A recent modification to Peru's Forestry and Wildlife Legislation is provoking strong opposition from environmental and Indigenous organisations who contend it could hasten the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, ostensibly for economic advancement.

The change removes the rule that landowners or companies must get state permission before they turn forest land into something else. Critics argue this change could make years of illegal tree cutting seem acceptable.

"For us, this situation elicits significant concern," commented Alvaro Masquez Salvador, a legal professional associated with the Indigenous Peoples program at Peru's Legal Defense Institute.

Masquez contended that the reform establishes a disquieting precedent by "essentially privatizing" land designated as national patrimony by Peru's constitution. "Forests are not private property; they are the nation's," he asserted.

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

The Associated Press attempted to obtain statements from several figures in Peru's agribusiness sector, in addition to Congresswoman Maria Zeta Chunga, a strong advocate of the legislation. Merely one individual within the agribusiness sector responded, indicating a reluctance to provide a comment.

Following Brazil, Peru possesses the second-largest segment of the Amazon rainforest, encompassing over 70 million hectares, which constitutes approximately 60% of the nation's land area, according to the nonprofit Rainforest Trust. This region stands as one of the most biologically diverse on Earth, housing over 50 Indigenous groups, some of whom maintain voluntary isolation. These communities play a crucial role as stewards of these ecosystems, and the rainforests they safeguard contribute significantly to stabilizing the global climate by sequestering substantial amounts of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas considered the primary catalyst of climate change.

The first Forestry and Wildlife Law, passed in 2011, said that the state had to approve and study the environment before anyone could change 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 cutting down of trees legal.

Peru's Constitutional Court endorsed the amendment following a constitutional challenge initiated by a group of legal practitioners. While certain sections of the amendment were invalidated by the court, it retained the final clause of the law, which ratifies previous unauthorised land-use alterations. Legal specialists consider this element to be the most hazardous.

In its judgment, the court recognized that Indigenous communities ought to have been consulted on legal amendments and upheld the Environment Ministry's function in delineating forest areas.

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

The reason for the reform is similar to what happened under former President Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil. 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 companies. Peru's version is led by a less organized but still strong group.

In Peru, the support comes from big farming businesses, people who illegally take land, and those connected to illegal mining and drug dealing. Small and medium farmers who are worried about keeping their land are also part of this.

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

Julia Urrunaga, Peru director at the nonprofit Environmental Investigation Agency, cautioned that the Peruvian government is currently "erroneously asserting" that the amendments are needed to conform to European Union regulations, which will shortly mandate that companies importing commodities such as soy, beef, and palm oil demonstrate their goods were not acquired from illegally deforested land.

She argued that if products linked to illegal deforestation are subsequently granted legal status and market access, it would compromise the efficacy of demand-side regulations such as those in the EU.

"This conveys a detrimental signal to international markets and compromises attempts to mitigate deforestation through trade limitations," stated Urrunaga.

Olivier Coupleux, who heads the EU's Economic and Trade Section in Peru, has refuted claims that recent legal amendments are connected to the EU's regulation on deforestation-free products.

In interviews with Peruvian media, Coupleux explained that the rule is meant to stop people from buying products connected to deforestation. He said it doesn't need new laws, but instead requires that goods like coffee, cocoa, and timber can be tracked and are produced in a sustainable way.

Since they have no more legal options in the country, civil society groups are getting ready to take the case to international courts. They warn that the 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 a significant menace to their lands, societies, and customs.

Julio Cusurichi, who is on the board of the Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest, said the new rule will make it easier to illegally take land and make it harder to protect the environment in areas that are already at risk.

"Historically, our communities have acted as custodians not only of our lands but of the entire planet," Cusurichi stated.