Since 2010 the Independent Advisory Panel on Development Issues in South-Central Peru has worked diligently to prepare an annual report on issues it believes significant and are related to economic, financial, social, environmental, ecological and ethnic consequences of Camisea Project in south-central Peru.

Given the enormous scope of Panel's work area associated issues, it is both impossible and impractical for the Panel to go into great detail on very specific issues in only one report. Hence in 2010, the Panel focused on gathering information, identifying sources of data, interviewing key players and -more broadly- developing a proper understanding of the wider context in which these complex issues can be studied among the years of Panel´s activity. These themes include:

  • Greenhouse gas emissions

  • Peru's energy mix

  • Distribution of wealth from extractive industries

  • Cumulative impacts and consequences

  • Socio-environmental impacts, focusing on the Camisea region

  • Community monitoring of extractive industries: what this can tell us about long-term social impact in south-central Peru

The first and second reports (2010 and 2011) developed a conceptual framework of the broader context in which these complex issues can be studied, the results of which became the basis for raising these issues and propose various research topics. Some of the patterns that have emerged to date include the listed below:

  • The most favorable scenario for the energy mix from an environmental perspective is obtained through disincentives to electricity generation from natural gas, as this scenario produces the minimum greenhouse-gas emissions and capital investment, while encouraging the aggressive development of new small hydroelectric projects.

  • In scenarios of sustained economic growth, increased gas penetration and without new reserves becoming proven, Peru's current gas reserves will only last another decade or so.

  • Institutional, financial, administrative and logistic capacities for evaluating and approving EIAs are limited, and the quality of the studies themselves is low.

  • Government is weak or absent and lacks planning processes for this type of investment in land where people live and have corresponding rights.

  • On a single field visit, Panel member Dr. Shepard analyzed the perceptions of people in Camisea region and found that despite the large investments on social issues, few results were found, specially on indigenous communities.

  • Where conditions are favorable, community monitoring can be a valuable tool that can help local communities participate better in the management of natural resources.

Annually, Panel commissions researches to support the issues under study. Panel members receive key information and discuss these documents to prepare their reports summing up its key recommendations.

Desarrollado por