Law and Policy on Sustainable Mining in India

Uday Shankar, Associate Professor, Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property, Indian Institute
of Technology Kharagpur (uday@iitkgp.ac.in)
INTRODUCTION:
In the early twentieth century, the boom of industrial revolution was hinged on the idea that natural
resources can be exploited for mankind’s benefit. Post second world war, the inherent
unsustainability of this attitude was reflected in the post war misery, financial crises and ecological
disasters. The problem of ozone layer depletion and global warming were also identified in this later
part of the twentieth century which sowed the seeds for an approach towards wholesome
development. For the first time, in 1972, the United Nations organised the Stockholm conference to
discuss human impact on the environment and its impact on economic development. However, the
efforts made to reach a consensus did not materialise until the 1980’s when the Brundtland Report,
also known as ‘Our Common Future’, introduced the now widely accepted definition of sustainable
development1. This embedded the understanding that there were only a limited amount of natural
resources that can be exploited and therefore there is a need to use the resources judiciously. This
idea was further built upon in subsequent conferences like the Earth Summit 1992 and World
Summit on Social Development 1995 which sought integration of environmental and social
concerns in all developmental processes. Even at this point, the concept of sustainable development
was still in its dormant stage and the understanding developed was plagued by ambiguities. At the
turn of the century, the World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002 broadened the scope of
sustainable development by including economic progress, social advancement and environmental
protection at the local, national and international levels as the interdependent and mutually
reinforcing pillars of sustainable development.

Simultaneously, the development of human rights jurisprudence, the International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights, International Convention of Economic, Social and Cultural rights and the
subsequent adoption of general comments gave new blood to the linkage between environment and
human rights2. The whole discussion of sustainable development is built around anthropogenic
activities. While economic development is crucial to the overall development of the individual and
communities, development which undermines the environmental and social concerns of the same
individual and communities will prove meaningless. This has led to calls from the Special
Rapporteur on human rights and environment3 who notes that there has been a greening of the well-

1 “sustainable development” is that pattern of development which “meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs.”
2 See general comments 13, 14
3 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Environment/SREnvironment/Pages/HealthySustainable.aspx
1
known human rights and rights such as right to water, food, dignity and standard of living have all
contributed to securing a healthy life and clean environment. However, it was suggested that the
time is now ripe to recognise right to a healthy environment as a human right which would fill a
prominent gap in the internal human rights architecture.

Realisation of environmental right will mean treating environmental degradation as a violation of

human right while on the other hand the mechanics of economics requires development and
investment to achieve growth which often involves a trade-off on some amount of environmental
degradation. With the rapid assimilation of technology into the social fabric, more people have the
access to information and as a result, public’s desire to participate in decision making processes,
especially concerning their lands, livelihood and environment has increased since the turn of the
century. Therefore, one has to achieve a balance between respecting the environment, human rights
and development.

Varying definitions of sustainable development are available yet they have a common component of
inter-generational equity which emphasises the present generation’s moral obligation to ensure that
the future generations have a quality of life similar to what is prevailing now. This would mean that
the resources available to the present generation must be used in such a manner that some amount
of resources necessary for the future generation must be either created or left. This then brings in
the concepts of ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ sustainability. The former type would imply that resources
being used now can be substitutable while the latter suggests that there are some resources which
are naturally occurring and cannot be replenished and hence some of it should be left alone so that
the future generations can use them for their benefit. The latter kind impliedly presumes that there
are limits to development and use of resources-one limit is with respect to the limited carrying
capacity of the environment to handle the wastes resulting from developmental activities; the
second limit concerns itself with the finite nature of exhaustible resources. Therefore, the exercise
to strike a balance between environment and economic growth warrants a careful calibration of
these sustainable growth components which will make the growth model sustainable.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND MINING :

Developing nations, including India, have a difficult task of eradicating widespread poverty on a
thinner purse. Given the paucity of financial resources, exploring the base of dormant yet valuable
minerals is a necessary step to stimulate economic growth. These minerals are valuable because
they have the capacity to increase exports, feed new industries and manufacturing sector, bring

2
investment and directly or indirectly provide social benefits. Mining in these regions often entail
investment in those regions which may lead to technological advancement, better infrastructure,
skill development and newer and more jobs. Hence, there is a need to ensure mining and
environmental concerns are balanced and appropriately addressed.

Until the 1980’s, focus of the governments was on public ownership of mining operations where
state owned enterprises controlled mining and related activities with respect to major minerals. This
changed post 1980 because the state owned enterprises suffered from typical governance
challenges, poor management and lack of reinvestment. As private players started to get into
mining, reforms were also sought to make these countries an attractive investment destination. This
trend can be seen to be initiated in India in the 1990’s. It was not until almost the turn of century
that the concept of sustainable development was introduced into the mining sector and the
concerned operations.

Ensuring sustainable development in mining would involve addressing the intergenerational equity
component. For this, mining activities must not indulge in rampant and excessive extraction of
minerals and creating huge amounts of waste in the process which breaches the carrying capacity of
the environment. Additionally it must be ensured that the state of environment must not be further
degraded by unmindful pollution. Therefore, plans should be made to manage the ensuing
environmental challenges. Mining in highly ecologically sensitive areas, also sometimes known as
the no-go areas should be refrained from and the precautionary principle should be observed where
the threats posed to the environment are unascertainable due to lack of scientific knowledge and the
risk may be irreversible damage. Therefore, economically and ecologically viable mineral
development must be undertaken. This would involve adoption of green practices, scientific and
efficient technology and continuous technological improvements.

Also, there is often great mistrust in the local communities towards mining operations in their
region due to fear of loss of livelihood and fear of exploitation. Along with efforts to mitigate
environmental impacts, rehabilitation efforts towards the people affected by mining in an area must
be undertaken. Consequently, this mistrust must be addressed by ensuring transparency in the
operation plan and rehabilitation plans. Rehabilitation would follow mine closure. Plans must
therefore be put in place which either mentions the regeneration of the mined land after closure so
that the surrounding environment resembles the functional ecosystem which prevailed before
commencement of mining. Alternatively when this may be difficult, plans should be made to
develop the social and physical infrastructure in the region, which should be followed by action

3
towards that end. This again is an important facet of sustainable development since a failure in
undertaking rehabilitation measures will worsen the quality of life of the present generation which
would in most probability would mean that the quality of life of the future generations will be
profoundly worse. Hence there is a need for comprehensive legal framework and institutional
capacity to ensure these measures are taken by the participants in the mining sector.

Also, this mistrust can be remedied to a great extent by including public participation in the
decision making process right from the mineral exploration stage to the evaluation, construction,
operation and closure stages. This way the local community’s concerns can be addressed
effectively. Including them in the operation and rehabilitation plans will build trust and give the
mine operator the ‘social’ licence to carry on operations.

For these measures to be implemented a good governance system and institutional capacity must be
put in place. It was specifically noted by the World Bank in its report 4 that it had to work in the
developing countries post 1980 to build institutional capacity as the reforms in mining took shape.
The governance framework is crucial to process mining proposals, analyse socio-economic impact
assessments, environmental impact assessments, issue timely licences, administration of norm
compliance and investigating illegalities. This will strengthen the rule of law, limit environmental
degradation and crack illegal mining activities thereby fostering investment and saving to the public
exchequer.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR MINING IN INDIA:

The Constitution of India allocates spheres of power to the union and state governments in Schedule
VII. Under this framework, the ownership of the onshore lands lie with the state governments.
However, the Union has been given the power under entry 52 of Union List to make laws to govern
the regulation and development of mines in cases where it is in public interest for the Union to do
so. On the other hand, entry 23 of the State List gives the state governments power to regulate
mines and mineral development subject to the Union’s power in entry 52 of Union List. Article 246
of the Constitution and the conditionalities built therein give the Union a predominant position over
the States. Therefore, the Union has greater leverage regarding the mode of exercising its powers
with respect to mines, mining and mineral development. The effect of this is that the state

4 McMahon, Gary. 2010. The World Bank's Evolutionary Approach to Mining Sector Reform. Extractive industries
and development series; no. 19. World Bank, Washington, DC.
4
government’s ownership rights and governing rights have to operate in the fields which is not
regulated by the Union.

The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) (MMDR) Act 1957 and the rules framed
there under constitute the basic laws governing the mining sector in India. It lays down the legal
framework for the regulation of mines and development of minerals other than petroleum and gas.
Consistent with the industrial policy of the Union government post independence, mining was
mostly limited to be performed by the state owned enterprises in the early years. This policy was
followed by nationalising mineral resources and eventually liberalising the economy and
assimilating environmental concerns in the 1990’s.

Section 4 of this Act lays down that reconnaissance and prospecting for minerals and subsequent
mining operations can be undertaken only after obtaining the relevant concessions from the Union
government in the form of reconnaissance permit, prospecting license or mining lease respectively.
The limitation of State government in this regard is to be found in Section 5 which puts all essential
minerals in the control of the Union government. Moreover no mining lease can be granted by the
State government unless there is a duly approved mining plan by the Union or in some areas the
State governments. Section 4-A grants the State government to prematurely cancel mining lease for
minor minerals for preservation of natural environment, control of floods, prevention of pollution or
to avoid danger to public health or communications or to ensure safety of buildings, monuments or
other structures or for such other purposes. The following sections 6, 7, 8 set the maximum areas
and the period for which the reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence and mining leases can be
granted. For reconnaissance permit, the maximum area is ten thousand square kilometres and
maximum time of validity is three years. For prospecting licence, the maximum area is twenty five
square kilometres and the maximum time of validity is five years. The maximum area for mining
lease is ten square kilometre and the validity is for thirty years. The Union government has been
given the power to relax the area ceiling limits in the interest of mineral development. The State
governments have been given the power to renew mining leases. This power comes with an
exception that in cases of coal, lignite and atomic mineral mining, prior permission of the Union
government shall be necessary.

Section 9 talks about royalties and says that a mining operator has to pay the royalties as mentioned
in the Second Schedule to the Act. The Union government has been given the power to amend the
second schedule.

5
Section 11 of the Act gives preferential right to the holders of a reconnaissance permit or
prospecting licence for obtaining a prospective licence or a mining lease as the case may be in
respect of the mineral exposed in the particular area. Apart from royalties, the Act also provides for
the levy of reconnaissance fee, prospecting fees and dead rent. The holder of the reconnaissance
permit is required to pay a permit fee as is the holder of a prospecting license is to pay a prospecting
fee, for each year or part of a year of the period for which the relevant concession is granted or
renewed. Section 9-A talks about the levy of dead rent which says that a holder of a mining lease
shall pay the dead rent as provided in the Third Schedule for the area where the mining operations
are conducted, to the State government. This comes with a rider that such lease holder may only pay
either the royalty or the dead rent whichever is higher. The Union government has been given the
power to amend the Third Schedule provided that it shall not enhance the rate of the dead rent in
respect of any such area more than once during any period of three years.

It is also pertinent to note that the 2015 amendment to the Act has further liberalised the mining
regime by introducing the competitive auction process and denouncing first-come-first serve
discretionary process, in tune with the decision of the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Sharma vs.
The Principal Secretary5. The amendment also ensured certainty of tenure and easy transferability
of mineral concession. The most recent amendment to the act is however carried out by the Mineral
Laws (Amendment) Act, 2020. Under this new amendment, ease of doing business and inviting
investment into the mining sector has been prioritised. The new amendment seeks to ensure
uninterrupted production of minerals. To this end, successful bidders of mining sites can forthwith
commence operations without having to get all clearances including forest and environmental
clearances as the clearances held by the former operator would ben deemed applicable to the new
successful bidder seeking to operate in the same area. Also the grant of non exclusive
reconnaissance permit under section 10-C of the Act has been modified to the extent that holders of
non exclusive reconnaissance permits of deep seated and other important minerals shall be eligible
for a prospective licence cum mining lease.

To the extent of sustainable development, the Nation Mineral Policy, 2019 mentions that the
Government shall identify such areas that are critically fragile in terms of ecology and declare as
‘in-violate areas’ or ‘no-go areas’ out of bounds for mining. In order to strike a balance between
mineral based economic development and environmental concerns, the policy envisages the
creation of Exclusive Mining Zone (EMZ) with prior in-principle statutory clearances demarcated
for the mineralized belt/zone to avoid conflict of interest and to curtail delay in commencement of

5 MANU/SC/0727/2014
6
mining operation. Regarding the relief and rehabilitation measures, the policy mentions that there
shall be a careful assessment of the economic, cultural, environmental, and social impact on the
affected persons. Section 18 of the Act talks about mineral development wherein the Union
government is given the power to frame rules to ensure the systematic development of minerals and
the simultaneous preservation of environment and mitigation of pollution. Moreover, the 2015
amendment brought in section 20-A according to which the Union government may, keeping in
mind national interest and scientific and sustainable development and exploitation of mineral
resources frame and issue directions to the State governments to implement and evaluate
sustainable development frameworks, regulating waste generation and waste management practices,
mitigating adverse environmental impacts, ensuring minimal ecological disturbance and promoting
restoration and reclamation activities so as to make optimal use of mined out land for the benefit of
the local communities. To this extent, under section 24, the Union and State governments have been
given the power of entry and inspection of the mines. The 2015 amendment to the Act establishes a
not-for-profit trust called District Mineral Foundation under section 9-B. Such a foundation is to be
established in all regions and districts where mining activity has been undertaken. The objective of
such foundation will be to work for the interest and benefit of persons who have been affected by
mining related activities. The State government is given the power to make rules for these
foundations and while the framing of the rules Article 144 read with Schedule five and six of the
Constitution, provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (40 of
1996) and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest
Rights) Act, 2006 (2 of 2007) must be used as a guiding light. The holder of a mining lease or a
prospective licence cum mining lease shall in addition ton the royalty pay that percent of royalty
which may not exceed one third of the royalty to the District Mineral Fund.

JUDICIARY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:

The Supreme Court of India read sustainable development into the domestic legal landscape by
following the Brundtland definition. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India6, the Court

6 MANU/SC/0640/2000 : (2000) 10 SCC 664

7
observed that sustainable development is development which can be sustained by the nature,
ecology and environment without mitigation.

In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India7 and subsequently in Vellore
Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India 8, the Court tried to strike a balance between the
economic gains and social gains. The Court observed that economic gains should not be achieved at
the cost of ecology and preservation of ecology should not be at the cost of hampering economic
development. It noted that both ecology and development must go hand-in-hand and that neither
trumped the other. The Court used sustainable development as a solution to bring balance to the
ecology-development debate. These observations were relied upon by the Court in K. Guruprasad
Rao vs. State of Karnataka and Ors9. In Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and Ors. vs. State of
Karnataka and Ors.10, the Court held that intergenerational equity and sustainable development had
been integrated into the constitutional law jurisprudence under Article 21 of the Constitution.

In AP Control Pollution Board vs. Prof M V Nayadu 11, the Court made a comprehensive review of
the precautionary principle which was earlier discussed in Vellore case. The Court opined that it
was better to err on the wrong side by taking caution when there was insufficient scientific data
regarding the risk or harm to be caused to the environment from a development activity. In
Narmada Bachao Andolan case, the Court developed the ‘reasonable person’s test’ according to
which the risk or harm to environment and health from developmental projects is to be viewed from
the public interest perspective. This was reiterated to be the legal position with respect to
establishing the risk factor posed to the environment by anthropogenic activities in Tirupur Dyeing
Factory Owners Association v. Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Association and Ors. 12 and G.
Sundarrajan vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.13.

In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Ors.14, the Court observed that the State had an obligation to
protect natural resources, thereby establishing the ‘doctrine of public trust’ in India jurisprudence.
This doctrine has from time and again used by the Court15.

7 MANU/SC/1189/1996 : (1996) 5 SCC 281

8 MANU/SC/0686/1996 : (1996) 5 SCC 647
9 MANU/SC/0697/2013
10 MANU/SC/0397/2013
11 AIR 1999 SC 812
12 MANU/SC/1708/2009 : (2009) 9 SCC 737
13 MANU/SC/0466/2013.
14 MANU/SC/1007/1997 : 1997 (1) SCC 388
15 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.: MANU/SC/0195/2014
8
In K. Guruprasad Rao vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. 16, the issue was whether mining activities
could be continued in the vicinity of ancient, historical and archaeological sites. The Court observed
that blasting activities in the mines damaged structures of an ancient temple. While balancing
economic activity and ecological concern, the Court created a core zone and a buffer zone around
the ancient site of cultural significance. It permitted mining activities in the buffer zone and
disapproved such activities in the core zone. The Court relied on the sustainable development
principle to legitimise its decision by saying that it was for the benefit of future generations that the
decision was taken. The Court was following the decision in In M.C. Mehta (Taj Trapezium
Matter) v. Union of India17 wherein the Court after observing the ground position for three months,
ordered the closure of industries in the vicinity of Taj Mahal since they were not able to make a
change from coking coal to natural gas. In this case the Court observed once again that sustainable
development was the key to striking a balance between the economic gains and ecological
preservation and that one cannot derogate the other.

In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.18, the Court held that despite stringent condition,
if mining activity cannot be in consonance with sustainable development and as a result degradation
goes to a point of no return, it can order the closure of mining activities. It held that no mining
activity can be undertaken without following the sustainable development principle and therefore
required such operations to get the requisite permissions and clearances before starting operations.

Coming to the process of issuing environmental clearances, the Supreme Court has from time and
again stressed that while conservation of environment is important, such measures have to be
commensurate with the need for economic development. In cases involving environmental
governance, the Court goes on a case to case basis by assessing the merits and materials placed
before it. In Hanuman Laxman Aroskar and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. 19, the Court
observed that rule of law required effective, accountable and transparent institutions which fostered
inclusive public participation in the context of environmental governance. The legitimacy for
establishing proper structures in environmental governance is to be found in the anti-arbitrariness
and fair treatment requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the latest Hanuman Laxman
Aroskar vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. 20, the Court observed that it had the power to supervise
procedural compliance to ensure that all inputs which are required to be factored in to grant
clearances are complied with. In Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (UOI) and
16 MANU/SC/0697/2013
17 (1997) 2 SCC 353
18 MANU/SC/0768/2009
19 MANU/SC/0444/2019
20 MANU/SC/0039/2020
9
Ors.21, the Court at the outset noted that any kind of developmental activity will involve an
alteration to the environment and that barring the ‘no-go’ regions, a balance must be struck between
development and environment which would entail policy choices. It observed that in such cases, the
‘doctrine of marginal appreciation’ will apply. The court said that before the doctrine of marginal
appreciation is used to favour the decision maker, the court must apply the principle of judicial
review to assess whether all the relevant factors have been factored in, whether any extraneous
considerations affected the decision maker, whether the decision was in tune with the legislative
policy and finally whether a balance has been struck by adhering to sustainable development
standard. Once these questions are satisfied, then the decision maker would be given the benefit of
doctrine of marginal appreciation. The Court was building upon the use of ‘doctrine of
proportionality’ in Maharashtra Land Development Corporation and Ors. vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors.22 wherein the doctrine was used to establish that it is not concerned so much
about the correctness of the decision by the executive rather the process adopted to reach such
decision.

The Court in Deepak Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors.23 stressed the need for
environmental clearances and held that permitting sand mining without any comprehensive impact
assessment would be in derogation of sustainable development. In Goa Foundation vs. Union of
India (UOI) and Ors.24, the Court held that dumping of mineral waste was inconsistent with the
sustainable development jurisprudence. In Electrotherm (India) Ltd. vs. Patel Vipulkumar
Ramjibhai and Ors.25, the Court observed that giving post decisional environmental clearance was
improper and without any basis in law. It said that decision making process which was exempted
from public hearing component of sustainable development was invalid and improper in law.
Paradoxically, the Court eventually allowed granting post-decisional hearing to get environmental
clearance as it felt it would be inappropriate to close the industry which had been functioning. In
Common Cause and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. 26 the Court held that the grant of an
environmental clearance was not merely a mechanical exercise but involved application of due
diligence and reasonable care since damage to environment is usually long lasting and consequently
held that the concept of an ex post facto or a retrospective clearance was completely alien to
environmental jurisprudence. Finally the Court in Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Rohit

21 MANU/SC/0735/2011
22 MANU/SC/0940/2010
23 MANU/SC/0169/2012
24 MANU/SC/0388/2014
25 MANU/SC/0850/2016
26 MANU/SC/0930/2017
10
Prajapati and Ors.27 held that there was a need to calibrate a balanced approach towards industries
which had been functional without environmental clearances instead of ordering their closure. As a
consequence, it held that such industries must face the liability of non-compliance and must be
penalised, the amount from which to be directed towards the restitution and restoration of the
environment.

CHALLENGES TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN MINING:

There seem to be two major challenges to sustainable development through mining. First, is the
illegal mining activities which have been on the rise since the turn of the decade owing to drastic
increase in mineral prices. Second, problems emerge in the governance structures regulating mining
and related activities.

Illegal mining may be defined as mining operations undertaken in violation of the relevant
provisions of the laws governing mining in the country, namely MMDR Act 1957, the Forest
Conservation Act 1980 and the Environment (Protection) Act 1986. Illegal mining may occur when
mining operations are undertaken without obtaining the requisite licences, in derogation of the
conditions on which environmental clearance was granted and mining excess quantities than was
permitted. These activities are more prone to occur in remote areas which are not easily accessible,
areas which have been demarcated for mining but no activity has been started due to delay in
granting permission, or controlled by state owned enterprises which do not start any mining
operations, and surrendered areas lying vacant. The menace of illegal mining has been highlighted
by the Supreme Court time and again and most recently in The Director General (Road
Development) National Highway Authority of India vs. Aam Admi Lok Manch and Ors.28.

The second problem of governance systems to regulate ming activities is seen in long period for
granting permissions and the complicated demarcation of powers under the MMDR Act between
the Union and State governments. This has led to addressing issues in the usual bureaucratic
manner. Therefore there is a need for an effective framework of governance to address
administrative procedures and practices in mining and also the institutional arrangement. The
viability of special task forces for each district overseen by an authority at the State level should be
looked into to address sustainable development challenges. These district level task forces can also
monitor the administration of District Mineral Funds to ensure the benefits are actually reaching the
people directly affected the mining activities in the district. Moreover, in the cases referred in this
27 MANU/SC/0353/2020
28 MANU/SC/0520/2020
11
report, it was generally observed that the dispute in the cases was taking considerable amount of
time to be finally resolved. Hence, the establishment of special courts for mining related disputes
may also be analysed.

Another new challenge to sustainable development is presenting itself in the draft Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) rules29. These rules normalise ex-post facto clearances which the
Supreme Court has already held to be improper in law in Albemic Pharmaceuticals. The second
concern stems from the fact that transparency, accountability and public participation have been
undermined inasmuch as people's right to object or complain against violations of environmental
laws is literally absent. While the draft rules seek to remedy issuance of clearances by providing for
structures for quicker clearances, it loses sight of the principles underlying the sustainable
development concept in the above mentioned challenges.

CONCLUSION:

A majority of production of minerals in India is dominated by coal and lignite followed by crude
petroleum and natural gas, metallic minerals (such as iron ore, bauxite, chromium, copper), non-
metallic minerals(diamond, gems, salts, bricks and stones) and minor minerals. The World Bank
predicts that by 2050 production of minerals such as graphite, lithium and cobalt will increase by
500% to meet the growing demand for clean energy technologies30. Indian mineral deposits may not
be rich in some of these clean energy minerals and hence there might be a need to augment the
carbon intensive minerals like coal and also align with the sustainable development goals at the
same time. The star rating of mines policy introduced to award the mining leases which best adhere
to sustainable development practices is an innovative move to bring about this balance in current
mining landscape. The need for self evaluation of firms under the policy will provide a good
alternative to poor environmental governance. Such policy should also be strengthened so that the
firms have substantial benefits which will result in better adherence to sustainable development
standards.

29 http://environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/Draft_EIA_2020.pdf
30 The Growing Role of Minerals and Metals for a Low Carbon Future (English). Washington, D.C. : World Bank
Group.
12