Panama’s Supreme Court has upheld the environmental approval for Puerto Barú near David, giving the proposed Chiriquí port a legal victory while another challenge to the same approval reportedly remains pending.
The decision, reported on October 26, rejected a challenge brought by six environmental organizations against the Environment Ministry’s January 2024 approval of the project’s Category III environmental-impact study.
Puerto Barú welcomed the ruling in a statement, saying the court had declared the approval resolution lawful. According to the company, the judges found that the claimants had not substantiated the alleged legal violations and that the project did not overlap the mangrove area examined.
La Prensa reported that the court must still decide a separate challenge brought by lawyers Martita Cornejo and Manuel Alejandro Ruiz Cornejo.
The proposed port lies approximately 20 kilometres from David, in western Panama. Its developer, Ocean Pacific Investments, says it would improve international connections for the region’s producers and businesses. The company’s latest statement estimates investment at approximately $250 million; Bloomberg’s recent report cited $260 million.
The disagreement centres on the port’s location and its effects beyond the land occupied by its facilities.
CIAM and other environmental groups argue that dredging and shipping could damage the Manglares de David ecosystem. They have challenged the adequacy of the environmental assessment and public consultation, and advocated relocating the project to Puerto Armuelles.
The developer disputes predictions of irreversible damage. It told Bloomberg that potential effects had been extensively assessed and that the review included a public hearing.
Bloomberg’s October 22 report also disclosed that financier and Islas Secas resort owner Louis Bacon had helped finance opposition to the project, including Adopta Bosque’s legal expenses and an alternative-location proposal.
The wider dispute includes separate proceedings involving environmental organizations’ assets. CIAM describes those measures as intimidation; the developer disputes the organizations’ criticism.
The latest ruling concerns one challenge to the environmental approval. It does not establish that the port is operating or that every outstanding proceeding has concluded.
Sources: Bloomberg, Prensa, CIAM
