National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines
National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines
mainly for minerals of base metals and noble metals, diamonds and precious stones, andbeach sand minerals (BSM) and a few for iron ore. Upto the year 2006, FIPB clearances forFDI above 50 per cent were given on a case-by-case basis and proposals for FDI amountingto Rs 4044 crore were reported to have been approved by the FIPB for investment in theIndian mining sector. However, only Rs 345 crore of this amount is reported to have actuallycome in before February 2006, when 100 per cent FDI was put on the automatic route. Whatis equally significant is that only very few of the RPs and PLs granted under the newdispensation have been converted into MLs.1.16 The failure of FDI to come into the mining sector even five years after theliberalisation of the investment regime, the lack of enthusiasm for investment in prospectingshown by the domestic private sector, and the lack of resources with public sector agenciessuch as GSI, MECL, and other state and Central agencies for undertaking promotionalexploration has meant that the sector is unable to contribute to growth of the gross domesticproduct (GDP) of the country in any significant way, let alone up to its potential. This lack ofinvestment has hampered the nation’s ability to (i) delineate and extract already locatedmineral occurrences from the ground; and (ii) discover the huge resources of minerals thatpossibly are still underground.1.17 The growing demand for metals and minerals is continuously pushing up bothdomestic and international prices. The margins available in the mining sector have been verysubstantial and are widely expected to continue being so in the foreseeable future. Thecountry’s accelerated growth rate warrants a rapid development of the mining sector, onwhich most of the basic industries in the manufacturing sector depend. It is, therefore,imperative that the bottlenecks in the development of the mining industry are identified andsuitable steps taken to deal with them. The world mineral scenario has changed significantlysince India last reformed its mineral regulatory system in 1999. In today’s globalisedeconomy, investments in mining and exploration flow into those countries where apart fromthere being mineral potential the regulatory regime is also investor friendly. Mining, being arisk-oriented activity with long gestation periods and uncertain returns on capital, isextremely sensitive to the regulatory framework operating in a country. In the last decade,many developing countries have significantly reoriented their mining laws and policies toattract global investment. In a study conducted in 2001 by the World Bank, ‘Mining SectorReforms and Investment—A Global Survey’, India was found to have one of the lowest12
scores on various parameters of interest to investors compared to other resource countriessuch as Australia, Brazil, Chile, China, and Indonesia.ISSUES RELATED TO POLICY AND STATUTES1.18 As many as 27 representations were received and 21 presentations were made beforethe Committee, and it is significant that the issues relating to the regulatory dispensation runas a common theme in all these representations. While they vary in their specifics, thecommonality can be identified under three heads, viz. policy issues, statutory issues, andprocedural issues. In this chapter, we deal with the first two only. Procedural issues are dealtwith in Chapter 2.POLICY ISSUES1.19 Para 4 of the NMP document states that the provisions of the MMDR Act and theRules will be reviewed from time to time and harmonised with the policies governingindustrial and socio-economic developments in the country. Since the current NMP is nowover a decade old, it is necessary to examine the needs of the mining sector in the context ofthe increasing economic liberalisation in India and the overall process of globalisation in theworld economy and revisit our mining policy, law, and rules. The NMP of 1993 is in need ofbeing updated in the context of the changed nature of the world mining industry byincorporating those international best practices that would best fulfil the expectations andneeds of the country’s mineral sector.International Scenario1.20 Over the last two decades or so notable changes have occurred in the mining policiesof governments across the world. Just 20 years ago, significant national or regional barriersprevented the international flow of investment in mining. Many of the Latin Americaneconomies required that at least 51 per cent of the investment in a mining project be held bynationals, 2 and in many instances, large-scale mining was done mainly by governmententerprises. Centrally planned economies did not permit private investment. In some nations,including India, Japan, and the United States of America (USA), security of supply or selfsufficiencywas a primary concern.2Decision 24 of the Andean Pact stipulated that 51 per cent ownership was to be held by local investors.13
- Page 2 and 3: National Mineral PolicyReport of th
- Page 4 and 5: ContentsAcronyms...................
- Page 6 and 7: Annexure 5: Using the GRI Guideline
- Page 8 and 9: GDP gross domestic productGIS Geogr
- Page 10 and 11: UNFCUSVATWCUUnited Nations Framewor
- Page 12 and 13: Introduction1. The Government of In
- Page 14 and 15: issues relate to fund raising by pr
- Page 16 and 17: termination of MLs, lowering of cei
- Page 18 and 19: • In the case of large mining ope
- Page 20 and 21: investment. The work done by GSI co
- Page 24 and 25: 1.21 This situation has changed dra
- Page 26 and 27: absent. A study by the United Natio
- Page 28 and 29: example, a mining major may outsour
- Page 30 and 31: would otherwise remain unexploited
- Page 32 and 33: the policy environment must continu
- Page 34 and 35: ‘A thrust is to be given to explo
- Page 36 and 37: In reviewing the MMDR Act, it is ne
- Page 38 and 39: permissible activities in order to
- Page 40 and 41: (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)The current two-tie
- Page 42 and 43: per plan should be significantly hi
- Page 44 and 45: Duration of Concessions1.48 In the
- Page 46 and 47: 10,000 sq. km in a state. This has
- Page 48 and 49: (ii)(iii)(iv)The maximum total area
- Page 50 and 51: e obviated if the lease deed is exh
- Page 52 and 53: elinquishment of areas by the lesse
- Page 54 and 55: to give priority to the prior appli
- Page 56 and 57: (v)(vi)(vii)Rules should be prescri
- Page 58 and 59: esponsible for all rights, liabilit
- Page 60 and 61: ut also the revenue generated from
- Page 62 and 63: government at the Secretariat. A le
- Page 64 and 65: Secretary. If the Directorate is in
- Page 66 and 67: (i) All applications for mineral co
- Page 68 and 69: application. A similar website shou
- Page 70 and 71: concerned State Government (or othe
mainly for minerals <strong>of</strong> base metals and noble metals, diamonds and precious stones, andbeach sand minerals (BSM) and a few for iron ore. Upto the year <strong>2006</strong>, FIPB clearances forFDI above 50 per cent were given on a case-by-case basis and proposals for FDI amountingto Rs 4044 crore were reported to have been approved by the FIPB for investment in theIndian mining sector. However, only Rs 345 crore <strong>of</strong> this amount is reported to have actuallycome in before February <strong>2006</strong>, when 100 per cent FDI was put on the automatic route. Whatis equally significant is that only very few <strong>of</strong> the RPs and PLs granted under the newdispensation have been converted into MLs.1.16 The failure <strong>of</strong> FDI to come into the mining sector even five years after theliberalisation <strong>of</strong> the investment regime, the lack <strong>of</strong> enthusiasm for investment in prospectingshown by the domestic private sector, and the lack <strong>of</strong> resources with public sector agenciessuch as GSI, MECL, and other state and Central agencies for undertaking promotionalexploration has meant that the sector is unable to contribute to growth <strong>of</strong> the gross domesticproduct (GDP) <strong>of</strong> the country in any significant way, let alone up to its potential. This lack <strong>of</strong>investment has hampered the nation’s ability to (i) delineate and extract already locatedmineral occurrences from the ground; and (ii) discover the huge resources <strong>of</strong> minerals thatpossibly are still underground.1.17 The growing demand for metals and minerals is continuously pushing up bothdomestic and international prices. The margins available in the mining sector have been verysubstantial and are widely expected to continue being so in the foreseeable future. Thecountry’s accelerated growth rate warrants a rapid development <strong>of</strong> the mining sector, onwhich most <strong>of</strong> the basic industries in the manufacturing sector depend. It is, therefore,imperative that the bottlenecks in the development <strong>of</strong> the mining industry are identified andsuitable steps taken to deal with them. The world mineral scenario has changed significantlysince India last reformed its mineral regulatory system in 1999. In today’s globalisedeconomy, investments in mining and exploration flow into those countries where apart fromthere being mineral potential the regulatory regime is also investor friendly. Mining, being arisk-oriented activity with long gestation periods and uncertain returns on capital, isextremely sensitive to the regulatory framework operating in a country. In the last decade,many developing countries have significantly reoriented their mining laws and policies toattract global investment. In a study conducted in 2001 by the World Bank, ‘Mining SectorReforms and Investment—A Global Survey’, India was found to have one <strong>of</strong> the lowest12