FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, Washington, January 30, 1979. President Jimmy Carter, DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The recently ratified Panama Canal Treaties call for the establishment of a joint feasibility study of a Sea-level Canal in Panama (Article XII) and a Joint Environmental Commission (Article VI). Conservation and environmental organizations voiced their opposition to a Sealevel Canal in 1975 and again in 1977. A $24 million dollar, six-year study (built on four previous studies) completed in 1970 generated information on the engineering and route selection of a Sea-level Canal. Major shortcomings of that study concerned the lack of ecological information needed to make a determination of the environmental effects of such a project. The Norwegian Assocation for Ecology has expressed concern about proceeding, stating, "Expertise of marine biology must ensure that the final decision about realizing the project is firmly based upon adequate ecological knowledge". If decisions are to be made on the feasibility of such a project, the first order of business should be a long-range scientific effort to assess the environmental impacts and ecological effects of a Sea-level Canal. In general, however, we see no need for haste and recommend that a decision concerning a Sea-level Canal study not be made part of the current implementing legislation and that the Administration oppose all Congressional efforts to legislate such an effort at this time. Concerning the Joint Environmental Commission, we view this body as one similar in fashion to our own Council on Environmental Quality, that is, a body clearly charged with addressing ecological concerns and advising on environmental problems such as deforestation, the pumping of sea-water into the existing canal, and the protection of the natural resources of the Canal Zone. We urge that the strongest possible environmental committee be created, staffed by persons from private life committed to environmental protection. Sincerely David R. Brower, President, Friends of the Earth; Russell E. Train, President, World Wildlife Fund-U.S.; Toby Cooper, Program Director, Defenders of Wildlife; Pamela Deuel, Legislative Coordinator, Environmental Action, Inc.; Brent Blackwelder, Washington Representative, Environmental Policy Center; Douglas W. Scott, Northwest Representative, Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs; Lewis Regenstein, Executive Vice President, The Fund for Animals, Inc.; Dr. David S. Clafling, President, International Society for the Protection of Animals; T. Destry Jarvis, Administrative Assistant, National Parks and Conservation Association; Brock Evans, Washington Representative, Sierra Club; Marni Holbrook, Environmental Associate, Izaak Walton League of America. [NOTE.-Text of a telegram sent to President Carter by eleven national environmental organizations on September 6, 1977, the latest of a series of contacts with the Ford and Carter Administrations urging that a sea-level canal be dropped from treaty negotiations.] MR. PRESIDENT: Recent reports on the State Department's negotiations with Panama concerning the interoceanic canal indicate that a serious environmental issue is involved. The negotiators for the United States have included a provision in the Panama treaty that would grant the United States a long-term option to build a new interoceanic sea-level canal and require that a report be made on the feasibility of building such a canal. Conservation and environmental organizations voiced their opposition to a Panama sea-level canal to President Ford in 1975. We regard a treaty provision of this kind as prejudicial to the thorough, rational consideration of the issue. Neither the Congress nor the several relevant agencies in the Executive Branch have approved it or even seriously considered the matter. The State Department has never been authorized to negotiate for a treaty provision on the sea-level canal. Their Environmental Impact Statement on the Treaty comes far too late for us to make any meaningful response before the Treaty signing ceremony tomorrow. There are important reasons for our concern. Marine scientists have repeatedly warned against a Panama sea-level canal (as well as salinization of the current canal system), on grounds that a canal of this design would eliminate the present freshwater barrier to intermixture of the two distinct ecosystems on either side of the Isthmus of Panama. Should this freshwater barrier be eliminated, by pumping sea water into the existing canal, for example, the result could be tremendous damage to the fish and other marine organisms of both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, with consquent impact on the large human populations that depend on the seas in this part of the world. A National Academy of Sciences Panel on the sea-level canal in 1970 warned of "grave potential dangers" that could result from such a project. The panel said: "Joining two oceans with a sea-level canal is a gigantic natural experiment. Its consequences are unforeseeable. To forego the relevant biological research prior to and during the construction of a new canal would be like preparing to put a man on the moon and neglecting to ask him to make scientific observations and collect samples. A new canal will affect the animal and plant life of the two oceans, but what these effects are cannot be determined unless the nature of the differences between the biota and ecosystems of the two oceans are first carefully established through years of intensive research." The results of the National Academy of Sciences current attempt to quickly pull together all new information on the issues concerning a sea-level canal merely document the fact that the biological studies recommended in 1970 have never been carried out. Advocates of the sea-level canal claim there is a technological solution to the problem of biological exchange, but no solution has yet been proposed in sufficient detail to allow evaluation of its effectiveness. All the proponents have to offer is vague promises. The undersigned organizations believe the State Department should not inject the sea-level canal issue into the current treaty negotiations with Panama, centering as they do on questions of sovereignty and administration of the present canal. A sealevel canal provision in a treaty would not only prejudice later consideration of the merits of the project, but it would also lead Panama to expect the United States to build a new canal, even though no decision has yet been made on it by this country. Dr. Stephen R. Gibbs, an economist for the University of Washington's Institute for Marine Studies, said in testimony before a House Panama Canal Subcommittee that a new canal "would be a net economic loser for whoever undertook it." The sea-level canal represents not only an economic loss but a likely environmental disaster as well. We strongly urge you to instruct the Secretary of State to cease negotiating for a sea-level canal provision as part of any treaty with Panama. John W. Grandy IV, Executive Vice President, Defenders of Wildlife; Mr. HUBBARD. Our final panelist is Prof. Nicholas A. Robinson, a member of the board of directors of the Sierra Club, chairman of the club's international committee; Panama Canal Task Force; chairman of the law committee and a member of the bar of the State of New York. STATEMENTS OF DR. PAUL CAMPANELLA, JRB ASSOCIATES; MICHAEL WRIGHT, DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS, NATURE CONSERVANCY; JOHN HENDRICKSON, ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISER AND SENIOR STAFF OFFICER OF THE U.S. SECTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION; AND NICHOLAS A. ROBINSON, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SIERRA CLUB Dr. CAMPANELLA. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss some of the environ mental issues related to legislation to implement the Panama Canal Treaty. My expertise is in tropical ecology and environmental management. And I have roughly 12 years of experience working in Panama. I served with the Smithsonian Institution and the Gorgas Memorial Laboratory as a research scientist and with the Panama Canal Agency and have done some consulting work in Panama. Recently, I returned to Panama as a consultant to the USAID Mission on a watershed management project. I have more than 11 years field experience in ecosystem analysis and environmental management in Central and South America and presently am director of international environmental programs for JRB Associates of McLean, Va. As a result of my work related to the treaty, the treaty environmental impact assessment and the recent Office of Technology assessment report to the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, I am conversant with the treaty and many of the potential impacts on the quality of the human environment that have been identified. I might add that I sense that the committee members are sympathetic to the need for protecting the environment of the Panama Canal. The principal vehicle that has been proposed to exercise this environmental oversight on the operation of the Panama Canal is the Joint Commission on the Environment. Much of what has been written or spoken on the subject of the proposed Commission by those responsible for the treaty has been vague. Since the treaty signing, there has been only cursory discussion of the structure, role, and level of involvement and the funding of this committee. Section 106 of H.R. 111 specifically provides for a commission of six representatives, three from each country. From the description of the Commission, it appears that the intent of the drafters of the proposed legislation is to have this group serve in a review and advisory capacity to both governments with respect to the impacts resulting from treaty implementation. What I hope to do is offer the members a few comments to frame the situation and give you a general impression of some of the probable impacts of treaty implementation and in this way we can gain some perspective on the role and level of involvement of the proposed commission. I mean in this respect there is no national policy, nothing that would cause close investigation of environmental impacts on development projects. The canal watershed is comprised of some 326,000 hectares of land, the majority of which presently lies in the Republic of Panama. Following treaty implementation in October 1979, all but a very small portion of this land will come under the complete jurisdiction of Panama. This includes, with the exception of the land administered by the Smithsonian Institution, almost all of the biologically important lands and all of the areas deemed critical to the continuous supply of fresh water necessary for successful canal operations. It is clear that management of, and responsibility for, these lands rests with the Panamanian Government. What is left is a small strip of land on each side of the canal which is necessary for maintenance and operations of the Canal. This land is principally devoid of forest and consists mainly of administrative buildings, housing, warehouses and docks, areas which are clearly important to daily operations but not relevant to the long-term integrity of the entire watershed. Environmental affairs in the Canal Zone are presently administered by the Environmental Quality Committee of the Canal Zone Government and various environmental committees of the several branches of the U.S. military. They derive their authority from a selective mixture of U.S. laws, Executive orders, and administrative regulations-that is, NEPA, FWPCA, Endangered Species Act, Army Regulation AR-200, Canal Zone Code, CZAR, et cetera. Successful administration of these various regulations is sporadic at best and depends to a great extent on the interest and dedication of the individuals in charge of the various committees. Historically, there has not been an aggressive approach to environmental management in the Canal Zone. The undertaking of new environmental initiatives are constrained by a lack of funds and clear administrative mandates as to the role and area of responsibility. Upon implementation of the Treaty the situation will be further confused by the dissolution of the Canal Zone Government and all administrative responsibility for applicable U.S. environmental regulations. The principal impact of the Panama Canal Treaty and related agreements will be to focus Panamanian national development priorities on the area formerly occupied by the Canal Zone. The Panamanian Government's development planning through 1985 stresses growth in the industrial and agricultural sectors of the economy. The plan bases its optimistic projections on taking full advantage of the country's natural resources. The development of Panama's natural resources has occurred on a small scale and in an uncontrolled manner. The major exception is the large scale conversion of forest ecosystems to agriculture and pasture land through traditional shifting agricultural techniques over the last 50 years. The utilization of other natural resources, such as minerals and water, has been limited; therefore, irreversible damage like the desertification process occurring over much of tropical Africa, has been minimized. However, the current scale of thinking and approaches to development of the natural resource base raises some questions about potential conflicting interests between longrange conservation of the environment and short-range development objectives. Concern for Panama's long-term economic development and environmental quality are raised for the following reasons: (1) Past and present development actions have been in response to immediate needs without due consideration for long-term cumulative costs or benefits. There are no mechanisms in the planning process to call attention to the potential impacts of development and more important, there is no planning process to determine how much environmental protection Panama can afford consistent with the interdependent goals for other competing social concerns. (2) Few protective measures have been instituted to mitigate and to monitor the potential adverse effect of development activities nor are there means to enforce the existing laws. (3) The overlapping of administrative responsibilities in the areas of resource planning and economic development, land use, public services, and environmental protection among various ministries and semiautonomous agencies has resulted in neglect, misuse and loss of the country's natural resources. Until recently, little attention has been paid to the importance, within the context of Panama's long-term development effort, of managing the renewable natural resource base. I think it would be unfair to say there is no awareness among planning officials of the significance of man's impact on the environment. More accurately, the awareness is confined to a small fraction of the policy-making community and these individuals do not have the political leverage sufficient to generate a serious governmental commitment to the human environment in the planning, design, and implementation processes of development-related projects. Over the last 18 months, the environment has become a greater issue in Panama. Officials at all levels of the Government of Panama are awakening to the realization that the watershed plays a unique role in both the economic and social development of the country. The treaty itself was the subject of an environmental impact statement and several U.S.-based environmental groups evaluated the consequences of treaty implementation. As a result of this scrutiny, more Panamanians and Americans became aware of the magnitude of the deterioration of the resource base, the potential for even more serious negative consequences, and the implications of the destructive trends on Panama's longterm development. Several recent occurrences are likely to enhance the perception of environmental problems in Panama. First, in late 1977, the Government of Panama requested assistance from USAID to develop a capacity to design and implement watershed management programs that would lead to a more rational use of Panama's renewable natural resources. From an environmental point of view, rational development of watershed areas will insure that current energy and water quality and quantity levels are maintained and planned levels can be achieved. In addition, the preservation and restoration of rapidly depleting watershed resources are, according to many experts, essential to efficient operation of the Panama Canal. The resultant AID project, which was recently approved for loan funding by both countries, represents in my opinion a realistic approach to some of Panama's most significant environmental problems given the political and socio-economic constraints mentioned previously. Second, the ready acceptance of the concept of a Joint Commission on the Environment and the planning and reorganization going on within the Panamanian Government, in response to the recently approved AID watershed management plan, are important indicators of Panama's willingness to cooperate in environmental protection initiatives. |