Urbanización Las Haciendas De Camino De Cruces en el lote CL-43 – A critique of the Environmental Impact Study
Rhett D. Harrison, Ph.D
Tropical ecologist & Independent consultant.
SUMMARY
The Environmental Impact Study submitted by Inmobiliaria P&P S.A. for their proposed residential development (Urbanización Las Haciendas De Camino De Cruces) in Clayton is seriously flawed and demonstrates an almost unbelievable level of professional incompetence on the part of the author. First, the report fails to fulfil several of the basic requirements of an Environmental Impact Study. Namely, (1) it does not consider alternative sites for the proposed development so that the most environmentally suitable option can be selected; (2) it does not consider the environmental impacts at a national or international level and thereby fails to recognise that the development threatens a forest type that is rare throughout Mesoamerica; (3) it does not recognise both the high overall biodiversity of the habitat and the presence of numerous rare species, several (12) of which are protected under Panamanian law; and (4) despite a requirement for public consultation only 11 people out of several hundreds living in Clayton today were interviewed, public meetings were not held, and nor was any attempt made to contact the various groups opposed to the project to understand their objections. The author is clearly not capable of conducting the biological surveys required and makes farcical suggestions for mitigation. For example, in one of the plots the author found just 47 plant species, 12 bird species, and 5 mammal species, whereas preliminary checklists published for these forests recorded 115 plant species, 127 bird species, and 21 mammal species. The author also suggests that the impacts are “reversible”, apparently unaware that the majority of species in forests are wholly dependent on the forest habitat for their existence and if the forest disappears so will they. Finally, the report entirely ignores a detailed biological assessment made of these forests in 1995. The findings of the 1995 report, that these forests are rare and of high conservation value, presumably were not convenient to the developer. The EIS submitted by Inmoviliaria P&P S.A. is a completely inaccurate document. The developer should be required to submit a proper EIS and, given the impacts cannot be mitigated, it is recommended that the development be cancelled or moved to a more appropriate location.
INTRODUCTION
This report is a review of an Environmental Impact Study submitted by Inmobiliaria P&P S.A. (10 September 2004) for the development of a residential complex in forested areas of Clayton (Plot CL-43) (Inmobiliaria 2004). Inmoviliaria P&P S.A. also submitted a report pertaining to a second plot (CL-20), but as the reports are very similar they can be considered as one here.
As most people will be aware, Clayton lies within the reverted lands on the East side of the canal on Panama’s Pacific slope. An ecological study of this area was made by ANCON and The Nature Conservancy in 1995 for the US Department of Defence, who controlled these lands before they reverted (DoD 1995). That report, which was the result of detailed surveys over a two year period, first of all recognised the rarity and importance of the forests on the Pacific slope. As a result of the prolonged dry season Pacific slope forests are deciduous or semi-deciduous and are therefore very different from forests on the Atlantic side. Only 5% of the original forest cover on Panama’s Pacific slope remains and indeed these forest types are extremely rare throughout Mesoamerica (Condit et al. 2002). Moreover, recent studies indicate that these forests exhibit very high levels of beta-diversity – each patch of forest harbours different species – and thus that Panama supports amongst the highest diversity of tree species per unit area of anywhere on Earth (Condit et al. 2002). The high degree of uniqueness of different forests should be taken into account in conservation strategies. The 1995 report also recognised that these forest patches support high levels of biodiversity, especially in Clayton, and include a number of rare species, several of which are protected under Panamanian law. Finally, the 1995 report points out that, although disturbed, the forest patches in Clayton because of their proximity to the Las Cruces National Park are valuable to conservation and should be protected in perpetuity. In fact, the report mentions that the forested areas in Clayton would be protected under Panamanian law when they reverted, which appears to call into question the legality of the sale of these plots to Inmoviliaria P&P S.A. in the first place.
Unfortunately, the Environmental Impact Study submitted by Inmobiliaria P&P S.A. completely fails to recognise the importance of these forests. The report also fails to fulfil several of the basic requirements of an Environmental Impact Study and the author is clearly not competent to carry out the biological surveys or assess the impacts of the development. In fact, the report appears to be more of a publicity document, rather than an honest attempt to assess the environmental impacts of the proposed development.
In the following pages I outline the basic inadequacies of the environmental impact study submitted by Inmoviliaria P&P S.A (Inmoviliaria 2004).
SERIOUS FLAWS OF THE REPORT
Environmental Impact Studies have to fulfil certain basic requirements, several of which this report does not do.
Assessment of the projects’ Categorisation
Developments are categorised by the seriousness of their potential impacts, which in turn affects the procedures the developer must adhere to. Thus, one of the first requirements of an EIS is to provide an assessment of potential impacts and then propose the appropriate category. The report does this on page 14 in a 5 line paragraph that basically states that as the impacts can be avoided with normal care and attention, it should be a Category II project. No further justification is given. First, no mention is made of the protected species or of the proximity of the site to a national park, both of which would justify elevating the category. Second, the claim that the impacts can be avoided is a blatant lie. If roads are bulldozed through a forest and plots of land cleared for house construction, the forest habitat in the area affected by the development will be entirely destroyed. The fact that a few trees will be left around the houses does not mitigate this impact in any way.
Clearly the Categorisation of the development should be adjusted to account for the seriousness of the impacts.
Consideration of alternative locations for a development
One of the primary roles of an EIS is to consider the environmental impacts of a development at different sites, so that the most environmentally appropriate location for a project is selected. The reverted lands in this area are replete with disused housing, concreted areas, and empty fields of exotic grasses that are of absolutely no conservation value at all. Thus, if the report gave even the most cursory consideration of other sites, the ridiculousness of locating this housing development in the last remaining patches of tall forest in Clayton would be immediately apparent.
The developer should be required to give a detailed justification, backed by environmental data, as to the site selection.
Consideration of impacts in a national and international context
When evaluating the seriousness of the environmental impacts of a project it is necessary to consider the significance of habitat (or species) loss in a national and international context. As explained earlier the semi-deciduous forests on the Pacific slope constitute a rare forest type of which there is very little remaining both in Panama and Mesoamerica. Moreover, because of the high beta-diversity the loss of even small fragments will have a significant impact and possibly even lead to the extinction of some species. The author of the EIS appears to be blissfully unaware of these facts and in fact tries to argue that these forests are widespread and of little conservation value. Indeed, it is extraordinary that the EIS does not mention the earlier, and obviously much more detailed, study of the forests in the reverted lands (DoD 1995) nor any of the recent scientific literature pertaining to these forests (e.g. Condit el al 2002). One is forced to conclude that the author is either completely incompetent or is maliciously misrepresenting information that might prejudice the developer’s case, or both.
The developer should be required to submit an EIS that takes into account the national and international consequences of the destruction of these forest patches.
Biodiversity of the affected habitat and presence of protected species
Obviously the diversity of the habitat that will be affected is one of the most important criteria in judging the potential significance of the environmental impacts of a project. The forest remnants in Clayton are most diverse habitats in the reverted lands and contain a number of rare species, 12 of which are protected under Panamanian law. The development of housing in these forests will therefore have a very significant impact. Again, the author of the report appears to be unaware of these facts. This is partly of course because they failed to utilise the detailed survey data collected in the 1995 report, and partly because the author was singularly incompetent in collecting biological data themselves (see below).
The developer should be asked to submit a report that takes proper account of the diversity of these forests and must be made to adhere to all the legal requirements pertaining to the protection of habitat of protected species. In reality, the only way this can be achieved is to leave the forests as they are and preferably improve their protected status.
Public participation in the Environmental Impact Study
On page 98 the EIS dedicates several paragraphs stating the importance and legal requirement for public participation in the EIS process. Later in the report the author justifies a sample of just 11 people as being adequate public representation. Even at the population level in year 2000, which for some reason that is never justified the EIS uses, this is pathetic (10.5%) representation and today several hundred more people live in Clayton. No effort was made to hold public meetings or to contact the groups who are objecting to the development – both of which are standard practices for an EIS. Thus, the inhabitants of Clayton have had their democratic rights, as stipulated under the laws pertaining to EIS, bypassed. There are several reasons why the citizenry of Clayton may have valid objections to the project. First, Clayton is an area of low density housing and the addition of large new housing developments will obviously impinge on the quality of life in Clayton, both for the extra crowding and the addition traffic and other inconveniences. Second, these last remaining patches of tall forest are among the principle amenities in Clayton and an important component in the scenic beauty of the area and its general ambience.
The developer should be required to hold public meetings and address the concerns of the Clayton citizenry.
INADEQUACY OF THE BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS AND MITIGATION
The biological surveys in this EIS are so farcically bad that it is difficult to know where to start. In any environment, but especially in very diverse habitats, the number of species encountered depends on the methods used and the amount of sampling effort (basically how much time is spent looking). The author presents such an appalling account of their methods that it is impossible to assess how much effort they made. Nevertheless, the report publishes lists of several groups of organisms, including plants, birds, mammals and insects and, although these lists are ridiculously short, the author apparently believes them to be adequate, because they go on to justify several other aspects of the EIS on the basis of these lists. Below in Table 1 I compare the numbers of species listed in the EIS with the numbers of species recorded from Mixed semi-deciduous forests in Clayton in the 1995 report (this is a conservative estimate of the species in the plot because the plot also contains patches of Tall semi-deciduous forests and Low semi-deciduous forests).
Table 1. Comparison of the numbers of species recorded in Plot CL-43 by the EIS (Inmobiliaria 2004) and in Mixed semi-deciduous forest (the main habitat type in the plot) by the 1995 Report (DoD 1995)
EISby Inmobiliaria P&P S.A.
1995 Reportby ANCON & The Nature Conservancy
2005 Data
Plants
47
115
+ 115
Birds
12
127
+ 200
Mammals
5
21
21
Amphibians and Reptiles
9
24
24
Insects
9
Not recorded
Hundreds Species
The figures really speak for themselves. Clearly the EIS hopelessly underestimates the diversity of species in the plot. Particularly laughable is the author’s presentation of 9 species of insects as serious estimate of the number of species in the plot. To illustrate just how ridiculous this figure is I would like to mention a little piece of science history. In 1982 Terry Erwin shocked the science world when he published a paper suggesting that the total insect diversity in the tropics might be as high as 30 million species. Erwin arrived at this figure by studying the number of beetles species in the canopy of one Panamanian tree species (Leuhea seemannii), and then multiplying the figure up to include all insects and then again by an estimate of the number of tree species in the tropics. The figure surprised everyone because at the time only 1.5 million species of everything from bacteria to Blue whales had been described. Leuhea seemannii is present in Clayton and Erwin found 163 species of beetle just in the crown of this species.
Clearly the developer should be required to hire a competent biologist to conduct the site surveys.
The EIS author demonstrates similar ineptitude in suggesting mitigation measures for the project. Firstly the point needs to be made that there is no mitigation against the destruction of forest habitat. Once the canopy is opened and the understorey cleared, the habitat is lost. The author suggests capturing animals and then releasing them in Las Cruces National Park. Even if these wild animals could be caught and tolerated the handling, both of which are highly dubious, re-releasing will achieve nothing. Animals, like humans, have homes and territories. The most likely outcome of re-releasing the animals will be a slow death for starvation as they are chased from one territory to the next. Even if a few should survive a forest can only support a certain population and so ultimately nothing can compensate for the lost of habitat. The author also suggests planting trees to replace some of those lost. It hardly need be stated that gardening does not replace a forest. Actually, the entire mitigation section of the report appears to be pure window-dressing. For example, I find it hard to believe that the developer is really prepared to spend the hundreds of thousands of balboas it would require to capture and then re-release all the animals. If the developer was that concerned they would never be proposing to destroy these last remaining patches of forest in Clayton.
CONCLUSIONS
The EIS submitted by Inmobiliaria P&P S.A. is a hopelessly inaccurate document. The construction of houses in the forested patches in Clayton will destroy an area of a rare forest type that supports high biodiversity, including several protected species. Therefore, contrary to the conclusions of the EIA, it will have a very significant impact. Moreover, the rights of the citizenry in Clayton have been basically ignored. At the very least the developer should be required to submit a proper EIS, but in reality the authority charged with protecting Panama’s natural heritage should recommend that the development be cancelled or move to a more suitable (non-forested) location.
REFERENCES
Condit, R, Pitman, N., Leigh, E. G. Jr., Chave J., Terborgh J., Foster, R. B., Nunez V., P., Aguilar, S., Valencia, G. V., Muller-Landau, H. C., Losos, E. and Hubbell, S. P. 2002. Beta-diversity in tropical forest trees Science 295: 666-669.
DoD 1995. Ecological survey of the US Department of Defence lands in Panama. Report produced by The Nature Conservance and ANCON for the US Department of Defence.
Inmobiliaria 2004. Estudio de impacto ambiental Categoría II. Proyecto Urbanización las haciendas de Camino de Cruces. Promotor Inmoviliaria P&P S.A., elaborado por Evin Cedeno Herrera (I.A.R. 163-2000), Septiembre 2004.
Filed under: Burica Press | Leave a comment »
Burica Press -- Panamá por Dentro 