___________

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,

Following are snapshots from the page http://www.economist.com/content/indian-summary. (Note: I do not endorse or agree with these maps. These are just what the Economist website has.)

Following are excerpts from a report in Orissadiary.com.

… the Government of Orissa planned to renovate and conserve eight heritage properties currently in different stages of ruin, along the coast. This special initiative is a part of the Integrated Coastal Zone Management Project, which is being implemented in Orissa along with Gujrat and West Bengal with support from the World Bank. 

… A special consultancy with funding support from with help from “Italian Trust Fund for Culture and Sustainable Development”, was undertaken to identify opportunities to promote local economic development connected to conservation of the built heritage and to promote linkages with conservation of traditional stone craft and enhancement of the State Museum at Bhubaneswar by LASA – INTACH consortium being facilitated by The World Bank.

… The eight significant heritage sites earmarked for restoration and tourism promotion are Bhaba Kundaleswar Temple of Manikpatna and Baliharchandi Temple in Puri district, Harihardeva Temple of Nairi in Khurda district, Potagada Fort, British Cemetry of Ganjam and Bateswar Temple of Kantiagada in Ganjam district, Jagannath Temple of Pentha and Jamboo Colonial Building in Kedrapara district.

… The preservation and restoration work would be implemented in next five years and Rs.7.41cr will be spent on this component as per the ICZMP plan. Preservation of cultural heritage and monuments along coastal stretch will be undertaken through the involvement of experts like LASA-INTACH. The work will undertake the structural conservation, chemical conservation, environmental up-gradation and illumination of the monuments. Primarily, the aesthetic and grand classic look of the monuments and the cultural sites will be maintained. Any contemporary work and intervention will be avoided to preserve the historical and physical integrity of the cultural property. The monuments are selected on the basis of their architectural, sculptural, historical and religious importance among the 160km coastal zone of the ICZMP pilot project area. …

BHABA KUNDELASHWAR TEMPLE at Manikpatna, Puri

The Shaivite temple is situated in Manikpatna village close to the new sea mouth of the Chilika Lake. The temple is a State protected monument and covered under Orissa Monuments Preservation Act, 1956. The temple is a part of a larger piligrimage route linked with the Jagannath temple at Puri. The temple marks the site of the blessing to the Gajpati Purushottamadeva on his famous Kanchi-Kaberi expedition. The legendary Manika, a milkmaid from the village, believed to offer curds to Lord Jagannatha and Balabhadra at the temple sites. The folk-lore suggests Lords are part of the royal army to bless the Gajpati.  

HARIHARADEVA  TEMPLE at Sanannairi, Khorda

This twin temple of Shiva and Vishnu is a State protected monument and covered under Orissa Monuments Preservation Act 1956. As the legend goes during the campaign of Kalapahar, the invader, when the Jagannatha temple at Puri was desecrated, the images are believed to have been brought here and hidden on an island, which is about 10minute boat ride away. They were also kept in the Harihar temple for some time.

POTAGADA FORT AND CEMETRY at Potagada, Ganjam

The construction of the unique star shaped fort was commenced in 1768 by Cotsword. The adjoining Cemetery contains interesting monuments in form of tomb stones. The French were the earlier settlers in this place who were later driven away by the British. The local folklore is that the site was under a curse and therefore an epidemic broke. The fort was surrounded by a moat.

The cemetery is one of the earliest one of British Administrators and comprise tombstones with spire like monuments in masonry.

HARCHANDI TEMPLE AT BALIHARICHANDI, Puri

The Shakti temple, 800meter away from the sea coast is under the State Preservation Act of 1956. The Bakiharichandi temple is 27km from Puri and linked through ritual and patronage, to the Jagannatha Temple complex at Puri. There are multiple stories about inception of this temple. The Goddess is believed to have killed Kalapahar at the temple spot. The temple also marks the spot where Indra’s Vajra, Shiva’s Trishul and his anger, in the form of the fire (Agni), as well as the wind and the sea come together. 

OLD BUILDING at Jamboo, Kendrapara

The structure is a nineteenth century building that had been used for administrative purposes and cyclone shelter by the British.

STATE MUSEUM, Bhubaneswar

LASA –INTACH consortium; have developed the master plan of the State Museum with the inputs from the experts including the Italian experts. The inputs from Italy would certainly help to make our State museum world class.  

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.

• From http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=12120: "Jardin de Lorixa ("Flora of Orissa") authored by a certain L’Empereur, an outstanding work consisting of 725 double-folio paintings of 722 plant species"
• From http://www.circulatingknowledge.ugent.be/index.php?id=16&type=file: " *Jardin de Lorixa* a lesser known herbal commissioned by a French surgeon in Bengal in the early 18th century."
• From http://www.conservationandsociety.org: "a long forgotten herbal known as Le Jardin de Lorixa ( The garden of Orissa ) and credited to a surgeon named Nicolas L’Empereur in the employ of the French Compagnie des Indes"
•  The book "Relocating Modern Science Circulation and the Construction of Scientific Knowledge in South Asia and Europe : Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries" by Kapil Raj (Maître de conférences at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris) has one of its six sections dedicated to this. This section is titled: "I. SURGEONS, FAKIRS, MERCHANTS, AND CRAFTSMEN : MAKING L’EMPEREUR’S JARDIN IN EARLY MODERN South Asia" and has the following chapters.
  • 1. From a Forgotten Codex in a Paris Archive
  • 2. To Eastern India in the Seventeenth Century
  • 3. The Origins of the Jardin de Lorixa
  • 4. Making the Jardin de Lorixa
  • 5. The Jardin de Lorixa and the Hortus MaLibaricus
  • 6. L’Empereur’s Jardin Comes to Paris
  • 7. And Gets Anonymized in the Jardin du Roi

Following is from the cover of Jardine De Lorixa.

(Thanks to http://orissadiary.com/CurrentNews.asp?id=26974.)

Hon’ble Deputy Chairman, esteemed Members of the Planning Commission, Hon’ble Chief Ministers of the eastern region, senior officers of the Planning Commission and State Governments. 

2. Let me convey my appreciation to the Planning Commission for initiating the regional consultation process with State Governments and other stakeholders for finalizing the Approach to the 12th Five Year Plan.  The Planning Commission has identified twelve strategy challenges for the Twelfth Plan.  These strategy challenges need to be carefully analyzed at the State level.   While it may not be possible to discuss in detail all strategic issues, I would like to highlight a few major aspects concerning the development needs of States like Odisha. 

3. The first challenge of the 12th Plan is to enhance the economy’s capacity for growth and to mobilize adequate resources from various sources.  It may be worth mentioning that the economy of Odisha has historically grown and diversified at a very slow pace except in the last decade when it has achieved a real average growth rate of more than 9 percent per annum at 1999-2000 prices.  The per capita income of Odisha is much lower than the national average and the poverty and other human development indicators for the State are very adverse.  The State has a limited capacity to raise its own resources.  Though the State has been making all possible efforts to raise resources needed for public investment to maintain the growth momentum, there would still be a substantial gap between investible funds that can be mobilized by the State and the level of investment required.  To meet this gap, there has to be a national framework by which larger resources can flow to Odisha and similarly placed states.  Any national growth strategy has to give special attention to states having special development needs.  Odisha, with about 40 percent population of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, has a special need to accelerate their development and improve their human development indicators.     

4. Odisha favours a development approach that encourages less developed states to grow faster than the national average over a long period of time in order to bridge the widening income gap between poor and rich states and to reduce poverty at a faster pace.   The development approach should also focus on: (a) scaling up investments in agriculture and allied sectors that need to perform above the national average over a long period of time, (b) mitigating adverse impacts of natural calamities and other shocks including climate change, (c) accelerating the development of depressed regions and marginalized classes including Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes and women to substantially reduce regional, social and gender disparities and ensuring inclusive growth, (d) building and substantially improving rural and urban productive infrastructure such as roads, bridges, irrigation projects and ports, (e) strengthening social security system by way of allocating higher resources to primary education, health services and nutrition programmes, (f) addressing the problem of unemployment and under-employment, particularly among young persons and improving their employable skills, education and soft skills to harness opportunities that the growing economy may create, (g) improving the delivery of public services for the poor, (h) increasing convergence of resources from various sources and development programmes for faster poverty reduction and (i) continuing vigorously Public Sector Reforms Programmes, enabling policy framework and improving investment climate.      

5. In Odisha and other eastern states, large populations still live in villages and majority of them subsist on agriculture and allied sectors.   We, therefore, endorse the view of the Planning Commission that transforming rural areas and achieving high sustainable growth in agriculture and allied sectors is a crucial challenge for the 12th Plan.  There is an urgent need to take appropriate measures to raise productivity of the agriculture and allied sectors so that the income and employment opportunities in these sectors are enhanced in a sustained manner.  A vibrant rural economy is needed to ensure increased rural incomes and employment which would be a strong contributor for poverty reduction.  The strategy paper should focus on expansion of irrigation, watershed development and saturation of watersheds, diversification of crops, rural marketing, strengthening of agricultural extension and technology transfer, crop insurance and rural infrastructure.  The plan strategy should also look at ways in which farmers can get remunerative prices for their produce and ensure that the terms of trade do not move adversely against the farm sector.  Availability of credit is also critical for increasing farm output.  We, therefore, urge Government of India to put in place an appropriate macro policy framework to make the farm sector productive and profitable and to liberally fund development activities of agriculture and allied sectors, particularly in less developed states.  

6. Increasing irrigation potential and drought proofing are critical pre-requisites to enhance agricultural productivity.  In Odisha, substantial areas need to be brought under assured irrigation.  Out of about 59 lakh hectare irrigable area, we have been able to tap the potential only of about 30 lakh hectare by now.  We, therefore, urge that the funding under AIBP be stepped up adequately.  I would like to add that there is a need to extend AIBP funding to lift irrigation projects and innovative community based irrigation programmes such as our Biju Krushak Vikas Yojana (BKVY).  It is worth mentioning that the BKVY has been lauded and promoted by NABARD.

7. A major concern, however, is that though the share of agriculture and allied sectors has been declining in Gross State Domestic Product, the proportion of people dependent on agriculture and allied sectors has not been declining in the same proportion.  Major benefits of the economic growth, which has occurred mainly in the service and industrial sectors, flow largely to educated and skilled manpower.  There is, therefore, an urgent need to raise the skill levels of large sections of the population, particularly youth, so that they may find remunerative employment and livelihood opportunities.  A growth strategy that promotes desired skills and skill-based employment opportunities to youth and others has to be given prominence in the approach paper for the 12th Plan. 

8. Development of small scale industries in clusters, ancillarisation, linking industries to supply chains would have to be accorded due attention in the 12th plan strategy.  Employment potential, income generation and export potential of micro enterprises, handicrafts, handlooms and other traditional sectors have not been tapped fully.  Promotion of tourism and other service sector activities are to be given greater importance in the plan strategy.  The efforts of the States in these areas will have to be strengthened by appropriate resource flow and policy inputs by Government of India and this has to be emphasized.  

9. For Odisha and other mineral bearing states, mining and related industrial activities are very important.  Achieving strong growth in these sectors is critical in increasing incomes and poverty reduction.  However, these activities impose significant economic, environmental and social costs in terms of displacement of people on account of land acquisition, loss of their livelihoods and mounting pollution problems.  There is a need for a national policy framework to address these problems in an efficient, equitable and sustainable manner.

10. We have taken several initiatives including the single window clearance mechanism, transparent procedures and well thought out R&R policy, which have been put in place for facilitating setting up of industries.  As a result, there has been a surge in the private sector investments in mining and related industries. We would like to consolidate and strengthen this with due regard to sustainable development and environmental protection as a part of the growth strategy for next plan.  However, in order to attract private sector investment, there is immediate need for high levels of investment in infrastructure like roads, ports, railways, power generation and power transmission and distribution.  My state has already initiated PPP mechanism for infrastructure development in the field of port and road development.  But PPP alone cannot be the answer to infrastructure development in most eastern states including Odisha.  In fact, poor states like Odisha need greater investments in the non-PPP mode than more advanced states where returns on investment in infrastructure will be much higher.  Mobilizing adequate resources for high quality infrastructure in poor states is a greater challenge and the 12th Plan should have appropriate central schemes for liberal funding of infrastructure projects in poor states.

11. Macro policy distortions are proving to be a hindrance to Odisha and possibly other States, which are rich in minerals, in proper husbanding of those resources.  Royalty structures are such that the States are losing out substantially in resource generation potential due to very low royalty rates and delayed revisions of royalties on coal, iron and other minerals.  We urge the Government of India to revise the rates of royalty on coal and other minerals in a timely manner and to compensate the mineral bearing states for revenue losses sustained by them due to late revision of mineral royalties and other causes, as recommended by the 13th Finance Commission.  We reiterate our earlier demand for increasing mineral royalties on ad valorem basis from 10 percent to 20 percent of market prices of coal and other minerals.

12. With a view to contributing to the national efforts for augmenting power production, the State has planned production of 50,000 MW of power.  The establishment of new power plants, however, imposes significant economic, environmental and social costs on Odisha and other mineral bearing states in terms of displacement of people on account of land acquisition and loss of their livelihoods and mounting pollution problems.  Whereas power and coal consuming states benefit because of low costs of coal and power, revenues from electricity duty on consumption and revenue from sales of surplus power, the host states like Odisha bear most of economic, environmental and social costs.  This scenario leads to an inequitable sharing of costs and benefits from the coal mining and thermal power generation.  We have been repeatedly requesting the Government of India to put in place, by way of suitable amendments to the Electricity Act 2003 and the National Thermal Power Policy, appropriate institutional arrangements which would result in fair sharing of costs and benefits of coal mining and thermal power generation.  It is our long standing demand that the host states should get 25% free power from Independent Power Producers and 33% free power from coal reject based power plants on the lines of the National Hydro Power Policy.  We also urge  Government of India that the funds collected under the National Clean Energy Fund should be given back to the States from where coal has been mined to help them take up environment remediation measures.  

13. The 12th Plan should also focus on substantially improving human development indicators and stepping up investments in social sectors, particularly health, education, poverty eradication and other social safety nets.  There is also need to make adequate provisions for gender equality, child and women welfare and welfare of other disadvantaged sections.  Special efforts are needed to arrest fast declining sex ratio among children in 0-6 year age group and to improve the welfare of girl children. 

14. Correction of intra-state imbalances has been receiving special attention in the plan strategy of my State.  Heavy incidence and persistence of poverty in KBK region of the State has been a cause of concern for the State Government.  Though the region has improved through implementation of the Revised Long Term Action Plan, it still lags behind many other regions of the State.  In order to bring this region at par with other areas, the RLTAP has to be extended for at least ten years beyond the 11th Plan with increased funding.  We would also suggest that backward district initiative may be extended to more districts of my State which are equally backward.  

15. We have taken a number of steps to promote decentralized planning at district and sub-district level.  District Planning Committees have been constituted and are functional in all 30 districts in Odisha.  We have also constituted District Planning & Monitoring Units in all 30 districts to assist District Planning Committees for consolidating district plans and monitoring the implementation of various development programmes.  I may add that Odisha has been preparing annual district plans since 2008-09 in a consultative and participatory manner.  Summaries of district plans have been incorporated in the State Annual Plans since 2010-11.  Increasing efficiency and expenditure has been a thrust of our reform initiatives.  Outlays are being increasingly linked to outputs and outcomes both on Plan and Non-Plan side.

16. We support this consultative process for preparing the approach paper for the 12th Plan.  We may also like to add that a uniform policy and uniform programmes for the country as a whole have produced distorted growth, and created inequalities, within different parts of the country.  As a result, regional imbalances have cropped up.  The objective of the 12th Plan should be to correct these distortions by region-specific interventions.  I hope the regional consultations will prove the right beginning for such an approach for the 12th Plan.

17. Orissa should be declared a special category state.
  
Thanking you. 

I think it is time the tone of Odisha’s request change.  We should not ask to be declared a special category state.

We should forcefully demand that Odisha gets properly compensated for its minerals; years of neglect on some of its infrastructure aspects (such as railways) be corrected; environmental impact due to mining (especially coal mining) and power production be suitably addressed; the tribal areas (of Odisha as well as other states) be declared as special regions and special funding (to the tune of J & K and North East) be allocated to address them; and various central ministries must be ordered to treat each state fairly instead of channelling bulk of their funds to the states from where the ministers come from.

Following is from Samaja.

Following is from a PIB report.

The size of the annual plan for 2011-12 for the State of Orissa was finalized here today at a meeting between the Deputy Chairman Planning Commission, Shri Montek Singh Ahluwalia and the Chief Minister, Shri Naveen Patnaik. The State will have a plan size of Rs.15200 crores.

Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, Shri Montek Singh Ahluwalia complimented the State Government for the progress achieved in many areas. He said Odisha was figuring amongst the State doing well in poverty eradication and human development. Satisfactory progress has been recorded in social sectors including education and health.

Planning Commission appreciated the State Government for achieving a real average growth rate of 9.57 per cent during the first three years of the eleventh Plan. He said in the agriculture and allied sector growth rate of 4.8 per cent has been achieved during the same period. The State Government was advised to focus on making progress more inclusive and on reducing regional disparities. The State Government was also advised to better utilize science and technology in addressing the development related problems of the State. Attention was drawn to the condition of tribal and women and children in the State. It was pointed out that the State has done a good work in reforms and port sector was doing exceptionally well.

The Planning Commission has offered expertise in handling the problems which the State was facing following reforms in the power distributing sector. A team from the Commission will be visiting State with a purpose to find solution.

Mr. Naveen Patnaik said that the State has been assiduously pursuing the development agenda to achieve a sustainable and inclusive higher economic growth, accelerated overall development and a faster rate of poverty reduction. The development strategies include: strengthening human development sectors such as education, health services, food and nutritional security; improving welfare of marginalized groups such as Scheduled Castes. Scheduled Tribes and women; reducing regional, social and gender disparities; and scaling up investment in agriculture, allied sectors and infrastructure sectors.

He said removal of disparities is one of the important development strategies adopted by the Government. Several Key initiatives have been taken to address severe problems of underdevelopment and regional disparities. To expedite development of KBK districts an Eight Year Perspective Plan for KBK districts from the year 2009-10 to 2016-17 for a projected outlay of Rs.4,550 crore has been developed.

To get a better idea on how Odisha is doing, I created the following spreadsheet for the various states of India. State by state data is available at http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/stateplan/index.php?state=b_outbody.htm.

The spreadsheet shows how Odisha’s plan outlay has grown from 5100 crores for 2007-08 to 15200 crores for 2011-12. While we don’t yet have the plan outlays for all states for 2011-12, it is expected that the only state doing better than Odisha in terms of the growth in plan outlay is Haryana. Following are a few comparative observations from the spreadsheet.

• For 2007-08 Odisha’s plan outlay was 5105 crores and Kerala’s was 6950 crores. This translated to Rs 1352 per person for Odisha and Rs 2144 for Kerala. For 2011-12 Odisha’s plan outlay is 15200 crores and Kerala’s is 11030 crores which translates to Rs 4025 per person for Odisha and Rs 3402 per person for Kerala.
• For 2007-08 Punjab’s plan outlay was 5111 crores which translated to Rs 2032 per person. For 2011-12 Punjab’s plan outlay is 11520 crores which translates to Rs 4580 per person. Odisha seems to be fast catching up.
• The 2011-12 numbers for Maharashtra is not out yet, but based on the 2010-11 numbers, Odisha is fast catching up with Maharashtra in terms of per person outlay.
• The 2011-12 numbers for West Bengal is not out yet, but based on the 2010-11 numbers Odisha’s per person outlay may be close to twice the number for West Bengal.

The planning commission web site shows where the plan outlays are to be spent and most of the spending is more beneficial to the poor. This explains the popularity of the current BJD government among the people. But many do not see the forest for the tree and there are more brickbats than bouquets for the current Odisha governemnt  and bureaucrats.

Non-ideologues and open-minded people need to look at the above spreadsheet and make fair assessment of the government and need to stop following the communist leaders from Kerala and West Bengal who have demonstratably dragged down their state and their people. In that regard it is ridiculous that many leaders from Odisha invite communist leaders from these states to Odisha and give them a platform to talk about how Odisha should follow their negative path.

Following is an excerpt from a report in Pioneer.

… Ramesh also said his Ministry has decided to give authority to the Maoist-affected States, including Odisha, to have full flexibility to clear public infrastructure projects to be built inside forests in the areas up to five hectares.

The State Governments can divert the forestland with full freedom for the projects having social relevance like construction of roads, schools, health sub-centres, bridges, housing for police and other security personnel without referring to the Union Environment and Forests Ministry for its clearance.

He said this decision would be applicable to the identified 60 Maoist-affected districts of the country, of which 19 are in Odisha. “It will be of great benefit to the Maoist-affected States, particularly Odisha, to improve the essential infrastructures like connectivity,” he said. Besides, this would go a long way for creation of infrastructures in tri-junction areas of Andhra Pradesh, Odisha and Chhattisgarah to fight against the Maoists, he said.

This is a good step by Ramesh.

Following are excerpts from a report in netindian.com.

The Planning Commission has made a case before Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to give special attention to certain industry sectors, which will help fulfill key objectives of the 12th Plan (2012-17), including employment, deepening technological capabilities, those with global competitive advantage and aimed at providing strategic security.

… For instance, the sectors which will create large employment include textiles and garments, leather and footwear, gems and jewellery and food processing industries.

There are sectors which deepen technological capabilities. These are machine tools, IT hardware and and electronics.

The sectors listed by the Commission which provide strategic security include telecom equipment, aerospace, shipping and defence equipment.

The sectors which relate to capital equipment for infrastructure growth are heavy electrical equipment, heavy transport and earth-moving equipment.

The sectors with global competitive advantage include automotive, pharmaceuticals and medical equipment.

… The presentation says land and infrastructure constraints are a major problem. The States should develop "Special Industrial Zones" with good connectivity and infrastructure.

It argues that clusters need to be supported to enhance productivity of MSMEs.

The industry sectors mentioned above seem to be among the ones that will generate large job opportunities. The Odisha government should be proactive in going after players in these sectors and creating clusters on some of these sectors. It needs to broaden the industry sector in Odisha beyond mining and mineral processing.

Following is from the Provisional Census Book 2011. The 40 MB file of that is here.

Following is a page from the Lok Sabha tarnscript of 4th March 2011.

In the part marked by red above, the Railway minister Ms. Mamta Banerjee says:

We are ready to make (the wagon factory) in the land that the government gives us; but if we get land in Kalahandi then we are ready to do one more. But it must be Kalahandi because that is an under-developed area.

So the government is shooting itself on the foot by not taking immediate steps to offer a site in Kalahandi and asking for a second wagon factory.

Some small stirs have started happening on this issue in Kalahandi.

1. http://www.tathya.in/news/story.asp?sno=5133 .
2. http://dailypioneer.com/329493/Wagon-unit-Cong-launches-stir-across-Kalahandi.html .
3. http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/kalahandi-intensifies-agitation-demanding-rail-wagon-factory/638108.html .
4. http://telegraphindia.com/1110406/jsp/orissa/story_13814102.jsp .

If the issue is not taken care of immediately then this could form the core of a rallying cry from Congress.

On this issue the government is in the wrong and they will have to  bow down to do the right thing. The more they delay the more they will lose politically.

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

The environment ministry may have hoodwinked its in-charge Jairam Ramesh to help a company escape action initiated by the minister. The ministry’s forest division issued a circular on January 6, 2011, inserting the proviso “it is advisable” in the original rule without the minister’s approval.

The ministry had issued a notice to Jindal Steel and Power Limited on December 14, 2010, on why its environment clearance should not be revoked for starting construction in non-forestland for its integrated steel plant in Kerjang in Orissa before the forest clearance was granted in October 2010.

A ministry panel found the allegation to be true in December. Jindal steel admitted that the construction has taken place but cited a clause in an agreement with the Orissa government to start work within three years of signing it.

In the meantime, the Forest Advisory Committee, which allowed diversion of forestland, met and recommended insertion of key words — “it is advisable” — in the guidelines of the Act. The revised rule said, “if a project involves forest as well as non-forestland, it is advisable that the work should not be started on non-forest land till the approval of the government for release of the forestland under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 has been given”.

So, how can one trust such a Forest Advisory Committee. What action Ramesh is taking against this committee?

See also the report in danaindia.com which first reported on this harakiri by MOEF. Following is an excerpt from the latest one.

Three days after DNA showed how Jindal Steel & Power Limited (JSPL) used a January 6, 2011, circular to justify unauthorised construction in 2009 and 2010, minister for environment and forests Jairam Ramesh has directed the Orissa government to take action against the company.

Here is an excerpt of what dnaindia wrote while exposing the initial misdeeds of MOEF.

The ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) seems all set to add to the scams and scandals surrounding the UPA government at the Centre thanks to a controversial clearance given to Congress MP Navin Jindal’s proposed steel and power plant in Orissa.

Documents with DNA show that the MoEF issued a circular to change a few words of the guidelines of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 only to allow the withdrawal of a showcause notice issued to the Jindal project.

This notice, that made headlines when it was issued in November 2010, asked why the earlier issued environmental clearance may not be quashed because Jindal had started construction at the site before the forest clearance — the supplement to the mandatory environment clearance — was given.

Documents show that the provision of the Forest Act that was quoted by the MoEF to legitimise the transgressions of Jindal and withdraw the show cause notice was created only on January 6, 2011 — two months after the showcause notice was issued.

Documents also show that the provision (made through a circular) was scrapped on 17 February, 2011 — exactly a week after the notice to Jindal was withdrawn.

This makes it clear that the circular was issued purely for the benefit of Congress MP Navin Jindal’s project alone.

The above clearly shows the way Forest Advisory committee, MOEF and Ramesh operate. They were hoping to not get caught. But they have been caught red handed.

The sincerity and honesty of Ramesh will be judged by what action he takes against the MOEF official and Forest Rights Committee that did this harakiri; which as per Ramesh, without his knowledge. If Ramesh does not take any action on those officials then one can fairly conclude that he was very much a part of it.

Following is from a Q & A type article in Financial Express by Amitabh Sinha. Please read the article at its source for the details.

Did the environment ministry apply different yardsticks in the two cases? We answer the questions in our usual Q&A format.

Earlier this month, Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC), a state government owned enterprise, approached the Supreme Court, challenging the order of the Environment Ministry cancelling forest clearance to a bauxite mining project in the Niyamgiri area of Lanjigarh district of Orissa. The project was to be executed by Sterlite Industries India, a subsidiary of Vedanta Alumina, which had entered into an MoU with OMC in 2004.

One of the main reasons that is said to have emboldened the OMC to approach the Supreme Court, six months after the Environment Ministry had passed its order, was the recent decision to allow SAIL to mine iron ore in the Chiria mining complex of West Singhbhum district in Jharkhand. The Orissa government feels double standards had been applied in the two cases and argues that the environmental impact of the Chiria mines is going to be greater than the bauxite mining in the Niyamgiri hills. The Financial Express examines the two projects to see whether their cases are comparable:

What was the issue with the Niyamgiri project?

…

And Chiria?

…

What happened to Vedanta’s application for Niyamgiri project?

Vedanta had obtained stage-I forest clearance for the Niyamgiri project before running into trouble. While assessing its application, the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) — the permanent expert panel in the Environment Ministry that is responsible for assessing whether a project deserves to be given forest clearance or not — recommended that the final approval should be granted only after assessing the implementation of the Forest Rights Act in the area, a law that had come into effect in 2008. Two different committees looked into the implementation of FRA at the Vedanta site. One was a three-member committee set up on the recommendations of the FAC. The other committee was set up jointly by the Environment Ministry and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs to assess the implementation of FRA all over the country. This committee, led by retired bureaucrat NC Saxena, had sent a sub-panel to the Vedanta site. Both had adverse remarks to make about the project.

What about Chiria?

In the case of Chiria, the FAC had actually recommended that SAIL’s proposal to mine iron ore in that area be rejected.

What led to the cancellation of the Niyamgiri project?

…

So why was Chiria cleared?

In clearing SAIL’s proposal to mine Chiria, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh actually overturned the advice of his own ministry’s expert panel (FAC). Some of the reasons he gave justifying his decision were: …

Following is an excerpt from a report in Deccan Chronicle.

Mr Ramesh has pointed out that the project will not be accepted unless resettlement and rehabilitation works are taken up simultaneously with the construction of the dam. He said that the project required resettlement and rehabilitation of about 1,70,000 people living in four villages of Orissa and many more near Chhattisgarh, adding that there would be a public hearing conducted by the respective governments and a consensus on the issue would be arrived at.

He also said that the environment assessment reports that were prepared by private consultants engaged by the Union government were a joke. “I admit it publicly,” he said, “The reports are prepared by a person who is pushing for the project. I am very much concerned about it.” Mr Ramesh said that the ministry had blacklisted three consultants for preparing fraudulent reports and added that he had accredited about 200 consultants who were authorised to prepare environmental assessment reports for the government.

Following is from a report in dnaindia.com.

The ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) seems all set to add to the scams and scandals surrounding the UPA government at the Centre thanks to a controversial clearance given to Congress MP Navin Jindal’s proposed steel and power plant in Orissa.

Documents with DNA show that the MoEF issued a circular to change a few words of the guidelines of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 only to allow the withdrawal of a showcause notice issued to the Jindal project.

This notice, that made headlines when it was issued in November 2010, asked why the earlier issued environmental clearance may not be quashed because Jindal had started construction at the site before the forest clearance — the supplement to the mandatory environment clearance — was given.

Documents show that the provision of the Forest Act that was quoted by the MoEF to legitimise the transgressions of Jindal and withdraw the show cause notice was created only on January 6, 2011 — two months after the showcause notice was issued.

Documents also show that the provision (made through a circular) was scrapped on 17 February, 2011 — exactly a week after the notice to Jindal was withdrawn.

This makes it clear that the circular was issued purely for the benefit of Congress MP Navin Jindal’s project alone.

Jindal Steel & Power (JSPL) had filed for environmental clearance for a 6 million tonne steel plant and a medium-sized integrated power plant in Kerjang, in Anjul district of Orissa in 2006.

The firm got environmental clearance in 2007, with the condition that no development should start till the other half of that clearance, a ‘forest clearance’, was also granted.

But Jindal started construction before the forest clearance was obtained and this was pointed out by Biswajit Mohanty, wildlife activist and member of the National Board for Wildlife, to Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh last October.

A month later, the MoEF issued the showcause notice to Jindal.

However, on January 6, 2011, the MoEF issued a circular that changed certain words in the Forest Act that legalised the violations and weakened the case against Jindal.

Documents with DNA show that the original guidelines of the Forest Act, which were in force when the showcause notice was issued to Jindal for breaching the conditions of environmental clearance, said: “work should not be started” till the project gets the requisite forest clearance.

However, in its circular, the MoEF changed this phrase to: “it is advisable that work should not be started” till forest clearance is granted.

After the circular was issued, Jindal officials pointed out to the MoEF that its own circular indicated that the provision was not binding on them. Based on this argument, the MoEF withdrew the showcause notice to the Jindal project on Feb 10, 2011. Seven days later, the circular was scrapped.

To a question in Parliament as to how many projects were cleared during the time the circular was in existence (a little over a month), Ramesh pointed out that only one project had been cleared: Jindal’s Angul project.

“This is all very, very fishy,” says Mohanty, a noted conservationist known for his contribution to saving Orissa’s sea turtles. “This case needs to be probed. You can’t bring in a circular to help just one company and then withdraw it and not let any other company take advantage of it,” he says.

Mohanty, who maintains Ramesh is the best environment minister India has ever had, says the ministry’s actions are starting to smack of arbitrariness. “You can’t have one yardstick for Vedanta (Resources) and another where a ruling party MP is involved.”

This whole incident indicates that Ramesh, who has a clean reputation otherwise, has his limitations when faced with powerful groups within his party.

Jairam Ramesh did not respond to request for comments on the matter.

Following is from Samaja:

On the education side Odisha must ask for the following:

• A campus of ISMU in one of the mining hubs of Odisha.
• A tribal university and a branch of the IGNTU.
• A central agricultural university in a backward district in Odisha, along with other such districts in India.
• A National Sports University/Institute in Rourkela/Sundergarh with a branch in Kendrapada.
• A rural engineering institute like SLIET Longowal, ABAGKCIET Malda, and CIT Kokrajhar.
• An IIM. (If more IIMs are being established.)
• Upgradation of VSSUT to an IIEST.

See http://www.orissalinks.com/archives/5859, http://www.orissalinks.com/archives/6076, and http://www.orissalinks.com/archives/6091 for the reasoning that can be used to push for these.

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.

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?

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.

The following is from a slideshow in rediff.

The slideshow in rediff has the following to say about Odisha.

Its capital is Bhubaneswar. Orissa has abundant natural resources and a large coastline.

It contains a fifth of India’s coal, a quarter of its iron ore, a third of its bauxite reserves and most of the chromite.

It receives unprecedented investments in steel, aluminium, power, refineries and ports. India’s topmost IT consulting firms, including Mahindra Satyam, Tata Consultancy Services, MindTree Consulting, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Infosys have large branches in Orissa.

Following is an excerpt from a report in Economic Times.

After stopping bauxite mining in Orissa the government now finds itself in a bind on the issue of rehabilitation in Lanjigarh. Corporate-backed developmental activities in the tribal region, one of the most backward places in the country, have come to a standstill following the environment ministry’s ban on mining.

The Anil Agarwal-controlled Sterlite Industries had been ordered by the Supreme Court in August 2008 to spend about 5% of its profit for development activity at Lanjigarh.

Since the environment ministry in August 2010 had barred mining, the rehabilitation package which includes about Rs 10 crore of annual development activity including the building of roads, schools and hospitals, has now been stopped.

"If disbursement from the development fund were to continue, it would imply approval of mining which would be contrary to the ministry’s order," said one person directly involved in the developmental work. On August 30, 2010, the ministry of environment and forests issued a notice barring bauxite mining in Niyamgiri on grounds of violation of environmental norms.

According to the same person quoted earlier, if the government asks Sterlite to stop developmental activity it would amount to contempt of court as it would go against the Supreme Court directive.

"Under our order we suggested rehabilitation package under which Sterlite Industries is required to deposit 5% of annual profits before tax and interest from Lanjigarh project or Rs 10 crore per annum whichever is higher," said the Supreme Court order. "The said project covers both mining and refining. The amount is required to be deposited by Sterlite Industries every year commencing from April 1, 2007. For the above reasons, we hereby grant clearance to the forest diversion proposal," read the order dated August 8, 2008.

… Among the projects which have been left uncertain include a Rs 3 crore hospital and a Rs 1.8 crore tribal school upgradation in the Lanjigarh block.

I hope the central government will consider paying this lost amount of 10 crores/year for developmental activities in that area.

Following is an excerpt from gujaratmoney.com.

… in the GSDP(Gross State Domestic Product) growth projected by the country’s apex finance panel-13th Finance Commission for next five years(from 2010-11 to 2014-15) in the country after Goa(in the first position) and Orissa(2nd position).

The panel has projected that Gujarat’s GSDP will grow in next five years at average 12.46%(projection based on the base year 2007-08) while the highest growth has been projected for Goa(13.06%) and Orisssa(12.63%). While others states to grow at 12% plus are Haryana(12.30%) and Chattisgarh(12.28%). The other states which are projected to grow at 11% plus are Jharkhand(11.5%), Assam(11.32%) and Meghalaya(11.9%).

States with 10% plus growth projections are Karnatka(10.53%), Rajasthan(10.33%), Kerala and Himachal Pradesh(10.30%), Jammu & Kashmir(10.25%), Uttrakhand(10.17%) West Bengal(10.04%) and Andhra Pradesh(10.03%). Maharashtra, Taminadu and others state are expected to grow at 9% or below that.

Though projections have been made for Gujarat in top three GSDP growth states but the incremental growth(year to year improvement) rate has been projected as one of the lowest. For the same period incremental growth of Gujarat has been projected at 2.04% while for Maharashtra, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Kerala and Uttar Pradesh its has been projected at 4.57, 4.46, 4.47, 4.24, 4.20 and UP 4.01% respectively.

One needs to worry about the negative impact of the anti-growth and anti-Odisha agenda of the prince of Congress and the environment ministry. The PM is a saving grace; but if the prince takes over then Odisha as well as India are doomed.

Following is from http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=68211.

The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs has approved the proposal of the Government of Orissa to set up a Petroleum Chemicals and Petrochemicals Investment Region (PCPIR) in Paradeep. This is the fourth PCPIR which has been approved after PCPIRs in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and West Bengal.

A total investment of about ` 277,734 crore is expected in the Orissa Petroleum Chemicals and Petrochemicals Investment Region (OPCPIR), which includes a committed investment of ` 29,777 crore. The proposal envisages development of physical infrastructure such as roads, rail, air links, ports, water supply, power etc. at a cost of ` 13,634 crore. The PCPIR policy prescribes that infrastructure will be created/upgraded through Public Private Partnerships to the extent possible and Central Government will provide the necessary Viability Gap Funding (VGF). Accordingly, Government of Orissa (GoO) has sought support from Government of India involving a commitment  of 716 crore on account of VGF funding for one port and three road-related projects.

The total employment generation from the OPCPIR is expected to be about 6.48 lakh persons comprising direct employment to 2.27 lakh persons.

The PCPIR policy is a window to ensure the adoption of a holistic approach to the development of global scale industrial clusters in the petroleum, chemical and petrochemical sectors in an integrated and environment friendly manner. The idea is to ensure the setting up of industrial estates in a planned manner with a view to achieve synergies and for value added manufacturing, research and development.

The Government of Orissa proposes to set up a PCPIR at Paradeep extending over parts of Kujang and Ersama blocks of Jagatsinghpur district and Mahakalpada and Marsaghai blocks of Kendrapara district.

The State Government proposes to implement the Orissa Petroleum Chemicals and Petrochemical Investment Region (OPCPIR) under the Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982, which is an existing State law. The State Government proposes to constitute the Greater Orissa Paradeep Development Authority as the authority in charge of the development of the Paradeep PCPIR.

The delineated region has a strong industrial base with major processing activities at present including Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., IFFCO’s Fertiliser Plant, Essar Steel Plant, Goa Carbons (Paradeep Carbons Ltd), Paradeep Port etc.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) has been identified as the Anchor Tenant for the Orissa PCPIR. IOCL signed a MoU with GoO in 2004 for setting up a 15 MMTPA grassroot refinery at Paradeep in the first phase at a cost of ` 29,777 crore. The Refinery is likely to be commissioned by March 2012 and should be fully stabilized by November 2012. The Refinery will have a Crude and vacuum Distillation Unit, a Hydrocracking Unit, a Delayed Coker Unit and other secondary processing facilities. It will also have an Integrated Gassification Combined Cycle Plant for production of steam, power and hydrogen from petroleum coke for captive use in the refinery at the cost of about ` 935 crores. A petrochemical complex will be set up at a later date depending on the market conditions.

A Preliminary Environment Assessment Report (EIA) has been conducted. The State Government will carry out a detailed EIA as per the EIA notification.

****

VBA/SH/LV