The fragmented and polarized nature of Peruvian politics is also a major challenge. The rapid succession of governments and steady turnover of ministers and civil servants in the relevant ministries over recent years have affected the capacity of the Peruvian state to promote an inclusive, organic national vision and to plan for its all-important extractive industry. For example, in its 14 months in power, the Castillo government changed 72 ministers. Administrative changes did not end at the top either, but often included turnover of civil servants below the ministerial level. Indeed, according to a recent report by the NGO Environmental Resources Management (ERM), ‘one of the serious problems faced by this system is the high turnover of personnel and the permanent changes of heads and directors’.
At the same time, the profusion of parties across the political spectrum has hampered the capacity of the political system to represent consistent, coherent national policy interests (including, especially, those of the communities where mining occurs) in the public policy discussion and agenda. A total of 25 parties competed in the 2021 elections that elected Peru’s parliament and president. And 10 parties won seats in the 130-seat Congress. The dispersion within the government – both nationally and locally – of responsibilities over different aspects of the extractive industry further complicates matters.
Precisely because of the political flux in the national government, and because presidential and parliamentary elections are scheduled for 2026, now is the time to initiate a broad dialogue with different layers of government, citizens and the private sector over the future vision and agenda for Peru as a mining economy. Dialogue can also help to craft a national discussion around the interests, views and demands for the sector in the run-up to the 2026 elections. According to the World Bank, ‘a shared vision is lacking among the different stakeholders (both at the local and central levels) on the role the mining sector should play in national development’. The concept of national and regional dialogues was also echoed in the recent International Crisis Group report, which stated that ‘authorities and the public could as a first step look to the work being done by a variety of groups to bring the country’s diverse constituencies together in dialogue.’ An inclusive effort will be needed to begin to define shared solutions to the challenge of balancing support for Peru’s mining-based economy with the imperatives of addressing social exclusion and lack of social mobility, improving environmental protection and reducing mining sector informality. Such a dialogue can serve as a framework for Peru’s policy debates beyond the political drama that has consumed national attention. Moreover, such a process could better define the central role of a stronger, more effective state that can guarantee greater agency for the Peruvian government and society in the global green economy and in setting the terms for international investment in Peru’s extractive sector.
