$9.6 million in exchange for 3.4 million metric tons of reduced CO2e emissions

The Pilot Auction Facility for Methane and Climate Change Mitigation (PAF) is an innovative climate finance model developed by the World Bank Group to stimulate investment in projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions while maximizing the impact of public funds and leveraging private sector financing.

Its results-based payment mechanism sets a floor price for future carbon credits in the form of a tradeable put option, which is be competitively allocated via auctions.

The PAF is backed by Germany, Sweden, Switzerland (Through a joint contribution of the State Secretariat of Economic Affairs (SECO) and the Climate Cent Foundation), and the United States.  The facility has a capitalization target of $100 million. In a first phase, it will support projects that cut methane emissions at landfill, animal waste, and wastewater sites facing low carbon prices.

The establishement of the facility was an outgrowth of the Methane Finance Study Group Report, delivered to the G8 in 2013 as a result of its request for innovative pay for performance approaches to addressing methane. In its design and development phase the facility benefited from the support of Partners in the Climate and Clean Air Coalition.

The PAF Secretariat has sent us this important news.

"Dear Colleagues,

We are pleased to announce that the Pilot Auction Facility for Methane and Climate Change Mitigation (PAF) has made the second repayment of PAFERNs bonds issued after its three auctions held in July 2015, May 2016 and January 2017.

This year’s redemption provided $9.6 million in exchange for 3.4 million metric tons of reduced CO2e emissions from projects that achieved methane and nitrous oxide abatement around the globe. The carbon credits came from landfill gas-to-energy projects in Brazil, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, Thailand, and Uruguay; wastewater treatment and biogas utilization projects in Thailand; and a project addressing nitrous oxide emissions from nitric acid production in Egypt.

The World Bank issued a press release highlighting the results of this year’s redemption, available here.

The PAF provides a price guarantee for eligible future carbon credits in the form of a zero-coupon bond, allocated through an online auction. The bonds issued after the three initial auctions will continue redeeming through 2020. The PAF is backed by funding from Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. Building on the success of the pilot, the World Bank is expandinLa g the facility into a broader Climate Auctions Program and willexplore how to use auctions to help countries implement their goals under the Paris Climate Agreement.

For more information about the PAF, please visit www.pilotauctionfacility.org or contact the PAF Secretariat at paf_secretariat@worldbank.org".

Leaders Commit to Regional Cooperation on Carbon Pricing in the Americas

Paris, 12 December – Today, on the occasion of the One Planet Summit, government leaders of

Canada, Colombia, Chile, México, the Governors of California and Washington, and the Premiers of Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec launched the Carbon Pricing in the Americas cooperative framework where climate leaders rea ffirm their commitment to the Paris Agreement by pledging to implement carbon pricing as a central policy instrument for climate change action; deepen regional integration of carbon markets across the hemisphere; develop carbon policies that support competitiveness, encourage innovation, create jobs, provide healthy environment for its citizens, and deliver meaningful emissions reductions.

This new initiative on regional cooperation comes at a pivotal time for climate action and carbon pricing – with eight new or enhanced carbon pricing initiatives in place since early 2016 - three quarters of them in the Americas (Colombia, Chile, and several Canadian provinces) – there are now 42 national and 25 sub-national jurisdictions putting a price on carbon emissions.

The Carbon Pricing in the Americas cooperative framework builds on the sustainability commitments established by member countries of the Pacific Alliance and the ongoing efforts of Canada and California to accelerate efforts towards clean growth.

The Carbon Pricing in the Americas will serve as the platform for countries in the Americas to take on the climate challenge using the most cost-efficient path. According to a 2016 World Bank report, greater cooperation through carbon trading could reduce the cost of climate change mitigation by 32 percent by 2030.

As the working group “Carbon Pricing in the Americas (CPA)” sets to identify opportunities to increase alignment of carbon pricing systems and promote carbon markets; the private sector will have an instrumental role to play. Companies that apply a carbon price, can effectively manage their climate risk exposure and use this to their advantage to generate superior profitability and more earnings stability.

Quotes from Leaders:

Michelle Bachelet President of Chile

Our economies must stop denying climate change. When we incorporate climate change through carbon pricing we allow market forces to push climate action. When we align economic and environmental goals we make sustainable development inevitable. That is why we are happy that carbon pricing is spreading across the Americas, so that more people can benefit from market driven climate mitigation.

Enrique Peña Nieto, President of Mexico

The pilot phase of our carbon market is scheduled to initiate on the second half of 2018. This is an unprecedented step in Mexico and Latin America. By adopting this Declaration, we recognize the enormous potential of collaboration in the continent, to continue broadening, deepening and linking our carbon markets.

Manuel Gonzalez Sanz, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica

Costa Rica has a long history of recognizing the economic value of environmental services as key aspect of our environmental policy, both at home and abroad. We are proud to adopt this Declaration and look forward to continue working with our friends and colleagues to find ways to strengthen the connections between carbon pricing, transparency and ambition in support of the goal of the Paris Agreement. 

Iain Rankin, Environment Minister, Nova Scotia

“Nova Scotia has worked hard to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We can be proud of what we’ve accomplished, and through our new cap and trade program, we will keep contributing to the global effort on climate change. We are happy to be working with other countries, states and provinces to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”

As co-conveners of the One Planet Summit, Emmanuel Macron President of France, Jim Yong Kim, President of the World Bank Group, and António Guterres Secretary-General of the United Nations welcomed the initiative and stated.

Jim Yong Kim, President, World Bank Group

As the world comes together to reaffirm its commitment to the Paris Agreement, we welcome the Carbon Pricing in the Americas cooperative framework. Carbon pricing provides the most stable, cost-efficient and predictable path for transitioning countries toward low-carbon economies. The World Bank Group stands ready to support countries in the Americas as they work together to implement carbon pricing for ambitious climate action.

Other supportive quotes:

Ban Ki-moon, former Secretary-General of the United Nations

Carbon pricing is a critical quantum jump for the much-needed fundamental transformation towards low carbon future. Carbon Pricing of the Americas will unleash market forces to drive climate innovations and solutions. This unprecedented unique initiative should lead the Global Coalition for Carbon Pricing as was called for in 2015 by the Paris Climate COP President Hollande

Kofi A. Annan, Chair of the Kofi Annan Foundation

I welcome this engaging initiative for climate change action. By putting a price on carbon, we are setting the right incentives to green our economies and accelerate the shift towards clean and efficient sources of energy.

Feike Sijbesma, CEO of Royal DSM, World Bank Climate Leader and co-chair of the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition

The collaboration of leaders across the Americas is an important milestone. A famous expression is “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” Fortunately, when governments collaborate on carbon pricing, this incentivizes the private sector to go not only further, but faster too! Many companies in the Americas are already future-proofing their business by putting an internal price on carbon, and I would encourage more to join us. At DSM, we apply already an internal price of €50/ton CO2. A price on carbon unlocks the potential of the private sector, like business and investors to contribute more and faster to addressing climate change by ensuring an economic incentive.

Dirk Forrister, President and CEO, International Emissions Trading Association (IETA)

IETA wholeheartedly supports the commitment of governments across the America’s to form a cooperative framework to integrate their carbon markets in the future. The rising interest in market based solutions around the world will help mobilize business to advance the Paris Agreement’s goals while preserving competitiveness. IETA congratulates the signatories for their vision and pledges to help the signatories meet the objectives of this important declaration.

Fred Krupp, President, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)

Coming two years to the day after the Paris Agreement was adopted, the Carbon Pricing Declaration of the Americas shows what the Paris accord made possible: A new model of international cooperation that brings countries together with states and provinces to raise global ambition on climate action and move the world closer to a future of low-carbon prosperity.  Carbon pricing is already working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and spur clean energy innovation in California and Quebec. This declaration paves the way to spread those benefits throughout the Americas, positioning the region as a leader in the fight against climate change.  Environmental Defense Fund applauds the signatories for their leadership and looks forward to supporting the implementation of the Declaration.

The Carbon Pricing of the Americas initiative drives action to strengthen the implementation of carbon pricing as a central policy instrument for climate action and the shift to clean energy, innovation and the promotion of sustainable economic development. This initiative strengthens the alignment of carbon pricing systems and introduces harmonized systems for measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) of greenhouse gas emissions, as a necessary foundation for regional cooperation, and development, of carbon markets within the Americas.    

Sign-On Letter: G20 Nations and Multilateral Development Banks – Stop Funding Fossils

On the eve of the One Planet Summit in Paris, France, as governments and stakeholders gather to discuss the urgent need for climate finance, over 180 civil society groups released a letter being sent to leaders of multilateral development banks, including the World Bank, and leaders of G20 governments.

The letter calls for multilateral development banks and G20 governments to commit to phase out subsidies and public finance for fossil fuels as soon as possible, except in extreme cases where there is clearly no other viable option for increasing energy access to the poor. This total phaseout should be achieved by no later than 2020.

Signatories including Oil Change International, Les Amis de la Terre – Friends of the Earth France, Christian Aid, Greenpeace, Reseau Action Climat – Climate Action Network France, WWF International, BankTrack, Climate Action Network International, Global Witness, 350.org, Germanwatch, CIDSE, and the Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development were part of more than 190 organisations from over 55 countries around the world who signed the letter.

190+ GROUPS:  STOP FUNDING FOSSILS AT ONE PLANET SUMMIT

 Multilateral Development Banks and G20 Nations Must Stop Funding Fossils

 

To the leaders of the multilateral development banks and G20 nations,

As more than 190 civil society organizations from over 55 countries, we urge all multilateral development banks and G20 nations to commit to phase out subsidies and public finance for fossil fuels as soon as possible, with a total phaseout by no later than 2020. This ongoing government support for fossil fuels undermines global climate mitigation and adaptation efforts.

As leaders gather in Paris, France for the One Planet Summit, climate impacts around the globe are mounting in severity each year, and the poorest and most vulnerable continue to be hit first and hardest. The Paris Climate Agreement’s objective to “align finance flows with low-emission, climate-resilient development and to shift public finance away from high-emitting infrastructure” is more urgent than ever before.

But instead of funding the solution, G20 governments and multilateral development banks still overwhelmingly fund the problem. For the most recent three years where data is available, G20 public fossil fuel finance averaged $71.8 billion annually – nearly 90 times the rate of global assistance for small island developing states for resilience to climate change and disasters at only $800 million annually. And the multilateral development banks financed projects with fossil fuel exploration components at $1.8 billion annually – three times the rate of all global climate-related development finance to small island developing states, at $550 million annually.

Given their importance to the world’s energy trajectory both in their financing of energy projects and their crucial signaling role for the broader investment community, we urge multilateral development banks to:

• Set a clear timeline for the phase out of public finance for oil, gas, and coal production, starting with the elimination of all finance for fossil fuel exploration and coal, except in extreme cases where there is clearly no other viable option for increasing energy access to the poor. Fossil fuel finance should be phased out no later than 2020. 

• Commit to transparency and accountability by tracking and publishing greenhouse gas emissions of all investments, making these figures publicly available on an annual basis, and establishing a clear timeline to achieve a science-based reduction of portfolio-wide emissions. 

Likewise – given their annual commitment since 2009 to “phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, we urge G20 leaders to make good on this promise at their 2018 summit in Argentina, and to:

• Set a clear timeline for the full and equitable phaseout by all G20 members of all fossil fuel subsidies by 2020, starting with the elimination of subsidies for fossil fuel exploration and coal. 

• Set a clear timeline for the full and equitable phaseout by all G20 members of domestic and international public finance for oil, gas, and coal production by 2020, except in extreme cases where there is clearly no other viable option for increasing energy access to the poor. Fossil fuel finance should be phased out no later than 2020. 

• Commit to be fully transparent about all fossil fuel subsidies in a consistent format made publicly available on an annual basis, to increase transparency of reporting on investment in fossil fuel production by publicly-owned financial institutions, and to complete fossil fuel subsidy peer reviews by the end of 2018.

Recent assessments have found that: a) G20 nations are providing billions in public finance to fossil fuel production, at more than 4 times the rate they are supporting renewable energy;[1] b) multilateral development banks funded more than $5 billion in oil, gas, and coal production in 2016, after the Paris Climate Agreement was reached in December 2015;[2] and c) G20 governments spend more than $444 billion each year on support to fossil fuel production alone.[3] All of this public support to fossil fuels comes as we must rapidly shift investment towards clean energy, and despite clear evidence that we need to keep at least 80% of existing fossil fuel reserves in the ground if we hope to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. 

We urge multilateral development banks and G20 leaders to take the decisive steps toward ending public support for fossil fuels outlined above. Governments of the richest countries in the world, and their key institutions must establish an ambitious 2020 deadline for the phase out of subsidies and public finance for fossil fuels, in order to drive sustained and scaled-up climate action.

Footnotes:

[1] http://priceofoil.org/2017/07/05/g20-financing-climate-disaster/

[2] http://priceofoil.org/2017/10/12/development-banks-still-funding-fossils/

[3]https://www.odi.org/publications/10058-empty-promises-g20-subsidies-oil-gas-and-coal-production

Sincerely, 

[192 organisations from 58 countries and several regions, presented alphabetically] 

Abibiman Foundation – Ghana Act Alliance EU – Belgium Adivasi Mulvasi Astitva Raksha manch – India African Climate Reality Project – South Africa Africa Youth Coalition Against Hunger Sierra Leone – Sierra Leone AKSI for Gender, Social and Ecological Justice – Indonesia All Nepal Peasant's Federation – Nepal All Nepal Women's Association – Nepal Alliance Sud – Alliance of Swiss Development Organisations – Switzerland Alofa Tuvalu – Tuvalu & France Alternative Information Development Centre – South Africa Amazon Watch – United States Les Amis de la Terre – Friends of the Earth France – France Amsterdam Fossielvrij – The Netherlands Aotearoa Youth Leadership Institute – New Zealand Appropriate Technology for Living Association – New Zealand Arab Youth Climate Movement Lebanon – Lebanon Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development – Asia Asian Regional Exchange for New Alternatives – South Korea Bangladesh Jatiyo Sramik Jote – Bnagladesh Bangladesh Krishok Federation – Bangladesh Bank Information Center Europe – The Netherlands BankTrack – The Netherlands Both ENDS – The Netherlands Bretton Woods Project – United Kingdom Bulig Visayas – Philippines Campaign for Climate Justice Nepal – Nepal Carbon Action Aotearoa – New Zealand CARE International – Climate Change and Resilience Platform CDL Bangladesh – Bangladesh CEMBI-USB – Venezuela Centar za Ekologiju i Energiju – Bosnia and Herzegovina Center for Biological Diversity – United States Center for Environmental Justice – Sri Lanka Center for International Environmental Law – United States Centre for Human Rights and Climate Change Research – Nigeria CHANGE – Vietnam Change Partnership – International Christian Aid – United Kingdom CIDSE – International Clean Air Action Group – Hungary Climate Action Hobart – Australia Climate Action Network Europe – Europe Climate Action Network International – International Climate Alliance Switzerland – Switzerland Climate and Development Advice – Germany Climate and Development Lab – United States The Climate Justice Project – United States CliMates – France CNCD-11.11.11 – Belgium Collectif Causse Méjean – Gaz de Schiste NON ! – France Columbus Community Bill of Rights – United States CONAJEC – Coordination Nationale des Jeunes pour l'Environnement et le Climat – Burkina Faso Concerned Citizens against Climate Change – The Netherlands Coordination Office of the Austrian Bishop's Conference for International Development and Mission – Austria Counter Balance – Czech Republic Debt Watch – Indonesia Derecho Ambiente y Recursos Naturales – Peru DIB – Denmark Les Dindons de la Farce – France East Africa Climate Change Network – Kenya Ecoaction – Ukraine EcoEquity – United States Economic Justice Network Sierra Leone – Sierra Leone eco-union – Spain EKOenergy – Finland Engajamundo – Brazil Environics – India Environmental Defence Canada – Canada Environmental Justice Foundation – United Kingdom Epikaizo Care Initiative – Tanzania EquityBD – Bangladesh European Environment and Health Youth Coalition – Hungary Focus Association for Sustainable Development – Slovenia Fossielvrij NL – The Netherlands fossil-free.ch – Switzerland Fossil Free Göttingen – Germany Fossil Free Uppsala – Sweden Frederick Mulder Foundation – United Kingdom Freedom from Debt Coalition – Philippines FreshWater Accountability Project – United States Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland – United Kingdom Friends of the Earth U.S. – United States Fundacion Madariaga – Argentina Fundacja Instytut Rozwoju Innowacyjnej Energetyki – Poland Fundacja Rozwoj TAK – Odkrywki NIE – Poland GARJAN-Nepal – Nepal GEFONT Trade Union Federation – Nepal Germanwatch – Germany Gitib – Philippines Global Catholic Climate Movement – International Global South Initiative – Nepal Global Witness – International Greenpeace Grupo de Financiamiento Climático para Latinoamérica y el Caribe (GFLAC) – Mexico Health and Environment Alliance – Belgium Himalaya Niti Abhiyan – India Honor the Earth – United States Human Rights Alliance Nepal – Nepal Human Rights Foundation Aotearoa New Zealand – New Zealand iMatter – United States Indian Social Action Forum – India InspirAction USA – United States Institute for Policy Studies – Climate Justice Program – United States Jagaran Nepal – Nepal Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society – Japan JATAM – Indonesia Kazdagi Association for the Preservation of Natural and Cultural Resources – Turkey Kerala Independent Fishworkers Federation – India Khazer Ecological NGO – Armenia Kiko Network – Japan Koalicja Klimatyczna – Poland KRuHA – People's Coalition for the Right to Water – Indonesia LDC Watch – International Legambiente – Italy Leave it in the Ground Initiative – International Living Legacies – New Zealand Madden Sainsbury Foundation – Australia Market Forces – Australia Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns – International McCulloch Consulting Limited – United Kingdom Mediterranean Youth Climate Network – Morocco Migrant Forum in Asia – Philippines Milieudefensie – The Netherlands Mom Loves Taiwan Association – Taiwan Monitoring Sustainability of Globalization – Malaysia Mouvement Ecologique – Friends of the Earth Luxembourg – Luxembourg Nadi Gati Morcha – India National Federation of Hawkers Bangladesh – Bangladesh National Federation of Women Hawkers – India National Hawkers Federation – India Natural Resources Defense Council – International NGO Ecoclub – Ukraine North Country Veterans for Peace – United States Oil Change International – International Oil Money Out – United States Our Climate Declaration – New Zealand Our Rivers Our Life – Philippines Overseas Development Institute – United Kingdom Pacific Islands Climate Action Network – Fiji Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum – Pakistan Pakistan Rabita Committee – Pakistan Philippine Movement for Climate Justice – Philippines Plateforme de la Société Civile sur le Changement Climatique – Haiti Polski Klub Ekologiczny Okręg Mazowiecki – Poland Power Shift Network – United States Reacción Climática – Bolivia REFEDD – French Student Network for Sustainability – France REK Rowlands & Partners – United Kingdom The Renewables – New Zealand Reseau Action Climat – Climate Action Network France – France River Basin Friends – India Rootskeeper – United States Rural Reconstruction Nepal – Nepal Sanlakas – Philippines Sawit Watch – Indonesia SEAFish for Justice – Indonesia Sierra Club – United States Sierra Leone School Green Club – Sierra Leone Sisters of Mercy of the Americas' Institute Justice Team – United States Stop Petróleo Vila do Bispo – Portugal Solidaritas Perempuan – Indonesia SUPRO – Bangladesh South Asian Alliance for Poverty Eradication – Nepal Southern Oregon Climate Action Now – United States SustainUS – United States Swiss Youth for Climate – Switzerland Taiwan Environmental Protection Union – Taiwan TENMYA 21 – Tunisia Trade Un. Turtle Island Restoration Network – United States Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Binghamton Green Sanctuary – United States Unnayan Onneshan – Bangladesh Urgewald – Germany Voice – Bangladesh Wodonga Albury Towards Climate Health – Australia Woman, Development, Future Public Union – Azerbaijan Women Engage for a Common Future – Germany WoMin African Alliance – Africa WWF – International Youth for Environment, Education and Development Foundation – Nepal Youth Movement for African Unity – Ghana Youth for Ocean! – France ZERO – Associação Sistema Terrestre Sustentável – Portugal Zukunft statt Kohle – Future instead of Coal – Switzerland 11.11.11 – Belgium 350 Africa – Africa 350 Ankara – Turkey 350 Montgomery County – United States 350 New Orleans – United States 350 New Zealand – New Zealand 350.org – International

VCSs News: Carbon Pricing Takes Off

The October / November 2017 Newsletter of Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), has included the following report of great importance.

Limiting the increase in global average temperature to within 2° Celsius of preindustrial levels requires dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions. One of the best ways to do that is to shift the social and economic costs of greenhouse gases from the public to the polluter.

BONN – The hurricanes that pummeled the Caribbean, Texas, and Florida this year left highways submerged, homes and businesses demolished, and lives lost. The floodwaters have since receded, but the images of upheaval remain etched in our collective memory. Recovery will take years, perhaps decades, and it will cost billions of dollars.

Experts tell us that warming oceans are causing hurricanes to become more powerful, and other consequences of anthropogenic climate change – from severe droughts in the Horn of Africa to extreme flooding in Asia – are leaving millions without food and basic shelter. But while the link between burning fossil fuels and deadly weather has been strengthening for years, policymakers have not always heeded the warnings.

This is changing rapidly. Today, countries, citizens, and a growing number of businesses around the world are finally taking action. This month, thousands gathered for the UN’s climate change conference in Bonn, Germany, to ratchet up global ambition in the fight against climate change. Following the successful Paris climate agreement two years ago, expectations for further progress and continued collaboration are high.

One of the more promising recent initiatives is the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC), which brings together 30 governments and more than 180 businesses and strategic partners to put a value on carbon dioxide emissions. The idea is simple: if we are to meet the Paris accord’s target of limiting the increase in global average temperature to less than 2° Celsius above preindustrial levels – ideally, to 1.5° above preindustrial levels – we must dramatically cut emissions. As co-chairs of the CPLC, we believe that one of the best ways to do that is by shifting the social and economic costs of heat-trapping gases from the public to the polluter.

With the sense of climate urgency increasing, it is no longer acceptable to pollute for free and pass the bill to future generations. Putting a price on carbon is the most efficient way to reduce global emissions while encouraging sustainable and robust economic growth. Moreover, by putting a price on pollution, governments can generate revenue for investments like clean energy, schools, and health care, making it a double win.

The ultimate goal, of course, is to encourage businesses to clean up their acts, and today, a growing share of business leaders understand that pricing carbon is one of the best ways to combat climate change. They also recognize that their businesses can thrive even as they work to reduce emissions.

In fact, many business leaders are among the most enthusiastic supporters of effective carbon pricing. Just last month, the Carbon Disclosure Project revealed that the number of companies with plans to pursue internal carbon price mechanisms has grown to almost 1,400 globally, up from 150 in 2014. This includes more than 100 of the world’s largest companies, with total annual revenues of some $7 trillion. Royal DSM (which is led by one of the authors) has set a carbon price of €50 ($59) per ton, joining other global companies like Michelin, Danone, and General Motors in applying meaningful carbon prices to “future-proof” their business.

Some 40 countries – including Canada – are also putting a price on carbon pollution, and more governments are planning to implement similar schemes soon. In 2015, China announced plans to create the world’s largest carbon-pricing system. And earlier this year, Ontario, Québec, and California signed an agreement to create the world’s second-largest carbon market.

This trend must continue – for environmental and economic reasons. A May 2017 study conducted by the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices – led by two of the world’s top economists, Joseph E. Stiglitz and Nicholas Stern – found that setting a “strong carbon price” is essential not only for reducing global emissions, but also for sustaining innovation and growth.

To be sure, putting a price on carbon pollution must become part of a broader set of actions to future-proof our economies and societies. To reduce greenhouse-gas emissions further and foster economic vitality, we must improve public transportation; construct energy-efficient buildings; and support efforts by businesses, innovators, and investors to develop clean-energy solutions. This is what Canada is already doing, because we know that these policies can reduce emissions and help create new, well-paying jobs.

As is often said, climate change represents both a challenge and an opportunity. By pricing carbon pollution and harnessing our collective abilities, we can address the former and seize the latter. Pooling the innovative and entrepreneurial spirit found in countries and businesses will enable us to fight climate change, strengthen our economies and societies, and leave our children and grandchildren a healthier planet.

Sources: https://www.carbonpricingleadership.org/blogs/2017/11/24/carbon-pricing-takes-off 

The dark side of salt in Panama

Francisco Rivas Ríos.

On Monday, August 28, 2017, at a press conference, the Ministry of Health (MINSA) and the Association of Restaurants and Allied Products of Panama (ARAP) reported that they will initiate a plan of measures to reduce salt consumption in the country, with the aim of providing a better quality of life of the population. 

The implementation of the strategy will be that the 400 restaurants that make up the ARAP will proceed to remove the salt shaker from the tables, leaving their consumption at the discretion of customers. The dark side of salt in Panama.

Even acknowledging the positive purpose of the initiative, it lacks effectiveness because it is mandatory and also reflects a lack of knowledge of the characteristics of the salt economy in Panama. As we will see below, there are salt-related issues that deserve more attention.

As part of the initiative on salt reduction in Latin America, in 2009 the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) estimated apparent salt consumption in Panama in the range of 9.15 - 12.35 grams per day [i]. Subsequently, the Institute of Nutrition of Central America and Panama (INCAP) estimated that, in urban and rural areas, the consumption of table salt was similar, around 10 grams per person [ii]. Meanwhile, animal consumption has been estimated at 20 grams per head per day.

If we take a 10 gr / day / person and 20 gr / head / day, we can figure apparent salt demand in 2014 at 13,368 tons. For human consumption and 11,763 tons. For animal consumption, yielding a total of 25,131 tonnes [iii]. The Value Chain of the salt industry in Panama is structured in 4 main components: 1) the producer; (2) industry; 3) the commercial channel; and 4) the consumer.

Two Value Chains can be identified: the one generated by imports of salt, and the one corresponding to the national production of raw salt. The supply of salt for different purposes (industrial, table, mainly) increased steadily from 2010 As shown in Table No. 1., in 2014 total salt supply amounted to 36,987.12 metric tons.

At the national level, the production is mainly carried out by the cooperatives affiliated to FENCOSPA RL. The saline are located in the Province of Los Santos and are of marine type, located on the coast, specifically in areas called "albinas", extensions of land with little or no vegetation by the inclement flood of salt water.

Sea water is captured by taking high tides ("aguaje") and transported through canals to "tercios" or "lakes", shallow excavations of between 1 and 2 meters deep by about 100 x 100 meters of diameter, which, when drilled in its base allow the entry of salt produced abroad enters Panama in two ways: as raw material: refined industrial salt, and to a lesser extent as Pure Sodium Chloride (Analytical Grade) and as final products for human and animal consumption.

Imported salt enters Panama in two ways, as raw material: refined industrial salt, and to a lesser extent as Pure Sodium Chloride (Analytical Grade) and as final products for human and animal consumption. Raw salt comes from two sources: sea salt and rock salt (or yolk).

Imports are a key factor in explaining the large supply of salt in the domestic market in the Panamanian market. Imports are driving the high levels of consumption in the population. FENCOSPA R.L has the installed capacity to supply the national market and has historically established coordination mechanisms with the Ministry of Health (MINSA).

Imports of salt are the fundamental problem, but invisible to the public and decision makers, because powerful business interests are moving around them. Let's look at several situations unknown to the Panamanians:

 • Imported industrial salt does not fulfill the obligation of  iodized salt.

The import of refined industrial salt has been questioned. The Ministry of Health (MINSA) issued Decree 20 March 2001, stating that any salt that is processed, produced or obtained for human consumption should contain an amount of iodine between 20-60 mg / kg (20-60 ppm.) [iv].

The MINSA implemented Decree March 20, 2001 to these imports, which led to the retention of shipments in that year. This decision provoked the widespread protest of the entrepreneurs dedicated to the industry of meat sausages, snacks and soups. Finally, in March 2001 the MINSA authorities suspended the application of the decree to this item.

One of the main importers who protested was the US transnational Laboratorios Griffith SA, dedicated to the production of condiments for food and sauces in small envelopes. Laboratories Griffith SA imports refined industrial salt from its country of origin, uses it as raw material in its products and exports it to Latin America, having among its largest customers fast food restaurant chains such as KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, McDonald's and Burger King [v].

In the opinion of some industrialists the willingness to force the use of iodized industrial salt "does not exist in any country of the world", which is partially true. In order to prevent refined industrial non-iodized salt from being used for human consumption, in Uruguay, for example, it is marketed in 50 kg bags (while the standard in Panama is 25 kg) and should clearly show the legend: "Salt For industrial use not suitable for human consumption " [saw], a requirement that does not exist in Panama.

• The Colombian press denounces the production of salt of poor quality. 

One of the main exporters of salt to Panama is Colombia. Since 1995 the Colombian news media have denounced the existence of salt of poor quality. In 1995 the El Tiempo newspaper reported:

"The Colombian Family Welfare Institute (Icbf) and the sectional health departments of Bogotá and the departments of Atlántico, Antioquia, Bolívar, Meta, Santander and Valle.

The document says that 70 percent of the salt consumed in the national territory is not fit for human consumption or does not meet the conditions required by the Ministry of Health.

Therefore, two-thirds of the salt currently marketed in the country are inadequately iodized, which exposes the Colombian population to disorders due to deficiency of this element, such as mental retardation, cretinism, decreased IQ and physical development, especially of children and young people, says the study.

In the case of Venezuelan and Peruvian salt that arrives in Colombia, worse indices of iodine content were found than in the national one, but it is very difficult to know if this originates in the processing plants of these countries or is made in the country, in the time to repackage "[ vii]].

That is, in 1995 the problem was found both in imports of Venezuelan and Peruvian salt, as processed in Colombia. It is important to emphasize that the company involved that the "salt they import is already purified and selected and show evidence of the health service of Norte de Santander where it ensures that it does meet the requirements and sells a cheaper product" [ viii ] ].

In 2013 the Scientific Society of Endocrinologists of Colombia reported that cases of goiter, which should only be referred to as past data, "are again being warned by health professionals in the different consultations of hospitals and medical centers from the city". The information adds:

"Specialists warn that something is failing and the first thing to check is the table salt that is consumed daily. Although it is a provision of the competent authorities at national level, and iodate table salt that is marketed, this does not guarantee that that product of basic use in the homes, is the most appropriate for the health of the children. Health professionals warn that under certain neglects in the management of salt at the time of commercialization, it can lose the amounts of iodine in its composition, and this will be harmful to the health of the population.

"The fact that the salt bags say it is iodine is no guarantee that it will be," warns endocrinologist Rima Ribera de Parrish. "If the salt is exposed to the sun or gets wet, it loses the properties of iodine", he adds, so it is alerted that the authorities that oversee the quality control of the products and the way of selling in the centers of supply, kiosks, supermarkets, must be very careful handling this element. "

On May 6, 2016, the newspaper El Espectador published a message by the social media informing about the illegal exploitation of salt in La Guajira, indicating:

"Behind this illegal network is a series of" millers ", the ones in charge of commercializing the brine through various products that would not have minimum quality standards. They added that with these actions they are deceiving to different buyers who do not know "the bad quality of the product and harming the environment".

Despite these disturbing news, the Panamanian Authority for Food Safety ( AUPSA) has maintained the mechanisms of physical verification, without resorting to another type of analysis, of salt from Colombia.

• Panamanian sea salt is superior to imported salt. 

Salt of Mine or Gem as produced in Chile (El Gran Salar) is rock salt, which has a concentration of Sodium Chloride of 85% and 15% of impurities or (rut), this Salt, is sent to the refineries in the form of raw brine, where calcium, magnesium and impurities like other micronutrients (54 tracks) are removed by the dosage of sodium carbonate and caustic soda in the reactors, precipitating the impurities.

Later they go through the process of crystallization and dosing of Fluorine, Iodine and anticompactant, becoming salt for human consumption. This salt is appreciated a little whiter by the sustenances of the mentioned chemical effects and its granules are finer by the effect of the process known as crystallization.

Sea Salt is obtained through sea water, which is carried to lakes and crystals, where, due to sun exposure and warm winds, the water evaporates giving origin to the salt grain. From there it is extracted to be submitted to wash, and dry milling, which makes its grains more triangular and less white, but more pure and with a high content of micro-nutrients by which it is called "THE SALT OF LIFE." Subsequently, the salt is sieved and added with Iodine, Fluorine and Anticompactant.

Sea salt gives the body more minerals than the salt of minerals or gems, essential for the formation of bones, teeth, red blood cells, hair growth, tissue development, synthesis of hormones and for the most part of the chemical reactions in which the enzymes intervene, making it better for human consumption. Digital Pharma News Magazine summarizes the differences between this type of salt, which makes the sea salt healthier than mine, as well as other environmental benefits generated by its consumption. The main differences are:

a)   The content of mine salt is sodium chloride and other minerals such as magnesium, potassium, iodine, among others. Sea salt, moreover, has more trace elements and minerals, above all, has a higher content of iodine and not of sodium, which contributes to the health of the organism.

b)   The minerals contained in the salt of the mine make it have a lighter taste, which means that more food has to be used for the preparation of food. Sea salt has a higher flavor intensity because it contains attractive crystals and, because it is a naturally iodinated product, adds a gourmet flavor to the food, with less quantity.

c) At the ecological level, mining salt extraction also has a negative impact as rivers, streams and aquifers are contaminated by extraction. Much water is also used for the maintenance, washing of the mine and for its own extraction; In addition to this, there is also a labor risk in the extraction process. In sea salt there are no processes, the sea has been undulating for millions of years, wasting all the minerals and stones that exist on the planet. These particles are suspended in seawater, evaporating the sea salt.

The above indicates that the product of FENCOSPA RL has a quality superior to the salt of imported mine or Gem, an aspect that must be considered by the governmental entities, to define a policy of support for the salt production sector. It is not only a question of preventing the leakage of foreign exchange, but also about supporting a national product with unquestionable importance for the health of the inhabitants of the country.

• The Himalayan Salt that is not from the Himalayas (misleading advertising) .

The Himalayan salt is not from the Himalayas, but from an area where the industrial village called Kherwa is located on the plains of the Pakistani Punjab, a couple of kilometers from the Jhelum River, 288 meters above sea level, and next to the Dandot Cement Factory. According to the information available "the name of this salt was created by Peter Ferreira in the 90's, only for commercial purposes to be able to carry out its sale in Germany" [ix].

Based on studies carried out by the Bavarian Consumer Protection Agency, the German public-sector ZDF presented a model in which it could be seen how, in addition to 96% sodium chloride, Himalayan salt is contaminated with 2-3% gypsum (polyhalite), and small amounts of up to 10 different minerals. The only difference between this set and the table salt consumed in Europe is its processing, in which sodium vapors are passed over the sodium chloride crystals, so that the chloride ions combine with ions of the metal, giving rise to that characteristic pink coloration.

As noted earlier, the AUPSA sized packages of Himalayan Salt, finding that it had been introduced as "raw material". However, nothing has been done to deal with the misleading advertising that accompanies this brand and, moreover, the German government, specifically the Bavarian Consumer Protection Agency, has not been asked for the results of the chemical analyzes carried out on this product.

• Balanced food for animals is imported as table salt or cooking. 

Products Nevada, S. De RL allegedly imported 13,275.28 kg, 24.33% of table salt or cooking. This company was acquired by the cooperative de Productores de Leche DOS Pinos RL of Costa Rica, in May 2013 [x]. The Nevada Plant - located in Chiriquí - produces whole milk, semi-skimmed, skimmed, flavored and oats; as well as fruit juices under the brands Nevada, Chiricana and Tutti Frutti. Products Nevada SA imported 13,275.28 kg from Costa Rica, which entered PasoCanoas. See attached figure.

However, this product was entered in Costa Rica as: "brand, in international class 31, to protect and distinguish: animal feedingstuffs " [xi] In addition, according to the Nice Classification of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), it describes Class 31 as follows: "Grains and agricultural, horticultural and forestry products, not included in other classes; live animals; fresh fruits and vegetables and legumes; seeds; natural plants and flowers; feed for animals; malt". How is AUPSA justified to include a product intended to provide a balanced feed to animals, such as table salt or cooking?

• Salt is imported with the tariff item of table salt, but it is industrial salt. Another striking case concerns imports from Lavery Panameña, SA, which imported 6,000 kg of "Refined Salt" in 2015. On its website this company offers different food products such as Cheeses, Butters, Margarine, Mayonnaise and Mustard, Sauces and Pasta. Consequently, imported salt is transformed into the production of its products, as indicated on its advertising website by indicating that they use "domestic and foreign raw materials of high quality".

Now there is a difference between the Industrial Salt and Table Salt or Cooking; the Refined Salt consists of an almost pure proportion of NaCl (99.9%), and it is not obligatory that it is iodized. Table salt, on the other hand, has a lower degree of refinement, reaching a concentration of 95% in sodium chloride, but iodine is mandatory. This type of salt is used mainly in food and is usually found in the sealers that are in the tables of meals (hence its name: table salt). However, AUPSA has classified these imports in the heading of "Table Salt or Cooking". Consequently, imports of Lavery Pan.

THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IN THE MARKET OF LA SAL.

1. The market for salt imports lacks transparency and equity, to the detriment of FENCOSPA RL We have shown that non-saline products have entered the country as such. In addition, large shipments of salt have been received from countries such as Colombia, where the news media have repeatedly denounced the presence of poor quality salt.

2. An important aspect to consider is the level of purity of this product. Costa Rica, for example, applies the Central American Tariff System (SAC), which establishes that table salt or cooking must have a minimum of 99.9% purity. However, the Costa Rican Customs Laboratories have found levels of 99.7%, which has forced to reclassify the imported material in the tariff section 2501.00. 90.99 (Sales, even in aqueous dissolution or with the addition of anti-caking agents or agents that guarantee good fluidity), leading to a change in the settlement of the applicable taxes in favor of the tax authorities.

3. In the case of Panama, AUPSA does not practice laboratory tests in customs, restricting itself to superficial physical inspection. Once this deficiency has been corrected, the import market will become transparent and the value of the product will undoubtedly change. In these conditions of low transparency and equity FENCOSPA RL faces unfair competition.

4. As will be seen later, FENCOSPA RL is in a position to compete successfully in the domestic market, and even to enter the international market, but it is necessary that the Panamanian state applies the existing regulations for the safeguard of the national salt produced. FENCOSPA RL can become a strategic ally of the Ministry of Health (MINSA) of Panama to reduce the hypertension rates of the population, as a result, among other factors of excessive table salt intake.


[i]   Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), Salt Reduction Initiative in the Americas: Fact Sheet, 2009. URL: http://new.paho.org/hq/dmdocuments/2009/sal_ini_hoja_inf.pdf . Accessed January 9, 2016.
[ii]   MENCHÚ, M. T, H. MÉNDEZ. Analysis of the Food Situation in Panama. Guatemala: INCAP, 2011. URL:   www.incap.int/.../660- panama-report- analysis- of- situation - food
[iii]   Own elaboration based on the Population Censuses and the Agricultural Census of the Comptroller General of the Republic of Panama.
[iv] NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF PANAMÁ, Executive Decree that Regulates Article 18 Cabinet Decree 366 of 1969, On the Salt Industry in the Country, Modified by Law 43 of 2000. URL: http://docs.panama.justia.com/ federal / executive-decrees / 20-of-2001-mar-6-2001.pdf. Read on December 17, 2015.
[v] "Griffith restructures operations in Panama", in: La Prensa , Panama, July 05 , 2003. URL: http://impresa.prensa.com/economia/Griffith-reestructura-operaciones Panama_0_960654049.html . Retrieved on December 17, 2015.
[saw] IMPO, Normative and Legal Notices of Uruguay, Decree No. 375/990. National Plan for the Fluorination of Salt for Human Consumption. Oral Pathology. Uruguay, Promulgated on 08/17/1990. URL: http://www.impo.com.uy/bases/decretos/375-1990 . Read on December 17, 2015.
[vii]   " Poor Quality Salt Market Grows ", In: El Tiempo , Colombia, March 13, 1995 , URL: http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/MAM-273365
[viii]   Ibídem .
[ix] "The Himalayan Salt Scam", In Home Cooking, URL: http://www.cocina-casera.com/2015/01/estafa-sal-himalaya.html, Read January 13, 2016 .
[x]   "Dos Pinos received the guarantee to buy the Panamanian milk plant Nevada", In: La Prensa, Panama, May 15, 2013 , URL. http: // w ww.nacion.com/economia/Pinos-recibio-comprar-panamena-Nevada_0_1341665900.html . Read January 8, 2016.
[xi] La Gaceta Nº 184, Costa Rica, Tuesday, September 25, 2007. URL: www.gaceta.go.cr/pub/2007/09/2 5 / comp_25_09_2007.pdf . Read January 8, 2016.

Situación del Mercado Voluntario de Carbono (VIDEO)

El lado oscuro de la sal en Panama

Francisco Rivas Ríos.

El lunes 28 de agosto de 2017, en rueda de prensa, el Ministro de Salud (MINSA) y la Asociación de Restaurantes y Afines de Panamá (ARAP), informaron que iniciarán un plan de medidas para disminuir el consumo de sal en el país, con el objetivo de proveer una mejor calidad de vida a la población.

La implementación de la estrategia consistirá en que los 400 restaurantes que conforman la ARAP procederán a retirar los saleros de las mesas, dejando su consumo a discreción de los clientes.

Aun reconociendo el propósito positivo de la iniciativa, carece de efectividad pues adolece de obligatoriedad y, además, refleja un desconocimiento de las características de la economía salinera en Panamá. Como veremos a continuación, hay asuntos relacionados con la sal que merecen mayor atención.

Como parte de las iniciativas sobre la reducción de la sal en América Latina, en 2009 la Organización Panamericana de la Salud (OPS), estimó un consumo aparente de sal en Panamá en un rango de 9.15- 12.35 gramos diarios[i]. Posteriormente, el Instituto de Nutrición de Centroamérica y Panamá (INCAP), estimó que, en las áreas urbanas y rurales, el consumo de sal de mesa era similar, en torno a los 10 gramos por persona[ii]. Mientras tanto se ha estimado el consumo animal en 20 gramos diarios por cabeza.

Si tomamos como base 10 gr/día/persona y 20gr/cabeza/día, podemos cifrar demanda aparente de sal en 2014 en 13,368 ton. para consumo humano y 11,763 ton. para consumo animal, arrojando un total de 25,131 toneladas[iii].

La Cadena de Valor de la industria de la sal en Panamá se estructura en 4 componentes principales: 1) el productor; 2) la industria; 3) el canal comercial; y 4) el consumidor.

Se pueden identificar dos Cadenas de Valor: la generada con las importaciones de sal, y la que corresponde a la producción nacional de sal cruda.

La oferta de sal para distintos propósitos (industrial, de mesa, principalmente) aumentó de manera sostenida a partir de 2010 Como se observa en la Tabla No. 1., en 2014 la oferta total de sal ascendió a 36,987.12 toneladas métricas.

En el ámbito nacional la producción es realizada, principalmente, por las cooperativas afiliadas a FENCOSPA R.L. Las salinas se localizan en la Provincia de Los Santos y son de tipo marino, situadas en la costa específicamente en áreas llamadas “albinas”, extensiones de tierra con poca o ninguna vegetación por la inclemente inundación de agua salada.

El agua de mar es captada aprovechando las mareas altas (“aguaje”) y transportada por medio de canales hasta los “tercios” o “lagos”, excavaciones poco profundas de entre 1 y 2 metros de profundidad por alrededor de 100 x 100 metros de diámetro, los cuales al perforarse en su base permiten la entrada de la sal que se produce en el extranjero ingresa a Panamá de dos maneras: como materia prima: sal refinada industrial, y en menor medida como Cloruro de Sodio Puro (Grado Analítico) y como producto final para el consumo humano y animal.

La sal importada ingresa a Panamá de dos maneras, como materia prima: sal refinada industrial, y en menor medida como Cloruro de Sodio Puro (Grado Analítico) y como producto final para el consumo humano y animal. La sal cruda procede de dos fuentes: sal marina y sal de roca (o gema). 

Las importaciones de sal constituyen el problema de fondo, pero invisible a los ojos de la opinión pública y de los tomadores de decisión, porque en torno a ellas se mueven poderosos intereses empresariales. Veamos varias situaciones desconocidas para el común de los panameños:

• Sal industrial importada no cumple con la obligación de yodarse.

La importación de Sal Refinada Industrial ha sido objeto de cuestionamientos. El Ministerio de Salud (MINSA) emitió el Decreto 20 de marzo de 2001, indicándose que toda sal que se procese, produzca o se obtenga para el consumo humano debería contener una cantidad de yodo entre 20-60 mg/kg (20-60 ppm)[iv].

El MINSA aplicó el Decreto 20 de marzo de 2001 a estas importaciones, lo cual acarreó la retención de los embarques en ese año.  Esta decisión provocó la protesta generalizada de los empresarios dedicados a la industria de embutidos cárnicos, snacks y sopas. Finalmente, en marzo de 2001 las autoridades del MINSA suspendieron la aplicación del decreto a este rubro.

Una de las principales importadoras que protestaron, fue la transnacional estadounidense Laboratorios Griffith S.A., dedicada a la producción de condimentos para alimentos y salsas en sobres pequeños.  Laboratorios Griffith S.A. importa de la Sal Refinada Industrial desde su país de origen, la utiliza como materia prima en sus productos y los exporta a América Latina, teniendo entre sus clientes más grandes las cadenas de restaurantes de comida rápida como KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, McDonald's y Burger King[v].

En opinión de algunos industriales la disposición de obligar el uso de sal industrial yodada “no existe en ningún país de mundo”, lo cual es parcialmente cierto. Para evitar que la sal refinada industrial no yodada sea utilizada para consumo humano, en Uruguay, por ejemplo, se comercializa en bolsas de 50 kg (mientras que la norma en Panamá es de 25 kg) y deberá lucir claramente la leyenda: “Sal Para uso industrial no apta para el consumo Humano"[vi], exigencia que no existe en Panamá.

• La prensa colombiana denuncia la producción de sal de mala calidad.

Uno de los principales exportadores de sal a Panamá es Colombia.

Desde 1995 los medios periodísticos de Colombia, han denunciado la existencia de sal de mala calidad.  En 1995 el Periódico El Tiempo informó:

“el Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar Familiar (Icbf) y las direcciones seccionales de salud de Bogotá y de los departamentos del Atlántico, Antioquia, Bolívar, Meta, Santander y Valle.

El documento asegura que el 70 por ciento de la sal que se consume en el territorio nacional no es apta para el consumo humano o no cumple con las condiciones exigidas por el Ministerio de Salud.

Por ello, las dos terceras partes de la sal que actualmente se comercializa en el país está inadecuadamente yodada, lo que expone a la población colombiana a sufrir desórdenes por la deficiencia de este elemento, como retardo mental, cretinismo, disminución del coeficiente intelectual y del desarrollo físico, en especial de los niños y los jóvenes, dice el estudio.

En el caso de la sal venezolana y peruana que llega a Colombia, se encontraron índices peores de contenido de yodo que en la nacional, pero es muy difícil saber si esto se origina en las plantas procesadoras de estos países o se hace en país, en el momento de reempacar”[vii]].

Es decir, en 1995 el problema se encontraba tanto en las importaciones de sal venezolana y peruana, como la procesada en Colombia. Es importante destacar que la empresa involucrada que la “sal que importan ya viene purificada y seleccionada y muestran constancias del servicio seccional de salud de Norte de Santander donde se asegura que sí cumple con los requisitos exigidos y que vende un producto más barato”[viii]].

En 2013 la Sociedad Científica de Endocrinólogos de Colombia, informó que los casos de bocio, de los que solo se debería hablar como un dato del pasado, “vuelven a ser advertidos por los profesionales de salud en las diferentes consultas de los hospitales y centros médicos de la ciudad”.

La información agrega:

“Los especialistas alertan que algo está fallando y lo primero que se debe revisar es la sal de mesa que a diario se consume. Si bien es una disposición de las autoridades competentes a nivel nacional, yodar la sal de mesa que se comercializa, esto no es garantía de que aquel producto de uso básico en los hogares, sea el más apropiado para la salud de los cruceños. Los profesionales de salud advierten que bajo ciertos descuidos en el manejo de la sal al momento de ser comercializada, puede llegar a perder las cantidades de yodo en su composición, y ello resultar dañino para la salud de la población.

“El hecho de que las bolsas de sal digan que es yodada no es garantía de que así sea”, advierte la endocrinóloga Rima Ribera de Parrish. “Si la sal es expuesta al sol o se humedece, pierde las propiedades de yodo”, complementa, por ello se alerta que las autoridades que fiscalizan el control de calidad de los productos y la forma de venta en los centros de abasto, kioscos, supermercados, deben tener mucho cuidado manipulando este elemento”.

El 6 de mayo de2016 el periódico El Espectador difundió un mensaje por los medios sociales informando de la explotación ilegal de sal en La Guajira indicando:

“Detrás de esta red ilegal está una serie de “molineros”, los encargados de comercializar la salmuera a través de diversos productos que no tendrían los estándares de calidad mínima. Agregaron que con estas acciones están engañando a distintos compradores que no conocen” la mala calidad del producto y perjudicando el medio ambiente”.

A pesar de estas noticias inquietantes, la Autoridad Panameña de Seguridad de Alimentos (AUPSA) ha mantenido los mecanismos de verificación física, sin recurrir a otro tipo de análisis, de la sal procedente de Colombia.

• La sal marina panameña es superior a la sal de mina importada.

La Sal de Mina o Gema como la producida en Chile (El Gran Salar) es la sal en roca la cual presenta una concentración de Cloruro de Sodio del 85% y un 15% de impurezas o (rute), esta Sal, es enviada a las refinadoras en forma de salmuera cruda, donde se le quita el calcio, magnesio e impurezas como demás micro nutrientes (54 trazas) mediante la dosificación de carbonato de sodio y soda cáustica en los reactores, precipitando las impurezas. Posteriormente pasan al proceso de recristalización y dosificación del Flúor, Yodo y anticompactante convirtiéndose en sal para consumo humano. Esta sal se aprecia un poco más blanca por los sustentos de los efectos químicos mencionados y sus gránulos son más finos por efecto del proceso conocido como recristalización.

La Sal de Mar se obtiene a través del agua de mar, la cual es llevada a lagos y cristalizadores, donde por efectos de exposición solar y cálidos vientos, el agua se evapora dando origen al grano de Sal. De allí se extrae para ser sometida a lavado, y molienda en seco, lo que hace que sus granos sean más triangulares y menos blancos, pero más puros y con alto contenido de micro -nutrientes por los cuales se le denomina “LA SAL DE LA VIDA”. Posteriormente, la sal es tamizada y adicionada con Yodo, Flúor y Anticompactante.

La sal marina aporta al cuerpo mayor cantidad de minerales que la sal de mina o gema indispensables para la formación de los huesos, los dientes, los glóbulos rojos, el crecimiento del cabello, elaboración de los tejidos, síntesis de hormonas y en la mayor parte de las reacciones químicas en las que intervienen las enzimas por lo cual es mejor para el consumo humano. 

La Revista Digital PharmaNews resume de la siguiente forma las diferencias entre este tipo de sales, mismas que hacen a la sal de mar más saludable que la de mina, además de otras ventajas ambientales que genera su consumo. Las principales diferencias son:

a) El contenido de sal de mina es de cloruro de sodio y otros minerales como magnesio, potasio, yodo, entre otros. La sal de mar, además, posee más oligoelementos y minerales, sobre todo, tiene mayor contenido en yodo y no de sodio, lo que contribuye a la salud del organismo.

b) Los minerales que contiene la sal de mina hacen que ésta tenga un sabor más ligero, lo que genera que se tenga que usar mayor cantidad para la preparación de alimentos.  La sal de mar tiene mayor intensidad de sabor por contener cristales característicos atractivos y, por tratarse de un producto naturalmente yodado, agrega un sabor gourmet a la comida, con menos cantidad.

c) A nivel de ecología, la extracción de sal de mina también tiene un impacto negativo ya que, al extraerse se contaminan ríos, riachuelos y mantos acuíferos. También se utiliza mucha agua para el mantenimiento, lavado de la mina y para su propia extracción; aunado a esto, también existe un riesgo laboral en su proceso de extracción. En la sal de mar no existen procesos, el mar se mueve onduladamente desde hace millones de años, desgastando todos los minerales y piedras que existen en el planeta. Esas partículas están en suspensión en el agua del mar, evaporándose queda la sal de mar.

Lo anterior indica que el producto de FENCOSPA R.L. tiene una calidad superior a la sal de mina o Gema importada, un aspecto que debe ser considerado por las entidades gubernamentales, para definir una política de apoyo al sector salinero. No se trata únicamente de evitar la fuga de divisas, sino también de apoyar un producto nacional con incuestionable importancia para la salud de los habitantes del país.

• La Sal del Himalaya que no es del Himalaya (publicidad engañosa).

La sal del Himalaya no es del Himalaya, sino de una zona donde se localiza el pueblo industrial llamado Kherwa en las llanuras del Punjab paquistaní, a un par de kilómetros del río Jhelum, a 288 metros sobre el nivel del mar, y junto a la Fábrica de Cemento Dandot. De acuerdo con la información disponible “el nombre de esta sal fue creado por Peter Ferreira en la década de los 90, únicamente con fines comerciales para poder llevar a cabo su venta en Alemania” [ix]

Sobre la base de los estudios realizados por la Agencia de Protección del Consumidor de Baviera, la cadena pública alemana ZDF presentó un modelo en el que se podía ver cómo, además de un 96% de cloruro de sodio, la Sal del Himalaya está contaminada con un 2-3% de yeso (polihalita), y pequeñas cantidades de hasta 10 minerales distintos.

La única diferencia entre esta sal y la sal de mesa que se consume en Europa, es su proceso de elaboración, en el que se hacen pasar vapores de sodio sobre los cristales de cloruro de sodio, de forma que los iones cloruro se combinan con iones del metal, dando lugar a esa coloración rosada característica.

Como se indicó anteriormente, la AUPSA decomisó paquetes de la Sal del Himalaya, al constatar que se había introducido como “materia prima”. No obstante, nada se ha hecho para enfrentar la publicidad engañosa que acompaña esta marca y, más aun, no se ha solicitado al gobierno de Alemania, específicamente a la Agencia de Protección del Consumidor de Baviera, los resultados los análisis químicos realizados a este producto.

• Alimento balanceado para animales se importa como sal de mesa o cocina.

Productos Nevada, S. de R.L. supuestamente importó 13,275.28 Kg, el 24.33% de sal de mesa o cocina. Esta empresa fue adquirida por la Cooperativa de Productores de Leche Dos Pinos R.L de Costa Rica, en mayo de 2013[x]. La Planta Nevada —ubicada en Chiriquí— produce leches enteras, semidescremadas, descremadas, saborizadas y con avena; así como jugos de frutas, bajo las marcas Nevada, Chiricana y Tutti Frutti. 

Productos Nevada S.A. importó 13,275.28 Kg procedentes de Costa Rica, los cuales ingresaron por Paso Canoas. Véase la figura adjunta.

Sin embargo, este producto fue inscrito en Costa Rica como: “marca de fábrica, en clase 31 internacional, para proteger y distinguir: alimentos balanceados para animales”[xi] Además,  de acuerdo con la Clasificación de Niza de la Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual (WIPO por sus siglas en inglés) describe la Clase 31 de la siguiente forma: “Granos y productos agrícolas, hortícolas y forestales, no comprendidos en otras clases; animales vivos; frutas y verduras, hortalizas y legumbres frescas; semillas; plantas y flores naturales; alimentos para animales; malta”.

¿Cómo se justifica que AUPSA aceptara incluir un producto destinado a proporcionar alimentos balanceados a los animales, como sal de mesa o cocina?

• Se importa sal con el inciso arancelario de la sal de mesa pero es sal industrial.

Otro caso llamativo se refiere a las importaciones de Lavery Panameña, S.A., la cual importó en 2015 6,000 Kg de “Sal Refinada”. En su página web esta empresa ofrece distintos productos alimenticios tales como Quesos, Mantequillas, Margarina, Mayonesas y Mostaza, Salsas y Pasta. Por consiguiente, la sal importada es transformada en la elaboración de sus productos, tal y como se indica en su página web publicitaria al indicar que utilizan “materias primas nacionales y extranjeras de alta calidad”.

Ahora bien, existe una diferencia entre la Sal Refinada Industrial y la Sal de Mesa o Cocina; la Sal Refinada consta de una proporción casi pura de NaCl (99,9%), y no es obligatorio que esté yodada. La Sal de Mesa, en cambio, posee un grado de refinamiento menor pudiendo llegar a una concentración de 95% de peso en cloruro sódico, pero el yodo es obligatorio. Este tipo de sal es empleado fundamentalmente en alimentación y se suele encontrar generalmente en los saleros que hay en las mesas de comidas (de ahí su denominación: sal de mesa).

Sin embargo, AUPSA ha clasificado estas importaciones en el rubro de “Sal de Mesa o Cocina” . Por consiguiente, las importaciones de Lavery Panameña, S.A. deberían reclasificarse en términos arancelarios.

LA FALTA DE TRANSPARENCIA EN EL MERCADO DE LA SAL.

1. El mercado de las importaciones de sal carece de transparencia y equidad, en perjuicio de FENCOSPA R.L. Hemos demostrado que contingentes de productos no salinos, han entrado al país como tales. Además, se han recibido grandes embarques de sal procedentes de países como Colombia, en donde reiteradamente los medios periodísticos han denunciado la presencia de sal de mala calidad.
2. Un aspecto importante a considerar es el nivel de pureza de este producto. Costa Rica, por ejemplo, aplica el Sistema Arancelario Centroamericano (SAC), el cual establece que la sal de mesa o cocina deben tener un mínimo de 99.9 % de pureza. Sin embargo, los Laboratorios aduaneros costarricenses han encontrado niveles de 99.7%, lo cual ha obligado a reclasificar el material importado en la fracción arancelaria 2501.00. 90.99 (Sales, Incluso en Disolución Acuosa o con Adición de Antiaglomerantes o de Agentes que garanticen una buena fluidez), conllevando una modificación en la liquidación de los gravámenes aplicables a favor del fisco.
3.  En el caso de Panamá la AUPSA no practica exámenes de laboratorio en las aduanas, restringiéndose a la inspección física superficial. Una vez corregida esta deficiencia, el mercado de las importaciones se volverá transparente y el valor del producto sin duda sufrirá cambios. En estas condiciones de escasa transparencia y equidad FENCOSPA R.L. enfrenta una competencia desleal.
4. Como se verá más adelante, FENCOSPA R.L. está en condiciones de competir con éxito en el mercado nacional, e incluso incursionar en el mercado internacional, pero se hace necesario que el estado panameño aplique la normativa existente para la salvaguarda del productor salinero nacional. FENCOSPA R.L. se puede convertir en un aliado estratégico del Ministerio de Salud (MINSA) de Panamá para reducir los índices de hipertensión arterial de la población, como resultado, entre otros factores de la excesiva ingesta de sal de mesa.

---

[i] Organización Panamericana de la Salud (OPS), Iniciativa sobre la reducción de sal en las Américas: Hoja Informativa, 2009. URL: http://new.paho.org/hq/dmdocuments/2009/sal_ini_hoja_inf.pdf. Consultado el 9 de enero de 2016.

[ii] MENCHÚ, M. T, H. MÉNDEZ. Análisis de la Situación Alimentaria en Panamá. Guatemala: INCAP, 2011. URL: www.incap.int/.../660-panama-informe-analisis-de-situacion-alimentaria

[iii] Elaboración propia a partir de los Censos de Población y los Censos Agropecuarios de la Contraloría General de la República de Panamá.

[iv] ASAMBLEA NACIONAL DE PANAMÁ, Decreto Ejecutivo que Reglamenta el Articulo 18 el Decreto de Gabinete 366 de 1969, Sobre la Industria Salinera en el País, Modificado por la Ley 43 de 2000. URL: http://docs.panama.justia.com/federales/decretos-ejecutivos/20-de-2001-mar-6-2001.pdf . Leído el 17 de diciembre de 2015.

[v] “Griffith reestructura operaciones en Panamá”, en: La Prensa, Panamá, 05 jul 2003. URL:  http://impresa.prensa.com/economia/Griffith-reestructura-operaciones Panama_0_960654049.html. Consultado el 17 de diciembre de 2015.

[vi] IMPO, Normativa y Avisos Legales del Uruguay, Decreto N° 375/990. Plan Nacional de Fluoracion de la Sal para Consumo Humano. Patología Bucal. Uruguay, Promulgado el 17/08/1990. URL: http://www.impo.com.uy/bases/decretos/375-1990 . Leído el 17 de diciembre de 2015.

[vii] “Crece Mercado de Sal de Mala Calidad”, En: El Tiempo, Colombia, 13 de marzo de 1995, URL: http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/MAM-273365 

[viii] Ibídem.

[ix] “La estafa de la Sal del Himalaya”, En Cocina Casera, URL: http://www.cocina-casera.com/2015/01/estafa-sal-himalaya.html, Leído el 13 de enero de 2016.

[x] “Dos Pinos recibió el aval para comprar la planta panameña de leche Nevada”, En: La Prensa, Panamá, 15 de mayo de 2013, URL. http://www.nacion.com/economia/Pinos-recibio-comprar-panamena-Nevada_0_1341665900.html. Leído el 8 de enero de 2016.

[xi] La Gaceta Nº 184, Costa Rica, Martes 25 de setiembre de 2007. URL: www.gaceta.go.cr/pub/2007/09/25/comp_25_09_2007.pdf . Leído el 8 de enero de 2016.

---