1. Introduction

The approval of the Política Nacional de Ordenamiento Territorial al 2050 (PNOT 2050) by Decreto Supremo N.° 142-2024-PCM marks a turning point in Peru’s governance of territory. For the first time, the Presidency of the Council of Ministers (PCM), through its Viceministerio de Gobernanza Territorial (VGT), assumes direct leadership in coordinating land-use, planning, and territorial management across the State. While the measure responds to decades of fragmented, sectoral, and often contradictory policies, it also introduces a new layer of institutional competition.

2. PCM as Conductor and Mediator

The PCM/VGT is formally designated as the conductor of the PNOT 2050 and the mediator among ministries and subnational governments. This gives PCM not only a supervisory role but also the authority to articulate competing visions of territory: environmental, agricultural, urban, and economic. In practice, PCM now positions itself at the center of territorial governance, capable of tilting balances of power in policy decisions.

Politically, this is both an opportunity and a risk. On one hand, central coordination could reduce the dispersion that has characterized Peruvian territorial policy for decades. On the other, PCM risks being seen as an over-centralizing actor, encroaching on mandates traditionally owned by sectoral ministries.

3. Ministry of Housing’s issues

The most evident tension is with the Ministry of Housing, Construction, and Sanitation (MVCS). Backed by Ley 31313 (Ley de Desarrollo Urbano Sostenible), MVCS has historically claimed authority over acondicionamiento territorial and urban planning. The PCM’s assumption of territorial governance dilutes this primacy.

From MVCS’s perspective, PCM is intruding into “its” domain — land allocation, zoning, and urban expansion. This has already produced conflicting opinions within the executive. At stake is not only technical jurisdiction but also political capital: who has the right to define the rules of urban growth, regulate land-use conflicts, and respond to pressures from private developers and local governments.

4. Other Sectors: MINAM and MIDAGRI

  • MINAM supports PCM’s leadership in principle, since environmental zoning and ecosystem conservation require intersectoral coordination. Yet conflicts arise when urban expansion pushes into ecologically fragile zones. Here, MINAM often finds itself in tension with MVCS, with PCM mediating between conservation and development.
  • MIDAGRI controls rural land classification and irrigation, which are frequently in dispute with urban expansion projects. PCM’s role is to prevent rural land loss and peri-urban conflicts, but this mediation puts it again in direct negotiation with MVCS.

5. CEPLAN and Subnational Governments

  • CEPLAN provides the strategic framework (PEDN 2050) and evaluates the PNOT. However, its role is advisory; real power depends on PCM’s enforcement.
  • Regional and Local Governments are formally responsible for planning and zoning but lack strong capacity. They are the frontline of informal urbanization and social conflict. PCM’s leadership aims to empower them through commissions and technical support, but sectoral ministries often bypass them with direct interventions.

6. Political Reading

What emerges is a recomposition of power inside the State. The PCM/VGT has elevated territorial governance to the rank of a political battlefield. It can no longer be treated as a purely technical or sectoral matter: land, urban growth, water, and ecosystems are deeply political, tied to economic interests, informal practices, and citizen demands.

  • PCM as arbiter: Positioned as mediator, PCM must navigate competing sectoral territorialities — balancing conservation, urbanization, and agriculture.
  • MVCS as rival: The Housing Ministry resists losing its historical domain, framing its role as a legal right. Its jealousy signals the start of open bureaucratic conflict.
  • The broader challenge: PNOT 2050 institutionalizes planning as a space of conflict management. Every decision — whether a zoning guideline, a city expansion plan, or a regional land classification — becomes a negotiation of affective and material stakes among actors.

7. Conclusion

The PNOT 2050 is not only a planning instrument but also a political reordering of the Peruvian State. By placing PCM/VGT at the center, it opens space for stronger coordination but also exposes latent conflicts. Ministries like MVCS may resist, defending their mandates. Regional and local governments will push for autonomy. And civil society, communities, and private investors will continue to shape territory from below.

In this context, planning must be seen as conflict navigation, not design delivery. The institutional jealousies now emerging are evidence that territory is political matter, and that the future of the State will depend on how productively it can manage these contestations.

priale Huachipa, Lima (Source: Google Earth, 16SET2025)