Not long ago, the website of the Chinese government released the “Decision of the State Council on the Second Batch of Streamlining and Standardizing 192 Administrative Approval and Intermediary Service Items under the Jurisdiction of State Council Departments,” which abolished the qualification requirements for preparing geological reports on mine exploration. This move sends a clear signal that the pace of streamlining administration and delegating power in the geological exploration industry will be accelerated. Undoubtedly, this initiative will facilitate further integration with the global mineral exploration and development market; however, it also prompts deeper reflection on the reform and development of the industry itself.

For the preparation of geological reports, foreign countries typically do not impose qualification requirements on mineral exploration companies or exploration units. Qualification requirements are imposed only on certain professionals—such as engineering design institutes, construction companies, and hospitals—when their work directly affects people’s lives and safety. In fact, undertaking mineral exploration projects and conducting fieldwork—such as geological mapping and site positioning, geochemical prospecting by collecting soil samples, geophysical surveys involving line measurements, and drilling operations to create boreholes—as long as the surface environment is subsequently restored and boreholes are properly sealed, generally pose no risk to human health and do not create hidden safety hazards. Therefore, there is no need for professional qualifications in such cases.

Back then, our original intention in establishing the management system for geological exploration qualifications was “to strengthen the management of geological exploration activities, maintain order in the geological exploration market, and ensure the quality of geological exploration.” In practice, by focusing on the management of prospecting rights, we’ve effectively grasped the “key link” in managing geological exploration activities. By strictly regulating the minimum investment required within the scope of prospecting rights, ensuring that stage-by-stage geological reports are submitted on time and in compliance with regulations, and imposing appropriate administrative penalties—up to and including revocation of exploration licenses—for violations of the Mineral Resources Law and related regulations, we can uphold order in the geological exploration market. Maintaining this market order requires relying on market-management regulations; the government need not worry about whether commercial mineral exploration expenditures are appropriately allocated. As for ensuring exploration quality, the key lies in barring false geological reports from the mineral exploration market altogether.

Recently, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate issued a judicial interpretation stating that “those who submit false survey reports will be held criminally liable.” This is precisely the approach that can effectively deter those who falsify survey data. Unfortunately, the measures taken to strengthen the management of survey qualifications, standardize the market, and improve quality have failed to achieve the intended effects.

Mineral exploration is a high-risk investment activity that puts geological hypotheses about mineral prospecting into practice. Similar to software development and new drug research, it represents “venture capital” in the field of geological exploration. Globally, this work is carried out by tens of thousands of junior exploration companies, which are not required to hold any specific market-entry qualifications or certification levels for exploration activities. Because these companies tend to be small in size, they often find it easier to attract investment. The current system of accrediting exploration qualifications and assigning level grades based on the number of professionals with different titles and specialties, as well as the quantity of various types of instruments and equipment, is subjective and lacks solid empirical basis. For example, one regulation stipulates that a Class-A qualification unit for solid-mineral exploration must possess at least six digital cameras with resolutions of 5 million pixels or higher. But does such a standard really make sense?

Moreover, the cumbersome approval and verification processes for exploration qualifications and levels place an enormous burden on both regulatory authorities and entities carrying out mineral exploration. Furthermore, linking mineral exploration projects to specific qualification levels has given rise to the submission of inaccurate documentation. Leverage of geological survey units’ exploration qualifications to prepare reports has become a hotbed for exploration fraud, commercial deception, and widespread corruption among relevant personnel.

The qualification requirement for preparing geological reports on mineral resource exploration has been lifted, and “units with corresponding geological exploration qualifications” have been redefined as “intermediary implementation service providers.” As a result, any enterprise, institution, or individual can now undertake the preparation of relevant geological exploration reports. This also means that the regulation requiring “entities undertaking mineral exploration projects to possess exploration qualifications of the appropriate level” has lost its practical significance.

Integrating into the global mineral exploration market no longer requires having exploration qualifications. The cleanup decision issued by the State Council has diminished the value of mineral exploration qualifications, which are no longer the key to survival for geological survey units. The mineral exploration market—a sizable pie—will now be shared among a diverse range of market players. Reform in the geological survey industry will continue to deepen. The introduction of this reform measure by the State Council should prompt us to reflect deeply and draw valuable insights for our own reform and development.