Gold mining: The way forward

Mining for gold alters landscapes irrevocably, so much so that the land becomes unfit for any other use thereafter. Where does this lead us to? Do we not mine for gold at all?
That seems a bit unthinkable. After all, gold constitutes an “emotional purchase” for Indians – a must-have factor and an almost-instinctive craving to build and nurture the family nest egg. Some may even argue that there is always a price to be paid for any kind of development and gold mining is only one in a basket of such activities. Besides, the “business case” is much too strong with probable expectations of $1 billion over the life of a mine and profits of $200 to $300 million (i.e. returns of 25-30 percent).
This is where environmental and social concerns suffer a setback – an obscenely gross one. Lax environmental regulations, poor implementation of short-sighted laws, toothless environmental protection agencies, and legal loopholes in developing countries (especially India) make up a sure-shot recipe for disaster.
For example, guidelines for arsenic in drinking water must at least match those of the World Health Organization (i.e. in no case should arsenic levels exceed 0.01 mg/L). Currently, the Central Pollution Control Board of India does not even list arsenic in its list of water quality criteria. The next best available indicator for these standards in the country – the Bureau of Indian Standards (IS: 10500) – lists a limit of 0.05 mg/L, five times more than the WHO limits.
Arbitrary environmental clearance
India’s tryst with the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification (2009) and its meaningful implementation portend many a disaster if we don’t seriously rethink the way we do business. Intended as an “environmental clearance” procedure where projects will be assessed for clearance depending on their potential for environmental harm, it is not an exaggeration to say that the process is esoteric and arbitrary.
The clearance process begins with the compilation of an Environmental Impact Assessment Report by the project authority (i.e. the company wishing to launch the project) with the aid of 'EIA consultants', followed by public hearings which are typically hotly contested by the communities affected by the project (but to little avail). These are accompanied by a series of dispatches from the state departments and eventually, and most often, a 'clearance letter' is issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF).
The environmental clearance is granted based solely on the reliance on data about environmental impact from the project proponent. The clearance includes an accompanying set of conditions that have to be complied with and monitored by the Regional Offices of the MoEF and sometimes the State Pollution Control Boards and other State Departments.

నాగేంద్ర నాధ్

Hi

this is nagendra nadh