This chapter examines Peru’s government support to fisheries, detailing the policy mix and the associated implications for sustainability and productivity. Peru provided USD 97 million per year in fisheries support (2020-22 average)—moderate in absolute terms compared to OECD Members, and low relative to fleet size, employment, or landings value. Expenditure on monitoring, control, and surveillance accounts for 44% of all support, followed by income support (33%). Around half of all support — mainly income support and support to infrastructure development — is assessed as posing a moderate (49%) or high (2%) risk of encouraging unsustainable fishing in the absence of effective management, compared to 42% of support across the OECD as a whole (8% high and 34% moderate). Peru’s support policy is thus largely in line with the OECD.
Policies for the Future of Fisheries and Aquaculture in Peru
Abstract
Peru provided an average of USD 97 million per year in support of fisheries over the 2020‑2022 period. This would have made Peru the tenth-largest provider of fisheries support in the OECD over the same period. Fisheries support in Peru equated to 4% of the value of landings a year (2020-2022 average), USD 1 215 per fisher, and 206 USD/GT (gross tonnage). All these measures of relative intensity of support are significantly lower than the intensities seen across the OECD on average.
Total support in Peru increased by 35% over the course of a decade (when comparing most recent total support with support in 2012, which was USD 72 million). After a peak in 2018, when total support was, on average, USD 128 million, support remained stable over the following four years at an average of USD 99 million.
For the period 2020-2022, the main support types in Peru were spending on management, monitoring, control and surveillance (MMCS) (with 43% of all support), followed by income support (33%) and support to infrastructure (16%).
The risk profile of the support policy mix in Peru indicates that 2% of spending in 2020-2022 posed a high risk of encouraging unsustainable fishing in the absence of effective management and 49% posed a moderate risk. That is, 51% of support posed a risk (moderate or high). Across the OECD as a whole, 42% of support posed a risk of unsustainable fishing in the same period (8% high and 34% moderate), which means the inherent risk in Peru’s support policy is largely in line with the OECD as a whole, albeit with a higher proportion of moderate risk support.
Recommendations
Investigate the socio-economic and sustainability impacts of high- and moderate-risk support programmes (e.g. income support and support to infrastructure construction and modernisation) to better understand whether these polices are achieving their stated goals, and whether they could be better targeted to ensure the overall sustainability of the sector.
Specifically consider the links between the support policy mix and overcapacity in the artisanal sector, notably programmes with a moderate risk of encouraging unsustainable fishing in the absence of effective management, to understand how these policies could be further improved, to better support a sustainable and efficient artisanal fisheries sector.
The OECD Review of Fisheries 2025 describes and analyses support to fisheries, its impacts on fish stock health and how it has evolved in recent years across OECD Members and other large fishing countries. This analysis builds on the main indicators used in that report and data of the Fisheries Support Estimate (FSE), a unique database that measures, describes and classifies fisheries support policies consistently and transparently across countries and time (Box 4.1). The following analysis focuses on Peru’s support to the capture fisheries sector until 2022 and aims to make some comparisons between OECD Member countries’ and Peru’s support policies. All numbers reported are three-year rolling averages unless otherwise stated, and most comparisons are made using the annual average for the period 2020-2022.
The OECD Fisheries Support Estimate (FSE) Database reports the monetary value of government support to the fishing industry (both marine and inland but excluding aquaculture). It compiles and categorises data reported to the OECD by governments and collected by the OECD from official government documentation following a method that makes the data comparable across countries and time.
The FSE provides an inventory of policies that generate a transfer from taxpayers to fishers and, along with the value they annually convey to the industry (in both USD and the national currency of the supporting country) as well as information on their attributes. The FSE database classifies policies into mutually exclusive categories based on what is being supported (for example, support to vessel construction and purchase, income support, or support for fuel consumption).
The FSE database also records information on any policies that charge the fishing sector for services provided by the government or access to fish resources. Fees paid by service users may include port infrastructure, fisheries management services, and licence or quota fees as well as taxes on fishing profits (post-corporate tax) or on the value or volume of landings. These payments reduce the extent to which taxpayers finance support to fisheries and sometimes even result in a net contribution from the fishing sector to public finances. The attributes of these policies, along with the value of the payments, are also recorded in the FSE database. Deducting these payments from the total value of support allows the net cost of support to government to be determined.
The latest update of the FSE database covers the period 2010-2022 for 41 countries and territories which together accounted for 69% of global marine fishing production volume over the period 2020‑2022.
Source: OECD (2024[1]), OECD Fisheries Support Estimate Manual, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/fisheries-subsidies/OECD-FSE-Manual-2024.pdf.
4.1.1. Total support and support intensity
Peru provided an average of USD 97 million per year in support of fisheries between 2020 and 2022. This would have made Peru the tenth-largest provider of fisheries support in the OECD over the same period (Figure 4.1).1 Further, the intensity of fisheries support in Peru was lower than the OECD average, across all measures used in the OECD Review of Fisheries: support amounted to 4% of the value of landings (2020-2022 average), compared to 15.2% across the OECD over the same period; relative to employment Peru’s support amounted to USD 1 215 per fisher/year, which is less than a quarter of the OECD average of USD 5 722 per fisher/year; and relative to fleet capacity, Peru provided 206 USD/GT, less than a third of the OECD average of 703 USD/GT (Table 4.1).
Note: FSE: Fisheries Support Estimate; MMCS: management, monitoring, control and surveillance.
Sources: OECD data: OECD (2024[2]), Fisheries Support Estimate (FSE), https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/fisheries-subsidies.html. Data for Peru were provided by the Ministry of Production.
Note: For layout purposes, the graph only includes the top 20 OECD Member countries.
Source: OECD data: OECD (2024[2]), Fisheries Support Estimate (FSE), https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/fisheries-subsidies.html.
Total support in Peru in 2022 increased by 35% from 2012, when it was USD 72 million. After a peak in 2018, when total support was on average USD 128 million, support has remained stable since 2019 at an average of USD 99 million (Figure 4.2).
Source: Data provided by the Ministry of Production of Peru.
4.1.2. Payments by the sector
Peru reported payments made by the fishing sector2 of USD 14 million in the period 2020-22, equating to around 14% of the total support provided to the sector. Payments by the sector have been increasing since 2008, when they were USD 7 million.
Only 13 OECD Members reported payments by the sector in the context of the OECD Review of Fisheries 2025 edition, and Peru would have been the 7th in terms of total payments and the 8th when considering payments as a proportion of total support. Payments by the sector in Peru take the form of payment of fishing rights (access to resources). At the OECD level, payments for access to resources were the largest explicit form of payment (USD 143.3 million), followed by payments for access to infrastructure (USD 5.3 million). Payments by the fishing sector make a substantial contribution to the cost of supporting the industry and in some rare cases even exceed the value of support (OECD, 2025[3]).
Peru’s main support types for the period 2020-2022 were MMCS (43% of all support), followed by income support (33%), support to infrastructure (16%) and other (8%), which is mostly support to marketing and promotion and education and training (Figure 4.3). The composition of support in Peru is similar to that of the OECD as a whole, with the notable exception of support to income, which is more than double the OECD average of 16%.
Note: MMCS: management, monitoring, control and surveillance.
Source: OECD data: OECD (2024[2]), Fisheries Support Estimate (FSE), https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/fisheries-subsidies.html. Data for Peru were provided by the Ministry of Production of Peru.
The policy mix in recent years is the result of support diversification over the last decade (Figure 4.4). In 2012, the vast majority of Peru’s support went to fishers’ income (60%), MMCS (31%) and vessel modernisation (3%). For 2022, the category with the largest proportion of total support was MMCS (43%), followed by income support to fishers (35%) and infrastructure, construction and modernisation (13%).
Note: MMCS: management, monitoring, control and surveillance.
Source: Data provided by the Ministry of Production of Peru.
4.2.1. Management, monitoring, control and surveillance
Support to MMCS is composed of support to MCS and stock assessment research. There has been a significant increase in spending in Peru on MMCS since 2010‑2012, with most of the increase oriented to stock assessments and MCS. In Peru, spending under this category was of USD 41.6 million and represented 43% of all support in the period 2020-2022. Support to MMCS has increased 135% since 2010-2012, when it was USD 17.7 million. The intensity of support to MMCS was 88 USD/GT, which is significantly lower than the OECD average of 271 USD/GT.
Looking in more detail, support to fisheries management was USD 13 million for the period 2020-2022 and was intended to finance IMARPE’s and FONDEPES’ management costs (see Chapter 2) as well as programmes related to studying water contaminants and the development of sustainable fishing. Spending in this category has remained stable since 2010-2012, when it was also USD 13 million. In OECD Member countries, support for management was USD 2.0 billion, a 24% increase compared to 2010-2012, and now represents 37% of all support in the OECD in 2020-2022.
Under the category of stock assessment research, total support in Peru was USD 18.2 million in the period 2020-2022, increasing 397% compared to 2010-2012, when it was USD 3.7 million. Resources were used to finance applied scientific research carried out by IMARPE, the costs of the scientific research vessels, and data collection and related scientific studies.
Finally, Peru spent on average USD 10.1 million on MCS over the period 2020-2022, nearly 13 times more than the amount reported in 2010-2012 (USD 735 315).
4.2.2. Support to fisher income
Support to fisher income (or income support) in Peru totalled USD 32 million in the period 2020‑2022, 33% of total support provided. This type of support declined 20% since 2010-2012, when it was USD 40 million. Conversely, income support has doubled across the OECD since 2010-2012, from USD 452 million to USD 877 million. The intensity of income support in Peru was USD 404 per fisher in 2020-2022, less than half the OECD average of USD 912.
In 2022, this support was provided under a programme which refunds (partially or entirely) import duties and taxes levied on goods and materials contained in exported goods or consumed during the production of export goods, to support the companies’ competitiveness. Income support is also provided to mitigate the impacts of adverse climatic events on certain fisheries, for example the jumbo flying squid (Box 4.2).
The intense 2023-2024 Coastal El Niño event – the most severe in two decades – drastically altered the distribution of jumbo flying squid, the main target species of Peru’s artisanal fleet. From January 2024, the distribution of the squid was increasingly dispersed, particularly along the northern coast, reducing its catchability and resulting in a 67% drop in landings between January and August 2024 compared to the same period in 2023. This shortage, worsened by illegal fishing by foreign fleets, led to the cessation of artisanal fishing activities for thousands of fishers, especially in the Piura region, where one-third of the national artisanal fleet is based.
In response to the crisis, an increasing number of fishers attempted to shift their operations toward other species such as mahi-mahi. However, this transition required investments in marine engines, fishing gear, inputs and technology. As a result, demand for credit surged, exceeding the National Fund for Fishing Development’s (FONDEPES) response capacity and highlighting the need to implement a more robust financial mechanism to support productive reconversion and mitigate the socio-economic impact on coastal communities.
Two financial support measures were implemented in 2024 to mitigate the reduced presence of jumbo flying squid. The first comprised a one-off extraordinary subsidy of USD 187 (PEN 700) granted to all artisanal fishers nationwide. The second was a credit scheme specifically targeted at artisanal fishers engaged in the extraction of jumbo flying squid in northern Peru. The first measure was approved through Emergency Decree No. 038-2023 – granting an extraordinary financial subsidy to artisanal fishers and issuing other provisions and implemented in 2024.
Access to the subsidy was subject to the following conditions:
formally engaged in artisanal fishing activity
included in the Official Registry of Artisanal Fishers.
not receiving benefits from other social programmes and/or economic subsidies.
This subsidy was a direct transfer to all artisanal fishers registered in the Official Registry compiled by the Ministry of Production. A total of 43 239 artisanal fishers benefited from the programme. The total amount disbursed was USD 8 085 693.
The second measure was approved through Supreme Decree No. 225-2024-EF – authorising the Transfer of Allocations in the Public Sector Budget for Fiscal Year 2024 in favour of the National Fund for Fisheries Development on 13 November 2024. Through this decree, FONDEPES received the public funds to finance credit lines for artisanal fishing operators in northern coastal regions. The credits were offered with an annual interest rate of 1%, a repayment period of up to 36 months and included a grace period of up to six months, with no initial amortisation required. For loans up to PEN 51 000, only a joint guarantor was required. For loans exceeding that amount and up to PEN 113 000, a real guarantee was required.
This credit scheme constituted an indirect transfer mechanism. Applicants first had to receive credit approval then proceed with the purchase of goods (e.g. fishing materials and equipment like fuel, ice, food supplies) or services (e.g. engine repairs; boat hull maintenance propulsion; electrical, mechanical, hydraulic and electronic systems). To access these extraordinary credit lines, applicants were required to meet the following criteria:
be between 18 and 67 years of age
hold a valid national identity document
provide a utility bill or a residency certificate issued by a justice or municipal authority
submit an estimate (pro forma invoice) for the goods and/or services to be financed
provide a sworn statement declaring that they are engaged in the extraction of jumbo flying squid and/or mahi-mahi in the pre-defined geographic areas
present the fishing vessel registration certificate.
Legal entities were required to hold an active and compliant Taxpayer Registry, carry out an economic activity linked to artisanal fishing and have a corporate purpose related to this activity in their articles of incorporation.
Under this scheme, funds were not disbursed in cash. FONDEPES transferred the funds directly to the suppliers chosen by the fishers, who then provided the requested goods or services.
4.2.3. Support to infrastructure
Peru’s support to infrastructure was USD 15.5 million per year in the period 2020-2022. This form of support has increased significantly since 2012, when it was USD 527 000. Conversely, support to infrastructure across the OECD has declined by 10% since 2012. The intensity of support to infrastructure was 33 USD/GT per year (2020-2022 average), which is significantly lower than the OECD as a whole, for which it was 914 USD/GT per year in the same period.
All of the support to infrastructure in Peru is provided through FONDEPES, which supports the construction and modernisation of artisanal fishing infrastructure. The programme aims to provide artisanal fisheries with facilities that ensure compliance with quality, health and safety standards, and to provide the intermediate services required for the effective operation of the fishery. Resources from FONDEPES have been used in the construction or improvement of landing sites, including processing, storage and commercialisation facilities, in coastal areas like Maquegua and Piura regions, which are highly dependent on artisanal fishing activities.
4.2.4. Other categories of support
Between 2020 and 2022, Peru spent an average of USD 3.7 million on marketing and promotion, a significant increase from 2012 when it was only USD 101 000. The intensity of spending in this area was 8 USD/GT, which is similar to the OECD average of 12 USD/GT. The majority of this spend was for SANIPES’ management costs.
The only other category where there was notable spending was education and training, where Peru spent USD 1.4 million per year (2020-2022 average), the same level as in 2012. The intensity of spending in this category was USD 18 per fisher, which is significantly lower than the OECD average of USD 81 per fisher per year over the same period.
The OECD Review of Fisheries 2025 (OECD, 2025[3]) proposes a framework for assessing the risk of support policies encouraging unsustainable fishing in the absence of effective management (Figure 4.5). The framework sets out the inherent level of risk posed by different types of support policies based on how directly a type of support policy can affect the incentives for fishers. This is then combined with additional information about the broader policy context, including the effectiveness of management systems, the status of fish stock health and the design of the support policy, which can mitigate the actual risk that one specific policy encourages unsustainable fishing. The framework, therefore, provides a pragmatic method for assessing support policies and identifying reform priorities.
Source: OECD (2025[3]), OECD Review of Fisheries 2025, https://doi.org/10.1787/560cd8fc-en.
Applying this framework to Peru’s fisheries support indicates that 2% posed a high risk and 49% a moderate risk of encouraging unsustainable fishing in the absence of effective management in 2020‑2022, or 51% posed a risk (moderate or high) (Figure 4.6). Across the OECD, 42% of support posed a risk of unsustainable fishing in the same period (8% high and 34% moderate), which means the inherent risk in Peru’s support policy is largely in line with the OECD as a whole, albeit with a higher proportion of moderate risk support. The moderate risk support was entirely income support and support to infrastructure construction and modernisation. The high-risk support reported in Peru was support to vessel modernisation and the purchase of gear. It is worth noting that Peru did not report any government support to fuel for any year, and in fact charges an excise duty diesel and other fuels used for marine navigation.
Source: OECD data: OECD (2024[2]), Fisheries Support Estimate (FSE), https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/fisheries-subsidies.html. Data for Peru were provided by the Ministry of Production of Peru.
The context in which support is given is very important for understanding the extent to which that support may actually result in overfishing. For example, if management can effectively constrain any additional capacity and effort, if fisheries resources are underfished, or if support is targeted to a subgroup of fishers, then overfishing is less likely to result from high and moderate risk policies. In Peru, the main commercial stocks are healthy and productive, their status is regularly assessed, and they are managed using an appropriate mix of TACs and input controls. In the case of anchoveta, MSC systems likely mitigate much of the risks (although not all) associated with the fisheries support policy mix (see Fisheries management Chapter 3).
However, in other fisheries, particularly the artisanal sector, overcapitalisation of the fleet is a persistent issue, and it is possible that some of the fisheries support is contributing to this issue in some regions, albeit unintentionally. Moving away from support that carries a moderate risk of encouraging unsustainable fishing, such as income support, and towards lower risk forms of support, such as MMCS, could help address issues of overcapacity. Alternatively, specific targeting of support to fisheries and fleet segments which are well managed and regulated could help minimise the risks. A careful examination of how individual support policies may be contributing to the issues of fleet overcapitalisation in general, and the growth of informal artisanal fishers in particular, is therefore needed to better understand what types of reforms are needed and where they can be implemented. Notably, however, informality is not an issue unique to fisheries and cannot be addressed by reform to fisheries support policies alone. Moving to lower risk policies will, nevertheless, benefit the overall sustainability of the sector and its resilience to shocks, which will be increasingly important in the context of the challenges due to climate change.
References
[3] OECD (2025), OECD Review of Fisheries 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/560cd8fc-en.
[2] OECD (2024), Fisheries Support Estimate (FSE), https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/fisheries-subsidies.html.
[1] OECD (2024), OECD Fisheries Support Estimate (FSE) Manual, OECD, Paris.
← 1. OECD Member countries include the 30 countries for which information is available. Data are not available for Austria, Czechia, Finland, Hungary, Israel, Luxembourg, the Slovak Republic and Switzerland.
← 2. The FSE database records payments by the fisheries sector under three distinct categories: 1) payments for access to resources; 2) payments for access to government-owned infrastructure; and 3) other fisheries-specific payments. Only payments for fisheries-specific purposes are included, so general taxes levied across the economy are outside the scope of the FSE, as are fines and penalties related to IUU fishing practices.