Express (July 07, 2011)
India's Supreme Court Tuesday gave French cement giant Lafarge permission to resume mining limestone in the country's mineral-rich northeast, rejecting environmental opposition.
The court decision comes as good news for Lafarge's $255-million cement plant in Bangladesh that is wholly dependent on limestone mined by the French company in the East Khasi Hills in Meghalaya state.
In February 2010, the court halted Lafarge from extracting limestone for the Lafarge Surma Cement Ltd plant at Chhatak in Bangladesh, saying mining could not be allowed in the environmentally sensitive zone.
But India's environment ministry told the court in April it had cleared the mining project with strict conditions.
"We are satisfied with the MOEF (Ministry of Environment and Forest) as it has taken a due diligence exercise," the Supreme Court said on Tuesday.
Limestone is transported from Meghalaya to the Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt Ltd in Bangladesh by a 17-kilometre (10-mile) conveyor belt.
Lafarge has said it is bringing "advanced technologies for scientific mining and sustainable development" to the poverty-hit region that will minimise any impact on the environment.
Activists in India's northeast have opposed the limestone mining, saying it will hurt the area's fragile ecosystem.
The Dhaka government had been pushing India to allow resumption of the limestone mining for the Chhatak plant which holds close to a 10 percent share of Bangladesh's cement market.
The court decision comes as India has been seeking to boost ties with Bangladesh with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh slated to visit Dhaka in September.
Lafarge has a long-term agreement to extract limestone from the East Khasi Hills and supply it to its Bangladesh plant for cement production.
The Indian government initially cleared the export of limestone from Meghalaya to Bangladesh in 2000.
Lafarge hails
Lafarge Surma Cement Ltd in a statement Wednesday hailed the decision of the Supreme Court of India which allowed the company to mine at a quarry in Nongtrai, Meghalaya.
"We welcome the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which allows us mine at a quarry in Nongtrai, Meghalaya and we are awaiting the detailed judgment so that we can resume our operations which were stalled since February 2010," the statement added.
Decision will secure the livelihood of thousands of people on both sides of the border who are directly or indirectly dependent on this project.
"We have always acted in good faith, respecting the law of the land and have complied with all the rules and regulations at all times. This court verdict also recognizes the need for sustainable development and it is acknowledged that the operations will contribute to the growth of the local economy in remote areas," it said.
All the petitions filed by of the Shella Action Committee have been dismissed as well.
" We are grateful to the Government of India, Government of Bangladesh, State Government of Meghalaya, the local people in Meghalaya who have fully supported us in the Supreme Court".
In 2001, Environment Clearance (EC) was granted to LUMPL by the Ministry of Environment & Forest (MoEF) after the project was evaluated by the expert appraisal committee of MoEF on two occasions. EC is a comprehensive clearance which also reviews the flora and fauna in the area including the vegetations like the trees. The area was not determined as "forest land" by the State Government of Meghalaya and the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council in 1997. Later, even the DFO report classified the area as not forest land.
A Forest Clearance was not obtained at that stage because the area was not determined as a forest land. However there was a change in view later on and the area was classified as a forest land in 2006. LUMPL then applied for forest clearance under the Forest Conservation Act. As per the rules at that stage, Forest Clearance given by the Forest Advisory Committee had to be validated by the Supreme Court. The apex court has upheld the modified environmental clearances given by the MoEF. Also, there were a number of questions raised on the process of obtaining the EC. The Supreme Court concluded that due diligence was carried out before necessary permits were given.
No comments:
Post a Comment