Today, investments face approval periods exceeding one thousand days, due to stricter regulations, increased community participation, and a rise in administrative guidelines.
Stricter regulations, the incorporation of citizen participation and Indigenous consultation, along with the growth of administrative directives, have resulted in the approval time for large copper mining projects increasing from around 300 days in 2008 to more than 1,000 days today, according to a study by Plusmining.
Considering all mining projects (copper, gold, lithium, iron, etc.), the average processing time for Environmental Impact Studies (EIA) rose from a range of 250 to 300 days between 2000 and 2006 to a range of 1,000 to 1,250 days over the past three years.
In the case of Environmental Impact Declarations (DIA), the average approval period ranged between 75 and 200 days in the 2000–2006 period. In the last three years, these projects have been approved in 300 to 420 days.
The project with the longest processing time since 2000 has been the operational continuity of Minera Cerro Colorado, which took 3,085 days (more than eight years) to obtain approval. It is followed by the Dominga mining-port project, owned by Andes Iron, which required 2,890 days. A third project that took more than 2,000 days to approve was Albemarle’s modification to the solar evaporation pond system in the Salar de Atacama, which took 2,446 days (six and a half years).
From 2000 to August of this year, 97 EIAs and 851 DIAs have been approved in the mining sector. Although more declarations have been approved, in monetary terms 65% of total investment—adjusted to 2025 dollars—corresponds to projects that submitted an Environmental Impact Study.
The Reasons Behind the Longer Processing Times
The increase in environmental processing periods reflects the growing complexity of the evaluation process. Part of this increase stems from structural baseline requirements and more detailed impact evaluation criteria introduced in 2013, explains Andrés González, head of the mining industry analysis division at Plusmining. For example, projects must now include deeper and broader baseline information—such as biodiversity, hydrology, and cumulative impacts—which entails more extensive assessments and analysis.
Another consequence of the 2013 reform is a reduction in the number of DIAs submitted and approved. This is mainly due to the prohibition on project fragmentation. Plusmining notes that some project owners previously submitted different components of a single project as separate initiatives, enabling them to avoid the obligation to submit an EIA and instead opt for the simpler, faster DIA process.
“While stricter regulations have contributed to the development of projects in a more harmonious and respectful manner toward the environment and communities, in some cases they have also increased the demands placed on SEA evaluation entities, which at times results in duplications of functions. This has created bottlenecks and, consequently, longer processing times,” states González.
Greater community participation—through citizen engagement and Indigenous consultation—has also contributed to longer timelines. “It is worth remembering that in September 2008, Chile became subject to the obligations of ILO Convention 169, which established the requirement to consult Indigenous peoples when measures affecting them are considered,” González adds.
The Rise of Technical Guidelines
This situation is compounded by the growing number of SEA guidelines and instructions that investment projects must consider prior to environmental submission. “In recent years we have seen an explosive increase in the guidelines and technical criteria of the Environmental Evaluation Service (SEA). While they are not legally binding, many operate as de facto regulations and have become a source of discretion, resulting in inconsistencies depending on the evaluator,” González notes. In fact, since March 2022, more than 50 guidelines, instructions, and evaluation criteria have been published and remain in effect.
“From a corporate perspective, the longer it takes to obtain permits, the lower the net present value of the project. This occurs because the expected cash flows are shifted further into the future, reducing their present value. The economic impact can be substantial. There is even a risk that the project may not materialize if technological, market, or other conditions have changed significantly by the time the company is ready to make its final investment decision,” González concludes.
Source: El Mercurio