Client Requirement: Our client develops aquiculture activities in the Peruvian mountains and is one of the major Peruvian exporters of trout, which are destined to various international markets. The governmental Agency for Environmental Assessment and Enforcement (OEFA) is in charge of the surveillance on environmental obligations. This governmental agency initiated various administrative sanctioning proceedings to our client because, according to OEFA our client didn’t comply hiring and specialized company to transport the waste generated in its concessions.
Our participation: We provided advice to the Client to prove in a clear and efficient manner before a OEFA that our client should not be subject to any sanction. We started our analysis with the proper allocation of the obligation within the borders of the province where the activity is performed and find out that none authorized waste management company operated there. Then, we use the Principle of Reasonability (included in the Administrative Procedures Law) to argue that such specific obligation (to use authorized waste management company) should not be applicable to our client’s operation. The reasoning was accepted by OEFA against the regular practice it expects from the companies or individuals performing business in Peru.
Also, we consider that this position was acceptable to OEFA because we strongly suggested our client to clearly inform how it cares the management of waste. After evaluating all these efforts and the quoted reasoning, OEFA took a favourable decision to our client.
Client benefit: We build a very strong defence for our client in order to prove the authority that our client did not hire a specialized company to transport the waste, but they hire a transport company that took all the precautions to transport the waste to a specialized facility which complies with the goal of the environmental regulations.
