"From our perspective, this is a matter of grave concern," stated Alvaro Masquez Salvador, an attorney affiliated with the Indigenous Peoples program at Peru's Legal Defense Institute.

Masquez also said that the change creates a worrying situation because it basically makes land private that Peru's constitution says belongs to the country.

Proponents of the amendment, implemented in March, contend it will lend stability to Peru's agricultural sector and furnish farmers with enhanced legal assurance.

The Associated Press contacted several representatives from Peru's agribusiness sector, along with Congresswoman Maria Zeta Chunga, a prominent advocate of the law, for their opinions; however, only one individual from the agribusiness sector provided a response, declining to offer any comment.

Peru possesses the second-largest portion of the Amazon rainforest after Brazil, encompassing over 70 million hectares, which constitutes approximately 60% of the nation's landmass, according to the nonprofit organization Rainforest Trust. This area is renowned as one of the most biodiverse regions globally and serves as the dwelling place for more than 50 Indigenous communities, some of whom maintain voluntary isolation. These communities function as crucial stewards of ecosystems, and the forests they safeguard play a significant role in stabilizing the global climate by absorbing considerable amounts of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas identified as the primary catalyst for climate change.

The first Forestry and Wildlife Law, which was 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 ratified the amendment following a constitutional challenge lodged by a collective of lawyers. While the court invalidated certain sections of the amendment, it preserved the legislation's concluding clause, which legitimizes prior unlawful changes in land use, a provision legal scholars consider the most detrimental.

In its judgment, the tribunal recognised that Indigenous groups ought to have been consulted regarding amendments to the legislation and upheld the Environment Ministry's authority in forest zoning.

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

The impetus for this reform reflects patterns observed during the tenure of former President Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, where political and economic factions collaborated to undermine environmental safeguards for the benefit of agribusiness. While Brazil's initiative was spearheaded by a sophisticated and industrial agribusiness lobby, Peru's iteration involves a more diffuse yet influential alliance.

In Peru, the initiative receives backing from agribusiness ventures, individuals involved in unlawful land acquisition, and those connected to illicit mining and narcotics trade, alongside small and medium-sized farmers apprehensive about their land tenure.

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

Julia Urrunaga, Peru director at the Environmental Investigation Agency, a non-profit organisation, cautioned that the Peruvian government is currently "falsely asserting" that these amendments are essential to adhere to European Union regulations, which will shortly obligate companies importing products such as soy, beef, and palm oil to demonstrate that their goods do not originate from illegally deforested land.

Legalizing products linked to unlawful deforestation would undermine the impact of demand-focused rules, such as those implemented by the EU, she argued.

"This conveys an inappropriate signal to international markets and undermines attempts to limit deforestation through trade limitations," Urrunaga stated.

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

According to statements given to Peruvian news outlets, Coupleux stated that the regulation intends to prohibit the acquisition of items connected to deforestation, asserting that it necessitates no legal changes but rather emphasises accountability and ecological responsibility in commodities such as coffee, cocoa, and wood.

Since 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 risky example for other countries that want to avoid environmental laws by saying they are making reforms.

According to numerous Indigenous leaders, the legislation constitutes a palpable menace to their lands, populations, and customs.

Julio Cusurichi, a representative of the Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest, asserted that the measure would encourage land appropriation and compromise environmental scrutiny in regions already susceptible to damage.

"Throughout history, our communities have served as guardians not only of our territories but also of the entire planet," stated Cusurichi.