Human Rights

Water in Mexico: a human right, bottled

Mexico consumes 12 percent of the global volume of bottled water, highlighting the failures of the country’s water supply system and the violation of a basic human right. Nobody should be denied a glass of water. Serving your guests water is polite; it shows you have good manners and empathy for others. It is also, though not quite as obvious, an issue of human rights. In Mexico’s capital, until only recently, restaurants could deny a glass of water to their customers and require them to drink only bottled water. On one occasion, the owner of a gourmet pizzeria reacted furiously when she saw my boyfriend take out his own water bottle to take a pill. She told him it was prohibited to bring outside food and drink into her restaurant. Then, when we asked for a glass of water, she responded angrily: “We don’t give water away here, we sell it in bottles.” A circular business What you find being sold in supermarkets is not the water, but the bottle. In Mexico, the cost of the extraction and supply of water is relatively low, since almost the entire service is subsidized. According to the highest available rate, a glass of water costs seven cents (.007 Mexican pesos). For a bottle with the same quantity of water, the pizzeria charged $1.50 (28 pesos), seven times the supermarket price. The incident in the pizzeria occurred after the Legislative Assembly of Mexico City required food establishments to provide free glasses of water to customers who ask for it. But even after the legislative provision, I have often had to clarify that I want a glass of water, not a bottle. The waiters often warn me, “It’s filtered water,” reminding me of its unreliability. The dynamic behind this type of business has changed: they now buy large jugs of bottled water or spend money on filters, because in Mexico it’s well known that you never drink water directly from the tap. It’s an unspoken secret, almost popular belief, that tap water is dirty water. It’s common that even those of us who don’t buy bottled water have a filter in our homes. This belief emerged from the 1985 earthquake, when various pipes broke and drinking water mixed with sewage. Later, during a cholera epidemic in the 1990’s, the government promoted chlorinating or boiling the tap water. Yet no authority was responsible for the quality of the pipes through which the drinking water ran; water which, by definition, should be fit for human consumption. In contrast, Chile promotes three reliable water sources: chlorinated, boiled or taken from the tap.  In Mexico, the health threat coincided with the arrival of bottled water. What the companies promoted in those early years was confidence and security in the quality of their water. So, little by little, we went from boiling and chlorinating our water, to buying it in 20-liter jugs, to buying small plastic bottles that hold less than 250 ml of water. According to the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), in 2014 Mexicans consumed 253 liters of bottled water per person. This compares to 94.3 liters per person in Europe (where public drinking fountains are commonplace) and 37 liters per person globally. Mexico consumes 12 percent of the world’s total volume of bottled water. The World Bank cites 80 percent of the Mexican population as distrustful of the water supply system. Bottled water companies, then, have nothing but room to grow, especially considering the majority of the population doesn’t yet consume the recommended two liters of water per day. And a large quantity of bottled water is used on daily tasks such as cooking and washing dishes, even on bathing newborn babies. Can you or can’t you drink tap water? The answer is: It depends. The responsibility for water supply in Mexico is so fractioned that it’s impossible to get a convincing response. In the capital city, water quality is disclosed each year and in only two neighborhoods does it not meet standards for human consumption. Unfortunately, those with the worst water quality also have the lowest standard of living. Information on the subject doesn’t arrive to our homes, it’s difficult to access and – in some cases – the information is non-existent, hidden or disguised. No government authority is responsible for water quality: not the National Water Commission, not state or city governments. Violating a human right Without convincing responses about the reliability of the water supply system, Mexicans are opting to buy bottled water. By doing so, we’re demonstrating that something is wrong with the country’s water system, and the human right to water is not guaranteed. According to the UN, drinking water must be safe, clean accessible and affordable for all. The human right to water was included in the Mexican Constitution four years ago, but its implementation, and the party responsible for guaranteeing it, remains under discussion. While the debate continues, millions of Mexicans are, understandably, buying bottled water to protect their health. The lack of information about or accountability for the water supply system makes the guarantee of this human right nothing more than a dream.   The UN established that people shouldn’t spend more than three percent of their income on water services. In Mexico, only those with incomes greater than $1,200 a month (21,000 pesos) spend three percent or less of their income on bottled water. The other 80 percent of households in the country spend as much as eight percent, a staggering figure, especially considering it doesn’t include what they pay for water used for other domestic activities. People are buying bottled water because they don’t trust the country’s water supply system. By denying a glass of water to its population, the Mexican government is denying a fundamental human right.  

Belo Monte: the river may be dying but the search for justice never will

“The river is dead!” exclaimed Raimundo as we navigated in his motorboat from Altamira toward the big bend of the Xingu River. From my perch in Raimundo’s boat, it was easy to see how bleak the landscape surrounding Altamira—the northern Brazilian city closest to the construction of the Belo Monte Dam—has become. The big island of Arapujá, located across from Altamira, has been completely deforested, causing a radical change in the currents of the river. Many of the smaller islands, previously inhabited by fishermen, are now completely submerged, only the tops of trees visible above the rising water. I visited Altamira, and the indigenous and riverine communities nearby, with colleagues from Justiça Global. We came to update our case, and to inform those affected by Belo Monte of a new hope for justice: in December, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights opened the case against Brazil for human rights violations caused by the dam. In January, Norte Energía, the company charged with the construction and operation of Belo Monte, opened the dam’s floodgates without warning communities living downstream. They say the Xingu grew seven meters in just an hour. In some communities, the rising water flooded their riverside land, taking with it canoes, boats and items of clothing. Destroying lives The boat took us to a spot in the river where a large island once stood with a house in the middle. Raimundo Nonato had lived there. He raised animals and dedicated his life to fishing. It had been the perfect place to bathe in the river. It was there, in 2013, that Antonia Melo, leader of Movimento Xingu Vivo Para Siempre, baptized me as a defender of these waters. Now the island is under water, and all that remains to be seen are the tops of some fruit trees. Leoncio Arara, an indigenous man from the community Arara da Volta Grande, says his community lives in fear of the river’s expected growth, the loss of their culture and way of life, and from the recent death of 16 tons of fish. They have seen cracks in the dike of the dam’s bypass channel and fear it will break, as the Fundão mining waste dam did in Minas Gerais. On our tour of the area, we also noticed discolored patches on the dike, which should certainly be a sign of alarm. Leoncio said the fear keeps him up at night. On the indigenous lands of the Arara da Volta Grande and Paquiçamba, the life of inhabitants has changed radically. They must now travel to the city (Altamira) to sell their harvest and to buy food. The changing environment has drastrically reduced opportunities for fishing and hunting, rendering their traditional subsistence lifestyle inadequate. Leoncio says that his peoples’ traditional knowledge and community life are being lost. Their homes are different, as is the formation of their village. Norte Energía has carelessly constructed houses that conflict with their culture, because of the location and materials used. Their community lacks even a well from which to retrieve drinking water, a condition that should have been met more than five years ago. Pain, injustice and struggle On our trip, we spent nine days in the area around the Belo Monte dam. We listened to so many stories of pain and injustice: of indigenous children that died from bad medical care in villages without access to the city; of indigenous people who left their villages to seek shelter in the city and now live in the overcrowded Casa del Indio, surrounded by filth and, often, conflicting ethnic groups. We relived the stories of tireless struggle, like that of Socorro Arara, an indigenous woman whose home was destroyed, along with those of her relatives. Socorro and her family all had to haggle with the company, as if their basic human rights were negotiable. Some received very little money in compensation, others the option of a prefabricated house in a neighborhood far from the river. Socorro’s parents live in one of those neighborhoods. Behind their new cement house, they built a small home with the wood they were able to save from their destroyed home. It is there that they really live, by the light of small kerosene lamps, sleeping in hammocks. Electricity is not part of their lives. Residents of Altamira live surrounded by the ironies of the third largest dam in the world. On February 28, Altamira and various cities in the state of Para were left without electricity. The cutoff, described by the receptionist at our hotel as routine, was due to testing on one of the dam’s turbines. There’s not much time now until the Belo Monte begins operation. If, for the countries of the region, Belo Monte represents the cherished dream of development, for me it represents a nightmare from which I’m dying to awake. It’s a nightmare of pain and human rights violations, in which a beautiful, living river is quickly fading away. Going with it are the lives and the dreams of those who have long depended upon its clean and healthy waters. Human rights are not negotiable. The victims of Belo Monte need justice now! It is that dream of justice that I hope, one day soon, becomes reality. -- I wrote these lines in honor of all the people who have dedicated their lives to defending our rivers and our life.  

Remembering Berta Cáceres before the Green Climate Fund

On March 3, Berta Cáceres, an indigenous rights defender in Honduras, was assassinated. As a leader of COPINH, Berta was fighting against the implementation of an internationally funded large dam project. She was fighting for the health of the Gualarque River, and for the lives and livelihoods of the indigenous communities that depend upon it.  Her death is a glimpse at the real life impacts that megaprojects may have. That’s why, at the closing of the 12th Meeting of the Board of the Green Climate Fund, I presented a message to the Board on behalf of the civil society organizations monitoring the development and decision making process of the mechanism. The message was intended as a reminder of the care with which financing decisions must be made, as the board prepares to review and approve more projects: “We would like to ask for a moment to remember Berta Cáceres, the indigenous environmental justice and human rights defender brutally murdered last week in Honduras. She was leading a fight against an internationally financed large dam that threatened her water, her land, and her people. We would like to ask all of you to do whatever you can to secure justice for Berta, and the immediate safe return of Gustavo Castro, head of Friends of the Earth Mexico, who was injured during the assassination and whose life is now in danger. Berta’s murder serves as a tragic reminder to the GCF of the incredible risks faced by rights defenders, and the deep need to safeguard their rights and the rights of the people and land they fight for.   The GCF must not support questionable projects like the one that claimed her life and must obtain in all of its projects and programmes the free, prior and informed consent of people and communities to protect their livelihoods and survival.”

My first visit to La Oroya

By Rodrigo da Costa Sales, AIDA attorney  “What do you think of La Oroya?” a local resident asked me the first time we met. Honestly, I wasn’t quite sure how to respond. Quickly sensing my discomfort, he joked, “It’s very beautiful, there’s so much biodiversity, and the sky is so blue...” Relieved, I laughed along with him and, since that moment, I’ve been searching for the words to describe La Oroya. La Oroya is a city of 33,000 people on the Mantaro River in central Peru, at an altitude of nearly 5,000 meters. This was my first time there, and I stayed only two days. The trip from Lima takes five hours, winding along painfully curvy roads with breathtaking views of the mountains all around. In La Oroya, however, the landscape changes drastically. The city is covered in a sheet of grey, with little to no natural life, streets full of trucks transporting iron and other heavy metals... and not much else of note. My greatest wish for my time in La Oroya was to meet the people we are representing in our case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. After working on it for six months, I wanted finally to put faces to the names I had come to know so well on paper. Our meeting was scheduled for the evening, when residents could find time free from work and family commitments. There, we introduced them to students from Yale University, who were developing an important report on the relationship between La Oroya’s air quality and the health of city residents. Although interested in the study, and happy to hear about it, residents quickly peppered us with questions about the case. The main thing they wanted to know—an answer they have been waiting for since our petition was filed seven years ago—was when the Commission will make its decision.  They explained the many offensive comments they’ve had to endure, both from workers at the metal-smelting complex and from their own neighbors, during the long wait for a ruling. They’ve suffered threats from fellow residents of La Oroya, who wrongfully believe that the purpose of the case is to close the complex, which would leave many people without jobs. In one especially disturbing instance, a “doctor” spoke on television claiming that lead contamination does not cause any health problems. He claimed the residents of La Oroya as proof that, while contaminated by lead and other heavy metals, people could still lead normal lives. We reminded them that a process before an international organism involves years of waiting, and that we sympathized with them for everything they had been through in the past few years. But the truth is that I felt such intense frustration. It was the first time that I saw, up close, such personal desire for an international decision. I understood then that a decision on paper could actually constitute a form of reparation. The long-awaited Commission report will show the world that the effects of heavy-metal pollution on a population actually violate their personal integrity and right to health. The goal of this case is not to close the metallurgical complex, but instead to force the adoption of measures that guarantee a certain quality of life for the residents of La Oroya. The Commission’s report will be the instrument in this case by which international and human rights law becomes real, effective and transformative.  I returned from La Oroya almost a week ago, and I’m still searching for the words to describe such a place. Truthfully, La Oroya didn’t seem very nice at first. But I quickly came to realize that the beauty of a place comes not only from its natural and man-made attractions; it comes also, and perhaps more importantly, from the beauty of its people. In that sense, I’ve never seen a city quite as beautiful as La Oroya. This blog is dedicated all the victims of the case in La Oroya. I hope that they will achieve justice, and that because of them, a case like this is never repeated around the world. It is also dedicated to Astrid Puentes and Maria José, AIDA’s attorneys in charge of the La Oroya case, who inspire me daily to work for a more just world. 

Conserving the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta

Brazilian Court overturns suspension of Belo Monte’s operating license

Brasilia, Brazil. The Federal Regional Court of the First Region (TRF1) overturned the preliminary decision suspending the operating license of the Belo Monte Dam. On January 11, the Federal Justice of Altamira decided to suspend the license until the federal government and Norte Energia, the company in charge of the dam’s construction, complied with their obligation to restructure the National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) of Altamira. However, a federal judge from TRF1 decided today that this decision disproportionately “affects the public interest, causing grave repercussions on the economy and public order.” Another argument presented was that the suspension would prevent the implementation of various plans designed to benefit indigenous peoples. “This is yet another attack on the rights of the affected indigenous communities. The decision manipulates the arguments of public interest, order, security and the economy, and then uses the plans – which should have been implemented when the previous license was granted in 2010 – to justify why it is not possible to suspend the operating license. The bottom line is that the operating license never should have been granted in the first place without the fulfillment of those plans,” said María José Veramendi, AIDA attorney. For more information, please consult the factual record of the case and the latest news about our case before the IACHR.  

IACHR opens case against Brazil for human rights violations related to Belo Monte Dam

Para português, clique aqui Four years after civil society organizations filed their original petition, the Commission opens the case, asking the Brazilian government to respond to allegations of human rights violations stemming from the hydroelectric project under construction in the Brazilian Amazon. Washington D.C., United States. As the first reservoirs of the Belo Monte Dam are being filled, the Brazilian government is coming under fire from international organizations. On December 21, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) opened a case against Brazil, which was challenged by affected communities represented by the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), Justiça Global and the Sociedade Paraense de Defesa de Direitos Humanos (SDDH). After an initial review lasting four years, and several requests for fast tracking the case by the petitioners, the Commission finally determined that the petition contains sufficient grounds to open the case, which means that Brazil must respond to the claims of human rights violations caused by Belo Monte. “We hope and believe that now is the time for Brazil to respond comprehensively to our claims about: the absence of consultation and free, prior and informed consent of affected indigenous communities; the lack of participation and adequate assessment of environmental impact; and the forced displacement and violations of the rights to life, health, integrity and justice of indigenous peoples, riverine communities, and residents of the city of Altamira,” said María José Veramendi Villa, AIDA attorney. Based on Brazil’s response, the Commission will then determine if requirements have been met to have the case admitted and, if so, to establish whether or not the project caused the alleged human rights violations. “The opening of the case is, above all, a victory for the affected communities and local social movements, who have endured for all these years, and remain strong and determined in their search for justice and reparation,” said Raphaela Lopes of Justiça Global. This past November, the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Resources (IBAMA) authorized Belo Monte’s operating license, which allowed the dam’s reservoirs to be filled. IBAMA did so despite the fact that Norte Energía, the company in charge of the project, failed to comply with the conditions necessary (potable water and sanitation, among others) to guarantee the life, health and integrity of affected populations. By opening the case for processing, the Commission is using all available tools to monitor the situation surrounding Belo Monte. Indigenous communities affected by the dam have been protected by precautionary measures that the Commission authorized in 2011, which Brazil has yet to meet. In early December, the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights visited Altamira, the city closest to the Belo Monte project and one of the areas most affected by displacement and socio-environmental conflicts caused by the dam’s construction. There, they met with affected groups, among them members of indigenous and riverine communities, listening to their complaints. After their visit, the Working Group issued a statement that, among other things, urged the Brazilian government to respect human rights, not sacrifice them for economic development.  The Working Group is expected to present the final report of their visit to the Human Rights Council in June 2016. It is our hope that they conduct an adequate follow-up to their visit, and that the report they produce is explicit regarding both the human rights violations surrounding Belo Monte, and the actions of the Brazilian government and the companies involved. As organizations representing the victims of Belo Monte, we will continue to press Brazil to respond to the human rights violations directly caused by the dam’s construction.

5 Recommendations for Integrating Climate Action into the Financial Sector

by Astrid Puentes Riaño This blog was produced in collaboration with Andrea Rodriguez, AIDA’s lead climate change attorney. During the Paris climate talks, I had the honor of participating in a panel on climate and the financial sector. We discussed the importance of ensuring that the fight against climate change is consciously integrated into all finance decisions. Financing is one of the primary challenges that has delayed effective worldwide progress on climate change, because many countries do not have the resources they need, and those that do have the resources haven’t contributed as much as they should. Currently, financial institutions are not providing sufficient funding to combat climate change. In fact, the majority of global resources are still invested in fossil fuels or other activities that have negative impacts on the climate. AIDA has been advocating at the highest levels to make climate finance more effective for more than five years. Our focus has been on ensuring that the allocation of climate finance is transparent, participatory, respectful of human rights, and responsive to the needs of the Global South. We have advocated for inclusion of and compliance with these principles before international and national financial institutions, as well as in a new global mechanism, the Green Climate Fund. To advance the discussion, AIDA requested a side event at the climate talks in Paris. As it turns out, a regional financial institution simultaneously requested a side event to present its voluntary principles for integrating climate change into the financial sector. Since there are thousands of requests for side-events and limited space, the Secretariat of the Convention merged the two events. This is how AIDA came to co-organize an event with a coalition of financial institutions. Although the institutions hadn’t planned to include comments from civil society in their presentation, they agreed to collaborate. This twist of fate created a great opportunity for the institutions to present their principles, and for us to provide early feedback from the point of view of civil society. Twenty-six institutions have supported the voluntary principles so far, including the Development Bank of Latin America (CAF), the European Investment Bank, the World Bank Group, and the Inter-American Development Bank. The Five Voluntary Principles, as described by the institutions, are: COMMIT to climate strategies MANAGE climate risks PROMOTE climate smart objectives IMPROVE climate performance ACCOUNT for your climate action​ An initial assessment Is not my intention to make a thorough analysis of the principles at this point. My goal, for the time being, is simply to ensure the principles are known, and to share with you a preliminary analysis, including our initial observations and the five recommendations that I presented at the panel. As a civil society organization, AIDA welcomes initiatives intended to advance climate action, accountability and participation. We therefore consider the voluntary principles a positive initiative from the financial sector, and a good place from which to start looking for concrete ways to integrate climate change fully into their activities. We consider mainstreaming climate finance an ongoing process, and view these principles as just one element of it. From AIDA’s perspective, the principles will actually benefit the sector, and help to decrease financial and other risks to financial institutions. If effectively implemented, the principles can help to increase climate actions while protecting communities and ecosystems, and fight poverty and inequality, two of the most important challenges facing the world. That said, improving access to information is fundamental to ensuring the principles positively impact climate change. Essential information should be made publicly available, including amounts of resources, types of activities or sectors, and projects in which financial institutions are investing. 5 Recommendations for Better Integration 1. Include a human rights perspective and incorporate social risk in assessments Financial investments that don’t incorporate human rights and social perspectives can contribute to rights violations and have severe impacts on communities. In addition to the consequences such investments have on people, they become a financial risk for the institution. Incorporating a human rights perspective in risk assessments can also help to advance goals related to fighting poverty and inequality, which are particularly applicable to public financial entities. 2. Define common concepts  Concepts such as sustainable development, climate change, and climate finance can be interpreted very broadly and generate confusion. Additionally, the lack of agreement on what those concepts mean can lead, for example, to one institution considering an activity as clean or sustainable, when it is not. The definition of renewable energy is a good example. While several major financial institutions agree that large hydropower cannot be considered renewable energy, there are still some institutions that include hydropower, and even nuclear energy, projects in that definition. The inclusion of experts from the non-financial sector—particularly non-state actors—can help increase understanding of what the needs are and where investment should be enhanced or directed. 3. Create a clear, transparent and participatory road map The manner in which the voluntary principles are implemented is crucial. Therefore, a clear and measurable implementation plan is essential. It’s a good thing that the financial institutions highlighted the need to avoid duplication, and incorporate lessons learned. However, to ensure that the principles are as effective as possible, it is also important to at least incorporate experiences from existing accountability mechanisms and applications of safeguards. The current initiative considers a planning group that, as far as we understand, hasn’t been created, although there is a suggestion of how it should be formed. Aligning with the intention of the institutions to include other stakeholders, this planning group should also engage participants outside of the financial sector to increase the impact of investments. The work plan should include effective mechanisms to measure advancement, and be flexible enough to make necessary improvements. It should be seen as a dynamic process that incorporates lessons learned, not as a rigid mandate. 4. Embrace the opportunity in low-carbon economies The financial sector has a unique role to play in encouraging climate actions by helping clients avoid the same old carbon-intensive development. Financial institutions have the power to leapfrog this type of development and implement real, effective solutions for the 21st Century. They can be proactive by enhancing the capacity of other actors interested in fully integrating climate strategies into their operations. The financial sector naturally thrives from risk-taking and innovation. Low-carbon economies represent an important opportunity for growth. 5. Elevate accountability One question posed during the panel was whether or not the principles should be binding. If there is a strong willingness to implement the principles, and adequate mechanisms to measure advances and make adjustments, having a binding agreement isn’t the most important aspect. Accountability is key in this process, thus the importance of Principle Five. Climate change is the most important threat to human kind. It is an urgent matter that most profoundly impacts the world’s most vulnerable populations. There is no more time to lose. Effective actions must continue to be implemented, and the financial sector has an important opportunity to contribute to the solutions, rather than the problem. It’s time for financial institutions worldwide to walk the talk – it’s time for them to seriously commit to fighting climate change, and to start delivering results. The opportunity for us as members of civil society to sit beside representatives when they publically presented their five principles was an interesting start. Now we must follow up so that financial institutions put these principles into practice, especially Principle 5: being accountable. Building upon these comments, and providing recommendations from other stakeholders in the field, will be an important next step. 

A Human Rights Based Approach to Climate in Latin America

By María José Veramendi Villa, AIDA senior attorney, and Camila Bustos, Nivela lead researcher A few days before the beginning of the climate negotiations in Paris, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights submitted an official document to the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on “Understanding human rights and climate change”. For many, the link between these two remains unclear. Aren’t there already other international agreements that discuss this issue in depth? What is the point of including human rights language in a climate change agreement? The link between human rights and climate change has been recognized long ago by the UN Human Rights Council, which has passed several resolutions to bring attention to this issue. Several countries are already feeling the impacts of climate change: rising sea levels, droughts, extreme weather events and floods among other disasters are becoming increasingly common. Latin America and the Caribbean is one the most vulnerable regions to climate change. People and communities across the region are suffering from devastating impacts such as the melting of glaciers in the Andes, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification. Many face the risk of losing their traditional livelihoods and being displaced.     The impacts of climate change on the enjoyment of human rights in Latin America have been thoroughly documented by the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense in its 2011 report on Climate Change and Human Rights. One of the most shocking impacts includes the drastic reduction to water in the region. By the year 2025, melting glaciers, the degradation of wetlands, intense droughts and erratic meteorological patterns will limit access to water to more than 50 million people in the tropical Andean region.  Other anticipated effects include flooding and changing rain patterns. In Colombia, flooding affected more than 2.2 million people and cost $300 million USD in 2010 alone. In the transition to a low-carbon and resilient economy, countries are already working to design and implement projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect citizens from climate change impacts. A reference to human rights in the operational section of the agreement can ensure that human rights are taken into account in the process of developing and implementing climate policies. This is why: It will raise the ambition and strengthen the agreement promoting an implementation that will ensure that parties comply with their already existing human rights obligations. It will support the goals of the agreement by preventing discrimination, exclusion and inequality. The affected communities have to have a say in the policies and projects designed to help them. It will not create additional obligations, but ensure that there is coherence in the international regime. Parties are already obliged to comply with other human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the world turns its attention to Paris, we cannot forget to humanize climate change and remember that those who have contributed to the least to the problem are and will continue to be the most affected. If we want to ensure a livable planet for the future generations the new climate agreement must include the respect, protection, promotion and fulfilment of human rights. We call on all State Parties and specially those of our Latin American region to support the inclusion of human rights protections in the agreement.

Brazil authorizes operation of the Belo Monte Dam, disregarding the rights of affected communities

The environmental authority granted the project’s operating license, ignoring evidence of noncompliance with conditions necessary to guarantee the life, health and integrity of indigenous and other affected populations. Altamira, Brazil. The Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) today authorized the Belo Monte Dam’s operating license, which allows the dam’s reservoirs to be filled. The authorization was granted despite clear noncompliance with conditions necessary to guarantee the life, health and integrity of affected communities; the same conditions that IBAMA called essential in its technical report of September 22. IBAMA’s decision makes no reference to conditions needed to protect affected indigenous peoples. “We can’t believe it,” said Antonia Melo, leader of Movimiento Xingú Vivo para Siempre, who was displaced by the dam’s construction. “This is a crime. Granting the license for this monster was an irresponsible decision on the part of the government and IBAMA. The president of IBAMA was in Altamira on November 5 and received a large variety of complaints. Everyone – riverside residents, indigenous representatives, fishermen, and members of the movement – talked about the negative impacts we’re living with. And now they grant the license with more conditions, which will only continue to be violated.” In an official letter to IBAMA on November 12, the president of the National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) concluded that conditions necessary for the protection of affected indigenous communities had clearly not been met. However, he gave free reign for the environmental authority to grant the operating license “if deemed appropriate.” “The authorization clearly violates Brazil’s international human rights commitments, especially with respect to the indigenous communities of the Xingú River basin. Those affected populations are protected by precautionary measures granted in 2011 by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which the Brazilian government continues to ignore,” said María José Veramendi, attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). The license allows for the filling of two of the dam’s reservoirs on the Xingú River, an Amazon tributary. It is valid for six years and is subject to compliance with certain conditions; progress will be monitored through semiannual reports. Such conditions should have been met before the dam’s license was even considered, let alone granted. “Environmental licensing is a way to mitigate the effects, control damage and minimize the risks that the dam’s operation entails for the community and the environment. By disrespecting and making flexible the licensing procedures, the government is allowing economic interests to prevail and ignoring its duty to protect the public interest,” said Raphaela Lopes, attorney with Justiça Global. AIDA, Justiça Global, and the Para Society of Defense of Human Rights have argued on both national and international levels that the conditions needed for Belo Monte to obtain permission to operate have not been met. The project must still guarantee affected and displaced populations access to essential services such as clean water, sanitation, health services and other basic human rights. “The authorization of Belo Monte, a project involved in widespread corruption scandals, contradicts President Rousseff’s recent statement before the United Nations, in which she declared that Brazil would not tolerate corruption, and would instead aspire to be a country where leaders behave in strict accordance with their duties. We hope that the Brazilian government comes to its senses, and begins to align its actions with its words,” said Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-director of AIDA.   The green light for Belo Monte couldn’t have come at a worse moment. On November 5th, two dams impounding mine waste—owned by Samarco, a company jointly overseen by Vale and BHP Billiton—broke in the city of Mariana, Minas Gerais, causing one of the greatest environmental disasters in the country’s history. A slow-moving flood of mud and toxic chemicals wiped out a village, left 11 dead and 12 missing, and affected the water supply of the entire region, destroying flora and fauna for hundreds of miles around. The toxic flood has since reached the sea. The company’s operating licenses had expired two years ago.  Approval of Belo Monte’s operating license comes just six days before the start of the Paris climate talks, the most important meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in recent history. Once in operation, Belo Monte will emit greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and methane; as the world’s third-largest dam, it will become a significant contributor to climate change. By authorizing Belo Monte, the government of Brazil is sending a terrible message to the world. Ignoring its international commitments to protect human rights and mitigate the effects of climate change, the government is instead providing an example of how energy should not be produced in the 21st Century.