Project
Photo: Alejandro Balaguer / Fundación Albatros MediaVictory: Panama Bay is Legally Protected
Panama Bay, one of the world’s most important nesting and roosting sites for migratory birds, is now permanently protected, thanks in part to AIDA’s expertise in international law.
The bay supports endangered species, including jaguars and loggerhead turtles, as well as the vast majority of the country’s fishing industry. Its coastal mangroves capture 50 times more carbon pollution than a tropical forest of similar size. Mangroves also protect coastal communities from storm surges that grow in severity as the climate warms. Panama has already lost 75 percent of its mangroves.
In 2012 tourism developers had secured a Supreme Court decision overturning the National Environmental Authority’s decision to protect the bay as a wildlife refuge.
AIDA worked with the Environmental Advocacy Center (CIAM), a Panamanian environmental law organization, to defend Panama Bay’s protected status. We submitted a brief containing arguments based on international law. We made analogies between Panama Bay and Las Baulas National Marine Park in Costa Rica. In a legal case about Las Baulas, a balancing test found that the public right to a healthy environment outweighed the interests of tourism developers.
Then, on February 2, 2015—World Wetlands Day—Panama passed a law creating Panama Bay Wetland Wildlife Refuge. The law emphasizes the importance of an ecosystem approach to management and the rational use of wetlands, as described in the Ramsar Convention.
AIDA and CIAM will continue working to see that the law is implemented properly and to ensure the protection of Panama Bay wetlands.
Related projects
Latest News
In representation of communities affected by the Belo Monte Dam, we have submitted final arguments in the case against Brazil before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The report presents scientific evidence of the forced displacement of indigenous and traditional communities, the mass die-off of fish, differentiated harms to men and women, and threats to the survival of local communities in the Brazilian Amazon. Washington, DC, United States and Altamira, Brazil. Furthering the formal complaint against the State of Brazil for human rights violations caused by the construction of the Belo Monte Dam, organizations representing affected communities presented their final arguments before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. They demonstrate the damages Belo Monte has caused to indigenous and traditional communities, and residents of Altamira, the city closest to the dam. “Human rights violations are a daily occurence for those affected by the dam, so it’s urgent that our petition before the Commission advance to sanction the government and guarantee our rights,” proclaimed Antônia Melo, coordinator of the Movimiento Xingu Vivo para Siempre, a citizens’ collective formed in the face of the dam’s implementation. The report presented before the Commission shows that the damages resulted from a severe lack of foresight and inadequate evaluation, as well as from failure to comply with the conditions for operation established by the government. The many risks denounced prior to the dam’s construction have since become long-term damages—many of which have affected men and women, and youth and the elderly, in different ways. “This report is a vital step forward for the people of the Xingu River basin, who are now closer than ever to achieving justice, forcing Brazil to respond to the violations committed, and ensuring that what happened on the Xingu never happens again,” said Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-director of the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). Together with the Paraense Society for Human Rights (SDDH) and Justiça Global, AIDA represents the affected communities before the Commission. The report also documents the displacement of indigenous and traditional communities forced to leave their territories without adequate alternatives, placing their cultural survival at risk. Among the affected populations are communities dedicated to fishing, who have not yet been compensated for the loss of livelihood. The dam has caused mass die-offs of fish and, although authorities have imposed millions in fines, the report demonstrates that the underlying problem has not been resolved. Local communities now have limited use of the Xingu River as a source of food, sustenance, transportation and entertainment. The report also documents—among other serious harms—the disappearance of traditional trades, such as brickmakers and cart drivers, and of traditional cultural practices. Women, for example, have stopped giving birth in their homes and must now go to a hospital, a reality that has drastically worsened due to the oversaturation of health and education services in Altamira caused by the recent population surge. The complaint against Brazil was presented before the Commission in 2011, the year the international organism granted protective measures to indigenous people affected by the dam’s construction. The case against Brazil officially opened in December 2015. Then, last October, in a rare move designed to speed up the processing of the case, the Commission decided to unite two stages that, as a rule, are normally processed separately. Under this framework, the organizations and the State are required to present their final arguments, after which the Commission will make a decision. “We hope the Commission refers the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights as soon as possible, and that it recommends Brazil adopt the measures necessary to protect the life, integrity, and right to property of the indigenous and traditional communities affected by the dam,” said Raphaela Lopes, attorney at Justiça Global. “After being subject to all forms of rights violations, starting from the very beginning of this project, these communities need integral reparation; their right to free, prior and informed consent was not honored.” The Commission must now prepare a report to conclude whether or not human rights violations occurred as a result of the Belo Monte Dam, in which it may issue recommendations for remediation. If those recommendations are unfulfilled, the case may be referred to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, which has the power to issue a ruling condemning Brazil. Belo Monte has been in operation since early 2015, though a series of judicial suspensions resulting from non-compliance with its permits means that construction has yet to be completed. Although Belo Monte has caused great harm to the people of the Xingu, Brazil now has an opportunity to avoid inflicting more damage and begin making efforts to better their quality of life. For that to happen, a prompt decision by the Commission is vital. Find more information about the case here. Press contacts: Víctor Quintanilla (México), AIDA, [email protected], +521 5570522107 Raphaela Lopes (Brasil), Justiça Global, [email protected], + 55 21 99592-7017
Read more
Latest News
In a country highly dependent on hydrocarbons, human rights and those of nature are often overlooked. That's why in Argentina, AIDA and our allies are supporting the efforts of communities and organizations to avoid the damages caused by fracking. In Neuquén province in Argentine Patagonia, a large metal structure rises high above the apple trees. It’s one of many fracking wells that have been installed in this rich natural area. A single well like this one requires roughly 11 million liters of water for operation, the equivalent to 18 years of water consumption for an average family. Despite being internationally recognized as an experimental, risky and contaminating process, fracking is spreading rapidly through Argentina, affecting the land and water of the Mapuche people and other local communities. Much of the nation’s exploration is taking place at Vaca Muerta, the largest unconventional gas reserve in Latin America. Roughly 30 thousand square kilometers, the site covers four Argentine provinces: Neuquén, Rio Negro, La Pampa and Mendoza. The expansion of fracking has brought with it problems like pollution and great harm to the livelihoods of local communities, including the Mapuche, who are forced to find new ways of living on their land in order to avoid migration to urban centers. Oil companies generate unstable and short-term employment. And, due to the increase in the price of land, the residents of the area must earn more money to maintain their standard of living. In a country that gets 90 percent of its energy from hydrocarbons, the government has failed to prioritize the rights of indigenous peoples, of children and of nature. Instead, it has favored the economic income of a highly unsustainable activity. That’s why the efforts of communities and civil society organizations to resist the blind advance of fracking are fundamental. “What motivates me is caring for our land and water; nature is not ours, we belong to it,” stated Santiago Cane, member of the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), an organization that is using the courts to stop fracking. FARN filed a writ of amparo to invalidate the authorizations granted for the exploitation of four fracking wells in Mendoza. The environmental authority granted the permits in July 2017, in a record time of six days, without requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment. The lawsuit, which AIDA is supporting from our experience in international environmental law, remains in process. “In Mendoza, fracking is advancing at a rapid pace,” Santiago explained. “The national and provincial governments are not taking into account the potentially irreversible pollution of water sources that serve several cities.” In fact, Mendoza is a province that has suffered from water scarcity for years, a problem aggravated by climate change. Those who promote fracking in Mendoza also overlook the fact that, by contaminating both surface and ground water supplies, the toxic chemicals used in fracking will likely reach the Llancanelo lagoon, a wetland of international importance located in the foothills of the Andes Mountains. The lagoon is a mandatory passage and rest area for more than 130 species of resident and migratory birds. Additionally, the region is home to the Mapuche people. According to international law, indigenous peoples like the Mapuche must give their free, prior and informed consent to any activity that affects their territory. That right is not being respected in this case. “I am motivated by the idea of a different economy that does not deprecate nature and that does not generate the accumulation of wealth within small groups of society,” Santiago adds. FARN, together with AIDA, is part of the Latin American Alliance on Fracking, a coalition of organizations that work to slow fracking’s advance in the region. Together we will continue our work to avoid fracking’s damages to our land and water. We are convinced that the power to stop fracking lies with the people.
Read more
Latest News
The powers behind the Port of Veracruz expansion project share a trait all too common in Mexico: a vision of development as the sum of short-term gains. But achieving those often requires squashing all possible obstacles, including our natural environments and the laws that protect them. “The first stage of the expansion of the Port of Veracruz will provide oxygen to the surrounding area for 15 or 20 years,” stated Juan Ignacio Fernández Carbajal, director of the Veracruz Port Authority. By oxygen, the director means economic income and new sources of employment derived from the port’s increased capacity. But this vision of development—so clearly shortsighted— ignores the social, environmental and economic benefits that the Veracruz Reef System has long provided, and which it will continue to provide for far more than 20 years. The second most important infrastructure project in Mexico’s recent history will irreversibly damage the largest coral ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico, the Veracruz Reef System National Park. The reefs of Veracruz provide oxygen to Mexico and our planet in the most literal sense. The oceans and their ecosystems, particularly coral reefs, generate about half the oxygen we breathe and absorb almost a third of the carbon dioxide we emit. Coral reefs also produce 17 percent of all proteins consumed worldwide—a percentage that rises to 70 percent for coastal nations, according to a report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. They harbor more than 100 thousand different species of marine fauna, including thousands of commercial fish, which share their home with herbivorous fish, sea turtles and sharks. In good conditions, reefs protect coastal populations from storms, hurricanes and tsunamis—natural phenomena aggravated by climate change. They absorb up to 95 percent of the impact of waves generated by strong winds. The people of Veracruz know particularly well how the reefs have protected them. When hurricane Karl (a category four) hit the city in 2001, the Veracruz reefs provided a buffer that protected the city from the worst of the storm. Despite the fact that the reef system was designated a national protected area in 1975, and named a national park in 1992, the government decided to change the park’s boundaries in 2012 to allow for the expansion of the Port of Veracruz—effectively excluding the Punta Gorda reefs and Vergara Bay from the protected area. In purely economic terms—those clearly prioritized by the project’s promoters—by taking away the protection of those reefs, and putting their future at risk, Mexico’s oceans are losing value. The value of the environmental services provided by the now-unprotected Punta Gorda and Vergara Bay reefs is estimated around $290.5 million USD, a dramatic figure in light of the estimated value of the expanded port's activities. The port expansion project has an estimated value of $85,600 USD per square kilometer, according to an article by the University of Veracruz, a figure that pales in comparison to the estimated value of ecosystem services provided by coral reefs, which ranges between $100,000 and $600,000 USD dollars per square kilometer, according to the United Nations Environment Program. The obligations Mexico ignored to promote the port “Unfortunately, when we thought the project was about to begin, we began to have environmental problems, which delayed the project for about three and a half years,” Fernández Carbajal explained. The “problems” to which the director is referring is the existence of protected coral reefs on site. “Since the problem was a national park, the government figured they’d remove it from the area so they could build the port without facing any legal obstacles,” Leonardo Ortiz, a researcher at the University of Veracruz, explained in our documentary short Battle for the Reefs of Veracruz. According to national law, the only activities permitted within the Veracruz Reef System National Park are those related to the protection of its natural resources, the increase in flora and fauna, and the preservation of its ecosystems and their elements. Port activities are clearly in violation of this law. So rather than stop the expansion project, the government chose instead to change the park’s boundaries, effectively unprotecting the reefs that fell within the port’s proposed limits. In doing so, the government failed to conserve the natural characteristics of the nation’s ecosystems for future generations. It also violated its obligations under the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty for the protection of wetlands, under which the Veracruz Reef System is recognized as a Wetland of International Importance. What’s more, the project’s Environmental Impact Assessment was highly flawed in the following ways: The Port Authority requested a fragmented authorization of the project, which prevented an adequate and comprehensive assessment of the project’s cumulative impacts over time. By ignoring the existence of the once-protected reef located in the construction zone, the assessment failed to provide the best possible scientific data. It did not include protective measures for sea turtles that spend an important part of their life cycle in the park—particularly hawksbill turtles, a threatened species recognized by the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles. It failed to consider the impacts on the reef due to sedimentation, the dredging of the Bay of Vergara and Punta Gorda, and the increase in the quantity and size of the vessels in the new port. It ignored the fact that, by transporting an increased quantity of hydrocarbons, the port’s expansion increases the risk of spills in a region highly vulnerable to these incidents, which could seriously damage the highly biodiverse reef system in the Southeast corridor of the Gulf of Mexico. For all of the above reasons, residents of the city of Veracruz have filed a writ of amparo, denouncing the government’s blatant violations of human rights and environmental law. In the legal action—presented by the Mexico Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA) and supported by AIDA—residents attest that the port expansion project is violating their human right to a healthy environment. The question we must consider then, is this: Does the short-term economic advancement of a region matter more than the preservation of a 10,000-year-old reef system that guarantees biodiversity, sustainable tourism, food security, and enduring protection against climate change? For those of us who think of the long game, and consider the natural world to be our best ally on the path toward a sustainable future, the answer is clear. The port expansion must be stopped.
Read more