Written by Harris Gomez, Managing Partner
Peru has the geology. It has the minerals the world urgently needs for the energy transition. And according to the Banco Central de Reserva, it currently enjoys some of the strongest terms of trade in decades.
So why does a US$63 billion pipeline of mining projects remain largely stalled?
The answer, as Magaly Bardales of the Instituto de Ingenieros de Minas del Peru (IIMP) and Nexa Resources articulated clearly at the recent Jueves Minero forum, comes down to two things: legal predictability and technology. Not geology. Not commodity prices. Not even capital availability.
This matters enormously, not just for Peru, but for every foreign company considering whether to deploy capital, technology, or expertise into this market.
The Permit Problem Is Structural, Not Incidental
More than 200 permits across 19 state entities. That is the current reality for a mining project seeking to move from approval to operation in Peru. Each entity applies its own criteria, its own timelines, and its own interpretation of the rules. The result is not just delay; it is unpredictability, which is far more damaging to long-term investment decisions than delay alone.
The good news is that Peru is now working with the World Bank on a genuine single-window integration across those 19 entities. Bardales described it as the first time a real, integrated approach has been attempted. That is a significant statement from someone operating at the intersection of law, industry, and institutional engagement.
For foreign investors and technology companies watching from Australia, Europe, or North America, this is the signal worth paying attention to.
Artificial Intelligence Is Already Part of the Solution
What struck me most in Bardales’s remarks was her explicit call for AI to be embedded in the permitting process itself, not as a future aspiration but as a practical tool for standardising how Environmental Impact Assessments and operational permits are evaluated.
The logic is sound. Voluminous EIA documents, evaluated by different officials applying different interpretive standards, produce inconsistent outcomes. AI-assisted review can compress evaluation timelines and, critically, build a jurisprudence database that creates consistency across decisions regardless of who is sitting in the chair.
This is where the conversation becomes particularly interesting for me professionally. At Harris Gomez Group, we have been developing our advisory practice around AI in contracts and commercial operations, specifically the questions of data ownership, liability allocation, governance frameworks, and who is responsible when AI tools are embedded in high-stakes processes. The application of AI to state permitting in the mining sector raises exactly those questions, and they need to be answered carefully before the tools are deployed at scale.
Who owns the data generated through AI-assisted EIA review? What happens when an AI-assisted decision is challenged? How are liability and accountability allocated between the technology provider, the state entity, and the project proponent? These are not hypothetical questions. They are the questions that will determine whether this technology integration succeeds or creates a new layer of legal complexity.
ESG and Traceability: The Buyer Is Changing the Rules
There is a third dimension to this that deserves attention. Bardales raised the issue of digital chain-of-custody, tracking copper from extraction to export to satisfy the ESG and energy-transition requirements of international buyers.
This is no longer a compliance checkbox. Major buyers of copper and other critical minerals are increasingly requiring documented proof that the mineral they are purchasing comes from formal, legally compliant operations. Peru’s challenge with informal and illegal mining makes this a strategic national issue, not just a corporate one.
For companies in the METS sector, this creates both a commercial opportunity and a compliance obligation. Technology that enables trazabilidad from pit to port is in demand. But deploying that technology in Peru requires understanding the legal framework, the data governance requirements, and the contractual structures that make the chain of custody defensible under both Peruvian law and the standards expected by international buyers.
What This Means for Foreign Companies
If you are an Australian, North American, or European company with technology, capital, or expertise relevant to the mining sector, Peru’s current moment deserves serious attention. The fundamentals are strong. The reform agenda is real. And the window for early positioning, before the regulatory environment stabilises and competition intensifies, is open now.
The questions worth asking are: What does the new single-window framework mean for your market entry timeline? How does the AI integration into permitting affect your technology contracts and liability exposure? What ESG and traceability requirements will your Peruvian partners need to satisfy, and how does that flow back into your commercial agreements?
These are the questions we work through with our clients at Harris Gomez Group, from our offices in Lima, Santiago, and Sydney. We have spent more than 30 years at the intersection of law, commerce, and the resources sector across Australia and Latin America, and the current moment in Peru is one of the most genuinely interesting we have seen.