Can Gilgit-Baltistan’s new PPP government build Pakistan’s next global success story?
Gilgit-Baltistan occupies a unique position within Pakistan—a constitutional ambiguity, ecological fragility, and cultural vibrancy. Yet its resource governance predates modern statecraft. The region’s valleys were already shaped and governed by deeply-rooted customary institutions. The indigenous frameworks regulated the use of land, forests, water, pastures, and mountain resources through locally evolved rules and collective responsibilities. Under this system, communities and tribes collectively stewarded their territories, overseeing everything from riverbeds to mountain tops. The result was a resilient equilibrium that not only met immediate needs but also guaranteed the sustainable stewardship of scarce mountain assets over centuries.
Although the modern legal framework vests mineral regulation in the government, these customary institutions continue to shape local perceptions of ownership, stewardship and legitimacy. At the same time, Gilgit-Baltistan occupies a distinctive constitutional position within Pakistan, with its governance framework evolving outside the constitutional arrangements applicable to the provinces. This unique legal and political context requires more than the simple transplantation of mining laws developed elsewhere.
Rather than viewing this constitutional and institutional complexity as an obstacle, policymakers should recognise it as an opportunity. The next generation of mining regulations should create space for this contextual reality by acknowledging customary stewardship, strengthening community participation and providing investors with transparent and predictable rules. Such an approach would neither prejudge broader constitutional questions nor undermine state authority. Instead, it would build a governance framework that reflects the region’s history, institutions and contemporary realities.
Against this backdrop, Gilgit-Baltistan stands at a pivotal moment in its history. Beneath its mountains lie significant deposits of gold, copper, gemstones, rare earth elements and industrial minerals that could help transform Pakistan’s mineral economy. Above them rests an even greater national asset, one of the world’s largest concentrations of glaciers outside the polar regions, feeding the Indus River system that sustains Pakistan’s agriculture, hydropower, industry and millions of people.
These two assets cannot be viewed separately. Every decision about mining in Gilgit-Baltistan is also a decision about Pakistan’s future water security, climate resilience, biodiversity, tourism and the livelihoods of mountain communities. The challenge, therefore, is not whether mining should take place but how it should be governed.
Recent debates over proposed mining concessions in valleys such as Shimshal have highlighted a growing disconnect between existing mining regulations and the expectations of local communities. Public concerns have centred on glacier protection, water quality, disaster risks, wildlife conservation, traditional grazing rights, transparency and equitable sharing of benefits. These are no longer peripheral issues. They increasingly determine whether mining projects acquire the social legitimacy necessary for long-term success.
Pakistan’s mining laws, whether in Gilgit-Baltistan, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan or Azad Kashmir, largely follow a conventional regulatory model. The state regulates mineral development, grants licences, collects royalties and oversees environmental approvals. While this framework defines the relationship between government and investors, it provides relatively limited institutional space for communities as partners in mineral development.
Evolution of global practice
In Canada, Indigenous nations negotiate Impact Benefit Agreements that provide employment, business opportunities, environmental oversight and revenue sharing. Australia recognises Native Title rights and requires negotiated agreements with Aboriginal communities. The Philippines legally requires Free, Prior and Informed Consent before mining can proceed in Indigenous territories. Norway, Greenland and Mongolia have developed specialised approaches for environmentally fragile mountain and Arctic landscapes by integrating climate risks, water protection and traditional livelihoods into mining governance.
These experiences demonstrate that community participation is no longer regarded as an impediment to investment. Increasingly, it is recognised as a prerequisite for investment certainty.
Ironically, Pakistan already possesses an internationally recognised example of community centred natural resource governance.
Three decades ago, wildlife populations such as the markhor and Himalayan ibex were declining rapidly across northern Pakistan. Conventional conservation policies relied largely on prohibition and enforcement. Gilgit-Baltistan and Chitral adopted a different approach. Through the Community Based Trophy Hunting Programme, local communities became custodians rather than spectators. They received a substantial share of trophy hunting revenues in return for protecting wildlife and enforcing conservation rules.
The results have been remarkable. Wildlife populations recovered, illegal hunting declined, conservation incentives strengthened and local livelihoods improved. The programme became one of Pakistan’s most successful conservation initiatives and later influenced wildlife management policies across the country.
The lesson is straightforward
Communities become the strongest protectors of natural resources when they have both recognised responsibilities and meaningful economic incentives. Mining policy should build upon the same philosophy.
Rather than relying solely on conventional concession rules, Gilgit-Baltistan now has an opportunity to introduce Community Based Mining Concession Rules 2026, a framework capable of becoming a national model for responsible mining governance.
The proposed Rules should recognise communities as development partners rather than merely stakeholders. They should require transparent consultation and Free, Prior and Informed Consent before major concessions are granted. They should establish legally recognised Community Mineral Trusts through which local people participate in benefit sharing, local development and environmental oversight.
Environmental governance should also be modernised. Every major mining proposal should undergo not only Environmental and Social Impact Assessments but also Glacier Impact Assessments, Climate Risk Assessments, Cumulative Impact Assessments, Water Security Assessments and Disaster Risk Assessments appropriate for one of the world’s most fragile mountain ecosystems.
Equally important is the establishment of permanent No Go Zones where mining would not be permitted. These should include glaciers and glacier buffer zones, community conserved areas, national parks, critical wildlife habitats, high risk landslide and Glacial Lake Outburst Flood areas, drinking water catchments and sites of cultural, archaeological and religious significance.
Benefit sharing must also be fundamentally reimagined. Revenue should not flow exclusively to governments and investors. Communities should receive legally protected shares through royalties, equity participation, local procurement, employment opportunities, community development funds and Future Generations Funds that invest in education, climate adaptation, renewable energy and livelihood diversification.
Transparency should become a defining feature of the new system. Mining agreements, concession boundaries, beneficial ownership, production figures, royalty payments and environmental monitoring reports should all be publicly accessible. Independent monitoring committees comprising government agencies, universities, civil society and community representatives should oversee compliance throughout the life of each project.
Some may argue that stronger environmental safeguards and expanded community rights could discourage investment. International experience suggests precisely the opposite. Investors increasingly seek regulatory certainty, reduced social conflict and predictable governance. Projects that enjoy community confidence are significantly less likely to face litigation, operational disruptions or reputational risks.
Gilgit-Baltistan occupies a unique position within Pakistan. It is simultaneously the country’s water tower, one of its most climate vulnerable regions, an emerging tourism destination and a repository of extraordinary mineral wealth. Any mining policy that ignores these interconnected realities risks producing short term economic gains at the expense of long term national interests.
The proposed Community-Based Mining Concession Rules 2026 should therefore be viewed as much more than mining regulations. They should serve as a governance bridge between centuries old customary institutions that have managed mountain commons and the modern statutory framework required for responsible investment. Such an approach would recognise community stewardship without prejudging broader constitutional questions while strengthening transparency, public confidence and legal certainty.
The incoming Gilgit-Baltistan government therefore has an opportunity that extends far beyond provincial policy reform. By developing these Rules through broad consultation with communities, traditional institutions, technical experts, civil society and the private sector, it can establish a governance framework that balances economic growth with environmental stewardship, constitutional sensitivity and social justice.
Just as the Community Based Trophy Hunting Programme transformed wildlife conservation by aligning community interests with conservation outcomes, a community-based mining framework could redefine how Pakistan develops its mineral resources.
If designed carefully, Gilgit-Baltistan could once again become Pakistan’s policy laboratory. This time it would demonstrate that responsible mining, glacier protection, community prosperity, investor confidence and sustainable development are not competing objectives but mutually reinforcing ones.
In an era defined by climate change, water insecurity and growing global demand for critical minerals, this may prove to be one of Pakistan’s most important policy innovations, not only for Gilgit-Baltistan but for every province seeking to reconcile resource development with environmental sustainability and community rights.
Ghulam Amin Beg is a community-driven development practitioner, conservationist, climate activist and policy analyst, currently residing in Islamabad with frequent development travels to tourist destinations in Gilgit-Baltistan and Chitral. He contributes regularly to High Asia Herald and Baam-e-Jahan on social, cultural and political issues.
The High Asia Herald is a member of High Asia Media Group — a window to High Asia and Central Asia