Rare earths crisis: India taking concrete steps to mitigate possible disruptions
New Delhi: As recent export restrictions imposed by China on key rare earth materials disrupt global supply chains, India has been taking a series of steps on the domestic front to mitigate possible disruptions, according to Finance Ministry.
A concerning phenomenon amidst the tariff and trade developments was the imposition of restrictions on the export of rare earth elements (REEs) by China. Minerals such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earth elements are vital for solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles, and energy storage systems.
'Hence, such restrictions are bound to hamper the development of industries such as electric vehicles, defence and renewable energy,' said Finance Ministry's 'Monthly Economic Review for May 2025'.
'A list of 30 critical minerals was identified, with 24 brought under the exclusive auction authority of the Central Government through August 2023 amendments in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The Government of India had also launched the National Critical Mineral Mission (NCMM) in January 2025, a seven-year initiative (2024-25 to 2030-31), to build a self-reliant and resilient framework for securing critical minerals essential to India's clean energy transition and strategic sectors,' according to the Economic Review document.
The NCMM targets 1,200 domestic exploration projects and supports overseas acquisitions by both PSUs and private entities. It also aims to strengthen the entire value chain through patents, skill development, mineral processing parks, and recycling of secondary sources.
India is also expanding offshore exploration and forging international partnerships, including with Argentina and Australia, to diversify supply sources.
The country joined the US-led Minerals Security Partnership (MSP) that aims to strengthen critical mineral supply chains through public and private sector investment. India is the only developing country member in the 14-member MSP.
'Further, India is investing abroad in exploring and acquiring critical mineral assets in resource-rich countries. A Joint Venture, Khanij Bidesh India Ltd. (KABIL), has been incorporated with the objective of acquiring critical mineral assets abroad,' said the Economic Review.
Under the NCMM mission, the Geological Survey of India (GSI) has intensified its exploration programmes. In the 2024-25 field season, GSI had taken up 195 projects, focused on identifying and assessing critical mineral deposits.
The guidelines for setting up Centres of Excellence (CoE) under the NCMM were issued in April 2025. CoEs will identify, develop and implement extraction processes and beneficiation technologies for a host of critical minerals from multiple sources and conduct directed R&D to reach Technology Readiness Levels.
The Minerals (Evidence of Mineral Contents) Amendment Rules, 2025, were notified by the Ministry of Mines on June 12, 2025, to revise the exploration norms for establishing "evidence of mineral contents" in respect of REEs in a mineral block.
This is crucial for determining when a mineral block is ready to be auctioned for mining or composite licenses, for rare earth elements.
Earlier this week, Union Minister for Heavy Industries and Steel, H.D. Kumaraswamy, said the government is likely to take a decision within the next 15 to 20 days on launching a subsidy scheme to support domestic production of rare earth magnets. The scheme is aimed at reducing India's dependence on China for critical components used in electric vehicles and other high-tech industries.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Trump's ‘One Big Beautiful Bill' clears first Senate hurdle: Republican race for votes, criticism, proposals
The Republican majority-held United States Senate voted on and pushed through US President Donald Trump's much touted tax-cuts and spending proposal, dubbed as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Act today (late Saturday local time), according to reports. The US Senate voted 51-49 to pass the first Senate hurdle, and Donald Trump took to social media to celebrate, calling it a 'great victory' and crediting Republican lawmakers Rick Scott, Mike Lee, Ron Johnson, and Cynthia Lummis for 'fantastic work'. In his 'victory' post on Truth Social, Donald Trump said he will work on growing the US economy, 'reduce wasteful spending, secure our border, fight for our military and veterans, ensure that our medicaid system helps those who truly need it, protect our second amendment, and more…' The 'rare' weekend session began with a debate on the 940-page sweeping bill, with opposition from Democrats and two Republicans. The legislation seeks to fund Donald Trump's campaign promises on border control, military spending, immigration, and tax-cuts. After hours of delay US Vice President JD Vance worked to pursuade Republican lawmakers on the fence and delivered the 'tie-breaking vote', according to reports by Reuters and AP, respectively. Democrats have demanded that the Bill be read out in Chamber, and will be followed by 20 hours of debate, followed by amendment sessions before the bill is complete. The full process is expected to end by June 30. A senior White House official told Reuters that Donald Trump was monitoring the vote from the Oval Office late into the night. According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee, the Senate version of the bill's tax provisions would reduce government revenue by $4.5 trillion over the next decade, increasing the $36.2-trillion US government debt. The White House said this month the legislation would reduce the annual deficit by $1.4 trillion. As per the AP report, an estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office showed that the House-passed version of Trump's tax bill would cost around 10.9 million more people their healthcare, and at least 3 million food aid. Top income-earners would see about a $12,000 tax cut under the House bill, while the package would cost the poorest Americans $1,600, the CBO said. Meanwhile, Elon Musk has renewed his criticism of Donald Trump's tax plan in a scathing post on social media platform X. He called the bill 'utterly insane and destructive.' He wrote: 'The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!' Democrats will focus their firepower with amendments aimed at reversing Republican spending cuts to programs that provide government-backed healthcare to the elderly, poor and disabled, as well as food aid to low-income families. (With inputs from AP and Reuters)
Hans India
4 hours ago
- Hans India
Agriculture can be revived in India only if farmers get right prices for the produce
In a complete reversal of its earlier stand, the Bharti Kisan Union (Ekta-Ugrahan), which boasts of the largest support base in Punjab, now calls for a rethinking on making Minimum Support Price (MSP) a legal right for farmers. Saying that a legal mechanism for MSP will lead to 'higher inflation', the leader of the farm union, Joginder Singh Ugrahan, has stirred a hornet's nest. While another farmer leader, owing alliance to BKU (Dakounda), Jogmohan Singh, termed any move that goes against the popular demand of the farm bodies for seeking a legal protection for MSP as 'back stabbing' the farmers, other farmer's voices expressed surprise at the turnaround. 'All factions should stick to the demand for hike in MSP as per MS Swaminathan's recommendation for 50 per cent profit over the input cost,' Jagmohan Singh had asserted. Till only a few weeks back, prior to the time when the protest at the Punjab and Haryana border were not forcibly lifted, farmer leaders Jagjit Singh Dallewal and Sarwan Singh Pandher, were both calling for MSP to be converted into a legal right across the country. Even after the farmers protests at Shambhu and Khanauri borders ended, these leaders maintain that a legal MSP is the only way forward. So do others. Nevertheless, the volte-face by the dominant farmers union in Punjab is baffling. While speculation is rife about why and how did the farm union go for a flip-flop, the split in economic thinking isnow wide open. As quoted in the media, Ugrahan says that beyond a point, the increase in MSP can't be sought as it will lead to increase in prices of foodgrains, making it out of reach of poor and marginalized classes. That is why the union is seeking a reduction in input costs, which will eventually bring in a fall in the cost of production. Any fall in the cost of production will indirectly mean a higher price for farm produce, he says. Before I go any further, let's first look into a fallacious call for reducing the input costs such as that of chemical pesticides, fertilizer, diesel, seeds and other inputs that the farmers have to fend for. For several years now, I have seen academicians saying, and mainline economists have often echoed, saying while there is no need to increase farmgate prices, what is required is to reduce the cost of production. They always knew that the input prices are not in the control of farmers and we often hear farmers rue that the MSP does not cover even the cost of cultivation. I don't blame the farmers, but at least the academicians should have known that the call for reducing the input costs is not workable and so it is meaningless. But I still see many academic papers that repeat the call for reducing the cost of cultivation. The reason is simple. Academicians and policy makers have never been in favour of enhancing farm incomes and therefore the best way is to divert attention to something that is undoable. Even if the Government decides to follow cost reductions it will only be possible with subsidy support, which means more budgetary support. And then at the same time, any increase budgetary support for agriculture is decried saying it will lead to fiscal imbalance. Ugrahan says: 'Not only farmers, we have to think about all sections of the society, particularly the poor. In case, there is an increase in MSP, it will lead to inflation. So, to benefit the farmers, the cost of agriculture inputs should be kept under check.' Therefore, I am a little surprised to know how come a senior farmer leader goes for a turnaround using the bogus argument of reducing the cost of production. In reality, what the farmer leaders need to know is that a majority of country's poor are in fact farmers. It is well-known fact, they produce enough food for the country, but themselves sleep hungry. The latest report of the Situational Assessment Survey for Agricultural Households, which was based on 2019 data, clearly shows that the average monthly income of a farm household, at only Rs10,218 is at the bottom of the pyramid. I don't think any miracle has happened in the past five years that shows a remarkable jump in farm incomes thereby to change the perception about prevailing levels of farm distress. If Joginder Singh Ugrahan is satisfied and comfortable with such low-income levels knowing (or perhaps unknowing) that his suggestion would not in any way lead to enhanced income levels, there is no reason why the farmer leader himself should not be rethinking. It is never too late to make a correction. I find this switch over most intriguing knowing that an OECD (organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) had worked out that in the 16 years period, between 2000 and 2016, Indian farmers had lost Rs 45-lakh crore. Moreover, the latest 2024 OECD report on producer support had categorically shown that Indian farmers were the only community globally that continued to incur losses year after year since the year 2000. What more evidence is required to demonstrated a broken food system that has been pushing farmers into a cycle of indebtedness, distress and suicides? Surprisingly, the policy makers who continue to call for reducing the cost of cultivation have never given any economic justification for not asking the industry to reduce the cost of production. Name one industry that continues to incur losses even for a year, and still stays in business. Tell me which section of the urban society has reduced the cost of living if it made any economic sense to them. I haven't heard of any section of employees wanting the pay commissions to be frozen. In fact, an imaginative 'fitment factor' continues to jack up employee salaries every ten years. Academicians and policy makers are fine with that (because it also raises their incomes) but then why is that such stupid arguments are floated only for farmers? The answer is again simple -- because farmers will fall for such outlandish arguments. Agriculture is in a dire crisis. Over the years, farm incomes have been deliberately squeezed. It is time to rebuild agriculture and that can only happen if farmers get an assured income (by way of a guaranteed price) along with a package of practices that actually usher in prosperity on the farm. (The author is a noted food policy analyst and an expert on issues related to the agriculture sector. He writes on food, agriculture and hunger)
Mint
6 hours ago
- Mint
US Senate voting on Donald Trump's ‘One Big Beautiful Bill' Act LIVE: JD Vance arrives to cast vote
The United States Senate is voting on President Donald Trump's much touted tax bill, named the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Act today, according to reports. Vice President JD Vance has also arrived top cast hours vote, reports added. (This is a developing story, more updates coming…)
