Loading ...« Creating Employment in Protected Areas of Peru / Creando empleo en las áreas naturales protegidas del Perú | Home | Please Tell Me This Will Not Stand! »
Camisea Revisited
By Keith R | July 5, 2007
Topics: Energy & the Environment, Environmental Protection, Extractive Sectors, Sanitation | No Comments »
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...
On 04 June a public hearing at Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) headquarters in Washington, D.C. was held on the recently released audit reports of the controversial Camisea project in Peru.
The official IDB summary of the meeting (in Spanish only) is a bit difficult to find on the Bank’s special website on Camisea (unless of course you get help from The Temas Blog!). You have to go to the Spanish (not English) version, follow to Sociedad Civil, then Reuniones Públicas. Curious that they don’t have a more intuitive flow, or post a link on the opening, since it is the most recent update of the Camisea site.
The brief summary posted provides minimal information– in fact, five of its paragraphs instead summarizes the major conclusions of the external environmental and social audit of the project and the recent pipeline integrity review. They promise a fuller version of the summary later, so I waited before posting. But after waiting a month, I decided enough was enough.
I also must wonder aloud why, after a month, no English version of the short summary is yet offered by the IDB. Very curious.
There were presentations made at the public hearing, and you can view and download them, if you jump through some hoops first. Rather than list them directly on the website (and thus have them transparent to search engines), IDB only lists them in an Adobe PDF you must first download.
It is very curious to me that, even though a large contingent of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), only one of their presentations is offered and nothing is said of their criticisms. Almost all the presentations offered are by Bank officials and the auditors, and of course strongly favorable to Camisea. Why, for example, no mention of the pipeline critique offered by engineer Bill Powers of E-tech International, stressing that the Exponent audit has not allayed his concerns about the pipeline?
Maybe there are logical explanations for all of this, but taken together, they give at least the appearance (and smell) of a lack of transparency and perhaps “stacking the deck” so that only the most favorable side of the hearing is presented.
Is Camisea Meeting Its Commitments?
Let’s look at the one slightly critical presentation offered on the IDB website, made by Alberto Barandiarán, President of the Peruvian group Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (DAR). Barandiarán looked at the 21 environmental and social commitments the project was supposed to fulfill. He noted that it was difficult assessing their fulfillment, because the of all the websites devoted to the project, only the Health Ministry’s Environmental Health Directorate (DIGESA) provides relevant information. Most agencies and parties linked to the project were slow to respond to inquiries and gave incomplete answers.
He prepared a matrix of the 21 commitments (click on image to enlarge), and rated them as fulfill, progress toward meeting, or not met. His conclusion: none yet fulfilled, 11 in process, and 10 unmet. Among the 10 he reckons have not been fulfilled (none of them insignificant, to my mind):
- III: “Participate in the development and implementation of the social and economic development fund for Camisea (FOCAM), financed with gifts from GdP and the participation of the companies, whose objective will be to help the economic, social and environmental development in the project’s areas of influence.”
- IV: “Improve the existing norms in order to deliver protection to the Nahua-Kugapakori reserve, taking into account that the Peruvian Government participates in ILO Convention 169. This compromise includes the expedition of the decree that immediately improves in a timely manner the level of protection of the communities such that it restricts new extractive activities inside the aforementioned reserve (beyond that which is contemplated for the Camisea Project) so that the appropriate and permanent protection level remains established.”
- VIII: “Implement the necessary policies and changes in the applicable norms for all future hydrocarbon concessions whose product flows through the principal pipeline of the Camisea Project, such that they adjust to recognized environmental and social standards and norms.”
- XI: “Ensure that the routine government supervisory activities for the Camisea Project and its results are made known to the public via the Project webpages of the Ministry of Energy and Mines’ (MINEM) GTCI, taking into account the transparency norms and the application of existing law.”
- XIII: “Implement institutional and legal mechanisms that facilitate the access to justice of those who feel affected by the presence of migrant populations that threaten the protected areas of Bajo Urubamba, as a consequence of the Camisea Project, and thus effectively apply existing Peruvian legislation on this topic.”
- XV: “Review and, in the corresponding measure, recommend modifications of the existing procedures that the Camisea Consortium apply, related to compensations and related conflict resolution, such that those procedures are transparent and consistent. Such review under the Peruvian Government will include the opinions of the pertinent communities affected by the project, the People’s Defender, the Camisea Project Ombudsman and community federations. The improved procedures will be put at the disposition of the communities affected by the project, and will be applied, as a minimum, to all future gas exploitation that utilizes the principal pipeline of the Camisea Project.”
- XVI: “Continue and intensify the consultation mechanisms, within the framework of the GTCI of MINEM, with representatives of civil society, with the purpose of improving the coordination and dialog between the Government and organs of Peruvian civil society.”
- XVII: “Ensure that OSINERGMIN continues the integrated and uninterrupted supervision of the Camisea Project during its construction, especially in the Nahua Kugapakori Reserve, and later, during its operation.”
- XIX: “Make public the advances and the results of these commitments.”
- XX: “Prepare and request a IDB loan to finance the capital costs of the project to treat the sewage coming from the municipalities of Pisco, Paracas and San Andrés.”
I note that several of these involve transparency. It seems that for all the show of transparency and consultation regarding Camisea — multiple websites, public consultations with civil society, reports and third-party audit, all of which are commendable as far as they go — the Project and its backers, including the IDB and Government of Peru, still have much to do before they meet their commitments. The question in many minds right now is whether the Bank will wait to see all 21 commitments actually fulfilled before offering funding to Camisea II.
— Keith R
Tags: access to justice, áreas protegidas, auditoria ambiental, BID, Camisea, conflict resolution, DAR, DIGESA, E-tech International, environmental audit, Exponent, FOCAM, hidrocarbonetos, hydrocarbons, IDB, ILO Convention, MINEM, Nahua-Kugapakori reserve, ombudsman, OSINERGMIN, Paracas, Peru, pipeline integrity, Pisco, protected areas, San Andrés, sewage, social audit, transparencia, transparency
Subscribe to My Comments Feed