... continued from page 76.
Benefits of mining to locals may not outweigh the burden of health impacts.
Among other things, one of the basic defence of policymakers, to continue mining, is that resource crunch is vital for the development of the nation as well as of the local areas where mining is done.
However, social workers like Tripathi, who have been working in mining dependent areas like Tamnar states that the locals who are impacted by mining the most rarely get the benefit of that mineral even as they pay the highest cost of that activity.
“No matter which state you take, the story is the same everywhere,” said Tripathi.
For instance, the coal-rich Korba region of Chhattisgarh and Singrauli in Madhya Pradesh, considered the energy hub of the country, are facing similar “resource curse”. People living close to power plants fail to get electricity while it is supplied to distant parts of the country, their water bodies get contaminated due to polluted water from mining and power generation activities, and the air quality is very poor leading to respiratory problems.
“Of course, if the livelihood, income, and other benefits are large, these are costs one may choose to accept. However, often there is a disconnect between who is bearing the costs (e.g., economically impoverished and politically disenfranchised) and who is gaining the benefits,” said Pattanayak adding that India fails on the policy and legislation at a few levels.
He explained that unless the government and the mining companies are operating in good faith (which is not common), the country
does not have good policies or laws to
either minimise the environmental damage: pollution, land degradation, etc. or to
compensate those directly impacted so they
can protect themselves or take other adaptive actions.
Pattanayak also said, even when the government and companies are aware and committed, the laws and policies are “toothless”, indicating that they exist only on paper and are difficult to implement.
“Essentially the health impact is what ‘academic economists’ would call an externality – the buyer wants the ore, the company incurs a cost in getting the ore to the market and so charges the buyer for this ore. But the collateral damage on the people in and around the mines is no one’s cost,” he said.
“Maybe the buyer would be willing to pay extra to help reduce the costs or compensate for the costs, in which case the seller would be willing to charge for it and take extra precautions in the extraction process. These needn’t be direct financial costs … they could be indirect costs because of avoiding fines and penalties and or indirect benefits such as schools and hospitals built in the affected region. In most settings, neither side has any incentive because these are health costs to ‘others’,” Pattanayak explained.
However, those working on the ground like Rajesh Tripathi believe otherwise. “Until people are made partners in mining activities they will continue to suffer as no one will ensure that promises made on paper while setting up such activities and seeking clearance for them are fulfilled. We have been demanding the involvement of people in the whole process so that we can ensure that the welfare of local people is taken care of and we will continue to do so until we achieve that.”
Source: Click here to read online
###
77