Press Center

May 14 2015

More than 20,000 petition Colombia to stop aerial spraying of herbicides

Less than 24 hours before the National Narcotics Council decides whether to suspend the spraying, organizations deliver a citizens’ petition seeking a halt to social and environmental damages. Bogota, Colombia. A coalition of nongovernmental organizations delivered a petition with more than 20,000 signatures to the Ministry of Justice today, urging a stop to widespread aerial spraying of glyphosate and other harmful chemicals over large swaths of land in Colombia with the objective of eradicating coca and poppy crops. The petition highlights the need to protect the environment and human health from damages caused by the spraying, which is done over forests, homes, farms and water sources. Organizations sponsoring the petition, which was posted on the website Change.org, include the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Institute for Development and Peace Studies (INDEPAZ), the Observatory of Crops Declared Illicit, the Washington Office on Latin America, and Latin American Working Group. “In just a few days we received more than 20,000 signatures saying ‘no’ to the fumigation, not only with glyphosate, but with any herbicide used as an instrument in the war against drugs,” said Camilo González, Colombia’s former Minister of Health. The National Narcotics Council, chaired by the Ministry of Justice, will meet today to decide whether or not to suspend the spraying. “The Council should make its decision on the basis of law, considering scientific and technical evidence about the harmful impacts of spraying and the lack of desired results,” concluded Hector Herrera, attorney for AIDA and coordinator of the Environmental Justice Network of Colombia. Alongside sponsoring organizations, the signers of the petition emphasize that the spraying should come to an end because it: Causes serious health impacts: The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer determined that glyphosate may cause cancer in humans. Independent studies have also documented other serious health effects from the spraying, such as skin diseases and problems during pregnancy. Has not achieved its objective: Over more than 15 years, the spraying has failed to reduce the cultivation of coca and poppy crops for illicit use. Causes serious environmental impacts: Spraying has been done indiscriminately over homes, farms and water sources. As a consequence, it has damaged biodiverse ecosystems and the species that live in them (fish, amphibians, rodents, insects, and endemic plants), polluted water, destroyed forests, and damaged food crops, a source of subsistence for many communities. Displaces people: Having no alternatives to coca and poppy cultivation, entire families have left their land because of the spraying. Ignores national and international socio-environmental standards: National tribunals such as the Constitutional Court have requested the suspension of spraying based on the precautionary principle. Colombia compensated Ecuador for the damages the spraying has caused along the border, and promised to suspend the practice in that region. National and international experts explained these and other reasons to halt the aerial spraying program in a seminar today at the Center for Memory, Peace and Reconciliation in Bogota. “For 40 years, the spraying of pesticides has been the subject of academic, scientific and legal analysis, which, though recommending the end of their application, have not always been public. These analyses have been dominated by politics of security and public order, but have left out health, environmental and legal recommendations. This approach has denied the existence of the socio-economic problems that persist in communities where crops are grown; it has denied the importance of recognizing the human rights of rural communities; and it has not recognized the new approach recommended by the United Nations Development Program to contain the expansion of illicit crops,” explained Pedro Arenas, coordinator of the Observatory of Crops Declared Illicit, who moderated the discussion group. The Ministry of Health, the provincial and district secretaries of Health, the Ombudsman, and the Attorney General’s Office, among other authorities, agree with the thousands of people who signed the petition and the organizations that have promoted it. The petition is still open for signatures! Sign Here: chn.ge/1zPK74G!

May 13 2015

IFC boosts investment in contested Canadian mining project in Colombia despite ongoing investigation

Washington, DC – On April 24, more than 50,000 Colombians took to the streets in Bucaramanga in a march to defend their primary water source from the development of Eco Oro Minerals’ Angostura gold project and other proposed mining activities. Despite broad public opposition and an ongoing investigation into an earlier investment decision, the private lending arm of the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), bought more shares in Eco Oro Minerals in February. The IFC’s original decision in 2009 to invest in Eco Oro is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the World Bank’s Compliance Advisor Ombudsman about whether its social and environmental sustainability policies were violated. In February, without waiting for a decision on the ongoing investigation, the IFC purchased an additional 390,000 shares in Eco Oro Minerals for a total investment of US$18.4 million. Members of the Committee for the Defense of Water and the Santurbán Páramo brought the original complaint to the CAO in June 2012 and have decried the fact that mining is illegal within the páramo. "This mining project and the others that it stimulates in the area will put the drinking water of millions of us at risk. We have clearly stated that we want the IFC to divest, not reinvest," remarked Carlos Lozano Acosta, attorney at the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). The Santurbán Páramo is a high altitude wetland ecosystem that provides water for approximately 2 million people in the region. "This new investment is irresponsible. The IFC needs to learn from the past; investments in mining have led to violent conflict and human rights violations throughout Latin America, stated Carla Garcia Zendejas, Program Director at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). “Given that there is an open investigation, at a minimum the IFC should wait for their own compliance office to determine if their original investment in the mine violated their own policies before making any further decisions" Garcia Zendejas said. Violence has already taken place in the area of Eco Oro operations. The complaint presented to the CAO alleges that the IFC glossed over potential security issues related to the Angostura project. It includes documented evidence of violence associated with guerrilla and paramilitary activity following a major military operation and the establishment of military installations in the area around 2003. “The IFC is investing in conflict and lending legitimacy to an activity that downstream communities and organizations have clearly opposed out of concern for their future well-being. The IFC should start listening to the Colombian people and withdraw,” commented Jen Moore, Latin America Program Coordinator for MiningWatch Canada.

May 07 2015

Organizations ask for immediate suspension of aerial fumigations of glyphosate and other chemicals in Colombia

A citizen petition was released by the website Change.org addressed to President Juan Manuel Santos and the National Narcotics Council. It requested that such fumigations are suspended because they damage the environment, human health and may cause cancer. Bogota, Colombia. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), with the help of the Institute for Development and Peace Studies (INDEPAZ) and the Observatory of Crops Declared Illicit, launched a citizen petition today open to signatures through the website Change.org to request that president Juan Manuel Santos and the National Narcotics Council suspend aerial spraying of illicit crops using glyphosate and other harmful chemicals. "Independent scientific studies show that the fumigations are inefficient and have not reduced coca and poppy crops. To the contrary, they have contributed to the destruction of forests and affected populations, including ethnic groups. Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization (WHO) determined that the glyphosate usedin in spraying may cause cancer in humans," says Astrid Puentes Riaño, AIDA Co-Executive Director who signed the petition. The National Narcotics Council will meet on May 14 to address the issue and decide whether to suspend the spraying. In the case of Colombia, this practice is carried out on a mass scale, through aerial spraying and uses a concentration of glyphosate higher than that used commercially. In addition, the spraying occurs indiscriminately over houses, farms and water sources. On April 24 and based on the determination of the WHO, the Ministry of Health recommended the National Narcotics Council immediately suspend aerial spraying of glyphosate, which was introduced to the country more than 15 years ago with funding from the United States Government. In the past, high courts in the country such as the Constitutional Court have also solicited the suspension of the spraying, but these provisions have not been met. This issue reached the International Court of Justice when Ecuador sued Colombia for impacts of the fumigations in the border area. The Colombian government compensated the neighboring country and pledged to stop spraying along the border. Apart from damage to health, the fumigations impact ecosystems rich in biodiversity and the species that inhabit them, pollute water and destroy food crops that are a source of subsistence for indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities and small farmers.

April 29 2015 Freshwater Sources, Toxic Pollution

Colombian government must immediately suspend the use of glyphosate

Bogota, Colombia. Glyphosate, the herbicide used to eradicate crops considered illicit in Colombia, has been classified as a substance probably carcinogenic to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization. Based on these findings, the Colombian Ministry of Health is recommending that the country’s Ministry of Justice "immediately suspend the use of glyphosate in the Illicit Crops Eradication Program’s aerial spraying operations." The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) strongly supports this recommendation so that the human rights to health and a healthy environment, both closely linked to the right to life, are protected in Colombia. We urge the government to fulfill its national and international obligations, respecting the conclusions reached by the highest health authorities, in order to prevent further damage to the country’s people and environment. For 15 years, AIDA and partner organizations have been warning of the grave impacts glyphosate has on the environment and human health. We’ve advocated for the need to apply the precautionary principle to suspend Colombia’s fumigation program, which has been financed by the government of the United States. Astrid Puentes Riaño, attorney and co-director of AIDA: "Colombia, like no other country, has used millions of liters of glyphosate that have not succeeded in destroying coca and poppy plants, but have irreparably damaged the environment and human health. Without excuses or delays, the National Narcotics Council must act responsibly and immediately suspend the use of glyphosate in the eradication of illicit crops." Anna Cederstav, co-director of AIDA and PhD in Chemistry: "The scientific evidence on the impacts of glyphosate on the environment and human health is sufficient to support a decision of the suspension of aerial spraying of glyphosate in Colombia."

April 28 2015

Citizens' petition urges Mexican government to revoke authorizations set to harm protected areas

Petition open for signatures on Change.org requests that CONANP and SEMARNAT stop the pending use of explosives in Los Tuxtlas rainforest reserve, and avoid the destruction of the country’s largest coral ecosystem, the Veracruz Reef System. Mexico City, Mexico. Along the Eastern Coast of Mexico, two of the greatest natural treasures in the state of Veracruz are at grave risk from the government-sanctioned expansion of the Port of Veracruz. In response to the shortsighted permission granted by Mexico's Secretary of the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT), the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), CEMDA and other civil society organizations have joined together to support a citizens' petition requesting the authorizations be revoked and the country's natural heritage be protected. The petition, launched today on Change.org,[1] urges SEMARNAT to revoke the environmental permit granted to the Port Authority to mine basaltic rock in Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve. It also asks the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas to increase protection of the Veracruz Reef System by adding it to the Montreux Record, a register of sites on the List of Wetlands of International Importance. Registering the Veracruz Reef would allow Mexico access to financial resources to help preserve it. The government authorized the extraction of two million cubic meters of basaltic rock to build the port’s new breakwater. The Los Tuxtlas Management Plan expressly prohibits the use of explosives within the Reserve, but the project requires them to release the rock. The noise and presence of workers will disrupt the habitual behavior of the reserve’s fauna, including the endangered Mexican howler monkey. Removal of rock from Los Tuxtlas will irreversibly alter the topography, vegetation and ecosystem services of the area, in addition to contravening the purposes of the Reserve. It would also increase the region’s vulnerability to climatic events such as tropical storms and hurricanes. To accommodate the port’s new footprint, the government shrunk the surface area of the protected Reef System without sufficient scientific information to understand the impact it would have.[2] The change allows the port to be built on a previously protected area of the reef. This action violates national and international standards and ignores the cumulative impacts that the project will have on the fragile ecosystem due to, among other things, increases in population and maritime traffic. The authorization granted by the Secretary of the Environment and Natural Resources would permit the construction of two breakwalls with a combined length of 7,740 meters, a main basin 800 meters in diameter, nine types of terminal docks, and 30 berths for boats. In total, the proposed enlargement of the Port of Veracruz covers an area of about 910 hectares, double the current size of the port. The removal, fragmentation and siltation of the coral reefs of the Veracruz Reef System and the disappearance of land reclaimed by the sea will irreversibly damage the health of the entirety of Mexico’s most resilient coral ecosystem. The Veracruz Reef System consists of at least 23 coral reefs of varying sizes, shapes and depth. Within its boundaries live coral ecosystems, subtidal seagrass beds, shallow marine waters, mangroves and sandy beaches. In 1992 the government declared it a Natural Protected Area, and in 2002 it was registered as a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty. The national park is the habitat of sea creatures such as dolphins and sea turtles. As a rich marine ecosystem, it supports abundant fisheries, and its incredible beauty draws sport and tourism to its shores. The coral reefs within are important climate regulators, and serve as a natural barrier against large waves and storms. In 2010, the reef protected the city of Veracruz from Hurricane Karl, a dangerous Category 4 storm.[3] For the great benefits these natural ecosystems provide, the Conserve Veracruz campaign is asking for the signatures and support of citizens around the world to urge the Mexican government to revoke the port’s environmental permit, and instead to fulfill its primary responsibility of protecting Mexico’s rich natural heritage. [1] https://www.change.org/p/semarnat-protect-the-coral-reefs-and-jungle-of-veracruz [2] The federal government issued a new decree removing protection from the Punta Gorda and Bahia Vergara reefs. [3] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), United States Department of Commerce, available at: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/podcast/feb10/dd022410transcript.html

April 14 2015 Oceans, Mining

Don Diego mining project poses grave risk to Mexican marine ecosystem

AIDA’s formal comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the phosphate-mining project, proposed in a Baja California Sur bay, point to insufficient information about safeguards for the ecosystem, which is vital for both coastal communities and endangered species. Mexico City, Mexico. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) has commented on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Don Diego phosphate-mining project in Ulloa Bay, Baja California Sur. In their analysis, AIDA proved that the document lacks sufficient technical information to ensure that the project will not seriously damage the Bay. Ulloa Bay serves as an important marine ecosystem for coastal communities as well as for endangered species like the Blue and Humpback whales and the Loggerhead turtle. The Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA) presented the comments in AIDA’s name to Mexico’s Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT). "The comments show that the Don Diego project, the first of its type in the region, could cause serious environmental damage," said Haydée Rodríguez, an AIDA attorney. The primary reasons the project should not be authorized as presented are: The project could cause irreversible damage to an ecologically vulnerable and biodiverse region, which includes Magdalena Bay, a mangrove ecosystem considered a Marine Region of Importance. The region is also home both to threatened marine species and to others vital to the fishing industry. The Environmental Impact Statement lacks important information about possible impacts on the marine ecosystem and measures to avoid them. The project involves a mining process that will greatly alter the marine environment: large boats will dredge the seabed and extract sand in search of phosphate, but in doing so may also extract living organisms. The project will alter the marine ecosystem by unearthing sediments that contain toxic elements, such as uranium, that will be returned to the ocean after processing. The exposed toxic sediments, along with the dredging and noise of the mining operation, will alter the habitat of endangered species of whales and turtles. The Mexican government has national and international obligations to apply the Precautionary Principle. As such, they should deny permission to the project to ensure that it does not cause serious and irreversible environmental damage. In authorizing the project, the Mexican government would violate international treaties that require it to protect marine environments and threatened and endangered species. The project puts at risk fishing and tourism activities that provide the livelihoods of the region’s coastal communities. You can see our full comments on the Don Diego Environmental Impact Statement here (in Spanish).

March 17 2015 Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

Organizations request that the IACHR strengthen State obligations to supervise corporate activities that violate human rights

In a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, they highlighted the opportunities that the Commission has to address the problem through the creation, implementation and strengthening of international standards on business and human rights. Washington D.C. In a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, civil society organizations requested that the Commission provide renewed attention to the problem, increasingly experienced in the hemisphere, of human rights violations committed by corporations. The hearing was jointly requested by the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), a regional organization; the Association for Human Rights (APRODEH) of Peru; the Center for Human Rights and Environment (CEDHA) of Argentina; and Justiça Global of Brazil. The organizations applauded the Commission’s openness to directly addressing, for the first time, the theme of business and human rights in a public hearing. “Through various mechanisms in recent years, the Commission has received a large amount of information about cases of human rights violations in which corporations have played a central role, but the problem has worsened because of a lack of effective solutions. In this sense, one of the biggest challenges the Commission has is to find ways to address the issue properly and to help both the States and the corporations to fulfill their human rights obligations,” explained Astrid Puentes, co-executive director of AIDA. Through their work, the organizations have seen that most recurrent aspects of the problem include: the impacts of megaprojects and extractive industries on human rights and the environment; difficulties in guaranteeing the right to participation and access to information for affected people and communities; the absence of Human Rights Impact Assessments; systematic violations of labor rights and forced labor practices; the privatization of public security forces to protect business activities; and aggression towards and criminalization of people who defend the environment, their territory and human rights. At the hearing, the organizations reminded that progress has been made in the development international standards on business and human rights. One such example, they explained, is the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. "However, because compliance is voluntary and there are various legal loopholes, this instrument has not been effective enough to prevent the continuation of human rights abuses. Also, effective regulation of territorial and extraterritorial State obligations regarding the responsibilities of transnational corporations on national, regional and international levels does not exist. This sort of vacuum prevents both the safeguarding of people’s rights, and access to appropriate compensation and justice for victims,” said Alexandra Montgomery of Justiça Global. Looking forward, the organizations presented information about the opportunities the Commission has to strengthen the implementation of existing standards. They emphasized the following points: The Commission should promote corporations’ respect for human rights. This includes promoting State responsibility for adequate supervision of business activities and for establishment of binding obligations for them, since the voluntary nature of the Guiding Principles compromises and puts at risk the protection of human rights. Based on the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System in relation to the obligations of States to respect and guarantee human rights, the Commission can develop specific measures for States to supervise business activities to ensure that they do not violate human rights. Respect for human rights by States and companies must not be subject to economic or political considerations. It is necessary to strengthen access to justice for victims of human rights abuses by business actors through recommendations for improvement and implementation of accountability mechanisms and international forums, such as the Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. “We hope that as a result of the hearing, the Commission initiates dialogues that incorporate the experience of civil society organizations and of United Nations agencies to strengthen the respect of and guarantees for human rights in the region,” concluded Gloria Cano, of APRODEH.

February 19 2015

Geneva Conference must give clarity to climate finance

Negotiations for a new climate agreement, initiated last December during the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 20) in Lima, Peru, will continue this week in Geneva, Switzerland. Delegates there will work on detailing the various elements to be included in the negotiating text of the new climate agreement, including climate finance. Climate finance is a key factor in enabling developing countries to confront climate change effectively. "We hope the Geneva session concludes with a negotiating text that provides clarity for predictable and sustainable financing," said Andrea Rodriguez, attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). "The agreement needs to establish with certainty the sources of finance, which institutions will mobilize and manage them, and how they will be disbursed, in order to ensure that these efforts contribute to low-emission, climate-resilient development in developing countries." The Conference in Peru ended with the Lima Call for Climate Action, a document whose annexes contain the essential elements for a draft negotiating text of the new climate agreement, which will be signed later this year at COP 21 in Paris. Delegates in Geneva are expected to intensify work on those key elements, and produce a negotiating text that will have legal force under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Given the importance of the Geneva conference, AIDA is providing climate finance recommendations for negotiators to incorporate into the draft text of the new climate agreement: Clear provisions regarding who is required to mobilize resources. Clear goals beyond 2020 for a road map towards annual public financing targets. Scaling up of resources to ensure compliance with the existing commitment to mobilize $100 million by 2020, and to allow countries to plan their climate actions. Predictable, adequate and sufficient climate finance to promote the transition to low-carbon, climate-resilient development in developing countries. 50:50 balanced allocation of resources for adaptation and mitigation actions. Definitions of climate finance and climate investment. Clarity on which climate finance institutions will operate under the convention. Recognition of the Green Climate Fund as the primary channel to mobilize resources, without the exclusion of other funds. Strengthen the mandate of the Standing Committee of Finance to enhance coordination and coherence of work between different financial institutions.

February 10 2015 Indigenous Rights, Human Rights

UN registered Barro Blanco Hydroelectric Dam temporarily suspended over non-compliance with Environmental Impact Assessment

Panama City, Panama and Geneva, Switzerland. In a landmark decision, Panama’s National Environmental Authority (ANAM) temporarily suspended the construction of the Barro Blanco hydroelectric dam yesterday over non-compliance with its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The dam was approved by the UN Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) despite risks of flooding to the territory of the indigenous Ngäbe Bugle communities. With delegates currently meeting in Geneva to draft negotiating text for a new global climate agreement, ANAM’s decision illustrates why the agreement must include human rights protections, including the rights of indigenous peoples. In Geneva, several nations have already insisted on the need for climate measures to respect, protect, promote, and fulfil human rights for all. "Panama has taken a critical first step toward protecting the rights of the Ngäbe communities, which have not been adequately consulted on the Barro Blanco CDM project. But much more work is needed," said Alyssa Johl, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). "As an urgent matter, Panama should recognize its obligations to protect human rights in climate actions, such as Barro Blanco, by supporting the call for human rights protections in the UN climate regime." Current climate mechanisms, such as the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism, neither provide incentives for the sustainable implementation of climate actions nor offer recourse in the case of adverse impacts. "The CDM Board approved Barro Blanco when it was clear that the dam would flood the homes of numerous indigenous families. This decision is a warning signal that safeguards must be introduced to protect human rights, including robust stakeholder consultations and a grievance mechanism," said Eva Filzmoser, Director of Carbon Market Watch. ANAM’s decision was triggered by an administrative investigation that found non-compliance with the project’s environmental impact assessment, including shortcomings in the agreements with affected indigenous communities, deficiencies in negotiation processes, the absence of an archaeological management plan for the protection of petroglyphs and other archaeological findings, repeated failures to manage sedimentation and erosion, poor management of solid and hazardous waste, and logging without permission. The Environmental Advocacy Center of Panamá (CIAM) considers it appropriate for ANAM to have taken effective and immediate measures to suspend the project. "This suspension reflects inadequate environmental management on the part of the company that requires an investigation and an exemplary sanction". "During 15 years of opposition to the Barro Blanco project, we have exposed violations of our human rights and irregularities in the environmental proceedings. Those claims were never heard," said Weni Bagama from the Movimiento 10 de Abril (M-10). "Today we are satisfied to see that the national authorities have recognized them and have suspended the project, as a first step towards dialogue. Nevertheless, we continue to uphold the communities’ position that the cancelation of this project is the only way to protect our human rights and our territory. We hope that this sets an example for the international community and for other hydroelectric projects, not only in Panama but worldwide." "Any dialogue between the affected communities, the Government and the company has to be transparent, in good faith, respectful of the communities’ rights, and include guarantees so that the communities can participate equally and the agreements are fully respected," explained María José Veramendi Villa, Senior Attorney at the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). "In this dialogue, the State must take into account all human rights violations that have been denounced by the communities since the project was approved." Environmental groups around the world are celebrating the suspension of the Barro Blanco Dam, following years of efforts in support of the indigenous populations in the Ngäbe Bugle comarca, which have been faced with oppression and numerous rights violations. Eyes are now watching for the reactions of the banks involved in financing the Barro Blanco project, including the German development bank, DEG, and the Dutch development bank, FMO, against whom the M10 movement, which represents the indigenous communities, had filed a complaint. "We urge the banks to halt disbursement of any remaining funds until all problems are solved and the affected indigenous communities agree to the project," said Kathrin Petz of Urgewald.

February 02 2015

New law protects Panama Bay Wetland Wildlife Refuge

On the occasion of World Wetlands Day, the President of Panama will approve a national law that bestows protected-area status on Panama Bay Wetland Wildlife Refuge. CIAM and AIDA applaud the decision to strengthen protection of an ecosystem key to biodiversity, freshwater supplies, and the fight against climate change. Panama City, Panama. In an official ceremony on World Wetlands Day, President Juan Carlos Varela will approve a law that bestows protected-area status on Panama Bay Wetland Wildlife Refuge, which was initially established by Administrative Resolution. The government is strengthening legal protection of an ecosystem key to fresh water supplies, reproduction of species of high commercial and nutritional value, biodiversity conservation, and climate change mitigation. "We welcome a law that demonstrates the importance that this place has on the environment and surrounding populations. It is everyone’s responsibility to protect the 85,652 hectares of coastal marine wetlands in Panama Bay," said Brooke Alfaro, President of the Board of the Environmental Advocacy Center (CIAM). The Bay is one of the world’s most important nesting and resting sites for migratory birds and a home to endangered species. Mangroves help to fight climate change by capturing carbon from the atmosphere, and mitigate its effects by serving as a buffer against coastal storms and hurricanes. In 2003, it was declared a site of international importance under the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty for the conservation of wetlands. "We congratulate the Panamanian government because this law is a breakthrough for wetland protection and for fulfillment of the country’s international obligations. It serves as an example for other countries in the region. The law emphasizes the concepts of rational use, ecosystem approach, and ecological character contained in the Ramsar Convention," said Haydée Rodríguez, attorney for the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). During the law’s approval process, CIAM’s legal and scientific team, supported by AIDA, helped strengthen the bill to ensure that it guarantees sound management of wetland resources. Both organizations will assist and support the Government of Panama in implementing the law. "We must establish an appropriate management plan to ensure the protection of the wetland for present and future generations," added Rodríguez. "Thanks to the support of citizens, civil society, the Supreme Court, deputies and government, the law ensures protection of the Panama Bay Wetland," Alfaro said. In recent years, the site has been affected by the expansion of real estate projects, with consequent channeling of rivers, drainage, and filling of natural areas. Under the new law, activities that threaten the ecological integrity of the refuge and of its boundaries are prohibited. Only another law may permit them.