Archive for the 'ENVIRONMENT' Category

Jairam Ramesh began the process of taking down the Indian economy and turned Ministry of Environment into a secret instrument for a new licence raj: Tavleen Singh

CENTER & ODISHA, ENVIRONMENT, EXPOSING ANTI-ODISHA-GROWTH SCHEMES, Puri, Universities: existing and upcoming 4 Comments »

Following is an excerpt from an article by Tavleen Singh in Indian Express.

So a junior minister, Jairam Ramesh, was allowed to begin the process of taking the Indian economy down by stopping huge infrastructure projects after investments worth thousands of crore rupees had already been made. Why did the Prime Minister not stop the Ministry of Environment from being turned into a secret instrument for a new licence raj?

Unfortunately, Odisha bore the biggest burnt of Jairam Ramesh’s folly when he stopped Vedanta University.

Environment ministry clears 6 coal mining proposals in Odisha: PTI

Coal, ENVIRONMENT, Sundergarh, Thermal Comments Off on Environment ministry clears 6 coal mining proposals in Odisha: PTI

Following is an excerpt from a PTI report in Times of India.

"All the six coal-blocks are part of the IB Valley coalfield and only one (Meenakshi-A) is presently in the ‘go’ area, the other five being in ‘no go’ areas. All six blocks will now be considered by FAC ( Forest Advisory Committee) as ‘go’ areas," Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said in a statement.

Giving green signal to clear coal-blocks linked to UMPP, NTPC and OPGC power plants, the Minister said the Power Ministry should give "special focus" on ash disposal and water availability.

Three coal-blocks (Meenakshi-A, Meenakshi-B and Meenakshi Dipside) have been allocated to the 3960MW/4000MW Ultra Mega Power Plant (UMPP).

Coal-blocks (Manoharpur and Manoharpur Dipside) have been allocated to the 1320 MW power plant of Orissa Power Generation Corporation (OPGC). One coal-block (Dulanga) has been allocated to NTPC’s 1600 MW power plant.

CSE’s strong support to set aside 26 percent of net profits from mining to be shared with local communities

APPEAL to readers, ENVIRONMENT, Keonjhar, Mine royalty and cess, MINES and MINERALS, Sundergarh 2 Comments »

Following is from the article at http://www.cseindia.org/content/cse-releases-its-report-profit-sharing-mining. This is for wider dissemination of the article. The highlights are done by us.

Bhubaneswar, June 24, 2011: Mining companies and industry in general have been opposing the government’s recent proposal to set aside 26 per cent of their net profits, to be shared with local communities. Their contention is that this provision, if passed by Parliament, would drastically dent their profitability. A recent analysis by New Delhi-based research and advocacy body, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), proves them wrong.

The Central government has come out with a draft Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) bill, 2010 (MMDR bill) to replace the 1957 Act. The draft bill which has been vetted by a GoM, includes this provision of sharing benefits. The CSE analysis comes out in strong support of this proposal, and clearly establishes how timely and necessary this provision is.

The CSE analysis was released here today in a Public Meeting chaired by Santha Sheela Nair, former secretary, Union ministry of mines. The meeting was attended by Manoj Ahuja, Secretary (Mines), Odisha government, BL Bagra, Chairman and Managing Director (NALCO) and Yashbant Narayan Singh Laguri, Member of Parliament (Keonjhar).

Speaking on the occasion, Chandra Bhushan, deputy director general of CSE said: "It is now well recognised across the world – including in India — that wealth generated by the mining sector comes at a substantial development cost, along with environmental damages and economic exclusion of the marginalised. In fact, the major mining districts of India are among its poorest and most polluted."

He added: "The government’s proposal to share the benefits of mining with local people is an important step ahead in building an inclusive growth model. It is also in line with the best practices being followed in the world. The principles are not new and many mineral-rich countries have been following it for years without impacting the genuine profitability of mining companies."

Profit sharing a global practice
To break this resource curse, a number of countries across the globe have incorporated the provision of benefit sharing in their mining legislations to enable local communities to benefit from mining activities in their region.

South Africa’s Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 gives communities the opportunity to obtain a ‘preferential right’ to prospect or mine a mineral on land registered under the name of the community.

In Canada, special mining regulations are in place to recognise the rights of the aboriginals. There are some treaties called land claim agreements (LCA) which establish defined area of land for aboriginals and cover issues of mineral rights. These agreements also give specific rights to aboriginals. For example, the Nunavut LCA grants Inuits the title to about 3.5 million ha of land and mineral rights to approximately 0.35 million ha. It also gives rights to Inuits in controlling how mining will proceed on lands owned by them. Usually in such circumstances, mineral leases are given to third party to develop those resources in exchange of signing an Impact Benefit Agreement (IBA). Even if both surface and subsurface right belongs to the government then also some rights like consultation are provided to aboriginals.

Papua New Guinea, for instance, has incorporated provisions under which the mine lease holder is to provide compensation to the landholders on whose land mining is to take place, under its Mining Act 1992. The compensation is dependent on the negotiating skills of the community/landholders. For instance, the Ok Tedi copper mines have a special institutional structure to manage and implement the 52 per cent dividends received from the mine operations. This is a legally binding obligation that the company must follow as per the legislation passed in November 2001.

In Australia, the aboriginals have been given special rights in case mining happens on their land. These rights are to be realised by mining agreements. Different parts of Australia, has varying laws regarding aboriginals and mining. For example, the Aboriginal Land Rights Northern Territory Act, 1976 establishes a financial regime whereby affected aboriginal people receive a share of the mining royalties earned from activity on aboriginal land. Australian government guarantee all mining royalty for aboriginal interests except 30 per cent which is reserved for the owners of the affected area.
 
Companies will lose profits? Hogwash
The CSE analysis clearly shows that the Indian mining sector enjoys huge profits. An analysis of the annual reports of three major non-coal mining companies (Manganese Ores India Ltd, Sesa Goa and National Mineral Development Corporation or NMDC) indicates that in 2009-10, their average profit after tax (PAT) was about 50 per cent of their turnovers. In the case of Coal India Limited, this was about 18 per cent.

Assuming the draft MMDR Act, 2010 becomes a law, the CSE analysis of companies shows that it will not make any material difference to the profitability of the company. After sharing 26 per cent of the net profit with the affected community, the PAT of National Mineral Development Corporation – for instance — will still be 41 per cent of its turnover (from 55 per cent). In the case of Coal India Limited, PAT will become 14 per cent of its turnover from 18 percent.

Rich lands, poor people
Almost all the country’s minerals are located in regions that also hold most of its forests, rivers and tribal populations. Mining and quarrying has destroyed large tracts of forest land in these areas, affecting the ecosystem and the livelihoods of the already impoverished tribals.

The top 50 mining districts of India, that account for more than 85 per cent of the value of minerals produced in the country (Rs. 85,00 crore), have close to 50 per cent of the total mine lease area in the country. These districts also have, on average more poverty, more forest cover and larger tribal population than rest of the country. According to CSE analysis, at least 2.5 million people are directly affected by mining in these districts which include those who have lost their land and livelihoods.

If the MMDR provision would have been implemented in the current year (2010-11), then the affected population of these districts could have got more than Rs 9,000 crore as share of profit from mining companies. The per capita figure for these districts could have been Rs. 38,000 in 2010-11 as share of profit from mining companies. 
 
The mining affected people in Odisha would have got about Rs 1,750 crore as share of profit from mining companies. This could have been used to reduce hunger, provide better health and education infrastructure and to ultimately bring people out of poverty. 

CSE examines a few cases in the state: Keonjhar currently produces more than one-fifth of India’s iron ore and contributes more than Rs 7,000 crore to value of minerals produced in the country. Worse, mining has done nothing for Keonjhar’s economic well being. Over 50 per cent of the district’s population is below poverty line (BPL). If the draft MMDR provisions would have been implemented for the present year, the affected people of the district would have money to the tune of Rs 750 crore as profit share (2010-11 figures). Every BPL household in Keonjhar would have got at least Rs 40,000 annually.   

Similarly, Sundargarh with Scheduled Tribes (ST) as about half its population, produces minerals worth Rs 2700 crore. The affected people of the district could get Rs 285 crore as share of profit from the mining companies. Every directly affected person from mining in Sundargarh could get Rs 45,000 annually. 

Says Chandra Bhushan: “This money should be used not only to reduce present impoverishment but also for future well being of the communities like investment in health and education. There is huge opposition to this bill and it may get axed. It is very important for the communities that this bill goes through.”

  • For more information on this, please contact Sugandh Juneja of CSE at sugandh@cseindia.org or call her on 9953805227

  • For additional information on CSE’s work in this area and subject,

Shimla, Jamnagar and Bhubaneswar have been selected to participate in the Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network – Dissemination & Replication (ACCCRN-D&R) project

Bhubaneswar- Cuttack- Puri, ENVIRONMENT, Khordha 1 Comment »

ICLEI stands for ‘International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives’. Following is from a recent announcement.

Three Indian Members selected for Dissemination & Replication stage of ACCCRN project

May 02, 2011

ICLEI South Asia is pleased to announce that three Indian cities, Shimla, Jamnagar and Bhubaneswar, all ICLEI Members, have been selected to participate in the Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network – Dissemination & Replication (ACCCRN-D&R) project on the basis of an Expression of Interest that was circulated to over 35 Indian cities.

The ACCCRN is made up of ten cities in India, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, currently experimenting with various adaptation activities that together aim to improve the ability of these cities to withstand and prepare for the projected impacts of climate change. The ultimate objective of ACCCRN is to provide poor and vulnerable people with the ability to respond to these impacts in an appropriate way.

In order to achieve this, the program partners have developed a diverse range of effective approaches, processes, and practices to build urban climate change resilience which incorporate the priorities of poor and vulnerable communities in the network’s cities.The approaches taken are determined by the local needs and priorities of each city.

Initiated in early 2009, with support from the Rockefeller Foundation, the first two phases of the project have been completed. The third phase has now been launched with a focus on disseminating and replicating the lessons learnt and the approaches developed in the previous phases.

In this third phase, the learning, models, approaches and best practices developed across the 10 pilot cities of the previous phases will be supplemented with best practices from other approaches which build urban climate resilience. This will all be developed into a tool that can be adopted by other cities to develop Climate Resilience Strategy Plans. ICLEI’s South Asia and Oceania offices have been commissioned to implement the third phase of ACCCRN in the three Indian cities.

Read more about the project on the ICLEI South Asia website.

Following is from http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=12113 about the project.

As part of the Dissemination & Replication phase, a total of 3 Indian cities have be selected for the dissemination of this tool. The selected cities would receive training in the process of formulating Climate Resilience Strategy Plans, which would broadly include:

1.       Undertaking vulnerability assessments
2.       Undertaking climate projection assessments
3.       Engaging stakeholders in the entire process to ensure social relevance and acceptance
4.       Developing a Climate Resilience Strategy Plan document
5.       Integrating the resilience strategy into urban planning and implementation processes

ICLEI SA along with ICLEI Oceania and ISET will replicate the learnings from the previous phases of ACCCRN initiative in 3 other cities. The various interventions are expected to target sectors like health, infrastructure, water, disaster, urban planning/development issues, services, disaster management and preparedness strategies.

The approach followed in the cities will be driven by local needs and requirements with the focus on developing resilience for the vulnerable communities from climate change impacts. ICLEI SA has been engaged to assist develop the methodology in a form suitable for the Indian context and to select and support the Indian cities during the trial period.

MOEF to develop a bio-culture park in Bhubaneswar; MOEF to get a digital copy of the early 18th century book Jardin de Lorixa by a Frenchman about plants of Odisha

Bhubaneswar- Cuttack- Puri, CENTER & ODISHA, ENVIRONMENT, Khordha, Parks, Sites in and around Bhubaneswar Comments Off on MOEF to develop a bio-culture park in Bhubaneswar; MOEF to get a digital copy of the early 18th century book Jardin de Lorixa by a Frenchman about plants of Odisha

Update: Jairam Ramesh has written to the the French ambassador regarding getting a digital copy of Jardine de Lorixa. Following is an excerpt from a report in inewsone.com.

Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh Thursday asked for help from the French envoy in India to get a digitised copy of a manuscript on plants in Orissa written by a Frenchman in 1725.

‘I have been told that the oldest document based on a scientific survey of plants in Orissa was written in the year 1725 by a Frenchman called Nikolas L. Empereur,’ said the letter to French Ambassador to India Jerome Bonnafont.

The document is currently available at the Natural History Museum in Paris.

‘I wonder whether we could get a digitized copy of this manuscript. Any expenses incurred in this regards will be borne by us,’ Ramesh said in the letter …


Following is an excerpt from a report in Hindu.

The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) proposes to develop a “bio-cultural park” on 10 acres here. It will be the first of its kind in the country.

… Environment and Forests Minister Jairam Ramesh said flowers associated with all religions and traditions of the country would find a place in the park.

Mr. Ramesh said: “Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik has responded positively to make land available for the purpose. Within the next two-and-half years, you will have India’s first bio-cultural park. Cultural traditions are not Hindu tradition only. Cultural traditions such as tribal, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, Islamic, and Christian would be followed while choosing species. The bio-cultural park will not just be a monument of flowers, but also will be reflective of our divergent cultural traditions.”

Thje MoEF would develop the park and then hand over it over to the State government. The idea was to draw strength from Indian culture for the cause of conservation of bio-resources. Traditionally, biological sources were being conserved in the form of sacred grooves, ‘nakshatravanams,’ ‘navagraha vatika,’ concept of panchvati and use of timber from ecologically important species for religious purposes.

… the park would be developed on the lines of ‘nakshatravanam …

Following is from http://www.orissalinks.com/archives/6592.

the Ministry would make efforts to get a digital copy of Jardin de Lorixa, considered to be the earliest scientific documentation of traditional/ indigenous knowledge about plants of Orissa, of which only one manuscript is available in Natural History Museum Paris (France).

Following are excerpts on the Jardin de Lorixa.

Following is from the cover of Jardine De Lorixa.

The fiefdom of Jairam Ramesh? Does whatever he likes, accepts whatever explanation that suits him, ignores whatever does not suit him or his prince

ENVIRONMENT Comments Off on The fiefdom of Jairam Ramesh? Does whatever he likes, accepts whatever explanation that suits him, ignores whatever does not suit him or his prince

Following is an excerpt from a report in DNA.

After giving clearance to Chiria mines and Korean giant POSCO’s steel plant s on “developmental” grounds, the environment ministry under Jairam Ramesh has once again been pushed to the backfoot — this time by Congress Member of Parliament Naveen Jindal’s Jindal Steel & Power.

The ministry on Monday announced it was withdrawing its earlier threat to withdraw environmental clearance to Jindal’s Rs25,000 crore steel and power plant in Angul, Orissa.

The ministry had, in November last year, sought cause as to why the clearance may not be withdrawn after it was proven that Jindal had started work on the project before getting forest clearance.

“The ministry, while according the environmental clearance, stipulated the specific condition: “no construction activity shall be initiated till the approval for the 168 hectare forest land is obtained… Serious non-compliance with the stipulated environment conditions reported above mandate commensurate action,” the ministry had said in its November order.

In the new order, the ministry seems to have accepted Jindal’s contention that the ‘no construction’ condition in the clearance was merely a well intentioned ‘advice’ and not a legal requirement.

The firm argued that the condition was there only to make sure that Jindal would not lose money on initial construction if the forest clearance ulitmately failed to come through and the project had to be abandoned.

It argued that “this clause is only intended to prevent the expenditure involved from proving to be infructuous if the diversion of forest land involved is not approved,” pointing to an “office memorandum” of the ministry.

As both stages of forest clearances have been obtained, Jindal Steel & Power pointed out, there is no case of withdrawing its environmental clearance.

The ministry too seemed to accept the ‘office memorandum’ agreement, abandoning its earlier stance that Jindal had violated clearance conditions.

“A circular has been issued by the Ministry on 6 January 2011 [after the show-cause notice was issued] .. that if a project involves forest as well as non-forest land, it is advisable that work should not be started on non-forest land till approval.. for the release of forest land has been given,” it noted in its final order.

POSCO non-approval approval; Odisha government should do the right thing

CENTER & ODISHA, ENVIRONMENT, Jagatsinghpur, POSCO, Steel Comments Off on POSCO non-approval approval; Odisha government should do the right thing

Update 2: The following excerpt from a report in Telegraph elaborates on the point where this may head to the courts.

Giving conditional clearance to the project, the Union environment and forests ministry had yesterday asked the state for an assurance that no one was so entitled. At stake is the final approval for the diversion of 1,253 hectares of forestland for the steel plant and its captive port.

Jagatsinghpur collector Narayan Jena today argued that no one met the criteria under which they could legitimately stake claim to any part of the forestland. This was challenged by the Posco Pratirodh Sangram Samiti, which is resisting the project.

Under the 2006 law, tribals can claim rights over forestland on which they are currently living or dependent for livelihood. According to the state government, no tribal lives in the project area.

However, the 2006 law also allows Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs) to claim forest rights provided they satisfy three criteria. The claimants must:

• Have lived on the forestland for 75 years prior to December 13, 2005;

• Have been in occupation of the land before December 13, 2005;

• Be dependent on the forestland for their “bona fide” livelihood needs.

Collector Jena declined comment on the Union ministry’s riders since the official order is yet to be received, but tried to clear the air on the matter of forest rights.

He said the project area had been notified as protected forest area only in 1961 — so technically, no OTFD could claim to have lived in a “forest” there for 75 years. “Had there been tribals in the area, the situation would have been different. But no OTFD can claim such benefits because its forest status does not go back 75 years,” he said.

He conceded that the area was part of Burdwan estate before 1952, when there were reserve forests in Jatadhari and Bhuyanpal, which are part of the project area. But he insisted that the area was completely uninhabited now.

However, the Union tribal ministry says that claimants under the OTFD category do not have to prove they live on the forestland but only that they depend on it for their “bona fide” livelihood needs.

Jena countered this by alleging that claimants to land in the project area were encroachers, implying their claims about dependence for livelihood would be untenable.


Update: Following is from an editorial in Economic Times. I am in agreement with the observations there.

Environment minister Jairam Ramesh has passed the Posco buck, nominally to the government of Orissa but, in reality, to the courts. His final clearance of the project depends on a categorical assertion by the government of Orissa that there are no ‘other traditional forest dwellers’ among those whose land would be diverted for the project. … Now, if the government of Orissa does provide the Centre with the categorical assertion that it has sought on the nature of the people who would be displaced, it is inevitable that the villagers would go to court.

Whether the affected villagers are indeed people whom the Forest Rights Act seeks to protect is a matter of fact that would then be left to the courts to verify, beyond final challenge in the Supreme Court. This will take time. But a lengthy pilgrimage through the shrines of graded sanctity of Indian legality is not the only future open to Posco. The company can make a fresh, larger-hearted and better funded effort to win over the villagers whose lives and livelihoods would be disrupted by the project than the current one rejected by the villagers. People need certainty about their future incomes and occupations, and these would need to be superior to what they are asked to give up. This would not take much, given how the villagers eke out a living. But it does call for imagination, empathy and a willingness to engage directly with the villagers and not just with political and bureaucratic powerbrokers.

The state has to show its earnestness. At the same time, companies and their projects must respect, not bend, the people of India and their laws. The Posco decision sets the stage for companies to show how they are inclined.


While the news media is buzz with the conditional approval of POSCO by the environment ministry, the interview with NAC Chairperson NC Saxena elaborates on the nuance behind the approval. While I am not conversant with the detailed aspects of the law here, I hope the Odisha government follows the law of the land to the dot and makes sure that displaced as well as project affected people are adequately and properly compensated. At the same I hope people and groups who blindly oppose this focus their attention towards helping the project affected and displaced people.

Following are excerpts from a CNBC-TV18 interview of NC Saxena which spells out the nuances behind the non-approval approval.

Korean steel giant POSCO has welcomed the conditional approval, which comes three years after the plant was first envisaged. It says it will maintain 25% of the area allocated for the steel plant as green cover. As per the ministry’s conditions, POSCO says it will earmark 2% of its net India profits for its corporate social responsibility drive. It will also work on creating sustainable livelihood options for people affected by the project. POSCO adds that it plans to ensure conservation of land and marine environment at the site. However, member of the National Advisory Council or NAC, NC Saxena has said that the order should not be read as a clearance. Speaking to CNBC-TV18, Saxena said the Orissa government should recognise the rights of the people. The Orissa government’s rehabilitation package is very weak, he said. He however added that the package was not the concern of the Ministry of Environment and Forests.

…Q: Finally a clearance being given to POSCO by the ministry of environment but you and your panel had said that there were several violations of the forest rights act by the Orissa government while the land acquisition had actually taken place. Now if I look at the order that’s been put out by the ministry of environment it clearly says that the final approval for diversion of 1253 hectares of forest land for the POSCO project would be granted as soon as there is an assurance from the state government to the ministry of finance that there is indeed no violation as far as other traditional forest dweller rights are concerned, how are you reading this?

A: Infact I don’t think it can be read as a clearance because if you see the order very carefully it very clearly says that there are conditions to be satisfied. For instance it says that there are 3 conditions. People have to be living there for the last three generations, people have to be in occupation since December 2005 and also they should depend on forest lands. Orissa government’s case was that occupation is also necessary for 3 generations which is not true.

So I am very happy that the minister has clarified that it is only living which is there for 3 generations. Minister has also clarified that these people who are forest dwellers they don’t have to claim their rights, its for the state government to recognize their rights, so therefore Orissa government if it is to stick to its own records would find it very difficult to declare that none of these condition are satisfied and I am sure that people will get justice.

Q: … so then how does one actually progress from here because the riders are going to be very difficult for the Orissa government to comply with?

A: The Orissa government should first of all recognize the rights of these people and grant the rights under the forest rights act, then they can acquire the land under the land acquisition law. I do not know why Orissa government is not willing to talk to the people. The other point is Orissa governments rehabilitation package is very weak.

They recognize rehabilitation only for those who are displaced. It should also recognize those who are affected so therefore a large number of people are losing their livelihoods, their incomes are being affected and they should also be compensated. Once you do that, if my income is Rs 5000 a month and Orissa government says I will give you Rs 10000 I am sure I will be very happy so that’s how Orissa government should deal with resentment.

Q: … this doesn’t really spell out what more needs to be done to strengthen the rehabilitation package?

A: Rehabilitation package is not the concern of the Ministry of Environment and Forest and therefore the minister has rightly not dealt with that issue but that is certainly an issue which the Orissa government and also the Ministry of Tribal affairs should be concerned with.

The ministries concern, the MoEF’s concern was only with the forest conservation act and the environmental protection act and therefore they have not commented but of you read Meena Gupta’s report and also the 3 members report they have dealt with this question in great detail and they have suggested how to strengthen and augment the whole rehabilitation package.

Q: … hence the uncertainty continues?

A: Infact yes I would say that uncertainty does not continue. Orissa government has been given a very clear order and they should comply with it …

So Orissa government should go ahead recognize their forest rights and then only think of further action. So therefore I think a very clear order has been given and it can be complied with. The project can also be completed provided Orissa government has a good rehabilitation package and observes all the laws specially the Forest Rights Act.

Tavleen Singh on irresponsible activism of N C Saxena that greatly harms Odisha

CENTER & ODISHA, ENVIRONMENT, EXPOSING ANTI-ODISHA-GROWTH SCHEMES 4 Comments »

Following is from Tavleen Singh’s article in Indian Express.

Last week in the Idea Exchange page opposite was the interview of a man who has been responsible for terminating a project that could have turned India into a hub for aluminum production and brought enormous prosperity to Orissa. I read the interview with N C Saxena carefully to try and understand what he did and was astounded to discover his reason. He said that if Vedanta had provided 500 jobs to local people, the environmental inquiry committee that destroyed its bauxite refinery in the Niyamgiri hills would have taken quite a different view.

The reason why this was so astounding an admission was because it is impossible to believe that someone prepared to invest more than Rs 11,000 crores in a project should not have been able to take care of 500 jobs. Mr Saxena admits that the adivasis of Niyamgiri were as keen on improving their lives as anyone else. “They also want to see TV and own cell phones, because now they have seen that some of them who are lucky enough to get a job in the factory have a cell phone. They also want to have that kind of life. No one has given a thought to what can be done to improve the lives of the 100 or 500 families there.”

So, we have a situation in which because 500 people did not manage to get jobs in the refinery, an investment of Rs 11,000 crores will go waste and a project that could have helped double the revenue of Orissa stands terminated. Even more worrying is that a member of the committee that recommended the closure of Vedanta’s refinery should admit that they did this despite noticing that the adivasis would have benefited if the project had not been closed. It is important here to note that Mr Saxena is on Sonia Gandhi’s National Advisory Council (NAC) so we must assume that he represents a wider consensus at the top.

As someone who visited Koraput and Kalahandi during the drought in 1987 when adivasi women were selling their babies for as little as Rs 40, may I say that the poverty I saw was hideous. The sight of small children dying slowly of hunger on the dirt floor of mud huts is one of the worst things I have ever seen. Things have improved since then but only barely as most adivasis in most parts of India continue to live off what they can make from marginal farming. Their lives are so devoid of even minimum comforts that nobody can hope that they should continue to live forever off their small scraps of land. And, yet there are mighty NGO crusaders these days who want to ‘preserve’ what they call ‘tribal culture’.

They see the hideous poverty and the mud huts of ‘forest dwellers’ as charming and romantic without noticing that the adivasis do not agree with them. This is evident from the fact that it is from the ranks of adivasi forest dwellers that the Maoists recruit their troops. This is evident from the eagerness with which adivasis embrace modernity and the benefits of the 21st century any chance they get. The young adivasi girls who greeted Rahul Gandhi when he went to Niyamgiri to tell them that he was their ‘sipahi’ in Delhi had hairpins in their hair that could only have come from a modern shop.

This brings me to another interesting aspect of the closure of Vedanta’s refinery. Nobody seems sure why it happened. Rahul Gandhi in his speech the day after the refinery was closed said he was happy that the adivasis had managed to save their land. The Environment Minister announced that he was closing the refinery down because it violated forest laws and now we hear from a member of the ministry’s inquiry committee that the problem was 500 jobs. What is really going on?

Whatever it is, the only people who are winning are those who would like to see India’s poorest people remain poor forever and ever. If Vedanta’s project had not been closed and if Posco manages somehow to go ahead with its steel plant, the revenue of one of our poorest states could double. How can this be a bad thing?

Only massive private investment can bring the schools, hospitals and basic living standards that India’s poorest citizens desperately need. For more than sixty years, taxpayers’ money has been poured into government schemes that have served mostly to make some officials very rich. So when a major private investment is delayed or cancelled on flimsy grounds, it is an act of extreme irresponsibility. It is India’s misfortune that this kind of arbitrary action is becoming the leitmotif of Dr Manmohan Singh’s government. As an economist, he knows the irreparable damage being caused. Why does he not stop it?

Swapan Dasgupta on Jairam Ramesh’s arbitariness and malevolent political calculations; Odisha is the worst affected

CENTER & ODISHA, ENVIRONMENT, EXPOSING ANTI-ODISHA-GROWTH SCHEMES 9 Comments »

Following is an excerpt from Swapan Dasgupta’s article in the Telegraph.

… The last occasion Singh spoke publicly on the unending growth versus environment controversy was at a media interaction on September 6 last year. Asked about industry’s fear of the rampaging minister for environment, Jairam Ramesh, the PM proffered what seemed a tangential answer. We have, he said, no intention of reverting to the licence-permit raj.

The answer was revealing. Having played a part in blunting the jagged edges of over-regulation, Singh was able to see the headline-grabbing actions of Ramesh for what they really are: a resuscitation of controls, using a ‘green’ cover.

… The rise and rise of Jairam Ramesh has been one of the most astonishing stories of 2010. An apparatchik with not even a hint of a mass base, he is today arguably the most powerful minister in the UPA-II government. He has become to economic policy what Pranab Mukherjee is to political management. His reputation isn’t based on his success in making India a more green and pleasant land but on his penchant for saying ‘no’. In a polity where real power lies with the states, he has made his ministry the instrument of the Centre’s intrusiveness, with devastating consequences.

Ramesh’s ‘achievements’ are awesome. He has blocked the largest foreign direct investment of Rs 51,000 crore by Posco in Orissa, stymied the emergence of India as the largest aluminium producing hub in the world, disrupted the Rs 2,000 crore initial public offering of the first private sector-created hill station of Lavasa in Maharashtra, and put a spanner in the works of two Jindal-promoted steel plants in Orissa and Chhattisgarh. The opportunity costs of his veto may well equal the Mahatma Gandhi national rural employment guarantee scheme budget!

That’s not all. He has unilaterally flouted all guidelines and committed India at Cancún to positions that could undermine national sovereignty and jeopardize the country’s future growth. He has shifted the parameters of India’s environment diplomacy at both Copenhagen and Cancún, disregarding the advice of India’s tried-and-tested negotiators. What is particularly striking is the dreary frequency with which he has personally repudiated the inviolable red lines of India’s global positions, much to the amusement of the rest of the world.

In between, he has questioned the government’s approach to national security during a visit to China and batted shamelessly for Chinese companies, presumably in pursuit of his Chindia pipe dream. More astonishing, Ramesh has done all this and more after repeatedly rubbing the PM and senior cabinet colleagues the wrong way.

A lesser politician would have been shown the door and made to cool his heels on the back benches. Shashi Tharoor (before his political hara-kiri) was ticked off by party bigwigs for his harmless displays of public-school humour on Twitter. But Ramesh has emerged unscathed from all the controversies and, indeed, grown from strength to strength. He even considered it prudent to level a blanket accusation at the entire political class, claiming harassment by members of parliament lobbying for corporates that have been stung by his decisions.

There are activists who see Ramesh as the best thing since sliced bread: a doughty ‘green’ crusader who is not afraid of doing what is right and playing by the rule book. He has, they say, put environmental activism on the map of India, not least by heeding Medha Patkar on Lavasa, Bianca Jagger on Vedanta and Greenpeace on Posco, appointing National Advisory Council activists to expert committees, and being influenced by internationally-funded advocacy groups on climate change. If public opinion in India was shaped by earnest graduates of American liberal arts colleges and environmental journalists, Ramesh would have been top dog politically — with the added attribute that he is ‘very close’ to the equally earnest heir apparent.

Unfortunately, life isn’t all black and white. Behind Ramesh’s fearless willingness to kick all polluters in the butt lurk malevolent political calculations. The minister, for example, played with a straight bat on the airport in Navi Mumbai. He made Praful Patel sweat, shed tears for the mangrove swamps and then proceeded to clear the project with token caveats. The stakes were just too high and any non-clearance would have led to him being roasted alive by the state Congress.

Equally, he deemed the Jaitapur nuclear power plant of strategic importance and linked it with the Indo-US nuclear agreement. In a different context, he would have waved a report by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, describing the project as a “social disaster”, to issue an immediate ‘stop work’ notice. This time, the protests didn’t matter because they were, in his view, “politics on the pretext of environment”.

He should know. The stay on Vedanta’s Niyamgiri project was timed to allow Rahul Gandhi his “sipahi” moment. The dispute in Lavasa arose out of a turf battle: should the clearances have come from the Maharashtra government or the Centre? In the case of Posco, Vedanta and Jindal, brownie points were earned by deflating Naveen Patnaik’s aspirational balloon. Additionally, in the case of Posco, there was the delight of undermining the prime minister, who had taken a personal interest in the successful completion of the project. Presumably, from Ramesh’s perspective, these decisions didn’t amount to playing “politics on the pretext of environment”.

There were other sub-texts as well. The Lavasa promoter, it is widely believed, was tarred and made to suffer a huge loss of business credibility for supposedly being ‘close’ to Sharad Pawar. A project which began in 2004 and has more or less completed its first phase was ordered by Ramesh’s ministry to restore status quo ante! The order was subsequently modified but it revealed a mindset. In the case of Vedanta, N.C. Saxena, a member of the inquiry committee, recently admitted to The Indian Express that the decision would have been different if the company had given jobs to 500 local tribals. Posco was asked by Ramesh’s ministry to commit some Rs 3,000 crore to a corporate social responsibility programme as a precondition of clearance. These may be worthwhile political calculations, but they were certainly not “green” considerations.

In a recent interview, Ramesh claimed that “I want to professionalise the system of decision-making. I have proposed the establishment of a National Environmental Assessment and Monitoring Authority — a professional body, independent of the Ministry.” This may well happen in the future but, for the moment, Ramesh has made the ministry of environment a celebration of discretion and arbitrariness. He has merrily set about adding to the scope of his jurisdiction, taking on non-Congress state governments and overturning existing clearances. His ‘green’ norms are breathtakingly simple — “show me the person, I’ll show you the rule.” That, many would say, is what defines governance in India.

POSCO gets green signal from EAC of MOEF with many conditions: DNA

ENVIRONMENT, Jagatsinghpur, Paradip - Jatadhari - Kujanga, POSCO, Steel, Thermal 2 Comments »

Update: A DNA report the next day has this to say:

The favourable stand taken by the expert appraisal committee (EAC) on the POSCO steel plant in Orissa does not ensure an automatic green signal to the project, environment minister Jairam Ramesh has said.

EAC’s positive recommendations are seen as a precursor to the ministry’s clearance for a project. Set up under the environment impact assessment notification of 2006, the committee assesses a range of issues related to a proposed project and recommends whether or not to grant approval to it. The ministry generally goes by its recommendation.

Ramesh clarified that a final decision on POSCO would be taken only after two weeks. The response has again put the fate of India’s biggest foreign direct investment project in doubt.


Following is from a report in DNA.

After running into several hurdles, the Rs51,000-crore POSCO steel plant project in Orissa has finally received the green signal from environment minister Jairam Ramesh. The decision comes as a big relief for the Indian industry which has been under tremendous pressure due to objections raised by the ministry over environment issues.

The steel project, being promoted by South Korean steel major POSCO in Jagatsinghpur district of Orissa, is the biggest foreign investment in the country. It was put on hold after the ministry cited violations of environment and forest laws by the company. The decision of the expert appraisal committee (EAC) of the ministry followed several public hearings and meetings with officials of POSCO India limited and the state government.

The EAC, however, has imposed tough conditions — running into 80 clauses — on the promoters. The most important of these is that at least 5% of the total cost of the project should be earmarked for corporate social responsibility. This means, POSCO will need to set aside at least Rs2,000 crore for this purpose only.

The committee also announced the resettlement and rehabilitation policy for tribals and fishermen to be affected by the project. Of 4,004 acres of the project area, 3,566 acres is revenue forest land. The company has acquired nearly 100 acres for resettlement of 418 families. The compensation for betel vine growers has been doubled and fishermen would get Rs2,00,000 per acre of prawn pond. Earlier, there was no compensation norm for fishermen.

The committee agreed that the plant area of 4,000 acres is compact for a 12 MTPA integrated steel plant with a captive power generation capacity and a port. It said construction of the port and development of greenery within the plant on 1,000 acres (25% of plant area) should commence simultaneously with the plant’s construction and be completed within eight years.

The project proposes establishing an integrated steel plant which will have an initial capacity of four MTPA and final capacity of 12 MTPA. It will have a captive port and a power plant of 400 MW. The EAC agreed with the seasonal basis on which the clearance was recommended in 2007 but insisted that on the basis of comprehensive environment impact assessment (EIA) report placed before it, aspects set out in subsequent paragraphs of these minutes must be revisited during the implementation of the project and conformity to norms verified and reported to the ministry.

The promoters have been asked to take steps to check vehicular pollution during transportation of raw material and finished products as well as dust emission during loading and unloading.

Raw material shall be stacked at earmarked sites in sheds/stockyards with wind breakers/shields and secure of fire hazard.

Location for Tata power in Naraj is more apt for a Knowledge Park

Bhubaneswar- Cuttack- Puri, CENTER & ODISHA, Cuttack, ENVIRONMENT, HRD-n-EDUCATION (details at orissalinks.com), IT, New Indian Express, Indian Express, Financial express, Tatas, Thermal 2 Comments »

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

The wildlife wing of the Forest department has raised concerns over the setting up of 1,000 mw thermal power plant proposed by Tata Power Company at Naraj.

Its proximity to critical sites, impact of pollution on them as well as on the wildlife are issues the wildlife wing is worried about. The ` 4,900 cr coal-based power project is proposed at Naraj Marthapur, about 12 km from Cuttack and 20 km from Bhubaneswar.

“The Centre had referred the project site matter to me. Subsequently, I inspected the proposed power plant site and submitted a report in which I have indicated certain concerns relating to environment and wildlife,” Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) P N Padhi said on Monday.

One of the major issues is its location. According to Padhi’s report, the power plant is proposed amidst six critical sites.

It has Bhubaneswar and Cuttack on both sides and it is located between two major rivers __ Mahanadi and Kathjodi.

Besides, it is flanked by two wildlife habitats __ Chandaka- Dampara wildlife sanctuary on the one hand and Nandankanan Zoological Park and Zoo, also a notified sanctuary, on the other.

“With two protected areas (PAs) on its sides, a thermal power plant may have adverse impact on wildlife,” Padhi said. Chandaka, for one, is an elephant sanctuary and has witnessed growing man-animal conflict over the past 10 years.

Besides, the jumbos are known to stray out of their habitats more frequently in the last few years.

Similarly, apprehension of pollution is a major concern …

The power project, which is located in Cuttack Sadar tehsil, needs about 990 acres. It is well close to a road that connects Khurda, Chandaka, Barang and Gobindpur. …

That location (close to Sri Sri University) is apt for a knowledge park. Since the Tatas have already worked hard on the land acquisition Odisha government should tell them that instead of a power plant they should create a Knowledge Park there. It could include a large operation of TCS, a TCS training center like the Infosys center in Mysore, space and infrastructure for multiple universities, medical colleges, etc.

There the total land area is about 990 acres. Currently such an amount of contiguous land is not available so close to Bhubaneswar where one can build IT parks and knowledge parks.

So the Odisha government should consider giving the Tatas some other land for their power plant and use that land for a knowledge park, possibly even built by the Tatas.


Professor Sumit Ganguly on the Vedanta decision by Ramesh

Aluminium, Anil Agarwal, Bauxite, ENVIRONMENT, EXPOSING ANTI-ODISHA-GROWTH SCHEMES, Kalahandi, Vedanta 6 Comments »

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.

Varied coverage on Vedanta and Jairam Ramesh’s high-handedness

Aluminium, Anil Agarwal, Bauxite, CENTER & ODISHA, ENVIRONMENT, EXPOSING ANTI-ODISHA-GROWTH SCHEMES, Kalahandi, Vedanta Comments Off on Varied coverage on Vedanta and Jairam Ramesh’s high-handedness

Earlier the media thought that the underdogs were the locals and tribal and the valiant NGOs fighting for them against the big monster Vedanta. So all the stories (except direct publishing of Vedanta press releases which they had to do once in while to keep getting Vedanta’s ads) were from the angle of how mining in Niyamgiri would destroy the way of life of the tribals. How Vedanta did this mistake or that mistake which was magnified and circulated by the NGOs. No body outside of the government and Vedanta dared to defend the mining aspects as they were afraid of being labeled as bought outs, being bribed, or just monsters who do not care about poor people and tribals.

But now it seems Jairam Ramesh has behaved in such a high handed and partisan manner that slowly the media is discovering the other side of the story; which they mostly ignored earlier.

Here are some of the coverages.

1. From http://ibnlive.in.com/news/volteface-vedantas-opposer-turns-soft/129818-3.html.

In a shocking volte-face, the most vocal tribal voice against the Vedanta project in Niyamgiri hills of Orissa, is now its brand ambassador – Jitu Jakesika is now trying to convince tribals on the benefits of the mining project. Twenty-two-year-old Jitu Jakesika belonging to the Dongoria tribe of Orissa had come out in fierce opposition against the Vedanta mining project in 2008, when Rahul Gandhi had first visited Langigarh. He’s now crossed the line and is espousing the Vedanta cause.

"The NGOs and the political parties used to come to us and tell us that Vedanta would blast at Niyamgiri hills to extract bauxite and thus our livelihood and culture would be destroyed. I was convinced by their theory though I was educated. Later, I realised that this mining project will not have a detrimental effect on our livelihood and culture in any way. It would rather usher in development in our area." In 2009 Jitu was sponsored by Vedanta to study business administration in Bhubaneswar. His views have changed since. Jitu’s critics allege bribery and corruption. But he is unfazed.

"Our tribal people worship at the Niyamdanga hills not at the adjoining Niyamgiri hills as is being propagated by the NGOs. So where is the question of our worship place being destroyed coming from? We tribals worship mostly in our houses," insists Jitu.

Vedanta had also sponsored a visit of the tribals to NALCO’s bauxite mining site in Koraput, gaining some supporters for the mining project in the process. Now, Jitu has intentions of visiting Delhi soon to meet Rahul Gandhi and the prime minister and convey to them that all tribals in his community are not against the Vedanta project. However, whether Jitu’s contrarian voice would be heard or not isn’t clear yet.

We earlier mentioned Jitu in our article http://www.orissalinks.com/orissagrowth/archives/3762.

2. From a rediff article by Nilmadhab Mohanty.

 

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!

 

The highhandedness I refer to is that fact that Ranesh did not give much of a chance to hear the Odisha government’s response to the Saxena committee report. He seems to have already made up his mind. So much so that Rahul Gandhi’s trip to Kalahandi was already announced on August 21st, while CM Naveen Patnaik met PM Manmohan Singh and Jairam ramesh on August  23rd and Jairam Ramesh met the Odisha government officials on August 24th. 

No one will believe that Rahul Gandhi made the decision to visit Kalahandi without knowing what Ramesh’s decision would be. Ramesh’s scant regard for what Odisha has to say on the issue shows his highhandedness. His informing Rahul Gandhi about the decision before even the report was submitted by FAC on August 23 shows that the government in Delhi is not a democratic government but a fiefdom of the Gandhi’s.

There are many more disturbing questions raised by the rediff article by Nilmadhab Mohanty.

3. The article by Saubhik Chakrabarti in Indian Express raises many other questions.

4. The blog entry at http://www.hindustantimes.com/7-questions-on-Vedanta-Niyamgiri-and-economic-development/Article1-593564.aspx

5. Tavleen Singh in Indian Express: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/politics-pollutes-the-environment/673939/0

6. Indian Express Editorial: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/whose-agitation/673470/0

7. B G Verghese in Business Standard: http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/sep/06/slide-show-1-was-it-right-to-stop-vedanta.htm

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/b-g-verghese-stop-vedanta-stop-india/406911/

See also his op-ed in Expressbuzz.com.

Saubhik Chakrabarti gives a nuanced picture of Lanjigarh in Indian Express

Aluminium, Anil Agarwal, Bauxite, CENTER & ODISHA, ENVIRONMENT, EXPOSING ANTI-ODISHA-GROWTH SCHEMES, Kalahandi, New Indian Express, Indian Express, Financial express, Vedanta 2 Comments »

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.

Politics behind Lanjigarh becoming clearer?

Aluminium, Anil Agarwal, Bauxite, CENTER & ODISHA, ENVIRONMENT, Kalahandi, Mine related pollution, Vedanta 1 Comment »

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.

How Ramesh went about rejecting the environment clearance to Vedanta Resources? What are the violations he claims that occured?

Aluminium, Anil Agarwal, Business Standard, ENVIRONMENT, Kalahandi, Odisha govt. action, Odisha govt. Inaction, Vedanta 2 Comments »

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.

 


 

Odisha government responds to the Saxena Committee report on Vedanta’s operations in Kalahandi

Anil Agarwal, Bauxite, ENVIRONMENT, Forestization, Key Center-State issues, Mine related pollution, Supreme Court, Vedanta 2 Comments »

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.

Jairam Ramesh, environment, Vedanta and Odisha

Alleged rogues, Anil Agarwal, Bauxite, Bhubaneswar- Cuttack- Puri, ENVIRONMENT, EXPOSING ANTI-ODISHA-GROWTH SCHEMES, Forestization, Kalahandi, Key Center-State issues, Koraput, Malkangiri, Mine related pollution, Nabarangpur, Puri, Vedanta 12 Comments »

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. 

What’s Rahul Gandhi up to in Odisha?

Aluminium, Anil Agarwal, ENVIRONMENT, EXPOSING ANTI-ODISHA-GROWTH SCHEMES, Jagatsinghpur, Kalahandi, POSCO, South Korea, Steel 5 Comments »

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.

Odisha Climate Change Action Plan: Draft available to receive more inputs

ENVIRONMENT, Odisha govt. action 2 Comments »

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!

PIB: CCEA NOD for Rs. 1156 crore Integrated Coastal Zone Management Project; 200+ crores for Odisha

Bhadrakh, Chilika, ENVIRONMENT, Ganjam, Jagatsinghpur, Kendrapada, Khordha, PIB - GOI, World Bank Comments Off on PIB: CCEA NOD for Rs. 1156 crore Integrated Coastal Zone Management Project; 200+ crores for Odisha

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

POSCO gets clearance of 2900 acres from the environment ministry

ENVIRONMENT, Jagatsinghpur, POSCO, Steel Comments Off on POSCO gets clearance of 2900 acres from the environment ministry

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.

Cleaning of polluting mines in Orissa

COURT JUDGEMENTS, Jajpur, Jajpur Rd- Vyasanagar- Duburi- Kalinganagar, Keonjhar, Mine related pollution, Odisha govt. action Comments Off on Cleaning of polluting mines in Orissa

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.