2254 the closure was not configured as a planned transition process, but rather as a disruptive event that simultaneously strained social cohesion, economic sustainability, and the institutional capacity of the territory. 4. PROPOSAL 4.1 General approach of the proposal The comparative analysis between the two countries shows that the main criterion for closure is regulatory compliance, without addressing long-term socioeconomic dependencies and risks in a structural manner. This narrow conception explains the gap between formally adequate closures and post-mining territories facing economic stagnation and institutional weakening. Evidence shows that closure triggers territorial needs that exceed the regulatory framework, such as labor transition, local fiscal sustainability, and the continuity of strategic infrastructure. When these dimensions are not managed in an anticipatory and integrated manner, the benefits generated during mining operations tend to become vulnerabilities when the mine closes. In this context, the proposal is based on a central conceptual shift: moving away from the traditional approach of "social closure" toward one of just socioeconomic transition, understood as a continuous process that unfolds throughout the entire life cycle of the mining project and deliberately prepares the territory for a post-mining scenario. This approach recognizes that closure not only generates negative impacts to be mitigated, but also the loss of positive impacts—employment, income, economic dynamism, infrastructure, service provision—which, when they disappear, expose the structural dependencies co-created during the operation. On this basis, the proposal identifies four strategic aspects that must be explicitly incorporated into closure management: i) Management of built socio-economic dependencies: Mining operations, even under social responsibility schemes, can generate economic, labor, and institutional dependency relationships in the territories. The socio-economic transition requires identifying, managing, and progressively reducing these dependencies, preventing the mine's departure from causing shocks to employment, local suppliers, local finances, or service provision. ii) Integration of the analysis of potential dependencies and impacts into mining project planning: Closure must be integrated from the project design stage through proactive risk analysis that identifies socioeconomic dependencies and long-term environmental footprints. This preventive approach transforms operational planning into a tool that, beyond mitigating liabilities, incorporates post-closure criteria to ensure the resilience and viability of the territory. iii) Coordination between closure and territorial development: Closure cannot be conceived as a process isolated from local and regional development planning. The proposal suggests that socioeconomic transition should be aligned with existing territorial agendas or, failing that, contribute to their construction, coordinating mining assets—infrastructure, technical capabilities, human capital—with strategies for productive diversification and future land use. iv) Governance and multi-stakeholder co-responsibility: Cases show that, after closure, there are gaps in responsibility where the future of the territory is implicitly transferred to the State, even when the latter lacks sufficient capacity. The proposal emphasizes the need for explicit co-responsibility between companies, the State, and social actors, structured through territorial governance mechanisms that allow for the coordination of decisions, management of conflicts, and support for transition processes. Added to this is the need to integrate the generation of territorial and public management capacities into social and territorial management plans during mining operations.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2