Colombia

IDB must guaranty a responsible exit from the Hidroituango project

Ongoing investigation of the project continues regardless of early repayment of loan​. The IDB Group concluded the loan for Hidroituango prematurely as they face uncertainty regarding project initiating operations. The investigation process regarding non-compliance with IDB policies in Hidroituango continues, regardless of the early termination of the loan. The construction of the Hidroituango dam, a project that has created a humanitarian and environmental crisis without precedent in Colombia, was financed by IDB Invest, the private lending arm of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), which invested millions of dollars in the hydroelectric project and facilitated the investment of a billion additional dollars from other international development banks. The Office of the Transparency Hub of IDB Invest informed Movimiento Ríos Vivos (MRV) -which represents communities affected by HidroItuango - that the bank concluded its involvement in the project after receiving the advance repayment of funds from Empresas Públicas de Medellin (EPM). Further, it informed that the compliance investigation process currently underway at the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) to assess compliance with IDB policies will continue, separate from the exit from the project by IDB. Regarding the communication sent by IDB Invest to MRV, the movement and accompanying international organizations, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), stated the following: First, the undersigned organizations maintain that the continuation of the complaint before the MICI demonstrates a respect for the integrity and independence of the accountability mechanism and a commitment to respond to the concerns of communities affected by IDB financed projects. Furthermore, we would underline that the fact the IDB has concluded its involvement in the project, resulting from a voluntary repayment due to the uncertainty of reaching certain project milestones, does not imply the absence or the removal of the investment. Much to the contrary, the prepayment by EPM to the IDB Group demonstrates that the IDB effectively disbursed funds and financed the project, and that Hidroituango is an IDB branded project. Consequently, we believe that it is correct for the MICI, the accountability mechanism in this case, to continue its investigative functions, and that the Board and management of the Bank remain committed to the process and its findings. Secondly, as has been set forth by the MICI in recent reports recognizing the lack of compliance with environmental and social safeguards by the bank, such as the case of the San Mateo and San Andres hydroelectric projects in the microregion of Yich K’isis in Guatemala, “in case of exit from the Projects, IDB Invest should make the necessary provisions to ensure a responsible exit from the Operations”. We are confident that the payment of the debt by EPM to the IDB opens up a historic possibility for the bank to conclude its involvement in a responsible way, by creating an Exit Plan in participation with communities which allows for the restoration of affected livelihoods, thereby legitimizing the bank as a responsible international finance institution. This possibility brings hope to the MRV communities affected by the Hidroituango project, who have called for the end of the investment by the IDB and its responsible exit for years. Thirdly, the undersigned organizations expect the IDB to fulfill its commitment to transparency in its operations, guaranteeing the principle of maximum access to project information, in a straightforward and comprehensive manner, under the terms established in the bank’s access to information policy. It is under these terms that we will be requesting meetings with the Board of the IDB in the near future. Today the IDB has an opportunity to fulfill its commitment to maintain high standards of integrity, transparency and accountability within its operations not only in Colombia but throughout Latin America. For this reason, we insist on the need for i) decision-making to be more transparent about the remaining IDB Group investments or loans which currently finance this project, both from its public and private lending arm, as was set forth in the petition sent on December 6th, 2021, ii) that a responsible, effective and participatory exit plan be built with communities. Press contacts: Milena Florez, Movimiento Ríos Vivos (MRV), [email protected], +57 319 2131656 Carla García Zendejas, CIEL, [email protected], +1 202 374 2550 Yeny Rodríguez Junco, AIDA, [email protected], +57 310 7787 601  

International Arbitration Tribunal rules in favour of a Canadian company and puts foreign investment above Colombia's legitimate right to protect Santurbán

Bucaramanga, Bogotá, Washington, Ottawa. National and international civil society organizations are widely rejecting the decision made by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) on September 10 in the case of Eco Oro v. Colombia, for at least three reasons: we consider that (i) it is inconsistent and reflects a profound ignorance of the socio-environmental complexity of the case; (ii) it is the result of an unfair and widely discretionary investment arbitration system that allows for arbitrary decisions made by those who oversee these cases and, (iii) increases the risk of further arbitrations being brought against the State of Colombia at the ICSID. ICSID is one of the institutions responsible for resolving disputes between States and international investors — in this case, within the context of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. In the case of Eco Oro v. Colombia, the ICSID Tribunal concluded that, although the protection measures of the páramos adopted by Colombia were legitimate and did not constitute an expropriation of the rights of the Canadian company Eco Oro, its actions in the delimitation of the Páramo de Santurbán did violate the “minimum standard of treatment” to foreigners. The Tribunal has yet to decide on compensation for damages to Eco Oro and has asked both parties for more information to inform its decision. The Tribunal’s decision was the result of a process initiated by a supranational arbitration claim filed by the Canadian company Eco Oro against Colombia in 2016, which questioned the decisions made by the Colombian government to protect the páramos — the natural source of water for 70% of inhabitants. The Canadian investor [Eco Oro] intends to construct the Angostura gold mine in the Santurbán páramo, located in the northeast of the country. An inconsistent decision that ignores the socio-environmental complexities of the case. The majority of the Tribunal held that the decisions made by the Colombian government were in accordance with Colombian national law and were made with the legitimate aim of protecting the environment. In addition, the Tribunal recognized that the páramos are being threatened by both human intervention and climate change and that the possibility of their recovery from mining activities is very low, which is why it is necessary to protect them. As a result, the Tribunal rejected Eco Oro’s argument that the precautionary principle was not applicable, and pointed out that the Santurbán case was an example where it was, in fact, relevant. This was the grounds for rejecting one of Eco Oro’s claims that its rights had been indirectly expropriated by the State of Colombia. On the contrary, the Tribunal found that the measures adopted by the country were a legitimate exercise in environmental protection. However, when examining a second claim, the Tribunal explained that the inconsistency, hesitation and inaction of the State of Colombia in the delimitation of the Santurbán páramo had thwarted Eco Oro's investment expectations without any “apparent legitimate justification,” and had therefore not granted the investor "fair and equitable treatment" in accordance with the "minimum standard of treatment" for foreigners. This last ruling of the Tribunal is inconsistent. It ignores the socio-environmental complexity of the case and the challenges of materializing the right to environmental participation within the process of delimitation of the páramo. Although the decision recognizes that the delimitation involves managing widely disparate interests throughout the process, in the end — in a ruling far removed from the reality of Santurbán and its communities — the Tribunal took this process lightly, dismissing its complexities, and appears to have not taken it as legitimate and sufficient justification. An unpredictable, limiting and unfair arbitration system. "The Tribunal's decisions are not predictable, since decisions in one case do not bind future rulings on environmental issues.  There is no precedent set, as traditionally understood in the system. The breadth of the clauses and the arbitrators' freedom of interpretation are excessive, which is problematic not only for Colombia but for all countries in the region," said Yeny Rodriguez, a lawyer with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). This decision allows mining investment to prevail over the Colombian State's obligation to protect the environment and the water of Colombians. We question the fact that the Tribunal has made its decision but has not judged the lack of due diligence by the Canadian company who knew from the beginning that its mining project overlapped with a páramo zone — a sensitive ecosystem protected by national law. This case demonstrates the arbitrary and overreaching nature of the supranational arbitration system, and the way in which it disciplines and punishes the governments of the Global South. It’s worth remembering that in February 2019, the Tribunal rejected the possible participation of the Santurbán Committee in the process. Uncertainty for Colombia. Carla García Zendejas, Director of the People, Land and Resources Program of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) stated, "The legal uncertainty that the supranational investment arbitration system represents for Colombia is enormous. The high levels of arbitrariness that characterizes the system leads to penalizing States for any circumstance in which expected profits are affected. And this is especially critical for Colombia, as there are other lawsuits against the country resulting from extractive projects linked to Santurbán and other fragile ecosystems. This could mean a domino effect of lawsuits and heavy penalties against Colombians." Two other lawsuits are currently underway before ICSID against the country by Canadian mining companies — Red Eagle Exploration and Galway Gold — for measures taken to protect the Santurbán páramo. There are also other lawsuits filed by Cosigo Resources, South32 Investments Limited, Gran Colombia Gold, Glencore International and Anglo American in connection to other extractive projects. We call on the Colombian State to denounce the free trade agreements and bilateral investment protection agreements to which it is party and to refrain from signing such instruments in the future. It is for these reasons above that today the Comité para la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán (Committee for the Defense of Water and the Páramo of Santurbán) is holding a day of protest in front of the Canadian Embassy in Bogotá, demanding that ICSID respect their legitimate fight for the defense of water, Santurbán and the páramos of Colombia. Likewise, we are also in front of Congress, demanding that the Investment Protection Agreements with the United Arab Emirates-Minesa be rejected. press contacts Comité para la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán, [email protected], +57 3012080622 Carla García Zendejas, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), [email protected], +1 202 374 2550 Yeny Rodríguez Junco, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), [email protected], +57 3107787601 Jamie Kneen, MiningWatch Canada, [email protected], +1(613) 761-2273 Manuel Pérez Rocha, Institute for Policy Studies, [email protected], +1 240 838 6623  

International pressure to stop the advance of fracking in Colombia

Many Latin American governments continue to promote extractive activities—including the exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons through fracking, or hydraulic fracturing—as a means of economic revitalization in the face of the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This trend contradicts the international commitments adopted by these countries to reduce emissions and mitigate the global climate crisis. A United Nations report, to be released this month, is expected to state that reducing methane emissions will be critical to avoid the most extreme effects of global warming. The report is based on recent data showing that carbon dioxide and methane levels in the atmosphere reached record highs last year, despite the pandemic bringing much of the global economy to a halt. This information complements scientific evidence that methane emissions from oil and gas production—one of its major human-related sources—may be higher than previous estimates. This increase has been associated with the leakage and flaring of methane from fracking operations. Although methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, it has a relatively short life cycle in the atmosphere, meaning that reducing its emissions could help the world meet our climate goals more quickly. Colombia is an example of how the push for fracking contradicts the urgent need to combat the climate crisis and its damages. Although it is not legal to carry out fracking operations in the country because its regulation is temporarily suspended, the government has not stopped the development of pilot projects of this technique and continues to anchor its energy policy on hydrocarbons. At the same time, there is a national and international push to stop the advance of fracking in Colombia. While the Council of State makes a final decision on the regulation, two legislative initiatives are underway: one that seeks to prohibit the implementation of fracking nationwide, and another that would prohibit the exploration and/or exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons by any technique. In the framework of the parliamentary treatment of both bills, which are expected to be unified, authorities from the United Nations and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) participated in public hearings, in which they called on Congress to approve the legislation that would allow Colombia to move toward a fair and low-emission energy transition. The case for protecting people and the climate In his intervention, David Boyd, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, referred to the climate crisis as "serious and unprecedented", highlighting that its impacts on human rights "disproportionately affect poor, vulnerable and marginalized people." In the same vein, Marcos Orellana, UN Special Rapporteur on Toxic Substances and Human Rights, expressed concern about "the Colombian State's intention to consider funding and supporting fossil fuel fracking," considering its potential impact on human rights and sustainability. He emphasized, "new investments in fracking are incompatible with the protection of human rights." For his part, Renato Zerbini, chairman of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—a body, composed of 18 independent experts, that monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by its State parties—stressed that hydraulic fracturing "is closely related to multiple and ongoing human rights violations, as it causes irreversible environmental impacts and severe social affectations." Thus, the use of the technique violates the rights guaranteed by the Covenant, to which Colombia is a party, Zerbini pointed out. In general, the extractive industry "increases the risk for environmental defenders, territorial occupation and the impact on the rights of the communities surrounding the projects," added Soledad García Muñoz, the IACHR’s Special Rapporteur on Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights. In sum, the representatives of the international organizations reported on the unfeasibility of fracking in climatic, social and even economic terms: "When the real costs of fracking are taken into account, it becomes evident that these far exceed the alleged economic gains," emphasized Orellana. They referred to the international obligations of the Colombian State in terms of human rights and climate change, contained in various instruments. Among those, they cited Advisory Opinion 23/17 on human rights and environment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; General Comment 36 on the right to life, contemplated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; as well as the Joint Declaration on Human Rights and Climate Change that five human rights bodies issued in 2019. The statement expresses that "failure to take measures to prevent foreseeable harm to human rights caused by climate change, or to regulate activities that contribute to such harm, could constitute a violation of States' human rights obligations." The common recommendation: ban fracking At the conclusion of their interventions, the international authorities expressed their support for a law banning fracking throughout the Colombian national territory: David Boyd argued,"to address the climate crisis, Colombia must urgently pursue a low-carbon, climate-resilient future, replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy in light of its obligations under constitutional law, international human rights law and the right to a healthy environment." He concluded, "the government of Colombia must pass a law to ban fracking." Marcos Orellana pointed out that "the Congress of the Republic of Colombia has the opportunity to raise its gaze towards the future and preserve the legacy of its megabiodiversity." In that sense, he pointed out, "the protection of the right to live in a toxic-free environment inspires my respectful call for Congress to adopt a law banning fracking." Soledad Muñoz said that "the approval of a bill whose purpose would be to put an end to the exploration and exploitation of unconventional oilfields, prohibiting practices such as fracking, would represent a valuable measure of environmental protection, the reduction of socio-environmental conflicts and compliance with the commitments emanating from the Paris Agreement and the Inter-American (Human Rights) System itself." Continuing to base local economies on the extractive industry and promoting fracking only increases the dependence of our societies on fossil fuels, deepening the causes of the climate crisis and the damage it does to the most vulnerable among us.  

Statement on the abuses of security forces during the repression of social protest in Colombia

In the last week, protests in Colombia over a proposed tax reform have spurred a national mobilization against poverty and inequality, to which the Colombian government has reacted with repression, extreme violence and assassinations. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) emphatically rejects the abuses of security forces and expresses our deep concern about the lack of guarantees for social protest in Colombia. According to reports from national and international organizations, in recent days dozens of people have lost their lives in the context of state repression and hundreds more have been injured. We categorically condemn the extreme use of force against demonstrators and demand that the lives and rights of all citizens be respected. Liliana Ávila, AIDA human rights attorney and Colombian citizen, states: "Faced with the worrying escalation of violence, and the abuse of public force to silence social demonstrations, it is urgent that the Colombian state respect the human rights of protesters and create democratic and participatory spaces in which effective responses can be given to the conditions of poverty, marginalization and exclusion that are at the root of these protests." "All people have the right to demonstrate, and it is the State’s responsibility to create effective mechanisms for public participation.  It’s extremely worrying that the State, instead, has taken repressive measures incompatible with the rule of law, severely restricting people's freedoms, and violating their right to life and personal integrity, while promoting language that stigmatizes and criminalizes protesters". We call on the international community and urge the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to demand that the Colombian State respect the human rights of the protesters.  

OECD to investigate human rights abuses filed against the owners of Cerrejón coal mine; BHP, Anglo American and Glencore

Parallel complaints also filed in Ireland against state owned-company for purchasing coal and Dublin-based sales wing of mining enterprise.   Multiple National Contact Points (NCPs) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) will begin the process of investigating three international mining giants (BHP, Anglo American and Glencore) and Ireland’s state-owned energy provider, the ESB, over serious human rights abuses and devastating environmental pollution at the Cerrejón coal mine in Colombia. Parallel complaints were filed simultaneously in Australia, Ireland, Switzerland and the UK by the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) with the support of international development agency Christian Aid Ireland as well as Colombian and international human rights and environmental NGOs - CINEP, CAJAR, AIDA, ABColombia and ASK. If successful, the three companies which jointly own the Cerrejón mine will have to take steps to comply with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, including progressively closing down the mine in full and environmental restoration. The complaints against the mining giants also call for the full compensation of communities for the harms they have suffered.  The complaints outline how the Cerrejón mine, one of the largest open-pit mines in the world, is linked to the forced displacement of indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities and the widespread, persistent and extreme pollution of the air and water in the vicinity of the mine. High concentrations of harmful metals, which can cause diseases such as cancer, were found by Colombia’s Constitutional Court to exist in the blood of those living nearby. The complaints point to Cerrejón’s failure to comply with multiple Colombian court judgments against it. In September, several prominent UN human rights experts called for some of the mine’s operations to be suspended following a request to intervene by Wayuu indigenous people. The complaints allege that the parent companies of the Cerrejón mine, as its joint owners, are responsible under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises for the harms caused by its operations. Separate complaints have also been lodged against Dublin-based Coal Marketing Company (CMC), which is the exclusive marketer of coal from the Colombian mine, as well as Ireland’s Electricity Supply Board (ESB), which has been a major purchaser of the mine’s coal. In 2019, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommended that Ireland “consider stopping purchasing coal from the Cerrejón mine”.  All five complaints have been lodged with the relevant National Contact Points for the OECD, which are tasked with ensuring that companies comply with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Director of GLAN Dr Gearóid Ó Cuinn said: “These parallel complaints in four different countries point to a systematic failure to respect basic human rights standards from the extraction, to the marketing, to the purchasing of Cerrejon coal. The long-standing abuses at the mine have been so egregious that there is no way for enterprises to respect human rights law and do business with Cerrejón.” Sorley McCaughey of Christian Aid Ireland said: “We see the impact that corporate human rights abuses are having in every corner of the world and the Cerrejón case underscores the inadequacy of voluntary guidelines for multinational companies. Governments globally, including the UK and Ireland, must introduce mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation for companies to ensure they do not undermine the human rights of workers or the communities in which they work.” Rosa María Mateus Parra, lawyer with CAJAR, a Colombian human rights organisation and signatory to the complaints, said: “This is a striking example of the role played by large multinational companies in fuelling injustice. The people of La Guajira have borne the huge social and environmental costs of the mine, while harmful fossil fuel coal is exported around the world in the midst of the climate crisis and a small number of companies record huge profits.” Notes for editors If upheld the complaints filed in Australia, Switzerland and the UK would require joint-owners BHP, Glencore and Anglo American to close down the Cerrejón mine and compensate the affected communities for the harms it has caused. If upheld the separate complaint in Ireland against Dublin-based CMC would require it to stop selling Cerrejón coal. The complaint was submitted by Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), supported by Christian Aid Ireland, the Centro de Investigación y Educación Popular (CINEP), the Colectivo de Abogados ‘José Alvear Restrepo’ (CAJAR), Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), ABColombia and ASK - Arbeitsgruppe Schweiz Kolumbien. The Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) is a non-profit organisation that works to pursue innovative legal actions across borders to challenge powerful actors involved in human rights violations and systemic injustice by working with affected communities. GLAN has offices in the UK (London) and Ireland (Galway) | @glan_law | www.glanlaw.org.  press contacts: Victor Quintanilla (México), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107 Dr Gearóid Ó Cuinn (Director), GLAN, [email protected], +447521203427   

Seeking justice for communities affected by the Hidroituango dam

Colombia: Holding virtual hearings violates communities' right to participation

In the context of the pandemic, and since the beginning of Colombia's obligatory isolation, businessmen have asked the Colombian government to "simplify environmental procedures." On April 3, 25 entrepreneurs sent a letter to President Iván Duque asking for the simplification of processes including prior consultation, environmental licenses and royalities. One of the first measures undertaken was the attempt to simplify the prior consultation, proposing to make it virtual. In response, indigenous communities and the Ombudsman's Office requested that the Ministry of the Interior respect human rights and reverse the measure, which it did.  However, the quest to change the way consultations are conducted continues. At the request of the Ministry of the Environment, the National Environmental Licensing Authority (ANLA) is promoting several virtual environmental hearings, even proposing they be held on radio and digital platforms such as Facebook and YouTube. These are hearings to address key environmental issues in the country. The problem is that communication on these platforms is unilateral, denounced the organization DeJusticia, thus eliminating the possibility of discussing technical issues, and presenting an obstacle for those with limited access to the Internet. On April 13, 2020, ANLA issued Resolution 642, which opened the way for virtual participation processes. Days later, the licensing authority scheduled a virtual hearing to discuss a very important issue for the region: the return of aerial spraying with glyphosate, a toxic herbicide. The hearing, scheduled for May 27, was intended to address the modification of the glyphosate environmental management plan. But, thanks to a legal action, on May 18 a judge from the department of Nariño suspended the hearing. As evidenced, there exists an ongoing intention to carry out similar proposals during the pandemic. Many have been halted by the early warnings of citizens, judicial actions or statements by control authorities. On 20 May, the Administrative Court of Santander ordered the Ministry of the Environment to plan virtual working groups.  It has also called for a virtual public hearing on the Santurbán páramo, where a mega-mining project threatens to harm this strategic ecosystem, which is vital for local water supply and the mitigation of the climate crisis.  Holding virtual hearings implies a damage to the rural, indigenous and urban communities affected by a project, and to Colombian society in general. In addition to being in the midst of the worst crisis in recent history, these communities lack access to the internet and the basic necessities that could guarantee their virtual participation.  In Colombia, and across the region, the rights of access to information, justice and participation are among the most violated. We must stand at high alert so that the pandemic does not become an excuse to continue abusing them. All remaining proposed virtual proceedings must be immediately suspended, until there exists guarantees for the due exercise of the right to participation and the exercise of national and international oversight in these matters.   

Sharks in Colombia: The risks of weak regulation

Sharks have inhabited the planet for more than 400 million years, one of the oldest and most diverse classes of animals. They’re considered apex predators because they’re at the top of the oceanic food chain. Due to their position, sharks play a fundamental role in marine ecosystems: controlling populations of fish, marine mammals, and some invertebrates. Their contribution, however, has been eclipsed by bad publicity. Sharks have been stigmatized as frightening beasts that are perpetually prepared to attack humans with their razor-sharp teeth. This reputation went viral due to Steven Spielberg’s 1975 classic film, Jaws.  Scientific experts say that these types of films inspired dozens of tournaments in which sharks were fished mercilessly, and indiscriminate fishing has diminished the numbers of most species of sharks. According to an article by the magazine Marine Policy, more than 100 million sharks are killed each year. And 17 of the 39 pelagic shark species are threatened with extinction, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).  Of the 400 that exist worldwide, Colombia is home 76 species of sharks, which are distributed through 18 families in the Caribbean (57) and the Pacific Ocean (36).  These statistics rank Colombia as the third most diverse country in terms of sharks in Latin America, after Mexico and Brazil.   Many of these species, however, are considered vulnerable or at risk of extinction on the Red List of Marine Fishes.  Colombian regulations allow small-scale artisanal shark fishing by communities on both coasts, but prohibit industrial scale shark fishing. The reality on the water, however, is that weak enforcement fails to adequately protect these magnificent creatures within Colombia’s boundaries.   An ineffective tool Since 1990, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development has produced annual resolutions regulating artisanal shark fishing.  The resolution passed this year—known as Resolution 350 and published on October 25, 2019—was widely rejected by environmental and citizens groups across the country.   One of the main reasons for this rejection is that the resolution maintains high fishing quotas (quantity of tons allowed) that date from 2011 and include vulnerable or at-risk species. Establishing quotas without scientific evidence on the current state of shark populations encourages overfishing and does not contribute to the conservation of these animals.  Sharks have long gestation periods and give birth to few young, making it difficult for their populations to rebound in the face of overexploitation.  Furthermore, Resolution 350 establishes a specific quota for shark fins, despite the fact that a prior resolution (Resolution 1743 from 2017) specifically prohibited the practice of fishing for shark fins in Colombia.  Thus  the new resolution could be misinterpreted and lead to an increase in the illegal market for shark fins in the country.  Not only is harvesting fins illegal but it is also a cruel practice that involves cutting the fins off of a captured shark and throwing the still-living animal back into the sea. To meet the quota for shark fins without resorting to the illegal practice, it would be necessary to catch approximately 110,000 sharks.  Although not eaten in Colombia, shark fins are highly prized on the international market, particularly in Asian countries.  Between 2012 and 2016, more than 800 tons of shark fins were illegally exported from Colombia to Taiwan, China and Hong Kong, according to Fundación MarViva.  Fishermen are able to sell sharks to the Asian market without breaking any law by claiming them as bycatch, experts at Colombia’s Fundación Malpelo have pointed out. Towards Effective Protection Colombia has many international obligations to conserve its biodiversity, of which sharks are a part.  Some of these are the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean Region. The National Action Plan for the Conservation and Management of Sharks highlights the responsibility to sustainably manage Colombia’s marine resources, prioritizing the management and conservation of various species. The government must act accordingly.   Thanks to recent popular action, Resolution 350 will be modified to eliminate the term “shark fin” and therefore avoid its exploitation. Nevertheless, the Resolution contains other loopholes and weaknesses that must be corrected. It fundamentally important that scientific studies be taken into consideration during the creation of future resolutions.  This will allow for fishing, as it is currently practiced, to become a truly sustainable practice.  Also, where scientific data is lacking, it is essential that decisions be based on the Precautionary Principle, so as to avoid causing irreversible harm to species and ecosystems.  The effective protection of sharks in Colombia requires more than legal measures.  It’s also necessary to educate the people about the importance of protecting shark populations and maintaining the health of marine ecosystems, and to share with local communities fishing methods and management strategies that support sustainable fisheries.  Sharks are key to the health of our oceans, and the debate brought about by th fishing regulations creates an opportunity to rethink and improve our decisions.   

Preserving the legacy of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Heart of the World

Air pollution: it damages your health from day one

Although they occur seasonally each year, respiratory diseases are becoming increasingly severe, said pediatrician Gina Pinilla, who works in Bogotá. As air quality decreases, health complications increase for children who come to the emergency department. What Dr. Pinilla has observed in more than a decade of experience as a doctor is no mere impression. A study conducted by a multidisciplinary team of researchers in Colombia shows that health damage from poor air quality is noticeable from day one. Hospital admissions increase over the first 24 to 72 hours and can extend for almost two weeks. It’s the first multi-city study conducted in Colombia and Latin America to determine the relationship between air pollution and respiratory and circulatory diseases in the population, explained lead researcher Dr. Laura Rodriguez of the Industrial University of Santander. Each contaminant affects us differently One of the findings that most caught the researchers' attention is that harms caused by pollutants are different for children and adults. Children suffer from respiratory diseases, while adults face cardiovascular complications. "Children between 5 and 9 years old face greater impacts and are more likely to have an episode that takes them to the emergency room,” explained Dr. Rodriguez. “But this doesn't mean that the younger ones are unaffected. When a child has respiratory complications, he or she may stay hospitalized for up to a week and be connected to respiratory support. "There are children who need prolonged hospitalizations. For a week, they are dependent on oxygen, whether from a nasal cannula or oxygen machines,” Dr. Pinilla added. “Then they are left with side effects and get sick often." The particular mixture of pollutants found in the air also affects each age group differently. "Pollution in every city has its own behavior: interaction, quantity and the change in makeup between cities," said Dr. Rodriguez. In Bogotá, for example, pollution by sulfur dioxide and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) are related to circulatory diseases in people over 60. Pollution by nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and PM2.5 particles significantly increases the risk of hospitalization in people under the age of 15. The researcher says that the damage caused by nitrogen dioxide is not given much importance, despite being associated with cardiovascular disease in adults. And, when that pollutant is combined with sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, its effects are enhanced. Pollution harms, even in small quantities An important takeaway from this study is that contaminants can begin to damage public health even before they reach maximum allowable limits. Nitrogen dioxide, for example, is considered harmful, yet regulations have set very high emission limits. "Reaching these limits is very difficult. The city has to be in absurdly high pollution for the alerts to sound," explained Dr. Rodriguez. “The health effects are not related to whether you are exposed to the limits or not, but to the type of mixture you are breathing, because the pollutants are potentiating each other.” In several Latin American cities, regulations allow pollution limits that exceed the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO). For example, the WHO recommends a maximum average of 20 µg/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter) of PM10 (solid particles such as ash, soot and dust), but Bogotá has an average of 38 µg/m3. Other cities in the region have even higher annual averages: 40 (Monterrey), 55 (Mexico City), 62 (Lima) and 69 (Santiago). What does this information mean for your city?  When poor air quality reaches its most critical levels, hospitals are left without beds and many children with respiratory illnesses remain in the emergency area, explained Dr. Pinilla. It's a common situation because there are no action plans for environmental contingencies. For Dr. Laura Rodriguez, the most important result of her research would be that it helps institutions take action to confront the issue. She recommends local governments and health institutions: Control and regulate the air quality parameters of industrial emissions, and consider monitoring other pollutants. Increase efforts to communicate to the public about the risks of pollution levels in their cities. Prepare hospitals, especially in the first months of the year when pollution reaches its highest level, aggravated by changes in the climate. She emphasized the importance of making intersectoral and multidisciplinary plans and investigations to understand the panorama of air pollution, and to ensure that this information gets into the hands of the appropriate authorities. The study was also conducted by Julián Alfredo Fernández-Niño (U. del Norte, Barranquilla), Néstor Rojas (U. Nacional), Luis Camilo Blanco (U. Santo Tomás) and Víctor Herrera, U. Autónoma de Bucaramanga). Consult it here.