business & economy

Law 132 approved by legislature, environmentalists to sue

by Eric Jackson

On December 13 the National Assembly approved by a 46-11 vote --- although the details of precisely who voted which way do not show up on the legislature's website --- a law that will allow the government to grant long-term private concessions for the use of beaches and islands. Under Panama's constitution beaches are public property and under this country's laws foreigners may not own islands. This legislation, known as Law 132, is designed to effectively circumvent these strictures.

As originally written the proposal would have specifically authorized developers to summarily bulldoze fishing villages that had existed for many decades despite rights of possession which, though they might be unregistered, are valid under the law. Also when Law 132 was originally submitted to the legislature by the Torrijos cabinet, it was promised that it would end corrupt real estate practices in the Bocas del Toro archipelago. Earlier, the government had promised Bocas residents who had bought right of possession land that they would be able to upgrade their ownership interests to full title. The law as proposed and as passes did and does neither of the two latter things, and after a wave of protests by property owners in Bocas and Colon amendments were made to add protection to those who hold property by squatters' rights.

The proposal also drew opposition from environmentalists, led by University of Panama biologist Ariel Rodríguez and backed either formally or informally by groups ranging from the establishment National Association for the Conservation of Nature (ANCON) to the more radical green elements. Treasury Committee president Pedro Miguel González, who shepherded the bill through the National Assembly despite opposition from some members of his own Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD), claimed that the environmentalists' objections were taken into account by amendments made in his committee. The generally PRD-aligned La Prensa, at a loss to find  any recognized environmentalist leader who supports Law 132, promoted an obscure “Albatross Foundation” to make the claim that the local environmental movement is divided about the issue.

The environmentalists' main objections are threefold: first, they are against a development concept that lines Panama's beaches with big tourist hotels; second, they oppose the de facto privatization of public beaches, which in places like Contadora Island, Coronado and Farrallon has meant armed security guards keeping most Panamanians from enjoying natural attractions that the constitution says are theirs to enjoy; and third, they believe that the construction of large facilities and their supporting infrastructures would inevitably harm coral reefs and other natural features that are attractive to tourists.

At the outset of the Law 132 debate Rodríguez predicted that the measure would be approved by the assembly and vowed to file a court challenge to it as soon as it is signed by the president and published in the Gaceta Oficial. In recent years environmentalists have had more success in the courts, which blocked Multicentro's Colombian developer's attempt to build an exit ramp over Panama Bay at the mouth of the polluted Matasnillo River and stalled a Panamanian real estate developer's attempt to build a subdivision over one of the remaining parts of the historic Las Cruces Trail, than they have had with the legislature and executive branch. Now that the island and beach concession law has been approved by the National Assembly, Rodríguez has reiterated the movement's intention to take the government to court.

Aligned against the environmentalists in court will be some of the country's wealthiest families and multinational hotel chains, which for years have been trying with mixed success to evict long-established fishing communities and replace them with exclusive upscale developments. The fact that only 11 deputies voted against Law 132 even though the PRD was split about it reflects the realities that attempts to privatize the beaches were also supported by the Moscoso administration and that the nation's wealthy elite by and large likes the idea of restricting use of the nation's beaches to those with a lot of money.

The prevalence of that opinion in more affluent circles is also reflected by the country's most respected business group, the Panamanian Business Executives Association (APEDE), which has endorsed Law 132. The group maintains that the new law will promote tourism development thus will be good for the whole economy and create jobs in communities where young people now have few options.

Even if the judges reject the environmentalists' lawsuit, under the new law there will be opportunities for people to file objections to proposed beach or island concessions, for example by people who currently own homes on quiet beaches and prefer not to have their tranquility disturbed by mobs of tourists roaring around on ATVs and jet skis and their habit of long walks along the beach cut short by security guards at the beachfront high rise next door. In practice, however, public hearings and opportunities to comment are often rendered meaningless by tactics like obscure notices rendered in fine print within publications that hardly anyone reads. It nevertheless seems likely that developments on and access to the public beaches will take a higher profile as a political issue in years to come in the event that Law 132 survives the legal challenge.

The environmentalists allege that a number of planned projects in which wealthy and powerful families have stakes will file for concessions soon after Law 132 takes effect. This may be borne out by the announcement by Catastro (the office in the Ministry of Economy and Finance in charge of surveying and official maps) a few days after the legislature's final approval of the law that starting in January it will undertake a survey of all of Panama's island properties.