#environmentind

समस्त भक्तजनों को नवरात्रि की हार्दिक शुभकामनाएं

(via Environment News India)

The conflict around the Sijimali bauxite mine in Odisha is not happening in isolation. It follows a pattern we have seen before-from Gandhamardan to Niyamgiri Hills, and now Sijimali. Each time, a mining project is approved after an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and each time, protests follow.

On paper, the Sijimali EIA looks complete. It has data, charts, and detailed plans. It says environmental damage will be limited and manageable, and that the project will bring jobs and development.

But if you read it closely, a more important question comes up: What kind of “impact” is being counted and what is being ignored?

1. How “Low Impact” Is Defined

The report concludes that impacts will be minimal and manageable, yet it simultaneously describes:

Large-scale land disturbance due to open-cast mining

Removal of topsoil and vegetation

Creation of excavation pits and overburden dumps

A project that physically transforms the landscape cannot logically be described as having “no major impact.” The contradiction lies in how impact is defined i.e. limited to pollution levels, not land transformation. The report follows a standard pattern:

First, it shows that the current environment is within safe limits

Then, it says the impacts of mining will be small and controllable

It offers solutions to manage those impacts

Finally, it concludes that the project will do more good than harm

At first glance, this seems reasonable but the problem is in how “impact” is defined. The report mainly focuses on things like:

Dust

Noise

Water pollution near the site

These are things that can be measured and controlled. What it does not fully consider are bigger changes, like:

Fragmentation of forests and no discussion of forest type, age, or ecological quality

No mention of wildlife dependence or habitat fragmentation

Long-term damage to soil

Changes in how water flows through the land, its hydrology

In simple terms, the report looks at short-term, visible problems, but not long-term, deeper changes.

2. Forests Are Not Just Land

The Sijimali area is not just empty land, it is a living forest. It supports plants, animals, and local communities. But in the report, forest land is treated as something that can be used and then “replaced.” The main solution offered is planting new trees. This sounds good, but there is a big difference:

A natural forest grows over decades or even centuries. It has many species, rich soil, and complex life systems.

A plantation is just planted trees. It is simpler and cannot replace what was lost, specially when no long-term monitoring of ecological recovery was stated.

So, planting trees is not the same as saving a forest. But the report treats it as if it is. The EIA treats forest loss as a numerical problem (hectares lost vs. planted) rather than an ecological problem (what kind of forest is lost).

3. Water: Managed on Paper, Uncertain on Ground

The report explains where water will come from and how it will be treated. On paper, everything looks under control. But mining on a hill or plateau like Sijimali changes the land itself:

Large areas are dug out

Natural drainage paths are disturbed leading to impact on downstream villages, whose evaluation was not done

Rainwater may flow differently or stop reaching certain areas

Risk of erosion, slope failure, and sediment runoff and potential impact on downstream soil and water quality due to mining waste

These changes affect not just the mine, but the whole surrounding area. Overburden dumps are among the most persistent environmental risks in mining, often lasting decades beyond mine closure. For local people who depend on streams and forest water, even small changes can create big problems. The report talks about tanks and drainage systems, but it does not fully explain what happens to the natural water system as a whole.

4. Air Pollution Framed as Controllable

The EIA identifies dust from drilling, blasting, transport and suggested mitigation through water sprinkling and green belts, but what it lacks is:

No long-term exposure assessment for nearby communities

No cumulative pollution analysis (especially if multiple mines operate nearby)

Dust control measures are temporary and maintenance-dependent, yet the report assumes consistent effectiveness over decades.

5. Biodiversity: Mentioned, Not Analysed

The report typically lists flora and fauna and states no endangered species will be significantly affected but:

No study of species movement or habitat connectivity

No analysis of fragmentation effects

No seasonal or long-term biodiversity monitoring

Listing species is not the same as understanding ecosystems.

6. Were Local People Truly Heard?

One of the biggest concerns is about consent. Officially, it is said that village councils (Gram Sabhas) approved the project. But many villagers claim the process was not fair. Some even say signatures were taken without proper discussion. This is serious, because the people living there many from Kondh tribal communities depend on the forest for their lives, culture, and identity.

We have seen a different example before in Niyamgiri Hills, where Gram Sabhas clearly rejected mining. That was seen as a strong example of local democracy. In Sijimali, the concern is that participation may have been treated as a formality, not a real decision-making process.

7. Jobs vs. What Is Lost

The report highlights benefits like:

Jobs

Better roads and infrastructure

Economic growth

These are important. But the comparison is not balanced.

Jobs are counted clearly

But losses are harder to measure

For example:

People losing land are given compensation, but can money replace their way of life?

If forests disappear, what happens to daily needs like food, fuel, and water?

Cultural and spiritual connections to land are not even properly discussed

So, the gains are clear and visible, but the losses are less visible, and therefore often ignored. Displacement is treated as a financial issue, not a social transformation.

8. Why Protests Keep Happening

The protests in Sijimali are not just about this one project. They are about a pattern people have seen again and again. When reports:

Downplay large environmental changes

Treat forests as replaceable

Ignore how water systems really work

Treat local approval as a checkbox

they create a gap between what is written in reports and what people experience on the ground. And when that gap becomes too large, people protest. From Gandhamardan to Niyamgiri Hills, and now Sijimali, the story is similar.

Conclusion: What Needs to Change

The Sijimali EIA is not empty. It has data and follows rules. But its limits are clear. It:

Focuses on small, measurable impacts

Treats forests as replaceable

Assumes losses can be compensated

Treats public consent as a procedure

If environmental assessments are to be trusted, they need to do more. Like most EIAs, this one evaluates the project in isolation. They must:

Accept that some damage cannot be undone

Odisha already has multiple mining projects

Combined effects on forests, water, and communities are not assessed

Look at the bigger picture, not just one project at a time

Understand how land and water systems are connected

Give real decision-making power to local communities

Until then, reports may look complete on paper, but they will continue to face resistance in reality. And places like Sijimali will remain not just mining sites but reminders that development decisions cannot ignore the people and ecosystems they affect.

Impartant reads:-

Sijimali Bauxite Mine EIA report :- ospcboard.odisha.gov.in/wp-content/plugins/hearing/uploads/files_1694776024_408449905.pdf

Executive summary of the project :- forum.nls.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Executive-Summary-Final.pdf

DTE Report :- Vedanta bauxite mine: Odisha villagers raise concerns at public hearing, accuse company of spreading

Hill in conflict: Eastern Ghats unrest recalls Odisha's Niyamgiri story | Industry News - Business Standard

Comment and tell us your thoughts

A member of our Environment India network is working on ML models to predict elephant movement near railway tracks to prevent collisions.

Looking for:

GPS tracking data Corridor maps Habitat studies