




































 

 

Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 3 (1): 115–118, January 2020 

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

Will Intergenerational Equity be Implemented? 
 

Rahul Basu  
 
1. INTRODUCTION 

As in the Karnataka (SPS & Ors vs State of Karnataka & Ors. [2013]) and 
Goa illegal mining cases (Goa Foundation vs UOI & Ors [2014]), the 
question of implementing the intergenerational equity principle arose in the 
Odisha illegal mining case (Common Cause vs UOI and Ors [2017]). In the 
judgment on the latter case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (SC) 
discussed the intergenerational equity principle at some length, expressed its 
dismay that the existing mineral policy “seems to be only on paper and is 
not being enforced perhaps due to the involvement of very powerful vested 
interests or a failure of nerve” and directed the union government to 
announce “a fresh and more effective, meaningful and implementable 
policy”.  

This conversation on balancing stakeholder concerns in the National 
Mineral Policy 2019 stems from the concluding sentence of the Policy, 
which envisages implementation through a “national consensus among 
various key stakeholders”. This is a change from the earlier National 
Mineral Policy 2008, which only mentioned a national consensus.  

 

2. WHO ARE THE KEY MINING STAKEHOLDERS? 

The obvious mining stakeholders include the extractors, the mining 
dependent (employees, suppliers and service providers), the mining affected 

                                                           
 Goa Foundation, G-8, St. Britto’s Apartments, Opp. St. Britto’s High School, Mapusa, 
Goa 403507 India; rahulbasu1@gmail.com. 

Copyright © Basu 2020. Released under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 
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.v3i1.95  

https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v3i1.95


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [116] 

 

(the losers of land, culture, community, environment and health), the users 
of mineral ore, and the government itself. Usually lost in this conversation 
are the true owners of natural resources, the people and our future 
generations. As the policy acknowledges, “Natural resources, including 
minerals, are a shared inheritance where the state is the trustee on behalf of 
the people to ensure that future generations receive the benefit of 
inheritance” (section 1). 

 

3. ACCOUNTING FOR THE RESOURCE CURSE 

Mining is simply the sale of inherited mineral wealth. Governments wrongly 
treat the proceeds of extraction (royalty, auction premia) as “income”. 
Politicians and voters support more mining as it would result in more 
“income”.  

In reality, these are sale proceeds. We found that from 2004 to 2012, Goa 
received Rs. 2,387 crore for minerals worth Rs. 51,655 crore of economic 
rent, resulting in a loss of Rs. 49,268 crore (95 per cent) (Basu 2015). 
Chhattisgarh has estimated a loss of Rs. 6 lakh crore due to the recent coal 
auctions (Baghel 2019).  Over the decade 2000-2010, government statistics 
imply an 82 per cent loss in Australia (The Future We Need 2018). If 
extraction were correctly accounted for as the sale of inherited wealth, this 
would be untenable (The Future We Need 2017a).  

Extractors are receiving minerals for a pittance. Naturally, they try to extract 
as quickly as possible and leave. Conservation of trees and tigers and 
protecting the interests of tribal populations are perceived to be anti-
development, if not against the national interests. As documented by the 
Karnataka Lok Ayuktha (GoK 2008; GoK 2011), governance is controlled 
through political contributions, lobbying and bribes. The losers are the 
people and especially future generations. Are they key stakeholders? 

 

4. HOW TO IMPLEMENT INTERGENERATIONAL EQUITY? 

As owner trustees of intergenerational wealth, we must ensure (a) zero loss 
at the point of sale (i.e. capture the entire economic rent), (b) invest the 
entire proceeds of extraction in a new intergenerational trust asset (ideally a 
future generations fund like in Norway1), (c) ensure the corpus is kept 

                                                           
1 Since 1996, Norway has dedicated all inflows from North Sea Oil to build up a large 
endowment fund so that both current and future generations benefit from the oil wealth. 



[117] Rahul Basu 

 

whole, and (d) only the real income be distributed to the present generation 
as a right of ownership, a Citizen’s Dividend (The Future We Need 2017b). 

Seeing natural resources as a public trust raises other concerns as well. 
Mining destroys other inherited assets. “Free, Prior and Informed Consent 
(FPIC)” of the mining affected is necessary. Certain areas and deposits 
should be declared no-go areas based on a variety of criteria – 
environmental, sacred spaces, strategic reserves, etc.  

Caps on extraction are needed on at least three different grounds: 

 First, under the precautionary principle to ensure the environmental 
damage is within limits. Mining damages can be minimized by using 
the mitigation hierarchy – avoid, mitigate, restore, offset, partially 
addressing concerns raised by Ranjan (this issue).  

 Second, to ensure that the extraction work, itself an inheritance 
associated with the mineral deposit, is available to future generations.  

 And finally, as Kumar (this issue) pointed out, to ensure that future 
generations have minerals for their use, not just money. 

The miners make a profit commensurate with the capital they invest. The 
mining dependent are paid for what they do. The impact on the mining 
affected is controlled, and compensated for under the Polluter Pays 
Principle and through the District Mineral Foundations. And the 
government ensures the availability of minerals to sustain the economy. 

 

5. IMPLEMENTATION? 

As Jain (this issue) points out, the new policy includes vague references to 
most of these ideas, as well as to an inter-ministerial body to institutionalize 
them (The Future We Need 2019). However, the implementation provision 
proposed in the earlier policy for amendments to the Mines and Minerals 
(Development and Regulation) Act and other laws, rules and regulations 
has been deleted. Will intergenerational equity be implemented? Will our 
future generations venerate us? 

 

 

                                                                                                                                  
The fund is now worth over USD 1 trillion, nearly USD200,000 per Norwegian. (Norges 
Bank n.d.) 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [118] 

 

REFERENCES 

Baghel, Bhupesh. 2019. “Letter from Chhattisgarh CM dated 12-Apr-2019 
addressed to India PM.” Accessed December 18, 2019. 
http://goenchimati.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/2019-04-12-Letter-from-
Chhattisgarh-CM-to-MoM-on-Rs-6-lakh-crore-loss-on-coal-auctions.pdf 

Basu, Rahul. 2015. “Catastrophic Failure of Public Trust in Mining: Case Study of 
Goa,” Economic and Political Weekly L (38): 44-51 

GoK. 2008. Report of the reference made by the Government of Karnataka under Section 7(2-
A) of The Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, Part I. Bangalore: Karnataka Lokayukta, 
Government of Karnataka. Accessed December 18, 2019. 
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Karnataka-Lokayukta-into-
allegations-of-Illegal-Mining1.pdf  

GoK. 2011. Report of the reference made by the Government of Karnataka under Section 7(2-
A) of The Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, Part I. Bangalore: Karnataka Lokayukta, 
Government of Karnataka. Accessed December 18, 2019. 
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Karnataka-Lokayukta-
Report-on-Illegal-Mining.pdf 

Norges Bank. n.d. “The History.” Accessed December 18, 2019. 
https://www.nbim.no/en/the-fund/the-history/ 

The Future We Need. 2017a. “Accounting for the Resource Curse.” Accessed 
December 18, 2019. https://medium.com/@thefutureweneed/accounting-for-the-
resource-curse-b2a4a6d1612c 

The Future We Need. 2017b. “What is the future we need?” Accessed December 
18, 2019. https://medium.com/@thefutureweneed/what-is-the-future-we-need-
8ae3de8d55a3 

The Future We Need. 2018. “Australia’s Looting Machine.” Accessed December 
18, 2019. https://medium.com/@thefutureweneed/australias-looting-machine-
16f9b2461a0c 

The Future We Need. 2019. “Minerals: a shared inheritance for future 
generations.” Accessed December 18, 2019. 
https://medium.com/@thefutureweneed/minerals-a-shared-inheritance-for-
future-generations-af004dad223a 

Cases cited: 

SPS & Ors vs State of Karnataka & Ors. [2013]. WP(civil) 562 of 2009. 

Goa Foundation vs UOI & Ors. [2014]. WP(civil) 435 of 2012. 

Common Cause vs UOI and Ors. [2017]. WP(civil) 114 of 2014 

 

https://www.nbim.no/en/the-fund/the-history/

