Based on these aspects, the proposal formulates a model for the strategic social management of mine closure, which conceives of socioeconomic transition as a structuring axis and complements, without replacing, existing regulatory instruments. This model seeks to bridge the gap identified in the cases analyzed between closure understood as an orderly exit and closure understood as a territorial process of transformation, aligned with the principles of sustainability, territorial justice, and social performance. 4.2. Strategic social management model: principles, operation, and added value The strategic social management model for closure is based on the premise that socioeconomic transition cannot be managed in a reactive or residual manner, but must be a planned, continuous, and co-responsible process. In this sense, the model proposes treating the transition as a specific instrument, articulated with the Mine Closure Plan, capable of addressing the socioeconomic impacts and risks associated with both the operational life of the mine and its exit. From a conceptual point of view, the model recognizes that closure not only generates negative impacts that must be mitigated, but also recognizes the positive impacts generated during operation which, when they disappear, generate risks in the territory: loss of employment, contraction of local demand, weakening of suppliers, reduction of tax revenues, and gaps in the provision of infrastructure or services. Strategic closure management, therefore, is not limited to avoiding damage, but seeks to actively manage these dependencies, strengthening capacities and creating conditions for territorial continuity without the mine. In operational terms, the model is structured around a set of integrated planning principles that serve as guiding criteria: ● Early, incorporating socioeconomic transition from the initial phases of the project, that is, from the exploration planning stage, so that operational decisions consider from the outset their impact on the post-mining future and the territorial legacy. ● Continuous, maintaining closure planning and management throughout the project's life cycle, avoiding late divestment processes or irresponsible transfers. ● Participatory, promoting the substantive participation of communities, subnational governments, workers, and other relevant actors, beyond merely informative or consultative schemes. ● Articulated, integrating the different components of the project with each other and with the territory, allowing for the identification of cumulative effects and emerging risks at the territorial level. ● Multidisciplinary, combining technical, environmental, social, and economic knowledge to address the complexity of closure. ● Forward-looking, incorporating desirable, plausible, and contingency future scenarios, including unplanned or abrupt closures. 122
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2