2506 In this scenario, mining research centers perform functions that go beyond the mere generation of technical knowledge. They act as platforms for coordination between the state, academia, and industry; as hubs for technology transfer; and as spaces for scientific legitimization in the eyes of society (OECD, 2003). The literature on research governance and public research organizations emphasizes that institutional arrangements—mandates, funding, incentives, and accountability mechanisms—determine the ability to sustain long-term research agendas and protect scientific integrity (Mazzucato, 2018). Despite its global mining importance, Peru lacks a comprehensive framework that coherently articulates mining policy with scientific research and innovation. Applicable sectoral and cross-cutting regulations exist, but they operate in a scattered manner, making it difficult to consolidate mining research centers with academic autonomy, financial sustainability, and clear rules for technology transfer (Congreso de la República del Perú, 2025). This shortcoming becomes particularly critical in light of the critical minerals agenda and the commitments made under the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specifically SDG 9 (Industry, innovation, and infrastructure), SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and production), SDG 13 (Climate action), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) (United Nations, 2015). This article addresses this problem by integrating the approaches of green transition, critical minerals, and SDGs in a cross-cutting manner. Its objective is to propose applicable regulatory guidelines for Peru, based on national regulatory analysis and comparative experience. 2. STATE OF THE ART: MINING KNOWLEDGE GOVERNANCE AND INNOVATION 2.1 Knowledge governance in economies based on the exploitation of natural resources Knowledge governance refers to the set of institutional arrangements, legal norms, and policy instruments that regulate the production, circulation, and use of knowledge in society (OECD, 2011). In resource-based economies, the governance of scientific and technological knowledge is particularly complex, as it involves balancing economic competitiveness, environmental protection, and social legitimacy (Calzada Olvera, 2022). Mining knowledge governance encompasses research on geology, mineral processing, environmental management, mine closure, and social impacts, as well as innovation in digitization, automation, and low-carbon technologies (IEA, 2021). Effective governance frameworks seek to ensure that scientific research remains independent, credible, and socially relevant, while enabling collaboration with industry and public authorities (OECD, 2003). The academic literature highlights that weak governance structures often lead to excessive reliance on private funding, fragmentation of research agendas, and risks of regulatory capture. In contrast, countries with established mining innovation systems tend to adopt mixed governance models that combine public oversight, academic autonomy, and industry participation under transparent rules. 2.2 Academic autonomy and capacity for innovation Academic autonomy is a fundamental principle for scientific integrity and innovation. It encompasses the freedom to define research agendas, methodologies, and dissemination strategies without undue political or economic interference. In the context of mining research, autonomy is particularly sensitive due to the economic importance of the sector and environmental externalities. Studies on innovation systems emphasize that autonomous research institutions are better positioned to generate long-term knowledge, address complex sustainability challenges, and contribute to the transformative innovation required for the ecological transition (Mazzucato, 2018). However, autonomy does not imply isolation but rather requires governance mechanisms that enable cooperation while preserving
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2