The deep institutional, social and economic effects of mining in Peru, the complicated and sometimes fraught relationships between state, private sector and communities, and the uncertain delineation of territories and responsibilities all leave a range of tasks to be completed before Peru can reach its potential as a mineral-exporting economy. Broad-based discussion, analysis and institutional policy reform are the only ways to address both the complexity of these challenges and responsibilities and the low levels of trust among Peruvians.
One of the first steps towards achieving this aim should involve a centralized, independent effort to collect, catalogue and make more widely available the rich body of information on mining and development in Peru. To start, this would include examples of existing agreements between investors, communities, and national and local governments. Many such documents are already available via government-, university- and/or NGO-maintained sites – both physical and digital. But more can be done to house, distil and disseminate that material for broader consumption, along with other related research. Included among the materials that could and should be more widely publicized are: quantitative and qualitative studies on the impact of mining on socio-economic development (such as educational enrolment and achievement, health and healthcare, income and inequality); and tracking of fiscal revenue and how it has been invested locally. One source for this research paper referred to this idea as mapping ‘the eco-system of mining agreements [between the private sector, governments and communities]’ and the collective role of all of those parties in achieving the promised benefits of mining. Regional and local universities are well placed to be the central nodes of any informational or data-centred network of this type.
Similarly, another data and document centralization and dissemination project should be the creation of an online library of standards, guidelines, case studies and lessons learned in both Peru and internationally on mining, negotiation, state capacity, dialogue and development. There is a long, rich history of examples, standards and studies in Peru and globally on mining, development and social peace. Those documents can be better organized in a single online library, not just to allow easier public access, but also to provide opportunities for dissemination including via the distillation of knowledge and lessons into more digestible content and its translation into Indigenous languages. Such a project could be housed in a regional university or network of such institutions.
A further step, more for the medium and long term, is to promote a national multi-sectoral agreement on sustainable mining, development and Peru’s global role. Such an effort would need to include national, regional and local governments, NGOs (including community groups, labour unions, professional associations and research institutes), key private sector investors and communities. This agreement could be housed or coordinated via a consortium of national and regional universities. One starting point should be the basic standards and obligations embedded in ESG commitments around the environment, social responsibility and improving governance. The process should have a long-term horizon, and should be conducted both nationally and locally, with the idea to promote a shared, public vision and commitment based on a set of defined responsibilities and opportunities. Even as these dialogues occur – before there is even a broad consensus – the fundamental points of agreement and commitments should be established and shared in an evolving process intended to build and sustain momentum and agreement over basic principles and interests. Establishing national provisions and standards for greater attention to ESG commitments would help codify these practices and provide public and private pressure for investors, communities and, especially, the national government to elevate them and ensure that stakeholders voluntary enforce them.
Such a dialogue will need to be multi-sectoral, and sensitive to gender balance and cultural diversity. As mentioned above, the proliferation of ‘dialogues’ – often in response to a specific crisis – has had the opposite of the desired effect in Peru. Too often, such dialogues have diluted efforts to build consensus and commitments to reform. Permanence and inclusiveness are key. So, too, is the need to avoid dialogue for its own sake. Discussion must lead to concrete commitments.
Future dialogues will need to pay special attention to the inclusion of women and young people. Women are important community voices, and are also often more involved in the work directly affected by social programmes, including education, healthcare, and provision of food and water. Future generations of Peruvians also need to be included in the broader national conversation. One young community leader who participated in this study told of a pan-regional youth network that mobilized to participate in dialogues and share information. Engaging local universities in these efforts is an important component and can help foster cross-regional networks.
A lack of popular confidence in the state and private sector remains an obstacle to the sort of collaboration described. But it should not be allowed to prevent broad-based dialogue. Working with political leaders and movements that have been responsible for the political dysfunction that has marked Peru in recent years is a fraught process and should be approached carefully, especially as some of the actors involved have also been engaged in illicit mining. Engagement of the state is essential to consistency and institution-building. A broad dialogue of the sort proposed should be housed in the national government office with a specific mandate and financial and administrative capacity to both consistently engage in those private discussions and follow through on commitments, monitor follow-up and ensure guarantees are met.
This is also important for ensuring that responsibility for development, social investment – outside tax responsibilities – and dialogue is not left to the private sector. Ultimately, the negotiations of mining contracts and commitments to the array of tax, social and investment obligations are the responsibility of the state, whether at national, regional or local level. Too often, the task of meeting those obligations and expanding upon them has fallen to investors, at times leading to increasing demands from local groups and communities. Explicitly engaging state representatives in these local community dialogues with investors and community groups will ensure a better balance of responsibility and accountability. It can help to avoid the ineffective practice of leaving follow-up and enforcement of commitments to local representatives, who are often under-resourced and understaffed.
Sweeping reform will require legislation through a Congress hobbled by fragmentation and internecine conflicts. But a broader national conversation is essential.
Entering into a discussion of Peru’s complicated processes for the distribution of mining rents is difficult. Sweeping reform will require legislation through a Congress hobbled by fragmentation and internecine conflicts. But a broader national conversation on the topic – at the risk of opening up a Pandora’s box of revenue grabs and debates about who deserves a larger or smaller share of the profits from the mining bonanza – is essential. There is broad consensus among stakeholders that the system is too complicated, leaves out some of the regions indirectly affected by mining, and – most of all – has led to inefficiencies in the allocation of the resources and to a lack of accountability over expenditures. Any national or regional dialogue will need to cover the issue of distribution; moreover, doing so will help to bring the topic to national attention in the run-up to the 2026 elections.
Even before the elections, much-needed changes could occur without legislative reform. Among them is strengthening the national government’s oversight of local management of funds. In all these cases, a central priority should be to strengthen the administrative capacity and transparency of municipal and regional governments in managing resources and consulting with local constituents. Improved, consistent national government oversight in the management of funds will also help address concerns over corruption.
While the processes of consulting local communities and conducting environmental assessments is not a state responsibility as formally defined, there is a need to reassess and possibly streamline the different requirements for investor consultation, such as the consulta previa and environmental impact assessment – both required under government regulations. In these cases too, the information generated from these exercises can be better applied to help identify and address gaps in infrastructure and improve the quality of public services beyond mining projects specifically.
The processes, agreements and collective vision should be used to promote the broad outlines of reform proposals and new policy initiatives ahead of the 2026 elections. Such efforts should include opening a discussion on the current system of redistributing 50 per cent of investor income taxes derived from resource extraction (canon minero), and on possible quick incremental reforms to that system. Included in this discussion should be the need to broaden the territorial definition of communities affected by mining, even when such communities are located far from the sources of metals and minerals involved. Such communities need to be considered not only formally as stakeholders requiring protection from the negative impacts of mining but also as potential beneficiaries of the distribution of mining revenue. Inclusion of such communities also implies a need for the national government to have a greater role – and more capacity – to work with national and regional/local state officials to better harmonize policies, responsibilities and coordination.
Last, communication – of past and future dialogues, new investments, best and worst practices, and discussions occurring at the national and regional level over mining policy – is essential. Despite the prominence of mining in Peru’s economy, socio-economic development and social fabric, national discussion of the sector remains dispersed and insufficient. This is not to argue for a coordinated effort at promoting or conveying specific messages. Rather, that there is a gap in how the range of media and stakeholders involved in, or affected, by mining engage in a broader narrative. To this end, community radio stations, local universities, social media and national, regional and local workshops can help promote discussion of the industry, its place in the national and local economies, the existence of best practices, bad practices, and the reforms and processes necessary to make it more sustainable and productive for all Peruvians.
