1124 as Essen's designation as European Capital of Culture (2010) and European Green Capital (2017), as well as in the sustained increase in tourism and cultural investment. More recently, the Zollverein complex has been honored with the German Sustainability Award 2025, in recognition of its contribution to environmental, cultural, and social sustainability (EventMasterBook, 2025). In addition, the Ruhr's transition is underpinned by coordinated polycentric planning and sustained public leadership, key factors in avoiding post-closure fragmentation (Hamm & Wiggering, 2020). The German case confirms some empirical findings of this research: overcoming closure as a technical event (finding 1), the centrality of advance planning (finding 2), regulatory and territorial integration (finding 3), and the generation of new economic and cultural functions for the territory (finding 5). Consequently, the Ruhr basin and Zollverein constitute an advanced benchmark for governance in postmining territorial transition, with relevant lessons for contexts where the closure of operations and the management of a mining legacy (PAM) continue to be regulated in a fragmented and predominantly technical manner, as in Peru. 5. PROPOSAL The analysis reveals that Peruvian legislation: (i) separates regulations on mine closure (Law 28090 and regulations) and remediation of mining environmental liabilities (Law 28271 and regulations); (ii) assigns different authorities, instruments, and rationales; and (iii) lacks a legal category for post-mining territory. This separation contradicts international empirical evidence showing that post-mining sustainability depends on regulatory and territorial continuity. 5.1. Principles for integrated legal governance of post-mining territories A regulatory framework based on five structural principles is proposed: (i) Territorial continuity— closure and remediation are part of the same process; (ii) Advance planning—post-mining management is designed before final closure; (iii) Regulatory integration—a single regime for active, inactive, and abandoned mining sites, (iv) Social centrality—binding participation and territorial justice, and (v) Public function of the post-mining territory—ecosystem, social, and climate value. 5.2. Proposal for regulatory integration – Creation of the legal category of “Post-Mining Territory”: It is urgent to incorporate into both the LCM and the LPAM, and their respective regulations, a common definition that recognizes post-mining territory as a socio-ecological space subject to specific planning, management, and governance after the cessation or abandonment of mining activities. – Single instrument for the management of post-mining territories: It is proposed to create a “Comprehensive Post-Mining Transition Plan” as a single instrument, applicable to both units in closure and historical liabilities. This instrument should include a long-term territorial vision, the definition of compatible post-mining uses, binding social participation, and coordination with regional and climate planning. – Creation of an intersectoral mechanism to enable institutional coordination: Initially between the Ministry of Energy and Mines, the Ministry of the Environment, regional and local governments, surrounding communities, and companies involved (if any); a mechanism that allows for post-mining governance from the formulation of mining projects, the evaluation and modification of closure plans, and the identification and characterization of identified environmental liabilities, to establish the best post-mining transition applicable to each case and to adequately structure territorial decision-making. 6. CONCLUSIONS – Regulatory frameworks governing mine closure, future land use, long-term responsibility allocation, and post-closure social integration continue to have regulatory gaps. – This absence of clear and binding legal criteria for defining the uses of post-mining territories generates
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2