COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: KP MINERALS BILL 2025 VS. 2017 ACT
FOCUS ON PROVINCIAL SOVEREIGNTY

This document provides a section-by-section comparison of the 2025 KP Minerals Bill and the 2017 KP Minerals Act, with specific focus on provisions that impact provincial sovereignty and control over mineral resources.

1. DEFINITIONS AND SCOPE

| 2017 Act | 2025 Bill | Sovereignty Impact |
|----------|-----------|-------------------|
| Defined "strategic minerals" as those designated jointly by federal and provincial governments | Defines "strategic minerals" as "minerals notified as such by the Federal Government" (Section 2(1)(u)) | NEGATIVE: Removes provincial input in designating strategic minerals, giving federal authorities unilateral control |
| Limited application of federal laws to specific enumerated circumstances | Section 25 states the Act overrides other laws but doesn't clarify federal-provincial jurisdictional boundaries | NEGATIVE: Creates legal uncertainty that typically benefits federal authorities in disputes |
| Explicitly recognized provincial primacy in environmental regulations | Requires compliance with all environmental laws of Pakistan (Section 19(2)(b)) | NEGATIVE: Subordinates provincial environmental authority to federal standards |

2. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE

| 2017 Act | 2025 Bill | Sovereignty Impact |
|----------|-----------|-------------------|
| Created Mineral Investment Facilitation Authority with 60% provincial representation | Licensing Authority defined in Section 4 without specified provincial representation requirements | NEGATIVE: Removes guaranteed provincial representation on key decision-making bodies |
| Provincial Secretary Minerals was designated as the Principal Licensing Authority | Section 4 creates a Licensing Authority without specifying provincial leadership | NEGATIVE: Opens possibility for federally dominated licensing decisions |
| Established clear appeals process within provincial institutions | Appeal mechanisms remain within potentially federally influenced bodies | NEGATIVE: Reduces provincial control over appeals and dispute resolution |

3. LICENSING REGIME

| 2017 Act | 2025 Bill | Sovereignty Impact |
|----------|-----------|-------------------|
| Provincial government had final authority on all non-strategic mineral licenses | Federal approval mechanisms appear throughout licensing process | NEGATIVE: Introduces federal veto points in licensing decisions |
| Local communities had statutory consultation rights | Minimal provisions for community consultation | NEGATIVE: Weakens local voice in resource decisions |
| Provincial officials conducted field inspections and compliance monitoring | Compliance mechanisms allow for federal inspectors | NEGATIVE: Dilutes provincial oversight authority |

4. FISCAL PROVISIONS

| 2017 Act | 2025 Bill | Sovereignty Impact |
|----------|-----------|-------------------|
| Created dedicated Provincial Mineral Development Fund | No equivalent provincial fund specified | NEGATIVE: Removes guaranteed provincial control over mineral revenues |
| Established clear revenue sharing percentages for different categories | Section 16 and First Schedule set royalties without clear revenue allocation | NEGATIVE: Creates ambiguity that historically favors federal revenue capture |
| Allowed provincial adjustments to royalty rates | Fixed royalty rates in First Schedule | NEGATIVE: Removes provincial flexibility to set rates based on local conditions |

5. REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT

| 2017 Act | 2025 Bill | Sovereignty Impact |
|----------|-----------|-------------------|
| Enforcement primarily through provincial officers | Multiple enforcement authorities with federal oversight | NEGATIVE: Dilutes provincial enforcement authority |
| Environmental compliance assessed against provincial standards | Section 19 creates dual compliance requirements | NEGATIVE: Complicates enforcement and creates potential for federal preemption |
| Clear distinction between federal and provincial roles | Blurred boundaries between federal and provincial authority | NEGATIVE: Creates jurisdictional uncertainty that typically favors federal power |

6. DISPOSITION OF RIGHTS

| 2017 Act | 2025 Bill | Sovereignty Impact |
|----------|-----------|-------------------|
| Provincial approval required for license transfers | Section 15 creates mechanisms for license changes without clear provincial consent requirements | NEGATIVE: Reduces provincial control over who operates in the province |
| Limited federal role in transfer approvals | Expansion of potential federal involvement in transfers | NEGATIVE: Increases federal influence over provincial mineral operations |
| Protected provincial revenue shares in case of transfers | No explicit protection of provincial revenue in transfers | NEGATIVE: Creates potential revenue vulnerability for province |

7. ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS

| 2017 Act | 2025 Bill | Sovereignty Impact |
|----------|-----------|-------------------|
| Clear provincial authority over environmental standards | Section 19 creates dual authority system | NEGATIVE: Weakens provincial environmental governance |
| Provincial environmental compliance integrated with licensing | Environmental compliance separated from core licensing | NEGATIVE: Creates enforcement gaps and compliance challenges |
| Rehabilitation standards set by province | Section 20 creates ambiguous standards setting | NEGATIVE: Undermines provincial ability to ensure appropriate rehabilitation |

8. TRANSITION PROVISIONS

| 2017 Act | 2025 Bill | Sovereignty Impact |
|----------|-----------|-------------------|
| N/A | Section 26(2) deems existing licenses granted under the new act | NEGATIVE: Forces existing provincial licenses into new, federally influenced framework |
| N/A | No protection for existing provincial policies during transition | NEGATIVE: Allows immediate federal assertion of new powers |
| N/A | No phase-in period for provincial capacity building | NEGATIVE: Creates immediate provincial capacity gap that federal authorities can fill |

CONCLUSION

This comparative analysis reveals a systematic pattern in the 2025 KP Minerals Bill of provisions that reduce provincial authority, increase federal control, and undermine the sovereignty guarantees established in the 18th Amendment. While maintaining the appearance of provincial legislation, the 2025 bill introduces numerous mechanisms through which federal authorities can assert control over mineral resources that constitutionally should be under joint or primarily provincial management.

The 2017 Act, while imperfect, maintained clearer boundaries between federal and provincial authority and contained specific provisions protecting provincial control over its mineral resources. The 2025 bill represents a significant regression in provincial sovereignty through procedural mechanisms that effectively recentralize control while maintaining a provincial legislative façade.