Human Rights

Fracking, Human Rights

The first time fracking was discussed before the Inter-American Commission

We heard the news at an exceptional moment. The Latin American Alliance on Fracking had organized a conference; activists, lawyers, NGOs, community organizers, and scientists from seven Latin American countries were meeting face to face in Colombia to work against hydraulic fracturing in the region. It was there we learned that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights had accepted our request for a hearing. We erupted in collective joy! Not only would we have a new audience, but also fracking would be discussed for the first time before the Commission. Immediately, we channeled our excitement into hard work. We had just 20 days to prepare a 20-minute case that would summarize every negative impact fracking has had in the Americas. We worked day and night to prepare our case for the October 3 hearing in Boulder, Colorado.  It was so little time that Gabriel Cherqui, spokesperson for Mapuche communities affected by the Vaca Muerta mega-project in Neuquén, Argentina, couldn’t obtain a visa in time to travel to the United States. Years of work, converted into minutes Perhaps the most difficult aspect of preparing our case was summarizing thousands of documents and stories into such a short amount of time. It had taken years to systematize our specialized research on fracking in the region and to have our case before the Commission—requested with more than 120 supporting signatures—accepted. Another challenge was to demonstrate the solid connection between fracking and human rights violations, an argument we knew the Commission would be interested in addressing, given the scale and complexity of the problem. So we developed a strategy: Roberto Ochandio, a geographer and former petroleum engineer, presented the technical details necessary to understand how fracking works; AIDA attorney Liliana Ávila explained how the technique has violated the rights to a healthy environment, to life, health, and the informed consent of the affected communities; Alejandra Jiménez from the Mexican Alliance Against Fracking presented case studies from Mexico, where communities’ access to water had been compromised by fracking operations; Santiago Cané, from Argentina’s Environmental and Natural Resources Foundation  (FARN), exposed the pollution, direct harms, lack of consultation with, and persecution of the communities of Neuquén; and Doris Estela Gutiérrez, president of the Corporation for the Defense of Water, Territory, and Ecosystems (CORDATEC), spoke about the promotion of public consultations in Colombia, as well as the criminalization of and threats to environmental defenders in the country. We emphasized that betting on hydrocarbons and promoting fracking undermines the fight against climate change, since fracking emits methane and other greenhouse gases that accelerate global warming. It was a challenge, to be sure. But we wanted to ensure everyone’s voice was heard. To listen, and learn: a window of hope Based on the response of the Commissioners, it was clear that our case had opened a window of hope. The multifaceted character of fracking—including aspects of development, pollution, climate change and human rights—had captured their interest. Not only was this the first time that fracking had been discussed before of the Commission, it’s worth noting that five speakers had summarized the concerns of more than 120 petitioners, all of whom shared one common cause. What came next was a dialogue in which we responded to the Commissioners’ questions about the technique, their concerns about development in the region, water quality, harms to public health, and concerns about fracking moving nations further away from their climate goals. We requested that the Commission urge States to: adopt measures to avoid human rights violations caused by fracking; generate public, truthful and impartial information based on  scientific evidence; and protect human rights protections in cases where the technique is advancing blindly. Going forward, we asked that the Commission follow up on the issue, particularly on the negative impacts fracking has on economic, social and cultural rights; on the lives of women, children and adolescents; and on the lives and territories of indigenous peoples. We requested that the Commission follow up on the attacks against human rights defenders and seek protective measures for those at risk. Of course, questions remain, and at the Alliance we’ve identified many more concerns for the region. But this moment has strengthened us. The hearing set regional precedents and made use of the arguments of Advisory Opinion 23, which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued on human rights and the environment. It is clear that this moment was a small, but vital, step forward, and that there are ears willing to listen. For our part, we will continue doing everything in our power—making use of all available international legal tools—to protect the communities of the Americas that are and could be affected by fracking.  

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights

The IPCC climate report: science has spoken and we must act now

The international scientific community has spoken: the only thing that can save us from a climate catastrophe is a radical and immediate change. The next 11 years are the most important in the history of the planet, in terms of climate change. Our response to their message will determine our future. In its most recent analysis, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations establishes the impacts that could occur if the planet’s average temperature increases by more than 2°C, and compares those with what would happen if we stop warming, or at least keep it below 1.5°C. The 2016 Paris Agreement, an international accord to curb climate change, aims to keep warming well below 2°C with respect to pre-industrial levels, and to continue global efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. The impacts of global warming The IPCC experts’ conclusions are piercing. Those extra 0.5°C would be lethal for millions of people and their ways of life. If the Earth warms 2°C or more, we would experience: more frequent and intense heat waves, droughts and floods; sea level rise of an extra 10 centimeters, implying coastal flooding and filtration of salt water into agricultural areas and freshwater sources—a matter of life and death for roughly 10 million people; double the risk of habitat loss for plants and vertebrates, and triple the risk for insects, considering more than 100 thousand species which were studied; the disappearance of more than 99% of coral reefs, while 10 to 30 percent of what remains could be saved if we were to stabilize the planet’s temperature below 1.5°C; an increase in the range of mosquitoes that transmit diseases such as malaria and dengue; and the devastation of crops and livestock, severely affecting global food security. So, how are we doing now? Not so well. The planet has already warmed 1°C since preindustrial times, and in 2017 the emissions responsible for warming increased again. The commitments nations made to comply with the Paris Agreement are insufficient. Settling on that level of ambition would take us to 3°C warming by 2030, a reality with unimaginable consequences. Changing our climate destiny Let’s talk about solutions. Ensuring that the planet’s warming doesn’t exceed 1.5°C is possible, but it will require unprecedented action. Emissions must lower by 45 percent between 2010 and 2030, and we must achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. That means not emitting more than what the world’s forests and natural carbon sinks can absorb. This will require that: the most polluting industries, particularly those producing fossil fuels, implement radical changes; renewable energy is the norm by 2050, accounting for between 70 and 85 percent of total energy production; coal-fired power plants disappear; transportation runs with clean, renewable electricity; and we expand, maintain, and care for forests and other natural carbon sinks, which are responsible for removing emissions from the atmosphere. The IPCC report also recognizes a monumental opportunity: the mitigation of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs)—including black carbon or soot, methane, hydrofluorocarbons and tropospheric ozone. More climatically intense than carbon dioxide, SLCPs are responsible for half of global warming. Because of their short duration in the atmosphere, they could play a key role in reducing warming in the short term. In addition, the reduction of SLCPs brings important benefits for human well-being, including the reduction of pollution that affects public health and better yield of crops. But few countries have included the reduction of short-lived climate pollutants in their national commitments on climate change. At AIDA we’re working so that Latin American nations advance in the control of these emissions. As the region with the greatest potential for renewable energies, Latin America has the opportunity to be an example for the rest of the planet. The threats facing the region are great and avoiding them is well worth the effort. Climate change threatens to shake us from our very roots—melting Andean glaciers, increasing droughts and floods, diminishing freshwater supplies, driving species to extinction, increasing wildfires, favoring the spread of invasive species, losing corals and marine biodiversity, affecting food security, and wreaking havoc on people’s health and livelihoods. The outlook is clear: maintaining global warming below 1.5°C is not an easy task, but science holds it’s possible. We have the scientific knowledge, and the technological and financial capacity to achieve this goal. The responsibility now lies with governments, decision-makers and the private sector—together they must drive unprecedented changes. We must remember that implementing these changes is not just possible, it’s desirable. A world with fewer emissions is a cleaner and a fairer world for us and for future generations. What’s not to like?  

Read more
Human Rights, Fracking

Civil society warns Inter-American Commission of human rights violations caused by fracking in Latin America

Boulder, Colorado. Representatives of communities and organizations from across Latin America testified before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights this week on the impacts that hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has on human rights and the environment. The hearing—responding to a petition signed by more than 126 organizations from 11 countries of the Americas—was held in Boulder, Colorado this week as part of the Commission’s 169th period of sessions. The principal requests to the Commission, and the Rapporteurs from various countries, were to urge the States to adopt efficient and opportune measures to prevent human rights violations resulting from the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons, and to apply the precautionary principal in the face of fracking’s environmental damages. “In Latin America, fracking been carried out without informing or adequately consulting the affected populations, thereby violating their right to information, participation, prior consultation and consent,” explained Liliana Ávila, Senior Attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “Fracking’s demand for water competes with the use of water for human consumption, and the contamination it causes in the water, soil and air seriously impacts the right to a healthy environment and compromises the effective enjoyment of other rights—including a dignified life, personal integrity, health, food, water and adequate housing.” At the hearing, it was emphasized that women disproportionately suffer the impacts of fracking due to potential harm to their reproductive health, and since women are traditionally responsible for collecting water for use in their homes.   Referring to the experience of the Mapuche communities of Argentina, Santiago Cané of the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN) stressed, “Fracking produces acts of violence against those who defend the environment and their rights.” “Institutionally, we can talk about the criminalization of social protest as one form of intimidation to eliminate the resistance to fracking projects,” he explained. “The prosecution of criminal cases against communities leaders that oppose the development of fracking has become an institutional media campaign that seeks to promote the idea that Mapuche communities are part of a terrorist group.” In Mexico, “specifically in the municipality of Papantla, Veracruz—which according to freedom of information requests is the city with the greatest number of fracking pools in the country—where the population is primarily the Totonac people, this exploitation technique has led to the diversion of springs and the drying up of artisanal wells. Many communities have lost their natural sources of water and have seen their health compromised and their living conditions deteriorate,” explained Alejandra Jiménez of the Mexican Alliance Against Fracking. Dorys Gutiérrez, of the Colombian organization Corporation for the Defense of Water, Territory and Ecosystems, noted that: “In Europe, 18 nations have applied the precautionary principle to prohibit or restrict this practice and in Australia, four of the eight territories have bans or moratoria in place. If fracking is so beneficial, why has it been so widely rejected in so many places?” According to data compiled by the Latin American Alliance on Fracking, roughly 5,000 fracking wells exist across the region. About 2,000 of those wells are found in Argentina; more than 3,350 are found in Mexico; and in Chile, according to official data, 182 wells have been approved, primarily for the island of Tierra del Fuego. Despite the technique’s expansion across the region, there has also been progress in banning or imposing restrictions on fracking in three states of the United States, in Uruguay, in the Argentine province of Entre Ríos, and in more than 300 municipalities in Brazil. Fracking’s advance is harmful to human rights, and represents a threat to the consolidation of the legal framework promoted by the Inter-American Human Rights System, which includes the obligations of States and the international protection of human rights and the environment. PRESS CONTACTS: Victor Quintanilla (MExico), AIDA, [email protected], +521 5570522107 Arturo Contreras (in Boulder, Colorado), +521 5533320505  

Read more
Large Dams, Climate Change, Human Rights

Say no to large dams: 3 reasons to opt for alternative energy sources

By Florencia Ortúzar and Monti Aguirre* Hydroelectric energy has been one of the largest drivers of development in many Latin American nations, and still represents a large portion of the region’s energy matrix. But is it really the best option? In response to a blog by the Inter-American Development Bank reflecting on the future of the hydroelectric sector in Latin America, we’d like to reflect on what it means to continue betting on large dams in Latin America. What follows are three reasons why we must say no to more large dams: 1. Better alternatives to hydroelectricity exist, and should be considered in project planning Before selecting an alternative energy source, governments and companies should develop a strategic plan that analyzes energy needs and the best way of achieving them. In this analysis, all options must be considered. It’s worrysome that this doesn’t already happen. For example, in the case of the Hidroituango dam—thought to be the largest in Colombia and associated with serious socio-environmental damages—the government decided to not conduct a prior evaluation of alternatives. Although the law did not require it at the time, the evaluation was recommended and is an international standard that large financial institutions should apply when investing in projects of this type. Today, other energy sources—like wind and solar—are proven to be economically competitive, can be constructed more quickly, and do not aggravate climate change. Innovations in smart grids, power storage and batteries also solve intermittency problems and make hydroelectric plants unnecessary. Geothermal, tidal, and wave energy are alternatives, the potential of which we have not even glimpsed. The promotion of large dams only delays adoption of the truly clean energy solutions that Latin America and the planet desperately need. According to the Bank’s own studies, Latin America has the largest quantity and most varied sources of renewable energy in the world. The region's renewable resources could provide almost seven times the installed capacity worldwide, excluding hydroelectric power. Therefore, although the region still holds great potential for untapped hydroelectric power, it’s necessary to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the situation, taking into account the costs and benefits as compared to other energy options. Only then can governments decide whether it’s worth continuing to invest in hydropower, or whether it’s better to opt for other types of energy—thus avoiding the social, environmental and financial impacts that come with large dams. 2. Large dams cause socio-environmental damage and are not profitable It has been demonstrated repeatedly that the socio-environmental impacts of hydroelectric plants are greater than initially considered. In addition to forced displacement and the criminalization of those who oppose them, large dams flood land, reduce river flows, and change the ecosystems of downstream wetlands, destroying habitats and contributing to species extinction. All this impacts the lives of nearby communities, limiting their ability to adapt to climate change. In economic terms, a study by the University of Oxford concluded that “even before accounting for the negative impacts on human society and environment, the actual construction costs of large dams are too high to yield a positive return.” In it, researchers show that the budgets and timeframes of large dam projects are consistently underestimated. Brazil’s Belo Monte Dam, for example, ran two times over its original budget, making it the most expensive public works project in the Amazon region. The budget of Chile’s Alto Maipo Dam has doubled four times over since the project was approved in 2009. Recognizing that the costs far outweigh the benefits, some countries have opted for dismantling large dams. And private companies have scrapped hydroelectric projects altogether because they are neither economically viable nor profitable. The United States government  has adopted a policy to refuse any loan, donation, strategy or policy supporting the construction of large dams. 3. Large dams contribute to climate change Climate change must be considered when discussing the relevance of hydroelectricity. Reservoirs generate significant quantities of greenhouse gases, particularly methane, which is 30 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. Likewise, the construction of dams endangers valuable carbon sinks like rivers and forests. For that reason, a proper analysis of carbon dioxide and methane emissions should be conducted before choosing a dam project—a process that usually doesn't occur. Another aspect to consider is the vulnerability of dams to climate variations. Extreme rainfall increases sedimentation, which can cause structural problems and reduce the dam's lifespan. Droughts, now increasingly frequent, can render dams inefficient. As more dams lose efficiency, Latin America—now highly dependent on hydroelectricity—will be more vulnerable to energy shortages. Even more serious is the threat posed by large dams in extreme weather events. In a dam gave way during bad weather, erasing entire villages. In Laos earlier this year, mass evacuations were ordered after heavy rains threatened a dam collapse. In Kerala, India, torrential rains, coupled with the mismanagement of several dams, have caused unprecedented flooding. In certain countries, the risk of dams overflowing or collapsing has already been recognized as a serious problem. Over time, more hydroelectric plants will begin to deteriorate and will require large investments to safeguard the communities living downstream. As civil society representatives working for a more just and sustainable Latin America, we urge financial institutions like the Inter-American Development Bank to support the change we as a region need. We call on them to stop investing in large dams, which have been demonstrated time and again to be dangerous to the environment and local communities, costly for countries, and unsuited for our rapidly changing climate. It’s time for a better energy plan. And it’s time to invest in non-conventional renewable energy based on thorough, independent and high-quality social and environmental impact assessments, the planning and implementation of which respect human rights. * Monti Aguirre is the Latin America Program Coordinator for International Rivers.  

Read more
Fracking, Human Rights

Inter-American Commission to analyze fracking’s impacts on human rights

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will hold an informative hearing on October 3, 2018 to better understand the situation of fracking in the Americas and the human rights violations it’s causing. The hearing is being held in response to a request brought forth by 126 Latin American organizations, united in the Latin American Alliance on Fracking. The hearing will take place in Boulder, Colorado during the Commission’s 169th period of sessions. In it, human rights defenders and representatives of affected communities will present detailed information on the documented human rights impacts, as well as the potential risks, of fracking in Latin America. The Alliance seeks to propose a series of recommendations to the Commission and governments of the region in order to guarantee human rights when faced with the exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbon reserves. According to the hearing request, there are approximately 5,000 fracking wells throughout Latin America. In Argentina, there are roughly 2,000 wells. In Chile, according to official data, 182 wells have been approved, the large majority in Tierra del Fuego. In Mexico, there are more than 3,350 fracking wells, although the signatory organizations indicated there are challenges in terms of access to this information. In Brazil and Colombia, contracts have been signed that allow for exploration and exploitation. In Bolivia, prospecting and sample studies of unconventional deposits have begun. Organizations from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay signed the request for a hearing before the Commission in July. “Fracking’s advance in Latin America is being carried out blindly because neither the chemicals used, nor their synergistic effects, nor the actual and potential risks, nor the effectiveness of mitigation measures are known with any certainty,” explained Claudia Velarde, attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “What is known is the damage fracking causes to the environment, the quantity and quality of water, and the impacts it has on health and human rights.” While fracking is promoted across Latin America, various nations, states and provinces of Europe, the Americas and Oceania have banned the technique due to the negative impacts it has had on the environment and public health. The request to the Commission emphasizes, “none of the nations where fracking has been implemented have a comprehensive knowledge of the irreversible damage it causes to the environment and the lives of individuals and communities. However, abundant scientific evidence exists on fracking’s negative impacts due to the extensive use of the technique in the United States.” Follow news from the hearing with the hashtag #AméricaSinFracking PRESS CONTACT Victor Quintanilla, AIDA (Mexico), [email protected], +521 5570522107  

Read more
Toxic Pollution, Climate Change, Human Rights

We all deserve to breathe clean air

I was born and raised in Bogota, Colombia’s bustling capital city. When I was a child, I grew accustomed to the chaos of the streets—thousands of cars and buses spewing black smoke into the air, the endless honking of horns. It was normal to see massive smokestacks and smell bad odors. I thought all cities were that way, and that nature and clean air only existed in places far from home. I was used to having health problems: headaches, rashes, eye and throat irritation, coughs and hay fever. I never questioned why my sisters and I were constantly fighting these “environmental allergies.” Pollution even prevented me from enjoying the outdoors. I couldn’t easily walk or ride my bike, for example, because my lungs struggled from the soot emitted by passing trucks and buses. There were days I had to leave my house wearing a mask, and times when we were forbidden from playing outside due to the pollution. Air pollution: a silent killer As an adult, I realized that environmental allergies are not the norm. Often, they are caused by constantly breathing in black carbon, ozone, sulfur dioxide and other pollutants that cars, buses and factories emit into the atmosphere each day. I realized that air pollution is a serious threat to quality of life and to a person’s health, especially among the most vulnerable, like our children and the elderly. According to the World Health Organization, millions of people die each year from illnesses related to air pollution. In Latin America, it is the number one environmental health risk, and causes more than 150,000 premature deaths per year. Cities like Mexico City, Monterrey (Mexico), Cochabamba (Bolivia), Santiago de Chile, Lima (Peru), Medellin (Colombia), San Salvador (El Salvador) and Bogota have the highest levels of air pollution in the region. When cities are allowed to expand without regulation, population skyrockets—and with it, so do the number of cars and trucks and factories. I worry about the future of my family in that scenario. I don’t want the air we breathe to negatively impact our health. My husband, who is not from Bogota, moved there to be with me. One year later, he was diagnosed with asthma. When my daughter was just two months old, she had a respiratory infection that put her in intensive care for several days. The cause of both their illnesses: the city’s poor air quality.   Stopping the contamination The majority of the world’s population lives in cities. And while we can’t expect our cities to be pristine, natural ecosystems, they should provide people with the minimal conditions they need to lead dignified, healthy lives. That’s why AIDA works to improve air quality in Latin America, advocating for the protection of our children and other populations highly vulnerable to atmospheric contamination. We are raising awareness among policy makers about the importance of regulating short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), which stay in the atmosphere for a relatively short period of time. Unlike carbon dioxide, which can stay in the atmosphere for centuries, SLCPs remain in the air from a few days to a few decades. SLCPs include soot (also known as black carbon) and methane gas. These contaminants are major contributors to climate change, degrade air quality and have serious impacts on food security and human health. Effectively reducing them could significantly improve air quality and advance the fight against climate change in the short-term. Through our experience in international law, we’re seeking ways to regulate these short-lived pollutants across Latin America. Because having clean air to breath is one of life’s basic needs. Clean air shouldn’t be a luxury.  

Read more
Human Rights

Infographic: Advisory Opinion 23

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Observatory of the Inter-American Human Rights System of the UNAM (OSIDH), the Due Process Foundation (DPLF), AIDA and the Institute of Constitutional Studies of the State of Querétaro present this infographic on the Court's Advisory Opinion 23. The main objective is to make available to all interested persons the main points and standards developed by the Court regarding the obligations of States regarding the environment and its relationship with human rights. We hope that this joint initiative will contribute to the full validity and guarantee of economic, social, cultural and environmental rights in the region. Advisory Opinion 23, issued on November 15, 2017, establishes a historical precedent for the protection of human rights in the continent.       Download the infographic in Spanish Download the infographic in Portuguese Download the infographic in French   Advisory Opinion (full text) English Spanish ​

Read more
Human Rights

Yearning for better times for Nicaragua

Leaving your country behind is an act of courage, especially when you don’t have much. My grandparents were courageous—they fled Nicaragua’s armed conflict in the 1970s, arriving in Costa Rica with nothing but three children in their arms and the hope for a better future. Costa Rica treated them well, and their grandchildren have been able to lead lives of privilege and opportunity. But my grandmother has always dreamed of returning to her country one day. And although I feel proudly Costa Rican, I have learned to love Nicaragua too, especially after getting to know it. Since April, Nicaragua has been in the midst of an armed conflict that has given rise to a large-scale humanitarian crisis. As the conflict continues, the number of people trying to flee Nicaragua has grown, as have requests for asylum in Costa Rica. As of August, more than 300 people had been killed since the conflict began. Unfortunately, the crisis doesn’t seem to be coming to an end anytime soon. Given the urgency of the situation, in May the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights created a Rapid and Integrated Response Coordination Unit with the mission of paying special attention to the human rights situation in Nicaragua. That month, members of the Commission visited cities at the center of the conflict: Managua, Masaya, León and Matagalpa. The resulting report presents evidence of gross human rights violations that have occurred during the country’s social protests. Among those violated were the rights to life, physical integrity, health and medical treatment, freedom of expression and of the press, and freedom of movement. The Nicaraguan State is obligated to guarantee those rights under international law. Thanks to social media, it has been possible to stay informed of what’s been happening in Nicaragua, practically in real time. You can get constant information via Facebook or Twitter by searching the hashtag #SOSNicaragua. The Commission also regularly publishes information on Facebook and Twitter. If you’d like to do something for those affected by the conflict in Nicaragua, you can donate to the Nicaraguan Association for Human Rights or the non-profit organization SOS Human Rights Nicaragua from Costa Rica, which works to support Nicaraguans here in Costa Rica. My grandmother never saw a Nicaragua free of human rights violations. She has always wanted to return to the land where she grew, where her parents were born and where one of her sisters still lives. I hope that everyone who has had to flee Nicaragua during this conflict will be able to return and see their country free, while also fully enjoying their human rights. Hopefully, through democracy, peace will return to that beautiful nation.     

Read more
Man in Hat
Indigenous Rights, Human Rights

Why we work to protect human rights in Latin America

The attorneys who make up AIDA’s Human Rights and the Environment Program work to protect people and communities whose rights have been violated or are at risk from the degradation of their natural environment. They know that there is an undeniable connection between the full enjoyment of human rights and a healthy environment. Here’s why they do what they do: “I DO IT BECAUSE IT’S IN MY BLOOD.” Astrid Puentes, AIDA Co-Director “I work in defense of the environment and human rights because they are essential aspects of life, and they are linked. I do it because it’s in my blood: my father was a farmer, my grandparents and great-grandparents too. Part of my connection with nature comes from my family; it’s my inheritance.  I’ve always wanted to contribute to making the world better, particularly in my home country of Colombia, which has so many natural resources but also so much social injustice. I dedicated my career as an attorney to helping make my country a better place. When I became a mother, that motivation only grew, and now I feel a great responsibility to do everything I can so that my children will have a better planet.” Early in her career, Astrid helped stop a proposal by the Colombian and United States governments to spray a transgenic fungus on the Amazon, which would have seriously damaged a vital ecosystem that many people depend on. It was the first successful case in which Astrid was directly involved. “I DEFEND HUMAN RIGHTS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT DIGNITY AND EQUALITY ARE INALIENABLE RIGHTS.” Liliana Ávila, Senior Attorney “I defend human rights because I believe that dignity and equality are inalienable rights. I believe in the value of differences and in the struggles of those who have not known their rights. These convictions have made me feel indignation, shame, and rage for the way rights human rights have been infringed upon in my country — Colombia — as well as in Latin America and the world at large. I defend human rights because, for me, they are the realization of the human aspiration to build a more just world.”   Last May, Liliana was moved by the story of an indigenous woman in Guatemala whose community depended on a nearby river, which was suffering water shortages due to the construction of a dam. With the water from that river, the woman watered flowers in her garden, which brought her happiness when life made her sad. That story filled Liliana with hope because she knew that, though her work, she could help keep those flowers blooming.  “MY GREATEST MOTIVATION COMES FROM MY AWARENESS OF INEQUALITY AND INJUSTICE.” Daniel Iglesias, Fellow “My greatest motivation comes from my awareness of the inequality and injustice that characterize the modern world, in large part due to the effects of global capitalism. It is our responsibility to fight to eliminate those inequalities. Defending human rights through solidarity and by denouncing injustice is a fundamental way to achieve that goal.”   As a human rights attorney, Daniel come face-to-face with injustices such as indigenous communities being stripped of their land, people deprived of their freedom of expression, and those who have been affected by the damages caused by extractive industries. Those experiences inform Daniel’s work with AIDA in Mexico, and feed his desire to continue working for social and environmental justice in the region. “I GREW UP knowing I HAD RIGHTS.” Marcella Ribeiro, Legal Advisor “I grew up knowing I had rights. I knew I would never lack food or water and that the beach in front of my house in Brazil would never be polluted because I had the right to a healthy environment. But when I learned that people living in favelas and those affected by droughts didn’t know they had rights, and didn’t organize to claim them, I decided to devote myself to fighting so their voices are heard and their humanity is recognized.”   Marcela worked in Brazil’s favelas educating residents about their human rights. Since then, she has understood that social justice will always be possible as long as people are allowed to enjoy their social, cultural, economic and environmental rights.   

Read more
Human Rights

Statement on the denouncement of violence against communities in Guatemala

Communities in northwest Guatemala publicly denounced repression and intimidation following peaceful demonstrations against the presence of the National Police and Army in their territory. The people of the microregion of Ixquisis, in the department of Huehuetenango, are currently living in fear due to the improper use of criminal law against those who have expressed their opposition to the development of the Pojom I, Pojom II and San Andrés dams. Together with allied organizations, AIDA has denounced before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights the worrying criminalization of human rights defenders who oppose the hydroelectric projects in Guatemala. As an organization that works in defense of human rights and the environment in Latin America, AIDA would like to express the following: The repression of freedom of association and expression is extremely worrisome. The risks faced by the people of Ixquisis and the increased acts of violence against them are alarming. We reject any act of violence or intimidation by private and public security forces against people exercising their individual and collective rights. We likewise condemn any campaign of disinformation, de-legitimization and stigmatization that may arise in response the communities’ peaceful demonstrations. The acts that have been denounced not only violate basic rights, but also affect social stability and the traditional lifestyle of the communities. AIDA expresses solidarity with the Peaceful Resistance of the Microregion of Ixquisis; and we support their struggle to defend land and water, and achieve environmental justice. We call on the State of Guatemala to: guarantee the full enjoyment of the communities’ human rights; protect those who defend them; carry out diligent actions to investigate recent acts of violence; ensure due process for those who defend their rights before the projects’ advancement; and evaluate the instances of force denounced by the communities.  press contact Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +52 5570522107  

Read more