May 22, 2008

General Comments

State government’s points 1-3: The CSE report is “not based on any original work by scientists of the institution… it appears to be a compilation of hand-picked materials/portions from unverified newspaper reports, public statements made by certain people and perceptions of persons who believe in certain philosophy and hold their own point of view…. The report contains large number of factual inaccuracies, sweeping remarks and unfounded criticism of the state government based on conjecture and surmises.”

CSE’s response: CSE stands by its report and its contents. To the best of its knowledge, every bit of information contained in the book is correct, accounted for and attributed to clear sources.

Rich Lands, Poor People is a Citizen’s Report, as its title clearly indicates – a collection of various facts, perceptions and observations from a variety of stakeholders, people and observers – all citizens of India -- which has enabled its writers to draw certain conclusions. CSE’s researchers and reporters have visited a number of places and sites mentioned in the report – including those in Chhattisgarh – for verifying facts. CSE’s researchers have also gone through and quoted from a number of documents produced by the Chhattisgarh government itself.

The Report is not an effort to denigrate and criticise any one government; whoever reads the Report will clearly understand that it looks at the state of mining across the country. As part of that effort, it has also looked at all the major mining states – including Chhattisgarh -- in India.

State government’s point 4: The state government’s comments, statistics etc have not been taken into account by the CSE report.

CSE’s response: This is not the case. CSE’s researchers have gone through and quoted from a number of documents produced by the Chhattisgarh government itself. The statistics of the Department of Mines and Geology, government of Chhattisgarh has been extensively used. Similarly, the findings of the 2005 Chhattisgarh Human Development Report has also been taken into account. The sources of these comments and pieces of information have been clearly indicated as well.


Specific Comments

State government’s point 1: The CSE report incorrectly says that the “Chhattisgarh government receives 20 per cent of royalty income from iron ore”.

CSE’s response: This is a completely incorrect and incomplete reading of the relevant section of the report. The report says clearly that “coal is the key contributor (to the state’s royalty income from minerals) with an average of 74 per cent.” Of the remaining 26 per cent, iron ore contributes 20 per cent – which is about 5 per cent of the total royalty. This data has not been invented by CSE, but has been taken from Annexure 7 of the Planning Commission’s 2006 Report of High-level Committee on the National Mineral Policy.

State government’s point 2: The observations in the report regarding illegal diamond mining in the state are not based on facts.

CSE’s response: The state government’s denial of illegal diamond mining notwithstanding, it is a well-known fact that this sort of illegal mining is rampant in Chhattisgarh. The CSE report’s allusions to illegal diamond mining have been sourced from newspaper reports from Central Chronicle and The Hindustan Times. Ejaz Kaiser of The Hindustan Times wrote his reports, which the paper published, under a CSE Media Fellowship programme in 2005. These reports were authentically researched and written.

State government’s point 3: Over the past 4 years, only 2 private coal mines, 2 private bauxite mines and 1 iron mine have been opened up in the state. It is incorrect therefore to say that Chhattisgarh is trying to tap its mineral resources excessively, leading to adverse impacts on environment and people.

CSE’s response: Here, the CSE report’s observations are based not on how many mines were actually opened, but on how many mine leases were granted. According to the Indian Bureau of Mines (whose 2006 data CSE’s report quotes), 344 mining leases have been granted in Chhattisgarh, and 90,000 hectares are being mined for major minerals and coal. This does not include area being mined for minor minerals.

Between 2002 and 2006, the four years in question, the state granted 31 leases over 4,199 hectares; 41 prospecting licences over 21,222 hectares and 24 reconaissance permits over 38,279 hectares. These figures have been derived in January 2007 from the website of the Union ministry of mines.

The CSE report also points out that in the five years since it was formed, Chhattisgarh has cleared 26 mining projects under the Forest Conservation Act; 80 more are pending clearance with the MoEF. These figures have been derived from documents of the forest department of Chhattisgarh itself, specifically from the office of the CCF-Land Management, Government of Chhattisgarh.

These figures, which are from various government bodies and agencies, clearly point towards the state government’s keen desire to tap the state’s mineral resources at any cost.

State government’s point 4: To say that Chhattisgarh is facing environmental challenges is unfounded…. Major mineral deposits are in forest areas where the people are extremely poor due to the fact that existence of major minerals deprives them of land suited for agriculture… systematic and scientific exploitation of minerals along with environmental stability is necessary for the generation of economic activities in these regions, and the state government is doing just that…

CSE’s response: The environmental problems arising out of mining in Chhattisgarh – such as the pollution of river Sankhini or the destruction of forests in Bailadila or the air pollution in Korba – are all extremely well documented. CSE’s researchers have themselves visited the locations and experienced and observed the problems. Popular agitations in most of these areas also provide enough proof of the problems and their extent. The state government’s ostrich-like attitude in this context, therefore, is laughable.

The government, in this comment, goes on to acknowledge what the CSE report is saying: that the resource-rich regions are inhabited by poor people. It contends therefore that mining is necessary for the economic well-being of the region and its people. However, the government’s own 2005 Chhattisgarh Human Development Report, which the CSE report refers to, says clearly that most of the state’s mineral districts have not benefited from the mining activities.

The CSE report does not propose to stop mining completely. It, instead, proposes that wherever mining is undertaken, it should be done under a ‘new social and environmental contract’. It should be done in a sustainable manner and its benefits should be shared with the people of the region. CSE also proposes that mining should not be allowed in areas of high ecological importance. This, as the Report indicates, is not a unique proposal, but a practice that is followed in many countries. In fact, there is an international declaration on this which was signed at the World Conservation Congress in Amman, Jordan in October 2000, which suggested that mining should not take place in IUCN Category I-IV protected areas.

State government’s point 5: Observations in the CSE report on degraded forests in Dantewada are incorrect.

CSE’s response: The observations on Dantewada have been taken from the state government’s own document, the 2005 Chhattisgarh Human Development Report. Numerous other studies point to the same truth: that mining has depleted the state’s and its districts’ forest cover. And, we might add here that the mine lease area is a very poor indicator of the extent of destruction of forests by mining. This is an internationally accepted fact.

State government’s point 6: The state government does not see the Forest Conservation Act as a liability. Its endeavour to distribute 50,000 pattas of forest land is incorrectly being seen by CSE as an excuse to open forest lands for ‘development’. But it is only an endeavour to help the poorest of the poor tribals by giving them rights over forest land for cultivation…

CSE’s response: The CSE Report’s allusion to the Chhattisgarh government’s keenness to amend the FCA is based on reportage in The Hindustan Times (November 4, 2005).

State government’s point 7: The allusion that Nankiram Kanwar, the then revenue minister, was shifted because of his statement against BALCO, is misconceived and merely a conjecture.

CSE’s response: This allusion is not CSE’s own. It was simply taken (and duly referenced in the book) from a report by R Krishna Das that appeared in The Telegraph. The CSE report has simply reported what had already been alleged somewhere else.

State government’s point 8: The allusion that the state forest department did not do anything to prevent destruction of forests by Essar Steel Ltd, is misconceived. Essar’s violation was punished by the regional office of the MoEF, and not the state government.

CSE’s response: The reference to the Essar case is based on a quote by Bhupesh Baghel, the Congress legislator, who made the allegations in an article carried on October 22, 2005 by a website called www.steelguru.com. Baghel also reportedly went to court on the issue, forcing the state government to file its report.

State government’s point 9: Results of study by IIRS are not supported by annual agricultural statistics. The study’s contention that large tracts of land have turned into degraded forests and barren land is, prima facie, not correct.

CSE’s response: The CSE report has only reproduced the results of the remote sensing study done by the renowned Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun. Does the Chhattisgarh government have access to annual agricultural statistics of the areas mentioned in the study, and is it willing to share the data with CSE?

State government’s point 10: The statement that land owners having no proof of their rights are being displaced without compensation is wholly incorrect. The state’s rehabilitation policy has been judged by the Planning Commission as the best in the country.

CSE’s response: The state’s rehabilitation policy came into effect only in 2007, after the CSE report was sent for publication. In any case, the policy’s claims will be laid to test in the coming years – much will depend on its implementation. Our track record on compensation is not very encouraging. However, CSE will be one of the first to applaud if the policy lives up to its promise.

State government’s point 11: Allusions to the Salwa Judum, quoted from The Tribune on page 128, are wholly incorrect... As a majority of the tribal population of Chhattisgarh is based in Bastar, where no new mining areas have been opened up, saying that 40 per cent of tribal population of the state has been displaced is a blatant lie…

CSE’s response: As the point notes, the reference to Salwa Judum is based on a report in another daily, The Tribune. However, it might be pertinent to bear in mind at this point that this ‘peace movement’ is currently under the scanner from both the Supreme Court and the NHRC.

With respect to displaced tribals, this is CSE’s response: besides Bastar, Chhattisgarh has sizable tribal populations in almost all its major mining districts such as Koriya, Korba, Surguja etc. The 40 per cent displacement figure, sourced from The Tribune, is for the entire state. Does the state government have any other figures and is it willing to share them? While only NMDC is operating in Bastar at the moment, the district will soon have Essar and Tata also mining for iron as well as setting up steel plants. Where have the displaced of these projects gone?

State government’s points 12-15: The statement that there has been unmindful exploitation of natural resources by MNCs, leading to tribal women joining the Naxal movement, is incorrect... The statement that mining in Bailadila is indiscriminate and the entire iron ore is being exported to Japan is incorrect… The statement that the Bhilai plant has not benefited tribals in its neighbouring areas is also incorrect… The statement that Salwa Judum is an excuse to drive tribals out of their homes and lands is nothing but propaganda…

CSE’s response: All these statements have been attributed very clearly in the Report to specific sources – in this case, a 2006 article on the website of Mines and Communities. As a Citizen’s Report, the CSE report is merely giving voice to various viewpoints and perceptions.

With reference to the Bhilai plant, it is well known that a lot of people displaced from Bhilai have still not been rehabilitated. So what benefits is the government talking about?

State government’s point 16: It has been stated that the statutory obligation of consultation with concerned gram sabhas before starting the process of land acquisition has not been properly completed. This is untrue.

CSE’s response: These allegations were made by locals and carried in a 2007 article by the Indian People’s Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights. The CSE Report has merely reported this, and the quote is duly referenced.

State government’s point 17: Tata’s Lohandiguda project has offered a compensation package which is one of the best in the country – therefore, claiming that the project was seen with distrust by the people is wrong.

CSE’s response: The CSE report is carrying what has already been reported: people’s acute disaffection with the project and the fact that coercion was used to force the villagers’ hands. As a December 29, 2006 report in The Hindustan Times says, “Villagers in Lohandiguda alleged that the votes in the Gram Sabha to yield land to Tata were wrongly obtained.” Coercive tactics were also reported in an article on a website, www.steelguru.com.

The government claims 70 per cent landowners have already collected compensation. Is the government ready to release a list of those who have received this compensation?

State government’s point 18: The contention that gram sabhas in Dhurli etc were false is misrepresented.

CSE’s response: CSE stands by what its report says. CSE’s own reporter, Maureen Mitra, was a witness to the public hearing.