rg51

8.1 Conclusions
Importance of LULC and need for analysing the causes of change in LUP, was realised globally in 1970s. Realisation on need of generating an ecologically balanced LUP through a proper LUPg system was also realised in India in 1970s. Further, importance of forest/green cover for sustaining human existence was realised in India as early as in nineteenth century (National Forest Policy of India, 1894). Henceforth several measures were taken through different National Forest Policies and Forest Acts and Amendments of constitution through inscribing some schedules to protect and conserve forest/ green cover in India.

Considering importance of green cover it was decided as early as in 1952 (National Forest Policy, 1952) that the country should have onethird of land under forest cover (60% in hilly regions and 20% in plains). While the country was far from achieving the target, National Forest Policy of 1988 indicated the requirement of one-third of land keeping under forest or green cover. Importance of the matter was reiterated by the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India in 1999. India is planning for setting proper LU on appropriate lands. The National organisation taking leading role is this matter in NBSS-LUP. They are working through a very efficient system. But India is still far from reaching the target.

Some scientific studies have revealed that rate of soil loss through erosion and hence land degradation is very serious in India. Mention worthy is some UNEP study (Mohanty, 2001) which reveals that
* Asia Pacific is having deforestation @1.6 % per year
* Two third of world's sediment transport to ocean is from south east Asia
* Productivity loss of land is mainly due to deforestation and erosion.
* India is heading towards severe water scarcity.

The set of observations detailed in above paragraphs reveal clearly that time has come to look into the matter urgently and deeply, about why the problem is not getting controlled. More over mining is an activity which damages greenery, excavates and degrades land very visibly. Thus question arises about contribution of mining to this standing problem.

A special care has been taken by MoEF, GoI to see that the matter of LUMP is getting proper importance through EIA and EMP exercises. Experiences from mining areas have revealed that in many cases the LUMP could not be implemented properly due to some cause or other, or even if implemented, the newly developed green over could sustain very less.

Some scientific studies conducted mainly over CMAs have revealed that rate of decrease in forest cover is significant

The ultimate cause of the fact that green cover over the MAs of India is decreasing has been assigned to certain possible facts listed below.

* The LUMP as generated through EMP is taking care of land to be damaged directly by excavation, OB dumping and other related activities, but the snow balling effect of these, i.e. damage to land quality and greenery by spreading of OB materials on land, lowering of regional WT, loss of topsoil and aquifer, siltation of surface water resources in the buffer zone and hence accelerating the speed of land degradation cycle (Ghosh, 2002) by all follow-up happenings are never assessed by the EIA and hence never cared in EMP or LUMP. Hence, not withstanding the fact that mining areas cover only about 0.04% of the total land area of the country, mining and its ancillary activities bear some role in the country's loss of green cover and topsoil.

* Any LU cannot be generated just because it was planned. Implementability of any LUP depends upon certain determinants of LU e.g. land quality, topography, water availability, QoL of the society around etc. Any LUMP which does not take due care of all these determinants cannot be successfully implemented.

The magnitude of capacity of these determinants have been studied in CMAs and some guidelines for LUPg have been generated for CMAs.

The LUPg system presently being followed in India is a very efficient one, but due to certain very specific facts (discussed in chapter 4) these are having limited applicability to the MAs of India. The point worthy mentioning here is LUPg is a site specific, case specific and time specific activity (Rhind & Hudson, 1980). Thus India needs a LUPg system specifically for MAs.

8.2 Recommendations
The volume has recommended a LUPg system for MAs. Further, has realised that proper implementation of LUMP is to be done through land reclamation. The volume has reviewed the technicalities of land reclamation in the presently followed systems in India. Some techniques have been suggested for over comming certain shortcomings. Mention may be made of techniques for
* aquifer regeneration (Ghosh, 2000c)
* proper storing and re-use of topsoil without any additional cost other then labour (Ghosh & Ghosh, 1990a)
* growing greenery on stoney lands without using topsoil (Ghosh 1999a)

The volume emphasises on considering the existence of land degradation cycle (Ghosh 2000b, and Ghosh, 2002) and
* giving due importance to some INTANGIBL IMPACTS of mining while conducting EIA.
* following the LUPg system suggested for MAs (Ghosh, 2002)
* determinants of LUP and their respective capacities for CMAs have been calculated on the basis of LUP change suffered in spite of following LUMP in EMPs (Ghosh & Rani 2001)
* it has been recommended that additionally a commensurate amount of land should be attempted to green to achieve minimum change in LUP. This forms a guideline for LUPg in CMAs
* alike guidelines can be generated for other MAs.

8.3 Scope of further research
LUPg in MAs is a developing subject gaining importance only recently. Thus theoretical model has been developed for the purpose. It has scope of further improvement and polishing through further research. The salient points where such scope exists have been listed next.
* The exercise conducted for identifying the determinants of LUP covers CMAs only. Alike studies should be conducted for all MAs.
*The magnitude of capacity of the determinants of LUP has been analysed for top five determinants, that too for CMAs only. More study is required to identify the magnitude of capacity of all other determinants with respect to all varieties of mining.
* A LUPg system has been suggested from the experience gathered through studies on LUP and observations on implementation and sustainability of LUMP in MAs. It would be better if this system could be tested in some realfield condition.

However, some support to the major new point in the system (giving the top priority to the local people's aspirations and requirements) has already been obtained through experiences from some mining areas, where the local villagers have been involved partially in planning. In these MAs implementation of plan through reclamation has achieved a better success than in cases where the local people were not involved in the total activity.