Formula devised by SC mooted for limestone mining by the French firm.
A formula devised by the Supreme Court in the Vedanta-Sterlite judgment to ensure the welfare of tribals in Orissa may be applied in the controversial Lafarge mining project in Meghalaya too.
The idea was mooted today by the senior counsel appointed by the court in the forest cases, Harish Salve. Attorney General G E Vahanvati found the suggestion “reasonable” when the court heard the arguments for and against the mining operations of the French company.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan had restrained Lafarge from extracting limestone in Meghalaya to manufacture cement at the Lafarge Surma Cement project at Chhatak in Sunamganj, Bangladesh. A tribal organisation has challenged the sanction granted to the company for transfer of tribal land to the Lafarge group for exploitation of forest land. The organisation had approached the Gauhati High Court under the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act 1971.
While the company wanted relaxation of the February order, the tribal organisation opposed any such move and wanted the case to be transferred to the Supreme Court.
The Attorney General submitted that, if the restriction stayed, “the whole image of the country would suffer” as the mining was allowed long ago in an agreement between former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and her then Bangladeshi counterpart, President Mujibur Rehman. The company was the largest listed corporation in Bangladesh, he added. A huge amount of foreign direct investment was involved, apart from the role of the Word Bank and other international financial institutions.
Several irregularities
The judges remarked that there were several irregularities in the deals and the payment did not seem to be in accordance with the market value of the raw materials. The photographs of the excavation conducted also showed an unhappy situation.
When arguments from both sides grew intense, Salve, who is appointed by the court to assist it in a large number of forest matters (‘amicus curea’), suggested the 'Sterlite model'. He said the company must “disgorge its profits” for the welfare of the tribal community. They should not be allowed to make money, irrespective of the environmental impact, he added. He asked for time to provide a scheme for the same.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear it on Monday.
The Attorney General was also agreeable to the “reasonable suggestion” and promised to look into it if it was produced at the next hearing. He said the Ministry for Commerce and Industry and other arms of the government would consider such a suggestion. The counsel for the tribals submitted that the whole forest area was declared “rocky land” so that it could be exploited for the company’s cement plant in Bangladesh. Full arguments will take place on Monday
The ‘Sterlite model’
The ‘Sterlite model' is based on a Supreme Court judgment of August 8, 2008. The court cleared mining of bauxite in the Niyamgiri Hills located in the Kalahandi district following an undertaking by Sterlite, Orissa Mining Corporation and the state government accepting the rehabilitation package suggested by the court. In order to manage the welfare activities, an SPV– ‘Lanjigarh Scheduled Area Foundation’ – had been formed. Sterlite has been depositing amounts from its profits for the all-round development of the mining belt. However, even the Sterlite model has not escaped criticism.
Business Standard, 27th March 2010
Source: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/sterlite-model-may-be-applied-in-lafarges-meghalaya-project/21/05/389887/
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Blackmail in the name of Human Rights for all
Right & Wrong
A controversy centred on the human rights body Amnesty International is raging in Britain and it could be instructive for India. Earlier this month, Gita Sahgal, the head of the organization’s ‘gender unit’, publicly protested against its close association with Moazzam Beg, a British Islamist and former inmate of Guantanamo Bay.
Beg, who had earlier migrated from Birmingham to Kabul because he was inspired by the Taliban, returned to Britain after his release from US custody in 2005. Exploiting the fierce anti-Bush mood in Europe after the invasion of Iraq, an unrepentant Beg founded Cageprisoners to campaign for the release of the remaining Guantanamo prisoners and other detained jihadis. Among those whose cause Beg has taken up are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, said to be the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Abu Hamza, the hook-handed mullah facing extradition from Britain to the US, and Abu Qatada, once described as Osama bin Laden’s “European ambassador”.
Gita is a professional activist, having been involved with numerous ‘causes’ over the years. She felt that for Amnesty “to be appearing on platforms with Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban, whom we treat as a human rights defender, is a gross error of judgment.” Her employer didn’t agree, and promptly suspended her. Gita has received considerable media and public support but Amnesty hasn’t dissociated itself from Beg.
To me, this incident involves more than the misjudgment of one reputable human rights body. It is a classic case study of the derailment of the human rights industry — yes, it is an industry — and its takeover by politically-driven activists.
I recall the days when Amnesty was a noble organization campaigning for those who had been jailed for merely holding and expressing contrarian views. It campaigned untiringly for the release of Nelson Mandela, spoke out for the harassed ‘dissidents’ in the Soviet bloc, publicized the ‘prisoners of conscience’ in lesser-known places and even brought hope to those languishing in Indian jails during the Emergency. Its programme of sending Christmas cards to prisoners in South Africa was particularly touching.
Perhaps these campaigns were implicitly political. But an unequivocal stand in favour of democracy and free speech was worth taking, even if it meant being at loggerheads with those who deluded themselves that there could be no injustice in socialist countries.
Those were innocent days but it was clearly understood that ‘bourgeois’ human rights were relevant for those who didn’t have blood on their hands. The generosity of human rights didn’t extend to guerrillas in the umpteen liberation movements and to those in, say Germany’s Baader Meinhof gang, who were smitten by violent delinquency. There were many in the 1960s and 1970s who marched the streets chanting “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh” but it was unusual for these Che Guevara-worshipping romantics to think that the war against loathsome Yankee imperialism was a human rights campaign.
A journey that began with expressing solidarity with Mandela and has stretched to embracing a partnership role with the Taliban has seen many strange diversions. For a start, the highly political ‘peace movements’ which mushroomed globally as extensions of Soviet foreign policy have become the template for a new approach to human rights. Its most significant feature is selective indignation. Just as its early practitioners denied the Gulag, today’s human rights-wallahs gloss over the brutalities of Maoists in India, Hamas in Palestine and LTTE in Sri Lanka or, for the matter, the Taliban. The focus is instead on state repression in counter-insurgency and war. The idea is not to press for common humanity to prevail but to use human rights as a political support system.
Second, the human rights business has evolved from being voluntary concerns to becoming well-funded agencies of governance. This shift has meant their generous expansion to cover nearly all aspects of public life. Groups such as Amnesty no longer focus exclusively on prisoners of conscience and victims of unjust laws. Their activities now involve campaigns against mining in Orissa, land acquisition in Bengal and dams in Gujarat. Human rights are fast turning into levers of blackmail against governments and companies. What are essentially political battles have been given a benign masquerade — one guaranteed to melt the impressionable hearts of those Lenin sneeringly called “useful idiots.”
For fanatics like Beg who don’t give a toss for liberal values, supping with the compassionate is a cynical ploy. Ironically, his motives may be the same as those who helped confer respectability on him. Gita was rightly offended. But she must have known all along that a disaster was waiting to happen.
By, Swapan Dasgupta
28 February 2010, 03:26 AM IST
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/right-and-wrong/entry/blackmail-in-the-name-of
A controversy centred on the human rights body Amnesty International is raging in Britain and it could be instructive for India. Earlier this month, Gita Sahgal, the head of the organization’s ‘gender unit’, publicly protested against its close association with Moazzam Beg, a British Islamist and former inmate of Guantanamo Bay.
Beg, who had earlier migrated from Birmingham to Kabul because he was inspired by the Taliban, returned to Britain after his release from US custody in 2005. Exploiting the fierce anti-Bush mood in Europe after the invasion of Iraq, an unrepentant Beg founded Cageprisoners to campaign for the release of the remaining Guantanamo prisoners and other detained jihadis. Among those whose cause Beg has taken up are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, said to be the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Abu Hamza, the hook-handed mullah facing extradition from Britain to the US, and Abu Qatada, once described as Osama bin Laden’s “European ambassador”.
Gita is a professional activist, having been involved with numerous ‘causes’ over the years. She felt that for Amnesty “to be appearing on platforms with Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban, whom we treat as a human rights defender, is a gross error of judgment.” Her employer didn’t agree, and promptly suspended her. Gita has received considerable media and public support but Amnesty hasn’t dissociated itself from Beg.
To me, this incident involves more than the misjudgment of one reputable human rights body. It is a classic case study of the derailment of the human rights industry — yes, it is an industry — and its takeover by politically-driven activists.
I recall the days when Amnesty was a noble organization campaigning for those who had been jailed for merely holding and expressing contrarian views. It campaigned untiringly for the release of Nelson Mandela, spoke out for the harassed ‘dissidents’ in the Soviet bloc, publicized the ‘prisoners of conscience’ in lesser-known places and even brought hope to those languishing in Indian jails during the Emergency. Its programme of sending Christmas cards to prisoners in South Africa was particularly touching.
Perhaps these campaigns were implicitly political. But an unequivocal stand in favour of democracy and free speech was worth taking, even if it meant being at loggerheads with those who deluded themselves that there could be no injustice in socialist countries.
Those were innocent days but it was clearly understood that ‘bourgeois’ human rights were relevant for those who didn’t have blood on their hands. The generosity of human rights didn’t extend to guerrillas in the umpteen liberation movements and to those in, say Germany’s Baader Meinhof gang, who were smitten by violent delinquency. There were many in the 1960s and 1970s who marched the streets chanting “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh” but it was unusual for these Che Guevara-worshipping romantics to think that the war against loathsome Yankee imperialism was a human rights campaign.
A journey that began with expressing solidarity with Mandela and has stretched to embracing a partnership role with the Taliban has seen many strange diversions. For a start, the highly political ‘peace movements’ which mushroomed globally as extensions of Soviet foreign policy have become the template for a new approach to human rights. Its most significant feature is selective indignation. Just as its early practitioners denied the Gulag, today’s human rights-wallahs gloss over the brutalities of Maoists in India, Hamas in Palestine and LTTE in Sri Lanka or, for the matter, the Taliban. The focus is instead on state repression in counter-insurgency and war. The idea is not to press for common humanity to prevail but to use human rights as a political support system.
Second, the human rights business has evolved from being voluntary concerns to becoming well-funded agencies of governance. This shift has meant their generous expansion to cover nearly all aspects of public life. Groups such as Amnesty no longer focus exclusively on prisoners of conscience and victims of unjust laws. Their activities now involve campaigns against mining in Orissa, land acquisition in Bengal and dams in Gujarat. Human rights are fast turning into levers of blackmail against governments and companies. What are essentially political battles have been given a benign masquerade — one guaranteed to melt the impressionable hearts of those Lenin sneeringly called “useful idiots.”
For fanatics like Beg who don’t give a toss for liberal values, supping with the compassionate is a cynical ploy. Ironically, his motives may be the same as those who helped confer respectability on him. Gita was rightly offended. But she must have known all along that a disaster was waiting to happen.
By, Swapan Dasgupta
28 February 2010, 03:26 AM IST
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/right-and-wrong/entry/blackmail-in-the-name-of
Saturday, March 20, 2010
MARCH OF DEVELOPMENT
Populism and Progress
By B G Verghese
Biotechnology offers a promising pathway to higher productivity. Further, we must annually create 12 million jobs.
Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh’s moratorium on the introduction of Bt brinjal cleared last October by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) of his own ministry is disappointing. In responding to ‘popular sentiment’ in a matter of “no overriding urgency or food security” and waiting for “independent scientific studies” to restore “public confidence and trust,” he was more populist than persuasive.
Three of his cabinet colleagues — Sharad Pawar, Kapil Sibal and Prithviraj Chauhan — have disagreed maintaining that sentiment cannot rule science. To hand a veto to sundry dissenters is to disregard reason.
And to hint that private research is somehow less reliable than public or public-private research (presumably on account of the profit motive) is contrary to fact. Public institutions were substantively involved in the Bt brinjal trials and the DG CSIR, heads of agricultural universities and scientific departments within state universities, and the PM’s economic advisory council have expressed their disquiet.
Senior scientists have charged that the public hearings were rigged and that they were shouted down or kept out by protesters. Surely the issue must be debated and settled scientifically. Further, stagnant agricultural production and rising food prices render it urgent to make farming more profitable and productive through better seeds and higher returns per unit of land and water. Bt cotton has greatly enhanced yields with lower doses of fertiliser and pesticides. These are tangible gains that should not be denied or delayed.
Maybe the answer now lies in quick passage of the pending Bill to establish a National Biodiversity Regulatory Authority, with a wider remit than the present GEAC. Once in place, this body should review the Bt brinjal impasse and take a decision on Bt research based on the best science available.
The country has a fixed stock of land on which increasing demands are being made on account of mounting population and development pressures. Present day agriculture can no longer sustain the farm population with shrinking land-man ratios and current first green revolution technologies.
We must move to higher productivity levels for which biotechnology offers a promising pathway. Further, the country must annually create 12 million jobs to absorb the growing labour force, quite apart from coping with those currently under-employed and unemployed, including those increasingly moving off the land.
Whole hierarchies of new employment are required and there is no way large and mega infrastructure and industrial projects can be avoided to exploit economies of scale in a highly competitive, globalised world. It is also necessary to sustain 8-10 per cent growth that could eliminate poverty within the next decade, but with a smaller carbon footprint. Poverty is the worst polluter and human rights offender.
Future benefits
Urban and industrial expansion necessarily entails land acquisition with its concomitant environmental impacts and displacement. One cannot argue that past shortcomings presage future default. That would be a counsel of despair. It ignores the new awareness, stronger legal frameworks, stricter conditionalities, greater public auditing and increasingly better R&D, compensation and alternative livelihood packages, including participation in the future benefits for those affected.
Vedanta’s Niyamgiri-Orissa Mining Corporation joint venture bauxite mine in Kalahandi-Rayagada in Orissa, awaits final clearance while the adjacent Lanjigarh aluminium refinery 3 km away, that it is intended to feed, has commenced partial production based on ore brought from other mines.
The case against the mine is that the Niyamgiri range is said to be sacred to the Dogaria Kandha, a primitive tribe, who will be displaced and suffer environmental hardship and a depleting water table. However, the Niyam Raja inhabits the entire 250 sq km range and is not confined to the 3.5 sq km mining location at an elevation of 1,300 m which is capped by an impermeable laterite crust and is hence bare and uninhabited.
Given removal of the laterite overburden to win the underlying bauxite, the refilled hilltop will become permeable and forested. This will augment the aquifer below and enhance the environment. The facts challenge the prevailing fiction.
There will be no displacement at Niyamgiri while the 120 families displaced at Lanjigarh have already been resettled and are being trained for industrial jobs and other avocations. Additionally, under a supreme court directive, Vedanta is to provide five per cent of its net profit or Rs 10 crore per annum, whichever is more, in perpetuity for wider community development over a 15 sq km area.
This does not seem like vandalising tribal life. Yet, the benefits and multiplier from the larger 5 mtpa aluminium project and related investments are being needlessly delayed by misplaced opposition.
Tata’s six mtpa steel plant at Kalinganagar, long delayed, may move forward this year while its related deep sea Dhamra port will soon be operational in collaboration with Larsen & Tubro. Posco’s 12 mtpa steel plant and related captive port in Jagatsinghpur district is also held up by betel vine, cashew and prawn farm encroachers on the government-owned land allotted to the company. What is being defended by the Posco Pratirodh Sangharsh Samiti is the existing livelihood pattern and way of life.
Can Orissa afford further delay and risk losing the bigger prize and huge opportunity for safeguarded development within its grasp?
Source: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/54272/march-development.html
Deccan Herald, Page 4, 23rd Feburary 2010.
By B G Verghese
Biotechnology offers a promising pathway to higher productivity. Further, we must annually create 12 million jobs.
Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh’s moratorium on the introduction of Bt brinjal cleared last October by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) of his own ministry is disappointing. In responding to ‘popular sentiment’ in a matter of “no overriding urgency or food security” and waiting for “independent scientific studies” to restore “public confidence and trust,” he was more populist than persuasive.
Three of his cabinet colleagues — Sharad Pawar, Kapil Sibal and Prithviraj Chauhan — have disagreed maintaining that sentiment cannot rule science. To hand a veto to sundry dissenters is to disregard reason.
And to hint that private research is somehow less reliable than public or public-private research (presumably on account of the profit motive) is contrary to fact. Public institutions were substantively involved in the Bt brinjal trials and the DG CSIR, heads of agricultural universities and scientific departments within state universities, and the PM’s economic advisory council have expressed their disquiet.
Senior scientists have charged that the public hearings were rigged and that they were shouted down or kept out by protesters. Surely the issue must be debated and settled scientifically. Further, stagnant agricultural production and rising food prices render it urgent to make farming more profitable and productive through better seeds and higher returns per unit of land and water. Bt cotton has greatly enhanced yields with lower doses of fertiliser and pesticides. These are tangible gains that should not be denied or delayed.
Maybe the answer now lies in quick passage of the pending Bill to establish a National Biodiversity Regulatory Authority, with a wider remit than the present GEAC. Once in place, this body should review the Bt brinjal impasse and take a decision on Bt research based on the best science available.
The country has a fixed stock of land on which increasing demands are being made on account of mounting population and development pressures. Present day agriculture can no longer sustain the farm population with shrinking land-man ratios and current first green revolution technologies.
We must move to higher productivity levels for which biotechnology offers a promising pathway. Further, the country must annually create 12 million jobs to absorb the growing labour force, quite apart from coping with those currently under-employed and unemployed, including those increasingly moving off the land.
Whole hierarchies of new employment are required and there is no way large and mega infrastructure and industrial projects can be avoided to exploit economies of scale in a highly competitive, globalised world. It is also necessary to sustain 8-10 per cent growth that could eliminate poverty within the next decade, but with a smaller carbon footprint. Poverty is the worst polluter and human rights offender.
Future benefits
Urban and industrial expansion necessarily entails land acquisition with its concomitant environmental impacts and displacement. One cannot argue that past shortcomings presage future default. That would be a counsel of despair. It ignores the new awareness, stronger legal frameworks, stricter conditionalities, greater public auditing and increasingly better R&D, compensation and alternative livelihood packages, including participation in the future benefits for those affected.
Vedanta’s Niyamgiri-Orissa Mining Corporation joint venture bauxite mine in Kalahandi-Rayagada in Orissa, awaits final clearance while the adjacent Lanjigarh aluminium refinery 3 km away, that it is intended to feed, has commenced partial production based on ore brought from other mines.
The case against the mine is that the Niyamgiri range is said to be sacred to the Dogaria Kandha, a primitive tribe, who will be displaced and suffer environmental hardship and a depleting water table. However, the Niyam Raja inhabits the entire 250 sq km range and is not confined to the 3.5 sq km mining location at an elevation of 1,300 m which is capped by an impermeable laterite crust and is hence bare and uninhabited.
Given removal of the laterite overburden to win the underlying bauxite, the refilled hilltop will become permeable and forested. This will augment the aquifer below and enhance the environment. The facts challenge the prevailing fiction.
There will be no displacement at Niyamgiri while the 120 families displaced at Lanjigarh have already been resettled and are being trained for industrial jobs and other avocations. Additionally, under a supreme court directive, Vedanta is to provide five per cent of its net profit or Rs 10 crore per annum, whichever is more, in perpetuity for wider community development over a 15 sq km area.
This does not seem like vandalising tribal life. Yet, the benefits and multiplier from the larger 5 mtpa aluminium project and related investments are being needlessly delayed by misplaced opposition.
Tata’s six mtpa steel plant at Kalinganagar, long delayed, may move forward this year while its related deep sea Dhamra port will soon be operational in collaboration with Larsen & Tubro. Posco’s 12 mtpa steel plant and related captive port in Jagatsinghpur district is also held up by betel vine, cashew and prawn farm encroachers on the government-owned land allotted to the company. What is being defended by the Posco Pratirodh Sangharsh Samiti is the existing livelihood pattern and way of life.
Can Orissa afford further delay and risk losing the bigger prize and huge opportunity for safeguarded development within its grasp?
Source: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/54272/march-development.html
Deccan Herald, Page 4, 23rd Feburary 2010.
Friday, March 19, 2010
NIYAMGIRI MINE BELONGS TO ORISSA MINING CORPORATION
Not many people understand that actually Orissa Mining Corporation, Government of Orissa, owns the Niyamgiri mine in Kalahandi, Orissa. The bauxite mine at Niyamgiri was allotted to Orissa Mining Corporation by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India. Government of Orissa, agreed to provide bauxite to Vedanta's Aluminium Ltd's Alumina Refinery at Lanjigarh, Kalahandi, Orissa.
It was Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India and Government of Orissa only who presented extensive affidavits to Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, when certain vested interests filed PILs against the bauxite mining project. The project was cleared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after deliberations of over 2 year period, during which the Hon'ble Court obtained reports from Wildlife Institute of India and Central Mine Planning & Design Institute, covering all aspects, including water, environment, wildlife, tribal issues, ecology etc.
While granting judgement, Hon'ble Court's also came out with a unique model for development of local people, to ensure inclusive growth - 5% of the profit or Rs. 10 crore, whichever is higher, to be utilized for the development of the region. The company has also complied with the same. Based on the direction of the Hon'ble Court, Rs.20 Crores has already been deposited by Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. and the development work has commenced in the area.
When there will be no displacement due to mining in Niyamgiri and as this has also been conformed by Government of Orissa, the question of rehabilitation issue does not arise. There is also no adverse impact on the Dongria Kondh tribes who live several miles away from the proposed mining site. The allegations about Dongria Kondh tribes being affected, made repeatedly by those with vested interests, is primarily an effort to stop bauxite mining in Orissa. Their agenda is not to allow development of India's natural resources. These forces have been successful so far and thats the reason, no new alumina refinery has been set-up in India after NALCO, which was about 25 years ago. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd. refinery is the only alumina refinery set-up since 1980s.
The Ministry of Environment & Forests had asked Government of Orissa for conformation of compliances with Forest Conservation Act 1980 and Scheduled Tribe and Other Forests Dwellers (Recognition of Right) Act 2006 and the Government of Orissa has conformed compliance in this regard as well. Between August 2008 to August 2009, Stage - I clearance from Ministry of Environment & Forests, GOI, Environment Clearance from MOEF and Stage - II Clearance from State Government of Orissa have also been obtained. Forest Advisory Committee has already approved this proposal. As all statutory compliances have been carried out, what is awaited is the final clearance from Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India.
It was Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India and Government of Orissa only who presented extensive affidavits to Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, when certain vested interests filed PILs against the bauxite mining project. The project was cleared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after deliberations of over 2 year period, during which the Hon'ble Court obtained reports from Wildlife Institute of India and Central Mine Planning & Design Institute, covering all aspects, including water, environment, wildlife, tribal issues, ecology etc.
While granting judgement, Hon'ble Court's also came out with a unique model for development of local people, to ensure inclusive growth - 5% of the profit or Rs. 10 crore, whichever is higher, to be utilized for the development of the region. The company has also complied with the same. Based on the direction of the Hon'ble Court, Rs.20 Crores has already been deposited by Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. and the development work has commenced in the area.
When there will be no displacement due to mining in Niyamgiri and as this has also been conformed by Government of Orissa, the question of rehabilitation issue does not arise. There is also no adverse impact on the Dongria Kondh tribes who live several miles away from the proposed mining site. The allegations about Dongria Kondh tribes being affected, made repeatedly by those with vested interests, is primarily an effort to stop bauxite mining in Orissa. Their agenda is not to allow development of India's natural resources. These forces have been successful so far and thats the reason, no new alumina refinery has been set-up in India after NALCO, which was about 25 years ago. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd. refinery is the only alumina refinery set-up since 1980s.
The Ministry of Environment & Forests had asked Government of Orissa for conformation of compliances with Forest Conservation Act 1980 and Scheduled Tribe and Other Forests Dwellers (Recognition of Right) Act 2006 and the Government of Orissa has conformed compliance in this regard as well. Between August 2008 to August 2009, Stage - I clearance from Ministry of Environment & Forests, GOI, Environment Clearance from MOEF and Stage - II Clearance from State Government of Orissa have also been obtained. Forest Advisory Committee has already approved this proposal. As all statutory compliances have been carried out, what is awaited is the final clearance from Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India.
Vedanta Mining Project Within Ambit Of Law, says Orissa govt
New Delhi: In sharp contrast to the Centre’s assertion that Vedanta Resources’ proposed mining project in Orissa’s Niyamgiri hills violated green and tribal norms, the state said the Anil Agarwal-led group’s plans were within the ambit of the law.In two separate letters this month to officials of the Union ministry of environment and forests, Orissa’s forest and environment department special secretary BP Singh said the proposed mining by Vedanta Resources jointly with Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC) is not in violation of “any Act”.
“Since the project area spreads over two separate districts—Rayagada and Kalahandi—the collectors of these two districts..., have furnished the relevant certificates pertaining to compliance with provisions of the forest rights in respect of the land falling within their jurisdiction. When contacted, Orissa’s forest and environment principal secretary Upendra Behera said, “Yes we have written letters to the Union government to inform them about the findings of the two collectors that in the 660.740 hectares of land there has been no claim from any tribal or traditional forest dweller.”
Vedanta Aluminium Limited, Lanjigarh, COO Mukesh Kumar said, “The Orissa government on March 11, 2010, sent two letters to the environment and forests ministry submitting there is no violation of Forest Conservation Act.”
Union environment and forest minister Jairam Ramesh on Friday said that the JV partners have violated certain environment norms. The JV was formed for bauxite mining.
Singh further said, “In view of the above position of compliance by the collectors, it is requested that the (Union) ministry of environment and forests may kindly take into consideration of the same and process the matter further to accord final forest clearance for diversion of 660.749 hectares of forest land for the project,” Singh said. He added, “Based on the report of the regional chief conservator of forests, Bhawanipatna, the chief conservator of forests and nodal officer...Orissa, in his letter dated December 3, 2009 has reported that no construction and mining work has started either in non-forest area or forest area of the lease area.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)