INTRODUCTION

Economic and social development and environmental protection are the essential elements
of sustainable development. The nexus between economic development and the conservation of
natural resources has been, in particular, a subject of recurrent debate. One of the most visible and
controversial issues has been the impact of the mining industry whose products are essential for
society’s development needs, but whose activities also have impacts on the environment and thus
biodiversity. Reconciling economic and social development opportunities with the need for
biodiversity conservation and environmental protection requires the development of more strategic
and integrated approaches to land use planning and management to assist societies in making
informed decisions.

At the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, August 2002), IUCN-

The World Conservation Union and the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM)
launched a joint dialogue on mining and biodiversity. The idea was to provide a platform for
communities, corporations, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and governments to discuss
and seek the best balance between the protection of important ecosystems and the social and
economic importance of mining.

IUCN and ICMM committed themselves to discussing a full range of issues with the
objective of enhancing the contribution of the mining industry to biodiversity conservation.
Accordingly, Terms of Reference (ToR) were developed and agreed for the Dialogue to commence
in 2003. While a long term engagement was envisaged, most of the initial short-term outputs of the
Dialogue were targeted to the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress (WPC) held in September 2003. It
was agreed that the initial results of the Dialogue, its objectives and future programme of work
would be reviewed following the WPC. Accordingly, this document provides a revised ToR
between IUCN and ICMM to guide the Dialogue on mining and biodiversity.

Mining industry all over the world has taken a huge leap in the last century, especially in
the previous three decades. With the advent of modern technology for exploration and excavation,
and with unprecedented participation of the private sector all over the globe, not only has there
been a surge in mining area but also the types of resources which are sought to be mined.
 Such growth in the mining industry has been clearly visible in India as well. Let us for
instance consider the mineral mining sector. Minerals which India is eminently endowed with are
the back-bone of Indian economy. Mineral wealth and its exploitation have substantially
contributed to the growth of national economy. The gross value of mineral production in India
which was merely Rs.1800 million in 1961 was increased to Rs.2, 70,000 million in 1995, i.e. by
nearly 150 times (Mining Industry in India – An Overview). The amount was further increased to
Rs.66, 308 Crores in 2003-04 (GOI 2004)1. Such growth has been witnessed in almost all mining
sector in India.

Considering this growth, the impact on the environment and the biodiversity of the nation
becomes extremely relevant. Further, questions on “sustainable mining”, or mining in lines with
the concept of “sustainable development”, need to be answered.

CHAPTER I: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & MINING:

One of the most widely accepted definitions of sustainable development was given by the
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in its 1987 report entitled “Our
Common Future”.

In the report, sustainable development is defined as that which:

“... meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs”. (WCED, 1987, p.8).

This is seen to require the following elements:

• Integration of economic, environmental, and social considerations into all decision making.

• Fostering of intra-generational equity through the alleviation of poverty by concentrating

the benefits of development in lesser developed areas.

• Consideration of the needs of future generations so as to ensure that inter-generational

equity exists.

1
Nayak, P. & Mishra, S.K., ‘Gender And Sustainable Development in Mining Sector In India’,
http://www.rimmrights.org/Documents/India_genderandmining.PDF.
 However, this idea of “sustainable development” was first mooted in 1972 in the
Stockholm Declaration. The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was held in
Stockholm on 5-16 June 1972. The Conference considered the need for a common outlook and
principles to guide in the preservation and enhancement of the human environment. It was in this
Declaration that the “eight principles” of sustainable development were laid down. Three of the
most important principles were the “precautionary principle”, “polluter-pays principle” and “inter-
generational equity”.

A key document from the Conference was the, “Declaration of the United Nations
Conference on the Human Environment”, otherwise known as the Stockholm Declaration, 1972.
Most notably, Principle 21 outlines a nationalistic viewpoint on the exploitation of natural
resources:

“States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of
international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own
environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or
control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of
national jurisdiction”2.

Similarly the Earth Summit, World Summit on Sustainable Development, Agenda 21 and
the UN Millennium Summit, declared, ratified and expanded the principles of sustainable
development.

Several countries have attempted to define sustainable development more specifically as it

relates to the mining and minerals sector. The definitions from Australia and Canada as examples
are detailed below.

In Australia, the Ecologically Sustainable Development Working Group on Mining has

defined sustainable development for the mining sector as:

“...ensuring that the mineral raw materials needs of society are met, without compromising
the ability either of future societies to meet their needs, or of the natural environment to sustain
indefinitely the quality of environmental services (such as climate systems), biological diversity

2
Report of the UN Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm - 5-16 June 1972, UN Doc:
A/CONF.48/14/Rev1 at 3 (1973), 11 ILM 1416 (1972), http://www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?
DocumentID=97.
and ecological integrity”. [From the ‘Ecologically Sustainable Development Working Group
(ESDWG), Final Report – Mining’, Australian Government Publishing Service, November, 19913.

In Canada, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) has defined sustainable development for
the mining sector as:

“...finding, extracting, producing, adding-value to, using, re-using, recycling and, when
necessary, disposing of mineral and metal products in the most efficient, competitive and
environmentally responsible manner possible. NRCan recognises that these activities must be
carried out in consultation with, and respecting the needs and values of, other resource users and
maintaining or improving environmental quality for present and future generations”4.

To assist in the implementation of sustainable development practices in the mining sector,

NRCan developed six major objectives:

• Integration of the concept of sustainable development in federal decision making affecting

the minerals and metals industry.

• Ensuring the international competitiveness of Canada’s minerals and metals industry in the
context of open and liberal global trade and investment framework.

• Advancement of the concept of sustainable development of minerals and metals at the

international level.

• Establishment of Canada as a global leader in promoting the safe use of minerals and
metals, and their related products.

• Promotion of Aboriginal involvement in minerals and metals related activities.

• Provision of a framework for the development and application of science and technology to
enhance the industry's competitiveness and environmental stewardship.

The role of mining in sustainable development is one issue that decision makers and resource
managers have wrestled with for decades. With the development of their income-accounting tool, it
can be attempted to show how mining activities, which have a finite life span, can be integrated
with social and environmental concerns in a way that promotes long-term community

3
‘Mining, Environment & Development’, http://www.natural-resources.org/minerals/CD/sustdev.htm.
4
Ibid.
development. The approach adopted can place a monetary value on the effects of mining, such as
air and water pollution, loss of forests, groundwater depletion, mineral resource use, and reduced
agricultural productivity5. It also takes into account the direct and indirect benefits to society. In
the case of forests, for example, this would include the economic benefits gained from the
generation of marketable products and the indirect benefits from watershed protection and other
services. These environmental costs can be seen as an additional amount that should be contributed
by the mining company to finance environmental rehabilitation using the “polluter pays” principle.
The Supreme Court of India in many cases has declared that “precautionary principle”,
“inter-generational equity” and “polluter-pays principle” are a part of the law of the land as the
most basic principles for “sustainable development”6. However, it has been found that not only are
these principles and the strictures of the Supreme Court being neglected, but also that mining in
India is being promoted for the wrong reasons and is heading a wrong path.
The 356-page Sixth State of India’s Environment Report, titled “Rich Lands, Poor People
-- Is Sustainable Mining Possible?”, underlines the need to revamp government policies so that
mining does not happen at the cost of the environment or people’s livelihoods. The Sixth State of
India’s Environment Report disputes the notion that mining is essential for “growth or
employment” and shows that some of the least developed and most polluted regions of the country
are mining hotspots7.
It recommends that mining must not be allowed without the consent of the people and also,
if the environmental and social costs outweigh the economic gains. Existing environmental
regulations in India do not account for the kind of mining that is being carried out in Goa, for
instance, in the backyards of people’s homes, farms and forests. The law is weak, the miners are
strong, and the result is pollution that is devastating people’s lives and destroying forests and water
bodies in the state, says this latest publication from the New Delhi-based Centre for Science and
Environment (CSE)8.
5
Ranga, B.R.K., ‘Mining Law Refrencer’, Rajasthan Law House, Jodhpur, 2002, p 121.
6
See, for instance, A.P.PCB v M.V. Nayudu, AIR 1999 SC 812; Jagannath v UoI, AIR 1997 SC 811; Vellore
Citizens’ Welfare Forum v UoI, AIR 1996 SC 2715; International Dairy Foods Ass’n v. Amestoy, 92 F.3d 67, 75 (2d
Cir. 1996).
7
‘Mining Industry in India - An overview, Mines & Communities’,
http://www.geocities.com/minsafety/mining_industry.htm.

8
‘Can Mining Ever be Sustainable? – Asks CSE Report”,
http://infochangeindia.org/200801306849/Environment/Books-Reports/Can-mining-ever-be-sustainable-asks-CSE-
 The Report details the issue of mining in various states of the country, its impact on the
environment and people, and policy reforms that are essential to practise more sustainable mining.
In the national context, the report contends that mining in India has, contrary to the government’s
claims, done little for the development of mineral-bearing regions of the country.
Speaking at the release function, Chandra Bhushan, Associate Director of the CSE and one
of the report’s authors, said: “The biggest irony is that India’s richest lands -- with minerals,
forests, wildlife and water sources -- are home to its poorest people. Mining has not benefited
people; instead, it has impoverished local environments and displaced people”.
Mining is being promoted in the country for the wrong reason -- employment. All state
governments justify mining arguing that the sector will provide employment, but this is a chimera.
The formal mining industry in India employs just 5.6 lakh people and this number is coming
down9.
The CSE report uses the government’s own data to show how employment has fallen in the
mining sector as a whole. It says the modern mining industry does not require people. Between
1991 and 2004, the value of mineral production in India increased four-fold -- at the same time,
employment plummeted by 30%.
The CSE report points out that mining cannot be sustainable or truly environment friendly.
One, because all ore bodies are finite and non-renewable, and, two, because even the best managed
mines leave “environmental footprints”. But it also concedes that mining and minerals are
necessary.

BIODIVERSITY & MINING:

In parallel with the development of the sustainable development principles, ICMM was
engaged in dialogue with a range of stakeholders, most notably with IUCN, to understand more
clearly the interfaces between mining operations and biodiversity. At the World Summit on
Sustainable Development in August 2002, IUCN and ICMM launched a joint dialogue on mining
and biodiversity. The objective was to provide a platform for communities, corporations,

report.html.
9
Ibid.
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and government to engage in a dialogue regarding
balancing ecosystem protection with the social and economic importance of mining. Formal terms
of reference for an IUCN/ICMM dialogue were agreed to in March 2003 and revised in June 2004,
and the dialogue is ongoing10.
At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the United Nations Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) was signed by 157 governments; it has since been ratified by 188 countries. The
CBD defines biodiversity as:
“The variability among living organisms from all sources including inter alia, terrestrial,
marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this
includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems”.
So biodiversity encompasses the variety and variability of life on Earth. It refers to the
differences within and between all living organisms at their different levels of biological
organization - genes, individuals, species and ecosystems. Biodiversity embraces all living
organisms and their genetic diversity, a vast and complex array of ecosystems and habitats, as well
as the processes that underpin and result from this diversity, such as photosynthesis, nutrient
cycling or pollination. Different species - plant, animal, fungal and microbial - interact with each
other in a variety of ecological processes to form ecosystems. These processes are in turn the result
of the interactions between species and with their physical and chemical environments.
At a macro-level, the balancing of atmospheric gases through photosynthesis and carbon
sequestration is reliant on biodiversity, while an estimated 40 per cent of the global economy is
based on biological products and processes. Through a close interaction with and manipulation of
biodiversity, humans have created thousands of new crop varieties and livestock breeds, with
distinct development benefits. This has enabled large increases in the production of food and other
natural materials, which have fed the growth and development of human societies.
Biodiversity is also the basis of innumerable environmental services that keep us and the
natural environment alive - from the provision of clean water and watershed services to the
recycling of nutrients and pollination.
Mining has the potential to affect biodiversity throughout the life cycle of a project, both
directly and indirectly. Direct or primary impacts from mining can result from any activity that
involves land clearance (such as access road construction, exploration drilling, overburden

10
‘IUCN-ICMM Mining Dialogue’, www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/business/bbp_our_work/bbp_mining.
stripping or tailings impoundment construction) or direct discharges to water bodies (riverine
tailings disposal, for instance, or tailings impoundment releases) or the air (such as dusts or smelter
emissions). Direct impacts are usually readily identifiable. Indirect or secondary impacts can result
from social or environmental changes induced by mining operations and are often harder to
identify immediately. Cumulative impacts occur where mining projects are developed in
environments that are influenced by other projects, both mining and nonmining.
The potential for significant impacts is greater when mining occurs in remote,
environmentally or socially sensitive areas. Due to the continuing demand for minerals, the
depletion of resources in readily accessible areas and changing technologies and economics in the
mining sector, mining is increasingly being proposed in remote and biodiversity-rich ecosystems
that were previously unexplored and undeveloped for minerals11. This has also been made possible
by the implementation of mining sector fiscal and regulatory reforms to encourage foreign direct
investment in many developing countries. This trend in opening up new prospective areas to
mineral resources development provides an opportunity for the mining industry to demonstrate that
practices have improved, including making ‘nogo’ decisions. It can also represent a threat,
however, and poor performance could limit access to some highly prospective areas.
Despite the significant potential for negative impacts on biodiversity from mining
operations, there is a great deal that companies can do to minimize or prevent such impacts in areas
identified as being appropriate for mining. There are also many opportunities for companies to
enhance biodiversity conservation within their areas of operations. Being proactive in the
assessment and management of biodiversity is important not only for new operations but also for
those that have been operating for many years, usually under regulatory requirements that were
less focused on the protection and enhancement of biodiversity.
It is also important to recognize that not all mining takes place in remote or highly sensitive
areas. Some greenfield or expansion projects will be developed in relatively highly populated
areas, industrial settings or regions that have been intensively farmed for many decades, where
biodiversity is of limited value. In such situations, the focus should be on developing a sufficient
understanding of local biodiversity and exploring opportunities for biodiversity enhancement or
creative conservation with appropriate partners.

11
‘National biodiversity plan admits India has failed to conserve biodiversity’, Down to Earth, Vol: 16 Issue:
20071015 (Oct., 2007), http://indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/node/23011.
 Setting aside any ethical or moral considerations, which are increasingly the subject of
corporate policies, it is important for companies to address biodiversity for a variety of sound
business reasons. Many mining companies have adopted an increasingly sophisticated approach to
managing biodiversity as part of their commitments to establishing and maintaining a social or
functional ‘licence to operate’. For example, adopting responsible practices with respect to
biodiversity management is increasingly viewed as important with respect to12:
 access to land, both at the initial stages of project development and for ongoing
exploration to extend the lifetime of existing projects;
 reputation, which links to ‘licence to operate’, an intangible but significant benefit
to business, and which can profoundly influence the perceptions of communities,
NGOs and other stakeholders of existing or proposed mining operations; and
 access to capital.

The effect on the biodiversity due to mining in India is also clearly visible. For instance, in
the Talcher region of Orissa. Coal mining at Talcher-Angul belt had encouraged rapid urbanization
of rural landscape and extensive degradation of forest land. Open Caste mining which is carried
out in densely populated areas, had a direct effect on human settlements and demographic
endowments in Talcher area. The forest cover in the MCL mining area in Talcher was 160 Sq Km
in 1975 but now the forest cover is only 54 Sq Km which indicates that there was loss of 106 Sq
Km of natural forest due to mining( Action Plan for District Action Group by Indian
Environmental Society)13. The mining operations in Talcher have caused air pollution, water
pollution, etc, due to the fumes and the discharges into water bodies violating the Water Act, Air
Act and the Environmental Protection Act.
That is why engagement of potentially affected communities and other stakeholders in
biodiversity conservation is fundamental to the success of biodiversity initiatives. Engaging the
community and other stakeholders with an objective of developing trust, respect and partnership,
aimed at keeping the community informed of a mining company’s operations, is essential to the
success of a sustainable project. It should be recognized that stakeholders may have different and

12
‘Good Practice Guidance for Mining and Biodiversity’, http://www.icmm.com/page/1182/good-practice-guidance-
for-mining-and-biodiversity.
13
Panda, D.K., ‘Industrialization & Environmental Pollution in Talcher Belt of Orissa’,
http://www.solutionexchange-un.net.in/environment/cr/res03070702.doc.
possibly conflicting interests in, perspectives on and priorities for biodiversity and its management.
Reconciling these differences in a fair and balanced way is central to the aims of the GPG14.
Mining operations keeping in consideration its effect on the biodiversity requires careful
“environmental impact assessments” before the operation starts, followed by continuous
assessments during the operation. This assessment should be made in all stages of - Pre-feasibility
and feasibility studies, Exploration, Construction, Land clearance and resettlement, and processing.

CONCLUSION
In comparison with many other sectors, the potential social and environmental issues
associated with mining and mineral processing operations are both significant and complex to
manage. The fixed location of the mineralized zone of interest imposes a constraint on all aspects
of mining developments including the method of mining, location of mine facilities, requirements
for new infrastructure and services (or conflict with existing infrastructure), and the suitability of
waste management or disposal methods. This in turn profoundly influences the environmental,
social and health impacts of mining developments, as well as the economic viability of developing
a given mineralized zone.
The challenges with environmental assessment of mining projects are two fold. Firstly,
environmental, social and health costs should be given adequate consideration while determining
the economic viability. Secondly, adequate mitigation measures should be incorporated into the
project cycle, including project design, implementation and decommissioning plans. The following
issues are of significance:
• Governments approach to environmental regulation is shifting from centralized
decision making, detailed regulations and command-and-control approaches to setting
clear standards and guidelines;
• Environmental regulations do not act as a disincentive to investment, provided that
the regulations are realistic, transparent and stable; and
• Mining companies should take full account of social and cultural issues to promote
sustainable development.

14
Vardarajan, V.K., ‘Sustainable Mining: A Fine Balancing Act’,
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/10/08/stories/2008100850140300.htm.
 A monitoring plan should be prepared for projects involving development or expansion of
industrial mining, as part of or separate to an environmental management plan (EMP). This sets the
framework for assessing the acceptability of impacts from ongoing operations and the need for
additional mitigation. The level of detail will depend on the scale and complexity of the mining
project. The plan should define monitoring objectives, which clearly identify the questions to be
answered by measurement activities. It should include a description of monitoring to be performed
and linkages to impacts and mitigation measures identified in the environmental assessment. The
parameters to be measured, sampling locations, methods to be employed, frequency of
measurements, detection limits (where appropriate) and definition of thresholds that will trigger
remedial actions should also be specified.
Working from this core set of issues, the TERI researchers developed three tools for
measuring the impact of mining activities and their effect on wellbeing: (1) a set of environmental
and social performance indicators to measure the economic, environmental, and social costs of
mining; (2) a “quality of life” instrument to assess the well-being of people in mining areas over
time; and (3) an income-accounting tool to gauge the long-term economic viability of mining
activities15.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Devotta, S., ‘Towards Sustainable Mining Industries in India – Challenges’,

http://www.teriin.org/events/docs/sukumar.pdf.

 Vardarajan, V.K., ‘Sustainable Mining: A Fine Balancing Act’,

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/10/08/stories/2008100850140300.htm.

 Panda, D.K., ‘Industrialization & Environmental Pollution in Talcher Belt of Orissa’,

http://www.solutionexchange-un.net.in/environment/cr/res03070702.doc.

 ‘Good Practice Guidance for Mining and Biodiversity’,

http://www.icmm.com/page/1182/good-practice-guidance-for-mining-and-biodiversity.

 ‘National biodiversity plan admits India has failed to conserve biodiversity’, Down to
Earth, Vol: 16 Issue: 20071015 (Oct., 2007),
http://indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/node/23011.
15
Devotta, S., ‘Towards Sustainable Mining Industries in India – Challenges’,
http://www.teriin.org/events/docs/sukumar.pdf.
  ‘IUCN-ICMM Mining Dialogue’,
www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/business/bbp_our_work/bbp_mining.

 ‘Can Mining Ever be Sustainable? – Asks CSE Report”,

http://infochangeindia.org/200801306849/Environment/Books-Reports/Can-mining-ever-
be-sustainable-asks-CSE-report.html.

 ‘Mining Industry in India - An overview, Mines & Communities’,

http://www.geocities.com/minsafety/mining_industry.htm.

 Ranga, B.R.K., ‘Mining Law Refrencer’, Rajasthan Law House, Jodhpur, 2002.

 Mining, Environment & Development’, http://www.natural-

resources.org/minerals/CD/sustdev.htm.

 Report of the UN Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm - 5-16 June 1972,
UN Doc: A/CONF.48/14/Rev1 at 3 (1973), 11 ILM 1416 (1972),
http://www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentID=97.

 Nayak, P. & Mishra, S.K., ‘Gender And Sustainable Development in Mining Sector In
India’, http://www.rimmrights.org/Documents/India_genderandmining.PDF.

“SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENT,

BIODIVERSITY & MINING”
[PETROLEUM & MINING LAWS]
FINAL SUBMISSION
ABHINAV CHANDAN
204022
5 YEAR
TH

X SEMESTER
TH