12.07.2015 Views

National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines

National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines

National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

• As in the past, no environmental clearance is required for grant <strong>of</strong> RP. For prospectingthere are ambiguities in the latest notification. The Committee feels that the level <strong>of</strong>waste-generation is very minimal at the prospecting stage as well and that there is nobasis for requiring environmental clearance. It, therefore, recommends thatprospecting should be exempted from such clearance. [3.44]• The following suggestions in respect <strong>of</strong> public hearings need to be considered by theMOEF before finalising the draft notification.o Public hearings were earlier not required for mining operations below 25hectares. Now even a 5-hectare ML may require a public hearing, which is aretrogressive step since small miners do not have such large impacts on theenvironment as to warrant public hearings. Public consultations should bedispensed with for areas less than 50 hectares and also for renewal <strong>of</strong> leases.[3.46]o Public hearing should be strictly limited to issues arising out <strong>of</strong> the EIA report.The proposed notification should specifically spell this out, as unrelated issuestend to delay the processing <strong>of</strong> applications. Furthermore, public hearingshould be limited only to the people living in the area or to the legislatorsrepresenting the area or NGOs registered in that area, and outsiders should notbe allowed to participate. Contributions and suggestions <strong>of</strong> outsiders should berestricted to written comments from ‘other concerned persons’, which arealready contemplated in the procedures as a part <strong>of</strong> ‘public consultations’.[3.46]• An EMP has to be prepared under the MCDR and got approved by IBM. However,this EMP is not acceptable to the MOEF. The miner has to prepare two EMPsseparately—one for IBM and another for MOEF. The Committee suggests that IBMand MOEF should prepare guidelines for a composite EMP so that IBM can approvethe same in consultation with MOEF’s field <strong>of</strong>fices. This will eliminate anomaloussituations where increase <strong>of</strong> even a few tonnes in production requires projectauthorities to get a fresh EMP approved from the MOEF although the IBM allows a208

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!