A recent modification to Peru's Forestry and Wildlife Legislation is attracting strong opposition from environmental and Indigenous organisations who caution it may hasten deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, ostensibly for economic advancement.

The change removes the rule that landowners or companies must get state permission before changing forested land to other uses. Critics say this change could make years of illegal deforestation seem acceptable.

"This is, from our perspective, a matter of grave concern," 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 under Peru's constitution. "Forests do not constitute private property—they are the nation's," he asserted.

Proponents of the amendment, implemented in March, contend it will strengthen Peru's agricultural sector and afford farmers enhanced legal security.

The Associated Press contacted several figures in Peru's agribusiness sector, alongside Congresswoman Maria Zeta Chunga, a fervent proponent of the legislation, for their perspectives. However, only one individual from the agribusiness sector replied, stating their unwillingness to provide commentary.

Holding the second-largest portion of the Amazon rainforest after Brazil, Peru boasts over 70 million hectares—approximately 60% of the nation's landmass, according to the nonprofit Rainforest Trust. This region stands as one of the planet's most biodiverse areas and is inhabited by over 50 Indigenous communities, some of whom live in self-imposed seclusion. These communities function as indispensable custodians of ecosystems, and the rainforests under their stewardship contribute significantly to global climate stability by assimilating substantial amounts of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas widely recognised as the principal force behind climate change.

The original 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 affirmed the amendment following a constitutional challenge lodged by a group of legal professionals. While the court invalidated certain sections of the amendment, it preserved the law's concluding provision, which retrospectively validates prior illicit land-use alterations. Legal scholars contend this constitutes the most perilous aspect.

In its judgment, the court recognised that Indigenous communities ought to have been consulted regarding legislative reforms and upheld the Environment Ministry's authority in delineating forest zones.

Environmental lawyer César Ipenza explained it this way: "The court agrees the law broke Indigenous rights and they should have asked the tribes, but it still supports the worst part."

The impetus for the reform reflects trends evident during former President Jair Bolsonaro's tenure in Brazil, where political and economic interests converged to diminish environmental safeguards for the benefit of agribusiness. While Brazil's initiative was driven by a highly structured, industrial agribusiness lobby, Peru's iteration features a less formal yet influential alliance.

In Peru, the initiative is underpinned by agribusiness concerns, land speculators, and individuals associated with illicit mining and narcotics trade, alongside small and medium-scale farmers seeking to secure their landholdings.

We are seeing legal and illegal interests coming together, said Vladimir Pinto, who works for Amazon Watch in Peru. Amazon Watch is a group that works to protect the environment.

Julia Urrunaga, the Peru director for the non-profit Environmental Investigation Agency, cautioned that the Peruvian government is currently making the "specious claim" that the amendments are required to meet European Union regulations, which will shortly mandate that companies importing products such as soy, beef, and palm oil demonstrate that their goods did not originate from illegally cleared land.

She said that if products connected to illegal deforestation are later made legal and allowed into the market, it will make demand-side rules like those in the EU less effective.

Urrunaga asserted, "This conveys an inappropriate signal to international markets and undermines initiatives to mitigate deforestation through commercial constraints."

Olivier Coupleux, who heads the EU's Economic and Trade Section in Peru, refuted the notion that recent legislative amendments are connected to the EU's regulation aimed at preventing deforestation.

In interviews with Peruvian media, Coupleux has stated that the regulation is intended to prevent the acquisition of commodities associated with deforestation and does not necessitate legislative amendments, but rather demands accountability and environmental responsibility in items such as coffee, cocoa, and timber.

Because they have 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 dangerous example for other countries that want to avoid environmental laws by saying they are making changes.

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

Julio Cusurichi, a board member of the Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest, stated that the measure would encourage illegal land acquisition and exacerbate environmental regulation weaknesses in regions already at risk.

Historically, our communities have served as guardians not solely of our lands, but also of the planet, Cusurichi stated.