Monday 15 August 2011

Author(s): Sugandh Juneja

Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.

  • Dear CSE Congratulations for

    Dear CSE

    Congratulations for highlighting the amendments to the mining laws with the aim of mining for people. It is true that mining is for people but to think who are those like all or selected group pf people. Earlier facts speaks that it is for the selected group and peanuts for to others including PAPs.

    They do commendable work for the development for the people and community but mostly in isolation. This was not sufficient for the sustainable development of the people and environment which they suffered due to mining. Now the proposed sharing of 26% net profit for the people is welcome and every one will appreciate this step.

    The need of the hour is to make an effective district and state level units both for collection and utilization of the funds for the people with priority and need based strategies and interventions. The persons with disabilities should get their share with special support.

    Looking forward for better policies with an effective service delivery channels.

    Posted by: Anonymous | 5 years ago | Reply
  • As I was reading this

    As I was reading this article, something in the back of my mind went, "I can't believe they're setting up another 'proposed benefits' system when they haven't worked so far" and "Isn't it ironic that you label the people in the forests who are trying to stay as far away from your 'civilization' as possible 'Naxals/Maoists' and chase them out on the one hand, while offering them this kind of support on the other hand?" I'm certainly over-simplifying the issue, I know, but there's nothing to suggest that apportioning more money to "affected" people through mechanisms that are aimed at equitable distribution, but have not worked so far, will amount to anything more than another "scam" in a couple of years' time. Still no word on the final impact of the "Tsunami Aid" that came from all over the world after that natural calamity from almost 8 years ago, right?

    Posted by: Anonymous | 5 years ago | Reply
  • I was Collector Keonhar

    I was Collector Keonhar Orissa in 1978-80 and I noticed that the benefits of the mining were not accruing to the people equitably even from the TATAs. The present move is very welcome and should be implemented properly. There should be clear provision in the law about how the district level body will function and its statutory liability should be defined so that these funds are used properly and is not governed by extraneous consideration. Best way will be to dovetail the funds with other ongoing govt programmes so that proper supervision is there. It should not become another MPLAD scheme. It should be provided in the law appropriately. Further the law should also lay down standards for scietific mining with ecological consideratio;n and the Mining official should be accountable under law on penalty to observe the norms. This would curb rampant corruption and protect the interest of the society and promote sustainable development. Let us not create another power centre with lot of money to spend arbitrarily without any accountability particularly for politicians and bureaucrats.

    Posted by: Anonymous | 5 years ago | Reply
  • Dear Lakshmi Thank you for

    Dear Lakshmi

    Thank you for your response. The bill does incorporate the structure of state and district level committees that will be handling these funds that will flow in from the profit sharing provision.

    At present, the funds are to be managed and allocated by a district level body called the District Mineral Foundation (DMF). The structure of the DMF needs to be detailed out more and there is a need to make it have majority representation from the affected communities or PAPs as you called them. We hope to see more clarity in the rules that will be made under this act (once the bill is passed) about the implementation mechanisms. 

    Posted by: Sugandh Juneja | 5 years ago | Reply
  • Dear Rohin There is no doubt

    Dear Rohin

    There is no doubt that the money collected for various purposes ends up becoming a scam. But there is a need to overcome this shortcoming by incorporating provisions in our laws demanding more transperancy in transactions and actions of public institutions.

    In this case, we recommend a board of directors like structure to manage the fund which will ensure affected people are represented adequately and will have a say in where the money should be spent. 

    For more detailed analysis, visit:

    Posted by: Sugandh Juneja | 5 years ago | Reply
  • Dear Mr. Gupta The premise

    Dear Mr. Gupta

    The premise behind the concept is to make sure that districts which are rich in minerals but are still poor, get their due. In such a scenario, do you think merging the provision with other government schemes will be a good idea? The government schemes tend not to be district focussed which may defy the purpose of having this provision in the first place.

    There is a provision on having guidelines on scientific mining with ecological consideration - Sustainable Development Framework (SDF). The same has been proposed by the Ministry of Mines and is available on their website.

    I agree with building in an accountability and transperancy clause in the rules that will follow this act, once passed. It is imperative to keep such huge funds from being dwindled away.


    Posted by: Sugandh Juneja | 5 years ago | Reply
  • Royalty on iron ore is

    Royalty on iron ore is already 10% of the invoice amount. another 10% to development fund will certainly encourage under invoicing which is already being practiced by many. Govt should propose something that is delinked to sale price.

    Posted by: Anonymous | 5 years ago | Reply
Scroll To Top