Examine how data-driven decision-support tools such as SUVIKALP can make post-mining land-use planning scientific and participatory. What are the limits of such tools?

Mine closure is now treated as part of the mining lifecycle, not its end. SUVIKALP, a digital decision-support tool of the Coal Controller Organisation (Ministry of Coal), ranks the possible uses of land at closed coal and lignite mines [1]. It replaces case-by-case judgement with evidence and consultation. However, it cannot by itself deliver a just transition.

Making planning scientific

• Site-specific profiling: mine-level data on geo-mining, environmental, infrastructure, financial and socio-economic factors is used to test each option against that site's constraints [1].
• Standardised ranking: the MCDM–TOPSIS method ranks options by how close each comes to an "ideal" solution. Earlier, each parameter was assessed separately [1].
• Implementation support: the PRISM module covers investment, monitoring and sample tenders, so a project moves from choice to execution [1].

Making planning participatory

• RECLAIM module: community priorities on jobs, livelihoods and infrastructure are a formal input to the ranking [1]. The framework stresses gender inclusion, vulnerable groups and Panchayati Raj institutions [2].
• Transparency: written criteria make trade-offs visible, so they can be questioned, unlike hidden official discretion.

Limits of such tools

• Data gaps: CAG found 35 ECL mines, closed between 1946 and 2009, with no Mine Closure Status Report [3]. A tool that needs site data cannot rank options for these legacy mines.
• Finance: CAG also flagged delays that raised closure costs at NCL [3]. A top-ranked option fails if the escrow fund cannot pay for it.
• Legal ceiling: land acquired under the CBA Act, 1957 stays with coal PSUs and can only be leased for listed uses [4]. Returning land after closure awaits the draft Section 29 amendment [5].
• Land, not livelihoods: a solar park employs far fewer people than a mine. The World Bank says a just transition needs social assistance and early engagement with stakeholders [6], which a ranking tool does not provide.
• Hidden value choices: whoever sets the weights shapes the result, and community input can become tokenistic.

Tools like SUVIKALP make closure decisions consistent, auditable and more inclusive, but they only rank options. They do not fund, legalise or deliver them. Four steps would make SUVIKALP a real instrument of a just transition, in line with SDG 8 and SDG 15:

• publishing the scores for each mine;
• linking escrow to each site's actual cost;
• enacting the CBA amendment;
• pairing repurposing with DMF-funded livelihood support.