Facing green hurdles, Rio Tinto pulls out of diamond mine in MP

The Indian Express, 19 August 2016

Asked to explore the possibility of underground mining and wait until the Ken-Betwa river linking project was finalised, mining giant Rio Tinto on Friday decided to close its Rs 2,200-crore diamond mine project in Madhya Pradesh.

“As part of its ongoing efforts to drive shareholder value by conserving cash and cutting costs further, Rio Tinto has decided to not proceed with development of its Bunder project in India. Accordingly, we will be seeking to close all project infrastructure by the end of year 2016,” Rio Tinto Exploration India Private Limited said in a statement emailed to The Indian Express.

It is a setback for the Madhya Pradesh government as Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan had himself pushed for the statutory clearances required for the project. The diamond mine was expected to yield Rs 2,058 crore and Rs 208 crore towards royalty and taxes, respectively, to the state once excavation began.

Rio Tinto, say company sources in India, has already invested over Rs 400 crore on prospecting etc and hired more than 300 people at the project site. “Rio Tinto will offer a fair and equitable Voluntary Severance Scheme to contractors employed at the project site,” the company’s Indian arm said in the statement. 

The country’s first private diamond mining project was red-flagged for undermining the wildlife corridor between the Panna Tiger Reserve and the Navardehi Wildlife Sanctuary. This July, a report by the National Tiger Conservation Authority said that the project “has the potential to disrupt tiger dispersal around Panna landscape”.

Accordingly, the environment ministry sought to limit mining only to 76.43 hectares out of the total 971 hectare project. In a letter to the state government on August 10, the ministry further conveyed that surface extraction “would entail greater extent of forest land use leading to permanent loss of the high quality forest areas” and “the project proponent may also explore the possibility of underground (mining)”.

As per government records, the estimated deposit of diamond at the site is 34.2 million carat. While pulling out of the project, Rio Tinto has reiterated that “the Bunder deposit is a high-quality discovery” and offered to help the state and the Union government in finding a “third-party investor to carry forward the development of the project”.

Madhya Pradesh granted reconnaissance permit to Rio Tinto for diamond mining in Chhatarpur’s Bunder area in 2004. The Shivraj Singh Chouhan government signed a support agreement with the company in 2010 and subsequently issued a letter of intent for a 30-year lease in 2012. Indian Bureau of Mines approved the mining plan in 2013 and the project is awaiting forest clearance since 2014.

Machli: Death of a tiger legend

The Indian Express, 18 August 2016

Machli alias, T16 alias, the Lady of the Lake. The tiger legend is dead. Finally. The news has shocked tiger lovers across the globe. But to many, it has also come as a relief. Because it also put an end to the pathetic spectacle of an amazing wild tiger being reduced to a living relic.

Without the tethered baits the forest department provided her for the last seven years, Machli would have long been dead. There was a reason however, that the majority in the wildlife fraternity were desperate not to lose her.

As tigers disappeared from Rajasthan with poachers striking at will in the first half of the last decade, the very sight of Machli — strolling, stalking, ambushing, still raising more cubs or just minding her own business — was one of the few reassuring constants.

The once reigning queen of the three majestic lakes beneath the craggy fort at the heart of Ranthambore, Machli was indeed a very special cat. The envy of every single mother, she raised nine cubs in four litters between 2000 and 2008. Every day, hundreds of tourists scoured the forest to seek her out. Every year, thousands of pilgrims walked all over her territory on their way to Ranthambore’s Ganesh temple. The fiercely protective mother always held her nerve.

Machli’s courage and determination make her a remarkable survivor. She repeatedly took on deadly marsh crocodiles bigger than herself and overcame them. Even after those mortal combats cost her two canines, she continued to hunt successfully and went on to raise five cubs in two litters.

As her legend grew, Machli became the biggest and the best advertisement for tiger conservation. In 2009, when she was awarded for lifetime achievement, it was rather conservatively estimated that she had generated $10 million for the local economy through tourism. Millions of tourists on Machli pilgrimages have visited Ranthambhore since.

But that was not her biggest miracle.

Almost single-handedly, Machli steered India’s fragile westernmost population of tigers through an ominous decade. Her bloodline has produced at least 50 tigers in Ranthambhore, including her own nine cubs from three males, and two other females sent to repopulate Sariska.

Against all odds, Machli raised her fourth litter at the ripe age of 11 and without two canines. Eight years on, all Machli had was half a canine, a little patch of her once vast territory, and some of her indomitable spirit. While she still made occasional kills, the forest department fed her under public glare.

Machli’s last years added to her legend but she had long stopped serving any purpose in nature’s scheme of things which does not allow an old unproductive individual to hang on and waste finite resources. Yet, we kept Machli alive because it gave us an emotional and moral high.

Machli’s life taught us that given an opportunity, a single cat can turn a wild population around. Her death should make us realise that by not letting her go, we probably made it a little more difficult for her successors to do a Machli.
Now that the legend is dead, young tigresses will follow in her pug marks and hopefully rival her many feats. If they succeed, let’s vow not to do a Machli on them once they are done being wild tigers.

Amid a popular show of support for the big cat, three things India could pledge this Tiger Day

The Indian Express, 29 July 2016

July 29 was designated as the International Tiger Day at the Global Tiger Summit in Saint Petersburg, Russia, in 2010. This is an annual event when NGOs and forest authorities host celebrities and school children — and media invites experts — to create awareness about tiger conservation.

Today, tiger enthusiasts can walk a mile under golden-black banners, adopt a tiger for as little as $55, or just pray for Jai, the alpha male gone missing in Maharashtra. The new option is to click a selfie with a tiger sculpture or photo — a tourism promotion concept probably inspired by the bizarre spectacle of safari tourists presenting their back to wild tigers and twisting themselves into knots in pursuit of that ultimate frame.

While walking, donating, praying or posing for the tiger today, it may also be worth noting that this Tiger Day follows a few startling developments.

It is entirely coincidental that Parliament cleared the CAMPA Bill yesterday and — barring the minister’s assurance — there is nothing in it to benefit the traditional forest dwellers, the natural custodians of tigers. Instead, the huge funds may well trigger mindless afforestation drives, destroying rootstocks and even standing community forests to further imperil both.

Instead of squandering the bulk of Rs 41,000-crore booty in leaky plantation drives that have been chronic failures, India can pump that money into protecting existing forests and corridors (they regenerate given a chance), into securing the future of all endangered species including the 16 that demand urgent attention (and were never allocated even Rs 100 crore in all), into empowering forest communities as custodians of local wilderness.

That is the first thing India could pledge this Tiger Day.

If this day is about securing the big cat’s habitat, the second imperative is to designate no-go forest areas. India needs to exit the paradigm that allows destruction of wilderness for monetary compensation. We do not allow destruction of heritage buildings on the ground that the evicted would do just as well in plastic tents provided by builders. Plantations can never ‘compensate’ the loss of long-standing natural forests and time we accept it as a policy.

And if this day is about raising awareness, the third thing we should do is hold NGOs and governments accountable. For a start, officials must stop blaming every tiger death to in-fighting and start accepting that poaching can happen under anybody’s watch. Tigers are not suicidal and no system is crime-proof.

While the social media is abuzz with Jai’s disappearance, the absence of an individual tiger doesn’t matter in conservation. But we need to ask how did the impossible happen? How did a collared tiger tracked 24×7 under a Rs 1-crore research project go missing without alerting anyone?

Hundreds of crores of foreign and Indian (including government) funds are spent on sundry projects on conflict mitigation, awareness drives or monitoring through different NGOs. We need to ask how NGOs implementing the same projects using identical templates end up submitting drastically different financial accounts. We can’t have only volunteers saving the tiger — it is time to guard against plain profiteering.

This Tiger Day, India will also do well to hit at the foundation of this symbolism. Conservation as an elitist fad has never worked. The engagement of forest communities — not as photo props but as the lead partner — can make the next Tiger Day a little more meaningful.

The other part of the symbolism — using the tiger as the mascot — is perhaps inevitable. The cultural impact of the striped cat is unparalleled. We may not be able save everything in saving the tiger. But if we fail even the all-important tiger, chances are we will not be able save much else.

Consultations seek the ‘correct picture’ on upper Ganga dams

The Indian Express, 27 July 2016

To dam or not to dam? That was the question asked by the Supreme Court soon after floods and landslides devastated Uttarakhand in 2013. The Environment Ministry set up an expert committee, and subsequently told the court in December 2014 that dams had exacerbated the 2013 disaster.

A year and a half later, the Ministry of Water Resources in an affidavit last month also opposed construction of any more dams on the Ganga and its tributaries in Uttarakhand. This consensus should have settled the issue. But the Environment Ministry had, meanwhile, changed its 2014 position.

So, two days ahead of the crucial hearing scheduled in the Supreme Court on July 13, counsel for the Union of India wrote to the Court Registrar and sought “an adjournment by 12 weeks to enable the Government of India to carry out inter-ministerial consultations for arriving at a common policy framework as the matter involves three ministries”. The third Ministry being Power.

Consequently, the case was not listed for hearing on July 13.

By all indications, “arriving at a common policy framework” seems like a laboured euphemism for what is likely to be a three-month effort at justifying a foregone conclusion in favour of more hydel projects in Uttarakhand.

Soon after it criticised dams in December 2014, the Environment Ministry was told at a meeting held at the Prime Minister’s Office in January 2015 that it was “necessary to place the correct picture regarding the critical need of the projects in Uttarakhand for green power and for livelihoods before the court”.

The PMO also set a one-month deadline for the Environment Ministry to finalise the clearance norms for the dams in coordination with the Power Ministry and the Uttarakhand government.

So, in February 2015, the Environment Ministry contradicted its second expert panel’s recommendations by telling the Supreme Court that the six hydel projects — which were earlier struck down by the apex court in the aftermath of the 2013 disaster — were “worthy of clearance”. To justify the volte face, the Ministry set up yet another expert panel in June.

Around this time, Minister for Water Resources Uma Bharti joined the fray and asked the Central Water Commission to oppose the construction of new dams, as the existing ones were already a challenge to the ongoing river cleaning mission.

To bridge differences, an inter-ministerial group (IMG) was formed in November 2015 with the Ministers of Environment, Water Resources and Power as its members. If the brief was to build a consensus in favour of the “correct picture” suggested by the PMO, Bharti didn’t oblige.

In an email to then Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar on January 5, 2016 — the day the Environment Ministry shared its draft affidavit with other IMG members — Bharti pointed out that she was “unable to understand how the policy decision of the government as stated in the draft affidavit was arrived (at)” because an inter-ministerial committee under the Secretary, Water Resources, was yet to file its report.

Disregarding Bharti’s objections, the Environment Ministry, however, went ahead and submitted its affidavit before the Supreme Court, recommending five of the six stalled projects. Further, referring to a consensus on the Ganga’s water requirement arrived at a conference held in Haridwar in 1916, the affidavit proposed to clear any hydel project that did not take the natural flow of the river below 1,000 cusecs.

However, based on media reports of Bharti’s objections that were brought to its notice, the apex court asked both Power and Water Resources to file their own affidavits. In May, the Power Ministry obliged, backing the Environment Ministry’s January 2016 affidavit in favour of hydel projects.

In its affidavit submitted last month, the Water Resources Ministry, however, referred to the recommendations of various expert committees set up by the Environment Ministry in the past to conclude that “any further projects will have a substantial impact… leading to severe damage for the fresh water resources base” and “if the origin of the Ganga is compromised, then the rejuvenation of the river will be impossible”.

Underlining the need to review clearances accorded to various hydel projects, the affidavit asked for a cumulative study “of all the projects for assessing the cascade formation as well as the natural flow of the river”. It also cautioned that the “region around these projects is located in the geologically unstable and seismically active area” and any mishap “will have a devastating effect on the people, flora and fauna and on the entire eco-system”.

These concerns echo the conclusions drawn by the Environment Ministry in its affidavit filed on December 5, 2014: “…Large & small hydro power projects on the Ganga & her tributaries all over the Himalayas are a threat to the aviral dhara of the Ganga. The absence of this is leading to a serious threat to the biodiversity of the Himalayan ecology… anthropogenic activities (have) also led to massive over-exploitation of the local environment, thereby loosening the top soil and making the region susceptible to landslides and flash floods.”

It seems odd that the government should be caught trying to bypass the collective wisdom and scientific insights of its own expert committees that formed the basis of two affidavits, filed 17 months apart by two different Ministries, but were united in their recommendations. Minister Bharti would be counting on the new incumbent in the Environment Ministry, Anil Madhav Dave, her former aide from Madhya Pradesh and fellow river conservationist, to back her through the “inter-ministerial consultation”.

Environment Ministry’s rules for polluters in India, copied word for word from the US

The Ministry notified and put up the draft on its website on May 10, inviting public feedback over a two-month window.

The Indian Express, July 8, 2016

More than three quarters of the Environment Ministry’s Environment Supplement Plan (ESP) — around 2,900 words of the 3,850-word draft — is a direct lift from the Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy (SEP) document adopted by the United States in March 2015.

The draft notification proposes to allow those who go ahead with project work without prior environmental clearance under Environment Impact Assessment Notification (EIA), 2006 to “remediate the damage caused” and compensate by implementing the ESP. Under existing laws, these are criminal offences punishable with imprisonment.

The Ministry notified and put up the draft on its website on May 10, inviting public feedback over a two-month window.

Consider these substantive samples of the cut-paste that became the notification:

— US (Introduction A): Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) is an environmentally beneficial project or activity that is not required by law, but that a defendant agrees to undertake as part of the settlement of an enforcement action.

India (Clause 1): An Environmental Supplemental Plan (ESP) is an environmentally beneficial project or activity that is not required by law, but that an alleged violator of Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 agrees to undertake as part of the process of environmental clearance.

— US (II D): SEPs provide defendants with an opportunity to develop and demonstrate new technologies that may prove more protective of human health and the environment than existing processes and procedures.

India (4 iii): Innovative Technology: Environmental Supplemental Plan will provide the proponent and the Expert Group with an opportunity to develop and demonstrate new technologies that may prove more protective of human health and the environment than existing processes and procedures.

— US (IV A III): The project must demonstrate that it is designed to reduce:

a. The likelihood that similar violations will occur in the future;

b. The adverse impact to public health and/or the environment to which the violation at issue contributes; or,

c. The overall risk to public health and/or the environment potentially affected by the violation at issue.

India (5): The project must demonstrate that it is designed to remediate the ecological damage caused due to violations and it will reduce,

a. The likelihood that similar violations will occur in the future;

b. The adverse impact to public health and the environment to which the violation at issue contributes;

c. The overall risk to public health and the environment potentially affected by the violation at issue.

— US (X B): With regard to the SEP, Defendant certifies the truth and accuracy of each of the following:

a. That all cost information provided to the EPA in connection with the EPA’s approval of the SEP is complete and accurate and that Defendant in good faith estimates that the cost to implement the SEP[, exclusive of _____ costs,] is $_____;

India (12): With regard to the Environmental Supplemental Plan, the project proponent shall certify the truth and accuracy of each of the following:

a. That all cost information provided to the Expert Group in connection with the Environmental Supplemental Plan is complete and accurate and that the proponent in good faith estimates that the cost to implement the Environmental Supplemental Plan is Rs. —————;

Joint Secretary Manoj Kumar Singh, who issued the draft notification on May 10, denied having copied the content from the SEP document of the United States. “We borrowed the idea (of ESP) from the US. Most Western countries follow this practice. But the language of our draft is different. Nothing was copied,” Singh told The Indian Express.

When comments were sought from Anil Madhav Dave, who took charge as Environment Minister on Wednesday, he sought details over email. He is yet to respond.

Seeking to make violators comply by paying compensation, one of the contentious lifts from the US document in the draft notification even accommodates the possibility of future violations. Clause (5) of the draft notification says the violator “must demonstrate that it is designed to remediate the ecological damage caused due to violations and it will reduce. the likelihood that similar violations will occur in the future.”

The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 provide for a minimum period of one-and-half years of imprisonment for commencing activities without a valid consent to establish or operate.

By proposing monetary penalties for such violations, the government, say experts, is misusing its delegated executive power to frame rules that amount to dilution of laws passed by the legislature.

“Environmental violations form civil charges in the US. In India, these are criminal offences under the law. So while settlements such as SEP may not be out of place in the US, the idea of proposed ESP violates the heart and soul of EIA which is the need for prior approval. That is the law as it exists. It cannot be undermined by borrowed executive wisdom,” said environment lawyer Ritwick Dutta of Delhi-based EIA Resources and Response Centre.