Human Rights

Changing the way we approach large dams

Cigarettes once served to cure cough; lead-based makeup was fashionable; and DDT, a highly toxic insecticide, was used in gardens where children played. At the time, little was known of their grave impacts on health and the environment. These facts may shock us now, but once they were normal. Cigarettes, lead, and DDT were widely believed to be more beneficial than harmful to humanity. Thanks to science, we learned of their serious health and environmental impacts. We’re learning the same now about large dams. A photograph of a dam surrounded by trees is as misleading as the doctor-approved cigarette ads once were. In the last decade, we’ve seen that the damage dams do to communities and ecosystems is far greater than the benefits they provide. Recently, an academic study confirmed something even more worrying: large dams aggravate climate change. At the end of 2016, researchers from Washington State University (WSU) concluded that reservoirs around the world, not just those in tropical areas, generate 1.3 percent of the total greenhouse gases produced by mankind. Dams, they found, are an “underestimated” source of contaminating emissions, particularly methane, a pollutant 34 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. These findings have not yet been properly absorbed. Large dams continue to be funded and promoted as clean energy. Some countries boast nearly 100 percent renewable energy, yet reports show that at least half of that is hydroelectric energy, produced primarily by large dams. Violating human rights Even before WSU’s study was made public, the damage large dams do to communities and the environment was well documented. Dams disrupt traditional lifestyles, and affected communities are forced to adapt to new environmental conditions, such as altered river flow and species migration. Many communities have also been victims of forced displacement and fall into poverty as a result. In the Brazilian Amazon, the Belo Monte Dam provides a prime example of the ways dams cause negative impacts on both people and the environment. At AIDA, we’ve worked hand-in-hand with the indigenous and river communities of the Xingu River Basin, who have seen the trees fall around them, the red earth spread like a stain across their forest, the fish disappear from their rivers, and their small islands submerged. For those living in Altamira, the city nearest the dam, living conditions also worsened significantly, with increased violence, substance abuse, and prostitution.   This story has been repeated thousands of times around the world. According to International Rivers, 57 thousand large dams had been built by 2015, disrupting more than half of the world’s rivers and causing the displacement of at least 40 million people. What can we do?  Although the WSU study may surprise governments and corporations that promote the construction of large dams, for the health of the planet the trend must be stopped. Environmentally friendly alternatives exist, which do not imply the same social, economic and climatic impacts as dams. Hope can be found in the Brazilian Amazon with the Munduruku tribe. Last year, their long fight paid off with the cancellation of a large dam project on the Tapajós River, the sacred waterway on which their lifestyle depends. The decision to cancel the dam was backed with evidence of the impacts dams have on communities and ecosystems, exemplified by the case of Belo Monte. Recently, the Munduruku gathered to discuss and find solutions for the threats they continue to face as development rages in the Amazon. Solutions include the decentralization of energy sources, the promotion of small-scale projects, and solar and geothermal energy, all of which must be accompanied by adequate community-consultation processes. But they must be studied on a case-by-case basis and according to available resources, as what’s best for one community may not be best for another. Funding must carefully evaluate which projects to support, analyzing in detail the potential socio-environmental impacts. It may sound like people are making all the wrong decisions, but now is no time to be discouraged. We have the scientific information we need to care for our planet. Societal changes prove that we can change our actions to prioritize our health. Why can’t we do the same for the health of our planet? In the last several decades, the number of smokers has drastically decreased, we’ve stopped lacing makeup and other products with lead, and DDT has been regulated. In terms of large dams, the solution lies in re-thinking the way we produce energy and prioritizing the preservation of our free-flowing rivers. 

Clear accounting for dams and climate change

By Astrid Puentes Riaño (column originally published in El País) “Our climate is warming at an alarming, unprecedented rate and we have an urgent duty to respond,” world leaders concluded at the 22nd United Nations Climate Conference (COP22). Representatives from more than 200 nations gathered in Morocco from November 7 to 18 for the first global meeting since the Paris Agreement on climate change entered into force. We should respond with urgency, but also with intelligence. Today, thousands of large dams are being planned and built around the world. More than a million dams already block half the rivers on the planet. Hundreds of hydropower projects are planned or under construction in the Amazon alone. Many are promoted as clean energy and as solutions to climate change. But that’s just not true. Researchers at Washington State University recently concluded that dams are an important source of greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, dams release large amounts of methane, a gas that traps 34 times more heat than carbon dioxide. The findings were published in the scientific journal Bioscience. Far from being a solution, dams actually aggravate climate change. Until now, scientific evidence had suggested that dams in tropical areas emit greenhouse gases. The WSU study, however, concluded that reservoirs emit greenhouse gases regardless of their latitude or their purpose (power generation, flood control, navigation or irrigation). The researchers concluded that, globally, reservoirs emit approximately 1.3 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions generated by mankind. That’s greater than the total annual emissions of Canada. Further studies are required to quantify exactly how much dams emit and to understand how they vary according to the particular conditions of each reservoir. For now, it seems that variables such as temperature and eutrophication (increased nutrients in water that increase algae and decrease oxygen) may be the most relevant. Currently, greenhouse gas emissions from dams aren’t monitored. Yet every day, they’re released into the atmosphere, contributing to climate change. Globally, our climate accounts aren’t complete. The WSU study marks a milestone in our understanding of the true role dams play in creating climate change. It’s essential that scientific policies, programs, standards, and analyses take these emissions into account. National and international bodies—including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Green Climate Fund, and private companies—must incorporate current and future dam emissions in their assessments. Only then will be have clear accounts. Only then can we avoid, by ignoring clear evidence, continuing to make climate change worse—particularly for the most vulnerable among us. It’s worth noting that dams have severe impacts on human rights. They’re also very expensive and take decades to plan and complete. What’s more, viable alternatives to dams have already been found—cheaper, more efficient, and quicker to build.  To respond to climate change with urgency, intelligence, and effectiveness, we have to be clear on its causes. We have to account for all significant contributors, including dams. We have this opportunity today. And we have no more time to lose. 

La Oroya: Over a decade’s wait for justice

From the time Isabel* was born, she has breathed toxic air. She’s had heavy metals in her blood for all 13 years of her young life. Her hometown, La Oroya, a small city in the Peruvian Andes, was labeled in 2007 as one of the world’s most polluted places. A metal smelter has been operating there for nearly a century, with little regulation and no attention to human health. Children like Isabel suffer most from toxic pollution. Their developing brains and bodies are terribly vulnerable to lead and other heavy metals, which inhibit growth and often cause permanent damage. Nearly all of La Oroya’s children have heavy metals in their blood, at concentrations many times limits established by the World Health Organization. And many residents suffer from chronic respiratory illness. Their health issues result directly from corporate leaders’ disregard for the environment and for the people who live near the smelter. The State of Peru also bears responsibility for its inaction. That’s why a group of residents joined together to fight for the their children’s health and their city’s future. Isabel’s father, Pablo, has been a vocal leader in the community’s struggle against the government and the US-owned corporation responsible for contaminating their air, their land, even their water. He sees no other way forward. “What kind of world will we leave for our children if we don’t defend our land, if we don’t defend our biodiversity?” he said in a recent interview.      A group of 65 residents joined as petitioners in a case AIDA and other organizations brought before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 10 years ago. Since then 14 more have added their names to the complaint; four have died. Today, they still wait for justice. In 2007 the Commission recommended precautionary measures that urged the State to adopt adequate measures to diagnose the beneficiaries and treat those at risk of irreparable damage. Since then, air quality in La Oroya has improved somewhat, but the recommended health system is still woefully inadequate. The Commission has yet to file its report on the merits of the case. A finding of merit would include more forceful recommendations. If the State still doesn’t respond, AIDA will take the case to trial before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. For now, all the petitioners can do is wait some more. Despite the years gone by, we won’t stop fighting until the people of La Oroya see justice. We believe their courage and struggle will have an impact beyond their community, setting a precedent for future cases across the Americas. Because a victory would establish in international law that damages from toxic contamination are human rights violations. And that would mean a brighter future not just for Isabel and La Oroya, but also for communities wherever shortsighted corporations dump their toxic by-products.  __ * Name changed to protect privacy.

Now, more than ever, it’s time to work for our planet

The results of the United States election have shocked the world. Many of us feel hurt, angry and, above all, worried. For those of us who work to protect our planet and our shared environment a Trump presidency is deeply troubling. The president-elect has called climate change a hoax and promised to back out of the Paris Agreement, to dismantle President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, and to rebuild the coal industry. In the challenging years ahead, the movement to protect Earth will be more important than ever. We must all be a part of it. Today, more than ever, we reiterate our commitment to justice—for the environment and for all those whose lives depend so intimately on it. Now is the time to act. The world needs leadership, ours and yours. Each one of us at AIDA is committed to making our planet a better place to live. We are dedicated to defending it from destructive climate policies, and to uplifting its most vulnerable populations. We know what’s coming will be difficult. That’s why your support is so important. Coming together now is imperative. We have a historic responsibility to demonstrate leadership, to find peaceful solutions, and to ensure a brighter future for present and future generations. We must react with unity, engage, and collaborate. It’s time to build hope and lay the path to a peaceful, prosperous, respectful, and tolerant future. With our valued supporters and partners, AIDA will keep working to protect the Earth, its defenders, their culture, and their way of life.   

The fight against climate change: Time to turn promises into action

The Paris Agreement on climate change entered into force today. Nations must now implement the commitments that made this global consensus possible, and work to make them even more ambitious. On October 5, the nations of the European Union ratified the Paris Agreement, the binding global treaty on climate change adopted in a United Nations conference last December. With their signatures, the treaty met the requirements needed to enter into force: it was ratified by at least 55 countries, which account for 55 percent or more of global greenhouse gas emissions. Many Latin American nations contributed to this important political achievement by ratifying the agreement early, including Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama and Peru. In late September, China and the United States, the world’s largest emitters, also said yes to the new climate accord. Now all the nations that have ratified the Paris Agreement must begin to implement the national contributions they laid out last year, including, among other things, reducing emissions, financing climate actions, and taking measures for adaptation and mitigation. “These contributions are legally binding and can only be improved upon by increasing ambitions,” explained Andrea Rodriguez, AIDA attorney. “Nations cannot deny or go back on their word.” For the commitments to become a reality, each country must promote actions that meet international standards and create strong institutions to implement them.  Strong national and international support systems will enable governments to succeed at the adaptation and mitigation efforts that lay ahead. The world’s most vulnerable nations depend on special climate financing to cope with the impacts of a changing climate. The enactment of the Paris Agreement may result in a stronger, more predictable and transparent international financial framework. Sufficient funding and proper financial management are key to making national commitments not only concrete but ever more ambitious. “The entry into force of the Paris Agreement is an important global milestone. We can finally begin the urgent transformation of our economy and society towards a truly sustainable future. The irrefutable evidence of the impacts of climate change requires us to exercise historical responsibility to act quickly and get results,” said Astrid Puentes, AIDA co-director. “Latin America must show global leadership by implementing appropriate solutions and staying away from outdated strategies that increase the vulnerability of our countries and negatively impact people and communities.” 

Belo Monte: Fueling Our Fight for Justice

By María José Veramendi Villa Even as the turbines of the Belo Monte Dam have begun turning, the fight for justice continues. The ongoing operation of the world’s third largest dam—corrupt and careless as it is—cannot stop us. In fact, each new allegation of corruption and abuse only fuels our desire for justice for those who have been affected by the dam. And our most important battle is now strongly underway: our case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which opened for processing at the close of last year.  In it, we’re working to hold Brazil accountable for the countless human rights violations that have been committed in the name of the Belo Monte dam: the absence of consultation with and free, prior and informed consent of indigenous communities; the lack of adequate assessment of environmental and social impacts; forced displacement; and severe violations to the rights of indigenous peoples, riverine communities and residents of Altamira. We’re in the process of getting the case admitted before the Commission, so they can establish—as an independent, international body—if these violations occurred and whether the State must respond for them. As part of the process, Brazil had to respond to our allegations before the Commission. We received their response on August 9 and have just submitted our legal submission to counter their claims.  We need to ensure Commission understands the importance of their role in investigating the human rights abuses that have been suffered due to Belo Monte. Even as I write this, the State and dam operators continue to blatantly disregard the human rights of the people of the Xingu River basin, living in the dam’s shadow. On September 1, for instance, the dam’s operating license was suspended yet again because sanitation systems in the city of Altamira—a legal obligation operators were required to meet long ago—were never installed. Wastewater still floods the streets of Altamira, and threatens to turn Belo Monte’s reservoir into a stagnant pool of sewage. Unfortunately, as with many legal decisions attempting to protect the rights of those affected, the suspension was overturned a few weeks later. It’s clear the forces behind Belo Monte have no respect for the environment in which they’re working, and even less for the local people who depend upon the river and forests for their survival. Many of the people we represent live in the neighborhoods of Altamira, and are exposed to raw sewage. Those who live outside the city have been displaced from their land, cut off from their primary water source, or have had their way of life destroyed.  We must ensure the Brazilian State is held accountable for the immense environmental and social damage the dam has caused. Rest assured, we won’t stop until we achieve justice for the people of the Xingú.

Peru begins testing La Oroya residents affected by toxic pollution

In May 2016, the IACHR required the Peruvian State to protect the life and integrity of 14 additional people affected by the heavy pollution of La Oroya’s metal smelter. Just last week, medical examinations began to evaluate the levels of heavy metals in the beneficiaries.   La Oroya, Peru. Last week 7 residents of the city of La Oroya were tested for concentrations of heavy metals in their bodies resulting from long exposure to toxic air pollution from the local metal smelter. The tests come five months after the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) requested that the State extends precautionary measures granted in 2007, increasing the number of beneficiaries from 65 to 79. In May, the Commission urged the State to take necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of the 14 additional residents of La Oroya. The measures include “conducting the necessary medical assessments to determine the levels of lead, cadmium and arsenic in the blood in order to provide medical attention in accordance with applicable international standards.” Following pressure from civil society organizations, medical evaluations were finally completed on seven of the new beneficiaries. In addition to testing for heavy metals, evaluations were also made in the areas of nutrition, dentistry, psychology, internal medicine, pulmonology and gastroenterology. The results should be processed by the Center for Occupational Health and Environmental Protection and delivered to the beneficiaries in a period of no more than 45 days. The Ministry of Health promised that those who require medical treatment will be attended to by specialists in Huancayo or Lima, as the Health Center of La Oroya doesn’t have the capacity to do so. The government also promised a new date for the measurement and evaluation of beneficiaries who couldn’t attend the first set of exams. On behalf of the organizations representing the victims, we hope this is the first step towards full compliance with the precautionary measures requested by the Commission. The measures request not only testing, but also specialized medical treatment and appropriate follow-up with each of the beneficiaries—those included in the original 2007 measures, whose protection remains in force, as well as those included in the extension granted this year. “Despite the fact that the precautionary measures were issued nearly 10 years ago—calling for urgent actions to protect the health of beneficiaries—they have not yet been fully implemented. For years the health problems of the beneficiaries have not been properly cared for,” said Christian Huaylinos, attorney with the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH). The State must urgently address the condition of health services in La Oroya. The local health center is operating in a state of crisis, in a place that has been declared uninhabitable by the National Institute of Civil Defense. It has only five doctors for 66,000 people in La Oroya and in the surrounding Yauli province. “La Oroya’s structural problems with health and the environment must be solved urgently,” said María José Veramendi Villa, attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense. “The Commission must immediately issue its final report on this case, which was first presented nearly a decade ago. The victims have been waiting all this time for justice. If the State is truly committed to the people of La Oroya, that commitment must be shown through full compliance with the eventual recommendations of the Commission.” 

Bleeding Green Hearts: The constant state of danger for environmental activists in Latin America

“Wake up humanity, there is no time left!” Berta Cáceres, Goldman Prize acceptance speech, 2015 By María José Veramendi Villa (originally published in Disrupt&Innovate) Being an environmental human rights defender in Latin America is not an easy task. On the contrary, it is one of the most dangerous jobs you can have. Whether you belong to an indigenous, afro-descendant, or peasant community, whether you are an independent activist or affiliated with a civil society organisation, you are at risk. In its most recent report, On Dangerous Ground, Global Witness documented 2015 as the worst year on record for killings of land and environmental activists.[1] The report documented 185 killings in 16 countries, making Brazil (50 killings), Colombia (26 killings), Peru (12 killings), and Nicaragua (12 killings) the most dangerous in Latin America.[2] Unfortunately, the murder of environmental defenders represents a tragic end of the road of a larger problem. We, as a society, all want economic and social progress and governments are mostly elected on this promise. However, increasingly States and various private actors are routinely complicit in actions that aim to silence legitimate voices and the work of environmental defenders. Threats, harassment, and campaigns to discredit or criminalize take a toll on the work of environmental defenders, who end up spending significant time defending themselves before often-complicit criminal justice systems, or even physically protecting themselves from attempts on their lives. Several United Nations Special Rapporteurs and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights have recognised the important role that environmental defenders play in our societies and, as such, have recommended that States protect them. Nevertheless, the level of danger has continued to rise. Environmental defenders such as Berta Cáceres, whose lives should be protected by precautionary measures recommended by the Commission, continue being threatened or murdered in plain view of authorities — often with the complicity of a State. The Yanacocha mining company keeps harassing Máxima Acuña with the intent of forcing her out of her house to make way for the Conga Mining project, even after a Peruvian Court determined that she had not violated the company’s property rights. In La Oroya, a Peruvian Andean city, a metallurgical complex has operated since 1922. Dozens of victims of toxic pollution have been struggling for years to defend their health and environment, and keep seeking remedy in national and international courts. Their struggle has been plagued by attacks and campaigns to discredit them and the organizations that have assumed their legal representation. They have been labeled “anti-mining” and “anti-development,” harassed in the streets, and intimidated with hanging dead dogs in front of their houses.   The list of such incidents in Latin America just keeps getting longer. Poorly planned and developed mines, dams, and other infrastructure projects are linked to them. As members of societies that strive for economic and social development, we need to stop pretending that these and other countless attacks against environmental defenders do not happen or have no impact on the financial, political and social costs that we all end up paying eventually. The costs will come and they will be high. Governments need to wake up now and take action to defend the defenders. There is no time left! To the memory of those who have died defending something that should be precious to all but somehow is cared for by a few: our earth.  [1] Global Witness. On Dangerous Ground, June 2016, p. 4.  [2] Global Witness. On Dangerous Ground, June 2016, pp. 8 -9.  

Latin American environmental defender attacked, hospitalized

Goldman Prize winner Máxima Acuña de Chaupe reportedly attacked by mining company security guards. Washington, D.C. Goldman Environmental Prize winner Máxima Acuña de Chaupe was hospitalized after being attacked, allegedly by security forces hired by Minera Yanacocha, a subsidiary of Denver-based Newmont Mining, according to information provided by the Chaupe family. The attack took place on Máxima’s property in northern Peru that the mining company has been trying to obtain for its Conga gold mine project. “Minera Yanacocha must immediately stop their harassment of Máxima and her family, denounce attacks like this one, and call on its employees, agents and all others to ensure her safety,” said Earthworks’ Executive Director Jennifer Krill. The attack against Máxima is an alarming reminder of the murder earlier this year of Honduran activist Berta Cáceres. Berta was the 2015 Goldman Environmental Prize Winner from South and Central America. Both Berta and Máxima put their lives at risk by publicly denouncing multinational corporations threatening their communities. “Environmental defenders like Máxima, and the late Berta Cáceres before her, should not have to risk their lives to protect their homes and communities,” said Martin Wagner, managing attorney at Earthjustice. Máxima, who has lived in Tragadero Grande since the early 1990s, has been beaten, intimidated, and even sued by Minera Yanacocha. In 2014, Peruvian courts ruled in Máxima’s favor in an ongoing criminal complaint by the company. In April, prominent civil society groups including Global Witness, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, Earthworks, SumOfUs and others wrote to Newmont calling on the company to drop its lawsuits against the Chaupe family and end their harassment. The company failed to respond. "The Chaupe family has been harassed and beaten by Yanacocha for years," said Katie Redford, Founder and Director at EarthRights International, which has been supporting and advising the Chaupe family. "They are prepared to pursue all legal options to obtain justice." This most recent attack highlights the failures of both Newmont and the Peruvian government to uphold security, human rights and the consent of local communities. Newmont has ignored multiple calls from civil society to stop the physical and legal harassment of the Chaupe family, and the Peruvian government has failed to provide security for the Chaupe family as ordered by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). “Everyone involved in the mine project – the companies, the government, the security forces – is responsible for ensuring Máxima’s safety,” said Martin Wagner of Earthjustice. “By failing to speak and act against it, they are condoning this kind of attack and creating further risk to Máxima, not to mention their own reputations.” In February, Newmont filed a statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission indicating that they were no longer pursuing the proposed Conga mine that threatens the Chaupe home. “Newmont needs to immediately address the alleged involvement of its subsidiary Yanacocha in the criminal harassment of Máxima and her husband.  Newmont has reported to investors that it isn’t pursuing the Conga mine, but these attacks on poor subsistence farmers indicate that further plans are in development. What's happened is shocking, and shareholders need to know the potential risk of such an unethical venture,” said Glen Berman, Interim Executive Director of SumOfUs. For more information: Goldman Prize profile of Máxima Acuña de Chaupe: http://www.goldmanprize.org/recipient/maxima-acuna/ Blog about the Conga project cancellation: https://www.earthworksaction.org/earthblog/detail/conga_no_va#.V-BPtJMrK-4 Civil society letter to Newmont, April 2016: https://www.earthworksaction.org/library/detail/letter_to_newmont_re_maxima_acuna Grufides website: www.grufides.org

Supporting Mayan beekeepers in their struggle against GMO soy