Commission Established A Joint Commission on the Environment shall be established with equal representation from the United States of America and the Republic of Panama, which shall periodically review the implementation of this Treaty and shall recommend as appropriate to the two Governments ways to avoid or, should this not be possible, to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts which might result from their respective actions pursuant to the Treaty. "3. The United States of America and the Republic of Panama shall furnish the Joint Commission on the Environment complete information on any action taken in accordance with this Treaty which, in the judg ment of both, might have a significant effect on the environment. Such information shall be made available to the Commission as far in advance of the contemplated action as possi ble to facilitate the study by the Commission of any potential environmen tal problems and to allow for consideration of the recommendation of the Commission before the contemplated action is carried out." While the incorporation in a treaty of the duties to exchange information and consult on environment protection issues is a major step forward. so also the absence of other basic measures reflects certain inadequacies. Any and all procedures on a host of environmental issues are put on a back burner to be dealt with later. These include obvious points within the text of the Treaty itself, as well as factual impacts within Panama which the text never discus ses. The sort of environmental issues raised by the text on its face include the following: Issues Raised (1) The Joint Commission and bilateral national agreements focus on protecting the environment of Panama. As the Darian Gap case showed, however, what happens in Panama can affect us in the U.S. and in other nations. Operation of the Canal can also affect the ecology of two oceans. Since these facts are clear, it may be inferred that the scope of protection is broader than just the Panamanian natural resources. (2) The U.S. will operate the Canal. including taking "measures necessary to ensure sanitation" of the area of canal operation," but it will discontinue and transfer to Panama a set of activities not related to the canal operation as illustrated in an Annex to the Treaty." Since the Annex list is not inclusive, a range of matters are left open to future iden tification and negotiation; the U.S. in operation of the Canal would continue meteorological and hydrographic services, and "protection of the environment by preventing and controlling the spil lage of oil and substances harmful to human or animal life and of the ecological equilibrium in areas used for the operation of the Canal and anchorages,**** and "'industrial sanitation and health services."30 and "dredging of the Canal channel, terminal ports and adjacent waters." Environmental Law and "control of banks and stabilis.ing of the slopes of the Canal." and "maintenance of public areas. such as parks and gardens."" and "purification and supply of water."" (3) On the other hand, Panama will assume responsibility for regulating. among other activities," food and drink production, repair and service of private automobiles, sale of petroleum and lubricants, "health and medical services to individuals."** and quarantine controls "except those measures necessary to ensure the sanitation of the Canal."" and "any other commercial activity of a similar nature, not related to the management, operation of maintenance of the Canal."" In addition to these issues, the text commits the U.S. and Panama to study the feasibility of a sea-level canal or a third lane of locks." No express undertaking to perform an EISS is made but the Treaty does continue the application of U.S. laws, which includes NEPA, during the transition period." The U.S. does agree not to undertake construction, should a new canal or new lane of locks be built, with "nuclear excavation techniques without the previous consent of the Republic of Panama."" Finally, while the Treaty contemplates U.S. payments to Panama for such services as street cleaning and garbage collection," no provi. sion for water pollution abatement or other natural resource management is provided. A thirty-month transition is provided to make the transfer of authority contemplated." There are a host of actual environmental issues which exist and which the transfer of authority would affect. These are not referred to in the text, although they presumably are the sort of matter which the Joint Commission will explore. Region's Conditions Such issues arise from the actual conditions in the region; they range from planning for solid waste or crank case oil disposal and water pollution issues other than canal oil spills, to natural resource use. The tropical rain forests (outside of the Canal Zone) have been exploited without the benefit of a management system: they are reported to be largely depleted as a result. Once authority is transferred, it is predictable that unauthorized and/or unregulated timbering will continue into the Zone forests. Not only will flora and fauna be disrupted but also the watersheds for the Canal and lake area may be impaired with concommittant soil erosion and siltation. The parks and scientific reserves may not be maintained or expanded. On the other side of the coin, there is no express restriction on the Joint Commission to examine just Canal issues. The Darian Gap highway or a new copper mine planned in the Sierra Colorado which enjoys U.S.Canadian assistance, both could pose environmental issues for the Commission. The Treaty, thus, has definite implementation and staffing implications; unless well im plemented, environmental degradation is likely. Few of these environmental issues were studied by the State Department in its draft EIS issued Aug. 30. 1977. The EIS is a scant forty-three-pages long, with a kitchen sink of appendices of some 140 more pages, charts and maps. It contains almost no analysis, and hardly meets the criteria which has been standard under NEPA since the early landmark rulings such as Calvert Cliffs." The public comment period was foreshortened to expedite the process of getting the Treaties to Congress. Despite the brief period, twelve of the nation's major environmental groups commented on the draft EIS through their counsel at The Center for I. w & Social Policy, in Washington The Nature Conservancy fa ments also, and joined ir the Center. um. use of No final EIS has beer. issued. final EIS the en vironmental issues. A full and com. plete EIS would doubtless serve the initial needs of the Treaty's Joint Commission by, at a minimum, identifying the environmental issues which merit priority attention. The President and State Depart. ment have not publicly commented on how these environmental treaty issues will be resolved. They have agreed to substantial and public development loans for Panana." The silence on the environmental aspects, in light of their pervasive scope, raises questions about the seriousness of the planned implementation. Ratification Backed On balance, the environmental issues are probably best served by ratification of the Treaty. The draft EIS and the environmental groups both reach that conclusion. The region's environment will be disrupted if rioting and unrest follow a failure to ratify; the environment will be disrupted if authority is given up without U.S. assistance to assure environmentally sound development. Only if the commitment to act, which accompanies the act of ratification, is implemented will the environment be protected. That is the promise of the Treaties. New international law is being pioneered here. It is imaginative as well as fraught with dif ficulties. The Treaty commitment to protect the natural environment of Panama should be put in the spotlight and explained. The environmental law aspects of the Treaties are a factor favoring ratification. 1.. Bec. ex. NA. Robinson. "International 15. Treaties at 4-5. 16. Art. III, 2. a. Treaties at 2. 17. Art. III, 4, at Treaties. p. 3; Annex is at Treaties 11-13. 18. Annex, para, 3, h, Treaties at 12. 19. Id. at para. 3, n. 20. Id. at para. 3. q. 21. Id. at para... 22. Id. at para. 3. t. 23. Id. at para. 3. v. 24. Id. at para. 3. x. 26. Annex, para. 4. a. 26. Id., at para. 4, a (xii). 27. 1d.. at para. 4. a (xv). 28. 1d., at para. 4. a (zvil) 29. Article XII. Treaties at 9-10. 30. Article XI, 7, Treaties at 9. 31. Article Xil, &, Treaties at 10. 32. Article 111, 6, Treaties at 3. 33. Article XI. Treaties at 8-9. 34. For a good management system see L Hamilton, Management of Tropical Rain Foresta available from Sierra Club EARTHCARE CENTER, 800 Becond Avenue, N.Y., N.T. 10017. 36 Draft Environmental Impact Statement For The New Panama Canal Treaty (August 1977, Department of State. Contact Wm. Mansfield, III). 36. Calvert Cliff's Coord. Comm. v. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir., 1971). 37. Comments filed by letter dated Sept. 28, 1977. 38. Comments filed by letter dated Sept. 7. 1977. 39. Testimony of Secretary of State Cyrus Vance before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Sept. 26, 1977, at pp. 2-3: "We have agreed, outside the treaty, to cer tain arrangements which will assist the general economic development of Panama and enhance Its stability. We have formally told the Panama Government that we are prepared to develop a program of loans, loan guarantees, and credita to Panama - including up to $200 million in Export-Import Bank credits over a Five-year period: up to $75 million in AID (Agency for International Development) housing investment guarantees over the same period; and a loan guarantee of up to $20 million from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. "All these loans require repayment. There are no grants. In addition, over a ten-year period. Panama will receive up to $50 million in foreign military sales repayment guarantees, so that its armed forces can be better prepared to help defend the canal. Most of this assistance will be used to purchase American equipment. These programs would be subject to all relevant U.S. legal requirements and program criteria." Mr. Robinson served on the Legal Advisory Committee to the Presledent's Council on Environmental Quality and is a member of the Committees on Environmental Law of the New York State Bar Association and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. He edits the International and Comparative Earth Law Journal, A.W. Sifthoff Publishing Co., The Netherlands. NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL-Tuesday, March 28, 1978 VOLUME 179.-No. 59 Environmental Law By Nicholas A. Robinson Professor Robinson, who writes this column as a regular feature of the Law Journal, teaches at Pace University School of Law and is special counsel to Marshall, Bratter, Greene, Allison & Tucker. Environmental Safeguards In Canal Treaty Clarified On March 16, 1978, the Senate gave its consent to and ratified the first of two treaties on the Panama Canal.' By a vote of just one more than the constitutional two-thirds majority needed. the Senate accepted Treaty the Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal." " Although this Neutrality Treaty is the lesser of the two covenants in terms of en. vironmental law,' its ratification foresages a similar acceptance by late April of the "Panama Canal Treaty" itself. Since this column last October examined the new environmental law embodied in the Treaties, the State Department specifically has addressed their importance for environmental protection. As the Panama Canal Treaty itself comes up for a vote, it is useful to consider the precedent in international environmental regulation which is being made and the alternative implementation strategies possible. Beyond the issues of security, the Panama Canal Treaty devotes more attention to environmental law provi. sions than any other subject. By the Continued on page 2, column 1 Continued from page 1, column 1 provisions of the Treaty, the U.S. will supervise operation of the Canal and train the Panamanians to take over canal operations between now and the end of this century. Article VI of the Canal Treaty commits both Panama and the U.S. to protect the environment and authorizes a Joint Commission to advise on how the two nations should avoid, or alternatively, "should this not be possible," to mitigate any adverse impacts arising from actions pursuant to the Treaty." Despite the prominence of en vironmental provisions in the Treaty, few have examined them closely. For instance, when Ambassador-atLarge Ellsworth Bunker explained the key elements" of the Treaty to the Des Moines Chamber of Commerce and the Des Moines Rotary Club last Jan. 26, 1978, he said nothing about the environmental aspects. In contrast, however, on Jan. 6, 1978, Acting Secretary of State Warren Christopher issued a "State. ment on the Panama Canal Treaties and Environmental Protection.""" Joint Commission Christopher noted that "Panama's unique geographic location makes it important to the environment of many nations." He noted that both the United States' and Panama" were committed to making the Joint Commission on the Environment work effectively. He also emphasized the important role which the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)" had played. in guiding the environmental aspects of the Treaties. "We recognized the importance of the NEPA procedures in formulating environmentally sound policies as well as the value of public participation in the NEPA review process."'" The Christopher statement also made a record of how the State Department complied with the NEPA review process. In doing so. he made it possible for one of the nation's largest environmental groups. the Sierra Club, to endorse ratification last Jan. 15, 1978." and he built an administrative record which may have helped discourage a suggested suit by right-wing" anti-Treaty political interests seeking a Federal Court injunction to delay Congres sional action until a more thorough environmental impact statement was prepared under NEPA." Beyond these points of the Treaty's "legislative history" or traveaux preparatoires, the part of the Christopher statement which is of interest to environmental lawyers is that section which addressed how the Joint Commission will be structured. Christopher stated that: " "It is our intention that the Join Environmental Commission shall have the staff and financial support it needs to be effective. We will propose that the American members of this Commission include leading science and environmental figures as well as others from the private and public sector. In addition, reports on the state of the environment in the Canal Zone and the surrounding watershed will be assembled and indexed. Federal agencies with expertise relevant to the Canal Zone issues will assist in developing information for the Joint Commission on matters which require priority attention. And, recognizing the importance of baseline data showing the current state of Canal Zone ecosystems, including air and water quality, marine life in the adjacent oceans. and flora and fauna, the U.S. will cooperate with the Panamanian Government in assembling that data expeditiously." It is very likely that this structure will require new legislation to be im. plemented. Even if the State Depart. ment were to assert that it had the authority to set up the U.S. side of the Commission by administrative action, such as executive order, it is unlikely that the House of Representatives, which has not yet had a prominent role to play with respect to the Treaties, will do nothing when it could take a major part in defining U.S. procedures under the Treaty and since, in fact, it does have the major responsibility for structuring how to meet the fiscal needs of Treaty implementation. There are three alternative models for the Joint Commission. There is, first, the bilateral cooperation agree. ment format such as the environmental agreement between the U.S. and U.S.S.R." This is an exchange of information and experts and oc casional joint projects to study problems of mutual interest. The second is the pattern of the International Boundary Commission between the United States and Mexico," which focuses on environmental issues of boundary water volume and quality for the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers. The third is the International Joint Commission between the United States and Canada." The latter two commissions were designed before environmental concerns became prominent. Both have taken on environmental issues and procedures in recent years." They have powers to gather information. including subpoena powers, exchange information between the two sides, maintain field offices, place matters on the common agenda and require their examination. The referral of a matter to the U.S.-Canadian Joint Commission has proven more significant in prompting ameliora tion of environmental issues than has the IJC's regulatory power to license "uses, diversions, or obstructions" affecting the flow or bend of boundary waters. Experts on staff or secured from other agencies assist the Commissions and expert advisory committees undertake oversight and followup responsibilities. In the U.S.. Mexico context, its decisions become binding on the respective governments unless an objection is lodged within one month of the decision. Overseer At present, the U.S.-Panama Joint Commission is framed as a body to oversee and guide the two nations' commitment to "protection and conservation of the environment." The Commission "shall" review treaty implementation and "shall recommend" ways to avoid or mitigate environmental harm. Both parties "shall" furnish complete information on actions which both agree may have a significant affect on the environment. The information must be given far enough in advance of the proposed action to permit study and let the responsible acting agencies consider any Commission respon. sibilities. For the Commission to work well. the "shall" mandates need to be structured by rules and regulations on each side. The State Department's commitment in the Christopher statement to include public members from scientific and environmental communities will build in some degree of expertise and integrity However, the reto potential where by either nation might claim that proposed action would not advers Canal Commission Within Panama, ways should be developed to refer matters to local health and conservation officers. Provisions for training and basic data collection programs on an ongoing basis should be designed. Procedures for individuals to bring matters to the Commission's attention should be structured. Most important in this regard will be the relationship of the Environmental Commission to the Panama Canal Commission, which has operational authority for the Canal. If environmental protection is to be taken seriously, this relationship must be defined at the outset with clarity. Congress has more experience in framing such a relationship than does the State Department, although guidance could be sought from the Council on Environmental Quality and the Departments of the Interior and Environmental Protection Agency. Priorities Priorities for the Commission's initial environmental agenda, such as a joint program to contain "hoof and mouth" disease (aftosa) south of the Darien peninsula, should be fixed. The Commission should begin opera. tions with several clear and immediate charges. Forestry manage. ment to avoid soil erosion and protect flora and fauna, especially the endangered species in the Canal Zone, is another clear priority. Some of these priorities can be inferred from other existing bilateral treaties between the U.S. and Panama, or from the multilateral treaties to which both states are par ties. Cooperation on aftosa is subject to a 1972 treaty, for instance." One manifest priority is the feasibility study on any expansion of the Canal by a third set of locks or sea-level canal. The State Department has promised a full environmental impact statement on the study," and since the Treaty calls for the study both nations have necessarily put this issue before the Commission. Analogy and Reason What ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty brings in terms of new environmental law is an undertaking of two non-neighboring states to act in concert to protect the regional environment. In 1912, a Committee of the House of Representatives is reported to have observed that "The Panama Canal is unique in all respects and at every stage presents novel problems... legislation to operate and govern [the Canal], with its adjuncts and incidents, must in the absence of precedent rely on basic principles, with analogy and reason as the only guide."" It will be up to the Congress to take leadership in fashioning the unique administrative procedures for environmental protection under the Treaties. Analogies to NEPA and the boundary commissions exist, and environmental protection guides. 1. Adam Clymer. "Senate. 48-32. Approves First Of 2 Panama Pacts: Carter Halla "Courage". New York Times, p. 1. col. 4 (March 17. 1978). 2 Texts of Treaties Relating to the Panama Canal at 13 (Department of State. Selected Documents No 6. Sept 1977). 3. All vessels must submit to safeguards for sanitary transit and applicable health, sanitation and guarantive provisions. Article III (a) and (e) and Annex A. para. 6, supra note 2 at 1415. 4. See N.A. Robinson, "Panama Canal Treaty: Environmental lasues, 178 N.Y.L.J. p. 1. col. 1 (Oct. 25, 1977). 5. Supra note 2 at 4-5. 6. Panama Canal Treaties: A Negotiatǝr's Perspective. Dept of State, &peech. Jan. 26. 1978 Bureau of Public Affairs, Office of Public Communication. 7. Christopher text distributed with cover lettere dated Jan. 12, 1978, by William H. Mansfield 111. Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Office of Environmental Affairs. Department of State 8. Christopher text, para. 1: he continued In para 2 to explain the development of Article VI as follows: "During the negotiation of the Panama Canal treaties. the Department of State and other agencies of the United States Government recognized the serious environmental implications of the treaties key provisions. The United States noted that the transfer of large tracts of essentially undeveloped territory, comprising much of the Canal Zone, to a country energetically engaged In economic development could seriously impact on the ecology of the area. Accordingly, the negotiators included Article VI as an integral part of the Panama Canal Treaty. In that arti cle. the United States and Panama commit themselves to implement the treaty in a manner consistent with the protection of the natural environment. The article also provides for the esLablishment of a Joint Commission on the Environment, which is to recommend environmental protection measures to the two governments. 9. Ibid. Para 3: "Such is the framework for environmental action established by the written Instrument. However, it will only be through the joint effort of the two governments, following ratification of the treaties, that the commitments made in the treaties will come into effect. For the United States, this will entail provision of relevant information about the Canal Zone and its resources, technical assistance, as well as resources needed to carry out effective programs of environmental protection. To that end, the US. Agency for International Development is developing a project, in cooperation with the Panamanian Government, to provide it with the capability to carry out sound land and water management and reforestation programs." 10. Ibid., Para. 4: "On the Panamanian side, our diplomatic mission in Panama has noted that the Panamanian Government is taking environmental concerns seriously and has attached a high priority to the problem of protecting the Canal watershed. As evidence of this the mission reports that both the Panamanlan Minister of Planning and the Vice Minister of Agriculture have recently pressed for early Implementation of the AID Watershed Management Project. Moreover, in addition to the proviBions contained in the Panama Canal Treaty, there is also a basis in international law for U.S. and Panamanian cooperation on environmental matters since both countries are parties to the 1954 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil and the 1940 Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere, which established Barro Colorado Island as a Nature Monument. 11. 42 U.8.C. 4321. 12. Supra note 7 at para. 6. 13. See Sierra Club National News Report (Jan., 1978). 14. See "Failure to Meet EPA Law May Block Canal Pacts, Spotlight, p. 3. col. 1 (Jan. 9. 1978) 15. Supra note 7, para. 5. 16. Agreement of Cooperation In The Field of Environmental Protection, 1972. 17. 22 U.S.C. Sec. 277, et seq. 18 Treaty Relating To Boundary Waters and Questions Arising Along the Boundary With Great Britain. Jan 11, 1909, 36 Stat. 2441; Exec. Order No. 9972, 13 Fed. Reg. 3572 (1948), under International Organizations Immunity Act. 22 UNC 288 (1945). 19. See P. Smedresman. The Intl. Joint Commission (U.S.-Canada) and the Int'l. Boundary and Water Commission (U.S.-Mexico Potential For Environmental Control Along The Boundaries". 6 NYU.J. INT'LL & POL. 499 (1973) 22 "Agreement confirming the cooperative agreement between the Panamanian Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock and the United States Department of Agriculture for the prevention of foot-and-mouth disease and rinderpest in Panama." Oct. 6, 1972, 23 U.S.T. 3108: TIAS 7482. 23. Christopher noted as follows, supra note 1 at para 7: Finally, in addition to Article VI. Article XII of the Panama Canal Treaty addre the question of expansion of the existing Panama Canal to accommodate a larger volume of traffic. In that article. Panama grants to the United States the right to add a third lane of locks to the existing Panama Canal. With respect to a possible sea-level canal, the article PUBLIC NOTICES THE ANNUAL REPORT OF SAMUEL & MARA ROSOFF FOUNDATION for the calen dar year ended December 31, 1977 is available at its principal office, located at c/o Reuben B. Sperber, 7005 N. W. 17th Court. Margate. Florida 33063 for inspection during regular business hours by any citisen who requests it within 180 days hereof. Principal Manager of the Foundation is SAMUEL HOSOFF. The 1977 Annual Report of the MAX SILBERMANN FOUNDATION is prepared and copies are available to the public during regular business hours. Max Slibermann Foundation c/o Milton S. Gould, Trustee. 330 Madison Avenue. New York, New York 10017. provides for a study of the feasibility of such a canal without making a decision or commitment that a pea-level canal will be built. Any study of the construction of a sea-level canal will seek to be both thorough and objective as it examines both the economic as well as the engineering feasibility of such a project. In addition, the study would fully explore the environmental consequences of a sea-level canal and would addreas the problems identified in the reports of the National Academy of Sciences. Moreover, an Environmental Impact Statement would be prepared in accordance with the provisions of The National Environmental Policy Act Finally. I should note here that we do not intend to use nuclear excavation techniques in connection with any effort to enlarge the capacity of the Panama Canal or build a new canal, both for environmental reasons and because of the terms of the nuclear test ban treaty." 4. Martha Jane Shay, "The Panama Canal Zone: In Search of a Juridical Identity, 9 NYU.J. INTL L & POL. 15 at 37 (1976). quoting 38 Op. Att'y Gen. 300 at 306 (1935), qui vide Mr. Robinson served on the Legal Advisory Committee to the Presi dent's Council on Environmental Quality and is a member of the Committees on Environmental Law of the New York State Bar Association and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. He edits the International and Comparative Earth Law Journal, A.W. Sifthoff Publishing Co., The Netherlands. NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL-Tuesday, September 26, 1978 VOLUME 180.-No. 60 Environmental -By Nicholas A. Robinson Professor Robinson, who writes this column as a regular feature of the Law Journal, teaches at Pace University School of Law and is special counsel to Marshall, Bratter, Greene, Allison & Tucker. Panama Canal Treaties: Since the Senate's ratification of The Panama Canal treaties last spring, they have not been much in the news. There was the exchange of ratified texts when President Carter visited Panama. However, there has been almost no report of official action implementing the bilateral agree ments. A major and comprehen. sive element of the treaties is their provision for environmental protection. This column examined the treaties' innovative law-making last October and March. Before the pace of implementation picks up with the end of summer, it will be useful to review what administrative and legal measures now should be forthcoming. Since the Senate ratification vote was close, and key votes such as that of Senator Howard H. Baker, J. were based on an understanding that the opportunity for the United States "to have the quiet use and enjoyment of the Panama Canal for many years to come is greatly enhanced by these treaties," the role of environmental protection in ensuring such quiet use and enjoyment is critical. Details of the environmental measures were not in the treaties, but were left to joint Panamanian and U.S. formula. tion after ratification. Environmental threats to the Canal's operation raise two primary concerns. One is the deforestation of the Canal Zone, with the attendant erosion into the Canal and reservoirs and the further loss of water for use in the Canal. Reports from Canal sources indicate that alash-and-burn farm practices are fast encroaching on the Canal; as much as 80 percent of Gatun Lake watershed and 40 percent of Madden Lake watershed have been deforested since 1952. Silting has resulted in the loss of water stored in some reservoirs and land slides from erosion have been a Continued on page 2, column 1 Continued from page 1. column 1 problem since the Canal construction began. The water shortage in turn is worrisome because Lake Gatun, nearly 50 percent of the Canal's length, must be maintained at a level of 84.6 feet above mean sea level to assure unrestricted use of the Canal. The forests retain water and ease its release as well as preventing sedimentation. Loss of the forest also will eliminate one of the most diverse natural areas in the Americas, deny. ing scientists the flora and fauna they contain. A second major environmental hazard arises from disease and pests. Because of the battles against epidemics of yellow fever. Chagras fever and other forms of malaria in the nineteenth century,' sanitation levels have been high in the Canal Zone. Careful sanitation and quarantine controls prevent diseases from spreading through the passage of ships from all parts of the world through the Canal. Equally important is the Zone's role as an epidemiological barrier to the migration of disease between South and North America. The health personnel in the Zone constitute what the Gorgas Memorial Institute of Tropical and Preventative Medicine terms "an epidemiological early dieease warning system" alerting states from Venezuala and Columbia to Mexico and the United States of dangers. Yellow fever, Venezualan equine encephalitis, vesicular stomatitis of cattle, hoof-and-mouth disease, malaria, leishmaniasis and even hybrid "killer" bees are a few of the possible diseases and pesta which could migrate through the region if adequate preventative measures are not taken. Since the Panamanian governmen tal agencies at present lack the staff, both in numbers and in trained personnel, and the funding to match the needs for forest watershed management and sanitation in the Canal Zone, considerable reliance on the existing U.S. services will be neces sary. The U.S. Agency For International Development has a $10 mil lion Watershed Management project for 1978 to develop the Panamanian agencies' capacity to manage and protect the forests of the region. No comparable measures have been launched for the health and sanitation fields. 10 The principal legal institution Joint Commission Mandate tion on any action taken in accorddance with this treaty" when both nations judge that such action may have a significant effect on the environment."'" The mutual undertakings by which both the U.S. and Panama "commit themselves to implement this treaty in a manner consistent with the protection of the natural environment of The Republic of Panama"*" are important contributions to international law. They reflect the duty framed in Principle 22 of the United Nations Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment that all na tions shall cooperate to assure environmental protection. They also go far toward implementing the state duty expressed in Principle 21 of The Stockholm Declaration that each nation must prevent actions within its jurisdiction or control from causing environmental harm to areas outside its control." In U.S. municipal law, the Joint Environment Commission is a concrete response to the obligations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to cooperate for environmental protection in the international context." NEPA also requires the appropriate U.S. agencies to undertake a full environmental impact analysis of any of its actions, under the treaties or otherwise, which have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment." Thus, creation of the Joint Environmental Commission responds to both international law and national law obligations. However, the real test is implementation, not treaty language. It is the implementation which will determine whether or not the watershed protection and sanitation needs will be met. Key Functions The Joint Environment Commission has two key functions. Most important is its role in guiding and structuring the binational commitment to implement the treaty consis tent with protection of the natural environment. Just as the treaty touches all aspects of life in the Canal Zone, so this commission role is extraor. dinarily pervasive. It is like that of the Council on Environmental Quality." The second function is to advise on the environmental aspects of specific implementation steps. To do so, it probably should fashion its own environmental impact assessment process. Since what happens in Panama can affect neighboring states, the Commission must consider ways to protect them. A system of consultation among environmental officials in these states will have to be set up. U.S. participation in the Joint Environment Commission has several structural alternatives. It could be organized along the lines of the U.S.. Canadian International Joint Commission or the International Boundary and Water Commission between the U.S. and Mexico." The U.S. side of these agreements has its own environmental procedures under |