1) What happened

The Environment Ministry’s Expert Appraisal Committee has allowed an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study for a proposed rock-phosphate mine at Birmania, Jaisalmer (Rajasthan). This permission is called Terms of Reference (ToR).
ToR is not a green signal to mine. It only tells the company what to study. The company must first check if Great Indian Bustards (GIBs) use this area and then prepare a strong conservation plan.

2) Why this matters (fertiliser need vs wildlife protection)

Rock phosphate is a key raw material for phosphate fertilisers, which India needs for farming. But the lease area falls inside a mapped Great Indian Bustard habitat zone. The decision must balance resource security and protection of a Critically Endangered bird. The government wants the impact fully studied before any final decision.

3) What the panel has asked for

• A field survey by an independent national institute to confirm GIB presence, movement, and nesting in and around the lease.

• A site-specific conservation and mitigation plan to avoid, minimise, and reduce harm.

• A full EIA covering air, water, groundwater, noise/blasting, ecology, and wildlife.

• Proof of compliance with court directions and government rules for GIB habitats.

• After the EIA and public hearing, the case goes back to the Ministry for a final decision (approve with strict conditions / ask for changes / reject).

4) The Great Indian Bustard

• The Great Indian Bustard is Critically Endangered, with very few left, mostly in western Rajasthan.
• It lives in open grasslands and scrub and nests on the ground, so it is easily disturbed.
• Major threats include loss of grasslands, collisions with overhead power lines, noise and light, and predation of eggs and chicks. Because the bird flies low and avoids disturbance, any project inside its habitat must show extra safeguards.

5) What the impact study should settle

• Do GIBs use this landscape now? If yes, which patches and seasons?

• Can the mine layout be shifted or reduced to avoid sensitive zones?

• Operational safeguards:

  • Limit and schedule blasting away from sensitive places and times

  • Use downward-facing, low-glare lighting at night

  • Slow vehicle movement and restrict traffic during key seasons

  • Create quiet buffers and plan green barriers

• Monitoring and triggers: regular independent monitoring with clear stop-work rules if birds are sighted nearby.

6) The big picture

ToR ≠ clearance. It is only a study mandate. In critical habitats, approval standards are very high. The project proponent must prove risks are understood and managed, and the public hearing must record people’s views. This case shows how India tries to balance development and conservation using the EIA process.

Prelims Practice (MCQ)

Q. With reference to the Birmania rock-phosphate proposal and the Great Indian Bustard (GIB), consider the following statements:

1. Grant of Terms of Reference (ToR) by the Expert Appraisal Committee is the final environmental clearance for the mine.

2. The project area lies in a mapped GIB habitat zone, so extra safeguards are required.

3. The committee has asked for a GIB field survey by a national institute and a site-specific conservation plan before appraisal.

4. Rock phosphate is mainly used for fertiliser manufacture in India.

Which of the statements given above are correct?
A. 1 and 2 only
B. 2, 3 and 4 only
C. 1, 3 and 4 only
D. 1, 2, 3 and 4

Answer: B (2, 3 and 4 only)
Why: (1) Incorrect—ToR is not a clearance; it only sets the study terms. (2), (3), and (4) are correct.