Freshwater Sources

World Bank Arbitration Tribunal Refuses to Listen to Those Affected by Mining in Santurbán, Colombia

The World Bank’s International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) has declined to accept an Amicus Curiae that was to be presented by the Committee for the Defense of Water and the Páramo of Santurbán and allied international organizations. Bucaramanga, Bogotá, Washington, Ottawa, Amsterdam. National and international civil society organizations rebuffed the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes’ (ICSID) refusal to accept an Amicus Curiae within the process of the ongoing international arbitration brought forth by Canadian mining company Eco Oro Minerals Corp. against Colombia. The arbitration centre is hearing the ongoing international arbitration put forth by the Canadian company in question against the Andean nation. The company is attempting to pursue its Angostura gold mining project in the Santurbán páramo, located in the northeast of the country. The arbitration questions the decisions taken by the Colombian State to protect its páramos, high mountain wetlands that are a natural source of water for 70% of its inhabitants. The arbitration is being heard at the ICSID, an organization dependent on the World Bank that is in charge of the resolution of disputes between investors and States. Colombia could be condemned to pay $746 million US dollars, an unprecedented sanction for the country. “At a time when Latin American countries are embracing the principles of environmental democracy with the adoption of the Escazú Agreement, ICSID is going in the opposite direction. It is regrettable that in the midst of the regional movement for transparency and participation, ICSID has opted to constrict itself even more. In doing so, it is only generating more anger and distrust, not only in the face of this mechanism, but also in the face of the whole system of Investor-State Arbitration worldwide,” stated Carla García Zendejas, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). “The communities affected by mining in Santurbán have to be heard and can provide crucial elements for the case,” said Carlos Lozano, Senior AIDA Attorney. The organizations consider that the Committee for the Defense of Water and the Páramo of Santurbán has a significant interest in the outcome of the process and that they could have provided expertise to the arbitration tribunal, which would have been helpful for a better decision in the case. In the same way, they urge ICSID to expand citizen participation and make its decision-making processes more transparent. This is transcendental for the public interest of the countries whose governments are subject to its jurisdiction. Find more information on the case here.  PRESS CONTACTS: Alix Mancilla, Comité para la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán, alixmancillamor@hotmail.com, +57 311 2439273 Carla García Zendejas, CIEL, cgarcia@ciel.org, +1 202 374 2550 Carlos Lozano Acosta, AIDA, clozano@aida-americas.org, +57 300 56 40 282 Kirsten Francescone, MiningWatch Canada, kirsten@miningwatch.ca, +14373459881 Kristen Genovese, SOMO, K.Genovese@somo.nl, +31 65 277 3272, Manuel Perez Rocha, Institute for Policy Studies, manuel@ips-dc.org +1 240 838 6623  

Putting my heart in the conservation of wetlands

Coral reefs are my favorite wetlands. They’re full of so many colors and shapes, and simply teeming with life. When I’m underwater, my heart is full of peace and excitement, as I see myself surrounded by so many forms of life, so many species living together. As a marine biologist, I’ve had the opportunity to scuba dive in a variety of countries and see many of these beautiful ecosystems up close. Of all my dives, the ones I enjoyed most were those I did—for work and for pleasure—in the Bay Islands of Honduras. As a recent college graduate and volunteer with the Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment Program, I was in charge of monitoring the countless organisms that live in or on the reefs—seaweed, sea urchins, lobsters, queen snails, and so many others. Without a doubt, my time diving in the Cayos Cochinos sparked my personal and professional journey. Since then, I’ve set out to protect these magical ecosystems, vital to all life this planet. My current role, as scientific advisor to AIDA, uses science to strengthen the legal arguments employed to protect these and other at-risk natural environments in Latin America. Wetlands, vital and at-risk In addition to coral reefs, wetlands—characterized by the presence of water—include lakes and rivers, underground aquifers, swamps and marshes, grasslands, peat bogs, estuaries and deltas, mangroves, and sea grasses. Wetlands act as the “kidneys” of the planet because they recycle water and waste, retain sediment and nutrients, reduce erosion, and absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, in turn mitigating climate change. However, it’s estimated that since 1700 we’ve lost nearly 87 percent of our wetlands at a speed three times greater than the loss of our natural forests. This has caused a drastic reduction in biodiversity, affecting 81 percent of continental species and 36 percent of marine and coastal species. Among the greatest threats to our wetlands are contamination by garbage, wastewater and industrial pollution; changes in land use; agricultural runoff, erosion and climate change. What’s more, global warming is increasing the temperature of the oceans, raising sea levels, and melting the poles. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an increase of 1.5°C in global temperature could kill almost 90 percent of the world’s coral reefs—an irreversible and heartbreaking loss. Taking action to save wetlands Given this frightening global scenario, urgent action is required to protect our planet’s wetlands. In fact, there are many ways we can begin to do so immediately, such as: Creating restoration campaigns for vital ecosystems like mangroves and coral reefs. Declaring natural protected areas, to conserve wetlands and the species that depend on them. Developing policies that allow for the rational use of wetlands, where conservation is prioritized. Prohibiting the destruction of these ecosystems in any type of project, be it tourism, development or infrastructure. Establishing water treatment plans to prevent drainage and runoff from contaminating wetlands. Every year, on February 2, we celebrate World Wetlands Day, commemorating the signing of the Ramsar Convention, the only intergovernmental treaty for the conservation and rational use of our planet’s wetlands. This year’s celebration is focused on wetlands and climate change, inviting us all to reflect on the value of our wetlands, the critical services they provide, and urgency with which we must protect them. We are not powerless in the face of climate change. Saving our wetlands may just be the first step toward saving our planet, and ourselves.  

Protecting Wetlands: A Ramsar Infographic

Wetlands worldwide are at threat due to changes in land use, pollution and unsustainable development. The Ramsar Convention is an intergovernmental treaty that works to protect wetlands across international borders, and advocates for their wise use. This infographic breaks down why wetlands are so important, and how the application of the Ramsar Convention can help us protect these sensitive and vital ecosystems.  

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.  

In Xingu management plan, Brazil leaves communities without water

The proposed Xingu River management plan puts at risk the people, plants and animals of the Amazon region. AIDA requested that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights urge Brazil to stop the plan and establish a socially and environmentally appropriate alternative. Washington, D.C. and Altamira, Brazil. By authorizing the construction of the Belo Monte Dam in the heart of the Amazon, the Brazilian government endorsed a management plan for the flow of the Xingu River that would leave the indigenous and riverine communities of the area without the water they need to survive. The plan is in a testing phase but is expected to be implemented next year, once all the turbines of the hydroelectric plant are installed. The Interamerican Association of Environment Defense (AIDA) sent a report to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights detailing the serious socio-environmental risks of the plan. In it, we requested that the Commission urge Brazil to stop the plan’s implementation and create an alternative plan that guarantees biodiversity and protects the communities’ ways of life. “The authorized plan for the management of the river’s flow threatens the existence of indigenous and riverine communities, and places at risk of extinction the fish and the forests—natural resources on which the physical and cultural lives of the communities depend,” said Liliana Ávila, Senior AIDA Attorney. The plan, called a consensual hydrogram, establishes the volume of water that will pass through a specific part of the river, called the Vuelta Grande, and the part that will be diverted for energy production. It is intended to artificially reproduce the natural flow of the river in times of flood and drought. Norte Energía, the consortium in charge of the dam, proposes an average minimum flow rate of 4,000 cubic meters per second over the course of a year, and 8,000 cubic meters per second for the following year, beginning in 2019. It proposes a minimum flow rate of 700 cubic meters per second for the dry season. The report sent to the Commission, however, details scientific and social evidence that demonstrates that these water levels are significantly lower than the historical river flow and do not guarantee that fish and alluvial forests can survive the proposed reduction in the short- and medium-term. The evidence—which includes information from both the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources and community monitoring—also shows that some aquatic species, such as chelonians, can only feed and reproduce with minimum flows of 13,000 cubic meters per second in times of flooding, and that the volume proposed for the dry season could make the river unnavigable. “The management plan did not take into account the monitoring done by the Juruna people in collaboration with the Federal University of the State of Pará and the Socio-environmental Institute (ISA),” said AIDA attorney Marcella Ribeiro. “In 2016, with water levels higher than those proposed, communities were already reporting the mass die-off of fish.” AIDA sent the report to the Commission as part of a formal complaint against the Brazilian State for the human rights violations caused by the dam’s construction. In May, together with partner organizations, we presented our final arguments in the case, evidencing damages already caused, including the forced displacement of indigenous and riverine communities, the massive death of fish, differentiated damages to men and women, and threats to the survival of the communities. Find more information on the case here. press contacts Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, vquintanilla@aida-americas.org, +521 5570522107 Isabel Harari (Brazil), ISA, isabelharari@socioambiental.org, +5561998261213  

Argentina’s approval of fracking wells violates international obligations

The authorization of four fracking wells within the Vaca Muerta shale deposit poses a risk to vital water sources and violates the rights of Mapuche communities. In support of an amparo filed to invalidate the project’s approval, AIDA presented evidence detailing Argentina’s failure to comply with international environmental and human rights obligations. Mendoza, Argentina. Argentina violated international environmental and human rights obligations when it authorized the development of four fracking wells in indigenous territory.  The wells would damage vital water sources and violate the rights of Mapuche communities, AIDA explained in an amicus brief presented before the Supreme Court of Mendoza Province. The brief supports an amparo seeking to invalidate the project’s approval, filed by the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN, for its initials in Spanish). “Fracking was authorized in Mendoza without any environmental impact assessment,” explained AIDA Attorney Claudia Velarde. “In fact, the project was presented for authorization as ‘infrastructure adaptation’ and the environmental authority granted the permits in a record time of just six days.” The wells are located within Vaca Muerta, the largest non-conventional deposit of shale gas in Latin America.  Mapuche indigenous communities—recognized by the National Institute of Indigenous Affairs—live in the project area and, as such, have the right to prior consultation; operators must receive their free, prior and informed consent for any activity affecting their territory. The energy company El Trebol S.A. failed to recognize that right when assessing the project. As a result, the project’s authorization violates Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People—all international standards recognized by Argentina. “The chemicals used in fracking can contaminate both surface and groundwater, including, in this case, those of the Llancanelo lagoon, a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention, a treaty ratified by the government of Argentina,” said Velarde. “The site is a zone of passage and rest for more than 130 species of resident and migratory birds.” In addition, fracking activities require large amounts of water, while Mendoza has for years suffered from drought, a problem only aggravated by climate change. Finally, the brief emphasizes that there is neither detailed geological data of the zone nor quality information on the dynamics of the groundwater. “Faced with this scientific uncertainty, authorities have an obligation to apply the precautionary principle,” Velarde explained. “An activity as potentially harmful as fracking must be rejected unless those seeking to implement it can prove that it will not cause serious and irreversible damage to the environment.” Press contact: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, vquintanilla@aida-americas.org, +5215570522107  

The Colombian town that’s taking on coal mining

“To leave for good is painful,” Flower Aria Rivera, 58, said with nostalgia. He doesn’t want to leave his land, his home. Doing so would mean leaving behind his identity, his story. Flower is from Boquerón, Colombia, a town of nearly 900 residents in the northwest department of Cesar. His ancestors, directly descended from Africans, were among the first inhabitants of his small town and many others in the region. They lived from raising cattle and growing rice. But that simple life is no more. The once-fertile soils of Boquerón have for more than 30 years been overtaken by large-scale coal mining operations. Since the corporations arrived, the town has been absorbed by coal and the many damages it leaves behind—like unhealthy levels of air pollution, and the depletion of water from rivers and other natural sources. The contamination had gotten so bad that, in 2010, the government ordered the mining company to relocate Boquerón’s residents. Eight years later, and that still hasn’t happened. On the contrary, new families have been arriving to Boquerón in search of the compensation that will surely be distributed when relocation finally does occur. “We want the mines to move, we want them to stop polluting our town,” said Flower, one of the most respected of the community, which has peacefully resisted despite the outbreak of skin and respiratory diseases. Flower is not a conventional leader. He speaks softly, while smiling. His deep black skin contrasts with his pure white hair. He’s sweet and calm and, above all, full of faith and hope. I met him two months ago when he participated with other leaders in a public forum co-organized by AIDA, Tierra Digna, CENSAT Agua Viva, University of Magdalena, the Environmental Justice Network of Colombia, and the Rosa Luxembourg Foundation. There, participants discussed what’s needed to enable Colombia to move its economy away from coal exploitation and toward alternative energies—those that respect the both climate and communities. “Coal has left us with nothing, only sadness,” Flower lamented. Colombia is the fourth largest coal exporter in the world. As such, the government has the ethical and moral obligation to reduce its carbon emissions, which have contributed to exacerbating the climate crisis. At AIDA, we believe in a clean energy future, and our work will continue to support the move towards a coal-free Latin America.   To close, I’d like to share a poem Flower wrote. In it, he expresses longing and love for his land, and his fear of the “damned black stone.”   A mi Boquerón   Boquerón del alma mía Terruño de mis entrañas Estoy perdiendo mi alegría Mis costumbres y mis esperanzas   Camino lento y con tristeza Con solo pensar en tu partida Historia mía, historia tuya Es como un llanto en noche buena   Quisiera morirme en tus recuerdos Donde viví muchas nostalgias De amores y vivencias de este mundo Cómo te llevo Boquerón en el alma   Voces de recuerdos se escuchan a lo lejos De un niño y un viejo Como añorando el pasado De Boquerón y sus hermosos tiempos   Partir sin regreso es doloroso Y un diciembre sin ti es morir Como regresar después a pajuil Cuando mis zapatos se han roto   Ya inerme camina un boqueronero Y la historia del tucuy, el manantial y la lomita está muriendo Hoy hasta el mismo cielo está llorando En gotas de agua convertidas en desespero   Quisiera regresar a las faldas de mi madre Como cuando niño me escondía debajo de ella Escucho a lo lejos la voz del patriarca Rivera Ángel Que desde su tumba como deseando una esperanza   Adiós diablito caño, palma y paralú donde di mi grito de libertad y olvidé mi esclavitud de mi raza palenquera y también de chambacú y olvidé por mis ancestros lo juro por ese cielo azul   Maldita piedra negra Que hizo cambiar mi historia Un humilde pueblo llora La funesta partida de toda una vida  

Mayan women’s struggle before the Inter-American Development Bank in Guatemala

Understanding the true costs of mining in Latin America

Would you accept a business deal that offered you limited profits and infinite expenses? In Latin America, mining is strongly promoted as a source economic advancement. Governments tout extraction as a source of employment and funding for new hospitals, schools, roads and other infrastructure. Up to that point, it sounds like good business. But that’s only half of the story. What they don’t tell you about—in press releases or Environmental Impact Studies—is all of mining’s downsides, including impacts in perpetuity, environmental damage that persists for centuries or even millennia. Among mining’s many damages—rarely mentioned to the communities living alongside the projects—two stand out: Severe landscape modifications: for example, the excavation of an open-pit mine on a mountain or the filling of a valley with mining waste.   Contamination of water sources: for example, acid generation and the release of toxic metals into reach rivers, streams and other water sources; or the increase of nitrates and ammonia derived from explosives. In countries like the United States, damages are discussed in environmental assessment processes and legislation exists on both assessment and mitigation mechanisms. In Latin America, promoters of large mining projects often fail to understand that the long-term costs of these mega-projects far outweigh their benefits, and extend far beyond the mine’s active life cycle. After their closure and abandonment, open-pit mines need constant maintenance to minimize the risk of collapse (which never disappears). Water sources must be continuously monitored and treated to avoid toxic contamination. Who will pay for mining’s damages? It’s often difficult to know who must assume mining’s costs because it depends on several different elements: legal frameworks, institutional strength, and social factors. In many countries, governments require mining companies to build and install monitoring and remediation systems (wells, water treatment plants and drains, for example). In other cases, they are asked to pay for the operating costs of these systems for a period of time. The most demanding countries request remediation insurance (i.e. Reclamation Bonds), as well as a contribution to financial funds whose yields will be destined for such measures. This is the case of the Superfund, which manages the remediation of approximately 1,341 industrial sites across the United States. But even so, these policies often underestimate long-term costs, leaving tax papers to cover the rest of the expense. According to the Center for Science in Public Participation, the government would have to pay between $3.8 and $20 billion dollars to remediate the damages of metal mines in the western United States. In other countries, environmental waste from mining doesn’t receive much attention. In Canada—often cited as an example to follow by governments of the region—the Tulsequah Chief mine in British Columbia has been releasing untreated acidic waters since 1957. Mining in Latin America Although many Latin American nations have regulations related to mining, most lack specific laws establishing standardized procedures for monitoring and repairing its damages. Some nations, like Bolivia and Colombia, even lack a legal definition for Mining Environmental Liability or debt for environmental damage. Faced with weak regulation, the closure of a mine is accompanied by isolated and ineffective actions—like simply planting greenery in the affected area. Since it’s not clear who should be held responsible, the few monitoring and remediation actions that exist often end up being abandoned. Another important factor in the region is that environmental damage comes not just from legal mining, but also from illegal and—in the case of Colombia, where mining’s profits are being used to fuel conflict—even criminal mining activities. In Chile, environmental deterioration is largely the product of legal metal mines that have been abandoned. In Bolivia it is most often the result of artisanal mining and cooperatives. In Colombia, illegal and small-scale mining spills mercury into the rivers. In Peru, gold mining causes serious damage to human health and the environment. Throughout Latin America, mining’s historical damages can be found in mineral deposits that date from the colonial age… yet our resources continue to be exploited. Why prevention is key The permanent scars mining leaves behind require constant attention and a level of financing that is impossible to guarantee over time. And given their severity, it’s only possible to partially mitigate, not completely remediate, the most serious damages. That’s why we’re promoting prevention, rather than remediation. Hand-in-hand with local organizations and communities, we’re working to ensure that mining projects are subject to adequate evaluation processes before they’re authorized, and that the risks they imply for communities and the environment are well understood. We advocate for evaluation based on the best available scientific information; we ask that it contemplate alternatives and be carried out independently to guarantee objective results. If the analysis finds that a project will generate perpetual damages that cannot be adequately managed, it must be rejected. We want decision-makers to understand: hard rock mining is not always good business and it always causes environmental harm. We’ll continue working to ensure governments across Latin America understand that fact.  

Supporting Cajamarca’s fight to defend its territory from mining