Human Rights

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. 

Lowering Peru’s air quality standards is regressive and harmful to public health

The government of Peru has proposed increasing the legal amount of sulfur dioxide in the air by more than 12 times and doubling the allowed level of particulate matter, substances known to cause serious health harms. The proposal ignores both scientific evidence and the government’s obligation to uphold conditions that are suitable for human life and health. Lima, Peru.  Peru’s Environment Ministry has proposed new National Environmental Quality Standards for air, which would impact the health of Peruvians everywhere. The proposed standard increases by more than 12 times the limit for airborne concentrations of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and doubles the allowable amount of fine particulate matter. The increased limits ignore scientific evidence that finds these substances can cause lung problems and other illnesses, particularly among the most vulnerable populations such as people with asthma, children, and the elderly. “There is overwhelming scientific evidence to conclude that sulfur dioxide pollution poses a serious health risk, particularly when the contamination reaches high levels over short periods of time, something the proposal does not take into account,” said Anna Cederstav, co-director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). AIDA prepared comments on the proposal that were presented to the government of Peru together with APRODEH. These pointed out that, contrary to the government’s assertion, reducing sulfur dioxide levels in the air would lead to longer life expectancy. This is because, among other reasons, sulfur dioxide also promotes the formation of PM2.5, small particulate matter that lodges in human lungs and causes acute respiratory problems such as bronchitis and pneumonia, as well as premature death. The government proposes to simultaneously double the legal limit for these extremely harmful particles. The organizations also highlighted flaws in the public consultation process. The government published the draft standard on Saturday, April 8, just before the Easter week holiday, giving only 10 working days for public comment on this critical public health issue. They also failed to make public the entire scientific and technical basis for the proposal. In so doing, the government has violated the rights to information and public participation. The comments also emphasize that the government’s proposal violates the American Convention on Human Rights and other international treaties to which Peru is a party, by failing to guarantee the human rights to life and health. While the proposed changes would impact Peru’s entire population, the residents of cities with high levels of pollution, such as La Oroya, would suffer the most severe impacts. La Oroya is an emblematic case because the metallurgical complex operating there—which has for decades been a macro-emitter of pollutants—is in the process of being sold. The government has publically acknowledged that the weakening of the air quality standards is an attempt to promote the sale of the complex. But it ignores the effects those relaxed standards would have on the people of La Oroya, who have seen significant improvements to both their air quality and their health in recent years. People affected by the pollution in La Oroya have sued the State before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in an attempt to protect their rights. For ten years, they have been granted precautionary measures due to the risk the pollution poses to their health and life; those measures were recently extended to additional people because the level of risk has continued. “Relaxing air quality standards to facilitate the sale of the complex and increase investment in Peru would be a setback for the protection of health and the environment, which could result in the State being held responsible before the Inter-American Court on Human Rights,” said Christian Huaylinos of APRODEH. “In addition, such actions would violate free trade agreements signed by Peru with the United States and the European Union.” Consult the comments sent to the Environment Ministry of Peru and more information on the case of La Oroya. Press contacts: Rodrigo da Costa Sales, AIDA, [email protected], +51 994767961 Christian Huaylinos, APRODEH, [email protected], +51 959 789 232

Belo Monte Dam must comply with conditions before continuing operations

Last week a federal court in Brazil suspended the operating license of the Belo Monte Dam. Prosecutors said the dam's operating company, Norte Energía, failed to complete basic sanitation works in the city of Altamira, which has been directly affected by the hydroelectric project.  The decision comes in response to a legal appeal filed by the Federal Public Ministry. The sanitation work was a condition for the dam's licensing, authorized by the Brazilian Institute of Environmental Resources (IBAMA), and should have been completed before the reservoir was filled; it was not.  "This is the first time that a federal court has suspended one of Belo Monte's suspensão de segurança, a legal tool that guarantees the dam's operation even though it hasn't completed the conditions required under its operating license. In practice, the decision means that the dam must immediately halt all operations, although the completion of pending work may continue," explained AIDA attorney Marcella Ribeiro.  "Beyond being an issue of sanitation, this judgment represents an important step forward in the fight to force the operating company to adequately comply with the conditions necessary for the dam's operation, which favor affected communities."  "We hope the Brazilian justice system continues to guarantee the protection of the rights of all those affected by  the Belo Monte Dam.”

My time before the region's leading court on human rights

“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.”  - Marianne Williamson As I sat before the Court, one woman in a long line of observers, my pulse raced. For the first time in my life I was speechless, even awestruck. Towering regally over me sat six men and one woman, dressed in robes. The seven judges of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights. Public speaking is something I do regularly and with ease, but I was seriously nervous! My heart was going to explode; my throat was tight. I was acutely aware of the power of what I was about to say. I felt deep within myself the strength of my colleagues at AIDA. I sat up straight, took a deep breath, and leaned in closer to the microphone. As I began to speak, my words bore the influence of the last 20 years. I was representing AIDA in our very first intervention before the most important international human rights body in the Americas. We had been invited by the Court to comment on the consultative opinion raised by Colombian government on the link between environmental degradation and human rights; an issue reflecting the very core of our mission. The basic question to be addressed was this: If a megaproject damages the marine environment in the Greater Caribbean and, as a result, human rights are threaten or violated, should the State implementing the project be held accountable under international human rights law? When I began my career in environmental law 20 years ago, this very moment was one of my goals. I dreamt of engaging in this type of conversation before the Court; of influencing jurisprudence in the institution charged with protecting the human rights of the people of the Americas. Now, because I sit proudly as co-director of AIDA, those dreams have come true. Not just for myself, but also for all the brave and thoughtful attorneys I work alongside. The document we drafted represents countless hours of research and analysis, the contributions of human rights experts and environmental attorneys, decades of experience, lifetimes of dedication. We drafted it so the Court would recognize environmental protection as a human rights issue; that a healthy environment is essential to the enjoyment of all human rights. We hope it will show the judges of the Inter-American Human Rights System that incorporating international environmental law and standards can help them implement their mission. Remembering the months of work and the expert opinions in the document calmed me that day. The testimonies I heard were like music to my ears—more than 20 people, one after the other, from States and civil society organizations, spoke of the relationship between the environment and human rights; they spoke of the power of using international environmental law to protect people and communities. The arguments we crafted, together, made the link between the environment and human rights crystal clear. We had the historic opportunity to highlight how, in some situations, environmental degradation violates human rights. Protecting our environment, therefore, is an international obligation of all States in the Americas. When I finished speaking, I took a deep breath, and sat back in my chair. A smile broke across my face, as my phone began to light up with messages from my colleagues from every corner of the Americas. I left that day happily reflecting on the past 20 years, and wholly re-invigorated for 20 more. I left full of gratitude and pride for my team. And I left convinced of the power we have—as AIDA, as attorneys, as citizens, as human beings—to create change. It all goes to show that, while we may be small, we are not alone. Together we are powerful and, together, we are capable of building a better world. The decision is now in the hands of the Court, whose opinion has the power to influence the future of development in the Americas.

Attacks against Guatemalan human rights defenders denounced

Communities and organizations appealed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, urging the State of Guatemala, private businesses, and investors to guarantee the human rights of people and communities affected by large hydroelectric projects. They presented a report, outlining 10 different cases, which documents 273 incidents of threats, criminalization, and attacks against defenders, traditional authorities, journalists, and communities. Criminalization included 103 arrest warrants, imprisonment of 36 defenders, and the murder of 11. Washington, DC, United States.  A coalition of communities and organizations denounced human rights violations against traditional and indigenous communities in Guatemala, at a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Because of their opposition to large hydroelectric projects, the human rights defenders have been threatened, assaulted, treated as criminals, and assassinated. A report presented before the Commission, featuring 10 different cases, notes that various communities confronting these projects have faced rights abuses including violations of their rights to free, prior, informed, and culturally appropriate consultation; self-determination; due process; and life. The report also outlines how those who defend affected people and communities have been victims of threats and aggressions. The most common attacks include arrest warrants (103), assaults resulting in injuries (56), imprisonment (36), detention (25), criminalization (16), and threats (15). There have been 11 documented murders and three conflict-related deaths in communities that oppose these hydroelectric projects. At least 19 companies are linked to hydroelectric projects in Guatemala, of which 55 percent are national, 40 percent are transnational, and five percent are State-owned. The complaints emphasized that it is the duty of the State to guarantee the rights of communities, and of the people who defend them. The obligation to respect human rights also extends to operating companies and project funders. Therefore, the organizations and communities ask the Guatemalan State to: Comprehensively respect the rights of indigenous people, including the rights to self-determination; consultation; and free, prior, informed, and culturally appropriate consent. Ensure the safety of human rights defenders. Include the participation of indigenous communities in the design and implementation of their energy-development policies. They also request the companies involved to: Comply with due diligence in matters of business and human rights. Refrain from taking actions, such as filing lawsuits, that result in criminalization of and attacks on human rights defenders. Publicly recognize the positive and fundamental role of human rights defenders in democracy. The complete report (in Spanish) is available here. Authors Include: Acompañamiento de Austria (ADA); Asamblea Departamental de Pueblos de Huehuetenango (ADH); Asociación de Abogados Mayas de Guatemala; Asociación Indígena Ch`Orti` Nuevo Día; Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA); Business and Human Rights Resource Center; Consejo del Pueblo Maya (CPO) Consejo Mam; Guatemala Human Rights Commission, USA (GHRC); Guatemala Solidarity Network; Microregión de Ixquisis, San Mateo Ixtatán; The Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation (SweFOR); PAYXAIL YAJAW KONOB (Gobierno Ancestral Plurinacional) AKATEKA, CHUJ, POPTI’, Q’ANJOB’AL; International Platform Against Impunity; Protection International; Proyecto Acompañamiento Quebec Guatemala Montréal, Canadá; Resistencia Río Dolores and Unidad de Protección a Defensoras y Defensores de Derechos Humanos (UDEFEGUA). Press contacts: Karen Hudlet, Business and Human Rights Resource Center, [email protected] Rodrigo da Costa Sales, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), [email protected]  

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.