Planning Commission deputy chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia on Tuesday questioned the concept of ?go, no-go? areas devised by the union environment and forests ministry and warned that the country?s infrastructure-led growth plans may be hit if coal-bearing areas remained out of bound for mining.
?I really do not understand the concept of ?no-go? areas. If you declare nearly 30% of coal bearing areas as no-go, then does it mean that we should lower our growth projections,? he quipped. ?I hope Jairam (Ramesh) understands the implications,? Ahluwalia told The Indian Express.
A string of infrastructure and manufacturing projects in sectors such as power and steel, have remained a non-starter after Jairam Ramesh?s go, no go classification.
Core sector ministries coal, power and steel are locked in a fierce turf war with the MoEF over the ?go, no-go? categorisation based on the forest density cover of coal-bearing regions. The classification has left 203 coal mines with annual reserves out of bounds for mining. These could have, otherwise, supported power generation of 1,43,000 mega watts.
According to the MoEF definition, Category A or no go blocks are those with over 10% Weighted Forest Cover or over 30% gross forest cover.
Recently, power minister Sushil Kumar Shinde in an Idea Exchange programme too said that the ?go, no-go? categorisation did not have any legal backing. His counterpart in the coal ministry, Sriprakash Jaiswal, too moved a note to the Cabinet Committee on Infastructure (CCI) seeking its intervention. He wanted the CCI to direct MoEF to consider all coal blocks without reference to ?go, no-go? areas as per the current stipulation for according forest clearances. His ministry also sought fast-tracking of forest clearance within the stipulated 150 days in place of the current 3-4 years.
In its note to the CCI, the Planning Commission expressed concern that certain allocatees of coal blocks over the past two years had been told they would be denied forest clearance since these regions were under the ?no go? category. ?Denial of permission at this stage would put a large amount of capital at risk and also have an adverse impact on production and investment plans as well as completion of end use power, steel and fertiliser plants,? the Plan panel said.
?A broad balanced policy approach will have to be put in place to utilise our domestic coal resources, while taking full safeguards for development of forests and environment,? the Planning Commission said. It called for an immediate resolution to the vexed issue that had particularly affected mining in nine coalfields?Singrauli, North Karanpura, Mand Raigarhm Talcher, Sohagpur, Wardha Valley, Hasdeo-Arand and West Bokaro.
Intensifying the turf war, the MoEF has said attempts to compel it to divert forest land for all affected coal blocks without factoring in the consequences on flora and fauna amounted to presenting it with a fait accompli. It said accepting the coal ministry?s demand to divert prime, unfragmented forest area for coal mining will open the flood gates for similar demands from other ministries.
?Having accepted demand of the coal ministry, it will be difficult for the MoEF to ignore such demand from these ministries and will defeat the very purpose of enactment of the FC Act,? the ministry argued in its comments to the CCI note by the coal ministry.