The Panamanian Supreme Court of Justice has revoked the resolution that had approved the environmental impact study to build an oil pipeline that would supply fuel to Tocumen airport.
The ruling by the Supreme Court of Justice comes just a few days after the same institution received an injunction against a project to build a port terminal on Isla Margarita, Colón, with an estimated investment of $600 million. Also annulled by the Court, in mid-January, was an EIA to set up a 150 MW wind farm, which was to be built in the Fortuna forest reserve.
In 2014, Vertikal Corporation obtained a concession for a 4 hectare area located between the coast of the sea adjacent to Tocumen international airport, to build a fuel terminal from where it would supply the airport through an oil pipeline. See “Concession for fuel storage“
Regarding the decision to revoke the environmental permit for the pipeline, Prensa.com reports that “… the ruling arose after an appeal filed on June 5, 2017 by the Center for Environmental Impact, the Urban Citizen Network of Panama and the Center for Studies and Social Action in Panama, arguing alleged violations of the rights to a healthy environment, to sustainable development and the primacy of the public interest over private interests.“
“… In his ruling, the residing magistrate, Jerónimo Mejía, agreed with the arguments raised by CIAM and concluded that the approval of the EIA for the pipeline project definitely violates the right to a healthy environment.“
There is no doubt that this legal ruling will give pause to investors and business people coming from outside of Central America who see Panama as a potential destination for their investments. This legal ruling will surely make them question what real legal protection the country offers for developing large-scale investment projects.
Panama continues with it policy of collect bribes approve projects one day and then reject them the next day and ask for more bribes leading to the question if Panama is politically stable enough for ling term investments, or is Panama (listed as one of the most corrupt countries in Central America)_ just too Corrupt and politically unstable to do real business in or from.
Why did you preface this article with the statement: “Another great move here in Panama” ??
Then the article says: “This legal ruling will surely make them (investors) question what real legal protection the country offers for developing large-scale investment projects.”
Were you being sarcastic?
I agree that we need to protect the environment, but business and investments also need to be encouraged. I am a little confused by the intro and then the contradictory conclusion.