بازبینی پاناما : تکامل سیاست مدیریت ساحلی

A window of opportunity for integrated coastal management may exist in Panama at the beginning of the new century. The country emerged from a period of political instability in the 1990s and began the new century with full political control over its most important resource—the Panama Canal. A major institutional reorganization in the late 1990s merged a number of agencies with authority in the coastal and marine areas into the Panama Maritime Authority and expanded the responsibilities of the marine resource directorate to include marine and coastal resources. This reorganization occurred with the adoption of new legislation that clearly recognizes the importance of integrated coastal management (ICM). Concurrent with the formation of the Maritime Authority, the Legislature passed the General Environmental Law and created the National Environment Authority. Despite these positive developments, institutional change has been slow. Sectoral management of coastal resources continues. Interagency coordination remains deficient, and no formal coastal coordination mechanism exists. Legislation is contradictory and confusing, and the new laws only add to the confusion. As coastal environmental quality continues to degrade and conflicts between sectors increase, the marine and coastal directorate must strengthen its institutional role and take the initiative in the development of a meaningful ICM effort in Panama. This manuscript analyzes the evolution of Panamanian institutions and legal frameworks related to coastal areas and highlights themes that are ripe for future action.

In 1993, Sorensen analyzed the international proliferation of coastal management efforts and calculated 142 national attempts at coastal management, many of them regional or local. He cited programs in four Central American countries (Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Honduras, but not Panama) [1]. Several years later, Cicin-Sain and Knecht conducted another global survey and suggested that 63 nations were engaged in coastal management efforts [2]. They reported programs in the same Central American countries as Sorensen. Although no formal coastal management program may exist, a nation nevertheless develops some strategies for dealing with coastal issues. Suman analyzed the institutional and legal framework of Panamanian coastal management over a decade ago and concluded that “Panama lack[ed] effective coordination among the various institutions with jurisdiction in the coastal zone. No agency [had] overall responsibility for managing the coastal zone and integrating sectoral interests. [N]o legal mandate for coastal management [existed in that country]” [3] and [4]. Panama possesses important and highly productive living marine and coastal resources along its 1287 km of Caribbean and 1700 km of Pacific shoreline [5]. With just over 75,000 km2 of area, Panama has the highest ratio of coastline to national territory of any continental American country [6]. The Caribbean coast has a low level of urban development, a narrow continental shelf, and numerous habitats, such as fringing mangroves, estuaries, coral reefs, seagrass beds, and sandy beaches, as well as over 50 keys in Bocas del Toro in the west and over 300 coralline islands in San Blas in the east. Both these areas are important sites for the approximately 250 km of coral reefs along the Caribbean coast. (See maps in Appendix A and Appendix B.) The Pacific coastal environment is quite different from the Caribbean. The continental shelf is broad and extends to 150 km. The Gulf of Panama is an important upwelling zone that sustains highly productive marine ecosystems. Most of Panama's 170,000 ha of mangroves grow along the numerous Pacific estuaries and are important nursery areas for shrimp and other marine living resources. In fact, over 2.2% of Panama's territory is mangrove forest, the second highest of any country in the Western Hemisphere [7]. Eighty percent of the nation's population and most of its agricultural development occur on the Pacific coastal plains and watersheds. Panama landed an average of 165,621 metric tons of living marine resources between 1995 and 1997 which translates into the highest per capita consumption of fish in Central America and Panama (14.6 kg/person/yr) [8]. However, these statistics hide the fact that most fish landings are exported or reduced. The vast majority of landings occur on the Pacific side of the Isthmus with its wide continental shelf and extensive coastal mangrove/estuary systems. Shrimp account for the majority of fish exports and are the second largest export earner, generating approximately $137 million in recent years [9]. Over 220 shrimp trawling vessels landed over 8000 metric tons of several shrimp species in 1996, the most important of which is white shrimp. Some fishery managers suggest that white shrimp are overexploited by the improved technologies of the large number of vessels. Small pelagic species (anchovies and Atlantic herring) account for over 95% of the industrial landings from 28 seine net vessels but reach only 10% of the value, as most are reduced to fish oil [10]. Landings by artisanal fishers (approximately 10,000 individuals) account for <10% of fish landings but are primarily high value finfish, shellfish, lobster, and shrimp destined for human consumption [5] and [11]. Shrimp aquaculture began in Panama in 1974 with the establishment of Agromarina de Panamá's 34 ha facility in Aguadulce. By 1994, the cultured shrimp production had reached 6121 metric tons, translating into a value of $42.8 million [12]. By the mid-1990s, over 45 shrimp aquaculturists worked more than 5000 ha of shrimp ponds, principally located in the central Pacific provinces around Panama Bay, Chame Bay, and Parita Bay [13]. This is a fast growing sector; in 1998, 64 shrimp cultivation operations occupied 8100 ha [5]. Panama is a world leader in ship registry, both in terms of number of vessels (11,248 vessels in 2001) and tonnage (138 million TRB for the first trimester of 2001) [14]. Taxes, fees, and royalties from this activity contributed $50.2 million to the national treasury in 1998 [15]. The 80 km long Panama Canal is a major funnel for world commerce between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and clearly one of Panama's most important resources. The Panama Canal Treaties, signed by Panama and the United States in 1977, entered into force in 1979 and provided for an orderly transfer of the Canal and properties in the Canal Area to Panama during the next 20 years. The Panama Canal Commission, an agency of the United States government that was directed by a bi-national board, was responsible for Canal operations until December 31, 1999, when the US officially transferred the Canal to Panamanian authority. In 2000, 12,303 oceangoing vessels transited the Canal carrying over 193 million tons of cargo [16]. Balboa and Cristobal, at both entrances to the Canal, have been Panama's primary ports for the past century. The government of Panama granted the Panama Ports Company (Hutchinson Port Holdings) a concession to operate and modernize these port facilities with the recent transfer of the Canal Area. In recent years, Panama has granted concessions to other container port companies to operate new intermodal trans-shipment sites. Among these new container facilities near Colón are Manzanillo International Terminal (MIT) (1995) with over 1200 m of container berth and Colon Container Terminal (Evergreen) (1998) with space for storage of 8000 containers. In 1999, approximately 1 million containers passed through these two facilities [17]. Panama is also an important site for tropical ecological research through the facilities of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) and its marine laboratories on both coasts. The University of Panama's Center for Marine Sciences and Limnology also has conducted marine and coastal research for several decades. Panama recognizes the importance of its coastal environments through its extensive system of protected areas with over 14 national parks. At least one of these sites protects coastal lands, while another six cover coastal lands and waters [18]. Panama experienced several years of political instability in the late 1980s during the Noriega government [19], [20] and [21]. However, the post-Noriega decade of the 1990s saw major evolution of political institutions and important activity by the Legislative Assembly in the area of environmental legislation, such as the General Environmental Law. The Legislative Assembly ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1995 through the passage of Law No. 38 (4 June 1996). Environmental institutions evolved and consolidated their activities and began to extend their links to other government institutions. Policy makers attempted to conduct a major institutional rearrangement and restructuring, especially in the marine and coastal sectors. Transfer of properties in the former Canal Zone to Panama began with the signing of the Torrijos–Carter Treaties in 1977 and continued through the 1999. The government began to orchestrate development of significant new port and transportation infrastructure in the Canal Area with the reversion of these lands in the 1990s. Complete formal Panamanian administrative control over the Panama Canal ushered in the new millenium. It is important to examine whether these significant developments of the 1990s have created a window of opportunity for coastal management in Panama and stimulated advances in this area of environmental management. (See Appendix C for a Timeline of Events Relevant to Coastal Management in Panama.)

Given the long history of sectoral management in coastal areas in Panama and the entrenched economic and national priority interests (Panama Canal) of some sectors, plus the political instability and rapid institutional development (especially in the environmental arena), the lack of an ICM program is not surprising. Progress has occurred in the past decade, however. Inventories of marine and coastal resources and uses have begun [5]. Conflicts over use of coastal space have increased in the past decade (sand mining vs. tourism; urban sewage vs. fisheries and marine recreation; port development vs. mangrove conservation; tourist development vs. conservation of marine national parks), increasing the awareness of the need to adopt new coastal management strategies. A strong new environmental agency has come into existence and is consolidating the role of the EIA. Partial unification of maritime agencies with expansion of the role of the fisheries directorate to include marine and coastal resources has created a new space for ICM. Many pieces in the ICM foundation exist at the present time. Nevertheless, great efforts still are necessary to create an effective institutional arrangement for ICM in Panama at the highest levels of government and begin to develop an ICM program. AMP needs to conduct a legal analysis of Panamanian laws and regulations concerning coastal areas and recommend revisions that will eliminate the confusion and contradiction that currently exist. AMP's Directorate of Marine and Coastal Resources must exert its influence and authority and elevate ICM in importance within the AMP that is currently dominated by the economically important merchant marine and port interests. An appropriate and important avenue for the General Directorate of Marine and Coastal Resources will be to carefully conduct a pilot ICM program in a zone with critical habitats, but absence of important vested economic investments. The results and experience of such a program could indicate the positive benefits of ICM, stimulate institutional coordination, and generate further interest in application of ICM to other areas. In early 2002, such an ICM pilot project was about to begin in Darién Province adjacent to the Panama–Colombia border. The General Directorate of Marine and Coastal Resources will oversee this project which is part of a larger package of projects under the Program for the Sustainable Development of the Darién. Through Decree Law No. 7, AMP has established the general goals for its coastal authority. However, the agency has yet to establish priorities and most importantly, lacks the means to reach these goals. AMP needs to effectively coordinate with the many other agencies that have some responsibility over coastal activities. The key link lies with AMP and ANAM. These two authorities urgently need to reach an agreement on coordination of coastal zone activities.