"The law of the jungle" refers to a situation in which the strongest prevails. In the Peruvian context, it could refer to the dominating ideology in the country’s government. The Executive has proposed legislation to the parliament to promote private investment that, if approved, would put the Amazonian region up for sale. A variety of social groups have demonstrated their opposition to the initiative, which they call the "law of the jungle," presumably because the government’s intention is to impose this law so as to auction off the rainforest.

Three months ago, President Alan García launched a proposal to put a price on all of the natural resources that we are not using, in order to overcome what he calls the philosophy of "the dog in the manger".  He claims that the Amazon region should be exploited, and that of the 63 million hectares of land that make up the region, 8 million hectares could be used for forest plantations and logging.  García claims that a privatization plan is the only way to assure investment and generate employment. Even though there is already a law that promotes private investment in reforestation and agroforestation, and permits the distribution of concessions to exploit Amazonian land, García insists on granting ownership of the land.

When García made his idea public, proposed legislation, presented at the end of 2006, was already on the Congress agenda.  This would replace the current "concession regime" with a “sale regime.”  The current law (Law 28852) establishes that "the State can award concessions by means of public auction of forest land without tree cover and/or uncultivated land that is under State ownership." The concession can last for a term of up 60 years and cannot exceed ten thousand hectares. The recipient of the concession must commit to invest in the land. President García aims to replace the concession regime with a sale regime, awarding property rights to forest land without tree cover and/or uncultivated land that is under State ownership by means of public auction without term limits. The law still requires investment on the part of the recipient, yet the land grant would be expanded to up to 40 thousand hectares.

There are two conflicting verdicts on the proposed legislation. The Land Commission—controlled by the ruling party at the time of its debate in April 2007—has pronounced itself in support of the sale regime.  The Economic Commission, on the other hand, decided in favor of the concession regime, in October 2007.  The Permanent Commission of the Congress of the Republic did not reach consensus when it discussed the issue on January 23^rd of this year and has proposed to resume debate on Wednesday January 30^th.

The Economic Commission, in contrast to the Agrarian Commission, relied on a variety of points of view to support its position in favor of the concessions regime. For example, the Regional Government of Loreto expressed to the Commission that "granting property rights produces perverse incentives that would endanger the forest and promote deforestation". The Peruvian Society for Environmental Rights (SPDA) told the Commission that "granting property rights can create incentives contrary to what is intended, there is a risk of the State promoting the deforestation of the country’s most important forests." In the same vein, the International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO) pointed out that "awarding property rights to forest resources can generate negative incentives that cause an increase in the deforestation of the forest, which can adversely affect biological diversity".

In its opinion, the Economic Commission stated that the proposed law could have negative effects on the environment, such as the "introduction of exotic species through monoculture plantations in the Amazonian forest," which is known for its diversity. The law could generate social problems as well. Investment in large plots of land could affect whole communities and displace people, or a single group could buy up and monopolize the auctioned land. The Economic Commission also thinks that the law could generate perverse incentives, because it would reward companies that deforest land to establish tree plantations and monocultures. The Commission concludes that the sale of forest land makes it difficult to ensure sustainable development and the protection of natural resources.

The proposal has generated debate around the issue of natural resources. Sectors of the parliament consider the law unconstitutional, since according to the Political Constitution (Art. 66), natural resources are national patrimony over which the State exercises sovereign control, and they only can be granted as concessions to individuals. In addition, the Statutory Law for the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources (Art. 3) considers natural resources to be all forms of nature that can be used by humans for the satisfaction of their needs, that have a present or potential market value, and it identifies among such resources soil and land, that can be put to greater use through forestry activities.

According to the National Institute of Natural Resources’ (INRENA) official data, there are an estimated 9.7 million hectares of land to reforest that the approved legislation could put up for sale. To date, this does not include a registry of deforested land that indicates the exact locations of the land that would be up for auction. This adds an element of uncertainty to the debate over the possible impact of the proposed law. Even if a land registry is carried out, it is worth noting that not even in the mining sector’s case—where there are millions of dollars of investment—has the government used surface property rights as an incentive for the extraction of a subsoil resource. This time, it seems as though García´s investment obsession is driving him to demand the approval of an initiative that goes beyond all existing natural resource management models, which for other sectors is via concession.

Voices from the Forest

Many Amazonian political leaders and social organizations have demonstrated their opposition to the proposed legislation. On January 24^th, in the city of Iquitos, the Patriotic Front of Loreto marched in protest against the government’s proposal, since this region would become one of the most affected if the proposal were approved. The regional president of San Martín, Cesar Villanueva, who represents another one of the affected regions, has described the law as unacceptable. Meanwhile, the congressman from Ucayali, Róger Nájar, has expressed that the parliamentary opposition will stick together to prevent the law from passing. A massive meeting of various Amazonian social groups has been called for during the first fortnight in February. The meeting will take place in the central region of the forest, with the aim of analyzing the proposed legislation and defining strategies to defend the Amazonian region.