editorial

Keep the public wild areas public

Soon we will see the next round of legislative debates on proposed Law 71 and a coalition of 10 organizations, some non-governmental but others in part controlled by or dependent on the government, will be lobbying to restore the concept of "environmental possession" that the Torrijos administration's Law 23 established. That's where private or quasi-private organizations can claim vast tracts of land, purportedly or even in reality for the purpose of protecting the wildlife on it.

However, once in possession --- either with a title or a transferable right of possession --- these organizations can turn around and sell to others who have no such purpose of preservation.

And is it an altogether altruistic thing for an environmental organization to take possession of a piece of rainforest in order to preserve it? Not in this age of carbon emissions bond trading. The group can be paid by polluting corporations in the industrialized world as an "offset" for the gunk that such companies spew into the air.

To privatize a public wilderness area not only diverts the carbon bond income from the public treasury to a private organization, it takes all manner of rights, responsibilities and decisions that ought to be in the public domain and puts them beyond democratic control. It is, Vice Minister of Economy and Finance Dulcidio De La Guardia noted at a public forum in October, a matter of private parties "fencing off the wilderness."

Does the government do an inadequate job of protecting our wildlife and its habitats? Then the government needs to address that problem, including by establishing user fees that are adequate to finance the employment of enough trained people to protect our public wild areas. A good way to start with this process would be a public debate on hunting and fishing laws, that would lead to a science-based system of wildlife management, the legalization of some hunting and the establishment of hunting and fishing licenses to pay for such a system.

Is a private organization better equipped than the government to protect our wild areas? Not really. No environmentalist organization has resources in any way close to those that the government has. Moreover, the environmentalist organization that becomes dependent on government sponsorship and upon polluting corporations loses the independence it needs to wage a proper defense of nature.

Existing private nature reserves should not be disturbed, if title to the land is in the name of an individual or private legal entity. But right of possession of an uninhabited and uncultivated wilderness area is a perversion of the laws under which right of possession was created. Right of possession was created so that people without their own sufficient resources could establish a small farm or a homestead on public land, and thus feed and shelter themselves and their families. Due to decades of corruption under successive governments, it has become a system whereby wealthy and politically connected individuals obtain public land for a small fraction of its true value. To allow organizations to claim public wild areas under a theory of "environmental possession" not only extends this corruption, it gives the government undue influence over the environmental movement, an ability to pick "greenwash" artists as the officially funded and recognized "responsible spokespeople."

Let's NOT have another war in the region

Colombia's President Álvaro Uribe is pumping up a referendum to amend Colombia's constitution so as to perpetuate himself in office. Uribe's supporters in Washington and Panama have often condemned Venezuela's Hugo Chávez as a dictator for promoting a similar amendment to his country's constitution.

Meanwhile, oil prices are down and that means that Venezuela has less wealth to share and thus its president's popularity is down. Chávez still has a higher approval rating than the right-wing opposition figures whom foreign interests would choose to succeed him, but now the percentage of Venezuelans who rate his performance favorably has dipped to just under 50 percent.

So what's a president in political trouble to do?

Beat the war drum, of course. There's nothing like a national emergency to rally the voters around a president. Uribe is putting on a belligerent act by setting up new military bases and bringing in US military forces. Chávez is playing much the same game by making vitriolic statements and moving troops up to the border area. That the United States has for years shipped massive military aid to Colombia, while Venezuela has used some of its oil revenue to acquire expensive weapons systems from a number of non-US sources, makes the situation between these two countries all the more dangerous.

It's time for people and nations on all sides to drop their double standards and see both Uribe and Chávez for who they are and what they are. It's time for the world community and especially these two countries' friends and neighbors to talk some sense to these two elected presidents.

There is nothing to be gained by Colombia and Venezuela going to war. It's time for both countries to step back from the brink and for both politicians to calm down.

Bear in mind...

News | Economy | Culture | Opinion | Lifestyle | Nature
Noticias | Opiniones | Archive | Unclassified Ads | Home

Tankless Water Heaters --- http://www.eztankless.com/
Panama Hotel: Luxury apartment rentals in Casco Viejo, Panama City
Panama Real Estate: Original travel and investment articles on The Panama Report
Make the Executive Hotel your headquarters in Panama City
Find the boat of your dreams through Evermarine