A recent modification to Peru's Forestry and Wildlife Law is provoking strong opposition from environmental and Indigenous organizations, who caution that it may hasten deforestation in the Amazon rainforest disguised as economic advancement.

The amendment abolishes the mandate that landowners or companies obtain state consent before converting forested land to alternative purposes. Critics argue this shift could validate protracted periods of unlawful deforestation.

"From our perspective, this is extremely worrying," stated Alvaro Masquez Salvador, a legal professional affiliated with the Indigenous Peoples program at Peru's Legal Defense Institute.

Masquez asserted that the reform establishes a concerning precedent by "essentially privatizing" land which Peru's constitution designates as national heritage.

Proponents of the amendment, introduced in March, contend it will stabilize Peru's agricultural sector and offer farmers enhanced legal certainty.

The Associated Press reached out to several representatives from Peru's agribusiness sector and Congresswoman Maria Zeta Chunga, a prominent advocate for the law, for their input; however, only one individual within the agribusiness sector provided a response, declining to offer comment.

Peru boasts the second-largest portion of the Amazon rainforest after Brazil, encompassing over 70 million hectares, which constitutes approximately 60% of its national territory, as reported by the nonprofit Rainforest Trust. This region stands as one of the planet's most biodiverse areas, harboring over 50 Indigenous populations, some of whom maintain voluntary isolation. These communities serve as crucial stewards of ecosystems, and the rainforests under their protection contribute significantly to global climate stabilization by sequestering substantial volumes of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas primarily responsible for driving climate change.

The first Forestry and Wildlife Law, passed in 2011, said that you needed state permission and environmental studies before changing how forest land was used. But recent changes have made these rules weaker. The newest change lets landowners and companies avoid getting that permission, and it even makes past deforestation legal.

Peru's Constitutional Court validated the amendment following a constitutional challenge lodged by a group of lawyers. While the court invalidated certain sections of the amendment, it preserved the law's concluding provision, which legitimizes prior unlawful land-use alterations. Legal scholars contend this constitutes the most perilous aspect.

In its judgment, the court recognised the need for prior consultation with Indigenous communities regarding legal reforms and upheld the Environment Ministry's authority in determining forest land use.

Environmental lawyer César Ipenza articulated the situation thus: "While the court concedes the law infringed upon Indigenous rights and consultation should have occurred, it nonetheless upholds the most damaging aspect."

The reason for the reform is similar to what happened in Brazil under former President Jair Bolsonaro. In Brazil, political and economic groups worked together to reduce environmental protection to help farming businesses. Brazil's effort was led by a very organized group of large farming businesses, but Peru's version is from a less organized but still strong group.

In Peru, the initiative is supported by big farming businesses, people who take land illegally, and those involved in illegal mining and drug dealing. Also, small and medium farmers who are worried about keeping their land have been included in this effort.

Vladimir Pinto, the Peru field coordinator for Amazon Watch, an environmental advocacy group, stated, "We are witnessing a confluence of both legitimate and illicit interests."

Julia Urrunaga, the Peru director for the nonprofit Environmental Investigation Agency, cautioned that the Peruvian government is currently making the "specious claim" that the changes are indispensable for adhering to European Union regulations, which will shortly mandate that companies importing goods such as soy, beef, and palm oil must demonstrate that their products do not originate from land cleared through illicit deforestation.

She argued that should products linked to illicit deforestation gain legal status and market access subsequently, it would compromise the efficacy of demand-focused regulations such as those implemented in the EU.

This sends a bad message to international markets and weakens attempts to reduce deforestation by limiting trade, Urrunaga said.

Olivier Coupleux, who leads the Economic and Trade Section of the EU in Peru, has repudiated any connection between recent legislative amendments and the EU's regulation concerning deforestation-free products.

In interviews with Peruvian media, Coupleux has stated that the regulation is intended to stop the buying of products connected to deforestation and does not need new laws, but instead requires tracking and sustainability for goods like coffee, cocoa, and timber.

Since there are no more legal options in their own country, civil society groups are getting ready to bring the case to international courts. They warn that this decision creates a risky example for other countries that want to avoid environmental rules by calling it reform.

According to numerous Indigenous leaders, the legislation poses a significant risk to their lands, societies, and cultural practices.

Julio Cusurichi, a board member of the Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest, stated that the initiative would encourage land appropriation and degrade environmental governance in regions already susceptible to such issues.

"Historically, our communities have safeguarded not only our lands but also the wider planet," stated Cusurichi.