___________

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Following 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.

Following is an excerpt from a Telegraph report.

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

The institute provides solutions to pollution-related problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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