Freshwater Sources

Six Colombian Wetlands of Global Importance

Colombia is blessed with sweeping mountaintops, rich jungles, and rivers that curve through the heart of it all. The country has three mountain chains, fertile volcanic soils, half of the world’s páramos (high-altitude wetlands), an equatorial climate with constant high temperatures, the Amazon forest, and the waters of the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. Colombia is first in the world in diversity of birds and orchids, second in plants and amphibians, third in reptiles and palms, and fourth in mammals. To this I would add a long and diverse et cetera. Colombia’s environmental heritage includes six Wetlands of International Importance listed under the Ramsar Convention, a treaty that protects these environments. Their listing indicates their value not only for Colombia, but also for humanity. Where are they? Why are they important? What dangers do they face? 1. Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta, Magdalena River Delta Estuary System. In the department of Magdalena, the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta is Colombia’s largest wetland lagoon. Here the fresh water of the Magdalena River mixes with the salty waters of the Caribbean Sea. It’s a refuge for both migratory and endemic birds. It’s in danger due to infrastructure projects including 27 kilometers of dikes, the burning and clearing of plant life, and drought. AIDA has worked with two Colombia universities to advocate for the protection of the Ciénaga before the Ramsar Secretriat. 2. Chingaza Wetlands System. The Chingaza system of lagoons and páramos hosts many species of endangered plants and animals, such as the spectacled bear and the frailejón, a succulent shrub in the sunflower family. It also serves as a refuge for migratory birds. According to the Humboldt Institute, the Chingaza páramo provides 80 percent of Bogotá’s drinking water. At AIDA, we advocate for the protection of the páramos, unique ecosystems that cover just 1.7 percent of Colombia’s continental territory but provide more than 70 percent of the nation’s drinking water. 3. Otún Lagoon Wetlands Complex. The Otún Lagoon Complex in Los Nevados National Park, in the Central Cordillera of the Colombian Andes, includes interconnected lakes, bogs, marshes, glaciers, and páramos. The area supports 52 species of birds, many of them endangered. The livestock industry, litter, forest fires, invasive species, and illegal tourism activities all threaten the area. 4.  Baudó River Delta. Originating in the Serranía del Baudó, the Baudó River runs 180 kilometers through the department of Chocó and empties into the Pacific Ocean. A relatively short river, the Baudó swells from the region’s abundant rains and flows powerfully into the Pacific. The river delta’s main threats include indiscriminate mangrove removal and overfishing. 5.  Estrella Fluvial del Inírida Wetlands Complex. This complex of wetlands occupies a transition zone between the Orinoco and Amazon regions, close to the sacred indigenous site of Cerro de Mavicure. According to the Ministry of Environment, the area is home to 903 species of plants, 200 species of mammals, and 40 species of amphibians. Critically endangered species, including otters, jaguars, and pink dolphins, struggle to survive there. These wetlands face threats from the illegal mining of coltan and gold, and the accompanying mercury discharge. The buffer zone also suffers from cultivation of drug crops, the livestock industry, and deforestation. 6. La Cocha Lagoon. In the indigenous language of Quechua, cocha means lagoon. In the Department of Nariño, 2,800 meters above sea level, sits Colombia’s second-largest lagoon. On its banks live fishermen, farmers, and descendants of the indigenous Quillacinga people. Tourists come to spot unique plant and animal species on the small island of La Corota. The livestock industry, intensive agriculture, deforestation, and erosion threaten the lagoon. Valuable Characteristics The Ramsar Convention protects these sites because of their fundamental role in both regulating water cycles and providing habitat for unique plants and animals, particularly aquatic birds. Ramsar also recognizes the wetlands as important sources of fresh water, which recharge aquifers. They even mitigate climate change. The Convention calls worldwide attention to these wetlands, which have “great economic, cultural, scientific and recreational value, whose loss would be irreparable.” Despite their tremendous value, Colombia’s wetlands face a growing number of threats: overexploitation, water loss, burning, deforestation, toxic contamination, large-scale mining, large-scale agriculture, roads that disrupt the natural water cycle, and climate change, among others. In recent years, they’ve been featured in some of Colombia’s most emblematic films, including El Abrazo de la Serpiente (Estrella Fluvial del Indira) and La Sirga (Cocha Lake). It is our moral and social duty—under international environmental law and the Ramsar Convention—to care for the delicate richness of the wetlands that we are so fortunate to have in our diverse little corner of South America. 

New law banning mining in Colombia’s páramos could draw its first lawsuit

The new law that bans mining in Colombia’s páramos took years to materialize, and was the product of multiple activist campaigns, lawsuits, and pressure from civil society to preserve one of the world’s most sensitive ecosystems. Last month, Colombia’s Constitutional Court approved a law that has no precent. It bans mining and oil exploitation –effectively blocking 473 already-existing concessions– in the country’s páramos. The law is expected to impact more than 300 mining operations in 25 moorlands, according to data from the National Authority of Environmental Licenses (ANLA). One of those companies is the Canadian transnational, Eco Oro. Its Angostura mine is located within the Santurbán moorland, in the Norte de Santander and Santander departments, within an area larger than 142,000 hectares. Santurbán includes five regional parks and a variety of species in danger of extinction, such as the condor (Vultur gryphus), the chirriador (Cisttothorus apollinari), the moorland duck (Anas flavirostris) and the curí (Cavia porcellus). On its website, the company has announced that it is “developing a multi-million ounce gold-silver deposit in Colombia.” Eco Oro has already completed more than 350,000 meters of drilling and 3,000 meters of underground development, thanks to an investment by the International Financing Corporation of the World Bank.  Juan Orduz, president of Eco Oro’s board of directors, said back in 2014 –before the law was approved– that the company “has invested more than 240 million dollars in the region.”“It’s no secret that we’ve had many challenges and that we will keep having them. There’s always a new source of conflict, and even then, we’re going to keep coming up with strategies to keep working in this area,” said Orduz back then, when the demarcations for mining in Colombia’s páramos were an issue of conflict. In a recent press release, Eco Oro announced that it has the option of bringing the dispute to international arbitration and seeking “monetary compensation for the damages suffered” due to the new anti-mining law. “Since the Angostura project got underway, it has been clear that páramos are constitutionally and legally protected and that this project could affect Santurbán, such that it might not be authorized,” said Carlos Lozano Acosta, an attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “States should not be sanctioned for protecting their water sources, given that they are doing so in accordance with national and international obligations.” According to data from the Institute of Biological Research Alexander Von Humboldt, half of the world’s páramos are in Colombia and are the source of 70% of the fresh water in the country, besides being an ecosystem essential for mitigating climate change. Their importance is especially acute right now, since Colombia is facing the El Niño climate phenomenon and going through one of the worst droughts in its history. Eco Oro’s critics explain that five years ago, Colombia’s Environment Ministry had denied the Angostura mine its environmental license. And now, the decision of the Constitutional Court reaffirms that decision, “finding that the right to water and the protection of the páramos (moorlands) takes precedent over the economic interests of companies trying to develop mining projects in these ecosystems.” That’s according to Miguel Ramos, from the Water Defense Committee and the Páramo of Santurbán (El Comité por la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán). The Committee has presented a complaint about the Angostura mining project to The World Bank, and hopes to receive a response in the next few months.

Colombian court bans oil, gas and mining operations in paramos

Colombia’s Constitutional Court has ruled against a controversial legal loophole permitting oil, gas and mining operations in the country’s paramos - high altitude eco-systems. Colombia’s paramos are the most extensive on earth and supply more than 70% of the country’s population with water, according to the Bogota-based Alexander von Humboldt Institute. The loophole is in a June 2015 law implementing Colombia’s “National Development Plan 2014-2018.” The law prohibits “agricultural activities” and the “exploration for or exploitation of non-renewable natural resources”, as well as the “construction of oil and gas refineries”, in paramos, but then states that mining operations which have contracts and environmental licenses dating to before 9 February 2010, or oil and gas operations with contracts and licenses dating to before 16 June 2011, are exempted. This was challenged by four congressmen, three lawyers and 12 representatives from a coalition called the Cumbre Agraria, Campesina, Étnica y Popular, who argued that the loophole violates rights to the environment, water and Colombia’s patrimony because of the impacts oil, gas and mining operations would have on the paramos’ vegetation, soil, sub-soil and water. On 8 February the court’s ruling, which was made public on Thursday, deemed three paragraphs relating to the loophole in the June 2015 law “unconstitutional” - or “inexequible” in Colombian Spanish. “Paramo eco-systems exist in very few places in the world and Colombia is privileged to be the country that has the highest number of paramos globally,” senator Alberto Castillo, one of the plaintiffs, told the Guardian.“Because of this, we believe that the absolute ban on natural resource extraction that we now have in Colombia is of great magnitude and should delight the world.” “It’s a ruling that will make history,” says senator Iván Cepeda, another plaintiff. “The court went further than we hoped, without a doubt. [Mining and oil and gas operations in the paramos] is a serious abuse against natural resources, especially the fundamental right to water.” “The court’s ruling is a major advance in environmental matters,” Viviana Tacha, another plaintiff and an adviser to senator Castillo, told the Guardian. “No doubt about it, it’s a victory for the entire country and for the communities resisting the imposition of a development model based on natural resource extraction which fails to take into account the environment and local people. Given global concern about climate change, the protection of the paramos by the court is one of the most important recent decisions on environmental matters.” According to a communiqué by the court issued on 8 February, the offending three paragraphs “ignore the constitutional duty to protect areas of special ecological importance [and] put at risk the fundamental rights of the entire population to access good quality water.” The communiqué says the court arrived at its decision after “analyzing the state’s power to intervene in the economy and its duty to protect areas of special ecological importance, weighing them up against economic freedom and the rights of individuals to exploit the state’s resources.” It concluded that, in this case, the former overrides the latter for three reasons: 1) the current lack of protection of paramos; 2) the “fundamental role” played by paramos in regulating the country’s drinking water cycle and providing cheap, high-quality water to 70% of the population; and 3) the particular vulnerability of paramos due to their “relative isolation”, low temperatures and low oxygen levels. Carlos Lozano-Acosta, from the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), told the Guardian the court’s decision is “historic” and sets an example to other countries in the Andean region where there are paramos. “The paramos [in Colombia] are vital because they’re a source of drinking water for 70% of Colombians, strategic reserves of biodiversity, and carbon sequesters,” he says. “The court acknowledged all that in the sentence.” An ‘amicus brief’ sent to the court and written by Lozano-Acosta together with the Bogota-based NGO Asociación Ambiente y Sociedad (AAS) argued that the loophole contradicts Colombia’s constitution, international environmental law, and international treaties signed by Colombia, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Ramsar Convention. NGO Dejusticia, also based in Bogota, is another civil society organisation which sent an ‘amicus brief’ to the court, calling the crucial three paragraphs an “unjustified regression” because mining, oil and gas operations in paramos had already been banned back in 2010 and 2011. “Before [the June 2015] law, such activities were prohibited,” the NGO stated in an interview in Colombian newspaper El Espectador. “This means that the current National Development Plan is a step backwards in protecting the paramos.” That “regression” was acknowledged by the court in its ruling, which described the offending paragraphs as “reestablishing the possibility” of oil, gas and mining operations in paramos despite them being “prohibited by Laws 1382 in 2010 and 1450 in 2011.” “The paramos are key ecosystems and water sources which are insufficiently protected,” Dejusticia’s Diana Rodriguez told the Guardian. “We’re thrilled the court has taken a stand for their immediate protection and sent a message that economic development cannot sacrifice respect for the environment.” Just how big an impact the court’s ruling could or will have isn’t immediately clear. How many oil, gas or mining operations stand to be affected? In its interview with El Espectador, Dejusticia stated that the National Mining Agency (NMA) believes approximately 500 mining titles covering over 140,000 hectares of the paramos have been issued, while senator Castillo told the Guardian the NMA states there are currently 448 mining titles in paramos - 347 of which have environmental licences. “Taking into account that this is official information, which the court itself recognized, other sources have no basis in speaking of lower numbers,” Castillo says. “The three companies who have most mining titles in the paramos are AngloGold Ashanti Colombia S.A., Eco Oro Minerales Corp and Leytah Colombia.” Senator Cepeda told the Guardian the 448 mining titles include 26 of Colombia’s 32 paramos and extend for more than 118,000 hectares, “more than 11,000 of which are [also] affected by four oil and gas projects.” According to one media report, Environment Minister Gabriel Vallejo has said he will request a clarification from the court and believes that “other sources” say up to 522 titles could be affected. “There are very different estimates about the number of titles and even more confusion related to how many have environmental licenses,” says Dejusticia’s Rodriguez. “Indeed, some mining companies didn’t wait for the [court’s] full ruling [and] already announced that they will forego their mining concessions in the paramos.” Another question is how far Colombia’s paramos extend. Although the court’s ruling cites a 2011 Humboldt Institute publication stating there are 1.9 million hectares in Colombia, Humboldt’s Carlos Sarmiento told the Guardian their current estimate is 2.9 million hectares - 2.5% of national territory. That 2.9 million figure is also used by the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development. But what if the government disagrees that certain areas really are paramos, and permits oil, gas or mining operations to take place there anyway? As the court’s ruling acknowledges, the paragraph immediately preceding the three offending paragraphs in the June 2015 law states that ultimately it is the Environment Ministry which, according to its own “technical, environmental, social and economic criteria”, is responsible for “delimiting” paramos. And that paragraph wasn’t challenged by the plaintiffs. “The court’s decision could result ineffective given that that part of Article 174 wasn’t part of the lawsuit and Congress has given the Environment Ministry the function of delimiting paramos, and in doing that the Ministry isn’t subject to the scientific criteria established by the Alexander von Humboldt Institute,” the court ruled. “It would be possible for the Ministry to not delimit paramos, or exclude from delimitation, certain areas where mining or hydrocarbon operations are happening or are going to happen. That would nullify [our] decision because such operations could take place in areas that have been scientifically classified as paramos, but the Ministry has excluded.” AIDA’s Lozano-Acosta says that risk exists “without a doubt.” “But the court also said that the government mustn’t ignore the Humboldt Institute’s technical recommendations,” he told the Guardian. For senator Castillo, that risk only exists “if the Ministry doesn’t closely read the court’s sentence or doesn’t want to comply with it.” “In the court’s words, delimitation must ensure the maximum degree of protection,” Castillo says. “This is absolutely crucial given that what the government wants to do is reduce to the utmost the extent of the paramos via a very restricted delimitation process and thereby pave the way for exploitation. Dispute will continue in the delimitation of each paramo, but we will continue in their defence and the court’s sentence gives us many tools to do so.” According to senator Cepeda, the court’s ruling will lead to a “profound discussion about how paramos are delimited.” He told the Guardian that the plaintiffs, together with environmental organisations and others, intend to ensure the government abides by the court’s ruling and “will seek the suspension of more than 400 mining titles.” AAS’s Margarita Florez says the court’s ruling cannot be appealed. “The decision is a constitutional sentence and therefore it is binding on the government and must be complied with,” she told the Guardian. “There is no way to appeal it.” The court’s ruling cites various definitions of paramos, including “the highest and most exposed regions of tropical Andean mountain ranges” and “neotropical mountains between the upper limit of forest vegetation (3,200-3,800 ms above sea level) and the lower limit of perpetual snows (4,400-4,700 ms) in Andean systems.” It quotes the Humboldt Institute describing them as “key sites that “harvest” rainfall and snow water stored in glacial lakes, bogs, marshes and peat soils” that are “held for a relatively long period of time and released constantly and slowly.”

Water in Mexico: a human right, bottled

Mexico consumes 12 percent of the global volume of bottled water, highlighting the failures of the country’s water supply system and the violation of a basic human right. Nobody should be denied a glass of water. Serving your guests water is polite; it shows you have good manners and empathy for others. It is also, though not quite as obvious, an issue of human rights. In Mexico’s capital, until only recently, restaurants could deny a glass of water to their customers and require them to drink only bottled water. On one occasion, the owner of a gourmet pizzeria reacted furiously when she saw my boyfriend take out his own water bottle to take a pill. She told him it was prohibited to bring outside food and drink into her restaurant. Then, when we asked for a glass of water, she responded angrily: “We don’t give water away here, we sell it in bottles.” A circular business What you find being sold in supermarkets is not the water, but the bottle. In Mexico, the cost of the extraction and supply of water is relatively low, since almost the entire service is subsidized. According to the highest available rate, a glass of water costs seven cents (.007 Mexican pesos). For a bottle with the same quantity of water, the pizzeria charged $1.50 (28 pesos), seven times the supermarket price. The incident in the pizzeria occurred after the Legislative Assembly of Mexico City required food establishments to provide free glasses of water to customers who ask for it. But even after the legislative provision, I have often had to clarify that I want a glass of water, not a bottle. The waiters often warn me, “It’s filtered water,” reminding me of its unreliability. The dynamic behind this type of business has changed: they now buy large jugs of bottled water or spend money on filters, because in Mexico it’s well known that you never drink water directly from the tap. It’s an unspoken secret, almost popular belief, that tap water is dirty water. It’s common that even those of us who don’t buy bottled water have a filter in our homes. This belief emerged from the 1985 earthquake, when various pipes broke and drinking water mixed with sewage. Later, during a cholera epidemic in the 1990’s, the government promoted chlorinating or boiling the tap water. Yet no authority was responsible for the quality of the pipes through which the drinking water ran; water which, by definition, should be fit for human consumption. In contrast, Chile promotes three reliable water sources: chlorinated, boiled or taken from the tap.  In Mexico, the health threat coincided with the arrival of bottled water. What the companies promoted in those early years was confidence and security in the quality of their water. So, little by little, we went from boiling and chlorinating our water, to buying it in 20-liter jugs, to buying small plastic bottles that hold less than 250 ml of water. According to the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), in 2014 Mexicans consumed 253 liters of bottled water per person. This compares to 94.3 liters per person in Europe (where public drinking fountains are commonplace) and 37 liters per person globally. Mexico consumes 12 percent of the world’s total volume of bottled water. The World Bank cites 80 percent of the Mexican population as distrustful of the water supply system. Bottled water companies, then, have nothing but room to grow, especially considering the majority of the population doesn’t yet consume the recommended two liters of water per day. And a large quantity of bottled water is used on daily tasks such as cooking and washing dishes, even on bathing newborn babies. Can you or can’t you drink tap water? The answer is: It depends. The responsibility for water supply in Mexico is so fractioned that it’s impossible to get a convincing response. In the capital city, water quality is disclosed each year and in only two neighborhoods does it not meet standards for human consumption. Unfortunately, those with the worst water quality also have the lowest standard of living. Information on the subject doesn’t arrive to our homes, it’s difficult to access and – in some cases – the information is non-existent, hidden or disguised. No government authority is responsible for water quality: not the National Water Commission, not state or city governments. Violating a human right Without convincing responses about the reliability of the water supply system, Mexicans are opting to buy bottled water. By doing so, we’re demonstrating that something is wrong with the country’s water system, and the human right to water is not guaranteed. According to the UN, drinking water must be safe, clean accessible and affordable for all. The human right to water was included in the Mexican Constitution four years ago, but its implementation, and the party responsible for guaranteeing it, remains under discussion. While the debate continues, millions of Mexicans are, understandably, buying bottled water to protect their health. The lack of information about or accountability for the water supply system makes the guarantee of this human right nothing more than a dream.   The UN established that people shouldn’t spend more than three percent of their income on water services. In Mexico, only those with incomes greater than $1,200 a month (21,000 pesos) spend three percent or less of their income on bottled water. The other 80 percent of households in the country spend as much as eight percent, a staggering figure, especially considering it doesn’t include what they pay for water used for other domestic activities. People are buying bottled water because they don’t trust the country’s water supply system. By denying a glass of water to its population, the Mexican government is denying a fundamental human right.  

Organizations condemn Eco Oro’ threat to sue Colombia over efforts to protect páramos

The Canadian company developing the Angostura gold mine in the high-altitude wetlands, or páramo, of Santurbán, has announced that it could file an international arbitration suit against Colombia over measures to protect the páramo, which is an important source of water in the country. Washington/Ottawa/Bogotá/Bucaramanga/Ámsterdam – Civil society organizations condemn Eco Oro Minerals’ announcement that it will initiate international arbitration against the Colombian state. Eco Oro has stated its intention to sue Colombia under the investment chapter of the Canada Colombia Free Trade Agreement over measures that the Andean state has taken to protect the Santurbán páramo and páramos around the country from harmful activities such as large-scale mining. Eco Oro Minerals’ Angostura proposed gold mine in Santurbán has financial backing from the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation. The company argues that it will lose money because of the demarcation of the páramo and the recent decision from the Constitutional Court of Colombia reaffirming the prohibition against mining in all Colombian páramos. The company stated in a news release that it could bring the dispute to international arbitration and seek “monetary compensation for the damages suffered.” “Since the Angostura project got underway, it has been clear that páramos are constitutionally and legally protected and that this project could affect Santurbán, such that it might not be authorized. States should not be sanctioned for protecting their water sources, given that they are doing so in accordance with national and internacional obligations,” remarked Carlos Lozano Acosta from the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). The páramos are the source of 70% of the fresh water that is consumed in Colombia and are essential for mitigating climate change.  The proposed gold mine was already the subject of a complaint to the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman of the International Finance Corporation (IFC). The Committee in Defense of the Water and Páramo of Santurbán filed the complaint in 2012. The IFC is the part of the World Bank Group exclusively focused on the private sector. A report based on this investigation is expected in the coming months. “The implication and the irony of Eco Oro’s statement is that the IFC’s investment in the company could be used to litigate against member states of the World Bank. It’s time for the IFC to withdraw its investment from this company,” stated Carla García Zendejas from CIEL. “In 2011, the Colombian Ministry of the Environment denied an environmental permit for the Angostura project, demonstrating its inviability. The Constitutional Court’s decision reaffirmed this, finding that the right to water and the protection of the páramos takes precedent over the economic interests of companies trying to develop mining projects in these ecosystems,” commented Miguel Ramos from the Santurbán Committee. “Just as has we have seen in El Salvador, where the state is being sued for US$250 million for not having granted a Canadian company a mining permit when the company did not even fulfill local regulations, the international arbitration system enshrined in neoliberal investment agreements is a real threat to the sovereignty of states and peoples to decide over highly important issues, such as water,” said Jen Moore from MiningWatch Canada. The organizations call on the company to abstain from arbitration against the Colombian state and note the risk that other companies with projects in the Santurbán páramo could follow Eco Oro’s example. Find additional information here. 

The Invaluable Legacy of Douglas Tompkins

By Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA attorney On December 8th, one of the last pristine places on the planet, Patagonia, lost one of its greatest protectors, Douglas Tompkins. At 72 years old, the conservationist and multimillionaire lost his life in a kayaking accident. Much has been said about the eccentric man who sold the companies that made him rich, and left it all behind to undertake an ambitious conservation project in Chile and Argentina. It was looked on with suspicion when he began frantically buying lands in the Southern Cone for the sole purpose of protecting them. Tompkins thought that effective conservation should be “extensive, wild and connected.” So he decided to create large national parks that would be protected even in his absence. To do so, he acquired large tracts of land and began returning them to their natural state, removing fences and recuperating ecosystems. Without fences, wildlife could move freely, a condition which is fundamental for their prosperity.  Donating in exchange for protection Barely more than a month after she was widowed, Kris Tompkins, Doug’s wife for 20 years, met with Chilean President Michelle Bachelet to offer the donation of more than 400 thousand hectares of land in Chilean Patagonia, including millions of dollars in infrastructure. With it, she sought to realize the last of the couple’s major projects in Chile: the creation of Patagonia Park, which together with other lands, donated or in process of being donated, would form a network of parks in Patagonia. In Chile, the Tompkins had already donated land for the creation of Corcovado Park in Patagonia and Yendegaia Park in Tierra del Fuego. The land to create Pumalín Park, also in Patagonia, is in the process of being donated. All together, these land donations equal more than 500 thousand hectares of protected wilderness. But the Tompkins’ gifts come with conditions: for each hectare they receive, governments must protect a certain number more.  In exchange for the posthumous donation in Chile, for example, the government is required to create new national parks, expand existing parks and reclassify four natural reserves. Negotiations are expected to conclude in 2018. If the Tompkins’ succeed, the agreement will create the most important network of national parks in the country.  Protection in Argentina Tompkins also donated vast stretches of land in Argentina. In the Entre Ríos Province, he started a soil recuperation project, using highly diversified organic crops to overcome the damage of industrial monoculture. The Argentine Patagonia also received protection, through land donations of 66 thousand hectares to Monte Leon National Park and 15 thousand hectares to Perito Moreno National Park. Tompkins’ last project in Argentina was completed last December when the Argentine government met with Kris Tompkins to accept the donation of 150 thousand hectares of land in the Estuaries of Iberá, the second largest wetland on the planet. This area, when added to the 50 thousand hectares previously donated and the 500 thousand that already form Iberá Park, will create one of the largest reserves in the country.  ¡Patagonia sin Represas! In addition to contributing to the creation of national parks, Tompkins supported the activism of conservation groups in Patagonia. One of the initiatives he sponsored was the campaign Patagonia sin Represas, which managed to stop the HidroAysén project in its tracks. HydroAysén had aimed to construct five mega-dams on the Baker and Pascua rivers, two of the largest free-flowing rivers in Chile, located in the heart of Patagonia. During Doug’s burial the mantra “Patagonia sin Represas” is said to have been shouted by mourners when the last handful of dirt was thrown upon his grave.  At the end of the 1900s, when Tompkins’ land purchasing in Argentina and Chile was at its peak, he was accused of buying the land cheaply and displacing its inhabitants, leaving them without work. Later, the accusations became more sophisticated: they accused him of buying land to create a new Zionist state, of being a CIA spy, and of trying to seize enormous reserves of fresh water to export to places experiencing drought. Many looked upon his work with suspicion.  Maybe they found it difficult to believe that someone would invest millions of dollars with the sole objective of preserving the perfect natural harmony that surrounds us. Any accusation was easier than giving credit to his true intention: buying land to prevent it from being exploited, and then giving it back to the government, not for money, but for a commitment of protection. Whatever his detractors may say, here in reality, Douglas Tompkins left an enormous legacy to all of mankind. He has conserved more land than any other person in the history of Chile and Argentina. His work has translated into massive patches of green on the maps of Patagonia. For those pristine and wild places, we are eternally grateful. CONGRATULATIONS DOUG, and THANK YOU! 

Indigenous groups ask Pope Francis to help stop Las Cruces Dam

In a letter delivered to Vatican representatives, indigenous and riverine communities affected by the construction of a dam on Río San Pedro Mezquital asked that the Pope intercede on their behalf before the Mexican government during his visit to the country. They explained that the hydroelectric project would cause serious harm to the environment and human rights.  Mexico City, Mexico. On the occasion of Pope Francis’ visit to Mexico, indigenous and riverine communities from Nayarit state wrote a letter asking the Pope to intercede on their behalf before the Mexican government, in hopes of putting a stop to the Las Cruces Dam project on Río San Pedro Mezquital. The project, they explain, puts at risk their culture and way of life, and also threatens Marismas Nacionales, one of the country’s most important wetlands. The letter was delivered to the local headquarters of the Apostolic Nunciature, a diplomatic mission of the Vatican. It reads: … We respectfully solicit that you, Your Holiness, during your visit to our country, intercede on our behalf before President Enrique Peña Nieto, so that his Government stops the human rights violations of all indigenous communities in the name of development, and that it abandon further advancement of the Las Cruces hydroelectric dam because of the human and environmental impacts it will cause. Mexico’s Secretary of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) has granted environmental permits and water rights for the construction and operation of the dam. “They did so without having guaranteed the right to prior consultation of the indigenous communities affected by the project, which include the Náyeri, Wixárica, Mexicanero and Tepehuano peoples,” explained Sandra Moguel, AIDA attorney. “SEMARNAT authorized the project with the condition that the Secretariat of Energy realize a process of consultation with the indigenous communities, which should have been done before issuing the authorizations.” In their letter, the indigenous communities honor and celebrate Pope Francis’ encyclical, Laudato Sí, in which he recognizes the important contribution indigenous communities can make towards the promotion and protection of culture and natural resources. “The Río San Pedro is not simply part of our lives, but also fundamental to our spirituality,” explained Julián López Cánare, member of the Náyeri Indigenous Council, who delivered the letter. “All of its territory, from its headwaters to its mouth, is a sacred space where we strengthen our identity and values.” This river also feeds Marismas Nacionales, one of Mexico’s most important wetlands. The area is recognized as a Biosphere Reserve and a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty for the protection of wetland ecosystems. Finally, the indigenous communities explained in their letter that the pressure put on them to agree to the project has escalated to include harassment and illegal detentions by the government. They also cite instances of acts simulating consultation, which would not be valid considering the project has already been authorized. Citing the visions for the future they share with Pope Francis, the letter finished: Your Holiness, hopeful in the power of your intercession, we part here with the passionate hope that your encyclical letter, Laudato Si’, inspires and propels profound changes in politics, practices, and beliefs of governments, businesses, civil society, and the mentality of our fellow man, with hopes of constructing a more just, more humane, and truly sustainable world.

AIDA celebrates Court decision to protect Colombia's páramos

Colombia’s Constitutional Court on Monday declared unconstitutional an aspect of the country’s National Development Plan that permitted mining in páramos.  Bogota, Colombia. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) celebrates the decision of Colombia’s Constitutional Court to ban mining in the country’s páramos. The ruling—which nullified an article of the 2014-2018 National Development Plan protecting previously granted mining licenses—is vital to the preservation of Colombia’s freshwater resources, and should serve as an example for other countries in the region.  AIDA and partner organizations presented an amicus brief in support of the corresponding lawsuit, filed by the Cumbre Agraria, Campesina, Étnica y Popular. The court’s ruling brings justice to these important freshwater ecosystems and the many people that depend upon them. Although they occupy just 1.7 percent of the national territory, Colombia’s páramos provide 70 percent of its fresh water. The sensitive ecosystems are also strategic reserves of biodiversity, and act as carbon sinks essential to the mitigation of climate change. The high court’s decision is key to the protection of the Santurbán páramo, on which hundreds of thousands of people in the Bucaramanga metropolitan area depend. AIDA has long been working to defend Santurbán from large-scale mining and to provide support to affected communities.  AIDA urges the Ministry of the Environment to promptly enact the court’s ruling and protect all the country's páramos from the impacts of large-scale mining operations.

Worth Protecting: Mexico’s Marismas Nacionales

By Anna Miller, AIDA writer On Mexico’s northern Pacific coast, verdant mangroves reach their roots into the shallow soil, drink up the sweet, fresh water flowing from the mountains, and shelter the diverse, abundant life teeming below. Crabs crawl along the muddy ground, fish zig and zag along the root systems, crocodiles wait patiently in the shallows, and sea turtles feed on their way to coastal nesting grounds. This living, breathing community, extending 2,000 square kilometers through Nayarit and Sinaloa states, is the largest mangrove forest on Mexico’s Pacific coast.   Despite the importance of this rich environment, the Marismas Nacionales are at risk. Their health and vitality are threatened by the proposed Las Cruces hydropower project, which would dam the Río San Pedro Mezquital, the last free-flowing river in the Sierra Madre Mountains.  After the senseless destruction of the Tajamar mangroves in Cancún, Mexico must now, more than ever, live up to its responsibility to preserve vital wetlands like Marismas Nacionales. There is so much worth protecting.  The San Pedro Mezquital River is born in the highest peaks of the Sierra Madre, flowing through dense green forests and across valleys before reaching the coastal plains of Nayarit, where its fresh waters feed Marismas Nacionales. Altering the natural flow of the river would increase sedimentation in the wetlands and risk suffocating the sensitive system. The vast coastal wetlands along the Gulf of California are home to as many as 20 percent of Mexico’s mangroves. A sort of biological super system harbors a diverse array fish and birds and insects and amphibians. The Marismas Nacionales are believed to constitute one of the most productive environments in Northwest Mexico.  Coastal communities also live in harmony with Marismas Nacionales and depend upon the wetlands for their survival. The coastal marine environment provides a sustainable livelihood for local populations, who fish and harvest shellfish. The communities are therefore linked with the health and wellbeing of the wetlands.  An avian paradise, the Marismas Nacionales are home to more than 250 species of birds, nearly half of which are migratory.  The Marismas provide a critical wintering habitat for birds from the Pacific coastal region: in parts of the year, 80 percent of Pacific migratory shorebirds take shelter there. Many local species also seek out the mangroves as shelter from surrounding areas during particularly harsh weather.  Without a healthy river, the life in these vast mangrove forests and coastal lagoons may be lost for good. With the construction of Las Cruces Dam, Mexico is putting at risk another of its sacred natural places. AIDA is committed to protecting Marismas Nacionales, and the health and way of life of all the living things that depend on them. We hope you’re with us.    Learn about our work to stop Las Cruces Dam

Conserving the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta