By Patricia Mukhim
Since when has the church become pro-mining?
Two very significant news items this week point to the callousness of people with a short-term vision without any thought of the impending environmental cataclysms awaiting Meghalaya. One news item is of the Presbyterian Church in Lumshnong, East Jaintia Hills agreeing to lease 25 hectares of its land at Dong Daba Saitthad to Star Cement Limited for limestone mining for a period of 50 years. The other piece of news is again about Star Cement expanding its mining activities over 65 hectares of land at Brichyrnot, very close to Wah Lunar and the Narpuh Reserved Forest. Star Cement is an upfront for -profit company with a heavy reliance on limestone. It is in fact using limestone from Meghalaya and carting it to its production units in Assam. Hence the less we speak about local employment the better. The Presbyterian Church must be thinking of the regular income from leasing the land to the Company. The church elders, I am sure, have not bothered to ask any environmentalist with an independent view (not those employed by the Government to toe their line) about the possible consequences of their action of allowing limestone mining in their territory.
When has the State Pollution Control Board ever controlled pollution?
Not surprisingly the Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board (MSPCB) – a body with zero credibility conducted another sham environmental public hearing on Monday at Lumshnong in East Jaintia Hills. The meeting was presided by a bureaucrat – the Additional Deputy Commissioner, who like others of his ilk has no views of his own and couldn’t care less what happens to the people there a few years from now since he is not a permanent fixture there. The presence of so-called environmental engineers – whatever that means and also of the Member Secretary of the MSPCB is devoid of substance. These are all on a ship steered by the powerful mining lobby.
SEIAA – Does it really measure environmental impacts of mining?
Then you have the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) , some of whose members were actually responsible for redefining forests in Meghalaya. Just two months after introducing a policy to promote mining, Meghalaya has diluted the definition of “forest”. On December 28, the state government amended its Forest Regulation Act of 1973 and said only a “compact and continuous tract of minimum four hectares,” will now be considered as forest in the state. The Government says the amendment is to provide clarity to the unclear definition of forest. Experts fear that the new definition may open up large tracts of forestland for non-forest use. V K Bahuguna, director general of Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, a body under the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests reportedly stated, “The definition does not take into account ecology and landscape approach and is subjective. It is, therefore, better to restrict to the Supreme Court order of 1996.”
In the 1996 judgement, the apex court held that a deemed forest would not only include “forests” as understood by the dictionary meaning of the word – a large area with significant tree cover – but also any areas recorded as forests in government records, irrespective of ownership.
Why the need to redefine forests?
Earlier in Meghalaya the United Khasi and Jaintia Hills District Council definition was adopted which says, “Forest” means and shall be deemed to be a forest, if in the area, there are reasonable number of trees, say, not less than twenty five trees per acre, reserved or any other forest produce growing on such area, which have been or are capable of being exploited for purposes of business or trade.”
The new definition adopted by the Meghalaya Government specifies that an area should have more than 250 naturally growing trees with a girth size of 15 cm or more per hectare (ha) to be regarded as forest. In case of a bamboo dominant patch, more than 100 naturally growing clumps should be present per ha. In case of mixed vegetation, the number changes to 150 trees and over 40 bamboo clumps. Going by this definition there should be no forests in Meghalaya and it is easy as hell for the SEIAA to grant mining operations right, left and centre on the alibi that the mining area is a non-forest land. How convenient and easy to alienate forest land without any care for the future of this State. It’s as if these people sitting in the SEIAA have no thought for the future. Perhaps that future is already taken care of when they shift to another greener state or country! The problem will be for those that are condemned to live and die in Meghalaya.
Who is holding SEIAA accountable?
A cursory look into the minutes of the SEIAA and its method of granting mining lease shows a set of boxes that need to be ticked – no questions asked. The following is the brief of the SEIAA.
After due screening and examination of all the documents submitted by the Project Proponent and site cross checking and deliberation by using kml file through Google Earth, the committee unanimously recommended for grant of Environment Clearance with the following conditions.
1. LOI ought to be renewed as the validity has expired
2. A settling Tank is to be constructed, at a suitable site within the mining area for collection of debris, sediment, silt, fragmented stones etc. carried by surface water channelized through the Curtain drain. The deposited debris, spoils etc. are to be removed/cleared, both from the tank and drain as and when required. Overflowing water that flows downhill shall be dispersed but precautions to be taken that spoils etc. generated from mining are not carried along.
3. Curtain Drain is to be constructed properly to intercept the surface water from flowing into the mining area and water flowing out of the mine channelized to the Settling tank.
4. If any debris etc. overflows to adjoining land/agricultural field etc. during the mining operation, Monitoring Agency is to take necessary action as per relevant section(s) of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
5. In annual EMP budget under GREEN BELT, creation of plantations including nursery cost, fencing etc the notified norms of Forest and Environment Department, Govt of Meghalaya is to be followed strictly, including financial cost. Budget under said head stands revised accordingly.
6. To increase the allocation for plantation and maintenance to a minimum of Rs. 1 lakh per annum and double the number of plants to be planted.
7. CER should be included in the capital cost and it should be increased to a minimum of Rs 1 lakh annually.
8. Boundary pillars with the height not less than 2.5 feet above the ground level and 1.5 feet below ground and minimum 8 inches on all face of pillar should be erected.
9. GPS coordinates of each pillar should be carved/painted clearly on the pillars with Red colour.
10. A board highlighting the name of project and project proponent, location name, total area of the mine, date of issue of EC by SEIAA and CTO & CTE by MSPCB should be installed at the entrance to the mining site and clearly visible.
11. Fencing of the boundary of site with minimum two strands of barbed wire or ordinary split bamboo fencing is to be erected all around the periphery of the approved mining area.
Member Secretary shall prepare the draft Environmental Clearance for this project and circulate the same to all Members of the Authority for views/comments/corrections, if any, and then after approval of the Chairman, the Member Secretary shall issue the final Environment Clearance.
The questions to SEIAA is – how many mining sites have they visited to check whether mining leaseholders are adhering to environmental norms? Are limestone mining activities affecting rivers, and adding to heavy siltation? How many abandoned limestone mines have been reclaimed? Which limestone mine operators have shown visible signs of eco-restoration? Have any licenses been cancelled for violating norms? Above all, the SEIAA leadership should visit Sohbar and see how limestone mining in Nongjri is affecting the Wahrew. I am sure they haven’t even heard of Wahrew. That’s how institutions function in this state and country.
Since when have Dollois, Headmen and Churchmen become environmental experts?
Do those Dollois and headmen voicing their approval of granting mining rights to Star Cement know what they’re doing? What is their expertise to give comments? And it sounds silly to hear someone tell a mining company to “strictly follow all necessary procedures. The Chairman of the Presbyterian Church in fact urged the authorities to expedite the clearances for mining operations. Since when did church elders collude with mining companies and become their spokes-persons? There is something really rotten with the church today and this is one grave example.
How much mining is too much?
Star Cement also wants to expand their mining activities by acquiring a lease for 65 hectares of land at Brichyrnot adjacent to Narpuh Wildlife Sanctuary. At least as far as this is concerned there is opposition from the Khasi Students’ Union and Elaka Narpuh Youth for Change (ENYC) who have stated upfront that mining and cement production will have a significant impact on the Lunar and Lukha rivers besides affecting the Narpuh Wildlife Sanctuary. Both the Lunar and Lukha rivers have become highly acidic and turn blue during the winter months and no longer support riverine life.
Over and above Star Cement there is another company – Meghatop which also wants to start a cement plant in the same area and the MSPCB is scheduled to hold a public hearing on October 18 The question is – how many cement companies can East Jaintia Hills sustain? How much is too much mining of limestone?