200 2, regulatory innovation has focused on progressive rehabilitation, financial guarantees, and avenues for relinquishment (Tiemann, 2022; Kuzyk, 2025). Other studies show that landscapes restored after mining require ongoing management and long-term adaptive interventions (Hendrychová, 2020; Melichar, 2022). Despite this, a review of national regulations shows that closure regimes continue to conceptualize responsibility primarily in terms of remediation of past damage and financial liability for environmental risk. Consequently, national regulatory frameworks do not reconceptualize responsibility as territorial administration, nor do they establish institutions capable of managing post-mining territories. 3.4 Limits to social inclusion in post-mining governance Studies on indigenous lands are particularly relevant. Boulot and Collins (2024) demonstrate that even robust regulatory frameworks do not guarantee culturally safe and socially just outcomes when indigenous communities lack control over land use after mining. Daly et al. (2025) show that traditional land use planning frameworks often marginalize indigenous knowledge and relational conceptions of land. This reveals that social inclusion—consultation, participation, or information sharing with communities and the general population—is insufficient when legal frameworks fail to recognize collective territorial rights, co-decision or veto powers, or the long-term governance functions of affected communities. As a result, current approaches lack legal mechanisms to transform participation into substantive territorial authority, especially in post-mining contexts linked to historical dispossession and power asymmetries. 3.5 Transitions that generate inequality and the risk of new extractivist models. There is growing tension between post-mining transitions, as evidenced in Peru by illegal or informal mining in areas that have already been remediated (the Colquirrumi case). As shown in Table 2, studies reveal that post-mining investments can reproduce or exacerbate inequality (Parsons, 2024) and that “green” or post-development pathways can perpetuate extractivist logic in new forms (Post, 2024; Dunlap, 2024). Technical studies on renewable energy or blue-green infrastructure in post-mining areas (Xiao et al., 2025; Kantor, 2025) demonstrate significant environmental potential, but largely fail to address governance issues related to benefit sharing, land control, and social acceptance. As a result, transitions framed as sustainable or climate-friendly risk becoming new sites of territorial extraction. Consequently, there is no integrated framework that incorporates distributive justice and power relations into post-mining land use governance, which negatively influences long-term outcomes. 3.6 Summary: the need for post-mining governance The deficiencies and gaps identified reveal that current approaches to the post-mining stage suffer from a common structural limitation: they address what needs to be done, such as
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2