India examines cost of mining more closely

Environmental impact assessments have halted projects in sensitive areas

Citing the need to protect the environment and local residents, Indian courts and government bodies have started blocking – or even cancelling – a growing number of industrial projects. Last month the high court in Madras ordered the closure of a copper smelter operated by the London-listed mining conglomerate Vedanta, to protect “mother nature” from “unabated air and water pollution”.

In August, the environment ministry prevented Vedanta from opening a bauxite mine on tribal lands in eastern India held to be sacred by the Dongria Kondh community. Economic benefit is no longer sufficient reason for the government to approve applications for mining and industrial schemes.

The French cement manufacturer Lafarge has also had experience of this change of heart. In February, the supreme court ordered the temporary closure of a limestone quarry in Meghalaya state, demanding additional guarantees for conservation of the site. The court is to rule on the reopening of the mine soon.

In 2007, the northern state of Himachal Pradesh approved plans for Lafarge to open a limestone quarry and cement works in the Himalayan foothills. Two years later, the environment ministry gave the scheme the green light. But last month India’s National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) decided against the project, which was likely to cause social and environmental damage.

“In 2009, the ministry team did not even visit the site before taking a decision,” says JC Kala, a member of the NEAA board. Lafarge has its eye on an area covering 430 hectares, 68 of which belong to villagers. It wants to build a massive conveyor belt, 6km long, connecting the quarry to the cement works, with an output capacity of 3m tonnes a year.

Despite Lafarge’s assurances, Kala fears that “the dust and noise caused by hundreds of trucks needed to ship coal to the works and carry off the finished cement will have a negative impact on biodiversity, which is particularly rich in this part of the Himalayas, as well as on a natural park five kilometres from the site”.

The scheme would mean about 80 families having to move. And promises broken by other companies before make Lafarge’s task harder. “The people who forced us to move five years ago promised money and work,” says Meera Sharma, a resident of the Karsog district, which is affected by the project. “We still haven’t received anything. How can we be expected to trust mining companies?”

We will offer them either money, or a home and land at another location,” says Anurag Kak, the Lafarge project leader. “But nothing is settled yet. Negotiations take time.” Setting up temporary medical facilities in several villages and opening two computer centres has not so far been enough to gain the support of local people for a project that will require an investment of more than $200m.

Many people depend for their livelihood on what they can find in the forest, picking pomegranates, for instance, which they sell in nearby markets, or grazing their flocks. Lafarge has promised jobs, but few will be at the works itself: of the 8,000 jobs originally expected, only 800 will be created at the local quarry or cement factory.

It is an open question whether a cement works and a huge limestone quarry can be built without damaging the environment and affecting the community. Lafarge rejects the option of shelving the project but has so far not managed to convince the NEAA. The latter’s negative response reflects the cautious stance the authorities are increasingly adopting, particularly with regard to mining projects.

India is rich in mineral resources and has almost doubled mining output since 1993. But of the 50 districts registering the largest mineral output, more than half are among the nation’s poorest in social terms, according to figures released by the Centre for Science and Environment in New Delhi.

In a 2006 report on national mineral policy, the Planning Commission said: “The relationship between mining companies and local communities has a legacy of abuse and mistrust.” Over the last 20 years compulsory land purchases have angered communities – particularly in tribal districts, which are often the hardest hit – and have fuelled the Maoist Naxalite rebellion that now threatens the security of the whole country. To remedy the lack of regulation in the extraction industries, a new mining bill is expected to be tabled in parliament this winter. Some commentators are advocating the payment of a quarter of all mining revenue to local residents.

India’s new approach to development seems to be targeting fairer distribution of earnings between mining companies and local populations, but also a better balance between conservation and exploitation of natural resources. Explaining his decision to delay construction of the Navi-Mumbai airport, the environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, cited “serious environmental issues”. Since he took office in June 2009, impact assessments – compulsory for all infrastructure projects – have gone from being a mere formality to a proper process, and more than 100 schemes have been dropped or shelved.

Ramesh, dubbed by the media as the “crusading green minister”, has banned commercial cultivation of genetically modified aubergines, set up “green” tribunals, battled to stop illegal mining operations, and launched a biodiversity conservation programme. He even hopes to find an alternative to gross domestic product for measuring economic growth.

“Ideally, if we can report both gross domestic product and green domestic product, we will get a better picture of the trade-offs involved in the process of economic growth,” the minister said while delivering the Satish Dhawan memorial lecture at the Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research last month. It is the first time in the 25 years the ministry has existed that such an idea has been voiced.

This article originally appeared in Le Monde.