4.5.1 When and for which time to plan
The very word plan means to chalk out the future activity,
same is the time to develop a LUMP for a mining project. It is specially because,
unless it is done prior to the total activity, the activity may stand out to be
more expensive. The matter may be illustrated by the simple examples.
* If the LUPg exercise decides to form a big lake over an abandoned quarry to
form a surface water resource for the community around, and before planning the
quarry be backfilled by internal dumping, the implementation of LUMP will be too
expensive uselessly.
* If the pre-mining LU is damaged before in-depth societal survey (i.e., knowing
and forming a record about, which family was living on what earning, from which
land, and how), huge number of families, much more than the actual, may claim
that they were living on the same piece of land, working as a labour (on agricultural
field) or a fisherman (on a water body) etc. Naturally to meet their demands will
be too expensive.
Thus the total activity to select the most suitable LU (as in Fig. 4.2) should
be completed before any of the premining LU is disturbed.
Next comes the consideration about for which time to plan. So-long the matter
has been discussed as "what should be the use of the land after mining is over".
Obviously the main consideration is about the post-mining land-use. But considering
the fact that land is a very rare and worthy natural resource; and a big mining
project may have a very long life, it is to be realized that if plans are made
to develop only the post-mining LU, the total area under a big mining project
will not have any use throughout its whole life. While the fact is, the actual
mining activity at any time will run on only a part of it, and the remaining parts
acquired, vacated and lying without any use will be highly prone to erosion, causing
soil loss and many other environmental problems. The concept being extended here
is, "to plan for some intermediate land-use for these parts". To consider in micro-scale,
for some of these it will be pre-mining land-use, while for the others, it will
be post-mining LU.
Thus while developing the total LUMP the planners should make integrated planning
for 'ultimate LU' and 'intermediate LU'.
Mining has started in India in 18th century or still earlier. Some parts have
already completed a century of mining history on official record. These areas
have already been mined a lot without any LUPg or LUMP. Many areas in these fields
are in serious danger and huge amount of land has lost its usability due to subsidence,
scarcity of water etc (Ghosh, 1988). Question arises how the presently suggested
LUPg system/concept can be applied under such conditions. Of course, the situation
under such conditions is to be managed in a round about way. The problems and
the exact quality of the degraded land may however vary from field to field as
well as in different parts of the same field. There are even close combinations
of opencast and underground mining. There is a rare scope to study premining land-use
and no scope for required in-depth study of social conditions, in many areas.
It is being suggested that for such areas, whatever the existing conditions are,
those should be studied thoroughly and LUPg should be done for future on the basis
of the existing conditions only.
A flowchart showing the logical sequence of activities to be followed to achieve
LUMP in already quarried areas (which are now covered by huge barren over burden
dumps and abandoned quarries) is given in Fig.4.3 (c.f. Ghosh 2000a). It has been
proposed that it may stand as a conceptual model for LUMP for other mining areas
having alike problems. Those with other problems like subsidence, water scarcity
will have to think otherwise, however following the concept to protect the interest
of the society around.
Land reclamation plan should follow from implementation of LUMP.