Review of the Proposed Revised JORC Code

Executive Summary

August 12, 2025: The Australasian Code for Reporting Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Ore Reserves (JORC Code), first released in 1989 and updated in 2012, is undergoing a major revision. The 2024 draft, released on August 1, 2024 for public consultation (which has closed), proposes significant structural changes to enhance readability and transparency, incorporate perceived modern practices and address sustainability issues, including a strong emphasis on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) practices as core Modifying Factors. The 2024 JORC Code is planned for release late in 2025 with a stated 12-month transition period.

The 2024 JORC Code public consultation saw 8,200 submissions and comments, likely far more than the JORC Committee was anticipating and likely largely negative. Recent media reports indicate that some proposed elements, particularly the heightened ESG provisions, may be significantly scaled back due to industry pushback on liability, feasibility, and costs.

This review examines the structure of the proposed Code, compares it to the 2012 version, details the ESG provisions across Sections 5.5.1 through 5.5.14 with tables outlining proposals, benefits and burdens and discusses the regulatory burden, with an emphasis on smaller companies and Competent Persons and critiques how regulatory creep driven by larger companies and consultants has led to potential over-regulation of a necessarily entrepreneurial sector. Further this review provides recommendations to mitigate impacts on junior explorers who drive the majority of mineral discoveries in Australia and globally. These recommendations include limiting or removing ESG provisions, tiered compliance, phased implementation and the formation a junior miner advisory group with significant representation on the JORC Committee, not just observer status is now the case.

Structure of the Proposed Revised JORC Code

Key structural changes to the 2024 JORC Code include:

Separation of Code and Guidelines: The draft distinguishes the core Code (mandatory rules) from non-mandatory guidance notes, allowing for easier updates to guidelines without revising the entire Code. This modular approach enhances flexibility and reduces the need for frequent Code overhauls.
Refined Table 1 Format: Table 1, the checklist for reporting Modifying Factors, is split into sub-tables by project maturity (Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, Ore Reserves). This stage-specific structure provides a “recipe” for disclosures, improving readability and ensuring maturity-appropriate reporting.
New Clauses and Sections: Additions include dedicated clauses on Competent Persons (stricter qualifications and delegation to Specialists), reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction, risk/opportunities/threats reporting, reconciliation of estimates and ESG as Modifying Factors. The Code adopts a more “legislative” style with improved navigation, cross-references, and language to clarify decision-making.
Relationship to Other Standards: Explicit links to ASX Listing Rules, NZX requirements, and international frameworks like CRIRSCO attempt to ensure cross-jurisdictional consistency. Non-reporting uses (e.g., internal studies) are clarified to prevent inappropriate use of Competent Person reports.

Comparison Table: 2012 JORC Code vs. Proposed Revised Code (2024 Draft)

The table below compares the key elements of the 2012 JORC Code with the proposed revisions in the 2024 draft.

Aspect	2012 JORC Code	Proposed Revised Code (2024 Draft)
Overall Structure	Single document integrating code and guidelines; broad principles with Table 1 as a general checklist.	Separates code (mandatory) from guidelines (non-mandatory); Table 1 split into stage-specific sub-tables for better navigation.
Competent Person Requirements	Minimum 5 years relevant experience; sole responsibility for reports (Clause 11, 19).	Stricter qualifications; allows delegation to Specialists for non-core areas (e.g., ESG, Hydrology, Environmental etc.); Competent Person retains overall accountability.
Modifying Factors	Broad categories (e.g., mining, economic, environmental, social) in Clause 29; discretionary application.	Expanded to include explicit risk, reconciliation and ESG; stage-specific requirements.
ESG Provisions	Indirect and minimal (e.g., general environmental/social mentions in Table 1).	Mandatory across all stages; detailed reporting on emissions, social license, closure-reclamation etc.
Risk Reporting	Not explicitly required; implied in Modifying Factors.	New dedicated section on risks, opportunities, and threats; material disclosures required.
Reconciliation	Optional; general guidance on estimate accuracy.	Mandatory reconciliation of previous estimates;
Reasonable Prospects	Defined for Mineral Resources (Clause 20); qualitative.	Refined criteria for eventual economic extraction; stricter for Inferred Resources.
Consultation and Updates	Last major update in 2012; periodic reviews.	Extensive 2024 consultation (8,200+ comments); guidelines updatable without full Code revision.
Alignment with Standards	Aligned with CRIRSCO; focuses on Australasia.	Stronger links to ASX/NZX rules, IFRS S1/S2, and global peers; non-reporting uses clarified.

Proposed ESG Provisions

The 2024 draft proposes integrating ESG as core Modifying Factors, in Sections 5.5.1 through 5.5.14, marking a very major structural shift from the 2012 Code’s minimalist approach to ESG considerations. However, recent media reports suggest these provisions may be significantly scaled back or removed in the final version due to concerns over costs, feasibility, liability for reporting entities and Competent Persons and regulatory overlap. The draft’s ESG framework is detailed below.

Key ESG Provisions in the Draft

Mandatory Integration Across Stages: ESG must be assessed and reported as Modifying Factors from Exploration Results to Ore Reserves and closure. This includes early identification of obstacles to all phases from exploration to closure (e.g., community opposition during exploration).
Environmental Components: Detailed reporting on greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity impacts, water management, waste and climate risks. Closure planning requires financial provisioning and disclosure of rehabilitation expectations.
Social Components: Emphasis on social license, including Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) from Indigenous and local communities, stakeholder engagement plans and social transition for closure-affected areas.
Governance Components: Anti-corruption measures, board diversity and alignment with international standards like IFRS S1/S2 for sustainability reporting
Specialist Delegation: Competent Persons can delegate ESG assessments to qualified Specialists, while retaining overall responsibility.
Risk and Materiality Focus: ESG risks must be material and stage-appropriate, integrated with a new risks/opportunities section.

Below is a review of the subsections of Section 5.5 (5.5.1 through 5.5.14) from Table 1, which details the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) provisions in the 2024 Draft JORC Code.

The tables below follow the same format, outlining the Proposal, Potential Benefits and Burdens, with a focus on the administrative and financial burdens faced by smaller exploration companies which are likely to be more negatively impacted than producers or larger international corporations in the sector.

Environmental and Legal Requirements (Section 5.5.1)

Proposal	Benefits	Burdens
Confirmation that the relevant host jurisdiction tenement environmental and legal requirements are in good standing; disclosure of any material legal environmental and social permitting actions or challenges in process; confirmation that required regulatory rehabilitation bonds/financial assurance are in place, reported across Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Ore Reserves.	Verifies compliance early, reducing risks of regulatory penalties and enhancing investor trust by demonstrating adherence to environmental laws, aligning with ASX Listing Rules and global standards like CRIRSCO.	Requires ongoing permit monitoring and financial assurances from exploration, imposing administrative costs (e.g., legal and administrative costs estimated at A$10,000–50,000 per permit or site).

Legal, Governmental, Permitting, and Stakeholder Parameters (Section 5.5.2)

Proposal	Benefits	Burdens
Report on legal, governmental, permitting, statutory parameters; status of key stakeholder identification, mapping, and engagement plans; potential risks to achieving stakeholder support; commentary if resources/reserves are contingent on permitting, land access, or resolution of specific issues (e.g., resettlement, cultural heritage), across Exploration Targets, Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Ore Reserves.	Facilitates early stakeholder engagement possibly reducing opposition risks.	Demands extensive stakeholder mapping and engagement (e.g., FPIC costs ~A$20,000-200,000 per community), creating legal and administrative burdens for smaller companies with lean teams (often <10 staff), risking delays or project deferment. This can be very time-consuming for senior management.

ESG-Related Considerations (Section 5.5.3)

Proposal	Benefits	Burdens
Discuss any known ESG-related considerations influencing exploration access or reasonable prospects for economic extraction; material ESG parameters risking capital access, asset value, or resource/reserve downgrades, across Exploration Targets, Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Ore Reserves.	Identifies ESG barriers early, enabling proactive risk mitigation.	Requires comprehensive ESG risk assessments from exploration, demanding analytical resources (e.g., A$50,000–200,000 for risk studies) that smaller companies lack, potentially deferring exploration due to capital constraints.

Closure and Rehabilitation Risks (Section 5.5.4)

Proposal	Benefits	Burdens
Potential material exploration project rehabilitation risks identified; material resource project closure risks identified; disclosure of closure basis in PFS/FS Study, including post-closure land use, technical deliverability, budget provisions, bonds, guarantees, or legal requirements, across Exploration Targets, Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Ore Reserves.	Ensure proactive closure planning.	Requires early financial provisioning and bonds (e.g., A$100,000 to 500,000 per site), straining smaller explorers’ cash flows, project delays or abandonment if closure costs exceed exploration budgets.

Protected or Sensitive Environmental Areas (Section 5.5.5)

Proposal	Benefits	Burdens
Identification/discussion of declared protected or sensitive environmental areas affecting exploration, economic extraction, or requiring mitigation strategies/design adjustments, across Exploration Targets, Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Ore Reserves.	Safeguards biodiversity, aligning with global standards (e.g., GRI 14).	Demands costly environmental surveys (e.g., A$30,000–300,000 per site) and early mitigation planning, overwhelming smaller firms with limited technical resources.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Section 5.5.6)

Proposal	Benefits	Burdens
Optional reporting of greenhouse gas emission sources at exploration project level; mandatory reporting of major energy sources and emissions for development projects and Ore Reserves/LOMP as per PFS/FS study, across Exploration Targets, Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Ore Reserves.	Possible benefits from Carbon Credits.	Requires emissions tracking systems (e.g., A$20,000–100,000 for software/audits) from exploration to development, imposing administrative burdens on smaller firms with minimal operations, diverting funds from potentially productive exploration.

Climate and Water Risk Assessment (Section 5.5.7)

Proposal	Benefits	Burdens
High-level statement of water stress at project level; report climate and water risk assessment, including historical occurrences, terrain exposures to extreme weather, water access, fire/flood/drought risks, competition for water, and value protection adaptations, across Exploration Targets, Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Ore Reserves.	May better define water and weather risks.	Demands climate modeling and water risk studies (e.g., A$50,000–200,000 per assessment), creating significant costs for smaller firms.

Climate Change-Related Requirements (Section 5.5.8)

Proposal	Benefits	Burdens
Declaration of potentialeffects from climate change-related statutory, regulatory, and fiscal requirements; report costs in project economic evaluations, across Exploration Targets, Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Ore Reserves.	Prepares projects for carbon taxes and regulations (e.g., Australia’s Safeguard Mechanism).	Requires complex economic modeling (e.g., A$30,000–200,000 per evaluation), straining smaller companies’ analytical capacity.

Geochemical Characterization (Section 5.5.9)

Proposal	Benefits	Burdens
Identify potential environmental geochemistry risks; discuss characterization, hazards (e.g., acid/metalliferous drainage), effects, scoping options, risk assessments, control mechanisms, mine domains, and status of approvals for residue storage/waste dumps, across Exploration Targets, Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Ore Reserves.	Mitigates contamination risks (e.g., acid drainage), reducing closure liabilities and enhancing environmental compliance.	Requires costly geochemical testing (e.g., A$50,000–150,000 per site) and approvals at am early stage, overwhelming smaller explorers, risking abandonment.

Local Economic Participation/Social Contributions (Section 5.5.10)

Proposal	Benefits	Burdens
Optional identification of local economic participation and/or social contributions; report any legislated/discretionary requirements and status, across Exploration Targets, Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Ore Reserves.	Fosters community goodwill, potentially securing government incentives (e.g., tax credits) and strengthening social license for project advancement.	Mandates tracking and reporting of contributions (e.g., A$10,000–50,000 for community programs), adding administrative burdens for smaller firms, diverting exploration funds to meet social obligations and diverting social funding to fund tracking and studies.

Stakeholder Groups and Engagement (Section 5.5.11)

Proposal	Benefits	Burdens
High-level description of relevant stakeholder groups (e.g., Indigenous with land connections); complaints procedure, prevalent issues/outcomes; outline material pre-existing social issues; report status of engagement programs, legally binding agreements (e.g., land access), material social issues/resolutions, across Exploration Targets, Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Ore Reserves.	Build trust through transparent engagement, reducing conflicts and securing land access via agreements.	Demands formal FPIC and grievance systems (e.g., A$20,000–200,000 per agreement), imposing legal and administrative costs on smaller firms, risking delays in resolving social issues without dedicated teams.

ESG-Related Risk Management (Section 5.5.12)

Proposal	Benefits	Burdens
Description of identified ESG-related risks and mitigating actions; integration within overall risk management; potential long-term operational risks; proposed mitigations for project, construction, operational, and owner risks, across Exploration Targets, Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Ore Reserves.	Enhances risk management, identifying ESG threats early to improve resilience and investor trust.	Requires integrated risk frameworks (e.g., A$30,000–200,000 for risk studies), creating administrative overload for smaller firms without specialists.

Health and Safety (Section 5.5.13)

Proposal	Benefits	Burdens
Report health and safety approach for workers/community during work, including protocols, procedures, record-keeping; transition arrangements to construction teams; other ESG-related factors affecting construction, across Exploration Targets, Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Ore Reserves.	Promotes safety culture, reducing incidents.	Mandates safety systems (e.g., A$10,000–50,000 for training/records), burdening smaller firms with limited staff in remote operations, risking compliance gaps.

Rehabilitation Liabilities (Section 5.5.14)

Proposal	Benefits	Burdens
Description of rehabilitation liabilities associated with unanticipated exit/termination; exit strategy including rehabilitation liability and costed mitigation if project does not proceed, across Exploration Targets, Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Ore Reserves.	Ensures proactive liability management (e.g., A$1M–5M average small site rehabilitation), minimizing environmental legacies and building regulator trust.	Forces early bonding and exit strategies (e.g., A$100,000–500,000 per site), straining smaller explorers’ cash reserves, risking abandonment if liabilities exceed exploration budgets.

Comment on the Increased Regulatory and Cost Burden, Especially for Smaller Companies

The proposed revisions introduce heightened regulation, particularly through mandatory ESG, risk, and reconciliation requirements, which could impose significant burdens and divert funds from exploration programs and burdens already strained executives in smaller companies.

Regulatory Burden: The draft’s increased granular disclosures overlap with existing laws (e.g., Australia’s mandatory ESG reporting since July 2024), creating redundancy and compliance complexity. Smaller companies, comprising 60% of ASX-listed miners which drive exploration and discovery, face disproportionate challenges in navigating stage-specific reporting and Specialist delegations.
Cost Implications: New requirements demand investments in data systems, external experts, and audits, potentially exacerbating a significant drop in exploration activity in recent years. Juniors, with limited capital, risk project delays or abandonment, stifling innovation while favoring large firms like BHP.
Executive Impacts: Executives, such as CEOs, must now oversee detailed disclosures like emissions tracking, stakeholder engagement and closure planning, often requiring delegation to Specialists, which adds oversight burdens and potential liability risks. For junior companies, already operating on tight budgets, this translates to increased costs, estimated at A$50,000–200,000 annually for data systems, audits, and compliance training, diverting funds from core exploration activities. Ultimately, these requirements could strain executive bandwidth, reduce agility and exacerbate financial pressures, potentially deterring innovation in Australia’s exploration sector.
Competent Persons: The 2024 Draft JORC Code significantly increases the responsibilities of Competent Persons, who remain the core accountable professionals for public reporting, by mandating oversight of detailed ESG provisions across all project stages, despite almost all lacking specialized ESG skills. This shift requires them to manage or delegate complex assessments, such as greenhouse gas emissions, FPIC for stakeholder engagement, and closure planning to Specialists, diverting their focus from critical exploration activities to administrative ESG reporting and compliance oversight. For smaller companies, this imposes substantial costs for specialist consultations, training and data systems, straining limited budgets and potentially reducing exploration activity. This increased burden risks overwhelming Competent Persons, undermining exploration efficiency and innovation in the junior sector, which is vital to Australia’s mineral discovery pipeline.

How Did an Entrepreneurial Industry Get Here – Regulatory Creep and Self Interest?

Regulatory creep in major industries, exemplified specifically here by the proposed revisions to the JORC Code that seek to impose heightened ESG reporting requirements, is often propelled by larger companies, which possess the resources, dedicated sustainability teams and economies of scale to comply effortlessly, thereby gaining a competitive edge.

The structure of the JORC Committee, comprising representatives from the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA), AusIMM, AIG, ASX, FINSIA, and the accounting profession, with AMEC (representing smaller explorers) as an observer, is heavily weighted toward consultants, accountants, and major mining companies, significantly influencing the 2024 Draft JORC Code’s ambitious ESG provisions. The MCA, representing giants like BHP and Rio Tinto, alongside AusIMM’s senior professionals (often consultants with large-firm ties) and accounting/FINSIA members, prioritizes comprehensive ESG reporting that aligns with the resources and strategic interests of major corporations, which can readily absorb compliance costs. This dominance marginalizes the voice of smaller explorers, despite AMEC’s presence, leading to a draft that imposes burdensome requirements such as emissions tracking and FPIC from exploration, favoring large firms and consultants who benefit from complex regulations, while risking exploration declines for juniors, to the detriment of Australia’s mineral discovery pipeline.

In other industries and likely the mining and exploration industries larger companies view burdensome regulations as opportunities to consolidate market dominance, leveraging their capacity to absorb compliance costs while smaller companies, already overburdened by declining exploration activity, face dire consequences, including prohibitive administrative burdens, diverted funds from exploration, and potential project abandonments. Ultimately, this dynamic will stifle innovation in the junior sector, which drives the majority of early-stage discoveries, leading to reduced exploration expenditure, fewer drilling campaigns, diminished discoveries, job losses in regional communities and lower tax revenues for governments, all to the profound detriment of Australia. Increasingly we have seen the most experienced and talented geoscientists focusing their time, money and attention on an increasing administrative burden which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with mineral discovery. The proposed 20245 JORC provisions, specifically the ESG reporting provisions, will exacerbate this issue.

The industry is presently and increasingly burdened by government regulation at both a State and Federal level in Australia with significant variation across different jurisdictions. This burden is resulting in increasing costs but more importantly is resulting in the most experienced industry professionals spending an increasing proportion of their time doing compliance administration, which arguably is not in the interests of finding and developing mineral resources and most assuredly not in the best interests of those professionals.

Recommendations to Lessen the Impact on Smaller Companies That Drive Exploration

To mitigate burdens on junior explorers:

Limit or Remove ESG Provisions: Significantly reduce the administrative burden and the liability of Competent Persons by removing almost all of the ESG provisions from the proposed code
Tiered Compliance: Introduce exemptions or simplified ESG/risk templates for companies below a market cap threshold (e.g., <A$100M), focusing on material risks only.
Phased Implementation: Extend the transition period to 2-3 years for smaller firms, with government subsidies for ESG training/tools.
Stakeholder Engagement: Form a junior miner advisory group for ongoing Code refinements.