César Gamboa Balbín
Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Natruales
This trend continues to threaten the institutions that protect our collective natural patrimony.
In a previous article, DAR pointed out how the business collective interest sector opposed the ratification of the Escazú Agreement. In light of this, for a few months, new campaigns emerged, this time to weaken environmental institutions and undertake to develop hydrocarbon activities in protected areas, among other proposals that would put considerable risk on our natural heritage.
These campaigns, which -we hope- the Executive and Legislative have not taken heed of, because it is not efficient to make legal changes to attract investment, show the prevailing discourse offers to get out of the economic crisis, to take advantage of the resources we have by reducing the delays in approval of environmental impact studies and to attract or expand investments that could mean short-term benefits. For this, extractive activities are proposed in national parks such as Sierra del Divisor, Manu, Bahuaja Sonene, and other biodiverse and vulnerable areas, which are the last barriers that stop the advance of illegal activities and with it, the deforestation and degradation of the Amazon forests. Attempts like this to weaken institutions or affect natural heritage have occurred repeatedly in the last 20 years. The “Law of the Jungle” (2008) and the “Law of Anti-Environmental Packages” (2013 and 2014) are some of the situations in which environmental regulations were weakened and which brought consequences.
The opposition has yet to demonstrate how environmental institutions supposedly impede investments, how their proposals will attract more investment if they materialize, how they’ve evaluated in their analysis the increase in conflicts, costs & delays that environmental management dilution has, how hydrocarbons take precedence in any protected area, that the decisions of the authority in charge of these areas (SERNANP) depends on what the Ministry of Energy and Mines decides, or how citizen participation in environmental assessments is not necessary.
For example, environmental viability combines a technical evaluation of the projects, social legitimacy with citizen participation, and a political and legal decision by the administrative authority. If one of these is out of balance, especially in receiving influences from the power of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, do not doubt that we will have more cases like the “Baguazo Conflict“, more mistrust and problems to solve. The private sector should also test whether these changes are convenient for all Peruvians. No company has been audited after the Odebrecht bribes and “Lavajato” scandals, and there has been no enforcement act to restore our confidence in “doing business as usual“.
Thinking only about short-term gains does not help us to get out of the problem we are in. Suppose we want to believe in the long term and promote investments. In that case, it is essential to strengthen the administration, encourage compliance with regulations, and hire and improve their work with available resources that allow them to approve quality environmental studies in a short time. Taking resources away from or eliminating the environmental agencies only increases the risk of future and further negative impacts. Let’s remember the recent pollution accidents on the Peruvian coast by Repsol, the historical oil spills in the Amazon Rainforests in Loreto, affecting indigenous communities, and the San Juan de Lurigancho floods, among other “investment accidents” that occur when adequate preventive studies are not carried out.
Suppose we want a modern country that is consistent with environmental protection. In that case, we must comply with our environmental commitments, such as those derived from the Free Trade Agreement between Peru and the United States (2006), climate financing agreements such as the DCI (2014), and those necessary to support Peru’s candidacy to the OECD. That is why putting ourselves on the stage of weakening the State to prioritize our particular interests is an unacceptable risk.
We must not deny that we need change. Peru needs to change, and environmental management needs to improve. That is the debate we must embrace as opposed to the old business model against environmental rights. It´s as if they’re still living in the times of pre-global warming, in nineteenth-century times.