




































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 3 (1): 99–101, January 2020 

 
CONVERSATIONS: National Mineral Policy 2019 — balancing 
stakeholder interests and concerns 

 

Editorial Note: Recognising Diverse Stakeholders in 
Mineral Policy — a Trajectory over Time 
 

Nandan Nawn   
 
Economic activity in India is supported by minerals extracted domestically. 
The significance of mining is also due to its impact on local livelihood 
opportunities — it generates some during extraction and transport, but it 
also puts a stop on many others; on some, forever. Once a mine is 
exhausted, it requires fresh efforts to generate new livelihood opportunities.  

The need for remedial action to compensate for displacement, adverse 
impact on ecological and human health and other such is well recognised 
now. As it is well known, the Supreme Court in Samatha vs State of Andhra 
Pradesh and Ors (1997; Appeal (civil) 4601-02 of 1997) is a forerunner on 
this matter, calling for the creation of a ‗permanent fund‘ to sustain local 
‗development‘. Churnings in the regulatory framework were certainly 
influenced by this and other decisions on mining, like SPS & Ors vs State of 
Karnataka & Ors. (2013; WP (civil) 562 of 2009), Goa Foundation vs UOI 
& Ors. (2014; WP (civil) 435 of 2012) just to name a few. 

National Mineral Policy of 1990 considered mining to be the exclusive 
responsibility of the State; the 1993 policy, reflecting the changes initiated in 
1991, paved the way for private sector participation. Mines and Minerals 
(Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, was amended accordingly. In 
2005, the Planning Commission set up a High-Level Committee (HLC) to 
review and suggest changes in the policy and regulations to augment 
investment — both public and private — in the mining sector, in a 

                                                           
 Managing Editor and Coordinator for this ‗Conversations‘. Department of Policy Studies, 
TERI School of Advanced Studies, 10 Vasant Kunj Institutional Area, New Delhi, India 110 
070; nnletter@gmail.com. 

Copyright © Nawn 2020. Released under Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 
4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581-6152 (print); 2581-6101 (web). 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v3i1.91  

https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v3i1.91


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [100] 

changing climate. The preface of the HLC report recognised the difficulty 
in reaching a consensus among the stakeholders — ―mineral-rich states and 
states not well-endowed with mineral reserves, manufacturing industries 
with captive mines and standalone miners, exporters of minerals, and 
domestic industry based on the mineral‖ (Planning Commission 2006, i). 
The report‘s ‗Conclusions‘ and ‗Recommendations‘ recognised the need for 
―the Policy [to] [...] provide for environmental concerns and the needs of 
local communities to be fully taken into account in mining operations‖ 
(Planning Commission 2006, 183) — but to remain outside the list of 
stakeholders. National Mineral Policy of 2008 advanced this in 
recommending ―[s]pecial care [...] to protect the interest of host and 
indigenous (tribal) populations through developing models of stakeholder 
interest based on international best practice‖ (section 2.3) and alluding to a 
framework of sustainable development. It even acknowledged the need for 
a ―national consensus to fulfil its underlying principles and objectives‖ 
(section 11). 

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Bill, 2011, introduced in 
the parliament, included a National Sustainable Development Framework 
with ―systemic measures needed to be taken or built-in to increase 
sustainability of mining operations considering its entire life cycle, inter alia‖ 
(section 46(4)(iii))  

[...] (j) consultative mechanisms with stakeholder groups right from 
pre- mining stages through the life cycle and up to post-closure 
stages to ensure stakeholder groups involvement and participation 
in identifying and addressing the sustainability issue.  

A Standing Committee was set up by the 15th Lok Sabha on the 2011 Bill. 
―Considering the wide ramifications of the Bill‖, the introduction note 
called ―for soliciting the comments from the general public, stakeholders‖ 
(Lok Sabha Secretariat 2013: vi). The report includes responses from the 
'stakeholders' on each section of the Bill and its recommendation.   

National Mineral Policy 2019 (NMP 2019), while marking many departures 
from its 2008 avatar, continues to underscore the need to achieve ―a 
national consensus among various key stakeholders and their commitments 
to fulfil its underlying principles and objectives‖. This ‗Conversations‘ 
captures some of the trade-offs across selected stakeholders.  

Kumar and Ranjan share their anxieties on the availability of metals 
(including rare ones) as required by new technologies. Kumar and Basu 
differ on the interpretation of inter-generational equity. Jain and Basu 
shared their concerns on the extent of interests of the local population 
considered in the decision-making stages; it is a concern for the 



[101] Nandan Nawn 

environment for Ranjan in the implementation stages. Kumar expresses 
concern on incentives for the private sector to undertake exploration; for 
Jain, it is the creation of ‗exclusive mining zones‘. 

Kumar expresses concerns over the allocation of revenues from auctions of 
mineral rights to a state treasury instead of companies extracting minerals. 
He finds this reduces the probability of use of such revenues for local use, 
through CSR, etc. Auction-induced increase in costs of minerals will also 
impact the discovery of metals required for new technologies, increasing the 
import bill, he thinks. Kumar proposes to differentiate the minerals on the 
basis of costs of exploration based on existing information and costs of 
extraction based on ‗bulkiness‘.  

To Jain, ‗ease of doing businesses may receive priority over the other listed 
goals such as protection of the environment, conservation of ecosystems, 
the welfare of mining-affected local communities. He recommends setting 
up a Minerals Audit Agency.  

Ranjan warns on the serious environmental impacts of mining, taking cues 
from the experiences in other countries. He proposes restoration costs in 
the cost-benefit analysis for a better-informed decision, as one of the ways 
towards this end.  

For Basu, implementation of inter-generational equity requires a more 
serious engagement than what the policy holds. Among other suggestions, 
he calls for investing the entire rent as a corpus to yield income in 
perpetuity for the future generations as a dividend.  

Admittedly, matters pertaining NMP 2019 traverse from vision to 
implementation, interspersed with institutional framework, technical 
knowhow, information gathering and availability, matters connected with 
finance, fiscal and foreign trade, besides balancing the interest of 
stakeholders — this ‗Conversations‘ could address only some. Given the 
wide ramifications of the mineral sector — across sectors, people and 
locations — more conversations will surely follow. 

 

REFERENCES:  

Lok Sabha Secretariat. 2013. ―The Mines and Minerals (Development & 
Regulation) Bill, 2011.‖ 36th Report of the Standing Committee on Coal and Steel 
(2012-13). New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat.   

Planning Commission. 2006. ―National Mineral Policy: Report of the High-Level 
Committee‖. New Delhi: Planning Commission.  


