Vince McIlhenny forwarded notes from a recent (Jan. 17 2003) meeting between NGOs and the InterAmerican Development Bank. Vince's organization, InterAction, and several others hold periodic meetings to ask about the IDBs plans relating to the Plan Puebla Panama.

Here is an excerpt from the Q&A regarding dams and electricity. Click MORE for the complete meeting notes.

Patricia (World Vision) asked about the hydroelectric dams associated with the PPP.

Marcelo observed that the PPP is frequently—and wrongly—accused of comprising “large projects and dams.” Antinori denied that there are any “mega-projects” in PPP, with the exception of SIEPAC. Roads are limited to mostly rehabilitation, not major new roads (with exception of 48 km in Costa Rica). The IDB has consistently contended that SIEPAC is not about dams, but about a transmission line – which will cause very little displacement. Antinori stated that “…the only large project is SIEPAC,” and expressed interest in finding a way to correct these misimpressions. He acknowledged that although PPP does include linking energy transmission grids, it does not include dams.

Patricia expressed concern for the most impoverished people living largely in rural areas and asked if they would have access to this energy. If they are displaced by the energy projects, will there be a way to give them land/compensation? What about rural roads, in addition to rehabilitation of major highways?

Marcelo differentiated between the two purposes of PPP:
Infrastructure and Integration. He noted that the PPP is the “integration of infrastructure” and that “…you won’t see a program for rural road or infrastructure…When we talk about roads, we are talking about rehabilitation” of principal highways. Rural roads are a national problem. Only infrastructure that promotes integration will be considered in PPP. He went on to say that as of December 18th, there were only 48 kilometers of new roads in PPP, and this did not involve any displacement of people. Marcelo emphasized the fact that there were “no new roads.” He stated that the “PPP has very minor, if any, impact on people [in terms of displacement].” He also stated that an environmental impact study had been done [FOR WHAT].

Infrastructure and Poverty Reduction. Marcelo agreed that the priority should be about “…how PPP affects poor people.” He noted that the IDB would finance two meetings: one on rural integration/ rural electrification, and that El Salvador would organize a meeting on telecommunications. However, “the only thing we’re not discussing is RURAL ROADS.”

Amy expressed that there is concern about a PPP road connecting Guatemala and Belize. Marcelo acknowledged that Amy was right and mentioned that they would have to conduct a referendum in both countries to settle the border dispute, which would take at least a year.

Vince (InterAction) differentiated between the cumulative effects and direct effects of a project like SIEPAC or a highway expansion, asking “to what extent the assessment go beyond the narrowly defined direct effects…to get to impacts, risks, advantages vs. disadvantages of the medium term consequences of a regional energy market. If the cumulative impact of SIEPAC is addressed in a consultation, it becomes impossible to delink a transmission line from new energy generation capacity and from energy policy in general. This is why we continue to hear concerns linking SIEPAC with the prospect of dams on the Usumacinta River for example. Will the IDB enable a debate about these policy issues in discussing SIEPAC?

[In a subsequent conversation with Diego Belmonte, the IDB response to this argument about cumulative vs. direct impact assessment is a skepticism that any methodology permits an accurate estimation of the cumulative impact of a mega project. Diego referred to others who have suggested that a methodology does permit a cumulative impact assessment (Harvard, Berkeley), but he is suspicious about how valid these tools are. The IDB seems to remain unconvinced that anything but the impact of the 100 meter right of way for a 220 kV transmission line is worth examining in depth.]

IDB PPP Meeting Minutes
January 17, 2003
10-12am

In Attendance:
Vince McElhinny, InterAction
Anne Barclay-Hicks, InterAction
Vicky Gass, WOLA
Jane Garrido, Bank Information Center
Amy Gray, Bank Information Center
Susan Saudek, SHARE Foundation
Patricia Forner, World Vision
Marcelo Antinori, IDB
Mario Berrios, IDB
Gonzalo Arroyo, IDB
Analia Gonzalez, IDB

Background to these IDB-NGO/CSO Meetings on PPP:
Plan Puebla Panamá (PPP) is an ambitious $10 billion infrastructure, utility and commercial integration program affecting 62 million people living in the nine southern states of Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panamá (http://www.iadb.org/ppp). PPP is a package of 28 separate “mega-projects” that the region’s leaders claim will attract modernizing private investment, accelerate commercial traffic and bring jobs and prosperity to a long neglected and highly impoverished region. There are eight initiatives within PPP: Energy Sector Integration, Highway Integration, Telecommunications Integration, Sustainable Development, Human Development, Tourism, Trade Facilitation, Disaster Mitigation – plus one special program - Prevention and Information, Consultation and Participation. The IDB is PPP’s most important promoter and for the past year Northern NGOs have held periodic meetings with the IDB staff working on PPP to discuss advances in the specific projects, debate PPP’s impact on the poor of Mesoamerica, and bring to the table questions from groups in the region. The agenda for the meeting varies, but is set by the NGOs. The minutes of this meeting are a synthesis of the discussion, with added contextual items and analysis.

Key Points Raised at the Meeting:
Pessimism about progress on PPP and planned consultations in Mexico.
IDB preparing next round of PPP consultations.
SIEPAC approved in El Salvador after IDB personally lobbies Salvadoran legislators.
Resignation of Belizean Commissioner, Salvador Figueroa (heading up Tourism Initiative) as major regional tourism initiative is launched.
Rural development remains an empty portfolio in PPP.

Upcoming PPP Meetings
Thursday, Jan. 30, noon to 2 p.m. The manager of the IDB’s Regional Operations Department II, Miguel E. Martinez, will speak on at the Bank’s headquarters (in the 7th floor) on the progress achieved so far by Plan Puebla-Panama and the challenges that lie ahead. The presentation, part the IDB’s Forum on the Americas series.
Feb. 7 - Consultation originally scheduled with unions in San Jose, Costa Rica, but postponed until March due to the mobilizations around the beginning of the CAFTA negotiations and disputes related to job security at ICE- the Costa Rican state power company. For more information contact Oscar Rodriguez, PSI Central American Representative.

Feb. 10-12 IDB Consultation with indigenous organizations, Managua, Nicaragua. For more info contact Diego Belmonte, dbelmonte@iadb.org

Late March, PPP meeting to discuss SIEPAC and rural electrification in Guatemala. For more info contact Min. Archila.

Late March, PPP meeting on SIEPAC and social telecommunications in El Salvador (infocentros). For more info contact Commissioner Dada.

Before end of March, IDB sponsored workshop with Centromype and INCAE on formulating a regional action for supporting SMEs in export markets.

New Reports Available:

Nov. 11 PPP Initiative Presentations
Nov. 12 PPP Education MOU
Dec. 18 Roads Progress Report
November PPP Update

Actualización sobre la Información, Consulta, e Iniciativa de Participación (ICP)
- Calendarización del futuro; Consultas en Mexico, y seguimiento al primer ronda de
consultas

Marcelo (IDB) opened meeting by announcing that other IDB colleagues were unable to attend. He felt able to comment on most if not all proposed agenda topics.

Marcelo mentioned that he would meet with Jorge Sapoznikow this afternoon in order to define the action plan for the Information, Consultation and Participation (ICP) Program of the Plan Puebla Panamá. This action plan will define the structure of the next consultations, based on feedback obtained in the first round. The IDB will report the action plan after this meeting, and provide requested summaries and attendance of the Costa Rica and Panama consultations. Mexico is not being considered as part of the ICP action plan, only Central America. Sara Almonte will act as the new coordinator of the ICP in Central America.

Recent consultations were held in Panamá and Costa Rica, completing the first round of PPP consultations, with the exception of Mexico. In Mexico, consultations are planned for two states (Puebla and Veracruz). However, Antinori stated that he was not optimistic given the uncertain commitments to PPP as a foreign policy priority after the resignation of Jorge Castaneda as Minister of Foreign Affairs. The likely appointment, under the new Foreign Minister Derbez, to be Mexican PPP Commissioner is likely to be Miguel Jaquin (?). Antinori stated that Derbez has been supportive of the PPP since its origin and was originally slated to have the position to which Florencio Salazar originally assigned. After the dust settles, the IDB will begin discussions with the Derbez and jaquin about advancing PPP. However, the IDB underscored the decline in confidence that they perceive the Mexican government having toward PPP.

Future consultations, the IDB asserted, cannot be based on “blah, blah, blah”. They must be based on facts. In other words, the IDB will focus the next round of meetings on concrete details of the PPP and not on rumors or issues that the IDB understands as external to the PPP.

Amy of BIC countered that the IDB was responsible for the “blah, blah” character of the initial consultations, mentioning problems noted at the consultations in Belize. Antinori countered that the IDB evaluates the Belize consultation as a “extreme success” and that groups critical of the IDB’s approach should treat them with more respect, basing critiques on facts.

Amy (BIC) asked if Marcelo considered the meeting to be “successful” in the sense that the June 5th Belize meeting was successful—ie, full of “superficial information…no presentation or projects were presented…the information was in Spanish.” Marcelo again stated his opinion that the meeting with the indigenous people was successful, and that he was “…not aware of a single complaint.” An exchange over the issue of translation (the December 18th Progress Reports in Spanish on the website; the English translations—the language of Belize—were not yet ready) underscored the disagreement about the interpretation of the effectiveness of the first round of consultations.

Marcelo noted that in Mexico, there were not “planned actions”, and that “…this is a problem.” He reiterated that they can’t have great expectations about the ICP there, because there is no clear shape.

Addressing Marcelo, Vicki (WOLA) commented that she was impressed by the consultation materials available to critique the first round of consultations. She asked what the IDB is going to do with the ICP now? Will there be follow-up to the first round of consulations? Are there financial and technical resources available for the second round of PPP consultations? Antinori suggested that resources were most limited in Belize, Costa Rica and Panama. Marcelo noted, “Jorge [Sapoznikow] will provide it (action plan). We have the financial, technical, and staff resources to do the second phase in Central America.”

Referring to the second round of meetings in Central America, Marcelo mentioned that in Nicaragua and Guatemala, “…no doubt about it, they have a plan [ICP].” The ICP is being prepared in country (suggestion that preparation is independent of the IDB) by Commissioner Ernesto Leal in Nicaragua and Commissioner Raul Archila in Guatemala. El Salvador represents the greatest challenge at the moment due to the polarization surrounding the legislative elections.

The SICA office in El Salvador, as of January, 2003, has a full time staff working on PPP issues. Salvador Navarette, previously of the BCIE. His task is to prepare a regional strategy for the ICP focusing on improved methods of information disclosure to civil society. Panamá now assumes the Presidency of the PPP (rotates every six months), and has established a PPP office. He said that they will start work on regional ICP strategy, but that he doesn’t see progress in Panama. In three months they might have a strategy, but not in Belize or El Salvador. Marcelo explained that it would take more time there because the relationship between the government and the NGO’s was more “green” (ie, less developed).” The delay in Belize, however, was due to the elections.

Patricia (World Vision) asked about the hydroelectric dams associated with the PPP.

Marcelo observed that the PPP is frequently—and wrongly—accused of comprising “large projects and dams.” Antinori denied that there are any “mega-projects” in PPP, with the exception of SIEPAC. Roads are limited to mostly rehabilitation, not major new roads (with exception of 48 km in Costa Rica). The IDB has consistently contended that SIEPAC is not about dams, but about a transmission line – which will cause very little displacement. Antinori stated that “…the only large project is SIEPAC,” and expressed interest in finding a way to correct these misimpressions. He acknowledged that although PPP does include linking energy transmission grids, it does not include dams.

Patricia expressed concern for the most impoverished people living largely in rural areas and asked if they would have access to this energy. If they are displaced by the energy projects, will there be a way to give them land/compensation? What about rural roads, in addition to rehabilitation of major highways?

Marcelo differentiated between the two purposes of PPP:
Infrastructure and Integration. He noted that the PPP is the “integration of infrastructure” and that “…you won’t see a program for rural road or infrastructure…When we talk about roads, we are talking about rehabilitation” of principal highways. Rural roads are a national problem. Only infrastructure that promotes integration will be considered in PPP. He went on to say that as of December 18th, there were only 48 kilometers of new roads in PPP, and this did not involve any displacement of people. Marcelo emphasized the fact that there were “no new roads.” He stated that the “PPP has very minor, if any, impact on people [in terms of displacement].” He also stated that an environmental impact study had been done [FOR WHAT].

Infrastructure and Poverty Reduction. Marcelo agreed that the priority should be about “…how PPP affects poor people.” He noted that the IDB would finance two meetings: one on rural integration/ rural electrification, and that El Salvador would organize a meeting on telecommunications. However, “the only thing we’re not discussing is RURAL ROADS.”

Amy expressed that there is concern about a PPP road connecting Guatemala and Belize. Marcelo acknowledged that Amy was right and mentioned that they would have to conduct a referendum in both countries to settle the border dispute, which would take at least a year.

Vince (InterAction) differentiated between the cumulative effects and direct effects of a project like SIEPAC or a highway expansion, asking “to what extent the assessment go beyond the narrowly defined direct effects…to get to impacts, risks, advantages vs. disadvantages of the medium term consequences of a regional energy market. If the cumulative impact of SIEPAC is addressed in a consultation, it becomes impossible to delink a transmission line from new energy generation capacity and from energy policy in general. This is why we continue to hear concerns linking SIEPAC with the prospect of dams on the Usumacinta River for example. Will the IDB enable a debate about these policy issues in discussing SIEPAC?

[In a subsequent conversation with Diego Belmonte, the IDB response to this argument about cumulative vs. direct impact assessment is a skepticism that any methodology permits an accurate estimation of the cumulative impact of a mega project. Diego referred to others who have suggested that a methodology does permit a cumulative impact assessment (Harvard, Berkeley), but he is suspicious about how valid these tools are. The IDB seems to remain unconvinced that anything but the impact of the 100 meter right of way for a 220 kV transmission line is worth examining in depth.]

Mention of other upcoming PPP meetings.

Central American Ministers of Environment met last Thursday (1.9.03) in Panama to agree to prepare a Memorandum of Understanding on cooperation toward attempting to prepare a Global Environmental Assessment of PPP. This proposal has been pushed by CCAD (Mauricio Castro). Marcelo stated that the CCAD was in charge because they want to be able to have independent people to say that this “is ok”. Also, Marcelo expressed their willingness to respond to any letters or meetings—ie, if we identify a forum, “we will do it.”
Organized labor has requested a meeting with the IDB to discuss the impact of SIEPAC on unions associated with the energy sector. Central American affiliates of Public Services International have organized the event in San Jose, Costa Rica on Feb. 7, with the participation of Marcelo Antinori and Teofilo de la Torre of the SIEPAC Project Executive Unit.

CICA Meeting, Feb. 10-12, Managua to discuss indigenous organization perspective and possible participation within PPP. A draft document of project proposals has been submitted by CICA to the IDB, including the formation of an Intercultural Education Program, Indigenous Courts, and a Fondo Indigena. The ethnotourism initiative exemplifies an area of the PPP that is not emanating from the Commissioners or the demand of the Central American countries, but is promoted mostly by the IDB.

Susan (SHARE) brought up the issue of El Salvador not allowing access to the government; Representatives of the communities around San Salvador who would be affected by the anillo periferico wrote a letter in October to Luis Vergara, IDB Country Representative in El Salvador, requesting a meeting to discuss the project. There has been no response. Antinori responded that he has taken the political decision to forbid anyone at the IDB to discuss the anillo periferico until after the March elections because it is too politically sensitive among the mayors. The IDB has been requested by the Salvadoran government to lead a discussion about the anillo periferico, but Antinori has conditioned that option on receipt of the overall environmental impact study and the second study on the project’s effects on area volcanic lands. Instead, the IDB has focused its support on improvement of the San Salvador bus corridor. There is a loan in preparation to streamline the transit of public transportation through the AMSS. There is a precedent for the proposed project in Brazil.

2. PPP, Competitiveness and Trade Facilitation

Mario Berrios offered a brief summary of the trade facilitation approach within the PPP. The FTAA process is on hold in Central America, with the CAFTA dominating the agenda. There is convergence between the Trade Facilitation Initiative within the PPP and the IDB Integration and Regional Programs Division. Each country will have support in the negotiations (Trade Capacity Building Assistance), but the IDB will help in some countries more than others. In Honduras, USAID will lead, ECLAC in other countries, etc.

In PPP, competitiveness involves supporting the small and microenterprise sector (SME) access export markets, to integrate with the global economy. In the first trimester of 2003, a workshop with Centromype (which the IDB created in 2002), INCAE and academic. The goal of the workshop is help the Central America SMEs formulate a regional action plan (?). To form clusters…

Patricia and Vince asked why the IDB was focused exclusively on capacity building for export promotion and not for improving the relative position of SMEs within respective domestic markets. CRS has helped tomato growers in Morazan sell tomatoes to La Dispensa Don Juan in San Salvador. There are 700 supermarkets in Central America (Patricia) that are increasingly owned by foreign capital. Why is the correction of the structure of national markets not the focus of capacity building?

3. Desarollo Sostenible y Humano: Seguimiento a los Compromisos de Merida

In terms of Antinori – PPP isn’t able to meet your expectations, can’t do everything.

Education & Health

The Central American Ministers of Education signed an MOU to define projects and funding in education. Commissioners are considering a second MOU to address harmonization of educational achievement targets. See “Acuerdo para la Creación de la Comisión de Acreditación y Promoción de Proyectos Educativos para la Region Mesoamericana (CAPP), 12 Nov. 2002

IDB is providing technical assistance to improve national targets in national public goods

Iglesias asked us to look at the MDGs, we are doing that ???

In health, there is an MOU for a project to prevent contagious disease, agreement implementation is contingent on whether Mex Min Health gets appointed to WHO.

In coming weeks, Ernesto Leal (Nicaraguan PPP Commissioner) will be inviting CA Ministers of Agriculture to prepare an action plan in Agriculture. This will be the first concrete effort since the Merida Summit that addresses the pledge to the Rural Development commitments in PPP.

Agriculture too sensitive to deal with in PPP. Land insecurity is another issue that is too politically intractable to deal with in PPP.

In the Tourism Initiative, the IDB is promoting a hotel concept in which the indigenous organizations would be co-owners, reservation services would be handled by Marriott International. It would be a for-profit venture, thus funded by the IDB’s Private Sector arm (PRI). There is a preliminary identification of 13 sites in Central America and Mexico that are potential hotel sites, of these only 6 will be financed (estimate).

[In a related event, the IDB launched the Mundo Maya Initiative – laying out $150 million for the first phase of eco/ethno tourism projects in the Mesoamerican region. See attached press release below.]

[Salvador Figueroa, Belize Commissioner to the PPP and head of the Tourism Initiative, resigned to run for office in the coming elections].

4. Update on SIEPAC

The final SIEPAC loan was approved by the Salvadoran National Assembly in early December. There were two votes on the loan ($40 million IDB loan to finance transmission line in each Central American country). Resistance within in the Assembly had forced the IDB to offer an extension on Nov. 28th, after one year passed since the IDB board approved the loan but the Assembly had not approved it. The first vote failed, the second passed. The FMLN abstained on both votes [? CONFIRM DETAILS]. Antinori argued that SIEPAC was delayed held up by concern about the consumer benefits of regional energy markets. The Center for the Defense of the Consumer in El Salvador was one organization that lobbied effectively until the IDB advocacy push to condition approval of the SIEPAC loan on the reforming domestic market regulation of electricity transactions. BN Americas reported that the IDB took the unusual step of holding a forum in El Salvador in November to set out arguments in favor of approval of SIEPAC and persuade opposition Parliamentarians to approve the loan. Antinori said he met with the consumer advocacy group (?) in El Salvador, and lobbied Salvadoran politicians to vote in favor of the loan in a visit to El Salvador in December. Antinori persuaded the vote by signaling that the IDB would not engage any discussion of internal regulations of the electricity market in El Salvador until after the March elections. The best case scenario is that SIEPAC will be operating by Dec. 2004. A strategic window of support for the SIEPAC project is threatened by the Guatemalan elections in 2005.

On dams, while the IDB claims there is no direct link between SIEPAC and dams, the IDB sees nothing wrong with more dams. The additional dams planned for the Usumacinta River and the Peten are under consideration for exporting energy to Mexico. Boruca dam in Costa Rica is proceeding. Antinori has plans to visit the region affected by Boruca. There are questions about the function of the AES El Faro natural gas plant in Honduras (capacity to export to El Salvador).

There is no movement on natural gas lines to the region. Enron conducted a feasibility study for constructing an underwater gas line from Colombia-Venezuela to Central America, where it would be transformed and the energy would ultimately be exported to Mexico.

5. Roads Update

The December meeting of the PPP Roads Technical Commission proposed two new roads. One connects Puerto Limon, Costa Rica and Managua, passing to the South side of the Masaya Lake.

Observations:

Turnover of Commissioners is a key obstacle to advancing the PPP. There were delays prior to the recent elections in Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. There is another perceived window of opportunity that begins to close with the upcoming elections (and likely appointment of new Commissioners) in Belize, El Salvador and Guatemala. Of these, Guatemala is perhaps the most significant.

The IDB has maintained that PPP is not a closed process, but that any integration promoting project may be considered for funding. The IDB has attempted to limit the projects that might be considered under PPP as those authentically promoting regional integration. Excluded are those that address exclusively national problems. Looking more closely at this criteria, one begins to see an arbitrary application of this criteria that seems to legitimize a predetermined agenda rather than sponsor a creative debate about what integration really means.

Harmonization of road standards is considered a legitimate regional issue. Highways are considered, but rural roads are not. Agriculture is considered a national issue, not a regional one despite the absence of various regional public goods that prevent small rural producers from competing. The IDB defends its narrow acceptance criteria with the caveat that they are addressing national problems with national loans.

IDB Press Release: Jan 16. 2002 on the Mundo Maya Initiative

***

Recent article posted in Mexico newspaper on dams along the Usumacinta River http://www.tabascohoy.com.mx/th/nuevo/notas/notas.php?nid=28120 PAGINA TRES
Decidirán jueces hidroeléctricas
* CIEPAC y ONG's buscan amparo internacional contra obras en el Usumacinta
* Inundarán 425 kilómetros cuadrados de territorio mexicano, advierten ecologistas
Miguel Avendaño-Murillo
Tabasco HOY/Investigación Especial
SEGUNDA PARTE
Alto Usumacinta, Guatemala.- Ante los trabajos que la Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE) ha iniciado en la zona del Alto Usumacinta para generar energía eléctrica para Centroamérica a través de cinco represas, diversas organizaciones civiles tramitan un amparo internacional para impedir la construcción de dichas obras que afectarán zonas arqueológicas, desplazarán a un millón de personas, afectará la Biósfera Maya de Guatemala y Los Pantanos de Centla.
La primera organización no gubernamental mexicana que ha dado seguimiento a las obras que la CFE realiza en Chiapas en las vegas del Usumacinta es el Centro de Investigaciones Económicas y Políticas de Acción Comunitaria, Asociación Civil (CIEPAC), todo ello en coordinación con el Frente Petenero Contra las Represas de Guatemala para realizar trabajos enfocados a la concientización mundial para que no se `ahorque' al último gran caudal nacional.
"Estamos en estudio de todas las tesis sobre el tema para poder tener los argumentos legales que nos permitan ganar el amparo internacional contra la construcción de las represas sobre el Usumacinta y sus afluentes, además de otros ríos de menor caudal de los altos de Chiapas que se suman al proyecto hidroeléctrico de Boca del Cerro", dice en entrevista Gustavo Castro Soto, integrante del CIEPAC.
Unificación eléctrica objetivos del PPP
En una epístola dirigida a Raúl Archila, Ministro de Energía y Minas de Guatemala por los habitantes de las comunidades del Usumacinta, Pasión y Salinas con fecha 24 de Septiembre de 2002 donde se oponen a la construcción, plantean que en el marco del Plan Puebla Panamá (PPP) se contempla la iniciativa Mesoamericana de Interconexión Energética, con el objetivo de interconectar mercados eléctricos regionales y que en la página web de la CFE (www.cfe.gob.mx) se plantea entre los retos a lograr en el 2003, el inicio de la construcción de una hidroeléctrica con capacidad de 3,978 MW sobre el Usumacinta, único en la zona con caudal suficiente para un proyecto de esta magnitud, situación que ha sido modificada con la misma capacidad pero con cinco represas contempladas en siete grandes proyectos.
Según la CFE, "el proyecto internacional Boca del Cerro sobre el río Usumacinta tiene prioridad, requiriéndose para su consecución la decidida participación de los gobiernos de México y Guatemala... El proyecto Boca del Cerro se localizará a 9.5 kilómetros al suroeste de la ciudad de Tenosique, Tabasco. Consistiría en una presa de 135 metros de altura que formaría un lago artificial de 19 mil 550 millones de metros cúbicos de agua... 42% de la superficie del embalse (300 kilómetros cuadrados) se formaría en territorio guatemalteco"; ahora las cosas cambian con las construcción de diversas cortinas no mayores de 50 metros.
Al mismo tiempo el documento afirma que "es inaplazable contar con un plan de desarrollo intrarregional, tanto para aprovechar coordinadamente el Usumacinta y sus principales afluentes --Lacantún, Ixcán, Xactbal, Chixoy o Salinas y de La Pasión".
Esta afirmación, igual que el objetivo planteado para la interconexión energética en el PPP, refleja que los diferentes países constituyen un conjunto inseparable para el desarrollo de estos megaproyectos, y por lo tanto Guatemala conoce, aprueba e impulsa cualquier proyecto que en alguna medida tendrá un impacto en su territorio.
La carta al ministro de Energía de Guatemala informa que "El Plan de Reactivación Económica 2002 - 2004", presentado por el gobierno el día 11 de Junio del 2002, incluye varios planteamientos relacionados con la generación e interconexión eléctrica, entre los cuales se destaca la "promoción de la construcción y operación de proyectos hidroeléctricos medianos y grandes".
La misiva indica que funcionarios mexicanos del INAH refieren la existencia de un convenio de colaboración firmado en mayo entre el INAH y la CFE para "realizar las modificaciones necesarias en los trazos de los trabajos en subestaciones, líneas de transmisión y generación eléctrica" aplicable al proyecto hidroeléctrico en el Usumacinta.
Exigen información
Con estos antecedentes, los ecologistas chapines sostienen que el gobierno guatemalteco, junto a los otros gobiernos centroamericanos y el mexicano, impulsan el PPP y todas las iniciativas mesoamericanas propuestas.
Por lo tanto, el gobierno guatemalteco, y especialmente el Comisionado Presidencial del Plan Puebla Panamá, Raúl Archila, conocen a profundidad los proyectos del Puebla Panamá.
Agregan que cualquier proyecto hidroeléctrico comprende aguas internacionales y territorio de ambos países, por lo cual el gobierno de Guatemala debe tener conocimiento y una posición ante los planes concretos de aprovechamiento de las aguas, por lo que exigen sean difundidos los planos del proyecto auspiciado por la CFE mexicana.
Con estos argumentos Castro Soto, asegura que el abogado Miguel de los Santos, de la Red Comunitaria de los Derechos Humanos, con sede en San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, está realizando los estudios para que la demanda sea interpuesta ante cortes internacionales europeas y la obra sea detenida ante el daño ecológico y patrimonial que causará en territorio tabasqueño, chiapaneco y guatemalteco.
Los ecologistas aseguran que existen antecedentes mundiales de lucha contra la construcción de represas hidroeléctricas, en términos de reparaciones para personas afectadas por represas pues ya existe un precedente en Panamá sobre el caso Bayano.
En el caso del Alto Usumacinta el amparo primero se tramitará ante a la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos.
Sí habrá daños: CIEPAC
Independientemente de que la CFE ya dijo que no se construirá una sola presa en Boca del Cerro, sino que serán cinco represas con cortinas no superiores a los 50 metros de altura bajo el argumento de evitar "daños considerables", CIEPAC asegura que el proyecto inundará 425 kilómetros cuadrados del territorio mexicano y 300 kilómetros del territorio guatemalteco, además de que las represas sobre el Usumacinta provocarían inundaciones donde se encuentran 300 sitios arqueológicos, entre ellos Piedras Negras, Yaxchilán y Altar de Sacrificios, asentamientos cooperativistas con más de 50 mil personas y la pérdida de millones de árboles de maderas preciosas y vida silvestre.