ARTICLE

Odysseys of Vedanta and POSCO in Odisha:an enviro-legal critique

Navneeta Dash1

Published online: 25 April 2015

� O.P. Jindal Global University (JGU) 2015

Abstract The article attempts to find reasons for violations of the Environmental

Impact Assessment process, perpetrated by multinational companies Vedanta and

POSCO inOdisha, India.Vedanta’sminingproposals led to India’sfirst ‘‘environmental

referendum’’ and POSCO is scheduled to be the biggest Foreign Direct Investment in

India, upon completion. Suggestions to mitigate flaws have been offered. Judicial

pronouncements of the SupremeCourt onVedanta’s bauxitemining and refineryproject

in Niyamgiri, have been analysed. The POSCO project site in Kujanga and its proposed

mining site in Khandadhar are located in highly fragile ecosystems. Hence, POSCO is

facing and is scheduled to face evenmoreopposition from the local indigenous people of

those areas. The article argues that biodiversity and the laws relating to it must be

attributed importance, in order to safeguard endangered flora and fauna species from

extinction. Biodiversity laws per se should be effectuated to protect forests and the

species living in them. The approach adopted while conserving them, should be eco-

centric, not anthropocentric. Environment cannot continue being a pawn in the hands of

human beings, being exploited and destroyed for human activities like mining and

industrialisation at such a large scale. An equitable balance must be maintained.

Keywords Biodiversity � Anthropocentrism � Odisha � POSCO � Vedanta

1 Introduction

Minerals are finite national wealth, as their ownership lies with the State. Though

India is a socialist state, most of our mineral wealth is exploited by a handful of

& Navneeta Dash

navneeta.dash@gmail.com

1 Orissa High Court, Cuttack, India

123

Jindal Global Law Review (2015) 6(1):93–112

DOI 10.1007/s41020-015-0004-5

private entities,1 who pay scant regard to environmental laws, flouting them openly

for earning windfall profits. These minerals lie under the same lands, which hold

most of India’s biodiverse forests and river systems that are largely inhabited by the

India’s poorest and marginalised people- the Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Scheduled

Castes (SCs) depend on those very forests and watersheds for their survival.2

Long years of mining and ancillary projects have devastated their forests, leading

to depletion of the ecosystem rendering it far more exposed to natural calamities,

and rendering those people displaced and more vulnerable, socially and eco-

nomically. The situation is likely to worsen, as the government tries to continue its

industrialisation drive, pegged at exploiting its vast natural resources without

investing much thought or action in safeguarding its people and environment.3 This

expounds why tribals and corporate miners are old adversaries, which is evident

from various enviro-social movements that have put up unrelenting resistance over

decades, against large extractive projects all over the country.

Having tribals (STs) who constitute 22.85 % of its population and forests that

constitute 37.34 % of its geographical area,4 Odisha- the most mineral-producing

Indian state5 is an ideal microcosm of the aforementioned pan-Indian scenario. In

the past two decades, Odisha has witnessed widespread enviro-social movements

against industrial projects in Niyamgiri, Dhinkia, Kashipur, Gopalpur, Kalinganagar

and various other parts of the state.

Since it is impossible to discuss all those industrial projects in extenso, the author

would discuss only two causes celebres: the Vedanta Aluminium project at

Niyamgiri in Lanjigarh, Kalahandi; and the POSCO-India project at Kujanga in

Jagatsinghpur district, and examine the existing and prospective environmental

repercussions, if both get fully functional in Odisha.

Both have attained national importance on different counts. While the former

served as the reason for India’s first environmental referendum, the latter would be

the biggest Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in India, upon completion. But both cry

out the same story of how governments have consecutively preferred money over

welfare of people.

2 The Niyamgiri Crusade against Vedanta

Niyamgiri is a bauxite-rich hill range spread across the borders of Kalahandi and

Rayagada districts in south-western Odisha, predominantly inhabited by the Kandha

tribe (mostly Dangaria and few Kutia Kandhas). The UK-based Vedanta Resources

entered into an Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the state government in

1 See Brinda Karat, Of Mines, Minerals and Tribal Rights, THE HINDU, May 15, 2012 (of the

490,000 ha of land given out in mining leases, 95 % of the leases comprising 70 % of the land were given

to private companies).2 CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT, RICH LANDS, POOR PEOPLE 3 (2009).3 Id. at 7.4 FOREST SURVEY OF INDIA, INDIA STATE OF FOREST REPORT (2013).5 INDIAN BUREAU OF MINES, INDIAN MINERALS YEARBOOK 2012 (51st ed. 2013).

94 Jindal Global Law Review (2015) 6(1):93–112

123

1997 to setup an integrated bauxite mining and refinery project including a captive

power-plant. It entered into a joint venture with the Odisha Mining Corporation

(OMC) in 2003 to mine bauxite in Niyamgiri. In 2004, the Ministry of Environment

and Forests (MoEF) granted Vedanta, Stage-1 Environmental Clearance (EC) to set

up the refinery, which started functioning in 2007. Again in 2007, Vedanta applied

for permission for expansion of the refinery from 1 to 6 MTPA and power

generation from 75 to 300 MW.

2.1 An overview of the biodiversity in Niyamgiri

Niyamgiri Hills are covered by dense inviolate forests. Two major rivers and over

38 perennial streams flow from the hills. The forests are historically recognized for

its immensely rich wildlife population and biodiversity. It has also been proposed to

notify it as a wildlife sanctuary, which has been approved by the MoEF in 1998.

This area has been constituted as an Elephant Reserve in 2004.6

Niyamgiri has more than 602 floral species (including 70 species of medicinal

plants and 31 species of orchids).7 About 6 floral species8 and most of the 25 species

of mammals9 found here are enlisted under the International Union for Conservation

of Nature’s Red Data Book.

2.2 Prospective impact of mining in Niyamgiri

Bauxite deposits situated on the peaks of the hills are porous, which makes them

good water-retaining aquifers. Bauxite-mining will destroy the aquifers resulting in

the drying up of streams, rivers and underground water resources leading to

desertification of the area.10 About 121,337 trees will have to be cut in case the

mining lease is granted; and 363,000 shrubs and ground level flora would also be

cleared.11 Further, expansion of the refinery will add thousands of tonnes of dust,

sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.12 Tribals are already suffering from chronic

diseases due to dust pollution and water contamination caused by the refinery.

6 Central Empowered Committee (CEC) Report in I.A No. 1324, (Sept. 21, 2005).7 Vasundhara, Biodiversity Assessment in Some Selected Hill Forests of South Orissa, INDIA

ENVIRONMENT PORTAL (Mar. 31, 2009), http://vasundharaodisha.org/Research%20Reports/

Report%20of%20Biodiversity%20of%20South%20Orissa.pdf (last visited Mar. 2, 2015).8 Id.9 Bibhuti Barik, Niyamgiri is Nature’s Treasure Trove, THE TELEGRAPH, Nov. 1, 2010.10 Centre for Science and Environment, A Brief Report on Ecological and Biodiversity Importance of

Niyamgiri Hill and Implications of Bauxite Mining, INDIA ENVIRONMENT PORTAL (Aug. 24, 2010),

http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/7_hill%20and%20biodiversity.pdf (last visited Mar. 2,

2015).11 SAXENA ET AL., REPORT OF THE FOUR MEMBER COMMITTEE FOR INVESTIGATION

INTO THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE ORISSA MINING COMPANY FOR BAUXITE

MINING IN NIYAMGIRI 22 (2010) [hereinafter Saxena Committee].12 Centre for Science and Environment, Resource requirement and pollution potential of Alumina

Refinery from 1 MMTPA to 6 MMTPA Capacity of Vedanta Aluminium Limited, Lanjigarh, Kalahandi,

Orissa, INDIA ENVIRONMENT PORTAL (Aug. 1, 2010), http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/

files/Alumina%20 Refinery %20from %201 %20MMTPA.doc (last visited Mar. 2, 2015).

Jindal Global Law Review (2015) 6(1):93–112 95

123

Both Dangaria and Kutia Kandha tribes have been enlisted as Particularly

Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs).13 They reside in Lanjigarh, Kalahandi which is

a Scheduled Area.14 They identify their very existence with Niyamgiri. They hardly

depend on anything else for their sustenance. They believe that their deity Niyam

Raja Penu owns Niyamgiri, and everything belongs to him. Hunting, cutting and

felling of trees on Niyamraja range continues to be a taboo.15

Mining will not just ensue massive displacement but also threaten their survival

and would destroy their economic, social and cultural life.16 Hence, the Kandhas

have been fighting by staging relentless protests spearheaded by the Niyamgiri

Suraksha Samiti, a people’s organisation.

2.3 Vedanta’s legal battle

The MoEF granted ‘‘in principle’’ approval stipulating certain conditions, for

diversion of the 660.749 ha of forest land for mining in 2007. Vedanta Aluminum

Limited (VAL), a subsidiary of Vedanta, approached the Supreme Court (SC)

seeking for clearance of the proposal for use of 723.343 ha laFRAnd (including

58.943 ha reserve forest land) in Lanjigarh for setting up the alumina refinery

project.

In the First Vedanta case,17 the SC rejected VAL’s prayer while giving liberty to

its holding company Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. (SIIL) to operate the mines

under a Rehabilitation Package and modalities to subserve the principle of

sustainable development.

Unconditionally agreeing to the suggested Package, SIIL moved the SC with the

same prayer as VAL, upon which the court granted clearance to the forest diversion

proposal for diversion of 660.749 ha of forest land in favour of SIIL to undertake

mining on the Niyamgiri Hills in the Second Vedanta case’.18

Throughout the entire procedure for obtaining clearances, Vedanta along with the

Odisha government concealed the real facts to get Environmental Clearances (EC)

from the MoEF. Numerous instances of grave statutory violations have been

documented in various fact-finding reports submitted by the Central Empowered

Committee (CEC) and the N.C Saxena Committee constituted by the MoEF.19

As per the findings of both the Committees, Vedanta continued to violate various

provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act (EPA), 1986, the Scheduled Tribes

and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act (FRA),

13 As per the National Tribal Policy, 2006. Formerly known as Primitive Tribal Groups (PTGs).14 CONST. Schedule-V.15 MIHIR K. JENA ET AL., FOREST TRIBES OF ORISSA: THE DONGARIA KONDH 319 (1st ed.

2002).16 Centre for Science and Environment, supra note 12, at 3.17 (2008) 2 S.C.C. 222.18 (2008) 9 S.C.C. 711.19 CEC submitted its first report on 21.09.2005, then Supplementary Report on 22.02.2007. Saxena

Committee submitted its report on 16.08.2010.

96 Jindal Global Law Review (2015) 6(1):93–112

123

2006, the Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA), 1980, the Panchayats (Extension to the

Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA), 1996 and various other statutes.

In the meanwhile, the MoEF granted ‘‘in principle’’ approval for diversion of

forest land for mining on December 11th, 2008 and granted the EC for mining on

April 28th, 2009. Consequently, the state government applied for Stage-II (final)

forest clearance on August 10th, 2010, which was rejected by the MoEF on August

24th 2010, citing grave statutory violations (as per the Saxena Committee Report),

as primary reason for the said rejection.

OMC moved the SC against this rejection order seeking a writ of certiorari to

quash it. The SC in the Third Vedanta case,20 held that it was for the Gram Sabhas

of the affected villages to decide whether and to what extent mining would affect

the customary and religious rights of the indigenous people of Niyamgiri. It held

that if as per the Gram Sabha, such rights were affected, then those must be

protected and preserved.

Accordingly, the Dangarias and others from affected villages were asked to voice

their decision, a historic exercise that was dubbed as the country’s first

environmental referendum. Though 112 villages with 8000 tribals and dalits

residing in them fall within the Niyamgiri hill range, and directly depend upon it for

their survival, the Odisha government selected only twelve villages that lie within

1.5 km radius of the hills, and fall within the mining zone, for conducting the

referendum.21 It had selected only five, but later added seven more villages, upon

the insistence of the Tribal Affairs Ministry.22

Nevertheless, all twelve Palli Sabhas23 (Gram Sabhas) emphatically denied

Vedanta anything of Niyamgiri by claiming religious and customary rights over the

entire Niyamgiri Hills. Keeping that in view, the MoEF then rejected Stage-II

clearance to Vedanta for mining bauxite on January 10th, 2014. However, the

alumina refinery is still operative sourcing bauxite from other sources.

3 Dhinkia: epicentre of anti-POSCO movement

The world’s fourth-largest steel-maker,24 Pohang Steel Company (POSCO) of

South Korea entered into an MoU with the Odisha government in 2005 to set up a

12 MTPA integrated steel plant including a mining project and captive port, at

Kujanga in Jagatsinghpur district. With a proposal to invest Rs. 52,000 crores (about

USD 12 billion),25 POSCO would be the largest FDI in India till date upon

completion.

20 (2013) 6 S.C.C. 476.21 Arunima Mishra, Rule of Thumb, BUSINESS TODAY, Sep. 15, 2013.22 Manipadma Jena, Voices From Niyamgiri, 48 ECON. & POL. WKLY. 35 (2013).23 Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, No.1 of 1965, § 2.24 POSCO, Corporate Overview, POSCO (2010), http://posco-india.com/website/company/corporate-

overview.htm (last visited Mar. 12, 2015).25 POSCO, Investment, POSCO (2014) http://posco-india.com/website/project/investment.htm (last vis-

ited Mar. 12, 2015).

Jindal Global Law Review (2015) 6(1):93–112 97

123

The project required 1620.4 ha of land of which 1253.2 ha is forest land,26 on

which 280,000 trees27 have to be felled. Since 2005, there has been almost no

progress on ground as yet, as the project was severely opposed by the residents of

Dhinkia, Gadakujanga and Nuagaon pachayats in Erasama block of Kujanga. Their

fight continues till date, led by the POSCO Pratirodh Sangram Samiti (PPSS).

Many instances of human rights abuse, including police lathi charge and firings

on peaceful protesters resulting to grievous injuries; foisting false cases etc. have

been committed in the meanwhile. The author attended the National Convention of

People’s Struggle at Dhinkia, where 400 delegates from various social movements

across the country convened in November 2014. Abhaya Sahoo, president of the

PPSS spoke about the 250 cases registered by government officials against 3000

protesters (his own name features in 50 of them and he has been arrested twice

already). Other speakers at the Convention recounted similar experiences.

3.1 Biodiversity and land-use pattern at POSCO site

The proposed project site and its peripheral region flourishes with cultivation of

dhaana–paana–meena (paddy, betel and fish). Vast paddy fields, huge ponds used

for pisciculture, thousands of betel-vines and various fruit-bearing trees are found in

abundance. Over 180,000 trees and 3500 betel-vine farms have already been felled

using police force.28 The green cover that saved this region during the 1999 super-

cyclone now stands completely devastated.29

Mangroves are repositories of immense biodiversity and also the nursery and

breeding ground of several marine life forms. Mangroves and sand-dunes act as

barriers against ingress of seawater during cyclones. Massive deforestation of

mangroves for constructing the Paradeep port and other commercial activities

nearby has made the coast vulnerable to cyclones. The coastline near the proposed

POSCO site at the mouth of river Jatadhar, lies mostly barren due to depletion of

mangroves and industrialization and is an ‘‘ecologically sensitive and fragile

area’’.30 Further, it is 10 km from Paradeep, which has already been classified as a

‘‘Highly Sensitive Zone’’ and on the brink of being declared as a Critically Polluted

Area (CPA).31

The Khandadhar Falls, one of the most beautiful waterfalls in India, which is sure

to disappear if 2500 ha of the Khandadhar Hill Range is mined up by POSCO, as

proposed. Now that it has half-dried already, and bleeds red during rains due to

26 MEENA GUPTA ET AL., MAJORITY REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED TO

INVESTIGATE INTO THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY POSCO INDIA FOR ESTABLISHMENT

OF AN INTEGRATED STEEL PLANT AND CAPTIVE PORT IN JAGATSINGHPUR DISTRICT,

ORISSA51 (2010) [hereinafter Meena Gupta Committee].27 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors., (2008) 2 S.C.C. 222 (citing CEC Report,

Nov.14, 2007).28 Hudhud: Trees Felled, Jagatsinghpur Lies Vulnerable, THE STATESMAN, Oct. 10, 2014.29 Ashis Senapati, POSCO Makes Villages Vulnerable to Cyclone, DOWN TO EARTH, Oct. 11, 2013.30 MEENA GUPTA COMMITTEE, supra note, at 79, 141.31 Id. at 140.

98 Jindal Global Law Review (2015) 6(1):93–112

123

mining dirt from just 133 ha mine on the hills, devastation to be wreaked by

POSCO’s 2500 ha lease is beyond imagination.32

3.2 The POSCO ordeal persists

Despite proposing to set up a project of such huge magnitude, statutory violations

committed by POSCO while conducting and submitting the Rapid and Compre-

hensive Environment Impact Assessment Reports (EIAs) were fatal. The MoEF

appointed several committees to enquire into the compliance of the conditions

imposed upon POSCO while granting clearances. The most crucial one was the four

member Meena Gupta Committee which submitted two separate (but contrary)

reports. While the Chairman Ms. Gupta advocated for POSCO in her Report, the

other members recommended immediate revocation of all clearances granted

earlier, in their ‘‘Majority Report’’ in which they concluded that:

[t]he entire clearance process has been reduced to a farcical and empty

formality by all concerned. The environmental clearance process has been

severely compromised by a complete lack of application of mind by the

concerned authorities, and a deliberate failure to assess the project in

accordance with law. From the stage of preparation of the REIA, conduct of

public hearing, to the assessment process by the Expert Appraisal Committee

at every stage there are illegalities which render all the clearances given both

under the EIA notification and the CRZ notification invalid and illegal.33

The MoEF had granted separate ECs for the captive port and the captive power-

cum-steel plant in 2007. The diversion proposal of 1253 ha of forest-land was

considered by the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the MoEF and was

recommended in favour of POSCO in August 2007. The diversion simultaneously

came under the scrutiny of the SC (as per its order in the Godavarman case,34

according to which exercising continuous mandamus, the court itself would review

all fresh decisions of the FAC). Subject to compliance of certain recommendations

of the CEC, the SC by its order remitted the proposal back to the MoEF to consider

granting forest clearance.35 Accordingly, the MoEF granted ‘‘in principle’’ forest

clearance in September 2009 and final clearance in December 2009.

Subsequently, upon receiving the Meena Gupta Committee Report, instead of

quashing the earlier clearances, the MoEF added some more conditions for

compliance in its final EC for the steel-cum-power plant in January 2011. This EC

has been challenged in Appeal No. 16/2014 which is sub judice before the National

Green Tribunal (NGT), New Delhi.36 The MoU signed by POSCO has expired in

2010 and is yet to be renewed. The EC for the steel plant that expired in 2012, was

again revalidated by the MoEF in August 2014.

32 Madhushree Mukerjee, The Death of a Waterfall, OUTLOOK, Jun. 11, 2012.33 GUPTA COMMITTEE REPORT, supra note 30, at 225–226.34 (1997) 2 S.C.C. 267.35 (2008) 2 S.C.C. 222.36 For updates, consult the National Green Tribunal website.

Jindal Global Law Review (2015) 6(1):93–112 99

123

4 Assessment of EIAs and grant of ECs: plugging loopholes

Loopholes in the existing procedural framework regarding the way EIA Reports are

dealt with, are many, and there is an urgent need to address these. To mitigate such

fait accompli situations, the SC has adumbrated certain crucial guidelines in Lafarge

Umiam Mining Private Limited v. Union of India,37 to be followed in all such cases

while granting clearances. However, blatant violations of the EIA procedure still

persist.

Both Vedanta and POSCO case-studies are bright illustrations that exemplify the

reasons due to which EIA-preparation and assessment in India has been rendered

into a futile and farcical exercise, in practice.

4.1 Predominance of ex post facto clearance

In most cases, as has been pointed out by audit reports and other investigation

reports such as the Saxena Committee Report and the Meena Gupta Committee

(Majority) Report, the (construction) work is done first, permissions are taken

later,38 reducing the entire EIA process to an empty formality. For example, almost

60 % of the expansion work of Vedanta’s alumina refinery was already completed

even before EC was granted. As per the findings in the Saxena Committee Report, it

was in ‘‘complete violation of the EPA and is an expression of the contempt with

which this company treats the laws of the land’’.39

Similarly in POSCO’s matter, all clearances had been granted on the basis of the

initial approval to withdraw water from river Mahanadi at Jobra barrage. However,

subsequently the Odisha government has granted it approval to draw water from

Hansua Nallah for initial construction purposes, due to which the situation has been

fundamentally altered. Such violations can be remedied by strict enforcement and

penalization against the company and the government officials involved in it.

4.2 Signing of MoUs prior to obtaining consent and clearances

In Odisha, there has been a very dangerous prevailing practice of signing MoUs

with companies first and obtaining the consent of the local residents and

environmental clearances later. The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG)

reports have established that government has ignored even essential requirements

such as environmental clearance while acquiring and allotting land. In some cases,

even forest land had been allotted to the industrial houses without the mandatory

approval (clearance) of the Central Government.40 This has to be reprimanded and

discontinued.

37 (2011) 7 S.C.C. 338 [hereinafter Lafarge Case].38 Mihir Srivastava, How Big Business Gets Its Way, OPEN, Dec. 22, 2012.39 SAXENA COMMITTEE, supra note 11, at 87.40 Subhashish Mohanty, CAG Pulls Up Government for Mortgage Benefit, THE TELEGRAPH, Jun. 25,

2014.

100 Jindal Global Law Review (2015) 6(1):93–112

123

4.3 Scope restricted to the terms of reference (ToR)

The scope of the EIA is restricted to the ToRs determined by the Expert Appraisal

Committee (EAC), predominantly relying upon the information provided by the

project proponent itself. Due to the lack of mechanisms to validate the data

provided, there is every likelihood of the EAC being unaware of a vital fact which

might not have been disclosed by the project proponent deliberately, knowing that it

would be detrimental to its interests. However, the EIA is prepared in response to

the issues raised by the ToRs, and nothing beyond. Lessons can be learnt from both

the Vedanta and POSCO cases which were found to be replete with such fatal flaws

due to lack of authenticated date from reliable sources. This may be done away with

by making a provision of visiting the project site mandatory (as of now it is

optional) before issuing the ToRs.

The recent Report of the High Level Committee established by the MoEFCC ‘‘to

review various Acts administered’’ makes many laudable suggestions on how to

address these flaws, and one can but hope that these will be taken up in all earnest.41

4.4 Lack of compulsory ‘cumulative or integrated assessment’ in EIAs

POSCO and Vedanta are both integrated projects involving not one but several

components like a manufacturing plant, captive mine, power plant, port, township,

etc. But both have successfully managed to delink and to alienate each component

from the integrated whole, in a calculated move so as to dilute and mitigate the

grave impending dangers to the environment. Clearances have been obtained in a

piecemeal manner, on the pretext of phase-wise construction of projects. For

example, POSCO’s MoU was for a production capacity of 12 MTPA, whereas the

Rapid EIA and public hearing was for 4 MTPA, port and power plant clearances

were granted for 12 MTPA and the EC was revalidated for 8 MTPA.42

A steel plant alone might not be that critical to the environment. However, if it is

consists of a captive port, or a mine, or if it is situated in or near a Critically/

Severely Polluted Area, then the cumulative impact upon the environment is far

more disastrous. Hence, there must be a cumulative assessment of the entire project

to the maximum of its proposed capacity.

4.5 Fixation of maximum limits of mining, industrializationand construction

Every state or union territory must have a statutory Maximum Handling Capacity/

Limit, after conducting an intensive study akin to a Carrying Capacity Study, by

scientific/technical experts and the ceilings imposed must be strictly adhered to. The

study must clearly indicate the maximum number of ports, steel plants, mines or a

given category of industries that the state can have, the maximum amount of

41 MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST & CLIMATE CHANGE, REPORT OF THE HIGH

LEVEL COMMITTEE ON FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT RELATED LAWS (2014).42 Kumar Sambhav, POSCO’s Environment Clearance Revalidated, DOWN TO EARTH, Jan. 10, 2014.

Jindal Global Law Review (2015) 6(1):93–112 101

123

gaseous emissions it can generate annually. And every project proponent must state

in its application how it would fit into that statutory limit. Or else, as one can see

that Odisha has already signed a staggering 93 MoUs without having conducted any

scientific assessment of where to source minerals, coal and water from, which has

proved to be disastrous to Odisha’s forests and ecological balance.

4.6 Direct and independent monitoring of public hearings

Investigations about the public hearings depict a very flawed and deceptive

approach. For instance, it is apt to quote a report about a public hearing conducted

by Vedanta:43

A large tent is set up and snacks are served to officials. Among those who are

present are the local Block Development Officer (BDO), Tehsildar and village

Sarpanch, and Vedanta’s law officer. There is also a big gathering of villagers.

The proceedings start with residents of the village asked to put their thumb

impressions on blank sheets of paper in a register. This is even before they are

told anything, as if this is some sort of roll call for attendance being taken. The

BDO then prompts the Sarpanch to say something. He does not have much to

say beyond ‘‘[y]ou will get jobs’’. Vedanta’s law officer, Naba Kishore

Sharma, has more to say. He speaks of the proposed rehabilitation of those

willing to part with their land, and then in Oriya, offers to have all pending

criminal cases against the 47 arrested withdrawn if they go along with the

company.

Hence, there is an urgent need for creation of an independent agency for monitoring

public hearings as well as the entire EIA process.

4.7 Miscomputing and active concealment of facts in EIAs

Vedanta had concealed the fact that forest land of 58.9 ha was involved, to obtain

the EC in 2003, and is occupying that land illegally until now. POSCO as well as the

state government had concealed the fact that forests exist and that OTFDs are

residing within the proposed project site44 and obtained the EC. Fact-finding reports

are full of instances of active concealment, yet no penal action has been taken

against anyone as yet either under section 3A of the FCA or under any other law.

Due to the absence of punishment, such companies have consistently been

displaying flagrant disregard to environmental laws in the country.

4.8 Role and efficiency of agencies conducting EIAs

EIA reports are mostly prepared by private agencies, keeping in mind the

sanctioning of the project it is prepared for. So, the basic objective of the agency is

likely to be to appease the clearance-granting authority, which gives scope to a great

43 Mihir Srivastava, How Big Business Gets its Way, OPEN, Dec. 22, 2012.44 GUPTA COMMITTEE REPORT, supra note 30, at 223.

102 Jindal Global Law Review (2015) 6(1):93–112

123

deal of manipulation. With such an objective, there arises a serious conflict of

interest, since the EIA-preparing agency is a private entity which is paid by the

project proponent. Hence, it is highly improbable that it will write anything against

the project proponent who has paid it. This leads to deliberate concealment of vital

information as has been seen in both the Vedanta and POSCO projects. Hence, the

MoEF should prepare a Panel of Accredited Institutions from which alone the

project proponents should obtain the EIA reports.45

4.9 Mandatory translation of Eias into simple vernacular language

Literacy rate among tribals and Dalits are very low, due to which it is difficult for

them to understand the future implications of the project as contained in the EIA,

since the language is English and contains highly technical terminology. The

Saxena Committee had found it difficult to communicate with the tribals, for which

they had to get translators in Odia and Kui. The very purpose of legislations like

FRA and PESA would be frustrated, unless translations of the EIAs in the local

dialects are mandatorily provided to the affected persons.

4.10 Mandatory publishing of final EIA during public consultation

In most of the public hearings, either EIAs are not given to the Palli Sabhas, or the

Palli Sabhas are not even convened at the first place. For POSCO, the public hearing

was conducted 15 km away from the project site. All the hearings took place on the

basis of a Rapid EIA only instead of Comprehensive EIA, thus depriving the

affected people from being heard on all issues, due to active concealment of facts.

Hence, publishing of Final Comprehensive EIAs during public hearings must be

made mandatory.

4.11 Conflict of interest at all stages

Measures should be taken at every single stage of the EIA process to avoid conflict

of interest between the parties involved, in order to ensure fairness and

transparency, lest the rights of tribals or OTFDs be scuttled by corporate magnates

and the government. Following are a few illustrations taken from the Vedanta and

POSCO cases, which go on to show how the perennial issues of land, livelihood and

forests that determine the very existence of an indigenous community, have been

sacrificed for the insatiable greed for ‘‘development’’. Meena Gupta heading the

POSCO investigating Committee setup by the MoEF to probe all clearances granted

to POSCO, was the Environment Secretary when the POSCO clearances were

granted, prompting concerns about ‘‘conflict of interest’’.46 This was reflected in the

findings, as two reports with contradictory observations were submitted by the

Committee. Being an Odisha cadre IAS officer and having worked as the Health

45 Lafarge case, supra note 37.46 Priscilla Jebaraj, Meena Gupta’s Posco Recommendations are ‘‘Legally Impermissible’’: Rest of

Panel, THE HINDU, Oct. 20, 2010.

Jindal Global Law Review (2015) 6(1):93–112 103

123

Secretary in Odisha for years, apprehensions of her defending the blatant violations

committed by the Odisha government were already there. Rest of the Committee

members also criticized her stating that her recommendations ‘‘are not only

untenable but legally impermissible,’’ and by ‘‘imposing her own legal interpre-

tation over that required by law and by the Ministry itself’’, her recommendations

‘‘would encourage further manipulation’’.47 This was also one of the issues decided

by the NGT which held that:

[w]hether the act of Ms. Meena Gupta is fair or not, they are definitely hit by

personal/official/departmental bias; in other words, she supported the decision

made by her earlier. This is in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

Therefore, the entire process of review is vitiated under the law.48

Statutes such as FRA impose a duty on theRevenue and ForestDepartments of the state

to successfully execute public hearings. But the Saxena Committee concluded that:

[f]rom the evidence collected by the Committee, we conclude that the Orissa

government is not likely to implement the FR Act in a fair and impartial

manner as far as the PML area is concerned. It has gone to the extent of

forwarding false certificates and may do so again in future. The MoEF is

advised not to believe the Odisha government’s contentions without

independent verification.49

The Odisha Chief Minister laid down the foundation stone of the Vedanta project in

2004 even before it obtained the EC,50 whereas the police open fired, filed false

cases and arrested many in Vedanta and POSCO sites. Hence, expecting the Odisha

government to render assistance to them, proved to be futile.

The corporate-appeasing policy adopted by the central and state governments has

proved to be disastrous for environmental governance through welfare legislations

like FRA, EPA, etc. One of Vedanta’s reports51 begins with former Kalahandi

Member of Parliament Bhakta Charan Das’s 1996 Lok Sabha speech that

‘‘[g]overnment should set up a large alumina plant because we have got a heavy

deposit of bauxite in Niyamgiri and Sijimalli in Kalahandi… 40,000 people can

sustain out of the different kinds of earnings from that’’. Fourteen years later, he

rallied with his party leader Rahul Gandhi in Niyamgiri vehemently opposing

Vedanta. When questioned, he said that he had not visited Niyamgiri and did not

know that it was a densely-forested area that time.52 He knew about the bauxite in

Niyamgiri, but not the forests it had, though it lies in his own constituency.

47 Id.48 Prafulla Samantra v. Union of India & Ors., Appeal No.8/2011, } 6.9.49 SAXENA COMMITTEE, supra note 11.50 State defends Vedanta Refinery, THE HINDU, Jul. 4, 2007.51 Mukesh Kumar, The Lanjigarh Development Story: Vedanta’s Perspective, VEDANTA (Aug. 30,

2012), http://www.vedantaaluminium.com/pdf/The-Lanjigarh-Development-Story-Vedanta-Perspective.

pdf (last visited Mar. 12, 2015).52 Priscilla Jebaraj, Anti-Vedanta MP Once Wanted Alumina Company in Niyamgiri, THE HINDU, Aug.

26, 2010.

104 Jindal Global Law Review (2015) 6(1):93–112

123

Two Indian Prime Ministers voiced their commitment towards the POSCO

project, during their visits to Korea.53 Incidentally, Environment Minister Moily

revalidated the EC for POSCO steel plant a week before South Korean President’s

visit to India.54

The Tribal Affairs Minister Jual Oram had been opposing the leasing of

Khandadhar mines in POSCO’s favour, to save the Khandadhar Falls in his own

constituency-Sundargarh. However, he now opines that mining may be permitted

there, but without causing harm to the Khandadhar Falls in order to protect the

ecology of the region.55 How would that be, when the waterfall has partially dried

up already due to the ongoing mining?56 Instances such as these greatly hinder

policy framing regarding implementation of environmental laws.

Odisha is yet to have a Forest Policy of its own after 5 years of recommendation

by the National Forest Commission.57 No forest lands have been demarcated

properly. In the absence of a Land Bank for industrial use, identification of location

of industries was left to the promoters of industries themselves.58 The government

has gone out of its way in extending undue benefits to companies, after violating

environmental and other laws. Land acquisition was carried out for Vedanta even

after the expiry of its MoU.59

Private land measuring 4967.08 acres was acquired for setting up of industries

including POSCO and Vedanta using the emergency provisions under section 17(4)

of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has been unused for years. While providing

compensation cost of standing trees were not included. The market value of land

was wrongly computed, thereby causing huge benefits to such companies.60

5 Environment: just another Pawn?

The Forest Bench of the SC stated in the First Vedanta case61 that since Vedanta

Resources had been blacklisted in Norway for human rights violations, it was not

inclined to clear the Project in favour of VAL. It instead granted liberty to its SIIL to

initiate an application. When VAL’s application was rejected due to Vedanta’s

53 Press Trust of India, Don’t Go Back on Posco, Centre Told, THE HINDU, Feb. 7, 2015.54 Press Trust of India, ‘Posco Gets Environmental Clearance for Rs. 52 K Odisha Project, BUSINESS

STANDARD, Jan. 10, 2014.55 Prafulla Das, No Mining Near Khandadhar Waterfall in Odisha: Minister, THE HINDU, Feb. 8, 2015.56 GUPTA COMMITTEE REPORT, supra note 33.57 GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA, REPORT OF THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL

OF INDIA ON THE ECONOMIC SECTOR 53 (2012).58 In 70 out of 89 industries, Government agreed to specific locations as suggested by the industries

themselves. See GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA, REPORT OF THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR

GENERAL OF INDIA ON THE GENERAL AND SOCIAL SECTOR 10 (2013).59 Id. at 15.60 Debabrata Mohanty, Orissa Misused Law to Acquire Land for Vedanta, Posco: CAG, THE INDIAN

EXPRESS, Apr. 2, 2012.61 (2008) 9 S.C.C. 711.

Jindal Global Law Review (2015) 6(1):93–112 105

123

blacklisting, SIIL (wholly-owned by the same Vedanta) too deserved to be

disqualified, going by the same interpretation.

Most importantly, in the First Vedanta Case, clearance was sought only for

diverting 58.943 ha of forest-land for the refinery, whereas in the Second Vedanta

case,62 clearance was granted for diverting 660.749 ha of forest-land for bauxite-

mining in Niyamgiri and not just the refinery. Further, the SC in its package

suggested SIIL to deposit 5 % of its profits for Scheduled Area Development. This

runs contrary to the historic ruling in the Samatha case,63 as per which at least 20 %

of profits of every mining lessee should be earmarked for this purpose.

Subsequently, as the MoEF rejected the Stage-II clearance, Vedanta challenged

the said rejection order in the Third Vedanta case.64 In this case, the SC while

recognising the religious, cultural and community forest rights of the STs and

OTFDs, especially their right to worship, left it to the Palli Sabhas in the Niyamgiri

region to determine whether such rights would be affected by mining. Accordingly,

twelve Palli Sabhas rejected the Mining Project and claimed rights over the entire

Niyamgiri range. This historic exercise was dubbed by large sections of the media

as India’s first environmental referendum.

5.1 Self-determination versus legal pluralism

On the one hand, the Third Vedanta Case recognised that the Palli Sabha, being the

smallest unit of governance, is the real microcosm of a democracy. It upheld the

Dangarias’ right of self-determination and self-governance of their forest resources

while juxtaposing it with a duty to conserve those forests for posterity, as provided

in the FRA and PESA. It has boosted the morale of forest-dwellers, and has gone a

step ahead to restore their faith in the judiciary.

On the other hand, this case has furthered the concept of legal pluralism.65 The

recognition of traditional customary and religious rights of tribals on forests, some

of which have been codified in the FRA, advances a dichotomy which may give rise

to more serious conflicts and legal complexities, since the SC has established in

unequivocal terms that such rights will take precedence over the ownership rights of

the state on the underlying natural resources.

5.2 Subordination of biodiversity laws

The reasoning behind directing such an ‘‘environmental referendum’’ to be held, as

per Justice Radhakrishnan, who authored the judgment, was that the rights of man

on the forests and ecology had to be protected primarily, regardless of they being

62 SAXENA COMMITTEE, supra note 11.63 (1997) 8 S.C.C. 191.64 (2014) 6 S.C.C. 167.65 The National Joint Forest Management Resolution, 1990 set down a framework for partnership

between the forest dwelling communities and the State Forest Departments. But that has hardly been

implemented in the Vedanta and POSCO sites as yet. See generally Satyapriya Rout, Conflicts over

Natural Resources and Legal Pluralism: A Case Study from Orissa, (Institute for Social and Economic

Change, Working Paper: 137, 2003).

106 Jindal Global Law Review (2015) 6(1):93–112

123

religious, cultural or any other rights. Such reasoning was based upon the faulty

premise that Niyamgiri’s biodiversity had to be protected because the human beings

claimed their rights over it. Statutes such as the FRA that were heavily relied in this

case, secure rights ‘‘of man’’ over forests (an anthropocentric view), and not forests

per se (an eco-centric approach), which is why, the nodal agency as per section 11

of the Act, for implementing the FRA is the Tribal Affairs Ministry and not the

MoEF.

The referendum was concluded, with the people claiming religious and socio-

cultural rights over nature. The Stage-II clearance was denied by the MoEF,

accordingly. So, technically, this referendum was more religious and ‘‘socio-

cultural’’ rather than ‘‘environmental’’ in nature, because rights over environment

were sought to be protected rather than environment per se. From this, it can be

implied that Niyamgiri was merely fortunate enough to house men who fought for

it, because they needed it for claiming their rights over it. Therefore, had Niyamgiri

been devoid of human habitation, there would have been no human beings to claim

rights under FRA and the Constitution. And then, the reasoning applied in this

judgment would have failed to save Niyamgiri from destruction.

The nearby Baphlimali Hills or part of the Khandadhar Hills were not as

fortunate as Niyamgiri, and are being mined out. Verdant ecosystems still flourish

with equally rich biodiversity like Niyamgiri, in each of these sites.66 However, the

social movements that arose to protect them were either weak or received no

attention from the media or the judiciary, like Niyamgiri.

The judgment succeeded in putting a quietus to Vedanta’s plans of mining

Niyamgiri (at least for the time being), thus saving it from disappearing, but the

reasons assigned for saving it could have been better. Instead of the FRA or PESA

or Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, the court could have instead principally

relied upon Section 37 of the Biological Diversity Act (BDA), 2002 and the

Convention on the Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992.

The BDA imposes a statutory duty upon governments to conserve biodiversity

and lays down measures to do so, under sections 36 and 37 of the Act. Conservation

of biodiversity is also the primary objective of the CBD to which India is a party.

Besides, Article 48A of our Constitution enunciates that ‘‘[t]he State shall

endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests

and wild life of the country’’ and is a Directive Principle of State Policy. Hence,

rescuing a sliver of India’s biodiversity in Niyamgiri is the imperative duty the both

the central and the state government. Conservation of Niyamgiri’s biodiversity per

se should have served as the sole and primary reason for saving it, rather than rights

under FRA. This could have made the judgment a better precedent that could have

been cited for saving many such Niyamgiris in future.

5.3 Anthropocentrism versus Ecocentrism

Ecofeminist Vandana Shiva opines that ‘‘[c]apitalism is based upon a cosmology

that structurally dichotomizes reality: the one always considered superior, always

66 Dash and Saxena, Bryoflora of Khandadhar Hill Ranges, Orissa, India, 36 GEOBIOS 113 (2009).

Jindal Global Law Review (2015) 6(1):93–112 107

123

thriving, and progressing at the expense of the other. Thus, nature is subordinated to

man’’.67 Indeed, ‘‘nature’’ is treated as inferior to ‘‘culture’’, and humans are

understood as being separate from, and often superior to, the natural environment.68

However, on the contrary, biological diversity (of nature) has been one of the main

causes of cultural diversity. Diverse cultures, with different values, religions and

ideas have developed from different natural circumstances.69

Subordination of biodiversity issues to vested human interests are outcome of the

philosophy of humans being superior to nature. Justice Radhakrishnan in the Third

Vedanta case adopted a human-centric/anthropocentric approach and gave superi-

ority to ‘culture,’ by citing cultural and religious ‘‘rights of humans’’ over nature as

reasons for saving nature and its biodiverse forms. But what about the rights of other

species? Why should the worth of a species or an ecosystem be determined from

how useful it is in serving human interests? A certain species or habitat might not

hold significant importance for man, while being crucial for the survival another

species.

Interestingly, Justice Radhakrishnan noticed this anthropocentric bias upon

which many fundamental principles of environmental law are founded, in the Wild

Buffalo case:70

Laws are man-made, hence there is likelihood of anthropocentric bias towards

man, and rights of wild animals often tend to be of secondary importance but

in the universe man and animal are equally placed, but human rights approach

to environmental protection in case of conflict, is often based on

anthropocentricity.

Environmental justice could be achieved only if we drift away from the

principle of anthropocentric to ecocentric. Many of our principles like

sustainable development, polluter-pays principle, inter-generational equity

have their roots in anthropocentric principles.

Again, in the Asiatic Lion case,71 while preferring the eco-centric approach to the

anthropocentric one, he observed that:

Sustainable development… clearly postulates an anthropocentric bias, least

concerned with the rights of other species which live on this earth.

Anthropocentrism is always human interest focussed thinking that non-human

has only instrumental value to humans, in other words, humans take

precedence and human responsibilities to non-human are based on benefits

to humans. Eco-centrism is nature-centred, where humans are part of nature

and nonhumans have intrinsic value. In other words, human interest does not

take automatic precedence and humans have obligations to non-humans

independently of human interest.

67 VANDANA SHIVA & MARIA MIES, ECOFEMINISM 5 (1993).68 Id.69 SIMONE BILDERBEEK ET AL., BIODIVERSITY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 9 (1992).70 (2012) 3 S.C.C. 277, }} 9, 14.71 (2013) 8 S.C.C. 234, } 39.

108 Jindal Global Law Review (2015) 6(1):93–112

123

In this case, the SC held that species have equal rights to exist on this earth, just like

human beings. It added that endangered species need to be safeguarded, in the best

interests of those species. It noted that eco-centrism supports the protection of all

wildlife forms, not just those which are of instrumental value to humans but those

which have intrinsic worth.72

Furthering its eco-centric approach, it held that as per the doctrine of ‘public

trust’ enunciated by the SC in M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, the state ‘‘as a custodian

of the natural resources, has a duty to maintain them not merely for the benefit of the

public, but for the best interest of flora and fauna, wildlife and so on’’.73 However,

this eco-centric approach was missing in the Third Vedanta case.

5.4 Need for in situ conservation

Niyamgiri is the habitat of several endangered species as has been enumerated

supra. Habitat loss is already accepted world-wide as the primary factor responsible

for extinction of such species. The duty of the state to take steps for maintenance of

genetic purity of endangered species to save them from extinction has received

considered attention from the SC in the Wild Buffalo case. Niyamgiri’s biodiversity

is in need of in situ conservation, since no amount of man-made forests can ever be

equated the pristine uncultivated forests that have existed since times immemorial.

‘‘In situ conservation’’ has been well-defined and its importance has already been

profoundly engrafted in the BDA, the CBD and the National Biodiversity Action

Plan (2008). However, while the First Vedanta case suggested reclamation and re-

afforestation instead, the Third Vedanta case did not even make a passing mention

of the need for in situ conservation Niyamgiri’s biodiversity. Biodiversity laws

especially those dealing with in situ conservation must be complied proprio vigore

and stricto sensu, by all stakeholders.

5.5 Poor environmental governance

No scientific survey has been conducted by the government, to assess and document

the biodiversity and overall ecological profile of hills such as Niyamgiri, Baphlimali

or Khandadhar. Based upon such survey data alone, such regions can be declared as

‘‘Biodiversity Heritage Sites’’ or ‘‘Wildlife Sanctuaries’’ or ‘‘Protected Areas’’. The

state government has conducted no such detailed survey, since such a survey will

definitely lead to increased demands for declaring the region as a Protected Area,

where mining would be impossible. Nevertheless, lack of such a survey certainly

did not preclude the SC from taking cognizance of Niyamgiri’s biodiversity (which

was clearly evident by the reports of the CEC and the Saxena Committee) and

directing the state to take measures for conservation thereof, thus protecting it from

being mined.

72 Id., } 1.73 Id., } 41.

Jindal Global Law Review (2015) 6(1):93–112 109

123

Odisha has over 8800 km2 of area lying in eighteen Wildlife Sanctuaries and two

National Parks, of which one is a Biosphere Reserve.74 None of these areas are

mineral-rich. Whereas, hills like Niyamgiri, Khandadhar, Baphlimali, Deomali etc.,

which are equally rich in biodiversity have not been notified as Wildlife Sanctuaries

or Protected Areas, just because they are mineral-rich, since doing so would not

allow mining and exploitation of the underlying minerals. The reluctance of the

state government to notify such areas has been deliberate, as is evident from the

Saxena Committee’s findings.75 This prevents such regions from being protected by

various environmental laws.

Such instances show how environment has become a pawn in the hands of

humans, whereas illiterate forest dwellers, and the other species living in these

forests have little understanding of the myriad laws and institutions of the State, that

have come to determine their lives.76

5.6 Impact of recent ordinances

The central government has now issued the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment)

Ordinance, 2014 and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)

Amendment Ordinance, 2015 whose effects are expected to negatively impact the

biodiversity of mineral-rich areas and the tribals residing there. Dilution of public

consent requirement for mining and other infrastructural projects by even private

entities are reasons why these Ordinances are facing stiff opposition from tribals.

POSCO would have to bid in the auction for getting the Khandadhar mining lease,

as per the MMDR Ordinance. The Odisha government has urged the centre to

exempt POSCO from bidding, since it had recommended for allotting the

Khandadhar mines to POSCO in 2014, before the Ordinance was promulgated.

The tribals of Khandadhar on the contrary, are opposing mining and have demanded

the withdrawal of the land acquisition Ordinance.77

6 Conclusion

The wide fora of environmental laws appear to be a researcher’s paradise. However,

the ground level implementation of these laws seems to be inversely proportional to

the research conducted on them. Implementation of green laws and SC directives is

scanty in Odisha. Statutory provisions have been flouted as illegal mining has been

carried out openly.

74 INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT, ODISHA REFERENCE ANNUAL-

2011 (2012).75 SAXENA COMMITTEE, supra note 11, at 21.76 Sayantan Bera, Life and times of Lado Sikaka, DOWN TO EARTH, Sep. 4, 2013.77 Public News Service, Who Matters, Tribals or FDI, Ask Activists, THE PIONEER, Feb.16, 2015.

110 Jindal Global Law Review (2015) 6(1):93–112

123

As per the SC directive in the Godavarman case,78 the Compensatory

Afforestation Management Funds Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA)

was established for the management of the Compensatory Afforestation Fund

collected by states from companies/agencies in whose favour forest land has been

diverted. From 2009 to 2013, Odisha has deposited the highest amount of funds79

and has received the highest amount of grants from CAMPA funds among all states.

However, 51 % of CAMPA funds are lying unutilized in Odisha.80

Similarly, a staggering 270.7 crores have been diverted by the Odisha

government from the Tribal Sub-Plan and Scheduled Castes Sub-Plan (earmarked

for the welfare of Adivasis and Dalits) to be spent mostly in strengthening the police

force.81 Besides that, recently drafted inviolate forest policy, meant to keep miners

out of the country’s healthy green patches, promises to be completely ineffectual.

The policy, which has been revised for the fourth time now, has been whittled down

substantially, but has not been implemented before the coal blocks have been put to

auction.82

Such instances render the implementation of green laws even more difficult now,

especially in Odisha. Having 5.47 million ha of degraded land (35 % of total area),

Odisha figures among the top five states facing land degradation and desertifica-

tion.83 While Odisha is under the threat of desertification in the next 150 years,

western Odisha is just three decades away from the radical climate change.84

This being the scenario in Odisha, after a century of mining and industrialization,

the SC in the Third Vedanta case left it to the tribals to do something that it could

have done itself by the virtue of the extant biodiversity laws, and not depending

upon any other law. In fact, the BDA contained the potential to grant all the

protection the Dangarias could have ever sought for their Niyamgiri. Dependence

upon any other law could have been secondary and used just to buttress the stance

further.

Another social movement is now brewing up in Khandadhar (again a Scheduled

Area), just like the ones in Niyamgiri and Dhinkia. The Paudi Bhuyans of

Khandadhar are ready to emulate what the Dangarias did in Niyamgiri, by claiming

rights under the FRA. But why should a social movement be needed to save the

ecology and its biodiversity every single time, when its recognition in our laws is

entirely self-sufficient and complete?

It is hoped that suggestions offered in this article would help in improving the

entire EIA process in particular and the implementation of environmental laws in

general. However, the fact remains that in mining and industrialization, benefits are

78 Supra, n. 35.79 GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA, REPORT OF THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL

OF INDIA ON COMPENSATORY AFFORESTATION IN INDIA 67 (2013).80 Id. at 91.81 Nidheesh J Villatt, Why They Remain On the Margins, TEHELKA, Dec.27, 2014.82 Nitin Sethi, Inviolate Forest Policy: Pared Down, in Limbo, BUSINESS STANDARD, Dec.20, 2014.83 Space Application Centre, ‘Desertification & Land Degradation Atlas of India,’ 2007, pp. 18,58.84 Riyan Ramanath, Desertification Threat in Western Orissa Ignored, THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS,

Jun. 8, 2010.

Jindal Global Law Review (2015) 6(1):93–112 111

123

temporary, and losses are irretrievable. In order to conserve biodiversity and

resources for future generations, stringent monitoring by an independent agency is

inevitable, to ensure that all the extant international agreements, domestic laws, and

SC directives are adhered to in every step.

112 Jindal Global Law Review (2015) 6(1):93–112

123