IDLADS vs. Ministry of Agrarian Development and Irrigation, and National Forestry and Wildlife Service (Action of Compliance, 04399-2024-0-1801-JR-DC-05)

In 2022, the President of Peru declared the national climate emergency as an issue of national interest under Supreme Decree n. 003-2022-MINAM). See: https://busquedas.elperuano.pe/dispositivo/NL/2033317-1 and https://www.gob.pe/institucion/minam/noticias/578993-gobierno-declara-de-interes-nacional-la-emergencia-climatica. The Decree outlines action that must be taken, including some provisions that created deadlines for action. The Instituto de Defensa Legal del Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sostenible Peru (IDLADS) challenged government inaction under the Decree.

In May 2025, the Peruvian Court of Justice in Lima upheld the “Action of Compliance”, ordering the Ministry of Agrarian Development and Irrigation and the National Forestry and Wildlife Service (SERFOR) to “comply with the provisions of numeral 9 of article 3 of the Supreme Decree that declares of national interest the climate emergency […] within 10 days and consequently prioritize measures to strengthen forest governance and control deforestation […]”. Judgement (2025), available at https://elaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/EN-Court-decision-admitting-the-petition-in-Peru-climate-change.pdf, p. 7.  

The relevant provisions, which the defendant failed to comply with, require the Ministry and SERFOR to “prioritize measures to strengthen forest governance and deforestation control with the aim of reducing deforestation by up to 30% by 2023, promoting sustainable agriculture” [para. 20] by carrying out some listed measures that include the titling of native communities, promoting the use of georeferencing and developing studies to estimate illegal logging and illegal timber trade in Peru.

The Court found that claim met the minimum requirements for an Action of Compliance, given that the set of actions to be put in place are clear and do not require further interpretation; the legal mandate is not subject to a complex controversy or disparate interpretations; and that the mandate to be complied with is not contrary to the law. Para. 20-24. Finally, it concluded that the defendants’ reluctance to comply with the provisions made it appropriate to declare the claim founded. Para. 25.  

Please note that the Court did not declare a “climate emergency”, as the government had previously declared it under the referenced Decree. Article one of the Decree clarifies that the declaration was issued to facilitate the urgent execution of measures to implement climate action in accordance with the provisions of the Nationally Determined Contributions for 2030.