At this point of time another dimension of POSCO’s “break up” approach came into light. It had been highlighted by the civil society activists in support of the local struggle, that POSCO was yet to acquire a clearance for mining. The area in question was Khandadhar hills in Sundergarh district of Orissa. Even though it is both ecologically and culturally fragile with 74% of the population in the surrounding area are completely dependent on these forests for fuel, fodder, fruits and medicinal plants; it is much sought after for the purposes of mining. POSCO’s plans were delayed here as the area had been earlier assured for prospecting to the Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Limited (KIOCL). The report of the CEC recognised this and spoke against the piecemeal diversion of forest land for different projects. But the Supreme Court only picked up a part of the CEC report and ordered on 8^th August 2008 that a committee be set up to look at the mitigation measures. Since the court’s order did not refuse the forest clearance, it was only subject to the report of this committee and its findings.

Violations of the Forest Rights Act

Even as the clearance juggernaut carried itself through and people’s movement continued to face myriad challenges, POSCO could not initiate any project related work on the ground. In the latest set of approvals the  forest clearance for POSCO was granted in December 2009. But was this legal? Not if one looks at the provisions under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest-Dwellers Recognition of Forest Rights Act, 2006 (referred to further as FRA). The Act provides for settlement of rights by recognising the right of forest-dwellers to occupy, cultivate, use and protect areas within which they were residing before December 13, 2005. The rules for the Act were notified in January 2008. So, the forest clearance for the project could not have been granted till this process of filing claims and conferring rights was initiated and completed. This is especially so because back in March 2008, the Palli sabha in Dhinkia village had already passed a resolution citing sections of the legislation declaring that they did not consent to any proposed diversion.  Mind you, during this time the matter was still being heard by the Supreme Court of India and the final approval was not granted.

 Since 30^th July 2010, there has also been a circular of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) in operation which also seeks the above, not just for POSCO but for all projects coming up before the MoEF for forest clearance. The circular clearly states, “The State/UT Governments, where process of settlement of Rights under the  FRA is yet to begin, are required to enclose evidences supporting that settlement of rights under FRA 2006 will be initiated and completed before the final approval for  proposals.”. Within five months, the forest clearance for POSCO is granted without the FRA process in the area being complete. As a compensation, the clearance letter had a condition that the processes under the FRA would need to completed for the clearance to come into effect.

This and many other violations were brought to the attention of Jairam Ramesh, Minister of Environment and Forests (MoEF). The ministry responded by issuing another note on 8^th January 2010 reinstating the condition stipulated in the forest clearance which says that the rights of the “tribal people” will need to be settled, prior to the forest clearance being in operation. The question is why did the MoEF  not withdraw the clearance which was in contravention to the provisions of another law and its own circular?

 “No Extension” clause of MoU

 The MoU stands expired on 22^nd June 2010, and perhaps the new modalities are already underway or perhaps even finalised at the state level. But the MoU has a startling clause which states that “ no

 such extension shall be considered unless the Company has made substantial progress on  implementation of the project in terms of construction, erection of plant and machinery  and investment at site to the satisfaction of the State Government in these five years in  implementing the first phase as envisaged in this MoU. ” According to the same document the first phase should have meant that 6 MT production of steel should have been commissioned, which has not happened.

 So, since no extension is possible as no work has been initiated, the stand of the state government will be critical to watch out for. Is the state government planning to sign a fresh MoU with POSCO? If that be so, will POSCO need to get into fresh approvals under the new MOU?

 But frankly for the local movement, all these are legalese that iron themselves out along the way. What matters crucially is that the people resisting remain united in thought and action. Despite difference and tension on the ground, the fact remains that POSCO has not been able to start work for 5 years. The kudos, almost entirely goes to the struggle on the ground; every other outside support and delay  has only strengthened their hands.