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. v) Long-term approach and territorial legacy: Finally, the proposal argues that closure should be evaluated not only by the absence of residual risks, but also by its contribution to territorial resilience. This implies incorporating a legacy vision that allows closure to become a positive turning point, capable of strengthening local capacities, improving governance, and enabling new post-mining development trajectories. 121
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2