Fracking

October 03 2024 Fracking, Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources

Organizations concerned by Mendoza Supreme Court rejecting their Participation while allowing that of the oil industry in litigation over fracking

The Mendoza Supreme Court’s differential treatment occurred in a lawsuit over the authorization of fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, for extracting oil and gas from the Vaca Muerta formation in the Argentinian province. Civil society groups express concern about the Mendoza Supreme Court’s refusal to receive information about the dangerous impacts of using fracking to extract oil and gas on indigenous peoples and the environment in Mendoza. The Court rejected the participation of seven organizations--including an organization of the Mapuche Indigenous People and both Argentinian and international groups on human rights and the environment--in a case that will impact the regulation of the oil and gas industry in Mendoza. The court has instead shown preference toward the fossil fuel industry, having allowed the participation of several groups representing the interests of oil companies in the same court case. The court is weighing a decision involving the authorization of hydraulic fracturing--also known as fracking--to extract oil and gas from the Vaca Muerta formation in Mendoza. Although fracking has not been widely used in Mendoza, the technique has caused public health and safety risks in other countries because of its impact on the environment. The organizations requested to participate in the case as "Friends of the Court" (amicus curiae). This is a common practice permitted in Mendoza and many countries around the world that allows people not otherwise connected with litigation to share information with the courts in cases that affect the public interest. One justice dissented from the Supreme Court's decision, criticizing that this ruling "is far from the level of listening that ought to demand the judge's attention in the resolution of cases of undoubted social interest, such as the one at issue here." Furthermore, the justice pointed out that "[t]he entities requesting this Court to grant them participation as amicus, have vast experience and specialization in environmental issues." So far, the Supreme Court has rejected the interventions of the following organizations: Organización Identidad Territorial Malalweche (Mendoza); Xumek (Mendoza); Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (national); the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (international), the Center for International Environmental Law (international); Earthjustice (international) and the Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (international). Statements from the organizations Ana Laura Piccolo, executive director of XUMEK: "At Xumek, we are concerned by the provincial Supreme Court’s repeated rejections of the participation of civil society organizations through the figure of the 'Friend of the Court.' The organizations that have come forward to collaborate have established experience in the subject matter of the case and we make our contributions from a serious and objective perspective, in accordance with the technical and legal knowledge and expertise we possess. In addition, we have participated as amicus curiae in numerous judicial proceedings, both local and international". Ñushpi Quilla Mayhuay Alancay, attorney in charge of the Indigenous Peoples Area of XUMEK: "As expressed in the dissenting vote, ignoring all the voices of civil society in a case of high social complexity affects the dialogue between the judiciary and the citizens, thereby weakening the democratic process in cases of social interest where the human rights of society can be affected". Erika Schmidhuber, attorney with the Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS): "We consider it essential that the province complies with international human rights standards on free, prior and informed consultation with indigenous peoples for development projects in their ancestral territory, regardless of whether or not that territory is formally recognized. The Argentine State has already been condemned internationally for not complying with these standards. It is necessary for the Mendoza court to evaluate the arguments we have presented as they reflect the obligations that Mendoza must comply with." Jacob Kopas, attorney at Earthjustice: "Strong scientific evidence from other countries shows that fracking generates serious contamination risks, particularly by leeching toxic chemicals into nearby water supplies. It is essential that the Supreme Court of Mendoza take this evidence into consideration along with the support for fracking it has received from groups that profit from oil extraction." Sofía Barquero, attorney with AIDA's Ecosystems Program: "Our interest in this case stems from our desire to ensure that environmental protection and the rights of indigenous peoples are an integral part of any decision that may affect these communities. In that sense, we respectfully call on the Court to reconsider its decision and allow for the inclusion of civil society voices in this judicial process. We trust that the Court will take into consideration the importance of listening to all stakeholders in this case." Upasana Khatri, attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL): "Fracking poses long-term environmental and health hazards that outlast production. It is essential that the Court hears from civil society experts on the evidence of such harms and the legal duty to prevent them - not just from industry actors with a stake in fossil fuel production - to ensure an informed decision on the risks and regulation of fracking in Mendoza." press contacts Organización Identidad Territorial Malalweche, Werken Gabriel Jofre, +54 2604592679 XUMEK Asociación para la promoción y protección de los derechos humanos, Ñushpi Quilla Mayhuay Alancay, +54 9 2616807798 CELS, Martina Noailles, [email protected], +54 9 11 6562-6566 AIDA, Víctor Quintanilla, [email protected], +521 5570522107 Earthjustice, Jacob Kopas, [email protected], +1 5862924603 CIEL, Press Office, [email protected]

August 30 2022 Fracking, Indigenous Rights

The Mapuche: in defense of ancestral territory in Argentina

In the south of the province of Mendoza, Argentina, several communities belonging to the Mapuche people—one of the 39 self-recognized indigenous peoples throughout the country—have come together in the Malalweche Territorial Identity Organization to defend their rights, way of life and territorial integrity from extractive, energy and tourism activities and projects. One of the threats that these communities are currently facing is the advance of the exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons through fracking. In 2018, the government of Mendoza issued Decree 248, which regulates fracking activities in the province. Before issuing the norm, it overlooked the right of the Mapuche communities in the area to be consulted and to give their free, prior and informed consent. It then made the consultation conditional on the communities having legal recognition of rights over their territory. Since then, the Malalweche Territorial Identity Organization has been fighting a court battle to have the decree declared unconstitutional. The lawsuit, initiated by the Oikos Environmental Network Association, is backed by national and international environmental organizations, including the Association for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights-Xumek, the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), AIDA and Earthjustice. The Mapuche communities are tireless in their struggle. The reason is simple: their strength comes from what they protect. It comes from their intimate connection to the territory and all that it holds. A broader vision of territory As in the case with indigenous peoples across the American continent, territories of the Mapuche people are rich in natural resources, which causes large interests to set their eyes on them, ignoring or wanting to ignore those who legitimately inhabit them. For the indigenous communities, territory is not limited to geographical space, but is conceived as the wider space from which human activities, such as grazing paths, emerge and converge. Rivers, mountains and animals are essential elements of the ancestral territory of the Mapuche people. They are distinctive parts of their culture. "These elements also make up the transhumance—a type of pastoralism that consists of seasonal movement along migratory routes—of the people who move, who go from one place to another," explains Gabriel Jofré, a traditional authority and spokesperson for Malalweche. "Today the territory is limited by private property, which makes you settle in a place; our parents used to say that you go where the territory takes you.” The intrusion and territorial usurpation by dominant and oppressive elites —at the beginning of the 20th century—led to the exodus of members of the Mapuche people, the dispersion of others and the silence of many more for fear of repression. In defense of community life Faced with the environmental, social and economic impacts of the intrusion of business activities in the ancestral territory of the Mapuche, the organization Malalweche promotes access to indigenous community property. Although the Argentine State recognizes in its Constitution the ethnic and cultural pre-existence of indigenous peoples and has ratified international conventions that oblige it to respect and guarantee their rights, the legal recognition of the rights of Mapuche communities to indigenous territories faces administrative obstacles and delays due to bureaucratic processes. "That is why, to avoid legal obstacles, we have developed the strategy of creating productive cooperatives," explained Gabriel. Kume Matru food products factory, a cooperative enterprise, was inaugurated on June 23, the date on which Winoj Tripantu, or the beginning of the Mapuche year, is celebrated. Kume Matru is a clear example of the versatility of these communities to walk the path of sharing and bringing together their own needs and those of others; to deliver not only food, but also the whole chain of hands that made it possible. "The people who recover these processes are a reflection of the ancestral forces that are in the territory of the pullü, the spirit of our grandparents," said Gabriel. "It is our children who begin to recover what at some point was cut off, these are processes that must be protected in order for that to happen." In line with this need, last March, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights established that, in a context of climate crisis and environmental deterioration, "the States have the duty to title, delimit and demarcate the collective ancestral territory, attending to the particular characteristics of the specific human group and avoiding granting concessions for projects that may affect the territories in titling, delimitation and demarcation processes without a process of consultation and consent". The norms are clear, both domestic and international. States must guarantee the rights of indigenous peoples, avoiding governmental acts and/or judicial rulings that could affect them, and ensuring that economic development is sustainable and respectful of environmental integrity. Let us recover the legacy of the original peoples, who teach us to live in harmony with nature, as parts of the whole, interconnected with their forces, from which our own must also emerge as a renewed impulse to defend our common home.

July 08 2022 Fracking, Freshwater Sources, Toxic Pollution

In regressive decision, high court endorses fracking in Colombia

Bogotá, Colombia. Colombia’s highest administrative court, the Council of State, on Thursday ruled against a lawsuit that sought to nullify the government’s regulation of fracking, effectively endorsing the controversial technique’s implementation in the Andean nation. The nullity lawsuit was filed by the Public Interest Law Clinic of the Universidad del Norte—which was jointly advised by AIDA, Corporación Podion, and the legal clinics of Universidad Javeriana and Universidad de los Andes—in an attempt to challenge the legality of the rules that would allow for fracking operations in the country, found in 2013’s Decree 3004 and 2014’s Resolution 90341. This decision means the suspension of Colombia’s judicial moratorium on fracking, which has been in place since 2018, when the when the Council preventively suspended the rules based on the precautionary principle and due to the lack of certainty about the risks of irreversible damage that the technique implies for the environment, climate and public health. Fracking has been assessed by national and international academics and scientists as an experimental technique that threatens air, water, human health, democratic participation, social fabric and culture, traditional knowledge systems, biodiversity and, in the long term, economic, seismic and climatic stability. In addition, it creates atmospheric pollution due to the emission of methane—a potent gas whose warming potential is 84 to 87 times greater than carbon dioxide on a 20-year scale. While the Council of State's ruling ratifies the government's regulations and lifts the moratorium, it does not exonerate national and local authorities from protecting the environment and respecting the fundamental rights of the population as they consolidate the mining and energy policy. Legal experts who brought the case before the Court respond to the ruling: "In Latin America and around the world, many countries have banned fracking because of its impacts on the environment and on the protection of human rights. The ruling of Colombia’s Council of State is regressive and goes against international advances on environmental, climate and human rights issues.” - Yeny Rodríguez, attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) "The Council of State has issued a decision contrary to the facts proven in the litigation. They have ignored the survey conducted by the National University of Colombia, the report of the expert commission, the concept of the Attorney General's Office, and the rest of the documentary evidence and scientific texts that clearly demonstrated the need to prohibit this technique under the precautionary principle. In addition, the ruling ignores Colombia's international climate commitments and the principle of intergenerational solidarity, as it ignores the fundamental rights of future generations." - Juan Pablo Sarmiento, plaintiff’s attorney in the case. “The Council of State lost a great opportunity to strengthen, through the courts, a regulation that many experts considered too weak to protect the environment and public health. Its now is in the hands of the national government and the legislature to guarantee society the protection of the precautionary principle and democratic participation in environmental matters" - Juan Felipe García, attorney with the Law and Territory Clinic of the Universidad Javeriana “The decision of the highest administrative court in the country is not an open invitation to carry out fracking in Colombia. The government must fully guarantee the right to participation and the voice of communities in decision-making about projects that may generate environmental impacts in their territories, as well as guarantee the safety and protection of environmental leaders who defend their territories". - Silvia Quintero, legal advisor to the Environmental and Public Health Legal Clinic of the Universidad de Los Andes “The lifting of the judicial moratorium on fracking leaves open the possibility of moving forward with such projects whose contracts were previously suspended. It’s necessary that fracking have a social license because several regions of the country have been considered as potential areas for its implementation." - Lizeth Gómez, attorney with Corporación Podion Contactos de prensa: Juan Pablo Sarmiento, [email protected], +573005514583 Yeny Rodríguez, AIDA, [email protected], +573107787601 Juan Felipe García, Clínica en Derecho y Territorio de la Universidad Javeriana, [email protected], +573125588889 Lizeth Gómez, PODION, [email protected], +573176430036

June 29 2022 Fracking, Indigenous Rights, Mining

Examining the obstacles to energy transition in Latin America

The climate crisis and its impacts on human rights require the governments of Latin America to design and implement laws, public policies, and other measures aimed at protecting the lives and integrity of their people. In the region most threatened by global warming, they must do so through mitigation, adaptation and attention to the losses and damages already caused. Given that the current energy system based on fossil fuels is the main cause of the climate crisis, as well as the inequalities that are closely linked to it, the framework for climate action in the Americas must be that of a just energy transition. The energy transition is an opportunity for the continent to abandon old energy production models characterized by large social and environmental impacts, and to move towards environmentally and climatically sustainable methods, while respecting the human rights of the communities and sectors involved. Several countries in the region are failing to integrate this perspective. The case of Colombia exemplifies a risky trend for the region—the government is currently promoting a host of climate-aggravating projects, which deepen dependence on fossil fuels, as useful to the energy transition. Such regressive measures include: the expansion of coalmines in operation or the opening of new mines under the argument that the export of the mineral will finance the transition; and the favoring of natural gas exploitation through tax benefits and the easing of environmental permitting processes, under the false premise that gas is a clean energy source. Sounding the alarm Given the worrying panorama in Colombia, AIDA will be drafting and distributing a series of Urgent Alerts that call attention to projects, public policies and regulations that hinder a just transition, and deepen dependence on fossil fuels. They will be collective alerts, supported by other international organizations that, like AIDA, seek climate justice and work in defense of environmental and human rights. Each alert will be sent to the national authorities in charge of the measure in question. Geared toward promoting reflections on how to advance in the just energy transition, each alert will include public policy and regulatory recommendations based on the State's international obligations and commitments on climate, environmental and human rights issues. In each case, the message is clear—by continuing with the promotion, extraction and use of gas and coal, the Colombian State would be failing to comply with these obligations. The first alert calls attention to the potential definitive diversion of the Bruno stream in the department of La Guajira to expand production at and revenue from El Cerrejón, the largest open-pit coal mine in Latin America and one of the ten largest in the world. The project not only implies an increase in greenhouse gas emissions—coal is responsible for 44 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions—but is also a threat to the rights to water, food security and health of the Wayuu indigenous communities that depend on the stream. A regional scope The measures adopted by the Colombian State may well reflect the situation in other countries of the region, or be replicated in them. Several alerts will refer to the exploitation of hydrocarbons through fracking, a controversial technique advancing blindly in Colombia and other Latin American countries. Another will warn of the use of hydrogen, promoted as a viable and clean energy alternative. In Colombia there is already a public policy route to advance with its implementation and two pilot projects underway. Hydrogen production results from burning coal or gas at high temperatures. Recent studies warn that this requires capturing and storing carbon dioxide, so the alternative depends on being able to store carbon indefinitely and avoid leakage into the atmosphere. In addition, hydrogen production is energy-intensive and involves the emission of gases during the heating and pressurization process, as well as the use of natural gas as fuel. As a region, we cannot afford to delay the energy transition and the achievement of climate justice, both urgent and necessary goals, with options that will only tie us more and more to fossil fuels and to an energy system that only intensifies social inequalities and environmental degradation.

April 22 2022 Fracking, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

Court ruling may approve licensing for Belo Sun's mining project in the Amazon

Environmental licensing for the largest open-pit gold mine project in Brazil has been challenged by eight lawsuits exposing flaws in environmental impact studies. A possible decision in favor of Belo Sun may set a precedent that illegally restricts consultation of traditional peoples and sanctions human rights violations. Altamira (Pará), April 22, 2022 — On Monday, April 25, the Regional Federal Court of the 1st Region (TRF1) will rule on two decisive cases that could pave the way for the beginning of the project by Canadian mining company Belo Sun in Pará, in the Brazilian Amazon. The company plans to build the largest open-pit gold mine in Brazil, at Volta Grande do Xingu, one of the most biodiverse sites in the world and a region that has already suffered the impacts of the Belo Monte dam and hydroelectric plant. In 2017, the Regional Federal Court of the 1st Region (TRF1) revoked a second license granted by the state of Pará for the installation of the project, prompting the mining company to undergo a process of prior consultation with affected Indigenous peoples, in accordance with Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO). The Court also required the company to prepare an Indigenous Component Study (ECI) within the parameters required by Funai (Brazilian National Indigenous Foundation), on the impacts of the project on Indigenous peoples. At the hearing on April25, 2022, the court will revisit the case. Belo Sun claims it has complied with the requirements, but the Federal Prosecution Office (MPF) is contesting this assertion. The Prosecution Office says that Belo Sun performed no actual consultation with affected populations, and that the ECI study is flawed — researchers have considered the project to be environmentally unfeasible, with a high likelihood of dam failure. The Prosecution Office's claims are based on a report published in February by researchers from the Observatory of Community Protocols of Consultation and Prior, Free and Informed Consent, at the request of the Prosecution Office itself. “If the TRF-1 upholds Belo Sun's request, we will be facing a dangerous precedent, which illegally restricts the content of the consultation provided for in Articles 6, 15, and 16 of Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO), and sanctions the violation of the human rights of Indigenous peoples and traditional communities in Volta Grande do Xingu. Such decision would legitimize the lawless actions undertaken by Belo Sun and would open the doors to the exploration of the newest gold frontier in the Amazon, which, if made possible, will surely drive the ecocide and systematic destruction of the already-fragile region of Volta Grande,” declares Ana Carolina Alfinito, legal advisor at Amazon Watch, an organization that is part of the Volta Grande do Xingu Alliance. Belo Sun’s Volta Grande Project would affect multiple Indigenous peoples, including the Jurunas of the Paquiçamba Indigenous Land, the Araras of the Arara da Volta Grande Indigenous Territory, the isolated peoples of the Ituna-Itatá Indigenous Territory, and “desaldeados”—Indigenous groups who traditionally occupy territories that haven’t yet been formally demarcated by the Brazilian government. These groups inhabit territories very close to the site the project would occupy. Such is the case of the population that lives on Ilha da Fazenda, Ressaca, and Galo, in addition to the communities of São Francisco (Juruna), Iawa (Kuruaya), Jericoá II (Xipaia), Kanipá (Xipaia), and Kaniamã (Xipaia). The São Francisco community, for example, is located only 600 meters from the project area, so it would suffer serious and direct impacts, which makes its exclusion from the impact assessment and consultation process even more serious. According to the document from the Prosecution Office, Belo Sun only collected testimonies from the affected communities, leaving no room for Indigenous people to express their views and influence the project, as should occur in an effective consultation process. The report also suggests that the mining company is attempting to classify meetings with the desaldeado communities as consultations—although the company’s initial and expressed goal was merely to collect information. There are no records that Indigenous people who attended these meetings were informed that they were attending a prior consultation process for deliberation on the gold mine. A 2012 ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights upholds that consultations must take place “at all stages of planning and from the earliest phases.” The same ruling by the Court determined that prior consultation is a responsibility of the government, which cannot be delegated to private companies, “much less to those interested in extracting the resources. There are records of meetings in which only representatives of Belo Sun and some of the Indigenous communities participated, without the presence of governmental agencies,” the Observatory's report points out. In a statement to Repórter Brasil, Lorena Kuruaya says that the Iawá community, made up of members of the Xipaia and Kuruaia peoples and one of those affected by Belo Sun’s project, sent several consultation requests to Funai but got no response. “We need to know about the project, about explosions and the use of cyanide, because we fear what happened in Brumadinho and Mariana. To date, we have been treated as if we were invisible in the consultation process,” reads a letter from 2020 signed by community members. In another joint communiqué, according to Repórter Brasil, residents of Iawá and the Kanipá, Jericoá I, and Jericoá II communities informed Funai that none of them had been “sought, consulted, let alone informed” about the implications of the project, and requested mediation from the agency so the mining company could present explanations, execution plans, and potential environmental impacts. “A decision in favor of Belo Sun means that the Brazilian government, as in the case of Belo Monte, will once again side with big companies, completely ignoring the socio-environmental impacts that will result from this project,” points out lawyer Marcella Ribeiro, from the Human Rights program of AIDA (Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense). “The polygons under scrutiny go beyond the river area and extend to Indigenous regions. Within a few years we will likely see gold exploration in adjoining areas. And if Bill 191 is approved, these Indigenous lands will become a large mine,” she proclaims. Failures and impacts of Belo Sun’s project According to experts, the Belo Sun mining project in Volta Grande do Xingu has serious structural flaws which were not clearly presented to the impacted communities during the consultation process. Environmental impact studies carried out by the mining company disregard both the potential seismic impacts on the tailings dam that needs to be built and the cumulative impacts it would cause along with the dam of the Belo Monte plant. The dam designed for the mine would be similar in size to the Vale dam that collapsed in Mariana in 2015, causing Brazil's biggest environmental disaster. A report by an expert in geology and mining, Dr. Steven H. Emerman, claims that at least nine million cubic meters of toxic mining waste could reach the Xingu River and travel more than 40 kilometers in two hours, causing irreversible damage. These tailings could contain highly toxic metals, such as cyanide, arsenic, and mercury, which could lead to ecocide of the Xingu River. Furthermore, Belo Sun’s project is only ten kilometers from the main dam on the Xingu River, built for the Belo Monte hydroelectric power plant. The exploration conducted by the mining company expects explosions 24 hours a day to extract gold from the earth, for at least 12 years. There is a risk that the explosions will impact the stability of the Belo Monte dam, as well as that of the Volta Grande project, something that has not been considered until now. Belo Monte itself, in a recent statement, warned of the risks of implementing a minint megaproject in the area. Other studies point to impacts such as changes in the reproductive cycle of fauna, deforestation and/or burning, pollution of water resources, and soil contamination. Volta Grande do Xingu Alliance This is a communiqué by the Volta Grande do Xingu Alliance, which includes organizations and social movements from Brazil and the world. The Alliance supports the defense of life and dignity in the Volta Grande do Xingu region and its permanent protection against infrastructure projects such as the Belo Monte hydroelectric plant and Belo Sun’s mine. The Alliance comprises: AIDA, Amazon Watch, Earthworks, International Rivers, Instituto Socioambiental – ISA, Mining Watch, Movimento Xingu Vivo para Sempre, and Rede Xingu+.

April 21 2022 Fracking, Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources

Court suspends fracking pilot projects, reaffirms right to prior consultation in Colombia

A Colombian judge on Thursday suspended the environmental license for the Kalé fracking pilot project and the environmental permitting process for the Platero fracking pilot project—both located in the municipality of Puerto Wilches, Santander—until the consultation processes with the communities of the region are completed. The court ruling responds to an injunction filed by the Afro-Colombian communities of Puerto Wilches (AFROWILCHES), the Podion Corporation, the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers Collective, and the Colombia Free of Fracking Alliance, to which AIDA provides legal support. For AIDA, the suspension of the projects represents a victory for the communities of the Magdalena Medio. It acknowledges that fracking cannot advance in the country without their real and effective participation, without a social license, and in a context of threats against the lives of defenders who oppose this technique. "The court decision sends a powerful warning message to other Latin American nations,” said Yeny Rodríguez, AIDA attorney. “Governments currently advancing fracking must respect the principles of environmental democracy, especially since this is a technique and an industry that significantly impacts the environment and public health." "While the guarantee of the right to participation and prior consultation is non-negotiable, fracking continues to be a widely questioned technique, which has been banned worldwide due to the lack of scientific certainty about its possible risks and the very high socio-environmental costs it has caused in the countries that already employ it," she explained. There has been a judicial moratorium on the development of commercial fracking in Colombia since November 2018, when the Council of State declared its provisional suspension at the national level. That decision is based on the precautionary principle, since the regulation of fracking does not contemplate the environmental risks and impacts that its application could cause. A final ruling from the Council of State on the fracking regulation is expected in the coming months. In addition, a second appeal for legal protection filed by more than 10 organizations of fishermen, farmers, women and youth of Puerto Wilches is being considered based on the violation of the right to public participation in the implementation of fracking pilot projects there. The appeal was denied in the first instance, but a favorable ruling is expected in the second. The Colombian Constitutional Court will hear of the decisions of these two judicial proceedings. That court and the Council of State will have the final word on the future of fracking’s implementation in the country. The judges of Colombia, and those across the region, have the power and the opportunity to positively transform development models that promote activities like fracking while systematically damaging the environment and violating human rights. Press contact: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107

July 20 2021 Fracking, Indigenous Rights, Climate Change

Reflections for a Bolivia free of fracking

Text written as part of the series #TRANSFORMAR LA CRISIS, Tomo II. Crisis Ecológica, extractivismo y poblaciones vulnerables by the foundation Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) in Bolivia, to be published soon. It all began with a study, published in 2011 by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, reporting the existence of large quantities of unconventional hydrocarbons in Bolivia. The study created considerable expectations in the Andean Nation. Given the gradual depletion of conventional oil and gas deposits, fracking has since become a latent threat. Fracking is a risky, costly and highly polluting technique. As a region, Latin America is home to roughly seven thousand fracking wells. The technique’s advance—as well as related public policies, regulations and social opposition—has commonalities across the region, including its affects on protected areas and on urban, rural and indigenous populations. So far, Bolivia remains free from fracking. But without an intentional political decision to avoid it, and without a population better informed about its effects, fracking could soon become a reality here as well. The risks of fracking in Bolivia The implementation of fracking is a latent threat in Bolivia because of the nation’s significant dependence on fossil fuels. In 2013, the state-owned company YPFB signed a cooperative agreement with YPF Argentina to study the potential of unconventional hydrocarbons. It also asked the operating companies to extract samples from the Los Monos geological formation in the Chaco region. That same year, YPFB Chaco (a subsidiary of YPFB), with the support of Halliburton, carried out a "mini-fracture" in the Ingre X-2 well, part of the Tupambi formation, in Chuquisaca. This operation would have allowed for the discovery of tight sand oil. Based on this discovery, YPFB Chaco had proposed to perform a complete fracture of the reservoir in 2014. It is unknown if this occurred because, in the years following, YPFB stopped generating public information on the project. In 2018, Canadian company CanCambria Energy Corp. signed a study agreement with YPFB, the prelude to an exploration/exploitation contract, to determine the unconventional gas potential at Miraflores, also in Chuquisaca. CanCambria's preliminary data points to the possible existence of a mega-field in the area, whose potential gas resources would be comparable to those of Argentina’s Vaca Muerta. The Canadian firm has prepared a proposal to extract gas by drilling 800 wells over 202 square kilometers in the Miraflores area, in the municipality of Macharetí. Miraflores is located in the Heroes del Chaco Municipal Protected Area and is part of the Yrenda Toba Tarijeño Aquifer System, which Bolivia shares with Paraguay and Argentina. The people living in Macharetí, including Guaraní indigenous communities, were shocked to receive news of the project. The alarm raised by the possibility of fracking in this territory led those who live there to learn about the consequences of the technique, particularly in relation to the use and contamination of immense quantities of water. As a direct result, Macharetí included in its autonomous statute the prohibition of fracking in its territory, intensifying the controversy over the technique’s development in the area. Between extreme energy and an energy transition In the face of this controversy over fracking, two paths lay before us: on the first, is the deepening of the extractivist model and the generation of highly polluting energy, with serious and irreversible negative impacts on Mother Earth and local populations; on the second, is a just and democratic energy transition, which implies the decommodification of energy, a change in the energy matrix, and a shift in the development paradigm. Bolivia, and Latin America as a region, need to profoundly transform the way energy is produced; the new system should be formed with a long-term vision and based on the respect for human rights and the protection of nature. The development of fracking, far from initiating any transition, goes against this trend because it continues to promote a polluting, risky and costly energy system. It is based on dependence on non-renewable energy sources with negative impacts on the territories, inequity and lack of citizen participation in the construction of energy policies. Instead, Bolivia must bet on a socially just, economically viable and ecologically sustainable energy transition. "Bolivia should not move towards the implementation of fracking in its territory because it represents one of the greatest risks to its ecosystems, resources and populations," says Jorge Campanini, researcher at the Center for Documentation and Information Bolivia (CEDIB). "It is urgent to generate solid policies that declare a moratorium or indefinite ban on this technique throughout the country". The experience of Latin American countries that have bet on fracking clearly demonstrates the economic, environmental and social impacts of this technique. In this context, many organizations, communities and peoples have organized to confront the threat. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic forces us to reflect on the future of fossil fuels, and the need for a just energy transition. Instead of considering fracking as an easy way to create jobs in difficult times, we must confront the health, economic and climate crises together. It’s time to think of resilient recovery, and thus an energy system that is not based on fracking. One idea usually associated with transition is the change of the energy matrix, yet, while necessary, the rapid and effective de-fossilization of that matrix is not enough. The energy transition must be comprehensive and incorporate environmental, economic and social dimensions so that it is also just and democratic. That’s why it’s so important that governments address the issue with a systemic approach.

May 05 2021 Fracking, Climate Change, Human Rights

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.

March 22 2021 Fracking, Freshwater Sources, Human Rights

Human Rights Council addresses the water crisis and environmental defenders protection

The 46th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council is the first to be held entirely online, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It runs until March 23. The virtual format of this HRC session enabled AIDA to make our first participation ever in the HRC and join the discussions on two of the topics that are at the core of its human rights work: the right to a healthy environment and the protection of environmental human rights defenders. On 03 March, the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, David Boyd, presented his report “Human Rights and the Global Water Crisis” to the Human Rights Council. In it, Boyd highlighted the severe impacts of water pollution, water scarcity and water-related disasters on the rights to life, health, education, food, development and the right to a healthy environment. He also emphasized that climate change is a risk-multiplier, exacerbating water-related human rights issues. The Special Rapporteur called on States to incorporate a rights-based approach in both their climate strategies and water plans. Finally, Boyd reiterated his call for the Human Rights Council to support the initiative for a resolution to recognize that everyone everywhere has the right to live in a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. In the Interactive Dialogue that followed Boyd’s presentation, AIDA Attorney Rosa Peña denounced the negative impacts of mega-dams, coal mining and fracking on human rights and water access in Latin America. She noted that these projects not only threaten the human rights of local communities but also exacerbate the climate crisis. She called the attention of the Special Rapporteur to the communities affected by the Belo Monte mega-dam in the Brazilian Amazon. Currently, implementation of the so-called ‘Consensus Hydrogram’ in the Xingu River threatens the lives of local communities, pollutes the water, dries up the river and causes food insecurity and severe biodiversity loss. On March 4, it was the turn of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, Mary Lawlor, to engage in an Interactive Dialogue on ”Final warning: death threats and killings of human rights defenders” She concluded that lack of political will is one of the reasons why various States fail in their moral and legal obligation to protect Human Rights Defenders, and therefore called for more effective responses to the threats against them. Representing AIDA in the Interactive Dialogue, Attorney Marcella Torres highlighted that Latin America is the most dangerous region in the world for environmental human rights defenders and urged all States to actively protect them. She turned the spotlight on the situation of environmental defenders in Brazil, Guatemala and Colombia, where the invasion of indigenous lands, mega-dams and fracking are closely related to the increase in violence against defenders. She concluded by reminding States that the protection of environmental defenders should promote the recognition of the right to a healthy environment, and provide guarantees so that all people are free to exercise their right to defend human rights. See AIDA’s contributions in the Interactive Dialogues in full:

February 17 2021 Fracking, Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources

Fracking regulation in Mendoza violates Argentina's climate commitments

AIDA filed a legal brief before the Supreme Court of Mendoza arguing the unconstitutionality of a decree allowing for unconventional oil and gas drilling through hydraulic fracturing in the Argentine province. Mendoza, Argentina. In support of a lawsuit filed by Argentine ally OIKOS, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) filed a “friend of the court” brief claiming the unconstitutionality of local regulations allowing for the exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons, known as fracking. Using arguments based on international law, the brief outlines how Mendoza’s Decree 248 violates Argentina’s climate commitments and disregards the precautionary principle. "As a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and a signatory of the Paris Agreement, the Argentine State has assumed international obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the climate crisis," explained AIDA attorney Claudia Velarde. "Betting on fracking implies an increase in those emissions and non-compliance with the nation’s climate commitments.” Several studies of fracking in the United States have posited that leakage and flaring during fracking operations are associated with a significant increase of methane in the atmosphere. Though less notorious than carbon dioxide, methane emissions are responsible for around 25 percent of global warming. Decree 248 fails to contemplate any provision to control greenhouse gas emissions generated by fracking or limit their climate impacts. “There are not sufficient grounds for the government of Mendoza to claim they can effectively regulate fracking,” Velarde said. "It’s clear that this regulation is insufficient, and that it ignores the precautionary principle.” The precautionary principle establishes that, when there is danger of serious or irreversible damage, the lack of absolute scientific certainty should not prevent the adoption of effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. In fracking, being an unconventional technique with a high degree of technical and scientific difficulty, there is no certainty about its impacts, which merits the application of the precautionary principle. The brief also documents the applicability of this argument based on similar cases in other countries of Latin America. Colombia currently has a moratorium on fracking based on this legal principle. "In recent decades, the development of fracking has raised alarms worldwide due to evidence of serious and irreversible damages to the environment and public health, both of which are aggravated by the climate crisis," Velarde added. AIDA’s brief joins others filed by national and international organizations against the decree regulating fracking in Mendoza, including Xumek, FARN (Environment and Natural Resource Foundation) and Earthjustice. Press contact: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), [email protected], +5215570522107.