Project
Photo: Anna Laurie Miller / AIDAConserving the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta
Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta, the largest and most productive coastal wetland in Colombia, covers 45,000 hectares. At the confluence of the Magdalena River and the Caribbean Sea, the site boasts an immense variety of flora and fauna, including mammals, birds and fish. Its southern tip is a beautiful sanctuary of mangroves, swamp and amphibious forest.
On the calm waters of the marsh stand the Ciénaga’s famous stilt villages, supported by pillars or simple wooden stakes and inhabited by local fishermen since 1800. In a place accessible only by water, many of the things we take for granted—being served a glass of water, quick access to a doctor—are considered luxuries. Residents depend on the natural world around them. Sadly, in recent years mass fish die-offs caused by the marsh’s degradation have threatened the livelihoods of 2,500 people who call the Ciénaga Grande home.
Illegal activities are destroying this vital ecosystem: intentionally set forest fires, deforestation of large tracks of land for agriculture and livestock, logging and burning of mangroves, and 27 kilometers of illegally built dikes.
This destruction not only devastates the local fishery; it also has global impact. Ciénaga Grande’s mangroves absorb large quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, aiding in the global fight against climate change.
The importance of the Ciénaga Grande has been recognized both nationally – the Sanctuary of Flora and Fauna Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta is a national park – and internationally: UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere program declared the lagoon a biosphere reserve; and the Ciénaga Grande is listed as a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty for the protection of wetlands.
AIDA and our partners are advocating for the Colombian government to fulfill its national and international obligations to protect the Ciénaga Grande. After all, millions of animals, the local community, and our global climate depend on it.
Partners:
Related projects
Statement by NGOs at Ramsar COP12
By World Wetland Network The non-government NGO sector and civil society greatly appreciates this opportunity to address the 12th Conference of Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention on wetlands. We have worked together to prepare this statement through the World Wetland Network, an international alliance of NGOs and civil society organizations, many of whom are focused on one or two wetlands in their local area. These organizations reflect their local cultures and communities and are a considerable force for Ramsar wetland conservation. All present understand the values of wetlands for life on earth. For NGOs and Civil Society groups, these values are very close to our heart, our life’s work. Sometimes even a matter of life and death. Wetlands supply us with fresh, clean water. They are essential to food security, providing water for irrigation, rice and fish to sustain us. Wetlands store carbon to mitigate climate change and reduce the impacts of disaster risk by slowing and storing floodwater. They support a wealth of plants and wildlife that make our world a richer place. Wetlands are our home, sustaining us spiritually and culturally. And we in turn are their custodians. Our stewardship ethic inspires us to work on wetland conservation through many activities: on-ground work, research, monitoring, advocacy, education and community engagement. We now know that our earth has suffered the destruction of 64% of all wetlands at the hands of human development since 1900. NGOs and Civil Society fully support the Ramsar goal to slow, stop and reverse the trend in wetlands loss and degradation world-wide. In 2014, World Wetland Network conducted a global survey of NGOs to explore their relationship with the delivery of Ramsar wetland conservation goals. 190 individuals responded from 52 counties, giving us the chance to hear the collective voice of local people. The survey findings are offered now so that Ramsar Parties can successfully deploy both government and non-government resources to ensure the greatest gain for wetlands, wildlife and people. The survey overwhelmingly showed that NGOs are committed to Ramsar and want to do more. Supporting and enabling volunteers and NGO staff to be engaged in wetland conservation requires resources, but small inputs create big outcomes, leading to better programs for Ramsar sites. Ramsar’s Communication, Education, Participation and Awareness activities require greater advocacy, technical and financial support. Many NGOs have skills that could be more actively used in this process. NGOs are concerned that some governments appear to discourage strategic Ramsar site designations. A means for civil society to highlight potential nominations would be welcomed. Some governments do not actively use Ramsar as a tool to protect wetlands. NGOs reported government inactivity, reduced financial resources and reduced involvement of public officials. NGOs are concerned about inaccurate reporting in the national Ramsar reports. Contracting parties should take responsibility to ensure accurate reporting of wetland status to inform effective decision-making. More needs to be done to enforce site protection. Based on the broad findings of our survey, the World Wetland Network offers the following recommendations for Ramsar consideration: a) Recognize that NGOs often create a longer-term and more continuous link for Ramsar sites than Government Representatives. b) Develop more structured guidance for Ramsar Parties, and National Focal Points, on how to engage civil society. c) Explore options to include more NGOs and civil society organisations in the decision-making process for Ramsar at international, regional and country levels. d) Create avenues for NGO and civil society input into reporting on the state of wetlands, Ramsar site nominations and the Montreux Record. e) Prioritize funding and support for NGOs and civil society organisations that are working on Ramsar listed wetlands. Finally, full and effective collaboration between civil society and contracting parties is critical to achieve wetland conservation at the local level. With regard to the draft resolutions for Ramsar COP12, NGOs are calling for stronger linkages to the NGO and civil society sector in DR2 – the Strategic Plan and DR 9, the CEPA program. We trust that this Ramsar COP12 meeting will help civil society, corporate sector and government partners to work together to protect, restore and promote wetlands.
Read moreThe Montreaux Record: Saving Essential Wetlands
Contamination, deforestation and accelerating urban growth pose serious threats to the health of the world’s wetlands. No tool aimed at protecting these valuable ecosystems should be wasted. The Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty, promotes national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands. The 168 countries that signed the Convention inscribe ecologically essential wetlands within their boundaries on the List of Wetlands of International Importance. By doing so, nations become obligated to protect these sites. Sometimes, however, their commitment is not enough to ensure that ecosystems remain intact. For this reason, the Ramsar Convention created the Montreux Record, a tool to protect, as a manner of priority, wetlands that are or will be gravely threatened by technological development, pollution or human activity. The Record includes sites that are listed as Wetlands of International Importance. Far from being a blacklist or a negative mark for a country, the registry is an opportunity for governments to demonstrate their accountability for protecting natural resources that require urgent attention. Five primary points demonstrate the importance and effectiveness of this tool: Cooperation for Conservation By including a wetland in the Montreaux Record, a country calls attention to the importance of taking measures to conserve the ecological characteristics of the site through national and international cooperation. Prioritization The Montreaux Record is a quick way for countries to assign high priority to a wetland site and obtain the technical support and financing to conserve it. Support and Technical Advice To obtain this special protection, the government must formally solicit the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention and complete a questionnaire with information about the wetland. If it’s determined that the inclusion of the site on the Record is necessary to promote its adequate protection, Ramsar undertakes an advisory mission to the country to provide support and technical advice on appropriate conservation actions. Points for Progress The country may request that the wetland be refused registration once the threats that lead to its inclusion are gone, if it considers that the objectives have been met and the site has regained its environmental balance. The country must request a new advisory visit to the site and complete a survey to show the progress made. Restoring Balance The support received by the Ramsar Secretariat adds to the conservation efforts the country is already developing on a national level. Thus, an at-risk wetland under international protection becomes a key site for restoring the ecological balance of the country. Throughout the Americas, various governments have opted to attract international attention for the conservation of their vulnerable wetlands: Costa Rica has included Palo Verde National Park in the Record, the United States has included Everglades National Park, and Chile has included the Carlos Anwandter Sanctuary. As part of our participation in the 12th Conference of Parties of the Ramsar Convention, taking place in Uruguay this week, AIDA will advocate for the inclusion of two threatened wetlands in the Montreaux Record: the Panama Bay Wetlands and the Veracruz Reef System, important ecological sites threatened, respectively, by urban development and port expansion.
Read more
Independent report finds Dutch and German Development Banks failed to comply with environmental and human rights standards in financing the Barro Blanco Dam in Panama
Indigenous communities and civil society shocked by the banks’ inadequate response to the findings. Kiad, Panama/Amsterdam/Bogota – Last Friday, a long-awaited report by an independent panel found that FMO and DEG, the Dutch and German development banks, violated their own policies by failing to adequately assess the risks to indigenous rights and the environment before approving a US$50 million loan to GENISA, the developer of the Barro Blanco hydroelectric project in Panama. FMO and DEG’s response to the findings, while acknowledging some deficiencies in their assessment, does not commit to any measures to address the outstanding policy violations. Even while the report concludes that “the lenders have not taken the resistance of the affected communities seriously enough,” it appears that FMO and DEG continue to do so. In May 2014, the Movimiento 10 de Abril (M-10), representing indigenous peoples directly affected by the project, with the support of Both ENDS and SOMO, filed the first complaint to the Independent Complaints Mechanism (ICM) of the FMO and DEG. The complaint alleges that the Barro Blanco dam will affect part of the Ngöbe-Buglé indigenous territory, flooding their homes, schools, and religious, archaeological, and cultural sites. Despite national and international human rights obligations, the Panamanian government, GENISA and the banks failed to obtain the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of the Ngöbe-Buglé before the project was approved. The ICM found that the “lenders should have sought greater clarity on whether there was consent to the project from the appropriate indigenous authorities prior to project approval.” “We did not give our consent to this project before it was approved, and it does not have our consent today,” said Manolo Miranda, a representative of the M-10. “We demand that the government, GENISA, and the banks respect our rights and stop this project.” The ICM found that “while the [loan] agreement was reached prior to significant construction, significant issues related to social and environmental impact and, in particular, issues related to the rights of indigenous peoples were not completely assessed prior to the [loan] agreement.” The banks’ failure to identify the potential impacts of the project led to a subsequent failure to require their client to take any action to mitigate those impacts. The environmental and social action plan (ESAP) appended to the loan agreement “contains no provision on land acquisition and resettlement and nothing on biodiversity and natural resources management. Neither does it contain any reference to issues related to cultural heritage.” “This failure constitutes a violation of international standards regarding the obligation to elaborate adequate and comprehensive Environmental and Social Impact Assessments before implementing any development project, in order to guarantee the right to free, prior and informed consent, information and effective participation of the potentially affected community”, explained Ana María Mondragón, lawyer at the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). While FMO and DEG acknowledged in their official response to the ICM’s report that they “were not fully appraised at credit approval,” they made no further concrete commitments to ensure that the rights of those affected by the dam will be respected. The banks claim that they are “facing limitations in their influence” over government processes to come to a satisfactory agreement with all stakeholders involved. Their actions, however, reveal a different story. In February, the Panamanian government provisionally suspended construction of the Barro Blanco dam. Subsequent to the suspension, the government convened a dialogue table with the Ngöbe-Buglé, with the facilitation of the United Nations, to discuss the future of the project. Rather than supporting the Government of Panama to respect the rights of the Ngöbe-Buglé, FMO and DEG have requested that Panama’s environmental authority reconsider the suspension and allow their client to resume construction. In February, they sent a letter to the Vice President of Panama, expressing their “great concern and consternation” about the suspension and noting that it “may weigh upon future investment decisions, and harm the flow of long-term investments into Panama.” While the banks asserted that their consultants found nothing that would warrant the suspension of the project, they failed to mention that their own independent accountability mechanism was undertaking an investigation of the project. Indeed, by that time, the banks had already seen a draft of the ICM’s report with findings that the project was not in compliance with its own policies. “We were surprised to find out about the role of the banks in influencing the national process, as this is in contradiction to their assertions that they are not in a position to intervene in national decision-making.” said Anouk Franck, senior policy advisor at Both ENDS, based in Amsterdam. “They should now show their commitment in coming to a solution and start taking FPIC seriously, in the case of Barro Blanco, where due to delays in tackling the issue, the banks might need to accept losses on their loan. And they need to find ways to assure themselves FPIC is obtained where relevant, for example through human rights impact assessments.” The handling of the complaint was a lengthy and at times frustrating process. GENISA refused to cooperate with the ICM and provide them with access to project documents, leading the banks to conclude a secret side agreement with GENISA. The secret side agreement superseded the publicly available procedures of the ICM and allowed GENISA to review the draft and final investigation reports before they were shared with complainants. “FMO and DEG are more concerned with protecting the interests of their client than they are with protecting the rights of those affected by the projects they finance,” said Kris Genovese, senior researcher at the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO). “It’s a tragic irony that banks asked the consent of the company to publish the ICM’s investigation report, but didn't ask consent of Ngöbe-Buglé for the project.” The Barro Blanco project was registered under the Clean Development Mechanism, a system under the Kyoto Protocol that allows the crediting of emission reductions from greenhouse gas abatement projects in developing countries. “As climate finance flows are expected to flow through various channels in the future, the lessons of Barro Blanco must be taken very seriously. To prevent that future climate mitigation projects have negative impacts, a strong institutional safeguard system that respects all human rights is required,” said Pierre-Jean Brasier, network coordinator at Carbon Market Watch. “The opportunity to establish such a necessary safeguards system is now, ahead of the Paris agreement, to put the respect of human rights on top of the UNFCCC agenda.” The ICM will monitor the banks’ implementation of corrective actions and recommendations. Meanwhile, the M10 expect FMO and DEG to withdrawal their investment from the project and ask that the Dutch and German governments show a public commitment to ensuring the rights of the affected Ngöbe-Buglé. At the same time, the banks should refrain from putting pressure on the Panamanian government.
Read more