Fracking

To cool the planet, fracking must be prohibited, organizations say

In the framework of COP21, a coalition of Latin American civil society organizations is urging world leaders meeting in Paris to ban fracking in their countries. By emitting large quantities of greenhouse gases, the process itself goes against the central objective of the climate negotiations: stopping global warming.  Paris, France. In a public statement directed at Member States of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, organizations and allies of the Latin American Alliance On Fracking asked that all fracking activities be banned due to the fact that, among other impacts, hydraulic fracturing emits greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. During the cycle of extracting, processing, storing, transferring, and distributing unconventional hydrocarbons using fracking, methane gas is released into the atmosphere. Methane is 87 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as an agent of global warming, the group explained in their statement. The document will be presented this Friday December 11 at 10 a.m. (local time) at the Climate Action Zone by: Alianza Mexicana contra el Fracking; Asociación Ambiente y Sociedad; the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA); Food & Water Watch; Freshwater Action Network Mexico; the Heinrich Böll Foundation – Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean; Instituto Brasileiro de Analises Socias e Economicas (IBASE); and Observatorio Petrolero Sur (OpSur).  The organizations discuss the current state of hydraulic fracturing in Latin America. Although the use of the experimental technique is contrary to national and international commitments to reduce emissions, several countries in the region – among them Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Chile and Bolivia – have begun exploration or exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons through fracking.  “Fracking is advancing blindly in Latin America, with no comprehensive long-term studies on the risks and serious damage that it could cause to the health of people and the environment,” said Ariel Pérez Castellón, attorney at AIDA. “Operations of this kind in the region have failed to respect fundamental human rights, including the right to consultation and free, prior and informed consent; the right to participation and social control; and the right to information,” added Milena Bernal, attorney with the Asociación Ambiente y Sociedad. According to the organizations, fracking is advancing quickly into indigenous and rural communities, urban neighborhoods, and even Natural Protected Areas. It has caused the displacement both of people and of productive activities such as farming and agriculture, because their coexistence with this technique is impossible. Rejection of fracking has grown in parallel with its spread in operations. “The proof of this resistance are the national and international networks opposing this technique, including more than 50 municipalities that have banned it in Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay,” said Diego di Risio, researcher at Observatorio Petrolero Sur. “As part of our statement, we urge the Member Parties of the Convention to: sign a binding agreement that quickly and effectively reduces greenhouse gases and incorporates human rights into the legal text; apply the precautionary principle to ban fracking; and promote renewable energies and disincentivize the extraction of fossil fuels,” stated Claudia Campero Arena, researcher at Food & Water Watch, and Moema Miranda, director of Ibase.   Read the full statement from the Latin American Alliance on Fracking here. Event “The fight against fracking in Latin America: experiences in Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Brazil and Mexico” Simultaneous translation in English and French Friday December 11, 2015 Climate Action Zone Centquatre, 5 rue Curial, Paris (Métro Riquet)

5 Major AIDA Achievements of the Past 6 Months

1.   Colombia Suspends Aerial Spraying of Glyphosate  In May 2015, Colombia announced its intentions to suspend the aerial spraying of a toxic herbicide containing glyphosate, the main ingredient in RoundUp, which has been used for more than 20 years to eradicate coca and poppy crops. The decision was made final on September 30, when the environmental management plan allowing such spraying was suspended. Pressure on the government mounted with a couple of key court decisions after AIDA and allies in Colombia and the U.S. launched an online petition. Together we collected almost 25,000 signatures from people calling on President Juan Manuel Santos and the Minister of Justice to end the spraying.  Colombia’s spraying has doused homes, farms, forests, and water in vast rural areas, wreaking havoc in sensitive ecosystems, and damaging water sources and food crops in one of the most biodiverse nations on our planet. It has even forced families, including some in indigenous communities, off their lands. AIDA has worked to end the spraying over a period spanning 17 years. When the Minister of Health recently recommended suspending the program over fears that the chemical causes cancer, AIDA worked with the media and organized partners to generate and participate in a national debate. 2.   Panamanian Congress Protects Panama Bay Wetland Wildlife Refuge After years of legal wrangling, Panama passed a law on February 2, 2015—World Wetlands Day—that grants permanent protection to the ecologically critical Panama Bay. The law staves off proposed tourist resorts that would harm mangrove forests essential for wildlife, coastal protection, the local fishing industry, and climate change mitigation. AIDA’s collaboration with its local partner, CIAM (the Center for Environmental Defense), ensured that this law is strong enough to guarantee rational uses of wetland resources throughout the country. Panama Bay is one of the world’s most important nesting sites for migratory birds and provides a home for endangered loggerhead turtles and jaguars. Mangroves in the bay buffer increasingly strong storm surges and capture 50 times more carbon than tropical forests. Under the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty for wetland conservation, the Bay is listed as a Wetland of International Importance.  AIDA’s work is helping protect all the ecosystem services that this critical area provides. 3.   Colombian Government Protects 76% of the Santurbán Páramo AIDA joined with local organizations to build public support for protection of Colombia’s páramos, high-altitude wetlands unique to Latin America. Our work garnered 20,000 petition signatures and generated significant media attention. The Colombian government’s decision to enlarge the protected area of the páramo known as the Santurbán is an important victory for the people of Colombia. The Santurbán supplies fresh water to nearly two million people and provides habitat for threatened species. It also captures large amounts of carbon, mitigating climate change. Several years ago, Colombia passed a law that protects páramos—an important step, because the land in and around the Santurbán contains gold and other minerals that international corporations are eager to mine. To implement the law and truly protect the Santurbán, Colombia had to establish the borders of the protected area. The boundaries initially proposed included only a small fraction of the páramo. Now most of it is protected. 4.  Major Reference Reports Published One of the key services AIDA provides—producing Spanish-language reports based on legal research and analysis—benefits government officials, journalists, civil society groups and industry decision makers who are striving to protect our shared environment. We compile extensive information about threats to natural resources and best practices for environmental protection. Our reports fill gaps in knowledge among key Latin American policymakers and advocates. Recent AIDA publications that can help guide efforts toward environmental protection include: International Regulatory Best Practices For Coral Reef Protection. Protecting Coral Reefs in Mexico: Rescuing Marine Biodiversity and Its Benefits for Humankind. Basic Guidelines for the Environmental Impact Assessment of Mining Projects: Recommended Terms of Reference. 5.   Regional Fracking Group Established:  30 Organizations in Seven Nations In Latin America, many countries are opening their doors to fracking—the practice of injecting water, sand and chemicals at high pressure to shatter rocks and release natural gas from deep underground. Governments are doing so with little or no understanding of the environmental and health impacts of this technology, and with the absence of adequate processes to inform, consult, and engage affected communities. With AIDA’s help, the Regional Group on Fracking was formed to raise awareness, generate public debate, and prevent risks associated with fracking. The group seeks to ensure that the rights to life, public health, and a healthy environment are respected in Latin America. The Group consists of civil society organizations and academic institutions mainly from Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, and Mexico, collaborating to: Identify affected communities and fracking operations in the region, and document impacts; Advance strategies to stop harmful projects and slow the spread of fracking; and Organize seminars and provide educational materials about the risks and impacts of fracking to ensure that a precautionary approach is taken.

France’s Fracking Ban: Lessons for Latin America

By Eugenia D’Angelo, former AIDA intern, @DangeloEugenia Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking—the process of drilling into rock and injecting a mixture of water, chemicals, and sand under high pressure to fracture it and release oil and gas—is making headway around the world, causing increasing damage to the environment and human health. Even so, social movements have been effective at slowing governments and corporations interested in expanding the practice. One of the best examples can be found in France. The first country to ban fracking, it did so thanks to the pressure applied by French citizens. Having lived in France for four years, I can attest first-hand to the strength and importance of social movements throughout the process. The Legal Process The ‘Jacob Law’ (named for Minister Christian Jacob, who presented it) was approved[1] in 2011, during Nicolas Sarkozy’s presidency. It prohibits fracking for exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons. Later, taking advantage of division in the Socialist Party, oil companies found the help necessary to present a constitutional challenge to the fracking ban. On October 11, 2011, however, the Constitutional Council reaffirmed the validity of the ‘Jacob Law,’ stating that it complies with all constitutional principles. France became the first country in the world to turn its back on the controversial practice. Making A Difference Civil society and green political parties played a paramount role in France. French citizens overwhelmingly said “No!” to fracking,[2] with more than 80% voicing their opposition[3] (this compares to 47% in the United States, according to the latest Pew Research Center poll[4]). In France, movements are grouped together in social collectives that unite the populations of different departments. These groups were organized to be present in every part of the country where energy companies had permits for the exploration and exploitation of shale gas and oil. They remained there for the entire legal and political battle, until the prohibition on fracking finally became reality. Some of the actions taken by the “No Fracking France” association include: During the famous and highly publicized Tour de France, they carried an anti-oil-and-shale-gas banner signed by thousands of people. In the final stretch of the Tour de France, they sent a climber to hoist the banner to the top of Mont Blanc. They held a press conference on the matter in the National Assembly. They organised various informative and scientific seminars for the mayors of affected communities. They produced a video explaining fracking to the deaf-mute community. They took their complaints to the members of Parliament. Resistance in Latin America In contrast, various countries in Latin America are opening their doors to fracking. In response to this troubling trend, AIDA is helping to facilitate and coordinate a regional group, made up of civil society organizations and academic institutions, created to generate information, stimulate debate, and join forces to prevent and stop the negative impacts of fracking in Latin America.  At AIDA we consider it necessary for governments and civil society to apply the precautionary principle. Within the framework of this principle and its constitutional obligations, States of the region should adopt effective measures to prevent the risks and severe damage to the environment and human health that fracking can bring about. As long as there isn’t a guarantee that the risks and impacts of fracking can be effectively prevented and mitigated, this type of activity should not be permitted. Raising awareness amongst citizens and social movements is key. Countries in Latin America are obligated to generate public, truthful and impartial information about the characteristics, process and components of fracking, and about its long-term impacts. Our authorities must create plural and adequate spaces for civil society in the decision-making process about the future of fracking in our territories. If they don’t, we as citizens have the right and the obligation to engage and mobilize ourselves so that those who resist can hear us. [1] It was a closed vote in the senate with 176 votes in favour and 151 against. “Gaz de schiste: le Parlement interdit l’utilisation de la fracturation hydraulique”, Le Monde, 30/06/2011. Available at: http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2011/06/30/gaz-de-schiste-le-parlement-interdit-l-utilisation-de-la-fracturation-hydraulique_1543252_3244.html [2] The Collectif 07 Stop Shale Gas and Oil said: “ …we should be proud of the efficiency of public mobilization which, although it has not won the war, has clearly won the battle. The commitment of millions of citizens, in our department and in the whole of France, that they demonstrated every day, resisted, informed, organized themselves, mobilized themselves…sometimes with the participation of the mayors…has borne fruit. It is a test that gives hope for the fight to come…” See: “Gaz de schiste: la mobilisation citoyenne a gagné une victoire, mais pas la guerre.” Bourg Socialisme avenir. Available at: http://www.bsavenir.fr/2011/10/01/gaz-de-schiste-la-mobilisation-citoyenne-a-gagne-une-victoire-mais-pas-la-guerre/ [3] This percentage is higher than that against nuclear energy (the primary source of energy in France) according to: Chu, Henry. “Pressure builds against France’s ban on fracking,” Los Angeles Times, 22/06/2014. Available at:  http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-france-fracking-20140622-story.html#page=1 [4] http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/13/3591891/pew-poll-voters-oppose-fracking/

Stopping Fracking: Together We’re Stronger!

It’s an increasingly recognized reality: the world cannot burn its reserves of fossil fuels and expect the planet to be habitable. But energy companies continue extracting fossil fuels in pursuit of near-term profit, rather than adapting their business models for the sake of long-term sustainability. Already, much of the world’s reserves of easily extracted, high-quality fossil fuels have been exhausted. New horizontal drilling technology, combined with hydraulic fracturing (fracking), has made exploitation of hard-to-reach ("unconventional") oil and gas deposits possible. For a variety of reasons, fracking poses very high risks to public health and the environment. AIDA has begun working with civil society organizations and institutions to generate information, stimulate debate, and join forces to prevent the negative impacts of fracking in Latin America.  The Risks of Fracking Fracking for unconventional deposits involves drilling into the ground vertically, to a depth below aquifers, and then horizontally through layers of shale rock. Then fracking fluid (a high-volume mixture of water, sand, and undisclosed chemicals) is injected at very high pressure to fracture the shale, thus releasing the oil and gas trapped inside. After fracking fluid surfaces, energy companies typically dump it into unlined ponds. The chemical soup—now also contaminated with heavy metals and even radioactive elements—seeps into aquifers and overflows into streams.    The severe and irreversible damage associated with fracking includes: Exhaustion of freshwater supplies. Contamination of ground and surface waters. Air pollution from drill and pump rigs. Harms to the health of people (low birth weight, birth defects, increases in congenital heart defects, deformities, allergies, cancer, and respiratory disease) and other living things. Unregulated emissions of methane, which traps 25 times more heat than carbon dioxide. Earthquakes. Effects on subsistence activities, such as agriculture. For and Against Fracking Given these risks, France, Bulgaria, Ireland, and New York State have turned their backs on fracking, banning it or declaring a moratorium in their territories.   In Latin America, however, many countries are opening their doors to fracking. Governments are doing so with little or no understanding of its impacts, and in the absence of an adequate process to inform, consult, or invite the participation of affected communities: Mexico promoted fracking through a landmark energy reform law in 2013. As of 2015, 20 wells have been drilled using this technique. Argentina has the largest number of fracking operations in the region, and the largest reserves of shale gas in America. As of 2014, there were more than 500 fracking wells in Neuquén, Chubut, and Rio Negro[6], including wells in the Auca Mahuida reserve and in Mapuche indigenous territories. In Chile, the state-owned oil company ENAP started fracking on the island of Tierra del Fuego in 2013. More drilling is planned in the coming years. Colombia and Brazil have opened public bidding and signed contracts with oil companies for exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons through fracking. Bolivia's state-owned oil company signed an agreement in 2013 with its counterpart from Argentina to study the potential of fracking in Bolivia. Better together In October 2014, with the help of AIDA, the Regional Alliance on Fracking was formed to raise awareness, generate public debate, and prevent risks associated with the technique. The alliance seeks to ensure that the rights to life, public health, and a healthy environment are respected in Latin America. The idea for the alliance came from previous regional coordination initiatives promoted by Observatorio Petrolero Sur and the Heinrich Böll Foundation.  The alliance currently consists of 33 civil society organizations and academic institutions from seven countries in the region. They are working together to: Identify fracking operations in the region, their impacts and affected communities, and promote civil society strategies to stop them. Organize workshops and virtual seminars on the impacts of fracking. Develop international advocacy strategies to stop fracking in the region. Conduct a regional outreach campaign on the issue. The alliance is strengthened by the expertise of its members, its regional scope, and the institutional support provided by organizations in each country. Given its collaborative nature, it is always open to the participation of new institutions and individuals interested in the subject. Major achievements Many civil society organizations, indigenous peoples, and institutions in the region have been working to stop fracking. They have developed strategies to generate information, raise awareness, promote public debate, and influence decision makers. Their achievements encourage us to improve coordination for greater impact throughout Latin America. Already, their efforts have resulted in: More than 30 municipal orders declaring a ban or moratorium on fracking in Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay. Many have been based on the precautionary principle, as well as on concerns about surface and ground waters and public health.  Judgments suspending contracts for fracking in Brazilian oil basins in Sao Paulo, Piauí, Bahia, and Paraná. Judges have also ordered Brazil’s National Petroleum Agency not to open further bidding until the environmental risks and impacts of fracking are sufficiently understood. Publications on the impacts of fracking, community awareness campaigns, and a bill – supported by more than 60 national deputies and nearly 20,000 people – to ban fracking in Mexico.  Greater public awareness of fracking, and public debate, in Colombia and Bolivia.  Through regional collaboration, AIDA will continue to make progress on preventing the impacts of fracking in our communities, and promote an energy future that is both renewable and humane.

Fracking prohibited in New York, but promoted in Colombia

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is an unconventional form of extracting oil and gas. The technique requires drilling first vertically and then horizontally, and injecting a high-pressure mix of water, sand, and toxic chemicals. The injection fractures subsurface layers of shale, releasing the oil and gas contained within. Fracking has severe impacts on both the environment and human health: it contaminates surface and ground water sources, causes earthquakes and air pollution, and releases greenhouse gases, among other things. These effects have been documented in studies by the German Ministry of Environment, the US Government Accountability Office, the Canadian Council of Academies, and Anthony Ingraffea, a professor at Cornell University. On December 17, 2014 the Governor of New York announced the prohibition of fracking in the State because of the "significant health risks" posed by the practice.This argument stems from a two-year study conducted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which analyzed the impacts of fracking on human health and on air and water quality in communities throughout the state. The decision has been celebrated by environmental advocates and criticized by some investors who claim that it is denying the State economic benefits from the extractive industry. The debate over whether or not to permit fracking has been going on in other latitudes as well. In France, fracking was banned in 2011 by national law. After an oil company sued the government, the Constitutional Court upheld the ban in 2013. Bulgaria banned fracking in 2012, and Germany maintains a moratorium on the technique. Bans or moratoriums have also been issued by municipalities in the United States, Canada, Spain, Argentina, Switzerland, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Australia. Despite this international precedent, the Colombian government has promoted fracking. In 2008, the National Hydrocarbons Agency issued a study to identify the potential in unconventional hydrocarbons in the country. In 2012, the National Environmental Licensing Authority authorized a hydraulic fracturing project in Boyacá. That year, the Comptroller General of the Republic issued just one warning recommending that companies "take into account the precautionary principle regarding the latent risk hydraulic fracturing poses to environmental heritage through the possible contamination of groundwater and surface water sources, geological risk, and the risk to public health and nearby urban centers."   In January 2015, in a special performance-monitoring warning, the Comptroller found that the State had not adopted the necessary measures. By the end of 2012, the Colombian government began creating a regulatory framework for fracking in Colombia. They contracted international experts to regulate and identify the impacts of the technique. An investigation by independent news site La Silla Vacía has found that several of these experts are linked to the oil industry. The Ministry of Mines and the National Hydrocarbons Agency then issued legal instruments that would serve as the framework for the start of fracking in the country. Francisco José Lloreda, president of the Colombian Petroleum Association, publicly stated that without fracking “we would have a fiscal catastrophe” within six or seven years. And the Minister of Mines, Tomás González, said that fracking is needed to finance the country’s peace process. Even before fracking began in Colombia, various sectors issued warnings. In August 2014, AIDA publicly urged (in Spanish) the government to apply the precautionary principle and prevent the serious and irreversible consequences of fracking. Later, in September, the National Environmental Forum and other organizations requested a conditional moratorium on fracking in Colombia. Additionally, Housing Minister Luis Felipe Henao voiced concern about the effect fracking would have on the water supply. He said, "To me, as Minister of Water, fracking scares me.… When you see what is happening in Santa Marta, you realize that one can invest a lot in pipes, but if you don’t have clean water supplies, you won’t do much more than carry air through them." From all these arguments, the obvious question arises: Why is fracking – which has been prohibited or restricted in various countries and municipalities – being promoted by the Colombian government? The most apparent response is that it will increase extraction of hydrocarbons and, as a consequence, the revenues of government and private industry. What government and industry do not see is that no amount of revenue is great enough to offset the social and environmental impacts of fracking, or of the possible new conflicts that may arise because of its effects on water resources.  We have seen nationally (Guajira and Arauca) and internationally (Los Angeles and San Paulo) that without drinkable water, a successful economy,and even life itself are not feasible.

COP20: Fracking, an experimental, hazardous and contaminating technique

During an event at the People’s Summit on Climate Change, a parallel event to the COP20 in Lima, fracking took center stage. Activists expressed their central argument about the controversial oil extraction method: that fracking is an experimental technique that involves serious risks to health and the environment, including the worsening of climate change. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is an extreme method of exploration and/or exploitation of unconventional oil and gas (as both shale and tight gas). Special drills bore holes vertically into the subsoil and then horizontally into rock formations. Drill teams inject a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals at high pressure to fracture the rock, releasing trapped gas and oil.  "These chemicals have unknown effects due to contact with elements of the subsoil," explained Eduardo D’elia, petroleum engineer and member of the Citizens Environmental Assembly of Rio Gallegos in Argentina, during Fracking: A Challenge for Latin America, organized by the Heinrich Böll Foundation in the People's Summit. "The fracturing of horizontal wells is highly complex and unpredictable, so this makes fracking an experimental technique." Fracking affects people in a number of unfortunate ways: the massive use of water (from 9 to 29 million liters of water per well) reduces availability of fresh water for drinking water, agriculture or other needs; fracking fluids can contaminate surface and groundwaters; the chemicals used may cause cancer, allergies, and malformation, among other diseases. Aroa de la Fuente, member of FUNDAR and the Mexican Alliance Against Fracking, made it clear that fracking is not an option for confronting climate change. She said that in hydraulic fracturing projects, up to eight percent of the natural gas (methane) produced escapes directly into the atmosphere. And methane holds a global warming potential 25 times that of carbon dioxide.  "In 20 years, the climate impact of electricity generated by fracked gas would be higher than 20 percent of the impact of coal-fired electric generation," she stated.  Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia and Mexico, among other Latin American countries, are intending to develop fracking broadly in coming years. Attendees at the People’s Summit wondered, "What can people do in the face of these hazardous plans?"  Ariel Perez Castellón, an attorney with AIDA, emphasized the existence of legal tools designed to safeguard human health and the environment against fracking. The first, he said, is the precautionary principle, which is recognized in international law and which States and civil society should apply to address the threats of fracking. This principle establishes that "where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation". [1] This means that when in doubt about the occurrence, scope, or magnitude of severe environmental damage, States must take proactive and effective measures to prevent such damage. "Based in this principle, States have three obligations related to fracking: to generate broad, clear and impartial information regarding this activity and its impacts; to protect the environment and the people with a moratorium on fracking activities, until there is a demonstration of its innocuous development; and to promote opportunities for public debate about fracking", Pérez said.   Attendees in Lima stressed that social mobilization is key in supporting the legal strategies against fracking. Various civil society organizations within Latin American spoke of their efforts to promote public discussions, disseminate information in their communities, and take the necessary steps to prevent the damage that fracking may bring to their countries. In recent times, these organizations are starting to share experiences and articulate advocacy efforts within the region.  On the occasion of COP20, 80 Latin American organizations issued a statement (text in Spanish) warning that fracking will have disastrous consequences for the environment and the population of Latin America, and that it will worsen climate change. The organizations asked their national governments  to "prevent the use of hydraulic fracturing in their territory under the state obligation of the principle of precaution, and ensure the protection of fresh water resources and their peoples' health." [1] Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development of 1992, principle 15

Stopping the spread of fracking in Latin America

Indigenous leader condemns Brazil’s rights abuses at United Nations

Speakers highlight violations stemming from Amazon dams at Human Rights Council. Geneva, Switzerland. In a groundbreaking event at the 25th United Nations Human Rights Council, the national coordinator of Brazil’s Association of Indigenous Peoples (APIB) Sônia Guajajara exposed an alarming disregard for indigenous peoples’ rights by the Brazilian government as it rushes to promote an unprecedented wave of large dam construction across the Amazon basin with devastating impacts on their territories and livelihoods. In her testimony, Ms. Guajajara argued that the violation of indigenous rights to prior consultations concerning the federal government’s dam-building plans has set a troubling precedent for the rule of law and the future of Brazil’s indigenous peoples. The side event, entitled ‘Indigenous peoples’ right to consultation on large dam projects in Brazil’, also featured Alexandre Andrade Sampaio, a Brazilian lawyer with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), who critiqued the use of a legal mechanism known as “Security Suspension” (Suspensão de Segurança) that allows chief justices, upon request from the government, to indefinitely suspend legal rulings in favor of indigenous peoples’ rights. Among the most egregious use of this legal artifice that was originally created during Brazil’s military dictatorship, is the suspension of court decisions on the illegality of large hydroelectric dam projects, such as Belo Monte, where the federal government has failed to ensure indigenous peoples’ right to prior consultations, as enshrined in the Brazilian constitution. According to Sampaio, the Security Suspension also constitutes an obstacle to Brazil’s compliance with international agreements concerning free, prior, and informed consultation and consent (FPIC), including Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization ILO), ratified by the Brazilian Congress in 2002, and the 2007 UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). “The alliance of economic interests and political power represent a major crisis for the implementation of indigenous rights in today’s Brazil,” said Ms. Guajajara. “However, even if the government denies our rights, it cannot deny its responsibility to this convention.” “The Suspension of Security Violates Human rights. The very people that could dismiss it are the same ones who personally benefit from its existence,” said Mr. Sampaio. “That is why it is important for the international community to turn its eyes to this matter and request the Brazilian government adopt effective measures that lead to the respect of human rights.” Joint declarations were submitted to the UN General Assembly by a coalition of Brazilian and international groups, including NGO France Libertés. In discussing growing threats to indigenous rights, both documents highlight the Brazilian government’s plans to build a massive complex of up to 29 large dams along the Amazon’s Tapajós River and its tributaries in the next ten years. Lesser-known than the controversial Belo Monte project on the neighboring Xingu River, the Tapajós complex would provoke flooding and other devastating consequences for indigenous peoples and other traditional populations both upstream and downstream of planned dams, including elimination of migratory fish that are a dietary stable and a basis of local economies. The federal government’s rush to construct a series of large dams in the Tapajós region, in the absence of prior consultations with indigenous peoples, has led to growing protests from local tribes, such as the Munduruku, Kayabi and Apiaká people. “We are watching a dark history repeat itself on the rivers of the Amazon where Belo Monte’s tragedy threatens to be reproduced on the Tapajós,” said Christian Poirier of Amazon Watch. “While the Brazilian government claims to respect its indigenous peoples, it is in fact working to dismantle their rights to open their lands and rivers to unconstrained exploitation.” Prior to the side event the delegates met with Ambassador Regina Dunlop of Brazil’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in order to present their grievances. While the Ambassador stated that the information would be more relevant if presented to government representatives in Brasilia, Ms. Guajajara and Mr. Sampaio countered that these criticisms are frequently ignored by government decision makers until problems are exposed in international forums, such as the United Nations. “Brazil’s reputation is at stake on this international stage,” said Sônia Guajajara. “We are here to bring visibility to the unacceptable prejudice and discrimination suffered by indigenous peoples and to demand that it stops.” The side event in Geneva was organized by France Liberté (Fondation Danielle Mitterand) with support from Amazon Watch and International Rivers.