National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines
National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines
(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)The current two-tier system of RP and PL should be replaced by a three-tiersystem of RP, LAPL, and PL.As regards RPs, an ‘open sky’ policy should be adopted by granting nonexclusiveRPs without any preferential or automatic right to a PL but alsowithout much regulation, i.e. by relaxing most of the conditions mentioned inRule 7 of the MCR and Form F-1. In fact, a fresh memorandum ofunderstanding (MOU) and Permit Form will need to be prepared for thispurpose. The ‘open sky’ RP policy would apply not only to areas that aregreenfield areas, i.e. where no work has been done by GSI or any other publicagency, but also to areas where GSI and/or RP holders have given up workwithout identifying any workable prospect for detailed exploration. For thefirst few years, non-exclusive RPs can only be granted for areas that are notheld under current RPs, which have been granted and are operational as perthe present scheme, or for areas relinquished by existing RP holders. This willgive impetus to investment in regional exploration where a vast amount ofwork still needs to be done. The only obligation on the RP holder would be toperiodically file data of the work done with appropriate lock-in arrangementsfor the same. Non-exclusive RPs may be granted by the state governmentswithout prior approval of the Centre, even in respect of Scheduled minerals.The RP holder would be entitled to a LAPL/PL on the basis of first-in-timeprinciple and not merely on the priority principle currently in use. This rightwill be automatic with no discretion to either the state government or theCentre to refuse or hold back the LAPL/PL, thus assuring a seamless transitionfrom RP to PL for the first-in-time non-exclusive RP holder. However,fulfilment of the data requirement as laid down in the MCR as a conditionprecedent to the grant of LAPL/PL to the RP holder would have to berigorously ensured.RPs for an area would not be restricted to one permit holder or one mineral.Under the ‘open sky’ policy, RPs can be granted for the same area to morethan one applicant on non-exclusive basis. Since the first-in-time principlewould be applicable for converting RPs into LAPLs/PLs, this multiple permitsystem will encourage RP holders to complete their regional exploration workexpeditiously.30
(v) Existing RP holders would continue to be governed by the existing law ofpriority for PL until the duration of the RP runs out. 6(vi) The concept of an exclusive LAPL should be reintroduced. The LAPL holderwould automatically be able to do shallow pitting, trenching, and surfacedrilling, as these are activities that go beyond regional exploration but fallshort of detailed exploration. Considering that these activities would involvedrawing of samples, specific provisions would have to be made in the existingSection 3 of the MMDR Act for LAPL holders. This exclusive concession(LAPL) would be available to those who are ready to incur heavy expenditureon intensive regional exploration work as also on high technologies such aselectromagnetic probing and deep imaging. The MCR will spell out theconditionality relating to the work to be done and technologies to be used andalso the regional exploration data required to be submitted for getting theconcession. LAPLs may be granted for areas where no detailed explorationwork has been done, areas that are greenfield areas but where the applicantproposes to incur heavy expenditure and use high technology, areasrelinquished by RP holders, areas where regional exploration data has beenfiled and the lock-in period is over, and areas not prospected by GSI beyondP2 level.(vii) A LAPL/PL can be granted directly in an RP-held area to a non-RP holder ifthe application for a LAPL/PL is filed by the non-RP holder before anapplication is filed by the RP holder. However, the LAPL/PL applicant willhave to either (a) show basic geological information (reconnaissance) data onthe basis of which the concession is sought, which means that this facility willbe available only for areas relinquished by GSI/RP holders/DMG; or (b) showthe desire and ability to use superior technology that a non-exclusive RPholder would not be inclined to use. In both cases, the applicant must satisfythe authorities about the accuracy and genuineness of the data.(viii) The fees should be significantly higher than the prescribed rates (as of 30 June2006) for all the concessions, viz. RP, LAPL, and PL, in order to preventnuisance applications, especially applications that attempt to pre-empt genuineexplorers. Also, the penalties for LAPL and PL holders who do not explore as6 The Committee is of the view that such prospective applicability of the changes in the law should be the rulefor PLs and MLs als o.31
- 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 22 and 23: mainly for minerals of base metals
- 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 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
- Page 72 and 73: Further, Rule 7D of the MCR specifi
- Page 74 and 75: mission mode through, inter alia, t
- Page 76 and 77: Chapter 3Forest Conservation and En
- Page 78 and 79: conservation. There are trade-offs
- Page 80 and 81: ICMM AND SDF3.8 The ICMM membership
- Page 82 and 83: higher level. The basic approach is
- Page 84 and 85: (i) To minimize displacement and to
- Page 86 and 87: affected PAPs in the mining operati
- Page 88 and 89: that a well-regulated and responsib
(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)The current two-tier system <strong>of</strong> RP and PL should be replaced by a three-tiersystem <strong>of</strong> RP, LAPL, and PL.As regards RPs, an ‘open sky’ policy should be adopted by granting nonexclusiveRPs without any preferential or automatic right to a PL but alsowithout much regulation, i.e. by relaxing most <strong>of</strong> the conditions mentioned inRule 7 <strong>of</strong> the MCR and Form F-1. In fact, a fresh memorandum <strong>of</strong>understanding (MOU) and Permit Form will need to be prepared for thispurpose. The ‘open sky’ RP policy would apply not only to areas that aregreenfield areas, i.e. where no work has been done by GSI or any other publicagency, but also to areas where GSI and/or RP holders have given up workwithout identifying any workable prospect for detailed exploration. For thefirst few years, non-exclusive RPs can only be granted for areas that are notheld under current RPs, which have been granted and are operational as perthe present scheme, or for areas relinquished by existing RP holders. This willgive impetus to investment in regional exploration where a vast amount <strong>of</strong>work still needs to be done. The only obligation on the RP holder would be toperiodically file data <strong>of</strong> the work done with appropriate lock-in arrangementsfor the same. Non-exclusive RPs may be granted by the state governmentswithout prior approval <strong>of</strong> the Centre, even in respect <strong>of</strong> Scheduled minerals.The RP holder would be entitled to a LAPL/PL on the basis <strong>of</strong> first-in-timeprinciple and not merely on the priority principle currently in use. This rightwill be automatic with no discretion to either the state government or theCentre to refuse or hold back the LAPL/PL, thus assuring a seamless transitionfrom RP to PL for the first-in-time non-exclusive RP holder. However,fulfilment <strong>of</strong> the data requirement as laid down in the MCR as a conditionprecedent to the grant <strong>of</strong> LAPL/PL to the RP holder would have to berigorously ensured.RPs for an area would not be restricted to one permit holder or one mineral.Under the ‘open sky’ policy, RPs can be granted for the same area to morethan one applicant on non-exclusive basis. Since the first-in-time principlewould be applicable for converting RPs into LAPLs/PLs, this multiple permitsystem will encourage RP holders to complete their regional exploration workexpeditiously.30
Change language