The plan was prepared in the light of the recommendations of the Justice MB Shah inquiry commission report on the illegal mining in Jharkhand.
The Steel Authority of India (SAIL), the Jharkhand government and the Ministry of Steel had all opposed the Centre's draft plan on mining in the Saranda forest that proposed 'go, no-go zones and biodiversity hotspots', documents reviewed by DNA showed. After accepting the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education's (ICFRE) expert report on carrying capacity survey of Saranda, the Environment Ministry proposed two mining zones, two conservation areas and three critical biodiversity hotspots for "sustainable mining" in the region. The ministry had also proposed that forest compartments in mining Zone-II would be considered only after exhausting mineral reserves in the mining Zone-I.
The plan was prepared in the light of the recommendations of the Justice MB Shah inquiry commission report on the illegal mining in Jharkhand. The draft was shared with SAIL, Ministry of Steel and Jharkhand government in September 2016 to seek their responses. In their detailed response, all three had advocated doing away with the concept of phased mining. They also made a special case to allow mining in the Chiria block in Ankua forest, spread over 6,800 hectare, that has India's single largest iron ore deposit of about two billion tonnes. The SAIL argued that with most of its mines depleting in the next 20 years, the Chiria mine was crucial to expand iron ore production from 7 million tonnes per annum to 35 tonne per annum between 2019 and 2035.
The SAIL added that its project in Chiria had already received in-principal approval during the term of former environment minister Jairam Ramesh. It also stressed that the Ankua block was already a broken up area and even the ICFRE report had recommended mining in the Ankua forest.
The Ministry of Steel in its response suggested that mines that already been granted in-principle forest approval should not be included in the no-mining zone. It pointed out that while some forest compartments falling in SAIL Kiriburu-Meghahaturburu were in mining Zone-II, where mining is allowed while some were excluded. "The draft also suggested for fresh environmental clearance or mining plan approvals, however, it requested that it should not be insisted for existing leases for which approvals have been accorded," it added.
Meanwhile, the Jharkhand government questioned the rationale and parameters of declaring biodiversity hotspots. It also argued that there was no evidence to prove that elephant population dropped due to iron mining and thus prohibiting mining in certain areas was not the way ahead.
The ministry had demarcated mining zones on the basis of the density of forest cover. Forest compartments bearing iron ore deposit and very dense forest cover spread up to 50 per cent area of forest compartment were marked as mining Zone-I. Those having forest cover above 50 per cent area in the forest compartment were considered in mining Zone-II.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "MINING")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}