This time period is likely to appear in history books for decades to come. Future historians will likely call it the “age of copper” or the “age of minerals”; similar to the “guano era”, which is what historiography calls that period from approximately 1840 to 1876. Basadre would say that there was a “false prosperity.” Important to stay with that term.
Peru cannot have another “false prosperity”, this time in the “era of minerals”, necessary today more than ever for the energy transition and the fourth industrial revolution.
Now look at this latest data published by the Peruvian Institute of Economics: the value of the production/export of illegal/informal gold will exceed legal/formal gold in 2026 and will exceed US$16 billion. The number, however, falls short because there must be added the gold that is not registered by Customs or Sunat and the value of the illegal/informal copper that travels along the new southern mining corridor route (and coal in the north!). Nobody dares to give an exact figure. Look at this other data to understand the dimension of illegal/informal mining: Peru in 2026 projects mining production/export worth more than US$100,000 million; and the illegal/informal (copper, gold or coal) would be more or less US$20 billion, almost a fifth.
To avoid “false prosperity,” the country requires a State pact, a great political pact for modern, formal and legal mining, which today represents the great opportunity to move from growth to development. This agreement must take into account several issues, among them the total combat against illegal mining and its infiltration into politics and the economy. A sociologist would say that if one looks closely, the explosion of illegal/informal mining has organized a parallel State, with its rules and procedures. Therefore, there would already be two types of “social contract”, two types of “legitimate” consensus and therefore two types of “territorial sovereignty”: legal and illegal/informal. Now, at this very moment, there are areas – Nanay, Caravelí – “impassable”. Seen this way, illegal/informal mining threatens the continuity of the sovereign project of the State and the republic.
The other big issue is informal mining and its continued formalization failure. Guillermo Shinno, the current head of Energy and Mines, maintained that “the artisanal miner cannot be asked the same as large-scale mining,” in relation to documentary procedures and environmental management instruments (Igafom). You are absolutely right; However, it would be necessary to clarify how many of the more than 31,000 registered in the Reinfo are artisanal (by production value) and how many are true “fiefdoms.” You add that the environmental management instrument is a sworn declaration (with 12 requirements), done this way to “further simplify” the formalization process, a document that is based on the legal principle of “presumption of truthfulness”, a funny way for previous governments to have ignored it and not to be audited in a timely manner. Are we going to further reduce the requirements for a sworn declaration (Igafom) for a Reinfo miner without knowing if it is artisanal or not? Shouldn’t we talk about debugging first?
A broader look leads us to conclude that the failure of formalization is due to the fact that its design and execution depends on politicians and not on specialists. Formalization must be removed from the clutches of political ideologization and handed over to specialized institutions.
The other big issue is the procedures and, above all, the times. The State – in general – has a schizoid reading of mining: while a large mining operation is overwhelmed with requirements to change a small component; The “artisanal workers” who flood the Nanay with mercury are asked for a sworn statement.
I have explained part of only three issues of a national agreement. Now Nación, the PBG and Obras, along with Renovación Popular, must be part of this agreement so as not to have another “false prosperity” or for illegal economies to take control.
*El Comercio opens its pages to the exchange of ideas and reflections. In this plural framework, the Diario does not necessarily agree with the opinions of the columnists who sign them, although it always respects them.
