|
|
|
|
|||
|
| |||
business & economy
Also in this section: Widely different points of view, but not a heated debate
University forum addresses canal
expansion environmental issues In a certain sense, the canal expansion referendum debate is in an early stage. The proponents and detractors only rarely appear in the same place at the same time, and when they do there is usually more heat than light shed. People with middle positions, unanswered questions that demand more than a slogan in respons, or more subtle observations to make have hardly begun their important work of fleshing out an intelligent consideration of a question that's going to dominate public discourse for the rest of the year and eventually come down to a "yes" or a "no." On June 15 at the University of Panama's Paranifo, more than 100 people gathered to hear something different from what has been the usual. There were no hecklers or cheering sections, no arguments about how if one doesn't accept some expert's authority it's a mortal insult, no traded insults. But there were different opinions and political orientations, from four notable Panamanian intellectuals in different fields, about different aspects of the environmental issues that the Torrijos - Alemán Zubieta Plan raises. Most of the references to the plan itself were oblique, with a general agreement among the four panelists more information is necessary and a concentration on background and framework matters to consider when digesting those additional data. The night's panel included Ronaldo Sousa Guevara, a Swiss-educated law professor and president of the Environmental Law Association; Guillermo Castro, a Cuban-educated sociologist, number two man at the City of Knowledge, sociology prof and associate at the Center for Latin American Studies (CELA); Ariel Rodríguez, biology professor and leader of the Biodiversidad Panama environmentalist movement; and Álvaro Uribe, an architect, university professor and urban planning scholar. Although it would be difficult to strictly categorize the differences among these men so as to pigeonhole them into strict "yes" or "no" advocates, Castro is of the PRD and related to some of the Torrijos administration figures who will play significant roles in the canal expansion controversy, Rodríguez is at the forefront of opposing the PRD administration or legislature in several disputes and all four participants had some irreverent things to say about the way Panamanian society is generally run. The forum was part of a series of university debates and discussions that will continue right up to the referendum. Castro led off with an argument about how the economy and culture of "transitism" --- a set of attitudes, practices and institutions arising from a way of life dependent on services to foreigners just passing through --- have historically affected Panama. It has on several occasions transformed our environment, he pointed out. The environmental controls associated with it have been used to the advantage of the ruling elites, he added. Plus, he said, it has divided economy in general and the working class in particular between those making their livings with the canal and the rest of society. Castro argued that the culture of transitism has always depended on subsidies and that its primacy has retarded the development of Panama's other social and economic sectors. In making this case, there is both an implicit admission and a "so what" argument in response to key points that canal expansion skeptics make --- yes, this project may be a money loser rather than a "money machine" as it has been touted, but then subsidies for canal are nothing unusual. Castro said that the environmental studies behind the proposal are "probably impeccable, and commented that "every productive process, including this expansion, implies a transformation of nature." However, he expressed concerns about development that doesn't do anything positive for the Panamanian people and highlighted the controversy, now probably laid to rest, over dams in the Western Watershed. He thinks that new dams to capture more water would be a better way to expand the canal than the installation of water-saving basins on the new locks, but said he understands the resistance of those who feared being displaced in the process. "All projects of the transitism state are for the benefit of a few," he said, but added that it would have been possible to build dams and do right by the people who would have been displaced. However, "this required that the people there had to be the primary beneficiaries, but this never crossed anybody's mind" in the elite circles of the people who run Panama. "It's easy to react," Castro concluded, arguing that while people will naturally oppose development that affects but doesn't help them, they generally won't oppose development per se. Professor Sousa began with a history of environmental law and Panamanian environmentalism, with sharp criticism of our current system of ecological laws and regulations. The National Environmental Authority (ANAM) has a legal mandate to coordinate and direct development in order to protect the environment, he noted "but in reality this isn't happening." That's largely because, he said, other entities make decisions about whether a concession for a certain project will be granted and once that's done the main issues affecting nature have already been resolved, very often in favor of destruction. He cited the Corredor Norte and Corredor Sur toll roads as examples of this. Sousa argued that "we need an analysis of development policy," which is an echo of an argument that the "no" side has been emphasizing. Over the last 100 years, decisions related to the canal have had both positive and negative effects, one of which he alleged has been "impoverishment of the Interior and concentration of everything in the capital." "We have suffered" because of canal decisions made without bothering to consider the broader interests of Panama, citing land invasions, pollution of Panama Bay, bad urban design and habits like littering as some of the consequences that have flowed from deciding things with far-reaching consequences outside the context of a sound development strategy. "Policy is more important than environmental impact studies," Sousa opined, though adding that both are necessary and scorning the idea of having a referendum on the canal expansion and then only afterwards doing an environmental impact study, as has been suggested by ANAM. The big problem for Sousa is that "we have a contaminated democracy." "Panama is selling everything now," he lamented, "but like in the Dominican Republic we may have all these resorts like the Decameron, yet be poorer than before." Professor Rodríguez began by claiming the ACP's baseline studies upon which any sound environmental decision should be based are not finished. However, he pointed to statements made for public consumption that imply that these surveys have been done and that there is no problem. As a case in point, he compared statements about water quality found in the ACP canal expansion tabloid that was inserted in the daily newspapers and the statements in the more elaborate master plan. In the former, it's alleged that the water quality stays the same. In the latter, it's admitted that salinity in Gatun Lake will go up and this problem will have to be reduced by periodically flushing lake water through the locks. "But flushing consumes more water and delays transits," he noted. In the Torrijos - Alemán Zubieta Plan, Rodríguez charged, environmental standards established by law are "a dead letter." "Why hasn't a prior environmental impact statement been required?" he asked. To show the effect of salinization, Rodríguez used satellite photos of Miraflores Lake and nearby bodies of water. The current locks have made that small lake brackish over the years, with salt water species invading certain parts and fresh water species dying out or being forced into ever smaller areas. From space the lake takes on a lighter color than nearby fresh water bodies. The way that the canal expansion is being promoted, Rodríguez opined, makes it "unrealistic to expect that people will vote because they are informed. People have not been allowed to use the rationality with which they were born.... The whole population is in this cattle chute, which goes in only one direction." He's angry about it: "The ACP has posed the question technically, but when there are technical questions they have no anwers," he charged. "If this turns out to be a fiasco, nobody will be held accountable --- it's a lack of respect." Doctor Uribe began by dismissing the Torrijos - Alemán Zubieta Plan as a collection of "reactions and improvisations." With a PowerPoint presentation he reviewed the history of the metro area's urban planning (and lack thereof) since the late 1960s. Under the old Canal Zone, and then later as those areas reverted to Panama, the plans omitted the canal area. There were huge squatter invasions in places like San Miguelito and Arraijan. Developers built tract housing away from road and utility infrastructures in places where they shouldn't have built, and then left it up to the government to deal with the problems. The current administration, Uribe suggested, hasn't been any better. He cited bad decisions by the Housing Ministry, a new urban planning law that's "just a reaction" to some inconvenient court decisions and what's going on west of the canal. The architect criticized the hotels that have been built or are under construction on the west side of the canal for being built in such isolation that it becomes hard for people in Arraijan to get to and from jobs there. But he said he understands perfectly well why the hotel owners are upset about the mega-port idea --- something that some canal expansion skeptics pose as an alternative to the Torrijos - Alemán Zubieta Plan --- demolishing the notion and gathering the night's few laughs with one graphic, which demonstrated how the luxury resorts' new waterfront view would be of an industrial area. "It's a bad joke." Professor Uribe sounded a more positive note in the questions and answers at the end. He noted that this debate about what to do about the canal is something unique in Panamanian history, and urged that when this process has run its course the experiences society gains in discussing this matter ought to be applied to other things, like urban development planning. Guillermo Castro also weighed in on the nature of the national debate: "We're in a period of nonsensical talk --- but this period will pass."
Also in this section:
News |
Business
|
Editorial
|
Opinion
|
Letters
|
Arts
|
Review
|
Community
|
Fun
|
Travel Make the
Executive Hotel your headquarters in Panama City --- http://ww.executivehotel-panama.com Find the boat of your dreams through Evermarine --- http://www.evermarine.com |
|||||||||
|
