Undermining India

Impacts of mining

on
ecologically

sensitive areas

Neeraj Vagholikar and

Kaustubh A. Moghe
with
Ritwick Dutta
March 2003

Reprint: April 2004

Copyright: This material may be used and cited freely, with appropriate credit to the authors and publishers.

Published by:
Kalpavriksh
Apartment 5, Shree Dutta Krupa,
908 Deccan Gymkhana,
Pune - 411004.
Phone: 91-20-25654239/25675450
Email: kvriksh@vsnl.com
Website:http://www.kalpavriksh.org
Citation: Vagholikar, N. & Moghe, K. A., 2003. Undermining India: Impacts of mining on ecologically sensitive areas, Kalpavriksh.
Contributory amount: Rs. 75/- plus Postal Charges

About Kalpavriksh
Kalpavriksh (KV) is a 23-year-old voluntary group based in India, working on environmental education, research, campaigns
and direct action. KV believes that a country can develop meaningfully only if ecological sustainability and social equity are
guaranteed. To this end its activities are directed to ensuring conservation of biological diversity, challenging the current
destructive path of ‘development’, helping in the search for alternative forms of livelihoods and development, assisting local
people in empowering themselves to manage their surrounds, and reviving a sense of oneness with nature. Over the last few
years it has increasingly focussed on community-based conservation and management of natural resources.
 Acknowledgements
This report draws from mining-related work done by us over the last four years and very many people have
helped us at different stages. We gratefully acknowledge their contribution. Not all names find a mention here but
we are grateful for the support we have received from everybody.
Our engagement with mining issues really took shape in 1998-99 with Kalpavriksh deciding to collate basic
information on mining impacting ciritical wildlife habitats in the country. We thank Ashish Kothari and Pankaj
Sekhsaria for doing the initial spadework on the issue. An important part of this work in the initial years was a series
of investigations looking at the impacts of mining in ecologically sensitive areas. We would like to thank all the
people who helped us in these investigations. To mention a few: Sunil Karkare and Debi Goenka in Maharashtra;
Bulu Imam, Justin Imam and Prerana Resource Centre in Jharkhand; Paresh Porob and Roshni Kutty in Goa;
Joynal Abedien in Assam; Dr. Kharbuli in Meghalaya; Dr. RBS Khushwah in Madhya Pradesh. Some of these
investigations were assignments undertaken for Sanctuary Asia magazine. We thank Bittu Sahgal, Editor, Sanctuary
Magazine, for his constant support for this work over the years.
Our interaction with hundreds of groups and individuals around the country through the ‘mines, minerals and
People (mmP)’ network proved to be a great learning process, particularly on aspects related to the social impacts
of mining. For inputs into this report in particular, we would like to thank Ravi Repragada , Bhanumati, Praveen Mote
and Dharmaraju of mmP.
We would like to thank the Technical and Policy Group (TPCG) drafting the National Biodiversity Strategy and
Action Plan (NBSAP). The opportunity we were given to do a subthematic review paper on Mining and Biodiversity
for the NBSAP process helped us delve into the policy and legal aspects of mining vis-a-vis environment.
We would like to thank the EIA Department, the Library and the Conservation Department of the Bombay
Natural History Society for making their resources available to us. Our special thanks go to Dr. (Mrs.) Prafulla Soni
of the Forest Research Institute, Dehradun for sharing information and sparing the time to discuss our queries.
Similarly, Mr. Sandeep Tripathi, I.F.S. (Jt. Director), Forest Survey of India, encouraged us greatly by giving us
access to information from their project study on mapping of forest areas and mineral rich areas.
We would like to thank Dr. Asha Rajvanshi and Mr. Qamar Qureshi at the Wildlife Institute of India and we also
gratefully acknowledge all the cooperation and help given by everybody at the WII Library, especially Shri. Vermaji,
(Asst. Librarian), Mr. M.S. Rana (Librarian) and other staff members. Dr. Rakesh Kumar Singh (presently working
with Wildlife Trust of India, Delhi) shared both information and his experience generously with us, while Mr. Neel
Gogate’s (presently working with Tiger Conservation Programme, WWF-India) help and logistical support in Dehradun
was invaluable.
Dr. Gurbir Singh, of the Centre for Mining Environment, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad provided us with useful
references and reading material.
Among many others, we would also like to thank Payal Sampat of the Mineral Policy Centre, Dr. Vincent Darlong
from Tripura, and Sunita Dubey of the Environmental Justice Initiative. We are really grateful to Ritwick Dutta,
Mahalaxmi Parthsarthy and Aarthi Sridhar for enthusiastically contributing to specific portions of this report, and to
the Association for India’s Development(AID) for their support.
Back home, the encouragement and support given by the Kalpavriksh team in Pune as well as in Delhi has been
inspirational. In particular we would like to mention Shantha Bhushan, Kanchi Kohli, Manju Menon, Madhulika Goyal,
Sujatha Padmanabhan, Swati Arjunwadkar, Manisha Sheth Gutman and Govind Khalsode.
Many thanks to Ashish Fernandes of Sanctuary Magazine for helping us pull this report together. His patience
and readiness to help is quite amazing! We appreciate the editorial and design inputs from Sujoy Choudhury. Finally,
thanks to Sarang Vartak of Orient Arts for all his help, especially for printing and binding, and for kindly allowing us
to use infrastructure at his office even at odd hours of the day.
 Index

List of Contents Page

Introduction 1-2

Chapter I

Ecological, Biodiversity & Mineral Profile

of India 3-9

Chapter II
Impacts of Mining 10 - 14

Chapter IIIa
National Picture of Ecologically Sensitive Areas Affected by
Mining 15 - 40

Chapter IV
The Policy and Legal Framework 41 - 72

Chapter V
The Response of Courts to Mining with specific reference to Ecologically Sensitive Areas 73 - 79
(By Ritwick Dutta)

Chapter VI
Citizens’ Response 80 - 87

Chapter VII
Review of Ecological Amelioration Practices in Abandoned Mines 88 - 94

Chapter VIII
Recommendations 95 - 101

Annexure 102 - 103

Additional References 104

Mining Resources 105

 Introduction
I
n its 23-year old existence, Kalpavriksh has
frequently encountered the ecological and
social impacts of mining. In the mid-1980s it
helped a village community in the Dehradun
district to fight against a mine that was destroying
its forests and water source, and it has extended
similar help more recently to a community in Tehri
Garhwal. Often we would also hear of similar
struggles in other parts of India, or of the
devastation being wrought by mining in
ecologically fragile areas. And then since the mid–
1990s, a frequent mention in our newsletter
Protected Areas Update, (formerly Joint
Protected Area Management Update) of some or
the other PA (national park or sanctuary) being
affected by mining, brought home to us the pan-
Indian nature of the problem. Sariska Tiger
Reserve, Kudremukh National Park, Narayan
Sarovar Sanctuary, Panna Tiger Reserve, and many
other such areas were frequently in the news,
either because of existing mining operations, or
because of proposed ones.
In several instances there were protests and
legal action by local group; Buxa in West Bengal,
Kudremukh in Karnataka, Radhanagari in
Maharashtra, Panna in Madhya Pradesh, Narayan
Sarovar in Gujarat, Sariska in Rajasthan. Some
detailed case studies of violations of
environmental and forest legislation by mining in
and around protected areas were also done by
Valmik Thapar of the Ranthambore Foundation.
To complement the scattered reporting from
various sites, we thought it was crucial to put
together a consolidated ‘national picture’ on
protected areas and other sensitive habitats
impacted by mining. We started by collating
information from secondary sources and
conducting investigations in a few areas. While
this was happening, information was also pouring
in on peoples’ movements from around the country
against destructive mining. Tribal and other
communities in Orissa, Andhra Pradesh,
Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand etc were fighting mining
Undermining India
in some of our most ecologically and culturally
sensitive areas, including notified tribal areas
called ‘scheduled areas’. There is a great overlap
between forest resources, tribal areas and minerals
in India, many of which are notified ‘scheduled
areas’. Although in the initial stages we started
off with a greater focus on protected areas, we
then broadened the scope of our study to look at
impacts on ecologically sensitive areas in general
(see Chapter 3).
While a substantial number of the mining
threats to ecologically sensitive areas is from
ongoing mining (both large and small), a major
threat to many ecologically fragile areas is from
new mining encouraged by the liberalisation of
the mining sector in the 1990s. Since 1996, 65
large prospecting licenses covering over 90,000
sq. kms. area have been granted and since 2000,
119 reconnaissance permits covering over
1,55,000 sq. kms. have been given. A closer look
shows that many of these overlap with some of
the most ecologically rich and culturally sensitive
areas in Rajasthan, Chhatisgarh, Maharashtra,
Orissa and Jharkhand, and more are to come. For
example prospecting licenses over large areas and
now reconnaissance permits swamp the area
around Udanti Sanctuary in Chhatisgarh, one of
the last homes of a viable wild buffalo population,
which also is a tribal area. In January 2001 it was
reported that a company, which had been granted a
prospecting license here had illegally removed
soil from the Udanti Sanctuary and that the
Government of India had ordered an enquiry. But
what is of equal concern is the destruction
happening ‘legally’, which likely to be wide spread
in the future. India’s environmental, forest, tribal
policies and laws, have provisions to counter this
trend, but in a climate where the general
development policy itself is in contradiction, the
implementation is poor. Moreover, dilutions have
taken place over the last few years. The Coastal
Regulation Zone notification has been amended
repeatedly to permit mining in sensitive coastal
1
areas, while environmental public hearings were
done away with for granting mining leases for
major minerals upto 25 ha. It is important to note
that 50% of India’s mining leases for major
minerals and a much greater percentage of leases
for minor mining leases are less than 25 ha in
size! There is continuous demand from the mining
sector to further dilute these. In this report we take
a look at the policy and legal framework vis-à-
vis mining and environment (see Chapter 4). In
this respect, we gained valuable insight from the
work done by us for the subthematic review paper
on Mining and Biodiversity for the National
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.
In June 2000 while addressing the
th
34 General Meeting of the Federation of
Indian Mineral Industries, Mr. T.R. Baalu said:
“My Ministry has recently assessed the status of
compliance of environmental safeguards stipulated
for various mining projects. I regret to tell that
the status of compliance is poor to say the least.”
One of the areas where the sector performs very
poorly is ecological restoration of mined areas.
In this report we also examine the issue of
ecological restoration of mines (see Chapter 7).
With many mining activities violating
environmental policies and laws, and the
constitutional guarantees to adivasis and other
communities, several groups and communities
have sought to challenge these mining activities
in the courts. The famous Samatha judgement (see
Chapter 4 & 5) of the Supreme Court in 1997
resulted in the prohibition of mining by private
parties in the scheduled areas of Andhra Pradesh
by upholding the provisions which prohibit the
transfer of land to non-tribals in these areas. This
was not only a victory for tribal rights but also
ensured that some of the most fragile areas in the
Eastern Ghats got a respite from destructive
mining. Moreover, the judgement has implications
on scheduled areas in other states too. However,
there have been recent attempts to amend the
constitutional provisions protecting tribal rights,
to allow access to private companies to mine in
scheduled areas! Although this move has presently
been thwarted by tribal activists, the threat is far
from over; since the 10th 5-Year Plan Approach
2 Undermining India
Paper recommends action to remove impediments
in the way of such ‘development’ projects in
scheduled areas. There has also been litigation
using wildlife and forest laws to stop destructive
mining in places such as Sariska and Kudremukh,
which has not only helped protect habitats but also
benefited the local communities dependent on the
forests and water from these areas. In this report,
we also take a brief overview of litigation
concerning mining in ecologically sensitive areas
(see Chapter 5).
The report also contains chapters on the
ecological and mining profile of India, ecological
impacts of mining and a compilation on citizens’
responses - campaigns and use of ‘spaces’ (for
peoples’ participation in environmental decision
making), as also a chapter on recommendations.
We would like to state that while compiling
this report and giving recommendations, there is
an underlying emphasis on the need for planning
and decision-making in India to move towards the
twin objectives of ecological security (including
conservation of ecosystems and species) and
livelihood security (especially of the most under-
privileged sections of society who are dependent
on natural resources). Human societies and cultures
are dependent on many of the ecologically
sensitive areas we have. These areas provide the
essential ecosystem services (eg. watershed
functions, climatic regulation, nutrient cycles, and
so on), that form the basis for human survival.
They also meet the myriad survival and
livelihood needs of fisherfolk, farmers, forest-
dwellers, pastoralists, craftspersons, and others.
Therefore, any planning, we feel, needs to be
oriented towards the twin objectives mentioned
above, and the mining sector needs to respect these
objectives.
The information on the ‘national picture’ of
ecologically sensitive areas affected by mining in
this report is by no means complete. There are
many issues that we have not dealt with, or dealt
with inadequately. We look forward to inputs from
everybody to fill in the gaps and update the
information in this report.
Neeraj Vagholikar Kaustubh Moghe
 Chapter I

Ecological, Biodiversity and

Mineral Profile of India
The word “Biodiversity” means the diversity of life; back-up crops if some are affected by disease or pest or
technically it is defined as the variability among living natural calamities. Hundreds of different varieties of cattle,
organisms, including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic chicken, camel, goats and sheep are still bred and used by
ecosystems and ecological complexes. More simply, it is communities all over the country (Kothari et al, 2001)
species richness of various forms of life including microbes
How and where does this diversity occur?
to higher organisms such as plants and mammals. It is a
One of the important approaches to the classification of
manifestation of the evolutionary processes that have occurred
India’s ecosystems has been based on biogeography (Rodgers
in the earth’s history.
and Panwar 1988). Other approaches have been based on
Biodiversity found in a particular area is a product of the
forest types, phyto-geography and zoogeography. The major
physical environment; it is the abiotic components of the
objective of the exercise carried out by Rodgers and Panwar
ecosystems that shape up the diversity of life and vice-versa.
was to develop a biogeographical classification based on
India is bestowed with very rich diversity of life forms. This
scientific facts, which will enable conservation planning both
could be attributed to the diverse array of the habitats that are
at the national and state levels. The biogeographic system of
formed because of varied geology, topography and other
classification identified ten biogeographic zones1 in India,
physiological features.
which are,
India is the seventh largest country in the world with an
1. The Trans Himalayas
area of 3,287,263 sq. km. Mainland India stretches from 80
2. The Himalayas
4’ to 3706’ North and 6807’ to 97025’ East. It has a land frontier
3. The Desert
of 15,200 km. and 7,516 km. of coastline. It has varied
4. The Semi-Arid
topography, geography, landuse, climate and geological
5. The Western Ghats
formations. This has lead to the formation of a wide variety
6. The Deccan Plateau
of habitats and ecosystems or landscapes and it is one of the
7. The Gangetic Plains
12 mega-biodiversity countries (with two biodiversity hot-
8. The Coasts
spots) in the world. India occupies 2.4% of the world’s land
9. The Northeast
area and contributes 8% to the world’s diversity. However,
10.The Islands
conservative estimates suggest that at least 10% of India’s
These zones extend over a large area and are further divided
recorded wild flora and 20% of its mammals are on the
into 26 biotic provinces. 2 The biotic provinces are
threatened list. Many of these would now be categorised as
distinguished on the basis of climatic and landform
“critical”, i.e. on the verge of extinction. In fact, no one can
differences. Land units within each biotic province are
say how many species have already been lost. According to
demarcated by using local landform differences and barriers
one estimate, 23 species of animals and plants are extinct
to flora-fauna dispersal; a total of 85 such units are listed
which include the cheetah and the lesser one horned rhino
(Mathur & Rajvanshi, 2002).
among mammals, the pink headed duck, the mountain quail,
1. The Trans Himalayas: This region includes the high
and the forest spotted owlet among birds, and plants like
altitude cold and arid areas of Ladakh, Kashmir, Lahul-Spiti
Hubbardia heptaneuron, which disappeared when a hydro-
and North Sikkim. There are two provinces in this zone which
electric dam was built upstream of its riverine habitat. Many
represent more or less sparse vegetation, and drylands, which
species have gone extinct unnoticed either because they were
is good habitat for the wild sheep and goat communities and
not “glamorous” like the large mammals or because their
also rare fauna such as the snow leopard (Uncia uncia) and
existence was simply not known to us (Kothari et al, 2001).
the black-necked Crane.
The situation is similar with India’s domesticated
2. The Himalayas: This is one of the richest areas in terms
biodiversity. The Indian sub-continent is recognised as one
of species diversity and has diverse habitats that include alpine
of the world’s major centres of crop and livestock origin and
and sub-alpine forests, large meadows, moist mixed deciduous
diversity. About 320 species of these wild relatives (116
forests etc. This zone is divided into four provinces. The
genera and 48 families) are known to have originated in India
diverse habitats support number of endangered species like
(Arora and Nayar, 1984). For example, till not so long ago,
Bharal (Pseudois nayaur) or Blue Sheep, Ibex (Capra ibex),
Indian farmers grew about 50,000 to 60,000 varieties of rice.
Markhor (Capra falconeri), Himalayan Tahr (Hemitragus
The use of a diverse range of crop species and varieties
jemlahicus), Takin (Budorcas taxicolor). Other rare and
ensured that several human needs (food, fodder, thatching,
endangered species like Hangul and Musk Deer also occur
medicines, ritual uses, etc.) are fulfilled, and that there are

Undermining India 3
and are restricted to this zone. One of the provinces – East
Himalaya in this biogeographic zone is also one of twenty
five biodiversity hotspots identified in the world.
3. The Desert: It includes large tracts of the Thar Desert
present in Gujarat and west Rajasthan. Mainly composed of
extensive grasslands and scrub. In spite of the hot and arid
conditions it supports sizeable plant diversity. The flora of
Indian desert consists of 682 species of 352 genera and 87
families. It also has rich faunal diversity, more than 1700
species of various faunal groups are known to exist in this
region (Khoshoo, 1998). Commonly known species of
conservation interest are the Wolf (Canis lupus), Caracal
(Felis caracal), and one of the rare birds, the Great Indian
Bustard (Adreotis nigriceps).
4. The Semi-Arid: More of a transition zone between the
desert and the Western Ghats. Extends over Gujarat and has
great diversity – Axis deer (Axis axis), Sambar (Cervus
unicolor), Lion (Panthera leo), Caracal (Felis caracal) are
some of the important species.
5. The Western Ghats: Divided into Malabar Plains and
Western Ghat Mountains. Stretches over an area of 1600 km
from Dangs near the Maharashtra-Gujarat border to
Kanyakumari in Tamil Nadu. It is also one of the 25
biodiversity hotspots in the world. This could be attributed
to its geological history and stability, climate, topography
etc. About 30% of the plant diversity found in India can be
observed in the Western Ghats. Species richness and
endemism in the Western Ghats is well established in the
case of vertebrates. For instance, excluding the migratory
birds, there are 938 species of vertebrates in the Western
Ghats, 36% being endemic.
6. The Deccan Plateau: It is a semi-arid region that falls in
the rain shadow of the Western Ghats. It is the largest
biogeographic zone of India, which is divided into five biotic
provinces. It extends over three states Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra and Orissa. Majority of the forests are deciduous
in nature and supports a wide variety of wildlife. The forests
are further divided into deciduous, dry deciduous, thorn
forests and degraded scrublands. Gaur (Bos gaurus), Axis
deer (Axis axis), Sambar (Cervus unicolor), Barking Deer
Munt, Chousingha are found in this region.
7. The Gangetic Plains: This is a flat alluvial plain, which
is a home to Rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis), Elephant
(Elaphus maximus), Swamp Deer (Cervus duvauceli), Hog
Deer (Axis porcinus) etc. Most of the parts of the grassland
have been subjected to the pressures of industrialization and
urbanization and the subsequent environmental degradation.
8. The Coasts: India has a coastline of 7,516 km. These
areas support great amount of diversity - especially in
mangrove swamps and the coral reefs. However, there are
very few such places found intact and undisturbed in mainland
India. These are important breeding and feeding grounds for
the fisheries and other resources as well as these areas have
high conservation value.
These pockets are present in Gujarat, Goa, Kerala, and Tamil
Nadu, Orissa and West Bengal. Gulf of Mannar and Gulf of
Kutch, etc. are important areas, similarly the coastal part of
4 Undermining India
Orissa (Gahirmatha WLS) where great numbers of turtles nest.
Five species of marine turtles, occur in Indian waters and are
found in the coastal region of which three are commonly
found viz. Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), Green
Turtle (Chelonia mydas), and Loggerhead (Caretta caretta).
The other two species namely, Hawksbill (Eretmochelys
imbricata), Giant Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) are
now restricted to Islands. Besides the marine turtles the other
species of imporatance are marine mammals, viz. Dugong
(Dugong dugon).
9. The Northeast: About 17% of the country’s total forest
cover is found in northeast India and 50% of the total number
of species of vascular plants (7000- 8000 species) of India
are met within this region. The fact that a large number of
primitive flowering plants have been found in the northeastern
region of India indicates this area as one where, perhaps, the
evolutionary development of several angiosperms like
Magnolia, Michelia, Rhododendron, Camellia, and orchids
have taken place (NBSAP, 2003).
The golden langur (Presbytis geei) and brow-antlered deer
(Cervus eldi eldi) of Manipur are two species not found
elsewhere in the world. Other animals like the hispid hare
(Caprolagus hispidus), the pigmy hog (Sus salvanius),
Malayan or Chinese species such as the clouded leopard
Neofelis nebulosa, the marbled cat Felis marmorata
charltoni, the golden cat Felis temminicki, the spotted linsang
Priondon pardicolor, the large Indian Civet Viverra zibetha,
the binturong Arctictis binturong, the crab eating mongoose
Herpestes urva, the red panda Ailurus fulgens, the ferret
badger Melogale moschata and M. personata, the hog badger
Arctonyx collaris, the bay bamboo rat Cannomys badius,
the bamboo rat Rhizomys pruinosus and the hoolock gibbon
Hylobates hoolock have their range of distribution starting
from this region. This region is an interesting meeting ground
of the Indian and Indo-Chinese (part of Oriental fauna) and
palaearctic species (Choudhary, A.U, 2001)
10.The Islands: The island ecosystems are of two types -
coralline that is found in Lakshwadeep and submerged
mountain tops with tropical forests as seen in Andaman and
Nicobar Islands. The islands, especially the Andaman and
Nicobar, are the centres of endemism and support a wide
diversity of floral and faunal assemblages. For instance there
are about 255 bird species found on the Islands of which 112
are endemic. Similarly, a large proportion of herpeto-fauna
i.e. amphibians and reptiles are endemic. Of the 2200 species
of higher plants found on the islands over 200 are strict
endemic and about 1300 are not found occur on mainland
India but are species from Burma, Malaysia, Indonesia and
Polynesia.
In order to conserve and protect the wide range of diverse
life forms, India has a network of Protected Areas. The
objective of the protected area network within the
biogeographic framework is to ensure that at least one area
covers the representative range of available biomes in each
biogeographic division. There are 86 National Parks and 480
Wildlife Sanctuaries covering 153,000.34 sq. km. or 4.66%
of the country’s geographical area (Rodgers et al, 2000). That
does not mean wildlife and biodiversity does not exist outside
PA boundaries. There are many forest patches contiguous with
the protected areas classified as Reserve Forest or Protected
Forests or in some cases these are revenue forests lands,
which are important for conservation and long-term
sustenance. There are ample examples of community
conserved areas as well.
Species Diversity
India harbours a great wealth of biological diversity in its
forests, its wetlands and in its marine areas. This richness is
shown in absolute numbers of species and the proportion they
represent of the world total
Table 1. Comparison Between the Number of Species in India
and the World (from http://www.wcmc.org.uk/igcmc/main.htm)
Group No. of species No. of species SI/SW
in India (SI) in the world (SW) (%)
Mammals 350 (1) 4,629 (7) 7.6
Birds 1224 (2) 9,702 (8) 12.6
Reptiles 408 (3) 6,550 (9) 6.2
Amphibians 197 (4) 4,522 (10) 4.4
Fishes 2546 (5) 21,730 (11) 11.7
Flowering Plants 5,000 (6) 250,000 (12) 6.0
Endemic Species
About 45,000 plant species are reported to occur in India,
representing 11% of the known world flora (BSI, 1983;
NBSAP, Chapter 4 (In Press)). About 33% flowering plant
and 29% of the total Indian flora are endemic which
contributes to the rich plant diversity in the country. Areas
rich in endemism are northeast India, the Western Ghats and
the northwestern and eastern Himalayas. A small pocket of
local endemism also occurs in the Eastern Ghats (MacKinnon
& MacKinnon, 1986). The Gangetic plains are generally poor
in endemics, while the Andaman and Nicobar Islands
contribute at least 220 species to the endemic flora of India
(Botanical Survey of India, 1983).
WCMC’s Threatened Plants Unit (TPU) is in the
preliminary stages of cataloguing the world’s centres of plant
diversity; approximately 150 botanical sites worldwide are
so far recognised as important for conservation action, but
others are constantly being identified. Five locations have
so far been issued for India: the Agastyamalai Hills, Silent
Valley and New Amarambalam Reserve and Periyar National
Park (all in the Western Ghats), and the Eastern and Western
Himalaya (http://www.wcmc.org.uk/igcmc/main.htm).
Among terrestrial animals, the extent of endemism is
relatively well established, and is highest among the lower
vertebrates. The rich faunal diversity in India especially the
terrestrial fauna is not uniformly distributed. This is
especially true of amphibia (>50%), which are considered
autochthonous to peninsular India. Freshwater fish and
reptiles also show relatively high endemism (>30%).
Endemism among the mammals and birds is relatively low
(<10%), reflecting the fact these are relatively recent
intrusive elements. There are two major centres of species
richness, the Western Ghats and Eastern Himalaya. While
the former also shows high levels of endemism, the latter
Undermining India
shows low endemism due to shared international border with
several countries. Species richness and endemism in the
Western Ghats is well established in the case of vertebrates.
For instance, excluding the migratory birds, there are 938
species of vertebrates in the Western Ghats, 36% being
endemic though it only covers about 5% of the geographical
area of the country (Daniels, 1992; Daniels, 1997; NBSAP,
2003).
Biodiversity: Use and Abuse
Ecosystem services and values of biodiversity
Any economic activity withdraws resources from nature;
it uses natural resource capital. The natural resource capital
is nothing but the various ecological services that we accrue
from nature and our surroundings. We benefit from nature in
many ways, by making use of it, aesthetically and culturally.
It also provides us ecological services such as soil formation,
nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, pollution sink,
watershed function, enhancement of water and air quality,
flood and drought control, and many more. The ecosystem
services or ecological services are the product of complex
interaction between biotic and abiotic components of
ecosystems. More diverse services are delivered by the
ecosystems with wider range of biodiversity (Chapin et al,
1997; Edward & Abivardi, 1998; Balmford et al, 2002).
Despite these facts problems of ecological degradation
and biodiversity loss still persist today. The problems that
we face today arise from various causes. Prima facie the
reasons could be the overexploitation of nature and natural
systems that exist or could be the generation of waste and its
disposal in natural areas. No doubt these are some of the
important factors constituting environmental deterioration.
However, we need to take a look beyond these reasons in
order to understand the underlying causes of the damage. The
reason behind environmental degradation and biodiversity loss
are the resource extraction activities. The destruction and
exploitation of the ecosystems and natural resources appears
economically rational, as many of the values of the
ecosystem or natural resources are not recognized in
decision-making (Crook & Clapp, 1998). Similarly the values
of ecosystem services are not fully reflected in our national
accounting systems. Therefore, the landscape transformation
or landuse conversion from forest landuse to exploitative
landuse has an edge over the ecological concerns.
In India public policies related to development and
conservation seldom overlap. That is the basis of the
environmental problem that we face today. So we see mining
taking place in or around protected areas or in sensitive
ecosystems or inside wildlife corridors.
Exploitation and extraction of the resources do not
account for the externalities. In a landmark study about
economics of conservation by Balmford et al (2002), it was
found that landuse conversions (from forest to exploitative)
generally make narrow economic sense because they
undermine public goods and there are mainly immediate
private benefits. Thus, mining or benefits of mining in the
fragile ecosystems or protected areas may make economic
5
sense, although when weighed against the value of ecological
services we may be proved wrong. In the same study by
Balmford et al. (2002) it is estimated that the overall benefit
to cost ratio of an effective global programme for the
conservation of remaining wild nature is at least 100:1. The
economic benefits of activities like mining need to be
evaluated keeping this in perspective.
Mineral Profile of India
India is endowed with significant mineral resources. India
produces 89 minerals out of which 4 are fuel minerals, 11
metallic, 52 non-metallic and 22 minor minerals. It is the
world’s largest producer of mica blocks and mica splitting.
With the recent spurt in world demand for chromite, India
has stepped up its production to become the third highest
among the chromite producers of the world. Besides, India
ranks 3rd in production of coal & lignite and barytes, 4th in
iron ore, 6th in bauxite and manganese ore, 10 in aluminum
and 11th in crude steel in the World (Department of Mines,
GoI).
The aggregate mineral production in 1999- 2000 was
about 550 million tonnes, contributed by over 3,100 mines
(reporting mines) producing coal, lignite, limestone, iron ore,
bauxite, copper, lead, zinc etc. The aggregate value of the
mineral production in 1999-2000 was more than Rs. 452.3
billion. The value of mineral production3 during 1999-2000
was estimated at Rs.452.3 billion to which contribution from
public sector was Rs.378.4 billion (84%). In the total value
of mineral production, fuel minerals accounted for Rs.372.3
billion (82%), metallic minerals at Rs.34.2 billion (8%) non-
metallic minerals Rs.18.3 billion (4%) and minor minerals
Rs.27.6 billion (6%).
Around 9,244 mining leases are spread over 21 States
occupying about 0.7 million hectares which is 0.21% of the
total geographic area of the country. More than 80 per cent
of the mineral production comes from open cast mines and
therefore, one must add the quantity of overburden to that of
the mineral production in order to assess the total amount of
annual excavation in India’s mining sector.
Minerals in India: Some salient features
1) The term “minerals” encompasses a wide variety of
substances taken from the earth. They are generally divided
into four groups: metals, such as aluminium, copper, iron
etc.; industrial minerals – such as limestone, dolomite,
magnesite etc.; construction materials such as sand, gravel
etc.; and energy minerals (fuel minerals) such as coal,
lignite, oil and natural gas.
Some minerals can fall into more than one of the categories
mentioned above, but each is usually classified according to
its predominant use. Eg. Uranium which is an atomic mineral
is a ‘metal’ used as an ‘energy mineral’.
2) Under Indian mining law “minerals” includes all minerals
except mineral oils. The “mineral oils” are natural gas and
petroleum. Minerals in India are further broadly divided into
‘major minerals’ and ‘minor minerals’.
a) ‘Minor minerals’ are generally those used as construction
materials. The Mines and Minerals (Development &
6 Undermining India
Regulation) Act, 1957, defines “minor minerals” as: “means
building stones, gravels, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other
than sand used for prescribed purposes, and any other mineral
which the Central Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette declare to be a minor mineral.”
Apart from the minerals already listed in the above clause
the Central Government has declared 15 other minerals as
minor minerals. No exhaustive definition of minor mineral,
which states the criteria for declaring any mineral as minor
mineral has been given in any law. But minor minerals have
generally been minerals used for building and construction
purposes. The state governments have considerable powers
to regulate the mining of minor minerals, including the grant
of mining leases. Generally these minerals are somewhat of
local importance and can be developed on the small scale.
After the 73 rd amendment of the Constitution in 1993,
Panchayats too have a greater role to play with respect to the
minor minerals.
b) Major minerals: All minerals other than those notified, as
“minor minerals” by the Central Government are major
minerals.
3) The survey, exploration, mining and administration of laws
in the mineral sector are governed by several ministries and
departments. While the Ministry of Mines and institutions
under it (such as the Indian Bureau of Mines, Geological
Survey of India) are the main ones, there are other ministries
and departments involved. Eg. for the “mineral oil” sector
the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas is in charge; for
coal and lignite the Department of Coal is the main governing
body; the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and
Research (under the Department of Atomic Energy) is in
charge of exploration of atomic minerals; there is a lot of
devolution of power to the mining departments within State
Governments for the minor minerals sector.
4) Mining leases: According to the Indian Bureau of Mines
the position of mining leases as on 31.3.1998 reveals that
there are as many as 9244 mining leases (compared to 9340
in the previous year) granted in the country by the state
governments covering 64 minerals including lignite but
excluding coal, petroleum, natural gas, atomic minerals and
minor minerals with a total area of 6,92,492 ha and spread
over 21 states. The following ten states together account for
93% of the total leases granted: Gujarat (15%), Rajasthan
(14.5%), Andhra Pradesh (14%), Madhya Pradesh (13.5%),
Karnataka (11%), Tamil Nadu (7%), Orissa (6.5%), Bihar
(4.7%), Goa (4.3%) and Mahrashtra (2.4%).
Out of 9244 mining leases, 639 (7%) leases were in the
public sector and the balance in the private sector. In all 3100
mines located in 19 states and union territories were reported
to have worked during 1999-2000 of which 566 mines were
for fuel minerals, 561 to metallic minerals and 1973 to non-
metallic minerals. This may not include all.
The number of working coal mines in India is 561 as per
1999 data. This does not include active small-scale coalmines
in states such as Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya. These
561 working mines are spread over the following states:
Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhatisgarh, Jammu and
Kashmir, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, from time to time for which the absolute powers for deciding
Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. The main coal belt areas are on procedures of seeking applications for and granting
spread over the forested belts of central and eastern India. mineral concessions, fixing rates of royalty, dead rent, and
The minor mineral sector (19 minerals in all) does not power to revise orders rest only with the State Government.
usually get that much attention as regards its environmental What are the different mineral concessions in India?
impacts because of the often small lease sizes and smaller Three kinds of mineral concessions are recognized in
scale of operation. But this sector has the largest number of Indian law, viz Reconnaissance Permit(RP), Prospecting
leases spread across the country and has significant License(PL) and Mining Lease(ML). RP is granted for
environmental impacts. It is important to note that of the preliminary prospecting of a mineral through regional , aerial,
non- fuel minerals, ‘stone, sand and gravel’ (all falling within geophysical or geochemical surveys and geological mapping.
the minor minerals in India) are produced most widely and in PL is granted for undertaking operations for purpose of
the largest quantities worldwide. exploring, locating or proving mineral deposit. ML is granted
5) 84% of the mining in India is predominantly opencast for undertaking operations for winning any mineral.
mining.
Who is eligible to obtain mineral concessions in India?
Mineral Production in India from year 1970 to 2000 (Ministry Any ‘person’ who is either an Indian national or a company
of Mines) registered in India under section 3(1) of Companies Act, 1956
Mineral Unit 1970-71 1990-91 1999-2000 is eligible to obtain mineral concessions. While in case of
Fuel minerals an individual, the ‘person’ should be a citizen of India, in case
Coal 73.7 211.3 300.0 of a firm or other association of individuals, all members of
Lignite 3.5 14.00 21.9 the firm or members of the association should be citizens of
Crude oil – 33.00 32.00 India for such a ‘person’ to be considered as ‘Indian national’.
Natural Gas – 18.00 26.4 What is the period and tenure for which a
Metallic Minerals ‘reconnaissance permit’ is granted?
Bauxite 1.4 5.00 6.8 i. A RP for any mineral or prescribed group of associated
Chromite 0.3 0.9 1.7 minerals is granted for 3 years and for a maximum area of
Copper Ore 0.5 5.3 3.1 5,000 square kilometers, to be relinquished progressively.
Iron Ore 31.4 55.5 73.5 ii. After 2 years, the area should be reduced to 1,000 square
Mn Ore 1.7 1.5 1.6 kilometer or 50% of the area granted, whichever is less
Lead and Zinc Ore NA 2.7 iii. At the end of 3 years, area held under a RP should be
Gold Ore NA 0.7 reduced to 25 square kilometers.
Non-Metallic Minerals iv. A RP cannot be renewed.
Limestone 23.8 70.1 127.9 iv. In a State (Province), a person can be granted a maximum
Dolomite 1.1 2.6 2.9 area of 10,000 square kilometres in 2 or more RPs.
Gypsum NA 1.7 3.3 v. A person may obtain RPs in various States simultaneously
Diamond 20 18 41 up to the State-wise area limits. However, a person acquiring
All figures in million tonnes, except diamonds, which are in 1,000 carats. in the name of another person a RP which is intended for
himself shall be deemed to be acquiring it himself and limits
Mining Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) ( Source: would apply accordingly.
Department of Mines) vi. The person who undertakes reconnaissance operations
Who is the owner of minerals in India? under RP enjoys preferential right for grant of prospecting
In the federal structure of India, the State (provincial) license.
Governments are the owners of minerals located within the What is the period and tenure for which a ‘prospecting
boundary of the State concerned. The Central Government is license’ is granted?
the owner of the minerals underlying the ocean within the i. A PL for any mineral or prescribed group of associated
territorial waters or the Exclusive Economic Zone of India. minerals is granted for a maximum period of 3 years and for
Who grants mineral concessions? a maximum area of 25 square kilometers.
The State Governments grant the mineral concessions for ii. A PL can be renewed in such a manner that the total period
all the minerals located within the boundary of the State, under for which a PL is granted does not exceed 5 years.
provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and iii. In a State (Province), a person can be granted a maximum
Regulation) Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. area of 25 square kilometers in 1 or more PLs, but if the
For minerals specified in the First Schedule to the Mines Central Government is of the opinion that in the interest of
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, development of any mineral it is necessary to do so, the
before granting the mineral concession, approval of the maximum area limit can be relaxed.
Central Government is necessary. Also, the Central iv. A person may obtain PLs in various States simultaneously
Government notifies certain minerals as ‘minor’ minerals up to the State-wise area limits. However, a person acquiring
in the name of another person a PL which is intended for

Undermining India 7
himself shall be deemed to be acquiring it himself and limits
would apply accordingly.
v. The person who undertakes prospecting under PL enjoys
preferential right for grant of mining lease.
What is the period and tenure for which a ‘mining lease’
is granted?
i. A ML for any mineral or prescribed group of associated
minerals is granted for a minimum period of 20 years and a
maximum period of 30 years and for a maximum area of 10
square kilometers.
ii. A ML can be renewed for periods not exceeding 20 years.
iii. In a State (Province), a person can be granted a maximum
area of 10 square kilometers in 1 or more MLs, but if the
Central Government is of the opinion that in the interest of
development of any mineral it is necessary to do so, the
maximum area limit can be relaxed.
iv. A person may obtain MLs in various States simultaneously
up to the State-wise area limits. However, a person acquiring
in the name of another person a ML which is intended for
himself shall be deemed to be acquiring it himself, and limits
would apply accordingly.
What is the policy for foreign direct investment in the
mining sector?
The entrepreneurs desirous of bringing in foreign direct
investment in the non-fuel and non-atomic mineral mining
sector are eligible to bring in the foreign equity just by
informing the Reserve Bank of India, termed as ‘ automatic
approval’. Except for precious stones and diamonds,
automatic approval of foreign direct investment up to 100%
is permissible for exploration and exploitation of all non-
fuel and non-atomic minerals, including for gold and silver.
For precious stones and diamonds, automatic approval for
foreign direct investment is permissible up to 74%. However,
even for precious stones and diamonds, higher foreign equity
is permissible, and the Government considers such cases for
approval on merits on a case to case basis through the Foreign
Investment Promotion Board.
What steps should a transnational/ foreign company take
to operate in the mining sector in India?
For being eligible to obtain a mineral concession in India, a
transnational/ foreign Company will be required to
incorporate and register as an Indian company under Section
3(1) of Companies Act, 1956. There is absolutely no bar to
the extent of foreign holding in such a company, as long as it
is registered in India.
The Indian company can thereafter apply for mineral
concessions to the State (Provincial) Government concerned.
What is the principle of granting of mineral
concessions?
The general principle followed in granting mineral
concessions for minerals other than minor minerals is, other
things being equal, the principle of ‘first come first serve’.
However, a person who has undertaken reconnaissance
operations under a RP has the preferential right for obtaining
a PL, and similarly, a person who has prospected for the
mineral under a PL has the preferential right for obtaining a
8 Undermining India
ML. In other cases of simultaneous applications for mining
lease, the law provides that the State Government could, in a
transparent manner evaluate relative merits of the applicants
on objective criteria like special experience, financial
resources, level of proposed investment etc. and grant mining
lease accordingly.
In addition, for all minerals included in the First Schedule to
the MMDR Act, 1957, approval of the Central Government
should be obtained before passing any order.
Does a person have any preferential right to obtain a
mineral concession for the area over which he has
surface rights?
Answer. No. Having surface rights does not accord any
preferential right to a person for obtaining mineral
concessions.
After applying for the mineral concession, how long does
it take to know the decision?
Answer. As per MCR, 1960, the State Government should
convey the decision on a mineral concession applied for as
follows:
Reconnaissance Permits: 6 Months
Prospecting License : 9 Months
Mining Lease : 12 Months.
In case of delay, the State Governments are required to
indicate the reasons for the delay in writing.
Also, in case the State Government does not find the
application worthy of grant of the concession applied for,
the law requires that the applicant should be given an
opportunity of being heard before the application is rejected.
When does the mineral concession become operative?
The State Government takes a decision on the application
for the mineral concession in a time bound manner, as
prescribed in Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. After the
decision to grant mineral concession is conveyed, the mineral
concession should be executed within three months for RP
and PL, and within six months for ML, after completing all
documentation. The period of tenure of the mineral
concession is operative from the date of the execution of
the mineral concession in question.
Can a mining lease be granted without first granting a
prospecting license?
Yes, if the State Government is satisfied that there is evidence
to show that the area for which the lease is applied for has
been prospected earlier or the existence of mineral contents
therein has been established otherwise than by means of
prospecting such area.
How does a person renew a mining lease? What rights
does he have regarding renewal of the mining lease?
A person is required to apply for renewal of the mining lease
12 months prior to the date of expiry of the subsisting mining
lease. Any delay in such filing can be condoned by the State
Government on merits provided the application for renewal
is made prior to the date of expiry of the subsisting mining
lease. The documentation required and the procedure involved
for renewal of a mining lease is the same as that for a new
mining lease, and an application for renewal can be granted
or rejected by the State Government on merits. However, if a
person applies for renewal of the mining lease in time, he
can continue mining even beyond the date of expiry of the
subsisting mining lease till the State Government passes a
decision on his application for renewal. Further , every person
seeking renewal of the mining lease for mineral which is used
in his own industry is entitled for renewal of the lease for a
period not exceeding 20 years.
On what grounds can a mining lease be terminated?
A mining lease lapses, if after execution of the mining lease,
mining operation does not commence in two years time. If
for genuine reasons more time is required to commence
mining operation, the entrepreneur should inform the State
Government well in advance and take permission. After
commencement of mining operation, if the area is kept idle/
not worked for a continuous period of two years, the mining
lease also lapses. In such cases also the entrepreneur should
inform the State Government and take permission in order
to avoid lapsing of the mining lease. If the mining leaseholder
violates any of the terms and conditions of the mining lease,
including default in payment of mining dues, the mining lease
can be terminated.
For all minerals other than minor minerals, the Central
Government reserves the right to direct premature
termination of a mining lease for grounds specified in section
4A(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957, which include preservation
of natural environment, prevention of pollution, preservation
of monuments etc.
Whom does a person approach if he has grievance against
the State Government?
If a person has any grievance against any order passed by the
State Government (impugned order) in respect of any mineral
other than a minor mineral, he can file revision application
with the Central Government within three months of the
impugned order.
What are the provisions of royalty and dead rent, and
who collects them?
The Central Government notifies the rates of royalties and
dead rent payable for various minerals from time to time
through amendment in the Second and Third Schedules of
the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957. Once fixed, the law provides that these rates cannot be
enhanced before three years. The State Governments collect
and retain royalties and dead rent. The State Governments
lay their own procedures for collection of these payments.
For further details contact: dom@sb.nic.in
Endnotes:
1
The Biogeographic Zone: Large distinctive units of similar ecology, biome
representation, community and species
2
The Biotic Provinces: Secondary unit within a zone, giving weight to particular
communities sepaparated by dispersal barriers or gradual change in
environmental factors.
3
The total value of mineral production was Rs. 568070 million in 2000-2001, of
which the value of minerals other than petroleum and natural gas was Rs.
306751 million.
Undermining India
List of Literature cited:
Arora, R.K., and Nayar, E.R. 1984. Wild relatives of crop plants in India. NBPGR
Science Monograph 7, New Delhi.
Balmford et al, 2002, Economic Reasons for conserving Wild Nature,
Science, August 2002, Vol. 297:pp950-953
Chapin et al. 1997, Biotic Control over the Functioning of Ecosystems,
Science, July 1997, Vol. 277: pp 500-504
Botanical Survey of India, 1983, Flora and Vegetation of India: An Outline,
BSI, Howrah, 1983.
Choudhary, A.U. 2001. A systematic review of the mammals of NE India. D.Sc.
Thesis submitted to Gauhati University.
Crook, C. & Clap, R.A., 1998, Is market-oriented forest conservation a
contradiction in terms? Environmental Conservation, 25(2): 131-145.
Daniels, R J R (1992) Geographical distribution patterns of amphibians in the
Western Ghats, India. J. Biogeography 19: 521-529.
Daniels, R J R (1997) A field guide to the frogs and toads of the Western
Ghats: India. Cobra vols 27-29.
Edward, P.J. & Abivardi, C. 1998, Value of Biodiversity: Where Ecology and
Economy Blend, Biological Conservation, Vol. 83(3):239-246
Khoshoo, T.N. 1998, Biodiversity, in Looking back to Think Ahead, Pachuari
R.K. & Sridharan P.V. (Ed), Tata Energy Research Institute, N. Delhi
MacKinnon, J. and MacKinnon, K. (1986). Review of the Protected Areas
System in the Indo-Malayan Realm, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, U.K. 284 pp.
Mathur, V.B. & Rajvanshi, A. 2002,Integrating Biodiversity into Environmental
Impact Assessment: A National Case study from India.
Myers N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.A., Da Fonseca, G.A.B. & Kent,
J., (2000), Biodiversity Hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853-
858.
National Bidiversity Strategy and Action Plan, (in Press), Chapter 4,
Biodiversity Profile of India
Rodgers, W.A. & Panwar H.S., 1988, Planning Protected Area Network in
India, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun
Rodgers et al. 2000, Wildlife Protected Area Network in India: A Review, Wildlife
Institute of India, Dehradun
TERI, 2001, Overview of Mining & Mineral Industry in India, Project Report
2001EE42, Tata Energy Research Institute, N. Delhi.
Web References:
www.biodiversityhotspots.org
http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/ghats/
Ministry of Environment and Forests www.envfor.nic.in
Kothari et al., 2001, Environment, Sustainability & Equity,
www.infochangeindia.org
Department of Mines Official website http://mines.nic.in
Biodiversity Profile of India http://www.wcmc.org.uk/igcmc/main.html
9
 Chapter II
Impacts of Mining
The impacts of mining on the environment and people are
manifold. The impacts are felt at every stage of the mining
cycle, from exploration to mine closure and are, very often,
highly detrimental to fragile ecosystems and local
communities dependent on them. To understand these impacts
it is necessary to know what are the processes involved in
mineral extraction. The entire process from mineral
exploration to the finished mineral product involves various
operations and is referred to as the mineral cycle. Some of
the operations in the mineral cycle are on site (mining, ore
beneficiation) and some are off site (smelting, refinement,
washing etc.).
Mine Cycle1
The Mine Cycle could be broadly divided in to following
main stages:
Exploration: The first step at this stage is locating the
mineral deposit. The potential mineral bearing area is then
sampled by drilling to find the extent of the deposit and
determine tenor of the ore. This exercise is useful while
making decisions about whether the mining operation is likely
to be economically viable and also provides inputs in deciding
the type of mining, whether underground or opencast.
Mining or ore extraction: Planning and site preparation
are the first two steps after exploration is complete, deposits
are identified and various clearances2 are procured. The depth
of the mineral bearing strata decides the type of mining,
whether opencast (also known as surface mining) or
underground (also known as shaft mining). The site
preparation procedure varies depending on many factors, viz.
geographical location, environmental setting etc. In case of
a shallow deposit the mineral bearing strata is reached by
removing overlying rocks, debris (known as overburden) and
topsoil.
Ore Beneficiation or Milling: The beneficiation
process varies from mineral to mineral. In some cases the
ore is so rich that it does not require any beneficiation. The
ore is first graded and then washed. In some cases it is also
referred to as milling. The mill separates and collects the
valuable minerals, while rejecting unmineralized rock and any
impurities it contains.
Mine Closure and Rehabilitation: The mine site is
closed due to various reasons (for details pl. refer to Chapter
7) and subsequently the mining company or lease holder is
suppose to take remedial action to minimize and ameliorate
the damage caused by the mining operation. Remedial actions
usually involve afforestatioin, plantation etc.
Offsite operations may involve processes like smelting
and refinement.
Factors influencing the extent and nature of environmental
impacts of mining
10
The scope of a mining operation’s environmental impacts
depend upon various factors including the size of the
operation, the method of extraction, the type of mineral,
cultural sensitivity of the area and regional geography and
climate. Keeping the focus of this report, the emphasis is on
ecological impacts and not the whole range of impacts.3
Geographical location and climate: The location of the
mine is crucial in terms of its impact. If it is located in an
ecologically fragile area, a biodiversity hotspot, in or around
a designated protected area, it naturally assumes more
significance in terms of its impact just by virtue of the
‘appropriateness’ or ‘inappropriateness’ of mining as a
landuse choice in that area. In such a situation the scale of
operations, method of extraction, waste generation are
secondary factors. The very location of the mine determines
the ‘qualitative extent of impact it seeks to exert’.
eg. the mining by the Indian Aluminium Company on the
Durgamanwad plateau bordering Maharashtra’s Radhanagari
sanctuary assumes great significance in terms of the impacts
because of its location, even though it allegedly uses
‘environmentally benign’ mining techniques and has got an
ISO 14001 certification for it (see chapter 3).
The local climate of an area, including rainfall, wind and
temperature influences the impacts of mining in an area. eg.
many of the effects associated with mining in the tropics are
related to water control. The tropics having on an average
higher rainfall and greater cloud cover than temperate settings.
Rains in the tropics, which come in distinct wet and dry
seasons, resulting in cyclic wetting and drying of rocks, soils
and mining wastes. High rainfall intensifies the weathering
of rock and result in the leaching of metals and the production
of acidic drainage. Heavy rains can also cause tremendous
erosion and mobilisation of sediment and may cause
catastrophic failures of structures such as tailing
impoundments. Eg. Kudremukh National Park: In 1994 due
to record rainfall of upto 10,000 mm the Lakya tailings dam
breeched and the Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. (KIOCL)
township and the villages 45 kms downstream up to Bhadra
Reservoir were evacuated on this alarm, though fortunately
the rains subsided and the crack was fixed. This continues to
be a threat to the rich forests and villages downstream of the
mine in the event of high rainfall. In 1997 the Bhadra river
sand at Balehonnur 15 kms downstream from mining site was
collected by Mr.Kaoosi Sethna and DV Girish of Nature
Conservation Guild, Chickmagalur and was tested in a
Laboratory (Grind well Norton Limited, Shriram Institute for
Industrial Research). The Bhadra river sand was found to be
68% magnetic (containing perhaps a mixture of Fe3, Fe3O4,
etc. The water in the river was ‘rusty smelling’ and ‘non-
potable’).
Undermining India
 Size: The small size of a project does not necessarily mean
it has ‘less ecological impacts’, since “where mining” and
“how mining” are questions which should come before “how
much area under mining”. This is particularly true of minerals
found in biodiversity-rich areas or involving the use/release
of toxic materials in the extraction process which can have
serious impacts on both the ecosystem and people. eg. illegal
gold mining in the Nilambur valley of the Karium Muriam
Reserved Forests in Kerala, although very small in scale and
size, is harmful because of the location and methodology
used. The mercury used in the extraction process is poisoning
the waterways in the forest.4
But it is also true that once ‘where mining’ has been
established, the increasing scale and size of a mining
operation does become an important determinant of a projects
potential impact. Large operations come with ancillary
development. They require access roads, more excavation and
removal machinery, and expanding refining facilities. The
high production of wastes in large operations is among the
principal causes of environmental impacts at a mine site.
Noise levels and visual impacts also increase with increase
in size of operations. Eg. in the Damodar Valley basin which
is one of the largest coal-belts of India, the huge
environmental impacts are not only due to the coalmining
itself but to the ancillary developments such as coal washeries,
coal-based industries, thermal power projects etc.
Method of extraction: Surface mining operations can have
a much broader impact on the environment (including
biodiversity) compared to underground mines because of the
large amounts of vegetation, soil and rock that have to be
removed to expose the mineral. The removal of the
overburden physically alters the landscape and can disrupt
ecological processes. Once removed, improperly contained
or stabilized piles of stored waste rock are prone to erosion,
threatening local soils and waterways.
While underground mines are generally less destructive
in terms of volumes of waste created and direct impacts on
surface vegetation and waterways, they can have other negative
environmental impacts. Underground tunnels can be sources
of groundwater contamination when the groundwater enters
exposed areas. This type of contamination can occur for
decades after mining has ceased and is very difficult to control.
Subsidence – the dropping of the surface ground level due to
underground tunnel collapse – is another potential
environmental impact related to underground mining. Eg.
While subsidence is a common phenomenon seen in mining
in India, it assumes greater significance in terms of its impacts
when it happens in fragile areas. A good example of this is
subsidence due to coalmining taking place in Assam in the
Patkai hills, which has gone on inspite of its significant
ecological and social impacts, and widespread protests.
Mineral characteristics: Target mineral characteristics
have an important influence on the potential extent of
environmental degradation, level of toxicity etc. Eg. minerals
such as stone, clay, sand etc. ( both construction minerals as
well as many industrial minerals) are mostly extracted in
Undermining India
large tonnages from open pit mines. Typically, there is little
or no processing involved in this extraction, because the
minerals are not as ‘valuable’ per unit weight as metals and
are used in bulk quantities. Few harsh chemicals are used in
the extraction of these minerals, but the chief environmental
consideration is the actual land destruction and scale of
operation.
The mining of metals, on the other hand, can pose a more
serious threat to the environment because of the waste
generated in the removal and processing of the target metal.
Reagents used to separate metal from ore can be extremely
harmful to the environment; metal smelters and refineries
can also lead to a lot of pollution. Eg. iron ore tailings disposal
in Kudremukh National Park, Karnataka; the uncontrolled
production of tailings through wet-circuit processing of ore
by Kiriburu mines in the Saranda forest division in Jharkhand
is the major source of pollution of the river Koina. The high
colouration of river water, as a result of mine waste, and the
consequent reduction in water quality values of the Koina
catchment, are a present cause of concern for both people
and wildlife. A study by a Wildlife Institute of India (WII)
researcher, R.K Singh, shows that the unregulated mine
discharge has damaged the river system and reduced the
habitat values for wildlife. His study shows that iron ore
mining in the area has greatly affected the habitat utilisation
patterns by elephants.
Communities inhabiting the area (Cultural sensitivity
of the area): The extent of the ecological impacts are also
more in terms of its interrelation with socio-economic, health
and cultural aspects in areas inhabited by ecosystem-
dependent communities. Besides physical displacement,
mining activities can destroy sustainable livelihoods based
on harvesting renewable forest produce and subsistence
agriculture, both linked to wild and domesticated
biodiversity; cause a loss of traditional knowledge related to
the biodiversity due to change of livelihoods; destroy areas
having significant cultural, religious, as well as biodiversity
values (such as sacred groves) etc. Thus the impacts are much
higher in areas inhabited by tribal and other forest-dependent
communities. Eg. the coal belt of central India overlaps with
forest and tribal India and has caused tremendous impacts on
both biodiversity and the local communities. In the coal-belt
of Jharkhand, the large-scale mining activities have affected
the traditional lives of the tribals in many ways. Amongst other
things, their sacred groves (sarnas), usually one in each
village, have been destroyed in large numbers.
Impacts of mining on the environment through the mine
cycle (focus on ecological impacts): The mine cycle
includes exploration, mine operation and extraction, ore
beneficiation or milling and closure and reclamation. The
‘mine operation and extraction’ phase has an independent
cycle associated with it, known as the mineral production
cycle. This is largely relevant for minerals where any sort of
‘processing’ is involved, whether washing of coal; crushing,
concentration and final refining of metals; or crushing of stone
in stone-crushers for building activites.
11
 Because both exploration and extraction involve land-
clearing, road-building and infrastructure development, the
potential impacts during both phases will be similar, including
erosion, sedimentation and the indirect impacts of access to
an undeveloped area. However, there are important
differences in intensity between the two phases; exploration
is a relatively low-impact, wide ranging activity ,while
extraction is a much more intensive, high-impact activity in
a much smaller land area.
Exploration: Environmental impacts of the exploratory
phase include the direct impacts of erosion, sedimentation
and habitat loss etc. as well as the potential indirect impacts
of human colonization and accompanying deforestation.
Exploration generally begins nowadays with broad
preliminary surveys that use remote sensing techniques such
as aerial photography or satellite imagery. These activities,
and subsequent on-the-ground sampling and testing usually
have a minimal impact on the natural environment. The
greatest threat of such activity is the potential for indirect
impacts resulting from increased access to ecologically
sensitive areas which facilitates future mining activities. Eg.
Presently in India reconnnaisance permits over large areas
and prospecting licenses are being granted without taking into
consideration the ecological significance of an area. In 1999
B. Vijay Kumar Chhatisgarh Exploration (BVKCE) had been
given a prospecting license for diamond in the Raipur district
of Chhatisgarh for an area of 4600 sq. kms. This area is a
biodiversity-rich area and and has the Udanti sanctuary, which
holds one of the last viable populations of the wild buffalo.
In January 2001 it was reported that the Union Government
had ordered an enquiry into illegal mining carried out by
BVCE in the Deobhag area of Chhatisgarh, wherein they had
illegally removed soil from Udanti and surrounds and sent it
abroad for testing. Recent years have seen a spate of
reconnaisance permits for luxury minerals such as diamond
in some of the most ecologically-fragile areas in the country.
In the later stages of exploration, when more invasive
methods such as trenching and drilling are used to help
specify direction and shape of a deposit the environmental
impacts are greater because of the need for land-clearing,
access and heavy machinery. While none of these impacts
are on the scale of later large-scale infrastructure
developments, the broad range of activities and land area
covered in a typical exploration project can lead to a
potentially large cumulative impact. Ideally, exploration
should be a low-impact temporary activity that minimally
affects small areas for short periods of time. Ecological
impacts of land-clearing and road-building and infrastructure
development can be significant at this stage.
Mine operation and extraction of mineral: This stage
consists of three stages: the actual mine operation and
extraction; processing and production; waste management
1) Mine operation and extraction: Mine operation and
extraction can have similar but more intensive impacts as
those of exploration mentioned above. Before any mine can
begin operations, the standing vegetation in the area, alongwith
12
large amounts of biomass and nutrients its contains, need to
be removed. This deforestation leads to chnages in the
hydrological regimes. For an open pit, the displacement of
tons of earth, rock and soil during excavation can have a huge
impact on the soils and the overall balance of the ecosystem.
The main impacts are felt on the water bodies in the vicinity
as runoff from the heaps of the waste material deteriorates
the quality of the water by increased suspended matter and
other pollutants. The waste or overburden heaps also lead to
creation of impoundments, tailings, change in the course of
the streams etc. due to alteration of the topography. Pits and
cleared areas for waste rock piles, tailings impoundments,
processing plants and other facilities vastly increase the
potential for erosion and sedimentation in an area. Thus,
threatening the watershed and water resources besides
biodiversity and wildlife.
2) Ore beneficiation/ Milling and production/ Washing etc.:
Environmental degradation during the mineral production
cycle can also result from the improper use of chemicals
and other toxic materials, as well as increased energy and
water use in processing plants.
3) Waste management: The sheer scale of many modern
mechanised mining operations means that controlling the
generation of waste is a significant challenge throughout all
phases of a project. This challenge is particularly acute in
remote and sensitive ecosystems where waste treatment or
secure storage is not clearly outlined. Waste management
systems need to be designed and implemented from the
earliest stages of an operation and more importantly need to
be continued for may years after closure. The main threats
from mining waste generation of metals are contamination
from tailings and acid rock drainage. Eg. The Damodar river
basin is a repository of 46% of the Indian coal reserve.
Exploitation of coal by underground and opencast mining
and accompanying industrial expansion has greatly degraded
the region. A study by the Central Mining Research Institute
(CMRI)5 carried out hydro-geochemical analysis of mine
water and physico-chemical analysis of coal-based industrial
effluents6 to evaluate their physical and biological impacts
on the water quality of the region. The report clearly finds a
high degree of water pollution and says that “sedimentation
of these particles at the river bed has reduced the biodiversity
of the acquatic ecosystem.” There are several studies which
indicate the toxic impacts of coalmining and allied activities
in the Damodar studies on the rivers, which has consequently
impacted people and wildlife.
Closure and restoration: Lack of proper closure and a
subsequent restoration plan or its implementation ensures
that many of the environmental impacts due to the operation
and extraction stage of mining continue after the productive
life of a mine is over. Thus proper closure and restoration of
existing mines already functioning in ecologically fragile
areas or otherwise needs to be taken up on a priority basis to
reduce these impacts (see chapter 7).
Undermining India
Impacts of mining on socio-economic, cultural and
human health aspects
Social displacement: The presence of a major mine
development can have serious impacts on a community,
disrupting social structures and production systems. For
relatively isolated communities, the results of these new
developments can be profound, often taking them from
“subsistence living to 21st century living in the space of a
generation”, causing serious social disruption and
displacement.
For several communities the idea of mining may be
contrary to traditional community values that relate to the
sanctity of the earth and the land. Large-scale drilling
excavations and drilling, therefore will often cause a serious
‘culture shock’ to communities; with the influx of outsiders
and the coming in of a cash-economy, ‘commodification’ of
their forests and natural resources takes place. Eg. The
Bailadila mines in the tribal belt of Chhatisgarh have
destroyed both the forests and the rivers. As a consequence
of run-off from the mines, a 32 km. stretch of the Sankhini
river is called “lal pani” ( red water) by the tribal people
who see the “earth bleeding from the wounds inflicted on it
by the miners.”
Physical displacement: While cultural changes can cause
profound social dislocation, physical changes also have severe
consequences. Mining projects can displace local
communities by limiting their access to or use of traditional
lands and forests or even cause physical relocation. To many
communities, land is “their legacy from the past, their
provider in the present and their security for the future”. Thus
their actual link and relationship with their forests and
biodiversity is severed. This has also led to loss of knowledge
related to biodiversity which has been handed down from
generations which also leads to a degeneration in traditional
healing systems linked to the forest.
Livelihoods: For many communities, sustainable
biodiversity dependent livelihoods based on extraction of
renewable resources from the forest such as minor forest
produce (MFPs) is replaced by a mining-related job (
economy based on extraction of non-renewables which is
unsustainable in the long run). The importance of this issue
needs to be underscored. Often the projected ‘positive social
impacts’ of mine development, including increased
employment and economic opportunities, emerge as negative
impacts towards the end of the mine’s life. Creating new jobs
and new business for services means that there will be that
many more people facing economic dislocation once the
ready-made employer and customer, that is the mine, is gone.
The social impacts of mine closure is an area requiring focus
and has now been highlighted in the National Mineral Policy.
Demographic changes: The sudden influx of new people
and their subsequent activities in the area can seriously impact
local resources such as forests, water etc. This not only
puts a pressure on the forests, wildlife etc. but also disrupts
the traditional links of local people with their forests. While
all community members will be affected in some way by the
Undermining India
presence of large-scale development, women often bear a
disproportionate amount of the costs of major social changes.
This includes (related to biodiversity loss): loss of traditional
forest-dependent livelihoods linked to both the loss of forests
as well as the growing lack of safety due to the influx of
outside labour into the area; health impacts due to loss of
traditional resources or lack of access etc.7
Specific biological impacts of mining8
The biological impacts associated with mining are primarily
related to resultant changes in land use. The land use
conversion affects natural communities and in turn individual
species within community types. The following are the
possible impacts than can occur on the biological environment
but are not limited to these alone.
Effects on:
- The resiliency and fitness of ecosystem types, for
example, lowland forest, upland forest, grassland, marsh, bog,
and upstreams
- The total standing crop of organic matter
- Effects on annual plant productivity
- Mulch or litter removal as related to top-soil stripping
- Animal production
- Sediment load carried by streams
- Aquatic macroinvertebrate populations
- Drift rate of aquatic macroinvertebrates.
- Population density of fish
- Species diversity of the aquatic biota
- Undesirable proliferations of biota
- Localized survival of rare plant and animal species
- The habitat carrying capacity of both aquatic and
terrestrial systems.
- Abandonment of habitat.
- Endemic populations of plants and animals.
- Wildlife breeding and nesting sites.
- Endangered plant and animal species.
- Vegetation communities of denuded areas.
- Wildlife refuges and sanctuaries.
- Scientific and educational areas of biological interests.
- Vegetation recovery rates.
- Forage areas for both upland and lowland game species.
- Migratory game bird species.
- Terrestrial microbial communities
- The amount of forest removed.
- Population density of past species.
- Domestic animal species.
- The amount of grassland removed.
- Natural drainage systems.
- Natural animal corridors.
- Eutrophication.
- Expansion of population range for plant and animal
species.
- On cropland removal.
- The potential for wildlife management.
- Food-web index including herbivores, omnivores and
carnivores.
13
- Species diversity of the terrestrial biota.
- Nutrient supply available to the terrestrial biota.
- Sport fishing and hunting.
- Relict vegetation types.
- The responses of sensitive native plants to air
pollutants, both particulate and gases.
- Unnatural dispersion and subsequent over utilization of
habitat.
- Water-temperature stability.
- Areas of high brush-fire potential.
- Water quality and dependent biota.
- Natural biological character loss.
Effects of:
- Sediment load on fish growth.
- Sediment load on fish spawning.
- Resultant air pollution on crop yield.
- Noise levels on reproductive inhibition of small
mammals.
- Air pollutants on tree canopy.
- Noise levels on broodiness of upland and lowland game
birds.
- Noise levels on insect maturation and reproduction.

Endnotes:
1. The mining cycle will vary in portions according to nature of mineral.
2. Clearances include licenses, leasing of the land, clearance from state and
central governments (depending upon the type and nature of the mineral),
and environmental clearance from concerned agencies at the state and at the
national level.
3. There is considerable research done on the environmental and social impacts
of mining in India. But the focus of studies on environmental impacts has
largely been on air and water pollution and alteration of the physical
environment. Detailed ecological impact studies, including the inter-
relationships between ecological impacts and local communities has not been
focussed on enough.
4. Personal communication with Dr. Satishchandra Nair.
5. R.K. Tiwary, J.P.Gupta, N.N. Banerjee, B.B.Dhar ( Central Mining Research
Institute, Dhanbad), ‘Impact of coal mining activities on water and human
health in the Damodar River Basin’. Presented at the
First World Mining Environment Congress, New Delhi, India, 1995.
6. The coal based industries in the Damodar basin include coal washeries,
coke oven plants, coal fired thermal power plants, steel plants and other related
industries.
7. For more informaton on Women and Mining, get in touch with Bhanumati of
the mines, minerals and People (mmP) network. See ‘Mining Resources’ in
this issue for contact details.
8. This section is from: Dr. Asha Rajvanshi, ‘Environmental Impact Assessment
of Mine Areas’, Wildlife Institute of India (WII); part of the training material
for the Awareness Training Programme for Environment Management of
Mines held during July 15- 30, 1996, at the Forest Research Institute, Dehradun.

References
1. Amy Rosenfeld Sweeting, Andrea P. Clark, Lightening the Lode – A Guide
to responsible Large-scale mining, Conservation International Policy Papers,
2000
2. ‘Impact of the Mineral Industry on Biodiversity’; from Managing the
impacts of the Australian Mineral Industry on Biodiversity, Australian Centre
for Mining Envrionmental Research, August 2001.
3. Dr. Asha Rajvanshi, ‘Environmental Impact Assressment of Mine Areas’,
Wildlife Institute of India(WII); part of the training material for the Awareness
Training Programme for Environment Management of Mines held during
July 15- 30, 1996, at the Forest Research Institute, Dehradun.
4. Reclamation/ Restoration – Techniques & Strategy for Mined Out Areas;
Indian Bureau of Mines, 2000.

14 Undermining India
 Chapter III
National picture of ecologically
sensitive areas affected by mining
This chapter gives state-wise information on ecologically
sensitive areas impacted by mining in the country. The level
of information varies according to particular sites. This was
based on information available to us on these areas as well as
a decision we took to dwell at length on a few case studies
while mentioning others in brief. This is by no means a
complete picture but quite indicative of the extent to which
ecologically sensitive areas in the country are impacted by
mining activities. In the following paragraphs, the following
acronyms have been used frequently:
WLS: Wildlife Sanctuary
NP: National Park
RF: Reserved Forests
MoEF: Ministry of Environment & Forests
1) Andaman and Nicobar Islands
l Sandmining affecting turtle nesting sites
All the eight species of sea turtles found in the oceans of
the world are listed as endangered in the Red Data Book of
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
(IUCN). The Andaman and Nicobar islands are considered
the best nesting sites in India for three of these species: the
giant leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), the green sea
turtle (Chelonia mydas), and the hawksbill (Eretmochelys
imbricata). Additionally, the Olive Ridley sea turtle
(Lepdochelys olivacea) also nests in these islands in
substantial numbers. Recent surveys in the Nicobar islands
have indicated that this is one of the most significant and
largest leatherback nesting sites in the world.1
Turtle populations in the island are dwindling rapidly due
to a variety of reasons, one of the most crucial reasons being
the large-scale destruction of turtle nesting beaches due to
sandmining for the growing construction industry.2 In 1995-
1996 about 70,000 to 80,000 cubic metres of sand was mined;
the figures for 1997-98 were estimated to be about 1,57,000
cu. m. Approximately 2,23,937 cu.m of sand was officially
extracted from the beaches of the islands in the three years
from 1998-2001. As a result, the beaches, many of them
important nesting sites, have been destroyed. The beaches at
Corbyn’s Cove. Wandoor, Chidiyatapu and Shoal Bay 19 (SB
19), all within an hour’s drive from Port Blair, were important
nesting sites, but have been ravaged. The beach at Wandoor,
on the border of what is now the Mahatma Gandhi Marine
National Park (MGMNP), was heavily mined for sand for
15-20 years. The MGMNP continues to face the threat of
sandmining, although in areas other than Wandoor. Other
islands such as Rutland and Baratang have also been impacted
Undermining India
by sandmining. The case of the Cuthbert Bay Turtle
Sanctuary in the Middle Andaman is very illustrative. One
the one hand it has been promoted as a tourist destination for
its scenic beauty and its nesting turtles; on the other hand, a
part of the beach was handed over to contractors for
sandmining, which affected the turtles and defeated the
purpose of establishing the sanctuary. Recently the mining
in this area has been stopped by the forest department. Beach
erosion has and continues occur because of sand mining in
the A & N and 21 marine turtle nesting beaches have been
lost between 1981 and 2000, due to sand mining.3
Under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification
the Andaman and Nicobar islands are classified as CRZ –IV.
When the CRZ notification came through in 1991 the
provisions of CRZ IV said that coral and sand from the beach
shall not be used for construction and other purposes. But
this was amended in January 1997 whereby sand was allowed
to be used upto a certain date,4after which it would be
prohibited. But this period has been extended in subsequent
amendments and the latest amendment to the CRZ notification
dated 13th August 2001 allowed the use of sand upto the 30th
day of September 2002. Interestingly the ‘deadline’ has been
extended four times despite a prohibition on further extension
as stated clearly in the 31st January 1997 notification itself.
In an ongoing litigation in the Supreme Court of India on
logging in the Andaman & Nicobar islands5 a one- man
committee was set up to give recommendations on issues
related to the islands. This is what the Shekhar Singh
Commission6 had to say about sandmining:
Approximately 2,23,937 cu.m. of sand was officially
extracted from the beaches of the islands in the three years
1998-2001. 72 beaches around the islands were used for the
extraction. In addition, the local people allege that there is
also illegal extraction of sand, which is considerable.
The commission recommended that sandmining in the
islands should be phased out by September 2002. The
Supreme Court however modified the order as below:
“After taking all facts and circumstances into
consideration, we issue the following directions:
(18) The extraction of sand shall be phased out @ minimum
20% per year on reducing balance basis to bring the sand
mining to the level of 33% of the present level of mining
within a maximum period of 5 years.”
There are also suggestions in the report on alternatives
for construction in the islands. This includes the use of timber
for local construction oonly and the replacement of sea
sand by rock dust to reduce the impact on the beaches. Use
15
of stone dust is increasing in the islands but as of now, the WLS (about 30 km SE). The Ashwapuram forest block
pressure on the beaches continues. Recently the alongwith the Gongigudem and Kondaiguda forest blocks acts
administration had invited experts from the Trivandrum based as a good buffer to Kinnersani and serves as an ideal habitat
group COSTFORD to advise on the use of appropriate for the survival of several species protected under schedule I
construction materials. of the WLPA and also supports good populations of some
The use of stone dust will mean giving licenses for rare species. The report says that existing mining has caused
quarrying. These quarries need to be selected after proper the destruction of wildlife and regarding proposed expansions
impact assessment, to prevent the recurrence of ugly says that “interfering with such kind of pristine forest habitat
landscapes such as that at Corbyn’s Cove in the islands. is a matter of high risk.”
l Illicit mining in the scheduled areas of East Godavari
2) Andhra Pradesh
and Vishakhapatnam districts for semi-precious stones is
The state of Andhra Pradesh is one of the most mineral-
an area of concern and has also led to land slides in the recent
rich states in India.
past.15 In 1995 it was reported that the MoEF was to send a
l One of the impending threats is that of uranium mining in
special team to assess the damage to tree cover resulting
the Nagarjunasagar – Srisailam Tiger Reserve7 . It was
from illegal mining of gemstones in the Sankaram
reported that an area of 7 sq. kms. out of the tiger reserve is
Reserved Forests of Vishakhapatnam district.16
to be handed over for uranium exploration. 8 While the
l In July 2002 it was reported that beach sandmining was
exploration has not begun, the threat still remains. Currently
taking off in the state with mining leases and prospecting
a proposed captive limestone mine by M/s Chola Cement in
licenses being granted by the state government, after initial
the vicinity of the reserve is undergoing environmental
objections by the Ministry of Environment and Forests
clearance from the MoEF, for which opinion has been sought
(MoEF). The State government granted a mining lease to
regarding the impacts of the project from the Wildlife Institute
Transworld Garmet to explore beach minerals over a 95
of India (WII) and Project Tiger. 9
hectare area in Srikurmam (confluence of the river Nagavali)
l Some of the most pristine forests in Andhra Pradesh are
in Srikakulam district. Trimax, another company which has
seen in the Eastern Ghats in the areas bordering the
been given a prospecting license, had also applied for a mining
Khammam, West Godavari, East Godavari and
lease over an area of 8.22 square kilometres in the Bhimili
Vishakhapatnam districts. Many of these areas have also been
beach area of Vishakhapatnam district.
declared as scheduled areas10 , being home to a large tribal
Applications from the AP Mineral Development
population. These areas are rich in minerals such as limestone,
Corporation, public sectors National Mineral Development
bauxite, mica, phosphate, granite etc. There is considerable
Corporation and Indian Rare Earths, who entered into a joint
impact of limestone mining in the Yerramalais, bauxite
venture to take up mining in the Vizag-Bhimili beach area,
in East Godavari and coal mining in Khammam. Bauxite
are also under consideration. These beach areas have been
mining in the Northern Eastern Ghats has devastated the
found to have heavy deposits of illemnite, garnet, monazite
ecology of the area and the coalmining in Khammam has
and zircon, with most of the minerals containing titanium
resulted in the clearance of vast stretches of deciduous forests.
dioxide and slag.
The proposed Gudem - Marripakala Biosphere Reserve
in Vishakhapatnam and East Godavari districts faces a threat
The main objection given by the Ministry of Environment
from mining, principally bauxite.11
earlier in giving clearances to undertake mining on Vizag
In a letter sent to the Regional Chief Conservator of
beach was that the deployment of machines to excavate the
Forests(CCF), South Zone , in October 2000, the group
beach sand minerals would destroy the nests of Olive Ridley
Samatha12 has raised concerns about the proposed opening
turtles.17 Environmentalists are concerned about the sand
up of the following areas in the Vishakhapatnam district to
mining and its environmental impact, particularly on marine
bauxite mining: Rakhthakonda in Anantagiri-II RF, S Kota
life such as turtles.18
Range; Galikonda in Sunkarmetta RF, Araku Range; Chittam
l The mining of nodules for manganese, cobalt, copper from
Gondi in Muliyaguda RF, Araku Range.
the continental shelf and seabed is also an area of concern
The letter states the importance of all these areas from
and needs to be regulated.19
the point of view of both wildlife and the local communities
l Other areas of concern include: coalmining in Adilabad
and states that these areas also form the catchment of the
district, mica mining in Nellore district , limestone mining
Machkund, Sileru, Gosthani and Sharada rivers and the
in Nalgonda district, oil drilling and ancillary activities around
tremendous impact the opening up of the area to mining
Hope Island and Coringa WLS.20
would have on all of these.13
l A Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS) study14 for 3) Arunachal Pradesh
the Singareni Colleries Company has looked at the impact of The prominent resources of coal in Arunachal Pradesh
existing and proposed mining in the Manuguru area of the are found in the Tirap and Changlang districts. There are two
Ashwapuram range of the Paloncha forest division in largely unexploited coalfields in this region: Namchik-
Khammam district. The Manuguru forest is contiguous with Namphuk and Miao – Bum, which are in continuity with the
the Kinnersani WLS ( about 15 km SW) and the Popikonda Upper Assam coalfields. The region is part of the

16 Undermining India
ecologically fragile Patkai Hills and is clothed with
rainforests. The unexplored Miao- Bum coalfields also extend
under the Namdapha Tiger Reserve. The Changlang district
also has oil reserves. Besides ongoing oil drilling, the area is
being explored for expansion in oil activities. Thus both coal
and oil mining are potential threats for the areas around
Namdapha.
In 1999 coalmining started in the Kharsang Block of the
Namchik RF in the Miao Forest Division in an area 16 kms.
from the Namdapha Tiger Reserve.21 There have been several
petitions sent to the MoEF against the mining from
individuals/ groups around Arunachal Pradesh, including
certain sections of the local community, expressing grave
concern over the ecological impacts of this mining. In
February 2001 the MoEF withdrew the permission given in
1999 on grounds of violation of both the FCA and the EPA
by the coal miners in the area.
Mining is an extremely inappropriate landuse choice in
this region. In fact the Supreme Court in the order of 12.12.
1996 in the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of
India case22 while referring to this region has said: “in the
tropical wet evergreen forests of Tirap and Changlang in the
State of Arunachal Pradesh, there would be a complete ban
on felling of any kind of trees therein because of their
particular significance to maintain ecological balance needed
to preserve bio-diversity. All saw mills, veneer mills and
plywood mills in Tirap and Changlang in Arunachal Pradesh
and within a distance of 100 kms from its border, in Assam,
should also be closed immediately.” Considering the fragility
of the area, expansion of mining in the Patkai hills will mean
disaster. It is important that proactive efforts are made to
develop a sustainable renewable resource utilisation strategy
to ensure that the livelihoods of the local people are not
impacted in the region.
4) Assam
l Coal and oil mining threatens wildlife areas in eastern
Assam. Eastern Assam has two major coalfields, Dilli
Jaypur and Makum, both in the fragile Patkai hills. This
falls in the Tinsukia district and the mining areas in Assam
are popularly referred to by the towns they are close to,
Margherita and Ledo. The British Company, the Assam
Railways and Trading Company Ltd., extracted coal by
underground mining in this region for over a hundred years
till 1973, when the coalfields were nationalised and taken
over by the government. Now this region is primarily being
mined by the North Eastern Coalfields, which introduced
opencast mining in the early 1980s. This expanding activity
has destroyed rainforests in this region, caused loss of wildlife,
polluted waterways and silted and depleted fertile agricultural
land. 23 This has also led to tremendous protests from
environmental, social and political groups around Assam
since the mid-1980s. The MoEF ordered the Tikak colliery
to close down in 1989 on environmental grounds, but this
was allowed to restart in the 1990s. Several people affected
by the mining activities are currently involved in litigation
against the North Eastern Coalfields.
Undermining India
l The proposed Joydihing WLS in eastern Assam is one
of the last rainforest patches surviving in Assam and needs
urgent protection. One of the major existing and proposed
threats in areas surrounding this region is coal and oil mining
l A study on elephant corridors in east and northeastern
India indicates that the Dibru – Deomali corridor in eastern
Assam is heavily disturbed by coal mining and oil exploration
activities.24
l The Upper Dihing (east and West Blocks) RFs near
Margherita are affected by oil mining.25
l The habitat of the Ganges River dolphin Platanista
Gangetica in the Kulsi River, a tributary of the Brahmaputra,
is affected by sandmining. The sand extraction has caused
silting of the dolphin habitat, smothering of bottom fauna,
and lowering of the productivity of the river by blocking the
sun-light and preventing photosynthesis. This ecological
degradation has a serious impact on the fish production on
which the dolphin depend for food.26 A 2002 Dolphin census
report carried out by the Dolphin Conservation Society,
Assam, indicates that in 1997 while the dolphins were
available in a 10-km stretch of the river, they were now
restricted to a 5-km stretch as the downstream portions were
silted up.
5) Bihar
l It was reported in 2001 that the mines department in Bihar
has renewed its effort for getting about 800 sq. kms. of forest
land released in the Kaimur Hills, for limestone mining.
This is the region where the Kaimur WLS in the Rohtas
district of the state is located. The forest department opposed
this move and forest officials have expressed concern over
the potential detrimental effects on forests and wildlife if
land is diverted for mining and also stated that it will violate
the wildlife laws of the country.27 The latest status on this
threat is not known but the sanctuary surrounds are impacted
by mining activities.
l Government of India had given conditional clearance for
three leases for mining / extraction of boulder in the Valmiki
Tiger Reserve. In 2001 the park authorities had indicated
very poor compliance of the seventeen conditions imposed
and had expressed the opinion that these should be
cancelled.28
l It has been reported by INTACH, Hazaribagh, that both
the existing and the proposed coalmining in the Rajmahal
coal mines in the Godda district of eastern Bihar
(bordering West Bengal), has and will affect elephant
corridors.29
6) Chandigarh
No information available.
7) Chhattisgarh
This state, carved out of Madhya Pradesh, is both rich in
its forest and mineral wealth. The state has heavy deposits of
iron ore, coal, lime stone, bauxite, dolomite, tin ore, gold,
etc. and is also rich in the deposits of precious and
semiprecious stones like diamond, corundum, alexandrite,
garnet, etc. Chhattisgarh produces 25% of the total iron ore
17
production of the country. The main iron ore producing areas
are: Bailadila, Raoghat and Dalli-Rajhara. The main bauxite
producing areas are Phutka Hills, Main Pat, Samri Pat, Keshkal
valley and Maikal ranges. The state is also a huge producer of
limestone and dolomite and is being targeted for diamond
prospecting and mining in a big way. Diamond are reported
from in Payalikhand and Behradih villages of Deobhog area
of Raipur and Tokpal of Bastar district. These are present in
the form phenocrysts in kimberlite-like volcanic rocks. The
main coal producing areas are: Korba Colliery, Hasdo-
Rampur Colliery, Mand-Raigarh Colliery, Vishrampur
Colliery, Lakhanpur Colliery, Tatapani-Ramkola Colliery,
Jhilmili Colliery, Sonhat Colliery, Jhagrakhand Colliery,
Chirmiri-Kurasiya Colliery.
The following areas within the state containing different
minerals are being looked at for future exploitation: Deobhog
in Raipur district and Tokpal in Bastar district has been
identified for the exploration of Diamond; Bijapur in Bastar
district for Corrandum; Saraipali of Mahasamund district for
Gold and Tin (Cassiterite); Bailadila, Raoghat and areas in
Rajnandgaon district for iron ore; Jhanjhar, Meru, Durg,
Bhaupratapur, Kondal area of Kanker district for gold; Renger,
Markanar, Vasanpur area of Dantewada district for tin;
Chhirahi-Newari, Saradih, Garrabhata and Patharkundi village
of Raipur district and Sakti area of Janjgir district for
limestone. In addition 500 lakh tonnes of high grade dolomite
has been found in Lagra-Madanpur in Champa-Janjgir district;
5 lakh tonnes of metal grade bauxite in Dorima (or Barima)
of Surguja district; 220 lakh tonnes of coal has been
identified in Hardi Bazar-Kertali in Korba district; 170.4
lakh cubic metres of flagstone having different shades and
colours has been demarcated in revenue land of Chitrakot
and Matkot area of Bastar district; clay and Banded heamatite
quartzite (BHQ) in the Balod area in Durg district.30
The mining areas have a huge overlap with the forest and
tribal areas in the state and the increasing mining activities
and allied industries have had a tremendous negative impact
on these. An ongoing study by the Forest Survey of India
(FSI) looking at ‘Forest cover in metal mining areas’ shows
some revealing statistics. In the Bastar district, one of the
biodiversity rich areas of Chhatisgarh, out of the 13,470 ha
area under leases for iron ore mining, 11,657 ha is covered
by forests.31 This of course indicates the forest within the
actual lease, but the impact on the forests, biodiversity and
the communities dependent on this region due to ancillary
impacts of mining extends far beyond the actual lease area.
l Bailadila Hills
This 36 km-long and 10 km-wide hill-range is located in the
Dantewada district of Chhatisgarh. The area is characterised
by rugged terrain and heavy rainfall. It harbours rich
biodiversity. Its upper ridges are covered with dense
deciduous forest and the lower slopes and banks of the nalas
consist of semi-evergreen species. Varied physiographic
elements and microclimatic conditions, in association with
vegetation, have made this area a treasure house of medicinal
plants.
Excavation of iron ore has caused immense damage to
18
the Bailadila hills and adjoining water resources and land.
National Mine Development Corporation started
exploitation of iron deposits in 1962 for export to Japan for
which a railway line from Kirandur to Vishakapattanam was
constructed. The influx of people from outside and
mechanical and manual mining operations have ravaged the
area. This can be clearly seen around Kirandur, Bacheli and
Bhansi where units of NMDC are working.
Forest destruction continues unabated to this date for
iron ore mining, timber and firewood requirements. Mining
operations have caused tremendous pollution in the water of
river Sankhini and other rivers and streams. 32 As a
consequence of run-off from the mines, a 32 km. stretch of
the Sankhini river is called “lal pani” ( red water) by the
tribal people who see the “earth bleeding from the wounds
inflicted on it by the miners.” The impact on both the
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in the region has been
tremendous.33
The afforestation done for rehabilitation also involves
the use of non-native species such as Eucalyptus, Peltoforum
sp., Acacia auriculiformis and Gulmohar (D. regia). This
region lies south of the Bhairamgarh sanctuary and west
of Pamed sanctuary.34 The area has been recommended to
be declared as a biosphere reserve by an ongoing biodiversity
planning initiative,35 which also emphasizes the need for
NMDC to shoulder the responsibility to restore biodiversity
in the degraded areas and protect rest of the areas still having
valuable biodiversity.36
l One of the major threats to wildlife habitats in Chhatisgarh
is due to proposed diamond mining in the area. It was reported
in 1999 that the Udanti and Sitanadi WLS in the Raipur
district of Chhatisgarh and their connecting corridors are
threatened by proposed diamond mining. The proposed mining
is mainly around the Udanti sanctuary. Udanti holds some of
the last herds of the wild buffalo and the mining will also
cause great loss of habitat contiguity for wildlife in this
region. 37 In January 2001 it was reported that the Union
Government had ordered an inquiry into illegal mining carried
out by B. Vijay Kumar Chhatisgarh Exploration (BVKCE) in
Deobhog in Chhatisgarh in the year 1999. The company had
been given a ‘prospecting license over large area’ of 4,600
sq. kms. The firm had illegally collected jeeploads of diamond
soil from inside the Udanti WLS and samples had also been
sent to Australia and South Africa for testing. The Indian
Express had exposed this in November 2000.38 More recently
several companies have been granted reconnaissance permits
for diamond in Chhatisgarh.
l Both the Barnawapara WLS and Kangerghati NP have
limestone mining in their proximity. The Indravati NP is
affected by quarrying at Kutru. This quarrying is to extract
stone for the highway project currently underway.
8. Dadra and Nagar Haveli
No information available.
9. Daman and Diu
No information available.
Undermining India
10.Delhi sanctuary in 1985. On the sanctuary’s southern boundary, the
Mining and quarrying were taking place in the Asola- screening plant of Timblo Minerals, located at the Tollem
Bhatti area until it was declared a sanctuary in 1991 (Indira mine, touches the sanctuary’s boundary. The mine itself is
Priyadarshini ( Asola) WLS). About 200 pits of various within a kilometre of the sanctuary. The Bellary-Hospet-
sizes, honeycombing the area, were left open with little or Mormagoa rail line, used for ore transportation, was recently
no post-mining restorative measures. While mining was on, upgraded to broad gauge, in spite of it passing through the
the excavated earth (overburden) used to be dumped near the Bhagwan Mahavir WLS. Due to infrastructure problems at
mines. Both mining and dumping result in huge loss of Mormagoa, iron ore is being unloaded at the Sanvordem,
vegetation, deforestation, increase in wasteland area, reduced Kalem and Collem stations en route, and then transported by
ability to hold water and consequent decrease in the ground truck. Collem was in the sanctuary until it was denotified in
water table.39 The Delhi government has allocated funds to 1985. At Kalem, Mandovi Pellets has created infrastructure
the Eco Task Force of the Indian Army to restore the Bhatti for unloading and transporting iron ore within the sanctuary!
mines.40 The sanctuary continues to be affected by illegal Not surprisingly, this area is being proposed for
sand mining on the Delhi- Haryana border. Mining mafias denotification. Heavy traffic (mainly trucks transporting ore)
have taken advantage of the uncertain boundary between the on NH 4A, which crosses the sanctuary, adds to the pressure
two states near the Asola and Bhatti villages. on Mollem.
South of Mollem, the Verlem forest block in the Netravali
11. Goa
sanctuary to the northeast of Cotigao is under pressure from
The tiny state of Goa is one of worst affected in terms of
manganese mining. One can see mountains of overburden
ecological impacts of mining. Manganese and iron ore are
indiscriminately dumped on evergreen forests, literally
major resources in Goa and proximity to the coast, the
smothering them. Many of the leases close to Mollem and
Mormagoa harbour and navigable rivers have promoted the
Cotigao fall within the new Netravali Sanctuary, which forms
exploitation of these mineral deposits, at a huge cost to the
an important corridor between the two older PAs.41
environment. The Portuguese gave liberal and extensive
Valmik Thapar, former member of the MoEF Expert
mining concessions and leases to the private investors/
Committee on Mining and member of the Steering
prospectors prior to the liberation in 1961. These
Committee of Project Tiger after a visit in 1999 reports, “in
concessions became the foundation of Goa’s privately owned
a 10 km. radius of the the protected areas, atleast 100 – 150
mining industry, which is present until today and continues
large mines are operating and not just defacing the Western
to cause tremendous environmental damage. It involves
Ghats but pumping their toxic cocktail of effluents into the
systematic removal of overburden by the ‘bench and slope’
river systems of Goa.”42
method along hilltops and slopes, as iron ore deposits lie
The Goa State Government is very keen to denotify large
under a thick mantle of laterite. Mining operation involves
chunks of the PAs declared in 1999, Madei and Netravali.
drilling, blasting, ripping, dozing, loading, waste disposal
While the reason cited is people’s rights, one of the most
sizing and washing of ores in beneficiation plants. North Goa
important reasons is the pressure from the mining lobby as
has traditionally dominated iron ore production, but a large
around 40 mining leases fall within the Netravali sanctuary.
share is now coming from the central and southern zones,
The government had appointed a committee to look into the
much of which is Western Ghats forest.
notification of these areas and this committee had
l Protected areas affected by mining include Bhagwan
recommended denotification of portions of both Madei and
Mahavir WLS, Mollem National Park, Bondla WLS,
Netravali sanctuaries. NGOs have strongly opposed the
Netravali WLS, Madei WLS and Cotigao WLS. With the
moves of the government to denotify the area.43 The Goa
creation of the Madei and Netravali sanctuaries in 1999, Goa’s
government took a cabinet decision in June 2001 to denotify
entire Western Ghats has come under the protected area
75% of the area of both new sanctuaries. In the meanwhile,
network. A 1999 Kalpavriksh report assessed the proximity
on an application filed by the Goa government, the Supreme
of working mining leases to all of Goa’s PAs, except Madei
Court of India asked the government to place the proposal
and Netravali which were just declared then. The number of
for denotification before the Indian Board of Wildlife.44 This
leases within a five kilometre radius from Mollem (a
was done, but the Goa government on the same day withdrew
conservation unit comprising Bhagwan Mahavir WLS and
the proposal and a fresh application was once again filed
Mollem NP), Cotigao and Bondla sanctuaries were
before the Supreme Court. Till now the application has not
approximately 34,10 and five respectively. Given that all these
been decided upon in the SC.
have been declared PAs in the 1960s it is distressing that
l Downstream impacts of the mining are seen on the rivers
leases in such proximity have been granted or renewed in
and the estuarine and marine environment. The impacts have
recent times.
included: higher turbidity reducing the amount of light to
Mollem was declared a PA in 1967, yet its western and
planktonic life, the soluble iron has affected the quality and
southern boundaries are dotted with mines, most of which
the quantity of phytoplankton in the water bodies, mine
have been granted permission to start operation after this. In
tailings deposited in the estuarine zone have suffocated the
early 1999, mining by Hede and Co. commenced on the
benthic fauna, metals like Fe, Mn, Cr, Ni, Co, Zn, Pb which
sanctuary’s western border, in an area denotified from the
are carried by adsorption from mines on clays have settled

Undermining India 19
within the estuary due to high salinity.
The National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) had
published a paper in 1985 on the ‘Effect of mining activities
on the clam fisheries and bottom fauna of Goa estuaries’.45
This paper said: “ Comparison of two clam beds and associated
benthic fauna, in Mandovi and Cumbarja canal estuarine
system of Goa, severely affected by massive input of mining
rejects, revealed that, in less than 10 years (1972-73 to 1982-
83), high biotic variability induced by increasing
environmental stress has caused irreversible ecosystem
instability. Reduced dissolved oxygen concentration; high
suspended solids and blanketing of bottom deposits by mining
rejects, has resulted in more than 70% reduction in clam
production; near extinction of resident fauna and the
appearance of a low diversity bottom fauna, comprising of
tolerant but vagrant species. Ever increasing entry of mining
rejects, which has reduced the healthy and highly productive
estuarine environment of 1972-73, into an impoverished
biotope, in less than 10 years, unless prevented will result in
the total extinction of estuarine life in the near future.” More
recent studies done by the Tata Energy Research Institute on
the environmental impacts of the mining sector in Goa also
indicate that it has had a serious impact on the environment
in Goa.46
12. Gujarat
Gujarat is another state, which is mineral rich and has seen
a lot of conflict between mining and ecological interests.
l One of longest battles between mining and wildlife has
been seen in the Narayan Sarovar WLS in the Kutch district
of Gujarat. This sanctuary has been the preserve of one of
the last remaining stretches of thorn forests. The unique scrub
and desert habitat supports a wide variety of unique flora and
fauna, particularly the Chinkara and Bustard. But this region
also has minerals such as limestone, lignite, bauxite etc. and
was viewed as a possible location for setting up a large cement
manufacturing unit by Sanghi Industries. The Government of
Gujarat estimated a total mineral bearing area of 435.53 sq.
km. within the Sanctuary. This comprised 216.64 sq. km. of
limestone amounting to 6700 million tons, 96.34 sq. km. of
lignite deposit of 230 million tons, 65.58 sq. km. of bentonite
deposit of 5 million tons, and 7.97 sq. km. of bauxite deposit
of 1 million tons. The denotification of the sanctuary for
mining and the cement factory in 1993 was struck down by
the Gujarat High Court since it did not follow the legal
procedures. But in 1995 the Gujarat government legally
denotified the sanctuary, reducing its size from 765.79 sq.
kms. to 444.23 sq. kms. Work on the cement factory and
mining operations has begun in the area. Another impact of
the mining and cement factory was the destruction of
mangrove areas to set up a jetty to export the finished product,
which also drew a lot of protests. The Consumer Education
and Research Society (CERS) took the issue to the Supreme
Court (SC) and in a February 2000 judgement the SC has
permitted ‘limited’ mining from within the Narayan Sarovar
WLS and has asked the State government to set up an high
level committee to study its impacts. The court additionally
20
restrained the government from permitting others to carry
out mining operations or to put up cement plants within an
area of 10 kms. from the periphery of the old sanctuary
(before denotification) without obtaining orders from the
court. In the CERC case, ongoing in the Supreme Court, a
1/10/2002 ruling has extended the limited mining till
December 3, 2003, under the same terms and conditions.
Thus the ongoing legal battle will be one of the factors
determining the future of this region which has also been
designated as a potential Biosphere Reserve by an expert
committee constituted by the MoEF and has been put in the
‘Rich Area Category’ from the biodiversity angle by the
Gujarat Ecology Commission.47 The destruction caused by
existing mining in the vicinity of the sanctuary is very evident.
Open cast mining by the Gujarat Mineral Development
Corporation (GMDC) at Panandro has devastated the land and
scattered the wildlife. The lignite mining site located in close
proximity to the sanctuary has resulted in the loss of 1800
ha of forest area and considerable changes in the tree and
shrub diversity. Its indirect impacts are cutting and trimming
of vegetation, impact on habitat and the habitat use patterns
of threatened species like chinkara, wolf and caracal in and
around the project area. Diversion of natural flow of the Kali
river and consequent change in water quality has in turn
affected the productivity of downstream areas.48
l The Gir WLS and Gir NP comprise a conservation unit
which is the last home of the Asiatic lion. The Saurashtra
region in which this protected area lies is rich in limestone
deposits and all the major cement manufacturers have units
in this region. A study done in 1998 pointed to over 100
mines in a 10-km. radius of the protected area. These feed
seven cement factories and one soda ash plant.49 The area is
severely threatened by increasing limestone mining in its
surrounds and there has been a Save Gir campaign to highlight
the severe environmental and social effects of mining in the
region which besides the impact on wildlife include salinity
ingress, loss of agricultural lands, loss of sustainable
livelihoods to local communities etc.50
l The Dhrangadhra Wild Ass WLS spread over 4953.7
sq. kms. in the Little Rann of Kutch is a unique ecosystem
and the last home of the Indian Wild Ass. This region is also
a vast repository of salt and has thus led to conflicts between
salt mining and protection of the wilderness. The Dhrangadhra
Prakriti Mandal approached the Gujarat High Court to protect
the home of the wild ass. The petitioners stated that the salt
pan areas in the sanctuary increased from 2,479 ha to 39,
955 ha between 1985 to1990. In the late 1990s this figure
had tripled. The sanctuary now accounts for 20% of the total
salt production in the country and atleast 2500 trucks ply
back and forth every day taking out salt. Before the sanctuary
was notified there were only 203 licensed mines over 166
sq. kms. After the area was declared a sanctuary another 1448
mining leases were given over 294 sq. kms. of the sanctuary,
and as per the 1999 records there are nearly 1700 mines
operating in 460 sq. kms. inside the sanctuary. The revenue
department, flouting the Wildlife (Protection) Act (WLPA),
1972, gave the new leases.51 Reportage on the litigation in
Undermining India
1999 stated that the government is likely to allow salt farms
on nearly 10% of the sanctuary. As a result of the Gujarat
High Court directive, a report was submitted by the Gujarat
Environment Education and Research (GEER) Foundation
to the State Government. This report has identified seven
patches of land within the sanctuary on which pans could be
established. According to GEER the salt pans themselves do
not cause as much problem as the transportation of the salt
by trucks, especially in the peak period from March – May.52
· The Banaskantha district is rich both in forests, and
minerals such as granite, marble, limestone etc. The Ambaji
range of hills have substantial reserves of marble and the
MoEF has given approval for diversion of 190 ha. of forest
land for marble mining in this region. 53 The Ambaji
multimetal mine has also cause a loss of extensive forest
area. It was reported in November 2000 that a possible
denotification of either a large chunk or the entire area of
the Balaram Ambaji WLS in the Banaskantha district is
being considered by the Gujarat government to exploit the
deposits of limestone, marble and granite that are found in
the park. In late 2000 the Additional Chief Secretary
(Environment & Forests) of Gujarat presided over a meeting
to discuss the issue.54 The Jessore WLS in the same district
is also affected by granite, marble, limestone and base metal
mining around it.55 The Department of Microbiology, Gujarat
University, has conducted studies on the influence of mining
activity on soil microbial community of Balaram Ambaji
WLS, microbial diversity of Balaram Ambaji WLS with
special reference to complex carbon utilizers and microbial
diversity of anthropogenically influenced soil of the Jessore
sanctuary. As an outcome of these studies, it was found that
microbial population of Balaram and Jessore sanctuary are
adversely influenced due to anthropogenic activity such as
the disposal of marble factory waste, marble mining activities,
brick manufacturing sites etc.
l A 1997 WII report looked at the ecological impacts of
lignite mining in Kutch with special emphasis on the Indian
Grey Wolf and its habitat. This was done for the Gujarat
Mineral Development Corporation (GMDC) with respect
to the proposed opening of three new lignite mines at
Akrimota (bordering Narayan Sarovar sanctuary), Mata-no-
Madh and Umarsar, in the Lakhpat Taluka of Kutch district.
The WII found that the Mata-no-Madh area supports three
critically endangered species: the wolf, the caracal and
the Great Indian Bustard. They recommended that mining
not be permitted in this area. Even though Akrimota borders
the Narayan Sarovar Sanctuary, they recommended that
mining could be permitted since it was in an area which was
already greatly disturbed due to lignite mining, traffic and
the thermal plant, and as such the damage in this area would
be the least as compared to the other two sites. For the third
site, Umarsar, they recommended mining to be allowed only
in certain areas while sparing crucial areas which contained
climax Acacia nilotica forests for their ecological, agro-
pastoral and wildlife values.56
l It was reported in 2000 that the Gujarat cabinet has decided
to hand over the Banni grasslands in the Great Rann of
Undermining India
Kutch from the Forest Department (FD) to the Revenue
department. A 3-member cabinet sub-committee okayed the
proposal, but the state will require clearance from the MoEF.
Although reasons such as opening up of the area for grazing
by the maldhari cattle has been cited, it has been reported
that one of the important reasons is to open up the area which
is rich in mineral deposits such as limestone and bauxite for
exploitation. 57 The Banni grassland and its wetland
Chhari-Dhand is ecologically important and needs a
protected status and judicial landuse.58
l The Kutch Marine NP and Kutch Marine WLS in the
Jamnagar district has limestone mining affecting them.59 They
are also surrounded by refinery and petrochemical, mining
and metallurgical industries. Oil spills and tar balls resulting
from the bulk handling and transport of oil from the nearby
Vadinar refinery are reported to be affecting the marine water
quality. These two protected areas have also seen legal battles
over oil pipelines which have been allowed to pass through
them. The Kutch marine NP also has twenty-one salt
industries, which are damaging the habitat and marine life of
this area.60
l Ongoing mining for road metal affects the Balasinor RF
in Kheda district; mining for limestone, quartz in the
Panchmahal district affects the Jhalod and Dahod RFs and
quarrying for road metal affects regions around the Panagadh
hills; the Chota Udaipur RF in Vadodara district is affected
by dolomite mining.61
l Salt work activities are also emerging near Velavadar
National Park, which is a matter of concern.62
l The Kadipani fluorspar mine has resulted in the loss of
619 ha of forest area and has resulted in a significant loss of
faunal diversity.
l Mining of coral sands for the cement industry has been
the main cause for the destruction of corals on the Gujarat
coast in the past. Unrtil recently when the lease of calcareous
sands was terminated, about 0.5 million MT of coral material
was mined every year since 1947. As the mining was not
rigorously controlled, live corals were often the casualty of
dredging. Besides, mining operations resulted in re-
suspension of enormous quantities of sand, which covered
the corals and killed them. It is considered that about 50% of
the corals are destroyed in an area of 35 sq. kms.63
l In December 2002, the Forum for Planned
Industrialization of Kutch (FPIK), a group of NGOs,
fFarmers, fFishermen, Maldharis, and eminent citizens of
Kutch District, have raised concern about the Exploratory
Drilling Operations for Oil and Gas Exploration in Offshore
Block GK 01 proposed by M/S Reliance Industries Limited,
Mumbai. This was raised in the form of written objections to
the Gujarat Pollution Control Board prior to the
environmental public hearing held for the project in
December 2002. The area under question i.e. Block GK 01
and it’s environ has a rich marine mangrove ecosystem.
Saurashtra University has conducted a detailed study funded
by WWF – India : Ecology of the Gulf of Kutch over a period
of three years, i.e. from the year 1987 to 1991 and has come
out with a report “Coastal Marine Ecosystems and
21
 MINING IN THE ARAVALLIS
The Aravalli Range starting from Delhi (latitude
280.24N’ and longitude 770.12’ E) moves across the
states of Haryana and Rajasthan and then further to
Gujarat, near Palanpur (latitude 230. 20’N longitude 730
.45’E). They form one of the oldest mountain system
of the Indian subcontinent and form an important
division between the sands of the Thar desert and the
non-aeolian terrains of the Central Highlands to the
east. It is one of the main watersheds which
separates the drainage of the Bay of Bengal “through
the rivers like the Chambal, and other tributaries of
the Yamuna, from that of the Arabian Sea through
the Mahi, Sabarmati, Luni, and other rivers.” Various
developments (one of them being extensive and
haphazard mining) in the last 5 decades, has
impacted the productivity of the Aravallis leading to an
adverse effect on biodiversity of the entire ecoregion.
“The forest and mineral resources of these hills have
been continuously exploited by the ever-increasing
consumer needs and greed of the urbanites and
people living in the nearby plains. Reckless felling of
trees unrestricted grazing; haphazard mining coupled
with a total neglect of this eco-system is responsible
for wholesale degradation of most of the Aravallis.
Degradation of forest cover over the hills has resulted
in accelerated rate of soil erosion. Large tracts of
these hills have been converted into rocky wastes.
The riverbeds have been choked with coarse sand;
recharging of ground water in the region has reduced
considerably” (1). One of the main threats to the
acquatic habitats in the Aravallis is mining of
sandstone, marble and other minerals in the
catchment areas.
Status of Mining in Various States
Rajasthan: After the SC ruling of December 1996 in
the Godavarman case it was revealed that in
Rajasthan alone 50, 000 ha of forest land was being
illegally mined (2). A considerable portion of this is in
the Aravallis, which have been declared an Ecologically
Sensitive Area (Refer Chapter 4 on Policy and Legal
framework) under the Environment Protection Act,
1986 and mining activities have been sought to be
controlled. But the situation in the field has been
dismal and illegal mining has continued (3). Protected
areas impacted by mining include the Sariska Tiger
Reserve, the Jamwa Ramgarh WLS, the Kailadevi
WLS which is part of the Ranthambore Tiger Reserve
is affected by red sandstone and limestone mining
(4).
Haryana: Quarrying and mining for silica sand and stone
between Gurgaon and Faridabad area has severely
impacted the biodiversity of the region and damaged
the ecosystem.
Delhi: Mining and Quarrying was taking place in the
Delhi Ridge until the early 1990s when the Asola-Bhatti
area became a sanctuary. The borders of the
sanctuary still have illegal mining.
Major Legal Measures
Restriction of mining in the Aravallis in
22
Gurgaon district in Haryana and Alwar district of
Rajasthan
In May 1992, the Government of India notified Aravallis
in Gurgaon and Alwar districts under Sections 3(1) and
3(2) (v) of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986
restricting certain activities in the area that were causing
Environmental degradation in the region. The activities
restricted included location of new industries, new mining,
cutting of trees, construction of clusters of new dwelling
units and laying of new electric lines in specified areas.
All new mining operations including renewals of mining
leases, existing mining leases in Sanctuaries/ National
Parks and areas covered under Project Tiger and
unauthorized mining in this hill range were to be stopped.
Any person desiring to undertake mining activities in the
notified region shall have to submit an application in a
prescribed form alongwith certain mandatory documents,
such as an Environment Impact Assessment report and
and Environmental Management Plan.
The GoI, on 4.11.99 delegated the power to allow/
disallow activities to the State Governments of Haryana
and Rajasthan. A direction was given to the State
Governments to prepare a Master Plan for integrating the
environmental concerns keeping in view the future land
use of the area within two years. In addition, two
committees were formed
a)A state level Expert committee for giving the
environmental clearance of the proposals, and
b)A monitoring Committee with the District Collector as its
chairman. This committee was to ascertain that the
conditions stipulated at the time of clearance were
followed.
Both the state governments have formed these
committees and they are functioning. None of the state
governments have so far prepared the desired Master
plan. The main purpose of the notification has been partly
diluted because the state governments are more
susceptible to the pressures of the mining, construction,
and industrial lobbies.
Gaps: In the areas declared as ‘ ecologically
sensitive’(ESAs) under the EPA, enforcement has been a
big problem. A lot of illegal mining is currently continuing in
the Aravallis. The problem of enforcement is also linked to
the manner in which these areas were declared as ESAs
by the Central Government. One of the reasons has been
the lack of clarity amongst enforcing agencies as to the
exact extent and nature of there own powers within an
ESA. Additionally, there needs to be greater
communication and involvement at the local level to
explain the rationale for an ESA and participatory landuse
planning. While the declaration of ESAs under the EPA as
a tool for conservation and landuse control over larger
areas is an important space to be used, the enforcement
will largely depend on level of participation of both local
governments and people.
Supreme Court Ban on Mining in the Aravallis (5)
l On May 6, 2002, the Supreme Court banned the
mining of sand and silica in a 5-km stretch from the Delhi
border into Gurgaon. “The ban on mining has been
Undermining India
 imposed in the areas which fall within the ambit of
reserved forest, protected forest or forest area under
section 38 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and also in
the areas which were closed under section 4 and 5 of
Punjab Land Preservation Act, even if the closure period
has expired.  The government has also constituted a
committee to monitor the enforcement of the orders
within the geographical limits of the revenuedistricts of
Faridabad, Gurgaon, Rewari, Mohindergarh and Bhiwani.”
l In November 2002, the Supreme Court issued the
following order: ‘’We prohibit and ban all mining activity in
the entire Aravalli hills. The ban is not limited to hills
encircling Kote and Alampur villages but extends to the
entire hill range of Aravalli from Haryana to Rajasthan.’’
Following this the Chief Secretaries of Haryana and
Rajasthan have were directed to “ensure that no mining
activity in the Aravalli hills is carried out, especially in the
part which has been regarded as forest area or
protected under the Environment (Protection) Act”.
However there has been strong opposition to the
‘blanket ban’ of the court from mine owners and in
many cases mining has continued to take place. A
January, 25, 2003 news report states “The Supreme
Court has taken a serious view of the continuing
violation of the ban imposed by it on mining in the eco-
fragile Aravalli hills in Haryana. Despite the ban, around
6,000 truck loads of minerals have been transported out
of the state. “The court asked the state government to
file a status report on the ground situation within two
days. While the Haryana government and its mining
contractors faced the court’s ire, their counterparts in
Alwar, Rajasthan, are allegedly indulging in similar
activities.”
Anthropogenic Pressure in the Gulf of Kutch.” The
objections before the public hearing highlight the rich
biodiversity of the area and its crucial link with fisheries and
thereby the economy of the region. They have also cited the
‘Rapid Marine Environmental Impact Assessment for
Exploratory Drilling Operations in Offshore Block GK01’
dated November 2001 by National Institute of Oceanography,
Mumbai, which has highlighted the richness of the area. On
grounds of fragility of the area and the likelihood of costs
outweighing benefits they have said that this project should
not be allowed in its present form.
13) Haryana
Quarrying and mining for silica sand, Badarpur sand and
stones in the Aravallis especially between Gurgaon and
Faridabad area and the associated increase in the human and
machine population in the area have for all practical purposes
destroyed the ecosystem and impaired the floral and faunal
diversity beyond repair. The Sterculia and Acacia senegal
forests of Khol block of Rewari district have been impacted
by the slate mining in this area.64 After a December 12, 1996,
judgement by the Supreme Court,65 whereby the provisions
of the Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA), 1980, were
underlined and all non-forestry activities occurring without
the prior approval of the Central Government asked to “cease
forthwith”, lot of illegal mining across the country, including
Undermining India
Comment: The court has subsequently clarified
that all illegal mining has to stop and not all the
mining. If the presently ‘legal’ mining which is
ecologically harmful is to be phased out, as it
should, it is crucial to address the issue of mine
labour. Framing of comprehensive action plans for
‘just-transition’ to safe and sustainable livelihoods
for labour impacted by stoppage of mining activities
is important. Sudden blanket bans without
provisions for alternative livelihoods for labour
involved in ‘legal mining’ is unacceptable. It is
important to help the labour transition to
alternatives.
References:
(1) Aravalli Ecoregion Biodiversity Strategy and
Action Plan, April 2002
(2) Tiger Link News, Vol. 3 No.1, June 1997.
(3) Proceedings of the National Workshop on
Environment and Forestry in Mining Areas, August
21-22, 1998, Jaipur.
(4) Joint Protected Area Management Update
No.11,September 1996.
(5) This section is a compilation of the following
news reports:
- Jain, S. 2002. Supreme Court bans all mining in
entire Aravallis. Indian Express. Nov 2, New Delhi
- Times News Network.2002. Haryana govt. bans
mining in Aravallis. November 30 (as received on
Nathistory egroup)
- Times News Network. 2003. SC warning on mining
in Aravalli. January 25. (as received on Nathistory
egroup)
in the state of Haryana where illegal mining was destroying
1300 ha of forest land, was brought to a halt.66 There have
been a series of recent Supreme Court directives asking for
the stoppage of mining in the Aravallis (see box on Aravallis).
Illegal mining of quartzite has impacted the Surajkund lake.
The Supreme Court had earlier directed that no mining be
permited for 5 kms around the lake but a review petition had
reduced the area to 1 km.67 Scientific studies carried out here
indicate that the hydrology of the lake is under threat from
the mining activities.68
l The Bir Shikargarh WLS has mining activities in its
proximity. Details are not known.
l The Kalesar WLS is affected by boulder mining in the
river close to its boundary (see box on ‘ Enabling tigers to
survive in Haryana and Himachal Pradesh’)
14) Himachal Pradesh
There are about 2,500 mines and quarries for the
production of boulders, grit, building stones, slate, sand
limestone and other minerals in Himachal Pradesh. The mining
of stones, gravel and sand from riverbeds has adversely
affected the ecology of rivers and streams. Thousands of
truckload of gravel and sand are removed daily from the rivers
and streams of Himachal Pradesh. The activity has resulted
in the vanishing of feeding and breeding grounds of juvenile
and adult fish.69 The impacts of mining on Western Himalayan
23
ecosystems have been well documented over the years.70 A
1989 study on the management status of protected areas
around the country reported one National Park and 11
sanctuaries in Himachal Pradesh as having rights and leases
for quarrying within their limits.71 A 1990 study particularly
on the protected areas of Himachal Pradesh documented
rights and leases for quarrying within the Kanawar WLS,
Khokhan WLS, Rupi Bhabha WLS, Shilli WLS. But the
exact extent and impact of this mining is not known.72 In
several cases it has been observed to be very small scale
quarrying to meet needs of building material at individual
village levels, while in other cases across the state it is
commercial mining on a larger scale, often unscientific.
Many of the portions of protected areas which had rights and
leases for mining activities in Himachal Pradesh have been
excluded from their boundaries after the settlement of rights
process. The areas surrounding the Rupi Bhaba WLS have
been impacted by the quarrying for the Naptha Jhakri hydel
project.
l In 1991 the Ambuja Cement Company of Gujarat lobbied
with the government of Himachal Pradesh to denotify
Darlaghat WLS in order to set up a cement plant in the area.73
In 1999 the MoEF approved the State Government proposal
to lease an area near the sanctuary for limestone mining by
the company. This process implied the cutting of over 20,000
trees and loss of wildlife habitat. This drew a lot of protests
both from local residents and environmentalists.74
l The Gobindsagar WLS has been affected by water
pollution by an ACC cement factory and limestone mining
bordering the sanctuary.75
l In 1999 the MoEF rejected the proposal for setting up a
cement plant close to the Bandli WLS, since the plant site
was only 500 m from the sanctuary boundary and the proposed
limestone mining area was also in close proximity.76 To get
over this ‘obstacle’ the State Government had proposed to
denotify more than half the area of the sanctuary. The
residents of the area had opposed the move to setup the
cement plant and had rallied together to oppose this. Concern
was also being expressed by the Hotel and Guest House
Association (HGHA), Mandi, on the potential impact on the
tourism potential of the area.77 The latest status of both the
factory and mining is unknown.
l It was reported in 2000 that slate quarrying was to resume
in the Khaniyara area of Kangra, after being stopped on
environmental grounds in 1997. The mining mafia, however
continued mining in the area illegally. Environmentalists have
expressed concern over the possible impacts this mining
will have on the already degraded Dhauladhars in the Kangra
area. The Commission on Environment Protection headed
by Justice R.S. Thakur (retd.) had in its report in 1997
recommended that the mines should be acquired by the state
government and the pits in the denuded area rehabilitated.
The report had said that the forest area in Khaniyara is sharply
decreasing due to mining activities and mining activites had
destroyed agricultural land and disturbed the ecology of the
area. It also warned that the natural habitat of many species
of flora and fauna was being lost due to mining activites in
this region.78
l The Simbalbara WLS and its connecting corridors are
impacted by boulder mining (see box on ‘Enabling tigers
survive in Haryana and Himachal Pradesh’).
15.Jammu and Kashmir
No information available.
16.Jharkhand
Jharkhand literally means the “forest tract”. This state,
recently carved out of the state of Bihar is rich in forest
resources and is also the home of traditional tribal
communities such as the Hos, Kharias, Mundas, Oraons,

Enabling tigers to survive in Haryana and Himachal Pradesh ( collated from a note by Dr. AJT Johnsingh,
Wildlife Institute of India)
Kalesar Wildlife Sanctuary in the state of Haryana, and Simbalbara WLS in the state of Himachal Pradesh, were surveyed
as part of the Terai Arc Tiger Conservation Project in January 2003. Evidence of tigers was found in both places. At present
these two wildlife sanctuaries are the only habitats west of Yamuna River into which tigers can range and stay for some time.
Recent monitoring of tigers in the region has indicated that the animals move from the Karaundi area of Badshahibagh
Range of Shivalik Forest Division (FD), come to the Yamuna river bed, walk west diagonally across the river bed and get into
Kalesar WLS between Bohra village (Majra range, Paonta FD, Himachal Pradesh) and Mamduwas village of Kalesar WLS,
from where they range into Simbalbara WLS. Earlier observations by the staff indicate that they move back to Shivalik FD at
the end of winter. The tracks coming from the Karaundi area were seen near Mamduwas village during the January 2003
survey.
Unfortunately, the entire river bed between Bohra–Mamduwas–Hathnikund, a distance of nine kilometres, is highly
disturbed by boulder collection in the river bed. Numerous trucks and tractors ply into and out of the river bed to bring out
boulders which are later crushed into a cement-like powder used in construction.
The recommendations made by the survey team to enable the tigers to continue to range between the Shivalik FD and
Kalesar WLS and continue to use the forests west of the Yamuna River include the following:
Banning the collection of boulders between Bohra and Mamduwas village ( Himachal Pradesh) and between Mamduwas
and Hathnikund ( Haryana).
It has also been recommended that a Rajaji-Shivalik Tiger Reserve be established with satellite cores in Kalesar WLS and
Simbalbara WLS. It has been said that only such a conservation initiative, which requires the dedication of the states of
Uttaranchal, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, and the Government of India, would result in the revival of the
tiger population in its north-western range across the Yamuna River.

24 Undermining India
Santhals etc.79 This is also one of the key mineral producing
areas in the country, although this has come at a great social
and environmental cost. Chief mineral deposits include
bauxite, coal, copper, dolomite, kaolin, iron ore, limestone
and mica. These deposits are located in the Chhota Nagpur
Plateau and Santhal Pargana regions in Palamau, Ranchi,
Singhbhum, Dumka, Hazaribagh, Rohtas, Santhal Parganas,
Giridih and Lohardaga districts.80
l In Jharkhand, the three Forest Divisions – Saranda,
Kolhan and Porhat of the Singhbhum forests constitute a
major habitat for elephants. The hilly upland tract with valleys
and steep mountains has its physical continuity with the
forests of Orissa on the southern side and in the north it
links up with the Dalma WLS. The only perennial natural
water source in this area is the river Koina and the catchment
of this river, about 300 sq. kms. in extent, is an important
elephant habitat during the summer months (March to May)
because it is the only source of water along the shady
vegetated habitat with hitherto relatively low human
disturbance. The Singhbhum area is well known for its large
reserves of haematite iron ore, forming 25% of the total
known reserves in India. Mining began in the early 1900s
and while it does not cover an extensive area within the
Saranda Forest Division (SFD), it coincides with those
areas used by elephants. At present there are 12 operational
mines in the SFD, all occuring within the elephant habitat,
and having a combined leased area of 81 sq. kms. (out of
which 17 sq. kms. has been opened up). The three major iron
ore mines in the area are – Kiriburu, Megahatuburu and
Gua. Mine waste is released as a result of iron-ore extraction
and onsite processing of the ore. The uncontrolled production
of tailings through wet-circuit processing of ore by Kiriburu
mines is the major source of pollution of the river Koina.
The high colouration of river water, as a result of mine waste,
and the consequent reduction in water quality values of the
Koina catchment, are a present cause of concern for both
people and wildlife. A study by the Wildlife Institute of India
researcher R.K Singh showed that unregulated mine discharge
has damaged the river system and reduced the habitat values
for wildlife. His study shows that iron ore mining in the area
has greatly affected the habitat utilisation patterns by
elephants. 81 Besides the existing mining activities the
company Phelps Dodge Exploration India Pvt. Ltd. has been
given a prospecting license over an area of 2472 sq. kms. in
the Singhbhum East and West districts.82
l The Nature Conservation Society, Daltonganj, in 1998
started work on a survey of tiger habitats in the non-
protected areas of Bihar, with a focus on the forests of
Chhotanagpur (now part of the new state Jharkhand).83 The
report had expressed concern over the tiger habitat being
affected by destructive mining. Some of the examples it had
pointed out were:
a) proposed Horilong Project of Central Coalfields Ltd.
bordering Palamau Tiger Reserve (Palamau WLS and
Betla NP). This underground mining project requiring forest
land both within and adjoining the Tiger Reserve was
Undermining India
considered for clearance under both the FCA and the EPA. In
June 1998 the MoEF Expert Committee on Mining had
rejected this project because of the significance of the
Palamau Tiger Reserve.84
b) limestone mining dotting the Garhwa forest
c) the Sikni Colliery of Bihar Mineral Development
Corporation(BMDC) in Latehar Forest Division is
destroying tiger habitat – the ‘rathole’ mining destroying the
forest in a scattered manner.
d) Mining has destroyed the forests of Ramgarh, Rajrappa,
Giridih, Hazaribagh East and Lohargada.
The report goes on to say that the “the entire ecology of
the area has changed. Damodar river and other water sources
are devoid of any flora and fauna.”
l The Damodar river basin is a repository of 46% of the
Indian coal reserve. Exploitation of coal by underground and
opencast mining and accompanying industrial expansion has
greatly degraded the region. A study by the Central Mining
Research Institute (CMRI)85 carried out hydro-geochemical
analysis of mine water and physico-chemical analysis of coal-
based industrial effluents86 to evaluate their physical and
biological impacts on the water quality of the region. The
report clearly finds a high degree of water pollution and says
that “sedimentation of these particles at the river bed has
reduced the biodiversity of the acquatic ecosystem.” Another
CMRI study in 1995 which did a satellite remote sensing
survey over some environmentally critical areas in coalfields
of Damodar Basin pointed to an alarming degree of
degradation in sensitive floodplain areas.87 It has been noted
that all along the river atleast 1.5 km. width of land has been
subjected to severe damage, irrespective of elevation, slope
and other parameters. Besides another type of fluvial
degradation is prominent in the Damodar river. Features like
point bars, sand islands etc. in the river have been constantly
altered and have gradually attained different distributional
patterns. Through 1977 to 1990 the pattern of sandbar has
changed dramatically. One can observe that sand is
redistributed all along the river during 1990 and almost all
river islands were either destroyed or immersed in water. The
report expresses concern as fluvial geomorphological units
are sensitive and a mark of balance in fluvial dynamics. The
dramatic geomorphological changes are bound to have
affected the aquatic and floodplain ecosystem and the
biodiversity therein. The report also noted that forest cover
mapping around the Jharia coalfield depicts a notable
depletion in protected forest cover in the last decade.
l The Orsapat bauxite mining project of HINDALCO is
located in the Mahudandanr Block of Latehar district, close
to the Mahudandanr Wolf sanctuary. Orsa is a village, the
forest surrounding which is part of the wolf sanctuary. In
the local language “Pat” means a plateau. The “Pat” area has
very good grassland and Sal (Shorea robusta) forests on the
ridges. The Burma river which is the only perennial river in
the area, originates from here. The water of Burma river falls
in the Koala river which is the life line of Palamau Tiger
Reserve. Thus, any large scale open cast mining in the “pat”
25
area will definitely disturb the water sources which will
adversely affect the wildlife of both the Mahudandanr Wolf
sanctuary and the Palamau Tiger Reserve.88 The exact
status of this project is unknown.
l Hazaribagh
The vital forest corridors of Hazaribagh in Jharkhand are
threatened by existing and proposed mining by Coal India Ltd.
The overall environmental and social impacts of coal mining
in Hazaribagh in general and the impacts on wildlife corridors
in particular has been highlighted for many years by groups
in the region.89 One of the important areas in Hazaribagh
likely to be affected by large-scale opening up to coal mining
is the North Karanpura (NK) Valley.
The North Karanpura valley, spread over the districts of
Hazaribagh and Chatra, is located in the Upper Damodar valley
in south Bihar. Spread over an area of approximately 1,800
sq. km. and drained by 37 streams and five rivers, it is a vital
catchment for the Damodar and its fertile soil has earned it
the title of the “rice bowl of Hazaribagh”. Around one-third
of the valley is under forest cover, mainly sal, with a
substantial wildlife population, especially in the thickly
forested Mahudi and Satpahar ranges. The valley serves
as a wildlife corridor connecting the jungles of Palamau
in the west to those of Ranchi in the south, and the Konar
watershed to the east. The North Karanpura (NK) Coalfields,
of which the valley is a part, contains about nine per cent of
India’s coal reserves, most of it untapped. The entire NK
coalfields project will affect 203 villages spread over the
districts of Hazaribagh, Ranchi, Chatra and Palamau, and has
25 proposed mining blocks. Five of these lie south of the
Damodar (including the World Bank-funded KD Hesalong
mine), and have already been mined extensively, destroying
elephant and tiger corridors. The remaining 20 blocks are
primarily in the NK valley, which presently has two working
mines, Ashore and Piperwar, operated by Central Coalfields
Limited (CCL). The Piperwar and Ashoka mines are
located just south of the Satpahar range and on the north
bank of the Damodar. Ecologically, it is an extremely
important area - good forests and part of an elephant
corridor. The Piperwar mine was started over a decade ago
with Australian collaboration. It is supposed to be CCL’s
showcase mine, using a high degree of mechanisation and
with a higher efficiency than traditional mines, but its very
location - right in the centre of a wildlife corridor - places a
huge question mark over its green credentials. The Ashoka
mine (also started in the early 1990s) saw an expansion in
the year. The clearance under the FCA for this expansion was
held up until late 2000 as local forest officials had expressed
grave concern over its impacts on wildlife. But the project
was finally cleared under both the FCA and EPA and continues
to have a negative impact on the area.
There are of course ancillary impacts of the coalmining. The
NK valley will also house the National Thermal Power
Corporations’ (NTPC) proposed Super Thermal Power
Station (STPS), which will use locally extracted coal. This along
with the accompanying dam and flyash dumping site is also likely
to cause extensive damage. This project was put on hold after
26
protests in the late 1980s but has now being revived and is
currently undergoing environmental clearance. The public
hearing for the project was held in December 2002.The
alignment for the 27 km. long McCluskieganj – Piperwar
railway line, being built to transport coal from the Piperwar
mine has involved the digging of wide and deep channels which
have cut off elephant corridors in the valley. A greater cause for
concern are that the two CCL ‘megaprojects’ of the 10th plan
Magadh and Amprapali, both in the NKValley. 90
The Advance Environmental Management Plan for North
Karanpura Coalfield of Central Coalfields prepared in 1987
acknowledges that the new mines in the NK valley will affect
wildlife and “would initiate the flight of wildlife from that
area” and the measures suggested to minimise the disturbing
effect of mining on wildlife include providing of : “a ‘forest
corridor’ to enable the wildlife to move to nearby
forest.”91 Not only has the importance of the valley as
a ‘wildlife corridor’ between neighbouring forest areas not
been mentioned, but the word ‘corridor’ has been solely used
to denote a means to enable displaced wildlife to flee.
Due to constant lobbying by groups in the Hazaribagh
region, the World Bank commissioned a study to look at
adverse impacts of opencast mining operations on wildlife
habitat and corridors due to in the three mines which it was
funding in the Hazaribagh region – K.D.Hesalong, Parej
East and Rajrappa. The report submitted in 2000
acknowledges the impact of coal mining on wildlife. 92
l The immediate surrounds of the Hazaribagh WLS are
currently impacted by quarrying activities for ongoing
highway projects.
l Illegal mining of gemstones is taking place in and around
the Koderma WLS.
l The Dalma WLS and other portions of the Jharkhand
Elephant Reserve are affected by mining activities.
17.Karnataka
In Karnataka the main impact of mining on ecologically
fragile areas is in the Western Ghats, where the bulk of the
state’s protected areas are also located. A preliminary list
shows that the Kudremukh and Anshi NPs; Dandeli,
Bhadra, Shettihally, Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple and
Mookambika Sanctuaries in the state are all affected by
mining. The Public Works Department has also mined stone
from inside several PAs (including the Bandipur National
Park) for the construction of roads.93 In Shettihally, mining
in the Shimoga and Hanagere ranges was stopped by the forest
department. Pproposed manganese mines in the proposed
Bhimgad sanctuary’s Talewadi area threaten the only
known home of the Wrougton’s freetailed bat.94
l Uttara Kannada has some of the best remaining patches
of Western Ghat forest, though the manganese mines in the
Dandeli WLS and neighbouring Bisgod, which had
devastated the area for the last 30 years, were recently shut
down, surrounding areas continue to be worked. A 2000 study
reports 16 working leases in the Supa, Kodasalli and Castle
Rock areas around Dandeli, with 52 leases having either
expired or been surrendered.95
Undermining India
l A list of current mining leases in Karnataka shows a large
number of operating leases in the Joida and Yellapur talukas
of the forest-rich Uttara Kannada district and also in the
Shimoga district to the south, which is an important region
for its biodiversity values.96
l The Kemmannugundi mines of the Visvesvaraya Iron annd
Steel Ltd. are situated in and around Bhadra Tiger Reserve.
After the expiry of an earlier lease mining had stopped in the
area. It was reported in 1998 that the Karnataka government
had recommended the renewal of the lease and sent the
proposal to the MoEF for the necessary clearances. On a plea
of the then Shimoga MP, Ayanur Manjunath, to restart
mining activities in the mines the Union Minister for
Environment & Forests had agreed to personally carry out an
inspection of the mines regarding the renewal of mining lease.
97
Kalpavriksh has sent a letter to Suresh Prabhu (in
September 1998), expressing concern regarding this move,
and asking him to reject any proposal for restarting mining
here.98 Reports in 2000 said that mining was continuing in
the area.99 The latest situation of mining in the proximity of
Bhadra is unknown. Although the mining in Kudremukh
National Park and its impacts on the Bhadra river are impacting
the Bhadra Tiger Reserve.
l The Shettihally WLS has manganese mines and around
the sanctuary.100
l Illegal quarrying around the Bannerghatta NP has been
adversely affecting the elephants in the park, and this in turn
has increased the man-animal conflict in the neighbouring
villages. It is estimated that there are nearly 40 such illegal
quarries in the area. In 2000 various animal rights groups
came together to deal with the issue and formed a group called
the Protection of Elephants and Care of the Environment
(PEACE) and submitted a petition to the government. The
Karnataka High Court in early February 2000 asked the both
the Central and State government to take action against illegal
quarrying taking place in and around the park. In 2001 it was
reported that the forest department sought to take action
against the Mines and Geology (M&G) Department officials
for giving a lease for black granite mining close to
Bannerghatta NP.101
l Kudremukh National Park
The Kudremukh National Park is the largest protected area
(600 sq. km) of a tropical wet evergreen type of forest in the
Western Ghats. The Wildlife Institute of India has indicated
that the area needs to be accorded a “priority I status, being
an area of national importance”. The Kudremukh National
Park comes under the Global Tiger Conservation Priority-I,
under the format developed jointly by the Wildlife
Conservation Society (WCS) and World Wide Fund-USA.
The southern & western sides of the Park form the steep
slope of the Western Ghat ridge line, with the altitude varying
from 100m - 1892m (peak). The northern, central and the
eastern portions of the Park form a chain of rolling hills with
a mosaic of natural grassland and shola forest. Kudremukh
receives an average annual rainfall of 7000mm, which has
evolved forest types of mainly evergreen or semi-evergreen
climax forests in the region. The wet climate and the
Undermining India
tremendous water retention capacity of the vegetation in
Kudremukh has led to the formation of hundreds of perennial
streams, forming one of the important watershed areas of
the region. These perennial streams converge to form 3 major
rivers - Tunga, Bhadra and Nethravathi, which are important
lifelines for the states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
The initial notification for the Kudremukh NP was issued
in 1987, with the intention of conserving the entire biotic
community in the region with the Lion Tailed Macaque as a
flagship species.
Mining in Kudremukh
In 1969 the government granted the mining lease for a
period of 30 years to the National Mineral Development
Corporation (NMDC), the lease was transferred to Kudremukh
Iron Ore Company Limited (KIOCL) later. The area within the
KNP includes the mines, the processing plant and a township
at Malleshwara. The mining and the ancillary activities have
caused extensive damage in the park over the years - causing
loss of habitat and the fragmentation of an important tract of
tropical rainforest/grassland and causing pollution of the
Bhadra river. Between 1991-1994 the height of the Lakya Dam
(for iron ore waste tailing collection) was increased by 35
meters, which would ultimately submerge an area of 3.4 sq.
km. inside Kudremukh National Park when the dam is filled to
its brim with iron-ore tailings. This was done without obtaining
permission from the Karnataka State Forest Department (KFD)
and seeking other necessary clearances. In 1994, due to
record rainfall of upto 10,000mm the Lakya Dam breeched
and the KIOCL township and the villages 45 kms downstream
up to Bhadra Reservoir were evacuated in response to this
alarm. Fortunately the rains subsided and the crack was fixed.
This continues to be a threat to the forests and villages
downstream of mining in the event of high rainfall.
In 1994 KIOCL also obtained a prospecting license from
the Government of Karnataka; for prospecting iron-ore over
an area of 310 hectares of forestland at Nellibeedu in
Kudremukh National Park for a period of three years, subject
to certain conditions. Several conditions of the prospecting
license were violated and were highlighted by the Nature
Conservation Guild. Roads of approximately 40 km in length
were made inside the National Park, trees were cut and forest
growth was damaged and ground water sources were
hampered. In 1997 the Bhadra river sand at Balehonnur 15
kms downstream from mining site was collected by Mr.
Kaoosi Sethna and DV Girish of Nature Conservation Guild,
Chickmagalur and was tested in a laboratory (Grindwell
Norton Limited, Shriram Institute for Industrial Research).
The Bhadra river sand was found to be 68% magnetic
containing perhaps a mixture of Fe3, Fe3O4, etc. The water
in the river was ‘rusty smelling’ and ‘non-potable.’
The KIOCL 30-year lease expired on July, 25, 1999, but it
was given a temporary working permission for a period of
one year by the MoEF to work on the already broken-up area
on July 16, 1999. In February 2000, the iron ore slurry
pipeline from Kudremukh to Mangalore leaked into the dense
forests of the National Park, spilling approximately 4,000
tonnes of concentrated iron ore into 200 hectares of the dense
27
forests and streams, affecting several villages downstream. A
notice was also issued by the Karnataka State Forest
Department (KFD) to KIOCL for damaging the forest by
doubling the width of the existing pipeline tracts inside the
National Park using earthmovers and other heavy machinery
in violation to the conditions levied by the KFD to replace the
weak pipes. The KIOCL was later booked for the same when
they ignored the notice by the KFD and continued with the
work.
In March 2000 a letter was issued from the Prime Minister’s
Office (PMO) to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka,
asking the government to conclude the final notification of KNP
and exclude all survey numbers held by KIOCL under the mining
lease from the KNP area. It also asked for renewal of the
existing mining lease at Kudremukh over forest land already
broken up in favour of M/s KIOCL, for a period of 20 years and
to grant a prospecting license for Gangrikal Deposits and a
mining lease for Nellibeedu deposits.
In July 2000 the temporary work permit expired and a
second temporary working permission was granted for
another year, subject to certain conditions. In August 2000
the Chief Wildlife Warden commissioned an Impact
Assessment study by the Centre for Ecological Sciences,
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, headed by Dr.Sukumar
to “carry out studies on impact of mining on the flora and
fauna of Kudremukh National Park, as desired by Govt. of
India.” This report was submitted in January 2001 and has
very clearly stated the negative impacts of mining on the area
and said that “the overall impacts of the mining and associated
activities on the ecology of Kudremukh National Park can
be summarized mainly as the direct loss of habitat and the
fragmentation of an important tract of tropical rainforest/
grassland in the Western Ghats.”102 But the Comprehensive
Environmental Impact Assessment of Kudremukh Iron Ore
Mines, by the National Environmental Engineering and
Research Institute (NEERI) has unfortunately failed to
address the impacts on the ecology adequately.103
In May 2001 an investigation was carried out by Wildlife
First!, Kudremukh Wildlife Foundation, Nature Conservation
Guild, Arohana, Green Watchers and Wildlife Watch regarding
the siltation in Bhadra Reservoir. A memorandum was sent
to the Government of Karnataka regarding the effects of
mining on the Bhadra Reservoir, asking for the stoppage of
mining by KIOCL which is causing serious damage to the
irrigation potential.
In June 2001 the government of Karnataka issued the
final notification of the Kudremukh National Park covering
563sq. km. The State Government excluded 37 sq. km. of
the National Park area to facilitate continuation of mining
by KIOCL in the already broken area of Kudremukh. But the
proposed mining areas of Gangdikal and Nellibeedu have
been included in the final notification, indicating that the State
does not intend to allow exploitation of the new deposits.
These proposed mining areas are three times the existing
mining area in size. Thus even as the existing mining
continues, atleast opening up of some new areas has been
prevented.104
28
Both local communities and citizens and groups around the
state and country have been involved in the protest against mining
in Kudremukh. Local people had organised themselves under
the Nellibeedu Samrakshna Samiti to protest against the
proposed mining of the new deposits, the plans for which are
now abandoned as it has been included in the finally notified
area of the National Park as pointed out earlier. The issue has
seen legal battles both in the Karnataka High Court and the
Supreme Court fought by groups such as the Environment
Support Group, Nagarik Seva Trust and Wildlife First. Bangalore-
based Wildlife First had, in association with P.K. Manohar of
Legal Action for Wildlife and Environment (LAW-E), challenged
the continuation of open cast mining by the giant public sector
corporation in the National Park, resulting in the destruction of
wildlife as well as heavy silt loads in the Bhadra river system on
which millions of farmers are dependent for their livelihoods.
This was done by means of an Interlocutory Aapplication in the
Supreme Court in the ongoing Godavarman case (see Chapter 5
for details). A scientific study on the impacts of mining on the
Bhadra river which affects the water quality of both the
Kudremukh NP and the Bhadra Tiger Reserve was also carried
out by Jagdish Krishnaswamy of the Ashoka Trust for Research
in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE) and was crucial to the
case. In a landmark judgement dated October 30, 2002, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has upheld the sanctity of
Kudremukh National Park by rejecting Kudremukh Iron Ore
Company’s plea to mine at Kudremukh for another 20 years,
but the court allowed the company to continue only till the end
of 2005, subject to fulfillment of recommendations made by
the Central Empowered Committee on ecological and other
aspects. The court has also clearly held that the exclusion of the
company’s land (37 sq. kms) while issuing the final notification
of the Kudremukh National Park was not in order though the
same was being used for mining and further, has rejected the
company’s plea that compliance of Section 2 of the Forest
Conservation Act is not required in case of renewal of a mining
lease.
l It was reported in February 2002 that illegal quarrying
has commenced within a kilometre of the boundary of the
Ranganathittu WLS. 105 This mining was subsequently
stopped after local environmental groups took up the issue.
l In December 2000 the Federation of Voluntary
Organisations for Rural Development in North Kanara District
gave their written objections to the proposed silica sand
mining in Harumaskeri village of Kumta Taluka to the
Karnataka Pollution Control Board prior to the public hearing
for the project. The fragility of the coastal ecosystem and
the importance of sand dunes was emphasized.
18. Kerala
Kerala has gold, iron ore, limestone and limeshell, bauxite,
mica, cordierite and sillimanite under its Western Ghats
forests. The Walayar forests have been extensively affected
by limestone mining as also neighbouring areas in Tamil
Nadu. Mining river beds for sand and granite in the foothills
of the ghats is also a problem in parts of Kerala. In Periyar,
quarrying was undertaken to strengthen the Mullaperiyar dam.
Undermining India
Illegal gold mining in the Nilambur valley of the Karium
Muriam Reserved Forests and the mercury used in the
process is poisoning the waterways.106 Sandmining on the
coast has also impacted turtle nesting habitats.
l Mining Kerala’s rivers
Uncontrolled sandmining from almost every river in Kerala
poses a serious threat to riverine ecosystems. The rules
regarding sandmining were made stringent in nine major rivers
in 1999 following a High Court directive but there has been
considerable pressure to relax the rules. The Centre for Earth
Sciences has in its reports indicated the impact of this mining
and the even the Kerala Assembly Committee on Environment
has said that sandmining has taken a heavy toll on the Kerala
rivers.107
l Sandmining affects turtle nesting in Kolavipaalam
Kovalipaalam, Kerala, has come to prominence due to
protection of an olive ridley nesting site by a local fishing
community. Kolavipaalam beach is located south of the river
mouth in Iringal village of Payyoli Gram Panchayat in Quilandi
Taluka of Kozhikode District (11o32’N; 75o45’E). The beach
is situated 46 km north of Kozhikode. Unfortunately, the
conservation initiative and the nesting ground is under serious
threat of disappearing due to illegal sandmining in Kottapuzha
estuary, drained by the river Kottapuzha, north of
Kovalipaalam. Part of the Kolavipaalam beach is backed by
this estuary, away from community dwellings of the area. This
sandy beach spreads over an area of 50 acres stretching from
the estuary mouth towards Kolavipaalam, and is an ideal
nesting site. 108 A study by the Western Ghat station of
Zoological Survey of India categorically states that the
sandmining activity along with illegal coastal construction
poses a very serious threat to the turtle nesting habitat at
Kolavipaalam.109 The local group, the Theeram Prakruti
Samrakshan Samiti, which has been involved in the turtle
conservation efforts is fighting a legal battle to stop the illegal
sandmining. Theeram activists filed a case in the Kerala High
Court five years back to prevent the illegal sand mining. The
court ordered the appointment of a committee to study the
matter and the committee recommended restricted mining.
Despite the court order illegal mining continues unabated.110
19) Lakshadweep
In many islands the lagoons have been impacted seriously
due to dredging and mining. On the whole coral growth is
still fairly rich but the terrestrial habitat is much altered due
to mining lime and sand stones.111
Until a decade ago coral mining was a serious problem
in the Lakshadweep. The locals were removing coral blocks
for construction and the harbour department was blasting them
off for deepening the navigation channel. The net effect was
erosion at several sites in all the islands. Since a decade coral
mining is officially banned and blasting has been discontinued.
But the smaller version of mining (shingle collection and
excavation of dead coral blocks from private lands) continues
at a smaller scale. Excavation of dead coral blocks is allowed
on permit, up to a maximum of 100 kilos per individual
applicant. While scientific evidence shows that removal of
Undermining India
shingles does not allow the reef to grow, the locals argue
that the shingles are washed ashore during the monsoon and
if not collected, would go back to the deep sea (by tidal action)
and hence the collection is not harmful.
There is a need for a scientific study on how much of the
shingles can be removed safely without jeopardizing reef
growth. But compared to earlier, the extent of coral mining
including shingle removal has come down substantially in the
past few years.112
20) Madhya Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh (MP) is one of the major mineral
producing states of the country, although after Chhatisgarh
was carved out of it a considerable part of the former state’s
mineral wealth is in the new state. MP has large deposits of
bauxite, copper, manganese, coal, dolomite, limestone etc.
These deposits are located mostly in the districts of Raigarh,
Shahdol, Balaghat, Mandla, Rewa, Satna, Sidhi, Betul and
Chhindwara. Many of these areas overlap with some of the
finest forests and wildlife habitats in the state. An ongoing
study by the Forest Survey of India (FSI) looking at ‘Forest
cover in metal mining areas’ shows a high degree of overlap
between working mining leases and forest areas in the districts
of Balaghat, Mandla, and Shahdol.113 In July 1995 the Expert
Committee of Mining of the MoEF had estimated that in the
nine months before that time, approximately 8,000 ha of
vital tiger and leopard habitat had been opened up for mining
by various State Governments. Out of this almost 3000 ha of
forest land had been diverted in the state of MP, that had been
declared a ‘tiger State’, in the districts of Chindwara, Sidhi,
Bilaspur and Sarguja (the last two districts are now a part of
Chhatisgarh). The committee had raised concern over how
lands were being diverted without adequate look at the
ecological impacts.114 According to a report of the Chief
Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), the WLPA, 1972,
is being “badly ignored” in Madhya Pradesh as illegal mining
is being carried out in many forest reserves of the state. The
CAG has taken “serious note of the illegal mining being
carried out in the forest reserves of MP” and expects the
Forest Department to take immediate steps to check these
activities and preserve the rich flora and fauna of the state.115
l The South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. have coalmines on
the south-eastern side of the Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve
at a distance of 10-15 kms. from the boundary.116
l The Malanjkhand Copper Project near Baihar in MP is
located around 7 kms. from the boundary of the buffer zone
of the Kanha National Park.117 Besides the actual mining
activities there is a Malanjkhand township housing 5000
people in the region. The Earth Resource Centre (ERC) of
the University of Exeter, UK, and the Visvesvaraya Regional
College of Engineering (VRCE), Nagpur, have since 1991
been looking at the impact of opencast copper and manganese
mining on the tropical forests in Central India and the
Malanjkhand area is one of the study sites. The groundwater
contaminations and dust problems associated with the tailings
site are being looked at as a part of the study.118 The Phen
WLS also comes within the impact zone of the copper mining
29
activities here.119
l A publication by S.K. Tiwari on the sanctuaries of MP120
states that the Ghatigaon Hukna ( Great Indian Bustard)
WLS is threatened by mining activities. Previously the forest
department had given some patta leases in the area and now the
Mining Department is auctioning sanctions of ‘patia pathhar’
in the area. Blasting operations have disturbed the wildlife.
l The Son gharial WLS is affected by illegal sandmining
and an investigation was carried out by Kalpavriksh in 1999
in this area. The Son Gharial Sanctuary is primarily situated
in the Sidhi district, with very small portions extending to
the Satna and Shahdol districts. In 1979 a systematic survey
of the proposed sanctuary area was undertaken jointly by the
Madhya Pradesh Forest Department and the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) and the area was found to
have high potential for crocodilians. In 1981 the government
of Madhya Pradesh declared specified lengths of the river
Son and its tributaries, Gopad and Banas, as Son Gharial
sanctuary, with the intention of protecting the river fauna,
especially the crocodilians - gharial and mugger. The total
length of the sanctuary is 209.21 kms along the rivers Son,
Gopad and Banas. The gharial nests are sited in sand which
ensure high incubation success. Predation on gharials is
largely in the nest and hatchling stages from nest predators
such as rats, pigs, jackals and monitor lizards. Hatchling are
taken by birds of prey, and in water by large turtles and fish.
Since the natural predation rate is already very high it is
necessary to ensure that all impacts due to human activity
are minimum. In the Son-gharial sanctuary, the nesting
grounds of the gharial and mugger are being destroyed by the
sandmining activities.
The main areas for illegal mining within the sanctuary are
Khadbada and Churhat. Akauri, 5 kms short of Churhat,
is the place which is worst affected by the illegal sand mining.
This is the area the FD finds the most difficult to control. It
is unsafe for the forest staff to venture into the area and make
any seizures without armed forest personnel and policemen.
The people associated with the mining have a long record of
involvement in crime. In the past, a former Superintendent
of the sanctuary, Mr. Dixit, had been beaten up when he
intercepted some trucks leaving the area. At Khadbada the
mining impact seems much less. In other areas of the
sanctuary, such as Gaughat, the villagers have been given
mining leases outside the limits of the sanctuary (200 m on
either side of the river), since this area has sand mounds
extending for a considerable distance away from the river in
some lengths. Illegal mining has been controlled in these
parts. A company building a bridge at Shikarganj was also
illegally extracting sand from the sanctuary limits.
Without consulting the wildlife authorities or taking the
opinion of wildlife scientists, the Collector, Sidhi, had issued
an ‘order’ dated 30.6.97 ‘deleting’ most of the Son gharial
sanctuary except for areas falling within one kilometre radius
of six places - Shikarganj, Koldaha, Jogdaha, Kuthlidaha,
Beechi and Khairhani (these are areas of deep waters located
at various points on the river and inhabited by the gharials in
the dry season). This was part of the ongoing settlement of
30
rights process under the WLPA, 1972. One of the main
reasons cited was that the Panchayats are not getting the
revenue from extracting the sand of the river.
The forest department had refuted this saying that the
denotification will defeat the very purpose of setting up of
this sanctuary, and the conservation objectives will not be met.
Their communication stated the following points: since the
areas denotified will no more be under legal protection it
will make the task of wildlife protection of the entire area
very difficult; it will affect the movement of the gharials and
other fauna, posing a problem to their security; since the
gharials and crocodiles lay their eggs and breed in the sands
on the river bank, mining these areas will adversely affect
these processes. The sanctuary administration will then be
unable to control these activities.
Subsequently the denotification of the area was rejected.
A lot of the illegal mining is controlled by certain powerful
higher caste individuals, especially in Akauri. But as far as
the sanctuary in general is concerned it is important to note
that sandmining by locals existed before the declaration of
the sanctuary and an effective long-term solution to the
problem will have to ensure appropriate alternative
livelihood options to people staying around the sanctuary.
121
l The National Chambal WLS has been impacted by
sandmining too. In August 2001 in a reply to a question in
Parliament, the Union Minister for Environment & Forests,
T.R. Baalu, indicated that a grant of mining lease within this
sanctuary by the MP state government had come to their
notice and they had asked the state government to comply
with the provisions of the laws.122
l The Ken gharial WLS, the Panna Tiger Reserve (Panna
National Park) and the Gangau WLS are in close proximity
to each other and are all affected by mining.
Illegal mining of diaspor and pirophilite stone has been
carried out in the Ken gharial WLS. The report of the Chief
Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in 1999 revealed
that Bundelkhand granite had been carrying out these
operations and a lease had been granted for this purpose by
the Collector, Chhattarpur, for a period of twenty years, on a
no-objection certificate issued by the DFO. A subsequent
joint inspection by the DFO, Chhattarpur and Director, Panna
National Park was conducted in October 1993 after a
complaint was sent to the Chief Secretary by a villager. The
investigation revealed that the mining was going on inside
the sanctuary. However, Bundelkhand Granite obtained a stay
order from the court against the notice issued by the collector
to stop mining in May 1995. The CAG’s report accuses the
Forest Department of having failed to take any positive steps
to get the order quashed and stop the illegal mining. The latest
on the issue is unknown.123
l The Panna Tiger Reserve (PTR) and the Gangau WLS
are affected by diamond mining and white sandstone
mining. The government owned National Mineral
Development Corporation (NMDC) diamond mine is located
at Majhagawan just outside the Panna Tiger Reserve off
the Hinouta range and encroaches on Gangau sanctuary.
Undermining India
Mountains of solid waste material from the opencast mine,
pre- and post- treatment are dumped on the surrounding forest
land, encroaching on both PTR and Gangau. Slurry from the
mine also feeds into the Kaimasan nallah carrying the sludge
to the tiger reserve.124 There is also biotic pressure on the
area for firewood and fodder from about 1000 workers of
NMDC.125 Some individuals associated with conservation
groups in Jabalpur went to the Madhya Pradesh High Court
in 1997 with respect to this mining. Their main prayer was
that the residual earth after extraction of diamonds (called
‘reha’) had been dumped indiscriminately on the border of
the Panna NP and in the Panna Reserved Forests and had
seriously impacted the ecology including that of the Ken river
which is the lifeline of Panna district. They asked for stoppage
of dumping of ‘reha’ in and around the NP as well as in the
Panna RF and appointment of a committee to monitor the
dumping.126 Subsequently a committee has been setup for
this monitoring and the company has improved its
environmental practices but diamond mining continues.
Illegal sandstone mining has also been a threat to both
these protected areas in the past. Sandstone mines dot the
entire region. Even though the Gangau sanctuary was notified
in 1975, it had been totally neglected and extensively mined
after it became a protected area and today the sanctuary lies
in four fragmented bits. The District Collector of Panna had
in violation of the WLPA issued mining leases inside the
sanctuary. Some of the better known mining sanctions
occupied areas in four forest compartments 543, 278, p273
and p259 and were sanctioned in 1987, 1992, 1993, 1994,
1995 and 1998. Near Badour village, all the stream beds and
nallahs had been mined. Even though it had been brought to
the notice of the revenue department that this was illegal,
they had refused to co-operate and during the year 1998-1999
alone more than 20 leases were sanctioned for an area of
more than 50 ha.127
It was reported in 2000 that the white sandstone mining
around PTR has been stopped following the cancellation of
all the mining leases in the area by the Panna district district
administration. The cancellation is supposed to have come
in the wake of serious objections against mining raised by
various groups.128 This has helped to reduce the pressure
on the santuary and wildlife habitat has been showing
recovery.
l Stone mining has been carried out in and around Madhav
National Park in the Shivpuri Forest Division. Serious
concern about ongoing mining in the Khurela and Maujpur
areas of the NP was raised by the Chief Comptroller and
Auditor General ( CAG) in 1999. In December 1995 the
MoEF had issued a letter regarding “(i) renewal of mining
lease over an area of 930.734 ha. of forest land in district
Shivpuri. (ii) Permission for removal of existing material and
completion of mining operations in the forest areas already
broken up in respect of seven mines within the proposed
extension of Madhav National Park.” This letter referred to
a letter from the MP Chief Minister to the Minister (E& F)
sent in November 1995 and states that as a very special case
Undermining India
the ministry has allowed for the permission mentioned above
( in respect of seven mines in Madhav NP) until March 31,
1996 and no extension of this temporary permission will take
place. The letter also mentioned that it had been observed
that fresh areas had also been broken up for mining and this
needed to be stopped. This permission was extended upto
June 30, 1996 and even after that mining continued in the
area. On May 22, 1998, the MoEF granted temporary working
permission to 8 mines in the vicinity of Madhav NP. In a letter
dated August 17, 1998, regarding the “renewal of stone
mining lease over 930.734 ha. of forest land in district
Shivpuri”, the Asst. Inspector General of Forests wrote to
the Secretary (Forests), MP, that the MoEF has taken a
decision not to allow any mining activity within 5 km. radius
of the boundary of a National Park or sanctuary and
accordingly permission will be considered for only those
mines which are more than 5 km. away from the boundary of
Madhav NP, but the clearance for the 8 mines granted
permission in May 1998 remained valid.129
In 2000 a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court by
Santosh Bharti alleging large scale illegal quarrying and
mining in reserved forest land in MP, particularly in Shivpuri
district. 130 On May 25-26th, 2001, the Secretary, MoEF,
inspected the mining sites in Shivpuri District. The report
states that large scale illegal mining has taken place in the
heart of dense Reserved Forests of Nangaza, Kalapani, Krishna
Chhaz under the garb of temporary permission obtained from
the government of India. After an enquiry ordered by the
Supreme Court in 2001, a large number of mining leases were
cancelled by the district officials after it was found that leases
shown on revenue land were actually part of forest land and
thus it constituted a violation of the FCA, 1980.131
21) Maharashtra
l Western Ghats
Though small-scale quarrying exists all along
Maharashtra’s Western Ghats, the main areas in conflict have
been the bauxite-rich plateaus along the crestline in southern
Maharashtra. Bauxite leases and mines pockmark this portion
of the Ghats. Undoubtedly the most controversial has been
the mining in and around Radhanagari WLS. Indian
Aluminium’s (INDAL) Durgamanwad mine touches
Radhanagari’s northern boundary. Though the lease was
granted before the notification of the sanctuary, operations
commenced only in 1993. Surprisingly, environmental
clearance was granted even though the mine actually touches
the sanctuary border. A local group, the Radhanagari Taluka
Bachao Samiti, had gone to court against this but the court
allowed the mining to continue.
In December-January 1997-98, INDAL constructed a road
up to the Iderganj plateau, in the middle of the sanctuary,
and subsequently began mining without forest or
environmental clearances.132 Rodgers and Panwar in a 1988
Wildlife Institute of India (WII) report had listed this area
for upgradation to National Park status. This has been
reiterated in the updated version of the study in 2000.133
Fortunately the Mumbai High Court responded to a petition
31
filed by the Bombay Environmental Action Group (BEAG) Directorate of Geology and Mining raised a ruckus about the
in 1998 and stayed the mining. After a second case filed by Maharashtra Energy Development Agency locking up
BEAG, the High Court declared illegal the 20-year lease precious bauxite ore on plateaus in the Satara district by
extension granted by the Government of Maharashtra in 1998. setting up wind farms, including one on the eastern border of
More recently, a proposal from another party was being the Koyna Sanctuary.137 South of Chandoli, the contiguous
considered to mine on the Savarde plateau, touching the forest areas of Udgiri and Amba are also affected by bauxite
northwest border of Radhanagari. But as of now this has not mining. 138 It was reported in April 2001139 that the Kesri –
progressed. Phanaswad, at the base of Ambolighat in Sawantwadi, in
In INDAL’s view, mining the ‘barren’ plateaus will Maharashtra’s southern western Ghats is threatened by
not affect wildlife. This conveniently ignores the importance proposed iron ore mining by the mining company Dempos,
of plateau ecology, the use of the plateau by fauna, the need from Goa. The area acquired is a rich forest and is close to a
to protect the rich monsoon flora of the Western Ghats and deorai (sacred grove). Mining in this area will destroy rich
the damage mining causes to hydrological systems. Extensive forests and affect critical water sources. Local groups in the
damage has been caused by their earlier mines at Nangartas area are protesting against opening up this area for mining.
and Kasarsada in the Ajra and Chandgad talukas of Kolhapur
l Tadoba – Andhari Tiger Reserve (TATR)
district. 134 INDAL’s brochure on the Durgamanwad mine,
The areas around Tadoba – Andhari Tiger Reserve
which has got an ISO 14001 certification, says that the benefit
(Tadoba NP and Andhari WLS), including its buffer areas
to nature from mining the plateaus is that “barren land will be
and important corridors are affected by existing and proposed
transformed to jungles with huge lakes.” 135 Another
coalmining activities.
publication from INDAL on ‘INDAL’s experience in Benign
The Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve, consisting of the
Mining’ to counter the claim that mining impacts ecology
Tadoba National Park and the Andhari WLS is situated in the
says that “It is a botanical fact that in India wherever bauxite
Chandrapur district of Maharashtra. This district has a very
reserves occur, there is no growth of trees and hardly any
good forest cover and is important from the point of view of
vegetation.” Prof. Madhukar Bachulkar - Cholekar, a
tiger conservation since it has a substantial tiger population.
renowned botanist in Maharashtra who has extensively studied
But this region is also very rich in coal resources and this
the monsoon flora of the western ghats in Maharashtra says,
threatens the wildlife habitats here. Several wildlife groups
“The monsoon flora is very rich on these plateaus and shows
in the region have been raising concern over the coalmining
succession every fifteen days, with flowers changing colours.
in this region.140 In 1995, members of the Expert Committee
This is a miracle of evolution, which is slow to show up in
on Mining of the MoEF had raised concern over proposed
trees and shrubs but is much accelerated in herbaceous plants,
coalmining around the Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve.141
which can be observed on the plateau. There are many rare
The Vidarbha Tiger Research Foundation (VTFR) has
and endangered plants found here. In 1993, I have reported
carried out a study of the migratory habits of Gaur and effects
the presence of a new plant, Arisema sahyadrikam, on the
of coal mining on them in the Khadsingi RF which is the
Durgamanwad plateau (the same place where INDAL is
northern buffer zone forest of Tadoba. This study has been
now mining). Another new plant I found in Vaibhavwadi, which
presented as an invited paper at the 2nd National Seminar on
is in the same range, is Thynura konkaniansis. A thorough
Minerals & Ecology, organized by Centre of Mining
exploration needs to be done. Almost all members of the
Environment, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad.142 Western
Ceropegia group are endemic to the Western Ghats. If these
Coalfields Ltd. (WCL) has two proposed coal mines called
plateaus are destroyed by mining, the evolution process will
Bandar and Morpar in these forests. The EIA prepared by
be disturbed and many plants will become extinct even before
Indian School of Mines (ISM), Dhanbad, has categorically
we document them.”136 The Maharashtra Government has
mentioned non-existence of any endangered species in the
subsequently set up committees to look into the matter as
mining area!
the pressure to start mining has been tremendous, but as of
In 1996, WCL has identified the following coal mining
now the High Court stay order prevents mining on the Iderganj
projects in the Chandrapur District:
plateau in the sanctuary.
1. Bandar Coalfields near Chimur, 26 kms north of Tadoba
INDAL alone has six leases in southern Maharashtra’s
Tiger Reserve, and inside it’s buffer forest.
Western Ghats, but there are many smaller players too. These
2. Morpar Coalfields near Khandsingi village 20 kms north
forests form vital links with the neighbouring forests of Goa
of TATR, and also inside its buffer forests. The forest road
and Karnataka, and groups in the border areas are lobbying
from Tadoba actually meets the Chimur-Warora State
for the area to be declared an Ecologically Sensitive Area
Highway at Khadsingi.
under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which will
3. Bhadravati Coalfields near the Bhandak Town, and
enable a legal enforcement of judicious land use. The
Ordinance Factory. Bhandak is a Rail station and lies halfway
plateaus along the Koyna and Chandoli Sanctuaries north
between Warora and Chandrapur. It is 28 kms due west from
of Radhanagari have also seen prospecting for bauxite.
Tadoba, as the crow flies.
The Koyna dam authorities have expressed concern that any
4. New Majri Coalfields.
mining in the area will affect the dam’s catchment and the
5. Kolar Pimpri Coalfields.

32 Undermining India
6. Junad Coalfields.
7. Ukni Coalfields.
8. Niljai Coalfields.
9. Mugoli Coalfields.
10. Sasti Coalfields.
The coal projects that are mentioned from 3 to 10 are all
lying in a North-South line between 15 to 40 kms, west of
Tadoba. Many of these are already under implementation.
None of them have mentioned Tadoba Tiger Reserve in their
Environmental Management Plans. Some of them have had
their environmental public hearings under the EIA notification
conducted by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board at
Chandrapur. Other than these new projects, most WCL
ongoing coal mining projects have extension plans.143
l The Vidarbha area of eastern Maharashtra is extremely
rich in forest and wildlife, has a considerable tribal population
and is also rich in minerals resources. This region is
increasingly likely to come under the pressure of mining
activities. Besides the large reserves of coal, the region is
also rich in metals. A prospecting license of 3490 sq. kms.
has been granted to Geo-Mysore Services India Pvt. Ltd. to
prospect for metals in the Bhandara, Gadchiroli and Nagpur
districts.144
l The Sanjay Gandhi NP is affected by quarrying activities.
22) Manipur
Not much information is available in the state. The Naga
Peoples Movement for Human Rights (NPMHR) has in the
in the past fought mining in the Manipur hills and had obtained
a stay order from the Guwahati high court(details not
available).
23) Meghalaya
The mining of minerals like coal, limestone, granite,
quartz, glass sand, silimanite and lately uranium exploration
in the state of Meghalaya has affected terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems to a very large extent. The principal minerals of
Meghalaya are coal, limestone and sillimanite. Out of these
coal is one of the most widely spread and important mineral
resource which occurs in various parts of the State, the total
reserve being about 560.0 million tonnes. Large deposits of
coal can be found in West Darrangiri, Siju, Langrin and
Balphakram in the Garo Hills, Mawlong- Sherra in the East
Khasi Hills and Bapung in the Jaintia Hills. The largest
production in the state of coal is from the Jaintia Hills, which
constitutes about 70% of the coal produced. The coalmining
is largely rathole, unscientific mining. Coal is stored in open
areas; during rains runoff from these areas pollutes streams
and rivers making their waters acidic. This is one of the
emerging problems for the state, in terms of public health,
lowering of agricultural production, etc. Coal shacks, cabins
and the urban sprawl that has evolved in a haphazard and
unplanned manner, further disfigure the already degraded
environment.
The southern portions of Meghalaya is bestowed with rich
deposits of limestone. Limestone, alongwith coal is the main
mineral being exploited in the state today. The mining is done
both in the organised and unorganised sector for both coal
Undermining India
and limestone. The prevailing geological conditions are such
that these deposits are small and isolated in the State, and the
coal seams are thin in nature. These conditions have made
many private operators undertake small scale, unsystematic
and unscientific underground and open cast mining. The
cumulative effect of the ‘tiny’ mines dotted across the
landscape on the environment is catastrophic.145 While in
terms of environmental impacts in general the coal mining
in the Jaintia Hills has probably caused the maximum damage,
in terms of impacts on biodiversity the impacts on the Khasi
Hills and the Garo Hills has also been quite extensive. All
the protected areas in the state are also currently present in
the Khasi Hills and the Garo Hills.
As far as wildlife is concerned, the Garo Hills is a crucial
area in Meghalaya and has a substantial elephant population.
From the mid-1990s there was a campaign by conservationists
against the proposed cement plant and limestone mine by the
Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (ACC) which was to
come up adjacent to the Balphakram National Park ( a
Tiger Reserve), Siju WLS and the Rewak Reserved
Forests (these three form a contiguous conservation unit).
l The Balphakram National Park (BNP) supports 39
species listed in Schedule I of the WLPA. In the BNP there
are 8 species of endangered wild cats, including the tiger,
clouded leopard and golden cat, many endangered species of
primates and one of the highest concentration of elephants
in India. The BNP and its surrounds holds the maximum
promise for the long-term survival of elephants in the area.
The proposed limestone mining, the cement factory and the
settlement for factory workers were all planned in and around
the Siju – Rewak elephant corridor. This corridor is a
very important passage for elephants and other animals
crossing over from BNP to the Angratolli RF and the
Nokrek National Park. This would have also resulted in
the elephants trying to cross the river Simsang south of the
the Rewak RF, areas in which large human settlements lie,
thus leading to increased man-elephant conflict.
Additionally, the proposed limestone mine was to be
located directly above the famous Siju Caves, which thus
came in its impact zone. This cave has been extensively
surveyed by the Zoological Survey of India and is the only
known home to the Macrobrachum cavernicola, a
cavernicolous shrimp. The immense zoological importance
of this species is evident from the fact that this is the only
member of the genus and the only decapod yet known from
the Oriental region that shows true cavernicolous adaptations.
Three rare species of bats have also been found in the
Siju cave, the Long Winged Bat (Miniopterus schreiborsi
fuligironus), Dobson’s Long Tongued Fruit Bat (Eoxyeteris
spelae) and the Kashmir Cave Bat ( Myotis longipes).
The proposed ACC project covered an area of 14 sq. kms.
was contiguous with the Siju WLS and only 500 m from the
BNP boundary at Siju- Ariteka. It was 7 km. from Nokrek NP
and 4 km. from the Emangiri RF.146
In 1996 the Rhino Foundation for Nature in North East
India and the Wildlife Protection Society of India (WPSI)
33
conducted an Impact Assessment of proposed ACC Cement The ONGC has been facing stiff opposition for oil drilling
Plant near Balphakram National Park and this report was used in the state. But further details on the ecological significance
extensively to lobby for scrapping the proposed plant and of these areas are not available.
mining operations. In September 1996, 15 eminent scientists
26) Orissa
sent an appeal to the MoEF to scrap these mining
The state is endowed with rich mineral deposits like coal,
operations.147 A writ petition filed in the Supreme Court in
iron ore, manganese ore, bauxite, chromite etc. According
India by A. Rangarajan and others regarding fragmentation of
to All India Mineral Resources Estimates, the mineral
habitat and destruction of corridors which is severely
deposits of Orissa in respect of chromite, nickels, cobalt,
threatening the elephant in India, mention the potential
bauxite, iron ore were about 98.4%, 95.1%, 77.5%,52.7%and
impacts of the proposed ACC plant.148 Besides the specific
33.4% respectively of the total deposits of India. Other
reference to the proposed ACC plant, the petition also draws
important mineral resources of the State are limestone, china
attention due the impacts on elephants due to existing coal
clay, quartz, precious and semi-precious stones, copper,
and limestone mining in the Garo Hills.
vanadium etc. These deposits are largely located in Kalahandi,
After extensive activism on the issue, the ACC project
Koraput, Keonjhar, Bolangir, Dhankenal, Sambalpur, Jajpur,
has been shelved as of now. The Balphakram NP is also
Sundergarh and Phulbani districts. Compared to the extent
affected by already existing coalmining around the park.
of mining in the state and its ecological impacts, the
l A 1996 study by the Wildlife Institute of India on elephants
information in this section is inadequate.
in the Garo Hills has identified mining as one of the threats
l Elephants and mining in Orissa
to elephant habitat.149 The report identifies the following main
There has been a long conflict of elephants and mining
areas as threatened: the area where mining was to begin near
and its ancillary activities in Orissa. In Talcher (Angul
Damal Asim village in the West Garo Hills is crucial for
district) elephants were displaced by coalmining activites
elephants; in the East Garo Hills elephant range large areas
of Coal India since the early 1970s. In Sundargarh district,
around Dobu and Nangwalbibra are being mined for coal; in
the mining and the development of the Rourkella Steel Town
the Nokrek – Angratolli elephant range, coalmining is being
caused a major impact on elephant and other wildlife.
carried out in and around Darengiri. As far as the corridors
Presently elephant habitat and corridors are being
are concerned: the Siju WLS – Rewak RF corridor is
severely impacted in both North and South Keonjhar
affected by proposed limestone mining; the Balphakram NP
areas. In North Keonjhar the impact is primarily due to the
– Baghmara RF corridor has rich deposits of coal which
TISCO mines, mainly in and around Joda. In South Keonjhar,
could be exploited in the future; the Imangiri – Nokrek
it is because of the Sukhinda & Dataori mines.153 It was also
corridor is affected by coalmining in its southern portion.
reported in 1999 that the Boula chromite mines was affecting
Currently the North Eastern Hill University (NEHU),
elephant corridors in Orissa.154
Shillong is undertaking two studies in the Garo Hills. The
l The Barsua & Kolta iron ore mines and their allied
first: ‘Impact of human activities on the buffer zone
activities have destroyed prime forests and wildlife corridors
ecosystem of Nokrek Biosphere Reserve’150 looks at three
in the Bonai hills of Sundargarh district.
aspects: biodiversity, soil and vegetation. The second is a
l One of the largest campaigns against mining in Orissa has
study on the ‘Impact of coalmining on geomorphology,
been against mining in the Gandhamardan Hills because
vegetation, soil and water of Nokrek Biosphere Reserve’.151
of the impacts it will have on the tribals and the rich
l The Norpuh RF in the Jaintia hills is also surrounded by
biodiversity of the area. The Gandhamardan Hill system is
mining activities and is coming increasingly under threat. In
home to a great diversity of faunal and floral species
2002, Dr. Anwaruddin Choudhury on behalf of the American
including medicinal plants and in its rocks are heavy deposits
Society for Primatologists (ASP) had carried out a survey in
of Bauxite. Peoples’ resistance against mining bauxite by
the Norpuh RF and had recommended creation of a national
BALCO has saved this unique hill complex from exploitation.
park for the conservation of rare primate species that are found
l The Eastern Ghats in Orissa have rich resources of
here. The survey conducted by the Society has reported that
bauxite. A large portion in this region is both ecologically
seven primate species: slow loris, Assamese macaque, rhesus
fragile and has a substantial tribal population and has been
macaque, pig-tailed macaque, stump-tailed macaque, capped
designated as a scheduled area. This spreads over the
langur and the hollock gibbon are found here. It said that the
Kalahandi, Raygada and Koraput districts. This region
Norpuh RF had a viable population of all these primates.152
has been in the recent news due to the influx of multinationals
l Uranium deposits have also been identified at Domiasiat
to mine bauxite and the subsequent campaigns to protect tribal
area of West Khasi Hills district and there has been
rights and the ecological values of the area. Out of the 1400
opposition to uranium mining by several local groups in the
million tonnes of bauxite reserves in Orissa, nearly 600
region.
million tonnes is situated in or within 5 km. of the
24) Mizoram border of the Kashipur tehsil in Rayagada district. One
No information available. of the proposed projects by Utkal Alumina India Ltd. (UAIL),
a consortium of multinationals and Indian companies, plans
25) Nagaland
to mine the Baphlimali plateau. The surrounding forests

34 Undermining India
harbour rich wildlife, including tiger and panther. The opening
up of this region to large-scale mining will cause irreparable
damage to the biodiversity of the region.155
l The Hadgarh WLS has been affected by the Boula
chromite mines. The compartment no. 15 and 16 of the Boula
Reserved Forests has been affected.156
l The Kotgarh WLS was earlier directly impacted by graphite
mining. Although there is no mining inside the sanctuary now,
mining activities are on in the surrounding areas.
l In March 2002 it was reported that the Oil & Natural Gas
Corporation (ONGC) and Oil India had bagged seven blocks
through the New Exploration Licensing Policy (NELP-II) in
the Bay of Bengal, off the coast of Orissa and West Bengal.
While two of the seven blocks that ONGC and OIL have
bagged fall in the Bengal basin, five fall in the Mahanadi delta.
One of these major offshore blocks off the Orissa coastline
happens to be on the very path traversed by millions of Olive
Ridleys for decades every year to come to Gahirmatha and
lay eggs. This includes the Bhitarkanika WLS.
The license for this particular offshore block has been
offered to the ONGC-OIL consortium, with ONGC being
awarded the operatorship. NGOs involved in nature
conservation have already written to the Union ministry of
oil and natural gas expressing concern. ONGC and OIL
officials who had gone to the area to carry out initial site
surveys faced strong protests from NGOs and had to rush
back. The ministry had therefore decided to wait and see how
bad the situation really is before it considers at all the issue
of a working license. Talks had been initiated between NGOs,
oil and gas ministry officials, ONGC and OIL to discuss the
issue.
27) Pondicherry
No information available
28) Punjab
No information available
29) Rajasthan
Rajasthan is one of the most mineral rich states with a
large extraction of both major and minor minerals. 14.6% of
all mining leases in the country are in Rajasthan alone, only
second to Gujarat. Out of the total area under mining leases
for major minerals in the country Rajasthan has the highest,
23%.157 Almost half of all minor mineral mines in the country
are in Rajasthan. Over 90% of this is in the private,
unorganised sector, and what we see across the state is large
amount of unscientific, uncontrolled mining. 158 After the
Supreme Court ruling of December 1996 in the Godavarman
case it was revealed that in Rajasthan alone 50,000 ha of forest
land was being illegally mined.159 A considerable portion of
this is in the Aravallis, which has been declared an
Ecologically Sensitive Area under the EPA and mining
activities have been sought to be controlled. But the situation
in the field has been dismal over the years and mine operators
have scuttled the provisions of the Aravalli notification and
illegal mining has continued.160 The Supreme Court has
recently ordered the stoppage of all illegal mining in the
Undermining India
Aravallis (see box on Aravallis).
l The Sariska Tiger Reserve is located in the Alwar district
of Rajasthan, a widely mined district. Illegal dolomite and
marble mines were operating in the area. A local group, the
Tarun Bharat Sangh (TBS), mobilised the local people and
campaigned against this illegal mining. The government
partially clamped down on the mines following a Supreme
Court judgement, in a case filed by TBS, ordered mining to
stop.161 While the mining in the region was largely shut down,
some illegal mining continues in the area as of now.162
l The Jamwa Ramgarh WLS has been extensively mined
for marble and soapstone. This area is contiguous with the
Sariska TR and was notified as a sanctuary in 1982. Even after
this marble mining leases have been renewed inside the
sanctuary. Based on a site visit in 1999 Valmik Thapar reports
that “large areas of Jamwa Ramgarh are completely devastated
by mining. Atleast 12 sq. km. is wiped out and another 10 sq.
km. seriously affected….in the Andhi area 675 ha are being
mined and further up around the Rayanwala water body mining
has taken place inside the water body…soapstone leased have
blocked vital migratory routes of wildlife.”163 Currently the
marble mining continues along the borders, as also a
soapstone mine inside the sanctuary.164
l It was reported in 1997 that the government plans to allow
mining in parts of the Desert National Park. The park is
said to contain large deposits of grey limestone. If the
proposed mining is allowed a substantial part of the 3162 sq.
km. park will be destroyed.165
l The Keladevi WLS which is part of the Ranthambore
Tiger Reserve has been affected by red sandstone and
limestone mining.166
l The Van Vihar WLS is impacted by illicit mining.167
30) Sikkim
Concern has been expressed about the environmental
impacts of the Bhotang and Pachaykhani mines in East
Sikkim but information on the exact nature of impacts is not
available.
31) Tamil Nadu
l Western Ghats
The Kalakad WLS (part of the Kalakad-Mundanthurai
Tiger Reserve) formerly had illegal gemstone mining within
its boundaries; a granite mine inside Mudumalai WLS was
closed down in 1996; a bauxite lease held by the Madras
Aluminium Company (MALCO) in the Palni hills expired
recently without the company having worked the area, thus
preventing the impact on this Nilgiri tahr habitat. The forests
in the Coimbatore district of Tamil Nadu bordering the
Walayar forests of Kerala are affected by extensive limestone
mining.168
l Experts from the Department of Geology and Research
Centre, VO Chidambaram College in Tamil Nadu have
indicated that four out of the twenty islands along the
stretch of the Gulf of Mannar NP had been badly affected
by coral mining. They warned that continued mining of coral
around these islands would also have disastrous consequences
35
as these islands protected the lowlands of Ramanathapuram
and Tuticorin districts from cyclonic storms. Mining has also
threatened the integrity of the mangrove and seagrass systems
here. The indiscriminate use of coral reefs began about five
decades ago and even today the destruction of the reef
amounts to 15, 000 tonnes of boulders and 10, 000 tonnes
of coral debris every year.169 Indiscriminate and illegal garnet
sand mining has destroyed turtle nesting grounds on the
Tirunelveli coast.170
32) Tripura
The Oil Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) wants to
drill gas inside the Trishna WLS in the South Tripura district.
The proposal was considered under the FCA, 1980.171 They
will need to seek the permission of the Indian Board for
Wildlife and the Supreme Court for this purpose.
33) Uttaranchal
l It was the efforts of the Dehradun based NGO, the Rural
Litigation and Entitlement Kendra (RLEK) which for the
first time drew attention of the Courts to the disastrous
impact of mining. The Doon Mining case is significant as
being the first case requiring the Supreme Court to balance
environmental and ecological integrity against industrial
demands on forest resources. The case arose from the
unregulated and hazardous mining in the Himalayas adjoining
the Doon Valley. In 1982, eighteen leases came up for renewal.
The state, finally recognizing the disastrous impact of mining
in the Doon valley, rejected all the renewal application. The
efforts of the state was however thwarted by the Allahabad
High Court which issued an injunction allowing the mining
to continue. RLEK however sent a letter to the Supreme
Court complaining about the disastrous impacts of mining.
The Supreme Court treated the letter as a writ petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution. The case developed into
complex litigation as lessees of more than 100 mines joined
the action, engaging an impressive array of the nation’s top
lawyers to argue for continued mining in the region. In the
Doon Mining case, the court concluded that mining in the
valley violated the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Further,
the court ordered that the valley be reforested. A monitoring
committee comprising of central, state and local official and
two “public spirited’ citizens to oversee reforestation, mining
activities and ‘all other aspects necessary to bring about
normalcy in the Doon Valley’ was setup. The Court also
provided the Monitoring Committee with funding by ordering
that 25 percent of the gross profit of the remaining mines be
deposited in a fund controlled by the committee.172
In addition to preservation of forests, the Supreme Court
showed concern about the welfare of the mine operators and
labourers left unemployed by closure of mines around
Dehradun. The Court issues the following directions to
mitigate the effects of closure:
1) The mine owners whose operations were terminated by
the court be given priority for leases in new areas open to
limestone mining;
2) An eco- task force should reclaim the area and reforest
the area damaged by mining and that workers displaced by
36
mine closure be given priority for jobs with the Eco-Task
Force operations in the region.173
The Doon Valley in Uttaranchal has since 1989 been
declared an Ecologically Sensitive Area under the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, whereby amongst other
things the ecologically destructive mining in the area has been
regulated.
l The Govind Pashu Vihar WLS is impacted by slate mining.174
l The Askot WLS has been impacted due to soapstone
mining in the Askot range. There is sand and stone quarrying
in the Askot and Dharchula ranges too. Quarrying for a hydel
project which is being built by the National Hydropower
Corporation (NHPC) has taken place in the Dharchula range.
Pebble Creek, a Canadian company, in collaboration with
its Indian affiliate, Adi Gold Mining private limited, has a
‘Prospecting license’ on zinc, copper, silver, lead and gold
deposits that are expected to be found in Askot in the
periphery of the Gori valley, about 80 kms from Munsiari.
This is adjoining the sanctuary. The company estimates that
the total area has a resource of 50 million tones of mineral
ore.
An MOU for the project dated 1997 had been signed with
the Uttar Pradesh State Mining development Corporation.
Now the project is being followed up with the new state
Government of Uttaranchal.
l Kataldi village in the heart of Hemwalghati in the Tehri
district, was one of the centres of the Chipko movement in
which people fought to protect their forest wealth. The area
is immediately adjoining the Jardhargaon forest which is
home to leopard, Himalayan bear, over 100 species of birds
as well as the occasional tiger. In addition to these values,
the natural and perennial springs help irrigate fields down in
the valley. This region is also known for its agro-diversity
and Hemwalghati is considered to be the food bowl of the
Tehri region and a storehouse of different varieties of rice
and pulses. Limestone mining was first taken up here during
the period of 1974-79, but the local people had vehemently
opposed it. As a result of this mining operations were stayed.
Bu the area is under threat again. In 1997 a six year lease
were obtained for mining. Stiff opposition from local people,
especially women has continued to stall the mining. The
company M/s Parvatiya Mineral Industry has managed to
obtain a 30 year lease. The local people alongwith with support
of other groups are now fighting a court battle.
34) Uttar Pradesh
Apart from the forests in the hills and adjoining belts of
the Terai region, sizeable forests occur only in the southern
region of U.P. in the Mirzapur and the Bundelkhand areas.
The Mirzapur district has the highest percentage of forest
area. However, the opencast mining of coal has ruined vast
forest areas. With expected increase in mining operations
for the supply of coal to the super thermal power stations,
more areas would be laid waste.175
l The National Chambal WLS is impacted by illegal sand
mining activities. An enquiry report submitted by the forest
department in 2002 indicated that the illegal mining is going
Undermining India
on in five spots in the sanctuary. Mining has been extensive
in areas like Viprawali and Mahngauli ghats in the Bah range
of Agra district and Udi in Etawah district. Apparently this is
being done by mafias with the patronage of local politicians.176
The Hastinapur WLS on the banks of the Ganga, also faces
the impacts of illegal mining.
35) West Bengal
The Buxa Tiger Reserve (BTR) has been affected by
dolomite mining over the years. This has also affected
elephant corridors with neighbouring Bhutan.177 The mining
operations within the Tiger Reserve have closed down after a
Supreme Court ruling.178 According to the agenda papers of
the 27 th Mineral Advisory Council meeting held in
September 2002, the Government of West Bengal has asked
for this area to be opened up for dolomite mining. The ongoing
dolomite mining across the border in Bhutan from Totopara
(Girdha Hills) to Pasakha is impacting both the Buxa Tiger
Reserve and the Jaldapara WLS in West Bengal.179
l Sunderbans
The Sunderbans region is divided politically between India
and Bangladesh, but forms one contiguous habitat. The Indian
portion has the Sunderban Tiger Reserve. The portion of the
Sunderbans in Bangladesh, is under a potential threat of being
explored for oil mining.
The National Picture: A few observations
1) Over 90 protected areas (PAs) (sanctuaries and national
parks) are affected by existing or proposed mining in or
around them. There has been very poor landuse planning and
management resulting in the borders (and insides) of many
of our PAs being dotted with mines, threatening their
longterm viability.
2) Several ecologically and culturally sensitive areas outside
of protected areas and spread over several ecoregions
(Western Ghats, Eastern Ghats, Aravallis, Himalayas, Central
Forest Belt, Coasts) have been impacted.
3) A significant feature is the impact on water resources, as
mining threatens critical water catchment areas.
4) The impacts are both from large-scale mining as well as
small-scale mining, both major and minor minerals. The
minor mineral industry is very often unregulated and has
impacted the environment and biodiversity considerably.
5) We see several instances of serious violations of
environmental laws.
6) Considerable use of court action by communities/groups
to fight mining in ecologically sensitive areas.
7) The threats from ‘proposed mining’ is significant,
compounded by the opening up of the mining sector and the
widespread granting of reconnaissance permits and
prospecting licenses over large areas in some of the most
fragile areas of the country.
Endnotes:
Andaman and Nicobar Islands
1
Pankaj Sekhsaria, ‘Ecological Treasures……Unlimited’, The Hindu Sunday
Magazine, July 7, 2002.
2
The human population in the islands has increased rapidly in the last few
decades – from 50,000 in 1950 to an estimated 4 lakhs today – owing to large-
Undermining India
scale migration from mainland India. The expansion of human settlement has
reduced and even eliminated space for nesting at several locations.
Additionally, it has resulted in large-scale mining of sand from the beaches for
use in the construction industry. Personal communication with Pankaj
Sekhsaria.
3
Andaman and Nicobar Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (draft) 2002,
Andaman and Nicobar Environmental Team. This is part of the ongoing
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan; Pankaj Sekhsaria, Report 1:
Sandmining, Environmental Investigation in the Andaman Islands, A
Kalpavriksh study ( January – May 1998), funded by the Bombay Natural
History Society; Pankaj Sekhsaria, ‘Turtle Tales’, Frontline, May 26,2000.
4
“Sand may be used from the beaches and coastal waters, only for construction
purpose upto the 31st day of March 1998 and thereafter it shall not be used for
construction and other purposes.” This was introduced by the amendment to
the CRZ notification dated 31st January 1997.
5
Interlocutory Application No. 502 in W,P. No. 202 (Civil), T.N. Godavarman
Vs The Union of India.
6
Shekhar Singh Commission Report
Andhra Pradesh
7
An application for prospecting and exploration of uranium and other atomic
minerals in Andhra Pradesh was submitted to the Central Government on
August 20th , 1998. However, the State Government has been asked to obtain
the recommendations of the Indian Board for Wildlife (IBWL) “since it involves
wildlife areas”. (as reported in Tiger Link News Vol. 5 No. 2 June1999; original
source: MoEF website: www.nic.in/envfor)
8
‘Tigers in the nuclear age’, Tiger Link News, Vol. 4, No. 2 September 1998;
Jagdish Krishnaswamy, email on the Natural History of South Asia – General
discussion and research listserver, July 24, 1998. Both the reports site a
newspaper article from the Deccan chronicle of July 1998.
9
MoEF website
10
The “scheduled areas” here refers to the “fifth schedule” of the Indian
constitution. Article 244 (i) provides for tribal dominated areas in the country
to be declared as fifth schedule areas (except the North East which has a
separate provision in the sixth schedule of the constitution). The Governors
of the concerned states have been given extensive powers and may prevent
or amend any law enacted by Parliament or the State assembly that could
harm the tribal interests. It is a tool of “positive discrimination” to protect the
interests of tribal communities who have been exploited over the years. One
of the most significant provisions for these areas is the prevention of land
transfer in these areas to non-tribals. The Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled
Areas) Act, 1996, applies to these areas and seeks to give the communities
greater control over their natural resources and developmental planning in
the area.
11
Personal communication with Ravi Rebbapragada, Samatha, Andhra
Pradesh; Andhra Pradesh Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan ( draft) for
the ongoing National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) process,
Environment Protection and Training Institute (EPTRI).
12
In recent time there has been considerable pressure to amend the ‘Fifth
schedule’ of the constitution, as it has come in the way of the reckless
opening up of these areas for mineral exploitation. These areas which are
home to significant tribal populations, also house a considerable amount of
mineral wealth and the moves to amend the fifth schedule were prompted
because of a historic Supreme Court judgement in 1997 in a case filed by
Samatha , which was a victory for tribal rights in the fifth schedule areas, but
affected mining interests. Amongst other things the implications of this
judgement were that both governmental and non-governmental lands in
scheduled areas cannot be leased out to non-tribals or private industries for
mining purposes. This judgement has tremendous ecological implications
too, since it has put a restriction on the rapid opening up to mineral exploitation
of some of our most ecologically fragile areas (as there is considerable overlap
between tribal areas and areas important from the ecological point of view). In
the recent post-liberalisation one has seen a rapid opening up of the mining
sector to the private sector and foreign investment and this judgement by
restricting the kind of players who can mine in scheduled areas has slowed
down this process. This has quite literally given a “breathing space” to some
of our crucial biodiversity hotspots.
13
Letter dated September 24, 2000, sent by Samatha to the Regional CCF,
MoEF, South Zone, Bangalore; Note dated October 4, 2000, on the ‘Andhra
Bauxite Issue’ , issued by the ‘mines, minerals and People (mm&P)’ network.
14
Bombay Natural History Society, Determination of carrying capacity of
37

wildlife habitat with or without mining operations and rehabilitation plan
from flora and fauna in the event of mining, 2000.
15
Andhra Pradesh Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan ( draft) 2002, Environment
Protection and Training Institute (EPTRI). This is part of the ongoing National
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) process.
16
‘House assured of facts’, Statesman, New Delhi, August 24, 1995.
17
Mining on beach gets nod at last. Deccan Chronicle, July 28, 2002
18
Email from Nalin M on nathistory-india@Princeton.EDU dated
July 28, 2002.
19
Andhra Pradesh Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan ( draft) for the
ongoing National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) process,
Environment Protection and Training Institute (EPTRI).
20
Personal communication with Ravi Rebbapragada, Samatha, Andhra
Pradesh.
Arunachal Pradesh
21
Records of the MoEF, North East Regional Office, Shillong
22
T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs Union of India and Others, Writ Petitions
(C) No. 202 of 1995. The order of 12.12.1996 was delivered by Justice J. S.
Verma and Justice B. N. Kirpal.
Assam
23
S.K. Dutta, ‘Open Cast Mining: Scourge to Nature’, The Sunday Sentinel,
Guwahati, 3 July, 1988; Rishi Das, ‘Open cast mines a cause of concern’, The
North East Times, April 20, 1998; A, Bhattacharya, J.R. Borthakur and M.K.Dhar
(Directorate of Geology and Mining, Govt. of Assam), ‘A study on the impact
of opencast mining on environment of Makum Coalfield and surrounding
areas’, in Proceeding of National Conference on Man, Pollution and
Environment, Shillong, June 15-16, 1999; Dr. H.P. Borthakur (Senior Soil
Microbiologist, Assam Agricultural University) , ‘A report on environmental
impact of opencast mining of coal in Patkai range by M/s Coal India Ltd.’;
Note by S.K. Dutta, Chairman, Purbanchal Welfare Organisation, ‘Who will
save the Green Patkai’, March 28, 1989; Letter to the Prime Minister of India
from the Purbanchal Welfare Organisation, November 10, 1986.
24
‘Dwindling elephant corridors’ , Environ Vol. VI No. 2, 1998. This reports a
study by Y.K. Yadav, Divisional Forest Officer, West Bengal.
25
Personal communication with Dr. Anwaruddin Choudhury
26
R.S. Lal Mohan, S.C Dey and S.P Bairagi, ‘On a resident population of the
Ganges River Dolphin Platanista Gangetica in the Kulsi river (Assam) a
tributary of Brahmaputra’; Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society,
April 1998
Bihar
27
‘Govt. depts. battling over forest land’, The Times of India, May 25, 2001
28
Project Tiger Status Report, 2001.
29
Bulu Imam, Regional Convener, INTACH, Hazaribagh, personal
communication, October 2000
Chhatisgarh
30
Chhatisgarh Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (draft), 2002, Forest
Department, Chhatisgarh. This is part of the ongoing National Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plan process.
31
A study of FSI, 1999 (unpublished). Cited in the State of Forest Report
1999, Forest Survey of India, Dehradun, Pg. 62
32
Central Forest Belt Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (draft), 2002,
Vidarbha Nature Conservation Society. This is part of the ongoing National
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.
33
Sanctuary Asia Vol. XV No. 6, 1995; The State of the Tiger – India’s Tiger
Crisis, Environmental Investigation Agency, 1999.
34
Personal communication with S.C. Verma, Bastar Society for Conservation
of Nature (BASCON).
35
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for the Central Forest Belt, Vidarbha
Nature Conservation Agency. As part of the ongoing National Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plan.
36
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for the Central Forest Belt, Vidarbha
Nature Conservation Agency. As part of the ongoing National Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plan.
37
‘Threat to Udanti’, Tiger Link News Volume 5 No. 1, January 1999
38
Indian Express, January 10, 2001
Delhi
39
Delhi Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (draft), 2002, Department of
Environment, Delhi. A part of the ongoing National Biodiversity Strategy and
Action Plan process.
38
40
S.K. Jha, ‘Mining mafia takes govt. for a ride’, The Pioneer, May 10, 2001.
Goa
41
Neeraj Vagholikar, ‘Mining Goa’s Forests’, Kalpavriksh,1999. This report
was based on an investigation carried out in May 1999 to look at impacts of
mining on Goa’s proteced areas. The report is posted at the website of the
‘Association for Species Conservation in India (ASCI)’ : www.ee.duke.edu/
~achandra/asci.html; Neeraj Vagholikar, ‘Scarring the Earth’, Sanctuary Asia
Vol. XXI No. 2, April 2001.
42
Valmik Thapar, ‘Site visit to protected areas and other important ecological sites
in Goa’. Report submitted to the MoEF, September 14, 1999; ‘Serious mining
violations’, Tiger Link News Vol. 5 No. 3 December 1999.
43
‘Goa to move SC to wriggle out of `notification’ mess’, Times of India, Aug
9, 2001; ‘Govt to seek SC’s nod for denotifying 2 sanctuaries’, The Navhind
Times, August 9, 2001; Sandesh Prabhudesai, ‘Goa’s animal kingdom shrinks’,
The Pioneer, August 12,2001; ‘NGOs Up-In-Arms Against Govt. Decision
On Madei, Netraveli’, Herald, August 14, 2001.
44
This application has been made in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337 of 1995,
Centre for Environmental Law, WWF – India Vs Union of India & Ors., hereafter
referred to as the WWF case. In August 1997 the SC ruled that no
denotifications to take place without seeking opinion of the IBWL. But several
state governments continued deleting portions of protected areas under the
pretext of the ongoing settlement of rights process. In response to this the SC
ruled in November 2000 that “pending further orders, no dereservation of
forests/sanctuaries/national parks shall be effected”. Subsequently state
governments have had to go to the SC with proposals for deletions from
protected areas and the opinion of the IBWL is being sought on these
proposals. The SC has further passed orders in 2002 that “no permission
under section 29 of the Wildlife Act should be granted without getting approval
of the Standing Committee.” The Standing Committee referred to here is the
Standing Committee of the IBWL. It is important to note that this approval of
the IBWL is required irrespective of whether the area will be denotified
eventually or remain a part of the protected area. It is an approval for the use
of section 29.
45
A.H. Parulekar, Z.A. Ansari and B.S. Ingole; ‘Effect of mining activities on
the clam fisheries and bottom fauna of Goa estuaries’, Proceedings of Indian
Academy of Sciences, Vol. 95, No. 3, June 1986, pg. 325-339.
46
Tata Energy Research Institute, 1997: Areawide environmental quality
management (AEQM) plan for the mining belt of Goa.
Gujarat
47
Prithi Nambiar, ‘Striking a balance’, Frontline, April 28, 2000; Prithi Nambiar,
‘Shrinking sanctuary’, Frontline, September 8, 1995; ‘Narayan Sarovar
Sanctuary’, The CEE – NFS Reportage, Centre for Environment Education
(CEE), Ahmedabad. This is a compilation of newspaper reportage by the
News and Feature Service (NFS) of CEE on the Narayan Sarovar issue; ‘SC
permits limited mining in sanctuary’, Indian Express, February 20, 2000;
Protected Area Update Nos. 10, 19,22,24.
48
Gujarat Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (draft), 2002. This is as part of
the ongoing National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan process.
49
Cited in Valmik Thapar, ‘Violating India’s Natural Treasures’, Seminar 485;
Sanctuary Asia Vol. XVII No.5 ,October 1997.
50
Ashok Shrimali, Varsha Ganguly, ‘ Manmade desert by mining in Saurashtra
and Kutch region of Gujarat’, SETU: Centre for Social Knowledge & Action,
Ahmedabad. Presented at Workshop on ‘mines, minerals & People’,
Hyderabad, April 30 – May 2, 2001.
51
Valmik Thapar, ‘Violating India’s Natural Treasures’, Seminar 485
52
Rajiv Shah, ‘Salt farms likely on part of Wild Ass Sanctuary’, The Times of
India, March 14, 1999.
53
Comprehensive Regional Environmental Impact Assessment Report by M/
s ABP Environmental Solutions Ltd., New Delhi, conducted for Ambaji Marble
Quarrying and Factory Association, Gujarat.
54
Arun Agnihotri, email to the Natural History of South Asia – General
discussion and research listserver, November 25,2000.
55
State Environmental Action Programme ( Sub-component: Biodiversity &
Conservation Problems; Phase 1 Overview). Gujarat Ecology Commission,
March 2000.
56
‘Ecological Impacts of Lignite Mining in Kutch with special emphasis on
the Indian Grey Wolf and its Habitat’, Wildlife Institute of India, June 1997.
57
‘Cabinet move on grasssland a tough task’, The Times of India, August 7,
2000.
58
Personal communication with Dr. Asad Rahmani, Director, Bombay Natural
Undermining India
History Society.
59
State Environmental Action Programme ( Sub-component: Biodiversity &
Conservation Problems; Phase 1 Overview). Gujarat Ecology Commission,
March 2000.
60
Gujarat Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (draft), 2002. This is part of the
ongoing National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan process.
61
State Environmental Action Programme ( Sub-component: Biodiversity &
Conservation Problems; Phase 1 Overview). Gujarat Ecology Commission,
March 2000.
62
Gujarat Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (draft), 2002. This is part of the
ongoing National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan process.
63
Gujarat Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (draft), 2002. This is part of the
ongoing National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan process.
Haryana
64
Haryana Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (draft), 2002. This is as part
of the ongoing National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.
65
Writ Petition No. 202 of 1995, T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulkpad Vs Union of
India and Others. Order dated December 12,1996.
66
‘Judiciary saving India’s Forests’, Tigerlink News Vol.3 No. 1, June 1997.
67
M.L. Kapur, ‘Illegal mining going on near Surajkund’, The Times of India
News Service, March 5, 2001.
68
Order dated November 10, 1996 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, WP 4677/
1985 (Delhi Land Use Case: Badkhal Lake and Surajkund).
Himachal Pradesh
69
Himachal Pradesh Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (draft), 2002. This
is part of the ongoing National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan process.
70
K.S. Valdiya, ‘Environmental impacts of mining activities’, in S.C. Joshi and
G. Bhattacharya (eds.), ‘Mining and Environment in India’, HRG, Nainital,
1988. This source has been cited in ‘Ecological Impacts of Lignite Mining in
Kutch with special emphasis on the Indian Grey Wolf and its Habitat’, Wildlife
Institute of India, June 1997.
71
Ashish Kothari, Pratibha Pande, Shekhar Singh, Dilnavaz Variava,
Management of National Parks and Sanctuaries in India – A Status Report,
Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi, 1989.
72
Shekhar Singh, Ashish Kothari, Pratibha Pande, Directory of National Parks
and Sanctuaries in Himachal Pradesh. Indian Institute of Public
Administration, New Delhi, 1990.
73
Joint Protected Area Management (JPAM) Update No. 9, May 1996.
74
S. P. Sharma, ’20,000 green trees to be axed’, Tribune, November 4, 1999.
75
Shekhar Singh, Ashish Kothari, Pratibha Pande, Directory of National Parks
and Sanctuaries in Himachal Pradesh. Indian Institute of Public
Administration, New Delhi, 1990.
76
‘Centre rejects cement plant proposal’, Tribune, December 18, 1999
77
Mahesh Chander Sharma, ‘Cement plant initiated despite opposition’, The
Tribune, February 25, 2001.
78
S.P.Sharma, ‘Nod to mining in Khaniyara’, The Tribune, Chandigarh, October
20, 2000.
Jharkhand
79
Ratnaker Bhengra, C.R. Bijoy, Shimreichon Luithui, The Adivasis of India,
Minority Rights Group International, 1998.
80
A study of FSI, 1999 (unpublished). Cited in the State of Forest Report
1999, Forest Survey of India, Dehradun, Pg. 36.
81
R.K. Singh and S. Choudhury, ‘Effect of mine discharge on the pattern of
riverine habitat use of elephants Elephas maximus and other mammals in
Singhbhum forests, Bihar, India’, Journal of Environmental Management
(1999) 57, pages 177-192. The paper mentions ‘Bihar’ since the state of
Jharkhand had not been carved out of the state of Bihar at the time of
publication of the paper.
82
Bulletin of Mining Leases & Prospecting Licenses – 1998, Mineral
Economics Division, Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur.
83
Tigerlink News Vol. 5 No. 1,January 1999.
84
Minutes of the meeting of the MoEF Expert Committee (Mining), cited in
TigerLink News, Vol.4 No.2, September 1998.
85
R.K Tiwary, J.P.Gupta, N.N. Banerjee, B.B.Dhar ( Central Mining Research
Institute, Dhanbad), ‘Impact of coal mining activities on water and human
health in the Damodar River Basin’. Presented at the First World Mining
Environment Congress, New Delhi, India, 1995.
86
The coal based industries in the Damodar basin include coal washeries,
coke oven plants, coal fired thermal power plants, steel plants and other related
industries.
87
V.J.Loveson, B.B.Dhar (Central Mining Research Institute, Dhanbad),
‘Satellite remote sensing survey over some environmentally critical areas in
Undermining India
coalfields of Damodar Basin, India’. Presented at the First World Mining
Environment Congress, New Delhi, India, 1995.
88
Personal communication with SEH Kazmi, DFO Hazaribagh West, Jharkhand.
89
Stripping the Earth –Dossier on Coal Mining in Hazaribagh, Jharkhand,
India, FEED, January 2001.
90
Neeraj Vagholikar, ‘Of coal and corridors’, Sanctuary Asia Vol XX No. 4,
August 2000; Neeraj Vagholikar, ‘Undermining a valley’, The Ecologist Asia,
Vol. 8 No. 4, July/ August 2000; Bulu Imam, ‘A study of the crisis of the wildlife
corridors and habitats in the North Karanpura valley of Hazaribagh as a result of
the North Karanpura Coalfield Project’, INTACH, Hazaribagh , June 1996; Crisis
of the Upper Damodar Valley: Cultural and Ecologcial Implications of Mining
– A Report, INTACH, 1993.
91
Advance Environmental Management Plan for North Karanpura Coalfield
of Central Coalfields Ltd.’, October 1987, Advance Environmental Planning
Group for North Karanpura Coalfield.
92
Executive Summary on ‘Alleged adverse impact on wildlife habitat due to
opencast mining operations in selected areas of Bihar’, Chemprojects
Consulting (P) Ltd.. New Delhi. This study was conducted for the World
Bank. The title mentions ‘Bihar’ as Jharkhand had not been carved out of
Bihar when the report was published.
Karnataka
93
Ranjit Lal, Ashish Kothari, Pratibha Pande, Shekhar Singh, Directory of
National Parks and Sanctuaries in Karnataka, Indian Institute of Public
Administration, New Delhi.
94
Sanctuary Asia Vol. XVIII No. 2, April 1998; Sanctuary Asia Vol. XX No.3,
June 2000
95
Rapid Environment Impact Assessment of the Dandeli Mini hydel project,
Tata Energy Research Institute, 2000.
96
A list of current mining leases in Karnataka, Department of Geology and
Mining, Karnataka.
97
‘Union Minister to Inspect Kemmanagundi Iron Ore Mines’, Deccan Herald,
August 29,1998.
98
Letter dated September 2, 1998 from Pankaj Sekhsaria, Kalpavriksh, to Suresh
Prabhu, MoEF.
99
‘Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary (BTR) Mines travesty’, Tigerlink News Vol. 6,
No.1, July 2000. The original source of the information has been stated as
D.Yatish Kumar, Conservator of Forests, Bhadra Tiger Reserve, march 8, 2000.
100
Ranjit Lal, Ashish Kothari, Pratibha Pande, Shekhar Singh, Directory of
National Parks and Sanctuaries in Karnataka, Indian Institute of Public
Administration, New Delhi.
101
Protected Area Updates 24,25, 30,31; Kanak Hirani, ‘Elephants affected
by illegal quarrying’, The Times of India, February 23,2000; ‘HC asks Centre,
State to restrain illegal quarrying in Bannerghatta’, Deccan Herald, February
11,2000; ‘NGOs urge Govt. to stop plunder of forest wealth’, The Hindu, April
8, 2000; ‘Mining near park: Action sought against department’, Times of India,
March 30, 2001.
102
‘Impact of iron ore mining on the flora and fauna of Kudremukh National
Park and Environs – A Rapid Assessment’, Centre for Ecological Sciences,
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, January 2001.
103
‘Comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (CEIA) of Kudremukh
Iron Ore Mines’, National Environmental Engineering Research Institute
(NEERI), Nagpur, November 2000; ‘Escalating Ecocide in the Kudremukh
National Park’, Nagarika Seva Trust and Institute for Natural Resources
Conservation, Education, Research and Training, June 2001. This investigative
report has done a critique of the NEERI CEIA.
104
www.kudremukh.org. This website gives comprehensive information on
the Kudremukh mining issue; ‘From the Horse’s Mouth’, Sanctuary Asia,
Vol. XX No. 4, August 2000.
105
Email communication from INCERT, Bangalore, dated February 2, 2002
Kerala
106
Personal communication with Dr. Satishchandra Nair.
107
Akhel Mathew, ‘Sandmining threatens Kerala ecosystem’, http://www.gulf-
news.co.ae, March 30, 2000; Major observations made in the report submitted
by the Centre for Earth Science Studies (CESS), Thiruvananthapuram in O.P.No.
16272 of 2000 (Kerala High Court).
108
Roshni Kutty, ‘Sandmining at Kottapuzha estuary. Kozhikode estuary,
Kozhikode, Kerala’, Kalpavriksh, 2001. This was based on an investigation
carried out by the author in co-ordination with local environmental groups.
109
K.C. Gopi & C. Radhakrishnan, ‘A site-study report on coastline habitat
degradation and threat to the turtle nesting site at Kolavipalam beach, Kozhikode
District, Kerala’, Zoological Survey of India, Calicut, 1999.
110
M.P. Basheer, ‘Guardians of sea turtles’, www.indiatogether.com , January
2003
39
Lakshadweep Economics Division, Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur.
111
Lakshadweep Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan(draft) 2002, Department Meghalaya
of Environment and Forests, Lakshadweep. A part of the ongoing National 145
O. Basaiawmoit, Director of Mineral Resources, Govt. of Meghalaya,
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan process. ‘Mineral resources of the State of Meghalaya, their exploitation and impact on
112
Personal communication with Dr. Mohideen Wafar, National Institute of the environment’, from a report of the Public Hearing on Environment and
Oceanography (NIO), Goa. Development organised by Centre for Environment Education, North East
Madhya Pradesh Regional Cell, Guwahati
113 146
A study of FSI, 1999 (unpublished). Cited in the State of Forest Report Impact Assessment of proposed ACC Cement Plant near Balphakram
1999, Forest Survey of India, Dehradun, Pg. 62 National Park, The Rhino Foundation for Nature in North East India and the
114
Anirudh Bhattacharya, ‘8,000 hectares of tiger land goes to mining projects’, Wildlife Protection Society of India (WPSI), March 1996.
147
Pioneer, New Delhi, July 23, 1995. Tiger Link News, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 1996.
115 148
Reported in The Hitavada, April 21,1999 This petition was jointly filed by A Rangarajan of the Tamil Nadu Green
116
TigerLink News, Vol. 5 No.1, January 1999. Movement, the Wildlife Protection Society of India, New Delhi, and the
117
Tigerlink News Vol. 5 No. 1,January 1999; Project Tiger Status Report 2001. Association for Protection of Environment & Endangered Species. Meghalaya
118
M.J. Heath, J.R. Merefield, I.M. Stone, A.G.Paithankar, I.L. Muthreja, ‘Impact in the Supreme Court in October 1996.
149
of mining on tropical forest, Central India: Signposts to future development A. Christy Williams and A.J.T. Johnsingh, ‘Status survey of elephants (Elephas
strategies in environmentally sensitive regions’, Published in Impact of mining maximus), their habitats and an assessment of elephant-human conflict in Garo
on the Environment, 1994. Hills, Meghalaya’, Wildlife Institute of India, April 1996.
119 150
S.K.Tiwari, Wildlife Sanctuaries of Madhya Pradesh, APH Publishing This is being undertaken by R S Tripathi, H N Pandey, S K Pandey. Personal
Corporation, 1997. communication with Dr. S K Barik.
120 151
Same as above This study is by K Sharma, R K Rai, S K Barik
121 152
Neeraj Vagholikar, Undermining the Son gharials, Kalpavriksh, 1999. This Manasij Bhattacharjee. ‘Park to be set up for primates in Meghalaya’, The
report was based on a Kalpavriksh investigation to look at impacts of Asian Age, August 8, 2002.
sandmining in Son gharial sanctuary. The report is posted at the website of Orissa
the Association for Species Conservation in India (ASCI) : www.ee.duke.edu/ 153
Personal communication with Dr. D.K.Lahiri-Choudhury
~achandra/asci.html; 154
Down to Earth, November 30,1999
122
Threat to wildlife due to illegal mining, Press Information Bureau, August 6, 155
Assessment of Environmental, Economic and Social Impacts of bauxite
2001. Mining & Alumina Processing in Kashipur and Kalahandi, Orissa, TARU,
123
Tiger Link news Vol. 5, No.2, June 1999. Original source is report in The June 1996.
Hitavada, April 21,1999 156
Directory of National Parks and Sanctuaries of India (draft), 2003, IIPA.
124
The State of the Tiger – India’s Tiger Crisis, Environmental Investigation
Agency (EIA), 2000. Pages 26-27; Tiger Link News Vol. 3 No.1, June 1997. Rajasthan
157
125
Project Tiger Status Report 2001. Bulletin of Mining Leases & Prospecting Licenses – 1998, Mineral
126
Writ Petition No. 3361/97 of 1997 in Madhya Pradesh High Court. Manish Economics Division, Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur.
158
and Smita Kulshrestha Vs State of MP and NMDC Mining in Rajasthan – A study, Samajik Sudhar Avam Manavadhikar
127
Valmik Thapar, ‘Violating India’s Natural Treasures’, Seminar 485 Suraksha Samiti, 1998.
159
128
‘Curb on mining activities around Panna National Park’, The Hindu, March 5, Tiger Link News, Vol. 3 No.1, June 1997.
160
2000. Reported in the Protected Area Update No. 25, June 2000. Proceedings of the National Workshop on Environment and Forestry in
129
Letter No. E-36/91 – FC dated 17th August, 1998. From Asst. Inspector Mining Areas, August 21-22, 1998, Jaipur.
161
General of Forests, MoEF, to Forest (Secretary), MP. The Political Widerness – India’s Tiger Crisis, Environmental Investigation
130
‘Writ filed in SC against illegal mining’, Deccan Herald, December 14, Agency, 1996.
162
2000. Email from Leo Saldhana, Environment Support Group, based on a visit to
131
Tiger Link News, Vol. 7, no.2, September 2001. the area in 2002.
163
Site visit to Jamwa Ramgarh sanctuary, a report by Valmik Thapar, September 23,
Maharashtra 1999. Cited in Tiger Link News, Vol. 5 No.3, December 1999.
132 164
Neeraj Vagholikar, ‘The fading future of Radhanagari’, Sanctuary Asia Personal communication with Nick Mole, Environmental Investigation
Vol.XVIII No.2, April 1998. Agency.
133 165
W.A. Rodgers and H.S. Panwar, Planning a Wildlife Protected Area Network Syed Khalique Ahmed, ‘Environmentalists decry dual policy on Desert
in India, Wildlife Institute of India, 1988; W.A. Rodgers, H.S. Panwar, V.Mathur, Park’, Indian Express, August 3, 1997.
166
Wildlife Protected Areas in India: A Review – Executive Summary, Wildlife Joint Protected Area Management Update No.11,September 1996.
167
Institute of India, 2000. Directory of National Parks and Sanctuaries of India (draft) 2003. IIPA.
134
Bauxite mining activities of Indian Aluminium Company (INDAL) at Tamil Nadu
Nangartas and Kasarsada – District Kolhapur, a report by Green-Guards 168
Neeraj Vagholikar, ‘Scarring the Earth, Mining the Western Ghats’,
and Nisarga Mitra, Kolhapur, June 1998. Sanctuary Asia, Vol. XXI No. 2, April 2001.
135
Partnership with Nature, INDAL. This brochure is on INDAL’s 169
C Dorairaj, ‘Gulf of Mannar islands shifting?’, The Hindu, May 10, 2000.
Durgamanwad mine.
136
Personal communication with Dr. Madhukar Bachulkar- Cholekar; Dr. Tripura
170
Madhukar Bachulkar – Cholekar, Floristic analysis of Radhanagari Wildlife Email dated March 3, 2003, from Hemalatha of East Coast Research and
Sanctuary and impacts of INDAL mining activities on vegetation, Department Development.
171
of Botany, Vivekanand College, Kolhapur, February – March 1998. This study MoEF records.
was supported by WWF – India, Kolhapur Division. Uttaranchal
137
Madhav Gokhale, ‘MEDA, mining dept. lock horns over wind farms in 172
AIR 1987 SC 1037 in Diwan and Rosencranz, 2001
Satara’, Indian Express, May 18, 1999. 173
Note by Ritwick Dutta (see chapter 5)
138
Personal communication with Sunil Karkare, Honorary Wildlife Warden, 174
Directory of National Parks and Sanctuaries of India (draft) 2003. IIPA.
Kolhapur.
139
S.C. Sardeshpande (member Paryavarani, Belgaum), A note dated April 21, Uttar Pradesh
2001, on ‘Visit to Sawantwadi areas of proposed Sahyadri Ecologically 175
Uttar Pradesh Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (draft) 2002, G.B. Pant
Sensitive Area (SESA): 20 April 2001’.
140 Institute of Himalayan Development. This part of the ongoing National
Letter from the Green Pigeon Nature Club, Chandrapur, to Kalpavriksh with
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan process.
subject : ‘Tadoba – Andhari Tiger Reserve in trouble by mining’. 176
141
Anirudh Bhattacharya, ‘8,000 hectares of tiger land goes to mining projects’, Mohit Dubey, ‘Cops crack down on Chambal sand mafia’, Times of India,
Pioneer, New Delhi, July 23, 1995. April 19, 2003.
142
Amrut Dhanwatay, ‘Forced migration of wildlife due to mining activity in West Bengal
forest areas’, in S.P. Banerjee (edited), Proceedings of 2nd International 177
Personal communication with Dr. D.K.Lahiri -Choudhury
Seminar on Minerals and Ecology, Oxford & IBH Publishing Company Pvt. 178
Project Tiger Status Report 2001
Ltd. , 1994. 179
Personal communication with Amal Dutta of Alipurduar Nature Club, March
143
Personal communication with Amrut Dhanwatay, Vidarbha Tiger Research 2003.
Foundation.
144
Bulletin of Mining Leases & Prospecting Licenses – 1998, Mineral

40 Undermining India
 Chapter IV
The policy and legal framework
A key factor influencing the impact of mining on
ecologically sensitive areas is the policy and legal
framework. It is important to see the provisions within this
policy and legal framework, as well as see the changes that
are taking place in these and how these changes influence the
impact of mining on ecologically sensitive areas. This
chapter will take a look at:
l the provisions within environment, forest, wildlife and
biodiversity laws and policies, which are related to and
thereby, influence the mining sector.
l the mining laws and policies and how these influence
environment, forests, wildlife and biodiversity issues.
l A few other relevant policies and laws which influence
mining in ecologically sensitive areas.
Environment, forests, wildlife, biodiversity:
Constitutional provisions, policies and laws which
influence the mining sector
Constitutional provisions
The concern for protection on the environment was first
articulated in Article 48 A in the directive principles of the
Indian Constitution amended in 1976 ( 42nd amendment)
which says that “ the State shall endeavour to protect the
environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the
country.” Consequently item 17 A – Forests, and 17 B –
Protection of Wild Animals, were transferred from the State
list to the Concurrent list of the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution. Protection of the environment has also been
mentioned as a fundamental duty under Article 51 A (g).
Policies
National Forest Policy (NFP), 1988
The basic objectives of the NFP, 1988, amongst other
things emphasize on the following:
i) Maintenance of environmental stability through
preservation and where necessary, restoration of the
ecological balance that has been adversely disturbed by
serious depletion of the forests of the country.
ii) Conserving the natural heritage of the country by preserving
the remaining natural forests with the variety of flora and
fauna, which represent the remarkable biological diversity
and genetic resources of the country.
It states that “The principal aim of Forest Policy must be
to ensure environmental stability and maintenance of
ecological balance including atmospheric equilibrium which
are vital for sustenance of all life forms, human, animal and
plant. The derivation of direct economic benefit must be
subordinated to this principal aim.”
Section 4.3.1 states that “Schemes and projects which
interfere with forests and clothe steep slopes, catchments of
rivers, lakes, and reservoirs, geologically unstable terrain and
Undermining India
such other ecologically sensitive areas should be severely
restricted.”
Section 4.4.1 on ‘Diversion of forest lands for non-forest
purposes’ states that “ forest land or land with tree cover should
not be treated merely as a resource available to be utilised
for various projects and programmes, but as a national asset
which requires to be properly safeguarded for providing
sustainable benefits to the entire community. Diversion of
forest land for any non-forest purpose should be subject to
the most careful examinations by specialists from the
standpoint of social and environmental costs and benefits.
Construction of dams and reservoirs, mining and industrial
development and expansion of agriculture should be
consistent with the needs for conservation of trees and
forests.”
Section 4.4.2 emphasizes the need for restoration of
mined areas and states that no mining lease should be granted
without a proper management plan appraised from the
environment point of view and enforced by adequate
machinery.
National Conservation Strategy and Policy Statement on
Environment and Development, 1992
The policy statement lays down the guidelines under which
a nine-point Action Plan has been proposed to prevent and to
mitigate environmental repercussions in mining and quarrying
operations:
l Mined area rehabilitation and implementation of the
environmental management plans concurrently with the
ongoing mining operations to ensure adequate ecological
restoration of the affected areas
l Rehabilitation of the abandoned mined areas in a phased
manner so that scarce land resource can be brought back under
productive use
Comment: The words ‘rehabilitation’, ‘restoration’,
‘reclamation’ are often used interchangeably in both
environmental and mining policy and laws, although there
are differences in the kind and degree of ecological
amelioration which each of these terms is indicating. This
is one reason for a lack of clarity on what exactly is
expected in a particular area in terms of remedial action.
This issue has been dealt with at length in Chapter 7.
l Laying down of requisite stipulations for mining leases
regarding tenure, size, shape and disposition with reference
to geological boundaries, and other mining conditions to
ensure systematic extraction of minerals alongwith
environmental conservation
l Emphasis on production of value added finished products
from mining so as to reduce indiscriminate extraction
l Upgradation and beneficiation of minerals at the source
to the extent possible in order to ensure utilization of low
grade mineral resources and to reduce the cost of
transportation, processing and utilization
l Environmentally safe disposal of the by-products of mining.
41
l Restriction on mining and quarrying activities in
sensitive areas such as hill slopes, areas of natural
springs and areas rich in biodiversity.
Comment: This is also reflected in the provision 4.3.1 of
the National Forest Policy stated earlier and the National
Mineral Policy, 1993, covered later. But implementation
remains poor on the ground (as evident from Chapter 3)
and infact, other policies in the mining sector, as explained
later, are in contradiction to many of these provisions
essential for our ecological security. A comprehensive
‘scheduling of lands’ to determine where mining needs to
be prohibited/ restricted and also the evaluation of
policies/ laws/ guidelines which contradict this is
necessary.
l Discouraging selective mining of high grade ore, recovery
of associated low grade ore during mining
l Environmental impact assessment prior to selection of
sites for mining and quarrying.
National Wildlife Action Plan (NWAP), 2002
The NWAP 2002 - 2016 was released in January 2002 and
in its Preamble has stated some of the following:
l Effective ecosystem conservation is the foundation of
long-term ecological and economic stability. Natural
processes, forests and other wild habitats recharge aquifers,
maintain water regimes and moderate the impact of floods,
droughts and cyclones. Thereby they ensure food security
and regulate climate change. They are also a source of food,
fodder, fuel and other products supplementing the sustenance
of local communities.
l India ranks sixth among the twelve mega bio-diversity
countries of the world. Conservation of bio-diversity is
directly linked with conservation of ecosystems and thus with
water and food security. These together constitute a major
plank of the Indian economy.
l The increased frequency and intensity of natural disasters,
the plummeting fertility of our soils and the accelerated
degradation of our fresh water resources have imposed a
crippling financial burden on the nation. This underscores
the need to realign development priorities to take into account
ecological imperatives including the protection of wild
species, which sustain and enhance natural habitats, even as
they depend on such areas for their survival.
l Habitat loss caused by developmental project such as
dams, mines, etc. compound the problems of wildlife
conservation.
The Policy Imperatives include:
l Ecological Security: To protect the long-term
ecological security of India the national development agenda
must recognise the imperative of identifying and protecting
natural ecosystems from over exploitation, contamination and
degradation. Short term economic gains must not be permitted
to undermine ecological security.
l Priority to Conservation: Assigning conservation a high
priority both at the level of central and state governments is
an imperative. Its integration in all development programmes,
evolving appropriate funding mechanism, enhancement of
42
financial allocations and provision of adequate personnel with
requisite expertise has to be ensured, to arrest the ongoing
trend of degradation and to restore wildlife and its habitat.
l National Land Use Policy: The NWAP cannot be
executed in isolation. Wildlife conservation cannot be
restricted to national parks and sanctuaries. Areas outside
the protected area network are often vital ecological corridor
links and must be protected to prevent isolation of fragments
of biodiversity which will not survive in the long run. Land
and water use policies will need to accept the imperative of
strictly protecting ecologically fragile habitats and regulating
use elsewhere.
l Primacy for Water and Sustenance: Water must be
recognised as a prime produce of natural forests. Forests
must be managed to optimise and protect hydrological
systems. The National Forest Policy of 1988 which
emphasises conserving our natural heritage in the form of
natural forests, flora and fauna, is in consonance with this
imperative. A critical imperative is also to recognize forests,
wetlands and other natural habitats as a source of survival for
millions of people, in particular as a source of NTFP and
aquatic resources.
The main Plan in several sections has provisions
which are relevant to mining:
l Section III on ‘Conservation of wild and endangered
species and their habitats’ states that identified areas around
Protected Areas and corridors to be declared as ecologically
fragile under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986,
wherever necessary.
l Section IV on ‘Restoration of degraded habitats outside
protected areas’ emphasises the need for each State/UT to
identify and prioritize degraded habitats outside PAs for the
natural regeneration of forests / wetlands; identify and restore
linkages and corridors between wildlife habitats etc.
Comment: Identification and prioritisation for appropriate
remedial action of ecologically fragile areas affected by
past and current mining activities is of immediate
significance.
l Section XI on ‘Domestic Legislation and International
Conventions’ states that the ecologically fragile status under
EPA,1986, should also be extended to areas such as Biosphere
Reserves, World Heritage Sites, Ramsar Sites and other areas
declared or notified under international environmental
treaties.
l Section XIII on ‘Integration of National Wildlife Action
Plan with other sectoral programmes’ has the following to
say:
“There should be total harmony between the National
Conservation Strategy and the National Wildlife Action Plan.
Both along with other related Action Plans must be
recognised as vital national developmental priorities. The
central rationale is the fact that biodiversity protection has a
bearing on India’s water and food security and is the foundation
upon which the Indian economy is based.
National planning has not thus far adequately taken into
account the ecological and economic consequences of
extracting short-term commercial gains from wildlife
Undermining India
habitats. It becomes necessary therefore to engage national
decision making bodies, including Parliament, the Prime
Minister’s Office, the Planning Commission, the National
Development Council and the Committee of Secretaries in
direct discussions on the need to protect our natural treasury,
which is comprised of rivers, aquifers, forests, grasslands,
mountains, wetlands, coastlines marine habitats and even
deserts, and the various species that inhabit them. Decision-
makers need to recognise that these natural ecosystems are
the best way to reduce the frequency and intensity of “natural”
disasters including floods, droughts, cyclones and landslides,
and are the lifeline for the livelihood requirements of
hundreds of millions of rural people. The emphasis in these
discussions should be that protecting the environment is in
the nation’s economic, health and human interests, apart from
being a moral imperative.”
This section also has recommendations specific to other
ministries. With respect to the ministry dealing with mining
issues it says: “…to exclude wildlife protected areas/
corridors from their mining plans. Proper rehabilitation of
degraded and abandoned mining areas should also be done. A
programme to phase out all existing operations in wildlife
areas should be prepared.”
The National Wildlife Action Plan (NWAP) 2002 - 2016
was released by the Prime Minister during the XXI meeting
of the Indian Board for Wildlife (IBWL) held on January
21,2002. At the above stated meeting the IBWL adopted the
“Wildlife Conservation Strategy 2002”.
Wildlife Conservation Strategy 2002
Amongst the seventeen points articulated there are the
following:
l No diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes
from critical and ecologically fragile wildlife habitat
shall be allowed.
l Lands falling within 10 km. of the boundaries of
National Parks and Sanctuaries should be notified as eco-
fragile zones under section 3(v) of the Environment
(Protection) Act and Rule 5 Sub-rule 5(viii) & (x) of the
Environment (Protection) Rules.
Subsequent to this meeting of the IBWL, the Addl. DGF
(Wildlife), MoEF, has written to the Chief Wildlife Wardens
of all States and Union Territories (D.O. No. 6-2/2002 WL-
I dated February 5, 2002) asking them to list out such areas
and furnish detailed proposals for their notification as eco-
sensitive under the EPA.
Comments: It is important that we ensure that proper and
timely use of this directive is made. This could be an
extremely useful provision if the landuse planning in these
proposed ecologically sensitive areas is done keeping in
mind the dual objectives of ecological security and
livelihood security of the local communities living therein.
It is crucial that local communities are part of the process
right from identification of areas to be declared
ecologically fragile to landuse planning to decide
Undermining India
appropriate landuse priorities in their region.
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (ongoing
process)
Comment: This is an ongoing process of which a first draft
document for comment has been circulated.
The need to re-orient mining policies and practices is a
key recommendation of the draft national document of the
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP)
process. The NBSAP has been prepared following a “bottom-
up” principle, by involving people from various sectors to
make their own action plans. A Ministry of Environment
and Forests (MoEF) project, the process has been
coordinated by the NGO Kalpavriksh with a 15-member
Technical and Policy Core Group, and administered by
Biotech Consortium India Ltd (BCIL). It is funded by the
GEF through the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP). This multi-sectoral coordination arrangement is an
unusual departure from government-led national processes
held so far.
In another departure from usual practice, the national plan
has been drafted only at the end of the process. Prior to this,
over 70 local, state, inter-state, and thematic action plans
have been prepared by communities, academics, government
officials, students, and others. This has been done through
widespread grassroots consultation and awareness
involving public hearings, biodiversity festivals, workshops
and seminars, foot marches and boat rallies, questionnaires,
outreach through mass and folk media, and so on. Well over
50,000 people have participated in an influential way. In
addition, over 30 subthematic reviews on specialised topics
relating to biodiversity, have been commissioned, including
one on Mining and Biodiversity.
The first draft of the National Action Plan has been
prepared by the Technical and Policy Core Group and it is
built on the various plans and subthematic reviews. The
national plan recommends a series of bold measures to ensure
that the country’s ecological security is assured, and that the
livelihoods of the millions of people dependent on biological
resources are also secured. These measures call for a major
re-orientation of the process of economic development and
of governance of natural resources, such that the health of
the environment especially critical ecosystems and wildlife
habitats, and livelihoods of biomass dependant communities,
become central to all planning, and such local communities
become central to decision making.
The draft stresses several strategies and actions,
including some of the following:
l Preparing a national land and water use plan, through
a widespread participatory process, which would map the
areas of the country that are essential for ecological and
livelihood security and off-limits to commercial
developmental purposes which disrupt and destroy essential
ecological processes;
l Creating or strengthening of decentralised institutions
of governance, with the basic planning and decision-making
unit being at the level of the village or hamlet, and other local,
43
state, and national level structures emanating from this basic
unit;
l Re-orientating development-related policies, laws, and
schemes, to ensure that biodiversity and people’s livelihoods
are secured;
l ‘Ecoregional planning’ on the basis of ecological
boundaries, such as river valleys, forest blocks, coasts,
mountain ranges, and so on, including ‘ecoregions’ cutting
across state and international boundaries;
l Integrating biodiversity concerns through inter-sectoral
and inter-departmental coordination at local, district,
state, and national levels;
l Expanding and strengthening the network of conservation
sites for wild animals and plants, including protected areas
(national parks and sanctuaries), community conserved areas
(like sacred sites, community forests, village tanks),
Biosphere Reserves, Ecologically Sensitive Areas, Heritage
Sites, Medicinal Plant Conservation Areas, coral reefs and
mangroves, and others;
l Conserving areas (“agrobiodiversity protected areas”) that
are critical for indigenous crop and livestock diversity,
and promoting practices that would help to conserve this
diversity amongst farmers, pastoralists, fisherfolk, and
others;
l Respecting, protecting, and building on traditional
knowledge of biodiversity, including through community-
led development of biodiversity knowledge registers, and
innovative legal or other means of traditional knowledge
rights that do not fall into the trap of privatised intellectual
property rights like patents;
l Facilitating sustainable, bio-resource based livelihoods
(including micro-enterprises), of fisherfolk, adivasis and
other forest-dwelling communities, small peasants, artisans,
and pastoralists, with special attention to disprivileged
sections like women, nomads, and the landless;
l Building capacity of all sections of society to handle
various issues of biodiversity, especially of decision-makers,
urban citizens, and others who are particularly alienated from
ecological and livelihood concerns;
l Strengthening the Environmental Impact Assessment
procedure, by integrating biodiversity in all its aspects
(especially agrobiodiversity which is currently missing), and
increasing the role of citizens;
l Estimating the full economic and social values of
biodiversity, especially its role in ensuring water and
climatic stability, soil productivity, and people’s livelihoods;
l Re-orienting state and national budgets, to squarely
integrate the true and full value of biodiversity and the
environmental services performed by natural land and
waterscapes, and redirect funding for rural and urban
development into conservation and sustainable use;
l Promoting traditional and new technologies that reduce
the negative impact of current human activities and use
alternative materials that are ecologically sustainable, such
as organic farming, non-conventional energy, environmentally
friendly architecture, and other processes in infrastructure,
44
industrial, and agricultural sectors;
l Pro-actively advocating the integration of biodiversity and
livelihood issues specific to India, at all international forums,
including environmental treaties, and economic agreements
such as under WTO.
Overall, the national action plan draft advocates that the
focus of all planning and decision-making in India should be
achieving the twin objectives of ecological security (including
conservation of ecosystems and species) and livelihood
security (especially of the most under-privileged sections
of society).1
Comments: The above sections indicate that many of the
existing and ongoing policy initiatives on environment,
forest, wildlife and biodiversity do have provisions which
if implemented will ensure that mining is not a landuse
choice in ecologically sensitive areas.
But it is important to remember that inspite of
progressive provisions in policies such as the National
Forest Policy, 1988, and the National Conservation
Strategy and Policy Statement on Environment and
Development, 1992, on prevention of mining in
ecologically sensitive areas, the years after the coming into
force of these policies have continued to see a threat from
mining to ecologically sensitive areas as is apparent from
Chapter 3. If anything the pressure has increased.
What are the reasons for this? Are these policies only
on paper? A vital question of course is how much ownership
do citizens have over these policies to pressurise the
government for their implementation? One clear link is of
course the changing economic and mining policies which
have ‘opened up’ the mining sector and facilitated greater
access to mineral deposits (see mining policy and laws
section later). These changes have also pressurised
changes in the environmental decision-making framework,
such as the doing away of public hearings for major mining
leases upto 25 ha (see section on the EIA notification later)
or the dilution of the CRZ notification to allow mining.
Laws
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
The Water Act, 1974, provides for the prevention and
control of water pollution and for the maintenance or
restoration of the wholesomeness of water. It is
comprehensive in its coverage, applying to streams, inland
waters, ground waters, and sea or tidal waters. The Act sets
up a Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State
Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) in the states and assigns
functions and powers to these Boards for prevention and
control of water pollution and related matters. Consent under
the Water Act is required before starting mining operations
if the process involves the discharge of sewage or trade
effluent into a stream, well or sewer or onto land (section
25). It has a provision for fines or imprisonment to be
imposed for violations of the consent conditions.
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
The legislation provides for prevention, control and
Undermining India
abatement of air pollution. The SPCBs are authorized to
implement the standards set by the CPCB. Consent is required
under this Act before starting mining operations.
l Quarterly reports
While giving consent the SPCBs have directed the
specified industries (including mining) to submit quarterly
reports under the Water and Air (Act and Rules ) stating
quality of water and air discharged/emitted by the industry.
Each State Board is also maintaining Consent Registers under
the Water and Air Rules, showing pollution with reference
to standards and consent conditions, if any.
Their registers are open for inspection by any person
interested or affected.
Comment: It is important that citizens are proactive in
accessing the information, which is being made available
to them, and seeing the degree of compliance. One of the
reason cited for the current laxity in compliance inspite of
the necessary legal provisions has been the lack of
resources and capacities in regulatory agencies to monitor
compliance. Currently the MoEF is undertaking the ‘India
– Environmental Management Capacity Building Technical
Assistance Project’ which aims at developing national
capabilities in environmental management in key-sectors
so as to achieve the goal of adapting environmentally
benign systems and processes and effective implementation
of environmental policies, laws, standards etc. One sub-
component of the project deals with the non-coal mining
sector. Amongst other things this involves components on
institutional strengthening and training which are being
implemented by the Center of Mining Environment, Indian
School of Mines, Dhanbad. Both the regulatory agencies
at the Centre (Indian Bureau of Mines, MoEF, CPCB) and
at regional levels (such as State Pollution Control Boards,
Regional MoEF offices, State Departments of Forest and
Environment) are undergoing capacity building on
environmental management and monitoring compliance.
The Water (Prevention of Pollution and Control of
Pollution) Cess Act, 1977.
This is an Act to provide for the levy and collection of a
cess on water consumed by certain industries (including
mining) and local bodies. Under rule 4 the industry has to
furnish returns in ‘Form I’ every month giving consumption
of water from different sources and report of analysis of the
treated effluents.
Comments: There is currently an amended bill for this Act,
which has been circulated.
Environment (Protection) Act (EPA), 1986
The Central Government is empowered by section 3 of
the EPA to take all such measures as it deems necessary or
expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the
quality of environment, and preventing, controlling and
abating environmental pollution. Under section 3(2) (v) of
the EPA the government can restrict areas in which any
industries, operations or processes shall not be carried out
or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards. The rule
5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, notified
Undermining India
under the EPA, has laid out the factors to be taken into
consideration while prohibiting or restricting such activities
and procedures to be followed for such final notification in
the official gazette. Rule 5 (1) covers the factors mentioned
above, which include: the topography and climate of an area;
biological diversity of the area which, in the opinion of the
Central Government, needs to be preserved; environmentally
compatible landuse; proximity to protected areas (both
wildlife and archaeological) etc.
Accordingly, the Central Government has issued
notifications with respect to certain ecologically sensitive
areas from time to time, some of which have restricted mining
activities:
l Restriction on mining in Doon Valley, Uttar Pradesh
(No. J – 20012/38/86-1A dated February 1, 1989)
In the early 1980s petitions were filed in an effort to stop
the limestone mining ravaging the Dehradun Valley. This went
upto the Supreme Court, which directed the stoppage of
further mining in this area. Thereafter the Central Government
issued a notification under the EPA restricting location of
industries, mining operations and other development activities
in this area.
l Restriction of mining in the Aravallis in Gurgaon
district in Haryana and Alwar district of Rajasthan (May
1992).
All new mining operations including renewals of mining
leases, existing mining leases in Sanctuaries/ National Parks
and areas covered under Project Tiger and unauthorized
mining in this hill range has been prevented unless certain
permissions are sought. Any person desiring to undertake
mining activities in the said area shall have to submit an
application in prescribed form alongwith certain mandatory
documents, such as an Environment Impact Assessment report
and Environmental Management Plan.
The GoI, on November 4, 1999 delegated the power to
allow the activities to the State Governments of Haryana and
Rajasthan. A direction was given to the State Governments
to prepare a Master Plan for integrating the environmental
concerns keeping in view the future land use of the area within
two years. In addition, two committees were formed:
i) State level Expert committee for giving the environmental
clearance of the proposals, and
ii) Monitoring Committee with the District Collector as its
chairman. This committee is to see that the conditions
stipulated at the time of clearance are followed.
Recent Supreme Court directives in the Godavarman case
(see Chapter 3 and 5) had clamped down on all mining in the
Aravallis. Subsequently the Supreme Court clarified that only
illegal mining had to be stopped.
Comment: In these areas declared as ‘ecologically
sensitive’(ESAs) under the EPA, enforcement has been a
big problem. A lot of illegal mining was ongoing in the
Aravallis until the Supreme Court ruling. The problem of
enforcement is also linked to the manner in which these
areas were declared as ESAs by the Central Government.
One of the reasons has been the lack of clarity amongst
45
enforcing agencies as to the exact extent and nature of each
ones powers within an ESA. Additionally, there needs to
be greater communication and involvement at the local
level to fully understand the rationale for an ESA and carry
out participatory landuse planning. While the declaration
of ESAs under the EPA as a tool for conservation and
landuse control over larger areas is an important space to
be used, the enforcement will largely depend on level of
participation of both local governments and people from
the region. While mining has been an unsustainable
landuse in the area and has also been done illegally, it is
important to note that it has been a source of livelihood
for thousands of labourers. It is important that the
respective state and local governments in co-ordination
with the non-governmental sector and trade unions work
out a comprehensive action plan for alternative sustainable
livelihood options for those losing out.
l Restriction of mining in the Coastal Regulation Zone
(CRZ) areas.
(This Section on CRZ has been authored by Aarthi Sridhar)
Introduction to the CRZ: The Coastal Regulation Zone
Notification 1991 is another legal instrument that
regulates mining. 2 The jurisdiction of this notification
extends to the ‘Coastal Regulation Zone’ or CRZ which is
defined to cover the ‘coastal stretches of seas, bays,
estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwaters which are
influenced by tidal action (in the landward side) upto 500
metres from the High Tide Line (HTL). The CRZ also
includes the land between the Low Tide Line (LTL) and the
HTL. The entire CRZ is divided into 4 zones (CRZ – I, II, III,
IV) based on certain characteristics. In addition to the
broad prohibited and permissible groups of activities
(Paras 2&3), each zone has specific restrictions for the
siting of such activities (Para 6). Within each zone certain
restrictions are imposed on the setting up and expansion
of industries, operations or processes. Mining and certain
related activities in coastal areas are also subject to the
provisions of the notification and along with a steady
number of other activities, mining too has been granted
allowances in the CRZ by way of amendments to the
Notification.
Provisions related to mining in the original Notification:
l In the original notification dated 19th February 1991,
among the Prohibited Activities was the ‘Setting up of new
industries and expansion of existing industries related to
mineral industry in the zone’ [Para 2(i)]. Therefore any
expansion of mining operations would not be permitted. There
was also no mention of permitting exploration for Oil or
Natural Gas, in the original Notification.
Para 2 (ix) of the original notification prohibited the
mining of sands, rocks and other substrata materials except
those ‘rare minerals’ not available outside the CRZ areas. A
valid interpretation of this clause would mean that all those
minerals which were available outside CRZ areas such as
silica sand and limestone, granite, quartz etc. could not be
mined in the CRZ areas. There is no proper definition of what
46
constitutes ‘rare minerals.’ There is no definition of the same
either in the CRZ Notification or in the Atomic Energy Act,
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act or
Environment (Protection)Act. By default the definition of
rare minerals would mean the Rare Earth Minerals stated in
the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, generally including illmenite,
rutile, leucoxene, zircon, monazite, sillimanite, garnet etc.
As for the clause stating that such minerals may be mined
as long as they are not available outside the CRZ area, it is
relevant to draw from the judgement of the Kerala High Court
in O.P. No 2607 of 1997-I dated 20th July 1998. The Centre
for Earth Sciences Studies had been commissioned by the
Court to study whether the beach sand deposits proposed to
be mined at the Neendakara area, were available outside the
CRZ. CESS stated:
1. The sand deposits occurring in the hinterland outside
the beach zone both within the CRZ and further inland as
well as in the marine zones adjoining the beach are to be
treated as resources. A resource becomes a mineable
reserve depending on the richness (in terms of the useful
minerals or ores), available technology which can be
employed for mining and economics. Also, the resource to
become a reserve, the proposed mining should not result
in unacceptable environmental damage.
2. Outside the beach zone, the areas in the CRZ and further
inland are very thickly populated. The conversion of the
resources in such areas to reserves followed by mining call
for extensive evacuation of people with prohibitive cost
and unimaginable human misery.
On the basis of the above facts, the High Court stated that
since the rare minerals are not available outside the coastal
zones for extraction on an economically workable basis, the
petitioner could not object to the mining of such materials
within the CRZ.
It has been stated that beach sand placers are (virtually)
the sole resource bases of these minerals in India. Ilmenite
is the largest constituent of the beach deposits, others being
rutile, leucoxene, zircon, sillimanite, garnet and monazite.
The minerals other than garnet and sillimanite have been
classified as “prescribed substance” under the Atomic Energy
Act, 1962. Therefore these rare earth minerals were allowed
to be mined.
l Between the LTL and HTL the notification permitted
facilities for oils, gas and similar pipelines.
l No construction or any activity was permitted within the
CRZ –I areas.
l Para 6 (2) CRZ –IV (iv) of the original notification also
prohibited the utilization of corals and sand from the beaches
and coastal waters of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands for
construction and other purposes. It also prohibited dredging
and underwater blasting in and around coral formations [Para
6(2) (v)]. The same prohibitions applied to the Lakshadweep
islands.
The MoEF letter of conditional approval for CZMPs
On the 27th September 1996, the Ministry of Environment
and Forests sent a letter to all Chief Secretaries of the coastal
Undermining India
States and Union Territories stating the conditional approval amendment giving sweeping permissions to ‘all projects of
of the Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMP) that were the DAE’ , the DAE and its units can carry out any mining
submitted by the latter. One condition was that all sand dunes project and these would be ‘permissible’.
will be classified as CRZ – I areas. Prior to the 12th April l In fact there were also relaxations made within the CRZ –
2001 amendment, this condition would have prohibited even I areas to permit projects of the DAE, as also pipelines,
the mining of rare minerals in CRZ –I areas. transmission lines and conveyor systems. This could also
Amendments related to mining activities apply as mentioned earlier to private companies as explained
As the notification enters its 13 year of existence, it has above as the CRZ does not make any special distinctions for
th

seen as many amendments to its initial provisions, each easing private enterprise.
up mining in the coasts. The consequence of the numerous l The 12 April 2001 amendment permitted the mining of
th

amendments to the notification is that several inroads lie open rare minerals not available outside the CRZ areas and the
for promoting mining and exploration for oil and gas in the exploration and extraction of Oil and Natural Gas. There was
coastal stretches of the country. an attempt through the 11th January 2002 draft amendment to
l Several amendments relate to extension of permission define the rare minerals as well as to prescribe EIA studies
for sand mining in the Andaman & Nicobar (A&N) Islands. and a Mining Plan as part of clearance requirements, however
They are detailed below: these were withdrawn in the 21st May 2002 final amending
The ‘deadline’ to stop mining has been extended four times notification.
despite a prohibition on further extension as stated clearly in l The storage of 13 petroleum products had been permitted
th th
the 31st January 1997 notification itself. Although each in ‘port areas’ by the 9 July 1997 amendment. The 12 April
amendment specified certain conditions under which such 2001 amendment permitted storage facilities for the entire
mining would be permitted (included the preparation of list 13 products along with an addition of Liquefied Natural
Mining Plans), it is reported that these conditions have not Gas in the entire CRZ in areas other than [CRZ –I (i)]. There
been adhered to and it is not clear if Mining Plans have been still exists some ambiguity about whether such storage is
ever drawn up at all. In May 2002 the Supreme Court in an possible only within port limits or within the CRZ in general.
ongoing litigation on logging and allied issues in the islands l Another significant aspect of the 12 April 2001
th

has directed that the sandmining be reduced to 33% of its amendment is that it put the exploration and extraction of oil
existing levels in a maximum period of 5 years (See chapter and natural gas and all associated activities and facilities
3, Section on Andaman and Nicobar Islands). [3(2)a(ii)] and the mining of rare minerals [3(2)a(iii)] on the
list of Permissible activities. Previously these activities
The 12th April 2001 amended notification
were on the Prohibited Activities list. This provision was
The 12th April 2001 amendment permitted all projects
the likely result of requests from the mining industry to
pertaining to the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) within
remove ambiguities arising on whether
such mining was permitted or
Date of amendment/corrigenda Extended deadline for sand mining in A & N prohibited, thereby expediting the
31st January 1997 : Upto 31st March 1998 and not beyond. clearance process.
20th April 1998 : 30th September 1998 -do- l The 12th April 2001 amendment
30th September 1998 : 30th September 1999 -do- also significantly impacted the
29th September 2000 : 30th September 2001 -do- activities undertaken in the inter-tidal
13th August 2001 : 30th September 2002 -do- zone, i.e. between the Low Tide Line
(LTL) and High Tide Line (HTL).
Originally between the LTL and the
the CRZ. Such projects were also permitted within the
HTL, activities as specified under paragraph 2 (xii) were
ecologically sensitive CRZ –I areas. The Indian Rare Earths
permitted (such as pipelines, treated effluent and sewage
and Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and
pipes, drains etc). As per the new amendment in addition to
Research are both units of the Department of Atomic Energy
this, exploration and extraction of Oil and Natural Gas was
(DAE) and therefore all their activities including those related
permitted in areas in the inter-tidal zone which were not
to mining are exempt in the CRZ areas. The Department of
considered ecologically sensitive and important!
Atomic Energy’s resolution dated 6th October 1998 - the
l As an allied activity of the Oil and Gas exploration/
Policy on Exploitation of Beach Sand Minerals - encourages
extraction activity, the 12th April 2001 amendment permitted
the exploitation of beach sands through a mix of private and
facilities for receipt and storage of petroleum products and
public participation (including foreign investment). Therefore
liquefied natural gas in as specified in Annexure-III in CRZ –
private companies operating would also be exempt from
II areas. It also permitted facilities for regasification of
mining restrictions in the CRZ areas as long as they mine
liquefied natural gas [Para 6(2) CRZ –II (ia)].
rare earths alone and follow the procedures as laid out in the
l Mining of rare minerals was also permitted in the No
policy and the relevant Acts.
Development Zone of the CRZ –III areas.
In the original notification only the mining of ‘rare
minerals’ not found elsewhere was permitted. With the above Problems related to mining in the CRZ

Undermining India 47
 The negative impacts of mining activity on the
environment in coastal areas is aggravated by the fact that the
coasts are prone to distinct problems such as salt water
ingress, sea erosion and by the fact that the coasts are heavily
populated areas with great dependence on environmental
resources for livelihoods. Additional problems arise in the
regulation of mining activities within the CRZ as a result of
poor implementation of the provisions of the notification,
as also due to constant dilution of the notification through
amendments. Some of the concerns in this regard are:
l The HTL is not demarcated on the ground or on village
level cadastral maps to date. Therefore it is still difficult to
assess whether the mining of minerals such as silica sand are
taking place within or outside of the CRZ.
l As per the MoEF’s letter dated 27th September 1996, the
Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMPs) submitted by all
states were to be revised and approved as per conditions laid
down by the MoEF. To date, no State Government has revised
and finally approved CZMP.
l Permitting several activities in the ecologically sensitive
areas [CRZ –I(i)] has defeated the protective purpose of the
CRZ notification.
Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification,
1994
While certain development projects in India have required
environmental impact assessment and clearance since the late
1970s, the first comprehensive legislation for environmental
impact assessment and clearance for a listed category of
projects was the EIA notification, 1994, under the EPA,
1986. This not only applies to new projects, but also to the
expansion and modernisation of certain categories of existing
projects (if the pollution load exceeds the existing one).
l The Schedule I of the EIA notification lists 30 projects
(either new or involving expansion or modernization) which
require environmental clearance. This list includes mining
projects (major minerals3 ) with lease area above 5 ha. This
Mining sector subverting environmental clearance procedures
In the past few years, the mining sector has repeatedly tried to
wriggle out of environmental clearance procedures. It was partially
successful when the MoEF amended the EIA notification to exclude
mining leases for major minerals upto 25 ha from the requirement
of mandatory public hearings. Earlier it was required for all leases of
major minerals above 5 ha.
Here are a few examples of repeated attempts by the mining
sector to undermine the clearance procedures and the requirement
for public hearings:
1) In April 1998 the Ministry of Mines set up a National Committee
whose terms of reference were: “it will be the Apex Advisory
Committee for monitoring and reviewing the environmental aspects
of mining activities”. The agenda items for the first meeting which
were circulated after the committee was setup (although the meeting
never took place for a long time) made it clear that the intention was
to make mining easier rather than ensure strict compliance of
environmental and social standards. Its background notes had this
to say on environmental clearance and public hearings:
l No environmental clearance should be required for major mineral
leases upto 50 ha (currently required for all above 5ha)
l It recommended public hearings be compulsory only for mining
48
list also includes exploration for oil and gas and their
production, transportation and storage as well as mining of
rare earths.
Comments: The legal and policy framework for atomic
minerals, coal and lignite has not been looked at only
briefly in this chapter. The framework for oil and gas has
not been looked at.
No environmental clearance is required for:
a) mining projects for major minerals below 5 ha
b) all mining leases for minor minerals
c) prospecting/ exploration of any minerals (other than
oil)
Comments: Considering the nature of ecological impacts
both major and minor minerals as well as large and small
mines can have (as seen in chapter 3), it is crucial that all
mining leases require environmental clearance under the
EIA notification, irrespective of size of lease or nature of
mineral. MoEF could delegate powers for granting
clearances to its regional offices for mining leases currently
not coming under the ambit of the EIA notification (which
are being proposed by us to be included under the EIA
notification). Leases presently coming under the
jurisdiction of state governments or Panchayats for
clearances could continue in a similar manner, except that
it should be mandatory to consult a regional Expert
Committees on mining at the MoEF regional office level
for environmental clearance (to be setup for this purpose).
These committees should constitute ecologists,
sociologists, local community members, government
officials, representatives of local institutions etc. and all
information related to the clearance of these projects
should be in the public domain. If required more regional
offices of the MoEF be setup to facilitate this as well as
invest in more human resources and capacity-building of
staff to perform these functions. The MoEF has already
brought up the issue of the requirement for mining plans
leases above 500 ha.
2) In August 1998 a workshop on ‘Environment and Forestry in Mining
Areas’ was held, jointly organised by the Ministry of Environment &
Forests and the Federation of Indian Mineral Industries. The meetings
recommendations were called the ‘Jaipur Declaration’ which said:
l MoEF may consider raising project threshold limit for obtaining
environmental clearance to 50 ha.
l For smaller leases upto 50 ha. public hearing is not necessary
3) The Agenda papers for the Mineral Advisory Council meeting
held in September 2002 had the following to say:
l Federation of Mining Association of Rajasthan suggests that
leases upto 50 ha be exempted from environmental clearance.
l Federation of Indian Mineral Industries has suggested that public
hearings should be held only for lease areas above 100 ha. The
Indian Bureau of Mines shares this point of view because: “Taking
into consideration, the area required by mines for other infrastructure
facilities, the 25 hectares area is considered too small.”
Undermining India
and environmental clearance procedures for minor in/bordering PAs, even if prospecting lease is less than
minerals with the Mineral Advisory Council. 500 ha. or the number of holes drilled is less than the
l The EIA notification also asks for site clearance to be prescribed number. Therefore it is important that site
sought for some site-specific projects including mining. Site clearance is sought for these activities.
clearance is required for: l The application for environmental clearance is to be made
as per the specified proforma in Schedule II of the
- all mining projects requiring environmental clearance. i.e.
notification. This is to be accompanied by a project report
mining projects for major minerals above 5 ha.
including an Environmental Impact Assessment Report, an
- prospecting and exploration of major minerals in areas Environment Management Plan and details of public hearing
above 500 ha. as specified in Schedule- IV. The stated documents are
Note: By letter No. Z – 12013/14/98 – IA-I dated April required to be prepared as per the guidelines issued by the
22, 1998, the MoEF has clarified that “for aerial prospection MoEF from time to time.
surveys/ aerial reconnaissance, which do not include pitting, Comment: The EIA report becoming a public document after
trenching, drilling or subsurface excavation involving the June 13, 2002, amendment to the EIA notification is a
disturbance to earth, no prior site clearance is required under welcome step. It is crucial that the quality of the EIAs is
the EIA notification.” However site clearance has to be open to scrutiny from citizens and experts, since it forms
obtained before undertaking ground operations. It was such an important basis for grant of environmental
clarified that reconnaissance permit holders will be allowed clearance to a project. A general experience until now has
to drill up to 5 boreholes every 100 sq. kms. without the been that the quality of EIAs has been very poor.
requirement of obtaining site clearance. The
l Public hearings: The process of Public Hearing as a part
recommendations of the Mineral Advisory Council in
of the EIA notification was earlier optional but was made
September 2002 ask for this to be raised to 10 boreholes per
mandatory in 1997 and since then it has served as a crucial
100 sq. kms. and it has asked MoEF to take necessary action
legal platform for environmental and social groups and local
in this respect.
residents to voice their concerns about the project. After
Comments: The provision of site clearance needs to be
recent amendments public hearings are now not required for
clarified further by the MoEF in the notification. The
the following category of project which were earlier covered
present wording of the provision creates an impression that
under the notification:
if the ‘site is cleared’ the project is inevitable. Though
1) mining leases of major minerals of size 5-25 ha (August
this only grants permission to conduct investigations and
2001 amendment)
survey for prefeasibility report, there is an ‘assumption’
2) offshore exploration activities beyond 10 kms. from the
by project proponents that if the site clearance is given it
nearest habitated village boundary, goathans and ecologically
means environmental clearance is inevitable. The project
sensitive areas; such as, mangroves (with a minimum area of
could still be found to be environmentally unviable.
1000 sq.m.), corals, coral reefs, national parks, marine parks,
In this respect, section 1.3 (v )of the Consolidated
sanctuaries, reserved forests and breeding and spawning
Guidelines for the FCA provides a good example: “It is
grounds of fish and other marine life. (September 2002, Draft
clarified that the permission to survey, exploration or
amendment)
prospection would not ipso facto imply any commitment
As per the procedures the project proponent prior to the
on the part of the Central Government for diversion of
public hearing submits to the concerned State Pollution
forest land.” A similar clarification needs to be made for
Control Board (SPCB) twenty sets of certain documents
site clearance under the EIA notification. It is unclear why
including the executive summary of the project and the
site clearance is required only for prospecting licences over
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report.
500 ha. Or why number of holes bored is the criteria for
As per the ‘Explanatory note regarding the Impact
exclusion from site clearance. In ecologically fragile areas
Assessment Notification’, the project proponent will have
it is the ‘where’ which is as crucial as ‘how big’ (area) or
to submit ‘an executive summary incorporating in brief the
‘how many’ (boring holes) for prospecting and
essence of project details and findings of environmental
reconnaissance activities respectively. We recommend that
impact assessment study which could be made available to
site clearance be made mandatory for all prospecting
concerned parties or environmental groups on request.’
licences. Reconnaissance permit holders should consult
The SPCB has to give a notice for the environmental public
regional MoEF offices before drilling in a particular site.
hearing more than thirty days before the due date in two
Existing experience shows that unless this is done, there is
leading dailies in the region (one in the vernacular language
no control on where drilling is done, e.g. prospecting
of the locality concerned). This notice also invites
licences and reconnaissance permits swamp the area
suggestions, views, comments and objections of the public
around the Udanti Sanctuary in Chhatisgarh and infact
within thirty days of the notification. Local residents,
soil had been illegally removed from inside the sanctuary
environmental groups etc. can participate in the hearing and
in 2001. Similarly boring for bauxite prospecting was done
also give oral/written submissions to the SPCB. The public
on a plateau touching the border of the Koyna sanctuary
hearing panel is to consist of representative of the SPCB,
in Maharashtra in 1998. These activities cannot be allowed
District Collector or his nominee, representative of State
Undermining India 49
government dealing with the subject, representative of State
Government dealing with environment, not more than three
representatives of the local bodies such as Municipalities or
Panchayats, and not more than three senior citizens of the
area nominated by the District Collector. The executive
summary and the EIA report will be available for viewing in
five government offices as stated in the notification.
Comments: While there have been problems with respect
to the procedural aspects of public hearings held in the
past and this issue has also been brought to the notice of
courts4, this still remains an important ‘space’ for peoples
participation in environmental decision-making.
Besides actually raising environmental concerns about
the projects, this process has enabled to bring to light poor
quality of environmental impact assessment being done by
many of the consultants hired by project proponents. This
includes inadequate information, very often inaccurate
information and sometimes even plagiarized EIAs! For
instance ‘renowned’ consultants Ernst and Young while
conducting the environmental impact assessment for the
Dandeli Minihydel Project in Karnataka, copied an EIA
report of another hydel project closeby! This was brought
to light by environmental groups during the environmental
public hearing for the project after which the EIA document
was withdrawn. It was not as if individuals/ groups were
unaware of the quality of EIAs or gaps in the clearance
procedures before the era of public hearings. But the public
hearing space has enabled more citizens to be involved in
the demand for greater environmental accountability and
given more visibility to the obvious violations of both the
letter and spirit of environmental legislation in India. But
increasing demands by citizen groups for environmental
accountability has led to a lot of discomfort within project
proponents and for some time now there have been very
intense efforts to undermine the space for peoples
participation in the environmental clearance procedures.
The August 2001 amendment to the EIA notification
excluded environmental public hearings for a certain set
of projects including ‘mining projects (major minerals) upto
25 hectares’ with the explanation that lease upto 25 ha
cause minimum impact. Earlier they were required for all
mining projects ( major minerals) above 5 ha. While looking
at the ecological impacts of mining, “where mining” and
“how mining” are questions which come before “how much
area under mining”. Leases below 25 ha can cause
tremendous damage in ecologically and culturally sensitive
areas and under no circumstances can we make
assumptions that these have “minimal impacts” and public
hearings are not required.
This is especially true for us in India as we have a
considerable overlap between ecologically fragile areas
and areas where our mineral wealth is found. These areas
are also home to traditional communities, which are
dependent on these ecosystems for their livelihoods. 25
ha is large if one is to consider the impact which could be
caused to an area which is a biologically-rich pocket or
has cultural or religious significance (such as a sacred
50
grove). Depending on the mining process a mine could
have tremendous impacts on the surrounds (waterways,
agricultural lands etc.) which is independent of the actual
size of the mining lease. Mineral production not only leaves
behind impacts in the actual worked area for mining but
besides this, disturbs another 200-300% of the area
directly or indirectly during mining, mineral transport, and
processing (Mann & Chatterjee, 1978; Soni et al., 1989).
Thus it is crucial that citizens have an opportunity to
participate in the environmental decision making process
and voice their concerns.
There are umpteen examples of leases under 25 ha for
both minor and major minerals from around the country
which have caused or will cause significant social and
ecological impacts. We have the marble mines in the Alwar
district of Rajasthan, the iron ore mines in Sundur in the
Bellary district of Karnataka, the bauxite mines in the
tribal areas of Anantagiri in the eastern ghats in Andhra
Pradesh, the coalmines in the Jaintia Hills of Meghalaya.
A publication of the Indian Bureau of Mines5 says:
“It is interesting to note that though there are over 9,000
mining leases for major minerals with a cumulative lease
area of over 0.7 million hectares (as on 01.01.95) excluding
notified minor minerals for civil and construction purpose,
a little less than 50% of them have individual lease area
of 25 hectares in size and less.”
So, in effect, we are now excluding almost 50 % of
mining leases of major minerals from the purview of the
public hearing process. In addition to this all the leases
for minor minerals do not require environmental clearance
under the EIA notification and hence no public hearings.
Inspite of these facts the Indian Bureau of Mines has
recommended6 that public hearings should be compulsory
only for lease sizes above 100 ha., when their own
document cited above says that only 20% major mineral
leases have size more than 100 ha. Hence most of the
mining leases in India will be out of the ambit of public
hearings. Infact it is important that public hearings are
held for all mining leases irrespective of size of lease or
classification of the mineral as major or minor. The
mechanism of how to hold them so that the financial burden
does not fall on small-scale miners needs to be worked
out, but they must be held for all kinds of mining leases.
Detailed guidelines need to be issued regarding the
procedural aspects as well as scope of the hearings by the
MoEF. Amongst the things which need to improve is the
method of informing the public about the hearing. In
addition to existing mechanisms used to give notice about
the public hearings in newspapers, the local institutions
in the impact zone ( Gram Sabhas, Panchayats,
Autonomous District Councils etc.) need to be informed
about the public hearing both through oral (both in person
and on television/radio) and written communication (in the
form of posters).
l As per the EIA notification the project authorities shall
submit half yearly reports to the Impact Assessment Agency
(the MoEF) with respect to the implementation of
Undermining India
recommendations and conditions imposed while granting
environmental clearance. The IAA shall make compliance
reports publicly available.
Comment: This is one more area where groups/citizens need
to demand some accountability from project proponents.
In his July 2000 speech to the Federation of Indian Mineral
Industries, the Minister of Environment and Forests, T.R.
Baalu, said: “My Ministry has recently assessed the status
of compliance of environmental safeguards stipulated for
various mining projects. I regret to tell that the status of
compliance is poor, to say the least. If perceptible
improvement in performance on environmental matters is
not to be seen, the Government will be constrained to take
a hard view.”
l Submission of environment statement as per the
Environment (Protection) Rules
According to Rule 14, every industry, operation or
process requiring consent under the Water Act or Air Act or
both or authorization under the Hazardous Waste
(Management and Handling) Rules, 1989, issued under the
EPA, shall submit an environmental statement for the financial
year ending on 31st March as per Form V to the SPCB on or
before the thirtieth day of September every year, beginning
1993.
Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA) , 1980; Forest
(Conservation) Rules, 2003
The FCA has been one of the most crucial legislations to
be enacted with respect to forests and it in essence puts a
restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forests
for non-forest purpose, which includes mining. Litigation with
respect to the FCA has helped clearly define the scope of
the FCA over the years (see chapter 5). Prior approval under
section 2 of the FCA is required from the Central
Government for any dereservation or diversion for non-forest
purpose. The FCA has a provision for the constitution of an
Advisory Committee ( referred to as the Forest Advisory
Committee – FAC) which advises the Government on the
grant of approval under section 2 of the FCA and on any other
matter concerned with conservation of forests which the
government may refer to it. The FAC, chaired by the Director
General of Forests (IGF), MoEF, consists of three officials
from the MoEF (specified posts), one from the Ministry of
Agriculture, and three non – official members who will be
‘eminent experts in forestry and allied disciplines.’
Comment: The FAC needs to have more non-government
members (atleast five) and representatives of other
ministries such as Tribal Welfare. Non-official members
should include people who are experts in wildlife biology,
ecology, environmental science; as also in sociologists and
community representatives.
Proposals seeking approval under section 2 of FCA are
processed as follows:
l All proposals involving diversion of forest land upto 40
hectares and all proposals for clearing of naturally grown
trees for reforestation shall be sent directly to the concerned
Regional Office of the MoEF. All other proposals shall be
Undermining India
sent to the Secretary to the Government of India, MoEF.
l The Cheif Conservator of Forests (CCF) of the concerned
Regional Office (RCCF) shall be competent to finally
dispose of all proposals of forest land upto 5 hectares, except
in respect of proposals for regularization of encroachments
and mining (including renewal of mining leases). These need
to be cleared by the MoEF Central office.
l For proposals involving diversion of forest area above 5ha
and upto 40 ha and all proposals for regularization of
encroachment and mining upto 40 ha, the proposal shall be
examined by the RCCF in consultation with an Advisory
Group (referred to as the State Advisory Group (SAG)
consisting of representatives of the State Government from
Revenue Department, Forest Department, Planning and/
or Finance Department and concerned Department
whose proposal is being examined. The views of the SAG
will be recorded by the RCCF and sent to the Secretary,
MoEF, for consideration and final decision. The decision of
the SAG is not binding and the proposal will not be deferred
for want of forum.
Comment: Till the new FCR rules came in January 2003,
the regional offices directly received proposals upto 20 ha,
which is now raised to 40 ha.
It is important that the SAG has non-governmental
members. These should include: wildlife biologists,
ecologists, environmentalists, sociologists, local
community representatives. A provision for at least 5 non-
governmental members should be there. The SAG should
also meet at least once a month ( as otherwise there are
unnecessary delays in decisions related to FCA proposals).
It should look at every proposal not being examined by
the FAC including proposals under 5ha especially for
sensitive areas.
l For every proposal involving forest land more than 40
ha. (except those involving clearing of naturally grown trees
for the purpose of reforestation) the Central Government will
refer it to the FAC for its advice. Amongst other things the
FAC will look at aspects such as whether the land proposed
for diversion forms part of a protected area or is an important
wildlife habitat. It also gives advice on what conditions or
restrictions on use of the forest land would minimise adverse
impact on the environment.
l Clearance under the FCA is given in two stages. In the
first stage, the proposal is agreed in principal, and after receipt
of compliance report from the State Government regarding
compliance of stipulated conditions with respect to
identification of land for compensatory afforestation,
transfer of funds to the forest etc. , formal approval under
the Act is issued.
Forest Conservation Rules 2003
Under Rule 6 every user agency who wants to use forest land
for non-forestry purpose shall make their proposal under:
l Form ‘A’ for proposals seeking first time approval
l Form ‘B’ for those seeking renewal
Both these forms are in five parts: Part- I to be filled by
the User agency, Part-II to be filled by the Deputy Conservator
of Forests, Part-III by the concerned Conservator of Forests,
51
Part-IV by the Nodal Officer or Principal Chief Conservator
of Forests or Head of Forest department, Part-V to be filled
by Secretary of the Forest Department or any other officer
of the State Government not below the rank of Under
Secretary.
The instructions for filling the form have some interesting
stuff relevant to mining:
l The project authorities may annex a copy of the approved
project/ plan in addition to information furnished. E.g. IBM
approved mining plan for major minerals/ CMPDI7 plan with
subsidence analysis reports etc.
Comment: Unclear why usage of ‘may’ annex in these
instructions.
l Certificate from competent authority like District Mining
Officer about non-availability of the same mineral in
surrounding/ nearby non-forest areas.
l Incase the same company/individual has taken forest land
for similar project in the State, a brief detail of all such
approvals/leases be given as an enclosure with current status
of the projects.
Consolidated Guidelines for Diversion of Forest Land
under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Revised on
October 25, 1992)
Certain amendments to these guidelines were issued on
25.11.94. Subsequently, several letters have been issued by
the MoEF to the State Governments indicating changes/
modifications to various sections of these guidelines. These
changes are incorporated in some of the Annexures under
the Guidelines. Some of the changes are also reflected in
the new Forest Conservation Rules.
Comment: The main reasons for coming up with two
different forms (A & B) has been the mining sector, since
renewal applications for mineral leases were being
delayed. Now the Central Government needs to dispose
off the renewals in 60 days while new applications have to
dealt with in 90 days. But even though the time availability
for renewal purposes is shorter , under the FCA renewal
of a lease has to treated as grant of a new lease for
evaluation of the merits of the case for forest clearance.
We will now look at specific sections of the Consolidated
Guidelines.
Section 1 : Application of FCA, 1980
Section 1.3 on Investigation and Survey says that surveys
for developmental projects including exploration of oil
drilling etc. will not attract provisions of the Act as long as
these surveys do not involve any clearing of forest or cutting
of trees, and operations are restricted to clearing of bushes
and lopping of tree branches for purpose of sighting. But if
clearing of forest or trees is involved then clearance from
the Central Government is mandatory. But if the survey and
investigation is being done in protected areas or sample plots
demarcated by the Forest Department then clearance will be
52
required from the Central Government, whether or not felling
of trees is involved. This section further states that: “It is
clarified that the permission to survey, exploration or
prospection would not ipso facto imply any commitment on
the part of the Central Government for diversion of forest
land.”
Section 1.6 on Mining clarifies that all mining including
underground mining is ‘non-forestry activity’ and requires
FCA clearance and the Act would apply not only to the surface
area which is used in mining but also to the entire underground
mining area beneath the forest. It also clarifies that renewal
of a lease requires clearance under the FCA. The advice of
the Ministry of Law, Government of India, with respect to
mining leases has been referred to and attached as Annexure
– III under the Consolidated Guidelines. This states that:
l mining operations being carried out from before the
commencement of FCA, during the continuation of the lease
period, do not require FCA clearance.
l a renewal of a lease is really the grant of a new lease.
Approval will be required when a mining lease granted before
the commencement of the Act is renewed after its coming
into force.
l Approval will not be required for mining in an area leased
for mining before the commencement of the Act during the
lease period originally granted, if the land is already broken
up or cleared before the commencement of the Act.
This section also states that boulders, bajri, stone etc. in
the riverbeds located within forest areas would constitute a
part of the forest land and their removal would require prior
approval of the Central Government.
Section 2: Submission of proposals
Section 2.3 on Proposals requiring Clearance from
Environmental Angle states that projects covered under
notifications issued under EPA will require separate clearance
from the environmental angle and this should be applied for
separately and simultaneously with the FCA clearance. Even
if the project does not require environmental clearance if
the MoEF or the FAC thinks that the project needs to be
examined from the environmental angle, the project
proponent may be asked to refer the case to the Environment
Wing of the MoEF. For projects requiring clearance from
both forest and environmental angle (under EPA and FCA),
the project will be deemed cleared only after clearance from
both angles.
Comment: There is a very important provision here, which
needs to be used especially if the project is being proposed
in ecologically fragile areas. Any mining project requiring
forest clearance but not coming under the EIA notification
can be referred for environmental clearance. The FAC
should also seek advice of the SAGs whether a particular
project should need environmental clearance. This
provision will not become necessary if all mining project
irrespective of size or nature of minerals have a framework
for appropriate environmental clearance.
Section 2.6 on Cost- Benefit Analysis is a very
Undermining India
important provision and states that “while considering
proposals for dereservation or diversion of forest land for
non-forest use, it is essential that ecological and
environmental losses and socio-economic distress caused
to the people who are displaced are weighed against economic
and social gains.”
l Annexure VI (a) details the types of projects for which
cost-benefit analysis will be required.
i) Cost-benefit analysis is not required for all categories of
projects involving forest land upto 20 ha in plains and upto 5
ha in hills.
Comment: It is important that c/b analysis is done for all
projects irrespective of size. Mining with lease size of 20
ha in the plains and 5 ha in the hills can cause serious
ecological damage and each case should be carefully
evaluated.
ii) In addition c/b analysis is not required for proposals for
defence installation purposes and oil prospecting
(prospecting only) in view of the national priority accorded
to these sectors.
iii) Some other projects such as habitation, industrial units
etc. will not require c/b analysis as these will be rarely
entertained to be established on forest land.
iv) C/b analysis will be required for projects involving forest
land more than 20 ha. in the plains and more than 5 ha. in the
hills including ‘mining activity’.
l Annexure VI (b) lists the parameters according to which
the cost aspect will be evaluated. The parameters include:
environmental losses (soil erosion, effect on hydrological
cycle, wildlife habitat, microclimate, upsetting of ecological
balance); loss of timber, fuelled, minor forest produce and
impacts on livelihoods of people dependent on these;
suffering to ousts etc.
l Annexure VI (c) gives the parameters for evaluating
benefits accruing. The parameters include benefits to
economy, employment potential etc.
Comment: The whole c/b parameters and weightages need to
reevaluated. While the ancillary impacts of mining may be
on surrounding areas, the ecological losses are only evaluated
only from the lease area. There should be a team set up at the
State Level under the Nodal Officer in the existing Forest
Clearance Cell for the purpose of c/b analysis in a
comprehensive manner for all proposals for diversion of
forest land in the State.
Section 3 on Compensatory afforestation :
l Compensatory afforestation is considered as one of the
important provisions stipulated by the Central Government
while approving proposals under the FCA. Compensatory
afforestation needs to be done over equivalent area of non-
forest land. As far as possible this land needs to be identified
contiguous to or in the proximity of existing RFs or PFs to
make management by the Forest Department effective. It has
also been stated that non-forest land for compensatory
afforestation needs to be identified as near as possible to the
Undermining India
site of diversion “to minimise adverse impact on the
microecology of the area.”
l Where non-forest lands are not available or available in
less extent than the area being diverted, compensatory
afforestation may be carried out over degraded forest twice
in extent to the area being diverted or to the difference
between forest land being diverted and available non-forest
land, as the case may be. The non- availablility of non-forest
land would be accepted by the Central Government only on
the certificate from the Chief Secretary of the respective
State/ Union Territory.
l For certain proposals the initial condition of
compensatory afforestation over equivalent area of non-
forest land shall be waived and compensatory afforestation
may directly be done over degraded forest land twice in extent
of the area being diverted. These include ( only the ones
relevant to mining are mentioned):
i) for extraction of minor minerals from the river beds.
However if the area to be diverted is more than 500 ha,
compensatory afforestation over equivalent area will be
required to be done instead of twice the area.
ii) for Central Government Projects. This ‘special provision’
3.2 (viii) was introduced by letter No. 11-30/96 – FC dated
April 10, 1997 (Annexure IX). This provision states that the
State Governments will identify ‘blank forest’ or degraded
lands for compensatory afforestation. The pool of degraded
forest land in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh will also be
available for Central Government projects of other States if
the concerned State Government fails to identify the requisite
land in its own territory within a month of submission of the
proposal to the State Government.
While identifying the pool of degraded forest land, blank
forest land in reserved forests should be identified first as
‘plantation blank’. Only when such areas are not available the
choice of compensatory afforestation will fall on protected,
unprotected and unclassified forests in declining order of
priority.
Comment: Compensatory afforestation has been used as
a ‘conservation offset’ by the FCA. The provision tries to
compensate for loss of ‘forest area and trees’ but does not
really address the issue of loss of biodiversity and local
livelihoods dependent on it. While there is a provision
which states that the area for afforestation should be as
close to the area of diversion to compensate impacts on
that particular area, the difficulty in locating ‘non-forest
land’ usually ensures that the afforestation in all
probability is not done in the same region. Additionally
provisions such as those for Central projects allow
compensatory afforestation on forest banks in other States
for fast clearance of projects. Thus, there is a pure focus
on ‘maintaining the forest area’ (even this is not true when
afforestation is on forest land) rather than compensating
53
the particular kind of area one is losing and allowing those
who are losing out to benefit from these activities directly.
In a real sense one cannot compensate loss of
biodiversity. Therefore diversion of forest land for mining
projects should be done only in exceptional cases after
stringent evaluation and consent of local communities. If
a proposal is agree upon after following such a procedure,
then compensatory activities rather than focus purely on
afforestation, should more proactively contribute to
conservation of a similar ecosystem or biodiversity close
to the diversion area, and also try to ensure that those
who are losing access to the forest area being diverted,
benefit from the compensatory activities.
But one of course has to be careful that such a
‘conservation offset’ should never be seen as ‘permission’
to damage the environment or to develop any ecologically
sensitive location. Offsets will only have a net benefit if
they are part of an integrated package of environmental
management that includes regional planning for landuse
as stated before.
We suggest that there should be a broader provision
under the FCA called ‘Compensatory Conservation
Activities’. This should have two sections: ‘afforestation’
and ‘biodiversity conservation’, both linked to local
livelihoods. For every case of diversion of forest land
depending on the area being affected, nature of project,
size of investment etc. the SAG (expanded version as
suggested) should recommend if the ‘compensatory
conservation activities’ should include ‘afforestation’ or
‘biodiversity conservation’ or a combination of the two.
The provisions for ‘afforestation’ shall be broadly as per
the norms for ‘compensatory afforestation’ except that the
funds being deposited by the project proponent do not go
into the Consolidated Fund of India but into a special
revolving fund created for the purpose called the
‘Compensatory Conservation Fund’ (CCF). The SAG, in
consultation with the Biodiversity Management
Committees ( as envisaged under the Biodiversity Act 2002)
of the area where forest diversion is taking place, will
decide the nature of input into a biodiversity conservation
initiative in this region. This could be related to a protected
area in the region, an ongoing project on biodiversity
conservation, community forestry etc. The RCCF will
convey to the MoEF the decision taken with regards to every
project as regards the Compensatory Conservation
Activities as decided by the SAG. The project proponent
will deposit the required funds into the CFF for the
‘biodiversity conservation’ activities. Phased payment to
the Compensatory Conservation Fund for Compensatory
Conservation Activities will be allowed. The MoEF will
decide the installments according the payment to be made,
level of investment in project etc. The SAG should constitute
a Compensatory Conservation Monitoring Committee for
each project to monitor progress and correct routing of
funds for all Compensatory Conservation Activities.
54
This committee should have representatives of:
members of local institutions such as Gram Sabhas and
the local Biodiversity Management Committee, the project
proponent, the revenue and forest departments of the
States. These committees will send copies of the report to
the Nodal Officer and the RCCF and all the monitoring
reports will be public information.
Back to existing provisions regarding Compensatory
Afforestation:
l No compensatory afforestation is required for the
following (only those relevant to mining mentioned)
i) proposals involving diversion of land upto one hectare.
But plantation of a certain number of trees can be specified
(not plantation over a certain area).
ii) For underground mining in forest land below 3 metres.
However for forest land required for surface right,
compensatory afforestation shall be required.
iii) Cases of renewal of mining lease for area already broken
up/used for mining of overburden, construction of roads,
ropeway, building etc. For the balance area compensatory
afforestation will have to done provided that this has not been
done for this area at the time of grant/ renewal of lease earlier.
Section 4.6 on Extraction of minor minerals from the
river bed states that extraction of minor minerals like
boulders, bajri, stone, shell etc. from the river beds shall not
be permitted if the river bed is in a national park or a wildlife
sanctuary unless such extraction is for the benefit of the forest
or wildlife. This section says that extraction where
permissible shall be from the middle of the river bed after
leaving one fourth of the river on each bank untouched and
that there shall be no labour camp in the forest area for the
labour involved in extraction work.
Section 4. 7 on Safety Zone for Mining Operations states
that forest land required for safety zone shall not be part of
the forest area proposed for diversion, but should be indicated
separately in the proposal. Such area will have to be fenced
at the cost of the project authority and they will have to deposit
funds with the Forest Department for the protection and
regeneration of such safety zone and will also have to bear
the cost of afforestation over one and a half times of the
safety zone area in degraded forest elsewhere.
Comment: According to the letter No. 11-17/98-FC dated
May 25, 1999, issued by the MoEF to all the Forest
Secretaries of all the State Governments, certain
clarifications regarding safety zone for mining leases has
been made. This letter is annexure XXIV under the
Consolidated Guidelines under the FCA.
The MoEF has clarified that the concept of safety zone
as envisaged in the guidelines under the FCA is different
from the safety zone requirements under different mines
and minerals regulations. Safety zone area calculation in
the proposal should be done taking 7.5 metres strip of the
forest land all along the outer boundary of the mining lease
area. If it is a cluster proposal, then the outer boundaries
of the cluster should be taken as the safety zone. In some
Undermining India
of the mining lease areas, public roads, forest roads,
natural streams and nallahs are also located. In order to
safeguard these from the mining activities, it is necessary
that no mining activities should be carried out up to certain
reasonable extent. This area can also be included in the
safety zone calculation and provision for its fencing and
regeneration should be made in the proposal.
Section 4.15 relates to the Nodal Officer. The guidelines
advise the opening of separate cells for dealing with diversion
of forest land cases at the State Government and PCCF levels.
A whole-time senior officer not below the rank of
Conservator of Forests is prescribed to head the cell and is
designated as the Nodal Officer. Amongst other things the
Nodal Officer is supposed to report to the Regional Office
non-compliance of any of the conditions to reduce
environmental damage stipulated by the MoEF at the time
of grant of clearance.
In case of opencast mining, it is the responsibility of the
Nodal Officer and his staff to ensure that all necessary inputs
like creation of nursery, storage of top soil for reuse and
methodology for its reforestation, choice of species etc. are
so planned and implemented that the mined area is fully
afforested by the time mining operations are completed.
Comment: On the need for clarity on issues related to mine
restoration see Chapter 7.
Section 4.16 states that the approval under the FCA for
grant/renewal of mining leases shall normally be granted for
a period co-terminus with the period of mining lease proposed
to be granted under the Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1957, or rules framed under it, but not
exceeding 30 years. However, in the event of non-compliance
of stipulations to the satisfaction of the MoEF, the clearance
may be summarily withdrawn.
Section 4.16 (ii) states that the conditions stipulated
while giving approval under the FCA for mining purposes shall
be renewed/ monitored every five years. If the conditions
are found to be violated or not complied with, then the
approval given under the FCA shall be revoked. The concerned
CCFs of the Regional Offices of the MoEF will issue a
certificate regarding the fulfillment of these conditions after
carrying out the monitoring.
Comment: This has been introduced by letter No. 5-5/
86-FC (Pt.) dated 12th December 1997 issued by the MoEF
and is attached as Annexure XIII under the Guidelines.
Section 4.17 states that in the case of renewal of mining
leases, the Central Government may grant temporary working
permission to continue working already broken up area upto
a period of one year, without formal approval for the renewal.
There have been a few conditions specified for this.
Section 4.18 states that the temporary working
permission ( with respect to proposals for renewal of mining
lease) has been given to enable State Governments to comply
with conditions. This period may be extended by one more
year subject to submission of ‘reasonable’ progress report
from the State Government as regards to the steps taken to
comply with the stipulated conditions.
Undermining India
Comment: This section was inserted by letter No. 5-5/
86-FC dated 30.10.98 issued by MoEF and has been
attached as Annexure-XIX with the Consolidated
Guidelines. With the coming in of the Forest (Conservation)
Rules 2003, there is a separate form for the renewal of
leases which is to be processed in a shorter time frame by
the MoEF.
Some important Annexures under the Consolidated
Guidelines related to Mining ( not referred to earlier)
Annexure VII
This is the letter No. 11-13/96 – FC dated 4th June, 1996
issued by the MoEF. It has been issued to all the CCFs of the
MoEF Regional Offices and pertains to the site inspection
reports for various developmental projects which the
Regional Offices need to submit. This letter gives a format
for the Regional Offices to submit their site inspection
reports.
Alongwith a background note on the proposal, some of
the relevant provisions include:
i) Wildlife: whether forest area proposed for diversion is
important from wildlife point of view
ii) Compensatory afforestation: whether land for
compensatory afforestation is important from religious/
archaeological point of view.
iii) Information on any violations of FCA.
iv) Cost benefit ratio
v) Utility of the project. Number of Scheduled Castes/
Scheduled Tribes benefited by the project
vi) Whether land being diverted has any socio-cultural/
religious value, whether any scared grove or very old growth
trees/forests exist in the areas proposed for diversion and
whether the land under diversion forms part of any unique
eco-system.
vii) Situation with respect to any Protected Area
Annexure X
This is the letter No. 11-33/96-FC dated 13.8.97 issued
by the MoEF to all Regional CCFs regarding the proposals
received for forestry clearance. It says that proposals which
involve projects requiring environmental clearance (including
major mining projects with lease area more than 5 ha) should
be accompanied by an Environment Impact Assessment
Report in the first instance to save delay and back referencing.
Annexure XII
This is the letter No. 8C/5/321/95-FCW dated October
3, 1997, issued by the MoEF to all Regional Offices. It refers
to the proposals for diversion of forest land for mining
purposes received from the Regional Offices after procession
in consultation with the State Advisory Groups. It states:
“It has come to the notice of the Ministry that a number
of times, even such mining projects, after due processing,
are recommended by Regional Offices, which are deep inside
the forest areas. As you are aware that mining activity
located deep inside any forest will not only damage that
area but also the surrounding forests, such cases should
be rejected outright…….It is, therefore, suggested that in
future, Regional Offices should be more careful while
55
recommending cases for diversion of forest land for mining involve sanctuary or national park areas but are areas rich in
purposes.” wildlife or forming corridors for movement/migration of wild
Comment: This is a very important provision which needs animals, the State Govt. should furnish specific comments
to be kept in mind. of Chief Wildlife Warden on the proposal submitted under
Annexure – XV FCA for approval. This will avoid back references and delay
This is the letter No.8-79/91-FC dated April 15, 1998 in decision can be avoided.
issued by the MoEF to the Regional Offices and is regarding Comment: In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337 of 1995,
the ‘guidelines on monitoring of conditions of mining cases’ Centre for Environmental Law, WWF – India Vs Union of
It says that the Regional Office should monitor the main India & Ors., the Supreme Court (SC) ruled in August 1997
parameters/conditions of formal approval as frequently as that no denotifications to take place without seeking
possible, at least once in a year. At least once in five years a opinion of the IBWL. But several state governments
comprehensive monitoring of the effect of mining on air continued deleting portions of protected areas under the
and water pollution should also be carried out. The Regional pretext of the ongoing settlement of rights process. In
Offices need to send such reports/certificates with respect response to this the SC ruled in November 2000 that
to the monitoring mechanism indicated above to the MoEF “pending further orders, no dereservation of forests/
central office so that it can decide on the issue of sanctuaries/national parks shall be effected.”
continuation of mining lease beyond five years. Subsequently state governments have had to go to the SC
with proposals for deletions from protected areas and the
Annexure - XVII
opinion of the IBWL is being sought on these proposals.
This is the letter No. 8C/5/574/98-FCW dated October
The SC has further passed orders in 2002 that “no
22, 1998, sent by the MoEF to all the Regional Offices. It is
permission under section 29 of the Wildlife Act should be
similar in content to Annexure XII and pertains to grant of
granted without getting approval of the Standing
fresh mining leases in forest land.
Committee.” The Standing Committee referred to here is
It says that: “ As you are aware that any mining activity on
the Standing Committee of the IBWL. It is important to note
forest land causes the maximum damage to the area and its
that this approval of the IBWL is required irrespective of
surroundings, it would be desirable not to permit this activity
whether the area will be denotified eventually or remain a
unless it becomes inescapable for extraction of some rare
part of the protected area. It is an approval for the use of
minerals needed for overall interest/security of the country.
section 29 (see section on Wildlife Act).
Therefore, this should be discouraged.”
Annexure XXII
Annexure XX
This is the letter No.11-30/96-FC(Pt.) dated: 26.02.99
This is the letter No. 11-9/98-FC dated 4.12.1998 issued
issued by the MoEF to the Chief Secretaries of all the States
by the MoEF to the Secretary (Forests) of all the States &
and Union Territories regarding the scrutiny of proposals
Union Territories regarding ‘Guidelines for diversion of
submitted for diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes
forest land for non-forest purposes under the Forest
under the FCA. Some of the important provisions have been
(Conservation) Act,1980, that are part of National Parks
quoted below:
and Wildlife Sanctuaries’
“ Ministry has been issuing guidelines for submission of
It says that though the MoEF has circulated guidelines
proposal for diversion of forest land for non forestry
which state that that it will not permit development activities
purposes under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 from
inside National Park/Sanctuaries and Tiger Reserve areas that
time to time. In order to ensure that the forest lands are
are not in consonance of section 29 of the Wildlife
diverted only for site specific projects, that too where it is
Protection Act, 1972, it has still been receiving proposals
inescapable, so that the ecological balance of the country is
from various States and Union Territories for permission to
well protected, Ministry would like to draw the attention of
use forest land for non-forestry uses even in such areas. It
the State/Union Territory Governments to some of the issues
suggests that States and Union Territories should avoid
given below. It is requested that while submitting the
recommending use of forest areas inside Sanctuaries,
proposals, the respective State/UT Administration should give
National Parks and Project Tiger areas for non forest
due consideration to these and should submit proposal
purposes. Wherever it is inescapable, the State Govt. is
accordingly after detailed scrutiny.
advised first to get consent of Indian Board of Wildlife
1. Diversion of forest land in Sanctuaries, National Parks
(IBWL) before getting approval of the State Legislature for
and Biosphere Reserves.
denotification of the area as sanctuary. Only after receiving
The Ministry had already issued a guideline on this issue
the clearance from the Board, the proposal under FCA, 1980,
vide No.11-9/98-FC dated 4.12.98. The procedure suggested
may be submitted to Central Government for consideration.
in this guideline must be strictly followed. Central
The proposals which are received without the approval as
Government will like that these areas should be kept inviolate
mentioned above shall not be considered for clearance under
and should not be recommended for diversion. However, in
FCA.
some exceptional cases, where it is totally unavoidable to
It also states that for certain proposals which do not
use forest land and the project is of national importance,

56 Undermining India
proposal should be submitted as per the procedure suggested
in the guideline including assessment of restrictions imposed
by Section 29 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
2. Diversion of forest land within Reserve Forest
As per the Status of Forest Report, 1997 published by
Forest Survey of India, out of 76.25 million ha. of total forest
area, roughly 54.4% is Reserve Forest area. These forests
are considered as good forests with plenty of biodiversity
and it is necessary to keep these forests intact. As such, any
proposal for diversion in Reserve Forest should be very
carefully examined and detailed justification after exhausting
all alternatives for locating the project in this forest area
should be given while forwarding the proposal. Unless it is
convincingly justified vis-a-vis alternative sites, Central Govt.
may not consider clearance of projects on forest lands.
3. Regarding Mining proposals
It has been observed by the Central Government that a
large number of proposals relating to mining are submitted
which are located deep inside the forest areas. Locating such
proposals inside makes entire forest area vulnerable due to
ancillary activities like construction of approach road,
movement of vehicles and coming up of colonies for the
workers. It has also been observed that whatever area has
already been opened up for mining of different minerals, have
not been worked and reclaimed systematically and
scientifically. There is a tendency to open up new pits without
exhausting the existing ones to its full depth/potential.
Therefore, Ministry has decided that whenever a proposal for
fresh mining is submitted a brief profile of the lessee/
company should be submitted giving details of their existing
mining leases in the State with their capacity of production
and the present level of average annual production and
location of these pits. Alongwith this, the State Government
should also submit details of all other mining leases for that
particular mineral with their capacity and average annual
production and projected future requirements. They should
fully justify the necessity of opening new mining leases for
that particular mineral, also give status of reclamation of
forest land that are exhausted of minerals. Unless the State
Government justifies the need to open up new mines with
details, it shall not be possible for the Central Government
to consider it.
Even in the case of renewals, it has been observed that the
State Governments are not giving complete picture of mining
activity in the particular block or compartment of the forest
block. It is requested that whenever such proposal is sent,
complete details of existing or proposed leases in that
particular forest area with their present status should be
indicated on Survey of India toposheet on 1:50,000 scale.
5. It has been observed that in respect of a large number
of proposals the Central Government is receiving
representation from NGOs/local public bodies against
the diversion of forest land on loss of forest land,
environment and ecological grounds. Therefore, the
Central Government feels that it is essential to have the
opinion of the local people whenever a project is coming
Undermining India
up in that area. Therefore, it has been decided that
whenever any proposal for diversion of forest land is
submitted, it should be accompanied by a resolution of
the ‘Aam Sabha’ of Gram Panchayat/Local Body of the
area endorsing the proposal that the project is in the
interest of people living in and around the proposed
forest land.”
Comment: This is an important provision. Until now its
implementation has been rather poor but local bodies need
to be made aware of this to ensure implementation.
Scope of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
The scope of the FCA has been more clearly defined over
the years because of litigation on the issue. The most striking
example is of course of the ongoing litigation in the Supreme
Court (Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs The Union of India )
which has extended the definition of forests to beyond the
areas legally classified as forest land to include all areas
falling within the dictionary meaning of forest irrespective
of ownership of classification. See chapter 5 for more on
this.
Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Act 2002
The Wild Life Protection (Amendment) Act (WLPAA)
2002, passed in Parliament in late 2002, is a comprehensive
revision of the Wild Life (Protection) Act of 1972. The Act
has got President assent and should be notified by a gazette
notification any time now.
The WLPAA 2002 is based on a set of recommendations
suggested by an Expert Committee in 1997. Taking into
consideration the increase in wildlife crimes and growing
alienation of local communities from wildlife conservation
programmes, the Central Government constituted an inter-
State committee in the year 1995. The Committee, was
chaired by Dr. M.K. Ranjitsinh and comprised mostly wildlife
conservation officials and NGOs. The report of the inter-
State committee was considered by the Indian Board of
Wildlife and its Standing Committee, which further
recommended comprehensive amendments to the Wildlife
Act (the draft prepared by the committee will be referred to
as the Committee Draft below). Positive aspects of the
amended act include the constitution of a National Board for
Wildlife (NBWL) under the WLPA8 (Sec.5A) and sections
which make it necessary to take permission of the NBWL
for alteration in the boundaries of PAs or diversion of land
for commercial purposes(sec 5C).9 It is hoped that such a
step will make it difficult to denotify or alter the boundaries
of protected areas, which many state governments are doing
in the name of peoples rights but often to suit commercial
interests, thereby neither benefiting wildlife nor local people.
It is expected that these provisions will act as a check against
such decisions. But there are lacunae vis-a-vis development
project. For several years now, one of the biggest threat to
wildlife and wildlife habitats is the model of ‘development’
that encourages the haphazard growth of industries, cities,
and commercial activities. Unfortunately, the WLPAA Act
does not have very many new provisions to counter this.
Indeed, some provisions in the Committee Draft have been
57
dropped from the Act, including a critical one on restricting
such activities in a 5-km. radius around each PA.
Comment: It is unfortunate that this provision has been
dropped when infact earlier in the same year ( 2002) the
MoEF gave directives to State Governments to identify
areas around PAs to declare as ecologically sensitive under
the EPA. The Central Government issued Environmental
Guidelines for Siting of Industries in August, 1985 relating
to areas to be avoided for siting of industries,
precautionary measures to be taken for site selecting as
also aspects of environmental protection which should have
been incorporated during the implementation of the
industrial development projects but these were not issued
for ‘site-specific’ activities such as mining. In 1999 the
Central Government felt that the Siting Guidelines framed
in 1985 and the activities to be covered under siting
restrictions need review taking into account the
technological and scientific developments that have taken
place in industrial planning and manufacturing process
and that these siting rules can now be legislated in order
to protect the sensitive areas such as national parks,
sanctuaries, wetlands and archaeological monuments.
Hence they circulated a draft Environment (Siting for
Industrial Projects) Rules, 1999.
These prohibit the siting of a certain category of industries
in a 7 km belt around the periphery of a list of wetlands
and in a 25 km belt around the periphery of National Parks,
Sanctuaries and core zones of biosphere reserves. The
‘prohibition’ is in the proposed draft rules while the
guidelines of 1985 state that such siting should be
‘avoided’.
While this is with respect to industries, there have been
no comprehensive directives or guidelines from the MoEF
with respect to site-specific projects (such as mining) as of
now. But a letter No. E-36/91 – FC dated August 17, 1998,
sent to the Secretary (Forests), MP, by the Asst. Inspector
General of Forests, MoEF, clarifies the position of the
MoEF with respect to Mining and PAs. This letter was
pertaining to the renewal of stone mining leases in the
forests of Shivpuri district in MP. The letter states that “The
Ministry has taken a decision not to allow any mining
activity within 5 km. radius of the boundary of a National
Park or Wildlife Sanctuary.” There is a need for wide
publicity of this communication as well as a comprehensive
directive on this.
The provisions within the WLPAA, which are applicable
to landuse, are:
l The WLPAA provides for the declaration of protected
areas (sanctuaries, national parks, conservation reserves and
community reserves). Earlier there were sanctuaries and
national parks (with the NP having a stricter protection
regime), now there are two new categories added to the earlier
two:
Conservation Reserve 36A (1): “The State Government
may, after having consultations with the local communities,
declare any area owned by the Government, particularly the
58
areas adjacent to National Parks and sanctuaries and those
areas which link one protected area with another, as a
Conservation Reserve for protecting landscapes, seascapes,
flora and fauna and their habitat”
The State Government is to constitute a Conservation
Reserve Management Committee to advise the Chief Wild
Life Warden to conserve, manage and maintain the
Conservation Reserve. The Committee shall consist of a
representative of the forest or Wild Life Department, who
shall be the Member-Secretary of the Committee, one
representative of each Village Panchayat in whose jurisdiction
the reserve is located, three representatives of
non-governmental organisations working in the field of wild
life conservation and one representative each from the
Department of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry.
Community Reserve 36C. (1) “The State Government may,
where the community or an individual has volunteered to
conserve wild life and its habitat, declare any private or
community land not comprised within a National Park,
sanctuary or a Conservation Reserve, as a Community
Reserve, for protecting fauna, flora and traditional or cultural
conservation values and practices.”
The State Government shall constitute a Community
Reserve Management Committee, which shall be the authority
responsible for conserving, maintaining and managing the
Community Reserve. The Committee shall consist of five
representatives nominated by the Village Panchayat or where
such Panchayat does not exist, by the members of the Gram
Sabha and one representative of the State Forests or Wild
Life Department under whose jurisdiction the Community
Reserve is located.
l The section which prohibits destructive activities
such as mining in sanctuaries is section 29:
“No person shall destroy, exploit or remove any wild life
including forest produce from a sanctuary or destroy or
damage or divert the habitat of any wild animal by any act
whatsoever or divert, stop or enhance the flow of water into
or outside the sanctuary, except under and in accordance with
a permit granted by the Chief Wild Life Warden, and no such
permit shall be granted unless the State Government being
satisfied in consultation with the Board that such removal of
wild life from the sanctuary or the change in the flow of water
into or outside the sanctuary is necessary for the
improvement and better management of wild life therein,
authorises the issue of such permit.
Provided that where the forest produce is removed from
a sanctuary the same may be used for meeting the personal
bona fide needs of the people living in and around the
sanctuary and shall not be used for any commercial purpose.”
The equivalent of section 29 for national parks is
section 35(6) which reads similarly.
Comment: Section 29 is a strong section but inspite of this
destructive commercial activities have impacted many PAs.
The section has also been misused in the past, such as when
the Chief Wildlife Warden of Gujarat allowed an oil pipeline
through the Marine NP in Gujarat justifying this as
Undermining India
 Tackling green issues in mining projects
Rabindra Nath Sinha, KOLKATA Nov. 27
Source : The Business Line November 28, 2001
Speeding up of the process of clearance for mining projects
from the environmental angle has been one of the long-standing
demands of industry. In recent times, the Union Ministry of
Environment and Forests (MoEF) has initiated measures, which it
thinks will go a long way in cutting down delays inherent so long in
the clearance process. An analysis of the measures, listed by Mr
K.K. Jain, Director in MoEF, in his paper for a seminar on
environment and forestry in mining areas held recently under the
aegis of the Federation of Indian Mineral Industries, suggests that
MoEF is trying to tackle the issues over which industry has been
expressing its concern for quite some time.
The paper lists the actions that MoEF has since taken and
proposes to simplify procedures under relevant Acts and rules
framed thereunder.
The measures already taken are:
Mining questionnaire has been revised and updated.
A checklist has been prepared to enable the proposer of a
mining project to ensure that the documentation is complete.
Manual for environment impact assessment (EIA) appraisal
was brought out in January this year. This, MoEF feels, will be a
useful reference for appraising agencies, regulatory authorities,
entrepreneurs and consultants. It is displayed on the Web site of
the Ministry.
Preliminary scrutiny of a project is made within three-four
weeks of receipt of a proposal and comments thereon is conveyed
to the proposer. An interactive mechanism has been put in place to
identify deficiencies in EIA and environment management plan
(EMP) reports so as to facilitate, wherever necessary, early
submission of additional information by the proposer.
Every effort is being made to reach decisions on individual projects
in a maximum of two sittings of the expert committee (mining).
Level jumping has been introduced in file submission to the
Minister
Under the provisions of the EIA notification issued on January
27, 1994 under the Environment Protection Act 1986, MoEF has to
beneficial to wildlife! Groups took this decision to court
and the court decried this misuse of section 29. More
recently an order of the Supreme Court dated 14/2/2000
with respect to the Interlocutary Application No. 548 in
the Godavarman case directed against removal of material
from PAs which was used by the group Wildlife First in their
litigation to stop mining in the Kudremukh National Park.
Biodiversity Act, 2002
Certain sections of the Biodiversity Act which have
implications on Mining and Biodiversity are stated below:
l Section 36(2) states that “The Central Government shall,
as far as practicable wherever it deems appropriate, integrate
the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity
into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programmes
and policies.
Comment: Cross-sectoral integration is an urgent
requirement, although ‘as far as practicable wherever it
deems appropriate’ seems to leave a wide window open
for non-implementation.
l Section 36 (3) states that the Central Government shall
undertake measures “wherever necessary, for assessment of
environmental impact of that project which is likely to have
Undermining India
complete assessment of a proposal within 90 days after receipt of
all information and documents.
Decision is conveyed to the proposer within 30 days
thereafter. In case the decision is not communicated within this
timeframe, the proposal will be regarded as having ‘deemed
clearance’. However, the ‘deemed clearance’ provision has not
been invoked so far. The status of projects posed for clearance is
displayed on MoEF’s Web site, which is updated every fortnight.
The EIA notification has been amended to dispense with the
requirement of public hearing for projects involving major
minerals with lease area up to 25 hectares.
Under the World Bank-assisted Environmental Management
Capacity Building project, MoEF has obtained the views of an
international consultant on changes required to be made in the
EIA mechanism, keeping in view the practices followed in other
countries. Guidelines need to be evolved to determine the scope
of EIA/EMP for each mining project. MoEF proposes to further
review the existing questionnaires, which solicit environmental
data and information.
Along with the standardised format for preparation of EIA/
EMP, guidelines will be evolved to facilitate collection and
documentation of baseline data for the key resources, such as,
surface water, ground water, flora and fauna, land use,
meteorology and air quality.
The EIA notification of 1994 is to be amended to stipulate a
definite timeframe of 60 days for completion of public hearing.
MoEF has veered round to the view that there is no need for
public hearing for site clearance. Also, public hearing is not
needed for reconnaissance, prospecting and exploration projects.
MoEF hopes that compliance by industry with the stipulations
made by the authorities while clearing mining projects will
improve in the days to come. Analysis has shown that compliance
is not satisfactory in certain areas.
These are: Construction and maintenance of garland drains
and check-dams, plantation on inactive waste dumps, fugitive dust
control, rehabilitation of families affected by projects, treatment
of water before discharge and green belt development.
adverse effect on biological diversity, with a view to avoid or
minimise such effects and where appropriate provide for
public participation in such assessment.
Comment: This could be used for projects affecting areas
rich in biodiversity but not covered by the EIA notification
or the FCA presently.
l Section 37(1) states that “without prejudice to any other
law for the time being in force, the State Government may
from time to time in consultation with the local bodies, notify
in the Official Gazette, areas of biodiversity importance as
biodiversity heritage sites under this Act.
Comment: This is another legal space to get a biodiversity-
rich area protected. But it is important that there is clarity
within the government as well as the public about the scope
of various ‘protected area’ categories under various Acts
and how they can be used in a complementary manner with
proper co-ordination between various agencies concerned.
The above sections seem to indicate that there is enough
within the environmental, forest, wildlife, biodiversity
policies and laws to prevent mining and its impact on
ecologically sensitive areas if implemented in letter and
spirit. That’s really where the problem lies. The current
economic and development priorities chosen by the nation
59
need to give space for these to be implemented. And
dilutions, such as those of making public hearings
compulsory only for leases above 25 ha do not help. This
is because the few spaces available for citizens’
participation in the decision-making framework, even if
fraught with problems, do offer an opportunity to demand
some sort of accountability in the system. We can’t allow
these to be undermined.
Mining: Constitutional Provisions, Policies and Laws
Constitutional provisions
Management of mineral resources is the responsibility
of the Central Government and the State Government in terms
of Entry 54 of the Union List and Entry 23 of the State List
of the seventh schedule of the Constitution.
Policies
The Industrial Policy Resolution, 1956, and the Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDRA),
1957, and the Mines Act, 1952, largely lay down the
framework for the regulation and development of all minerals
other than petroleum and natural gas. The Mineral Concession
Rules (MCR), 1960, regulates the grant of all minerals other
than atomic and minor minerals. The State governments have
framed rules with regard to minor minerals. The Central
Government has framed the Mineral Conservation and
Development Rules (MCDR), 1988, which is applicable to
all minerals except coal, atomic minerals and minor minerals.
Under Schedule A of the Industrial Policy Resolution, 13
minerals besides coal and lignite were reserved for the public
sector. The Industrial Policy Resolution, 1956, formed the
basis of industrial development in the country for more than
three and a half decades. The Government initiated a radical
shift from the policies and strategies set by the Resolution
by introducing a New Industrial Policy in 1991 in tune with
its economic reforms programme. Economic reforms have
brought about a paradigm shift in the developmental strategies
– a shift from government to markets, public to private sector
dominance, state monopoly to market competition and
opening up of global trade. With their focused emphasis on
liberalization, privatization, marketisation and globalisation
economic reforms will and have had definite impacts on the
natural resource base in many and varied ways, which is a
cause of concern. The new National Mineral Policy, 1993,
and the amendments to the Mines and Minerals (Regulation
and Development) Act, 1957, have to be seen in this context
(though the Policy has also brought in some provisions on
environment protection etc.). The Mines and Minerals
(Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, was amended
repeatedly to make it more compatible with the present day
scenario of economic liberalization and renamed as the Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR),
thereby giving more emphasis on ‘development’ rather than
‘regulation’. The Act was amended with a view to accelerate
the inflow of private capital (both domestic and foreign), as
also state-of–the art technology.
60
l Some of the important changes the new National Mineral
Policy, 1993, and the subsequent amendments to the mining
laws have brought with it include:
1. Thirteen minerals, which had been earlier reserved for
the exclusive exploitation of the public sector, are now open
for exploitation by the private sector.
2. Introduction of a concept of reconnaissance operations
as a stage of operation distinct from and prior to actual
prospecting operations. Reconnaissance operations primarily
involve preliminary prospecting of mineral(s) through
regional, aerial, geophysical or geothermal surveys and
geological mappings. Prospecting operations involve
searching and exploring the land for minerals through pitting,
trenching, drilling and sub-surface excavations, and removal
of limited quantities of substance for testing. Reconnaissance
permit holders will enjoy preferential right for grant of
Prospecting License (PL).
Comment: Since 1996, 65 large prospecting licenses
covering over 90, 000 sq. kms. of area have been granted
and since 2000, 119 reconnaissance permits covering over
1,55, 000 sq. kms. have been granted. A closer look shows
that many of these overlap with some of the most
ecologically rich areas in the country in the states of
Jharkhand, Chhatisgarh, Rajasthan, Vidarbha
(Maharashtra), Orissa etc. This is a cause for concern. For
example prospecting licenses over large areas and now
reconnaissance permits swamp the area around Udanti
sanctuary in Chhatisgarh, one of the last homes of a viable
wild buffalo population and a tribal area. In January 2001
it had been reported that a company granted a prospecting
license here had illegally removed soil from the Udanti
sanctuary and that government of India had ordered an
enquiry. But what is more of concern is the legal destruction
which is likely to further take place in the coming days.
While reconnaissance does not amount to mining, the
writing is clear on the wall. A reconnaissance permit holder
or prospecting licensee have been given preferential rights
for obtaining a prospecting license or mining license in
these areas. And justifiably so, as the firm has invested
substantial resources in the exercise. Even for the foreign
investment coming in, separate approvals for prospecting
and mining are not necessary.
There is an urgent need to review each permit for ‘site
clearance’ before granting it. Currently this is not required
in all situations, since it is argued that the reconnaissance
activity itself does not lead to substantive environmental
impact to warrant screening. But since it is laying the base
for future mining in the area, it is important to overlay
these reconnaissance permit areas with the forest,
protected area, scheduled area maps and convey to permit
holders, the areas which are ‘off-limit’ areas to them. This
will also prevent waste of precious resources in prospecting
areas, which are ecologically fragile, where mining is an
inappropriate landuse. For this it is important that landuse
maps are urgently worked on with ecologically sensitive
areas clearly demarcated and the MoEF (powers could be
Undermining India
delegated to regional offices) should screen each
application by overlaying with landuse maps and indicate
areas where no mining can take place. Government of
India’s decisions in this respect, such as the 2002 directive
(mentioned earlier) to declare an area 10-km from the
boundaries of sanctuaries and national parks as
‘ecologically sensitive’ under the EPA to give priority to
sustainable landuse and livelihoods should reflect in this
site screening and be conveyed clearly to investors.
Once the basic landuse maps are ready, this exercise
can take place very fast and will not be time-consuming.
Infact it will benefit the investors as investment of resources
in areas where future mineral development is constrained
by long-term ecologically sustainable landuse priorities
is not done. State Governments need to be sensitive to long-
term ecological and social security of the particular area
in concern and not look at it simply in terms of an
investment which is coming into the State.
If the above environmental screening does not happen,
we will see what has been happening all around the
country for various development projects in ecologically
sensitive areas. Inappropriate landuse will get a go-ahead
and be justified because considerable resources have
already been invested in reconnaissance/ prospecting and
it will be argued that government is bound to give
permissions for mining where ‘viable’ deposits have been
found inspite of ecological constraints. Therefore it is
imperative these proposals are screened for site clearance
at this stage itself. This will prevent wasted investment in
areas where ‘mine development’ cannot happen due to
ecological constraints. This only reiterates the urgent need
for landuse maps with ecological priorities.The
appropriate landuse priority for each area will help us
evolve sustainable livelihood and economic activity for
the region keeping a long-term perspective.
The Mineral Advisory Council has been discussing that
it will be made mandatory for prospecting license holders
to do a regional environmental impact assessment for a
‘mineral bearing land’ before grant of any mining lease.
But as pointed out above screening must be done before
reconnaissance/prospecting. In many areas, being a
‘mineral bearing area’ cannot be enough reason to mine.
That non-renewable mineral base lying below the ground
could be (as is in several parts of the country) in a fragile
area performing vital ecological functions (such as a
watershed) which need to get precedence over short-term
extraction.
(back to section on mineral sector reforms)
3. Only for ten minerals (except fuel and atomic minerals)
is permission required from the Central Government for grant
of mining lease. These are: asbestos, bauxite, chrome ore,
copper, gold, iron ore, lead, manganese ore, precious stones
and zinc.
4. State governments have been delegated powers to approve
mining plans in respect of 29 non-metallic/ industrial
minerals.
Undermining India
5. Similarly, the period of mining lease has been increased
to a minimum of twenty years and a maximum of 30 years
with provision for renewal for another 20 years.
6. The Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) policy was
liberalised in February 2000 which provides for: automatic
approval upto 100% foreign equity investment in prospecting,
mining, processing and metallurgy, except in diamonds and
precious stones; approval of 74% equity in diamonds and
precious stones; no separate approvals for prospecting
and mining necessary.
l In another significant move the Coal Nationalisation
Act, 1973, was amended in February 1999, facilitating the
entry of private entrepreneurs in coal and lignite production.
It may be recalled that till then coal had remained the
monopoly of the State barring the exception of a captive coal
mine granted to the Tata Iron and Steel Company to meet the
needs of their steel plant in Jamshedpur.
l Besides liberalisation procedures, the government has
disinvested its equity holdings in a number of units including
Neyveli Lignite Corporation, National Mineral Development
Corporation, Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd., Hindustan
Copper Ltd., National Aluminium Co., Hindustan Zinc Ltd.
and Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd.
Comment: The New Mineral Policy and the subsequent
changes in the norms related to mining, augmented by the
provisions of the New Industrial Policy is bound to increase
rate of exploitation of our mineral resources, its export
potential and its vulnerability to depletion by global
mining interests. Though the policy does deal with
‘conservation of mineral resources’, the kind of
liberalisastion of various norms in the mining sector
clearly indicate that we have given a go-by to the principles
of conservation of mineral resources envisaged in the early
stages of India’s industrialization. 10 This will have an
obvious impact on the ecologically fragile and
biodiversity-rich areas of our country as there is
considerable overlap between these and areas where our
mineral wealth is found. These areas are also home to
tribal and other communities, which are dependent on these
ecosystems for their livelihoods. The environmental and
social costs of this process of liberalization of the mining
sector is potentially very high. The present ‘mood’ within
the country is seen from the reaction to the ‘Samatha
judgement’ (see box on this in this Chapter) in the Supreme
Court which affected mining in scheduled areas 11 and
prompted a move to try and amend the fifth schedule of the
Constitution which amongst other things articulates the
prohibition/restriction of transfer of lands in ‘scheduled
areas’. Scheduled areas, which are home to significant
tribal populations, also house a considerable amount of
mineral wealth and the moves to amend the fifth schedule
were prompted because of the historic Supreme Court
judgement in 1997 in the case filed by the group
Samatha12. The litigation was pertaining to the grant of
mining leases to private parties in the scheduled areas of
Vizag district in Andhra Pradesh. Besides the social
61
impacts and the violation of tribal rights which this mining
would have caused, it also had tremendous environmental
implications, as this area falls in an ecologically fragile
portion of the Eastern Ghats.
The judgement was a victory for tribal rights in the fifth
schedule areas, but affected private mining interests.
Amongst other things the implications of this judgement
were that both governmental and non-governmental lands
in scheduled areas cannot be leased out to non-tribals or
private industries for mining purposes. Thus it put a brake
on the opening up of scheduled areas for mining to the
private sector, even as it protected the livelihood resources
of the locals and the ecology of the area. Entry of the
private sector into mining has been facilitated in a big
way after reforms in the mining sector in the 1990s. In
many ways the order gave ‘breathing space’ to the people
and scheduled areas in general, particularly so in the
current climate of reforms wherein rapid changes have
taken place to open up the minerals for exploitation by
the private sector, including through foreign investment.
Local communities have been overwhelmed by this
onslaught. Communities and groups see this as an
opportunity to evolve ways of managing natural resources
in scheduled areas sustainably (see note by Samatha in
Chapter 6).
It should be clarified that the SC order did not prohibit
all mining in the Scheduled areas of Andhra Pradesh. It
allowed mining by government and tribal co-operatives.
But with the private sector impacted, there was active
consideration to amend the fifth schedule of the
Constitution to remove the very constitutional basis on
which land transfer in tribal areas is prohibited! Although
this move has for the moment been thwarted by tribal
activists, the threat is far from over; indeed the 10th 5-Year
Plan Approach Paper recommends action to remove
impediments in the way of such ‘development’ projects in
scheduled areas. While the conflict over large mining and
tribals in scheduled areas persists and has infact
aggravated, some interesting changes have been taking
parallely vis-à-vis the minor minerals sector. After the 73rd
amendment of the Indian Constitution and subsequent
enactment of Panchayat legislations in the States, control
over exploitation of certain minor minerals is being done
by the Panchayats. Under the Panchayat (Extension to
Mineral sector reform: Some important recent
events/ processes
lB.B.Tandon Committee
A Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri
B.B.Tandon, the then Secretary, Ministry of Mines, was
constituted in February 1997 to inter-alia, make
recommendations regarding delegation of powers to State
Governments for grant/renewal of Prospecting Licences/
Mining Leases, review of the existing laws and procedures
governing the regulation and development of minerals to
make them more compatible with the present day scenario
62
of economic liberalisation, expeditious grant/renewal of
mining concessions by reviewing the procedures and
measures for preventing illegal mining. The Committee
had made wide-ranging recommendations regarding
delegation of powers to the State Governments, procedural
simplification and measures for preventing illegal mining.
These recommendations of the B.B.Tandon Committee
formed the basis of amendments made in the Mines and
Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 in
December, 1999 and in the Mineral Concession Rules,
1960 and Mineral Conservation and Development Rules,
1988 in January, 2000.
l 25th meeting of the Mineral Advisory Council
held on April 5th, 1999
After this meeting (and based on above report)
amendments were brought about in the MMDR Act, 1957,
and Rules . E.g. introduction of concept of reconnaissance,
permission of Central Government required for grant of
mining lease for only 10 minerals
l 26th meeting of the Mineral Advisory Council
(MAC) held on August 30th, 2000
Several environment/ forest ‘impediments’ to the mining
sector flagged in this meeting.
l Conference of State Ministers of Mining and
Geology held on July 14, 2001
Issue proposing time limit for mineral concession cases
brought up and was decided that time limit for disposing
RP/PL/ML may be fixed at 6 months/ 9 months/ 12
months. Consequently a new rule inserted under Mineral
Concession Rules.
l Tripartite meeting of Investors, State
Governments and Government of India held on
November 12th, 2001.
The Union Minister of Coal and Mines Shri Ram Vilas
Paswan personally heard the suggestions of the investors
for removing the operational bottlenecks and paving the
way for further investment in the mining sector. The issues
discussed included: the procedural and policy hurdles
regarding the permitted height for aerial surveys for
reconnaissance operations for minerals and the
environmental and forest clearance of projects. The MoEF
was asked to follow a ‘pragmatic approach.’
The investors who took part in the Tripartite Meeting
included the transnational Companies like Rio Tinto, De
Beers, BHP World Exploration, Pebble Creek Resources,
Anglo American Exploration, La Farge, as well as Indian
industrial concerns in the private sector like Tata Iron and
Steel Company, Associated Cement Companies Limited,
Jindal Steel and Power Limited, as well as all Central
Public Sector mining Companies in the non fuel and non
atomic mineral sector. The participants also included such
transnational mining companies who had not yet invested
in the mining sector but were actively considering
investment in India, like Pachiney, which is a serious player
in the global aluminium sector. Important mineral bearing
Undermining India

States like Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Orissa, Madhya
Pradesh, Jharkhand and Maharashtra also participated in
the discussions.
l 27th meeting of the Mineral Advisory Council
held on September 21, 2002 :
The recommendations of the committee included:
- Reconnaissance permit holders will be allowed to drill
up to 10 boreholes every 100 square kilometer without
the requirement of obtaining environmental site clearance
under Environment Protection Act 1986 and the MoEF to
issue necessary clarification for the same;
- The Forest Conservation Rules would be amended to
allow continuance of mining in case of applications for
renewal of mining lease till a decision on the application
is conveyed and the MoEF to issue necessary clarification
for the same;
- The Mineral Advisory Council recommended that a
Committee under the Chairmanship of Additional
Secretary (Mines) shall go into various issues relating to
mine closure plan and that the Committee would keep the
interest of both the mining industry and the communities
in mind while giving its recommendations;
- The State Governments could extend the spirit of
Panchayats Act, 1996 voluntarily also to the non-
Scheduled areas of the State in the matter of granting
mineral concessions for minor minerals.
- The Mineral Advisory Council recommended that
offence committed under Environment Protection Act
1986 and Forest Conservation Act 1980 could be
sufficient ground for determination (meaning termination)
of a mining lease in addition to the offences committed
under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957 and rules framed there under. The Mineral
Advisory Council asked the industry to send their
recommendations to the Department of Mines so that the
issues could be discussed in the Conference of State
Ministers of Mining and Geology before taking a final
decision.
Comments: This meeting of the MAC held after two years
discussed some crucial issues vis-à-vis environment
and people such as extension of minor mineral related
provisions of PESA (see note on PESA later in this
chapter) to non-scheduled areas; aspects on mine
closure and recommendation on termination of a
mining lease if offences are committed under the FCA
and EPA. But the industry did not respond, for obvious
reasons, and this issue was not discussed in the Ministers
of Mining and Geology meeting held in January 2003.
l Conference of State Ministers of Mining and
Geology held on January 22, 2003
Mineral concession Rules, 1960 (MCR, 1960) and
Mineral Conservation and Development Rules (MCDR,
1988) would be amended to make appropriate provisions
for mine closure. These provisions shall specify the duties
and responsibilities of the mining lease holder and also
provide for financial assurance for fulfilling the same.
Undermining India
Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, the Gram Sabhas have to be
consulted before giving any mining lease or concession
or auctioning of these. A positive move in this respect has
been that the Mineral Advisory Council has recommended
after its September 2002 meeting that the State
Governments could extend the spirit of Panchayats Act,
1996 voluntarily also to the non-scheduled areas of the
State in the matter of granting mineral concessions for
minor minerals. What is now urgently required for the
minor mineral sector is effective environmental assessment
and clearance procedures.
MINING LEGISLATION
The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957, (‘MMDR’) and the Mines Act, 1952, together with
the rules and regulations framed under them, constitute the
basic laws governing the mining sector in India. The relevant
rules in force under the MMDR Act, are the Mineral
Concession Rules, 1960, and the Mineral Conservation and
Development Rules, 1988. The health and safety of the
workers is governed by the Mines Rules, 1955 created under
the jurisdiction of the Mines Act, 1952.
The Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 outline the
procedures and conditions for obtaining a Prospecting
License or Mining Lease. The Mineral Conservation and
Development Rules, 1988, lay down guidelines for ensuring
mining on a scientific basis, while at the same time,
conserving the environment. The provisions of Mineral
Concession Rules and Mineral Conservation and
Development Rules are, however, not applicable to coal,
atomic minerals and minor minerals. The minor minerals
are separately notified and come under the purview of the
State Governments. The State Governments have for this
purpose formulated the Minor Mineral Concession Rules.
l Minor Mineral Concession Rules (different for
various states)
According to section 14 of the MMDR, 1957, “provisions
of section 5 to 13 (inclusive) shall not apply to quarry leases
or other mineral leases or other mineral concessions in
respect of minor minerals”. These are sections whereby the
Central Government has legislated on the various aspects of
prospecting licenses and mining leases. Thus the MCR, 1960,
framed under section 13 of the MMDR also does not apply
to minor minerals.
Instead section 15 of the MMDR empowers the State
Governments to make rules for regulating the grant of quarry
leases, mining leases, or other minerals concessions in
respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected
therewith. The Minor Mineral Concession Rules for various
states are not uniform and vary in many aspects.
Comment: The regulatory framework for minor minerals
is very poor and all across the country we see how
unregulated, unscientific mining of minor minerals in the
unorganized sector is causing environmental and social
impacts. E.g. stone quarrying in Shivpuri, Madhya
Pradesh; mining of minor minerals in Alwar, Rajasthan.
The Regional Offices of the MoEF need to be further
63
empowered to look at the environmental aspects of minor
mineral mining. (presently this is an issue for them only if
forest land is required as they monitor the forest clearance
aspects. The MoEF has brought up the need for having
mining plans and other procedures for minor minerals
with the Mineral Advisory Council.
l Coal
Coal is listed in Schedule One of the MMRD Act, 1957
and as such rights for prospecting and mining of coal are
controlled by the Central Government. The Coal Bearing
Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act 1957, was enacted
and its purpose was to have greater public control over coal
exploration and production by empowering the Central
Government to acquire unworked land containing or likely
to contain coal deposits. Subsequently, the coking coal and
non-coking coal mines were nationalised in two phases –
coking coal mines in 1971-72 and non-coking coal mines in
1973. Nationalisation was a response to the urgent need to
make large capital investment in the coal mines to meet the
burgeoning demand; to prevent unscientific mining and to
ameliorate the working conditions of labour in the industry.
The Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act was passed by
Parliament in May 1973, under which coal mining was
reserved for the public sector with few exceptions. In 1976,
two exceptions to the nationalisation policy were introduced
viz. (a) captive mining by companies engaged in the production
of iron and steel and (b) the sub-lease to private parties of
small pockets of reserves not amenable to economic
development and not requiring rail transportation. The Coal
Mines (Nationalisation) Act 1973 was further amended in
1993 to allow private coal mining for captive consumption
for generation of power, washing of coal obtained from a
mine and other end uses to be notified by Government from
time to time in addition to the existing provisions.
Coal exploration and mining in India is basically governed
by the following laws: the Mines Act , 1952 , Mines &
Minerals (Regulation & Development ) Act , 1957, The Coal
Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957,
Coal Mines (Nationalisation ) Act, 1973.
Opening of a new mine and subsequent operations require
statutory permission from Coal Controller, Government of
India and Director General of Mine Safety. A mining lease
which allows for the development and exploitation of coal
needs to be obtained before undertaking any mining
operations. It is granted by the State Government after it is
approved by the Government of India under Mines & Minerals
(Regulation & Development ) Act , 1957. Mining leases are
granted for 20-30 years initially and can be renewed for a
further period of 20 years with the Government’s approval.
l Atomic minerals
The ‘survey, prospecting, drilling, development, mining,
acquisition and control’ of atomic minerals comes within the
purview of the Department of Atomic Energy.
The Atomic Energy Act (AEA), 1962, provides for the
“development, control and use of atomic energy for the
welfare of the people of India and for other peaceful uses
64
and for matters connected with.” The AEA provides the basic
regulatory framework for all activities related to the atomic
energy programme and use of ionizing radiation in India. The
Central Government has appointed Chairman, Atomic Energy
Regulatory Board (AERB) as the ‘Competent Authority’ to
exercise the powers for a set of rules including the Atomic
Energy (Working of Mines, Minerals and Handling of
Prescribed Substances) Rules, 1984. Joint Secretary,
Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India s the
“Licensing Authority” for the purposes of these rules.
Comment: See section on CRZ earlier. We have not looked
at laws in the petroleum sector although a few examples of
ecologically sensitive areas impacted by oil and gas
drilling/ prospecting have been covered in Chapter 3.
l Offshore Areas Mineral (Development & Regulation)
Act, 2002
This recently enacted Act deals with issues related to the
exploitation of offshore mineral resources. It will “provide
for development and regulation of the mineral resources in
the territorial water, continental shelf, exclusive economic
zone and other maritime zones of India and to provide for
matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.” We have
not examined specific provisions of this act.
Environmental provisions within Mining Laws and
Policies
The Indian mining law is based on the earlier British
legislations enacted in our country. The environmental
aspects within mining law from independence until three and
a half decades later was largely confined to the ‘working
environment’ for mine labour, as is seen in the Mines Act,
1952. There were some aspects related to pollution such as
‘no fouling or polluting stream or spring etc.’ but these
provisions touched a very small aspect of the environment
and did not say anything about forests and wildlife.
Environmental concerns started being reflected in mining
law from 1986 when the MMDR (then the MMRD) was
amended to include provisions on environmental protection
and rehabilitation of flora. This was further reflected in the
Mineral Concession Rules in 1987 and the Mineral
Conservation and Development Rules (MCDR), 1988. The
MCDR has a chapter on ‘Environment’. The concerns were
further reflected in certain sections of the National Mineral
Policy, 1993.
l National Mineral Policy, 1993
Earlier we have referred to the liberalisation of the
mineral sector which has been initiated with the promulgation
of the National Mineral Policy in 1993 and the concerns
regarding its environmental and social impacts. It will prove
useful to look at the provisions regarding environment within
the mining policy and see how see how this reflects on the
ground.
The section 3 on Objectives includes “(f) to minimise
adverse effects of mineral development on environment and
ecology through appropriate protective measures” and “(g)
to ensure conduct of mining operations with due regard to
safety and health of all concerned.”
Undermining India
 Section 7 on Strategy of mineral development has some
of the following relevant sub-sections:
Section 7.1 Conservation and mineral development
“…….The best use of available mineral resources shall be
ensured by adopting, during mining operation, effective
measures for conservation and beneficiation, recovery of
associated minerals, and later by efficient processing of
minerals. There shall be adequate and effective legal and
institutional framework and commitment to prevent sub-
optimal and unscientific mining. Conservation of minerals
shall be construed not in the restrictive sense of abstinence
from consumption or preservation for future use, but as a
positive concept leading to augmentation of resource base
through improvement in mining methods, beneficiation and
utilisation of low grade ore and rejects, recovery of associated
minerals, reduction in the requirements of mineral per unit
of material output.”
Comment: “Conservation of minerals shall be construed
not in the restrictive sense of abstinence from consumption
or preservation for future use.” It was with this philosophy
that has been articulated in the Mineral Policy that the
name of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation &
Development) Act (MMMRDA) was changed to Mines and
Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act (MMDRA) to
place ‘development’ before ‘regulation’.
Section 7.5 Recycling of metallic scrap and mineral
wastes
As an important conservation measure, recycling of
metallic scrap like steel, copper, aluminum, zinc, lead etc.
shall be encouraged and facilitated by fixation of appropriate
standards for classification and grading of scrap and adoption
of fiscal measures. Similarly, utilisation of low-grade
minerals, mineral wastes and rejects shall also be encouraged
through appropriate incentives.
Section 7. 12 Small Deposits
Small and isolated deposits of minerals are scattered all
over the country. These often lend themselves to economic
exploitation through small-scale mining. With modest
demand on capital expenditure and short lead-time, they also
provide employment opportunities for the local population.
Efforts will be made to promote small-scale mining of
small deposits in a scientific and efficient manner while
safeguarding vital environmental and ecological
imperatives. In grant of mineral concessions for small
deposits in scheduled areas, preference shall be given to the
scheduled tribes.
Section 7. 13 on Mineral development and protection of
environment
Section 7.13.1 Extraction and development of minerals are
closely interlinked with other natural resources like land,
water, air and forest. The areas in which minerals occur often
have other resources presenting a choice of utilisation of
the resources. Some such areas are ecologically fragile and
some are biologically rich. It is necessary to take
comprehensive view to facilitate the choice or order of land
use keeping in view the needs of development as well as needs
Undermining India
of protecting the forests, environment and ecology. Both
aspects have to be properly coordinated to facilitate and
ensure a sustainable development of mineral resources in
harmony with environment.
Comment: This is really where the conflict lies. Most often
the ecological services that these ecosystems provide in
terms of water catchments etc. and also the importance of
these areas in the economy of forest-dwellers, pastoralists,
and others dependent on natural resources gets
inadequate focus in the cost-benefit analysis of mining
projects.
Section 7.13.2 Mining activity often leads to environmental
problems like land degradation particularly in open-cast
mining, land subsidence in underground mining,
deforestation, atmospheric pollution, pollution of rivers and
streams, disposal of solid wastes, etc. affecting the ecological
balance of the area. Open-cast mining in areas with actual
forest covers leads to deforestation. Prevention and
mitigation of adverse environmental effects due to mining
and processing of minerals and repairing and revegetation of
the affected forest area and land covered by trees in
accordance with the prescribed norms and established
forestry practices shall form an integral part of mine
development strategy in every instance. Mining operations
shall not ordinarily be taken up in identified ecologically
fragile and biologically rich areas. Strip mining in forest
areas should as far as possible be avoided and it should be
permitted only when accompanied by a comprehensive time
bound reclamation programme.
Comment: Its important a comprehensive identification of
all ecologically fragile and biologically-rich areas is done
and these areas declared ‘off-limits’ to mining activities.
Such identification already exists in parts through existing
work done in environment and biodiversity planning
exercises. This needs to be worked on further and made
comprehensive. The mining policy has left a big space open
by use of the term “shall not ordinarily be taken up”.
Seeing the number of ecologically sensitive areas impacted
by mining (Chapter 3), it will take an extraordinary effort
to change the way things are done!
(back to mining policy 7.13.2 contd.)
No mining lease would be granted to any party, private or
public, without a proper mining plan including the
environmental management plan approved and enforced by
statutory authorities. The environmental management plan
should adequately provide for controlling the environmental
damage, restoration of mined areas and for planting of trees
according to the prescribed norms. As far as possible,
reclamation and afforestation will proceed concurrently with
mineral extraction.
Comment: Please see Chapter 7 on restoration.
Section 7.13.3 Efforts would be made to convert old disused
mining sites into forests and other appropriate forms of land
use.
Section 7.14 Mines Safety
Mining operations are hazardous in nature. Accidents happen
65
and often result in the loss of life or limb of persons engaged
in it. Efforts must be directed towards the development and
adoption of mining methods, which would increase the safety
of workers and reduce the accidents. Towards this end,
participation and cooperation of mine workers shall be
secured. Steps will also be taken to minimise the adverse
impact of mining on the health of workers and the surrounding
population.
Section 7.15 Rehabilitation of mines closures
Mineral deposits being exhaustible, once the process of
economical extraction of a mine is complete, there is need
for its closure. Especially where the mining activities have
been spread over a few decades, mining communities get
established and closure of the mine means not only loss of
jobs but also disruption of community life. Whenever mine
closure becomes necessary, it should be orderly and
systematic and so planned as to help the workers and the
dependent communities rehabilitate themselves without
undue hardship.
Comment: This provision is very important and needs to
be accounted for while doing the cost-benefit analysis of
mining projects upfront. Options for sustainable land use
and livelihoods need to be given first priority.
Section 9. Fiscal aspects
Fiscal measures should be designed to promote mineral
exploration and development including beneficiation.
Minerals being non-renewable their prices should reflect their
value. In the context of the mineral scenario and the
economies of mineral development and products, at both the
national and international levels, necessary fiscal changes will
be made from time to time consistent with the general tax
structure.
Comment: This is an important provision. Depletion of
‘virgin stocks’ of non-renewable materials do need to
reflect the true cost of the material. E.g. a considerable
use of aluminium worldwide is for beverage cans, where it
is used once and chucked. The huge environmental, social
and energy cost of depleting aluminium needs to reflect in
its pricing, so that it is used only for the most vital
applications (such as those applications in which it
substantially reduces energy cost by reduction of weight
in the long-term). The State of the World report 2003 has
some interesting statistics: “The 7 million tons of aluminium
cans which Americans chucked between 1990 and 2000, if
recycled would have enough material to make 316,000
Boeing 737 planes, which is 25 times more than the world’s
current stock.” While our per-capita energy and material
consumption is far below American standards, urban-
industrial India could certainly do with reducing a lot of
wasteful consumption.
Section 10 on Research and Development:
Section 10.1 Research and development in the mineral sector
has to cover the entire gamut of activities from geological
survey, exploration, mining, beneficiation, extraction of
minerals to development of materials. Efforts would be
directed to the development of new technologies for
66
conversion of existing mineral resources into viable
economic resources. Appropriate technologies shall be
developed to enable indigenous industries to utilise the
mineral resources with which the country is abundantly
endowed and as substitutes for minerals whose reserves are
poor. R&D efforts shall be directed to find new and alternative
uses for minerals whose traditional demand is on the wane.
Indigenous technology has to be upgraded through research
and appropriate absorption and adaptation of technological
innovations abroad. Research and development efforts shall
be made to improve efficiency in process, operations and
also the recovery of by-products and reduction in
specification and consumption norms. Efforts will also be
directed to evolve low capital and energy saving processing
systems.
Section 10.2 Research in Mining Methods
Mining methods determine the safety, economy, speed
and the percentage of extraction of the ore reserved from a
mine. Research and development thrust shall be directed
specially in the areas of rock mechanics, ground control,
mine, design engineering, equipment deployment/
maintenance, energy conservation, environmental protection,
safety of operations and human engineering.
Section 10.4 Deep Sea Mining
India is a pioneer investor and has been allocated a mine
site of 150, 000 sq. kms. in the Indian Ocean for exclusive
survey and exploration. Deep ocean resources represent an
exceptionally large and potentially important mineral
resource, Integrated systems for exploration, exploitation,
mining and processing of these resources shall be expedited
with the development/acquisition of necessary technologies.
Appropriate mechanism for coordinating the survey and
exploration of Deep Sea Bed Area will be established by the
Department of Ocean Development.
Comment: There is a new Offshore Areas Minerals
(Development & Regulation) Act, 2002 to facilitate this
process.
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957
This is an Act to provide for the ‘development and
regulation of mines and minerals under the control of the
Union.
- Section 4 A (1) & (2): Provides for the premature
termination of prospecting lease and mining lease, on
environment and other grounds.
- Section 5 (2) states that the State Government shall not
grant any mining lease unless there is a mining plan duly
approved by the Central Government or the State Government
as the case may be.
- Section 13 authorises the Central Government to make
rules for regulating grant of reconnaissance permits,
prospecting licenses and mining leases and 13(2)qq in
particular authorizes the Central Government to make rules
to determine “the manner in which rehabilitation of flora and
other vegetation; such as trees, shrubs and the like destroyed
by reason of any prospecting or mining operations shall be
Undermining India
made in the same area or in any other area selected by the
Central government (whether by way of reimbursement of
the cost of rehabilitation or otherwise) by the person holding
the prospecting license or mining lease”.
Comment: See chapter 7 where these provisions are
examined.
- Section 15 authorises the State Governments to make rules
for regulating the grant of quarrying leases, mining leases
and other mineral concessions for minor minerals and
section 15 (1A) (i) in particular authorizes the States to make
rules to determine “the manner in which the rehabilitation of
flora and other vegetation, such as trees, shrubs and the like
destroyed by reasons of any quarrying or mining operations
shall be made in the same area or in any other area selected
by the State Government (whether by way of reimbursement
of the cost of rehabilitation or otherwise) by the person
holding the quarrying or mining lease”.
- Section 18 (1) says that “it shall be the duty of the Central
Government to take all such steps as may be necessary for
the conservation and systematic development of minerals in
India and for the protection of environment by preventing or
controlling any pollution which may be caused by prospecting
or mining operations and for such purposes the Central
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make
such rules as it thinks fit.” Section 18 (2) lists issues on
which these rules can be made and it covers several
environmental aspects.
Mineral Concession Rules (MCR) , 1960
These rules have been enacted under the MMDR, 1957.
- In the case of fresh grant of mining lease or renewal of
lease the Rule 22 of MCR has elaborated the procedure for
submission of mining plan. Rule 22 (5) states that amongst
other things the Mining Plan shall incorporate: “the plan of
the area showing natural water courses, limits of reserves
and other forest areas and density of trees, if any, assessment
of impact of mining activity on forest, land surface and
environment including air and water pollution; details of
scheme of restoration of the area by afforestation, land
reclamation, use of pollution control devices and such other
measures as may be directed by the Central Government or
the State Government from time to time.”
- Rule 22 A,B,C and 22 BB give details of preparation and
approval of mining plan.
- Rule 27 (1) specifies that every mining lease shall be subject
to certain conditions which include:
“ (s) the lessee shall –
(i) take immediate measures for planting in the same area or
any other area selected by the Central Government not less
than twice the number of trees destroyed by reasons of any
mining operations;
(ii) look after them during the subsistence of the lease after
which these trees shall be handed over to the State Forest
Department or any other authority nominated by the Central
or State Government;
(iii) restore to the extent possible other flora destroyed by
the mining operations.
Undermining India
Comment: See Chapter 7
- Rule 73 Assessment of compensation for damage
“ (1) After the termination of a reconnaissance permit or a
prospecting license or a mining lease, the State Government
shall assess the damage, if any, done to the land by the
reconnaissance or prospecting or mining operations and shall
determine the amount of compensation payable by the permit
holder or licensee or the lessee as the case may be, to the
occupier of the surface land.
(2) Every such assessment shall be made within a period of
one year from the date of termination of the reconnaissance
permit or prospecting permit or mining lease and shall be
carried out by an officer appointed by the State Government
by notification in this behalf.”
-In addition to the above there are specific clauses in the
‘Model Form of Mining Lease’ which is attached as Form K
under the Rules. Clauses 1,3,4,5 of Part III, and clauses 11C,
11D, 11E, 15, 19 and 20 of Part VII on surface damage, felling
of trees, payment of compensation etc. Particularly 11C in
Part VII says: “The lessee shall take measures for the
protection of environment like planting of trees, reclamation
of land, use of pollution control devices; and such other
measures as may be prescribed by the Central Government
or State Government, from time to time, at his own expense.”
Mineral Conservation & Development Rules
(MCDR), 1988 (amended upto 25th September 2000)
These have been enacted under the MMDR, 1957, for the
conservation and development of minerals.
Chapter V, Rule 31 to 41, is entirely on Environment.
31. Protection of environment:
Every holder of a prospecting license or a mining lease shall
take all possible precautions for the protection of
environment and control of pollution while conducting
prospecting, mining, beneficiation or metallurgical
operations in the area.
32. Removal and utilisation of top soil:
(1) Every holder of a prospecting license or a mining lease
shall, wherever top soil exists and is to be excavated for
prospecting or mining operations, remove it separately.
(2) The top soil so removed shall be utilised for restoration
or rehabilitation of the land which is no longer required for
prospecting or mining operations or for stabilising or
landscaping the external dumps.
(3) Whenever the top soil cannot be utilized concurrently, it
shall be stored separately for future use.
33. Storage of overburden, waste rock, etc.:
(1) Every holder of a prospecting license or a mining lease
shall take steps so that the overburden, waste rock, rejects
and fines generated during prospecting and mining operations
or tailings, slimes and fines produced during sizing, sorting
and beneficiation or metallurgical operations shall be stored
in separate dumps.
(2) The dumps shall be properly secured to prevent escape
of material therefrom in harmful quantities which may cause
degradation of environment and to prevent causation of
floods.
67
(3) The site for dumps, tailings or slimes shall be selected as
for as possible on impervious ground to ensure minimum
leaching effects due to precipitations.
(4) Wherever possible, the waste rock, overburden etc. shall
be back-filled into the mine excavations with a view to
restoring the land to its original use as far as possible.
(5) Wherever back-filling of waste rock in the area excavated
during mining operations is not feasible, the waste dumps
shall be suitably terraced and stabilised though vegetation or
otherwise.
(6) The fines, rejects or tailings from mine, beneficiation or
metallurgical plants shall be deposited and disposed in a
specially prepared tailings disposal area such that they are
not allowed to flow away and cause land degradation or damage
to agricultural field, pollution of surface water bodies and
ground water or cause floods.
34. Reclamation and rehabilitation of lands:
Every holder of prospecting license or mining lease shall
undertake the phased restoration, reclamation and
rehabilitation of lands affected by prospecting or mining
operations and shall complete this work before the conclusion
of such operations and the abandonment of prospect or mine.
Comment: No clear definitions of the terms again.
35. Precaution against ground vibrations:
Whenever any damage to public buildings or monuments is
apprehended due to their proximity to the mining lease area,
scientific investigations shall be carried out by the holder of
mining lease so as to keep the ground vibrations caused by
blasting operations within safe limit.
36. Control of surface subsidence:
Stoping in underground mines shall be so carried out as to
keep surface subsidence under control.
37. Precaution against air pollution:
Air pollution due to fines, dust, smoke or gaseous emissions
during prospecting, mining, beneficiation or metallurgical
operations and related activities shall be controlled and kept
within ‘Permissible Limits’ specified under various
environmental laws of the country including the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (14 of 1981)
and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986)
by the holder of prospecting license or a mining lease.
38. Discharge of toxic liquid:
Every holder of prospecting license or a mining lease shall
take all possible precautions to prevent or reduce the
discharge of toxic and objectionable liquid effluents from
mine, workshop, beneficiation or metallurgical plants., tailing
ponds, into surface water bodies, ground water aquifer and
useable lands, to a minimum. These effluents shall be suitably
treated, if required, to conform to the standards laid down in
this regard.
39. Precaution against noise :
Noise arising out of prospecting, mining, beneficiation or
metallurgical operations shall be abated or controlled by the
holder of prospecting license or a mining lease at the source
so as to keep it within the permissible limit.
40. Permissible limits and standards:
68
The standards and permissible limits of all pollutants, toxins
and noise referred to in rules 37, 38 and 39 shall be those
notified by the concerned authorities under the provisions
of the relevant statutes from time to time.
Section 41. Restoration of flora:
(1) Every holder of prospecting license or a mining lease
shall carry out prospecting or mining operations, as the case
may be, in such a manner so as to cause least damage to the
flora of the area held under prospecting license or mining
lease and the nearby areas.
(2) Every holder of prospecting license or a mining lease
shall
(a) take immediate measures for planting in the same area or
any other area selected by the Controller General or the
authorized officer not less than twice the number of trees
destroyed by reason of any prospecting or mining operations;
(b) look after them during the subsistence of the license/
lease after which these trees shall be handed over to the State
Forest Department or any other authority as may be
nominated by the Controller General or the authorized officer
and;
(c) restore to the extent possible, other flora destroyed by
prospecting or mining operations.
Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988
- Rule 4(2) states that a scheme for prospecting shall include
baseline information of prevailing environmental conditions
before the beginning of the prospecting operations.
- Rule 11,12 and 13 relate to the submission of the mining
plans by leases existing before the coming in of the MCDR,
whereby a lessee has been asked to submit a plan within a
year of the commencement of these rules and then work
according to the plan.
- Rule 56 says that if the Controller General, Chief Controller
of Mines or the Controller of Mines, feel that a particular
mine poses a grave and immediate threat to the environment,
they may prohibit deployment of persons until the conditions
specified by them are met.
Comment: The environmental provisions within mining
laws are primarily related to environmental management
and mitigation.As far as mine restoration is concerned,
which becomes a critical issue in already mined areas in
ecologically sensitive areas, there are several provisions
but they use a multiplicity of terms and are very vague
and incomplete, e.g. Use of terminology such as ‘restore
to the extent possible’. There is a lack of a clear framework
on restoration currently, both in mining and environment/
forest laws and policies. This has been dealt with at length
in Chapter 7. A positive development as far as ‘mine
closure’ is concerned is that the Mineral Advisory Council
(MAC) has been discussing this issue at length in the recent
past and a draft framework has been prepared for that to
incorporate into the MCDR, 1988, and MCR, 1960. This
essentially focuses on incorporating in law the need to
prepare a mine closure plan at the beginning of mining
operations itself. This will facilitate progressive
rehabilitation while mining is on as well as after the
Undermining India
cessation of mining activities and will ensure that mine
operators give financial assurance for fulfilling the same.
At the 27th , meeting of the MAC in September 2002, the
council recommended that a Committee under the
Chairmanship of Additional Secretary (Mines) shall go into
various issues relating to mine closure plan. It was stated
that the Committee would keep the interest of both the
mining industry and the communities in mind while giving
its recommendations and these recommendations would be
discussed in next Conference of State Ministers of Mining
and Geology. At the conference which took place in January
22, 2003, a decision was taken that the Mineral Concession
Rules, 1960 (MCR, 1960) and Mineral Conservation and
Development Rules (MCDR, 1988) would be amended to
make appropriate provisions for mine closure. These
provisions shall specify the duties and responsibilities of
the mining lease holder and also provide for financial
assurance for fulfilling the same. This is a very positive
development. But it is important that while devicing a
framework for mine closure the draft plans are made
available for public comment so that inputs from various
sectors can be received before legislating it.
While both environmental laws and environmental
provisions within mining laws for in operation mines are
there, enforcement remains a critical issue. The MoEF is
currently carrying out a India- Environmental Management

The Samatha judgement

Samatha is a group working on tribal issues in Andhra Pradesh. The north coastal area of Andhra Pradesh is a rich forest area and
home to tribal communities whose lives are intricately linked with the natural resources. These areas are also scheduled areas, coming
under the ‘fifth schedule’ of the Indian Constitution where adivasis enjoy constitutional privileges for protection of their lands. Nevertheless,
this has not stopped non-tribals from grabbing tribal lands. The Vizag district is also rich in mineral resources such as calcite, bauxite,
limestone, mica, etc. and adivasis in Anantgari Mandal were victims of powerful economic lobbies in the form of the mining industry. Small
private mining companies were in occupation of tribal lands and were using tribals as labourers. The tribals in Borra Panchayat who have
been inhabiting these hills for centuries (The Borra caves, which are world famous geological formations of stalactites and stalagmites,
date back to the pre-historic age) were denied title deeds to their own lands. On the other hand, mining companies were given leases
since the 1960’s on tribal and forest lands. The first major company to come into the area was Birla Periclase. The company was given a
120 acres lease for exploiting calcite, one of the principal raw materials for their Sea Water Magnesia plant near Bhimli.
It was found that the lease was against the land transfer regulations of the scheduled area. Besides a local peoples movement, the
issue was taken up in Andhra Pradesh High Court as a Public Interest Litigation, filed in 1993, as it amounted to transfer of lands from
tribals to non-tribals. A stay order was granted.
But this was vacated in 1995 and the case was dismissed by the High Court. Subsequently a special leave petition was filed in the
Supreme Court. In July 1997, the SC gave a historic judgement. It was ruled that the mining leases were against the land transfer
regulations and therefore null and void. Some of the highlights of the judgement were:
a) Government lands, forest lands and tribal lands in the scheduled area cannot be leased out to non tribals or to private industries;
b) Government cannot lease out lands in scheduled areas for mining operations to non tribals as it is in contradiction of the Fifth Schedule
for the constitution;
c) Mining activity in scheduled areas can be taken up only by Andhra Pradesh State Mineral Development Corporation or a co-operative of
tribals and that if they are in compliance with the Forest Conservation Act and the Environment Protection Act.
d) The court recognized the 73 rd Constitutional Amendments Act and the A.P Panchayat Raj (Extension of Scheduled Areas) Act by stating
that the Gram Sabha shall be competent to safeguard and preserve community resources and thereby reiterated the need to give the right
of self governance to tribals.
e) If necessary, the court felt the Chief Secretary of A.P state should constitute a committee consisting of himself, Secretary (Industry),
Secretary (Forest), Secretary (Social Welfare) to have the factual information collected and considered whether it is feasible to permit the
industry to carry on mining operations. The committee consisting of Ministers for Industries, Forests and Tribal welfare to examine the issue
whether licenses could be allowed to continue or whether expedients to prohibit further mining operations.
f) In case where the similar Acts in other states do not totally prohibit grant of mining lease of the lands in the Scheduled area, similar
committee of secretaries and State Cabinet sub committees, should be constituted and decision taken thereafter. Before granting lease, it
would be obligatory for the state government to obtain concurrence of the Central Govt. by constituting a sub-committee headed by the
Prime Minister and other Union Ministers.
g) The court also felt that it would be appropriate to constitute a conference of Chief Ministers and concerned union ministers to take a
policy decision so as to bring about a suitable enactment for a consistent scheme throughout the country in respect of the tribal lands and
exploitation of mineral wealth.
h) The state government was therefore, directed to stop all industries from mining operation.
i) The court opinioned that since the Executive is enjoined to protect social, economical and educational interest of the tribals, when the
State leases out the lands in the scheduled areas to non-tribals or industries for exploitation of mineral resources, it transmits the above
correlative constitutional duties and obligation to those who undertake to exploit the natural resources. The court directed that at least 30%
of the net profits should be set apart as a permanent fund as part of the industrial/business activity for establishment and maintenance of
water resources, school, hospitals, sanitation and transport facilities by laying roads, etc. This 20% allocation would not include the
expenditure for reforestation and maintenance of ecology.
This legal victory was a great reassurance of democratic space to tribals and constitutional rights. Mining activities in the scheduled
areas of AP immediately came to a halt and the companies were directed to close down their work. Tribals could take back their lands and
practise agriculture and get control over their natural resources.
To read about the post-Samatha judgement developments, read note by Samatha in chapter 6.

Undermining India 69
Capacity Building Technical Assistance Project. This has a
mining sub-component. Institutional strengthening is a
focus area in this. It aims to strengthen institutions such as
the India Bureau of Mines, the MoEF, the Central Pollution
Board at the Centre and at the regional levels: regional
offices of the MoEF, State Pollution Control Boards. All of
these are responsible for some of the following functions:
policy making, legislation, standard setting and
enforcement. These agencies are planned to be
strengthened to monitor compliance of EMP and the
prescribed environmental standards amongst other things.
The project description also says they will be will develop
expertise in planning, designing, and implementing
environmentally ‘benign’ projects.
At the 34th Annual General meeting of the Federation
of Indian Mineral Industries in July 2000, the Minister of
Environment and Forests, Their T.R. Baalu, said: “My
Ministry has recently assessed the status of compliance of
environmental safeguards stipulated for various mining
projects. I regret to tell that the status of compliance is poor,
to say the least. If perceptible improvement in performance
on environmental matters is not to be seen, the Government
will be constrained to take a hard view.”
Whether the Capacity Building project will change this
scenario is yet to be seen. A lot depends on a change in
mindset of miners, even if the MAC might agree with the
MoEF suggestions in this regard. But environmental
management in working mines is an issue on which there
is a greater chance of consensus. The above sections on
‘environmental provisions within mining laws’ are not the
ones which will be the main cause for conflict in the future.
Partly because we have a full-fledged ministry (MoEF) to
look at environmental aspects and set of environmental
laws which could more than fill in the gaps which are there
in the mining legislation on environmental aspects. The
real conflict will be over access to land for mining. It will
be necessary to gauge in a just and fair manner whether
mining is an appropriate landuse in a particular area or
not. Long-term ecological and livelihood security cannot
be compromised for short-term gains.
Other important laws and policies:
While talking of access or denial of access to lands for
mining one needs to take a look at the policies governing
land and those related to governance of areas such as
scheduled areas which have restrictions on land transfer. This
becomes especially necessary because most of the notified
‘scheduled areas’ are ecologically-rich and of course are
home to tribal communities. While we will not be addressing
these laws in detail, we will take a look at the Panchayat
(Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, which has great
significance for governance and landuse in scheduled areas.
Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996
(This a note by Shantha Bushan, Kalpavriksh)
Article 244 (i) of the Indian Constitution provides for
tribal dominated areas in the country to be declared as ‘fifth
70
schedule’13 areas (except the North East which has a separate
provision in the sixth schedule of the constitution). The
Governors of the concerned states have been given extensive
powers and may prevent or amend any law enacted by
Parliament or the State assembly that could harm the tribal
interests. It is a tool of “positive discrimination” to protect
the interests of tribal communities which have been exploited
over the years and unique systems of governance and natural
resource management. One of the most significant provisions
is the prevention of land transfer to non-tribals in these areas.
The Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA),
1996, applies to these areas and seeks to give the communities
greater control over their natural resources and
developmental planning.
Scheduled areas constitute some of the most ecologically
and culturally sensitive areas in the country and have been
susceptible to exploitation of both natural resources and
people. Seen in this light, the provisions of PESA have
fundamental implications for the future of Schedule V areas.
This Act was a landmark in terms of the various powers that
have been devolved, especially relating to natural resource
management. Each of the provisions of this act is important
from the point of view of livelihood of the communities of
Schedule V areas. Some of these powers are merely
consultative, while some are actually ownership rights such
as that of minor forest produce. The Gram Sabha14 has the
power to control village markets, control over money lending,
power to control over local plans and resources, power to
enforce prohibition, manage water bodies, follow customary
methods of dispute resolution etc. There are several states
having Schedule V areas: Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat,
Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa and
Rajasthan Chattisgarh and Jharkhand15 .
A brief history: The Scheduled Districts Act XVI, 1874,
was the first significant measure to be taken to deal with all
“backward-tribal dominated” areas (as a group) and envisaged
these areas to be outside the jurisdiction of the normal
administration. By this Act, the executive could extend any
enactment in force in any part of British India to a “scheduled
district”, while also providing any necessary protection. The
Montague-Chemsford Report, 1918, also addressed the
question of the administration of the “backward areas”. It
considered that political reforms contemplated for India
could not be applied in the same way to the “primitive”
peoples. The report suggested the demarcation of areas of
such peoples and the exclusion of such areas’ from the normal
laws of the provinces. Consequently, the Government of India
Act,1919, was enacted to implement the report’s
recommendations.
The 1919 Act divided the “backward areas” into two
categories - “wholly excluded” areas and “modified excluded”
areas, in which the laws could be introduced with
modifications. In 1929, the Simon Commission concluded
that “backwardness” of these scheduled areas precluded them
from any kind of representative government. The Government
of India Act, 1935, classified the backward areas as
Undermining India
 “excluded” and “partially excluded” areas. Where there was
an enclave or an area inhabited by a compact adivasi
population, it was classified as an “excluded area”. Several
areas in the North East were assigned the category of
“excluded” areas. Whenever the area under consideration had
adivasi population mixed with other communities, it was
classified as “partially excluded”. Large areas in peninsular
India were categorised as “partially excluded”. These areas
were placed under the provincial rule of the Governor. In
these areas, no Act or law of the central or provincial
legislature would apply, but the Governor was authorised to
apply such laws with modifications as necessary. These
provisions were incorporated, with a few changes, into the
Constitution of independent India. “Wholly excluded” areas
were incorporated into Sixth Schedule and “partially
excluded” areas into the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution.16
As pointed out earlier, Article 244 (i) of the constitution
provides for a ‘fifth schedule’, which can be applied to any
state other than those in Northeast India. The Governors of
the concerned state have been given extensive powers, and
may prevent or amend any law enacted by Parliament or the
State assembly that could harm the tribal interests.
The Seventy Third amendment to the Constitution (passed
in 1993) had elaborate provisions to provide democratic local
self- government in the rural areas. A section, Part IX, “The
Panchayats” was included in the constitution by this
amendment. This section on Panchayats deals with the
structure, duties and responsibilities of the Panchayat in the
village. However, Article 243M prohibits application of the
provisions of part IX of the Constitution in the Scheduled
Areas referred to in Article 244 (clause 1 and clause 2).
Further Article 243M (clause 4(b)) allows the Parliament to
make laws to extend the provisions of the Act subject to
certain conditions. A committee was set up to extend the
provisions of Panchayats as applicable to Schedule V areas.
This was headed by Member of Parliament, Shri Bhuria, and
was called the Bhuria Committee. Based on the
recommendations of the Bhuria Committee, the Panchayat
Extension to Scheduled Areas Act (PESA Act) was passed
in December 1996.
Here we briefly look at the relevance of this act vis-a-vis
mining. In India there has been considerable conflict between
tribals/other local communities and mining companies over
the choice of land use. Commencing mining means getting
access to lands. Some of the provisions in PESA in this
respect are interesting:
l 4(i) the Gram Sabha or the Panchayat at the appropriate
level shall be consulted before the acquisition of land in
Scheduled areas for development projects and before
resettling or rehabilitating persons affected by such projects
in scheduled areas. The actual planning and implementation
of the projects in the scheduled area shall be done at the State
level.
l 4(m)(iii) Gram Sabha is endowed with power to prevent
alienation of land in scheduled areas and to take appropriate
action to restore any unlawfully alienated land of a scheduled
Undermining India
area.
The importance of these provisions are crucial. According
to a conservative estimate17 about 213 lakh people have been
displaced due to various development projects (between 1951
and 1990), of which 40% have been tribals. In this context
PESA changes things in important ways by saying that the
people will have to be consulted. Although consultation does
not mean ‘full, informed, consent’, it has been a step forward,
a ‘foothold’ for people fighting to protect their lands and the
natural resources in scheduled areas. The government of India
subsequently issued an order to further articulate 4(i) of PESA
titled: “Procedure to be followed for Land Acquisition in
Schedule V areas”. This GOI order lays down the procedure
for acquisition of land for any purpose in Schedule V areas
by carrying out consultations with local people. It remains to
be seen how these orders are implemented. People will need
to demand the enforcement of legal ‘spaces’ available to
them. Implementing these provisions in the scheduled areas
of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya
Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa and Rajasthan Chattisgarh and
Jharkhand, many of which are mineral rich areas, will be one
small step towards ensuring greater sensitivity in
developmental planning in some of our most ecologically
and culturally sensitive areas.
Provision 4(k) and 4(l) directly relate to mining and
mining leases.
4(k) “the recommendation of the Gram Sabha or Panchayat
at the appropriate level shall be made mandatory prior to grant
of prospective license or mining lease for minor minerals in
the Scheduled Areas.”
4(l) the prior recommendation of the Gram Sabha or
Panchayat at the appropriate level shall be made mandatory
for grant of concession for the exploitation of minor minerals
by auction.
Comment: In September 2002 the Mineral Advisory Council
has recommended that the State Governments could extend
the spirit of Panchayats Act, 1996 voluntarily also to the
non-Scheduled areas of the State in the matter of granting
mineral concessions for minor minerals. This is a positive
development.
But it is now high time the MAC, the mining industry and
the government respect the provisions of the fifth schedule
of the constitution in all respects and consult the Gram
Sabhas for all kinds of mining in these and other areas.
That will really be understanding and implementing the
spirit of the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act.
Endnotes:
1
For further details, see http://sdnp.delhi.nic.in/nbsap, or contact:
D.D. Verma, Jt. Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Paryavaran
Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110003; Tel: 011-24361613;
Email: sarat@menf.delhi.nic.in
Ashish Kothari, Kalpavriksh, Apt. 5 Shree Dutta Krupa, 908 Deccan Gymkhana,
Pune 411004; Tel/fax: 020-5654239; Email: ashish@nda.vsnl.net.in
Kanchi Kohli, Kalpavriksh, J20 Jangpura Extension, New Delhi 110014; Tel/
Fax: 011-24316717; Email: nbsapna@vsnl.net
71
Vibha Ahuja, BCIL, Anuvrat Bhawan 5th Floor, 210 Deen Dayal Upadhyay
Marg, New Delhi 110002; Tel: 011-23219064; Fax: 3219063; References:
Email: biotech@nda.vsnl.net.in; vibhaahuja@biotech.co.in Mann & Chatterjee, 1978, Impact of Mining operations on the ecosystem in
2
For full text of the Notification see http://envfor.nic.in/legis Rajasthan, India; in M.K. Nali (Ed.) Ecology and Resource DevelopmentVol.
3
All minerals other than those notified as “minor minerals” by the Central II, Paragon Press
Government are major minerals. In Indian mining law “minerals” includes all Soni et al., 1989, Ecological Approach towards reclaiming mined ecosystems,
minerals except mineral oils (natural gas and petroleum). The Mines and Indian Forester 115(12):875-883
Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, defines “minor minerals” as: John, J., 2000, Mining Industry in India & dynamics of people’s resistance,
“ 3 (e) “ minor minerals” means building stones, gravels, ordinary clay, ordinary Labour File, Vol. 6 No. 6 & 7.
sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes, and any other mineral
which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette
declare to be a minor mineral.”
Apart from the minerals already listed in the above clause the Central
Government has declared 15 other minerals as minor minerals. No exhaustive
definition of minor mineral which states the criteria for declaring any mineral
as minor mineral has been given in any law. But minor minerals have generally
been minerals used for building and construction purposes. The State
governments has considerable powers to regulate the mining of minor minerals,
including grant of mining leases. Generally these minerals are somewhat of
local importance and can be developed on the small scale.
4
The Gujarat based group, Janvikas, got a good order from the Gujarat High
Court which gave directives on some procedural aspects of public hearings
which had been found to be problematic.
5
Reclamation / Restoration - Techniques & Strategies for Mined out Areas,
Indian Bureau of Mines, August 2000
6
See agenda papers for the Mineral Advisory Council meeting held in
September 2002.
7
Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Ranchi
8
The earlier Indian Board of Wildlife did not have a legal backing under the
WLPA.
9
As per the existing WLPA, alteration of the boundaries of a PA can be done
by a resolution passed by the legislature of the State. Supreme Court rulings
in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337/95 (Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-
India Vs Union of India & Ors.) have ensured that the state governments seek
the approval of the Standing Committee of the Indian Board for Wildlife before
any alteration in area. The new provision now formalises this under the WLPA.
10
Infact the Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, was amended
to change its name to ‘Development and Regulation’ as it was argued that
development is more important than regulation.
11
The “scheduled areas” here refers to the “fifth schedule” of the Indian
constitution. Article 244 (i) provides for tribal dominated areas in the country
to be declared as fifth schedule areas (except the North East which has a
separate provision in the sixth schedule of the constitution). The Governors
of the concerned states have been given extensive powers and may prevent
or amend any law enacted by Parliament or the State assembly that could
harm the tribal interests. It is a tool of “positive discrimination” to protect the
interests of tribal communities which have been exploited over the years. One
of the most significant provisions for these areas are the prevention of land
transfer to non-tribals in these areas. The Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled
Areas) Act, 1996, applies to these areas and seeks to give the communities
greater control over their natural resources and developmental planning in
the area.
12
The Civil Appeal Nos. 4601 and 4602/97 in the Supreme Court were filed by
the group Samatha working on tribal issues in Andhra Pradesh. The litigation
was pertaining to the grant of mining leases to private parties in the scheduled
areas of Vizag district in Andhra Pradesh. Besides the social impacts and the
violation of tribal rights which this mining would have caused, it also had
tremendous environmental implications, as this area falls in an ecologically
fragile portion of the eastern ghats
13
From now on referred to as Schedule V
14
The entire adult population of a settlement, and not only elected
representatives
15
There are other states which have tribal areas but are not declared either
Schedule V or Schedule VI. Schedule VI is applicable in Northeast India.
16
Certain tribal areas had not been listed as “partially excluded” or “excluded”
by the colonial rulers in 1874. This had not been remedied till now and there is
pressure to include certain tribal dominated areas in “schedule V”. Parts of
Kerala, Tamilnadu, Karnataka are in this category of having been excluded
from the Fifth Schedule.
17
Walter Fernandes, North East Social Research Centre, Guwahati.

72 Undermining India
 Chapter V
The response of courts to mining with specific
reference to ecologically sensitive areas1
by Ritwick Dutta
In 1991, the Supreme Court was approached by the Tarun
Bharat Sangh, an NGO based in Alwar, to protect the Sariska
Tiger Reserve from the ravages of mining operations. Over
400 mining leases were granted by the State Government
within the boundaries of the Tiger Reserve. This was probably
one of the first cases where mining in a protected area was
brought to the attention of the Highest Court.2 In responding
to the case the Court viewed its role vis-a-vis mining in
particular and environment in general. The Court in its order
stated:
“This litigation concerns environment. A great American
Judge emphasizing the imperative issue of environment said
that he placed Government above big business, individual
liberty above Government and environment above all. The
issues and concern in this case far transcend the trivialities
and inhibitions of an adversarial litigation. All the parties must
be forthcoming in a concerted effort to find a satisfying
solution to the problem which, in more than one way, is typical
of the Indian predicament. We are, therefore, entitled to
expect that the state Government and mining entrepreneurs
in their own enlightened self interest will discard the adversial
litigative stance. The issue of environment must and shall
receive the highest attention from this Court”.3
In reviewing the Court cases concerning mining one notes
three general phases in the Courts approach:
l In the first phase which began around the 1980’s with the
Doon Valley case, the Courts for the first time recognized
the environmental dimensions of the problems. Not that the
environmental problems due to mining were unknown in the
past. However, what was different was that for the first time
there was a realization of the fact that unregulated and
haphazard mining could have catastrophic environmental
consequences. The recognition of the problem and the need
to take immediate steps was also facilitated by the growth of
Public Interest Litigation, whereby rather than seeking private
benefit, the petitioner seeks to champion a public cause for
the benefit of society.
l The second phase involved the clarification of the
provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA), 1980.
The question asked was: Would renewal of a mining lease be
treated as grant of a new lease and require the prior approval
of the Central Government ?
l The third phase concerns the vigorous implementation by
the Higher Court of the provisions of environmental law,
including principles of International environmental law in
order to control environmentally damaging mining. This phase
started with the Supreme Courts proactive role in the T.N.
Undermining India
Godavarman case.4
It was the efforts of the Dehradun based NGO, the Rural
Litigation and Entitlement Kendra (RLEK), which for the
first time drew attention of the Courts to the disastrous
impacts of mining. The Doon Mining case is significant as
being the first case requiring the Supreme Court to balance
environmental and ecological integrity against industrial
demands on forest resources (Diwan and Rosencranz, 2001).
The case arose from the unregulated and hazardous mining in
the Himalayas adjoining the Doon Valley. In 1982, eighteen
leases came up for renewal. The state, finally recognizing
the disastrous impact of mining in the Doon valley, rejected
all the renewal lease application. The efforts of the state was
however thwarted by the Allahabad High Court, which issued
an injunction allowing the mining to continue. RLEK however
sent a letter to the Supreme Court complaining about the
disastrous impacts of the mining. The Supreme Court
exercised its epistolary jurisdiction (accepting a letter
petition) and treated the letter as a writ petition under Article
32 of the Constitution. The case developed into complex
litigation as lease holders of more than 100 mines joined the
action, engaging an impressive array of the nation’s top
lawyers to argue for continued mining in the region (Diwan
and Rosencranz, 2001).
In the Doon Mining case, the Court concluded that
mining in the valley violated the Forest (conservation) Act,
1980. Further, the court went beyond the requirements of
the Act to merely conserve forests and issued orders to
ensure that the valley be reforested. The court noted that
although the state of Uttar Pradesh had a reforestation
programme, the results were not satisfactory. It established
a Monitoring Committee comprising of Central, State and
local officials and two “public spirited” citizens to oversee
reforestation, mining activities and ‘all other aspects
necessary to bring about normalcy in the Doon Valley. The
Court also provided the Monitoring Committee with funding
by ordering that 25 percent of the gross profit of the
remaining mines be deposited in a fund controlled by the
committee. 5
In addition to preservation of forests, the Supreme Court
expressed concern about the welfare of the mine operators
and labourers left unemployed by closure of mines around
Dehradun. It issued the following directions to mitigate the
effects of closure.
l The mine owners whose operations were terminated by
the court be given priority for leases in new areas opened to
limestone mining.
73
l An eco task force should reclaim and reforest the area
damaged by mining and that workers displaced by mine
closure be given priority for jobs with the Eco-Task Force
operations in the region.
Mining leases
The aspects related to renewal of a lease was something
which has been the subject of litigation, particularly in the
early years of the FCA. Now under Annexure III of the
Consolidated Guidelines under the FCA is reproduced the
Law Department’s advice with respect to mining leases based
on litigation which has taken place on the subject:
“(i ) In respect of the mining operations being carried out on
forest lands leased before the commencement of the Forest
(Conservation) Act,1980, during the continuance of the lease
period, the approval of the Central Govt. under Section 2 of
the said Act is not required.
(ii)A renewal of a lease is really the grant of a fresh lease.
[See State of Tamil Nadu Vs Hind Stones etc. delivered on
February 5, 1981 (S.C. Reports pg. 742-70) and Samatha Vs
State of Andhra Pradesh and others delivered on July 11,
1997]. The prior approval of the Central Govt. in terms of
section 2 of the Forest (Conservation)Act,1980 would be
required when a mining lease granted before the
commencement of the said Act is renewed after its coming
into force.
(iii) As held by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Banshi
Ram Modi (supra), prior approval of the Central Govt. in terms
of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation)Act,1980, would
not be required for mining and winning any new mineral from
a forest land leased for mining before the commencement
of the said Act during the leased period originally granted, if
the said land is already broken up or cleared before the
commencement of the Act. Otherwise, the prior approval of
the Central Govt. under Section 2 of the said Act would be
required.”
Growth of Public Interest Litigation
The years after the Doon litigation saw some major cases
on the environment and the development of Public Interest
Litigation (PIL). The liberalization of the criteria for locus
standi has prompted more and more groups and individuals
to approach the highest courts in demanding their right to a
clean and decent environment. The epistolary jurisdiction
(letter petition) provided a new channel for people to
highlight activities threatening the environment.
A landmark case as mentioned earlier was the Sariska
Mining Case.6 In this case the petitioners challenged the grant
over 400 mining privileges to various persons within the
boundaries of the Sariska Tiger Reserve (consisting of Sariska
National Park and Sariska Sanctuary). According to the
petitioners such grant of lease violates the provisions of the
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980, and also the state laws on forest and wildlife. The
Court took serious exceptions to the grant of mining leases
in the protected area. It said:
“The purpose of the notification declaring the area as an
Game Reserve under the Rajasthan Wild Animals and Birds
74
Protection Act, 1951; or the declaration of the area as a
sanctuary under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and
the notification dated 1-1-1975 declaring the area as a
protected forest under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, is to
protect the forest wealth and wildlife of the area. It is, indeed
odd that the State Government while professing to
protect the environment by means of these notification
and declarations should, at the same time permit the
degradation of the environment by authorizing mining
operation in the protected area.” ( Emphasis added)
The Sariska mining case was a highly complicated case
involving interpretation of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980, the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, and the local Acts of Rajasthan. A
major point of dispute was whether section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act extends over a:
(a) Protected Forest (This was prior to the Godavarman
Case)
(b) Tiger Reserve.
With respect to the first point the Court stated: “Once an
area is declared as a protected forest, it comes within the
purview of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It becomes
a forest land within the meaning of Section 2. The effect of
this position is that no non-forest activity can be carried out
without the prior approval of the Central Government. Even
the state government cannot carry out such non-forest activity
in the said area without the prior approval. That mining activity
amounts to non-forest activity is beyond dispute.”
With respect to the Tiger Reserve however the position
was different. A tiger reserve under Project Tiger is
established through an administrative directive and that by
itself affords no statutory protection. To prevent mining, the
prohibition must have some statutory backing (Diwan and
Rosencranz 2001). However the backing was eventually
provided by the Aravalli Notification issued under Section 3
of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (see Chapter 4).7
According to the Court:
“ Maybe that the declaration as tiger reserve was without
any statutory authority and is relatable to the executive power
of the Union of India – but the notification issue under
Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act puts a stamp
of statutory authority over it.”
Although, it is commendable that the Government of India
brought out the notification restricting certain activities
including mining in the Sariska Tiger Reserve, it is strange as
to why all Tiger Reserves were not included in the EPA
Notification. Giving statutory protection to Tiger reserves
would have done much to save the other Tiger Reserves from
mining and other “developmental” threats.8
The steps taken for the protection of the Doon valley by
the Supreme Court were followed by the Himachal Pradesh
High Court’s steps to protect the Saproon Valley from
degradation in the General Public of Saproon Valley Vs
State of Himachal Pradesh Case.9 The mountains of the
Saproon valley are rich in limestone deposits that have been
quarried for over a century. The debris resulting from blasting,
obstructed the paths, field and houses and destroyed the
Undermining India
vegetation as well. It also affected the general ecology of
the area. The expansion of unscientific and unsystematic
mining operation in the 1980’s caused severe water pollution
and erosion of the top soil. In this petition filed by the
residents of Saproon valley, the High Court accepted the
recommendation of the expert committee and ordered the
mines where scientific mining was not economically viable
or technically possible to shut down.
The guidelines for the executive agencies assessing an
application to mine in a forest were set out by the Supreme
Court in Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh:10
“ mining operations, though detrimental to forest
growth, are part of layout of the industry, provisions should
be made for investment or infrastructure; planning to
reforest the areas; and to protect environment and
regenerate forest. The Ministry of Environment and
Forests(MoEF) and all Secretaries of all the State
Government holding charge of Forest departments have a
duty to prevent mining operations affecting the forest. It is
significant to note that, whether mining operations are
carried out within the reserved forests or other forest area,
it is their duty to ensure that the industry or enterprise
does not denude the forest to become a menace to human
[existence] nor a source to destroy flora and fauna and
biodiversity.”
In the same case (Samatha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh)
the Supreme Court reiterated:
“it is a well settled law that mining operation is a non forest
purpose. In Ambica Quarry works vs State of Gujarat, a bench
of three Judges of this Court held that the renewal of a mining
lease, without prior approval of the Central Government was
in violation of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act.”
The Samatha Case is a landmark case for it reassured the
Constitutional rights of tribals on the tribal land as
recognized by Schedule V of the Constitution of India (See
Chapter 4). A writ petition was filed by Samatha, a social
action group working for the rights of tribals in the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh in 1993 on the ground that the Government
also does not have the power to grant lease in a scheduled
area11 to a non-tribals for mining purpose (See box on the
Samatha Judgement in Chapter 4). The Principle grievance
of the Petitioners was that the grant of mining lease in an
land which was a Reserved Forests as well as a scheduled
area inhabited by tribals was illegal. The Writ petition was
dismissed by the A.P High Court. Then a Special Leave
Petition was filed before the Supreme Court where the full
bench decided in favour of the tribals and also put certain
restriction on mining in tribal and forest areas. The main
highlights of the order were:
l Government lands, forest lands and tribal lands in
scheduled areas cannot be leased out to non tribals or to
private industries;
l Government cannot lease out lands in scheduled areas for
mining operations to non tribals as it is in contravention of
the fifth schedule of the Constitution.
l Mining activity in scheduled area can be taken up only by
the Andhra Pradesh State Mineral Development Corporation
Undermining India
or a cooperative of tribals and that too if they are in
compliance with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
The Samatha case despite being a landmark case has
limited role in areas which are not Schedule V12 areas. Its
implication on Schedule VI areas13 is not clear.
While the Samatha case concerned mining in areas which
had tribal populations and specifically areas under the
Schedule V of the Constitution, there are some cases wherein
the petitioners have highlighted the hazards of mining in areas
which are neither forest lands or tribal lands but have
important ecological significance. One such case is discussed
below.
The hazards of sand mining was brought to the attention
of the Court in Lourdes D. Costa and others Vs the
Neendakara Grama Panchayat.14
This writ petition relates to the mining or dredging
operations conducted by Indian Rare Earths Limited. The
contention of the petitioners was that the installation of a
mineral recovery plant will not only have serious
environmental consequences but is also violative of the CRZ
notification. The Kerala High Court relied on the report of
the Centre for Earth Sciences Studies for its judgement. It
was observed in the report that the coastal stretch of Kerala
between Neendakara and Kayamkulam hosts perhaps the
richest resources of the heavy mineral assemblage of
illemnite, rutile, zircon, sillimanite and monazite and that
illemnite and rutile are the raw materials for the metal
titanium which is increasing in importance year after year.
For a mineral starved state such as Kerala these minerals are
of prime importance.
The Court disposed of the Petition, allowing Indian Rare
Earths Limited to carry out mining operations using the
mineral recovery plant with the following directions:
l The Company is directed to take steps to get a
comprehensive environmental impact assessment of the area
in question done by a national institute of repute in
consultation with the State Government. Such expert agency
will conduct a comprehensive study to understand the sand
input into the near shore and beach zone from offshore as
well as from land and make its suggestion regarding the
volume of sand that can be mined from beach. It can also
make suggestion regarding the measures to be taken by the
company for mitigating the adverse effects on account of
mining and related activities.
l The company will take all steps for mitigating the adverse
environmental impact that may be caused due to the dredging
activities as pointed out in the CESS report.
Godavarman case
On 12th December1996, with the Supreme Court order
in the Godavarman case, began a process in the country
whereby for the first time the monitoring of the
implementation of the forest conservation laws was done by
the highest court in the country. The case had a special
significance for mining. In its very first order the Court
stated:
75
 Other examples of legal battles on mining in ecologically sensitive areas
Himachal Pradesh (Kinkri Devi and another Vs State of
Himachal Pradesh) 26
The petitioners in the state of Himachal Pradesh sought an order
of the Court to have a mining lease cancelled, to restrain the
Respondents from operating the mines covered by the lease in such
a manner as to pose a danger to the adjoining lands, water resources,
pastures, forests, wildlife, ecology, environment and the inhabitants
of the area, and for compensation for the damage caused by the
uncontrolled quarrying of the limestone. The court issued the following
interim directions:
-The State Government to set up a High-Level Committee to examine
the question, inter alia, whether there has been a proper balance
between the tapping of the mineral resources for development on
the one hand and the preservation of the environment on the other
in the issue of such grants, and to submit such report to the Court;
-The second respondent to refrain from carrying out mining operations
until further orders;
-No lease for mining of limestone to be granted or renewed nor
temporary permits issued till the report of the Committee is received
and further orders made by the Court.
The Court observed that in Articles 48A and 51A(g) there is both
a constitutional pointer to the State and a constitutional duty of the
citizens not only to protect but also to improve the environment. It
said: “the court will be left with no alternative but to intervene
effectively by issuing appropriate writs, orders and directions including
the direction as to the closure of the mines, the operation whereof is
proving to be hazardous and the total prohibition of the grant or
renewal of mining leases till the Government evolves a long-term
plan based on a scientific study with a view to regulating
the exploitation of the minerals in the State without detriment
to the environment, the ecology, the natural wealth and
resources and the local population. However, the need for judicial
intervention may not arise even in those cases where the Court’s
jurisdiction is invoked, if the administration takes preventive, remedial
and curative measures.”
Narayan Sarovar Sanctuary, Gujarat
One of longest battles between mining and wildlife has been
seen in the Narayan Sarovar Sanctuary in the Kutch district of
Gujarat. This sanctuary is the preserve of one of the last remaining
stretches of thorn forests and the unique scrub and desert habitat
supports a wide variety of unique flora and fauna, particularly the
Chinkara and Bustard. This region has minerals such as limestone,
lignite, bauxite etc. and was therefore chosen by Sanghi Industries
for setting up cement manufacturing units. The government issued a
notification on 27th July 1993, that the sanctuary was substantially in
excess of requirements of the sanctuary and also reconstituted a
new Chinkara Sanctuary with area 95 Sq km. The denotification of
the sanctuary for mining and the cement factory in 1993 was struck
down by the Gujarat High Court since it did not follow the legal
procedures. But in 1995 the Gujarat government legally denotified
the sanctuary, reducing its size from 765.79 sq. kms. to 444.23 sq.
kms. The Consumer Education and Research Society (CERS) took
the issue to the Supreme Court (SC) and in a February 2000
judgement,27 the SC has permitted ‘limited’ mining from within the
Narayan Sarovar Sanctuary and has asked the State government to
set up a expert committee to study its impacts. The court additionally
restrained the government from permitting others to carry out mining
operations or to put up cement plants within an area of 10 kms. from
the periphery of the old sanctuary (before denotification) without
obtaining orders from the court. The CERS case is still going in the
Supreme Court. In an order dated 1/10/ 2002 in an Interlocutary
Application (IA) by Sanghi Cement, the Supreme Court maintained
the earlier conditions and ruled: “In view of the circumstances,
indicated in the application, we extend the period till 31st December,
2003 under same terms and conditions, subject to the same
monitoring by the Expert Committee.”
76
Radhanagari Santuary, Maharashtra
In the 1960s, bauxite- rich plateaus in the fragile Western Ghats of
Maharashtra were leased out to the Indian Aluminium Company
(INDAL). While the company started working on a few of the leases
such as those at Nangartas and Kasarsada, other leases such as the
ones on the Durgamanwad and Iderganj plateaus in the Kolhapur
district were not mined except for some preliminary prospecting. In
1985 the Dajipur sanctuary in the immediate vicinity was expanded
to become the Radhanagari sanctuary to protect some of the richest
bodiversity areas in the Western Ghats of Maharashtra and protect
the catchment of two reservoirs. The Iderganj plateau now became
part of the expanded sanctuary while Durgamanwad bordered it. But
the Iderganj plateau had been a part of a Reserved Forest area prior
to the grant of lease. In the early 1990s, INDAL started mining at
Durgamanwad. This was challenged by a local group by Writ petition
no. 71 of 1997 in the Mumbai High Court alleging that the mining
was in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and other
provisions under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The writ
petition was finally disposed of by an order and judgement of a Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 3rd September, 1997. While
allowing the Durgamanwad mining, the High Court Bench observed
that INDAL has stated that even in respect of the nearby Iderganj
plateau (which was unworked until then), INDAL would take necessary
permissions of the Central Government if and when required under
the provisions of the various statutes before commencing mining. In
view of the fact that the Counsel for INDAL assured and repeatedly
stated that INDAL would not carry out any mining activity without
necessary sanction, nothing further was required to be done at that
stage according to the court. In spite of its assurances INDAL started
mining on the Inderganj plateau in December 1998 without the
necessary Central Government clearances. The Bombay Environmental
Action Group (BEAG) filed a Writ Petition in February 1998 (Writ Petition
No.959 of 1998) challenging the illegal mining activities being carried
out by INDAL. On April 1,1998, when the matter came up for
hearing, after extensive arguments on both sides, the matter was
admitted and interim reliefs granted restraining INDAL from
carrying out the mining activities. At the time of arguments on April
1, 1998, INDAL produced a letter dated 16th March, 1998, addressed
by the Section Officer, Trade and Commerce Department, enclosing
a copy of the Order dated 16th March, 1998 purporting to renew
their lease for a period of 20 years i.e. up to March 2018. Being
aggrieved by this order dated 16.3.1998 the Petitioners BEAG again
approached the Bombay High Court (through the Write Petition No.
2244 of 1998) on the following grounds – “ It has been held by the
Supreme Court in AIR 1988 SC 2187 Rural Litigation & Entitlement
Kendra vs. the State of U.P. that a renewal of lease has to be
treated as a fresh lease for the purpose of compliance with various
laws and notifications….In the present case admittedly the entire
Iderganj area falls within the notified forest area and therefore as
per the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980, no non-
forest activity can be permitted to be carried out without the prior
permission of the Central Government. Consequently no so-called
renewal ought to have been granted till such time as the Central
Government permits mining activities in the area…” A Division Bench
of the Bombay High Court admitted this petition and stayed the
“renewal” of the lease granted by the Trade & Commerce Department
of the Maharashtra Government.  Interestingly, the Trade   &
Commerce  Department  had  granted a 20  year  renewal  to  INDAL
without   seeking  the  permission  of  the  Maharashtra   Forest
Department or of the Central Government as per the provisions  of
the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
Currently the stay order continues and both the petitions filed by
BEAG (Nos.959 and 2244  of 1998) have not been finally disposed off
as yet.
Undermining India
 “all on going activity within any forest in the state
throughout the country, without the prior approval of the
Central Government must cease forthwith. It is, therefore
clear that running of saw mill of any kind including veneer or
ply wood mills, and mining of any mineral are non forest
purpose and are therefore, not permissible without the
approval of the Central Government. Accordingly any such
activity is prima facie violation of the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980.”15
In a series of orders the Supreme Court dwelt at length
and at times in minute detail about instances of mining
happening in forest areas. The Supreme Court however made
it clear that it was not against mining per se but mining which
is in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. In on
order on an application 16 filed by the National Mineral
Development Corporation (N.M.D.C), the Court clarified it’s
position vis-a- vis mining:
“It is clear that as far as this court is concerned, it has
prohibited the carrying on any non forest activity in a forest
area without the permission of the Central Government. Now
that the Central Government has granted permission subject
to the condition which have been or may be imposed, the
applicant would of course be at liberty to operate on the said
mines. What was prohibited by this court was illegal cutting
of tress and cutting of trees without the permission of the
Central Government.”
In 1998, illegal mining in Mirzapur and Doon valley
attracted the attention of the Court.17 The court immediately
set up a committee to investigate the illegal mining happening
in the respective areas. Later on concerned about the rampant
illegal mining in the whole state of Uttar Pradesh and the
lack of effective steps taken by the state to stop it, the Court
appointed an independent commission. The court felt this was
necessary in view of the reluctance of the State Government
to fix responsibility for the illegal mining. With a view to
check the rampant illegal transport of minerals, the Court
designated the District Magistrate as a “Commissioner” of
the Court with the power to seize all instruments and vehicles
involved in illegal mining.
Despite, the strict monitoring by the Supreme Court, the
Government of Uttar Pradesh still refused to take serious
actions to stop illegal mining in forest areas. The report by
the committee appointed by the Court disclosed an alarming
situation of lawlessness requiring drastic action. The Court
was shocked at the casual approach of the officers responsible
for stopping illegal mining. The authorities infact claimed
that they had no idea about mining happening at all. It is best
to quote from the order of the Court itself:
“Shri I.K Dhela, Director of Geology and Mining,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, is present in the Court. In
response to our query as to when did he come to know for
the first time of the illegal mining activities, he told us that
……he came to know of this fact …when the Committee
constituted by the Court visited the site. He also tells us that
he has been in this office for the last five years….. In view of
the magnititude of the problem and the inaction of the
authorities so far, the fact that the Director of mining is even
Undermining India
now most casual in his approach towards the problem, as is
evident from his demeanor in Court before us, we have no
option except to require the personal presence of some senior
most officers of the State Government..”18
The Supreme Court kept a strict watch on the
implementation of the order. Not only was it concerned about
the fact that no illegal mining activities were taking place in
forest areas, but it also kept a vigil against any leniency shown
to those involved in illegal mining. The court made it amply
clear that it has to be informed about all developments which
relate to illegal mining:
“The persons who were arrested in connection with illicit
mining in the District under the Goondas Act, we are
informed, have been since released on bail. This is a serious
matter because the court which is seized of the case has not
been informed. We direct the particulars of all such cases
shall be furnished to the Court alongwith the copies of the
orders granting bail, alongwith an affidavit of a competent
officer.”19
The Court took a very serious view of the lack of
afforestion done by the National Mineral Development
Corporation (NMDC). The company had acquired six leases
in the Bailadila area which is a forest land. The Court took a
vary serious view of the lack of fulfillment of the conditions
by NMDC, specially those relating to afforestation and also
of the lack of monitoring by the Ministry of Environment
and Forests. The Court was infact very critical of the role of
the Ministry of Environment and Forests and was forced to
remark:
“ If the conditions for the grant of the mining lease are not
fulfilled, there is no reason as to why NMDC should be
permitted to carry on with the mining operations. This aspect
should in fact have been overseen by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests. After the grant of such
permission, we expect the said ministry to monitor and see
whether the conditions stipulated by them have been fulfilled
or not rather than to leave it to the court to point out that the
conditions contained in letters granting permission have not
been fulfilled. The Ministry of Environment has clearly been
remiss on this aspect.20
The Kudremukh Case
The continued operations of the Kudremukh Iron Ore
Company limited (KIOCL) was a major issue for many
environmental groups. Separate petitions were filed in the
Supreme Court and the High Court by different environmental
groups. 21 The Kudremukh mining case was heard by the
Supreme Court on an interlocutory application (I.A.)22 filed
by Wildlife First, a Karnataka based NGO. The said I.A. 670
of 2001 is an offshoot of I.A. 548 filed by the Amicus
Curiae23 in the Godavarman case.
According to the petitioner inspite of the orders passed
by the Supreme Court on 12.12.96 (mentioned above) and
14.12.200024 , mining activities were being conducted by
Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. which were in clear violation
of orders passed by this Court. The main reliefs sought were:
(a) to direct the MoEF to withdraw the illegal “temporary
77
working permission” issued by it and stop mining activities order met with stiff opposition in view of the fact that it
(b) direct KIOCL to stop polluting the Bhadra river due to applied to all mining activities, irrespective of the fact as to
open cast mining whether they were legal or illegal. The court, however later
(c) take action against KIOCL for illegal encroachment in modified the order and stated that the ban was applicable only
the forests and for destruction of forests in the Kudremukh to illegal mining which was done in contravention to the
National Park; and provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the
(d) to stop KIOCL from laying a new slurry pipe line in the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
forests of the National Park.
Conclusion
The Court accepted the time period for stopping mining
The above discussion on case laws relating to mining is
activities as fixed by the Forest Advisory Committee
neither complete nor exhaustive. It is meant to trace the
constituted under Section 3 of the Forest (Conservation)
response of Courts to concerns on the negative impacts of
Act, 1980. It meant that KIOCL is to be given five years to
mining brought to them by citizens & otherwise. For a long
wind up operation from the time its earlier lease expires (it
time policy makers as well as courts chose not to look into
has already expired). That means mining will be allowed till
the negative impacts of mining. The existing mining
the end of 2005 by which time the weathered secondary ore
legislations provide little scope for regulating the
available in the already broken area should be exhausted. The
environmental consequences of mining particularly with
Court however made it clear that this was subject to
respect to its impacts on forests. It was with the coming into
fulfillment of the recommendations made by the Committee
force of the Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA), 1980, that for
on ecological and other aspects.
the first time a law to regulate mining in forest areas came
The series of temporary working permissions granted, as
into being. As pointed out earlier, the initial litigation was on
well as the inconsistency on the part of the Government of
aspects related to renewal of leases and whether they required
Karnataka and Ministry of Environment and Forests with
clearance under the FCA. As Public Interest Litigation
respect to the extension of the lease made the court remark:
developed the issues became more complex. A different
“Before we part with the case, we note with concern that
dimension to the use of courts on mining issues came in with
the State and the Central Government were not very consistent
the Godavarman case. The interest the Supreme Court
in their approach about the period for which the activities
showed in monitoring the cases of illegal mining in Mirzapur
can be permitted. Reasons have been highlighted to justify
and later on in the whole of Uttar Pradesh was an indication
the somersault. Whatever be the justification, it was but
of the seriousness with which the Court was looking at the
imperative that due application of mind should have been
issue of mining in forest areas. This was followed with
made before taking a particular stand and not to change
proactive rulings on Kudremukh and the stoppage of illegal
colour like a chameleon, and that too not infrequently.”
mining in the Aravallis. However, it needs to be pointed out
(emphasis added)
that all instances of mining in areas with wildlife and forests
The Kudremukh case is also important in view of the law
cannot always be brought before the Court’s. Despite the
laid down with respect to the use of discretionary powers to
advances in PIL’s, it still remains an expensive, time
be exercised under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The
consuming and unpredictable process. The authorities
Court also emphasised the need to implement the provisions
responsible for regulating mining have to reorient themselves
of the Convention on Biological Diversity:
to the need for conservation and minimization of
“Duty is cast upon the Government under Article 21 of the
environmental damage. The Mirzapur mining case clearly
Constitution of India to protect the environment and the two
showed that despite the vigilance of the Highest Court, the
salutary principles which govern the law of the environment
authorities chose to remain ignorant of the instance of illegal
are: (i) the principles of sustainable development and (ii) the
mining. The inconsistency on the part of the Ministry of
precautionary principle. It needs to be highlighted that the
Environment and Forests with respect to the Kudremukh issue
Convention on Biological Diversity has been acceded to by
also made the court react. Unless basic structural
our country and, therefore, it has to implement the same. As
deficiencies and problems are taken care of, the onslaught
was observed by this Court in Vishaka and Ors. vs. State of
of mining will continue to deface the forests and the habitat
Rajasthan and Ors. (1997(6) SCC 241), in the absence of
of countless species. In the long run, the battle over
any inconsistency between the domestic law and the
destructive mining cannot be won in courts. This will require
international conventions, the rule of judicial construction
a restructuring of how we currently approach development
is that regard must be had to international convention and
and use natural resources.
norms even in construing the domestic law. It is, therefore, Endnotes:
necessary for the Government to keep in view the 1
This chapter takes an overview of the response of courts to mining in
international obligations while exercising discretionary ecologically sensitive areas. The primarily focus of this chapter is on forest
powers under the Conservation Act unless there are and wildlife issues, although an example of a litigation in the coastal area
falling under the Coastal Regulation Zone notification has also been
compelling reasons to depart therefrom.”25 highlighted. This chapter is meant to give an overview and not do a detailed
The continued mining in the Aravalli mountain ranges was critical analysis of the judgements.
2
taken very seriously by the Court. The Court put a complete Several protected areas have now seen litigation on mining in either the
stop on all mining in the whole of the Aravalli ranges. The High Courts or the Supreme Court. These include: Kudremukh NP, Sariska

78 Undermining India
 25
Tiger Reserve, Radhanagari Sanctuary, Panna Tiger Reserve, Buxa Tiger Emphasis added I. A 670 in WP (Civil) No. 202 of 1995, judgment dated
Reserve, Narayan Sarovar Sanctuary, Dhrangadhara Wild Ass Sanctuary 30 –10-2002
3 26
Emphasis added, Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v Union of India (Sariska case) Kinkri Devi and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others AIR 1988
WP (c) No. 509 of 19991. (M. N Venkatachaliah and B. P Jeevan Reddy, JJ) Himachal Pradesh 4 . P. D. Desai, C. J. and R. S. Thakur, J.
4 27
WP (Civil) No 202 of 1995 Order dated 16/2/2000 in SPL (C), Number 13658/1996 Consumer Education
5
AIR 1987 SC 1037 in Diwan and Rosencranz, 2001 and Research Society Vs Union of India
6
Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar V s Union of India (AIR 1992 SC 514) Diwan S. & Rosencraz, A.R., 2001; Environmental Law and Policy In India,
7
Notification dated 7th May 1992. But if the portions of the Tiger Reserve Oxford University Press.
which are part of National Park or a Sanctuary (as a substantial portion of
most tiger reserves are) are affected by any non-forest activity, it will attract
provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (now the Wildlife Protection
(Amendment) Act, 2002). Similarly for those portions which are Reserved
Forests, the Indian Forest Act (1927) will apply. If there are any other portions
which have standing ‘forests’ and are not notified forest land, it will still
attract provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, as per the scope of
forests expanded by the Supreme Court in the T.N. Godavarman case.
8
Refer above footnote.
9
AIR 1993 HP 52
10
AIR 1997 SC 3297
11
To read more about ‘scheduled areas’ and the implication of the Samatha
judgement, read Chapter 4. This also gives an overview of a progressive law
which was enacted in these areas, the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled
Areas) Act, 1996. To read about the post Samatha Judgement developments
read Chapter 6.
12
Certain tribal areas in India (other than the Northeast) notified under ‘Schedule
V’ of the Indian Constitution.
13
Certain tribal areas in Northeast India have been notified under ‘Schedule
VI’ of the Indian Constitution.
14
1920 O.P. No. 2607 of 1997. judgement dated 20-7- 1998
15
Emphasis added, 1996 (9) SCALE
16
IA no 419 and 420 reported in 2000(1) SCALE
17
1998 (2) SCALE 626
18
1998 (5) SCALE (SP) 8
19
1998 (5) SCALE (SP)
20
2000 (4) SCALE 168
21
Petitions were filed by Nagrik Sewa Trust (NST), Wildlife Aware Nature
Club, the Environment Support Group and Wildlife First. The petitions of
NST and Wildlife Aware Nature Club were disposed of by the High Court
setting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court in the
Godavarman case to ventilate their grievances. Further, the order stated that
“in view of the specific directions given by the Supreme Court it is incompetent
on the part of this court to investigate into allegations or grievances …which
concerns the preservation of forest and ancillary issues”. Subsequently, NST
filed a petition before the Supreme Court. The application by Wildlife First has
been disposed of with orders to stop mining operations by 2005. The NST
cases, besides stopping the mining operations has prayed for the renotification
of the National Park to include the area which has been mined and had been
left out earlier and to also follow the procedure contemplated under Section 24
(1) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The petition also seeks to provide
adequate compensation to the labourers to be affected due to the closure of
the mining operations.
22
An ‘Interlocutory Application’ called as an ‘IA’ is an application for relief
pending the final decision of a case.
23
An Amicus Curiae or ‘friend of the court’ is an advocate who assists the
court in any particular litigation on the request of the court
24
On 14.12.2000 the Supreme Court had restrained State Governments from
“ordering the removal of dead, diseased, dying or wind fallen trees, driftwood
& grasses etc. from any National Park or Game Sanctuary or Forest.”
Subsequently the word “Forest” was removed. The order was passed in
response to an Interlocutary Application (I.A.) prepared and filed by LAW-E
under the Godavarman case.
The I.A. was filed following orders issued by the governments of Uttar
Pradesh and Karnataka dated June 11 and November 9/13, 2000, respectively,
allowing large scale commercial operations for the removal of dead, dying and
diseased and wind fallen trees, drift wood and grasses through their Forest
Development Corporations, from areas notified as sanctuaries and national
parks.
In the Kudremukh IA, the grounds used were that mining amounted to
removal of material from the National Park, thus violating the orders of the
court on 14.12.2000

Undermining India 79
 Chapter VI
Citizens’ Responses
This chapter is a compilation of a few writings on
citizens campaigns and the ‘spaces’ available to them to
participate in environmental decision-making.
Even as mining continues to ravage ecologically sensitive
areas, hundreds of communities and groups across the country
have rallied to protect lands, livelihoods, forests and
biodiversity over the years. This covers a wide range of
people and groups working on social and adivasi issues, on
environment and wildlife.
Campaigns have and are taking place across the country.
Tarun Bharat Sangh in Alwar, Rajasthan, on mining in the
Aravallis; the villagers of Kataldi in Hemwalghati, Uttaranchal,
on limestone mining; the communities in the West Khasi Hills
of Meghalaya against uranium mining; the adivasi groups in
Orissa fighting the huge threat of bauxite mining in the
Eastern Ghats; the villagers of Sawantwadi in south-west
Maharashtra preparing to fight iron ore mining; a wide range
of wildlife and social groups fighting iron-ore mining in
Kudremukh including Wildlife First, Nagarika Sewa Trust
etc.; Samatha in the tribal areas of Andhra Pradesh; the
Chhotanagpur Adivasi Seva Samiti in Hazaribagh, Jharkhand;
are just a few of the examples.
One of the most inspiring struggles has been that of the
group Samatha against mining in the Eastern Ghats of Andhra
Pradesh (see chapter 4 &5) which led to the landmark
Samatha judgement in the Supreme Court. The judgement has
brought with it many more challenges. We reproduce a recent
note by Samatha, looking back at the years after the
judgement.
After the Judgement
The State and Central Governments continue to lobby for
amendment of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution and to
undo the Samatha Judgement.
The Central Government, through its Ministry of Mines
(Ref: 16/48/97-MVI, dated July 10th 2000) circulated a secret
document among all the Secretaries proposing amendments
to the Fifth Schedule to overcome the Samatha Judgement.
This document was unearthed by Samata and exposed publicly
to all groups working in the Fifth Schedule areas. It proposed
to amend the Fifth Schedule itself to remove the legal basis
for the judgement and to get it passed in the parliament by a
simple majority!!!
The attitude of the government is best summed up in its
active endorsement of the Attorney General of India that the
way forward is to “effect the necessary amendments so as to
overcome the said SC judgement by removing the legal basis
of the said judgement.”
The note repeatedly expresses with deep concern and
anguish how the judgment will adversely affect mining and
industrial activity. It does not even once venture to think or
consider that the judgement and its provisions can actually
80
be enabling and empower the adivasis in their quest for social
and economic justice. The note is totally biased in its
treatment of the judgement and makes it out to be against the
interests of adivasis, while in reality it (the judgement) only
reasserts claims that are being made by adivasis round the
country.
The note of the Ministry of Mines proposes that an
explanation be added after para 5(2) of in the V Schedule
removing prohibition and restrictions on the transfer of land
by adivasis to non-adivasis for undertaking any non-
agricultural operations including prospecting and mining (para
18).
This single sentence, if incorporated would at a stroke,
completely defeat the very intentions and spirit of the V
Schedule of the Constitution and open the floodgates for
unfettered alienation of adivasis from their land, water and
forests. In essence it spells virtual doom for the adivasis, as
the last measure of protection will be removed leaving them
at the mercy of an uncaring state and ruthless commercial
interests.
In the State of Andhra Pradesh
The State of Andhra Pradesh continued its efforts to
violate the Samatha Judgement. In June 2000 it forced the
Tribes Advisory Council, the statutory body for decision-
making on tribal issues in the State, to pass a resolution to
amend the Regulation under the Fifth Schedule to permit
mining in the scheduled areas. The State proposed to extend
a lease to a Dubai based company to extract calcite from the
hills of the scheduled areas. Samatha disseminated this
information to all opposition parties and tribal groups and
the State was faced with severe protests from all quarters.
The Chief Minister of the State was finally forced to make a
public statement that they were withdrawing this proposal.
The Samatha Judgement in the context of Divestment
The Attorney General advised that in order to overcome
the basis of the Samatha Judgement, there were two courses
that could be followed. First, the Supreme Court can
reconsider its decision in the Samatha case if another case
on a similar issue is brought before it. The other course open
to Parliament is to effect necessary amendments to the Fifth
Schedule through a simple majority.
The divestment of the public sector Bharat Aluminium
Company (BALCO), which is situated in a scheduled area, to
a private company called Sterlite through a 51 per cent sale
in early 2001 stood questioned on the issue of the Fifth
Schedule. The sale was challenged by the State Government
of Chattisgarh in its High Court, on the basis of the Samatha
Judgement. The case was transferred to the Supreme Court
and, on 10th December 2001, the Supreme Court delivered
its final verdict on the BALCO case.
Undermining India
 It stated that “While we have strong reservations with unprecedented judgement as the supreme judicial custodian
regard to the correctness of the majority decision in Samatha’s of the adivasis by extending its verdict not just to the 120
case, which has not only interpreted the provisions of acres of Nimmalapadu but to the entire one crore Adivasi
aforesaid Section 3(1) of the A.P Scheduled Areas Land population of this country. It has thrown up a most critical
Transfer Regulation, 1959 but has also interpreted the challenge for our governments and civil society. It opened
provisions of the Fifth schedule of the Constitution, the said up a whole gamut of fundamental questions not merely of
decision is not applicable in the present case because the law the legitimacy of adivasi rights over their lands but of the
applicable in Madhya Pradesh is not similar or identical to very quintessence of development and humanity. It has
the aforesaid Regulation of Andhra Pradesh.” thrown up questions relating to our paradigms of valuation
and production of our natural resources, of the ecological
The Conflict over the Samatha Judgement
sustainability of our economics, of priorities and patterns of
The Fifth Schedule read with the Samatha Judgement stands
consumption, of social balances and aspirations. It points
as a custodian of Adivasi constitutional rights. However, the
out the dichotomies in our state policies and actions.
BALCO case reflects that, instead of the spirit of the
We anticipate more struggle ahead while we are certain
Constitution being respected by the governments at the Centre
that the communities confronting the mining conglomerates
and the States, they are trying to water down the judgement
will continue to resist.
on the pretext of absence of any executive instructions or
We only hope that the native wisdom of symbiosis with
local laws which support the Fifth Schedule.
nature will one day triumph. It cannot be otherwise if the
The underlying theme of the judgment and the concern of
world wishes to survive.
groups like Samata is the concept of sustainable development
Every day we will watch over the parliament and
and the precautionary principle. When development is
assemblies, the ministries and courts of law, the bulldozers
controlled, regulated or supervised by the local tribal
and corporate lobbies.
community or state instruments (assuming the social welfare
And over our lands.
mandate of the state), there is less chance of environmental
Samatha, Hyderabad
degradation and social destruction.
December 1, 2002
In consideration of future mining activities, the Supreme
Court gave clear directions on the course of action that could
be taken by the Government. Instead of implementing the
Undermining peoples participation
orders of the Supreme Court, the Government and the State
By Neeraj Vagholikar
of Andhra Pradesh continue their efforts to reverse the
This piece was written soon after the amendment to the
judgement.
Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification in August
Stringent environment standards prevent multinational
2001, which exempted mining projects for major minerals
industrial lobbies from acquiring lands and plundering natural
with lease area upto 25 ha. from the requirement of
resources with wanton abandon in their own countries. Instead
mandatory environmental public hearings as a part of the
they invade countries like India. The mining lease to Rio Tinto
environmental clearance process.
Ltd, one of the most ill-reputed mining companies from UK,
In August 2001 the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
for exploitation of iron-ore from Keonjhar district of Orissa
Notification, 1994, was amended for the fifth time, waiving
under a joint venture with the Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd,
the need for public hearings as a part of the environmental
is another alarming signal of our government’s disrespect for
clearance procedure for a certain section of projects. As per
the Constitution and contempt towards social responsibilities.
the new notification, “…Public Hearing is not required in
The state government has made public statements that the
respect of (i) small scale industrial undertakings located in
Samatha Judgement is not applicable to Orissa and has given
(a) notified/designated industrial areas/industrial estates or
ample opportunity for the multinational mining industries to
(b) areas earmarked for industries under the jurisdiction of
enlist state support for their smooth passage into Scheduled
industrial development authorities; (ii) widening and
Areas.
strengthening of highways; (iii) mining projects (major
The Government’s paranoia in relation to the judgment is
minerals1 ) with lease area up to 25 hectares, (iv) units
unfounded. The Supreme Court has not imposed a blanket
located in Export Processing Zones, Special Economic Zones
ban on mining activity in the scheduled areas. Mining activity
and (v) modernisation of existing irrigation projects.”
is permitted if carried out by government, a state
instrumentality or a cooperative society of the tribals. If the The EIA notification
Constitution were amended to allow mining activity in tribal While certain development projects in India have required
areas, other industries would also be able to justify the environmental impact assessment and clearance since the late
acquisition of tribal lands for ‘development’. 1970s under the directives of the Central Government, the
first comprehensive legislation for environmental impact
The Critical Questions
assessment and clearance for a listed category of projects
As mentioned earlier, Samata approached the judiciary to
was the EIA notification, 1994, under the Environment
protect the legal rights of the adivasis living in Nimmalapadu
(Protection) Act (EPA), 1986. This not only applies to new
(See box in Chapter 4).The Supreme Court delivered an

Undermining India 81
projects, but also to the expansion and modernisation of
certain categories of existing projects.
The process entails the submission of an application form
with a certain set of documents, including the Environment
Impact Assessment report, to the Impact Assessment Agency
(IAA) by the project proponent . The IAA is the Ministry of
Environment and Forests ( MOEF), which may consult a
committee of experts to evaluate the proposal for
environmental clearance.
The process of Environmental Public Hearing as a part of
the EIA notification was earlier optional but was made
mandatory in 1997 and since then it has served as a crucial
legal platform for environmental and social groups and local
residents to voice their concerns about a project. Besides
actually raising environmental concerns about the projects,
this process has enabled to bring to light the shoddy quality
of environmental impact assessment being done by many of
the consultants hired by project proponents. This includes
inadequate information, very often inaccurate information and
sometimes even plagiarized EIAs! For instance ‘renowned’
consultants Ernst and Young while conducting the
environmental impact asessement for the Dandeli Minihydel
Project in Karnataka, copied an EIA report of another hydel
project closeby! This was brought to light by environmental
groups during the environmental public hearing for the project
after which the EIA document was withdrawn. The EIA
notification clearly states that the application for
environmental clearance would be rejected if it is found that
data has been concealed, is not factual etc. But the quality of
EIA reports still remains largely abysmal.
This is a serious issue. Environmental decision making is
very often being made based on inadequate and inaccurate
information. It was not as if individuals/ groups were unware
of the quality of EIAs or gaps in the clearance procedures
before the era of public hearings. But the public hearing space
has enabled more citizens to be involved in the demand for
greater environmental accountability and given more visibilty
to the obvious violations of both the letter and spirit of
environmental legislation in India. But increasing demands
by citizen groups for environmental accountability has led to
a lot of discomfort within project proponents and for some
time now there have been very intense efforts to undermine
the space for peoples participation in the environmental
clearance procedures.
The January 2001 draft notification
The MoEF issued a draft notification on 3rd January 2001,
proposing the amendment to the EIA notification. This said:
“….. it has been found that Small Scale Industrial Units,
Mining Projects with lease area up to twenty five
hectares, widening and strengthening of Highways, and
modernization of existing Irrigation Projects cause minimal
impacts, both on the environment and people living in the
vicinity….. the environment impacts of such projects can be
assessed on the basis of the information provided by the
project proponents to this Ministry even without a public
hearing”. Using this justification it proposed the following
82
insertion in the EIA notification: “”However, public hearing
is not required in respect of Small Scale Industrial Units (as
defined in the Industrial Policy from time to time), widening
and strengthening of highways, mining projects (major
minerals) with lease area up to twenty-five hectares and
modernisation of existing irrigation projects”.
It is not clear on what basis the MOEF has decided that
the projects mentioned above have ‘minimal impacts’ and that
the impacts of these projects can be assessed without a public
hearing. Even if the environmental impacts were to be
‘minimal’ in a particular case, it is the right of communities
and citizens groups to have a say on developmental activities
which affect them. While one can counter the MoEF
argument for each of the projects mentioned above, I will
briefly touch upon the issue of mining.
As mentioned earlier, only mining leases for major
minerals above 5 ha require environmental clearance under
the EIA notification and now public hearings are required for
only those leases amongst these which are above 25 ha.
While looking at the ecological impacts of mining, “where
mining” and “how mining” are questions which should come
before “how much area under mining”. Leases below 25 ha
can cause tremendous damage in ecologically and culturally
sensitive areas and under no circumstances can we make
assumptions that these have “minimal impacts” and that public
hearings are not required.
This is especially true for us in India as we have a
considerable overlap between biologically rich areas and
areas where our mineral wealth is found. These areas are
also home to traditional communities, which are dependent
on these ecosystems for their livelihoods. 25 ha is large if
one is to consider the impact which could be caused to an
area which is a biologically-rich pocket or has cultural or
religious significance (such as a sacred grove). Depending
on the mining process a mine could have tremendous impacts
on the surrounds and downstream/downwind (waterways,
agricultural lands etc.), which is independent of the actual
size of the mining lease. Besides small mining leases in
‘clusters’ can also be very environmentally destructive. Thus
it is crucial that citizens have an opportunity to participate in
the environmental decision making process and voice their
concerns.
There are umpteen examples of leases under 25 ha for
both minor and major minerals from around the country which
have caused or will cause significant social and ecological
impacts. We have the marble mines in the Alwar district of
Rajasthan, the iron ore mines in Sundur in the the Bellary
district of Karnataka, the bauxite mines in the tribal areas of
Anantagiri in the eastern ghats in Andhra Pradesh, the
coalmines in the Jaintia Hills of Meghalaya etc. We also
have examples of both the Doon Valley and the Aravallis
where smaller leases have caused extensive environmental
damage and mining activities have now been regulated by both
the judiciary and the MoEF. Infact it is important that public
hearings are held for all mining leases irrespective of size of
lease or classification of the mineral as major or minor.
Undermining India
 A recent Indian Bureau of Mines publication2 gives a vital
piece of information: “It is interesting to note that though
there are over 9,000 mining leases for major minerals with a
cumulative lease area of over 0.7 million hectares (as on
01.01.95) excluding notified minor minerals for civil and
construction purpose, a little less than 50% of them have
individual lease area of 25 hectares in size and less.”
So, in effect, we are excluding almost 50 % of mining
leases of major minerals from the purview of the public
hearing process. In addition to this all the leases for minor
minerals do not require environmental clearance under the
EIA notification and hence no public hearings. This gives a
rather good idea about how serious we as a country are in
involving people in environmental decision making, atleast
as far as the mining sector is concerned.
Groups respond
The January draft 2001 notification gave a period of sixty
days for people to respond. Individuals, environmental and
social groups, sent in their written submissions. On April
23rd the MOEF called for a meeting in New Delhi to discuss
this notification and all those who had sent in written
submissions were invited for the meeting. The NGOs
highlighted the fact that the public hearings are the only legal
space within the environmental clearance process in which
people can participate and raise their concern and it is very
important that this forum remains available to people. A key
issue raised was the fact that the impacts of projects
dependent crucially on their siting and one cannot merely
remove the need for public hearings based on an argument
that the leases are small in size. A serious concern was raised
about the moves to dilute the environmental legislations rather
than strengthen them.
On the other hand the industry representatives, larger in
number, focussed on various aspects which according to them
made public hearings undesirable: caused time delays in
environmental clearance, were a burden on small scale
investors etc.
The NGOs present were concerned with the effectiveness
of this process conducted by the MOEF and it was decided
to additionally give in a joint memorandum on behalf of
groups/individuals from around the country to the MOEF. On
May 10th members of three groups (Kalpavriksh, Toxics Link
and the Environment and Human Rights Law Initiative) met
up with the Joint Secretary (Impact Assesment), MOEF and
submitted a memorandum on behalf of 38 individuals/
organisations from around the country. The memorandum
principally dealt with three aspects:
l the need for processes such as the public hearing held for
discussing the EIA notification amendment to be more
participatory and allowing scope for debate
l concerns over the status of implementation of the EIA
notification – the poor quality of EIAs, procedural
shortcomings in the public hearing process etc.
l specific objections with respect to the 3rd January draft
notification.
When the amended version of the EIA notification came
Undermining India
through in August 2001, it was obvious that the viewpoint of
NGOs had been totally ignored. The notification had come
through with a few minor changes to the proposed
amendments, unrelated to any of the NGO responses. No
explanation was given as to why serious points of concern
raised have not been considered and is again indicative of the
level of transparency in such processes. Some groups have
sent in letters protesting this amendment, but there is a need
for a larger campaign on this.
The larger picture
The undermining of spaces available to citizens to
intervene in the developmental planning process is an issue
of serious concern. Since the early 1990s we have seen two
parallel processes working in opposite directions with respect
to people’s participation in developmental planning. On the
one hand are the following positive developments:
l the 73rd ammendment of the Constitution which came in
1992 and seek to move towards more decentralised
governance by empowering village panchayats.
l the 74th ammendment of the Constitution, 1992, which
seeks to empower urban communities.
l the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas3 ) Act, 1996,
which is one of the most revolutionary laws in independent
India and seeks to considerably empower tribal communities
in some parts of India and give them greater control over
their natural resources. The village Gram Sabhas have to be
consulted for developmental activities in the area.
l provisions such as the environmental public hearings
which became a mandatory part of the EIA notification in
1997.
l a significant circular under the FCA, 1980, was circulated
by the MoEF in 1999. This circular4 , now an annexure under
the FCA, amongst other things states:
“5. It has been observed that in respect of a large number of
proposals the Central Government is receiving representation
from NGOs/ local public bodies against the diversion of
forest land on environment and ecological grounds. Therefore
the Central Government feels that it is essential to have the
opinion of the local people whenever a project is coming up
in that area Therefore, it has been decided that whenever any
proposal for diversion of forest land is submitted, it should
be accompanied by a resolution of the ‘Aam Sabha’ of Gram
Panchayat/ Local Body of the area endorsing the proposal
that the project is in the interest of people living in and around
the proposed forest land.”
While there may be problems with the effective
functioning and implementation of the above mentioned
provisions, the important fact is that a space has been
provided. Communities and citizens groups need to
recognise the potential of these spaces and lobby for the
improvement and effective implementation of the provisions
which have created these.
On the other hand, the post-1991 liberalisation scenario
has seen the opening up of various sectors to corporate
interests (both Indian and global) through several policy and
legal changes. In such a situation the ‘spaces’ for people are
83
being seen as a hindrance which are holding up investments
and ‘development’. The National Mineral Policy, 1993, has
brought with it a lot of changes, facilitating increased
participation of the private sector and also foreign investment.
While the mining interests are happy about this, they are of
course being intolerant of anything holding up their
possibilities of mining anywhere they wish. The most
illustrative example of this is the tremendous pressure to
amend the fifth schedule of the constitution, as it has come
in the way of the reckless opening up of these areas for
mineral exploitation. These areas which are home to
significant tribal populations, also house a considerable
amount of mineral wealth and the moves to amend the fifth
schedule were prompted because of a historic Supreme Court
judgement in 1997 in a case filed by the group Samatha,5
which was a victory for tribal rights in the fifth schedule areas,
but affected mining interests. Amongst other things the
implications of this judgement were that both governmental
and non-governmental lands in scheduled areas cannot be
leased out to non-tribals or private industries for mining
purposes. Hence the vested interests are keen to amend the
very constiutional basis which provided this victory!
As far as the recent amendment in the EIA notification
goes, an examination of some of the published material and
events after public hearings became mandatory in 1997, gives
us an idea of how opinion within the mining industry has been
shaping up on ‘public participation’ and how it has led to the
recent amendment.
The Annual Review 1998 of the Journal of Mines, Metals
& Fuels has a piece on the “Status of environment in Mining
Industry in India’ and has the following to say about public
hearings: “This is a good idea, wherein the views of the local
people and administrators will be taken into account by the
Impact Assessment Agency ( MOEF), whereas in earlier
system there was no such arrangement. However, it will cause
delay and additional cost to the lessee.” It is important to
note that the “delay” and “ additional cost” have been the chief
arguments against the public hearings.
Two specific events are significant to look at in this
respect:
1) The National Workshop on Environment and Forestry in
Mining Areas, held on 21-22 August, 1998, in Jaipur. This
workshop was jointly organised by the MOEF and the
Federation of Indian Mineral Industries, with the active
support of 27 mining companies/ associations from around
the country. Besides several members of various ministries
and departments of the central government and many state
governments, participants included over 100 representatives
from mining companies/ associations/consultants, and only
one member of an environmental NGO ( WWF-India,
Rajasthan State Office)!
The proceedings of this worshop indicate the mood of
the industry with respect to public hearings. There is a
repeated focus on the non-feasibility of public hearings and
the fear of involving people in decision making is reflected
in the presentations of one of the participants in which he
says: “What happens if the project is rejected at public hearing
84
stage?”
The Conclusions and Recommendations of the workshop
were called “The Jaipur Declaration” and some of the
recommendations on the EIA notification were as follows:
2.6 (c) Project clearance
The Ministry of Environment and Forests may consider
raising the project threshold limit for obtaining clearance
under EIA notification of 1994 to 50 hectares.”
2.6 (e) Mandatory public hearings
The National Workshop suggests that with regard to new
leases, the requirement of public hearing should be insisted
upon only in the cases covering larger areas. For smaller
mining leases upto 50 ha., the requirement of public hearing
is not feasible from logistical and economic point of view
and therefore unnecessary.”
While there is certainly a need for a debate on the
procedural aspects of how public hearings are conducted and
the importance to work on issues such as “who bears the
cost” in the case of small investors, it is illogical to thereby
conclude that public hearings are “therefore unnecessary”!
2) In April 1998 the Ministry of Mines (MoM) set up a
committee whose terms of reference are: “ It will be the apex
Advisory Committee for monitoring and reviewing the
environmental aspects of mining activities.” The committee
consists of the Secretary, MoM, as chairman and Secretary,
MOEF, as co-chairman. Its members include seven
representatives of mining related bodies (official and private),
the chairperson of the Central Pollution Control Board,
Principal Secretaries of several states and members of three
environmental NGOs ( Development Alternatives, WWF-
India and INTACH).
The agenda notes for the first meeting circulated in 1999
had the following “suggestions for consideration” under the
“measures for simplifying procedures and reducing delays” :
“ (i) No environmental clearance be mandatorily insisted upon
in case of mining projects upto 50 hectares.
(ii)Public hearings be made mandatorily only for mining
leases of major minerals covering an area of 500 hectares or
more.”
This is shocking and totally unacceptable. The IBM
document I have referred to earlier states that out of the over
9000 mining leases for major minerals only 20% have an
area over 100 ha. A much smaller percentage will have areas
over 500 ha. Thus the MoM wants to virtually eliminate public
hearings! Fortunately this committee, though setup in 1998,
has not had any meetings as yet and one must wait and watch
whether it will become functional.
The future?
It is very clear what industry and certain sections of the
establishment want. We will need to be as organised and
networked as they are if we want to protect our ‘spaces’ from
being undermined. There is an urgent need for communities
and groups around the country to rally together and respond
to this latest amendment of the EIA notification. It was not
as if all was well before this amendment happened….there
Undermining India
are problems with the EIA procedures, the effectiveness of
the public hearing process etc. There is a considerable amount
of work to be done to make the environmental provisions
more meaningful and effective. But what amendments such
as the recent one do is to make that step forward that much
more difficult by taking us two steps back. One will have to
of course consider the genuine problems some of the
procedural aspects of environmental legislation have created
for project proponents and work towards streamlining
procedures so that nobody bears an unfair cost. But we need
to make it very clear to both the industry and the government
that diluting environmental provisions and the space for
citizens’ participation is unacceptable. We have a fight on
our hands and the future of many of our ecologically and
culturally sensitive areas depends on how we take this up in a
strong and sustained manner.
(Note: The Advisory Committee mentioned in this piece did
finally have its meeting in 2001)
Singareni Collieries Public Hearing - Kasipet (AP)
By Sunita Dubey
The public hearing process under the EIA notification,
although undermined as pointed out earlier, still remains
a valuable ‘space’ which all citizens need to use to the
maximum extent possible. Sunita Dubey of the
Environmental Justice Initiative shares her experience of
a public hearing she attended in Andhra Pradesh.
Note: We have also attached as Annexure I the objections
submitted by a Kutch-based group to the Gujarat
Pollution Control Board prior to the public hearing held
for an oil exploration project off the shores of Gujarat.
The Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) is
proposing a opencast coal mining near Kasipet village in
Adilabad district of Andhra Pradesh. The total area proposed
for mining is 257 hectare, which mainly comprises of
agricultural and forest land. The EIA report for this project
was done by Environment Protection Training and Research
Institute (EPTRI), Hyderabad. The report has lacunae in terms
of baseline data on air, water, and flora and fauna. The
proposed life of the mining is eleven years with the total coal
production of 5.18 million tonnes. The EIA documents makes
no reference to the underground coal mining, which is already
been done by the same company in the same area. The
proposed mining area falls within the jurisdiction of three
villages, Kasipet, Mandamarri and Belampalli. A public
hearing was organised on 25th August 2002 as a part of the
environmental clearance process for mining in Kasipet village
school premises. On the day of the public hearing some 600
tribals and villagers came to attend the meeting and the panel
was headed by the Joint Commissioner of the area. The
nominated senior citizens and heads of local governing bodies
boycotted the public hearing panel and staged a walk out. The
public hearing proceeded only with the Joint Commissioner
and the Pollution Control Board members on the panel.
During the public hearing, the people vehemently opposed
the setting up of the mining in that area because SSCL had
Undermining India
not complied with the environmental management plan for
the ongoing mining. Because of underground coal mining,
the groundwater level of that area has gone down and there is
a severe shortage of drinking water. The people had seen the
impacts of the earlier mining and were opposed to another
mining project in their area, which would further degrade their
environment, and the water resources that they were
dependent on. The women in particular talked about the
problems associated with the scarcity of drinking water and
the apathy of the company towards the local people.
Fortunately the Commissioner was sympathetic to the
people’s viewpoints and when questioned as to whether he
represented the company or the community, was quick to
respond that he was a “people’s Commissioner”.
The panel at the end of the meeting decided that they will
put forward the people’s concern that the mining activity
should not come up in that area.
Escalating Ecocide in the Kudremukh National Park6
An investigative Report
By Mahalaxmi Parthasarthy
The Kudremukh NP was in the news recently when the
group Wildlife First won a legal battle in the Supreme
Court, which asked for the mining to stop by 2005. There
have been several groups working on different aspects of
the mining issue in Kudremukh. Two such groups, Nagarika
Seva Trust and INCERT, had come out with a report,
compiling the various violations by the company as well
as a critique of the official EIA reports done for the area.
This is a note on the issues raised by this report:
The Endeavour
This was an attempt to collate all available information
on the wrongdoings of the Kudremukh Iron Ore Company
Limited (KIOCL) - the serious environmental damage
perpetrated by the company by their destructive mining
practices and brazen violations of many laws. It also critically
examined the various reports on which crucial decisions
regarding the feasibility of renewal of the mining lease was
to be based. The reports included the Comprehensive
Environmental Impact Assessment by the National
Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI),
Nagpur, as well as the flora and fauna impact study done by
the Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of
Science (CES), Bangalore. This was required as per the
mandatory conditions based on which the company had been
given temporary working permission.
Kudremukh: A Background
The 600 sq km Kudremukh National Park forms the largest
protected area of a wet evergreen type of forest in the
Western Ghats, with an average annual rainfall of 7,000mm.
The wet climate and the tremendous water retention capacity
of the grasslands and shola forest of Kudremukh has led to
the formation of thousands of perennial streams in the region
converging to form 3 major rivers of the region - Tunga,
Bhadra and Nethravathi (See Chapter 3).
85
Violations by KIOCL:
Our investigation revealed that KIOCL had violated the
provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, Wild Life
(Protection) Act, Environment (Protection) Act, Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, Explosives Act,
and Karnataka Irrigation Act. Details of the violations are
stated below.
a) Violation of the provisions under the Karnataka
Irrigation Act according to which it was mandatory to get
government clearance for construction of the Lakhya tailings
dam. Further, KIOCL refused to pay water rates as
necessitated under the Act for all uses of water other than
irrigation as well as for water drawn from the natural water
ways, rivers or streams etc. KIOCL refused to pay water
rates under the pretext that it was paying cess to the Pollution
Control Board under the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution Act). These two are separate Acts and the company
ought to have honoured both the Acts.
b) Violation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, by
illegally raising the height of the Lakhya dam to 100 mts
across Lakhya-hole, and in the process submerging an
additional 340 ha of shola forest outside their lease area.
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in this letter No.
A5(B3/GFL.CR.231/92-93 dated 17.9.1997 to the Principal
Secretary Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment,
had recommended prosecution of the management of the
company for the violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act
and cancellation of the mining lease No. 909 as a penal action.
The lease which was to thereafter expire on 24-7-99.
c) Violation of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986
While according environmental clearance for the expansion
of the KIOCL project on 18.10.1993 and also granting
approval for prospecting lease of 310 ha of forest land in
one corner of the Kudremukh National Park (Nellibeedu
deposit) on 30.5.94, the authorities did not followthe
procedures laid down in Notification I, S.O. 85(E) dated
27.01.92 and also notification II, S.O 60E dated 27 .01 1994,
under Environment Protection Act, 1986.
d) Violation of the Wild Life Protection Act (WLPA),
1972: The temporary working permission was given to the
company after the expiry of the lease, under Sec 2 of the
Forest Conservation Act, while clearly sidestepping the
Wildlife Protection Act, even though the area had been
initially notified as a National Park in 1987. The lease in
favour of KIOCL expired on 25.07.1999. By virtue of section
20 of the WLPA, no right was to be acquired in or over the
land comprised within the limits of the area specified in the
initial notification except by succession. In these
circumstances any renewal, continuation, extension or grant
of a fresh lease is in direct violation of section 20 (bar on
‘accrual’ of new rights). Therefore no subsequent
developments could have conferred the right to KIOCL to
make a claim. Therefore the question of admitting such a
claim and excluding such land from the limits of the proposed
National Park does not arise.
Some of the other violations discussed in the report in
86
detail include the KIOCL slurry pipeline leak and its aftermath,
the silting of the Bhadra reservoir, violation of dam safety
norms, worker’s compensation and the role (or lack of it) of
the Pollution Control Board in regulation of the pollution
aspects in relation to KIOCL mining.
NEERI Report - Analysis
The scope of NEERI’s Comprehensive Environment
Impact Assessment, (CEIA), included identification and
quantification of significant impacts of mining operations
and associated activities on the environment in order to assist
the decision makers whether to renew the lease or not. Given
this framework, the report which was submitted had several
lacunae:
1) The CEIA recommended extension of the lease, but did
not deal with issues like flood control, seismological studies
and the impacts of the use of a different category of
explosives. These were not addressed even when it was clear
that the primary ore being mined by open cast method would
last for only for another 6 years given their prevalent rate of
mining.
2) Additional dam for storage of tailings, its impacts and
the relevant environment management plans were unstated.
Even with the Lakhya dam being filled to its capacity and the
Company having concrete plans to build another dam at
Kachigey or Singasara-hole, the NEERI report has skirted
this issue altogether.
3) Accidents and mishaps were not addressed in the CEIA,
inspite of a shocking history of neglect and apathy by the
company, like the giving way of the spillway of the Lakhya
Dam, and leak of the slurry pipeline at least five times in the
recent past. This is crucial, especially in light of the fact that
the CES Report has questioned the structural safety of the
earthen dam at Lakhya.
4) The pipeline leak of July 2000 took 4 months to be set
right by felling 781 trees enroute, and shockingly this fails to
find a mention in the CEIA submitted in November 2000.
What’s worse is that under the associated problems in related
activities in the chapter “Environmental Disaster Management”,
NEERI has given a clean chit to the Company! This is in contrast
with the CES Report which raised serious concerns while
pointing out several instances of leakage of the pipeline to
Mangalore Port, resulting in spillage into the streams and
forest.
5) NEERI has also proved incompetent in the floral and
faunal studies:
The NEERI team has not conducted any independent
studies on the flora and fauna. They have only compiled the
data from the Forest Dept or KIOCL’s publications for the
CEIA. The report said that the company had planted 75 lakh
saplings in an area of 1224.20 ha, but there was no mention
of the density or survival ratio of these saplings. Both the
Deputy Conservator of Forest of Kudremukh Wildlife
Division and the CES report have disputed the figures in the
NEERI report.
6) NEERI Report - Howlers galore:
The wildlife list include Wild Sheep and Black Buck
(194 in number), when these species do not occur here. The
Undermining India
birdlists include ‘Black-naped circle’, which does not exist.
7) NEERI after doing a long term study, extending through
monsoon months, has surprisingly withheld the data on water
quality and sediment flows collected during the monsoon
months.
Extracts of the CES Report
The CES of the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore was
entrusted with the task of initiating studies on the impact of
mining on flora and fauna in this area. In our compilation we
reproduced extracts of their report titled “Impact of iron ore
mining on the flora and fauna of KNP and environs a rapid
assessment” (Jan 2001). They conclude that the overall
impacts of the mining and associated activities on the ecology
of KNP can be summarized mainly as the direct loss of habitat
and the fragmentation of an important tract of tropical
rainforest/grassland in the Western Ghats. Some
recommendations include;
a) Mining impact on overall biodiversity: It is clear that
the areas opened up for mining and abandoned mine areas
have very low diversity of most plant and animal groups. From
the biodiversity angle we would like to emphasize the value
of the following species viz, the Kudremukh region supports
the largest breeding population of the Lion-tailed Macaque,
a highly endangered primate that is endemic to the Western
Ghats. This region is also important for the Tiger. There is a
possibility that new species of fishes, unrecorded in India,
may be found in the pristine Bhadra-Tunga river system at
Kudremukh We thus strongly disagree with Sharma (1977)
who gave little importance to Kudremukh as regards its
wildlife.
b) Impact through fragmentation: The total direct loss of
wildlife habitat due to the project, for mining, dam, roads,
electric transmission lines, pipelines etc. is around 2000 ha.
The cascading ecological effects on the adjoining forests due
to the project and its ancillary facilities are spread over a
larger area.
c) General observations on mining and future
management:
l Hazards of breaching of Lakhya Dam, due to the high
rainfall in the region needs to be re- examined and regularly
monitored to avoid any future disaster.
l The longer-term study by NEERI has also not sampled
the water quality during the monsoon period. Detailed studies
need to be conducted, to examine the sediment contribution
from mining area at Kudremukh in reducing the designed life
span of Bhadra Reservoir.
l Future management of the region will have to take
concerted and effective measures for prevention of soil
erosion, through civil and biological controls in the abandoned
mining area.
l There has been considerable effort in raising plantations
of exotic species in the natural grasslands of the Kudremukh
region. There is absolutely no biological justification for
converting these grasslands into plantations of exotics.
l Implications of continued mining and fresh mining in
unopened areas. This would be totally incompatible with the
Undermining India
existence of a National Park in the region.
In Conclusion:
The report (NST-INCERT) proves that the KIOCL actions
have damaged the ecology of the Kudremukh National Park.
KIOCL is guilty of violating the laws of the land, made easier
by negligence and in some instances active connivance of
the monitoring and enforcement agencies, both at the Central
and as well as the State levels. NEERI’s misleading CEIA
abetted in the cover up of the illegalities perpetrated by
KIOCL.
Comment: Subsequent to the production of this report,
an ecological/environmental impact study was conducted
by Dr. Jagdish Krishnaswamy of the Ashoka Trust for
Research in Ecology and Environment (ATREE) on the
impacts of the mining on Bhadra river, which proved crucial
in the Kudremukh campaign carried out by the groups such
as Wildlife First.
1
All minerals other than those notified as “minor minerals” by the Central
Govenrment are major minerals. In Indian mining law “minerals” includes all
minerals except mineral oils (natural gas and petroleum). The Mines and
Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, defines “minor minerals” as:
“ 3 (e) “ minor minerals” means building stones, gravels, ordinary clay, ordinary
sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes, and any other mineral
which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette
declare to be a minor mineral.”
Apart from the minerals already listed in the above clause the Central
Government has declared 15 other minerals as minor minerals. No exhaustive
definition of minor mineral which states the criteria for declaring any mineral
as minor mineral has been given in any law. But minor minerals have generally
been minerals used for building and construction purposes. The State
governments has considerable powers to regulate the mining of minor minerals,
including grant of mining leases. Generally these minerals are somewhat of
local importance and can be developed on the small scale. After the 73rd
amendement of the Constitution in 1993, Panchayats too have a greater role to
play with respect to the minor mineral sector.
2
Indian Bureau of Mines, 2000. Reclamation/ Restoration – Techniques &
Strategy for Mined Out Areas
3
The “scheduled areas” here refers to the “fifth schedule” of the Indian
constitution. Article 244 (i) provides for tribal dominated areas in the country
to be declared as fifth schedule areas (except the North East which has a
separate provision in the sixth schedule of the constitution). The Governors
of the concerned states have been given extensive powers and may prevent
or amend any law enacted by Parliament or the State assembly that could
harm the tribal interests. It is a tool of “positive discrimination” to protect the
interests of tribal communities which have been exploited over the years. One
of the most significant provisions for these areas are the prevention of land
transfer to non-tribals in these areas. The Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled
Areas) Act, 1996, applies to these areas and seeks to give the communities
greater control over their natural resources and developmenetal planning in
the area. This also makes it mandatory to consult the Gram Sabha/ Panchayat
prior to grant of prospecting licenses/ mining leases/ concessions by auction
for minor minerals.
4
Circular No. 11-30/96-FC (Pt.) dated 26.02.1999
5
The Civil Appeal Nos. 4601 and 4602/97 in the Supreme Court were filed by
the group Samatha working on tribal issues in Andhra Pradesh. The litigation
was pertaining to the grant of mining leases to private parties in the scheduled
areas of Vizag district in Andhra Pradesh. Besides the social impacts and the
violation of tribal rights which this mining would have caused, it also had
tremendous environmental implications, as this area falls in an ecologically
fragile portion of the Eastern Ghats
6
Compiled by: Mahalakshmi Parthasarathy & S. Sridhar & Published Jointly
by: Nagarika Seva Trust and Institute for Natural Resources Conservation,
Education, Research and Training Website: http://incert.tripod.com/incert
87
 Chapter VII
A Review of Ecological Amelioration
Practices in Abandoned Mines
Opencast mining operations have a number of irreversible
impacts on the surrounding environment and ecosystems. The
more obvious impacts are deforestation, changes in soil and
hydrological regimes and enhanced rates of erosion. Less
acknowledged but very often critical, is the loss of biological
diversity. Mining operations alter the ecosystem structure
and functions. Any amelioration project must aim at restoring
the altered functions and structures to the pre-mining
condition of the ecosystem/environment affected.
The problem of overburden heaps and land degradation is
still perceived as problems that can be dealt with by civil
engineering interventions as in the treatment of pollution
problems. Conservation concerns are rarely reflected in the
approach to the problem. Mitigation measures commonly
adopted in mined out areas are:
· Compensatory afforestation/Plantation
· Ecological Remediation
· Reforestation/Plantation
· Integrated treatment of wastes involving microbes2
· Reclamation
· Rehabilitation and
· Ecological Restoration.
Our research on existing policies revealed a lack of clarity
Box 1: Restoration Efforts in India
Forest Research Institute, Dehradun, Indian Bureau of Mines,
Nagpur, Center for Mining and Environment, Indian School of Mine,
Dhanbad, State Forest Research Institute, Jabalpur, NEERI, Nagpur,
etc are some organizations which are involved in ecological
amelioration of mined areas, however all these have different
perspective of the problem viz. FRI, Dehradun has adapted
restoration and rehabilitation approach to mitigate the problem of
abandoned mines and mine wastes, whereas CME, IBM has less
emphasis on ecology. An organization like National Environmental
Engineering Institute (NEERI) has Integrated Bio-technical Approach
that includes engineering methods, rehabilitation and microbial
treatment of the dumps and waste.
The literature survey revealed that the above mentioned institutions
are involved in carrying out active research in the fields of ecological
amelioration and of mine wastes, overburden heaps, abandoned
mines. Besides material from the above institutions other sources
of literature include various reports and case studies by Tata Energy
Research Institute (TERI), Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS),
Wildlife Institute of India (WII) etc. These reports and case studies
include impact assessment studies and management
recommendations for opencast mine sites in the vicinity of protected
areas or wildlife habitat.
88
1
in the policy formulation for the rehabilitation of the mined
out areas. Definitions and interpretations of various terms
used in statutes are both unclear and ambiguous. It is because
of this absence of clear guidelines on mine closure and
restoration that many mined out areas are abandoned without
amelioration, leaving them open to further degradation. This
is one of the major causes of the present state of the
environment in the mining belts.
Deposits of many economically important minerals, like
coal, iron ore, manganese ore, bauxite etc. are located in
forested areas, sometimes in close proximity to Protected
Areas (PAs). In India, at least ninety PAs are affected by
various mining operations, some active and others abandoned.
Inappropriate processes of mine closure can have far-reaching
consequences, especially in ecologically sensitive areas. The
formulation of management strategies for mine closure is
thus critical to ecological restoration.
Of the 9,244 mineral leases in India, some 3,000 are
active (Mineral Advisory Council, 2002). Though the area
covered by these leases comprises only 0.21% of the total
geographical area of the country, the total area affected by
mining operations are often magnified by a factor of 200-
300% (Mann & Chatterjee, 1978; Soni et al, 1989).
Two noteworthy examples of eco-restoration and eco-regeneration
schemes and their monitoring. in mined out areas and on overburden
dumps have been conducted by the Forest Soils and Land Reclamation
Division (FSLRD) of the Forest Research Institute (FRI), Dehradun.
First example is that of Rock Phosphate Mines of
M/s Pyrite Phosphates and Chemicals Ltd. located at Maldeota in Dun-
Mussoorie region, where the FSLRD in collaboration with mining
company have restored the damaged areas. The restoration
programme was monitored and has been published as a case study in
the form of report. The study touches various aspects of mining from
impacts to the economics of restoration. (P. Soni, et al, 1992).
Second example is that of Eastern Sector (iron ore) Mines of SAIL
(Steel Authority of India Ltd.) located in Bihar (now Jharkhand) and
Orissa. Here a systematic ecological assessment of the impact and
reclamation practices was carried and in the second phase, eco-
restoration monitoring studies were conducted in the Bolani Ore Mines,
Kheonjhar, Orissa. (P. Soni et al., 1999)
These studies are comprehensive and prove the fact that with the
long-term planning and systematic efforts mined out areas can be
ecologically restored.
There are other good examples of rehabilitation of abandoned
Bauxite mines from Central India (Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh).
These studies were conducted by Tropical Forestry Resaerch Institute
Jabalpur.
Undermining India
 A joint study conducted by the Forest Survey of India (FSI)
and the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) reported 353 metal
mining leases in the the mineral rich states of Madhya
Pradesh, Bihar and Orissa, covering 90,695 hectares; almost
59% of this lease area is under forest cover. In the absence
of clear guidelines for closure, these figures illustrate the
considerable threat to conservation in these “forest rich”
states.
Though few mining companies may have conducted
substantial restoration or rehabilitation efforts, these efforts
remain unpublished. This lack of information thus gives an
inadequate national picture with regard to the status of
restoration or ecological amelioration.
In the following chapter we review various ecological
amelioration practices (land management, remediation,
reclamation, rehabilitation and restoration) in mined out areas
in the country with an emphasis on mines in Protected Areas,
wildlife corridors and ecosensitive areas.
Definition of various terms used for Ecological
Amelioration
The dictionary meaning of restoration is to bring back to
the original state… or to a healthy vigorous state. Many times
the word restoration is used to denote degree of greening of
denuded site or times used as synonymous with other words
like rehabilitation, reclamation, remediation etc. In ecological

Box 2: Legal Statutes relevant to amelioration of mined sites in India

The Mineral Concession Rules, (1960), Chapter IV

Chapter IV deals with the grant of mining leases in respect of land in which the minerals vest. Rule No. 22. Application for Grant
of Mining Leases, Section (5) subsection (iv) states, “The plan of the area showing natural water courses, limits of reserves and other
forest areas and density of trees, if any, assessment of impact of mining activity on forest, land surface and environment including air
and water pollution; details of scheme of restoration of the area by afforestation, land reclamation, use of pollution control devices and
such other measures as may be directed by the Central Government or the State Government from time to time”.
Rule 27 subsection (1s) states, ‘the lessee shall – take immediate measures for planting in the same area or any other area
selected by the Central Government not less than twice the number of trees destroyed by reasons of any mining operations;
Rule 27 subsection (3) states, ‘...[the leasee shall] ...look after them during the subsistence of the lease after which these trees
shall be handed over to the State Forest Department or any other authority nominated by the Central or State Government; restore to
the extent possible other flora destroyed by the mining operations.’

Mineral Conservation & Development Rules, 1988 (Environment)

Rule 31 of the Rules states, ‘Every holder of a prospecting licence or a mining lease shall take all possible precautions for the
protection of environment and control of pollution while conducting prospecting, mining, beneficiation or metallurgical operations in
the area’.
Rule 34 states, ‘Every holder of prospecting licence or mining lease shall undertake the phased restoration, reclamation and
rehabilitation of lands affected by prospecting or mining operations and shall complete this work before the conclusion of such
operations and the abandonment of prospect or mine’.
Rule 41. subsection 1 and 2, (Restoration of flora), states, ‘...Every holder of prospecting licence or a mining lease shall carry out
prospecting or mining operations, as the case may be, in such a manner so as to cause least damage to the flora of the area held
under prospecting licence or mining lease and the nearby areas, ... Every holder of prospecting licence or a mining lease shall take
immediate measures for planting in the same area or any other area selected by the Controller General or the authorized officer not
less than twice the number of trees destroyed by reason of any prospecting or mining operations’.

Granite Conservation & Development Rules (1999), Chapter VI: Systematic & Scientific Mining
Chapter VI, Rule 32. (Reclamation and Rehabilitation of lands) states, ‘...Every lease holder shall undertake in a phased manner
restoration, reclamation and rehabilitation of lands affected by prospecting or mining operations and shall complete this work before
the conclusion of such operations and the abandonment of the granite quarry’.
Rule 33. (Precaution against air pollution) states, ‘Air pollution due to dust, exhaust emissions or fumes during prospecting, mining
or processing operations for granite and related activities shall be controlled and kept within permissible limits specified under any
environmental laws for the time being in force’.
Rule 37.( Restoration of flora), states ‘...Every leaseholder shall take immediate measures for planting in the area held under the
lease or any other area selected by the State Government for this purpose, such number of trees sufficient to improve the environment
and to minimize effects of land degradation during the entire period of such lease. He shall look after such tree plantations during the
subsistence of the lease’.
Comment : The above rules use various terms, viz. plantation, afforestation, land reclamation, rehabilitation and restoration.
There is a need for standardization of the definitions of various terms used in different statutes, which will help streamline the existing
processes of mine amelioration. Some of the rules also prescribe planting twice the number of trees destroyed during mining. While
there have been examples of successful plantation efforts or afforestation programmes, it must be kept in mind that it is very difficult
to compensate the loss of a natural forest by plantations, especially when the disturbed site is diverse and is unique in terms of
species richness and diversity. It is also important that a post-disturbance landuseplan reflects the pre-disturbance landuse of the
specific area.

Undermining India 89

Box 3: Other Statutes covering mining
National Wildlife Action Plan, (NWAP) 2002
Section XIII of the NWAP on ‘Integration of National Wildlife
Action Plan with other sectoral programmes’ recommends that
the mining sector “...exclude wildlife protected areas/corridors
from their mining plans. Proper rehabilitation of degraded and
abandoned mining areas should also be done. A programme to
phase out all existing operations in wildlife areas should be
prepared.”
EIA Notifications, 1994 requires that Environment
Management Plans of mines should include Reclamation Plans.
Forest (Conservation) Rules3 : The FC Rules earlier required
the submission of a ‘phased reclamation plan’. However, an
amendment to the Rules in 2003 has suggested submission of
the IBM approved mining plan for major minerals/CMPDI plan
with subsidence analysis reports, etc.
Comment: EIA notification 1994 and FCA, 1980 should provide
clear guidelines for various amelioration techniques. These need
to take into consideration the changes in mineral sector laws
and policies that have taken place in this respect in recent times.
amelioration these four words are commonly used and also
used as a substitute for each other.
Bradshaw (1997) clearly defines these four words:
Restoration is defined as the act of restoring to the former
state or position or to restore is to bring back to the original
state…. or to a healthy vigorous state. There is both the
implication of returning to an original state and to state that
is perfect and healthy.
Rehabilitation is defined as the action of restoring a thing
to a previous condition or status. This appears similar to
restoration, but there is little or no implication to perfection.
In common usage, something rehabilitated is not expected
to be in the original or healthy state as if it has been restored
(Francis et al. 1979).
Remediation is the act of remedying, that’s rectifying.
Here the emphasis is on the process rather than on the
endpoint reached.
Reclamation is a term used by many practitioners, which
can be defined as making land fit for cultivation. But reclaim
is used to indicate bringing back to a proper state. There is
no implication of returning to an original state but rather to
useful one.
Afforestation is the act of planting trees on a large area .
It could be to compensate the change of forest landuse to
non-forest landuse which is not compatible with the interest
of long-term conservation.
The Society for Ecological Restoration defines ecological
restoration as the process of assisting the recovery and
management of ecological integrity. Ecological integrity
90
includes a critical range of variability in biodiversity,
ecological processes and structures, regional and historical
context, and sustainable cultural practices (www.ser.org,
2000).
In India the word restoration is widely used to describe
activities including those that can be better called
rehabilitation, reclamation or revegetation.
The Legal and Statutory Framework for restoration
Mineral deposits are governed by various statutes: the
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act
(1957); the Mineral Concession Rules (1960); the Mineral
Conservation and Development Rules (1988); and the
National Mineral Policy (1993), the Granite Conservation
& Development Rules, (1999). These statutes also prescribe
statutory guidelines for the restoration, but either very
vaguely or without reference to conservation needs (see Box
2). There are no legal provisions for key issues of monitoring
amelioration practices.
These gaps and loopholes in the law prevent appropriate
implementation. Because of the existence of legal provisions
that permit compensatory plantation on sites allotted by the
state or central government several miles away from the lease
area (see Box 2 MCDR, 1988 Rule No. 41), mined out areas
are often left as they are, leaving the disturbed site to
deteriorate beyond repair.
Under various rules of the Mineral Conservation and
Development Rules (1988), mining leaseholders are under
legal obligation to inform the Government of closure. While
there are no specific guidelines for closure, all statutes do
mention afforestation, rehabilitation, reclamation, land
Box 4: How trees help in restoring ecological processes
Planting trees on an abandoned mine site is a common
practice in mined out areas. Use of even non-native trees in the
ecological amelioration programs such as plantations,
afforestation etc. do help in restoring the severely damaged
ecological functions due to mining activity (Bradshaw, 1987;
Parrota, 1999). The studies suggest that under certain
circumstances (proper management and monitoring), the
plantations play an important role in enhancing the colonization
process in the understory. Use of exotic species and plantations
is justified because they provide fuel, small dimension timber,
and non-wood forest produce for the local communities and, are
being widely used for rehabilitating deforested watersheds and
other degraded landscapes and are also useful as foster
ecosystems (Parrota, 1993, Parrota, 1999).
These practices are economical and deliver desired outputs
in comparatively shorter duration provided these are being
implemented on the abandoned mine site. Very often instead of
restoring the mined out area the leaseholders carry out
compensatory afforestation as prescribed (Refer to the section
on Legal and statutory framework for restoration of mines). But,
of course, planting tens and thousands of trees at different sites
(other than the abandoned mine) as compensation does not
ameliorate the abandoned opencast mines.
Afforestation and plantation drives are important too, for they could
an important tool for establishing native tree species and for
catalyzing ecological succession. Nonetheless, this requires rigorous
management and monitoring to achieve the goal of creating the
heterogeneity (Parrota, 1997).
Undermining India
remediation and restoration.
The Mineral Advisory Council has recently (September,
2002) proposed amendments to Rule 29 of the Mineral
Concession Rules (MCR) 1960, seeking to enforce legal and
financial provisions for mine closure. Recently, the MoEF
has begun demanding closure plans from mine operators to
be submitted 5 years before actual closure of mining
operations.
While much stress has been placed on making mined-out
areas ‘fit for use’, very little emphasis is given to ecological
considerations. In many instances, management personnel
involved in mitigation have little exposure to conservation
research. In many instances, ‘remedial measures’ become
synonymous with plantation and afforestation schemes.
No performance indicators or criteria have been laid to
assess or evaluate the success of amelioration programmes.
Present criteria used include growth parameters, survival rate,
soil parameters: organic carbon and nutrient levels, and other
soil regimes besides plant diversity (Ram Prasad & Shukla,
1985; Soni et al, 1999; Abbasi & Vinithan, 1999; Banerjee et
al. 2000). There are very few studies that have focused on
ecosystem functions and structure, processes of diversity,
natural community composition, and wildlife habitat use.
Conservation concerns expressed in forest and
environmental policies and laws (such as the National
Wildlife Action Plan (2002)) are not reflected in statutes
related to mine closure and abandonment.
Ecological Issues related to amelioration in mined out
areas
Landscape transformation and Biodiversity Rich Areas
The practices such as plantation programs or afforestation
sometimes tend to overlook the pre-disturbance landuse. Very
often the pre-disturbance conditions such as landuse pattern
(forest landuse), landscape elements, forest types are ignored
while reclaiming the overburden or abandoned mine. Such
actions lead to alteration of wildlife habitat and sometimes
loss of habitat for flora and fauna. This has been seen to be
especially true with seasonal grasslands in the Western Ghats,
which supports large number of ephemerals and is breeding
ground for herpetofauna (Ghate et al., 2001).
There is a classic example of this condition at
Durgamanwad plateau bordering Radhanagari sanctuary in
Maharashtra, where the mining company has converted a
supposedly ‘barren plateau’ into a green forest. As a
management strategy the mining company operating in this
area has planted large number of Australian acacia (A.
auriculiformis) trees on these ‘barren plateaus’. This, in time
to come, will convert the grassland that supports large number
of rare and endangered herbs, to a woodland. While this may
seem visually appealing to some, this is infact destroying the
plateau ecosystem. These methods will reduce the floral
diversity and habitat quality and are also expensive.
Such actions of the concerned mining company are also
reflective of ambiguities in the mining laws (MCR, 1960
and MCDR, 1988, Refer to Box 2). Rules 34 and 41 of
MCDR, 1988 mentions reclamation, restoration and
Undermining India
afforestation of the mined out areas, and also specifically
refers to restoration of destroyed flora. Here it should be
made clear that if the native flora gets destroyed while
carrying out mining operations then it has to be compensated
with native trees and plants and not by planting twice the
number of trees that have been destroyed. Thus, along with
various amelioration methods, desired post mining landuse
should also be indicated through enabling guidelines. The
decision about post mining landuse should be made on the
basis of pre-disturbance landuse. In case an area has forests,
the post-mining landuse should be the same.
Exotic Plantations and Wildlife Habitat
Current reclamation and rehabilitation efforts often make
use of exotic species. These practices include afforestation
or plantation programmes; that include large-scale
introduction of fast growing exotic species such as Leucaena
leucocephala; Australian Acacia (Acacia auriculiformis),
Gliricidia sepium, Silver oak, Eucalyptus species etc. and
species of commercial importance such as Teak, Casuarina,
etc. The issues that have emerged from the current analysis
are not just restricted to the inherent problems in certain
ecological amelioration techniques (for example plantations
using exotic species), but they also pertain to the way these
techniques have been implemented and their relevance or
appopriateness in a particular area (viz. ecologically sensitive
areas). The main concerns in the context of the wildlife
habitats affected by mining are changed landuse, allelopathy,4
alteration of habitats and habitat structures due to large-scale
use of non-native species. There are very few studies
documenting the role of these management practices in
restoring the wildlife habitat or what their effect is on such
habitats.
The use of non-native or exotic maybe justifiable in some
areas. But areas which are fragile ecosystems and biologically
rich need to be treated differently. Usually these are the
unique areas that support wide variety of flora and fauna and
provide ecological services. Compensatory afforestation
Box 5: Afforestation and Plantation on abandoned mines
The Ministry of Statistics & Planning, GoI, has published a
compendium that covers statistics on Environment and biodiversity.
One of the chapters has dealt with land statistics, which reports
the status of afforestation and trees survival up to 1998-99.
According to this report thus far 812 mines (covering an area of
22155.19 ha) of various kinds have been afforested with 491,22,498
trees. The table highlighting the above data has only one parameter
for the evaluation of the program, which is survival rate of the
trees. It shows that 71% of the trees planted survived, thus the
afforestation schemes have been projected to be a whopping
success!! The report could have been more comprehensive if other
crucial aspects such as tree species i.e. native or non-native,
biogeographical location of the mine sites, ecological setting of the
mine, ameliorative practices at each site, pre-disturbance landuse
etc. were addressed alongwith the usual number of trees and
survival rate of the trees. While planting trees is important to stabilize
the landscape, it is equally important to make an attempt to
ameliorate the area in an ecologically sound manner.
91
programmes, though prescribed under various rules, does not
really compensates the losses incurred due to landuse
conversion – in this case forest to opencast mines.
Research shows that exotic plants alter community
composition and structure by influencing energy, nutrients
or water out of proportion to their biomass. As exotics
become established, native forage species used by ungulates
may receive such small share of available resources that they
are able to persist only at very low population levels (Cody
1986). Degradation of the native community and local
extinction of preferred plants may reduce carrying capacity
of the landscape for native wildlife (Trammel & Butler 1995).
It results in loss or decrease in diversity and loss of food
species of ungulates and other small mammals and makes
habitat unfit for utilization. In a study conducted in Theodore
Roosevelt National Park, Trammel and Butler (1995) has
reported that reduction in leafy spurge-infested green ash-
chokecherry habitats can probably be attributed to combined
effects of avoidance and reduced density of chokecherry
shrubs. In another study conducted by Nichols and Watkins
(1985) on avifauna in reclaimed mine site, it was observed
that revegetation of mined areas with pine and Eucalyptus
but no understory, results in low species richness diversity
and density of bird species.
A more recent study of effect of exotic grasses on native
plants and animals by Gernamo et al. (2001) in San Joaquin
Valley, California shows that many plants and animals native
to this area are adapted to relatively open habitats and
therefore are morphologically, behaviorally and
physiologically ill-equipped to live in dense grass. According
to the findings of the study, native plants and animals have
significant negative effect due to alteration of the structure
of the habitat.
The plantation programmes, revegetation or afforestation
with exotic species for amelioration of the mined areas may
restore the ecological processes and functions to certain
extent. But these programmes or methods do not serve the
purpose to restoring structural damages done to the
ecosystem or wildlife habitat due to mining activity. Such
programs may prove economical and useful where the
dominant landuse is opencast mines. In such areas any tree
cover is a welcome sight in the barren background. But in
general the exotic species that are introduced may cause
structural damage to the ecosystem due to monoculture,
allelopathic effects of certain plant species, which reduces
the biological diversity or population of individual species.
It may hamper habitat quality and habitat use of wilderness
areas, as they do not promote diversity or may reduce biomass
production of foraging species. Considering that substantial
mining activity has already ravaged some of our most crucial
wildlife habitats, its very important that urgent attention is
paid to the ecological restoration of these areas.
Recommendations
1) Immediate assessment and evaluation of existing
management practices and amelioration methods needs to
be carried out based on ecological and socio-economic
92
criteria.
Comment: Few studies have assessed amelioration
practices in abandoned mines. Without assessment it is
difficult to define a framework and formulate guidelines
for rehabilitation. Very little research has been conducted
to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the remedial
measures undertaken. Only a handful of Institutes and
agencies viz. Tropical Forestry Research Institute, Jabalpur;
Forest Research Institute, Dehradun; Center for Mining and
Environment, Dhanbad are involved in the monitoring of
reclaimed sites.
Thus far various research projects that have studied
the success of amelioration programmes have focused on
restoration of various ecological functions and some
ecological structures such as woody plants and understory
vegetation (Abbasi & Vinithan, 1999; Banerjee et al. 2000).
There are very few case studies that have evaluated the
effectiveness of the reclamation in restoring biological
diversity and natural communities that form a crucial part
of wildlife habitats. Therefore, it is very important to assess
Box 6: Major processes in Ecological
Amelioration
Mined-out area / Overburden Heaps
Reconnaissance
Survey
Deciding the Goals and Objectives of the
Amelioration or Management programme
Planning, Data generation* and
Design of the programme
Site preparation: Leveling, Backfilling,
Gully Plugs, Fencing, Drainage, Trenching etc.
Ecological Measures: Collection of the
planting material, Broadcast seedlings, grass-
seed mixture.
Monitoring and Research: Soil & water
quality, Species Colonisation, biodiversity
inventory, periodical assessments
& evaluation.
Corrective measures
* Data Generation: It involves various type of data such as data
about preexisting landuse, preexisting flora and fauna, existing
status of the physical environment, ecosystem etc.
Undermining India
and evaluate such practices, especially where the dominant
landuse is a forest or an important wilderness area such
as a protected area or a wildlife corridor. With the help of
this kind of research, performance standards could be laid.
2) There is a need for clear definitions and differentiation
between various terms such as restoration, rehabilitation,
reclamation, remediation, reforestation, plantation etc. which
are often used interchangeably in environmental, forest and
mining laws and policies. Appropriate changes need to be
made in the relevant laws after clear definitions are
established.
Comment: Proposed amendments in mining laws and
policies need to to address the concerns regarding the
impacts of mining expressed in existing environmental/
forest/ wildlife policies and laws (eg. the National Wildlife
Action Plan 2002). While this process will require some
time, unambiguous definitions and clarification of the
various terms used interchangeably in the rules should be
done with immediate effect.
3) A detailed Manual on ecological amelioration practices for
mined areas to be produced in consultation with a wide range
of stakeholders. This manual should include:
l guidelines as to the nature of amelioration inputs
(restoration, reclamation etc.) required according to the
mineral, extraction process, location of mine etc.
l performance standards for the reclamation programmes
in mine region according to a range of site-specific
requirements.
l monitoring protocols to measure the performance of
reclamation projects.
l case studies on best practices from around the world.
4) It is suggested that priority areas be identified for complete
ecological restoration. The following is suggested for this
purpose:
l the ecological amelioration programme should be site
specific and should address the pre-disturbance landuse while
designing the mine closure plan.
l The rehabilitation / mine closure should be able to provide
alternative livelihood options for the workers/local
community affected by the mining operations. These
segments of the society should be the main stakeholders in
the rehabilitation process.
l The aims and objectives of the rehabilitation / restoration
plan should be decided in consultation with local community,
labour, forest department, other line departments etc. These
plans could be better implemented with the help of
ethnobotanical and traditional knowledge of local people.
5) Mine Closure Plans need to become mandatory, with a
provision for financial or performance bonds.5
Comment: Both the Mineral Advisory Council and the
Undermining India
MoEF have been discussing the issue of legislating
provisions for a mandatory Mine Closure Plan, alongwith
developing a framework of financial assurances to be able
to implement this. Hopefully this issue will be addressed
in the immediate future.
6) Greater research is required to map the overlap between
mining leases and ecologically sensitive areas.
Comment: Currently there are many gaps in the information
and statistics of extent of land affected by the mining,
particularly with respect to ecologically fragile areas.
While inventories and details of mining leases do exist
with the Indian Bureau of Mines (atleast for major
minerals), detailed work on mapping the overlap of mining
leases and ecologically sensitive areas is still in the nascent
stage. The Forest Survey of India has been recently
working on a mapping of ‘Forest cover in metal mining
areas’ for metal mines in Orissa, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh
etc. Similar information is being collected in Goa and
Karnataka (Anon, 1999). However, these statistics provide
details only for metal mines in a few states, hence it is
required that detailed mapping is done for all kinds of
mines across the country.
Endnotes:
1
Ecological amelioration: Literal meaning of ecological amelioration is
application of ecological principals for lessening the adverse effects of
opencast mines and the waste generated by the opencast mines. This includes
use of plant material along with other physical interventions.
2
Developed at National Environmental Engineering Institute (NEERI), Nagpur
and has been successfully implemented in the mined out areas of M/s
Manganese Ore India Ltd.
3
Amongst the provisions under the Forest Conservation Act (FCA),1980,
the ‘Consoloidation Guidelines’ are extremely critical and form the operating
guidelines for executing the Act. Section: 4.15 (iv) states that “In case of
opencast mining, it should be the responsibility of the Nodal Officer and his
staff to ensure that all necessary inputs like creation of nursery, storage of top
soil for reuse and methodology for its reforestation, choice of species etc. are
so planned and implemented that the mined area is fully afforested by the time
mining operations are completed.” Besides Section 4.15, the Section 2.6 on
cost-benefit analysis can also be used effectively as a decision making tool
while granting FCA clearance, provided cost / value of ecosystem services is
also calculated while transferring forest land to non-forest purpose.
4
Allelopathy: The inhibition of the growth of a plant by the action of
substances (known as allelochemicals) released by another plant.
5
Performance bonds should be used to ensure that funds will be available to
mitigate any potential environmental or social damages.
Performance bonds are an effective financial tool for encouraging good
practices. A performance bond is a financial assurance deposited by the
mining company with the Government. The bond provides an additional
guarantee, over and above any traditional insurance policies, that funds will
be available to mitigate or correct any potential environmental social or
environmental damages, Bonds also ensure that money will be available for
reclamation of a site in case a company abandons a mine or goes bankrupt
before reclamation is complete.
For a section of mines being exploited by small investors, Panchayats,
cluster mine areas etc. the restoration of the mines will be done by the Forest
Department of the respective State with funds from the CEF. The MoEF will
lay down guidelines to categorise the mines which will be eligible for
rehabilitation by government, but a mine will become eligible for restoration
by the government only after certification from the Regional Office of the
MoEF while processing the applications for environmental/forest clearance
before commencement of mining operations.
93
List of References native and non-indigenous plant species in Hawaii, Forestry Ecology and
1) Banerjee, S. P., (1993) Mining and ecological sustainability. The Mining, Management 99 (1997) vii: 153-162
Geological & Metallurgical Institute of India, 87th Annual General Meeting, 28) Molina A., Reigosa M.J. & carballeira A., 1991Release of allelochemical
June 12, 1993, pp. 1-7. agents from litter through fall, and topsoil in planatation of Eucalyptus globulus
2) Soni P., Vasistha, H.B., Om Kumar, 1994 Revegetation of an abandoned in Spain Jourl. of Chemical Ecology 17: 147-160
limestone mine in Mussoorie Hills, Advances in forestry researche in India, 29) Cody M.L., 1986, Diversity, rarity and conservation in Mediterranean-
Vol.XI, 1994 climate regimes. Pages 112-152 in M.E. Soule Conservation biology – the
3) Soni P. (1998). Concept of ecorejuvenation – its application in mined science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Assoc., Sunderland, Mass.
areas. In Environmental Managements concepts, strategies in mined areas. 30) Trammel M.A. & Butler, J.L., 1995 Effects of Exotic plants on native ungulate
Ed. Soni, P., Chandra V., & Sharma S. D., Forest research Institute, New Forest, use of habitat. J. of Wildlife Management 59(4):1995.
Dehradun. 31 Nichols, O.G. & Watkins, D., 1985 Bird utilization of rehabilitated bauxite
4) Anon 2000(4,20) Reclamation /Restoration techniques and strategies for minesites in Western Australia, Biological Conservation 30 (1984): 109-131
mined out areas. Bulletin 37, Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur, 2000 32) Gernamo, D.J., Rathbun, G.B. & Saslaw, L.R., 2001, Managing Exotic grasses
and conserving declining species, Wildlife Society Bulletin 2001, 29(2): 551-
5) Bradshaw, A.D., 1997, What do we mean by restoration? In Restoration
559
Ecology and Sustainable Development. Ed. Urbanska, K. M., Webb, N. R., &
33) Covington WW 2000, Helping Western Forests Heal. Nature Vol. 408
Edwards, P.J., Cambridge University Press 1997.
Nov. 2000: pp 135-138.
6) Francis, G.R., Magnuson, J.J., Reigier, H.A. & Talhelm, D.R., 1979,
34) Abbasi, S.A.& Vinithan, S., 1999, Ecological Impacts of Eucalyptus
Rehabilitating Great Lakes Ecosystems. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Great Lakes
Tereticornis-Globulus (Eucalyptus Hybrid) Plantations in a Mining area, Indian
Fishery Commission.
Forester, (1999): 163-186
7) Urbanska, K.M., Webb, N.R. & Edwards, P.J., 1997, Why Restoration? In 35) Bradshaw, A.D., 1984, Land Restoration: Now and in future, Proceedings
Restoration Ecology and Sustainable Development. Ed. Urbanska, K. M., of Royal Society, London, B233, 1-23
Webb, N. R., & Edwards, P.J., Cambridge University Press 1997. 36) Agenda Papers of the Meeting: Mineral Advisory Council 2002
8) Young T. P., 2000, Restoration Ecology and Conservation Biology. 37) Rosenfeld, S.A. & Clark, A.P. 2000, Lightening the lode – A Guide to
Biological Conservation 92 (2000) 73-83 responsible large-scale mining, CI Policy Papers, Conservation International
9) Mathur, H.N., 1978, Environmental Conservation and Mining, Indian Washington D.C.
Journal of For. 1 (1): 266-277 38) Parrotta, J.A., 1999,Productivity, nutrient cycling, and succession in single
10) Chaturvedi J.K. (1983), Afforestation of Bauxite mine area in Central India. and mixed species plantations of Casuarina equisetifolia, Eucalyptus robusta
Indian Forester. July 1983. and Leucaena leucocephala Forest Ecology and Management, 124(1999):
11) Ram Prasad Shukla P.K., (1985), Restoration of ecological balance to the 45-77
bauxite mined areas of Madhya Pradesh, Journal of Tropical Forestry July – 39) Parrotta, J.A., 1993, Secondary Forest Regeneration on degradaded
Sept., 1985 Vol.1 (III): 236-245 tropical lands: The role of plantations as ‘foster ecosystems’H. Leith and M.
12) R. Ghosh & Ghosh D.N., 1990, Land Protection and land reclamation in Lohmann (eds.) Restoration of Tropical Forest Ecosystems, pp: 63-73
opencast mining areas – A Case study in Jharia Coal Field, Eastern India, 40) Parrotta, J.A.Turnbull, J.W. & Jones N., 1997, Catalyzing native forest
Indian Journal Of earth Sciences Vol. 17, No. 2:108-112 regeneration on degraded tropical lands, Forest Ecology and Management,
13) Ghosh, R. & Ghosh, D. N., 1993, Biological Reclamation of surface mined 99(1997): 1-7
lands without soil grafting: A working Model, Intl. Jourl. Of Surface Mining 41) Vagholikar, N. & Moghe, K.A., (In Press), Mining and Biodiversity Sub-
and Reclamation 7 (1993): 163-170 thematic Review, National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP).
14) Maiti SK, 1995, Reclamation of spoil material by application of domestic 42) Banerjee, et al. 2000, Vegetation status, Nutritional characteristics and
raw sewage, Indian Jourl. of Environmental Protection, vol. 15, No. 4: 250-256 Biological activity of Manganese mine overburden spoils in relation to age,
15) Singh RS Chaulya SK Tewary BK & Dhar, 1996, Restoratio of a coalmine Indian Forester, July 2000:742-748
overburden dump – A case study, Coal International, March (1996): 80-83
16) Ghosh, M.K., 1996, Damage of land due to coal mining and conservation Web References
of topsoil for land reclamation, Environment and Ecology 14 (2): 466-468, 1996. Society For Ecological Restoration www.ser.org
17) Singh, R.S, Chaulya, S.K., Singh S.K., R.S., Chakraborty, M.K., (1999); World Resource Institute www.wri.org
Vegetation Remediation towards clean coal technology. International
Symposium on Clean Coal Initiatives, N. Delhi, India.
18) S. K., Maiti & Saxena N.C., 1998, Biological Reclamation of coalmine spoils
without topsoil: An amendment study with domestic raw sewage and grass-
legume mixture, International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and
Environment 12 (1998): 87-90
19) Ghosh, R., 2000, A Concept for Hydrological Reclamation in Mining areas
for Effective Greening and Reviving Water resources, Minetech Vol. 21(1): 41-
45
20) Anon, 1999, State of Forest Report 1999, Forest Survey of India, Dehradun
21) Soni, P.; Vasistha, H.B. & Om Kumar, 1992 Surfaced Mined Lands,
Problems and Prospects: A report on Eco-restoration of rock phosphate mined
area, Forest Research Institute, Dehradun 248 006
22) Soni P., Sharma, S.D. & Chandra, V 199922, 28 Ecorestoration Studies in
Bolani Ore Mines. A report by Forest Research Institute, ICFRE, New Forest,
Dehradun.
23) Anon 1999 Bioremediation of Mine spoil dumps, NEERI, Brochure
24) Sahni, D.K. & Juwarkar Asha, (2000), Environmental Manangement of
Mangenese Mine Spiol Dumps, National Environmental Engineering Research
Institute (NEERI), Nagpur.
25) Anon 1997 Areawide environmental quality management (AEQM) plan
for the mining belt of Goa State, Tata Energy Research Institute, N. Delhi,
November 1997.
26) Ghate U., Nalavade, S., Patwardhan, A., Mahabaleshwarkar, M. &
Sahastrabuddhe, K., (In Press) Maharashtra Biodiversity Strategy and Action
Plan: Western Ghat Eco-region. Report by RANWA, December 2001.
27) Harrington, R.A. & Ewel, J.J., 1997, Invasibility of tree plantations by

94 Undermining India
 Chapter VIII
Recommendations
Key Actions Recommended
§ Safeguarding ecologically sensitive areas and biodiversity
through appropriate land/water use planning and designation
of areas where no mining should be permitted
(Recommendations 1 and 3 below);
§ More stringent, participatory, and transparent
Environmental Impact Assessment procedures, to be applicable
to all sizes and categories of mining, under the Environmental
Protection Act (EPA) and the Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA).
§ Inclusion of full ecological impacts in the Cost-Benefit
evaluation under the FCA, especially to include the ecosystem
services that may be lost due to the proposed mining.
§ Identification and prioritisation of mine-affected areas
in ecologically sensitive areas for ecological restoration and
evolving a clear framework for the purpose.
§ Comprehensive action plans to be framed for ‘just-
transition’ to safe and sustainable livelihoods for labour
impacted by stoppage of mining activities in ecologically
sensitive areas. Sudden blanket bans without provisions for
alternative livelihoods for labour involved in ongoing legal
mining in ecologically sensitive areas is unacceptable.
§ The rights of tribals and other communities, and the letter
and spirit of constitutional provisions in place in specially
notified tribal areas such as ‘scheduled areas’, to be respected.
§ Government of India to setup a taskforce with experts from
within and outside the government to evolve a strategy and
action for appropriate material and energy use, especially to
reduce and eliminate luxury and wasteful use of minerals,
and to meet our legitimate material and energy needs
sustainably.
The recommendations in this section have an underlying
emphasis on the need for planning and decision-making in
India to be oriented towards the twin objectives of ecological
security (including conservation of ecosystems and species)
and livelihood security (especially of the most under-
privileged sections of society who are dependent on natural
resources).
1) Safeguarding ecologically sensitive areas
The Government of India to take stock of ecologically
sensitive areas in the country impacted by existing mining
activities or likely to be impacted by future mining.1 This
would involve:
a) Identification and prioritization of areas where existing
mining should be phased out and/or no new mining allowed
(see recommendation 3 on land-use planning and ‘off-limit’
areas).
Comment: The Forest Survey of India and the Indian
Bureau of Mines are carrying out an exercise to map the
overlap between metal mining leases and forest areas in
some states. The information from this exercise would be
Undermining India
useful in prioritizing destructive mines.
b) Prioritization of areas where appropriate environmental
amelioration is to take place. This could be ecological
restoration, rehabilitation, reclamation etc. depending on the
nature of site (see recommendation 5 on restoration and mine
closure).
c) Framing of comprehensive action plans for transition to
safe and sustainable livelihoods for labour impacted by
stoppage of mining activities in ecologically sensitive areas.
This has to before or along with the phasing out of any mining
activity and mechanisms evolved to ensure a smooth transition
(see recommendation 7 on labour and livelihoods)
2) Review of economic and mining sector reforms
A comprehensive review of ecological and social impacts of
economic and mining sector reforms, including the impacts
on biodiversity, on water resources, on local resident or
nomadic communities traditionally using the areas affected
by mining, and so on. In particular, this review should address
the question: have these reforms made the mining sector more
or less destructive in terms of such negative impacts? If yes
(as we have tried to demonstrate in this report), then what
measures are to be taken to roll back these ‘reforms’ or
counter their negative impacts?
Comment: With this year marking a decade of the new
mineral policy, it is a good time for this to be done. As
India prepares to host the 19th World Mining Congress
later this year with the theme, ‘Mining in the 21st century –
Quo Vadis?”, it is appropriate we evaluate where we are
heading. This should look at the changes in mining and
environmental laws and policies, which have been made
to facilitate ‘growth’ of the sector and the ecological/social
impacts these have had.
3) Land and water use planning
a) Urgently preparing a national land and water use plan,
through a widespread participatory process, which would map
the areas of the country that are essential for ecological, and
livelihood security and off-limits to ‘development’ activities
like mining which disrupt and destroy essential ecological
processes.
b) More detailed plans of similar nature need to be done at
the level of smaller political and administrative units (i.e.
State, districts, scheduled areas etc.)
c) Eco-regional planning on the basis of ecological
boundaries, such as river valleys, forest blocks, coasts,
mountain ranges, and so on, including ‘eco-regions’ cutting
across political boundaries.
Comment: Even for areas which have not been declared
‘off-limit’ or ‘no-go’ areas, the decision whether to mine
or not should be taken only after consulting the land-use
plans at all levels (both ecological and political). While
95
the entire land-use planning process will take some time,
the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) should
come out with an initial ‘schedule of lands’ which give the
degrees of restrictions: from ‘off-limit’ areas to those areas
where mining is permissible if found feasible after the
necessary studies. This is to ensure that fragile lands are
not sacrificed for mining in the interim period. This initial
list needs to go beyond the areas which already enjoy legal
protection and should include areas, which various
biodiversity-conservation prioritization initiatives as well
as peoples groups consider as sensitive in ecological,
social and cultural terms. These could include: hill slopes;
catchment areas of rivers, lakes, reservoirs; biologically
rich areas; important wildlife corridors, immediate
surrounds of protected areas, sacred groves etc. This is
extremely crucial as new mining policies have meant
reconnaissance and prospecting is taking place over
thousands of square kilometers of land in the country
including in some of our most ecologically fragile areas.
This a real threat even if the Mineral Advisory Council has
recommended that reconnaissance permit holders should
carry out a regional Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA). This will not serve its purpose if its assumed that
‘mining’ is inevitable wherever minerals are found and
EIAs only a tool to eventually evolve environmental
management plans, which try and ‘mitigate’ the impacts.
‘No mining’ will have to be a choice exercised in
ecologically fragile areas.
Some of the landuse planning mentioned above already
exists for some areas or sectors e.g. there has been district
environmental planning in some parts of the country or
the Central Pollution Control Board has worked on an Atlas
for siting of industries. It is important that all these existing
initiatives are built on. There have also been directives such
as the one issued by the MoEF in 2002 asking State
Governments to identify important wildlife corridors and
areas in a 10-km radius around Protected Areas (PAs) to
be declared as ecologically fragile areas under the
Environment (Protection) Act (EPA). This was fallout of the
National Wildlife Action Plan 2002. It is important that this
proposal is carried through and landuse planning for these
areas and identification of sustainable landuse priorities
is done with the Gram Sabhas of all villages falling in this
area keeping in view both ecological and livelihood
security.
4) The mining sector (both government and private
Companies) to fully respect the rights of tribals and other
local communities and undertake operations with the full,
informed, prior consent of these communities. The letter and
spirit of constitutional provisions for tribal communities in
specially designated areas such as ‘scheduled areas’, and
elsewhere, need to be fully complied with.
5) Clearance of mining projects under the
Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 19943
96
a) All mining leases to require environmental clearance
under the EIA notification, irrespective of size of lease or
nature of mineral.
Comment: MoEF to delegate powers for granting
clearances to its regional offices and local governments
for mining leases currently not coming under the ambit of
the EIA notification and which are being proposed to be
included under the EIA notification. Leases presently
coming under the jurisdiction of state governments or
Panchayats for clearances will continue in a similar
manner, except that they will need to consult regional
Expert Committees on mining at the MoEF regional office
level for environmental clearance. These committees will
constitute ecologists, sociologists, local community
members; government officials, representatives of local
institutions etc. and all information related to the
clearance of these projects will be in the public domain. If
required more regional offices of the MoEF be setup to
facilitate this or/and invest in more human resources and
capacity building of staff to perform these functions.
b) All prospecting licences must be subject to site clearance.
Reconnaissance permit holders to consult MoEF regional
office before commecing the work (of drilling, boring).
Comment: Currently prospecting below 500 ha and
reconnaissance permits which drill 5 boreholes per 100
sq.kms. are exempted from site clearance. But it is
important that the site where they are carrying out activities
are screened, because size is not the only criteria, especially
in and around ecologically sensitive areas. It is “where
drilling” which becomes the crucial issue.
c) The Environmental Impact Assessment studies for all
projects to be commissioned by the respective state
Department of Environment (DoE) to accredited EIA
consultants. The MoEF to issue guidelines on the minimum
requirements for EIA consultants and introduce a process of
accreditation of such consultants.
Comment: This is absolutely essential, as in many cases
the EIA process has become farcical because of the poor
quality of documents. The hiring of the consultant by the
project proponent cannot ensure an independent, impartial
EIA report.
In the recommendation above the resources required
for the EIA studies will be deposited by the project
proponent with the DoE, which will commission the study.
In some cases the EIA studies will be part-funded or fully
funded by the DoE itself. This is because many of the
applicants may be small-scale miners/ village communities
etc. who will not be able to afford paying the cost of an EIA
study. The respective DoE will be reimbursed from a Central
Environment Fund (CEF) formed through taxation on
mineral extraction and production. The tax will be decided
according to the nature of the mineral, the extraction
process, the impacts of the mineral on the environment
throughout its lifecycle, energy consumption in production,
end use, region of extraction, investment in project etc.
d) Comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment
studies need to be undertaken for cluster mines as well as
other mineralised zones to see the cumulative ecological
Undermining India
impact of the mining in an area.
Comment: This study should be undertaken by the
respective Regional Office of the MoEF and be funded
through the CEF. New mining lease in such areas should
only be granted looking at the carrying capacity of the
area.
e) Public hearings need to be held for all mining projects
irrespective of size of lease or nature of mineral (major or
minor). Detailed guidelines to be issued regarding the
procedural aspects as well as scope of the hearings by the
MoEF. In addition to existing mechanisms used to give notice
about the public hearings in newspapers, the local institutions
in the impact zone (Gram Sabhas, Panchayats, Autonomous
District Councils etc.) need to be informed about the public
hearing both through oral (both in person through drum
beating or other effective means, and on television/radio) and
written communication (in the form of posters).
Comments: In 2001 the EIA notification was amended to
say that public hearings were now to be held only for major
mineral mining leases above 25 ha (earlier they were held
for all major mineral mining leases above 5 ha). As pointed
out earlier nearly 50% of major mineral mining leases are
below 25 ha and an even greater percentage of minor
mineral leases are below 25 ha. Hence it is absolutely
essential that public hearings be held for all mining leases.
The Indian Bureau of Mines has suggested to the Mineral
Advisory Council4 that public hearings should be held only
for mineral leases above 100 ha! According to their own
publication5 , while describing the over 9000 mining leases
for major minerals they say that “ a few (20%) have leases
area in excess of 100 ha”. Reasons such as logistics etc.
cannot be cited as a reason for doing away with public
hearings for a smaller lease size. The required changes
for certain kinds of minerals/ small lease sizes/ small
investors can be made in the clearance procedures so that
the public hearing gets funded by the government similar
to the EIA studies mentioned in the earlier point(see
Chapter 6). On the other hand as far as minor minerals
are concerned the Mineral Advisory Council has been
discussing the possibilities of recommending the extension
of the provisions of the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled
Areas) Act (PESA), 1996, to non-scheduled areas. According
to PESA it is necessary to seek the recommendation of the
Gram Sabha or Panchayat at the appropriate level before
grant of mineral lease, prospecting license or grant of
concession for exploitation of mineral by action for minor
minerals. This is a step in the right direction and should
be implemented.
As far as the public hearings are concerned, the
capacities and resources of the State Pollution Control
Boards will have to be supplemented if they are to hold a
greater number of hearings.
f) Besides the EIA reports, which have now become public
documents, the Detailed Project Reports, Mining Plans etc.
should also be made available for public scrutiny before public
hearings and at other stages of clearance. An appropriate
mechanism needs to be devised for sharing of all information
Undermining India
regarding the basis on which the Ministry of Forest and
Environment (MoEF) has cleared/rejected a project,
including the discussions within the Expert Committee on
Mining. All reports also to be available in local languages,
and where there is considerable local ‘illiteracy’, summaries/
key points should also be read out orally.
Comment: It is important that the whole process is open to
public scrutiny.
g) A comprehensive participatory review of the
environmental clearance procedures for development projects
is necessary to strengthen them. Existing initiatives reviewing
these procedures should be opened up for public participation
and review.
Comment: The last few years have seen dilution in laws
such as the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification and
the EIA notification, when in fact many of these procedures
required further strengthening to make them more effective.
Dilutions cannot be made in the name of ‘streamlining’
procedures. It is important that these are reviewed and the
process made more effective overall.
There are a few review processes already underway, the
documents of which need to be made public and citizens’
participation solicited. Under the Environmental
Management Capacity Building Technical Assistance
Project being undertaken by the MOEF, a consultant (ERM)
is undertaking a review of the environmental clearance
procedures. Under the same capacity building project is a
mining sub-component in which the Central Mining
Research Institute, Dhanbad, is undertaking a review of
the existing mining and environmental policies/
legislation/ standards and mechanisms for monitoring
compliance. In May 2002 the Supreme Court asked the Law
Commission to undertake a review of the environmental
laws, which is being done by them presently. It is important
that citizens groups keep track of these parallel processes
and demand effective spaces for peoples participation in
them.
6) Clearance of mining projects under the Forest
(Conservation) Act, (FCA) 19806
a) Both the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) and the State
Advisory Groups (SAG) need to have a wider representation
of people on them including ecologists, sociologists,
indigenous people, as well as ministries and departments such
as tribal welfare and rural development. All proceedings of
the committee/groups as regards their recommendations to
the MoEF need to be in the public domain.
Comment: Other than people from the Central Government,
the FAC has “three eminent experts in forestry and allied
disciplines” who are the non-official members. But there
needs to be a wider representation. The SAG has no non-
official members presently.
b) Cost-Benefit analysis under the FCA should be done for
all mining projects irrespective of nature of mineral or size
of lease, and more comprehensive guidelines to be issued
for c/b analysis to better reflect aspects such as loss of
ecosystem services.
97
Comments: Presently c/b analysis is required only for
projects above 20 ha in the plains and above 5 ha in the
hills. This recommendation is very important, as smaller
leases can be very damaging to the environment as well as
areas, which harbour crucial biodiversity values. e.g. A
coalmining lease of 4.95 ha has caused damage to the
rainforests in the Namchik-Namphuk RF of Arunachal
Pradesh, just 15 kms. from Namdapha NP. The project
proponent asked for a lease less than 5 ha to avoid
environmental clearance under the EIA notification and
was also not subject to Cost-Benefit analysis under the FCA
as area was less than 5 ha. Both local communities and
people from the rest of state had protested against this
mining until it was stopped in 2001 for violation of
environmental and forest laws.
Although a section exists for c/b analysis under the
FCA for evaluating environmental losses, it is presently
inadequate in evaluating the ecosystem services being lost.
The form to be filled by the DFO for processing forest
clearance have sections on ecological impacts to be filled,
but very often adequate baseline data is not available on
ecological aspects and no EIAs are required for forest
clearance. If the project also requires environmental
clearance then the EIA reports are available for reference.
If as recommended, all mining projects are required to
undergo environmental clearance then this problem is
circumvented. But till such a situation arrives, the MoEF
needs to be make more proactive use of provision 2.3 (ii)
of the ‘Consolidated Guidelines for diversion of forest land
under the FCA, 1980’ for mining leases in ecologically
sensitive areas which do not come under the ambit of the
EIA notification presently. As per this section, proposals
being processed under the FCA and not covered by the EIA
notification can be asked to be examined from the
environmental angle by the Environment Wing of the MoEF.
C/b analysis should also be done for oil prospecting which
is presently excluded. Even if it is a sector accorded
‘national priority’, it should not stop us from evaluating
the costs and benefits of prospecting in a particular area.
c) The directives of the MoEF in letter No.11-30/96-FC (Pt.)
dated: 26.02.99 asking for all proposals under FCA to be
“accompanied by a resolution of the ‘Aam Sabha’ of Gram
Panchayat/Local Body of the area endorsing the proposal that
the project is in the interest of people living in and around
the proposed forest land” should be enforced strictly for all
mining leases.
Comment: Letter No. 11-30/96 – FC (Pt,) issued by MoEF
to Chief Secretaries of each State says in point 5: “ It has
been observed that in respect of a large number of
proposals the Central Government is receiving
representation from NGOs/local public bodies against the
diversion of forest land on loss of forest land, environment
and ecological grounds. Therefore, the Central Government
feels that it is essential to have the opinion of the local
people whenever a project is coming up in that area.
98
Therefore, it has been decided that whenever any proposal
for diversion of forest land is submitted, it should be
accompanied by a resolution of the ‘Aam Sabha’ of Gram
Panchayat/Local Body of the area endorsing the proposal
that the project is in the interest of people living in and
around the proposed forest land.”
d) Public hearings to be made compulsory for all mining
projects being considered for clearance under the FCA.
Comment: Separate hearings will not be required if all
mining projects require a public hearing under the EIA
notification as recommended.
e) Regular updates on the status of compliance of project
proponents with the mandatory conditions under which
clearances (both environmental and forest) have been granted
should be made public.
Comment: This could be similar to State Pollution Control
Boards who maintain Consent Registers under the Water
and Air Rules, showing pollution with reference to
standards and consent conditions, if any. Their registers
are open for inspection by any person interested in, or
affected. Similarly consent registers need to be maintained
for environmental and forest clearance indicating
compliance and implementation of environmental
management plan.
7) Restoration and mine closure
a) It is crucial that immediate assessment and evaluation of
existing management practices and amelioration methods is
carried out based on ecological and socio-economic criteria.
Comment: Institutes such as the Forest Research Institute,
Dehradun, Center for Mining Environment, Dhanbad, etc.
Tropical Forestry Research Institute, Jabalpur, conduct
research, and monitoring of mined out areas. But thus far
various research projects that have studied the success of
amelioration programs had their focus on reclamation of
various ecological functions and in some cases ecological
structures such as woody plants and understory vegetation.
But there are very few case studies that have evaluated the
effectiveness of the reclamation in restoring the ecological
structures, i.e. diversity and natural communities that form
wildlife habitats. It is extremely crucial to assess and
evaluate such practices, especially where the dominant
landuse is ‘forest’, protected areas and important
wilderness areas such as corridors. With the help of this
kind of research, performance standards could be laid.
b) Need for clear definitions and differentiation between
various terms such as restoration, rehabilitation, reclamation,
remediation, reforestation, plantation etc. often used
interchangeably in environmental, forest and mining laws and
policies.
Comment: Each of these words mean different things as
explained in chapter seven. The interchangeable use of these
terms in mining and environmental policies and law is a
clear indicator of the absence of proper guidelines and
statutes in the existing framework on both restoration and
Undermining India
mine closure and has led to ambiguity as regards what level
of amelioration is required. This is one of the major reasons
for the abysmal state of the environment in the mining belts.
The MoEF, while giving environmental clearance for a
project may specify / approve plans for reclamation work to
be carried out on closure of mines indicated in the
Environmental Management Plan of the project. The mining
plans are supposed to have provisions for “ details of scheme
of restoration of the area by afforestation, land reclamation,
use of pollution control devices and such other measures as
may be directed by the Central Government or the State
Government from time to time.”
A multiplicity of terms is used currently, thus not stating
clearly the different ‘levels’ of amelioration and what is
expected where.
c) After the above is done the MoEF should bring out a detailed
Manual on ‘Ecological amelioration practices for mine areas’
in consultation with ecologists, geologists etc. This will include:
l guidelines as to the nature of amelioration inputs
(restoration, reclamation etc.) required according to the
mineral, extraction process, location of mine etc.
l performance standards for the reclamation programmes
in mine region according to a range of site-specific
requirements.
l monitoring protocols to measure the performance of
reclamation projects.
l case studies on best practices from around the world.
d) Building on recommendation 1 (b) on the need to urgently
restore mined areas in ecologically fragile areas, the
following is suggested:
l The ecological amelioration programmes should be site
specific and should address the pre-disturbance landuse while
designing the mine closure plan.
l The rehabilitation / mine closure should be able to provide
alternative livelihood options for the workers/local
community affected by the mining operations. These
segments of the society should be the main stakeholders in
the rehabilitation process.
l The aims and objectives of the rehabilitation / restoration
plan should be decided in consultation with local community,
labour, forest department, other line departments etc. This
is especially applicable since lease land in most cases would
be returned to the government and would be in the public
domain again.
e) Mine Closure Plans need to be become mandatory for
project proponents.
Comment: Currently there is no framework for this, even
though the MoEF has been asking project proponents to
submit decomissioning plans five years before closure of
the project. The Mineral Advisory Council has also been
discussing the issue in detail and has advised the
amendment of the MCDR 1988 and the MCR to incorporate
the need for Mine Closure Plans in the legal framework.
This is a welcome step forward.
But the current framework suggested still is ambiguous
Undermining India
vis-à-vis interchangeable use of words uch as reclamation/
rehabilitation etc. There needs to be an acknowledgement
of the differences between these and the need to have
different levels of remedial interventions according to the
area in question.
f) Performance bonds should be used to ensure that funds
would be available for restoration and mine closure and for
mitigating any potential environmental or social damages.
Comment: Performance bonds is an effective financial tool
for encouraging good practices. A performance bond is a
financial assurance deposited by the mining company with
the Government. The bond provides an additional
guarantee, over and above any traditional insurance
policies, that funds will be available to mitigate or correct
any potential environmental social or environmental
damages, Bonds also ensure that money will be available
for reclamation of a site in case a company abandons a
mine or goes bankrupt before reclamation is complete.
However, it needs to be emphasized that introduction
of provisions such as performance bonds etc. should not
become a license to mine in ecologically fragile areas. It
should be applied to existing mines and to those new mines
outside ecologically fragile areas, which have passed
stringent environmental and social assessments, including
the consent of local communities. Both the Mineral Advisory
Council and the MoEF have been discussing developing a
framework for financial assurances.
g) For a section of mines being exploited by small investors,
Panchayats, cluster mine areas etc. the restoration of the
mines could be done by the government, partly or fully funded
through the Central Environment Fund recommended earlier.
The MOEF will lay down guidelines to categorise the mines,
which will be eligible for rehabilitation by government, and
part/full support. A mine will become eligible for restoration
by the government only after certification from the Regional
Office of the MoEF while processing the applications for
environmental/forest clearance before commencement of
mining operations.
Comment: For mines already abandoned in the past in or
around ecologically fragile areas which have been mined
on a small-scale by local people , certain funds available
in the forestry and other allied sectors for the region could
be used to for restoration purposes.
h) The entire mine restoration and closure procedures as
articulated above to get legal status under the mining laws. It
needs to be ensured that the monitoring of these provisions
is done by the MoEF. Relevant additions in this respect to be
also made in the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Comment: Both ministries to introduce changes related to
restoration and mine closure in consultation with each
other, so that there is no replication and the provisions are
complementary. The present multiplicity of provisions and
further ambiguity in many of these (like the provisions on
restoration in Mining law) has created confusion.
99
8) Appropriate material and energy use
Comment: In the short run landuse planning to keep mining
out of ecologically and culturally sensitive areas and better
regulation of the environmental impacts will seem a way
out to reduce damage done in supplying the country and
world with minerals. But there are limitations to regulation,
especially considering that the impacts of the mineral
industry go way beyond impacts on ecologically sensitive
areas. It is also a highly polluting and energy intensive
industry. In the long run we will need to address not only
the extraction process, but also the way minerals are used.
This will mean substantive changes in both mineral use
and the global economy. We will need to change the
assumption that prosperity is synonymous with quantities
of minerals taken out of the earth. The environmental
damage from non-stop growth in mineral production will
eventually outweigh the benefits of increased materials
supply. We cannot afford the human and ecological cost of
constant extraction. In this respect we need to look at both
reducing material use and using appropriate materials to
meet our human needs sustainably. Although this is a
subject which deserves more space, we will give some basic
recommendations in this respect which need to be urgently
taken up.
l Government of India to set up a high-level task force on
appropriate energy and material use, with experts from within
and outside the government. This task force should quantify
the current materials “throughput” (from extraction to use to
waste) in our entire economy and identify where this can be
reduced by various means such as recycling, efficiency,
substitution by renewables etc. in various sectors such as
transportation, construction, industry, energy generation etc.
Comment: Some interesting work on this issue is being
done around the world. A good example is the work of
initiatives such as the Factor 10 Club (http://www.factor10-
institute.org/). In the early 1990s the environmental
impacts of intensive material use led to a call for
“dematerialisation” of industrial economies i.e. A
reduction in the materials needed to deliver the services
people want. These researchers recommended in 1993 that
global material flows be cut in half and also recognised
that a larger chunk of this reduction will need to come from
industrial countries, which are the heaviest consumers.
This means that industrial countries reduce their
consumption by 90% in fifty years. Several countries have
evinced interest in this and have proposals for reductions
in material use and increases in material efficiency. We as
a nation need to figure out through independent research
what are the target reductions/substitutions can be done
by us to meet our human needs without the environmental
and social costs of present day development. Interesting
work has been done in this respect by K.R. Datye and his
team from the Society for the Advancement of Renewable
Materials in India. Particularly on renewable energy and
appropriate use of biomass in various sectors.7
Some of the changes required for a transition to an
100
appropriate material and energy use economy would be:
l Greater recycling of already extracted material in the
global economy.
Comment: Certain materials, which are toxic or involve
extensive use of toxic materials, will need to be phased
out. Recycling of such materials will be detrimental in the
long run.
l Mining permits to be charged a greater cost for extracting
virgin material. This should adequately reflect the cost of
depleting non-renewables resources as well as destroying
renewable livelihood resources, which lie above these
deposits.
l Facilitating bio-resource based livelihoods (including
micro-enterprises) of fisherfolk, adivasis and other forest-
dwelling communities, small peasants, artisans, and
pastoralists, with special attention to the disprivileged
sections like women, nomads and the landless.
l Promoting traditional and new technologies that reduce
the negative impact of current human activities and use
alternative materials that are ecologically sustainable, such
as non-conventional energy, environmentally friendly
architecture, and other processes in infrastructure, industrial,
and agricultural sectors.
l Targets for mineral resource use from the presently
identified resources need to be set understanding the full
environmental and social cost of mineral production
throughout its lifecycle and not merely based on the ‘quantity’
of mineral resource available, or the total mineral demand.
This will necessarily mean setting targets for ‘reduced
mineral use’ and not just focus on improving efficiency of
both the extraction process and material use.
l Phasing out mining of non-essential luxury minerals such
as gold, marble and diamond.
Comment: Currently 3 times more gold is sitting in bank
vaults, in jewelry boxes and with the private investors than
what is waiting in underground mines to be mined by toxic
processes. This is enough (150, 000 tonnes) to meet the
world’s current demand for 17 years.8
9) Labour and Livelihoods
This is one of the key issues, which needs to be dealt with
in a country where a sizeable number of people are dependent
on their livelihoods through mining.
l For ongoing mining activity outside of ecologically and
culturally sensitive areas and being done in an environmentally
and socially sensitive manner, it is of vital importance that
the existing livelihoods of labour involved in the process
are protected and they have access to safe working
environments.
l Phasing out of mining activities in ecologically sensitive
areas or prevention of new (“greenfield”) mining in such areas
will mean the loss of existing livelihoods to mine labour. As
pointed out in 1 (c) above it is important that comprehensive
action plans for transition to safe and sustainable livelihoods
are evolved for this labour and they are helped to make this
transition.
Undermining India
Comment: It has often been seen in India that Endnotes:
1
It is crucial that all the relevant ministries, citizens groups, local communities
environmental activism on polluting industries or mining
are part of this process. It could be done by means of setting up a task force
activities has been insensitive to the labour affected in the with appropriate mechansisms for people’s participation.
process. If we have over a period of time accepted a certain 2
In India there is a large overlap between the ecologically sensitive areas,
form of development and given legitimacy to economic tribal areas and mining. A considerable percentage of the population affected
by large mining activities consists of tribal people.
activity which is unsustainable, it is our duty to ensure that 3
These are not intended to be comprehensive recommendations for the entire
those impacted the most by stoppage of such activity (such environmental clearance process but aims to highlight some of the most
as labour) are sensitively rehabilitated to safe and relevant issues.
4
sustainable livelihood options. Groups soliciting the action Agenda papers for the twenty-seventh meeting of the Mineral Advisory
Council, September 2002.
of courts to stop destructive activities should be especially 5
Reclamation / Restoration - Techniques & Strategies for Mined out Areas,
aware of this. Indian Bureau of Mines, August 2000
An extract from ‘Scrapping mining dependence’9 : “ If 6
These are not intended to be comprehensive recommendations for the entire
we are to move to an economy based on less virgin forest clearance process but aims to highlight some of the key issues.
7
See ‘Banking on Biomass: A new strategy for sustainable prosperity based
materials mining, a key component will be investment in
on renewable energy and dispersed industrialisation’ by K.R. Datye. Centre
transition plans to provide safety nets and employment for Environment Education, 1997.
opportunities to workers and communities. The Canadian 8
Payal Sampat, ‘Scrapping mining dependence’, from State of the World
Labour Congress (CLC) has worked hard to promote “just- 2003, Worldwatch Institute 2003.
9
Same as above.
transition” plans for workers from sectors such as
chemicals, pulp and paper, and mining, noting, “just-
transition is an essential part of environmental change.”
It has recommended that displaced workers be retrained
for high-paying, “green” jobs. The CLC has highlighted
the need for unions and governments to be prepared for
change: to anticipate that environmental imperatives
will— or should— determine the viability of certain
industries and jobs. Trade union federations elsewhere,
such as the AFL-CIO in the United States, and the European
Trade Union Congress, have also endorsed similar fair
transition plans. With mining jobs in decline around the
world, governments, firms, and unions have a tremendous
opportunity to create safer, more meaningful, ecologically
sustainable employment for these workers and the families
they support. Following the enormous layoffs of the 1990s,
the South African Employment Bureau and the National
Union of Mine workers there developed transition plans
to retrain and employ former mine workers— some whom
have found new jobs in steel and paper recycling, for
instance. In the United States, recycling and
remanufacturing employ more than a million people—
many more than its mines, which have about 220,000
workers. Many towns around the world are looking away
from mining and toward more ecologically sustainable
industries. Chloride, Arizona, a former silver mining town
in the United States, for instance, is looking toward wind
energy to reinvigorate its economy. China has 4.3 million
mine workers – almost a third of the world’s work force in
mining– in nearly 400 mining towns. The mines in some
80 percent of these towns have been largely depleted, and
about 100 nonferrous metal mines are expected to close
down in the next few years. Li Rongrong, the minister in
charge of the State Economic and Trade Commission, has
urged these moribund mining regions to expand their
economies “in line with sustainable development.”

Undermining India 101

 Annexure
microbenthos for the creek segment as compared to the open shore of
Jakhau” in Block GK01.

e) Para 4.3, pp. 68, mentions “Relatively higher standing stock of subtidal
4th December, 2002 microbenthos for the creek segments as compared to the open shore
To, water ” in Block GK01.
The Chairman, f) Para 4.3, pp. 68, 69 & 70 mentions the following:
Public Hearing for Exploratory Drilling Operations for Oil and Gas Explo- “The Block GK01 covers the area off Jakhau, which is identified as rich
ration in Block GK01, fishing ground since 1970’s. Infact, Jakhau represents one of the top 10
Niliya - Abdasa. fish landing centres in Gujarat. The landing centre at Jakhau provides
berthing and landing facility to over 1000 fishing boat. Although, the
Sub: Our Concern for Exploratory Drilling Operations for Oil number of resident boats of Jakhau is small, the migrants from other
and Gas Exploration in Offshore Block GK 01 proposed by M/S parts of Gujarat and Maharashtra are large especially during fishing
Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai. season. The trawlers of 11 – 14.8 m. (80 – 105 HP engines) and other
crafts of 9.8 – 11 m. (outboard engines) are common in the region. The
Sir, fishing gears usually operated are gill-net, bag-net, trawl-net and cast-
1. The Forum for Planned Industrialization of Kutch (FPIK) is a group of net. The trawlers operate upto 70 m. water depth while the traditional
NGOs, Farmers, Fishermen, Maldharis, and eminent citizens of Kutch crafts are confined to 35 m depth. Extensive fishing is generally confined
District. We would like to raise our concerns for the project that you to 6 months period from September to February with period between
have come to appraise i.e. Exploratory Drilling Operations for Oil and October and December forming the peak fishing season. Landings at
Gas Exploration in Offshore Block GK 01 proposed by M/S Reliance In- various centers of the Kutch district contribute 10 to 12 % to the total
dustries Limited, Mumbai. landings of Gujarat State (Table 4.3.8). Also Jakhau accounts for major
2. First of all, as people belonging to Kutch, we more than anybody fish landings (59 to 74%) of Kutch district. (Table 4.3.9). The landings at
else, have always been and are concerned about the issue of Kutch and Jakhau were 5.8 x 105 t during 1998-99. Commercial status of fish land-
its overall development – its long term sustained marginalization from ings (Table 4.3.10) at Jakhau is given below.
the main stream, the crying need for employment, infrastructure and
modernization in the district. We have experienced the symptoms of Class Fish Total Landing Commercial
underdevelopment in this area, and know what it is to live on the fringes (%) Status
of development. We believe that if Industrialization is not carefully
planned, it will be at the cost of thousands of farmers, fishermen and A Shrimp/Prawn 15 Very Important
maldharis losing their source of livelihood. However we also believe Lobsters/Pomfret
that this is a great opportunity for Kutch to be industrialized and at the B Hilsa/Indian Salmon 43 Important
same time not threaten the grassland, marine mangrove ecosystem Jew Fish/Bombay
and water resources of Kutch. Duck/Leather Jacket/
3. The area under question i.e. Block GK 01 and it’s environ has rich Mullet/Perch/
marine mangrove ecosystem. Saurashtra University has conducted a Ribbon Fish/Seer Fish
detail study funded by WWF – India on the Ecology of the Gulf of Kutch Silver Bar
over a period of three years i.e. from the year 1987 to 1991 and has C Shark/Catfish/ 42 Less Important
come out with a report “Coastal Marine Ecosystems and Anthropogenic Coilia/Eel/Crab/
Pressure in the Gulf of Kutch”. Small Sciaenid/
4. The report states the existence of 29 species of Green Algae, 30 Clupeid/Misc.
species of Brown Algae and 49 species of Red Algae in this belt. This
includes 16 rare species of Red Algae. The study has pointed out that
The costal wetland of the Kutch district with several creeks and chan-
this area has a variety of marine wealth and the Mangrove belt be-
nels associated with numerous sandy shoals and vast tidal flats
tween Jakhau and Koteshwar is the richest in this area. It is a well
harbouring rich vegetation (mangroves), are highly productive and
known fact that Mudflats and Mangrove swamps are breeding grounds
one of the rich areas along the west costs of India. Hence, a portion
of 40 to 60 % of marine fauna particularly lobsters and prawns. Report
of mangroves of the Kutch region is classified under the ‘West Man-
also confirms the presence of several birds and avifauna in the area.
grove Reserved Forests’. The mangrove cover of the Kutch area is
Report also confirms the presence of Dolphin and Dugong in the area.
estimated (based on satellite data) to be about 938 sq. km. which
5. Because of this rich and diverse Marine Mangrove Ecosystem, the has considerably increased from 1992 to 1998 as per the details given
economy generated by rich fisheries between Jakhau and Lakhpat is below for the Gujarat state.
approximately of Rs. 175 to 200 Crore, besides providing direct and
indirect employment to 30,000 people in the area. The total catch due District 1992 1998
to this ecosystem in 1991 was 44,500 MT of which 11 % is classified as Kutch 601.8 938.0
very valuable catch and 67 % can be classified as valuable catch. This
Jamnagar 131.2 98.3
ecosystem being unaffected by Drought, mangroves support fisheries
Junagadh 0.8 0.3
making it a highly preferred occupation in this area. This area stays
Bhavnagar 14.5 6.2
green in droughts, hence provides fodder helping coastal grazers and
also stops ingress of salinity thus keeping the water in wells along the Bharuch 10.9 17.1
coastal belts sweet. Surat 7.8 2.0
6. The report “Rapid Marine Environmental Impact Assessment for Ex- Valsad - 5.0
ploratory Drilling Operations in Offshore Block GK01”, November, 2001 Total 767.0 1066.9
by National Institute of Oceanography, Mumbai states that:
a) Para 4.1.5. pp. 64, mentions that “The DO in water is fairly high on The common mangroves of the region are Avicennia marina, A.
the creeks as well as the open coast as commonly recorded for unpol- officianalis, Rhizophora mucronata, Ceriops tagle. Aegiceros
luted coastal waters. The surface to bottom variations are minor due to corniculatum, Bruguiera gymmnorrhiza and Sonneratia apetata (Table
good vertical mixing.” 4.3.11). As per recent studies Avicennia is common, Aegiceras is
b) Para 4.1.5. pp. 64, mentions that “The BOD in the creeks as well as endangered and genera like Rhizophora; Ceriops and Sonneratia are
the coastal water is low (<0.2-3.8 mg/l) and indicate that this coastal vulnerable in the Gujarat state. Associated mangroves flora like Sueda
marine environment is free from organic pollution.” maritima, Tamarix and Aleuropus sp are common in the Kutch region
c) Para 4.3, pp. 66, mentions “Good standing stock and diversity of including the costs alonmg Block GK01.
zooplankton in Block GK01.” The creek system with extensive mangroves offer plenty of facil-
d) Para 4.3, pp. 67, mentions “Good standing stock of inter tidal ity for feeding, breeding and shelter to a variety of birds. The man-
groves are often seen crowded with Grey Herons, Pond Herons,

102 Undermining India

Painted Storks, Large and Small Egrets, Darters, Cormorants etc.
During receding tide, hectic activity of various Gulls, Avocets, Whim-
brel, Curlew, Terns, Egrets, Grebes, Plovers etc is common.
The available information indicates high avifaunal diversity in the
Kutch region. On the whole, 140 species are documented (Table
4.3.12); 85 terrestrial and 55 aquatic. Out of this, 71 are resident
species, 44 migrant and another 25 resident migrant. Based on
sightings, 21 species are reported to be abundant, 42 common, 51
rare and 26 very rare. Exotic species like Greater Flamingo (Phoenica
pterus rubber), Lesser Flamingo (P. minor) and Dalmatian Pelican
(Palecanus cripus) and Eurasian Spoon Bill (Platalea leucorodia) are
commonly recorded, thus emphasising the importance of the region.
The mammals like Dolphin (Dolphinus delphis) are common to
the creek as well as openshore costal system of Jakhau. However the
other mammals like Whale and Dugong are confined to the Gulf of
Kutch.”
7. Besides this nests of the Olive Ridley turtle are found from
Pingleshwar to Suthri which lie close to Block GK01.
8. All of the above information has been quoted verbatim from the
report “Rapid Marine Environmental Impact Assessment for Explor-
atory Drilling Operations in Offshore Block GK01”, November, 2001
prepared by the National Institute of Oceanography, Mumbai. There-
fore it would not be incorrect to conclude that the report itself agrees
that the area that falls under Block GK01 and it’s environ is a rich
marine-mangrove ecosystem that apart from supporting a variety of
marine fauna and flora also supports a flourishing fishing economy
at Jakhau.
9. CRZ laws have been designed to protect the sensitive marine
ecosystems that exist in the sea beyond the shoreline. The area of
Block GK01 and it’s environ is a rich ecosystem. The coastline of
Block GK01 and it’s environ is mainly made up of mangroves and
mudflats which fall under CRZ-I category. If the Exploratory Drilling
Operations in Offshore Block GK01 are allowed for Oil and Gas explo-
ration, subsequent commercial oil field development, production and
transportation will also take place in exactly the marine ecosystems
that the CRZ-I is trying to protect. Under CRZ-I several activities are
permitted but oil exploration is not. Therefore this should not be per-
mitted.
10. If the commercial oil field development, production and trans-
portation process is dangerous for the environment of this sensitive
ecosystem then the question of exploration itself does not arise.
11. The EIA for such a sensitive ecosystem must not just prove that
exploratory drilling is not harmful but commercial oil field develop-
ment, production and transportation is also not detrimental. The EIA
has no details of commercial oil field development, production and
transportation and is therefore incomplete. All exploration projects
must be considered comprehensively for any proper assessment to
take place.
12. No data has been provided as to where in the vast area of 1465
sq. km. comprising Block GK01 drilling will be done; furthermore the
numbers of drilling points are also not provided, even though this
data is obviously available with the company. Given that this Block
GK01 has some of the most abundant mangroves of the country and
given that 2/3 of the mangrove belt of Kutch is covered under this
Block the drilling bore could also probably be proposed on top of the
mangroves themselves!!! Without this data this public hearing has no
relevance at all.
13. All drilling operations for oil generates wastes in the form of drilling
fluids, drill cuttings, produced water, deck drainage, sanitary waste,
ballast and bilge and atmospheric emissions and leakages of oil, this
means several types of pollutants are involved at several stages.
Most of these wastes contain traces of heavy metals and toxic metals
and even hydrocarbon waste. No mechanism in the world can pre-
vent the crossing over of pollutants from one system into another. As
per the RMEIA several of the above operations end up generating
waste, a majority of this waste is invariably discharged into the ocean.
Nowhere in the RMEIA has a proper mention been made on what
waste will be generated, the properties of the same, how these wastes
are to be treated, what are their reactions, the quantum generated,
how will it be discharged and the property of the effluent at the time
of discharge and finally its impact on the environment. These pollut-
Undermining India
ants pose a hazard to the rich marine–mangrove ecosystem of Block
GK01 and its environ.
14. The RMEIA report says that Block GK01 has a maximum water
depth of 30 m whereas from Naval Charts one can conclude that the
maximum water depth in the area is around 20 m, this means that
the total quantum of water in the area is less. This in turn means that
any pollution in this area would have an immediate adverse impact.
15. It must also be kept in mind that the currents in the area are such
that any floating or suspended material is always brought to the shore-
line of Block GK01 and its environ. Thus any pollutant in whatever
form it may be will be deposited onto this shoreline. Oil spilled during
exploration and subsequent commercial oil field development, pro-
duction and transportation will surely also be deposited onto this shore-
line. This will definitely lead to the destruction of the area’s rich eco-
system.
16. Even in less ecologically fragile regions, such operations need to
observe the following:
a) Use of Oil Base Mud should be strictly disallowed. In case of use
of Water Base Mud, the use of diesel and lubricants must be banned,
only bio-degradable lubricants should be allowed. Polymer Mud Sys-
tem should be used as these Polymers are bio-degradable and mini-
mize marine pollution for all drilling operations.
b) The mud system must be treated with iron oxide which reacts
with H2S and forms iron sulphide in the system itself and neutralizes
the effects of H2S.
c) The cuttings are contaminated with chemicals of drilling fluids,
hence concentration of these pollutants must be determined before
dumping into the sea.
d) The possibility of abnormal high pressure zone cannot be ruled
out. Regular checks of BOP stacks and BOP function tests should be
carried. Presence of a stand-by boat in the vicinity of the rig is neces-
sary during the drilling of such high pressure zones.
e) Production testing planned for exploratory wells may cause se-
vere marine pollution, the fluid obtained in drilling must be collected
in tankers as opposed to being released into the sea.
f) For abandoned wells the placement of two abandonment plugs
in the casing should be mandatory. Permanent buoys must be in-
stalled on the abandoned wells as indicators; this will facilitate in
locating these wells in the event of an emergency.
17. The benefits of this project are not going to accrue to Kutch, on
the other hand Kutch may actually have to face the adverse effects of
oil exploration in Block GK01, Kutch needs to ask why this project
must be allowed in its present form.
18. Given all of the above facts it is our plea it is our plea to the
Chairman of this Public Hearing that this Public Hearing be cancelled
and a new date be reset after all the above data is provided.
Yours Sincerely,
(S. Virmani)
Spokesperson
Forum for Planned Industrialization of Kutch
c\o 104, Lotus Colony
Bhuj - Kutch
103
 Additional references
Anon, 1998, Proceedings of the National Workshop
on Environment and Forestry in Mining Areas, held
at Jaipur, Aug. 21-22, 1998.
Anon, 2000, Mining for Whom? A Dossier on Mines
and Minerals, Centre for Education and
Communication, N. Delhi.
Anon, 2000, Reclamation / Restoration: Techniques
and Startegies for Mined out areas, Indian Bureau
of Mines, Nagpur, India.
Anon, 2001, Review of Existing Mining Policies /
Environmental Legislation and Mechanisms for
Monitoring Compliance, Workshop Paper Cr. No.
2930 IN, CMRI, Dhanbad.
Anon, 2002, National Wildlife Action Plan, Ministry
of Environment & Forests, Government of India.
Bose, A.N., Mineral Development and Environment:
Policy Issues in India, Paper presented during
Geoenvironmental Reclamation (International
Symposium, Nagpur, India).
Bose, A.N., 1994, Environment Legislation for
Sustaianble Development of Indian Mines, Impact
of Mining on Environment.
Choudhury S.K., 1995, Mineral Development in
India and Environmental Legislation, 1st World
Mining Environment Congress.
Gardener G. & Sampat P., 1998, Mind over Matter:
Recasting the role of materials in our lives, World
Watch Institute.
Imhof, A., Wong, S. & Bosshard, P., 2002, Citizen’s
Guide to the World Commission on Dams,
International Rivers Network, Berkeley, USA.
Jariwala, C.M., 1995, Mining and Environment:
Indian Law Scenario, Journal of the Indian Law
Institute, Vol. 37(4).
John, J., (Ed.), 2000, Mining Industry in India and
Dynamics of People’s Resistance, Labour File Vol.
6 (VI & VII).
Mathur, V.B. & Rajvanshi A., 2002, Integrating
Biodiversity into Environmental Impact Assessment:
A National Case study from India.
Mineral Economic Division, 1998, Bulletin of
Mining Leases & Prospecting Licences – 1998,
Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur, India.
104
Mineral Economic Division, 1999, Digest of Indian
Minor Mineral Laws, 3rd Revised Edition 1999,
Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur, India.
MM& P 2001, Communities Command Over Natural
Resources, Mines, Minerals and People, Proceedings
of the 2nd National convention 17-23rd Dec. 2001,
Anandwan, Maharashtra, India.
MM&P 2001, Mines, Minerals and People
Compilations 2001.
MMSD, 2002, Breaking New Ground: A report on
Mining Minerals and Sustainable Development
Project, IIED, Earthscan, London.
NCAS, 2000, Unjust Mining: Issues and Campaigns,
Samuel, J. Prakasam, G. & Ranjan, A. Editors,
National Centre for Advocacy Studies, Pune.
Rosenfeld, S.A. & Clark, A.P., 2000, Lightening the
lode – A Guide to responsible large-scale mining,
CI Policy Papers, Conservation International
Washington D.C.
TERI, Review of the Regulatory Framework in Coal
Industry in India, Tata Energy Resaerch Institute, N.
Delhi.
Sudhir C.R., 1997, Impact Assessments,
Fundamentally Flawed, The Hindu Survey of the
Environment, 1997, pp: 161-166.
Samata, 2000, Surviving A Minefield: An Adivasi
Triumph, A landmark Supreme Court Judgement
Restoring the Rights of Tribals, Samata, Hydrabad, 2000.
Sengupta, S. & Ahuja, A. 1997, Mining and its
Impact on Livelihoods of People: Emerging Trends
and OXFAM responses, OXFAM India, Programme
Priority Issue Review Paper No. 2, OXFAM India,
March 1997.
Soni, P. et al., 1998, Awareness Training Programme
for Environmental Management of Mine Areas,
Forest Research Institute, Dehradun.
WPSI, 1998, Handbook of Environment, Forest and
Wildlife Protection Laws in India, Natraj Publishers,
Dehradun.
Young, J.E., 1992, Mining the Earth, World Watch
Paper 109, World Watch Institute.
Undermining India
 Mining Resources
mines, minerals and People (mmP) Ministry of Mines
3rd Floor, A wing,
- mmP National Secretariat: Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi, India
Ravi Rebba Pragada, Phone No: 011-23383082
No. 8-2-590/B, Road No. 1, Fax: 011-23386402
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 034, Email:  dom@sb.nic
Andhra Pradesh Website: http://www.mines.nic.in
Phone No: 040-55637974 & telefax: 040-23352488 Regulation of mines and development of minerals in India
Email: mmpindia@hd2.dot.net.in
Mr. Valmik Thapar
- mmP New Delhi Centre: Ranthambhor Foundation
R. Sreedhar, 19, Kautilya Marg Chanakya Puri, New Delhi 110 021
33B, 3rd floor, Phone No: 011-2301 6261
Saidullajab, Mehrauli, Fax: 011-2301 1957
Badarpur Road, Email: tiger@vsnl.com
Saket, New Delhi 110 017 Impacts of mining on forests and wildlife habitats
Phone No: 011-26530814
Email: mmpdelhi@mmpindia.org Dr. Asha Rajvanshi
EIA Division
- mmP Singhbhum Secretariat: Wildlife Institute of India
Xavier Dias, PO Box # 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun – 248 001
Regional Convenor, Email: ar@wii.gov.in
No. 27, Annexe, 10th Road, Phone No: 0135-264 0111 to 264 0115
Circuit House Area (East), Fax: 0135-2640116
Jamshedpur, Jharkhand EIAs in Mining and other sectors
Phone No: 0657-2220266
Email: mmpnorth@vsnl.net Centre for Environmental Studies
Website: www.mmpindia.org The Energy Research Institute,
Issues related to: local communities and mining; analysis of impacts Darbari Seth Block, Habitat Place,
of mining policies etc. Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003, INDIA 
Phone No: 011-2468 2100 and 2468 2111,
Dr. (Mrs) Prafulla Soni Fax: 011-2468 2144 and 2468 2145
Forest Land and Reclamation Division Issues related to energy and mining
Forest Research Institute, Dehradun,
P.O. Box. New Forest, Indian Bureau of Mines
DEHRADUN - 248 006 Indira Bhavan, Civil Lines
Uttaranchal, INDIA
Nagpur 440 001
Email: psoni@icfre.up.nic.in
Tel. 0712 –2533 041
Eco-restoration and Rehabilitation of Opencast Mines
Fax. 0712 – 2521 073
Director Email: cgibm@ibm.mah.nic.in
Tropical Forest Research Institute (TFRI) Website: http://ibm.nic.in
Conservation, scientific development of mineral resources and
(Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education)
protection of environment in mines
P.O. R.F.R.C., Mandla Road
JABALPUR - 482 021 (MP) INDIA
E-Mail: tfrinet@envfor.delhi.nic.in Prof. Gurdeep Singh
Rehabilitation of Opencast Mines in Central India
Centre of Mining Environment
Indian School of Mines
Mr. Sandeep Tripathi, IFS Dhanbad – 826 004. (Jharkhand).
Joint Director Telefax: 0326-206372
Forest Survey of India Fax: 0326-206372, 203042, 206319
Kaulagarh Road, Email: gurdeep_s@123india.com,
Dehradun 248 195 s_gurdeep2001@yahoo.com
Phone No: 0135-275 5037 Website: http://ism-dhanbad.org
Email: fsihq@nde.vsnl.net.in    Environmental Information Service (ENVIS) Centre on
Environment and Mining
Mapping of mining leases and forest areas

Undermining India 105