However, from 2006, new regulations were developed to provide a legal framework for formal geological exploration and extraction of minerals through the enforcement of mining rights by private companies. Upon receipt, the holder of the mining rights in Afghanistan would receive an investment guarantee, so that GIRoA would not be able to expropriate the mining rights without adequate compensation in accordance with international standards. The new law also grants mining royalties ranging from 5% of gross sales to 10% for gemstones. After several decades of clandestine artisanal mining of gemstones and other materials, the law finally legalized the ongoing gemstone trade by encouraging private investment in mining and government control of the gemstone industry as a whole. Mining companies have recently started implementing health programs around the mines. Some experienced mining engineers work with environmental and community organizations to identify the best possible reclamation options. Mining law in Europe is derived from medieval common law. At least from the 12th century, German kings claimed mining rights to silver and other metals and took precedence over local lords. But in the late Middle Ages, the mining rights, known as Bergregal, were transferred from the king to the rulers. Initially, mineral rights were granted orally or in writing by private individuals. From the beginning of the 15th century, mining law was issued by rulers in the form of ordinances or ordinances (mining orders), which often remained in force until the 19th century. A far-reaching new legal basis was created with the General Mining Act for the Prussian States of 1865, which was adopted with local deviations in Brunswick (1867), Bavaria (1869), Württemberg (1874), Baden (1890) and other states. With the exception of the Kingdom of Saxony, where a law of similar importance, the General Mining Act for the Kingdom of Saxony, entered into force on 16 June 1868, it entered into force in all the major German Länder.
The Mining Act of 1872 added a provision for placer grants. Under the law, an underwriter`s claim grants a person who discovers gold, silver, copper or other hard rock minerals the right to exploit the minerals without paying royalties to the federal government. Strikingly, oil and gas were not considered localizable materials. However, in 1897, the Oil Placer Act of 1897 classified oil and gas as localizable materials and was therefore subject to placer grants under the Mining Act of 1872. This was the first opportunity to dispose of oil and gas as minerals under federal rule. The idea behind the Mining Act of 1872 was that citizens could enter federal states, search for and find hard minerals without regulation; If a mineral was discovered, the researcher could also claim it via a tracking device. In the absence of a claim to the effect of ownership of the land, the miner assumes absolute ownership of the land and the minerals it contains, freely and clearly (Daintith, 2010). Placer concessions opened up U.S. nature reserves to mining and large-scale mining.
A government geological study led by George Otis Smith documented resource exploitation and sounded the alarm: continued oil placer concessions would deplete U.S. reserves and reduce oil supplies to the U.S. Navy. Mining operations are considered one of the main sources of pollution. Under the Mining Act of 1872, mining companies are not required to clean up federally owned mine sites. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that cleaning up fifty-five of the most dangerous mines in the United States will cost taxpayers $32 billion. On non-federally owned lands, state and federal environmental regulations require mining companies to clean up and restore their mine sites. Investing in improving the health of communities affected by mining activities not only reduces current exposure and risks, but also highlights the need for changes in mining laws and regulations. Historical mining laws may also allow unsustainable urbanization of Alpine sites, which can lead to future deterioration (erosion, fragmentation, etc.). Regarding Tanganyika province, eight coltan EEZs in the Kalemie and Nyunzu regions were demarcated and proclaimed in 2017 with a total of about 2500 diggers (Wakenge, 2017: 63). However, in some cases, for example at the Kahendwa mine, this demarcation has been a source of property rights disputes between mining cooperatives (Matthysen and Montejano, 2013; Wakenge, 2018).
In 2019, 74 EEZs were identified in South Kivu, 27 of which are still in the process of being demarcated. Mining activities take place on most EEZs, including those marked in red. Already in colonial times, the state claimed ownership of the mines. Since the early 1900s, the extraction of this resource has been governed by mining laws, which confirm that the state is the sole owner of the resources.6 The laws on the ownership of these resources have remained unchanged since. The 1999 constitution stipulates that all oil and gas deposits belong to the national government in Article 12. Article 3 of the Hydrocarbons Law also states that all hydrocarbon reservoirs are the property of the State. State ownership of these resources does not distinguish between land-based and offshore resources; both are only the property of the Venezuelan state. In addition, according to article 302 of the Constitution, the Venezuelan State specifies its domination over the oil industry and stipulates that the Hydrocarbons Law would determine the conditions under which the State “reserves” for itself the activities undertaken with the resources. In 1971, when ore reserves from Finnish mines dwindled and several mines had to be closed, the Ministry of Trade and Industry established a special fund in 1971 to support geological mineral research at universities specifically targeting northern Finland.