Regulatory Policy in Peru 2026

This chapter provides an overview of the conditions and practices that underpin the development of evidence-informed regulations in Peru. It discusses the policy and institutional frameworks, both for the development of new regulations, as well as for the evaluation of the regulatory stock. Additionally, it covers the efforts to reduce administrative burdens and eliminate unnecessary costs for citizens and businesses.

As of 2023, all entities of the Executive Branch should identify and publish a list of public policy problems to address during the upcoming year. This document, known as the Early Agenda (Agenda Temprana) aims at providing certainty, fostering participation of different stakeholders, and gathering evidence on ways to tackle the identified problems. The agenda covers topics in a somewhat broad way (e.g. limited public integrity in regional and local administrations). Addressing such public policy problems can require a combination of approaches (regulatory and non-regulatory), and/or several regulations.

The focus of the Early Agenda on public problems, which can derive in a regulatory or non-regulatory intervention, is a stark differentiation compared to most OECD countries, in which the forward planning tools comprises plans for issuing or updating specific legal instruments. While the focus on public policy problems instead of legal instruments can make it difficult for stakeholders to anticipate specific reform efforts, it can promote the early consultation and the consideration of regulatory alternatives amongst ministries and regulators.

The Agenda is approved by the head of the entity and can be modified throughout the year following a formal procedure. While this allows entities flexibility to include urgent or relevant matters in their planning, it dampens the underlying objective of the tool of providing certainty for regulated parties.

The public policy problems identified in the agenda provide the basis for the RIA. The information collected as part of the consultation of the agenda is expected to be referenced during the preparation of the impact assessment.

In 2023, 32 Early Agendas were published by entities of the Executive Branch, which included 320 public problems. In 2024, 28 entities produced an Early agenda for a total of 280 public problems.

Peru has laid the foundations for the implementation of RIA in the entities of the Executive Branch. The process has been gradual and underpinned by the development of the institutional and technical capabilities. The use of RIA became mandatory for a group of four ministries in the second half of 2022, followed by three batches of ministries and public entities. The requirement was progressively rolled-out until the second quarter of 2023, when it became mandatory for all entities of the Executive Branch due to the entry into force of the General Law to Improve Regulatory Quality. Given that the application of RIA is still at early stages, only a few line ministries have carried out one in practice.

In 2021, Peru published the Bylaw for the Development of the Institutional Framework that underpins the Regulatory Quality Process and Defines the General Guidelines for the Application of Ex Ante RIA (RIA Bylaw), which set the foundations for the use of RIA in the country. This document was accompanied by the publication of practical guidelines for policy makers on the implementation of RIA and, more specifically, on the methodologies for the assessment of regulatory impacts. These documents were the basis for the definition of activities aimed at strengthening the capacities and increasing buy-in for regulatory management tools in the relevant entities.

This legal framework predates the publication of the General Law in 2023, which provides the overarching policy that encompasses the provisions and requirements for the implementation of RIA and other regulatory management tools and practices in Peru. However, as per the transitory measures established in the General Law, the legal framework for RIA described above will remain valid until a new Bylaw is issued.

The PCM defined an Implementation Plan for RIA, which delineated responsibilities, resources, and deadlines for the mandatory adoption of the tool by entities of the Executive Branch. The first stages focused on the dissemination of the tool, both inside and outside the administration. Moreover, ten entities worked on the development of pilots to recognise good practices and identify potential hurdles and limitations before the roll-out of the tool across the administration.

Embedding the use of RIA in the administration calls for a change of culture and support from the highest political level and from civil servants. Building this commitment and buy-in requires, among other things, constant training, exchanges of good practice and lessons learned among peers, and a willingness to break bureaucratic inertia and the traditional way of developing regulations. The PCM plays a crucial role leading the provision of constant support and technical assistance to line ministries and other entities. However, the constant rotation of civil servants has somewhat undermined the impact of these efforts.

RIA is mandatory for 55 institutions of the Executive Branch and applies to general regulatory provisions that create or modify compliance costs (i.e. supreme decrees, law proposals, and legislative decrees). However, its uptake has been slow; only a few institutions from the Executive Branch have developed a fully-fledged assessment since the requirement was introduced.

The RIA Bylaw defines the cases that are exempt of RIA. As in many OECD countries, administrative dispositions or internal resolutions and topics such as emergency regulations are not required to go through an impact assessment. The institution proposing the regulation can self-select into any of the 17 specific exceptions mentioned in article 28.1 of the General Law. However, the article also includes a rather broad provision, where the CMCR can grant a RIA exception if the requesting institution shows that the regulatory proposal does not generate nor modifies compliance costs for businesses, citizens, or civil society.

These broad loopholes create incentives to somehow game the system: the Secretariat team learned that it is common practice for ministries to prepare several versions of the draft regulation until they meet one of the criteria for RIA exception. One result has been that most of the submissions to the CMCR are accompanied by an exception request. In fact, in the six months following the introduction of the RIA requirement, less than ten complete RIAs had been assessed by the CMCR.

It is of note that one of the categories for RIA exception are technical regulations. The justification of the draft technical regulation varies from case to case and may include elements consistent with RIA evaluation. MINCETUR informed the Secretariat of its aspiration to merge the ex ante assessment of technical regulations with the RIA process, as this could increase the quality of technical regulations and foster efficiency gains across the administration.

It is worth noting that although some regulations are exempted from RIA, they still need to go through an ACR. The latter focuses on draft regulations that generate or modify administrative formalities (trámites) and aims at identifying, reducing, and/or eliminating unnecessary formalities, permits, or licenses. The PCM, and the CMCR, could build on the experience implementing the ACR to put in place the right conditions for the systemic use of RIA.

The regulatory framework for the application of RIA does not provide proportionality criteria. The Methodological guidance for RIA (Metodologías para la evaluación de impactos del AIR Ex Ante) defines the impacts and elements that should be considered when developing regulations; however, it does not list criteria that could help target the analysis based on the expected impacts. A uniform set of assessment requirements for all regulations can lead to a suboptimal allocation of resources as well as to resistance from public officials, particularly if they feel they do not have the necessary data, tools and expertise to attain the depth of assessment required.

The CMCR plays a central role in the application and evaluation of quality of better regulation tools, particularly RIA and, when it applies, ACR. It is formed by high-level representatives from the PCM, the MEF, and MINJUSDH. The Under-Secretariat of Simplification and Regulatory Analysis in the PCM is the Technical Secretariat and is responsible for the co-ordination of the technical teams that support the decision-making process of the CMCR. The role of the CMCR is defined in the General Law and on detailed guidelines on the supervision of the RIA system.

The Guidelines for the Evaluator of RIA (Manual del Evaluador del AIR Ex Ante) describes the operation of the CMCR and include detailed criteria for decision-making by the Commission, such as the approval or return of RIAs. Several actors during interviews mentioned that some members of the CMCR have faced pressures aimed at influencing their decisions on RIAs. Currently, members of the CMCR are exploring the possibility that Commissioners recuse from assessing the RIA in cases where their own institution is proposing the regulation. RIA approval decisions by the CMCR are made by simple majority (2 out of 3 members). These difficulties can be addressed with the development and implementation of stronger governance arrangements for the CMCR in the short run. In the medium term, Peru could consider setting up an oversight body with a greater degree of autonomy.

The process for the evaluation of RIAs includes a preliminary phase, where the Technical Secretariat of the CMCR determines whether the regulatory proposal is required to go through a RIA. Once the file is accepted, the CMCR with the support of multidisciplinary technical teams evaluates the RIA, the regulatory proposal, and its rationale, as well as the ACR if the proposal generates or modifies administrative formalities. During the evaluation process, the proposing authority can request meetings and guidance from the CMCR to address question and issues.

Finally, following the publication of a regulation without the positive opinion of the CMCR, the Commission informs the head of the institution and the Comptroller General of the Republic. The head of the institution is responsible for repealing the regulation.

In Peru, the implementation of tools focused on the review of the regulatory stock can be seen through two lenses: ex post evaluation of regulations and the use of administrative simplification tools. As in many OECD countries, ex post evaluation is at early stages in Peru. The General Law lays the foundations for its introduction and implementation in the Executive Branch. The SGP reports that no exercises on ex post evaluation have been carried out yet within the framework of the General Law. The SGP also notes that the normative and institutional structure necessary for an effective implementation of this tool is in the process of development, including the preparation of the Bylaw and the establishment of the Consultive Commission for the Improvement of Regulatory Quality ex post. This body would be led by the PCM and include members of the private sector, academia, and civil society with the objective of identifying regulations that have not achieved their public policy objective or that should be reviewed.

Nevertheless, some entities such as OSIPTEL and OSINERGMIN have taken steps to carry out ex post evaluations regularly. For instance, OSIPTEL has introduced a requirement of ex post evaluation of regulations three years after their publication and OSINERGMIN has carried out the ex post evaluation of a regulation on safety measures for LP gas cylinders based on an ex ante RIA prepared four years ago. The PCM, and all the Peruvian administration, could leverage the experiences of economic regulators to aim for an effective implementation of the ex post evaluation tool.

In Peru, most efforts to assess the stock of regulations have focused on simplification and reduction of administrative burdens. In 2010, Peru put in place the foundations for the introduction of administrative simplification tools across the national administration (National Policy and Plan for Administrative Simplification, methodologies for the assessment of administrative costs and public services, and Supreme Decree 007-2011-PCM). The use of a TUPA and the SUT laid the ground for a whole-of-government effort to reduce administrative burdens. Moreover, in 2018, the publication of two legislative decrees (Legislative Decree 1448 and Legislative Decree 1452) formalised the requirement to use ACR before the introduction or modification of administrative procedures. Finally, the assessment and elimination of bureaucratic barriers by the Commission for the Elimination of Bureaucratic Barriers (Comisión de Eliminación de Barreras Burocráticas) support the administrative simplification activities in Peru.

The TUPA standardises the information that public entities require from citizens and businesses through licenses and permits. TUPAs provide details regarding the requirements, fees, and processing times for each of the administrative procedures provided by each institution and have helped foster transparency and increase certainty for regulated parties. Building on the legal obligation to adopt TUPAs in all levels of government, the PCM is developing standardised administrative procedures in sub-national entities. The objective is to eliminate any differences on the number of requirements, internal processes, duration, and cost of administrative procedures nationwide. The prioritisation of procedures to standardise is based on elements such as frequency, number of requirements, impact on competitiveness, health, or education, and variation across sub-national governments on the application of their procedures. Among the procedures that have been standardised are construction licenses, permits to open a business, and technical inspections of buildings, among others.

Another tool that Peru has put in place to reduce administrative burdens is the Analysis of Regulatory Quality. The ACR assesses regulations that generate or modify formalities, i.e. licenses, permits and other forms of government authorisations, through four lenses: legality, need, effectiveness, and proportionality. It aims at reducing administrative burdens and simplifying the regulatory stock (although it can also be used before the publication of a regulation). Besides creating benefits in terms of greater competitiveness and transparency, the initiative has yielded significant results for Peru. Between 2017 and 2019, the ACR of existing regulations led to the following results:

• Over 2 400 administrative processes were evaluated;

• Approximately 30% of the administrative processes were derogated;

• More than 1 300 data requirements were eliminated.

The assessment of existing administrative procedures through the ACR should take place at least once every three years.

Finally, the Commission for the Elimination of Bureaucratic Barriers plays a role ensuring that regulatory requirements are reasonable, legal, and do not limit the access and participation of different market actors. When a bureaucratic barrier is identified, the Commission requests the responsible entity for its voluntary elimination. If the issue is not addressed, INDECOPI can introduce a formal complaint. According to the Commission, in the second half of 2020, 469 barriers were voluntarily eliminated, most of them imposed by district municipalities.

In 2010, Peru introduced physical one-stop shops for citizens, Better Service to the Citizen (MAC Centres) as part of its strategy to provide better services to citizens. The MAC Centres allow citizens to gather information on requirements and fees and request public services from 51 institutions and more than 500 formalities and procedures in a single location. Currently there are 15 MAC Centres across Peru. During the COVID-19 pandemic the use of telephone (Aló MAC) and virtual formats on some of the services offered by the MAC Centres increased. Additionally, 10 centres located in rural areas (MAC Express) provide 64 services from 22 different institutions. However, at the time of writing this report, the digital format of the MAC Centres is not available.

Peru does not have a physical or digital one-stop shop that gathers all administrative processes, namely licences and permits, for starting a business. Complex processes, an abundance of formalities at the national and sub-national level, and lack of information as to what licenses must be required, create excessive burdens for start-ups. These obstacles can constitute a barrier for setting up a formal firm, and push entrepreneurs either to the informal economy or prevent them from entering the market. Easing business licensing is therefore a key element for reducing compliance costs with regulation.

One of the recommendations on evidence-informed regulations calls for Peru to “Assess the performance of the RIA system after the initial stage of implementation of the General Law and implement a plan to bolster the use of RIA”, including by demonstrating progress towards:

• Identifying the obstacles that hinder the adoption amongst ministries of RIA and taking measures to tackle them.

• As part of the plan, consider focusing the efforts by CMCR on major regulatory proposals identified early in the process and work alongside ministries in the development of RIA.

• Adopting a proportional approach to RIA to focus public resources accordingly to the expected impacts of regulations.”

Peru conducted a diagnostic study to define the application of the RIA across several Executive Branch entities, identifying challenges in the implementation, and proposing solutions and recommendations. Peru is now developing a roadmap to address the obstacles identified in this study and implement the resulting recommendations.

Peru has taken steps to strengthen the RIA system in the national administration by working with line ministries and fostering the development of capacities across several entities. The SGP currently provides priority support to the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Women and Vulnerable Populations in developing their RIAs. Additionally, capacity building activities and programmes have been revamped, benefiting an important number of public officials:

• 700+ officials have received training in the development of forward planning instruments for the upcoming year.

• 1 400+ officials received technical assistance on regulatory management tools such as RIA, the forward planning instrument, public consultation, and regulatory quality analysis.

• 230+ officials attended courses on the identification of the public policy problem and on methodologies to assess the impact of regulations.

The adoption of a proportional approach to RIA has been formalised through the Bylaw, which introduces the concept of proportionality into the rule-making process and lays the groundwork for using threshold tests to determine the scope and depth of analysis. While its implementation is still in the early stages, internal documents and analyses have been developed to inform the final methodology and criteria, representing an important step towards operationalising this approach following the spirit of the recommendation. A proposal for differentiated RIAs, tailored to the expected impacts of specific regulations, has been circulated for feedback from key stakeholders. The draft criteria for defining thresholds are based on an international benchmark study, which includes the experiences of Australia, Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. The SGP is currently developing a roadmap for its implementation, which will include pilot programmes in select sectors.

The above developments show Peru’s progress in addressing this recommendation. Peru has assessed the performance of the RIA system through a diagnostic study to identify obstacles and propose solutions, leading to the development of a roadmap to address these challenges and strengthen RIA implementation. The government has enhanced support for ministries, prioritising key regulatory proposals and providing technical assistance to some ministries. Capacity-building efforts have expanded significantly, training over 2 300 officials. Additionally, the adoption of a proportional approach to RIA has been formalised through the Bylaw, with ongoing efforts to refine and implement threshold criteria.

Another recommendation on evidence-informed regulations calls for Peru to “Put in place the policy and governance frameworks that support the effective introduction of ex post evaluation of regulations, including by demonstrating progress towards: Publishing the Bylaw or guidelines for the systematic use of ex post evaluation and focus its use on a specific set of regulations (i.e. regulations that were approved without a RIA, or regulations that have significant impacts on specific groups or sectors, amongst others)”.

The Bylaw sets the bases for the adoption of ex post evaluation of regulations in the national administration. This evaluation seeks to assess the relevance of the policy issue that led to the development of a regulation, to determine whether it has attained its objectives, and identify any unintended impacts. Additionally, it aims at identifying opportunities for improvement, modification, or repeal if adequate.

Regulations subject to ex post evaluation include those that underwent a RIA assessment before publication and priority regulations published without a RIA analysis. Prioritisation is based on a series of criteria such as:

• Comments from stakeholders.

• Proportionality of the impact, magnitude, and impacted groups.

• RIA feedback.

• Sector, priority is given to sectors that can facilitate inclusive and sustainable development, innovation, and business growth.

Entities from the Executive Branch are required to prepare the evaluations and submit them to the CMCR for review. The CMCR’s report can lead to a process where regulations are simplified, modified, and specific dispositions are eliminated or, alternatively, the relevant entity publishes a regulation to eliminate or modify the regulation that was subject to the evaluation.

Furthermore, the Bylaw mandates the SGP with the development of guidelines and an implementation plan for the introduction of ex post evaluations. The roll-out of this regulatory management tool will take place gradually, beginning with priority sectors. Early drafts of the implementation plan consider the development of capacities and technical assistance to the relevant ministries and institutions as well as pilot programmes to introduce the tool.

The above developments show progress in Peru addressing the recommendation. By publishing the Bylaw, Peru has put in place the bases for the development and implementation of ex post evaluation. The Bylaw identifies the objective, prioritisation criteria, and outcomes from the application of ex post evaluation. The SGP is currently developing an action plan, which considers the need for a gradual implementation of this tool and underscores the need to provide adequate training and capacity building across the administration.