Legal framework gaps: In the realm of mineral exploration and development, the legal framework is a foundational pillar, dictating the operational intricacies and guiding the sector towards sustainable and responsible growth. The National Mineral Policy (NMP) 2013 set forth a roadmap that aimed to revolutionize Pakistan’s mineral sector. However, the transition from policy to practice exposed significant gaps within the legal scaffold. A principal concern was the NMP 2013’s seeming discord with the country’s established legal instruments. Pakistan, with its rich history of mineral exploration, had over the years put forth a series of legal statutes, including the Mines Act of 1923, the Regulation of Mines and Oil Fields and Mineral Development Control Act of 1948, and the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act of 1997, among others. These laws, crystallized over decades, encapsulate the collective wisdom and experiences of the sector. However, rather than harmonizing the new directives with these established legal parameters, the NMP 2013 occasionally seemed to venture into building parallel structures. This approach, rather than simplifying operations, often muddled the regulatory environment, introducing redundancies and, at times, conflicts. Moreover, the essence of any policy lies not just in its formulation but in its actualization. Herein, the disconnect between the NMP 2013’s guidelines and the legal provisions became more pronounced. For instance, while the policy ardently proposed the establishment of an Exploration Fund, a decade later, this essential feature remained unrealized. Such discrepancies not only impacted the credibility of the new directives but also deterred potential investors who seek clarity and consistency in legal frameworks. An added layer of complexity was introduced by the differential jurisdiction of mineral resources in Pakistan. With the Constitution designating certain minerals as provincial, while others remain under federal control, the seamless alignment of national policies with provincial laws became paramount. However, critics argue that there was a lack of synergy between the two, leading to procedural delays and creating an intricate maze for investors to navigate. Contrasting this with global best practices, like India’s emphasis on harmonizing its 2019 National Mineral Policy with existing legal norms, underscores the importance of legal continuity and cohesion. Similarly, countries like Canada, which transitioned from policy frameworks to strategic outlooks, emphasize the symbiotic relationship between policies and legal statutes. The NMP 2013’s legal paradigm sought to usher in a new era for Pakistan’s mineral sector, the gaps arising from its misalignment with existing laws, the lack of tangible action on proposed directives, and the challenge of integrating federal and provincial legal provisions spotlight the complexities of reimagining legal frameworks in dynamic sectors. With Pakistan grappling with security challenges, power outages, and broader economic adversities, the ground realities may not have been fully integrated into the policy architecture. Regulatory framework gaps: The regulatory framework outlined in Pakistan’s National Mineral Policy (NMP) 2013 projected a visionary roadmap to breathe life into the nation’s mineral sector. Ambitiously crafted, it aimed to modernize operations, entice local and foreign investments, and usher in sustainable development. Yet, as the policy unfolded, its practical application revealed conspicuous gaps that hampered its true potential. One notable concern was the policy’s partial disconnect from the nation’s established legal systems. While Pakistan had a suite of pre-existing laws and regulations governing mineral exploration and mining, the NMP 2013, at times, seemed to sideline these in favour of newly crafted mechanisms. This overlap often led to confusion, with newer structures appearing redundant or conflicting with older laws. Furthermore, the policy’s coordination mechanism, which was meant to bridge the federal and provincial domains, exhibited inherent weaknesses. The desired seamless interplay between national directives and provincial implementations often manifested as disjointed efforts, causing procedural delays. Such inefficiencies not only hindered domestic operations but also sent mixed signals to potential foreign investors, complicating the investment landscape. A critical aspect of any policy’s success is its roots in stakeholder consultations. While the NMP claimed extensive dialogue with stakeholders, there was a palpable absence of evidence to corroborate such claims. A policy, especially of this magnitude, needs to be holistic, grounded in diverse inputs, and reflective of the varied interests of the sector. The NMP’s potential shortfall in this area might have led to gaps in its comprehensive understanding and application. Lastly, the temporal context in which the NMP 2013 was born cannot be overlooked. With Pakistan grappling with security challenges, power outages, and broader economic adversities during this period, the ground realities may not have been fully integrated into the policy architecture. A framework, however ambitious, must be intertwined with the socio-economic fabric of its times to ensure its relevance and effectiveness. While the NMP 2013 was undeniably forward-looking in its intent, the gaps in its regulatory structure, arising from misalignments with pre-existing laws, coordination challenges, potential oversight in stakeholder consultations, and perhaps a lack of contextual grounding, underscore the complexities of translating ambitious policy blueprints into tangible outcomes. (To be concluded) The writer works at a public policy think tank. He can be reached at saudzafar5@gmail.com