The very fact that the change in barren-land
(others) was 1.01 which was more than that for mining (0.63) revels that mining
related activities and the after-effects of mining create more amounts of barren-land
than the amount of land directly disturbed by mining. This corroborates the
ideas of "cycle of land degradation in MAs", (Fig. 3.2).
The relative effect of mining on different land-use types can be expressed by
the following relation.
LUP change due to units area mining
= (M) + Change in {(F) + (C) +(B) + (W) + (O)}
On substituting the actual results of study, the following expression was obtained
Change in LUP = (M) - 0.60 (F) - 2.70 (C) + 0.50 (B) + 0.05 (W) + 1.75 (O) ….……(1)
(Rani & Ghosh 2001)
7.4.6 Significance of the changes
Among the 6 different components of LUP considered, the "forest cover" is the
chief one that protects ecosystem, hence statistical significance of change
in forest cover in CMAs was analysed with specific stress. Statistical analysis
of the data and results revealed that forest cover over the concerned area had
decreased through the period for which data could be made available. Also it
was noted that the magnitude of decrease of forest cover with reference to time
was statistically significant at 5% level of confidence (Saxena, 1981) as recorded
(Ghosh & Rani, 1999).
Significance of mean change in LUP in CMAs per year as observed was calculated
applying "t" test (with d.f. n-1) with the hypothesis that in a hypothetically
ideal eco-friendly condition change in LUP components should be "zero" (O).
It was observed that change in case of (F), (C), (B) and (M) the hypothesis
is getting rejected.
The above findings indicate that inspite of serious attempts to green the mining
degraded lands through about two decades and inspite of MoEF's special vigilance
on LUMP in CMAs, the LUP in CMAs are changing significantly with respect to
(F), (C), (B) and (M). The matter is serious specially because (F) and (C) are
going on decreasing and these changes are statistically significant.
Next was tested the significance of correlation coefficient between change in
each LUP components and mining using 't' test with d.f. n-2 for the hypothesis
that the population correlation coefficient of LUP components with mining is
"zero". The hypothesis was rejected in case of r(M)(F) only. This meant that
the fact is, "as mining proceeds, forest cover in CMAs goes on decreasing and
this decrease is statistically significant as per standard statistical tables"
(Rani & Ghosh 2001). Definitely this does not indicate an eco-friendly change.
From the above fact it was realised that there is some unidentified and hence
uncared (while formulating EMPs & LUMPs) factor(s) influencing the efforts of
afforestation and biological land reclamation in CMAs.
Statistical analysis of the data reveals that as a result of coal-mining in
India through time while land under mining use and built-up land has increased
significantly, the green cover in the area, namely forest and agricultural lands
have decreased. Specially the decrease of forest cover is significant. This
is a serous damage to ecosystem. In this reference it may be recalled that according
to the National Forest policy resolution of India of 1952 that forest area should
be raised to 33%, (about 66% in the hill region and 20% in the planes), and
India is already far behind the target.
Physical significance
If the equation 1 in section 7.4.5 be recalled, it states:
Change in LUP=(M) - 0.60(F) - 2.70(C) + 0.50(B) + 0.05(W) + 1.75(O). This indicates
that per unit area of mining the region looses 0.60 units of forest cover and
2.70 units of cultivation land. Thus one unit area mining damages 3.30 (2.70+0.60)
unit area of green cover. This is happening in spite of attempts to green the
mining degraded lands. The points follow from this observation are:
* It is not only mining, many other ancillary activities and conditions are
responsible for loss of green cover in mining areas.
* Attempts are being made to green the mining degraded lands only, while the
additional 2.30 ha (3.30-1.00) that loose the green cover due to ancillary activities,
which are the intangible impacts of mining, are not enjoying such care.
* Any land selected to grow green cover may not be capable to support it, as
a land's capability to support green cover depends upon many other factors,
other than land/soil suitability.
Some of the factors like surface water availability, topographic set-up, rainfall,
nature and thickness of soil cover have direct control on land's capability
to support green cover. There are some other factors which designate the degree
of land-degradation caused, and hence in turn control the possibility of growing
greenery on it. These are, excavation depth, extraction thickness, project area,
life of the mine, characteristics of fault(s) (if present) in the area and strata
dip. The third set of factors are those on which depends the degree of sincerity
by which the actual (not planned) attempt will be made to green the lands in
the region. In this reference mention may be made of income per head per day
and population density in the region and around. If the region is densely populated,
whatever be the plan, it is very likely that the people in the region will try
to have some more residential constructions on land than to green it, and will
act accordingly. Further the more the income level of the people, the more they
will try to grow facilities, amenities and luxury items over a piece of land
than to grow greenery on it regardless of what is written in black & white in
the plan. The people in the region will allow attempts to grow greenery, with
sincerity commensurate to these facts and hence the results will follow. With
these points in mind an attempt was made to identify the factors controlling
the LUP change in CMAs.
The above problem is persistent inspite of the National Forest Policy and the
country-wide realisation about the need of 33% forest-cover and the facts that
India was having even less than 20% of it (Vadiya 1987), and the Asia Pacific
region is loosing forest cover by 1.6%/year (Mohanty, 2001). Moreover, even
after country-wide (including mining areas) green-revolution, green cover over
the coal mining areas has decreased significantly. The above fact points towards
some unidentified lacuna in the presently followed technology of coal-mining
or in the procedure of some of its associated activities e.g. reclamation, reclamation
planning or land-use planning system (Ghosh & Rani, 1999). This is definitely
adding to the damage to forest cover the country is facing. Hence the changes
faced by LUP in CMAs are not eco-friendly.
In view of the above inference, it is recommended that the short coming(s) should
be identified and removed. All activities of coal-mining and reclamation should
proceed as per plans developed before initiation of the project activity, of
which LUPg should be the first step. The total planning system specially that
of LUPg should be revised and remodelled wherever and whenever required.