"From our perspective, this poses a serious concern," stated Alvaro Masquez Salvador, a lawyer representing the Indigenous Peoples program at Peru's Legal Defense Institute.

Masquez also said the change is a worrying example because it "effectively makes private" land that Peru's constitution says belongs to the country. He stated, "Forests are not private property—they belong to the nation."

Advocates of the amendment, implemented in March, contend it will bring stability to Peru's agricultural sector and offer farmers enhanced legal security.

The Associated Press solicited reactions from various figures within Peru's agribusiness sector and from Congresswoman Maria Zeta Chunga, a prominent advocate for the legislation. Only one individual from the agribusiness sector provided a response, indicating a reluctance to comment.

Holding the second-largest portion of the Amazon rainforest after Brazil, Peru boasts over 70 million hectares, constituting roughly 60% of its landmass, according to the nonprofit Rainforest Trust. This region is recognized as one of the Earth's most biodiverse areas and is inhabited by over 50 Indigenous populations, some of whom remain in voluntary seclusion. These groups serve as crucial stewards of ecosystems, and the rainforests they conserve contribute significantly to regulating the global climate through the absorption of vast amounts of carbon dioxide, a primary greenhouse gas responsible for driving climate change.

The first Forestry and Wildlife Law, which started 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 forests legal.

Peru's Constitutional Court has 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 effectively ratifies prior unlawful land-use alterations. Legal scholars contend that this constitutes the most perilous aspect.

In its decision, the court recognised that Indigenous communities ought to have been consulted on amendments to the legislation and upheld the Environment Ministry's responsibility in designating forest areas.

According to environmental lawyer César Ipenza, "The court acknowledges the law infringed upon Indigenous rights and consultation should have occurred, yet it still approves the most detrimental aspect."

The reason for this reform 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 group of large farming businesses, but Peru's is led by a less organized but still strong group.

In Peru, the initiative receives backing from agricultural enterprises, individuals involved in land acquisition, and entities associated with illicit mining and drug trafficking, while small and medium-sized farmers concerned about land security have also become involved.

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

Julia Urrunaga, the Peru director for the Environmental Investigation Agency, a non-profit organisation, cautioned that the Peruvian government is currently making a "specious claim" that the changes are mandated by European Union regulations, which will shortly necessitate importers of products such as soy, beef, and palm oil to demonstrate that their goods did not originate from land subjected to unlawful deforestation.

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

Urrunaga stated, "This gives the wrong idea to global markets and weakens efforts to reduce deforestation using trade rules."

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

In interviews with Peruvian media, Coupleux has asserted that the regulation is intended to preclude the procurement of products associated with deforestation. He clarified that it does not necessitate legislative amendments, but rather mandates enhanced traceability and sustainability within supply chains for commodities such as coffee, cocoa, and timber.

Because they have no more options in their country's courts, 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 reforms.

Many Indigenous leaders perceive the law as an imminent peril to their ancestral lands, communities, and cultural heritage.

Julio Cusurichi, a representative from the Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest, asserted that the proposed action is likely to encourage illegal land appropriation and diminish environmental scrutiny in regions already susceptible to harm.

"Indigenous communities have a legacy of safeguarding not only their ancestral territories but also the entire planet," Cusurichi asserted.