Human Rights

How to fight fracking with the law

Fracking is spreading rapidly through Latin America. If left to develop blindly, it could cause irreparable harm not just to the environment but also to public health. Claudia Velarde, a Bolivian environmental attorney, believes humanity and Mother Earth should not be seen as different or isolated beings. “The activities that affect the conservation of nature will have repercussions in our lives as well,” she said. This conviction led her to join AIDA’s team of attorneys earlier in 2017, to be part of our efforts to protect the environment from extractive activities like fracking and large-scale mining. For our Freshwater Protection Program, Claudia helps coordinate the work of the Latin American Alliance on Fracking, a coalition that promotes public debate, awareness, and education among civil society groups. The Alliance also supports resistance efforts by communities throughout the region. Confirmed risks The extraction of gas and oil through fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, could have a “nefarious effect” on the quality and availability of potable water. This was the conclusion of the most exhaustive study yet completed by the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States, the nation that pioneered this controversial technique. Oil and gas companies inject fracking wells with large amounts of water mixed with highly concentrated chemicals. The toxic solution fractures rocks to release trapped oil and/or gas. According to the study, the poisonous fluids leach through soil and contaminate groundwater. By contaminating water sources, fracking also affects the lives of the people, animals, plants, and entire ecosystems that depend on them. Ignoring the danger “Dependence on fossil fuels is leading us to an unprecedented environmental and climate crisis,” Claudia explained. “Fracking has serious impacts, so it’s important that people have real and complete information on the policies and procedures related to it.” One procedure that should be followed before any fracking operation is authorized is the preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment. A proper assessment includes evaluation of possible environmental damages and identification of measures to mitigate the harms. In Latin America, corporations—rather than the governments that regulate them—prepare Environmental Impact Assessments. But often, governments of the region allow companies to skirt this procedure. In Argentina, the environmental authority granted a permit for Petrolera El Trebol to explore and exploit four oil wells conventionally (without using fracking) near Llancanelo Lagoon, a wetland of international importance. Months later, the company decided to frack the wells. Through an abbreviated process, the government authorized the change without requiring a new Environmental Impact Assessment. Faced with this dangerous reality, Argentina’s Foundation for the Environment and Natural Resources (FARN) filed a civil suit, requesting an injunction until the government’s prior authorization is invalidated. The suit argues that, in addition to violating the obligation to require a new Environmental Impact Assessment, the government also failed to respect the affected communities’ right to give their free, prior and informed consent to the project. “We’re appealing to justice to put a stop to this outrage, so the people have an opportunity to discuss, with adequate information, whether or not they approve of these types of activities that cause irremediable environmental damage,” explained Santiago Cané of FARN. “If they do accept fracking, it must be done with the utmost care, using the measures and regulations designed to avoid or mitigate damages.” AIDA is supporting FARN’s legal work with arguments based on international law. The most important is the precautionary principle, which holds that where any uncertainty exists about the risk of serious harm to the environment and human health, the most stringent precautions should be applied. “Given that there is no study with enough technical information on the possible damages of fracking, this principle should be applied to avoid the consolidation of impacts in these and other cases,” Claudia explained. Despite scientific evidence demonstrating many harmful consequences of fracking, the use of the technique is expanding throughout Latin America. Faced with this worrying trend, AIDA will continue working with our partners to find legal solutions with widespread impacts throughout the region.  

Climate change: The perfect fuel for hurricanes

A succession of unusually strong hurricanes have struck the Americas over the last several weeks. The nearly unprecedented power of Harvey and Irma submerged cities, damaged homes and took lives, and several smaller hurricanes followed on their tails. Just how did these storms get so strong? Climate change is a big part of the problem.  Hurricanes Harvey and Irma are prime examples of what a routine storm fed with enough fuel can do: they caused floods and landslides, destroyed neighborhoods, claimed lives and left thousands of victims in their wake. The fuel in both their cases was climate change—transforming already strong natural events into relentless storm surges. Warmer than average air temperatures produced greater humidity, feeding the hurricanes and making them ever more intense and violent. Changes to our climate have also sped up the warming of the world’s coldest regions, causing glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise. Higher sea levels plus increased ocean temperatures equals more fuel for hurricane season. Hurricanes, however, are not isolated phenomena. Year after year, Latin America faces a series of natural catastrophes that are getting stronger, and causing far greater damage, due to climate change. A vulnerable region Extreme weather events, the water crisis, natural disasters, and coping with the impacts of climate change will have the greatest impact globally, according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report 2017. Across Latin America, these risks reared their heads in force this year. Severe and catastrophic natural events have changed landscapes, claimed lives and displaced hundreds of thousands of people: In Mexico this month, hurricane Katia has caused floods and landslides, damaged infrastructure, and deaths. Mexico is one of the nations most affected by the impacts of climate change due to its location between oceans—which leaves it exposed to storms, floods and hurricanes—and its high level of poverty. In Northeast Peru last March, devastating rains after a period of severe drought caused mudslides, floods, and the mass destruction of homes and infrastructure. The storm left more than 90 dead, 110,000 victims, and 150,000 people diplaced. In Colombia in April, a sudden avalanche of mud and water caused by heavy rains devastated the town of Mocoa, in the department of Putumayo. In Chile, a period of intense drought caused wildfires that burned more than 500 thousand hectares and virtually destroyed the center and south of the country. Aggravated by climate change, El Niño gravely impacted the Central American Dry Corridor last year. A lack of rain, which began mid-2014 and lasted an unusually long time, provoked wildfire, the loss of crops, and the death of livestock in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama. So how do we stop the fire? The wave of severe weather events across the region and the world should be seen as a call to action. Governments and citizens alike must unite to seek solutions and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Governments around the world should unite their efforts to: Reduce short-lived climate pollutants, gases that remain a short time in the atmosphere and whose reduction would allow results in less time. Plan and adequately manage territory, indentifying the most vulnerable places and building strategic and flexible infrastructure that would lesson the impacts of extreme weather events. Preserve natural environments that fulfill vital climate functions, such as forests and mangroves that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or coral reefs, which act as natural barriers against storms and hurricanes. Disburse the economic resources destined to combatting climate change based on needs identified by the communities themselves, who are often not appropriately consulted, thereby wasting local knowledge that could lead to better decisions. We can all contribute to the struggle. Daily actions such as responsible consumption of water and energy, using your car less, recycling, and changing harmful consumption habits can make a big difference. At AIDA, we work with governments, organizations and communities across Latin America to promote development that is compatible with the challenges posed by climate change. Learn more about how we’re confronting climate change and how we can all do it better in our webinar on September 29!  

The dams that couldn’t contain Hurricane Harvey

The Addicks and Barker dams were built near Houston, Texas in an attempt to save the city from potential flooding. But the huge storage capacity of the reservoirs was not enough to contain the more than 15 billion gallons of water that Hurricane Harvey brought to the state in less than a week. Given the climatic reality of increasingly intense natural phenomena, we must ask ourselves, are dams really the best option?  On the night of August 25, Hurricane Harvey appeared on the coast of Houston, quickly transforming the sprawling city into a huge flooded lake. In it’s path it left death and destruction, and the forced evacuation of more than 30,000 people. Because it is a flat city near sea level, Houston is particularly susceptible to flooding. In an effort to protect the city, the Addicks and Barker dams were built in the 1940’s. Together, the dams could hold more than 132 billion gallons of water, a capacity so large it meant that if they broke, the whole city would be submerged. With Harvey’s torrential rains, so much water has fallen that the dams have taken in more than they can hold. To avoid uncontrolled overflows, which would have been catastrophic, the authorities decided to gradually release water from the reservoirs. Even these precautionary measures, however, were not enough to prevent one of the dams from overflowing. Addicks began to overflow on Monday August 28, filling an already flooded city with more water. Barker was expected to follow suit, but ultimately did not. The spillover comes as no surprise. Since 2009, the danger posed by both dams has been well known. The dams were once located in rural areas of Harris and Fort Bend counties, surrounded by open land. But they have since been pushed to their limits, largely because of the people and buildings that have been built both upstream and downstream from the reservoirs. Before the hurricane arrived, both dams were undergoing a $75 million renovation process. But those efforts and investments weren’t enough to adequately adapt the dams to the extreme weather conditions brought about by climate change. The bottom line is that Houston has become less resilient to major climate events. In addition to the natural aging of the dams, and the intensification of climate events, half of the area’s wetlands have been replaced by concrete. Since 2001, nearly 360 thousand buildings have been constructed in the area, without adequate measures to avoid the destruction of natural wetland areas. This inadequate urban planning coupled with weak regulations has destroyed the city’s natural defenses against storms and floods. Dams and climate reality Increasingly frequent and devastating climate events are bringing into question whether the costs involved in building and maintaining large dams are worth it. Such dams are incredibly expensive to implement, let alone repair. Since 2010, 73 dams across the United States have failed. Their vulnerability to heavy rains puts in doubt their compatibility with a world shaken by the serious and uncertain effects of climate change. What’s more, the reservoirs of large dams actually aggravate climate change. Among other impacts, they flood organic matter, which emits a large amount of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide. That means that large dams actually make storms like Harvey more intense. The time has come to stop and question this dangerous cycle.    

Berta lives: Keeping the struggle alive, despite the risks

On June 30, Berta Zúñiga Cáceres, the daughter of murdered Honduran environmental activist Berta Cáceres, survived an attempt on her life. She was traveling home with two colleagues when men wielding machetes stopped her car. As the men raised their weapons, Zúñiga’s driver hit the gas and swerved around the attackers, but not before one assailant hurled a large rock that struck their windshield. The attackers pursued the activists, attempting to run their car over the edge of a cliff. Fortunately, Zúñiga and her colleagues narrowly escaped. Six days later, FMO and FinnFund, two European development banks, announced their official withdrawal from the Agua Zarca dam, which Zúñiga is fighting because it would flood a site sacred to indigenous Lenca communities. “The timing of our exit announcement is not related to the attack on Ms. Berta Zúñiga Cáceres,” FMO spokesperson Christiaan Buijnsters said. “It is coincidental.” In a press release, FMO and FinnFund said the exit was “intended to reduce international and local tensions in the area.” Before she was assassinated in her home in 2016, Berta Cáceres campaigned forcefully against the dam, winning the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize for her work. Zúñiga, 26, took over her mother’s leadership role in the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH) in June 2017. Environmental activists in Honduras are still fighting the dam, but the Central American Bank for Economic Integration has yet to pull its financial support for the project. “I was born into a people of great dignity and of great strength,” Zúñiga said in an interview with independent US news outlet Democracy Now. “My mother, Berta Cáceres, instilled in us from a very young age that the struggle is rooted in dignity and that we must continue forward defending the rights of our people.” Systems of corruption and impunity The attack on Zúñiga is the latest in the world’s most dangerous region for environmental defenders. In Honduras, between 95 and 98 percent of crimes go unpunished. Collusion between governments and corporations often shields the assassins and those who hire them to stifle environmental and human rights activists. Unfortunately, families of murdered activists like Cáceres rarely see justice. But there is still hope. Following a global outcry after Cáceres’ death and demands for an investigation, nine people were arrested in connection to her murder. Some are connected to Desarrollos Enérgeticos, S.A., the company constructing the Agua Zarca dam. Court documents also suggest the assassination was planned by military intelligence specialists linked to Honduras’ US-trained Special Forces. Despite these arrests, the major orchestrators of the assassination have yet to be charged. COPINH has denounced the hearings in the case, claiming that the government’s prosecution is full of flaws and irregularities. Meanwhile, killings and attacks like the one on Zúñiga continue. “We know that in Honduras it is very easy to pay people to commit murders,” Zúñiga said to TeleSur in 2016. “But we know that those behind this are other powerful people with money and a whole apparatus that allows them to commit these crimes.” Yet Zúñiga and COPINH remain undeterred from their fight. “We are going to continue forward in our struggle,” Zúñiga said to Democracy Now. “Part of our struggle is to break this cycle of impunity.” She is motivated by her mother’s advice: “Let us wake up, humankind! We’re out of time. We must shake our conscience free of the rapacious capitalism, racism, and patriarchy that will only assure our own self-destruction… Let us build societies that are able to coexist in a dignified way, in a way that protects life. Let us come together and remain hopeful as we defend and care for the blood of this Earth and of its spirits.” If we take those words to heart, the struggle for a greener and more just world—along with the spirit of Berta Cáceres—will live on.

Belo Monte: Hope remains, despite failed promises

When the Belo Monte Dam builders came to this corner of the Brazilian Amazon, they came with the promise of sustainable development, particularly for Altamira, the city closest to the dam.  On a recent visit to that city, it was clear to me that—six years after construction began and one year after beginning operations—Belo Monte has brought anything but. Last  June, Brazil’s Institute of Applied Economics classified Altamira as the most dangerous city in Brazil. According to the study, Altamira’s rapid and disorderly growth over the last six years has had serious implications for crime in the city. In 2000, according to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, Altamira had about 77 thousand residents. With dam construction, that figure soared to 110 thousand last year. The result: Altamira registered the country’s highest homicide rate in 2015, with 105.2 murders per 100 thousand people. A troubling context frames these numbers: Brazil is the most dangerous country in the world for environmental defenders, according to Global Witness. That’s especially true for those who dedicate their lives to defending the Amazon—16 of Brazil’s 49 murders in 2016 were related to protection of the Amazon rainforest. Unsanitary conditions In addition to generalized violence, the other big worry in Altamira is basic sanitation, which involves sources and systems of clean water, as well as waste management. During the last six years, when the dam completely altered the urban and social dynamic of the city, no one bothered to provide an adequate, basic sanitation system. And that’s despite the fact that dam construction and operation were approved on condition of building such a system. The only thing built in Altamira at that time was the massive hydroelectric dam. In April of this year, a Brazilian court ordered the dam’s operations suspended until basic sanitation is adequately provided to the resettlement districts of Altamira. But the company in charge of the dam has refused to comply with the ruling, arguing that it has permission to operate. This clearly demonstrates the government’s inability to avoid the abuses caused by this mega-project and its operating company. Questionable investment The current reality of Belo Monte is aggravated by the fact that a Chinese state-owned company, Grid Brazil Holding, won the auction to take over the second power transmission system to be fed by the dam. The company offered 988 million reales (roughly $300 million USD), which makes me question the previous statements of the Brazilian government that hydroelectric energy is cheap, as well as clean. This investment is worrying because the company has already been fined several times for failing to meet deadlines related to the first power transmission system. Worse still, Chinese companies are known for failing to protect human rights and the environment, which is why the situation in Altamira is likely to become even more complicated. Hope remains Despite this discouraging panorama, the urban population, as well as the indigenous and riverside communities, still have hope that Altamira will one day be a quiet and beautiful city again. I heard many people speak of their desire to return to the days of sitting on chairs in the street talking with neighbors, and bathing in the waters of the Xingu river; the days of collective fishing and parties in the parks. Those people have shown me that we should not be afraid or lose hope. There are many who believe in my work as a defender of the Amazon. It is for them that I will keep fighting. I will work so that institutions, like the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, before which our case is pending, hold Brazil accountable for the human rights violations that have occurred from the construction and operation of Belo Monte. And I will ensure that the people affected by Belo Monte get justice and reparations. 

As killings increase, how can we defend the defenders?

Of the 87 human rights defenders murdered in Latin America in 2016, 60 were defending rights linked to environmental destruction. That’s according to a new report from Global Witness. Worldwide, at least 200 environmental defenders were killed in 2016, making it the most dangerous year for environmentalists on record. And 60 percent of these murders occurred in Latin America. Disturbingly, these statistics likely underrepresent the problem, as many killings of defenders and activists around the world go unreported. Environmental defenders are also frequently subjected to harassment, intimidation, death threats, arrests, sexual assault, kidnapping, and lawsuits intended to silence them. “The battle to protect the planet is rapidly intensifying and the cost can be counted in human lives,” Global Witness campaigner Ben Leather said. “More people in more countries are being left with no option but to take a stand against the theft of their land or the trashing of their environment. Too often they are brutally silenced by political and business elites, while the investors that bankroll them do nothing.” The roots of the problem Why are so many activists under threat, simply for speaking out and raising awareness about environmentally destructive projects? Governments argue that mining, oil and gas extraction, logging, and dams will boost their countries’ economy. But corporations typically hire outside contractors, creating few if any local jobs. And in many situations, development projects pollute the environment, displace entire communities, and infringe human rights. Some projects, like large hydroelectric dams, also hurt biodiversity and contribute to climate change. Furthermore, governments must often rely on transnational corporations or foreign investment to fund these projects. As a result, profits from mining, oil and gas, or large dams often benefit international corporations or a country’s most-wealthy businessmen, but are not always invested into local communities. This situation produces extreme rates of economic inequality. Honduras, for example, is one of the most unequal countries in Latin America and has had the highest per capita rate of killings of environmental defenders over the last decade. Twenty percent of the wealthiest people in Honduras reap 60 percent of the national income, leaving almost two-thirds of Hondurans to live in poverty or extreme poverty, according to the Organization of American States. When activists—many of them indigenous—speak out against these environmental and economic injustices, they’re often denounced as enemies of progress. Working together, governments and corporations try to silence outspoken defenders. When censorship is not enough, the military, police, and mercenaries are called to silence the opposition with escalating threats and violence. How to defend the defenders Each year, as the problem intensifies, we’re reminded of our duty to stand up for environmental and human rights defenders, and of the need to institute adequate policies for their protection. Here are several ways governments and citizens alike can protect defenders around the world: International Law. Governments around the world are party to international treaties and conventions that obligate them to uphold certain human rights standards. When these basic rights aren’t respected, it’s up to the international community to step in and protect activists under threat by pressuring governments to enforce the law. AIDA works in this way to hold governments accountable and encourage the immediate adoption of measures to guarantee the life and integrity of at-risk activists. “States must guarantee a favorable environment in which people can safely perform their work to protect the natural world,” AIDA attorney Astrid Puentes Riaño said. “States should also investigate these instances of violence. The murders of those who bravely defend the environment must not go unpunished.” Domestic Legislation. When international pressure doesn’t work, domestic laws can help pressure States into protecting activists who speak out. In the United States, for example, legislation has been proposed that would suspend US military and police aid to Honduras until the Honduran government investigates human rights violations in the country. The bill could help protect activists there and serve as an example for other countries that would like to follow suit. Emergency Measures. Emergency visa measures or diplomatic protections to remove endangered activists from harm can be useful in relocating activists across borders or protecting them in another way. Global Solidarity Campaigns.  Solidarity campaigns organized by coalitions of human rights organizations and supported by the media hold great potential.  If these outlets simultaneously, consistently, and reliably raised the alarm of an activist under threat, governments and corporations might think twice before trying to silence the person at risk. This, of course, involves you too. There’s no substitution for the mobilization of community support—in the streets, on social media, in your daily life. Standing up, speaking out and raising awareness is the first step toward building a more just future. These are just some of the solutions to this growing problem, and their success depends on all of us. Showing we’re not afraid to fight for environmental justice and a future that respects everyone’s human rights is not just a good idea, it’s necessary for our survival.

Ramsar Secretariat advises Colombia to add Ciénaga Grande to list of world’s most threatened wetlands

Experts at the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty for the protection of wetlands, identified “significant changes” due to human interference in the ecological characteristics of the area. They recommended, among other things, that Colombia enroll the wetlands in the Montreux Record, a register of seriously threatened wetlands requiring immediate attention. Bogotá, Colombia—Following a visit to the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta wetlands in August of last year, a mission of international experts from the Ramsar Convention, an inter-governmental treaty for wetland protection, released a report recommending that the Colombian government include the area in the Montreux Record—a register of gravely threatened wetlands requiring immediate attention. “Given the significant changes in the ecological characteristics of the Ciénaga Grande wetlands, we recommend including it in the Montreux Record,” said the report issued last week. These changes “require urgent action by the government of Colombia to maintain and restore the area’s ecological character, and to protect it in accordance with the objectives of the Convention,” the report said. Among changes mentioned in the report are overexploitation and contamination of the wetlands’ waters, diminished fresh water due to increased sedimentation and obstruction of waterways, “huge loss” of mangrove forests caused by road and infrastructure projects that block water flow, and declining fish populations. “Including Ciénaga Grande in the Montreux Record would allow the Ramsar Wetland Conservation Fund to provide economic assistance through grants. It would also allow Ramsar scientists to provide expert advice and recommendations on best practices for the recovery and conservation of the ecosystem,” explained Juan Pablo Sarmiento Erazo, a researcher from the Universidad del Norte. In addition, the Ramsar report recommends two other solutions to the wetlands’ rapidly degrading condition: performing effective dredging based on new plans for water management and strengthening coordination among institutions that manage the site. “The key is that the Colombian government should follow the Ramsar recommendations to the letter, implement improvements as soon as possible, and make necessary changes in the site’s management,” said Gladys Martínez, an attorney with AIDA. “The Montreux Record is far from being a blacklist. It’s an opportunity for governments to demonstrate responsible management of natural resources that demand urgent attention.” Ramsar experts visited the site from Aug. 22–26, 2016, following a 2014 petition filed with the Ramsar Secretariat by AIDA, el Universidad del Norte, and the University of Florida. Scientist Sandra Vilardy at Universidad del Magdalena also contributed. “We hope the government will make the report official,” Vilardy said. “The document mentions that it is imperative to re-establish aquatic balance in the wetlands, emphasizing the role that rivers play in feeding Ciénaga Grande.” More information on Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta is available here. Press contacts: Gladys Martínez, AIDA Attorney, +506 8321 4263, [email protected] Carlos Lozano Acosta, AIDA Attorney, +57 300 5640282, [email protected]  Juan Pablo Sarmiento, Universidad del Norte, +57 300 5514583, [email protected]  

Spending climate dollars on large dams – a bad idea

During its last board meeting, the Green Climate Fund—charged with financing developing nations’ fight against climate change—approved two projects related to large dams.  That means $136 million will finance large-scale hydropower, contradicting the Fund’s goal of stimulating a low-emission and climate-resilient future. We’ve said it before: large dams are not part of the paradigm shift we need. They worsen climate change and are highly vulnerable to its impacts. They also cause grave economic and socio-environmental problems that make it impossible to label them as sustainable development. dam Projects before the gcf While the two projects will exacerbate climate change, they aren’t the most destructive we’ve seen.  The first is expected to generate 15 MW of electricity in the Solomon Islands, an impoverished Pacific archipelago highly vulnerable to climate change. Planned for the Tina River, the dam will be the country’s first major infrastructure project. Today, the Solomon Islands rely almost entirely on imported diesel to produce energy. It is an unreliable, highly polluting energy source for which residents must pay one of the highest rates in the region. We would have liked to see the Solomon Islands leapfrog toward a more sustainable alternative, avoiding the era of large dams altogether. But we were pleased to see the World Bank’s consultation and engagement processes with local communities, which lend legitimacy to the project. The second project will rehabilitate a dam built in the 1950’s in Tajikistan. The repairs will make the dam more resilient to weather and less subject to accidents. Since it is focused on rehabilitation, the project will not generate the socio-environmental impacts typical of ground-up dam construction. Tajikistan already gets 98 percent of its energy from hydropower, an increasingly unreliable energy source. In fact, during colder months, when more energy is needed, more than 70 percent of the population suffers cutbacks due to the malfunctioning of dams. It’s unreasonable to use climate finance to deepen a country’s energy dependency instead of diversifying its matrix and increasing its climate resiliency.    Our Campaign against large dams When we learned that large dam proposals would come before the Fund, just before the 14th meeting of the Board of Directors, we drafted a letter explaining why large dams are ineligible for climate funding.  Then, in anticipation of the 16th meeting, during which the projects would be discussed, we sent Board Members an informational letter on each of the projects, signed by our closest allies. Finally, during the board meeting, we circulated a statement signed by a coalition of 282 organizations, further strengthening our position against the funding of large dams. We obtained official replies from several members of the Board, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (in charge of the project in Tajikistan), and the Designated National Authority of the Solomon Islands. Delegates from Canada and France requested further discussion of the issue. The problems with large dams received international media attention through articles published in The Guardian and Climate Home. Advancing with Optimism Although financing was ultimately granted to both of the projects, we managed to draw international attention to the contradiction inherent in funding large dams with money designated to combat climate change. Several members of the Green Climate Fund expressed doubts about further promoting large hydropower initiatives. We’re confident they’ll raise their voices when faced with projects far more damaging than those recently approved. Cheaper, more effective, and more environmentally friendly alternatives need the support and momentum the Green Climate Fund can provide. Both solar and wind power, for example, have proved to be more efficient and less costly than large-scale hydropower. Other less-developed technologies, such as geothermal, have largely unexplored potential. As part of a coalition of civil society organizations monitoring the Fund’s decisions, AIDA will continue working to ensure that the recent decision to fund large dams does not become a precedent.

Halting the implementation of large dams in the Americas

In times of climate change, we must respect nature

(Column originally published in El País) We are living now with the realities of climate change; to act otherwise would be ignorant and irresponsible. But, in case we forget, nature will surely remind us.  Over the last months, severe landslides have devastated communities in Peru and Colombia. Together, they left more than 500 people dead, dozens missing, and more than 100,000 victims. Tragedies like these have some things in common: they occurred in cities and regions with high rates of deforestation and changes in land use; in both areas there was evidence of poor planning and regulation. Effectively, these disasters were foreshadowed. They make clear once again the vital need to care for our forests and riverbanks, and to avoid deforestation and erosion. Climate change means hard rains, fires, and hurricanes will become increasingly frequent and more intense. In Mocoa, Colombia, the equivalent of 10 days of rain fell in just one night, causing flash flooding that devastated much of the small town. In many cases, nature is only taken into account after tragedy strikes. But nature, when well cared for, can literally save lives. In Mocoa, a native forest helped protect one neighborhood from being washed away. That’s why environmental protection must be taken seriously, and any exploitation of natural resources must be well planned and sensible. Yet in Latin America, there remains a regional tendency towards unregulated extractivism. Over the last few years, governments across the region have been weakening environmental regulations in the name of development. Meanwhile, year after year, hundreds of people in Latin America and the Caribbean—especially children and others in vulnerable situations—die from events associated with droughts and floods. Activists, movements, mayors, and others seeking to protect land and water from extractive activities are frequently criticized, even criminalized and attacked. In the small Andean town of Cajamarca, Colombia, 98 percent of voters recently chose to ban all mining in their territory. It’s a decision that has sparked national controversy. Critics of the referendum have questioned whether the results are mandatory, despite the fact that Colombian law clearly states, “the decision of the people is mandatory.” Through their popular vote, the people of Cajamarca reminded their government of its commitment to protect their water and natural resources. Communities in Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Peru, and El Salvador have done the same. While some extraction is necessary in modern society, there must be a healthy balance. Not every project is safe, and alternative development models must be embraced and explored. It’s time to incorporate the environment into public policy and development, once and for all. Two Latin American nations have shown what is possible. In 2011, Costa Rica banned all open-pit metal mining. In March, El Salvador did the same. In both cases it’s a big yet viable change, because alternatives exist and it’s understood that protecting land and water is necessary to secure a healthy future. El Salvador has the second-highest rates of deforestation and environmental degradation, which has led to severe water scarcity. This is why the ban on metal mining passed there. It was no favor to environmentalists; it was based on years of sound analysis. Social and economic studies of the proposal concluded that the best thing for the country was to care for and restore its remaining forests and water sources. The decision prioritized environmental restoration—particularly its social and economic benefits—above the perceived benefits of mining. Environmental degradation is not a problem that exists in a vacuum. That’s why States have signed treaties and other international instruments that recognize their obligation to protect the environment. The Paris Agreement on Climate Change, signed by 34 of 35 States on the American continent, is the most recent. Now, more than ever, these commitments must be honored and fulfilled. Not all extractive projects are viable. Determining their worth must involve sound planning, coupled with policies and legal frameworks that are strong and effective. Environmental Impact Studies must be done carefully, objectively, and independently. Decisions should consider short- and long-term impacts on both local and national levels. We are living now with the realities of climate change; to act otherwise would be ignorant and irresponsible. But, in case we forget, nature will surely remind us.