Australia is one of the most advanced examples of integration between mining research, public policy, and energy transition. Institutions such as CSIRO, the Sustainable Minerals Institute at the University of Queensland, Curtin University, and the Minerals Research Institute of Western Australia operate under governance schemes that recognize mining research as critical state infrastructure. Australia's critical minerals policy explicitly incorporates the role of scientific research in security of supply, technological innovation, and sustainability. Research centers have academic autonomy, stable public funding, and clear mandates to collaborate with industry without compromising their scientific independence. From the perspective of the Sustainable Development Goals, the Australian model stands out for its focus on responsible innovation, transparency, and multi-stakeholder participation. Mining research is not conceived solely as a support for economic growth, but as an instrument for climate action, environmental protection, and regional development. 6. DISCUSSION: TOWARDS A MODEL OF MINING KNOWLEDGE GOVERNANCE Analysis of the Peruvian framework and comparative models shows that mining knowledge governance is a central component of contemporary mining policy, especially in the context of the green transition and growing demand for critical minerals (IEA, 2024). In the case of Peru, regulatory dispersion and the absence of an integrated approach create structural barriers to the development of robust and autonomous mining research centers. Research is regulated in a fragmented manner by educational, STI, and mining policy regulations, without a framework that coherently harmonizes these dimensions (Congreso de la República del Perú, 2025). Furthermore, the lack of recognition of mining research centers as strategic actors in public policy limits their ability to contribute effectively to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the climate agenda (United Nations, 2015). Without a governance model that guarantees autonomy, sustainable financing, and clear rules for technology transfer, mining research runs the risk of being subordinated to short-term or circumstantial interests (Mazzucato, 2018). 7. PROPOSALS FOR REGULATORY GUIDELINES FOR PERU Based on the findings of the study, the following guidelines are proposed: - Sectoral specialization of the regime applicable to Scientific Research, Technological Development, or Technological Innovation Centers (CTI) for mining: Creation of a differentiated legal status for mining research centers, recognizing their academic autonomy and strategic role in mining and innovation policy (OECD, 2011). To this end, it is proposed to develop, by supreme decree or through CONCYTEC guidelines (or whoever acts on its behalf) in coordination with the Ministry of Energy and Mines (governing body), specific criteria for mining research centers, within the framework of the Law on the Promotion of Scientific Research, Technological Development, and 51
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2