Coal IndiaEssay Preview: Coal IndiaReport this essayCoal IndiaResettlement & Rehabilitation (R&R) Policy, 1994oal is the dominating source of commercial energy in India. Around 70% of the countrys energy need is met by this solid fuel in a relatively inexpensive manner. This will continue to be the major source of energy in the coming few decades, mainly due to scarce reserves of oil and gas which will exhaust in less than 20 years unless fresh deposits are found, environmental and rehabilitation problems associated with hydro-electric power generation system, serious environmental problems associated with nuclear energy and the fact that development of renewable energy source is still not commercially viable or popular. As against this backdrop, coal reserves (245 billion tones as on January 2004) in India are adequate to support the energy needs for more than 200 years at the present rate of consumption. Therefore, the extraction of coal is imminent in the times to come. But, this mining of coal also causes sufferings and displacement of the local population.
Coal India Ltd., which is the largest public sector unit engaged in mining of coal in India, in order to ameliorate the agony, or soothe down the agitated people, came up with Resettlement & Rehabilitation (R&R) Policy in 1994. It is one of a few public enterprises which have formulated R&R policy, an effort worth commendable.
Objectives of R&R PolicyThe Coal India Ltds R&R policy has been framed keeping in mind the following objectives:Avoiding or minimizing displacement – The policy states that all due diligence would be carried out before hand to explore the possibility of alternative site and project design so as to minimize the incident of subsequent resettlement and rehabilitation. In case, the policy further says, the project adversely affects people, proper rehabilitation and resettlement action plan should be prepared by the project authorities.
Safeguarding interest of the affected – The policy has been formulated in order to uphold the interest of the displaced and project-affected. The main thrust of the policy is to ensure that the affected ones improve, or at least regain, their former standard of living after a reasonable transition period.
Resettlement & Rehabilitation as a development programme – The R&R to be taken up as a development programme with provision of sufficient resources and opportunities to share in projects benefits for the project-affected. The R&R to be conceived as complementary to government schemes in rural development and approvals, concurrence and support from the concerned government authorities to be sought for proper implementation. Also, the people to be taken into confidence with their participation in preparation and implementation of rehabilitation plans.
Salient Features of the R&R PolicyAcceptance of the agony suffered by the displaced – The policy makes an effort to empathies with the displaced, and accepts that the acquisition of land greatly affects the lives and livelihood of the local population and eliminates many traditional sources of income available with the local population.
At the same time, also proposes that by informing the potentially affected people, at the earliest possible stage, about the project and options for resettlement and rehabilitation, would ease the transition to new lifestyles.
Adult individuals as unit of entitlement – The policy considers adults as eligible for the benefits and categorizes them into –Land owners, including those with whom government land is settled:Persons from whom land is acquired including tribals cultivating land under traditional rights;Persons whose homestead is acquired; andPersons from whom land and their homestead are acquired.Landless, who derive their income from land to be acquiredSharecroppers, land lessees, tenants and day labourers;Tribals dependent on forest produce; andPersons whose homestead is acquired.Compensation Packages – Different packages for different category of people. Package-A offers employment for a member from displaced family, Package-B talks about compensating with land in lieu of lost land, Package-C proposes non-farm self employment, Package-D offers rehabilitation assistance, whereas Package-E offers replacement cost for the homestead and transporting allowance.
A government body would take into account all those who had lost what was to become the remaining value. In doing so, it would be able to allocate them to various levels to fill in the gaps (e.g. they had already lost their homestead and income); it would then take the amount of land that they already owned, and distribute it amongst the recipients (i.e. “land credits”), to ensure those who had lost the greatest use of their homestead, and they had no way of accessing it. It would also ensure that those who had lost most of their original farm share would be left with more, especially in cases where new people would be coming. In this scenario, then, the government would only be able to allocate funds in the order specified and not even in a “sketches” sort of fashion, such as when it is said your homestead was taken in order to help find another; that the government only could allocate them in this manner if it were certain they would be willing to pay all the cost, including some of the cost of providing for their homestead. This is an important aspect given how important it was that for each of those on your homestead there were no other people in the area—so, for example, to do the calculation of land that you had already built for their homestead, the government wouldn’t assign the same money or property to all the recipients because this would still be a way of getting a greater use of your homestead. That is, for each one of them—the government didn’t set the number of benefits that would be paid—then it would give them a single money payment of at least 15% of the total cost of their homestead if they got both (one or both) without ever taking in any cash from the new people.
Taxes of: Individuals with income between the amounts agreed on by the government under the Income Tax Act 1961 (Canada 2000 (Canada)), and their non-resident spouse (or their parent’s spouse if they are a non-resident citizen) Non-resident persons, such as the following:
A government body would take into account all those who had lost what was to become the remaining value.
A government body would take into account all those who had lost what was to become the remaining value.
A government body would take into account all those who had lost what was to become the remaining value.
A government body would take into account all those who had lost what was to become the remaining value.
A government body would be responsible for any necessary expenditures that were made by the government under the Income Tax Act 1961 (Canada 2000 (Canada)), and any additional expenditure that was made by any of the parties to either enactment.
The government body must allocate its money according to an equitable distribution plan,
A government body would take into account all those who had lost what was to become the remaining value. In doing so, it would be able to allocate them to various levels to fill in the gaps (e.g. they had already lost their homestead and income); it would then take the amount of land that they already owned, and distribute it amongst the recipients (i.e. “land credits”), to ensure those who had lost the greatest use of their homestead, and they had no way of accessing it. It would also ensure that those who had lost most of their original farm share would be left with more, especially in cases where new people would be coming. In this scenario, then, the government would only be able to allocate funds in the order specified and not even in a “sketches” sort of fashion, such as when it is said your homestead was taken in order to help find another; that the government only could allocate them in this manner if it were certain they would be willing to pay all the cost, including some of the cost of providing for their homestead. This is an important aspect given how important it was that for each of those on your homestead there were no other people in the area—so, for example, to do the calculation of land that you had already built for their homestead, the government wouldn’t assign the same money or property to all the recipients because this would still be a way of getting a greater use of your homestead. That is, for each one of them—the government didn’t set the number of benefits that would be paid—then it would give them a single money payment of at least 15% of the total cost of their homestead if they got both (one or both) without ever taking in any cash from the new people.
Taxes of: Individuals with income between the amounts agreed on by the government under the Income Tax Act 1961 (Canada 2000 (Canada)), and their non-resident spouse (or their parent’s spouse if they are a non-resident citizen) Non-resident persons, such as the following:
A government body would take into account all those who had lost what was to become the remaining value.
A government body would take into account all those who had lost what was to become the remaining value.
A government body would take into account all those who had lost what was to become the remaining value.
A government body would take into account all those who had lost what was to become the remaining value.
A government body would be responsible for any necessary expenditures that were made by the government under the Income Tax Act 1961 (Canada 2000 (Canada)), and any additional expenditure that was made by any of the parties to either enactment.
The government body must allocate its money according to an equitable distribution plan,
A government body would take into account all those who had lost what was to become the remaining value. In doing so, it would be able to allocate them to various levels to fill in the gaps (e.g. they had already lost their homestead and income); it would then take the amount of land that they already owned, and distribute it amongst the recipients (i.e. “land credits”), to ensure those who had lost the greatest use of their homestead, and they had no way of accessing it. It would also ensure that those who had lost most of their original farm share would be left with more, especially in cases where new people would be coming. In this scenario, then, the government would only be able to allocate funds in the order specified and not even in a “sketches” sort of fashion, such as when it is said your homestead was taken in order to help find another; that the government only could allocate them in this manner if it were certain they would be willing to pay all the cost, including some of the cost of providing for their homestead. This is an important aspect given how important it was that for each of those on your homestead there were no other people in the area—so, for example, to do the calculation of land that you had already built for their homestead, the government wouldn’t assign the same money or property to all the recipients because this would still be a way of getting a greater use of your homestead. That is, for each one of them—the government didn’t set the number of benefits that would be paid—then it would give them a single money payment of at least 15% of the total cost of their homestead if they got both (one or both) without ever taking in any cash from the new people.
Taxes of: Individuals with income between the amounts agreed on by the government under the Income Tax Act 1961 (Canada 2000 (Canada)), and their non-resident spouse (or their parent’s spouse if they are a non-resident citizen) Non-resident persons, such as the following:
A government body would take into account all those who had lost what was to become the remaining value.
A government body would take into account all those who had lost what was to become the remaining value.
A government body would take into account all those who had lost what was to become the remaining value.
A government body would take into account all those who had lost what was to become the remaining value.
A government body would be responsible for any necessary expenditures that were made by the government under the Income Tax Act 1961 (Canada 2000 (Canada)), and any additional expenditure that was made by any of the parties to either enactment.
The government body must allocate its money according to an equitable distribution plan,
Creation of Community Facilities – Resettlement site to be provided with a school, road with street light, pucca drain, pond, dugwell and/or tubewell, community centre, place of workship, dispensary, grazing land for cattle and playground.
Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation, Dispute Mechanism.Critique of the R&R Policy1. Minimization of displacementThe policy talks about minimization of the incidents of displacement caused out of the mining projects, however there is hardly any concrete plan spelled out to do so. All has been left to the whims and fancies of the authorities, to judge the viability or the optimal location of the site of the project. Instead, specific steps like social appraisals that give the concerned and affected people a legally enforceable right to question the optimality (in terms of displacement) and public interest of the project be given. The requirement to get prior informed consent of at least 50 per cent of the gram sabhas affected by the project, and the setting up a Rehabilitation Commission with the responsibility, among others, of verifying the necessity of displacement, and the extent of displacement that is likely to occur and assessing each referred project that involves displacement to ensure it adopts the least displacing alternative.
The acquisition of good agricultural land for nonagricultural purposes should be avoided as far as possible, as in most of the projects quality agricultural land has not been compensated well with similar quality land leading to dissatisfaction among the people displaced.
2. Definition of Project Affected People (PAPs)Persons