Bogota: An amendment in Peru’s Forestry and Wildlife Act has recently been drawing fierce backlash from environmental groups and indigenous groups that warns that it can accelerate deforestation in the Amazon Rainendon under the guise of economic growth. Amendment eliminates the requirement that landlords or companies get the state authority before converting forest land to other uses. Critics say the change can legalize the years of illegal deforestation.
“For us, it is seriously related,” said Alvaro Muscase Salvador, a lawyer for the Swadeshi People’s Program at Peru’s Legal Defense Institute. Muscase said that the reform “effectively privatization” sets a disturbing example by the land that the Constitution of Peru defines as the National Patrimony. “Jungle is not private property-they belong to the nation,” he said.
Supporters of the amendment were implemented in March, it is to say that it will stabilize the agricultural sector of Peru and provide more legal certainty to farmers. The Associated Press sought a comment from several representatives of Peru’s Agribusiness Sector, Congresswoman Maria Zeta Chunga, a vocal supporter of the law. Only one person replied in the agrarian business sector, saying that he did not want to comment.
A legal reversal and unconstitutional amendment:
According to the non -profit Renforest Trust, Peru 70 million hectares – more than 60 percent of the region of Peru – Amazon holds the second largest part of Renforest after Brazil.
It is one of the most biodiversity areas on the planet and is home to more than 50 indigenous people, some live in voluntary isolation. These community are important preservatives of ecosystems and are rainforests that they help stabilize the global climate by absorbing large amounts of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that is the main driver of climate change.
Passed in 2011, the original Forestry and Wildlife Act required state approval and environmental study before any changes in forest land use. But recent reforms have constantly weakened those security. The latest amendment allows landlords and companies to bypass that approval, even gives validity to previous deforestation.
The Constitutional Court of Peru kept the amendment after a group of lawyers filed a constitutional challenge. Although the court hit some parts of the amendment, it abandons the final provision of the law, which validate the previous illegal land-use changes. Legal experts say this is the most dangerous part.
In its judgment, the court admitted that indigenous communities should be advised on reforms in law and confirmed the role of the Ministry of Environment in One Zoning.
Environmental advocate Caesar Ipenza expressed it in such a way: “The court admitted that the law had violated indigenous rights and (tribes) should have been consulted, but it still supports the most harmful part.”
Support with powerful alliance in agrarian business:
Pushing behind the dynamics of the reform mirror seen under former President Jair Bolsonro in Brazil, where political and economic forces aligned to weaken environmental security in favor of agribusiness. While Brazil’s effort was led by a highly organized, industrial agrarian business lobby, the Peru version includes a relaxed but powerful alliance.
In Peru, the support comes from data related to Agribusiness interests, land grabbers and illegal mining and drug trafficking. Small and medium farmers with concerns about obtaining their land have also been washed away.
“What we are watching is the convergence of both legal and illegal interests,” said Vladimir Pinto for the environmental advocacy group, Amazon Watch.
Was the amendment to follow the rules of the European Union?
Julia Urunga, director of Peru at a non -profit environmental investigating agency, warned that the Peru government is now “falsely arguing” that amendment is necessary to follow the rules of the European Union, which will soon need companies importing products such as soy, beef and palm oil to import their goods to their goods illegally.
If the products tied to illegal forest harvesting are later legalized and allowed in the market, it will weaken the effectiveness of demand-party rules like those in the European Union, he said. “It sends wrong messages to the global markets and reduces efforts to prevent deforestation through trade restrictions,” Urunaga said.
Olivier couple, head of the European Union’s Economic and Trade Section in Peru, have denied that recent changes in law are associated with the harvesting-free regulation of the European Union.
In an interview with Peru’s media, some have stated that the purpose of regulation is to stop the purchase of products related to deforestation and do not require legal reforms, but rather trace and stability in goods such as coffee, cocoa and wood.
Indigenous communities of Peru say that their communities are in danger:
Due to no other support in domestic courts, the Citizen Samaj Group is preparing to take the case into international tribunals, warning that the ruling sets a dangerous example for other countries that demanding topassing the environment law under the banner of reforms.
For many indigenous leaders, the law represents a direct threat to their areas, communities and methods of life. Julio Kusurichi, a member of the International Association for the development of Peru’s rainforest, said that this measure would already spoil land-hatches and environmental inspections in weak areas. “Our communities historically protected not only our land but the planet,” Kusurichi said.
