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?
In Niyamgiri, a total of 660.749 hectares of forest land was sought to be diverted for mining bauxite. The mined bauxite was supposed to feed the nearby alumina refinery in Lanjigarh, operated by Vedanta. The company had plans to expand the refinery?s capacity from one million tonnes per year to six million tonnes per year.
And Chiria?
Chiria, too, involved the diversion of forest land for mining purposes. In fact, SAIL had already been mining 194 hectares in the Chiria mining complex, which lies in the Saranda forest area. The company had applied for a renewal of license for this area as well as permission to mine an additional 401 hectares of forest land. Together, the mining area of about 595 hectares would comprise nearly 25% of the 2,376 hectares of the entire Chiria mining complex.
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?
The Environment Ministry acted on the recommendation of the NC Saxena committee report in this regard. The main problems of this project highlighted in the report were:
* Mining operations in this area would severely disturb an important wildlife habitat, including an elephant reserve.
* The demolition of 7 square km of Niyamgiri hilltop would drastically alter the region?s water supply, affecting both ecological systems and human communities of the area.
* Niyamgiri was home to the endangered Dongaria Kondh population which was likely to be severely affected by the mining operation.
* In addition, the Niyamgiri hill was one of the most sacred site for this community and the government could not allow it to be destroyed.
* Loss of forest cover would endanger the livelihood of these forest-dwelling populations.
* The Forest Rights Act had not been implemented in the area.
An August 24, 2010 order by the Environment Ministry said the evidence produced by the Saxena committee in support of its findings were “compelling”.
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:
* SAIL was a ?maharatna? public sector company with a good track record of corporate social responsibility and ?deserving of special treatment’.
* The company had a R18,000 crore IPO lined up, half of the proceeds from which would go to the government of India. Therefore, an early decision was required to be taken.
* Chiria is essential for the future of SAIL as nearly 40% of the company?s requirement of iron ore over the next 50 years is likely to be met from Chiria (one of the arguments used against Vedanta was that the Niyamgiri mines would have been able to provide for only four years of supplies for the company?s alumina refinery at Lanjigarh).
* Chiria is affected by naxalite violence and has a substantial tribal population. CSR activities by SAIL would help in the socio-economic development of the region. In the case of Chiria mines, it was necessary to take a ?broader view? keeping national interest topmost in mind.
