194 frameworks have been strengthened by recent amendments—such as Law No. 31347; Supreme Decree No. 014-2024-EM; Supreme Decree No. 006-2025-EM; Legislative Decree No. 1670— their systematic analysis reveals significant legal gaps in the governance of post-mining territories, particularly concerning the use of rehabilitated land, the allocation of long-term responsibilities, and post-closure territorial and social integration, as detailed below: Table 1. Regulatory gaps in national legislation on mine closure and environmental liabilities HIGGHLIGHTS ANALYSIS AND IDENTIFIED GAPS Technical and environmental approach to mine closure and lack of territorial governance The LCM defines mine closure as a set of measures aimed at rehabilitating disturbed areas and preventing risks to health and the environment. In this regard, Article 3 of the law and Article 5 of the regulations establish that the Mine Closure Plan (PCM) must ensure the physical, geochemical, and hydrological stability of mining components; however, they do not incorporate the future use of the territory or its articulation with land use planning or regional development instruments as a regulatory objective. Despite the amendments introduced by Law 31347, closure continues to be legally conceived as a technical-administrative event, aimed at ensuring environmental compliance and releasing the owner's liability, without a clear vision of territorial transition. Legal gap: The closure regulations do not recognize the postmining stage as an autonomous phase of territorial governance, nor do they establish binding legal criteria for defining, approving, or monitoring subsequent land uses. Regulatory fragmentation between mine closures and Mining environmental liabilities (PAM in Spanish) A structural feature of the Peruvian framework is the existence of one regime for mine closure and another for the management of mining environmental liabilities (pasivos ambientales mineros, in Spanish), as specified in Article 2 of Supreme Decree 033-2005-EM, which excludes PAM from its scope of application. While mine closure applies to units in operation or in the process of being shut down, Law 28271 regulates abandoned or inactive facilities that pose permanent risks (Article 2). In this regard, the remediation of PAMs is carried out through the Mining Environmental Liability Closure Plan (PCPAM), whose objective is to mitigate or eliminate risk, but not to plan the territory once it has been remediated. Legal gap: There is no comprehensive legal framework that articulates mine closure and PAM remediation within a common post-mining territorial strategy, which allows for the creation of
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2