News

Lima, Peru – The Supervisory Body for Investment in Public Transport Infrastructure (Ositrán) is preparing to appeal a recent judicial decision that excludes the privately-owned Port of Chancay from its regulatory oversight. The move comes as Ositrán seeks to solidify its authority over key infrastructure projects, and the agency is pointing to a similar port operation – the Terminal Portuario de Pucallpa (LPO Logistics) – as a crucial precedent in the legal battle. The outcome of this case has significant implications for investment and regulation within Peru’s growing port sector.

The dispute centers on whether Ositrán has the jurisdiction to supervise private ports, particularly those with public access. According to Ositrán President Verónica Zambrano, the agency already oversees similar operations, and the legal framework supports its continued involvement in Chancay. The appeal to the Constitutional Chamber of the Superior Court is aimed at reversing the initial ruling and reaffirming Ositrán’s supervisory role. This case is unfolding against a backdrop of geopolitical interest in the port, with both the United States and China closely watching developments.

LPO Logistics: A Key Precedent for Ositrán

Zambrano highlighted the Terminal Portuario de Pucallpa (LPO Logistics), operated by Grupo Romero, as a comparable case. LPO Logistics operates a fluvial port on the Ucayali River, and despite not being a traditional concession, Ositrán currently supervises and regulates its services. “We supervise what are called service providers. What we have is a concept included in our law and recent modifications to the National Port System Law,” Zambrano explained. “There are public ones, like Enapu or Corpac, and private ones, which are all the concessions, plus two that are privately owned and for public use: Cosco Shipping and LPO.”

The land for LPO was initially acquired in May 2012 by Santa Sofía Puertos S.A., and subsequently transferred to Logística Peruana del Oriente S.A., a consortium comprised of Ransa and Tramarsa – both companies belonging to Grupo Romero, according to information from the company’s website. LPO Logistics maintains a dedicated section on its website for complaints, explicitly stating that Ositrán is the public entity responsible for addressing user concerns and providing a dedicated “user attention office” within the terminal’s administration area.

Ositrán’s oversight at LPO includes verifying the quality of service provided to users, ensuring access to relevant information, and enforcing a complaint procedure where Ositrán acts as a second instance for resolution. The agency also has the authority to conduct inspections, request information, and access the terminal to assess service conditions. Zambrano emphasized that this same level of oversight is what Ositrán seeks to implement at the Port of Chancay.

Potential Consequences of Limited Oversight

Zambrano warned that if Ositrán is unable to supervise the Port of Chancay, users would be left unprotected. “There would be no possibility of access or seeing anything related to that port. We wouldn’t know how many users they have, how they are treated, what services are provided, or verify that the information they supply us is correct,” she stated. A lack of oversight could shield Cosco Shipping from potential sanctions for non-compliance.

“It could never be sanctioned. At LPO, we go and verify. So far, it is a company that has complied and we have not sanctioned it. If they were to prevent us from entering the port or deny us information, we could fine them. With Cosco, not,” Zambrano explained. She clarified that, legally, there is no distinction between LPO and Chancay, despite one being a fluvial port and the other a maritime port. “That’s why the right of use is called an aquatic area, not maritime or fluvial. The classification of ports is based on public or private institutionalization with uses of the same categories.”

The Autoridad Portuaria Nacional (APN) has a role in port oversight, but Zambrano argued that Ositrán has historically been the primary entity addressing user concerns. “Supervising labor rights does not mean that Sunafil loses its capacity. The APN has always interpreted it as, if they detect irregularities, they notify us. They have never taken a case. All the basis for user protection is in Ositrán.”

Broader Implications for Peru’s Port System

Zambrano cautioned that a negative ruling in the Chancay case could set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading other port terminals to disregard Ositrán’s requirements. “It would be terrible because it is an interpretation of the port law and would be for everyone, not just Cosco or LPO. The complaints we see today would have to go to the APN because there is no duplication of functions in the State. Either they see it or we do,” she warned. Peru21 reported on Ositrán’s intent to appeal the ruling earlier this week.

The situation is further complicated by the geopolitical implications of the Port of Chancay, with the United States and China both vying for influence in the region. The outcome of this legal battle will likely be closely watched by both countries, as it could impact the future of trade and investment in Peru. The next step is for Ositrán to formally present its appeal to the Constitutional Chamber, where the court will review the case and determine whether to reinstate Ositrán’s supervisory authority over the Port of Chancay.

As the legal process unfolds, the focus will remain on ensuring fair competition, protecting user rights, and maintaining the integrity of Peru’s port infrastructure. Readers are encouraged to share their thoughts and perspectives on this important issue in the comments below.