ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE IN PERU


Algunas ideas mías de 2009. Puede ser de interés revisar la parte relativa a los transgénicos.


ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE IN PERU



Contents

Introduction
History
Environmental governance in Peru
Political approaches to environmental problems in Peru: Climate Change and Biodiversity
Conclusions

1. Introduction

This document has been prepared to discuss environmental governance in Peru. The paper will study the current situation of the environmental management in Peru and relate it to the actual trends in international environmental law.

2. History

Peru is a medium size country in South America. It has now around 30 million inhabitants.Peru is composed by three natural regions: the coast, the highlands and the tropical forest.Peru share borders with Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Bolivia and Chile. Regionally Peru belongs to the “Andean Community” also with Colombia, Bolivia and Ecuador. It is also member of the Organization of American States (OAS). Globally Peru is a member of the United Nations since 1945.In relation to its political governance Peru is a Republic. Peru has have democratic governments since 1980.The government has an executive, legislative and judiciary branch.

3. Environmental Governance in Peru

The most recent development in Peruvian environmental policy was the creation of the Ministry of Environment. It was created on May 13, 2008. According to its law of creation, the Ministry has as function to oversee the environmental sector of Peru, with the authority to design, establish, and execute government policies concerning the environment.

Peru is part of the UN Climate Change Convention and of the Kyoto Protocol. Likewise, is part of the UN CBD and the Protocol on Biosafety.

4. Political approaches to environmental problems in Peru: Climate Change and BiodiversityClimate change is a huge problem in Peru due to its rich biodiversity.

The well-known Tyndall Institute of London has indicated that Peru will be the third country in the world to be affected by the terrible consequences of global warming. In this respect, the main problem of Peru is the melting of its glaciers. That can put water security of Peruvian population at risk.

Another environmental problem is the possibility to allow the entering of the GMO’s into Peru. Considering that Peru is part of a Free Trade Agreement with the United States, some scholars have suggested that this agreement could allow the free entrance of GMO’s into Peru. This could probably pose a menace to the health of Peruvian people.

Peru should, like some European countries, pass national legislation to label every product imported from foreign countries and produced with GMO´s in order to alert the consumers about the components of any imported product.

5. Conclusions

In 2008 European and Latin American Presidents met in Peru during the “Latin American-European countries Summit”. During that Summit they committed together to fight against the menaces for the global environment. They proposed to make efforts to promote reforestation and improve the carbon trading system to cut greenhouse gasses that contribute to climate change.

Peru's vast Amazon rainforest plays an important role helping to combat climate change by absorbing carbon. Peru proposed during the Summit to create a global reforestation fund financed by a tax on fossil fuels.

It is not a secret that Peru is a major mineral producer (i.e. copper), and some companies working in the country opposed the creation of the new ministry, arguing that the new agency would discourage new investment in mines of copper, zinc and gold mines.According to European sources, environmentalists in Peru strongly support the creation of the Ministry. The German and other European governments have given some additional funding for the proper functioning of the Ministry.

[1] The opinions expressed in this paper are solely of the author and does not reflect the views of any institution of Peru.

Comentarios

Viviana Peña Cavassa ha dicho que…
Dear Mr. Vera: I applud the initiative to raise some key issues. They will surely require approriate management by near future policymakers in Peru.
4 de mayo de 2011, 11:39
Publicar un comentario

Entradas populares de este blog

EN HOMENAJE A LUIS MARCHAND STENS

Hace unos días falleció el Embajador Luis Marchand Stens. Tuve la suerte de conocerlo hace algunos años cuando él ya era un Embajador en retiro. Era Don Luís Marchand una persona buena, jovial y con un chispeante sentido del humor. Fue Don Luís también un jurista de nota y profundo conocedor del Derecho Internacional. En efecto, se nos fue justamente cuando era Presidente de la Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Internacional (SPDI) y miembro de la Comisión Consultiva de nuestro país sobre Delimitación Marítima. Como he mencionado fui afortunado en tratarlo en reiteradas oportunidades. Recuerdo una. Cuando iba a incorporarme como miembro de la SPDI en el año 2007, varios amigos, entre ellos Miguel Angel Rodríguez Mackay, me sugirieron que fuera el Embajador Marchand quien me presentase a la centenaria Sociedad. Lo llamé telefónicamente y él con una gran amabilidad pese a que no me conocía aceptó gustoso el encargo. Así era Lucho Marchand amable y generoso. Fue en esa ocasión que lo tra
Leer más
Fue escrito por mi en 1996. RETHINKING THE 1995 NUCLEAR TESTS CASE. JUDICIAL SUPPORT FOR EMERGING PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW Germán Vera Esquivel [1] INTRODUCTION The resumption of the French nuclear tests in the South Pacific in 1995 and de judgment of the International Court of Justice [2] (hereinafter called “the ICJ”) concerning those tests have generated great polemic in the international arena. [3] To cover comprehensively all possible aspects of the Nuclear Tests case would exceed the scope of this article. Our intention is rather modest, to limit the coverage of this paper only to issues related to international environmental law. It is intended to focus specifically in the three dissenting opinions of the court, those of judges Koroma, Weeramantry and judge ad-hoc Palmer. The dissenting judges found that the Court should have reopened the case of 1974 [4] and therefore could have analyzed the merits of the petition which New Zealand
Leer más