Bogota, Colombia – A recent amendment to the forest and wildlife law of Peru is to cause a fierce reaction of environmental groups and indigenous groups that warn that it could accelerate deforestation in the Amazon jungle under the appearance of economic development.
The amendment eliminates the requirement that owners or companies obtain state authorization before converting forest land to other uses. Critics say that change could legitimize years of illegal deforestation.
“For us, this is seriously worrying,” said Álvaro Masquez Salvador, a lawyer of the Indigenous Peoples Program at the Institute of Legal Defense of Peru.
Morequez added that the reform establishes a worrying precedent to “effectively privatize” the land that the Constitution of Peru defines as national heritage. “Forests are not private property, they belong to the nation,” he said.
The supporters of the amendment, promulgated in March, say that it will stabilize the agricultural sector of Peru and provide farmers for greater legal certainty.
Associated Press sought comments from multiple representatives of the Agribusiness sector of Peru, as well as congresswoman Maria Zeta Chunga, a vocal defender of the law. Only one person responded in the agribusiness sector, saying they didn’t want to comment.
Peru has the second largest part of the Amazon jungle jungle after Brazil, with more than 70 million hectares, approximately 60% of Peru’s territory, according to the non -profit organization Rainforest Trust. It is one of the most biodiverse regions of the planet and the home of more than 50 indigenous peoples, some who live in voluntary isolation. These communities are vital guardians of ecosystems and tropical jungles that protect help stabilize the global climate by absorbing large amounts of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that is the main driver of climate change.
Approved in 2011, the original forest and wildlife law required state approval and environmental studies before any change in the use of forest land. But recent reforms have constantly weakened those protections. The last amendment allows owners and companies to avoid that approval, even retroactively legalize past deforestation.
The Constitutional Court of Peru confirmed the amendment after a group of lawyers presented a constitutional challenge. Although the court attacked some parts of the amendment, it left intact the final provision of the law, which validates the illegal changes of illegal use. Legal experts say this is the most dangerous part.
In its ruling, the court recognized that indigenous communities should have been consulted on reforms to the law and affirmed the role of the Ministry of Environment in the zoning of forests.
The environmental lawyer César Ipenza summarized it as follows: “The court admits that the law violated indigenous rights and (tribes) should have been consulted, but still supports the most harmful part.”
The impulse behind the reform reflects the dynamics seen under former President Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, where political and economic forces aligned to weaken environmental protections to favor agribusiness. Although Brazil’s effort was directed by a highly organized industrial agriby lobby, the Peru version involves a more loose but powerful coalition.
In Peru, support comes from agribusiness interests, land grabbers and figures linked to illegal mining and drug trafficking. Small and medium farmers with concerns about ensuring their lands have also been dragged into effort.
“What we are seeing is a convergence of legal and illegal interests,” said Vladimir Pinto, Campo de Peru Coordinator for Amazon Watch, an environmental defense group.
Julia Urrunaga, director of Peru of the Non -profit Environmental Research Agency, warned that the Peruvian government is now “arguing falsely” that amendments are necessary to comply with the regulations of the European Union, which will soon require that companies that import products such as soy meat and palm oil demonstrate that their goods were not obtained from illegally deforesting lands.
If the products linked to illegal deforestation are legalized and allowed in the market, that will weaken the effectiveness of the regulations on the demand side such as those of the EU, he said.
“This sends the incorrect message to global markets and undermines efforts to stop deforestation through commercial restrictions,” said Urrunaga.
Olivier Parejax, head of the EU Economic and Commercial Section in Peru, has denied that recent changes in the law are linked to the free regulation of deforestation of the EU.
In interviews with Peruvian media, Paremux has said that regulation aims to avoid the purchase of products related to deforestation and does not require legal reforms, but rather traceability and sustainability in goods such as coffee, cocoa and wood.
Without more resources in the national courts, civil society groups are preparing to take the case to international courts, warning that the ruling establishes a dangerous precedent for other countries that seek to avoid the environmental law under the flag of the reform.
For many indigenous leaders, the law represents a direct threat to their territories, communities and ways of life.
Julio Cusurichi, a member of the Board of the Inter -Ethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Tropical Jungle, said the measure will be emboldened by the environmental supervision of the Earth and will worsen environmental supervision in already vulnerable areas.
“Our communities have historically protected not only our lands but the planet,” said Cusurichi.
__
Associated Press’s climatic and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards To work with philanthropies, a list of followers and coverage areas financed in Ap.org.
