National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines

that a well-regulated and responsible mining operation can bring within the framework ofsustainable development are not available to the indigenous/local people, the region, and theeconomy. These delays are a disincentive to mining and must bear their share ofresponsibility for the failure of greenfield investment, especially FDI, to come into thissector. It was represented to the Committee that enormous difficulties were being faced bymine operators in getting the requisite clearances under the FCA and EPA. As mentionedearlier, the absence of a smooth and transparent process for granting these clearances has atwofold effect. First, it keeps genuine miners, capable of best practice and willing to acceptregulation and adhere to SDF, away from the industry and, secondly, it leaves the field opento unregulated, often illegal, mining operations, with all the attendant risks of damage toconservation, environment, and governance. What cannot be denied is that with a soft stateapparatus amounting to a virtual absence of mining policing currently being the reality inmost states the chances are that if an ore body is known to exist it will be exploited. If thelaws do not permit regulated exploitation, then unregulated exploitation will happen. Let usnow examine the specific issues relating to each of the two statutes.FOREST (CONSERVATION) ACT, 19803.20 The National Commission on Agriculture (NCA), in its report of 1976, came out withthe startling fact that between 1950 and 1976 about 43 lakh hectares of forest land wasdiverted for non-forestry use. The report also clearly indicated that more than half thediversion was for agricultural purposes pursuant to GOI’s policy to grow more food. TheCommission, in consonance with the international concern for loss of forest cover, suggestedvarious remedial measures. Till 1976, forestry as a subject was in the State List and stategovernments were responsible for the conservation and development of forests. Being a Statesubject, GOI had no statutory power to intervene. In 1976, the Central government firstissued guidelines to all the states to consult GOI before diverting more than 10 hectares offorest land to non-forest use. However, the guidelines, being non-statutory in nature, wereignored by the states, and diversion of forest lands continued at almost the same rate asbefore. Recognising the gravity of the situation, GOI brought about a constitutionalamendment and the subjects of forests and wildlife were brought under the ‘Concurrent List’.Immediately thereafter, in 1980, the FCA was enacted. The FCA prohibited the states fromde-reserving or diverting any forest area without prior approval of the Central government.The legislation was intended to stop indiscriminate diversion of forest lands into activities78