● Iterative, conceiving closure as a dynamic and adaptive process, subject to continuous review and learning. The added value of the model lies in its ability to operationalize socioeconomic transition where regulations fall short. Unlike approaches focused exclusively on global standards or SDG rhetoric, the model is based on a concrete analysis of impacts, risks, and territorial capacities, allowing closure actions to be aligned with the real needs of the territories. In this way, it contributes to closing the gap identified in the cases analyzed between corporate closure management and the structural challenges of post-mining development. 4.3. Implications of the model in the current scenario In the current context of energy transition and reconfiguration of the extractive sector, the adoption of this model implies a substantive change in the way companies and states conceive of mine closure. For companies, it means extending the time horizon of social management and assuming that the legitimacy of closure depends both on technical compliance and on the ability to contribute to an orderly territorial transition. For states, it means strengthening institutional frameworks and subnational capacities that enable the territory to move beyond mining. In mining territories, the model offers an alternative to reactive closures that have deepened social and economic vulnerability, allowing closure to be transformed into a deliberate transition process geared toward resilience and territorial legacy. In this sense, closure ceases to be the end of the extractive cycle and becomes a strategic turning point from which it is possible to reconfigure the foundations of territorial development in a post-mining scenario. 5. CONCLUSION The comparative analysis of Peru and Colombia confirms that mine closure cannot be reduced to a technical procedure aimed at regulatory compliance, but rather constitutes a decisive process of territorial transition with long-term social, economic, and institutional effects. Evidence shows that formally adequate closures can coexist with post-mining territories unable to sustain autonomous development trajectories when the transition is not planned from early stages, the socioeconomic dependencies built during the operation are not managed, and responsibility for the territorial future is implicitly transferred to states with limited capacities. Under these conditions, closure tends to amplify pre-existing structural vulnerabilities rather than becoming a mechanism for territorial transformation and resilience. Consequently, the article argues that shifting the focus from social closure to socioeconomic transition constitutes an indispensable conceptual and operational change for mining territories. Conceiving closure as a continuous process that begins in the early stages of the mining cycle and is integrated into territorial development allows for the management of dependencies, the strengthening of multi-stakeholder co-responsibility, and the orientation of legacy building beyond regulatory compliance, in line with the ICMM's Social Performance framework. Reimagined in this way, closure ceases to be the end of extractive activity and 123
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2