"From our perspective, this matter is profoundly worrying," stated Alvaro Masquez Salvador, a lawyer associated with the Indigenous Peoples program at Peru's Legal Defense Institute.

Masquez contended that the reform establishes a concerning precedent by effectively privatizing land designated as national patrimony by Peru's constitution, asserting that "forests are not private property—they are the nation's."

Proponents of the amendment, which came into effect in March, argue it will bring stability to Peru's agricultural sector and offer farmers enhanced legal security.

The Associated Press contacted several figures from Peru's agribusiness sector, in addition to Congresswoman Maria Zeta Chunga, a prominent advocate for the legislation, for their views. Only one individual from the agribusiness sector provided a response, indicating a reluctance to offer comment.

Following Brazil, Peru possesses the second-largest portion of the Amazon rainforest, exceeding 70 million hectares and constituting approximately 60% of the nation's landmass, as reported by the nonprofit Rainforest Trust. This area stands as one of the most biologically diverse regions globally and serves as the habitat for over 50 Indigenous communities, some of whom reside in voluntary isolation. These communities serve as essential stewards of these ecosystems, and the rainforests they conserve are crucial for moderating the global climate through the absorption of significant amounts 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 after it happened.

The Peruvian Constitutional Court ratified the amendment following a constitutional challenge lodged by a group of attorneys. While certain sections of the amendment were invalidated by the court, the final provision of the law, which legitimises prior unlawful land-use alterations, remained intact. According to legal authorities, this represents the most perilous aspect.

In its decision, the court conceded that Indigenous communities ought to have been consulted regarding amendments to the legislation and upheld the Environment Ministry's function in delineating forest areas.

According to environmental lawyer César Ipenza, the court acknowledged the infringement of Indigenous rights and the necessity of consultation, yet still upheld the most detrimental aspect of the decision.

The drive for this reform resembles patterns observed during former President Jair Bolsonaro's tenure in Brazil, where converging political and economic pressures aimed to undermine environmental safeguards for the benefit of agribusiness. While Brazil's initiative was spearheaded by a highly structured, industrial agribusiness lobby, Peru's iteration is propelled by a less formal yet formidable coalition.

In Peru, the initiative receives backing from agricultural concerns, individuals acquiring land illicitly, and those associated with unlawful mining and drug trade. Additionally, small and medium-sized farmers apprehensive about safeguarding their land tenure have been drawn into this undertaking.

"The current situation reflects a confluence of legitimate and illicit concerns," stated Vladimir Pinto, the Amazon Watch field coordinator in Peru, an organisation advocating for environmental protection.

Julia Urrunaga, who is the Peru director for the nonprofit Environmental Investigation Agency, said that the Peruvian government is now wrongly claiming that the changes are needed to follow the European Union's rules. These rules will soon require companies that import products like soy, beef, and palm oil to show that their goods did not come from land where trees were cut down illegally.

She stated that if goods linked to illicit deforestation were subsequently sanctioned and permitted market access, this would compromise the efficacy of demand-centric regulations, such as those in the EU.

"This policy conveys an unfavorable signal to international markets and undermines attempts to reduce deforestation through trade limitations," Urrunaga stated.

Olivier Coupleux, who heads the EU's Economic and Trade Section in Peru, has refuted any connection between recent legal amendments and the EU's regulation aimed at preventing deforestation.

In discussions with Peruvian media outlets, Coupleux has articulated that the regulation's purpose is to preclude the acquisition of products associated with deforestation, and that it necessitates traceability and sustainability in commodities such as coffee, cocoa, and timber, rather than extensive legal modifications.

Because they have no more options in their own country's courts, groups of citizens are getting ready to bring the case to international courts. They are warning that this decision is a dangerous example for other countries that want to avoid environmental laws by saying they are making changes.

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

Julio Cusurichi, a board member of the Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest, contended that the measure would encourage unlawful land appropriation and compromise environmental monitoring in regions already susceptible to harm.

"Historically, our communities have safeguarded not merely our territories but the Earth as a whole," stated Cusurichi.