

While there is an acceptance that the Bill does seek to come up with new
laws, it has been criticised as not being as comprehensive as Handique and
his associates in the Ministry claim it to be. This criticism has emanated
from within the government and outside.
*

Objections to Bill
*

The principal objections to the draft MMDR Bill have come from the Ministry
of Steel. It has found fault with the proposal do away with the need for
prior approval from the Central government. The Ministry of Minerals is of
the view that the prior appraisal as it exists today is a mere formality,
with all the real powers of approval being vested in State governments.
According to the Ministry of Steel, this stance will trigger serious trouble
for the mining sector as the mineral-rich States will be at liberty to grant
concessions on their own.

The Law Ministry, too, has expressed reservations and has suggested a change
in the nomenclature of the Bill with the objective of highlighting the
environmental conservation aspect.

A number of social activists and NGOs have questioned some of the basic
premises in the Bill. The NGO Mines, Minerals and People (MMP) has submitted
a detailed proposal on the MMDR broadly following its charter, which has
sought announcement of a complete moratorium on new mining projects in
greenfield areas, legally enforceable right to natural resources to local
communities, prevention of disinvestment of public sector mining companies
in favour of private and multinational companies, ensuring the right to
mining for indigenous people and their cooperatives, and prohibition on
granting of lease to global mining corporates or their joint ventures.

It has also demanded that the issues of compensation and resettlement and
rehabilitation be clarified with the formulation of specific rules with
guidelines and manuals.

The CSE report, which conceded that mining and minerals were necessary,
stated thus: “Mining cannot be sustainable or truly environment-friendly:
one, because all ore bodies are finite and non-renewable and two, because
even the best-managed mines leave environmental footprints.”

The real issue is about how mining has to be undertaken in an
environmentally and socially acceptable manner. There is little doubt that
legislation alone will not ensure this as long as the nexus between
politicians and corporate interests remains strong.