Indigenous Rights

Fracking, Indigenous Rights, Climate Change

Reflections for a Bolivia free of fracking

Text written as part of the series #TRANSFORMAR LA CRISIS, Tomo II. Crisis Ecológica, extractivismo y poblaciones vulnerables by the foundation Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) in Bolivia, to be published soon.   It all began with a study, published in 2011 by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, reporting the existence of large quantities of unconventional hydrocarbons in Bolivia.  The study created considerable expectations in the Andean Nation. Given the gradual depletion of conventional oil and gas deposits, fracking has since become a latent threat. Fracking is a risky, costly and highly polluting technique. As a region, Latin America is home to roughly seven thousand fracking wells. The technique’s advance—as well as related public policies, regulations and social opposition—has commonalities across the region, including its affects on protected areas and on urban, rural and indigenous populations. So far, Bolivia remains free from fracking. But without an intentional political decision to avoid it, and without a population better informed about its effects, fracking could soon become a reality here as well. The risks of fracking in Bolivia The implementation of fracking is a latent threat in Bolivia because of the nation’s significant dependence on fossil fuels. In 2013, the state-owned company YPFB signed a cooperative agreement with YPF Argentina to study the potential of unconventional hydrocarbons. It also asked the operating companies to extract samples from the Los Monos geological formation in the Chaco region. That same year, YPFB Chaco (a subsidiary of YPFB), with the support of Halliburton, carried out a "mini-fracture" in the Ingre X-2 well, part of the Tupambi formation, in Chuquisaca. This operation would have allowed for the discovery of tight sand oil. Based on this discovery, YPFB Chaco had proposed to perform a complete fracture of the reservoir in 2014. It is unknown if this occurred because, in the years following, YPFB stopped generating public information on the project. In 2018, Canadian company CanCambria Energy Corp. signed a study agreement with YPFB, the prelude to an exploration/exploitation contract, to determine the unconventional gas potential at Miraflores, also in Chuquisaca. CanCambria's preliminary data points to the possible existence of a mega-field in the area, whose potential gas resources would be comparable to those of Argentina’s Vaca Muerta. The Canadian firm has prepared a proposal to extract gas by drilling 800 wells over 202 square kilometers in the Miraflores area, in the municipality of Macharetí. Miraflores is located in the Heroes del Chaco Municipal Protected Area and is part of the Yrenda Toba Tarijeño Aquifer System, which Bolivia shares with Paraguay and Argentina. The people living in Macharetí, including Guaraní indigenous communities, were shocked to receive news of the project. The alarm raised by the possibility of fracking in this territory led those who live there to learn about the consequences of the technique, particularly in relation to the use and contamination of immense quantities of water. As a direct result, Macharetí included in its autonomous statute the prohibition of fracking in its territory, intensifying the controversy over the technique’s development in the area. Between extreme energy and an energy transition In the face of this controversy over fracking, two paths lay before us: on the first, is the deepening of the extractivist model and the generation of highly polluting energy, with serious and irreversible negative impacts on Mother Earth and local populations; on the second, is a just and democratic energy transition, which implies the decommodification of energy, a change in the energy matrix, and a shift in the development paradigm. Bolivia, and Latin America as a region, need to profoundly transform the way energy is produced; the new system should be formed with a long-term vision and based on the respect for human rights and the protection of nature. The development of fracking, far from initiating any transition, goes against this trend because it continues to promote a polluting, risky and costly energy system. It is based on dependence on non-renewable energy sources with negative impacts on the territories, inequity and lack of citizen participation in the construction of energy policies. Instead, Bolivia must bet on a socially just, economically viable and ecologically sustainable energy transition. "Bolivia should not move towards the implementation of fracking in its territory because it represents one of the greatest risks to its ecosystems, resources and populations," says Jorge Campanini, researcher at the Center for Documentation and Information Bolivia (CEDIB). "It is urgent to generate solid policies that declare a moratorium or indefinite ban on this technique throughout the country". The experience of Latin American countries that have bet on fracking clearly demonstrates the economic, environmental and social impacts of this technique. In this context, many organizations, communities and peoples have organized to confront the threat. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic forces us to reflect on the future of fossil fuels, and the need for a just energy transition. Instead of considering fracking as an easy way to create jobs in difficult times, we must confront the health, economic and climate crises together. It’s time to think of resilient recovery, and thus an energy system that is not based on fracking. One idea usually associated with transition is the change of the energy matrix, yet, while necessary, the rapid and effective de-fossilization of that matrix is not enough. The energy transition must be comprehensive and incorporate environmental, economic and social dimensions so that it is also just and democratic. That’s why it’s so important that governments address the issue with a systemic approach.  

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Human Rights

"Defenders prevent us from entering into a situation of no return"

If you’re seeking to improve air quality in your city or working to halt a project that poses risks to the people and environment in your community, you are an environmental defender, although you probably haven't thought of it that way. Defenders are on the front lines of the battle to protect the environment and human rights, challenging public and private interests. Many of them face great difficulties in doing so, suffering from serious rights violations like persecution, threats, the use of public force, legal sanctions and even assassination. According to Global Witness’ most recent report, 212 murders of environmental and territorial defenders were recorded in 2019. Latin America was the most affected region, with Colombia leading the list with 64 murders. Despite the fact that States have the obligation to protect, respect and guarantee the rights of those who defend the environment, violence against them is worsening. On April 22, Earth Day, the Escazú Agreement came into force. It is the first environmental treaty in Latin America and the Caribbean that values the work of environmental defenders and obliges States to protect them and punish actions that violate their rights. Marcella Ribeiro, a Brazilian attorney with AIDA's Human Rights and Environment Program discusses the reality of those who defend the environment in Latin America, and the leading role that governments should play in protecting them. What is the current situation of environmental defenders worldwide and particularly in Latin America? We are going through a moment of extreme vulnerability. At the beginning of the pandemic, and particularly in the countries that are home to the Amazon, media covered shifted to focus only on news related to COVID-19. In this context, defenders were increasingly threatened and some were even killed without any public repercussions. In what way did the pandemic exacerbate their vulnerability? I am going to speak from the perspective of Brazil, where I am located. Environmental human rights defenders have had to defend themselves against both the state and companies that seek to enter their territories and implement a vision of development that is not in line with the vision of the communities themselves. Why is it important to protect the people who defend the environment? Because they are the first force there is for the defense of territory, nature and human rights, not from an individual perspective, but from a collective one. What they do is protect all of us, our rights, our air and our water, even our food security. Defenders prevent our planet from entering into a situation of no return: once the forest is cut down or the river is polluted, there will be no way to recover those ecosystems. With the entry into force of the Escazú Agreement, how does the situation of these people change and how can they be guaranteed access to justice?   The Escazú Agreement is the first international legal framework focused entirely on defenders that seeks to ensure that justice and guarantee their rights. Not all Latin American countries have ratified it. This agreement complements and supports efforts to protect them, but for it to be effective we need countries to truly integrate these responsibilities into their national systems so that defenders can use it to their advantage. Political will is vital to protect those who defend the environment, how do you assess progress in this regard? It is evident that environmental defenders in Latin America are being increasingly threatened, even murdered. As this issue gains visibility, I believe that we are seeing a change and an increase in concern from States, even if it is not entirely genuine. While it is difficult to believe in the political, autonomous and altruistic will of Latin American governments, I do believe that the visibility achieved by the Inter-American Human Rights System, the United Nations and NGOs working to document and link the motivations behind these murders gives us a collective strength. Megaprojects should be implemented with a human rights-based development, but what happens when a State opposes the will of people or communities to reject them? Often in Latin America, States decide that a project is going to be implemented regardless of community resistance, or environmental risks related to the project. That is not connected to development, but to corruption. Promoting projects that we know are going negatively impact thousands of people is directly connection to corruption. We need stronger links between those of us working on human rights and environmental issues and those investigating corruption, in order to try to break those links before they are implemented.   Given their work for the common good of all humanity and the increasing violence defenders face, AIDA has developed a guide that explains the obligations States have regarding the protection of environmental defenders. Read more here!  

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Oceans

Chile: Report Finds That Approval of Salmon Farms in Kawésqar National Reserve is Illegal

The document prepared by national and international organizations highlights the incompatibility between this type of industry and the purpose of protection of the area. Even without an established management plan, there are already 57 salmon farming concessions, 113 in process and 6 resolutions of environmental qualification have been approved after the creation of the Reserve.   Local communities in the area of the Kawésqar National Reserve—including Kawésqar Atap, As Wal Lajep, Grupos Familiares Nómades del Mar, Residentes Río Primero and Inés Caro—provided Chile’s National Forestry Corporation (CONAF) with a technical report that seeks to provide information on the serious impact that the salmon industry generates on marine ecosystems. Prepared by the NGOs FIMA, Greenpeace and AIDA (the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense), the report will be considered in the management plan that the government entity must develop and implement to comply with the protection of the marine waters that make up the Reserve. "CONAF must guarantee compliance with what was established in the Indigenous Consultation and explicitly prohibit salmon farming in the reserve's management plan. This definition is key to the future health of the Patagonian marine ecosystems," explained Estefanía González, Greenpeace's Campaign Coordinator. "Salmon farming is completely incompatible with the maintenance of healthy marine ecosystems." Historic process for the protection of the Southern seas The creation of the Kawésqar National Reserve in 2018 was a key milestone for the participation of these native people in decision-making regarding the ecosystems that make up their ancestral territory. On that occasion, through indigenous consultation, the need to protect the waters and prevent the development of activities such as salmon farming was expressly established, considering the particular situation of fragility of the area and the Kawésqar cultural legacy, firmly linked to the sea. In their above referenced report, the organizations conclude that salmon farming as an activity is incompatible with the protection objectives of National Reserves, from a legal and ecosystemic point of view, and in particular with the Kawésqar National Reserve, due to the many risks involved. Among the damages caused by this industry are biological contamination caused by the introduction of exotic species, the indiscriminate use of antibiotics, periodic massive salmon escapes, and the food and feces deposited on the seafloor, which generate anaerobic conditions and red tides. All of the above endangers a marine area with unique diversity and which the State itself has decided to protect. "Allowing salmon farming in the Kawésqar National Reserve would render the protection given to the area useless," added Victoria Belemmi, FIMA attorney. "This point has even been recognized by the national directorate of CONAF, which when consulted in 2019 by the comptroller's office on salmon farming within protected areas, pointed out that according to the current national and international legal framework, including the Washington Convention, an activity such as salmon farming would not be admissible in an area designed to protect the marine ecosystem." Statement from the Comptroller's Office For its part, AIDA filed a letter with the Comptroller General's Office to solicit a ruling on the approval of a project to increase the biomass of a salmon farming center located in the Alacalufes Reserve, now Kawésqar National Reserve, which was operating under anaerobic conditions. "The approval of this project meant that salmon production was authorized to increase in an area where there was already evidence that the carrying capacity of the site was exceeded," explained Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA attorney. "The fact that the center was located in the waters bordering the Alacalufes Reserve (now Kawésqar) makes it even more serious." The low level of oxygen affecting the waters was evidenced by official documentation recognizing the regulations for that purpose—the Preliminary Site Characterization that the center's owner submitted to request the expansion, and several preliminary reports (INFA) confirming the situation. With the approval, the center acquired authorization to almost triple its original production. Subpesca had noted the situation, even interposing an observation on the matter within the process. However, shortly thereafter, it issued its approval of the project. Subsequently, the Environmental Evaluation Service (SEA) approved the project by means of an Environmental Qualification Resolution (RCA, for its Spanish initials). Read the report here (in Spanish) press contact Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107  

Read more
Fracking, Freshwater Sources, Human Rights

Human Rights Council addresses the water crisis and environmental defenders protection

The 46th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council is the first to be held entirely online, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It runs until March 23. The virtual format of this HRC session enabled AIDA to make our first participation ever in the HRC and join the discussions on two of the topics that are at the core of its human rights work: the right to a healthy environment and the protection of environmental human rights defenders. On 03 March, the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, David Boyd, presented his report “Human Rights and the Global Water Crisis” to the Human Rights Council. In it, Boyd highlighted the severe impacts of water pollution, water scarcity and water-related disasters on the rights to life, health, education, food, development and the right to a healthy environment.     He also emphasized that climate change is a risk-multiplier, exacerbating water-related human rights issues. The Special Rapporteur called on States to incorporate a rights-based approach in both their climate strategies and water plans. Finally, Boyd reiterated his call for the Human Rights Council to support the initiative for a resolution to recognize that everyone everywhere has the right to live in a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. In the Interactive Dialogue that followed Boyd’s presentation, AIDA Attorney Rosa Peña denounced the negative impacts of mega-dams, coal mining and fracking on human rights and water access in Latin America. She noted that these projects not only threaten the human rights of local communities but also exacerbate the climate crisis. She called the attention of the Special Rapporteur to the communities affected by the Belo Monte mega-dam in the Brazilian Amazon. Currently, implementation of the so-called ‘Consensus Hydrogram’ in the Xingu River threatens the lives of local communities, pollutes the water, dries up the river and causes food insecurity and severe biodiversity loss. On March 4, it was the turn of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, Mary Lawlor, to engage in an Interactive Dialogue on ”Final warning: death threats and killings of human rights defenders”     She concluded that lack of political will is one of the reasons why various States fail in their moral and legal obligation to protect Human Rights Defenders, and therefore called for more effective responses to the threats against them. Representing AIDA in the Interactive Dialogue, Attorney Marcella Torres highlighted that Latin America is the most dangerous region in the world for environmental human rights defenders and urged all States to actively protect them. She turned the spotlight on the situation of environmental defenders in Brazil, Guatemala and Colombia, where the invasion of indigenous lands, mega-dams and fracking are closely related to the increase in violence against defenders. She concluded by reminding States that the protection of environmental defenders should promote the recognition of the right to a healthy environment, and provide guarantees so that all people are free to exercise their right to defend human rights. See AIDA’s contributions in the Interactive Dialogues in full:      

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Oceans, Toxic Pollution

Legal resistance to the expansion of salmon farming in Chile

By Claudia Arancibia (AIDA), Victoria Belemmi (FIMA) y Estefanía González (Greenpeace Chile) In the Magallanes Region of Southern Patagonia, one of Chile’s most pristine natural areas, the indigenous communities who have lived amongst these awe-inspiring fjords and channels for six thousand years are now fighting to project them. A coalition of Kawésqar communities – organized as Kawésqar Atap, As Wal Lajep, Grupos Familiares Nómades del Mar, Residentes Río Primero e Inés Caro – are defending their land and seas from the expansion of the salmon industry into their ancestral territory. In February, they won an important legal victory. Chile’s Supreme Court ruled in their favor, repealing an environmental permit that had authorized the construction of a salmon farm in Lake Balmaceda, citing the project’s failure to consider the observations of local communities. The ruling overturns a 2018 decision of the Third Environment Court that had rejected the communities’ claims. This case sets an important precedent—the nation’s highest court recognized the value of indigenous participation in the environmental evaluation process of projects that could affect ancestral territories. It also reaffirmed the State's obligation to respect the indigenous consultation process and to comply with the provisions of national environmental law and Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization, ratified by Chile. The Supreme Court's ruling represents progress toward understanding that the participation of indigenous, local and traditional communities—in addition to being a right—is a valuable input for decision-making. In November 2020, another important legal development acknowledged the damages caused by these salmon farming operations.  The Third Environmental Court recognized that the lack of oxygen in the waters of Chilean Patagonia is directly related to the operation of salmon farms. Despite being informed of the situation, the Environmental Superintendent had previously ignored the causal relationship between salmon farming and environmental damages, arguing that, often, the decrease of oxygen was due to natural causes such as marine currents, the geography of the area, or climate change. The Court’s ruling also constitutes a key precedent, as it associates industrial salmon production with the dangerous percentage of areas with low oxygen levels in the seas of Chilean Patagonia. Known as anaerobism, this condition is caused by the large amount of organic matter (uneaten food and feces) that the salmon industry discharges into the sea, inadequate handling of dead fish, and the amount of farmed fish per square meter, which exceeds the carrying capacity of the waters. What about sanctions? Despite the progress described above, Chilean authorities still face serious problems in adequately controlling salmon farming and preventing the damages the industry’s expansion is causing. It’s clear that the sanctions imposed on offending companies have not been sufficiently exemplary or dissuasive. In spite of multiple sanctioning procedures against several companies, no efforts have been made to improve sanitary and environmental standards, neither of which is considered by the environmental authorities when granting operating permits.  For a revelatory case study, we need look no farther than a Magallanes scandal known as “Salmon Leaks.” In 2019, a journalistic investigation uncovered that the company Nova Austral was hiding the amount of fish that died daily in their farms in the Alberto de Agostini National Park. A subsequent report revealed that the company also adulterated the seabed with heavy machinery (until it was basically dead), in order to hide its anaerobic condition and obtain permission to continue farming salmon in biologically deteriorated marine areas. In response, the Court of Appeals of Punta Arenas sanctioned the company with the maximum fine and the suspension of a productive cycle. In 2020, the State Defense Council sued the company for possible fraud because it was collecting tax benefits under the Navarino Law in breach of its obligation to "make rational use of the natural resources of the Magallanes region, preserving nature and the environment." Then, General Treasury of the Republic withheld four payments covering up to four months of subsidies under the law. Despite the multiple scandals and sanctions imposed, the company continues to advertise the "sustainability" of its salmon. The future of the Kawésqar Reserve Now, Nova Austral is seeking to relocate four of its aquaculture concessions to Kawésqar National Reserve, with prior approval from the Environmental Evaluation Service. Six other projects are currently undergoing environmental evaluation for the same purpose. This is alarming for many reasons, but principal among them is the fact that the Reserve lacks an adequate management plan to safeguard its conservation objectives. This leaves the area exposed potentially serious impacts to its natural wealth and the ancestral rights of the Kawésqar indigenous communities. It’s urgent that the Reserve’s management plan prohibits salmon farming within its boundaries, due to the outright incompatibility of salmon farming with the reserve’s objectives. We have much to learn from the Kawésqar communities, who reaffirm the protection of the seas of the Patagonian archipelago as the basis for protecting their worldview, their cultural identity and their way of life. What will it take for the rest of the country to defend the Patagonian seas as a natural treasure vital not just for Chile, but for the world?  

Read more
Fracking, Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources

Fracking regulation in Mendoza violates Argentina's climate commitments

AIDA filed a legal brief before the Supreme Court of Mendoza arguing the unconstitutionality of a decree allowing for unconventional oil and gas drilling through hydraulic fracturing in the Argentine province.   Mendoza, Argentina. In support of a lawsuit filed by Argentine ally OIKOS, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) filed a “friend of the court” brief claiming the unconstitutionality of local regulations allowing for the exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons, known as fracking. Using arguments based on international law, the brief outlines how Mendoza’s Decree 248 violates Argentina’s climate commitments and disregards the precautionary principle. "As a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and a signatory of the Paris Agreement, the Argentine State has assumed international obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the climate crisis," explained AIDA attorney Claudia Velarde. "Betting on fracking implies an increase in those emissions and non-compliance with the nation’s climate commitments.” Several studies of fracking in the United States have posited that leakage and flaring during fracking operations are associated with a significant increase of methane in the atmosphere. Though less notorious than carbon dioxide, methane emissions are responsible for around 25 percent of global warming. Decree 248 fails to contemplate any provision to control greenhouse gas emissions generated by fracking or limit their climate impacts. “There are not sufficient grounds for the government of Mendoza to claim they can effectively regulate fracking,” Velarde said. "It’s clear that this regulation is insufficient, and that it ignores the precautionary principle.” The precautionary principle establishes that, when there is danger of serious or irreversible damage, the lack of absolute scientific certainty should not prevent the adoption of effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. In fracking, being an unconventional technique with a high degree of technical and scientific difficulty, there is no certainty about its impacts, which merits the application of the precautionary principle. The brief also documents the applicability of this argument based on similar cases in other countries of Latin America. Colombia currently has a moratorium on fracking based on this legal principle. "In recent decades, the development of fracking has raised alarms worldwide due to evidence of serious and irreversible damages to the environment and public health, both of which are aggravated by the climate crisis," Velarde added. AIDA’s brief joins others filed by national and international organizations against the decree regulating fracking in Mendoza, including Xumek, FARN (Environment and Natural Resource Foundation) and Earthjustice. Press contact: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), [email protected], +5215570522107.  

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Mining, Toxic Pollution

OECD to investigate human rights abuses filed against the owners of Cerrejón coal mine; BHP, Anglo American and Glencore

Parallel complaints also filed in Ireland against state owned-company for purchasing coal and Dublin-based sales wing of mining enterprise.   Multiple National Contact Points (NCPs) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) will begin the process of investigating three international mining giants (BHP, Anglo American and Glencore) and Ireland’s state-owned energy provider, the ESB, over serious human rights abuses and devastating environmental pollution at the Cerrejón coal mine in Colombia. Parallel complaints were filed simultaneously in Australia, Ireland, Switzerland and the UK by the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) with the support of international development agency Christian Aid Ireland as well as Colombian and international human rights and environmental NGOs - CINEP, CAJAR, AIDA, ABColombia and ASK. If successful, the three companies which jointly own the Cerrejón mine will have to take steps to comply with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, including progressively closing down the mine in full and environmental restoration. The complaints against the mining giants also call for the full compensation of communities for the harms they have suffered.  The complaints outline how the Cerrejón mine, one of the largest open-pit mines in the world, is linked to the forced displacement of indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities and the widespread, persistent and extreme pollution of the air and water in the vicinity of the mine. High concentrations of harmful metals, which can cause diseases such as cancer, were found by Colombia’s Constitutional Court to exist in the blood of those living nearby. The complaints point to Cerrejón’s failure to comply with multiple Colombian court judgments against it. In September, several prominent UN human rights experts called for some of the mine’s operations to be suspended following a request to intervene by Wayuu indigenous people. The complaints allege that the parent companies of the Cerrejón mine, as its joint owners, are responsible under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises for the harms caused by its operations. Separate complaints have also been lodged against Dublin-based Coal Marketing Company (CMC), which is the exclusive marketer of coal from the Colombian mine, as well as Ireland’s Electricity Supply Board (ESB), which has been a major purchaser of the mine’s coal. In 2019, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommended that Ireland “consider stopping purchasing coal from the Cerrejón mine”.  All five complaints have been lodged with the relevant National Contact Points for the OECD, which are tasked with ensuring that companies comply with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Director of GLAN Dr Gearóid Ó Cuinn said: “These parallel complaints in four different countries point to a systematic failure to respect basic human rights standards from the extraction, to the marketing, to the purchasing of Cerrejon coal. The long-standing abuses at the mine have been so egregious that there is no way for enterprises to respect human rights law and do business with Cerrejón.” Sorley McCaughey of Christian Aid Ireland said: “We see the impact that corporate human rights abuses are having in every corner of the world and the Cerrejón case underscores the inadequacy of voluntary guidelines for multinational companies. Governments globally, including the UK and Ireland, must introduce mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation for companies to ensure they do not undermine the human rights of workers or the communities in which they work.” Rosa María Mateus Parra, lawyer with CAJAR, a Colombian human rights organisation and signatory to the complaints, said: “This is a striking example of the role played by large multinational companies in fuelling injustice. The people of La Guajira have borne the huge social and environmental costs of the mine, while harmful fossil fuel coal is exported around the world in the midst of the climate crisis and a small number of companies record huge profits.” Notes for editors If upheld the complaints filed in Australia, Switzerland and the UK would require joint-owners BHP, Glencore and Anglo American to close down the Cerrejón mine and compensate the affected communities for the harms it has caused. If upheld the separate complaint in Ireland against Dublin-based CMC would require it to stop selling Cerrejón coal. The complaint was submitted by Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), supported by Christian Aid Ireland, the Centro de Investigación y Educación Popular (CINEP), the Colectivo de Abogados ‘José Alvear Restrepo’ (CAJAR), Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), ABColombia and ASK - Arbeitsgruppe Schweiz Kolumbien. The Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) is a non-profit organisation that works to pursue innovative legal actions across borders to challenge powerful actors involved in human rights violations and systemic injustice by working with affected communities. GLAN has offices in the UK (London) and Ireland (Galway) | @glan_law | www.glanlaw.org.  press contacts: Victor Quintanilla (México), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107 Dr Gearóid Ó Cuinn (Director), GLAN, [email protected], +447521203427   

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Oceans, Mining

7 AIDA Advances of 2020

It was a year unlike any other. This new reality makes our victories and daily accomplishments all the more sweet. So we’re especially proud to report on the progress we've made toward a healthy environment and climate justice in Latin America. 1. Safeguarding the High Seas More than 99% of the global high seas—waters beyond national jurisdiction—are unprotected. To remedy this, over the past year we have led Latin American representation in the High Seas Alliance, collaborating with governments to negotiate an ambitious United Nations treaty to protect these waters and key migratory species of sharks, whales, turtles and tuna. The high seas are both essential to long-term ocean health and a critical carbon sink that helps mitigate climate change.   2. Influencing Divestment in the Amazon For nearly a decade we have worked to halt Brazil’s Belo Monte dam, which has displaced thousands of indigenous people and devastated hundreds of rare species. This year, our testimony led the Norwegian Pension Fund, the world's largest state-owned fund, to exclude one of the dam’s main financers, Eletrobras, from its portfolio because of environmental and human rights violations caused by the dam. This is a notable step toward justice for affected communities. 3. Defending Páramos from Mining We continued to protect páramos in Colombia and Ecuador from mining. These biodiverse, high-altitude forests and wetlands are critical carbon sinks that also provide fresh water for millions of people and habitat for endangered species. Our team contributed legal and technical expertise, and, in the case of Santurbán in Colombia, helped build capacity among local attorneys who are now leading the lawsuit to protect this páramo. 4. Protecting Environmental Defenders Latin America is the most dangerous region in the world for environmental defenders. This year, AIDA brought together more than 70 prominent environment defenders from 14 countries across Latin America to share current information about risks and effective strategies for defense. Participants discussed their challenges, identified gaps in knowledge, and developed new approaches for protecting themselves and their territories. 5. Halting Extractive Energy Development Our ongoing legal and technical expertise was critical to halting fossil fuel expansion. We continued litigation to uphold the moratorium on fracking and, helped prevent further coal mining expansion in Colombia, supported communities in Chile affected by coal power plants, and led efforts to hold International Financial Institutions accountable for funding harmful hydropower Guatemala and Colombia. This work is key to promoting the just transition toward truly clean energy. 6. Preserving Marine Biodiversity in Patagonia The Chilean Magallanes region is home to some of the largest whales and dolphins and one of the most pristine areas on our planet. The greatest environmental threat for this region is the salmon farming industry. Building on our past work, we used the law to halt expanded salmon farming and expose the harms the industry brings. Our work closed one salmon farm and set a precedent for the closure of seven others, all of which are under review by Chilean courts. 7. Strengthening Indigenous Land Management in Colombia In coalition with four indigenous communities of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, we continued protecting their lands from illegal mining. Facing hundreds of proposed projects, we helped implement legal strategies demanding a new territorial management plan that recognizes the traditional governing authority of the indigenous. We also helped strengthen community capacity through workshops on environmental protection.  

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Human Rights

Defending the environment is defending our future from the climate crisis

It is estimated that, from December 2015, when the Paris Accord was adopted—seeking to strengthen the global response to the climate crisis—until December 2019, an average of four environmental defenders have been killed each week. This is in addition to countless violent attacks, arrests, death threats and legal actions by state and private agents. This is one of the principal findings of the Global Witness' report, Defending Tomorrow: The climate crisis and threats against land and environmental defenders, which was released in July. The document shows the undeniable link between attention to the climate crisis and the work of human rights defenders. The international NGO contributes to ending human rights and environmental abuses driven by the management and use of natural resources, as well as by corruption. Each year it publishes a report presenting its findings on socio-environmental conflicts and the situation of human rights defenders around the world. This report draws attention to a serious contradiction in the face of a critical problem: human rights defenders play a crucial role in the fight against the climate emergency, but too many governments, companies and financial institutions have failed to safeguard their lives and work. Failing to protect those who care for us The climate crisis is a real and tangible threat to life itself and requires drastic solutions. The international scientific community has warned of the serious consequences of not putting a limit on human activities that accelerate global warming. We need public policies for adaptation and mitigation, to put a stop to the use of fossil fuels, to protect nature and not to criminalize its defense. However, state mechanisms have been more effective in promoting extractive industries and have made little progress in what truly matters.  The Global Witness report notes that large-scale agriculture, hydrocarbon extraction and especially mining are the main industries driving conflict and violence against defenders. At the same time, they lead the activities that aggravate the climate emergency, since they involve the clearcutting of forests and the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Echoing recent research, the report notes that indigenous and local communities around the world care for forests that absorb the equivalent of 33 times our current annual carbon emissions. In other words, their role in mitigating the climate crisis is vital. It has also been shown that lands managed by indigenous peoples have lower deforestation rates and better conservation outcomes than protection areas that exclude these peoples. Despite this, Indigenous defenders suffer a disproportionate number of attacks. Between 2015 and 2019, they represent more than a third of attacks against defenders despite representing only 5 percent of the world's population, the report says. And last year alone, 40 percent of those killed belonged to Indigenous communities. The climate crisis and the violence against human rights defenders have different impacts. But in both cases, Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants, peasant communities and women are disproportionately at risk. Women defenders not only face contextual violence like the rest of the community, but are often doubly stigmatized for their role as women and as defenders. In turn, they may become victims of sexual violence, a practice historically used to show power over bodies and territories. Increasing violence against defenders According to Global Witness, 2019 was the deadliest year on record for defenders, with 212 murders. More than two-thirds of the crimes were recorded in Latin America, which has consistently been the most affected region since the organization began publishing this data in 2012. In the Amazon alone, there were 33 deaths (90 percent of the murders in Brazil occurred there). In Colombia, there were 64 murders, a 150 percent increase from 2018 and the highest figure the organization has recorded in the country. And Honduras, with 14 deaths, became the most dangerous country in 2019 in terms of the number of murders per million people. The Philippines and Colombia combined represent more than half of all the murders of environmental defenders recorded last year. The report is very clear in mentioning that intimidation, harassment and violence against defenders have their structural causes in the linkage between governments, companies and unions. States' actions and omissions have resulted in stigmatization, criminalization and killings. The document includes a global map with concrete cases of violence and actions taken by human rights defenders and civil society. One of these cases is that of women in the micro-region of Ixquisis, Guatemala, who are defending their territory from two hydroelectric projects. Through their struggle, they have managed to have their complaint addressed by the accountability mechanism of the Inter-American Development Bank, one of the dams’ financiers. AIDA represents the community in that case. Putting defenders first It is increasingly clear that environmental defenders are at risk for opposing projects that exacerbate the climate crisis. It is therefore urgent to prioritize within climate action their protection and the eradication of all violence against them. The situation presented is serious and requires solutions that are committed to the planet and to people. It’s necessary to respect and guarantee the defenders’ rights to participation, association, access to information and justice. States must put an end to violence within the framework of their international obligations; provide immediate protection to defenders; and implement transformative measures through legal, political, and administrative actions, in accordance with international human rights standards. Such actions include the ratification of the Escazú Agreement and the normative adaptation necessary to guarantee the fundamental rights to life, integrity, and a healthy environment and to defend human rights. In addition, they should promote transitions that overcome the long chain of impacts on human rights and the environment from fossil fuel extraction. In light of this, and within the framework of the obligation of due diligence, corporate responsibility is key to stopping, preventing and investigating possible conflicts or violence against human rights defenders. Finally, a social, political and ecological transition is needed that fully respects environmental and human rights. The transition must ensure that inequality gaps are not widened, address the structural causes of conflict to achieve a violence-free planet, mitigate environmental and climate damage, and ensure justice for all.  

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Human Rights

Environmental racism and the differentiated harm of the pandemic

By Tayná Lemos and Marcella Ribeiro Brazil’s major cities are reopening—with packed bars in Rio de Janeiro and restaurants serving up crowds in São Paulo—despite the lethality of COVID-19, which had caused more than 112 thousand deaths as of August 20. The reopening of bars and restaurants during the height of the pandemic demonstrates how the virus differentially affects people of different races and socioeconomic levels. A study by the Health Operations and Intelligence Center (NOIS), an initiative involving several Brazilian universities, found that a Black person without schooling is four times more likely to die from the novel coronavirus in Brazil than a white person with a higher level of education. Based on cases through May, the study also shows that the overall mortality rate of 38 percent for the white population climbs to nearly 55 percent for the Brazil’s Black population. "The mortality rate in Brazil is influenced by inequalities in access to treatment," Silvio Hamacher, NOIS coordinator and one of the study's authors, told EFE. Painfully, this trend is repeated in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. This demonstrates that one of the factors behind the high mortality rate of COVID-19 is environmental racism—a phenomenon in which the negative and unintended consequences of economic activities are unevenly distributed. Unequal Distribution of Damages The term environmental racism was coined in the United States by researcher Benjamin Chavis, after he observed that chemical pollution from industries was dumped only in Black neighborhoods. "Environmental racism is racial discrimination in environmental policy-making and enforcement of regulations and laws, the deliberate targeting of communities of color for toxic waste facilities, the official sanctioning of the presence of life threatening poisons and pollutants in communities of color, and the history of excluding people of color from leadership of the environmental movement,” Chavis wrote. While all activity generates some environmental impact, the territories chosen to carry it out are usually regions located on the outskirts of the city, inhabited by traditional or outlying communities. In Brazil, environmental racism affects both outlying urban communities and traditional rural communities. And, as in the United States, one of its characteristics is the disproportionate pollution suffered by these minority groups in comparison with the white middle class. This includes the contamination of air and water with toxic agents, heavy metals, pesticides, chemicals, plastics, and so on. In his 2019 report, Bashkut Tuncak, then-UN Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, warned that there is a silent pandemic of disease and disability resulting from the accumulation of toxic substances in our bodies. In 2020, following a country-visit to Brazil, he noted that there is a connection between environmental pollution and mortality from the novel coronavirus and that fewer people would die in Brazil if stricter environmental and public health policies were in place. "There are synergies between exposure to pollution and exposure to COVID-19. Toxic substances in the environment contribute to the Brazil’s elevated mortality rate," Tuncak affirmed. The underlying health conditions that exacerbate the pandemic are not "bad luck," but largely "the impacts of toxic substances in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the toys we give to our children, and the places where we work.” An Increase in Vulnerability Tuncak confirmed that those most vulnerable to the pandemic are the urban poor as well as traditional and indigenous communities, because they are also the most affected by environmental and public health problems. This leads to hyper-vulnerability. An example of this situation is that of the 17 quilombos (Afro-descendant settlements) in the municipality of Salvaterra, in the state of Pará, home to around 7,000 people. Twenty years ago, an open dump was installed without consulting the families living there. Children, adults and the elderly were forced to live with domestic garbage and toxic and hospital waste, among other refuse. Their vulnerability increased with the pandemic. Despite the size of the country, there are no territorial gaps in Brazil. When an industry, a landfill, a monoculture, a hydroelectric project, a mine, or a nuclear plant is installed, a historically forgotten community is impacted. The invisible damage of pollution caused by these activities is difficult to prove, but it profoundly affects the health and quality of life of people who live nearby and are already extremely vulnerable. Another example is that of the indigenous community of Tey Jusu, which in April 2015 received a rain of toxic agro-chemicals spilled by an airplane over a corn monoculture. The fumigation intoxicated people in the community, damaging their health. Unfortunately, the direct ingestion of pesticides by members of communities living near monoculture plantations is a recurring reality. What’s worse is that the current government authorized 118 new agrochemicals during the pandemic, adding to the 474 approved in 2019 and another 32 launched in the first months of 2020. These pesticides cause several diseases but it is not yet possible to determine their exact consequences on the human body, much less their interaction with other toxic substances or with diseases like COVID-19. According to an analysis by the Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon and the Amazon Research Institute, the death rate from the pandemic among indigenous people in the legal Amazon is 150 percent higher than the national average. The rate of COVID-19 infection among this population is also 84 percent higher than the national average. This is due to historical factors such as the lack of health posts, distance from hospitals, absence of any kind of assistance from the federal government, land invasion, and environmental degradation. In fact, one of the greatest threats to indigenous communities in Brazil is the invasion of their lands by illegal miners, which causes, among other human rights violations, mercury contamination in water sources. Last year, a study by the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation found that 56 percent of the Yanomami Indians had mercury concentrations above the limits set by the World Health Organization, which implies serious damage to public health. In this sense, environmental racism is a term that exposes a historical separation between those who reap the fruits of economic growth and those who become ill and die due to the environmental consequences of that same economic growth. The array of systemic damage to the health of these vulnerable communities makes them especially susceptible to the worst effects of COVID-19. Therefore, in discussing and addressing the pandemic, it is essential to know that it does not reach all people in the same way, that it puts traditional communities at risk of extinction, and that environmental issues are also public health issues. To overcome the global health crisis, we must bring this racism to the center of the debate.

Read more