business & economy

Also in this section:
Canal watershed development allowed in legislative sneak attack
Dolphin park controversy continues
Former port workers persist in years-old demands
Business & Economy Briefs

Dolphin park debate continues, expands in several directions

by Eric Jackson, in part from other media

It appears that the Torrijos administration and its creation the Aquatic Resources Authority of Panama (ARAP) are going full speed ahead to allow Ocean Embassy, which plans to open a $400 million dolphin park at Playa Corona in San Carlos, to capture about three dozen bottlenose dolphins for the facility. That's drawing a lot of criticism from different groups and individuals, but for distinct reasons.

The latest round took place on February 15, the eve of Carnival. There were allegations that a notice published in the Gaceta Oficial about a January 18 meeting did not reflect what actually happened, and in particular omitted the position taken by the Marine Corridor Commission. The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute's Héctor Guzman explained in an email message that "the voting was only or regulations on how to capture the dolphins, it was not a permit for capturing any." Previously on February 11 the National Environmental Authority (ANAM), which has lost part of its jurisdiction by the creation of ARAP, found fault with the Gaceta Oficial's version of what happened in January and called for a more profound analysis of the issue with assistance from experts from the United Nations.

In any case, the February 15 meeting place was changed at the last minute --- according to an ARAP press release to avoid a boycott! --- the arguments went on for seven hours until it was decided that a vote would be taken on exceptions to rules about capturing marine mammals by email.

The procedural debates were mostly a reflection of Torrijos-style machine politics and contrived show "dialogues," which do mean a lot to some people. However, the heart of the matter is --- well, people disagree about that, too.

The president of the Humane Society of the United States, Naomi A. Rose, sent a letter to President Torrijos urging him to deny permission for the opening of the Ocean Embassy dolphin park and to rule out any exceptions to the general law against capturing marine mammals. The Humane Society has for many years opposed dolphin parks and the capture of wild dolphins to be exhibited at them. The group's position paper on the subject argues that:

The very nature of these animals makes them uniquely unsuited to confinement. In the wild, whales and dolphins live in large groups (called pods), often in tight family units. Family bonds often last many years. In some species, they last for a lifetime.

Whales and dolphins travel long distances each day, sometimes swimming in a straight line for a hundred miles, other times remaining in a certain area for hours or days, moving several miles along a coastline and then turning to retrace their path. These marine mammals can dive up to several hundred meters and stay underwater for up to half an hour. They spend only 10 to 20% of their time at the surface.

The sea is to whales and dolphins much as the air is to birds --- a three-dimensional environment, where they can move up and down and side to side. But whales and dolphins don't stop to perch. They never come to shore, as do seals and sea lions. Whales and dolphins are always swimming, even when they "sleep." They are "voluntary breathers," conscious of every breath they take. They are always aware, and always moving. Understanding this, it is difficult to imagine the tragedy of life in no more than a tiny swimming pool.

Similar to the position taken by the Humane Society, the UK-based Marine Connection group's spokeswoman on animals in captivity, Andrina Murrell, wrote in a letter to The Panama News that:

Captive dolphins have unique and adapted abilities such as echolocation, traveling great distances and being an aggressive predator, all of which are rendered useless once placed in a barren tank, living off dead fish for tricks, ultimately becoming caricatures of their wild counterparts. Most studies into dolphins are undertaken in the wild because this is where we can study their natural feeding patterns, communications and complex society among other things. These natural occurrences are no longer apparent in captivity....

Murrell scorned Ocean Embassy's argument that its pre-capture studies and activities at the dolphin park will add to the body of scientific knowledge that's needed to conserve marine mammal species. "OEP cannot on one hand say they are 'conserving' wild dolphins when they are also planning on capturing a large number of these animals for the entertainment of humans and to profit themselves," she concluded.

From San Francisco the Earth Island Institute, which issues or denies the "dolphin safe" labels on tuna cans, sent a letter to President Torrijos arguing not only that allowing the capture of wild dolphins would harm Panama's image in the world (presumably for the same sorts of reasons that Marine Connection and the Humane Society give), but also complaining that as written the exceptions that ARAP would adopt would open the door to the commercial capture of dolphins in Panamanian waters for export to other countries.

This latter concern of the people at Earth Island renews the allegation that what Ocean Embassy is up to violates at least the spirit and maybe the letter of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), a treaty to which Panama is a party. Ocean Embassy cites exceptions in that treaty for scientific research and public exhibition, and moreover argues that in this part of the world bottle nosed dolphins are not endangered.

Former ANAM director and chief Panameñista Party environmental spokesperson Gonzalo Menéndez (an occasional contributor to The Panama News since long before he held any government or party post), said that he and his party are still studying the specific issue of dolphin capture and will reserve their judgement about that until the process of reading, consultation and discussion has run its course. However, he doesn't like the structure of what's going on, which he doesn't limit just to this issue and to ARAP.

"The problem in Panama is the dismantling of environmental protections," Menéndez alleged. ARAP's creation eliminated part of ANAM's jurisdiction, he said, and that was the whole point. He said that the canal area development legislation that the National Assembly jammed through the process in the middle of the night at the end of last year's session and awaits the president's signature or veto is another example of ANAM's jurisdiction and existing environmental protection laws being set aside so that vast protected tracts of the Panama Canal Watershed can be handed over to developers. He also pointed to the urban development law, which takes some of ANAM's regulatory powers and gives them to local governments and the Housing Ministry, which the construction industry find much more pliable.

The successive whittling away of ANAM, Menéndez said, has been bad enough. What the way the dolphin capture debate has been conducted further symbolizes, he argues, is the Torrijos administration's readiness to abandon Panama's international commitments made in a series of environmental treaties.