Words often promise more than reality. The greenwashing, as it’s called, consists not only of advertising campaigns, but also of political and communication strategies that manipulate environmental language to legitimize extractivism.
In this way, the so-called“Eco-ports” promise“sustainable tourism” and “blue progress,” But, unfortunately, irreversible damage is hidden behind the green rhetoric. Environmental marketing can mask the ecological impact. The report by CSF compares Latin American cases where large port projects promised development and modernization, but in practice caused profound damage to ecosystems and communities.
Expansion that displaced communities: the case of the Port of Santos (Brazil)
The Port of Santos, the largest in Latin America, was presented as a model aimed at boosting São Paulo’s economy through technology and energy efficiency. However, the CSF analysis (based on Ferreira & Clauzet, 2014 and Rajab et al., 2020 pp. 17-21) reveals that the port expansion buried large areas of mangrove and altered flooding patterns in the traditional community Caiçara de la Isla Diana, dependent on artisanal fishing.
The report shows that the port project generated a loss of traditional livelihoods, cultural displacement and the breakdown of community ties, while promises of employment and infrastructure were never fulfilled.
This case demonstrates how the corporate language of “progress” was instrumentalized to legitimize industrial expansion, making the social and environmental costs invisible.
“Since 2003, the way of life of the Caiçara inhabitants of Diana Island has been affected by negative socio-environmental impacts due to the installation of new port terminals… despite the commitments made to mitigate these impacts, these were not adequately fulfilled.” (CSF, 2024, pp. 19–21)
Cumulative impacts and ecological erosion: the case of Buenaventura (Colombia)
The Port of Buenaventura has been publicly presented as an “eco-efficient port,” according to media and authorities, who highlight its supposed environmental commitment despite scientific evidence on erosion, mangrove degradation, and accumulated pollution.
The CSF report (pp. 26–30) documents, based on the National Environmental Licensing Authority (ANLA, 2020), that continuous dredging and port expansion caused severe coastal erosion, loss of mangroves, and pollution from hydrocarbons and heavy metals.
The report lists (p. 28) the cumulative impacts: loss of subtidal habitats, bioaccumulation of pollutants, reduction of fishery resources and displacement of Afro-descendant communities.
Although a discourse of “environmental responsibility and shared progress” was disseminated, in practice, local populations did not benefit from port growth and social indicators (employment, housing, security) continued to deteriorate.
“Port activities and dredging generated loss of biodiversity, modification of habitats, displacement of the coastline and significant effects on traditional artisanal fishing communities.”
(CSF, 2024, p. 28)
The cases analyzed by the CSF (2024) show a common pattern (pp. 33–34):
- Negative impacts on local communities, including artisanal fishermen.
- Lack of clear contribution from Environmental Impact Studies to the reduction and compensation of impacts on coastal ecosystems, including corals and mangroves.
- Need to include all affected parties from the initial stages of the decision.
These patterns serve as a direct warning for Panama: When “progress” is promised, but the environmental cost falls on mangroves and communities, the country loses more than it gains.
This analysis, included in the chapter“2.1. Analysis of Case Studies report is presented by the CSF as a direct precedent to understand the risks of repeating the same model with the Puerto Barú project in David, within the protected area David’s Mangroves.
Panama’s mangroves, the biodiversity of the Gulf of Chiriquí, and its species and ecosystems need real protection. #NoToPuertoBarú #DefendTheMangroves #StandForNature #NoToPuertoBaru
EN