A recent modification to Peru's Forestry and Wildlife Law is provoking strong opposition from environmental and Indigenous communities, who caution it may hasten deforestation in the Amazon under the pretext of economic advancement.

The change removes the rule that landowners or companies need state permission before they can turn forest land into something else. People who disagree say this change might make years of illegal tree cutting seem acceptable.

"We find this situation deeply troubling," commented Alvaro Masquez Salvador, an attorney associated with the Indigenous Peoples program at Peru's Legal Defense Institute.

Masquez further asserted that the reform establishes a disquieting precedent by "de facto privatising" land that Peru's constitution designates as national patrimony. "Forests are not private property; they are held by the nation," he stated.

Proponents of the amendment, which became law in March, claim it will bring stability to Peru's agricultural sector and offer farmers increased legal security.

The Associated Press asked several people in Peru's agribusiness sector for their opinion, as well as Congresswoman Maria Zeta Chunga, who strongly supports the law. Only one person in the agribusiness sector replied, saying they did not want to comment.

Following Brazil, Peru possesses the second-largest portion of the Amazon rainforest, encompassing over 70 million hectares—roughly 60% of Peru's total land area, as documented by the nonprofit Rainforest Trust. This region represents one of the most biodiverse areas globally and serves as the habitat for over 50 Indigenous groups, some of whom maintain voluntary isolation. These communities are crucial stewards of ecosystems, and the rainforests under their protection contribute to global climate stability by sequestering substantial amounts of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas primarily responsible for climate change.

The original Forestry and Wildlife Law, passed in 2011, said that you needed state approval 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 approval, and it even makes past deforestation legal.

Peru's Constitutional Court affirmed the amendment following a constitutional challenge lodged by a group of attorneys. While the court invalidated certain sections of the amendment, it preserved the law's concluding provision, which effectively legitimizes previous 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 on legal amendments and upheld the Environment Ministry's responsibility for delineating forest areas.

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

The reason for this change 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 farming lobby, but Peru's is led by a less organized but still strong group.

In Peru, support comes from big farming businesses, people who take land illegally, and people connected to illegal mining and drug trafficking. Also, small and medium farmers who are worried about keeping their land have been included in this effort.

Vladimir Pinto, Amazon Watch's field coordinator in Peru, noted that the current situation reflects a convergence of both legal and illicit interests.

Julia Urrunaga, who is the Peru director at 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 that was illegally cleared of trees.

She stated that if products linked to unlawful deforestation are subsequently legitimised and enter the market, it would undermine the efficacy of demand-side regulations, such as those in the EU.

"This action conveys an adverse signal to international markets and undermines endeavours to limit deforestation through commercial constraints," Urrunaga stated.

Olivier Coupleux, who heads the Economic and Trade Section of the EU in Peru, has refuted claims that recent legal amendments are connected to the EU's regulation aimed at eliminating deforestation.

Speaking to Peruvian news outlets, Coupleux stated the regulation intends to hinder the acquisition of items connected to forest destruction and does not necessitate legislative alterations, but instead calls for accountability and environmental responsibility in commodities such as coffee, cocoa, and wood.

Because they have no more legal options in their own country, civil society groups are getting ready to take the case to international courts. They warn that this decision creates a dangerous example for other countries that want to avoid environmental laws by calling it reform.

Many Indigenous leaders perceive the law as posing a significant threat to their lands, societies, and customs.

Julio Cusurichi, a board member of the Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest, asserted that the measure would likely encourage the illegal seizure of land and undermine environmental supervision in regions already susceptible to harm.

"Our communities have a long history of safeguarding not only our territories but also the Earth itself," Cusurichi stated.