Citing the need to protect the environment and local residents, Indian courts and government bodies have started to block - or even cancel - an increasing number of industrial projects.

Thursday 28^th October  2010 11:37

Source: Le Monde

27/10/2010. Last month the Supreme Court of Madras, to protect “mother nature”, ordered the closure of a copper smelting plant, operated by the large mining conglomerate ‘Vedanta’, whose stock is quoted on the London stock exchange.

In August, the Minister for the Environment prevented Vedanta from opening a bauxite mine in a tribal area in the east of India, on land considered sacred by the indigenous community of the Dongria Kondh. Economic benefits are not sufficient reasons for the government to approve the requests of mining companies and industry.

The French cement-maker Lafarge also had experience of this change of mind. In February, the Supreme Court ordered the temporary closure of a limestone quarry in the state of Meghalaya, demanding additional guarantees for conservation of the area.

In 2007, the northern state of Himachal Pradesh approved the plans of Lafarge to open a limestone quarry and cement factories in the foothills of the Himalayas. Two years later, the Minister for the Environment gave the green light. But last month the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) ruled against the Project, since it could cause social and environmental harm.

“In 2009, the team from the ministry didn’t even visit the site, before making a decision”, said JC Kala, a member of the NEAA committee. Lafarge has set its eye on an area of 430 hectares, 68 of which belong to local villagers. It wanted to construct a conveyor belt 6 km in length to connect the quarry to the cement factory, with a production capacity of 3 million tons per year.

Despite the guarantees of Lafarge, Kala is afraid “the dust and noise as a result of the hundreds of trucks needed to bring coal to the factory and transport the finished cement product, will have a negative impact on the biodiversity here, which is particularly rich in this part of the Himalayas, as well as in a National Park 5 km away from the site”.

The plan would mean the displacement of about 80 families. And the unfulfilled promises of other businesses have made the task even more difficult for Lafarge.

“We are offering them either money, or a house and land in another place”, says Anurag Kak, the leader of the Lafarge project. “But nothing is decided yet. The negotiations take time.” So far, a few temporary medical installations in some towns and the opening of two centres of technology information have not been enough to win the support of the local population for a project that would require the investment of more than 200 million dollars.

Many people make their livelihood from what they can find in the forest, picking pomegranates, for example, which they sell in the nearby markets, or using it as pastures for their herds. Lafarge has promised jobs, but few will be in the factory or quarry themselves; of the 8,000 jobs initially forecast, only 800 will be created in the local quarry or the cement factory.

It is questionable if a cement factory and a huge limestone mine could be constructed without harming the environment and hurting the community. Lafarge rejects the option of setting aside the project, but until now it has not been able to convince the NEAA, with a negative response being the most recent reflection of the prudent stance being adopted by the authorities, especially in relation to mining development projects.

India is rich in mineral resources and has almost doubled its mining production since 1993. But of the 50 districts that have the most mining production, over half of them are amongst the poorest in the country in social terms, according to the figures from the Centre of Science and the Environment in New Delhi.

In a report on the domestic policy on mining, the Planning Commission said: “the relationship between the mining companies and local communities is a legacy of abuse and distrust.” The last 20 years of mineral expropriation from the land has infuriated the local communities - particularly in the tribal areas, which are often the most affected -

and has nourished the Maoist rebellion that now threatens the security of the whole country. To remedy the lack of regulation in the mining and extraction industries, a new law is expected to go before the Parliament this winter. Some commentators defend the paying of a quarter of the mines takings to the local residents.

A new approach by India for development appears to have the objective of a fairer distribution of the incomes from mining between the mining companies and the local population, if not also a better balance between the conservation and exploitation of natural resources. The Minister for the Environment, Jairam Ramesh, cited “serious environmental problems” to explain his decision to postpone the construction of the airport at Mumbai. Since he took up his responsibilities in June 2009, impact assessments – obligatory for all infrastructure projects – have gone from being a mere formality to due process, and more than 100 projects have been withdrawn or set aside.

Ramesh, nicknamed by media sources as the “minister of the green crusade”, has banned the commercial growth of genetically modified egg-plants (aubergines), created “green” courts, fought to stop illegal mining operations, and set up a program for the conservation of biodiversity. He even hopes to find an alternative to using gross domestic product to measure economic growth.

Ideally, if we can show gross domestic product and ‘green’ domestic product we will have a better idea of the advantages and disadvantages involved in the process of economic growth”, said the minister at the time he mentioned it to the Satish Dhawan commemorative conference last month in the Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research. It is the first time in 25 years since the Ministry was created that this idea has been expressed.