2285 toward transformation rather than containment, the promise of a just energy transition risks remaining disconnected from the realities of the territories that sustain it. In response to these limitations, this paper introduces the Territorial Transformation Observatory (OTT) not as a definitive solution, but as a governance hypothesis for addressing the structural challenges observed in the SMC. The OTT is conceived as an enabling platform that seeks to reconfigure how territorial problems are understood, discussed, and acted upon. Its central premise is that sustainable conflict management and long-term stability in critical mining territories depend on the existence of shared informational baselines, institutionalized and territorially grounded spaces for interaction that move beyond crisis-driven, transactional negotiation, and strengthened local capacities that allow actors to move beyond transactional engagement. 2. TRANSFORMATIVE COALITIONS AND TERRITORIAL GOVERNANCE: A CONCEPTUAL LENS In territorially complex and conflict-prone contexts such as large-scale mining corridors, persistent governance failures have revealed the limits of transactional negotiation and fragmented coordination among actors. It is within these settings that the concept of transformative coalitions becomes analytically relevant. Transformative coalitions refer to structured alignments among diverse actors who, despite differing interests and positional power, converge around a shared diagnosis of territorial challenges and a forward-looking vision for change (Ciplet 2022; Köhler 2020). Unlike ad hoc alliances or temporary coordination mechanisms, such coalitions are defined by the combination of strategic power and embedded relations, which enables them to influence decision-making processes while remaining grounded in specific territorial contexts. Rather than emerging spontaneously, transformative coalitions are sustained through explicit and implicit rules of interaction that structure how actors engage, negotiate, and make collective decisions over time (Herzog et al. 2022). As several strands of the literature emphasize, these formal and informal rules play a central role in shaping collaboration, determining not only who participates, but also how authority, responsibilities, and expectations are distributed within coalitional arrangements (Park et al. 2021). From this perspective, durable territorial governance cannot rely solely on bilateral negotiations or hierarchical authority, but requires sustained, rulebased coordination across public institutions, private actors, civil society, and local communities. One central mechanism through which transformative coalitions sustain coordination over time is the strategic role of information. Rather than treating data as a technical input or an instrument of persuasion, these coalitions prioritize the joint production, interpretation, and use of territorial information as a shared resource (Kolbjørnsrud 2017; Hamilton & Lubell 2018). Credible and collectively recognized data, on environmental impacts, social dynamics, land use, or economic trends, helps reduce informational asymmetries, reframes contested issues, and anchors dialogue in commonly understood evidence. In doing so, transformative coalitions create conditions for learning, trust-building, and adaptive governance, enabling actors to move beyond short-term bargaining toward more coordinated and anticipatory responses to complex territorial transformations. A useful distinction is between coalitions that are primarily defensive or transactional and those that are genuinely transformative. Defensive coalitions typically emerge when actors mobilize to protect existing positions, mitigate perceived threats, or contain uncertainty (Fortunato 2020, De Bièvre & Eckhardt 2010). Their logic is oriented toward safeguarding prerogatives (whether institutional, economic, or political) rather than reworking the underlying governance configuration. In extractive territories, this can include alliances aimed at preserving operational continuity, managing reputational risks, or preventing the redistribution of authority (Taarup-Esbensen 2019). Such coalitions may be effective at stabilizing a situation temporarily, but they tend to reproduce the asymmetric and institutional weaknesses that make conflict recurrent within the territory. Transactional coalitions, by contrast, are organized around short-term exchanges among actors whose coordination is conditional on immediate benefits (Hamilton & Lubell 2018). Their cohesion depends on bargaining over concessions such as compensation packages or discrete public investments rather than on a shared territorial vision (Bebbington et al. 2018). Because these coalitions are often activated under crisis conditions, they prioritize quick settlements and measurable deliverables that can demonstrate responsiveness. Yet their time horizons remain narrow, and their agreements frequently lack robust monitoring, enforcement, or mechanisms for revision. As a result, transactional coalitions can normalize a
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2