Peru: Modification of the Mine Closure Regulation

VERSION ESPAÑOL

On 19 March 2025, Supreme Decree No. 006-2025-EM was published, which amended and incorporated several articles of the Mine Closure Regulation, approved by Supreme Decree No. 033-2005-EM.

The most relevant provisions are detailed below:

1. Guarantees for phased closure measures

• The most relevant provisions are detailed below.
• Now the amounts of the main mining components​​​​​​​​​​​​​​[1] (pits, subway workings, leach pads, tailings deposits, processing plants, waste rock dumps, among others), whose closure is scheduled for the progressive closure stage, must be included.
• This will apply to all mining companies, increasing the amount of guarantees required to operate (previously, only final closure and post-closure costs were considered).

2. Term to increase warranty (to include progressive closure of major components)

• Immediately, for mining companies that do not yet have an approved mine closure plan (PCM.
• Until 20 March 2028 (three years), for companies that have an approved PCM to date.

3. Calculation of the useful life of mining units

• Previously, the useful life of mining units was calculated based on the proven and probable reserves established in the Environmental Management Instrument (IGA- Instrumento de Gestión Ambiental), divided by the annual production capacity approved in the IGA. Additionally, it was also allowed to consider information from the consolidated annual declaration (CAD) (possible stoppages or production below the approved capacity).
• Now the reference to the CAD has been eliminated, and the useful life will be calculated only with the proven and probable reserves, divided by the annual production capacity approved in the current IGA.
• Likewise, Article 41-A is incorporated into Supreme Decree No. 040-2014-EM​​​​​​​​​​​​​​[2], which establishes that the useful life of mining units is counted from the issuance of the authorization to start exploitation activities. If only beneficiation activities are carried out, the useful life is counted from the operating authorization.
• If the useful life varies according to the probable reserves that were declared in the preventive IGA, there must be a correlation between the volume of proven and probable reserves of the mining unit and the annual production capacity established in the IGA.

4. Modification of the closure plan

• In cases of modification of the environmental impact study or other complementary IGA, the owner of the mining activity must submit the modification of the MCP within a maximum period of one year from its approval.
• The modification of the MCP may also be required by the OEFA and Osinergmin, when, in the exercise of their functions, they notice respectively that the closure measures do not achieve the established closure and/or physical stability objectives, and when there is a significant gap between the approved MCP budget and the amounts that are recorded in the execution or are expected to be incurred.

5. Definition of an abandoned mining unit

• A new criterion is added for a mining unit to be considered abandoned. Previously, abandonment was configured simply by inactivity, not counting or not complying with the MCP. With the modification, in addition to this noncompliance, “it is required that there be no personnel in charge of compliance with the environmental management measures of the IGA and the measures of the approved MCP, as well as safety and surveillance​​​​​​​.
• It also incorporates the definition of an abandoned mining unit as declared by the General Directorate of Mining’s directorial resolution.

6. Joint and several liability for breach of MCP or abandonment of mining unit

• If there is a breach of the MCP or abandonment of a mining unit and this causes real damage to the environment, the administrative and civil penalties fall not only on the owner of the mining activity, but also on the directors and/or majority shareholders under whose management the breach or abandonment occurs. For the joint and several liability to be enforceable, it must be determined that the directors and/or shareholders are responsible for the action or omission that generated the noncompliance of the MCP or the abandonment of the mining unit.

Additionally, the MINEM must approve the content of the MCP and the minimum content of the biannual closure reports, as well as the Methodological Guide for the estimation of closure budgets.

* * * * *

We hope this information is of relevance to you and your company. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any advice in this regard.