Peru sped up the permitting clock that was never the bottleneck

Senace has set a target of 150 to 160 days to approve environmental impact studies for mining projects in 2026, and says it has already cut approval time for hydrocarbons technical reports by 46% since 2024. Real progress, on the clock everyone complains about in investment committee. It is also not the clock that decides when a project actually breaks ground.

Land rights and community agreements are. That process has no legislated deadline, no published target, and no agency whose job it is to make it faster.

What the faster clock actually buys

A Resolución de Certificación Ambiental is legible. It has a file number, a government seal, a date. Lenders can point to it in a conditions-precedent checklist and tick a box. That is exactly why it ends up doing more work in a financial model than it should: it is the one permitting milestone that is easy to document, so it becomes the milestone everyone tracks as a proxy for the project being on schedule.

Site control is not like that. Easements, right-of-way agreements, and community accords get negotiated parcel by parcel, family by family, and the paper trail sits in a developer's own files rather than a public registry. A model can show 100% of the RCA obtained and 60% of the land closed, and the second number is the one that determines whether construction starts on time.

A faster environmental certificate does not buy a faster land closing. It just moves the surprise later, to the week the excavators are supposed to show up.

The other clock nobody is compressing

Peru still carried 151 active social conflicts nationally as of the Defensoría del Pueblo's July 2026 report, down from 166 the previous October but nowhere near zero. Most of that count sits in mining. Wind and solar have historically drawn a smaller share of it, largely because northern-coast and southern-desert sites tend to carry lower population density than highland mineral deposits. That is a reason for optimism, not a reason to skip the negotiation.

The mining sector already ran this experiment. Projects with fully approved environmental studies have sat idle for years over land access and local opposition that no EIA timeline touched. Renewable developers reading that history as someone else's problem are reading it wrong. The instrument is different. The dependency on a community's actual consent is not.

What we think follows

Treat land rights as a co-equal condition of Ready-to-Build, tracked and reported on its own schedule, not folded into a single permitting line that environmental approval can make look further along than it is. A developer who closes site control ahead of, or in parallel with, the environmental process is pricing the real constraint. One who waits for the RCA before starting land negotiations in earnest is betting that a faster paper process buys a faster project, and that bet does not hold up against the mining sector's own record.

There is a fair counterpoint. Compressing formal review timelines is a legitimate reform, and a government under pressure to attract capital has good reason to fix the part of the process it actually controls. The open question is whether it also shortens the public-participation window embedded inside that same review, and whether that trade-off shows up as fewer disputes or the same disputes arriving later, after a construction date has already been announced.

Our own Ready-to-Build definition treats land rights, environmental and sectoral permitting, and grid connection as milestones that have to close together, not a queue where one unlocks the next. Olmos Wind, ~135 MW with integrated battery storage in Lambayeque, is our most advanced asset and targets RtB in the first quarter of 2028. Frontera, ~135 MW also in Lambayeque, and Aurelion, ~300 MW of bifacial solar in Moquegua, both target 2028. Solar II, ~300 MW bifacial solar in Moquegua, targets 2029, inside a pipeline of 870+ MW aimed at 2 GW+ across LATAM by 2030.

The open question

I do not know which way the compression cuts. Does a faster, more predictable Senace timeline give developers more runway to close land deals before a construction deadline forces the issue, which should reduce conflict? Or does trimming the review period also trim the public-comment window where a community first hears about a project, which should increase it? Peru has not run this long enough, at this pace, to say. Anyone underwriting a 2028 RtB date on the assumption that a faster permit means a faster project is answering that question with money before the data exists to answer it at all.

See the full active portfolio or read more Insights.