
Amendment to Peru law raises fears of Amazon rainforest destruction
BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — A recent amendment to Peru's Forestry and Wildlife Law is drawing fierce backlash from environmental groups and Indigenous groups that warn it could accelerate deforestation in the Amazon rainforest under the guise of economic development.
The amendment eliminates the requirement that landowners or companies get state authorization before converting forested land to other uses. Critics say the change could legitimize years of illegal deforestation.
'To us, this is gravely concerning,' said Alvaro Masquez Salvador, a lawyer with the Indigenous Peoples program at Peru's Legal Defense Institute.
Masquez added that the reform sets a troubling precedent by 'effectively privatizing' land that Peru's constitution defines as national patrimony. 'Forests are not private property—they belong to the nation,' he said.
Supporters of the amendment, enacted in March, say it will stabilize Peru's agricultural sector and provide farmers with greater legal certainty.
The Associated Press sought comment from multiple representatives of Peru's agribusiness sector, as well as Congresswoman Maria Zeta Chunga, a vocal supporter of the law. Only one person in the agribusiness sector responded, saying they did not want to comment.
A legal reversal and unconstitutional amendments
Peru holds the second-largest share of Amazon rainforest after Brazil, with over 70 million hectares—about 60% of Peru's territory, according to nonprofit Rainforest Trust. It's one of the most biodiverse regions on the planet and home to more than 50 Indigenous peoples, some living in voluntary isolation. These communities are vital guardians of ecosystems and the rainforests they protect help stabilize the global climate by absorbing large quantities of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that is the main driver of climate change.
Passed in 2011, the original Forestry and Wildlife Law required state approval and environmental studies before any change in forest land use. But recent reforms have steadily weakened those protections. The latest amendment allows landowners and companies to bypass that approval, even retroactively legalizing past deforestation.
Peru's Constitutional Court upheld the amendment after a group of lawyers filed a constitutional challenge. Although the court struck down some parts of the amendment, it left intact the law's final provision, which validates past illegal land-use changes. Legal experts say this is the most dangerous part.
In its ruling, the court acknowledged that Indigenous communities should have been consulted on reforms to the law and affirmed the Environment Ministry's role in forest zoning.
Environmental lawyer César Ipenza summed it up like this: 'The court admits the law violated Indigenous rights and (tribes) should have been consulted but it still endorses the most harmful part.'
Support from powerful alliances in agribusiness
The push behind the reform mirrors dynamics seen under former President Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, where political and economic forces aligned to weaken environmental protections to favor agribusiness. While Brazil's effort was led by a highly organized, industrial agribusiness lobby, Peru's version involves a looser 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 securing their land have also been swept into the effort.
'What we're seeing is a convergence of both legal and illegal interests,' said Vladimir Pinto, the Peru field coordinator for Amazon Watch, an environmental advocacy group.
Was amendment push to comply with EU regulations?
Julia Urrunaga, Peru director at nonprofit Environmental Investigation Agency, warned that the Peruvian government is now 'falsely arguing' that the amendments are necessary to comply with the European Union's regulations, which will soon require companies importing products like soy, beef, and palm oil to prove their goods were not sourced from illegally deforested land.
If products tied to illegal deforestation are later legalized and allowed into the market, that will weaken the effectiveness of demand-side regulations like those in the EU, she said.
'This sends the wrong message to global markets and undercuts efforts to curb deforestation through trade restrictions,' Urrunaga said.
Olivier Coupleux, head of the Economic and Trade Section of the EU in Peru, has denied that recent changes to the law are linked to the EU's deforestation-free regulation.
In interviews with Peruvian media, Coupleux has said the regulation aims to prevent the purchase of products linked to deforestation and does not require legal reforms, but rather traceability and sustainability in goods like coffee, cocoa, and timber.
Peru's Indigenous communities say their communities are threatened
With no further recourse in domestic courts, civil society groups are preparing to take the case to international tribunals, warning that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent for other countries seeking to circumvent environmental law under the banner of reform.
For many Indigenous leaders, the law represents a direct threat to their territories, communities, and ways of life.
Julio Cusurichi, board member of the Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest, said the measure will embolden land-grabbing and worsen environmental oversight in already vulnerable areas.
'Our communities have historically protected not just our lands but the planet,' Cusurichi said.
__
The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Mexican President Sheinbaum condemns violence in LA protests
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum condemned the use of violence in immigration protests in Los Angeles, as she urged the Mexican community abroad to remain peaceful. 'We do not agree with violent actions as a form of protest. Burning police cars appears to be more an act of provocation than of resistance. We condemn violence, no matter where it comes from,' Sheinbaum said in a prepared statement at her daily news briefing on Monday. 'We call on the Mexican community to act pacifically and not allow itself to be provoked,' she added. But the Mexican president made clear that her government has an 'unwavering commitment to the protection and defense of the human rights of Mexicans, regardless of their immigration status' — and called for due process in U.S. immigration proceedings. 'In this sense, we make a respectful but firm call to United States authorities for all immigration procedures to be carried out with adherence to due process, within a framework of respect for human dignity and the rule of law,' Sheinbaum said in her statement. Mexican flag becomes L.A. protest symbol: What to know Sheinbaum pledged her government would continue using 'all diplomatic and legal channels available' to make clear to the Trump administration that they oppose 'practices that criminalize immigration and put at risk the safety and well-being of our communities in the United States.' The statement comes amid rising tensions between immigration enforcement protesters and law enforcement in Los Angeles. Federal authorities said the weeklong immigration arrest tally in the L.A. area climbed to over 100, not including arrests of protesters over the weekend. Mexican Foreign Affairs Minister Juan Ramón de la Fuente said on Monday that 42 Mexican nationals had been detained in immigration enforcement operations in Los Angeles. Four had already returned to Mexico — two voluntarily and two were deported. The Associated Press contributed. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
President Donald Trump pushes ahead with his maximalist immigration campaign in face of LA protests
WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump made no secret of his willingness to exert a maximalist approach to enforcing immigration laws and keeping order as he campaigned to return to the White House. The fulfillment of that pledge is now on full display in Los Angeles. The president has put hundreds of National Guard troops on the streets to quell protests over his administration's immigration raids, a deployment that state and city officials say has only inflamed tensions. Trump called up the California National Guard over the objections of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom — the first time in 60 years a president has done so — and is deploying active-duty troops to support the guard. By overriding Newsom, Trump is already going beyond what he did to respond to Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, when he warned he could send troops to contain demonstrations that turned violent if governors in the states did not act to do so themselves. Trump said in September of that year that he 'can't call in the National Guard unless we're requested by a governor' and that 'we have to go by the laws.' But now, the past and current president is moving swiftly, with little internal restraint to test the bounds of his executive authority in order to deliver on his promise of mass deportations. What remains to be seen is whether Americans will stand by him once it's operationalized nationwide, as Trump looks to secure billions from Congress to dramatically expand the country's detention and deportation operations. For now, Trump is betting that they will. 'If we didn't do the job, that place would be burning down," Trump told reporters Monday, speaking about California. 'I feel we had no choice. ... I don't want to see what happened so many times in this country.' 'A crisis of Trump's own making' The protests began to unfold Friday as federal authorities arrested immigrants in several locations throughout the sprawling city, including in the fashion district of Los Angeles and at a Home Depot. The anger over the administration's actions quickly spread, with protests in Chicago and Boston as demonstrations in the southern California city also continued Monday. But Trump and other administration officials remained unbowed, capitalizing on the images of burning cars, graffiti and Mexican flags — which, while not dominant, started to become the defining images of the unrest — to bolster their law-and-order cause. Leaders in the country's most populous state were similarly defiant. California officials moved Monday to sue the Trump administration, with the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, arguing that the deployment of troops 'trampled' on the state's sovereignty and pushing for a restraining order. The initial deployment of 300 National Guard troops was expected to quickly expand to the full 2,000 that were authorized by Trump. The state's senior Democratic senator, Alex Padilla, said in an interview that 'this is absolutely a crisis of Trump's own making.' 'There are a lot of people who are passionate about speaking up for fundamental rights and respecting due process, but the deployment of National Guard only serves to escalate tensions and the situation,' Padilla told The Associated Press. 'It's exactly what Donald Trump wanted to do.' Padilla slammed the deployment as 'counterproductive' and said the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was not advised ahead of the federalization of the National Guard. His office has also pushed the Pentagon for a justification on the deployment, and 'as far as we're told, the Department of Defense isn't sure what the mission is here," Padilla added. Candidate Trump previewed immigration strategy during campaign Much of this was predictable. During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump pledged to conduct the largest domestic deportation operation in American history to expel millions of immigrants in the country without legal status. He often praised President Dwight D. Eisenhower's military-style immigration raids, and the candidate and his advisers suggested they would have broad power to deploy troops domestically to enact Trump's far-reaching immigration and public safety goals. Trump's speedy deployment in California of troops against those whom the president has alluded to as 'insurrectionists' on social media is a sharp contrast to his decision to issue no order or formal request for National Guard troops during the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, despite his repeated and false assertions that he had made such an offer. Trump is now surrounded by officials who have no interest in constraining his power. In 2020, Trump's then-Pentagon chief publicly rebuked Trump's threat to send in troops using the Insurrection Act, an 1807 law that empowers the president to use the military within the U.S. and against American citizens. Current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signaled support on his personal X account for deploying troops to California, writing, 'The National Guard, and Marines if need be, stand with ICE,' referring to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The Defense Department said Monday it is deploying about 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles to support National Guard troops already on the ground to respond to the protests. White House responds to an 'incompetent' governor Protesters over the weekend blocked off a major freeway and burned self-driving cars as police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades in clashes that encompassed several downtown blocks in Los Angeles and led to several dozen arrests. Much of the city saw no violence. But the protests prompted Trump to issue the directive Saturday mobilizing the California National Guard over Newsom's objections. The president and his top immigration aides accused the governor of mismanaging the protests, with border czar Tom Homan asserting in a Fox News interview Monday that Newsom stoked anti-ICE sentiments and waited two days to declare unlawful assembly in the city. Trump told Newsom in a phone call Friday evening to get the situation in Los Angeles under control, a White House official said. It was only when the administration felt Newsom was not restoring order in the city — and after Trump watched the situation escalate for 24 hours and White House officials saw imagery of federal law enforcement officers with lacerations and other injuries — that the president moved to deploy the Guard, according to the official, who was granted anonymity to discuss private deliberations. 'He's an incompetent governor,' Trump said Monday. 'Look at the job he's doing in California. He's destroying one of our great states.' Local law enforcement officials said Los Angeles police responded as quickly as they could once the protests erupted, and Newsom repeatedly asserted that state and city authorities had the situation under control. 'Los Angeles is no stranger to demonstrations and protests and rallies and marches,' Padilla said. 'Local law enforcement knows how to handle this and has a rapport with the community and community leaders to be able to allow for that.' The aggressive moves prompted blowback from some of Trump's erstwhile allies. Ileana Garcia, a Florida state senator who in 2016 founded the group Latinas for Trump and was hired to direct Latino outreach, called the recent escalation 'unacceptable and inhumane.' 'I understand the importance of deporting criminal aliens, but what we are witnessing are arbitrary measures to hunt down people who are complying with their immigration hearings — in many cases, with credible fear of persecution claims — all driven by a Miller-like desire to satisfy a self-fabricated deportation goal," said Garcia, referring to Stephen Miller, a White House deputy chief of staff and key architect of Trump's immigration crackdown. The tactics could be just a preview to what more could come from the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress. GOP lawmakers are working to pass a massive tax-and-border package that includes billions to hire thousands of new officers for Border Patrol and for ICE. The goal, under the Trump-backed plan, is to remove 1 million immigrants without status annually and house 100,000 people in immigration detention centers.


San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Pentagon draws up rules on possible use of force by Marines deployed to LA protests
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon was scrambling Monday to establish rules to guide U.S. Marines who could be faced with the rare and difficult prospect of using force against citizens on American soil, now that the Trump administration is deploying active duty troops to the immigration raid protests in Los Angeles. U.S. Northern Command said it is sending 700 Marines into the Los Angeles area to protect federal property and personnel, including federal immigration agents. The 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines are coming from Twentynine Palms, California, and will augment about 2,100 National Guard soldiers in LA responding to the protests. The forces have been trained in deescalation, crowd control and standing rules for the use of force, Northern Command said. But the use of the active duty forces still raises difficult questions. The Marines are highly trained in combat and crisis response, with time in conflict zones like Syria and Afghanistan. But that is starkly different from the role they will face now: They could potentially be hit by protesters carrying gas canisters and have to quickly decide how to respond or face decisions about protecting an immigration enforcement agent from crowds. According to a U.S. official, troops will be armed with their normal service weapons but will not be carrying tear gas. They also will have protective equipment such as helmets, shields and gas masks. When troops are overseas, how they can respond to threats is outlined by the rules of engagement. At home, they are guided by standing rules for the use of force, which have to be set and agreed to by Northern Command, and then each Marine should receive a card explaining what they can and cannot do, another U.S. official said. For example, warning shots would be prohibited, according to use-of-force draft documents viewed by The Associated Press. Marines are directed to deescalate a situation whenever possible but also are authorized to act in self-defense, the documents say. The AP reviewed documents and interviewed nine U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details not yet public, about the guidance being determined for the Marines. The Pentagon also is working on a memo with clarifying language for the Marines that will lay out the steps they can take to protect federal personnel and property. Those guidelines also will include specifics on the possibility that they could temporarily detain civilians if troops are under assault or to prevent harm, the first U.S. official said. Those measures could involve detaining civilians until they can be turned over to law enforcement. Having the Marines deploy to protect federal buildings allows them to be used without invoking the Insurrection Act, one U.S. official said. The Insurrection Act allows the president to direct federal troops to conduct law enforcement functions in national emergencies. But the use of that act is extremely rare. Officials said that has not yet been done in this case and that it's not clear it will be done. President George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. If their role expands if the violence escalates, it is not clear under what legal authority they would be able to engage, said Elizabeth Goitein, a senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law. 'If in fact those Marines are laying hands on civilians, doing searches, then you have pretty powerful legal concerns,' Goitein said. 'No statutory authority Trump has invoked so far permits this.' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth tweeted late Saturday that he was considering deploying the Marines to respond to the unrest after getting advice earlier in the day from Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to one of the U.S. officials. Still, the tweet, which was posted to Hegseth's personal X account and not to his official government account, caught many inside the Pentagon by surprise. As late as Monday, the military's highest offices were still considering the potential ramifications. But the Marine Corps were asking broader questions, too: Do they send more senior, experienced personnel so as not to put newer, less experienced troops at risk of potentially making a judgment call on whether to use force against a civilian? What's lawful under a domestic deployment — where troops may end up in a policing role — is governed by the Fourth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, which forbids seizure of persons, including temporarily restraining them, unless it could be considered reasonable under the circumstances.