Regulatory Policy in Peru 2026

8. Agile regulatory governance

Abstract

Peru’s legal framework promotes agile regulatory governance through the General Law on Improvement of Regulatory Quality, which introduces cost‑effective innovation as a regulatory instrument. However, implementation remains pending, with no operational guidelines or pilots yet in place. The Superintendency of Banking, Insurance and Pension Funds has pioneered regulatory sandboxes to foster financial innovation, though no projects have been authorised. Some regulators, including OEFA and OSINERGMIN, apply risk-based enforcement and data-driven supervision. Despite these initial steps, Peru lacks awareness, capacity, and co‑ordination to operationalise agile approaches.

Introduction

This chapter identifies the policies, practices, and institutions in place in Peru that could serve as a starting point for implementing the OECD Recommendation for Agile Regulatory Governance to Harness Innovation [OECD/LEGAL/0464].

While recognising the aspirational nature of this recommendation, the chapter provides suggestions that could support Peru with developing the necessary measures to design and implement an agile regulatory governance system. Within this system, traditional policies, practices, and institutions related to regulatory policy could be adapted to become more flexible thereby better responding to the governance and regulatory challenges posed by future shocks.

The legal and institutional landscape for agile regulatory governance

Peru’s current legal framework has a foundational provision to promote an agile regulatory governance system. The General Law on Improvement of Regulatory Quality1 in its article 5 defines the implementation of cost-effective innovation as one of the instruments of regulatory quality. The article allows for public entities and/or civil society to address public problems through the generation and analysis of regulatory and non-regulatory solution alternatives, based on the production of evidence, the identification, design, implementation and continuous monitoring of cost-effective innovation, including novel regulatory models, regulatory laboratories and other.

Given the very recent emission of the Law, Peru is yet to issue further regulations or guidelines that can help line ministries and other regulators to operationalise the tool of implementation of cost-effective innovation. Therefore, changes in response to innovation and new challenges are currently managed through the standard rulemaking procedures (see Chapter 4: Evidence-informed regulations), which in turn is in early development in the adoption of OECD principles and recommendation. As a result, the implementation of cost-effective innovations has not happened yet.

The CMCR, headed by the PCM has the oversight of the instruments of regulatory quality, including the implementation of cost-effective innovation. The nature, function and organisation of the Commission are explained in Chapter 3 Institutional framework and capacity for regulatory policy. At the time of writing of this report, the Commission and PCM informed that they have not had any cases of implementation of cost-effective innovation in regulation. The lack of a guiding framework for this instrument of regulatory quality, and the early stages of the system of regulatory quality established by the Law, might explain in part the lack of examples of the use of approaches consistent with agile regulatory governance.

National strategies and initiatives for agile regulatory governance

Apart from the provisions included in the Law to promote an agile regulatory governance system, Peru has not yet introduced any other national strategy whose objective is directly or indirectly to establish or promote an agile regulatory governance system.

An exception is the effort by the SBS. In 2020 the General Law of the Financial System was modified, granting the SBS the power to make some regulatory requirements more flexible so that novel models can be implemented temporarily. As a result, in 2021 the SBS issued the Regulation for the temporary implementation of activities in novel models, which develops these capabilities; and, in addition, addresses other issues generally related to facilitating financial innovation and clarifying the existing regulatory environment around it.

The Regulation proposes two regimes to which companies in the financial sector will apply for the development of their innovative projects, depending on whether temporary experimentation requires regulatory flexibility or if said activity is not contemplated in the current regulatory framework.

These are:

• Flexibility Regime: This regime will be applicable to pilot tests that require some temporary flexibility of regulatory requirements to carry out the activity associated with the novel model. To apply for this regime, prior authorisation from the SBS must be obtained and certain eligibility criteria must be met. Furthermore, it is a fundamental characteristic that innovative projects that apply to this regime require the flexibility of some regulatory requirement.

• Extraordinary Regime This regime, unlike the previous one, applies to testing operations or activities through innovative models not provided for in current regulations, but within the jurisdiction of the SBS.

Pilot tests in these regimes seek to add value to the user experience or contribute to the development of the industry in which they are located. Likewise, the activities being tested are subject to requirements, such as having a duration of 12 months that may be extended and having a maximum number of participants, amongst other.

The regulatory sandboxes proposed in the Regulation by SBS pave the way for a regulatory tool aimed at promoting innovation through regulatory flexibility. Nevertheless, at the time of preparing this report, the SBS informed the review team that they have not received any submission nor authorised any innovative project under the framework of this regulation.

The use of better regulation tools and practices

Adoption of a framework for agile regulatory governance necessary includes adjusting regulatory management tools to ensure regulations are fit for the future. A country’s regulatory management tools, and, more broadly, better regulation practices, require refinement to be more dynamic, adaptive, and iterative. Like most OECD member countries, Peru has yet to make significant progress in developing a robust and comprehensive agile regulatory governance system, although there are some promising initial steps, especially on the RIA process and on enforcement and inspections.

The Manual on RIA requires line ministries and regulators to consider economic, social and environmental impacts, although no mention is done regarding the impacts on innovation. The Manual also encourages the proposing office to undertake a risk assessment in case of lack of compliance and demonstrate that the selected regulatory option is proportional to the risk associated. These are very encouraging developments to implement an agile regulatory governance in ex ante assessment of regulation. However, given the short time since the Manual has been implemented, there are no examples yet of a RIA that has done these type of analyses (see further Chapter 4).

In addition, Peru still has significant progress to make in ensuring that the public and stakeholders are engaged from the outset and continuously throughout the policy cycle. Engaging with stakeholders in this manner is especially crucial given the economic, legal, and social uncertainties brought about by innovation (see Chapter 5). To date, there is no evidence that public consultation tools are being applied in the area of agile regulatory governance.

With regards to enforcement and inspections, Peru has introduced some initiatives to adapt regulatory enforcement activities to become more flexible data driven and responsive to risk. The OEFA, following a review by the OECD of its enforcement and inspection policies and practices, updated and upgraded its procedure and system of data collection and analysis, and as a result have managed to implement a structure of risk-based inspections. The OSITRAN is in the process to systematise information gathering with the aim to monitor more effectively compliance obligations by service-providing entities. The goal is to enhance inspection efficiency through better data management and the creation of supportive tools, based on evidence collected from this systematisation effort. Additionally, the OSIPTEL and the OSINERGMIN are implementing approaches of inspection and enforcement based on risk assessment, in which the use of data is privileged to have more immediate policy responses and focus resources. One example of this is the use of virtual reality technology and other tools to increase the volume and quality of information on the supervised energy and mining infrastructures, facilitating on-demand display of supervision visits. While Peru plans to introduce monitoring arrangements and mechanisms for systematic ex post reviews of regulation, the current approach does not go beyond administrative burden reduction efforts. Developing more adaptive, iterative, and flexible regulatory assessment cycles could contribute to addressing the needs stemming from rapid and dynamic innovation.

Finally, putting in place an agile approach to regulatory governance is a global challenge that requires IRC. This includes considering the international innovation ecosystem in regulatory design and putting in place regulatory co-operation to address the transboundary policy implications of innovation. There is no evidence that Peru makes use of international regulatory management tools to promote elements of agile regulatory governance.

Analytical and institutional capacities for agile regulatory governance

The development of an agile regulatory governance system demands a responsive, proactive and flexible administration – highlighting the need for increased analytical capacities within public servants. In Peru, the knowledge and understanding of agile regulatory governance is limited among public servants, including their knowledge on regulatory experimentation. This deficiency is likely due to the novelty of innovative regulatory approaches and related concepts, inherent complexities, and potential apprehensions about implementation. To bridge this gap, it is crucial to engage in extensive awareness-building efforts and clearly explain the concepts, processes, and potential benefits of an agile governance system.

Concurrent analytical capacity building is necessary for regulatory adjustments that could enable more agile approaches to regulation, including by developing regulatory experimentation. Within the mandate of the CMCR to oversee the implementation of cost-effective innovation in regulation, this involves building capacities both within members of the commission and across the administration to strengthen the ability of civil servants to identify and make use of agile approaches to regulation by providing targeted training and guidance. The SBS, with its legal framework for regulatory sandboxes, is a strong candidate to have their analytical and institutional capacities developed, for a successful implementation of a pilot programme on applying principles on agile regulatory governance.

Note

← 1.  Legislative Decree 1565 Decreto Legislativo que Aprueba la Ley General de Mejora de La Calidad Regulatoria, published on 28 May 2023.