Large Dams

Honoring the indigenous connection to the San Pedro Mezquital River

In Northwest Mexico, the Western Sierra Madre Mountains rise like giants from the coastal wetlands of the Gulf of California to the Central Mexican Plateau. Indigenous communities have long found shelter in these isolated lands, and the space to maintain their culture and way of life. The region’s last free-flowing river cuts smoothly through the mountains, carving out fertile valleys, carrying fresh water and life downstream to the wetlands of Marismas Nacionales. The Nayeri and Wixárika people venerate the San Pedro Mezquital River. It brings life to their lands, and many of their sacred sites are dotted along its winding path. Despite its importance, the river—and with it the rights of more than 15,000 indigenous peoples—are at risk from the proposed Las Cruces hydroelectric dam. The dam’s reservoir would flood 14 sacred ceremonial sites, and threaten their culture and way of life. I was honored to walk alongside the Nayeri and Wixárika people last May, and participate in a joint ceremony intended to show their commitment to defending their rights in the face of this government-sponsored megaproject. It’s a commitment that was recently and formally manifested again, when representatives presented their case before the United Nation’s Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples. The images I captured of that pilgrimage are a testament to the beauty and strength of the living indigenous cultures of the Western Sierra Madre.  We left from the town of Rosamorada in Nayarit State on a pilgrimage to Keiyatsita, a ceremonial site along the San Pedro Mezquital River.  We walked single file, winding up into the mountains and then down, again, to the river’s edge.  When we arrived to the river, we performed a ritual, and were marked with ashes and creole corn flour to protect us on the journey. Walking beside so many indigenous people, of all ages—mothers and fathers, children and elders—was an enriching and inspiring experience.  This particular pilgrimage was historic, as it brought together two different indigenous communities—the Náyeri and the Wixárika—to honor the sacred spaces they share. In a joint declaration, they wrote that, beyond the spiritual reasons for the ceremony, they came together: "to unite against the hydroelectric project Las Cruces and thus show the Mexican government that we are not alone and we are not isolated… After this historic ceremony, both indigenous groups will further strengthen our cultural, spiritual, political and legal struggle and defense against the aforementioned dam, as well as strengthen our ties with other indigenous peoples of Mexico and the world.”   They walked to honor the river, to nurture the earth, and to demonstrate their commitment to protecting their sacred spaces. Both indigenous groups see themselves as the guardians of these sites—places like Keiyatsita that provide them with the knowledge and wisdom of how to care for their mother earth. These sites are vital not just to their historical memory, but to their culture and identity.  The ceremony at Keiyatsita began in the afternoon. Through prayer, song and dance they expressed their devotion to their native corn gods, Tatei Niwetsika, or mother Maíz, in her five colors—yellow, blue, pink, white and red.  In the middle of the night, the animals that walked beside us through the mountains were offered up to the gods amidst the river’s running water. The prayers, songs and ceremony lasted all through the night.  These sacred sites along the San Pedro Mezquital river are living spaces, and part of what makes Mexico so rich. They are a reflection of the indigenous cultures and traditions that remain very much alive in the Western Sierra Madre Mountains. They are places that, because of their cultural and spiritual importance, must be honored and protected as part of our international heritage. Indigenous peoples are the best guardians of our planet. And now, they are called on again to protect this unique and precious place—the last free-flowing river in Northwest Mexico and the lands it travels through, from the peaks of Durango to the mangroves of Nayarit along the Gulf of California. Representatives of the indigenous communities of Nayarit stood this week before Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, the United Nationals Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, and voiced their opposition to the dam that threatens their territory and way of life. They explained that they have not given, and will not give, their consent for the advancement of a project that would destroy their sacred sites and the river that provides them with life.  Learn more about our fight to protect the San Pedro Mezquital  

Why damming rivers, like blocking veins, risks our health

Some of my most treasured childhood memories happened in or near a river. I can still feel the cold water on my feet, and the current that pulled me smoothly past rocks and branches. I remember vacations with my cousins, throwing ourselves into the river near my aunt and uncle’s country house, leaping from the tops of rocks or swinging from the branches of a tree. I remember summer road trips, driving down seemingly endless bridges over the great rivers of southern Mexico. I’ve always thought of rivers as the veins of our planet. In their waters, the rivers and their tributaries carry nutrients to wetlands, lakes, and the sea. They carry oxygen and host thousands of species. They supply drinking water to millions of people in small towns and big cities. They give us food, entertainment, transportation, and life. Recent natural disasters have reminded us that—despite our best attempts—there are no limits, dams, dikes or pipelines that can control the water. It’s true that, properly implemented, dams can have benefits; but in many cases, particularly those of large-scale development, the damages dams do far outweigh any benefits. There are currently more than 300 large dam projects planned or in construction throughout Latin America. Many of them are underway without adequate social and environmental impacts assessments. The results are displaced communities, destroyed forests, and rivers with no fish. Blocking our veins The water flowing down our rivers is vital to the natural equilibrium of the planet and its climate. It’s like the blood circulating through your body. If your bloodflow were blocked, you’d get cardiovascular disease, maybe even a heart attack. Well, damming rivers is like intentionally blocking your veins and expecting no problems. Only one third of the world’s great rivers remain free-flowing, without dams or canals. Now I’m not a doctor, or a biologist, but I often wonder: are we heading for the collapse of our natural system by blocking, tubing, manipulating, and contaminating the veins of the Earth (which, like us, is a living organism)? And because rotting vegetation in dam reservoirs releases lots of methane (a super-potent greenhouse gas), isn’t the current climate crisis, in part, a response to the blockages in Earth’s circulatory system? A slow death The mouth of the Colorado River opens to the Sea of Cortes, in northeast Mexico. It’s an area historically rich in sea life from the Gulf of California.   For eons, the flow of the Colorado brought nutrient-rich sediment to the Sea of Cortes. It kept the coastal estuary rich and healthy, along with the animals that sought shelter there. But that’s not happening anymore. The vaquita, now the world’s rarest marine mammal, teeters on the edge of extinction. Between the Colorado River’s mountain headwaters and the end of its main channel, more than 10 large dams and 80 water diversions have squeezed the river dry. Now the Gulf no longer receives the river’s nutrient-rich waters, harming not just marine life like the vaquita, but also the area’s fishermen. No one mentions that the near disappearance of the vaquita has been caused by habitat destruction due to the upstream dams on the Colorado River. Mexico’s last free-flowing river The San Pedro Mezquital River is the last undammed river in the western Sierra Madre Mountains. The river links the region’s indigenous people. It’s a source of their culture and identity. The river channel, more than 500 kilometers long, connects the forests of the highlands with the wetlands of the coast, opening into Marismas Nacionales, the largest mangrove forest in the Mexican Pacific. Marismas Nacionales, declared a wetland of international importance, is home to more than 12,000 families engaged in fishing, agriculture, and tourism. But this national treasure is at risk due to the government’s plan to build a hydroelectric dam on the San Pedro Mezquital. If the river were blocked, its contribution of nutrients downstream would be drastically reduced. The health of Marismas Nacionales, its rich biodiversity, and the region’s sustainable local economy would all be slowly starved. The reservoir would also destroy at least 14 sites sacred to local indigenous communities. But we’ve still got time to stop this plan and others like it. We can avoid the collapse of the natural world that surrounds us, on our one and only planet. By supporting AIDA, you can help keep Earth’s veins flowing free.

The dams that couldn’t contain Hurricane Harvey

The Addicks and Barker dams were built near Houston, Texas in an attempt to save the city from potential flooding. But the huge storage capacity of the reservoirs was not enough to contain the more than 15 billion gallons of water that Hurricane Harvey brought to the state in less than a week. Given the climatic reality of increasingly intense natural phenomena, we must ask ourselves, are dams really the best option?  On the night of August 25, Hurricane Harvey appeared on the coast of Houston, quickly transforming the sprawling city into a huge flooded lake. In it’s path it left death and destruction, and the forced evacuation of more than 30,000 people. Because it is a flat city near sea level, Houston is particularly susceptible to flooding. In an effort to protect the city, the Addicks and Barker dams were built in the 1940’s. Together, the dams could hold more than 132 billion gallons of water, a capacity so large it meant that if they broke, the whole city would be submerged. With Harvey’s torrential rains, so much water has fallen that the dams have taken in more than they can hold. To avoid uncontrolled overflows, which would have been catastrophic, the authorities decided to gradually release water from the reservoirs. Even these precautionary measures, however, were not enough to prevent one of the dams from overflowing. Addicks began to overflow on Monday August 28, filling an already flooded city with more water. Barker was expected to follow suit, but ultimately did not. The spillover comes as no surprise. Since 2009, the danger posed by both dams has been well known. The dams were once located in rural areas of Harris and Fort Bend counties, surrounded by open land. But they have since been pushed to their limits, largely because of the people and buildings that have been built both upstream and downstream from the reservoirs. Before the hurricane arrived, both dams were undergoing a $75 million renovation process. But those efforts and investments weren’t enough to adequately adapt the dams to the extreme weather conditions brought about by climate change. The bottom line is that Houston has become less resilient to major climate events. In addition to the natural aging of the dams, and the intensification of climate events, half of the area’s wetlands have been replaced by concrete. Since 2001, nearly 360 thousand buildings have been constructed in the area, without adequate measures to avoid the destruction of natural wetland areas. This inadequate urban planning coupled with weak regulations has destroyed the city’s natural defenses against storms and floods. Dams and climate reality Increasingly frequent and devastating climate events are bringing into question whether the costs involved in building and maintaining large dams are worth it. Such dams are incredibly expensive to implement, let alone repair. Since 2010, 73 dams across the United States have failed. Their vulnerability to heavy rains puts in doubt their compatibility with a world shaken by the serious and uncertain effects of climate change. What’s more, the reservoirs of large dams actually aggravate climate change. Among other impacts, they flood organic matter, which emits a large amount of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide. That means that large dams actually make storms like Harvey more intense. The time has come to stop and question this dangerous cycle.    

Belo Monte: Hope remains, despite failed promises

When the Belo Monte Dam builders came to this corner of the Brazilian Amazon, they came with the promise of sustainable development, particularly for Altamira, the city closest to the dam.  On a recent visit to that city, it was clear to me that—six years after construction began and one year after beginning operations—Belo Monte has brought anything but. Last  June, Brazil’s Institute of Applied Economics classified Altamira as the most dangerous city in Brazil. According to the study, Altamira’s rapid and disorderly growth over the last six years has had serious implications for crime in the city. In 2000, according to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, Altamira had about 77 thousand residents. With dam construction, that figure soared to 110 thousand last year. The result: Altamira registered the country’s highest homicide rate in 2015, with 105.2 murders per 100 thousand people. A troubling context frames these numbers: Brazil is the most dangerous country in the world for environmental defenders, according to Global Witness. That’s especially true for those who dedicate their lives to defending the Amazon—16 of Brazil’s 49 murders in 2016 were related to protection of the Amazon rainforest. Unsanitary conditions In addition to generalized violence, the other big worry in Altamira is basic sanitation, which involves sources and systems of clean water, as well as waste management. During the last six years, when the dam completely altered the urban and social dynamic of the city, no one bothered to provide an adequate, basic sanitation system. And that’s despite the fact that dam construction and operation were approved on condition of building such a system. The only thing built in Altamira at that time was the massive hydroelectric dam. In April of this year, a Brazilian court ordered the dam’s operations suspended until basic sanitation is adequately provided to the resettlement districts of Altamira. But the company in charge of the dam has refused to comply with the ruling, arguing that it has permission to operate. This clearly demonstrates the government’s inability to avoid the abuses caused by this mega-project and its operating company. Questionable investment The current reality of Belo Monte is aggravated by the fact that a Chinese state-owned company, Grid Brazil Holding, won the auction to take over the second power transmission system to be fed by the dam. The company offered 988 million reales (roughly $300 million USD), which makes me question the previous statements of the Brazilian government that hydroelectric energy is cheap, as well as clean. This investment is worrying because the company has already been fined several times for failing to meet deadlines related to the first power transmission system. Worse still, Chinese companies are known for failing to protect human rights and the environment, which is why the situation in Altamira is likely to become even more complicated. Hope remains Despite this discouraging panorama, the urban population, as well as the indigenous and riverside communities, still have hope that Altamira will one day be a quiet and beautiful city again. I heard many people speak of their desire to return to the days of sitting on chairs in the street talking with neighbors, and bathing in the waters of the Xingu river; the days of collective fishing and parties in the parks. Those people have shown me that we should not be afraid or lose hope. There are many who believe in my work as a defender of the Amazon. It is for them that I will keep fighting. I will work so that institutions, like the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, before which our case is pending, hold Brazil accountable for the human rights violations that have occurred from the construction and operation of Belo Monte. And I will ensure that the people affected by Belo Monte get justice and reparations. 

Letter to Argentine legislators on dams in Patagonia

In a letter sent to the Argentine Congress, civil society organizations expressed their concerns about the construction of large dams in Patagonia. The letter outlines recent scientific studies on the impacts of large dams on the environment, the economy, and local communities, and includes information on existing clean energy alternatives. We write out of deep concern for the crossroads facing the Argentine people: protect the immeasurable ecological heritage of Patagonia, or jeopardize Chinese funding for a significant number of infrastructure and energy projects. We understand that this is not a minor issue, and we hope that the Argentine Congress will make use of the Public Hearing on July 20, not only to evaluate in depth the Kirchner-Cepernic Hydroelectric Complex (KCHC), but also to open up a fundamental conversation for Argentina and all of Latin America: on the development of a truly clean, sovereign, and efficient energy model. We take this opportunity to share information on the negative impacts large dams have on the environment and economies of nations, as well as on affected communities; and on existing alternatives that can provide cheaper and more efficient energy. Argentina must not consider itself obliged to alter one of the last pristine areas on the planet, home of the last glacial river that runs freely from mountain peaks to the ocean. There are currently many energy options that are better than hydroelectric dams. Argentina has the opportunity to be a pioneer in the development and implementation of these renewable energy technologies. Worldwide clean energy trends demonstrate this: in 2015, the world added 63 GW of wind energy and 47 GW of solar energy, compared to just 22 GW of energy from large hydropower plants. In some parts of the world, large dams are being dismantled in recognition that their costs outweigh their benefits; and in others, private companies are discarding large dam projects because they are no longer viable or profitable. Furthermore, the United States of America has decided, as a national policy, to oppose any loan, donation, strategy, or policy to support the construction of any large hydroelectric dam. Wind and solar energy are now economically competitive, faster to build and operate, and less vulnerable to a changing climate. In addition, the falling prices of battery storage, accompanied by innovations in smart grid technology, offers ways to resolve the problem of intermittent renewables without the need to construct new large dams. Large hydropower dams are an obsolete technology. They are highly vulnerable to climate change (they can be paralyzed by droughts and may become dangerous in extreme weather events); worsen climate change by destroying carbon sinks and emitting gases from their reservoirs; harm biodiversity and local communities; cost a fortune; and take too long to become operational. Furthermore, the continued promotion of large dams by construction companies—as in the current case linked to Chinese funding—delays the implementation of available and necessary solutions towards the energy transition that our planet needs. 

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

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.”

Letter: Concerning the Green Climate Fund and large hydropower

The 282 undersigned organizations write to express our significant concern regarding the use of GCF resources to support large hydropower, and, in particular, the following proposals in the GCF’s pipeline: (i) Qairokkum Hydropower Rehabilitation, Tajikistan; (ii) Upper Trishuli-1, Nepal; and (iii) Tina River Hydro Project, Solomon Islands.  The GCF can and should help pay for the incremental costs of renewable energy sources, which are often less “bankable” (though less so all the time). However, we wish to highlight that large dams are different from wind, solar and other technologies because they fail to fulfill the GCF Investment Criteria. For example:  (i) Impact potential: Dams emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases, particularly methane, and damage carbon sinks;  (ii) Paradigm shift potential: Large hydro is a non-innovative technology that has not seen significant technical or financial breakthroughs in decades;  (iii) Sustainable development: Dams have high negative co-impacts with regard to the environment, human rights, and economic cost. By interrupting rivers and flooding lands, they irreversibly harm livelihoods and ecosystems. Because they routinely cost double their estimates, large dams stretch government budgets and increase borrowing costs; (iv) Needs of the recipient: Hydropower projects are particularly vulnerable to climate change, and many countries are already alarmingly over-dependent on hydropower (as is the case with Tajikistan and Nepal). GCF should support efforts in these countries to diversify their energy mix, helping them improve their resilience and adaptive capacities; and,  (v) Efficiency and effectiveness: Dams all over the world are losing generation capacity because of climate change-induced droughts.  In addition, each of the dam-related projects in the GCF’s pipeline suffers significant deficiencies:  Qairokkum Hydropower Rehabilitation: This funding proposal is expected at the April board meeting. The board should reject it. The project aims to extend the life of a Soviet-era dam, built in the 1950s. It is not innovative in any way, deepens Tajikistan’s already alarming overdependence on climate-vulnerable hydro, and fails to address critical environmental problems of the original dam, among other concerns.  Upper Trishuli-1: Though not up for consideration at the April board meeting, Upper Trishuli has been in the project pipeline for many months and should be expeditiously removed from it. With more than 30 hydro projects either operating, in construction, or planned on the Trishuli River, the project would have no transformational impact. It faces severe climate and disaster risks, would deepen Nepal’s overdependence on climate-vulnerable hydro, and would have significant impacts on indigenous communities and the environment that have not been adequately studied or addressed. There is also no assessment of the project’s vulnerability to earthquakes, despite the area being highly seismic.  Tina River Hydro Project: Expected at the April board meeting, this 15 MW project is intended to reduce the Solomon Islands’ reliance on imported diesel. The project does not include an assessment of climate vulnerability, threatens a world-class biodiversity hotspot, and is very costly. Meanwhile, Solomon Islands has considerable renewable energy potential that has not been sufficiently studied. These issues and others are detailed in a letter sent previously to the Board. Thank you for your attention to this most important matter. We look forward to working with you and the Secretariat to ensure that the GCF is a transformational institution of the highest social and environmental caliber. That cannot be accomplished if the GCF finances large hydropower. 

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]