Environmental safeguards for mining projects

The central government’s decision to allow non-coal mining projects to seek Environmental Clearance (EC) without prior consent from landowners marks a departure from critical environmental checks and balances. Dilution of environmental safeguards is a risky move for an ecologically fragile region like the Northeast. The central government move follows a request from mining project developers to the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change that the consent from the landowners should not be insisted upon at the time of the grant of EC for non-coal mining projects. The reason cited is that prior consent of landholders is not required prior to execution of a mining lease under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957. Under the provisions of the Act, the land required for mining purposes is acquired either through voluntary agreement between the landowner and the prospective lessee or under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013. Besides, for mining of coal by government companies, land can also be acquired under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, and the state governments are empowered to grant the mineral concessions for the minerals located within their respective boundaries. The Office Memorandum issued on December 18, 2025, states that the issue of delinking prior consent of landowners with the grant of EC was referred to the Expert Appraisal Committee, which also expressed the view that the request was reasonable and can be accepted. The EAC argues that there are many mining projects where mining operations have started after the grant of EC and land acquisition is still in process in a phased manner based on requirement. The Ministry, while considering that full acquisition may not be a prerequisite for the consideration of a project/activity for the grant of EC, mandated, through an Office Memorandum issued on October 7, 2014, the submission of a copy of the preliminary notification issued by the concerned State Government regarding the acquisition of land as per the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, in case the project land is proposed to be acquired through government intervention, and a credible document showing the intent of the landowners to sell the land for the project—in case the land is being acquired through private negotiations with the landowners for the grant of EC. The latest OM eases these requirements and notifies that provisions of the OM issued in 2014 shall not be applicable for mining projects and activities, including mining of minerals, slurry pipelines (coal, lignite, and other ores), offshore and onshore oil and gas exploration, development, and production, and oil and gas transportation pipelines passing through national parks/sanctuaries/coral reefs and ecologically sensitive areas. The OM, however, clarifies that a condition should be inserted in EC that Consent to Operate shall be granted to project developers in respect of only those land parcels in revenue record that have either been acquired by the project proponent or for which consent has been obtained from the landowners or from the concerned state government. Delinking the grant of EC from prior consent of landowners will lead to exclusion of the landowners from the process of environmental impact assessment at the stage of granting EC. This can have adverse consequences in areas under community land in the region where land ownership is governed by customary land laws. Informing the communities about the extent of land that will be affected by the mining project is critical to securing informed consent from landowners and making the land acquisition as well as the entire mining operation and activities transparent. The life of communities in the region revolves around nature and forests; their displacement from traditional land also has ramifications for their livelihood and traditional knowledge system. Land acquisition for a mining project without fair compensation to the landowners and adequate environmental safeguards can have irreversible consequences, which is unwarranted. Those opposed to the government move have expressed apprehension over the pragmatic assessment of the potential environmental impact from the proposed mining operation if the area to be finally affected is not determined beforehand through the process of EIA.  The ease of doing business is an important concept for accelerating growth, but when it comes to an environmentally sensitive region like the Northeast, maximum environmental safeguards should be in place. Deploying more trained professionals in the field for data gathering can expedite the EIA process. Similarly, the process of securing consent through public hearing can be made faster and more robust by allowing online participation to ensure that the public hearing is completed in an expeditious manner to boost confidence among landowners who are to be affected by a mining activity. Sticking to previous environmental safeguards of conducting a comprehensive EIA after securing consent from landowners is a wiser option in the northeast, which needs to be considered before rushing to delink consent with the grant of EC, as several mining projects have been pushed in the region.