Kudremukh Campaign

Sir,

Sub: Appeal to reject the request for continuation of mining in Kudremukh

Ref: 1. Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in IA 670/2001
2. Recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee
3. Order of the Honble Supreme Court in IA 1150/2003

We are deeply distressed to read news reports on the attempts of the Kudremukh Iron Ore Company to continue mining in Kudremukh beyond 2005 in clear violation of the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court.

As you are aware, the Government of Karnataka in response to considerable public concern and after a comprehensive debate in the Legislative Assembly and Council took an environmentally sound and socially responsible decision to wind up the destructive iron ore mining in the rain forests of Kudremukh. This significant decision was particularly important since three major rivers Bhadra, Tunga and Nethravathi originate in the area.

You may also kindly note that the Water Resources Minister, Government of Karnataka had during 2002 permitted a scientific study to accurately document the siltation levels in the Bhadra River caused by mining. This study documented staggering amounts of silt immediately downstream of the mining area with a total of 2,20,530 metric tons of silt entering the Bhadra during the monsoon of 2002 and 2003. Analysis of the government data for 1985 and 1986 revealed that this small sub-catchment of 6\% contributes 53\% - 67\% of the total sediment load entering the Bhadra dam. Excerpts of the report submitted to the Water Resources Minister, Bhadra Basin is enclosed.

This clearly establishes the huge negative impact of mining in a 7000 mm rainfall area not just on the rain forests of Kudremukh but on the entire Bhadra River basin and reservoir which will affect the livelihood of lakhs of marginal farmers and poor people who are not backed by organized trade unions but whose welfare the government has to ensure. The company management which is responsible for its employees welfare however is trying to use them as human shields in their attempt to continue mining in this ecologically sensitive area.

Furthermore, the State Government had submitted an Additional Statement along with an affidavit on 10/10/2001 before the Honble Supreme Court in IA 670/2001 of WP 202/95 filed by Wildlife First. In said the Statement, the government committed to the court that:

1. Karnataka had decided that the mining cannot go on indefinitely in the area. The proposal of the Ministry of Environment and Forests that Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Limited may be permitted to continue mining for 5 years only was acceptable to the State government in super session of all recommendations made by the State to the Government of India in the past subject to the conditions that the mining is allowed only in the broken up area and that no fresh area should be broken up.

2. Such extension would carry stringent conditions including a strong monitoring mechanism and appropriate programmes for reclamation, pollution control safety of Lakya Dam, eco restoration etc.

3. The State of Karnataka would leave it to the wisdom of the Honble Court to find the appropriate balance of the vexed issues that are involved.

A three judge bench headed by the Chief Justice of India after detailed hearings and examination of the recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee delivered a unanimous landmark judgment on 30th October, 2002 upholding the sanctity of Kudremukh National Park by rejecting the companys plea to mine for another 20 years but allowed it time till end of 2005 to wind up. Some of the other key directions and observations contained in the judgment are as under:

a. On consideration of the materials on record we find no reason to vary with the majority view of the Committee (Central Empowered Committee).

b. The modalities to be adopted to effectuate the order passed by this court and the recommendations of the Committee (Central Empowered Committee) shall be worked out by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the State Government and the company under the supervision, guidance and monitoring of the Committee (Central Empowered Committee).

c. We note with concern that the State and Central Government were not very consistent in their approach about the period for which the activities can be permitted. Reasons have been highlighted to justify the somersault. Whatever be the justification, it was but imperative that due application of mind should have been made before taking a particular stand and not to change colour like a Chameleon, and that too not infrequently.

d. It is clear there from that de-reservation of forests, sanctuaries and national parks was prohibited. Therefore, the exclusion of companys land in terms of the Notification under section 35(4) of the Act though the same was being used for mining by the company was not in order to that extent.

Already, many of these directions have not been complied with including the direction of the Honble Supreme Court and the Recommendations of the Committee as accepted by the Court to re-include the 3703 hectares of forest land that had been excluded by the State Government while issuing the final notification.

In the mean while, the company filed an interlocutory application IA 1150 through which it made an appeal before the Honble Supreme Court for a review of the judgment in view of the amendments to the Mineral Conservation and Development (Amendment) Rules.

The Honble Supreme Court on 04/08/2004 rejected the plea of the company. In its order the Honble Court clarified that Our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the Company to the amendments made in the Mineral Conservation and Development (Amendment) Rules under notification dated 10th April 2003, in particular to Rule 23-C relating to the submission of final mine closure plan. Having heard learned counsel, we are of the view that these rules would not over-ride the directions as contained in the judgment.

In view of the above facts and the clear directions of the Honble Supreme Court of India we wish to point out that there is no scope for the State Government to consider the request of Kudremukh Iron Ore Company to allow mining outside the already broken up area beyond end of December, 2005 and continuation of mining either in the broken up area or any new area in Kudremukh after December 2005. The State government is duty bound to ensure full compliance of the Judgment and the Recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee since there is a condition precedent in the judgment that the time period granted till 2005 is subject to the fulfillment of the Central Empowered Committees recommendations.

Based on the Press Reports, it appears that the company is requesting that they require
54 hectares for slope stabilization and safety and another 370 hectares for continued mining. Even if the technical reports which have been generated and paid for by the company, does point to the necessity of 54 hectares of unopened forest land for slope stability, it cannot be a valid reason to allow mineral exploitation since further mining would generate huge amounts of iron ore tailings (mud) which will again have to be dumped into the already full Lakya Dam.

A new safety problem of much greater proportion would crop up since the fragile Lakya Dam (which had breached once earlier in 1994 leading to emergency evacuation of thousands of people down river) is full to the brim with over 150 million tons of tailings (Mud). Dumping more tailings would seriously jeopardize the safety of the Lakya iron tailings dam and this crucial aspect cannot be overlooked.

Since the Honble Supreme Court has already expressed serious concern about the inconsistent stand of the Government with regard to the time period for the activities, we believe that it might not be prudent to change the decision, yet again, since it may have wider ramifications on other important issues of the State before the Supreme Court.

Further, we would also like to point out that in view of the biodiversity value of Kudremukh area, the State has promised to implement a voluntary resettlement package for people residing the area in order to reduce pressures on forests. Under these circumstances, it would be really improper, and also will be perceived as grossly improper move by the worlds conservation community, if mining activities continue in Kudremukh.

We therefore appeal to you to reject the request of Kudremukh Iron Ore Company for support from the State government to continue mining and ensure that the landmark decision of the State Government to wind up mining in Kudremukh is not altered under pressure from the Company.

We hope that you will accept these suggestions in the larger interests of the State.
Thank you for an acknowledgement of this memorandum with enclosures.