Freshwater Sources

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, [email protected], +521 5570522107 Isabel Harari (Brazil), ISA, [email protected], +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, [email protected], +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

Supporting Mexico’s indigenous communities in their fight against Las Cruces Dam

AIDA filed an amicus brief demonstrating the international environmental and human rights obligations the Mexican government violated by authorizing the controversial hydroelectric project. It was written in support of a lawsuit filed by the Wixárika people of Nayarit, Mexico, whose land and sacred sites would be affected by the dam. Nayarit, Mexico. The Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) presented an amicus brief before the First District Court of Nayarit, demonstrating the international environmental and human rights obligations the Mexican government violated by authorizing the Las Cruces hydroelectric project. The brief supports the writ of amparo filed against the project by members of the Wixárika indigenous community. "When analyzing the project, Mexican authorities failed to adequately consult affected communities and obtain their free, prior, and informed consent. Above all, they failed to respect their rights to self-determination, autonomy, territory and cultural identity, and to a healthy environment," explained AIDA attorney Camilo Thompson. "In addition, authorities overlooked the risks of damage to the San Pedro Mezquital river basin and the ecosystem it feeds: the mangrove forests of Marismas Nacionales, an internationally protected site." The hydroelectric plant, promoted by the Federal Electricity Commission, threatens ceremonial sites on which the spiritual life of the Wixárika, Náyeris-Cora, Tepehuano and Mexicanero people depend. Members of the Wixárika tribe presented the demand for protection (amparo) in mid-2017 against the authorities that endorsed the project—the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources and the National Water Commission. AIDA’s supporting brief, presented in March, details the international obligations Mexico breached by approving the dam—those contained in the American Convention on Human Rights, the Protocol of San Salvador, Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization on indigenous and tribal peoples in independent countries, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. After the request for protection was filed, the court ordered the suspension of project permits until the legal process has concluded and a decision has been made as to whether those permits are valid. Government authorities have argued that the project must continue because it is in the public interest, and that indigenous peoples can "re-organize their spiritual life in a context modified by the project’s construction." This position ignores the rights of communities, due process, and the environmental threats affecting the public interest. In order to safeguard the rights of affected communities, the court must now continue the legal process, confirm the project’s suspension, and issue the cancellation of all related permits. “The government must maintain the balance between the protection of human rights and the environment, thereby canceling the permits granted to the Las Cruces project and protecting the rights of the affected communities," Thompson said. "In this instance, Mexico has the opportunity to strengthen the global trend towards truly sustainable energy, moving away from large dam projects that emit greenhouse gases and aggravate climate change." Learn more about the case here. Press contact: Camilo Thompson, AIDA attorney, +521 9671302346, [email protected]  

Women, water and life: the vital connection

As a woman and an environmental defender, I find it necessary to commemorate the role of women in the protection of our natural heritage. I feel a special pull toward making visible the links between environmental defense, courage, and gender.  Women are the first victims of environmental deterioration, but they’re also the greatest protagonists in the defense and conservation of nature.  Although it may seem like women and the environment are two different topics, there are subtle—but strong—links between the two, particularly when it comes to water. Women have an important relationship with water—they are both sources of life and fundamental to existence. It’s not surprising, then, that women can often be seen leading struggles in defense of water, especially within indigenous and rural populations. Joan Martínez Alier, professor of economics at the Autonomous University of Barcelona and an expert in political ecology, explained to Agencia EFE that often, socio-environmental conflicts involving mining or the privatization of water directly affect the survival of communities and, for that reason, women act in defense of water as they would in defense of their land or their family: bravely and completely. Little is known, however, about the knowledge and experience of women in water management. In many cases, especially in the Global South, the administration of water resources, as well as the elaboration and implementation of related policies, doesn’t take into account gender roles and lacks a differentiated approach. In rural Colombia, for example, women bring water to their homes from rivers or springs, boil it for use in the kitchen, and care for it. Despite their central role, they are not consulted when decisions are made locally or nationally about the water supply. It’s necessary to bring visibility to the role women play in water management, give equal recognition to the interests of men and women, and promote equal access to decision-making spaces. Only in that way can we advance towards greater equality. It’s important to remember that Latin America is one of the most dangerous regions in the world to be an environmental defender, and more dangerous still for women. Many women, who fight silently from their communities or from their leadership roles, have suffered the violence and injustice that comes with defending what is theirs. I must take a moment now to remember and honor Berta Cáceres, the indigenous activist and leader of the Civil Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH), who dedicated her life to the defense of the Gualcarque River. Berta was murdered in March 2016, after years of threats stemming from her opposition of the Agua Zarca Dam. She may be gone, but her spirit, and her commitment to justice, is still very much alive. I’d also like to mention my colleagues, courageous friends, and allies who through their struggles are shaping a more just and equitable world. They believe, with all their hearts, that gender justice comes hand-in-hand with environmental justice. In our current reality, equality, more than a starting point, is a goal we must work towards. Concrete actions are needed to counterbalance the discrimination that affects us all. That’s why it is fundamental to incorporate the gender approach in any plan, program, project or mechanism of public administration. As the World Bank mentions in a 2002 report, the way to ensure both men and women benefit more equitably from policies is to make their needs and experiences an integral part of them. Life depends on women, as it does on water. That’s why we proudly act as stubborn defenders of not just water, but of all natural resources and of those who depend on them. Although not always visible, our struggle is as present as the water that travels in so many ways across our planet. It’s important that we come together in support of one another—in our victories and our defeats. May we continue sharing our fears and our fights and, above all else, may we never abandon the defense of our territory—because it defines us and to it we owe everything. I’ve always thought that water has the face of a woman. Every day now, I see it more clearly.  

Eight key themes for Colombia’s environmental agenda in 2018

For Colombia, 2017 was a year marked by debate on the right of communities to be consulted about decisions that affect their territories and ecosystems. We saw it through the organization of popular consultations and mobilizations that questioned mining and fracking projects and, in short, the continuity of extractivism. It was also evident in the decision of the Constitutional Court, the highest court in the country, to invalidate the delimitation of the Santurbán páramo, a water source for millions, because the government’s decision did not take into account the population. On the other hand, Colombia joined the global debate on climate change and the need to promote a model of economic development free of fossil fuels. Now, in the face of the presidential elections and the implementation of the peace accord, environmental participation, territorial autonomy and fracking remain particularly important issues. What follows are eight topics key to Colombia’s environmental agenda in 2018: Environmental participation: Popular consultations, as an expression of empowered communities seeking to have a say on projects that will affect them, will continue holding a privileged place in public debate. Territorial autonomy: Although constitutionally recognized, the ability of departments and municipalities to govern themselves autonomously in various areas, including the environment, is not entirely defined. It remains to be answered: Who should decide? And about what can they decide? Indigenous authorities: Following on the heels of the above, the autonomy and decision-making ability of indigenous authorities in relation to environmental issues will give us much to discuss this year. Fracking: The key question is, faced with fracking’s expansion throughout the region, will Colombia adopt the position of social organizations on the application of the precautionary principle to avoid the health and environmental damages associated with fracking? Decarbonization: As an energy producer, will Colombia join France, the United Kingdom and Italy, nations that recently signed an alliance to close coal plants before 2030 and comply with the Paris climate agreement? La Niña: The strong winds and rains of the La Niña climate phenomenon will return to the country this year. Adequate measures to mitigate the risk will be fundamental, as will the application of lessons learned in 2010, when the phenomenon left hundreds dead and the loss of millions of pesos. Páramos: Following the decision of the Constitutional Court to invalidate the delimitation of the Santurbán páramo, this year promises to be full of controversies about the new delimitation of this important ecosystem. Also key will be the issue of community participation in the demarcation of the rest of Colombia’s páramos, a measure oriented to protect them against harmful projects like mining. Principle 10: The negotiation of a regional agreement on the access to information, to justice and to public participation on environmental issues, remains underway. The agreement seeks the application of Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, key to guaranteeing the right to a healthy and sustainable environment for present and future generations. At AIDA, and through the Network for Environmental Justice in Colombia, we will continue to promote solutions to the country’s environmental conflicts based on the effective application of national and international standards.

Celebrating 7 Advances to Close Out 2017

As the year comes to a close, we're happy to share with you several recent advances we've made in the name of environmental protection in Latin America. Each project we launch or case we win is a step toward a more just region, and a healthier planet for our children. Because of your support, we:1. Saved Colombia’s Largest Coastal WetlandWe successfully petitioned Colombia to list the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta among the world's most at-risk wetlands, opening up the resources needed for its recovery.  Learn More2. Launched the Bolivian Environmental Justice NetworkWe founded a coalition of environmental and human rights organizations in Bolivia to support citizens’ efforts to defend the environment and those who depend on its health. 3. Campaigned to Protect Patagonia from Salmon FarmsWe petitioned Chile to investigate damage being done by salmon farm operations in Southern Patagonia, and launched a citizens’ campaign to raise awareness of the growing threat. Learn More4. Secured Healthcare for Victims of Toxic PollutionWe secured specialized medical care for residents of La Oroya, Peru, whose lives and health have long been affected by a heavy-polluting metal smelter that operates beside their homes.Learn More5. Protected Sea Turtles on the High SeasWe represented Latin American citizens and organizations in the development of a United Nations treaty to protect the shared parts of our ocean and the rich life within.Learn More6. Stimulated Divestment from Mining in a Protected WetlandWe convinced the World Bank to withdraw support from a gold mine in the Santurbán páramo, a protected ecosystem and water source for millions of Colombians. Learn More7. Advised Rural Town in the Lead-Up to a Mining BanWe provided legal advice and scientific analysis to the people of Cajamarca, Colombia, who then voted by a margin of 98% to ban all mining activities from their territory. Learn More