We invite you to read the opinion piece by Federico Rodríguez, director of our Energy and Infrastructure Group, on Chile’s opportunity to strengthen its position in the mining sector in light of global demand for copper, lithium, and other critical minerals.
In an interview published on Saturday, September 19, in the “Exporting Country” section of *El Mercurio*, the Minister of Mining stated that reaching a production target of six million metric tons of copper requires certainty for investors, streamlining permits, and strengthening collaboration between the government and companies.
Chile’s challenge, however, is no longer merely to simplify permitting processes, but to ensure that the government acts consistently when dealing with a single project. Experience shows that the diversity of agencies, territorial jurisdictions, and interpretive criteria can lead to equivalent projects facing different requirements, procedures, and even rulings. The very discussion that gave rise to the permitting reform identified the disparity in criteria as a source of uncertainty and higher costs for investment.
This distinction is important. A large-scale mining project does not deal with “the government” as a single counterpart. It requires environmental and sector-specific authorizations, water-related rights and permits, energy infrastructure, construction projects, maritime concessions, and safety approvals, among many others. Each agency acts within its jurisdiction and pursues legitimate objectives. The problem arises when a single project is subject to criteria that are inconsistent with one another, to overlapping requirements, or to differing administrative interpretations. The cost, then, is not just time and bureaucratic red tape; uncertainty is added to the mix.
Administrative consistency does not require that all projects receive the same response. Different territories, impacts, and risks justify different approaches. What it does require is that these differences be based on known, technically sound criteria that are applied consistently.
The Framework Law on Sectoral Authorizations represents progress precisely because it recognizes that the discussion cannot be reduced to simply speeding up the process. The simplification of procedures, the use of alternative enabling techniques, and subsequent oversight can significantly reduce the time required to develop an investment; but its success will also depend on something less visible: the government’s ability to coordinate, unify criteria, and apply them consistently.
Lithium illustrates this issue with particular clarity. In projects that require a Special Lithium Operating Contract (CEOL), the government does not merely fulfill a regulatory function: it plays an enabling role, as its involvement is necessary to make the project’s development possible. That role requires procedures that are non-discriminatory, timely, predictable, and efficient. Administrative streamlining loses much of its effect if access to the activity itself remains subject to protracted, costly, or uncertain decisions.
Desalination offers another example. If public policy promotes the replacement of inland water sources with desalinated water to reduce the water demand from mining, administrative actions must be consistent with that objective. This does not mean lowering the environmental requirements applicable to desalination plants, intake and discharge systems, pipelines, or other associated infrastructure. It means that the various agencies involved in their authorization must share sufficiently clear and predictable criteria so that a solution promoted by the government does not encounter, during its implementation, administrative obstacles that contradict that very policy.
Consistency and speed do not mean lowering environmental standards either. On the contrary, simplified procedures require effective oversight and particularly rigorous compliance. When a project approved through expedited procedures subsequently commits significant violations, a second effect is added to the damage caused: confidence in the model is undermined, and regulatory regression is encouraged—which typically results in greater controls, stricter requirements, and a return to prior authorizations. Simplifying responsibly therefore requires shifting part of the emphasis from prior control to effective post-approval oversight.
The challenge, then, lies in reconciling speed, consistency, and regulatory rigor. Chile needs mining projects capable of also mobilizing investments in energy, transmission, storage, desalination, and infrastructure. To achieve this, it is not enough for each public agency to properly process the permit within its jurisdiction. The government must be able to view the project as a whole and act consistently in response to it.
That could be the next step in our permitting policy: a government that sets clear rules, makes decisions based on consistent criteria, and enforces regulations rigorously.
Column written by:
Federico Rodríguez | Energy and Infrastructure Group Director | frodriguezm@az.cl
