1666 and temporal variability of post-mining land use. Table 1 summarizes key differences across stages and the associated levels of uncertainty observed in local case applications. For ecological receptors, the primary challenge lies in receptor selection due to Peru’s high biodiversity. Receptor selection therefore incorporates species protection criteria and socio-cultural relevance. While no substantive differences have been observed across stages in terms of receptor types considered, exposure magnitude may vary depending on species access to disturbed areas, which is typically more restricted during closure and post-closure. 3.3 Cross-cutting considerations Application of the methodology highlights the importance of robust environmental baseline data, particularly for defining natural or non-project-related background concentrations. This consideration is critical in highly mineralized areas, where background levels may exceed environmental quality standards and, if not properly characterized, lead to misinterpretation of contamination levels and associated risks. Incorporating site-specific background values enables more realistic risk estimates and supports the definition of remediation objectives that are compatible with the geological and social context of the site. Across both international and local applications, community participation emerges as a central cross-cutting element. Integrating participatory processes into risk assessment is essential for validating future land-use assumptions, improving the quality of field data, and strengthening the legitimacy of closure decisions. This approach transforms mine closure planning from a predominantly technical exercise into a process of shared responsibility, where communities, regulators, and proponents jointly contribute to defining realistic and socially acceptable post-mining scenarios. Although challenging in practice due to the diversity of stakeholders involved, this participatory framework enhances transparency, builds trust, and confirms the role of risk assessment as an effective tool for informed and inclusive decision-making. Table 1 – Considerations for risk assessment with a prospective approach Aspect Closure Post-closure Future Use Status Closure activities: earthmoving, decommissioning, closure infrastructure, revegetation Infrastructure maintenance and environmental monitoring Areas transferred to the Government or community: agricultural/residential use Receptors On-site: closure workers Off-site: surrounding population On-site: post-closure workers Off-site: surrounding population Off-site: residents who live or carry out activities in the area and its surroundings Exposure On-site: linked to work schedules and closurerelated activities Off-site: linked to residential and productive activities in the surrounding area On-site: linked to work schedules and closurerelated activities (not relevant) Off-site: linked to residential and productive activities in the surrounding area Off-site: associated with actual land use and residential and productive activities in the surrounding area Level of uncertainty Low for on-site receptors High for off-site receptors due to variability in activities and land use patterns Low for on-site receptors High for off-site receptors due to variability in activities and land use patterns High due to the spatial and temporal variability of future human activities and dependence on agricultural livelihoods
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2