Mining for people

New mining bill to ensure industry shares its super-profits with affected people

By Sugandh Juneja
Last Updated: Monday 17 August 2015

Mining for people


A bill that promises direct benefit to people from the minerals underneath their land is ready to be tabled in Parliament this monsoon session. The Group of Ministers gave it a nod on July 7 after minor changes in the contentious profit-sharing provision, which requires mining companies to shell out a portion of their profit for people displaced or affected by their operations.

The bill would replace the existing Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation (MMDR) Act of 1957.

The profit-sharing provision in the MMDR Bill of 2011 requires coal companies to share their net profit—26 per cent—every year with the affected communities. Companies that mine major minerals like limestone and iron ore will have to give the affected people an amount equal to the royalty that they pay to the state government annually. For those mining minor minerals like sandstone and marble, the states will decide the profit-sharing percentage in consultation with the proposed National Mining Regulatory Authority.

   See also:
The initial draft of the bill had recommended that the affected people should be regarded as stakeholders. They should be given 26 per cent shares in the mining company. In case the company is not publicly listed, the affected people should be given 26 per cent of the annual profit. The subsequent version dropped equity-sharing. It required mining companies to pay 26 per cent of their annual profit or 100 per cent of the royalty, whichever is higher, to communities. The industry fiercely opposed these versions.

“We area ready to pay 26 per cent of the royalty to the affected communities, but not 100 per cent,” says R K Sharma, secretary general of Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI). “One needs to understand that the risk is very high in exploration. All these taxes will add to the existing burden on miners and no one would be interested in exploring. This kind of provision will make mining unviable in India.”

  “We carry out corporate social responsibility and this is how it should be. Ma n d a t i n g profit-sharing will discourage investment”  
  — R K SHARMA, Secretary General,
Federation of Indian Mineral Industries
The bill, among other provisions, recommends a framework for scientific mining, gives preference to people of Scheduled Tribes for mining small deposits, and expands the definition of project-affected people by including those whose livelihoods and traditional land rights are affected (see ‘Highlights of MMDR Bill’).

What’s in store for people

By the reckoni ng of the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a Delhi non-profit, the bill’s profit-sharing provision will make around Rs 10,500 crore a year available for the affected communities at the current level of mining. The calculation does not include minor minerals. However, the sum is seven times the budget of the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs for 2011-12.

About 86 per cent of the amount—Rs 9,000 crore—will go to the top 50 mining districts, in terms of value of mineral production. Home to almost half the country’s mining lease area, these districts are spread across Jharkhand, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. “With close to 2.5 million people directly affected by mining in these districts, the profit share translates to Rs 38,000 per person a year,” says Chandra Bhushan, deputy director general of CSE. This is about nine times the poverty line (Rs 4,380 a year for rural areas) in India.

According to CSE’s analysis, once the provision comes into force, Korba of Chhattisgarh, the top mining district of the country, will get about Rs 961 crore every year. Pali of Madhya Pradesh, at the other end of the spectrum, will get Rs 18 crore annually. Dantewada, a Naxal-hit district in Chhattisgarh that has more than 80 per cent of its population living below the poverty line (BPL), can receive over Rs 400 crore as profit share. This means, each household in Dantewada can get Rs 40,000 annually, whether affected or not.

The bill, however, is not explicit on how to manage the profit share.

It suggests setting up a district level body, called the District Mineral Foundation (DMF), which will receive the funds accruing from the profit-sharing provision of the bill. A governing council, chaired by the district magistrate, will govern and administer the fund (see ‘Skewed council to manage fund’).

The composition of the council, as mentioned in the present draft of the bill, is skewed in favour of the government. It says representatives of the affected community, as appointed by the district magistrate, should be part of the council, but does not specify how many representatives will be in the council.

“The council would decide where and how to spend the fund. So it is imperative that majority of the council members are from the affected community,” says Bhushan. DMF should act as a transparent and accountable organisation to avoid corruption, he adds.

A CSE study suggests that DMF should function like a professional body with a managing committee or board of directors to collect and manage the fund. There should be at least 50 per cent people’s representatives in the governing council. “The detailed structure of DMF can be worked out once Parliament passes it,” clarifies an official with the Ministry of Mines (MoM), who did not wish to be named.

The bill also does not mention where and how the fund will be used.

CSE researchers suggest that the fund should be used to reduce impoverishment by giving out cash doles to the affected BPL people. A portion of it can be used for building alternative livelihoods for the affected community by putting them to use for education, health and vocational training. “A part of the money should also be set aside for future by investing it. This money is to be used once mining closes in the area,” Bhushan says.

The implementation of the mechanism poses another concern—identification of people affected by older mining projects. It may be a difficult task due to migration and influx. “Although difficult this is not an impossible task. We can identify beneficiaries of older mines by deciding on a cut-off date,” assures the MoM official.

Mining companies unhappy

Sharma of FIMI says, “We carry out corporate social responsibility voluntarily and this is how it should be.” Making such mandatory conditions will only discourage investments in tribal areas and hamper their growth. This may lead to transfer of the additional burden to consumers, he adds.

But an analysis of the annual reports of several mining companies shows the doubts of the industry are unfounded.

Most mining companies, especially metallic and fuel minerals, make super-profits (see table ‘Profit is still high’). Consider this. The profit to gross sales ratio (the ratio of profit after tax, or PAT, to gross sales) of the National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd (NMDC) will go down from 55 per cent to 41 per cent post profit-sharing. That of Sesa Goa Limited (SGL), an iron ore miner, will go down from 40 per cent to 30 per cent. The ratio of Coal India Limited (CIL) will see a nominal dip, from 18 per cent to 14 per cent.


The same stands true for companies with captive mines. Hindustan Zinc Limited (HZL), for instance, will see a drop in the profit to gross sales ratio—from 44 per cent to 33 per cent post profit-sharing. The ratio will dip from 14 per cent to 11 per cent for NALCO (National Aluminium Company Ltd), while that of Hindustan Copper Limited (HCL) will go down by three per cent once the profit-sharing provision comes into effect. People living in mining districts could certainly benefit from a share in these profits.

Need for the provision

Most of the country’s mineral deposits are in regions that have most of its forests, tribal population and major river systems. The major mining districts of the country are not only ecologically devastated and polluted, they are also the poorest and most backward areas of the country. There is no dearth of examples.

Keonjhar district of Odisha, for instance, produced over Rs 7,000 crore worth of minerals, mainly iron ore, in 2009-10. Over 60 per cent of Keonjhar’s population is BPL. It ranks 24th in the state’s Human Development Index (HDI) of 2001. Koraput is another district in Odisha which produces 40 per cent of the country’s bauxite. Close to 78 per cent of population in the district is BPL. Similarly, Bellary in Karnataka, which has been in the limelight for illegal mining, produces about 20 per cent of India’s iron ore. Most people here are impoverished; the district ranks third from bottom in the state HDI. Bhilwara of Rajasthan faces a similar fate. Producing over 80 per cent of India’s zinc, Bhilwara ranks 25th in the HDI of Rajasthan. Cuddalore in Tamil Nadu produces three-fourth of India’s lignite, while more than half of its population lives below the poverty line.


Clearly, the benefit of mining is not flowing to the districts where the minerals are being mined. Besides, mining companies have a poor track record of compensating displaced people. Though people are compensated in accordance with the state’s resettlement and rehabilitation policy, K B Saxena, former principal adviser to the Planning Commission, says, “it is inadequate”.

The profit-sharing provision aims to fill this gap. “The idea behind introducing profit-sharing was to make people ‘partners in’ and not ‘victims of’ mining,” says Santha Sheela Nair, former secretary of MoM. She played a key role in introducing profit sharing provision in the draft bill (see ‘Shareholders, not victims’).

Although some states have tried to devise and implement mechanisms in the past to ensure that the mineral wealth flows to the affected communities, they have not produced the desired results. The Odisha government, for instance, announced a Peripheral Development Fund for mining areas in 2004. Mining companies, including the Odisha Mining Corporation, were to contribute five per cent of their annual profit to the fund for the welfare of affected communities.

But mining companies challenged the directive in the Odisha high court. The court rejected the state government’s policy in 2008 on the ground that no legislation was formulated to set up the fund. Till then the state had collected Rs 52 crore as part of the fund. “We have approached the Supreme Court against the high court order,” says Manoj Ahuja, secretary (mines) of Odisha. “Hopefully, once the MMDR provisions become applicable, peripheral development will be taken care of.”

Subscribe to Weekly Newsletter :

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 | 9 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 | 9 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 | 9 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 | 4 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 | 4 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 | 4 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 | 9 years ago | Reply