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
New York, NY – As world leaders prepared to announce pledges of climate action and money for the Green Climate Fund, thousands of people flooded the streets of New York City yesterday demanding a financial commitment to clean energy and climate-resilient solutions. Heads of state are gathering at the United Nations tomorrow, at the invitation of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, in an attempt to jump-start negotiations for a new global climate deal. According to Janet Redman, climate policy director at the Institute for Policy Studies, “Reaching an agreement to stabilize the climate rests on developed countries making good on their promises. Contributions to the Green Climate Fund are past due. We need to see serious commitments from our governments to deliver financing for low-carbon, climate-friendly development now.” Andrea Rodríguez, Mexico-based legal advisor for the climate change program of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), added, “Billions of people still lack access to energy. The Green Climate Fund should support communities to meet that need through truly clean, decentralized, sustainable renewable energy. Despite the interest from various sectors in promoting carbon capture, natural gas, and large dams as climate solutions, this institution should not provide financial support for any project that emits greenhouse gas pollution.” The policies established by the Fund's 24 board members, from both developed and developing countries, have so far not excluded any energy sector from receiving finance, increasing the risk that dirty projects could ultimately receive support. “Dirty energy is more than fossil fuels,” noted Zachary Hurwitz, a consultant for International Rivers. “Hydropower dams can release methane, they can destroy carbon-sequestering forests, and they can displace thousands of people. And there’s nothing clean about the human rights violations that all too often result.” Lidy Nacpil, director of Jubilee South Asia Pacific Movement on Debt and Development, based in the Philippines, said, “In my country, we’re already facing the devastation of climate change. Wealthy industrialized countries have a legal and moral obligation to repay their climate debt and support adaptation through the Green Climate Fund. But that’s not enough. The fund must not exacerbate climate change and its impacts by financing dirty energy.” Additional information: Read the latest commentary from the Institute for Policy Studies on the Green Climate Fund. Read the Global South Position Statement on the Green Climate Fund. Read the open letter to governments, international institutions and financial mechanisms to stop considering large dams as clean energy and to implement real solutions to climate change.
Read more
Latest News
AIDA attended the Latin American Carbon Forum 2014 in Bogotá, Colombia. There, our lawyer Andrea Rodríguez participated as a representative of civil society in a panel on the Green Climate Fund (GCF), a mechanism that will mobilize large amounts of resources to support adaptation and mitigation of climate change. Andrea answers a series of questions about the current situation and prospects of the GCF. - What are civil society’s expectations for the Fund? - We have the same expectations as the Fund. We want it to be a transparent, inclusive institution that is constant learning, as stated in Article 3 of its governing instrument. Its focus has to be driven by each country’s determination of what priorities should be funded. It must balance funding for adaptation and mitigation of climate change. We expect the Fund to promote social, environmental, economic, and development co-benefits and taking a gender sensitive approach; men and women are affected to the same degree by climate change. In short, we want the Green Climate Fund to follow the rules of procedure it has adopted. - How can a balance in funding for mitigation and adaptation be ensured? - Financing is given mostly for mitigation projects, despite the great need to fund projects for adaptation to climate change. In Bali, Indonesia, during the penultimate meeting of the Fund’s Board, it was decided that 50% of the funding will go to mitigation and 50% for adaptation. That decision was made and we must ensure that it is followed. Furthermore, in Latin America, development plans and climate change strategies that have been advanced have set adaptation financing as a priority. - How should civil society involve itself in the Fund? - We must go beyond design to implementation. The Fund's governing instrument provides in Article 71 that the Board needs to develop mechanisms to promote the participation of all stakeholders (vulnerable groups, women, civil society and indigenous groups) in the design, development and implementation of projects and programs financed by the Green Climate Fund. There is a mandate for civil society in all stages. The issue is relevant because the Fund will become operational soon and will have to create these participatory mechanisms at the national level, particularly when countries begin to name their national designated authorities (those that collateralize the projects or activities financed by the Fund). It needs to institutionalize these participatory processes. - How can one measure the effectiveness of a project to be funded? - The definition of indicators will be among the topics discussed at the next meeting of the GCF Board, but some are particularly important. In adaptation, we need to consider whether a project can help reduce the vulnerability of a community to climate change. As for mitigation, you have to measure the amount of emissions reduced. But the most important aspect is to measure co-benefits that a project or activity can generate: if it creates jobs, improves people’s quality of life, etc. This is because the Green Climate Fund aims to contribute to a paradigm shift that promotes sustainable development. Helping to improve quality of life is a change of this nature. Many times, projects that have positive climate benefits generate social, environmental, and economic problems. So it is essential that additional benefits are evident in social, environmental, and economic terms.
Read more Latest News
In 2007, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) asked the Peruvian State to provide medical care and institute environmental controls. These measures have yet to be implemented fully and the health of the affected people continues to deteriorate. The IACHR has yet to reach a final decision in the case. La Oroya, Peru. Seven years have passed since the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) asked the Peruvian State to adopt precautionary measures in favor of the individuals affected by toxic contamination in the city of La Oroya. Those affected, including boys and girls, still have not received the medical attention they require and their health continues to deteriorate. On August 31, 2007, the IACHR granted precautionary measures in favor of 65 inhabitants of La Oroya who were poisoned by air, water, and soil contaminated by lead, arsenic, cadmium, and sulfur dioxide coming from the metallurgical complex of the Doe Run Perú Corporation. In light of the gravity and urgency of the situation, the Commission asked the Peruvian State to take actions necessary to diagnose and provide specialized medical treatment to affected persons whose personal integrity or lives were at risk of irreparable harm. Although some medical attention was provided, the required comprehensive, specialized care has not. Now there are dire risks of setbacks. To date, the Health Strategy for Attending to Persons Affected by Contamination with Heavy Metals and Other Chemical Substances, which is operating in the La Oroya Health Center, does not have an assured budget starting in September and for the remainder of the year. The Strategy is essential for complying with the precautionary measures, given that the diagnosis and specialized medical treatment for the beneficiaries depend on it. Without a budget, the continuity of the medical personnel attending not only to the beneficiaries but also to the entire population of La Oroya will become unviable. "The precautionary measures continue to be in force; after seven years, there has not been full compliance with them. Nonetheless, the State insists on requesting that they be lifted, despite the fact that the health of the population is deteriorating and constant risk [exists]," declared María José Veramendi Villa, attorney for the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). On a related note, the IACHR continues to study the suit filed in 2006 for violations of the human rights of the same group of affected persons. The case is based on the failure of the Peuvian State to adequately control the activities of the metallurgical complex and protect the health and other rights of the affected persons. Regrettably, these individuals’ situation is worsening, and five years after accepting the suit, the IACHR has yet to reach a final decision. "Delay affects us more and more all the time. Our maladies are worsening. During this time, we have lost many of our fellows and seen our children fall ill," declared one of the affected individuals whose name is being withheld for reasons of security. Currently the metallurgical complex is undergoing a process of liquidation, but its operations will continue during the process of being sold. However, in May the complex had to suspend its operations because its suppliers stopped providing it with concentrates due to the company’s financial problems. "Although operations have been suspended, the violations of the individuals’ human rights have already occurred. Therefore, the Peruvian State must comply with its human rights obligations and guarantee that the company and its new owners comply with their obligations to protect the environment and human health," stated Jorge Abrego, attorney for the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos [Association in Favor of Human Rights] (APRODEH).
Read more