logo
Amendment to Peru law raises fears of Amazon rainforest destruction

Amendment to Peru law raises fears of Amazon rainforest destruction

Independent15-04-2025

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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump can bar The Associated Press from some White House events for now, appeals court rules
Trump can bar The Associated Press from some White House events for now, appeals court rules

NBC News

time3 days ago

  • NBC News

Trump can bar The Associated Press from some White House events for now, appeals court rules

President Donald Trump is free to bar The Associated Press from some White House media events for now, after a U.S. appeals court on Friday paused a lower court ruling mandating that AP journalists be given access. The divided ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit temporarily blocks an order by U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, who ruled on April 8 that the Trump administration must allow AP journalists access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and White House events while the news agency's lawsuit moves forward. The 2-1 ruling was written by U.S. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, joined by fellow Trump appointee U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas. Rao wrote that the lower court injunction 'impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces' and that the White House was likely to ultimately defeat the Associated Press' lawsuit. The White House and a lawyer for the Associated Press did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In a dissent, Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said her two colleagues' ruling cannot be squared with 'any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy.' The AP sued in February after the White House restricted the news outlet's access over its decision to continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its coverage despite Trump renaming the body of water the Gulf of America. The AP's lawyers argued the new policy violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which protects free speech rights. McFadden, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, said in his ruling that if the White House opens its doors to some journalists it cannot exclude others based on their viewpoints. Trump administration lawyers said the president has absolute discretion over media access to the White House and that McFadden's ruling infringed on his ability to decide whom to admit to sensitive spaces. 'The Constitution does not prohibit the President from considering a journalist's prior coverage in evaluating how much access he will grant that journalist,' lawyers for the administration said in a court filing. On April 16, the AP accused the Trump administration of defying the court order by continuing to exclude its journalists from some events and then limiting access to Trump for all news wires, including Reuters and Bloomberg. Reuters and the AP both issued statements denouncing the new policy, which puts wire services in a larger rotation with about 30 other newspaper and print outlets. Other media customers, including local news organizations that have no presence in Washington, rely on the wire services' real-time reports of presidential statements as do global financial markets.

'It shouldn't be illegal for men to buy sex' Ash Regan bill won't work
'It shouldn't be illegal for men to buy sex' Ash Regan bill won't work

The Herald Scotland

time5 days ago

  • The Herald Scotland

'It shouldn't be illegal for men to buy sex' Ash Regan bill won't work

The details of his crimes are harrowing and heartbreaking. The case exposed just how deeply seated the police's systemic bias towards sex workers was. Just how vile and entrenched its institutional racism towards Indigenous people was – many of the missing women were Indigenous. Read more The failures in this case made one thing crystal clear. To the police in Vancouver, sex workers had no value. Pleas from families and the community to trace missing women were ignored over and over again. To say the results were devastating is an understatement. It is for this reason that I do not think sex workers or the people (men) who buy sex should be criminalised. Because the involvement of police with prostitution historically does not bode well for the women involved. It also ignores the agency of women in sex work and ensures the industry remains stigmatised. And marginalises those within it further. This week, Alba MSP Ash Regan introduced her 'Unbuyable Bill'. The Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill would see the buying of sex criminalised and the selling of sexual services decriminalised. It hinges on the principle that prostitution is a form of male violence against women. The Bill would also quash historic convictions and create a statutory right to support for those in and exiting prostitution. Essentially following the Nordic model. Though, will those statutory support services be funded properly? If not, they are redundant. Right now, in Scotland, the sale of sex is not illegal, but it might as well be. Running a brothel and soliciting or loitering in public to sell sex are against the law. In Canada after the Robert Pickton trial concluded, outrage over the way the way the missing women were ignored led to the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. A direct result of the inquiry was a new policing strategy in Vancouver that effectively decriminalised sex work. Alba MSP Ash Regan (Image: free) The result was meaningful change, and sex workers were safer for it. But despite recommendations to replicate the Vancouver approach nationwide, in 2014, Stephen Harper's Conservative Government introduced Bill C-36, which followed the Nordic model. Buying sex became illegal. Advertising someone's sexual services was criminalised. So was accepting money to place those ads and profiting from someone's sexual services. It has been more than ten years since the Nordic Model was introduced in Canada, and sex workers have argued that it still polices sex work, and they still face harassment from the force. They also say that it makes it more difficult to screen clients, which pushes the industry further into the shadows. The other issue is that the model does not recognise the autonomy of sex workers. Not all sex work is survival sex work, and no abolitionist policy will be able to control the fact that consensual sex work does exist. Bill C-36, like the 'Unbuyable Bill', is rooted in radical feminist and abolitionist views. The law claims to address gender inequality and coercion, but it paradoxically limits women's ability to choose sex work, keeps their circumstances criminalised and fails to provide viable alternatives. A paper published in the Melbourne Journal of International Law found that if you separate Bill C-36's rhetorical claims from its actual effects, the law in reality 'is exposed as little more than a moralising condemnation of female sex workers, designed to limit their freedoms and capacity for self-determination, in order to induce their exit from sex work, in a manner which is wholly irreconcilable with the pursuit of 'gender equality'.' Legislating sex work is inherently difficult. It's crucial to make sure that the most vulnerable are protected, but it's contentious to paint everyone with the same brush. In Ireland, where buying sex was criminalised in 2015, sex workers reported that demand actually increased following the introduction of the new legislation. A report on the new law by the Department of Justice published in 2019 found that the law had a 'minimal effect' on demand. Sex workers also reported a heightened fear of crime, and it contributed to a climate where they felt even more marginalised and stigmatised. READ MORE MARISSA MACWHIRTER Scotland has a history of institutionalised abuse of working-class women and girls that is intertwined with its view of the 'social evil' of prostitution. The Glasgow System of the mid-nineteenth century saw the systemic policing of women and girls. Aged from seven to 39, they were plucked off the streets by police officers at will and taken to places like the Magdalene Asylum or the Lock Hospital for brutal and intimate examinations (often carried out by men) and barbaric treatments for venereal disease that often killed them. The Lochburn Magdalene Institution closed in 1960. Not that long ago. The case of Emma Caldwell, a 27-year-old woman murdered in 2005 by serial rapist Iain Packer, highlights how stigma against sex workers remains a serious issue in Scotland, just as it does in Canada. Failures in the police investigation have led to a forthcoming independent public inquiry. It took 19 years for Packer to be brought to justice. Regan's Bill is good in the sense that it has sparked fresh debate about the rights of sex workers. Though the reality of it becoming law before Scottish Parliament elections in 2026 is pretty unlikely. As in Canada, decriminalising sex work does not win as many votes as clamping down on it. And the Nordic model, as far as I am concerned, is still a crackdown. Shifting the burden of criminality does not constitute gender equality. Marissa MacWhirter is a columnist and feature writer at The Herald, and the editor of The Glasgow Wrap. The newsletter is curated between 5-7am each morning, bringing the best of local news to your inbox each morning without ads, clickbait, or hyperbole. Oh, and it's free. She can be found on X @marissaamayy1

New Zealand parliament suspends three Maori Party politicians over haka protest
New Zealand parliament suspends three Maori Party politicians over haka protest

Leader Live

time5 days ago

  • Leader Live

New Zealand parliament suspends three Maori Party politicians over haka protest

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke received a seven-day ban and the leaders of her political party, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi, were barred for 21 days. Three days had been the longest ban for a politician from New Zealand's parliament before. The lawmakers from Te Pati Maori, the Maori Party, performed the haka, a chanting dance of challenge, in November to oppose a widely unpopular bill, now defeated, that they said would reverse Indigenous rights. The protest drew global headlines and provoked months of fraught debate about what the consequences for the politicians' actions should be and the place of Maori culture in Parliament. A committee in April recommended the lengthy bans. It said they were not being punished for the haka, but for striding across the floor of the debating chamber toward their opponents while doing it. Judith Collins, the committee chair, said the behaviour was egregious, disruptive and potentially intimidating. Ms Maipi-Clarke, 22, rejected that description, citing other instances when legislators have left their seats and approached opponents without sanction. The suspended legislators said they are being treated more harshly than others because they are Maori. 'I came into this house to give a voice to the voiceless. Is that the real issue here?' Ms Maipi-Clarke asked parliament. 'Is that the real intimidation here? Are our voices too loud for this house?' Inside and outside parliament, the haka has increasingly been welcomed as an important part of New Zealand life. The sacred chant can be a challenge to the viewer but is not violent. As Maori language and culture have become part of mainstream New Zealand in recent years, haka appear in a range of cultural, sombre and celebratory settings. They also have rung out in parliament to welcome the passage of high-profile laws. Some who decried the protest haka in Parliament cited its timing, with Ms Maipi-Clarke beginning the chant as votes were being tallied and causing a brief suspension of proceedings. She has privately apologised for the disruption to Parliament's Speaker, she said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store