Freshwater Sources

Belo Monte noncompliant with conditions for operation, says environmental authority

Altamira, Brazil. In their technical analysis of the Belo Monte Dam released yesterday, the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) concluded that the conditions required to approve Belo Monte’s Operating License have not yet been met. Ten of twelve conditions identified by IBAMA as pending compliance are considered essential for granting the license. Until the operating consortium, Norte Energía, addresses these conditions, the project will be delayed and the dam’s reservoir will not be flooded. “We welcome IBAMA’s thorough evaluation of Belo Monte, a project that has already had severe impacts on the environment and human rights,” said Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-director of AIDA. “Moving forward, it is crucial that all conditions are met, and measures to protect the people and environment of the Xingú River basin are fully implemented before the license may be granted.” The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) has for more than 5 years supported indigenous and local communities and organizations in their fight to denounce the irregularities of the Belo Monte project. The conclusions outlined by IBAMA reinforce the arguments of those who have long opposed the dam for its negative socio-environmental impacts. “If the Brazilian government approves Belo Monte’s operating license without first guaranteeing the protection of the environment and human rights, they would be violating their international commitments,” said María José Veramendi Villa, AIDA attorney. AIDA and partner organizations have long argued that conditions do not exist for the approval of licenses for Belo Monte. Essential services that would guarantee minimum rights to the displaced population remain outstanding, including potable water and health and sanitation services.  In 2011, the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights granted precautionary measures in favor of affected indigenous communities. The severity of the project’s human rights violations have been reinforced in a report by the Socio-Environmental Institute (ISA) of Brazil, to which AIDA contributed, as well as in information gathered by the health and indigenous protection authorities and the Brazilian Public Ministry.  AIDA expects that IBAMA’s technical report will be taken into consideration when making the final decision on the dam’s operating license. The outright denial of the license would serve as a paradigm for future mega-projects planned in the Brazilian Amazon, as well as other parts of the region, sending a clear message that economic development projects must not engage in human rights violations. 

Belo Monte Dam may begin operations despite noncompliance

The dam has failed to comply with conditions for the protection of the health, integrity and way of life of affected communities. Organizations reiterate the validity of the precautionary measures granted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in favor of the indigenous communities of the Xingú River basin, whose situation of risk has worsened. Altamira, Brazil & Washington, DC – The Belo Monte dam is applying for authorization to begin operations, with construction reported at 70 percent complete. This authorization may happen despite the fact that the project has failed to comply with conditions necessary to protect the health, integrity and way of life of affected communities, including the indigenous peoples of the Xingú river basin. Civil society organizations solicited the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights to maintain the precautionary measures granted in 2011 in favor of the indigenous peoples of the Xingú river basin. They did so as a response to the Brazilian government’s request that the Commission lift the measures, which were authorized to avoid irreparable damage to the rights of the communities. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), Justiça Global, the Sociedad Paraense de Defensa de los Derechos Humanos (SDDH) and the Movimiento Xingú Vivo para Siempre (MXPVS) filed the brief on behalf of indigenous and river communities affected by Belo Monte. The organizations argued before the Commission that the social and environmental situation surrounding Belo Monte continues to be serious and urgent, and could cause irreparable damages. Their arguments are based on a recent report by the Socio-Environmental Institute of Brazil (ISA), as well as on official government data that include information from health and indigenous protection authorities and the Public Ministry. The ISA report analyzes in detail the situation of Altamira, Pará—the region where Belo Monte is being constructed—and emphasizes the human rights violations and irregularities of the project.  The report warns that necessary conditions do not exist for the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) to grant the project’s operating license. If granted, the license would authorize the filling of the dam, and, thus, the final diversion of the Xingú River. One part of the dam would then begin operation. According to the ISA report, measures to avoid the project’s impacts on health, education and basic sanitation have not been met. This neglect will lead to further damage, such as the fracturing of indigenous communities, saturation of public health services, lower quality education, and greater forest degradation. “The consequences we announced years ago are now a reality,” said Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-director of AIDA. “The filling of the dam, scheduled for the year’s end, will cause the loss of homes and land, and the modification of the traditional lifestyles and livelihoods of Xingú communities. Brazilian authorities and the Commission must act effectively to prevent this disaster.” It is clear that the conditions necessary for Norte Energía, the consortium in charge of the project, to receive the license are not in place. The vice-governor of Pará explained that although the construction is 70 percent complete, only 30 percent of the social and environmental conditions have been met.  Similarly, the Attorney of the Republic of Altamira, Thais Santi, said that the consortium is not respecting the protection plan for indigenous lands, the principal condition for the protection of the peoples of the Xingú. The decision on the authorization of Belo Monte must also take into account the recent corruption scandal that has engulfed the project. The investigation Lava Jato, which began a year ago, exposed a massive network of corruption involving the government and Brazil’s largest construction companies. A senior executive, currently in prison on corruption charges, mentioned in his declaration how they had set up and executed bribes for the construction of Belo Monte. The Comptroller General (CGU) thereafter decided to investigate the use of public funds in the project. “The lack of effective control in the execution of the project has made the consequences much worse than anticipated. Giving free reign of operation to the dam at this time would mean completely shutting down the options available to avoid major social and humanitarian disasters in the region,” said Sandy Faidherb of SDDH. 

Victory: Aerial Spraying Stopped in Colombia

Protecting the Santurban Páramo from mining's damages

AIDA celebrates historic decision to suspend fumigation with glyphosate in Colombia

AIDA calls on the National Environmental Licensing Agency to immediately cancel the permit authorizing the chemical spraying program. Thanks to more than 24,000 people who signed a petition on Change.org to suspend fumigation and to colleagues and organizations that participated in the campaign. Bogota, Colombia. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) welcomes the Colombian government’s decision to suspend the aerial spraying of coca and poppy crops with glyphosate in the country. To implement this decision, the National Environmental Licensing Agency must rule immediately and cancel the permit granted to the chemical spraying program. "This is a historic moment for health, the environment, and respect for law in Colombia," said Astrid Puentes Riaño, Co-Director of AIDA. "We know it was a complex decision, but in light of a policy that has proved ineffective and caused serious damage, it was also a smart decision to change course and find real solutions." AIDA has followed the Illicit Crop Eradication Program in Colombia since the late 1990s. We have repeatedly decried the serious damage to health and the environment caused by the glyphosate mixture applied in Colombia, and advocated more appropriate alternatives to eradicate coca and poppy crops. The decision to suspend the spraying, made last night by the National Narcotics Council with an overwhelming majority of seven votes to one, will become effective if the National Environmental Licensing Agency revokes the permit authorizing the program. AIDA believes that the permit should be canceled immediately because the program was designed to use glyphosate, and without it the program no longer makes sense. One day before the decision, AIDA delivered a petition to suspend the spraying, with more than 24,000 signatures, to the Minister of Justice, who also chairs the Narcotics Council. The petition, posted on Change.org, was sponsored by AIDA in conjunction with the Institute for Studies of Development and Peace (INDEPAZ) and the Observatory of Crops and Growers Declared Illicit, with support from Washington Office on Latin America and Latin American Working Group. In one week the petition received 24,933 signatures. "We thank everyone who signed and those who for years have requested this change in policy; this is a shared achievement," said Hector Herrera, AIDA attorney and coordinator of the Environmental Justice Network in Colombia. "We look forward to creation of a technical committee to make recommendations and hope that it is participatory and transparent." The suspension of the fumigation program followed a finding, issued by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, that glyphosate may be carcinogenic. This finding led the Ministry of Health to recommended suspending the program, which Colombia’s Constitutional Court and other national courts had unsuccessfully requested years before, citing the precautionary principle. This principle, found in international environmental law, was incorporated into Colombian legislation in 1993. It holds that in the absence of scientific certainty, when a risk of serious or irreversible health or environmental damage may be present, the authorities should take steps to avoid that risk. In the case of spraying, the requirements for applying the precautionary principle are met. Although there is no absolute scientific certainty of causal harm, more than 15 years of evidence points to possible serious and irreversible damage to health and the environment, including risk of cancer and skin diseases, damage to amphibians and fish, and damage to forests and food crops. The Colombian government, for the sake of caution, finally suspended spraying to prevent further damage.  

Colombian government must immediately suspend the use of glyphosate

Bogota, Colombia. Glyphosate, the herbicide used to eradicate crops considered illicit in Colombia, has been classified as a substance probably carcinogenic to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization. Based on these findings, the Colombian Ministry of Health is recommending that the country’s Ministry of Justice "immediately suspend the use of glyphosate in the Illicit Crops Eradication Program’s aerial spraying operations." The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) strongly supports this recommendation so that the human rights to health and a healthy environment, both closely linked to the right to life, are protected in Colombia. We urge the government to fulfill its national and international obligations, respecting the conclusions reached by the highest health authorities, in order to prevent further damage to the country’s people and environment. For 15 years, AIDA and partner organizations have been warning of the grave impacts glyphosate has on the environment and human health. We’ve advocated for the need to apply the precautionary principle to suspend Colombia’s fumigation program, which has been financed by the government of the United States. Astrid Puentes Riaño, attorney and co-director of AIDA: "Colombia, like no other country, has used millions of liters of glyphosate that have not succeeded in destroying coca and poppy plants, but have irreparably damaged the environment and human health. Without excuses or delays, the National Narcotics Council must act responsibly and immediately suspend the use of glyphosate in the eradication of illicit crops." Anna Cederstav, co-director of AIDA and PhD in Chemistry: "The scientific evidence on the impacts of glyphosate on the environment and human health is sufficient to support a decision of the suspension of aerial spraying of glyphosate in Colombia."

Toward a law to protect glaciers and water in Chile

More than 70 percent of the world’s fresh water is frozen in glaciers,[1] making these giants the most important freshwater reserves on the planet. The distribution of this wealth has been generous to some countries. According to the Randolph Inventory, the most complete map of glaciers in the world, Chile is the guardian of the largest area of glaciers in South America: 14,600 square miles distributed across thousands of glaciers that reach from the peaks of the Altiplano in the north to the extreme southern tip of the continent. The most dangerous threats to glaciers are climate change and industrial activities near them, especially mining. Through strategic litigation and advocacy, AIDA is working to halt the harms from both of these threats. Climate change has caused the decline of snow and rainfall, as well as an increase in temperature, which reduces the accumulation of ice and increases the melting of glaciers. Mining exploration and exploitation degrade glaciers with road construction, drilling, explosives, and toxic materials. These activities also generate dust that settles on glaciers, making them darker and accelerating their rate of melt. Although we know that water is fundamental for life, and that glaciers are dangerously threatened, surprising littleinternational law protects glaciers. No international treaty aims to preserve them, nor is any such treaty under consideration. At the national level, only Argentina has a law to protect its glaciers. In Chile, draft legislation to protect glaciers has been debated in Congress for many years. Bearing in mind the drought currently plaguing the country, what better reason could there be to develop a SMART legal tool to care for Chilean glaciers? In search of a law The first attempt to enact a law to protect Chile’s glaciers was in 2006. It was driven by the approval of the Pascua-Lama mining project, which threatened the mountainous glaciers in the north of the country. The unsuccessful initiative was shelved in 2007. On May 20, 2014 members of Congress, calling themselves "the Glacier Caucus," proposed a new law to preserve the glaciers. Mining and geothermal companies severely criticized their proposal, which forbade mining and other activities that harm glaciers. This March, the executive branch made a counterproposal. According to environmental organizations, the spirit of the Glacier Caucus law was completely changed in response to mining-industry demands. What follows are points for and against the government’s proposal, based on the minutes in (Spanish) of a collaborative meeting of environmental organizations: Positive Recognizes glaciers as freshwater reservoirs, as providers of ecosystem services, and as national public property. Prohibits applications for rights to harvest glacial water. Strengthens the power of the General Water Directorate to generate information, monitor the status of glaciers, and impose fines. Elevates the legal hierarchy of the glacier inventory. Negative Does not protect all glaciers, only those found in national parks or wildlife reserves. This is a serious oversight, considering that the most threatened glaciers are in the north, where national parks are rare and where they share territory with mining reserves. Worse, still, glaciers in the north supply drinking water to millions of people who live in areas where water is scarce. Could safeguard some glaciers outside of protected areas if the Committee of Ministers for Sustainability considers them "strategic water reserves." The proposal, however, makes no reference to the tools or public funds needed to make such an assessment. The risk is that this designation would eventually be left to consultants who frequently work for mining companies. Leaves glaciers that are not considered “strategic reserves” open to industrial projects, depending on the conclusions of Environmental Impact Assessments. In the past, EIAs have permitted such damaging projects as the Pacua-Lama, Andina 244, Los Bronces, and Los Pelambres mines. States that a project’s environmental permit will only be reviewed if the project currently impacts glaciers in national parks or those declared "strategic reserves." All other glaciers remain subject to the mining and energy projects that are already harming them. Internal debates in Congress will continue. We truly hope the resulting law will provide all glaciers with their due protection and that similar laws will be enacted in the rest of the countries where glaciers hold precious water for future generations. Meanwhile, AIDA’s dedicated legal advocates are working hard to prevent and minimize mining threats to the environment and people. AIDA is currently preparing a guide, Basic Guidelines for the Environmental Impact Assessment of Mining Projects: Recommended Terms of Reference (in Spanish), detailing the comprehensive analysis that must be completed for any proposed mining project. We are advocating with government agencies to conduct thorough assessments before approving new mine projects and, when necessary, we’re pursuing strategic litigation to compel agencies to improve their assessments. We’re also strengthening environmental laws and precedents that apply to extractive industries. In Colombia and Panama, AIDA is actively advocating revisions to the national mining codes, specifically to protect crucial water resources. Bringing international law to bear on the issue, we’re using international agreements to establish precedents that apply to mines broadly. We’ve also begun to create a pool of technical experts to help local communities and governments understand and evaluate proposals for mineral extraction. Please watch this blog for upcoming news about mines, water, and AIDA’s efforts to protect a healthy environment. [1] According to data from Global Water Partnership: http://www.gwp.org/

Wetlands: Vital and At Risk

Temporarily or permanently flooded extensions of land create wetlands— oxygen-deprived, hybrid ecosystems that combine the characteristics of both aquatic and terrestrial systems. Wetlands include marshes, páramos, bogs, peatlands, swamps, mangroves and coral reefs. Wetlands provide people with a host of benefits: Wetlands are natural supermarkets that contain an incredible amount of biodiversity: they are home to more than 100,000 known freshwater species. Our allies in the fight against climate change, wetlands capture and store carbon from the atmosphere. It is estimated that over long periods of time, a hectare of mangroves captures 50 times more carbon dioxide than a tropical forest. Wetlands help to reduce the risk of natural disasters . An example of this happened in 2011, when the Veracruz Reef System in the Gulf of Mexico protected the city of Veracruz from the category four Hurricane Karl. Wetlands are a source of livelihood and employment for millions of people. In Panama alone, 90 percent of incomefrom fishing comes from catching species that, at some stage in their life, depend on the wetlands of the Panama Bay. What’s more, water to irrigate the country’s 570 million agricultural crops comes from these ecosystems. By forming beautiful landscapes, wetlands are a center of recreational and tourist activities, such as bird watching. Under threat Even though they are one of the most productive ecosystems in the world, more than 64% of the world’s wetlands have disappeared. The causes of their degradation include: Activities like agriculture that promote changes in land use , and contribute to the loss of coverage of wetlands. An example is the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta in Colombia, which is at risk from agricultural practices that have affected its water supply. Poorly planned urban development like that which threatened Panama Bay, where the mangroves were filled in and cut down to construct roads and houses. Obstruction of the water flow that feeds wetlands, as in the construction of the Las Cruces hydroelectric project in Mexico on the San Pedro Mezquital river, on which Marismas Nacionales, one of the most important mangrove forests in the country, depends. Contamination of subterranean water sources by activities like mining. What can we do for them? At AIDA we work to protect wetlands in the Americas . We’ve advocated for the preservation of the Colombian páramosand the Mexican wetlands, such as Cabo Pulmo, Marismas Nacionales and the Veracruz Reef System. We’ve also created rigorous reports about the international legal obligations that Costa Rica must meet to protect its corals, and about the standards of protection of corals in Mexico. And we’re ready to do more! We are currently preparing for the 12th Conference of Parties (COP12) for the Ramsar Convention , an intergovernmental treaty that has since 1971 promoted the protection of wetlands and established principles for their conservation and sustainable use through national action and international cooperation. The countries that sign and ratify the Convention are home to wetlands on the Ramsar List. They commit to taking steps necessary to maintain the ecological characteristics of these sites , which hold such significant value for their country and for all of humanity. The Conference will put to the test the promises that Latin American countries have made to protect their wetlands. The Parties will release Strategic Plan 2016-2021 , which will lay the foundation for the conservation of these ecosystems in the region. We’ll be at the Conference alongside partner organizations and decision markers to advocate for the best possible preservation of these beacons of health and biodiversity for the region.

Páramos: Defending Water in Colombia

Colombia’s páramos occupy just 1.7 percent of the national territory, yet they produce 85 percent of its drinking water. These rich sources of life are threatened by activities like large-scale mining, and their protection should be a point of national interest. So just how does the magic happen? The páramos are high altitude wetlands. Despite being located in the equatorial zone, they remain cool throughout the year, which enables their soils to maintain rich volcanic nutrients. All these characteristics make the páramos true sponges that capture moisture from the atmosphere, purify water and regulate its flow.  The growth of the economy, the production of electricity and life itself are all made possible by the water provided by Colombia’s páramos:  Bogota’s water comes from the páramos of Sumpaz, Chingaza (at risk) and Cruz Verde (at risk from mining exploration). The water in Medellin arrives from the páramo of Belmira. The Santurbán páramo (at risk from gold mining projects) supplies water to Bucaramanga. In Cali, the Farallones are vital springs of water.  Life in all these cities depends on the páramos. That’s why AIDA is committed to the protection of these valuable ecosystems. It’s about defending our sources of fresh water, our right to live. This fight recently called us to: Call the World Bank’s attention to the risks of its investment in the Angostura mine, in the Santurbán páramo, which would harm both people and the environment. Co-organize a seminar about páramos and mining at the Universidad Sergio Arboleda in order to discuss and understand the latest legal and technical regulations on the subject.  We Are Not Alone Social movements in defense of water, life and páramos have blossomed across the country. The Committee for the Defense of Water and the Santurbán Páramo and the Committee for Cruz Verde are two strong examples. Greenpeace Colombia has also promoted the end of mining in the Pisba páramo in Boyacá.  Meanwhile, after many extensions, the Environmental Minister announced last December the delimitation of the Santurbán páramo. However, he also announced that mining projects that already had a title and an environmental license would be permitted to continue. The Canadian mining company Eco Oro then issued a public statement that, even with the delimitation of Santurbán, it would continue developing the Angostura mine on a smaller scale. This delimitation opens the way for similar actions on which the recognition and protection of other Colombian páramos will depend. As members of civil society we must remain vigilant so that such actions comply with national and international environmental and human rights standards. Our water, and therefore our life, is at risk. Where will our fresh water come from in 2015, when our numbers are millions more? If we don’t protect our páramos today, Colombia’s future generations will be deprived of access to water. Current problems in Lima, Peru and São Paulo, Brazil remind us that this reality might not be too far away.

Mexico illegally authorizes hydropower dam

The permit for the project on the San Pedro Mezquital River violates national and international environmental and human rights laws. Mexico City, Mexico. In violation of national and international environmental and human rights laws, on September 18, 2014 Mexico’s environmental authority (SEMARNAT) authorized construction of the Las Cruces hydroelectric project in the state of Nayarit. On behalf of communities and indigenous peoples who will be harmed by the project, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) will enlist the aid of United Nations Special Rapporteurs and of the Ramsar Secretariat, who oversees implementation of a wetlands-protection treaty. AIDA will ask these authorities to deem the permit process illegal and demand that the Mexican Government revoke its authorization.  In its permit process, SEMARNAT ignored international laws requiring prior consultation with indigenous peoples, who must give their free, prior, and informed consent to the project. These actions are required by the International Labour Organization Convention No. 169 and by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  In the permit, SEMARNAT recognizes that the communities of San Blasito and Saycota, which will be evicted as a result of construction, were unaware of the consultation notices that the Federal Electricity Commission (FEC) allegedly posted. "International standards require more than just telling the indigenous people about the project, as FEC did in this case [1]," said Maria José Veramendi, senior attorney at AIDA. "Affected communities must participate since the planning phase. And consultation has to followed by traditional decision-making methods. Before and during consultation, affected people must be provided with precise information on the consequences of the project, with the objective of reaching an agreement," she added. Construction of Las Cruces Dam will force eviction of indigenous peoples, most of them Cora, and harm 14 sacred Cora and Huichol sites. These impacts violate their human rights to adequate housing, water, sustainable livelihoods, culture, and education. The dam will also reduce flow to Marismas Nacionales, which is listed as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty for wetland protection. Reduced flow will harm fishing and agriculture that sustains river communities. In 2009, the Ramsar Secretariat exhorted the Mexican Government to consider the environmental goods and services, and the cultural heritage, of the region before authorizing Las Cruces. That recommendation was ignored. "The Ramsar Convention does not prohibit infrastructure in this kind of ecosystem, but it does establish criteria and standards to guide wetland management [2]," said AIDA attorney Sandra Moguel. "As the authority in charge of ensuring compliance with Mexico’s international environmental commitments, SEMARNAT should have taken the Convention’s guidelines into account. It’s especially regrettable that SEMARNAT ignored the Ramsar Secretariat’s specific recommendations for Marismas Nacionales," said Moguel. SEMARNAT also ignored the technical opinion of the National Aquaculture and Fisheries Commission (CONAPESCA). The Commission pointed out that if Las Cruces is built, fish populations in Nayarit and Sinaloa will dramatically decrease, because they depend on Marismas Nacionales, which in turn depend on the fresh water and nutrients supplied by the San Pedro River.  "This permit is a setback," said Moguel. "But AIDA will work closely with international legal authorities until we secure justice for the environment and affected communities." [1] Autorización de Impacto Ambiental del proyecto hidroeléctrico Las Cruces, p. 57 (in Spanish) [2] Autorización de Impacto Ambiental del proyecto hidroeléctrico Las Cruces, p. 62 (in Spanish)