|
By Nilanjana Biswas The Report of the Indian People's Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights has termed UAIL's bauxite mining operations in Orissa's Kashipur region unconstitutional, illegal and against the people's interests and demands that it be scrapped. Will the state ignore these concerns in the mad rush to speed up industrial development?
On October 17, 2006, the Orissa State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB) organised a public hearing to address the expansion plans of the Utkal Alumina International Limited (UAIL)-owned proposed mining and refinery project in Kashipur, Orissa. Two days earlier, October 15, saw the release of the Report of the Indian People's Tribunal (IPT) on Environment and Human Rights, which called for the immediate scrapping of the existing project. The report was the outcome of a public hearing, held over three days (October 1 to 3, 2005), during which an eight-member multi-disciplinary Indian People's Tribunal panel led by retired Chief Justice S N Bhargava, conducted site visits, met dozens of project-affected people, solicited the opinion of experts and scrutinised project-related evidence procured from various ministries under the Right to Information Act. In sharp contrast to the involvement shown by the IPT panellists in enlisting public opinion, the OSPCB hearing took place in Tikri. This township is far from the project site and has the intimidating presence of armed security guards who, over the past five years, have been charged with killing three unarmed adivasi youth, arresting hundreds of others on unproven charges, patrolling villages, and creating an atmosphere of terror in order to coerce local people into stopping their anti-mining protests. Anti-mining protests in the region date back to 1993 when the aluminium consortium UAIL first planted its feet in the mineral-rich tribal areas of Kashipur in southern Orissa's Rayagada district. As a result of these protests, two of the original stakeholders -- the Tatas and the Norwegian company Hydro -- pulled out of the proposed mining venture in 2001. Today, UAIL is a Rs 45 billion joint venture between the Aditya Birla Group-owned Hindalco (55% share) and the Canadian aluminium company, Alcan. Through a process known as opencast mining, the new project proposes to mine Kashipur's Baphlimali hills for bauxite, the ore from which aluminium is smelted for several booming industries -- aviation, automobile and, principally, armaments. The extracted ore will be carried, via conveyor belt, to a refinery/captive power plant 22 km away, near Kucheipadar village. Eight million tonnes of bauxite ore will be extracted annually to produce between 1-3 million tonnes of alumina per annum. This rate of extraction is expected to exhaust Baphlimali's 195 million tonnes of existing bauxite deposits within approximately 24-25 years. Massive land acquisition is part of UAIL's mining plans. According to the IPT report, the consortium hopes to acquire 2,800 acres of agricultural land, forestland, grassland and homestead land: land that for generations has been the lifeline of the people of this region, land that is at the heart of the unequal conflict between corporate power and democracy. As the adivasi Bulka Minia, in her deposition before the IPT, asked: "If you have a right to our land, then tell us how and when it became yours?" Constituted to assess the project's potential effect on the lives, livelihoods and culture of the local people, its potential environmental impact, and claims of state repression, the IPT included eminent citizens like Dileep Singh Bhuria (former Member of Parliament), Professor Ramdayal Munda (former vice-chancellor of Ranchi University), Professor S Parasuraman (director, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai), Dr Ilina Sen (visiting professor at Mahatma Gandhi International Hindi University, Wardha), Sagar Dhara (environmental engineer), and Dr K Balagopal (human rights lawyer, Andhra Pradesh High Court). The tribunal's findings are a shocking expose of the rout of democratic norms in Kashipur in the name of industrial development. The IPT found the proposed mining project completely flawed from the outset. The project is scheduled to come up in areas that are protected under the fifth schedule of the Indian Constitution, which disallows the transfer of tribal lands to non-tribal entities by any means, including lease. "The granting of a mining lease to UAIL, a non-tribal entity, by the State Government of Orissa, is in flagrant violation of Constitutional mandates that have been upheld by the Supreme Court in Samatha v State of Andhra Pradesh. Other constitutional provisions like the Panchayats Extension to the Scheduled Areas Act (PESA), 1996, as well as state provisions like the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property Act, 1956, which protect the Adivasi community's right to land and other natural resources have also been overridden unlawfully." (Page 6, Report of the Indian People's Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights) Not only does UAIL's mining lease violate the Constitution, it also appears to have expired. Taking grave note of the illegal seizure of land, the IPT called on the Orissa government "to declare all land acquisition by UAIL to date null and void". The IPT called for the scrapping of the project on grounds of environmental irregularity. UAIL's environmental clearance for the project, received in 1995, expired in 2000. This fact alone prohibits UAIL from undertaking any project-related work and land acquisition in the area. The adverse environmental impact of UAIL's mining project provided further reason for the IPT to advocate its dismissal. The Baphlimali hills are a source of perennial, life-sustaining springs, the loss and contamination of which would lead to the desertification of agricultural land. Desertification, coupled with the project's encroachment into forest and common lands, would create acute water shortages, threatening food and livelihood security. Aluminium production requires massive water utilisation. It is estimated that the UAIL project alone would require 12,000 cubic metres (12 million litres) of water every day. This can only be met through the diversion of local streams, which again would affect water available for local use and crop irrigation. Local streams would also become receptacles of mining waste, further aggravating the water crisis. Refinery waste includes solid effluents like 'red mud'. Between 1 and 1.5 tonnes of red mud is created for every tonne of alumina produced. Red mud is a highly toxic substance that contains heavy metals, toxic alkaline chemicals and radioactive elements. It has the potential to leach up to 150 tonnes of sodium hydroxide into the soil, on a daily basis, drastically altering the soil's pH balance and resulting in a significant decline in vegetative growth and land productivity. The process of opencast bauxite mining and refining also poses serious health risks to people living in and around the mine and refinery/power plant site. These include the risk of fluorosis, leading to brittle bones and tooth and gum disease, as well as cancers brought on by the release of sulphur dioxide and sulphur monoxide into the air when caustic soda is used during the refining process. The tribunal noted the project's possible impact on the existing biodiversity, quoting a study that found 195 species of plants, 13 species of mammals, 66 species of birds, 13 species of reptiles, nine species of amphibians and 14 butterfly species in the impact zone. Citing a 2005 Supreme Court stay on mining in another eco-sensitive area in the Aravalli hills of Rajasthan, the report expresses the hope that similar action will be taken to protect the Baphlimali hills. Given that the life of the project is a mere 24-25 years, during which the ecology and demography of the region will be irreversibly altered, the IPT report asks the significant question: What is the environmental future of this area? Based on an outdated 1991 census, UAIL's own estimates put the project displacement figures at 2,000 people from 148 families. Accordingly, the ambit of UAIL's relief and rehabilitation (R&R) measures will cover only these people. The IPT says the figure is a gross underestimation, as it does not take into account a number of categories of project-affected people who will experience deprivation. Various other estimates put the displacement figure at between 22,000 and 60,000. As against this figure, the project is offering jobs to only one member from each displaced family. The IPT also indicts UAIL for total lack of transparency regarding its rehabilitation package. Even in terms of economics, the project does not make much sense. According to the IPT report, UAIL's Rs 45 billion investment is likely to fetch it a profit of Rs 2.88 trillion in aluminium sales -- a 6,300% return on investments. The Orissa government, on the other hand, which is selling its bauxite to UAIL at the bargain price of Rs 85 a tonne, will only generate an estimated Rs 14 billion over two decades in royalties -- a paltry return for the irreversible destruction of land and a way of life and livelihood for local communities! The IPT verdict is clear -- scrap the project on grounds of it being unconstitutional, illegal and against the interests of the people. In sharp contrast, the state OPSCB hearing not only upheld the project but also allowed it substantial capacity expansion. It follows the convenient philosophy of the irate queen in Alice in Wonderland: "Sentence first -- verdict afterwards!" After all, there are 46 more MoUs for mega mining projects in Orissa waiting to be legitimised through this sham process. The 13-year-old peaceful and democratic struggle in Kashipur by local adivasis and dalits against a Goliath-like consortium of multinational aluminium mining companies has brought to light the injustices of so-called 'democratic' state processes to legitimise corporate interests in a globalising economy. The IPT's unequivocal recommendation to scrap mining plans in the area is a vindication of this struggle. (Nilanjana Biswas is a Bangalore-based journalist ) InfoChange News & Features, November 2006
|
