Fracking

November 16 2020 Fracking, Toxic Pollution, Climate Change

5 things you should know about methane

Although its presence in the atmosphere is less than that of carbon dioxide (CO2)—the most abundant and well-known greenhouse gas—methane is much more effective at retaining heat due to its chemical composition. Therefore, adding smaller amounts of methane to the atmosphere can have an effect equal to that of adding tremendous amounts of CO2. Since 2006, the amount of methane in the atmosphere has grown considerably—by about 25 million tons per year. Studies have associated this increase with the leakage and burning of methane from the extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons through the process of fracking, or hydraulic fracturing. Although extracting gas through fracking is sold as a “greener” alternative to other fossil fuels, it is a false narratiave that must be combatted. In general, all activities that cause methane emissions aggravate the climate crisis and the increasingly urgent need to combat air pollution. The common understanding of methane is inaccurate. Therefore, it’s necessary to generate more awareness about what it is and what its real impacts are. What follows are five basic facts about methane. 1. Methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas and climate pollutant Methane is a greenhouse gas.The Greenhouse Effect is a natural phenomena in which the atmosphere, composed of different gases, captures some rays of the sun and keeps them trapped in order to balance the temperature of the planet. When an excess of gases such as methane are emitted, the atmosphere traps more heat than necessary, leading to global warming. Methane has 67 times more power than CO2 to warm the planet over a 20-year period. Its emissions are responsible for nearly 25 percent of global warming. And since it stays less time in the atmosphere—12 years on average (CO2 stays for centuries)—it is among the Short Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCPs), which cause 40-45 percent of global warming and damage air quality. 2. Methane primarily is produced from human sources About 60 percent of the methane in the atmosphere is considered by scientists to be caused by human activity, while the other 40 percent comes from natural sources like wetlands, volcanoes, and permafrost. Human sources include livestock, gas and petroleum exploitation, rice farming, mining (particularly coal mining), and landfills. It should be noted that, according to scientific evidence, reservoirs are also an important source of methane. They generate 1.3 percent of all greenhouse gases worldwide each year, more than all of Canada's polluting emissions, and 80 percent of that pollution is from methane. 3. Methane directly and indirectly degrades air quality Large amounts of methane are intentionally leaked or released during the exploitation, processing, and transportation of oil and gas. In the United States alone, such direct emissions amount to 13 million tons each year. When released into the atmosphere, methane is accompanied by other toxic pollutants such as benzene, formaldehyde, and ethylbenzene. In addition, by interacting with solar radiation, methane promotes the formation of ground-level ozone (O3), another short-lived climate pollutant (CCVC) and the main component of smog. Methane gas flaring also produces black carbon and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are also CCVCs. 4. Methane causes serious damage to human health As mentioned, methane emissions promote the formation of ozone found in the lower layers of the atmosphere, which has serious impacts on public health. It irritates the airways, generates a feeling of burning and shortness of breath, complicates asthma, causes lung dysfunction and even premature death, and alters the immune system's response, reducing its ability to respond to diseases such as COVID-19, which mainly affects the airways. And since methane burning generates black carbon, it is relevant to point out that it is a key component of particulate matter (PM 2.5)—particles that are 35 times smaller than a grain of sand. These particles cannot be filtered or retained naturally in the nose, and can even enter the lungs. Particulate matter is the air pollutant most frequently associated with cardiovascular, respiratory, and pulmonary diseases, including lung cancer. 5. It is urgent to regulate and curb methane emissions Since methane, in addition to aggravating the climate crisis, deteriorates air quality and with it human health, it is urgent to act to curb its emissions. Civil society must demand that governments efficiently regulate methane emissions from the hydrocarbon industry and other sectors such as coal mining and industrial livestock. In addition, we must demand the monitoring of emissions, as well as the production and dissemination of timely information about methane’s damage to our air quality.

July 17 2020 Fracking, Climate Change, Human Rights

Why fracking is not an energy transition

The current global health crisis is forcing society to reflect on our ever increasing need for change. It’s putting us face-to-face with the fragility and unfeasibility of an energy system based on fossil fuels. This is evidenced by the historic collapse of oil prices associated with lower international demand for hydrocarbons—due to measures adopted in response to the pandemic—as well as overproduction and speculation in oil contracts, among other factors. Demand for gas is also expected to fall by 5 percent, following a decade of uninterrupted growth. Latin America is highly dependent on fossil fuels, both as an export commodity and for its own domestic consumption—88 percent of the energy used on the continent comes from nonrenewable resources. Since 2010, governments and private businesses have been pushing for fracking, or hydraulic fracturing of unconventional deposits, due in large part to the overexploitation of conventional hydrocarbons. Some countries describe fracking as a ‘bridge’ to reducing dependence on coal and petroleum as energy sources, claiming it gives them time to develop alternatives to fossil fuels. Following this logic, fracking has been promoted as a step toward energy transition. But how can a process that demonstrates a clear lack of economic, environmental, and social viability be labeled a transition? Reasons to say “No!” to fracking To resort to fracking is to continue to promote an energy system characterized by high private ownership and appropriation, the use of non-renewable resources, and negative impacts on affected populations and territories. What’s more, this system is defined by a great inequity in terms of access to, and use of, energy. Hydraulic fracturing involves the injection of toxic substances into the subsoil, which can cause the contamination of aquifers and air due to the volatility of some compounds. What’s more, leaks in the production and transport of gas and oil extracted vía fracking have been related to the increase in global emissions of methane, a pollutant responsible for about a quarter of all global warming. The technique also requires large amounts of water, which is especially relevant in a region that continues to confront serious problems concerning access to this basic resource. The use of fracking affects the ways of life of communities, both in terms of health—due to toxic substances in the air, water and soil—and in the violation of human rights and democracy. Many communities, particularly indigenous ones, lack access to information and are not properly consulted on fracking projects in their territories. The damages may be more serious for women, aggravating previously existing structural inequities. In economic terms, hydraulic fracturing requires large investments and, in order to be viable, it needs a market with high prices. In that sense, the unpredictability of oil prices makes it so that any nation that depends on hydrocarbons for its energy sovereignty is taking a dubious risk. Also, in fracking the rate of return on energy is lower. This means that the extraction process demands much more energy that it can capture. All this results in an energy benefit that is sometimes non-existent, and in which profits come from financial speculation. To promote fracking today would be to take a step backward, rather than forward. It simply does not meet the definition of a transition away from fossil fuels, and the logic of fracking has little to do with satisfying the social and economic needs of the people, among them environmental sustainability. A Movement for Change A growing number of organizations, institutions, communities and individuals throughout the Americas have organized to prevent the advance of fracking. These joint efforts, like the Latin American Alliance On Fracking, promote access to information and dismantle the position of businessmen and governments that claim fracking and more extractive activities are the only way out. Initiatives have emerged that seek energy alternatives by promoting dialogue and creating working groups on a just transition. Examples range from the experience of energy autonomy through small community hydroelectric plants in Guatemala, the Rio Negro Production and Energy Transition Working Group in Argentina, and the various experiences of Censat Agua Viva in Colombia, including a Social Working Group for a New Mining, Energy and Environmental Model. Meanwhile, using legal and administrative mechanisms, several municipalities and communities in Argentina, Mexico, Brazil and Uruguay have prohibited or declared a moratorium on fracking in their territories. Thinking about another society requires thinking about another energy system, one that is just and democratic. These spaces of resistance and the construction of alternatives give us a roadmap to promote structural changes and to jointly confront our society’s health, economic, and climate crises. Only then can we move beyond a system in which what was once considered "normal" simply wasn’t working.

September 13 2019 Fracking

State Council maintains suspension of fracking in Colombia

We are proud to be part of the litigation in which this decision occured and hope that the high court will continue to prioritize the precautionary principle and consider the risks of harm that fracking poses to the environment and human health. Bogotá, Colombia. In response to an action filed by the Public Interest Legal Clinic of the Universidad del Norte, Colombia's State Council maintained the provisional suspension of the exploration and exploitation of non-conventional hydrocarbon deposits through hydraulic fracturing. This means that fracking continues to be suspended in Colombia, that it is currently illegal to carry it out, and that Colombia is in the midst of a moratorium on fracking by court order. With its decision, the State Council, a Colombian High Court, rejected the government's request, which sought to lift the suspension that has been in force since last November and give free rein to fracking in the country. AIDA celebrates the State Council's decision and we feel very honored to be part of this litigation. It is undoubtedly a step in the right direction given the high degree of uncertainty about the risks associated with fracking. These include: air pollution, the contamination of surface and groundwater sources, damages to human health, and emissions of methane—a potent greenhouse gas and one of the main aggravators of the climate crisis facing the world. In this scenario, the urgency of moving towards clean energy is evident. The high court concluded that the precautionary principle should be applied because, even without absolute scientific certainty, there is minimal evidence of potential damage resulting from an apparent deficiency in the measures contemplated in the regulation of fracking. Colombia today aims to be an example for Latin America. The provisional suspension of the regulation corresponds to a precautionary measure while the case is definitively resolved. It is essential that the State Council continue to give priority to the precautionary principle, taking into account the lack of full certainty about the risks of irreversible damage that fracking implies for the environment, the climate and for people. At AIDA, we welcome judicial independence, because it is fundamental for the legal protection of the environment. We hope that the ongoing judicial process will properly consider the evidence and arguments presented, including those related to an increasingly urgent task: the fight against the climate crisis. PRESS CONTACT: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107

July 15 2019 Fracking

Colombia makes the right move by suspending fracking project

Citing a recent court order, Colombia’s environmental authority has suspended the licensing process for a fracking project in the Middle Magdalena Valley. The decision represents an advance in the movement to stop fracking’s expansion in Latin America. Bogotá. In an advance for the struggle against fracking’s expansion in Latin America, Colombia’s National Environmental Licensing Authority has suspended the licensing process for a fracking project in the Middle Magdalena Valley. With this decision, Colombia joins a growing list of communities, municipalities, and regions across Latin America and the world who have made progress to stop the expansion of fracking in their territories, many through the enactment of bans or moratoriums. "The Environmental Authority’s decision is a positive example for nations across Latin America and the world,” said Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-executive director of AIDA. “It’s the result of an admirable civic movement and of the use of the precautionary principle as a tool to protect human health and ecosystems, and to confront the climate crisis.” The decision to halt the process for Ecopetrol’s "APE Guane A” project is founded on the State Council’s suspension, in November 2018, of the regulatory framework for fracking in the country, citing the precautionary principle. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) supports the Council’s decision and considers the Environmental Authority’s enactment of that order to be a step in the right direction. “In the absence of existing regulations on fracking, in Colombia we have a judicial moratorium. This implies that no project may be implemented that seeks to exploit unconventional oil and gas deposits using this technique,” explained Juana Hofman, AIDA attorney. “All activities aimed at the development of fracking activities must be suspended.” In its decision, the Environmental Authority states: “… The temporary suspension of the aforementioned provisions translates to those provisions being temporarily outside the legal system, which consequently means that this Environmental Authority does not have technical regulations that allow it to verify the management measures that should be included in the Environmental Impact Study, to be analyzed within the environmental assessment procedure, and thus could not determine whether or not the granting of the environmental license required for new projects in unconventional deposits was viable.” The suspended project involves the use of hydraulic fracturing in a boggy complex located between the municipalities of Barrancabermeja and Puerto Wilches in Northeast Colombia. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is an extractive technique that proves incredibly damaging for water, air quality, human health and the climate. It emits methane, a pollutant strongly associated with global warming. Due to its negative impacts on the environment and public health, fracking has been prohibited by judicial or legislative means in many municipalities, regions and nations around the world, such as Scotland, the state of New York (USA), and the province of Quebec (Canada). Global efforts to stop fracking’s expansion have largely been citizen-led and driven by concerns for the risks fracking poses to the climate, environment and public health. The Alliance for a Colombia Free from Fracking has been steadfast in their commitment to stopping fracking’s advance in Colombia, and should be congratulated for this important advance. AIDA urges the Colombian government to continue down the path of prevention and to comply with its international environmental obligations to confront the climate crisis, and to protect its land, water and communities. We urge the government to deny authorizations for fracking operations in Colombia. “Fracking is a procedure that furthers us from our climate goals, and from the energy path that all nations should be targeting” Puentes Riaño said. “Decisions like these are an invitation to seek out renewable energies that are better for our planet and our communities, not only in Colombia but around the world.” Press Contacts: Carlos Lozano Acosta (Colombia), AIDA, [email protected], +57 (300) 564 0282 Juana Hofman (Colombia), AIDA, [email protected], +57 (310) 884 6715

May 20 2019 Climate Change, Fracking, Freshwater Sources

Is the UN finally turning against fracking?

The world is divided over the issue of fracking, a fact that is (at times painfully) apparent in the United Kingdom (UK) where I grew up. Four separate countries make up the UK. Of them, England is the only nation that still allows hydraulic fracturing; Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (along with a host of other countries worldwide) have banned the controversial process. Despite earthquakes linked to fracking in areas of the country where such things are virtually unheard of—plus waves of protests, controversy and opposition campaigns— the British government has so far refused to change its position. However, a recent United Nations recommendation to the UK may signal the beginning of the end for fracking in England and, hopefully, around the world. Fracking and the United Nations Until recently, the UN has appeared to have a complicated relationship with fracking. Several different UN bodies have made conflicting statements about the benefits of, and issues with, this means of energy production. In early 2018, the UN Conference on Trade and Development released a report that, according to one of its authors, did “not [say fracking] is good or bad,” but rather that each project’s cost/benefit analysis was dependent on a number of context-specific factors. The report cited positive aspects of fracking, calling it a useful “bridge fuel” for States aiming to move towards more environmentally-friendly renewable power sources, alongside it’s disadvantages. This argument is not viable since the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing is even greater than that of conventional gas and oil exploitation. Over the last few months, however, it seems the UN has been hardening its position against fracking, particularly given its negative climate change impacts in the context of the Paris Agreement, the intergovernmental treaty in which nations have committed to taking ambitious steps to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees centigrade with respect to pre-industrial levels. Since October 2018, there have been 2 UN recommendations issued against fracking. In the UK, the government was urged to consider a complete and comprehensive ban on fracking; and in Argentina, the government was urged to reconsider the development of a large fracking project. The dangers of fracking Although for its promoters fracking has led to a huge spike in oil and gas production around the world—perhaps most notably in the US—its use has come at great environmental cost, particularly with regards to air quality and water supply due to the amount of water used in the process and its consequent contamination. Fracking releases large quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas whose global warming potential is 86 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In addition, the release of this gas can be hugely detrimental to the air quality surrounding fracking sites. Fracking also leads to increased earthquake risks due to the high pressure used to fracture layers of shale rock and extract oil and gas from it. In its recommendations to the UK and Argentina, the UN has clearly stressed the dangers of fracking. The key reason behind its recommendation to Argentina to reconsider the fracking project was its effect on climate change, especially in light of the Paris Agreement, and “the negative impact [that the project would have] on global warming and on the enjoyment of economic and social rights by the world’s population and future generations.” In its recommendation to the UK, it was noted that women in the UK are “disproportionately affected by the harmful effects of fracking, including exposure to hazardous and toxic chemicals, environmental pollution, and climate change.” Stopping the spread of fracking While operational in certain areas of the world, and being banned in others, fracking is advancing rapidly in Latin America. In the face of increasing global energy demand, it is crucial that the region, and the international community as a whole, commits to developing only truly sustainable energy projects. Fracking is not one. I believe the UN’s recent change in tone on fracking is a positive advance that should inspire both Argentina and the UK to react accordingly. From a personal point of view, I hope the UK heeds the growing evidence about the dangers of fracking and abandons the practice immediately. For Latin America, and other regions facing fracking’s blind advance, there are many countries to hold up as examples of how to confront the controversial practice. That’s why AIDA recently published a report highlighting the arguments and mechanisms that have been used around the world to restrict fracking and avoid its negative impacts on people and the environment. It is crucial that these impacts be properly considered as we take the ambitious steps needed to create an energy matrix that can solve the world’s energy needs without violating human rights, destroying our common goods, or worsening the catastrophic impacts of the climate crisis.

March 11 2019 Fracking, Public Participation

Moratoriums and bans on fracking: Comparative legislation

Hydraulic fracturing is a technique used to extract nonconventional petroleum products, such as tight gas and shale oil, from deep underground deposits. To release these hydrocarbons, the rock formations in which they are trapped must first be shattered into many small pieces. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, thus involves drilling 1000 to 5000 meters into the earth and injecting a high-pressure fluid mix of water, sand and various chemicals to fracture the rock and release the hard-to-reach hydrocarbons. This controversial technique has sparked resistance in many communities, regions, and countries where it is causing serious dangers to public health and the environment. Countries, regions, cities and communities around the world have chosen to prohibit or place moratoriums on fracking through various legal and administrative mechanisms. These fracking bans are driven by a number of concerns surrounding the dangers fracking poses to the environment and public health. We would like to point out the following arguments: Above ground and subterranean water sources, air, and soil in the vicinity of fracking operations are at serious risk of contamination. There remains scientific uncertainty regarding of the magnitude of fracking’s impacts on public health and the environment. Measures put in place by the hydrocarbon industry to prevent the impacts of fracking have not yet been proven effective. Moreover, a “general consensus” among actors in the hydrocarbon industry does not guarantee that fracking operations are safe for humans and the environment. There is a serious risk of contamination of soil and water sources in rural and agricultural areas. Fracking impacts communities’ ways of life, and limits consumer confidence that food and agricultural products grown or produced in areas affected by fracking are safe to consume. Fracking emits significant volumes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, exacerbating anthropogenic climate change. Among these gases produced by fracking are large volumes of methane, which traps roughly 30 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. There is a large and growing social opposition to fracking, driven by community organizations and citizen mobilization, demonstrating widespread popular opposition to the technique. Indigenous communities like the Cherokee argue that defending their territories against fracking is essential to their continued survival. Most of the moratoriums and bans on fracking surveyed in this report adopt the precautionary principle, either directly referencing the principle or indirectly alluding to it. For example, most fracking bans are based on the possibility of serious and irreversible harms caused by the extraction technique, or on the scientific uncertainty regarding the magnitude of fracking’s impacts. These measures invoke the precautionary principle, which states that in the event a technique could cause serious or irreversible dangers, or if there is a lack of scientific evidence that a technique is safe, decision makers should adopt proactive measures that protect the health of people and the environment above all. However, various measures to ban or pass moratoriums on fracking did first require exhaustive scientific investigations by government authorities to better understand the risks fracking could cause to public health and the environment. Those studies confirmed the serious risks of hydraulic fracturing, but could not prove with certainty the short and long-term impacts of fracking, nor the efficacy of industry efforts to prevent and mitigate those dangers. In a pair of case studies (in Northern Ireland and Wales) government authorities used the precautionary principle to establish a burden of proof, placing the onus on the hydrocarbon industry to clearly and scientifically demonstrate that the proposed fracking activities would not cause serious or irreversible harm to public health or the health of the environment. If the party pursuing hydraulic fracturing could not show evidence-based proof of the safety of fracking in a particular instance, authorities would maintain precautionary measures (such as prohibitions or moratoriums) in order to protect the health of people and the environment. The measures adopted in these cases were formalized via legislation or through orders issued by the executive branch or other administrative bodies. In two of the cases examined (New York and Maryland in the United States), prohibitions or moratoriums on fracking at the municipal level were key to securing political and legal support at larger, regional jurisdictions. Furthermore, social mobilization by grassroots organizations helped amplify and legitimize anti-fracking movements at the national or regional level. In all cases, anti-fracking measures were passed only after mobilizing social resistance to fracking, which built awareness, generated larger movements, and unified voices against the technique. Civil society organizations have employed a diverse and creative array of methods to build support with political actors. Among them are citizens’ legislative initiatives, petitions, letters and meetings with policymakers, marches, strikes and protests, and other collective action. All have proven effective in generating political support to pass fracking bans. The power of social mobilization against fracking has been a deciding factor in many cases in which authorities have recognized that widespread public opposition to fracking is the principal reason to pass local fracking bans or moratoriums. SEE THE REPORT (IN SPANISH)

February 14 2019 Climate Change, Fracking, Toxic Pollution

How fracking's methane leaks aggravate climate change

I’ve seen them more times than I can remember, but the shock never fades: ten-foot-high flames burning off gas at the BP processing plant in Whiting, Indiana. The facility is close to where I grew up, so we’ve had a lot of time to marvel at the flare stacks. My sister thought they were volcanoes when she was little and, in my family, the name has stuck. Converting waste methane to carbon dioxide (CO2) through flaring is common practice in oil and gas production. This makes “volcanoes” a familiar feature of drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, fields. The sight of stacks spewing CO2 directly into the air is both visually striking and enraging: a visual metaphor for a world run on extractive, dirty energy. And yet, when it comes to fracking, the volcanoes and their carbon emissions aren’t even the biggest problem. That which is most dangerous is often hardest to see—invisible, in this case. Fracking’s worst air pollution actually occurs through methane leaks. Methane is a greenhouse gas whose global warming potential is 86 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It leaks stealthily at every point in the gas supply chain into our atmosphere, undetectable without advanced equipment and frequent tests. According to NASA, the oil and gas industry is responsible for the global rise in methane emissions, beating even landfills and dairy production. Many of these emissions come from leaking pipes attached to fracked gas wells. While many of fracking’s damages—the contamination of water tables, an increase in man-made earthquakes—are well documented, fracking’s air pollution is a more difficult battle to fight. There are no convenient visuals of tap water set on fire or flattened homes. But the fact that we can’t see methane leaking into the air doesn’t make its impact any less intense: diffuse toxic particles grip the throat like so many invisible hands; methane causes nosebleeds and asthma; gas leaks squeeze the brain into dizzying headaches and seizures; toxic additives cause babies to be born prematurely with low birth weight and life-threatening defects. Leaking methane is also of particular concern when it comes to climate change. When just less than 2 percent of a pipeline’s total carried methane leaks into the air, the gas loses its supposed “cleaner” climate advantage over even coal. Recent studies show that U.S. fracking fields leak at tremendously uneven rates, some up to a whopping 12 percent. In other words, only a small number of wells are responsible for an extreme amount of contamination. But this also means that we already have part of the solution: fixing leaks at these super-polluting fields would be a huge boon for climate regulation. Leak detention and repair requires frequent and careful oversight, but it is also cost-effective, and often actually pays for itself. Gas companies can patrol their own distribution lines, looking for and repairing leaks. Pneumatic pipeline controllers can be replaced with better, low-bleed controllers. This extra care, however, is exactly what fracking’s proponents fight against: the gas industry in the United States has long denied and diminished the severity of leaking pipelines. Like the greenhouse gas pollution that causes it, climate change is a slow-paced disaster. It is a long, diffuse emergency that, in a sound-byte world, isn’t dramatic enough for short-term elections and news cycles, and usually isn’t brought up until it’s too late. Alternatives to fracking But times are changing. And the solution to a warming world isn’t just about fixing leaks. We can’t just mitigate a life-threatening system; we have to end it. Instead of perpetuating our dependence on gas, we must invest in a just transition and move into economically sustainable forms of energy, like solar and wind. Gas delivery systems and their maintenance are as expensive as they are toxic, and will soon become obsolete. We must fight for better regulation of our present system, while building up alternatives for a better tomorrow. This is particularly important in parts of the world that are only now starting to embrace fracking. While somewhat ubiquitous in the global North, fracking has only just begun in Latin America, where roughly 5,000 wells have popped up in the past few years. Frontline communities and human rights defenders from across the Americas have fought hard to win bans or restrictions on fracking. They urge that their nations not fall for fracking’s trap—harms would be amplified by lax regulation and further aggravate climate change. In October they testified before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on the harm fracking has caused to communities across Latin America. Liliana Ávila, a senior attorney at AIDA, explained that fracking-induced pollution impacts basic human rights, and that environmental defenders often face extreme violence when protecting their territories from the gas industry. Part of the battle for a global and just transition towards a sustainable, equitable energy economy is being able to recognize those harms that are harder to see—including those that are invisible at first. It’s the quiet harms that unfold over long time spans that are catching up to us now.

December 18 2018 Coral reefs, Fracking, Indigenous Rights

10 environmental successes from Latin America in 2018

This year was characterized by triumphs such as the creation of legal protections and the establishment of policies favorable to the environment and human rights in the region. Rarely in a single year do we see so many precedent-setting institutional advances. What follows are 10 stories we applaud from 2018: 1. For the first time, the Inter-American Court recognized a healthy environment as “fundamental” In its first time speaking on the subject, the Court concluded that a healthy environment is an autonomous right, “fundamental to the existence of humanity.” The relationship between the environment and human rights may sound obvious, but until February of this year, when the Court’s opinion was made public, there were no precedents of this magnitude recognizing the link. The opinion responds to a query made by Colombia. In it, the Court also recognizes that climate change impacts the enjoyment of human rights, especially among the most vulnerable populations. The OC-23, as it is known, established a historic precedent for the protection of human rights in the Americas and will be an important tool for environmental justice in the region. Learn more 2. Nations adopt the first regional treaty on environmental issues Over the course of the year, 16 nations have signed the Escazú Agreement. Not only is it the first treaty on environmental issues in Latin America and the Caribbean, it is also the first in the world to include provisions on human rights defenders in environmental matters. Its main objective is to guarantee the rights of access to environmental information, public participation in environmental decision-making processes, and justice in environmental matters. Learn more 3. Parrotfish receive special protection in Mexico Schools of colorful parrotfish feed on the macro algae that compete with coral for light and oxygen, helping to improve coral health. But overfishing and other factors have caused parrotfish populations to decline, placing corals at greater risk. In an effort to protect this key ally of the reefs, 10 species of parrotfish are in the process of being included in the Mexican government’s list of protected fauna. Learn more 4. Indigenous peoples recognized in climate finance Following years of work by indigenous peoples around the world, the Green Climate Fund approved an Indigenous Peoples Policy with the objective of protecting, recognizing, respecting and promoting their rights within the financing of climate projects. The decision was received with hope in a world that requires immediate actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change. This sort of policy helps to prevent climate finance from violating the rights of the most affected populations. Learn more 5. A regional plan to protect jaguars Conservation organizations teamed with 14 nations to launch Plan Jaguar 2030 with the intention of protecting corridors, or natural routes, linking populations of the largest carnivore in Latin America without natural predators. Jaguar populations extend through 18 countries, but are rapidly diminishing due to poaching, habitat fragmentation, and conflict with human activities. In El Salvador and Uruguay, they have been declared extinct. The plan provides hope for jaguar protection across borders. Learn more 6. Colombia says no to fracking pilot tests The Colombian Environmental Licensing Authority (ANLA, for its initials in Spanish) denied permission for ConocoPhillips to carry out the first hydraulic fracturing pilot tests for the extraction of hydrocarbons in San Martin and Aguachica, in the department of Cesar. ANLA argued that the information presented by the corporation was “insufficient” to understand the management and availability of water, and also questioned its environmental evaluation and contingency plan. For now, the initiative is archived. Continuing to bet on fossil fuels moves nations further away their climate goals; it is important to commit to a clean energy transition. Learn more 7. A region fight against fracking reaches the Inter-American Commission Organizations and communities from across the region joined forces to bring before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights cases of human rights violations and threats to the environment caused by fracking. After various local struggles, this was the first time that the damages documented in nations across the Americas were presented before a regional organization. The Commissioners responded with great interest to the testimonies presented. Regarding this issue, the new government of Mexico said there will be no more fracking in the nation. Learn more 8. A treaty to protect two-thirds of the ocean Following a decade of discussions, negotiations began at the United Nations for a legally binding treaty to protect biodiversity on the high seas, those marine areas outside of national jurisdictions. Negotiations will take place until 2020. Although the high seas represent 64 percent of the total surface area of the ocean, and the ocean absorbs 90 percent of the heat caused by global warming, no overarching treaty exists to protect this ecosystem, only fragmented regulations. Learn more 9. Chile closes the Pascua Lama mine In October Chilean authorities confirmed the definitive closure of Pascua Lama, a gold mining project on the border of Chile and Argentina. Barrick Gold, the company in charge of the project, was fined for 33 violations of Chilean environment regulations. Pascua Lama caused great damage to native plants and animals. Indigenous peoples of the region—who had documented the contamination of a river and impacts on glaciers, an important water source—celebrated the decision. Activists are now seeking to stop the project on the Argentina side of the border. Learn more 10. Argentina’s creation of National Parks breaks record Just before the end of the year, Argentina announced the creation of two marine protected areas: Yanganes, south of Tierra del Fuego, and Namuncurá-Burdwood Bank II, in the south Atlantic. Both are important sites for the breeding and spawning of fish with high commercial value. With this pair, the country added six natural areas declared as national parks in 2018 alone, a truly historic effort. The other parks include: Traslasierra, Aconquija, Ciervo de los Pantanos and Iguerá. Argentina has proposed the protection of 10 percent of its seas by 2020. Learn more

November 26 2018 Fracking, Human Rights

The first time fracking was discussed before the Inter-American Commission

We heard the news at an exceptional moment. The Latin American Alliance on Fracking had organized a conference; activists, lawyers, NGOs, community organizers, and scientists from seven Latin American countries were meeting face to face in Colombia to work against hydraulic fracturing in the region. It was there we learned that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights had accepted our request for a hearing. We erupted in collective joy! Not only would we have a new audience, but also fracking would be discussed for the first time before the Commission. Immediately, we channeled our excitement into hard work. We had just 20 days to prepare a 20-minute case that would summarize every negative impact fracking has had in the Americas. We worked day and night to prepare our case for the October 3 hearing in Boulder, Colorado. It was so little time that Gabriel Cherqui, spokesperson for Mapuche communities affected by the Vaca Muerta mega-project in Neuquén, Argentina, couldn’t obtain a visa in time to travel to the United States. Years of work, converted into minutes Perhaps the most difficult aspect of preparing our case was summarizing thousands of documents and stories into such a short amount of time. It had taken years to systematize our specialized research on fracking in the region and to have our case before the Commission—requested with more than 120 supporting signatures—accepted. Another challenge was to demonstrate the solid connection between fracking and human rights violations, an argument we knew the Commission would be interested in addressing, given the scale and complexity of the problem. So we developed a strategy: Roberto Ochandio, a geographer and former petroleum engineer, presented the technical details necessary to understand how fracking works; AIDA attorney Liliana Ávila explained how the technique has violated the rights to a healthy environment, to life, health, and the informed consent of the affected communities; Alejandra Jiménez from the Mexican Alliance Against Fracking presented case studies from Mexico, where communities’ access to water had been compromised by fracking operations; Santiago Cané, from Argentina’s Environmental and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), exposed the pollution, direct harms, lack of consultation with, and persecution of the communities of Neuquén; and Doris Estela Gutiérrez, president of the Corporation for the Defense of Water, Territory, and Ecosystems (CORDATEC), spoke about the promotion of public consultations in Colombia, as well as the criminalization of and threats to environmental defenders in the country. We emphasized that betting on hydrocarbons and promoting fracking undermines the fight against climate change, since fracking emits methane and other greenhouse gases that accelerate global warming. It was a challenge, to be sure. But we wanted to ensure everyone’s voice was heard. To listen, and learn: a window of hope Based on the response of the Commissioners, it was clear that our case had opened a window of hope. The multifaceted character of fracking—including aspects of development, pollution, climate change and human rights—had captured their interest. Not only was this the first time that fracking had been discussed before of the Commission, it’s worth noting that five speakers had summarized the concerns of more than 120 petitioners, all of whom shared one common cause. What came next was a dialogue in which we responded to the Commissioners’ questions about the technique, their concerns about development in the region, water quality, harms to public health, and concerns about fracking moving nations further away from their climate goals. We requested that the Commission urge States to: adopt measures to avoid human rights violations caused by fracking; generate public, truthful and impartial information based on scientific evidence; and protect human rights protections in cases where the technique is advancing blindly. Going forward, we asked that the Commission follow up on the issue, particularly on the negative impacts fracking has on economic, social and cultural rights; on the lives of women, children and adolescents; and on the lives and territories of indigenous peoples. We requested that the Commission follow up on the attacks against human rights defenders and seek protective measures for those at risk. Of course, questions remain, and at the Alliance we’ve identified many more concerns for the region. But this moment has strengthened us. The hearing set regional precedents and made use of the arguments of Advisory Opinion 23, which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued on human rights and the environment. It is clear that this moment was a small, but vital, step forward, and that there are ears willing to listen. For our part, we will continue doing everything in our power—making use of all available international legal tools—to protect the communities of the Americas that are and could be affected by fracking.

October 25 2018 Fracking, Mining, Freshwater Sources

What motivates us to preserve our freshwater sources?

The professionals of AIDA’s freshwater program defend one of Earth’s most precious resources—water. The earth provides us with water in many ways, and the ways those water sources are threatened are just as widespread—but chief among them are extractive activities like mining and fracking. At AIDA, we understand the risks and we won’t let our guard down. Learn more about what motivates us to care for our greatest life source! “WITHOUT WATER, THERE IS NO FUTURE.” Carlos Lozano Acosta, Senior Attorney “Water is a life force not just in nature, but in our societies as well. It is a distinct characteristic of our experience on the planet. Cultures, economies and ecosystems depend on water and, for that reason, there is no future for us on this planet without it.” As a child, Carlos and his family used go for hikes near his father’s farm, on the outskirts of a páramo—a unique high altitude wetland that captures moisture from the fog and sends water to lower elevations via streams. Since those early days, Carlos has understood that páramos are vital to the water supply in his native Colombia. “I GREW UP WITH THE IDEA THAT CLEAN WATER IS A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE.” Claudia Velarde, Legal Advisor “What motivates me to care for our water sources is life itself. Clean water is an indispensable resource, a common good and a basic human right; the reproduction of our life systems is not possible without it. I grew up with the idea that clean water is a right, not a privilege.” Claudia was born in Cochabamba, Bolivia, a city whose name in the indigenous Quechua language means “the plain of lakes.” Despite its name, the city has suffered from decades of drought and water scarcity. Cochabamba is infamous for the Water War of 2000, during which residents flooded the streets to defend their water from privatization. Claudia grew up in that context and, like many women from Cochabamba, she has a strong connection to water and its inherent value. “MY STRONGEST MOTIVATION IS AN AWARENESS THAT THE HEALTH OF EARTH’S ECOSYSTEMS DEPENDS ON FUNCTIONING WATER FLOWS.” Andres Angel, Scientific Advisor “My strongest motivation is an awareness that the health of Earth’s ecosystems depends in large part on functioning surface and subterranean water flows. Understanding that our economic activities have the potential to irreversibly disrupt those flows is to realize the urgent need to protect the sources and quality of water throughout the Americas.” It wasn’t easy for Andres to study geology, a career that often promotes extractivism. His principal motivation was to understand the conflicts and socio-ecological dangers caused by mining and fossil fuel exploitation in his country, Colombia. Understanding those impacts to be perpetual, Andres decided to devote his professional life to questioning the development model and providing alternatives. “TO PROTECT WATER IS TO DEFEND THE SOURCE AND MEANING OF LIFE.” Juana Hofman, Legal Coordinator for the Network for Environmental Justice in Colombia “Life is what motivates me. To protect freshwater ecosystems and the people that depend on them is to defend the source and meaning of life. I’m motivated by a deep respect for ecosystems, because I feel a part of them, and they need protection. I’m motivated by the frailejones, ancient plants that serve as water factories, and by the mountains, vast landscapes that have sheltered me since my birth. It is their strength and beauty that allow us to truly live.” Juana was born in a small town in the mountains of Colombia. When she was a child, her father taught her of the greatness of the oak trees, which for Juana came to signify strength and wisdom. Ever since, her life has been deeply linked to the mountains, rivers, and páramos of Colombia.