Decision Making and People’s Participation in Mining Industry – A Case Study of Birla Periclase Project

Introduction:

The impact of mining operation commences with exploration activities, extends through extraction and processing of minerals and may continue post closure of the operation, with the nature and extent of impacts varying thought the stages of project development. In India we are witness to all the negative impacts, which are compounded by the fact that there is a curious juxtaposition of mineral ores, forests, water on the one hand and a majority of scheduled tribe population much as 80%, on the other, mining industry has been a major perpetuator of the continuing marginalization of indigenous communities, as it has alienated them from their land and livelihood resources. It thus becomes imperative to include all the stakeholders in the “Decision-Making” for a mining project. This will foster transparency and government accountability and responsiveness. This is also reflected in Rio declaration, which states: “Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens at the relevant level”.

Here the case of Birla Periclase is cited as a case study. A mining project of the multinational Indian Rayon Industries limited in Ananthgiri Mandal, Vizag district of Andhra Pradesh. This reflects an archetypal trend in the decision making process which is prevalent in the mining industry.

Brief History of the area:

Nimmalapadu is a small village in Anantgiri Mandal, Vizag district of Andhra Pradesh, a scheduled area. It has abundant water and is also the catchment for river systems like Sharada, Gosthani. The tribals cultivate paddy using the gravity flow irrigation system, and show very little dependence on the outside world. In the words of an elder from the village: they do not rouble the government for rations!! The tribals were aware of the occurrence of calcite, bauxite, quartz, mica and yellow ochre. As the triblas themselves collect “coloured stones” which could have been washed down due to rains or by rathole mining. In the 70’s a village account officer, Laxmi Narayana relaised the presence of mica and illegally started diggings pits with the help of the locals as he promised them prosperity. By 1985 the tribals had realized the futility of his promises and decided that he should leave the place.(The pits in their fields are still there to this day!!). This same person came back in 1989, armed with leases given to him by the decision of the government, the people being nowhere in the picture!! In 1993 he sols it to the Birla’s who were interested in setting up the Birla Periclase project.

Scheduled Area in A.P. – Legal Framework

As the Birla Periclse lease was stituated in Scheduled area of Andhra Pradesh, it is crucial to understand the legal regime in operation: (1) In a fifth schedule area,t he constitution guarantees that no land can be transferred from a tribal to a non-tribal.

2) The Mines, Minerals Regulation and Development Act of 1957, which was amended in 1991 to clearly states that mining leases in scheduled areas should be given to tribal people only.

3) The Land (Transfer) Regulation Act of 1959, of Andhra Pradesh, prohibits sale or transfer of tribal land to non-tribals. This was amended in 1970 prohibiting transfer of lands from non-tribals to non-tribals

4)And any developmental project has to pass through the project Officer in the Integrated Tribal Development Agency(ITDA), as he is authorized to provide a single line administration in a scheduled area.

The Project and its Potential Impacts:

The Birla Periclase project deals with extraction of calcite ore from the tribal area to manufacture magnesia briqettes using seawater, freshwater and calcite. The project can be broadly understood by breaking it up into the mining and related activities and the communities, which it would impact:

(i)       construction of a 90 feet road over 22 kms spreading across 14 tribal hamlets and
thick forest required to transport, 150 truckloads of mined calcite ore each day to the plant site near vizag which is 110 km away: affected 100 families

(ii)      actual mine site of 120 acres in Nimmalapadu village: for te extraction of calcite mineral affected 52 families.

(iii)     The Vizag plant for productin of magnesia,: impacts around 25 km radius

(iv)     The Jetty in Chippada Village for drawing Sea-Water: impacted the local fisherfolk, and is in violation of CRZnorms.

(v)      Sinking of bore wells and leasing of River Gosthani upstream at Tatithuru, for drawing freshwater: this affected the wter delicate water balance and in particular was detrimental to the supply of water to Bhimili Municipal Corporation, the Chittiwalsa Jute Mills, 7 Suburban townships of vizag.

None of the communities to be impacted were consulted at any point of time!

The Players and Their Influence:

Very broadly speaking, during the decision making to grant a mining lease we see the

involvement of two sets of players:

(i)       governmental bodies with the authority to make decisions: Governmental bodies include the Department of Mines and Geology, the revenue department, the forest department, pollution control board, and the like.

(ii)      The corporate or the public sector entity, which professes an interest to mine

Birla’s entered into the picture in 1993 when Laxmi Narayana sold his lease to them. This

was an illegal transfer from a non-tribal to a non-tribal under the Land Transfer Regulation Act of 1959. And as this was a “transaction” between two private entities one cannot envisage even an iota of public inclusion. The people only realized this when the Birla prospectors descended on their village and displaced 15 tribals from the “minesite”. This is a normal occurrence as people are invariably kept out of the planning process. And realize it considerably later in the day. By which time the legal processes for land acquisition (and other acts emulating the procedure of the draconian land acquisition act….like the Coal Bearing Areas Act, the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines Act 1961 etc.,), environmental clearances and other clearances would have considerably progressed. Further in this case the project officer, ITDA, too was bypassed and he was unaware of the lease being transferred to the Birla’s till the tribals apprised him of the transaction.

An example of successful public inclusion in decision making the Samata Experience:

Samata a people’s group working for securing social justice and human rights of the tribal communities in the Eastern Ghats entered into the picture in 1993, when the affected tribals approached them. It was realized that the government, which had no right to give the mining lease as per law, had done just that, ignoring the people’s concerns. Further the government had gone great lengths to acquire land for the road under the guise of public purpose, and had also agreed to share 50% of the road construction and had entrusted the job to the Border Roads Organisation. The Company had not done an Environmental Impact Assessment of the mine site or the heavy-duty road.

The main strategy adopted to stop the mining was to oppose the construction of the 90 feet wide, 22 Km road connecting the mine-site to the Vizag-Jaypore highway. It is important to realize that tribals in a stretch of 7-8 kms were utterly opposed to the road and the rest wanted a road but of a smaller width. This was accepted and Samata facilitated the formation of the struggle committees of the tribals who refused to give up their lands for the laying of the road.  Samata intervened by helping them file writ petitions in the division high courts challenging the land acquisition, the writs were filed by 26  tribals. Samata representing the issue to government, media and other sections aided this effort.

The organized opposition by the struggle committees helped in ensuring bargaining process for getting a fair price in the bargain. Every tree and sapling was surveyed and valed in presence of the government person and the Samata representative. The rate was calculated included the fruits it would have borne in the future. The government had listed the land only under the category of dry land, but now the land was reclassified as dry and wetland and rates were fixed accordingly. Along with this was also included a category liable for compensation the “enjoyment rights” wherein people occupying government land also needed to be compensated. All this was done with the active participation of the people to be affected.

This was agreed in entirety, by the Birla’s and the list complied, that was read aloud and only when the tribal agreed, the Birla’s paid the compensation by demand drafts which they had to deposit with the land acquisition officer. Which were given to the families after they withdrew the writs they had filed. It is important not to miss out, that the withdrawal letter’s of tribals had enclosures of the Birla’s letter detailing the compensation due to them and their concurrence. Thus till date it can be argued in court that these are the basic rights of triblas in that area. This benefit of people deciding the compensation accrued to 26 families in the 22 km road stretch. This resulted in the reduction of the road from original 90 feet to 45 feet, and 20 feet in some places. Till date we see that the road which otherwise would have been a straight one, is narrow wherever the tribals opposed it and widens at places where there was no opposition.

This in our viewpoint is how decisions should be taken, by public inclusion at every step. Thus definitely ensuring a better quality of decision-making.

The actual mine-site in Nimmalapadu village was effectively stopped by the Samata judgment, which prohibited transfer of leases in Schedule areas with retrospective effect. The vizag plant was shut down and subsequently auctioned off in parts.

Factors Affecting Decisions:

1.       The state is too willing to sacrifice the interests of tribals and marginalized
communities for the industrial lobby, even disrespecting the law of the land

2.       The state is also prepared to be at loggerhead with the judiciary and even try to
clop of their wings, find loopholes in existing laws or even amend laws (to circumvent settled laws).

3.       The industry is allowed to get away with murder, as the state prefers to remain silent on the illegal acts committed by the company

4.       The people are never consulted at the time of siting of a project. It is a deliberate act of non-inclusion of the communities to be impacted by the project.

5.       The people when do realize in most vague terms that there is such a project proposed do not have an linking of the devastation which is to follow as it is shrouded in secrecy. And in such a situation it is beyond the normal comprehension of  the people to visualize the full impact.

General strategies to achieve a more open and fair decision making process must include:

1.       increasing consciousness that mining has links to social justice, and that plans must address social concerns;

2.       enhancing public awareness of the importance of public participation in decision-making while granting of mining lease,

3.       educating planners on the public’s expectation for active participation and involvement through continued advocacy;

4.       leadership to provide strong guidance on the meaning of open and fair decision making while granting of leases.

5.       Enhancing government accountability

6.       Improving the quality of participation

Conclusion:

It is evident that decision-making in the represent set up occurs at levels, which are inaccessible to the people. It is invariably taken by a handful of bureaucrats at the instance of a corporate entity, which is interested in mining. The public inclusion is not a part of the agenda in the siting process and even during the public hearing process for granting the environmental clearance the objections of the people are not justifiable except probably in a court of law. Neither is it reasoned out while doing out the environmental clearance to the project. As there is no legal requirement of conducting a post auditing of the project in Indian scenario, which should logically include the looking back on an EIA process, there is absolutely no scope of any people being involved in monitoring of the project in operation.

It is evident that we are still a long way off from ensuring environmental justice. Honouring the 73^rd Amendment to the constitution that makes gramsabha supreme can ensure this and this is reiterated in the Supreme Court Judgment in the Samatha Vs. State of A.P and Others, 1997:94. As per the 73^rd Amendment Act, 1992,….”every Gram Sabha shall be competent to safeguard….Under clause (m) (ii) the power to prevent alienation of land in the Scheduled Areas and to take appropriate action to restore any unlawful alienation of land of a scheduled tribe.”

For mines minerals and people, Hyderabad

Mahalakshmi Parthasarathy