[This news story looks to be a part of the lobbying by private mining interests. It's a sort of alarm bell ringing to scare "people" into action to kill the yet unborn. But then Schedule V and VI areas, I'd guess, already have a plethora of safeguards. But the point is who safeguard the safeguards? That's a very major problem. The state quite often offer with one hand and take away with another. Even the highest court of the land delivers grossly contradictory judgements. And judgements come in all shapes and sizes: the Good, the Bad , and the Ugly. It calls for essentially self-sustaining democratic mobilisation of the local inhabitants. Then only the legal/constitutional safeguards assume real meaning. But there is of course a strong interactive (could we say "dialectical"?) relationship between the two. One tends to reinforce the other and, in turn, gets further reinforced. In this instant case, while we must offer informed support to any such move through various available and possible - writings in the media to mass campaign and lobbying the lawmakers; we should perhaps also ask for stricter environmental provisions - EIA, and also social impact assessment. But even this limited (contemplated) measure, as it looks, should be welcomed. Sukla]
*Private companies face mining ban in tribal areas* 13 Jan 2010, 0009 hrs IST, Subhash Narayan, ET Bureau NEW DELHI: The government is considering a proposal to restrict mining by private sector companies in tribal areas in a move that could severely impact investments of domestic and foreign majors like Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton, Vale, Sesa Goa and MSPL. The latest version of a legislation on India’s mining sector — known as the Mines and Mineral Development and Regulation or the MMDR Bill — proposes making large parts of mineral-rich areas in India out of bounds for private and foreign companies. “The new provision has been included in a revised draft to build proper safeguards for the tribal population affected by mining operations. It would ensure that mining activity happens in a sustainable manner without causing much hardships for the natives,” said a government official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The MMDR Bill is still in the drafting stage after which it will be introduced in Parliament for enactment into law. Mining companies are sure to lobby fiercely against its latest version and it is far from clear that this provision will make it to the final version of the Bill. Officials of mining companies argue that restricting investments by private sector companies would defeat the purpose of the Bill, which is intended to attract money into the sector. According to the latest version of the Bill, provisions of the Fifth and Sixth Schedule of the Constitution will be taken into account while granting mineral concessions for reconnaissance, prospecting, general exploration, detailed exploration and mining. These schedules lay down norms for the administration and control of areas, including India’s north-eastern states, inhabited by Scheduled Tribes. For private miners, the reference to these schedules would mean that mining in tribal areas can be done only by central or state government companies or by co-operative societies formed by persons affected directly or indirectly by the project. A government official said the new provision would not apply to joint ventures with private miners so long as “the public sector character” of the operations is maintained. The term, public sector character, in the Indian context usually refers to government companies owning a majority stake in a company. A representative of the body which lobbies for private miners strongly opposed the new version of the Bill. “We are well aware that most of our mineral wealth is in tribal and backward areas of the country. If restrictions are put on private investment in these areas, it would spell the death-knell for the country’s mining sector. Moreover, none of the foreign companies will ever venture to sink their capital in risky prospecting in such a uncertain atmosphere,” said Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI) secretary general RK Sharma. FIMI has also written to the mines secretary asking for the deletion of the newly inserted provision. The Supreme Court’s recent pronouncements on mining in tribal areas have been contradictory. In 1997, the apex court ruled that mining leases could not be awarded to private companies in what has come to be known as the Samata case after the NGO from Andhra Pradesh petitioned the courts. But in 2001, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court while upholding the sale of a 51% stake in government company Balco to the Anil Agarwal-controlled Sterlite said it strongly doubted the correctness of the Samata judgment. However, the Samata ruling remains the law as laid by the Supreme Court though its interpretation, particularly on whether there is an absolute bar on granting leases to private companies, remains unclear. The insertion of a provision barring mining activity by private companies, except through joint ventures, would severely inhibit investments, industry officials argue. They, however, refused to go on record on the issue. “The central public sector units have not been able to exploit and harness the mineral resources properly and adequately. Besides, most of the state public sector units do not have adequate wherewithal to develop mineral resources. Private sector has contributed a lot towards the growth of the mining sector and the government should not tie its hands at this juncture,” said an official of private sector mining company who also wished not to be identified. Prima facie, industry officials say, the move would appear to go against the central purpose of amending the laws on mining. The new Bill has been prepared with a view to modernising and streamlining the existing practice of mining, which is ridden with arbitrary powers of state and central governments to award mining leases. The import of banning private mining companies in tribal-dominated areas would be to leave these areas as captive monopolies of central and state public enterprises. Many state enterprises in mining are widely perceived to be nothing more than fronts for companies floated by powerful local politicians and officials. The latest version of the MMDR Bill has also provided that any notification of mining activity in Schedule Five or Six areas would be done after consultation with the gram sabha or district council. Any contravention of provisions in the proposed Act would make a mineral concession null and void. The current government regulations permit 100% foreign direct investment or FDI in most mining activities under the automatic route. Despite this, the actual FDI flows have been a measly $150-200 million. This has not deterred the government from setting the ambitious target of increasing FDI in the sector to over $20 billion in the next few years. India has 85 billion tonnes of mineral reserves which are yet to be exploited. Encouraging FDI in the sector, many feel, can prove to be important for the development of the Indian mining and minerals industry. -- Peace Is Doable--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group.
To post to this group, send an email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected].
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
