___________

Following is from http://the-diplomat.com/indian-decade/2010/08/29/orissa’s-pyrrhic-victory/.

… Some commentators in the Indian press with a strong anti-corporate orientation, meanwhile, are also gleeful that the project has come to a halt.

Ostensibly, this delight stems from having stopped a greedy multinational corporation from ruthlessly exploiting the natural resources of a remote part of the country and the traditional homelands of some of India’s adivasi (original), tribal population.

Yet despite the delight of these disparate groups with the decision, a more sober and dispassionate analysis suggests that the ultimate losers may well be the hapless tribal population who are the inhabitants of this region.

Generations of governments, despite loud promises, have done woefully little to improve their lot. The region lacks adequate roads, has few public clinics, limited educational facilities and an appalling lack of employment opportunities. Consequently, the locals remain mired in harsh and abject poverty.

The mining investment might not have been a panacea for their many woes. However, it did offer the promise of new schools, better roads, the opening of hospitals and above all the prospects of better-paid work. With the seemingly sagacious decision, none of those possibilities will materialize despite the rather facile promise from a popular Congress member of parliament, Rahul Gandhi, that he would act as the ‘sipahi’ (guard) of their interests in New Delhi.

What is being portrayed as a great victory of environmentalism is sadly little more than a crass effort to win the votes of the tribal population in a desperately underdeveloped state. The Indian state that has long failed to protect and improve the plight of the country’s tribal population needs to do far better than what transpired this week. More to the point, romantic environmentalists and their cheerleaders in the press should think about how they are becoming unwittingly complicit in the Congress’ Party’s feckless quest for votes.

His short bio from the same page:

Ganguly is the Rabindranath Tagore Chair in Indian Cultures and Civilizations and a Professor of Political Science at Indiana University, Bloomington. Ganguly is the author, co-author, editor or co-editor of twenty books on South Asia and serves on the editorial boards of Asian Affairs, Asian Survey and Current History among others.

Following is from his article in http://www.indianexpress.com/news/orissas-unobtainium/673845/0. 

…Niyamgiri, or Niyamgiri hill range—more than 100 hills; 250 square km approximate area—justifies the use of a few cliches. Lush. Verdant. Breathtakingly beautiful in clear, early morning light. The abundance of flora is easily evident (fauna, of course, is not easily spotted, but there are indisputable authoritative declarations on its abundance). Dense clusters of fruit-bearing trees on the slopes can pleasingly unnerve a typical city type. Niyamgiri mangoes are going for Rs 5 a kg or even less at small local markets. Medicinal plants that grow on the hill slopes, say locals, can cure severe wounds. A long trip to the indifferent care of the public heath centre is not required. So, yes, you can think ‘unspoilt’. Many members of the local tribal population—Dongria Kondh, who live on the upper slopes of Niyamgiri and the Kutia Khond, who live near the foothills—were bussed in for Rahul Gandhi’s rally on Thursday, and many of them were clearly happy that mining in Niyamgiri is now stalled.  …

There are plot twists. Seven twists, in fact.

1. A question on local tribal custom.

2. The nuanced answer to the question, what do tribal groups want?

3. How the private investor in Niyamgiri is a bad advertisement for private investment.

4. Where’s the ruling party in Niyamgiri politics?

5. Can we assume a tribal arcadia?

6. Could Niyamgiri have become a laboratory of intelligent mining?

7. Can Orissa afford the Niyamgiri decision?

First twist: That the tribes are protected groups, under Schedule V of the Constitution, that wildlife protection rules apply to much of the area, that the ecosystem is something special are all undisputed facts. That tribal groups have always associated their deity with the hilltop is also supposed to be undisputed. But if you ask around persistently, you don’t get a clear answer. Some locals, otherwise unimpressed with Vedanta’s development efforts, say the hilltop becoming ‘sacred’ is a recent change. Many others dispute this. And this lack of local consensus on what should be widely known local tribal tradition is important because bauxite in Niyamgiri resides on the hilltop—that’s where the mining was to happen before the Central environment ministry denied Orissa Mining Corporation a clearance. This part of the story is more complicated than the usual anti-mining narrative suggests.

Second twist: What are the tribal groups opposing? They are opposing mining on the hilltop. But are they opposing the building of social and physical infrastructure in an area that’s staggeringly underdeveloped even by Indian standards? The answer’s no, and that might seem obvious. But its implications are not obvious. No one denies that successive state governments, Congress or BJD, have been worse than negligent in terms of building social/physical infrastructure. Niyamgiri is in Kalahandi, which is part of the infamous KBK (Koraput-Bolangir-Kalahandi) group of districts: extreme underdevelopment is the KBK signature. KBK districts account for 72 per cent of Orissa’s below the poverty line population. Of the 82 very backward blocks in Orissa, 53 are in KBK. KBK literacy rate is an abysmal 43.3 per cent, while Orissa’s state-wise average is 63.08 per cent. These are all figures (source: 2002 Orissa BPL Census) that tell a dreadfully grim story. And everyone in the Niyamgiri battle, whichever side they are on, agrees.

Siddharth Nayak, leader of Green Kalahandi, a local activist group that counts among its supporters Vandana Shiva, Medha Patkar and Arundhati Roy, said lack of minimum and halfway reasonable quality infrastructure is a big problem. He also said Vedanta Aluminum Ltd (VAL) hasn’t developed as much infrastructure as promised. This is a complaint made by many locals, tribal or otherwise. But if there’s no Vedanta, or no mining, no trigger effect from private investment, who will develop infrastructure, build schools, hospitals, roads? To say that the state administration should do it seems a bit of a cruel joke given decades of history. And especially because local infrastructure is linked to local economic vitality.

There’s no convenient railhead for Kalahandi, a brutal reminder of the district’s lack of minimum economic heft. Apart from agriculture in tiny holdings and forest produce, the latter, consumed and sold locally, and therefore offering no multiplier effects, Kalahandi has little to offer, except a king’s ransom in minerals. Eco-tourism on hills like Niyamgiri is the local activists’ favourite solution to act as a development trigger. But will eco-tourism concentrating on the lush hill ranges bring in the kind of investment that large-scale industrial activity can? And minus the large-scale investment, can enough jobs and enough infrastructure be created? Locals loudly complain that Vedanta doesn’t employ enough of them, that its school—DAV Vedanta School, an impressively well-appointed facility—doesn’t enroll enough tribal/non-tribal children. Vedanta officials deny this. But the fact of these complaints says something: that there was and is a strong expectation, from tribal and non-tribal locals, that big private investment can have beneficial effects. If we assume Vedanta’s corporate social responsibility hasn’t been up to the mark, then the question, from locals’ point of view, is one of more locally engaged private investors, not solely of the absolute villainy of private investors. But the villainy is what the simple narrative of Niyamgiri highlights.

The more nuanced telling of this story comes from the likes of Raju Sahu who came from Bihar to Kalahandi 10 years ago and runs four tea/food stalls on the state highway that links Lanjigarh—where Niyamgiri and the Vedanta factory are situated—to Bhawanipatna, the district HQ. Sahu says his business has more than trebled since Vedanta started operating from here about four years ago. But he complains: what will happen if operations shut down, and why isn’t the state highway in a better condition; his business would be even better then. All along the road and right up to the site of Rahul Gandhi’s rally, tiny businesses run by locals talk of a quantum jump in sales and brood about it all ending. They, too, are locals, and the Niyamgiri story and the Kalahandi story can’t be delinked from what they represent: the possibility of local economy regeneration.

Third twist: Vedanta hasn’t made it easy for themselves or for the cause of private investment. This is apparent even if one sets aside questions about how Vedanta set up its bauxite refinery, how it increased the capacity and the sources of its current bauxite.

Vedanta officials offer you stacks of folders on CSR activities. But local complaints on Vedanta’s less-than-stellar efforts are universal. Lanjigarh or the wider area surrounding it doesn’t even look like a company town, as habitations surrounding big industrial projects often do. The bauxite to aluminum business gives very high returns. Those kind of margins sharpen the question of effective spending for local development.

Also, the company faces several allegations of what activists call its “reliance” on strong-arm methods. A recent case, much mentioned by activists and Congress leaders, is that of the police picking up Lado Sikaka, a Dongria Kondh, and later releasing him. Sikaka says he was brutally roughed up and was almost “kidnapped” because, as he alleges, he’s a prominent anti-mine activist. The local police say picking him up was an error. Vedanta says it doesn’t support any strong-arm methods. But perceptionally, the company seems to have lost this battle.

The state highway mentioned earlier is a good example of bad optics. Vedanta’s 16 tonne carriers, which weigh 33 tonnes when packed with aluminum oxide produced in the plant, trundle down this road every day, 30 trips a day on average. The road shows the toll of this traffic. Local administration officials admit the state highway, never top quality in the first place, is in increasing state of disrepair. They talk about charging more toll from the carriers and rebuilding the road. But, strangely, Vedanta hasn’t helped in making this road better. The company’s response to this highlights the local administration’s responsibility, while adding that it has built roads elsewhere. But this is literally the road to the project. It was entirely appropriate therefore to see, on this road, a shabbily painted Vedanta signboard, hanging askew, with a Rahul Gandhi poster pasted smack in the middle of the board. That pretty much tells you the story of Vedanta’s big PR problem in Lanjigarh.

Another aspect of the same problem is how Niyamgiri was planned to be mined. The Orissa Mining Corporation and Sterlite (Vedanta’s sister concern) formed a joint venture, the Southwest Orissa Bauxite Mining. Sterlite has 74 per cent shareholding. This JV was supposed to act for OMC in choosing and monitoring mining on the Niyamgiri hilltop. But given that the controversy on Niyamgiri mining was brewing for two years, was this arrangement—essentially Sterlite in charge of ensuring good mining practices for bauxite that’s needed by its sister concern Vedanta —the smartest? Vedanta officials say Sterlite’s experience makes it ideal for the purpose. But they don’t have a good answer to the question whether this is credible in a charged atmosphere. Knowledgeable local activists keep making this point, with some justice.

Fourth twist: The absence of enough competition in local politics. The Congress is front and square in the Niyamgiri agitation, delighted now by its ‘victory’. But where is the BJD, Orissa’s ruling party? The line between activists and the Congress is muddled enough for the local Congress MP, Bhakt Charan Das, to have been a past head of Green Kalahandi. But the BJD is so politically ineffective here that bandh calls on Wednesday and Thursday were comprehensively ignored. The BJD’s local weakness may seem surprising for a party that has won three state elections, and whose chief minister, Navin Patnaik, has made a determined effort to appear tribal-friendly. The explanation lies in the vagaries of alliance politics. When the BJD and the BJP became allies, Kalahandi was given to the BJP to build a base. The alliance broke up on the eve of the 2009 assembly elections. So, the BJD essentially had a late start in Kalahandi. That political weakness has resulted in giving the local Congress, which was always strong in Kalahandi, a headstart in political mobilisation on Niyamgiri. Had the BJD been stronger, had it been in a position to work among local tribal groups, the contest would have been more even. Local BJD officials admit this privately.

The Niyamgiri story is not just about activists and tribal groups, it’s also about the Congress getting an unusually clear political field. There are no credible local politicians to speak for the mining project. The sharp irony here is that Patnaik is also the forest minister, who has publicly led the campaign for tribal land rights, but the Niyamgiri mining proposal has been deemed dramatically violative of forest rights. There’s no local BJD counter-point to this.

Fifth twist: Tribal arcadia? Yes, Niyamgiri provides plenty of natural resources. Yes, the hill inhabitants don’t get affected by the droughts that are so common to Kalahandi. Yes, rank starvation is not a feature in Niyamgiri. But the tribal groups still operate in what is a subsistence economy, and they don’t have access to basic facilities in education or health. Tribal groups seems more aware of this than those romanticising the Niyamgiri way of life. Which is why local tribals complain about not getting jobs or education for their children. Which is also why Sitaram Raju, an 18-year-old security guard at the under-construction Vedanta co-funded mid-day meal cooking centre in Lanjigarh, has these stories about several inquiries from local tribal people on when the centre will start operating?

Our children will get eggs and good rice, local tribal people said when asked about the mid-day meal centre. There’s desperation for wanting something more than what they have in that wish. Raju, from Sambalpur in Orissa, earns Rs 4,200 a month. That’s a handsome salary in comparison to local average incomes. And Raju got the job because private security agencies have come in numbers since Vedanta started building sites. A local young tribal—he said he’s “eight class pass”—when asked whether he would like a job that pays what Raju gets, looked at his interlocutor as if the latter was an idiot. Of course, he said. But there are no jobs.

The hazards of romanticising tribal ways of life are colourfully exemplified by Kalahandi’s self-proclaimed “most important communist”. …

Sixth twist: Could Niyamgiri have become an ideal laboratory for good mining? Some Niyamgiri stats bear mention. There are around 8,500 tribal people in the 250 sq. km. hill area. That low population density makes industrial activity easier to handle in terms of fallout. The proposed mining area was four square km: a very small part of the hills. There’s seemingly irreconcilable debate about whether the bauxite-rich hilltop is green-friendly or not. The pro-mining view says trees don’t grow on bauxite-rich hilltops because the mineral doesn’t retain water. Post-mining, when the bauxite reserve is exhausted, the hilltop can, this view says, be made green-friendly. The example given is Nalco’s greening of the hilltop in the Koraput mine; Koraput is a neighbouring district. The anti-mining view says bauxite is porous and it therefore allows water to filter down and that keeps the hills lush. Establishing the real position objectively seems a lost cause in Niyamgiri. The talk is only about Vedanta’s violations and keeping mining away forever. Vedanta may well have violated legal norms, as the environment ministry says. And definitely, the Vedanta-OMC arrangement on mining Niyamgiri, as explained earlier, doesn’t pass muster in terms of a conflict of interest test. But sustained talk of huge ecological devastation, as the Saxena report for example talks about, has killed intelligent discussion on whether Niyamgiri could have been intelligently mined, under proper supervision. Also, bauxite mining, because the hilltop deposits are shallow, rarely needs blasting, the most disruptive of mining activities.

There’s something odd about the Central approach to ecological impact of the proposed Niyamgiri mining. Niyamgiri had received environmental clearance in October 2007. This okay comes after impact assessment studies under the Environment Protection Act. The Saxena report, which was submitted with a speed rare in government—formed in late June this year, the report was submitted on August 16—spends pages on ecological impact. But what does this mean? That the Centre was unaware since 2007, when the EPA clearance was given, that Niyamgiri mining would be environmentally harmful, and that the dangers were discovered only after a two-month study by the Saxena committee?

The seventh and the biggest twist: Can bauxite be mined in Kalahandhi, which has a huge reserve of the mineral? The Central environment ministry says the denial of mining rights is based on rules violation, in particular violation of forest rights under Forest Rights Act. This seems to imply that had Vedanta played by the book as per the ministry’s assessment, clearance would have come. But the Saxena report also puts emphasis on tribal groups’ livelihood traditions and on potential ecological damages. On the ground in Kalahandhi, it’s these two that are being highlighted. Local Congress leaders and activists talk of attempts at stealing away tribal land. If the Centre reckons that subsequent applications for mining hilltop bauxite can be measured only against legal benchmarks, it is probably making a mistake.

Kalahandi is a scheduled area, with heavy tribal presence. Tribal habitations are typically in the area’s hills. The hilltops have bauxite. The ‘victory’ in Niyamgiri has fired up activists and the Congress. Not all tribes who live in other bauxite-rich hills have the heavily protected legal status enjoyed by the Kondhs of Niyamgiri. But, as Nayak said, every mining application will now be met with movements about tribal rights. He reckons Niyamgiri has created a precedent that’s too strong to be ignored. This is good from the activists’ point of view, or for Orissa Congress’s political calculations, but it’s hardly good news for Kalahandi and Orissa.

This is the real big potential fallout of Niyamgiri: it can create more Niyamgiris. 

Following are some of my comments: 

•  Earlier, we also made the point regarding how sacred the hill-top was. In India, both tribals as well as Hindus have many things that they pray. Often many people make temples to usurp government land.  So the lack of consensus regarding the hilltop being sacred and even people who are unimpressed with Vedanta suggesting that the "hilltop being sacred" is a recent change points finger at the activists being behind hyping up the sacred aspect of the hill top.
• On Vedanta not having developed infrastructure: The various reports say that with importing bauxite from outside the company was not making profit, so based on short-term economics it did not spend enough in developing infrastructure. But that was short-sighted action from the company.
• The author makes a nice point that the local and tribals do want jobs, schools etc.  and  were not opposed to development per se.
• Vedanta’s trucks are directly responsible for the deterioration of those roads. They should have spent money on those roads and made them better.
• BJD has a unique opportunity now to counter congress and shore up its base. It should immediately announce and start a state university in Kalahandi; it should take over the half-constructed medical college and make it a government medical college; and it should augment the agricultural college. Being in power in the state, it can do that. It can then go to the people and say: "See Congress is against development. But we are not going to let their anti-development stance hurt the people of Kalahandi. We will do our best to bring development to Kalhandi." (Hopefully Congress will then counter this with some kind of a central institution there.)

My final thought is why did not Saubhik Chakrabarti write such an article before. In the past the only views on Lanjigarh mining that would come out is that of the activists and the press releases by Vedanta. Both were one-sided. So the Indian media is partly responsible for the negative effects of Ramesh’s activism. If only they had given nuanced views like the above before Ramesh made the decision then Ramesh may have made a more nuanced decision.

1. MP of Kalahandi, Bhakta Das, who in recent years has been vociferous against mining by Vedanta once was desperate to have an alumina plant in Lanjigarh. Following is from a report in Hindu.

Today, he is known as a champion of tribal rights and a leader in the fight against Vedanta’s proposal to mine bauxite in Niyamgiri. But 14 years ago, Bhakta Charan Das, Congress MP from Kalahandi sang a different tune. “The Government of India and the Orissa government should take keen interest to set up at least a large alumina plant because we have got a heavy deposit of bauxite in Niyamgiri and Sijimalli of the Kalahandi district,” he had said during a November 1996 debate in the Lok Sabha on the drought situation in Orissa. “If there is an alumina plant, then a minimum of 40,000 people can sustain out of the different kinds of earnings from that.”

When asked about his statements on Thursday, Mr. Das initially insisted that he had only recommended mining in Sijimalli and not Niyamgiri. When faced with the Lok Sabha record, the MP, also the founder of the Green Kalahandi movement, admitted that he had learnt a lot since that day one-and-a-half decades ago.

“I had not visited Niyamgiri then. I did not know of the Dongria Kondh links to that place then. At that point, I did not know it was a densely forested area,” he said, speaking to The-Hindu over telephone immediately after the mass rally was held by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in the Niyamgiri area.

“Of course, the Kalahandi district needs more industries, but it should not be development at the cost of the people, at the cost of the forests,” Mr. Das said, adding that the Vedanta project had failed to generate sufficient local jobs, or provide health and education facilities. “I will still be happy to support an industry that takes into account the views of the local people, that will ensure the future of all stakeholders, that follows all the laws…There can be other mines, but why don’t they go and find an abandoned mountain, instead of Niyamgiri?”

Note that the government of Odisha (a Congress government led by Janaki Patnaik) signed the first MOU with Vedanta for mining in Lanjigarh in 1997, exactly 13 years ago, a year after the above statement by Bhakta Das.

2. Bhakta Das as well as the Youth Congress Chief of Odisha, Pradeep Majhi (MP Nabarangpur) are not against mining for bauxite. They just don’t want it now in Lanjigarh. Following is from a report in Orissadiary.

Orissa Pradesh Youth Congress chief, Nabrangpur MP Pradeep Majhi on Thursday said Vedanta can look for alternative sites except Niyamgiri from where it can mine bauxite to feed its one- million- tonne alumina refinery at Lanjigarh in Kalahandi district.

He suggests alternative sites—Kuturmali, Bijimali and Sabarmali hills which are in the periphery of Niyamgiri and there are no habitation of tribals in this region. He said The Congress party is not against industrialization. There are many other hills where there are no tribals and that can be used by Vedanta which are only 8 kms from Niyamgiri. But it is clear that no mining would be allowed at Niyamgiri.

3. Not wanting in Lanjigarh and some other place is fine depending on how sacred that mountain is to the local adivasis. But did the activists hyped up the sacredness to stop the project? I have no idea. But the following excerpt from a report in Telegraph seems to suggest that way.

Regarding industrialisation and its effects on Niyamgiri, Jakesia said: “I realised that for bauxite excavation, only the surface level of the rock is used.

This is unlike iron ore and coal mining, where one has to go below the surface. Thus, the process is fairly smooth. You will be surprised to know that puja offered to Niyam Raja was never performed there. Now, after the spread of awareness, the puja is performed on top of the hill.”

4. In http://www.orissalinks.com/orissagrowth/archives/3944 we mentioned several disturbing questions raised by Nilmadhab Mohanty (a senior Fellow, Institute for Studies in Industrial Development, New Delhi) on how the government went about this. The following excerpt from an article in Economic Times raises additional disturbing questions.

On August 24, the Central government said that Vedanta Aluminium had not sought prior approval for expanding the refinery capacity to 6 million tonnes from 1 million tonnes. Another government decision that day, announced by the minister of state for environment and forests Jairam Ramesh, stopping plans to mine bauxite at Nyamgiri near Lanjigarh, attracted much more attention but the brake on the refinery expansion could have a longer term impact on the fortunes of Vedanta. The bauxite was to be supplied to the refinery.

The chief operating officer of the Anil Agarwal-controlled company, Mukesh Kumar, expressed his doubts on Thursday over the “intention” behind these announcements in view of an earlier notification.

The ministry of environment and forests had said on August 19 that for all projects which were increasing capacity and where terms of references—the guidelines and scope for any expansion—have been mentioned and where construction activities have been started, the terms of references may be suspended or withdrawn.

"Instances have come to the notice of this ministry where project proponents have undertaken construction activities without obtaining requisite environmental clearance…No activity relating to any project covered under this notification, including civil construction, can be undertaken at site without obtaining prior environmental clearance," the notification added.

The notification relates to environment impact assessment (EIA)— a crucial part of the project approval process under the Environment Protection Act. The EPA is the umbrella legislation that regulates the impact of all industrial and commercial activities on environment.

The Vedanta official said that no prior approval for expansion was needed according to the rules in place—the Environment Impact Assessment notification of 2006—before the changes announced on August 19.

"There is no threshold limit given in the EIA notification for such a project," Mr Kumar told ET. "Hence prior environment clearance, as per the notification for our proposed expansion, is not mandatory before undertaking any construction activities."

Mr Kumar also referred to a section in the 2006 notification which stipulates that approval to the terms of reference for any project has to be announced within 60 days from the date of submission. "If the decision is not conveyed within 60 days, then the terms of references suggested by the applicant, "shall be deemed as final terms for the EIA study."

Vedanta had submitted its proposal for expanding the capacity to the ministry of environment and forests for approval on October 3, 2007. The company didn’t get approval within 60 days, which is the mandatory period as per the notification.

Mr Ramesh did not respond to calls and text messages sent to his mobile.

We will add more things as they come out. 

Regardless of all of the above, my current view is that stopping Vedanta mining in Lanjigarh, although done in a very partisan and high handed way, was a high profile example to make the point that environment and forest rights need to be taken seriously, to send a message to the maoists that the UPA-2 government (mainly Congress) will protect tribals, and to send a message to the tribals that they can rely on the government.

While a government should treat everyone equally and follow the law and not make one-time examples, the motivation here makes some sense on the ground of greater good of the country that currently faces the maoist menace who reportedly use mining and miners in their recruiting plays.

As I finish writing this, I read an article in Indian Express, that points out many additional interesting issues.

Although there are tons of newsreports on the Saxena Committee report on Vedanta which quote extensively from the allegations of the committee there is very little (and mostly soundbites) from the perspective of the Odisha government and Vedanta.

The following by Nilmadhab Mohanty (a senior Fellow, Institute for Studies in Industrial Development, New Delhi) is from http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/aug/25/slide-show-1-a-few-disturbing-questions-in-the-vedanta-issue.htm. I am not sure I agree with all the points mentioned below. But it is one of the few articles that is from the other side and hence worth pondering.

The decision of Union Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh not to grant Stage II forest clearance to the proposal of the Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC) for bauxite mining in Niyamgiri in Orissa has been welcomed in many circles, in particular by the environmental activists, for the protection it will provide to an ecologically sensitive area of the country and to the Kondh tribes (and Dalits) living in the area.

There are, however a few disturbing questions that need to be answered by the ministry in order to buttress the minister’s claim that the decision was an objective one with no prejudice or politics influencing it.

First, the manner and time-line followed in the decision-making. The Orissa state government seems to have applied for final clearance in August 2009.

The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) has been deliberating the proposal at least since November 2009. In addition to the information submitted by the State and the central government’s own agencies, it had the benefit of the recommendations made by a three-member expert group which submitted its report in February 2010.

FAC then asks for yet another committee under the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, which is the nodal agency in the central government for tribal rights. The environment minister, however, appoints his own committee (the Saxena Committee) in the last week of June 2010.

Then the pace quickens: The environment minister writes to the law ministry on July 19 to obtain the Attorney General’s opinion if the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) apply its mind and decide in the light of the Supreme Court’s earlier decision giving forest clearance.

The AG replies promptly on the following day; Saxena submits report on August 16, FAC deliberates without much loss of time and submits recommendations on August 23, and the minister announces his decision with a 20-page reasoned order on August 24, 2010!

The must be a record in governmental working! The affected party, namely the Orissa government, is hardly given any chance to given an explanation to the MoEF.

In fact, the hapless Orissa officials seem to have met the minister on August 24 when he was in a tearing hurry to announce his decision!

Second, OMC’s proposal for forest clearance for the Niyamgiri bauxite mines is separate and distinct from Vedanta Aluminium Ltd’s (VAL) aluminum refinery project, although bauxite is meant for the refinery. Why have these two cases been mixed up in the minister’s order?

Forest clearance is a statutory requirement under the Forest Conservation Act 1980 and the FAC was deliberating on the subject on the request made by OMC/Orissa government and the minister is within his rights to act on their recommendation.

If VAL violated the conditions of its approval or even the Environment Protection Act, it could have been proceeded against separately.

After all, the MoEF’s eastern regional office had sent its communication reporting violations in May 2010. By combining the two issues the ministry gave the unfortunate impression that it was targetting Vedanta rather than dealing with forest clearance for Niyamgiri mines.

One of the major issues raised by the Saxena Committee and endorsed by the minister is the potential ecological and human costs of the mining project.

In fact, this is an issue which is relevant not so much during forest clearance procedure but more appropriately during the impact assessment study under the Environment Protection Act.

For Niyamgiri both ‘in principle’ forest clearance and environmental clearance had been given. Besides, the ‘in principle’ approval was given in October 2007, a month before the Supreme Court’s order on the subject.

Did the MoEF discover the ecological and human costs only after receiving the Saxena Committee report?

The main thrust of the Saxena Committee report and about the only valid reason for denying final forest clearance for the Niyamgiri mines appears to be the alleged non-recognition of the forest rights of the tribals and absence of consent from the concerned communities for diversion of forest land.

There seem to be a few complications on this issue. For one the Saxena Committee has given very liberal and wide-ranging definitions of ‘forest’ and ‘forest rights’ as per its interpretation of the Forest Rights Act. It is another matter that the interpretation of statutes is a responsibility of the courts, not of a committee appointed by a minister!

The Saxena Committee, for example, defines ‘forest’ to include ‘forest dwellers’ as well as ‘trees and wildlife’, literally overturning the Apex Court’s definition of ‘forest’ in the famous Godavarman case.

It also interprets communal and habitat rights of the primitive tribal groups to extend beyond their areas of residence to cover the entire eco-system.

Since the Forest Rights Act is a new piece of legislation these issues will need to be settled by the courts in due course of time, keeping in view the practicability of implementation.

In any case, the Orissa officials seem to have argued that they had complied with the legal requirements of the legislation (which, by the way, came long after the mining proposal was mooted) to the best of their ability.

Surely, Saxena and the MoEF cannot both be the prosecutor and the judge on this matter!

Also, what about development — both of minerals, which are the nation’s dormant resources, and the tribal groups, who inhabit the area?

 

From the Saxena Committee report (which is silent on this subject), it would appear that Mr Saxena would like them to continue as ‘forest dwellers’ in perpetuity so that they continue to enjoy their ‘forest rights’, living on roots and herbs and we continue showcasing their primitive tribal identity and abject poverty nationally and internationally!

Finally, what happens to the considerable investment that has gone into the industry?

Environmental and forest clearance procedures are about balancing the needs of development with those of conservation. To the extent possible the project proponents, including the state government, should be given an opportunity to correct the deficiencies. (After all it is the state government, not OMC/Sterlite-Vedanta, that has to settle the forest rights).

It is true that in extreme cases permission will have to be denied but that should have been before the start of the refinery when the required clearances were given.

To do so now will be unfair and damaging to the government’s reputation for objectivity.

Following is from Sreelatha Menon’s article in Business Standard regarding what violations the environment ministry claimed that occurred. 

The Saxena Committee has drawn up a litany of infractions at Niyamgiri by both Vedanta and the Orissa government.

The road leading up to the Centre’s denial of permission to Vedanta Alumina Ltd to mine for bauxite in the Niyamagiri hills of Lanjigarh has been lined with gross violations and misrepresentation by both the company and the state government of Orissa.

The NC Saxena Committee, set up by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, details the manner in which laws have been flagrantly flouted to facilitate a project that has been aggressively opposed by tribal groups in the area.

The panel’s findings show that the Forest Rights Act, Forest Conservation Act, Environment Protection Act as well as Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, which applies to scheduled tribes covered under Schedule V of the Constitution, have been the main casualties as far as the Vedanta project is concerned.

The alleged breach of laws by the company in collusion with the state government and made possible by the Centre’s neglect resulted in the company obtaining illegal possession of 26 hectares of village forest land without ever obtaining appropriate clearances. It was on the verge of launching mining operations the moment it received forest clearance, jeopardising not only the life and culture of the indigenous tribal groups, which are protected under Schedule V, but also in contempt of a statute expressly designed to empower tribal communities: the Forest Rights Act.

Felling the Forest Rights Act: The most blatant violation, the Saxena panel states, has been that of legislation drawn up specifically to give forest dwellers a voice. It also gives them the authority to agree or not to a project that affects the forests they lived in. In the case of the Vedanta project, the law just did not seem to exist. The state government chose not to consult gram sabhas of the villages or to issue any statement on their response to the Centre.

And in spite of this, 26 hectares of forest land has been in the possession of the company’s refinery and forest clearance for more forest land was pending for the mining project.

How PESA was ignored : According to the Saxena Committee, PESA , there was scant regard for the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas ) when it came to pushing the proposed mining lease for Vedanta. Indeed, the state government blatantly violated it.

This Act requires the authorities to consult elected village bodies such as a panchayat or Gram Sabha before the acquisition of land for any development projects located in tribal territories listed under Schedule V. Authorities also have to consult the Gram Sabha or Panchayat before resettling and rehabilitating those affected by such projects. None of this was done.

Stolen forests: The Saxena report lists several alleged irregularities by Vedanta in Niyamagiri. Occupation of village forest land for the construction of its refinery tops the list. On August 16, 2004, Vedanta Alumina submitted a proposal for the appropriation of 58.943 ha of forest land — 26.123 ha to set up a refinery at Lanjigarh and the remaining for a conveyor belt and a road to the mining site. The forest lands required for the refinery, in a number of small patches, traditionally belonged to the tribal and other communities in neighbouring villages.

However, while filing for environmental clearance on March 19, 2003, the company claimed that no forest land was needed and that there were no reserve forests within 10 km of the proposed refinery. The Saxena Committee says this claim was patently false, since the reserve forests are less than 2 km from the refinery site. Even the factory is located on forest land belonging to the villagers.

The Environment Ministry accorded environmental clearance to the refinery on September 22, 2004, on the basis that the project did not involve appropriation of forest lands. Since this clearance was acquired by submitting false information, it is invalid and should be revoked, the committee headed by Saxena had recommended.

EPA violations: The report also finds the company guilty of violating mandates of the Environment Protection Act (EPA). Environmental impact assessments required under the EPA are inadequate and do not examine the full implications of the refinery and mining project on the environment, particularly those related to hydrology. The report says no effort was made in the Vedanta mining project (and aluminium refinery) to solicit the informed consent of affected villages.

It says “the required number of public hearings’’ were not held and the” Environmental impact assessments, which contain data essential for informed decision-making and consent, were not made available. Even critical information, such as the fact that the project would occupy their village forest lands, was not disclosed.’’

In a 2003 public hearing, no member of the affected Dongaria Kondh tribe was recorded as being present—a basic violation of their right to consultation and informed consent. Besides suffering from the same shortcomings as the 2003 public hearings, a public hearing in 2009 for refinery expansion distorted and reinterpreted the proceedings: the official minutes of the meeting record that the project met with widespread community support, even though only one person out of 27 spoke in favour of the project.

Violator and polluter, too: When the environment ministry granted environmental clearance to the aluminium refinery, it was subject to strict compliance and identified a list of other key conditions for management of waste from the refinery. It also required that the company strictly adhere to the stipulations made by the Orissa State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB).

But in the course of the refinery’s operations between 2006 and 2009, Vedanta Alumina repeatedly failed to adhere to these requirements. Between 2006 and 2009, the OSPCB documented numerous instances whereby the company had failed to put in place adequate pollution control measures to meet not only its own conditions, but also those of the Environment Ministry. OSPCB findings indicate that the company commenced operations without the necessary systems to adequately manage waste and pollution. Some processing and waste management systems were not built or operated in conformity with applicable regulatory requirements.

Expansion without clearance: The most shocking violation on the part of the company has been its six-fold expansion of the refinery without even obtaining clearance from the ministry. It had received sanction to set up a capacity of 1 million tonnes, but it has gone on to expand to 6 million tonnes without any approvals. This was in spite OSPCB strictures to its January 12, 2009 memo, asking the company to immediately cease construction related to expansion of the refinery as it had not obtain the required permissions, including the environmental clearance.

Tribal groups, which have been fighting on behalf of the Dongaria Kondhs, are now finding these violations, especially Vedanta’s illegal possession of 26 hectares of forest land, as the starting point for the second part of their struggle. Says Prafulla Samantara, who petitioned the Supreme Court on behalf of the tribals: “The report calls the refinery illegal and it has to go. Our fight will continue until it is shut down.” But Saxena feels that the refinery may continue and get raw material from other mines.

The violations in the case of Vedanta have been documented and accepted by the Centre, with the ministry refusing permission for mining operations in Niyamagiri. Tribal groups ask if this report and the consequences would have any implications on several other projects where similar violations have been raised to deaf ears. Forest Rights Act violations have been alleged against Posco, as well as several other mining projects, but the state and Central governments have so far shown no indication of reviewing them, says Campaign for Survival and Dignity, an umbrella group of tribal rights organisations.

•  The Saxena Committee report (pdf) is here.

   

I don’t have the letter that the Odisha government wrote. But the following excerpts from a report in tathya.in gives some idea.

… However responding to the report, in a letter to the Ministry of Environment & Forest (MOEF), the State Government has said that “it is shocking to note that the Saxena Committee has preferred to discuss in a derogatory manner the issues, which have been considered and adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India.” 

Upendra Nath Behera, Principal Secretary of the Department of Forest & Environment (DOEF) in his letter to the Secretary, MOEF has said that a preliminary study of the report shows that it has raised serious allegations against the State Government. 

It has cast aspersions on the intention of the State Government about implementing the Forest Rights Act (FRA), when the Government of Odisha is credited to be the second best performing state in the country in implementation of FRA. 

The report has asked the MOEF to reject the application of the State Government for diversion of forest land for the above purpose as mining in Niyamgiri will destroy wildlife habitat and it will cause hydrological disaster. 

It has also said that mining will destroy the cultural, religious and economic habitat of the Dongaria Kondhs, who reside in the forest area proposed for diversion. 

The State Government has pointed out that the issues raised by the Saxena Committee were the subject matter of different PILs filed by various activists before the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), which ultimately came up before the Supreme Court. 

In view of the technical issues raised in the applications, the Apex Court had directed MOEF to appoint expert bodies for examining various issues. 

The Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun had conducted studies on the impact of the mining project on biodiversity and wildlife including its habitat. 

The Central Mine Planning & Design Institute (CMPDI), Ranchi conducted studies on the impact of the mining project on soil erosion, impact of ground vibration on hydrological regime including ground porosity and permeability. 

All these issues were discussed in the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) on 30 August, 2006, when the project was placed before the Committee for scrutiny. 

Similarly the project was challenged in the Supreme Court on the grounds of violation of FRA. 

After elaborate discussion of the reports of the expert bodies, views of the State Government and MOEF covering all issues relating to ecology, wildlife, hydrology, soil erosion, tribal life and implementation of different environmental laws, the Supreme Court on 23 November, 2007 cleared the project with certain directions. 

On compliance of all the directions of the Apex court, the project was cleared by the Supreme Court on 8 August, 2008. 

The State Government has said that “it is of course, understood that the MOEF has not taken a view on the recommendation of the Committee."

The Government of Odisha in its’ letter has said that “it believe that if a judicious view is taken by the MOEF, most of the findings of the Saxena Committee will not hold water." 

Under this backdrop, the State Government has urged the MOEF to provide an opportunity to present its’ views before taking a final decision in this matter.

People reading this blog must must have seen the news about the Saxena committee (which was empowered by Jairam Ramesh and the environment ministry) report on Vedanta’s operations in Lanjigarh, Odisha.

Although the report reads like an activist team’s report, the fact remains that the laws of the country are sacred and needs to be followed.

It is a different matter that laws are broken with impunity at all levels ranging from the laws reported to be broken by Vedanta to normal people extending their houses and gardens into government land, groups building temples as a ruse to capture government land where ever they feel like, people blocking roads, trains, doing bandhs whenever they feel like, etc. etc. In India laws are broken with impunity and are broken more often than they are adhered to. But this does not excuse what Vedanta is reported to have done. The committee report also rebukes the Odisha government for its hand in the whole affair.

However, one needs to put this report in perspective with what the environment ministry and Jairam Ramesh have found in rest of India. Following are excerpts from a report in rediff.in that gives us some added perspective.

… several industrialists are also upset about what they call Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh’s activist-like positions. "He is taking positions, which are normally associated with unreasonable activists and their organisations," says one leading industrialist whose project is stuck. …

… Data from the ministry’s website show that of the 58 projects that have come up for Coastal Regulation Zone clearance since April 2009, it gave only half a dozen of them the green signal.

Over 1,800 projects are awaiting clearances as of the first week of this month.

…"There are people who consciously instigate and organise people in coastal Andhra against projects coming up in the region," says a spokesperson of a power company,  which is promoting a project in coastal Andhra Pradesh.

"Land availability is a big issue in India. Developers can approach the ministry only after either acquiring the land or have assurances to get the land, to request for the terms of reference to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment study. By that stage, a lot of investment and time may have gone into execution of the projects, and still you are not sure of getting the clearance," says Sanjay Sethi, executive director (infrastructure) at Kotak Investment Banking.

"It is necessary to have more transparent and clear guidelines and checklists for land available for various commercial and industrial uses, with clear maps of sensitive zones, which should be easily available to project developers," he adds.

… To be fair to the environment ministry, there are issues like misrepresentation of facts by project developers and the state, or conflicting reports on issues by expert panels.

In a recent development, the environmental clearances for at least four projects in an around Srikakulam in Andhra Pradesh were suspended by the ministry.

On July 15, the ministry cancelled the clearance given to Nagarjuna Construction Company’s 2,640 megawatt (Mw) coal-based super critical thermal power plant at Gollagandi and Baruva villages in Srikakulam.

An expert panel said most of the project land allocated by the state government might be regarded as wetland, contrary to an earlier panel report that the 750 acres of grasslands were barren and not fit for agriculture.

The same expert panel, which visited East Coast Energy’s 2,640 Mw thermal project near Kakarapalli village in Srikakulam during the same time, found the state government had ignored reports on the ecological value of low lying areas of the well recognised Naupada swamps wetland and migratory bird breeding in nearby Telineelapuram of Srikakulam.

"This amounts to suppression/distortion of facts," the panel said.

A nearby project – that of JSW’s 1.4 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) alumina refinery and a co-generation plant – is also being reviewed by the ministry.

… On June 28, the ministry directed the formation of a supervisory committee to monitor the influence of toxic effluents from JSW Energy’s 1,200 Mw thermal power plant at Jaigad in Maharashtra, following apprehensions that effluents could affect the quality of Alphonso mangoes and cashew orchards in the region.

… Ten days before that, Jindal Power Limited drew the wrath of the ministry for commencing construction of a 2,400 Mw power project at Tamnar in Chhattisgarh,  without obtaining prior environment clearance.

The ministry has directed the state government to stop work and initiate action against the Naveen Jindal-promoted company.

Some of the other high-profile projects that have been halted include the Maheshwar Hydroelectric project on the Narmada river in Madhya Pradesh on grounds that the conditions of the statutory environmental clearance were not complied with and the resettlement and rehabilitation of the project-affected families was less than satisfactory – charges denied by the state chief minister and the company.

… Also, many say the minister has involved himself in much-publicised wars of words with Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel over the environment ministry’s reluctance to clear the Navi Mumbai international airport, citing destruction of mangroves, razing of a hill and diversion of two rivers; with Road Transport Minister Kamal Nath, who openly accused him of blocking projects;

… But, even his sharpest critics agree on one thing: Ramesh has made sure that no one can treat the environment ministry lightly any longer.

… "This is probably the first time that an environmentalist has become a minister. He is almost single-handedly bringing about a paradigm shift within the government about how to view progress and development," says Pandey.

I agree with the sentence in the red. Earlier companies and state governments were not taking the environment ministry that seriously. Ramesh’s actions will make sure that everyone take the environment ministry seriously. That is a good thing and kudos to Mr. Ramesh for that.

However, as far as Odisha is concerned Jairam Ramesh seems to have something against it. We say that for the following reasons.

• When Odisha was trying for an IIT Jairam Ramesh insulted Odisha with his comments. See http://www.orissalinks.com/archives/286.
• Recently, Hindustan Times (see http://www.hindustantimes.com/Environment-Ministry-puts-on-hold-Vedanta-University-in-Orissa/Article1-542363.aspx) reported the following: "The Union Environment Ministry on Tuesday put on hold the controversial Rs.150 billion Vedanta University project in Orissa following complaints of alleged irregularities by its promoter Anil Agarwal Foundation. The direction to keep the project in abeyance has come within a month of the Ministry granting conditional environmental clearance to the Foundation which is building the university." Now stopping a mine or a factory or an airport for environmental reasons may make sense, but a university?? That too, just because some one complained. No investigation! Just people complained and he stopped the project, when the project was about to construct a medical college!!
• Jairam Ramesh and his ministry recently granted environmental permission to construct the Polavurum dam in Andhra Pradesh against the objections of the Orissa and Chhatisgrah government. See http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Environment-ministry-clears-Andhra-project/articleshow/6233874.cms . Times of India was surprised with this. It wrote: "Oddly, while the ministry had set up separate committees to investigate the settlement of rights under the Forest Rights Act in other high profile cases such as Vedanta and Posco which propose to displace far lesser people, in the Polavaram case the ministry has decided to accept the state government’s compliance report on face value.  The mega-project is expected to submerge 276 villages displacing upwards of two lakh people by some estimates. "   

In summary, while Jairam Ramesh deserves kudos for putting his foot down on environment laws and making sure everyone takes them seriously, people of Odisha need to be very careful of him as he seems to be against Odisha; he has stopped projects clearly beneficial to Odisha (namely, Vedanta University) by using his environment stick, and at the same time has allowed projects clearly harmful to Odisha  (namely, the polavurum dam) even after the Odisha government and Odisha chief minister have vehemently objected to it. This does not at all gel with the actions they took against Vedanta University. There the project was ordered to stop because some people complained. Here the project was given green signal despite the state of Odisha and its chief minister complaining and that too reportedly without any enquiry. 

Following article titled ” `Rahul hand behind POSCO, Vedanta mess’ – Cong counters BJD charge” is from Times of India Bhubaneswar edition. Thanks to HM for bringing this to our notice and sending it to us.

Following is an excerpt from a blog entry in the world bank site.

Lashed by heavy monsoon rains and devastating cyclones with unfailing regularity, the state looked for solutions. In doing so, it also stole a march on the central government, whose National Climate Change Action Plan is still being prepared in fits and starts.

… So, to chart the way forward on development in an era of climate change, the government decided to consult with diverse groups —a participatory approach endorsed by the Bank. The commitment came from the highest levels in the state government. The Bank helped by providing global knowledge and expertise, and mobilizing both national and international experts, as and when needed.

Consultations sought solutions for the coastal areas, tribal regions, mining and industrial areas, urban centers and farming belts. Fishermen, farmers, trade unions, industrial associations, tribal groups and women offered their comments. Not surprisingly, the discussions were often animated and intense.

A diverse set of questions was raised: What should be done to control the growing salination of the coastal belt that is ruining farmer livelihoods? How can we preserve the natural breeding grounds for fresh water fish? And what can be done for the fishermen who, with falling fish stocks, are abandoning their age-old profession and migrating to cities in search of work? Then, what’s the best way to stop fluoride and arsenic from leeching into the drinking water? And, if you’re wondering what happened between the forest officers and the mining ones, let’s just say that the forest officers finally succeeded in extracting a commitment from the mining officials to adhere to sustainable practices and greater environmental monitoring.

The draft plan is now up on the Orissa government’s website to receive more inputs. While the plan may not be perfect, it is innovative and home grown, and open to improvement. And all said and done, by being the first past the post, the little state of Orissa has shown the richer states the way!

Following is from http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=59882. The Odisha part and some other important parts are highlighted in red by me.

CCEA Decision

            The CCEA today approved a Rs.1156 crore World Bank assisted Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) Project.  This project is to be implemented over the next five years by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The World Bank’s contribution as soft loan/IDA credit is around         Rs. 897 crore (78%).  This ICZM project assumes special significance in the context of climate change since one of the definitive findings of the IPCC relates to the increase in mean sea levels as a result of global warming.

            The ICZM project has four main components:

1.       National ICZM capacity-building at a total investment of about Rs.356 crore which will cover (i) mapping, delineation and demarcation of the hazard lines and delineation of the coastal sediment cells along the mainland coast of India; (ii) mapping, delineation and demarcation of environmentally-sensitive areas that require protection; (iii) establishment of a National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management at Anna University, Chennai; and (iv) a nation-wide training programme for coastal zone management.

2.       ICZM activities along the Gulf of Kachchh and in Jamnagar District in Gujarat at a total investment of around Rs.298 crore.

3.       ICZM and wetland conservation activities in two stretches of the Orissa coast (i) Gopalpur-Chilika; and (ii) Paradip-Dhamra at a total investment of Rs.201 crore.

4.       ICZM activities in Sunderban, Haldia and Digha-Shankarpur regions of West Bengal at a total investment of Rs.300 crore.

The project would develop capacity and institutions to effectively implement the CRZ Notification 1991, to control pollution of coastal waters and to expand livelihood options for coastal communities. The elaborate and extensive exercise in hazard mapping along the 7500-km coastline, which is being done for the first time, by the Survey of India at cost of Rs.125 crore will greatly assist in protecting coastal communities and infrastructure located in coastal areas.

The total number of direct beneficiaries of the project is close to 15 lakhs, while the number of indirect but identifiable beneficiaries will be close to 6 crore. The initial set of three states have been selected on various grounds including pressure on coast, presence of critical ecosystems, risks of natural hazards, etc. The Asian Development Bank is supporting a less comprehensive shoreline management project in Karnataka, Maharashtra and Goa. It is envisaged that the second phase of ICZM would take up the other coastal states with project preparation in all remaining coastal states commencing immediately.

Of special focus in the project will be identification and demarcation of coastal fragile areas like mangroves, brackish water wetlands, coral reefs, etc based on which a new category of “Critically Vulnerable Coastal Areas”(CVCAs) would be designated and appropriate management plans implemented for their preservation and regeneration. These would include areas around Lakshadweep, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Gulf of Khambat in Gujarat, Malvan, Vasasi-Manori,Achra-Ratnagiri in Maharashtra, Karwar and Coondapur in Karnataka, Vembanad in Kerala, Bhaitarkanika and Chilika in Orissa, Coringa, East Godavari and Krishna in Andhra Pradesh,Sunderban in West Bengal, Pichawaram and Gulf of Mannar in Tamil Nadu etc.

This is the second World Bank assisted project of the Ministry of Environment and Forests to be approved by the CCEA in the past two weeks. The first was a Rs. 350 crore project for initiating the process of remediation, rehabilitation and restoration of contaminated hazardous waste/municipal solid waste dumpsites in the country. There are over 120 such sites in different states and this project would be launched to clean-up 2 sites in Andhra Pradesh and 8 in West Bengal to begin with, apart from to prepare a national plan for remediation and restoration of all legacy contaminated sites which have become public health hazards.

*********

AD/LV

Following is an excerpt from a PTI report.

South Korean steel giant Posco has finally got the clearance from the environment ministry for acquiring forest land for its proposed Rs 54,000-crore steel project in Orissa, which has been already delayed more than a year.

"The Centre gave the final clearance for handing over 2,900 acres of forest land to us for our 12 million tonne steel project in Orissa. We are hopeful that the state government would soon transfer the entire 4,004 acre of land needed for the project to us," Posco India General Manager, External Relations, Simanta Mohanty told PTI.

Nearly 3,600 acres of land out of required 4,004 acres fall under the government category, while the rest remains under private control.

Following is an excerpt from a report in azcentral.com about mine clean up in Arizona.

Bankrupt Tucson miner Asarco LLC has agreed to pay $30 million to clean up three contaminated mine sites in Arizona and settle the state’s longstanding environmental claims against the company.

… The property, including $4 million to improve and maintain one of Arizona’s few remaining riparian areas, compensates the state for Asarco’s contamination over the years of Mineral Creek, a tributary to the Gila River in Pinal County.

… The $1.6 billion "global settlement" would clean up some 75 sites across the country that have been polluted by Asarco over more than 100 years of active mining and smelting activity.

I wonder if Orissa government can make similar claims against those mine owners in Orissa who pollute the environment. They should start looking carefully at the Sukinda Valley and the Joda-Barbil area which rank very high among polluted places in the world.

Most building roofs in India are flat, and this is ideal for having green roofs. Green roofing the buildings has many advantages:

• Decreases the temperature of the building, and the surroundings
• Puts less pressure in the drainage system; especially useful in towns like Cuttack which do not have proper drainage systems.
• More space for planting

Overall, it is good for the environment.

Here I will collect links on Greenroofing and use it to encourage my friends and family to have green roofs in their homes and buildings in Orissa. I hope the Government of Orissa and some of the city authorities will aso encourage this in Orissa and its cities and towns.

• Greenroofs101.
• Growing your roof (pdf)
• Greenroof infrastructure wiki.
  • a book on green roofs as part of its LATIS series.
  • http://greenroofs.org/
  • http://greenroofs.com/
  • http://www.greenroofplants.com/
  • http://roofmeadow.com/
    • FAQ.
  • ECOROOFS (GREENROOFS) – A MORE SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE
  • The Pomegranate Center’s Homeowner Green Roof Guide
  • The Pennsylvania State University Center for Green Roof Research http://web.me.com/rdberghage/Centerforgreenroof/Home.html )
  • Casey Trees Study for Green Roofs in DC
  • Urban Natural Resources Institute January 2008 Webinar
  • City of Portland’s Ecoroof Plant Report
  • Green Roof Tree of Knowledge (GRTOK)
• Green roofs as urban ecosystems (pdf)
• What are green roofs (word)
•  

Following is an excerpt from a report in Pragativadi.

The Supreme Court on Friday cleared the decks for Anil Agarwal promoted Vedanta Resources to mine bauxite from the ecologically fragile Niyamgiri hills for its proposed Rs 4,000-crore alumina project at Lanjigarh in Kalahandi district.

Vedanta had sought clearance for diversion of 660.749 hectare of forest land for mining purposes to feed its alumina plant.

The special forest bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justices Arijit Pasayat and SH Kapadia allowed Sterlite to go ahead with bauxite mining.

The application of Vedanta is allowed, the Supreme Court bench said in a statement. 

However, it asked the ministry of environment and forest to proceed in accordance with law.

… Vedanta wants to dig open-cast mines in the Niyamgiri hills located in Kalahandi district near its project area. 

Vedanta promoted Sterlite Industries had sought clearance for diversion of 660.749 hectares of forest land for mining purposes to provide required raw material for its plant.

Following is an excerpt from a report in sify.com. (This report is reasonable; the tall claims about making Naraj like Jamshedpur is reported in Sambada, which is given at the end of the excerpt.)

Optimistic about completion of land acquisition for its 1,000 MW power plant near Cuttack in five months, Tata Power has allayed fears that it may cause air, water and noise pollution and said the thermal unit would adopt latest environmental safety technology.

"We expect the whole process of land acquisition for the Naraj Marthapur coal-based power project to be completed by October, this year," Project Director (eastern region) of Tata Power, Praveer Sinha said.

Maintaining that the company was for fair and just compensation for land, structures and trees, Sinha, who visited the proposed plant site with other company officials, said price for land would be settled through ‘direct win-win negotiations with sellers’.

Rates offered would be higher than benchmark rates fixed by Orissa government, Sinha and other company officials pointed out, adding most advanced technologies would be used in the Rs 5,000-crore project to minimise plant emission.

… Ruling out any adverse impact on the air quality of Cuttack and Bhubaneswar due to the plant, he said water spraying would be undertaken in coal yard area to suppress the dust, while high efficiency electrostatic precipitator would be installed for removal of fly as from the flue gas.

"All these measures would keep emission of ash and coal dust to well below the statutory norms," a senior official at Tata Power’s Jamshedpur plant said, adding flue gas would be released through 275 metre tall stack, three times taller than Qutub Minar.

Explaining the steps to check water pollution, Sinha said fly ash generated from the plant would be stored within the plant premises and it would not be dumped into Mahanadi river or Puri canal.

Fly ash, said another senior executive, would be directly utilised by the cement industry, brick manufacturing, road and pavement construction, fertilisers and for bund preparation in farms. "Therefore, the quality of water in Puri canal or Mahanadi river or Puri canal will not be affected and will not impact marine life at all," he said.

Similarly, he said waste water generated from the plant would be reused within the plant and discharge, if any, was likely to take place only during rainy season when excess water is available.

"Such water will be discharged only after treatment of effluents and its quality will comply with the applicable effluents standards," he said.

Sinha said steps would be taken to ensure that no pollutant material is discharged into the river. Ash would not pollute ground water due to impervious lining of the ash pond into which the ash would be disposed.

Ruling out noise pollution due to the power unit, company officials also made it clear that the machinery and equipment would meet all the national standards of noise limits.

Further, thick green belt would be developed around the project site to minimise the impacts of noise created by transport of coal by railways. Around two lakh trees would be planted in the green belt to absorb dust and noise.

Following is an excerpt from a report in sify.com.

An environment regulatory committee set up by the Supreme Court has recommended a stringent mechanism for granting mining lease to Sterlite Industries, the parent company of the London-based Vedanta Alumina Ltd, to mine bauxite from the eco-sensitive Niyamgiri hill area for its proposed Rs 4,000 crore aluminium project in Orissa.

As against the plea by the Sterlite India, the Central Empowered Committee suggested that the majority 51% share in the special purpose vehicle — ‘Lanjigarh Scheduled Area Development Foundation’ — should be with the Orissa government and 24.5% each should be with the Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC) and Sterlite.

The Sterlite had suggested that its own share should be 49%, while the Orissa government and OMC should hold 26% and 25%, respectively.

A bench of chief justice K G Balakrishnan, justices Arijit Pasayat and H S Kapadia directed Sterlite and the Orissa government to file affidavits on the formation and constitution of the special purpose vehicle.

…
Sterlite has sought direction from the court to accord clearance of the forest diversion proposal submitted by Orissa Mining Corporation for diversion of 660.749 hectare of forest land to undertake bauxite mining on Niyamgiri Hills in Lanjigarh for its Rs 4,500 crore Alumina plant in Orissa.

Sterlite has agreed to give 5% of the annual profits before tax and interest from the Lanjigarh project, consisting of bauxite mining and alumina refinery, or Rs 10 crore per year, whichever is higher, to the Foundation every year from April 1, 2007.

Sterlite also said it would make a payment of the net present value (NPV) of Rs 55 crore and Rs 50.3 crore towards wildlife management plan for conservation and management of wildlife around the Lanjigarh mine and Rs 12.2 crore towards development for the tribal people.

The committee said there has to be a balance between conservation and development. “The balance between these two would thus lie in permitting conservation not merely for private profit but in a manner that maximises the public interest component in the activity,’’ it said. …

Following are excerpts from a report in tathya.in.

Take the case of Bhusan Power & Steel (BPSL), an integrated power and steel plant set up at Thelkoloi in Sambalpur district.

The Orissa Pollution Control Board (OPCB) on 16 February issued a closure notice to BPSL for violating the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act.

BPSL was asked to stop all production until further orders, failing which stringent penal proceedings would be initiated against the company.

According to sources though the company is producing power for more than 2 years is has no designated site to dump fly ash released from the plants.

In absence of a proper place the company authorities were dumping in nearby places like Laripalli, for which villagers raised hue and cry.

Now they are dumping in Khinda, said a source.

Secondly BPSL filled up the river bed of the Bheden River by dumping earth.

These, according to environmental norms are serious offences.

OPCB had been asking BPSL to conform to environmental norms for the past six months, said the source.

However, the company allegedly did not pay any heed to it, added an official.

OPCB waited for six months and finally decided on closing down the unit.

… On 1 March OPCB has lifted the closure notice.

… Months ago when Dr. Hrushikesh Panda was at the helm of Forest & Environment Department, Tata Refractories Limited (TRL) at Belpahar,  was accused of pollution.

He impressed upon the OPCB to issue closure notice to the company.

OPCB issued closure notice and the Chief Minister announced the closure of TRL in the floor of the House.

So unrelenting was he that the State Government was to shift Dr.Panda to provide relief to TRL.

With so many pollution prone large mineral based industries coming up in Orissa, the soft approach of the Government’s Green Authority bodes ill for the state, feel an environmentalist.

Following is an excerpt from http://www.hemscott.com/news/latest-news/item.do?newsId=53878217759003. 

… India’s Supreme Court set new conditions for the project.

Vedanta’s battle to mine bauxite to feed the refinery in forests considered sacred by indigenous people has been seen as a test case in India, pitting industrial development against the interests of local inhabitants and the environment.

The Supreme Court refused to let the project in the eastern state of Orissa go ahead in its present form on the grounds that it could affect ‘sustainable development’ and asked Vedanta to come back with a new plan.

The court said Vedanta would have to give money for forest destruction, wildlife management and tribal development totalling around 180 mln usd.

Other conditions would include handing over 5 pct of pretax profits annually from its mining projects across India to the Orissa government.

Vedanta would also have to set up a ‘special purpose vehicle’ to ensure that environmental regulations were met, the court said.

Vedanta must file an interim application within eight weeks saying if it agreed to the conditions and the Supreme Court would reconsider the project, the court bench ruled.

Vedanta has been fighting for three years to obtain clearance for open cast mining of vast deposits of bauxite in the densely forested Niyamgiri hills to feed the 900 mln usd alumina refinery it has built nearby.

There was no immediate comment from Vedanta on the court ruling but it has in the past denied any wrongdoing and argued its projects would be welcomed by residents of the desperately poor region.

Following is an excerpt from Pioneer that gives the first reaction from Vedanta officials in Orissa on the supreme court judgment.

Reacting to the judgment, vice-president of Vedanta Alumina Ltd AK Samal said the Supreme Court had reiterated its emphasis on sustainable development but has no objections in principle to mining at Niyamgiri. However, the court has stipulated certain conditions to be complied by the project proponent.

He said the apex court had desired that Sterlite Industries, the flagship company of Vedanta Resources PLC in India, duly enlisted on the Indian Stock Market be a part of the Special Project Vehicle (SPV) for mining at Niyamgiri and Scheduled area development at Lajigarh, where the company’s alumina refinery is located. "We will take all steps to immediately abide by the directions and conditions set out by the SC," he said, adding that the company was still waiting for a copy of the judgment.

Samal said his company was committed to the cause of the social uplift through reasonable industrialisation.

…. Secretary of the Orissa Wildlife Society Biswajit Mohanty, who had filed the petition against the Centre’s decision to allow Vedanta to set up its aluminum refinery and undertake mining activities, said the SC had taken note of their concern. On behalf of the Lok Abhiyan, noted activist Prafulla Samantray had also filed a petition before the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) of the SC.

The social activists filed the petition alleging that if Vedanta was allowed to undertake mining activities, the whole biosphere of Niyamgiri would be affected. The two major rivers, Bansadhara and Nagabali, which originate from the hill, would disappear. Thus it would affect the whole tribal population of the southern parts of the State, they argued.

Taking note of the serious allegation, the CEC had sent a two-member expert team (SK Chadda and SC Shrama) to make a spot inquiry. The team visited Niyamgiri in December 2004. It submitted its report in January 2005. Later, the CEC started the hearing of the petitions. The CEC visited Lanjigarh, where the plant is coming up. It submitted its report to the SC in September 2005, reportedly suggesting that Vedanta should not be allowed to take up mining activities.

The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) granted environmental clearance for the project on September 22, 2004, and in its letter clearly specified that the source of bauxite for the refinery would be the Niyamgiri mine near Lanjigarh. This led to a furore among environmentalists, who argued that as it came under the Schedule V area of the Constitution, the environment clearance granted by MoEF and forest clearance should be reviewed.

Following is from PIB http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=33004.

The State Government of Orissa has asked for Rs. 23 crores from Ministry of Environment & Forests to save the coastal areas of the State from losses due to sea tide. As per the information made available by the National Disaster Management Authority, the Government of India has formulated a National Cyclone Risk Mitigation Project (NCRMP) to be implemented with World Bank assistance. One of the investment proposals received under the Project from Government of Orissa is on “Shelterbelt Plantation” in Balasore, Bhadrakh, Jagatsinghpur and Kendrapada Districts at a total cost of about Rs.23 crore. The Project is yet to be posed to the World Bank for their appraisal and funding.

The Government of India has issued a Coastal Regulation Zone Notification in 1991 delineating the coastal areas into different zones and listing out permissible and non permissible activities. The activities which are permissible are appraised by duly constituted expert committee, wherever necessary, and decisions are taken such that environmental balance in the coastal areas are harmonized with activities taking place in that area.

This information was given by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Shri S. Regupathy in a written reply to question in the Rajya Sabha today.

Following are some excerpts from that report.

… Makara Dehuri’s been steadily losing weight. The 35-year-old miner from Ostpala village doesn’t know what’s wrong with him.

Over 2 lakh people in Sukinda suffer from some form of hexavalent chromium poisoning because of the untreated water discharged by the mines into the Brahmani River.

Sukinda contains one largest open cast chromite ore mines in the world. As much as 60 percent of drinking water here is poisoned.

“Drinking water is a major problem for us. If we tell our boss he will suspend us from our job,” says a villager in Orissa, Makara Dehuri.

The recent study has chosen these places for the severity of its toxins, its impact on human health and the extent of damage caused. …

Somebody should file a PIL or sue the government and the mining industry in Sukinda.

Following is an excerpt from a Telegraph report.

Sukinda valley in Orissa�s Jajpur is one of the most polluted places in the world, according to a report by the US-based Blacksmith Institute.

The institute provides solutions to pollution-related problems.

From India, Sukinda has ranked fourth and Vapi, a 400km industrial belt in Gujarat, is fifth on the list of 10 most polluted places.

The valley, about 140km from here, is spread across Dhenkanal and Jajpur districts and has the largest chrome ore deposit in the country — 97 per cent of India�s reserves. Mining is done by the opencast method.

According to the report, �12 mines continue to operate without any environmental management plans and over 30 million tonnes of waste rock are spread over the surrounding areas. The mines discharge untreated water into the river. This area is also flood-prone, resulting in further contamination of the waterways.�

The problem is �beyond the means of the state to solve�.

Environmentalists said the report is damning evidence of the impact rampant mining has on Orissa.

… However, chairman of Orissa State Pollution Control Board L.N. Patnaik described the report as �silly�. �I see a lot of personal agenda behind the report. It is a design to stop mining activities. If there is mining, there would be some air pollution. But to say that Sukinda is one of worst polluted places in the world is ridiculous,� he said.

The comment by OSPC Board Chairman Mr. Patnaik is outrageous. He should talk about what steps his organization is taking, if any, to minimize pollution. Instead of saying that he talks about personal agenda. Does that mean OSPC is not taking any steps to reduce pollution?