In the field of global mineral resource development, mining licenses are the core legal tools for national control. Their institutional design profoundly reflects the differences in resource endowments, legal systems and development stages of various countries. Major mineral producing countries such as China, Australia, Canada, South Africa, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Chile have shown significant regional characteristics in terms of license application, approval, supervision and social participation.
China implements a strict dual-track management system, separating “exploration licenses” from “mining licenses”, and the Ministry of Natural Resources coordinates national resource allocation. Applicants must obtain mining rights through bidding, auction or agreement, and meet the requirements of funds, technology and environmental protection capabilities. The Mineral Resources Law revised in 2024 further strengthens ecological constraints, requiring the ecological restoration rate of mining areas to reach more than 95%. Enterprises that fail to meet the standards will face the risk of license revocation. At the same time, China implements regional differentiated policies. Western resource-rich provinces simplify the approval process to promote development, while the eastern region strictly restricts mining activities through ecological red lines.
Australia’s mining licensing system is characterized by the decentralization of power between the federal and state governments. The state government is responsible for specific approvals, and the federal government conducts macro-control through the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. License types include exploration licenses (EPLs), mining leases (MLs) and retention licenses (RLs), and the lease term is usually 20-40 years. Its uniqueness lies in the community consultation mechanism. Enterprises need to sign land use agreements with indigenous peoples and pay mining area royalties (about 3-5%). At the same time, they rely on the national unified “Mineral Titles System” platform to achieve digital management and improve transparency and efficiency.
Canada’s mining rights management is led by provincial governments, and the federal government intervenes in cross-regional projects through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Applicants must pass strict environmental reviews and negotiate with indigenous communities to grant them “free, prior and informed consent”. In addition, the risk deposit system requires companies to pay a mine reclamation deposit (an average of 8% of the project budget) to ensure the implementation of ecological restoration responsibilities. This model balances resource development and indigenous rights and interests and has become one of the models of global mining governance.
South Africa’s mining license system focuses on socio-economic transformation, is subject to the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA), and emphasizes black economic empowerment (BEE). Applicants must prove that more than 51% of the shares are held by black people and commit to community development investment. The license is re-evaluated every 5 years, and companies that fail to fulfill their social responsibilities may have their mining quotas reduced. The dispute resolution mechanism relies on a specially established “mining court” to ensure the fairness of law enforcement.
As a resource-rich country, mining licenses in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are directly issued by the Ministry of Mines, but the system is vulnerable. License types include exploration licenses (PE) and mining concessions (PM), with a lease term of up to 30 years, but law enforcement is inefficient and corruption is frequent. The new tax law in 2024 will increase the mining profit tax from 30% to 50%, triggering protests from international companies and exacerbating policy instability. At the same time, illegal mining is rampant. According to the United Nations, 40% of small mines in the country are not legally licensed, which has become a major challenge for resource governance.
Chile focuses on copper mining development, and mining licenses are managed by the Ministry of Energy and Mines. The revised Environmental Law in 2025 requires companies to submit a “climate adaptation plan”, commit to a 30% emission reduction by 2030, and introduce innovative water resource protection mechanisms. In arid areas such as the Atacama Desert, companies need to purchase “water rights certificates”, and water consumption is linked to environmental protection investment. In addition, the community dividend fund system requires companies to invest 0.5% of sales in local development to promote the combination of resource development and community welfare.
Global mining governance presents four major trends: First, environmental protection and sustainability have become core requirements, and countries generally strengthen ecological restoration and carbon emission constraints; second, social participation has deepened, and the sharing of indigenous rights and community interests has become an important consideration in institutional design; third, digitalization and transparency have been improved, and online platforms have optimized the approval process; fourth, countries with rich resources but weak systems still face challenges of corruption and policy uncertainty. Multinational companies need to formulate compliance strategies based on the characteristics of the target country’s system, giving priority to environmental protection investment and community relations to cope with the new environment of stricter global governance.