By Cesar Reyna
When President Garcia said that "if we do not exploit the natural resources (oil, gas and mining), the State would have no money to meet the most urgent needs of the population," is implicitly admitting that the Peruvians are unable to generate revenue through our effort. His claim is serious because it condemned the country to rely solely on what can be extracted from the subsurface, or land, and not what it can produce through his intellect. Under the optical hallucination García, Peruvians should be protected because they can not organize or to decide what suits them. Thus the natives of the jungle, he says, are not capable of understanding the scope and meaning of a set of standards designed to promote and protect the environment. " More than once repeated that indigenous people and their representatives have not read the decrees that question, and is no longer influenced by ideologies and distorted versions of characters who "hates our investment."
Garcia did not see anything wrong in the decrees that are debated in Parliament and executive level through the first Yehuda Simon. Has no intention of yielding in negotiations with representatives of the people at Amazon have said that the rules are in accordance with the law and are beneficial for the country. But if what the president says is true, why the Ombudsman's Office, an autonomous body which is part of the state, has raised the unconstitutionality of the 1064 Act and has found anomalies in the 1090 decree that stands? Reports of this entity can be read for several days on their website. Hence, if someone did not understand what they regulate or fail these standards is the Doctor Garcia. Nothing cost the president informed it that the state institution specialized in recommending that others bring their actions to the law, had to believe based on the item.
The findings of the Ombudsman's Report on the D. Leg. 1090, to be discussed on Thursday whether it was constitutional or not in full, are demolishing. The questions are easy to understand because they are detailed and listed. Basically there are three objections which presented the controversial decree and are referred to: "1) the exclusion of forest land suitability and forest plantations of the regime of natural resources and forestry resources, 2) changes in forestry institutions, and 3) a provision related to the treatment of controversial origin of the wood. "
On the first point, the Ombudsman has rightly noted that "(...) The Legislative Decree No. 1090, unlike the regulated area of the Forest Act repeal not deemed to plantations and forest lands whose ability to use higher forest, in its list of forest resources. " This is disturbing because according to Article 22 paragraph 2 of the Constitution, the State must protect the fundamental right of all Peruvians to enjoy a healthy and balanced life. And natural resources are part of the content of that right. It therefore has a duty to protect its sustainable use, conservation of biodiversity and natural protected areas and sustainable development of Amazonia, with appropriate legislation (Articles 67, 68 and 69 of the Constitution). "Natural resources are part of the law and, moreover, are the patrimony of the Nation," said the Ombudsman in its conclusions. "However, the Organic Law for the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources does not provide the criteria and procedure to be used to qualify or disqualify a component of nature as a natural resource." Then goes on to say "(...) The exclusion of these components of the condition of forest resources and, therefore, naturally, creates uncertainty regarding the consequences of a possible application of Legislative Decree No. 1090. This situation was aggravated by not being governed by decree of the methods of sustainable harvesting, or the conditions or restrictions on its use. "
Regarding point two, the report argues that the 1090 decree "would weaken the mechanisms that ensured the sustainable use of forest plantations and maintains uncertainty about the regime applicable to land use whose ability to use larger forest." This would occur because "(...) There is no certainty with respect to the body that will take over the functions previously fulfilled the INRENA, through the Forest Wildlife, or the hierarchical level that it would have within the farming sector" . Also, "(...) was deleted from the National Forest Policy Advisory (CONAFOR) mechanism to allow public participation in forest policy decisions." This decree, like abolishing the unconstitutional 1064 negotiation between communities and companies exploiting natural resources on their land, imposing the easement, eliminating privileges of the affected or interested in the exploitation of forest resources. The dialogue seems to be important for a president who is considered a "democrat". Garcia no room for reason or for social protests or civil disturbance that we must trust that is leading us toward a better destiny. He knows better than anyone, after his speech anthological dog in the manger, which "identified" with "clear" the ills that afflict us, which requires the country. So minimize the claims of indigenous peoples, saying that his irrational mobilization due to their lack of understanding of reading (?).
Moreover, moving to more technical issues (legal), I agreed to revise Article 41 of the Act since 1090, according to the Office, "would legalize the controversial origin of wood, which could encourage unlawful conduct." This, rather than make improvements to the previous Law on Fauna and Flora, "which could generate primary forest was cleared to increase the number of hectares of forest land with fitness."
In conclusion, we need to demystify the topic of oil self-sufficiency - an argument that the government uses to forest concessions and not having to import crude, because no good use locally produced fuel deposits and if the consumer ultimately paid for the petrol and diesel at international prices. What savings you get it? None, no benefits, unless they are renegotiated contracts with oil companies to fill the tank with a dollar or less as in Venezuela or Ecuador.