In a recent guideline, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) issued a clarification regarding the applicability of compensatory afforestation (CA) and net present value (NPV) charges for mining lease extensions. This clarification holds significant implications for mining companies seeking lease extensions and has sparked discussions within the industry and environmental circles.
The Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI) had petitioned the MoEF&CC to exempt mining leases granted deemed extension of FC approval co-terminus with the lease period under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) from CA and NPV charges.
The MoEF&CC's guideline emerges against the backdrop of a significant shift in compensatory afforestation rules. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980, forms the cornerstone of this transformation, empowering states with over 75 percent forest cover to carry out afforestation in other regions. This policy aims to streamline business processes and expedite stalled mining projects, a move met with both anticipation and apprehension. While some hail it as a catalyst for economic growth, others express concerns about the effectiveness of compensatory afforestation and its potential detriment to biodiversity.
The matter was deliberated upon by the Advisory Committee in its October 11, 2023 meeting. The Committee recommended that the provisions of CA and NPV, if not paid earlier, remain applicable for proposals involving broken up forest areas prior to 1980.
The legal narrative surrounding mining lease extensions takes root in the landmark Common Cause vs. Union of India judgment of May 16, 2014. This pivotal ruling placed a restraining order on mining leaseholders lacking essential clearances, setting a precedent for subsequent legal developments. The Supreme Court's decision of April 4, 2016, further solidified the legal landscape, providing clarity on the existence of mining leases and paving the way for the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. This legislation introduced Sections 8A(5) and 8A(6), establishing a legal framework for mining lease extensions.
The MoEF&CC's guideline, intricately woven into this legal narrative, introduces a selective exemption for mining companies with proposals approved before October 30, 2002. These entities are granted a reprieve from compensatory afforestation and net present value charges during the extended lease period. However, this exemption has sparked a debate about fairness and equity within the mining industry, as it excludes new proposals and leaves them subject to the original stringent regulations.
The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, stands as the cornerstone of India's mining legislative framework. The 2015 amendment to this act introduced Section 8A, which paves the way for the automatic extension of mining leases through legal mechanisms. This section outlines the criteria for determining the validity of a mining lease, considering the original grant period and subsequent renewals. Section 8A(9) further delineates exceptions, stating that certain mining leases deemed to have lapsed are ineligible for extension.
The MoEF&CC's guideline carries a multi-faceted impact on the mining industry. While it provides financial relief for specific entities, the exclusion of new proposals and the continued burden of compensatory afforestation and net present value charges for others create an uneven playing field. This raises questions about the policy's coherence and its potential influence on project costs, competitiveness, and the overall dynamics of the mining industry.
From an environmental standpoint, the guideline reinforces the principles of compensatory afforestation, aiming to replenish lost forest cover. However, the decision to permit afforestation in states with high forest cover raises concerns about effective implementation and monitoring. The delicate balance between environmental preservation and economic progress takes center stage, as stakeholders grapple with the trade-offs between the imperatives of the mining industry and the ethos of environmental stewardship.
A closer examination of Section 8A and its parameters reveals critical points that warrant further scrutiny. The limited scope of the guideline, its impact on existing lessees, and the unyielding charge rates for compensatory afforestation and net present value necessitate a thorough analysis. The call for a comprehensive review of these charges underscores the need for equilibrium between environmental protection and sustainable industrial growth.
As the legal maze around mining lease extensions unfolds, the MoEF&CC's guideline emerges as a pivotal chapter in India's environmental and industrial narrative. This guideline signifies an ongoing effort to balance economic aspirations with environmental responsibilities. Community discussions echo the challenges of finding an equilibrium between the imperatives of the mining industry and the ethos of environmental stewardship.