ENVIRONMENT-PANAMA: Citizens Groups Want Action

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Silvio Hernandez

PANAMA CITY, May 23 1998 (IPS) - Much of Panama’s economy depends on the natural resources of the nation – such as water for the Panama Canal – but Panama remains the only country in Central America that does not have a law to protect the environment.

Two years President Ernesto Perez Valladares even vetoed the first environmental law to be passed by parliament, arguing that it was “inconvenient.” But now, alarmed groups of environmentalists are demanding parliament again takes up the question – “before it is too late.”

Some 9,000 of the 250,000 species of the world’s superior plants can be found in Panama along with 929 species of birds, 227 kinds of mammals, 226 species of reptiles and 170 of amphibians, as well as 122 species of seasonal migratory birds.

In the past 50 years, however, one-third of the 4.2 million hectares of primary forest have been lost to indiscriminate logging for commercial purposes plus the burning and deforestation that has occurred in clearing land for cattle grazing and agricultural purposes.

In this undeclared war between humans and nature, 38 species of birds, 33 kinds of mammals, and 10 of amphibians are currently under threat of extinction due to unrestricted hunting, commercialization and the destruction of their habitat.

Reports from the government National Institute of Renewable Natural Resources (INRENARE) this month revealed that between 60,000 and 70,000 hectares of natural forest are cut down or burned every year.

The new proposed legislation was debated among groups of congressional representatives and representatives of 14 environmental groups, and although they have not reached total consensus, representatives of citizens’ groups considered that important advances were made in some key aspects.

Environmental activist Felix Wing said that one of the main achievements is that the administrator and the assistant administrator of the new entity to be created will be university graduates with at least five years experience in environmental and natural resource management.

If the project is approved, the INRENARE will disappear and the new authority will be the National Environmental Authority (ANA), dependant on the Ministry of the Presidency.

The new legisltion also stipulates the establishment of consultative mechanisms on the issue, through a national consultative committee, as well as others at the district, provincial and country levels throughout the entire country.

Public consultations about environmental problems that could affect the population, especially in indigenous areas, were also included in the new proposal, said Wing. The three largest indigenous groups in the country the ngobe-bugle, the kuna and the embera, who in total make up about 2.7 million of the country’s inhabitants are sharply opposed to the development of mining projects in their territories.

Another aspect of the proposed legislation deals with the administrative penalties to be applied to individuals or companies who destroy natural resources. Fines can be up to 10 million dollars to compensate for damage.

Wing cautioned that despite the efforts, activists were unable to include in the new project a clause that would force investors to conduct prior studies on environmental impact before beginning an economic development project.

The debate surrounding the new environmental legislation is happening at the same time that the general manager for the Canal Committee, Alberto Aleman, is urging the local govenment and the general public to redouble the efforts for water conservation in the canal region.

Aleman pointed out that the drought produced by the El Nino phenomenon has forced the country to come face to face with the “harsh reality”. He added that the lesson of all this is that in order to “correct the errors of the past, a radical change is necessary” regarding natural resources.

In this sense, he warned that the canal region itself 330,000 hectares “has not escaped the practices of non-sustainable development that have prevailed for generations in the rest of the country”.

He explained that if the country wants to keep the canal, it should adopt drastic conservation measures for the natural forests that exist in the upper region of the canal, which feeds into the rest of the canal and which provides 50 percent of the water utilized for the boats to go through the canal from once ocean to the other. In his opinion, only eco-tourism projects and scientific research should be developed in those regions. It would not be opportune to allow the destruction of the primary forest in those places, because it would threaten the functioning of the canal.

The Panama canal brings in about 800 million dollars a year to the local economy, and offers an transit route alternative for four percent of all the merchandise transported by sea worldwide.