Original article: Organización ambiental desmiente con cifras al Gobierno: “La protección ambiental no es un obstáculo para el desarrollo” FIMA Raises Alarm: «National Reconstruction» Law Undermines Environmental Justice and Supports Controversial Projects The NGO FIMA has raised concerns regarding the «National Reconstruction» legislative project, backed by the government as a means to expedite investments and revive the economy. Through a series of Instagram posts, the organization claims that the bill “includes some of the most regressive environmental reforms of recent years,” citing a weakening of access to environmental justice, citizen participation, and independent technical oversight. FIMA argues that the legislation “is based on the notion that investment projects are stalled due to excessive rejections and litigation.

” However, the organization questions this diagnosis, asserting that the data presents a different reality. In their statements, they pointed out that “only 5% of projects submitted to the SEIA are rejected” and that “between 2014 and 2023, only 5. 5% of approved projects faced legal challenges.

” They posed the question: “Is the issue truly the judicialization? ” A primary concern revolves around the undermining of the right to access environmental justice. FIMA explained that mechanisms currently exist for contesting environmental permits, such as administrative invalidation and citizen observations, which allow for objections in cases of irregularities or deficiencies during evaluation.

However, they have denounced that “the proposed law seeks to eliminate this avenue,” thereby reducing opportunities to challenge improperly approved projects. “This means it will be significantly harder to oppose projects that have been approved with errors, flaws, or illegal actions,” they asserted. The organization also criticized the reduction in timeframes for contesting environmental permits.

They noted that currently, there is a period of up to two years to challenge sectoral permits, while the initiative would cut this to just six months. “Many permits have limited public dissemination, and those directly impacted often become aware of their approval too late,” warned FIMA, adding that this change “impedes citizen oversight,” “increases barriers to filing complaints,” and “reduces access to environmental justice. ” Also alarming is the limitation placed on precautionary measures in environmental courts.

FIMA reminded that these tools are intended to prevent irreversible damage while a project is under review, but criticized that the proposal restricts their duration to “a maximum of 30 renewable days” and “never exceeding 6 months. ” The foundation exemplified that this could allow a project to be operated or constructed even while a legal case concerning its legality is pending, leading to environmental harm that could be difficult or impossible to reverse later. In their analysis, FIMA further questioned a provision that would require the state to compensate project holders if their environmental permits are annulled later.

“Currently, the environmental assessment of large projects incurs significant costs for the state,” they indicated. However, they added that with this reform, “if companies are not charged to fund this work for the state, why should the state refund money to them if their environmental permit is revoked? ” According to the organization, this rule could “discourage state environmental oversight,” “discourage the submission of quality projects,” and “shift risks from private entities to the state.

” Further criticisms targeted the proposed strengthening of the so-called “technical lead” of the Environmental Evaluation Service (SEA). According to FIMA, the proposal implies that the SEA “could stop considering technical observations from other specialized public agencies,” thus weakening technical checks within the environmental evaluation process. “This undermines technical counterbalances within environmental evaluations.

Fewer independent agencies providing feedback could mean less rigorous and impartial evaluations, reduced oversight, and more centralized decision-making,” they cautioned. The organization questioned the flexibilities that the project would afford industries, such as the salmon farming sector, and warned about the potential weakening of the Biodiversity and Protected Areas Service (SBAP). FIMA stated that the initiative “reduces controls over salmon relocations and weakens measures against the concentration of concessions.

” Finally, they highlighted that the project extends deadlines for implementing regulations and protected areas, which could “sustain the under-protection of key or high-value ecosystems. ” In their final message, the foundation emphasized: “Environmental protection is not an obstacle to development. Weakening controls does not guarantee development,” while calling upon citizens to demand that the initiative “not proceed due to its severe environmental impacts and effects on access to justice.