Blog
International tribunal supports indigenous struggle for the Amazon
“The most beautiful jungle in the world,” wrote Alcides D’orbigny, a French biologist, of the Isiboro Sécure Indigenous Territory and National Park (known locally as Tipnis, for its Spanish initials) in the 1830s. Located between the departments of Beni and Cochabamba, Tipnis is a natural protected area that extends over 12,363 square kilometers of Bolivian Amazon. It’s one of the world’s most biodiverse sites and home to many indigenous cultures—among them the Mojeño Trinitarios, the Tsiman and the Turacaré. Despite its recognition as a National Park and Indigenous Territory, the area has for decades been threatened by a proposed highway that would effectively divide it in two. The construction would cause grave social and environmental damages, some of which have already occurred—two of three proposed stretches of road have already been built. As long as the highway has been proposed, the indigenous people of Tipnis have stood strong in their resistence, calling to protect the rainforest and the life it holds. Their efforts paid off last month in a precedent-setting legal victory for the protection of human rights and the environment. The International Rights of Nature Tribunal ruled that the Bolivian State had “violated” the rights of nature and of the indigenous people that inhabit Tipnis by encouraging the highway’s construction. The Tribunal was created in April 2010 at the People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, when the Universal Declaration of Rights of Mother Earth was also signed. Its role is to establish and investigate any violation of the rights outlined in the Declaration and found in the internal laws of each country. The Tribunal determines whether there was a violation and, if so, who was responsible. It emits recommendations, advisory opinions, and can determine provisional measures. Indigenous defense of the Bolivian Amazon The proposed highway through Tipnis has spurred strong indigenous resistance, and has also caused great suffering. The most painful incident happened in 2011 when more than 100 indigenous people marching on La Paz, headquarters of the Bolivian government, were brutally repressed by police. Despite the conflict, that demonstration achieved the enactment of a law that bestowed the national park the status of “intangible zone” or absolute reserve. Unfortunately, six years later, that law was null and void when the government enacted a new law through more expeditious process. Tipnis indigenous representatives denounced this and other acts before the International Rights of Nature Tribunal, which agreed to consider the case in January 2018, and then sent an international commission of observers to visit the zone and interview stakeholders. Indigenous representatives denounced that, despite being a single roadway, the project was actually presented separately, in three separate phases. Currently, only the final section remains unconstructed. Other irregularities included the awarding of the project to a Brazilian company without first completing an environmental impact assessment, and the lack of adequate consultation with affected indigenous communities. The Tribunal's sentence, issued May 15, finds the Bolivian government responsible for rights violations and calls for immediate compliance with measures including: Definitively stopping of any progress on construction; Recognizing the faculties of indigenous peoples to guarantee their control in Tipnis, including territorial autonomy and the right to prior consultation; Annuling a law that removed the status of intangible zone from Tipnis; Stopping the advance of colonization toward the central zone of the national park; Canceling plans for oil expansion on the site; Effectively applying the law to guarantee the protection of the rights of Mother Earth; and Guaranteeing indigenous peoples their fundamental role as defenders of Mother Earth. What’s next for Tipnis? Although the Tribunal’s judgment is not binding, it is a precedent established by a recognized and ethical court. For this reason, the Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin—an international indigenous organization—announced it would use the ruling as an instrument of proof to bring the case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The situation in Tipnis is complex. While construction of the missing section was suspended after losing credit for its execution, some actors continue to defend the road as fundamental to connecting the center and the north of the country, facilitating access to basic services and other development opportunities for the communities of Tipnis. The other side of that argument is the extensive environmental degradation to an area rich in biodiversity—acknowleding that the road would be just the beginning of activities within the protected area. I don’t believe anyone has the absolute answer. And so my analysis isn’t about making a value judgment, but about complying with the law, which resides in reason and justice. Although part of the road is constructed, there is much more to go, and so the resistance continues. The Tribunal’s decision can and should be used as an added impulse toward protecting the land. In the end, every effort is worthwhile knowing that the destruction of such a valuable natural ecosystem represents a point of no return.
Read more
Clean air should be a human right, says UN Special Rapporteur
Even on a clear day in Bogotá, the air pollution can be so overwhelming that the sky is cast in a foggy, washed out haze that hangs over the city. In Bogotá—as in many cities across the Americas—air pollution has become a part of daily life. But it shouldn’t have to be that way. In a recent report, David Boyd, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment said that breathing clean air should be considered a human right. While the majority of countries around the world have recognized the right to a healthy environment, the right to clean air does not yet enjoy the same level of global recognition. Air pollution is a dual killer: not only is it one of the biggest risks to public health worldwide, airborne pollutants also exacerbate the climate crisis. States and the human rights community, therefore, must incorporate the Rapporteur’s recommendations into law, because tackling air pollution is the best thing we can do to improve public health while also saving the planet. Air pollution: a dual killer More than six billion people, including two billion children around the world, are breathing air that adversely affects their health, according to the World Heath Organization (WHO). The effects of ambient and household air pollution cause roughly 7 million premature deaths worldwide each year, more than 300 thousand of which occur in the Americas alone. Hundreds of millions of people around the world suffer from illnesses caused by air pollution, which is considered one of the five leading factors contributing to non-communicable diseases like stroke, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cancer. Fine particulate matter like soot, black carbon, sulfates, nitrates and heavy metals all significantly increase the risk of these diseases. Moreover, air pollution disproportionately affects society’s most vulnerable populations. Children and the elderly are particularly affected by airborne pollutants, and suffer disproportionate impacts including illnesses and chronic breathing problems. Low income and poor communities, more often located near the sources of pollution—factories, power plants, and busy roads, among others—also suffer outsized health risks. Global air pollution is more than just a public health concern. Often, the same polluting activities that harm human health are also speeding up climate crisis. Research shows that black carbon—generated by burning fossil fuels, biofuels, and biomass—may accelerate snowmelt in glaciers, contributing to water insecurity and natural disasters. And methane, another short-lived climate pollutant, can trap up to 30 times more heat than CO2, speeding up global heating. Both issues amount to a costly problem. The World Bank estimates that global costs of air pollution will soon exceed $5 trillion per year, and says that unless countries curb global air pollution, air pollution-induced mortality could increase 50 to 100 percent by 2050. The economic benefits of slowing climate change will far outweigh the astronomical costs caused by flooding, more powerful storms, and crippling droughts, which could reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century, according to a report by the United States’ fourth National Climate Assessment. Respecting human rights While reducing air pollution makes good economic sense, curbing airborne pollutants is also a matter of respecting human rights. Besides violating the right to a clean and healthy environment, poor air quality can affect one’s right to life, health, water, food, housing and adequate standard of living, as well as the rights of the child, the UN report said. According to the Special Rapporteur, States should immediately devise action plans that: Monitor air quality and its impacts on human health; Assess sources of air pollution; Make information publicly available and release public health advisories; Establish air quality legislation, regulations, standards and policies; Develop air quality action plans at the local, nation, or regional level; Implement that air quality action plan and enforce its standards; and Evaluate progress and strengthen the plan to ensure the standards are met. Not only does this framework charge states with monitoring air quality, educating the public on air pollution, and making information accessible, it also urges States to establish strong, enforceable standards that will hold polluters accountable. Without those standards, improving air quality would be impossible. What’s more, States should apply the precautionary principle and use adequate margins of safety in order to protect society’s most vulnerable. Cities across Latin America are already starting to take air pollution seriously. Curitiba, Brazil, for example, built an extensive rapid bus system and, in 2013, launched an ambitious plan to add 300 kilometers of bicycle paths. Now, life expectancy in the city is two years longer than the national average, and the city has relatively low infant mortality, according to the WHO. In 2014, the Chilean government implemented a progressive tax on air pollution, taxing industry at higher rates in more densely populated areas to hold polluters accountable for their disproportionate impacts on urban populations. Although these examples show that change is possible, air pollution won’t be solved overnight, and States must begin establishing ambitious regulations to curb airborne contaminants. Otherwise, the world will continue coughing and sputtering into the 21st Century, as the impacts of climate crisis only continue to get worse.
Read more
Is the UN finally turning against fracking?
The world is divided over the issue of fracking, a fact that is (at times painfully) apparent in the United Kingdom (UK) where I grew up. Four separate countries make up the UK. Of them, England is the only nation that still allows hydraulic fracturing; Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (along with a host of other countries worldwide) have banned the controversial process. Despite earthquakes linked to fracking in areas of the country where such things are virtually unheard of—plus waves of protests, controversy and opposition campaigns— the British government has so far refused to change its position. However, a recent United Nations recommendation to the UK may signal the beginning of the end for fracking in England and, hopefully, around the world. Fracking and the United Nations Until recently, the UN has appeared to have a complicated relationship with fracking. Several different UN bodies have made conflicting statements about the benefits of, and issues with, this means of energy production. In early 2018, the UN Conference on Trade and Development released a report that, according to one of its authors, did “not [say fracking] is good or bad,” but rather that each project’s cost/benefit analysis was dependent on a number of context-specific factors. The report cited positive aspects of fracking, calling it a useful “bridge fuel” for States aiming to move towards more environmentally-friendly renewable power sources, alongside it’s disadvantages. This argument is not viable since the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing is even greater than that of conventional gas and oil exploitation. Over the last few months, however, it seems the UN has been hardening its position against fracking, particularly given its negative climate change impacts in the context of the Paris Agreement, the intergovernmental treaty in which nations have committed to taking ambitious steps to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees centigrade with respect to pre-industrial levels. Since October 2018, there have been 2 UN recommendations issued against fracking. In the UK, the government was urged to consider a complete and comprehensive ban on fracking; and in Argentina, the government was urged to reconsider the development of a large fracking project. The dangers of fracking Although for its promoters fracking has led to a huge spike in oil and gas production around the world—perhaps most notably in the US—its use has come at great environmental cost, particularly with regards to air quality and water supply due to the amount of water used in the process and its consequent contamination. Fracking releases large quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas whose global warming potential is 86 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In addition, the release of this gas can be hugely detrimental to the air quality surrounding fracking sites. Fracking also leads to increased earthquake risks due to the high pressure used to fracture layers of shale rock and extract oil and gas from it. In its recommendations to the UK and Argentina, the UN has clearly stressed the dangers of fracking. The key reason behind its recommendation to Argentina to reconsider the fracking project was its effect on climate change, especially in light of the Paris Agreement, and “the negative impact [that the project would have] on global warming and on the enjoyment of economic and social rights by the world’s population and future generations.” In its recommendation to the UK, it was noted that women in the UK are “disproportionately affected by the harmful effects of fracking, including exposure to hazardous and toxic chemicals, environmental pollution, and climate change.” Stopping the spread of fracking While operational in certain areas of the world, and being banned in others, fracking is advancing rapidly in Latin America. In the face of increasing global energy demand, it is crucial that the region, and the international community as a whole, commits to developing only truly sustainable energy projects. Fracking is not one. I believe the UN’s recent change in tone on fracking is a positive advance that should inspire both Argentina and the UK to react accordingly. From a personal point of view, I hope the UK heeds the growing evidence about the dangers of fracking and abandons the practice immediately. For Latin America, and other regions facing fracking’s blind advance, there are many countries to hold up as examples of how to confront the controversial practice. That’s why AIDA recently published a report highlighting the arguments and mechanisms that have been used around the world to restrict fracking and avoid its negative impacts on people and the environment. It is crucial that these impacts be properly considered as we take the ambitious steps needed to create an energy matrix that can solve the world’s energy needs without violating human rights, destroying our common goods, or worsening the catastrophic impacts of the climate crisis.
Read more
Nature first: it’s time to build environmental consciousness
Speaking in front of more than 500 people was a unique and beautiful experience, above all for the reason I came together with such an amazing group of people. We were seven diverse individuals with two powerful things in common: our love for the natural environment and our work to preserve it. We were in Santiago, Chile as part of the conference, “Nature first: a new deal with the environment.” The great interest the audience had in the event filled me with such joy, as did the opportunity to speak beside my colleagues from The Naturalists, a series of interviews in which professionals from distinct environmental professions were invited to speak about what being a naturalist implies in the modern world. The video series and this event was put on by Ladera Sur, an online platform and community built around nature, the environment, the outdoors, travel, and much more. It was Ladera Sur that introduced us as 20thCentury Naturalists, a great honor and an even greater obligation. But what does “nature first,” a title with such urgency, really mean? It means that, for too long, nature has been subsidizing our technological advancements and even our quality of life. We live in a world in which those who have the means can do practically anything. Perhaps some of us have stopped to think about tomorrow, and how it may be difficult for our children or grandchildren to enjoy even the simplest things in life. But the time has come to reorganize our priorities. We have neither the time, nor the credit, to continue borrowing from nature. Before proceeding with any potentially harmful project or activity, we first must demonstrate that the activity would not hurt the health of the planet. Only after assuring that is it worth asking whether a project is also good business, or if it will make our lives easier or more comfortable. This is not the position of an eco-terrorist, nor is it counter to economic development. It’s simply looking ahead at the reality of a living on a sick planet—a planet on whose health we depend. The good news is that the changes we need to make to resolve the environmental crisis are not only achievable; they are what people living on this planet actually want. A world with low emissions is a cleaner and more just world; a world driven by renewables means less pollution and more equitable access to energy; a world with more protected natural areas is a greener, healthier, more verdant world; it is rich in biodiversity and has a greater capacity to provide clean air and water. See the complete video of the conference below.
Read more
Clean air and climate justice: the best gifts for our children
Today Mexico celebrates Children’s Day. The best gift we can give to millions of boy and girls is clean air and climate justice. It’s the only thing I want to give to my children that, sadly, I can’t, at least not this year. Mexico City, where we live, has had bad air quality 112 of the 120 days of 2019, thus far. Those of us who live in this city have suffered from contamination, particularly over the last month; three “environmental contingencies” (air pollution alerts) for ozone were declared for a total of seven days. In recent years, contingencies have occurred during peak ozone season—February 15 to June 15—a period in which tropospheric ozone (present in the air we breathe) exceed the maximum levels allowed by Official Mexican Law. This gas, present throughout the year, rises when the burning of fossil fuels by vehicles and industries is compounded by changing weather conditions: less rain and winds, and more solar radiation. This prevents the air pollution that we produce from dispersing into nearby areas. Increased ozone causes serious damages to the environment and public health, particularly to children. According to the Pan American Health Organization, ozone in the air can affect lung function, making breathing difficult. Thus, the group most vulnerable to contamination also includes people with respiratory diseases, older adults and athletes. Authorities recommend that the people, particularly vulnerable groups, abstain from outdoor activities during the contingencies, particularly between 1:00 and 7:00 p.m. Other measures include increasing vehicle restrictions and reducing the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas. Despite its harsh realities, ozone season is not a new or surprising phenomenon, nor is it normal. It shouldn’t be normal for parents to resign ourselves to its presence, to birthday parties indoors and not letting our children go to the park with their friends. I understand the impossibility of controlling the rain, sun and wind; but ozone is another story. There are clear measures that could and should have been implemented years ago to prevent the ozone season from being unavoidable in Mexico City. Already fully identified, they include: improving the quality of gasoline, vehicular technology and fixed sources; ensuring safe and adequate public transportation and bicycle infrastructure; and effectively controlling fleets of private and public transport. Until now, these actions have been incomplete, inefficient and unable to solve the underlying problem. But the improvement of air quality during gasoline shortages has demonstrated that such solutions are possible. What’s more, actions aimed at reducing air pollution could have a double benefit. Tropospheric ozone is a greenhouse gas that aggravates climate change. It is a short-lived climate pollutant that stays in the atmosphere for only a few weeks, meaning that actions to control it have an almost immediate effect on public health, ecosystems and the climate. Therefore, in addition to improving the health of millions of people living in cities, Mexico has the opportunity to fulfill its international obligations on climate change. Diminishing ozone season requires the urgent and structural change of public policies, laws and their application. New standards must include a human rights perspective that prioritizes public interest and the health of children, and others, above vehicular mobility. While the development and implementation of these measures may not be easy, it’s essential we take the first steps toward the results we want to achieve. Government efforts require the support of our entire society. Companies must contribute to the implementation of solutions, acting with due diligence. Academics, civil society organizations, trade unions and other sectors must contribute with our knowledge and participation to ensure that the plans and programs are ambitious and effective, and that they promote a just transition. Every resident of the city has a duty to contribute. A few weeks ago, Professor David Boyd, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights and the Environment, published a report reiterating the obligation of States to guarantee the right to clean air, and the duty of companies to contribute. The report has recommendations related to tropospheric ozone that could be very useful for Mexican authorities. The enjoyment of clean air is a right that has yet to be met. Today almost two million children (from 0 to 14 years old) live in Mexico City, including mine. They and a large part of the more than 35 million children across the country could enjoy clean air; most live in cities and towns with air quality problems. According to organized trade, the celebration of Children's Day in Mexico involves an expenditure of 17 billion pesos ($900 million dollars) in gifts, an amount that could be used for authorities, companies and individuals to implement actions to ensure that the children of the country have something much more valuable: the ability to breathe air that does not endanger their health. This would be aligned with the goal of those who instituted the celebration of Children's Day in Mexico in 1924, and with the intention of the United Nations to establish one day a year to honor the importance of children's rights. Air pollution is, unfortunately, a regional and a global problem. Peru and Colombia also celebrate their children this month. Since their cities are among the most polluted in Latin America, what is reflected here can also be applied to those countries, and the continent as a whole. My gift for my children this year will be to continue working for better air quality in Mexico City, and to collaboratively build a future—hopefully a not-so-distant one—in which climate justice is a reality.
Read more
Listening to indigenous peoples to save the planet
More than 400 indigenous groups live throughout Latin America, many at home in the region’s protected areas, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Their ancestral knowledge of and connection to the natural world has been recognized as a way to guarantee a healthy environment and cope with climate change. Yet society seldom listens to them to learn how to best protect our natural resources. Pu’amé is a Cora expression that means “you first.” It’s used to give way to someone, but also as an expression of respect when someone is talking; it’s a way of saying, “Continue, I’m listening.” Julián López, a Náyeri indigenous leader who speaks Cora, explains this to me in a meeting with members of rural communities in Nayarit, México. I’ve come to listen. During the meeting, pu’amé becomes a way of helping us pay attention and understand. To listen to representatives of indigenous communities is to confront a different worldview, particularly for those of us who exist in the urban, western world. While our way of life is focused on consumption and dependent on exploitation, indigenous communities see the Earth as a source of bounty that requires care and gratitude; it provides them with food and health. These conflicting visions have resulted in the incessant violation of indigenous rights, putting at risk not only their cultural integrity, but also their very lives. To achieve real dialogue with indigenous peoples, you must understand them, Julián tells me, while teaching me a few words in Cora. Opposing visions of development Representatives of rural Mexicanero and Cora communities from the upper and lower regions of the San Pedro Mezquital river basin have come to this meeting to discuss the Las Cruces hydroelectric project. Their concerns are many: if the dam, or any other sacred site, is constructed, what will be the fate of their children and their sacred sites? What will happen to the life of the river, the quality of the fish, and the natural balance? Odilión de Jesús López, also Náyeri, expresses his concern that authorities “don’t value that caring for nature is for the good of all.” He questions the pushback he has received for defending the river and his community’s sacred sites. “How do we use sacred sites? We bring offerings, and give thanks for the good in life.” Julián raises his hand and questions the conflicting ways of seeing development. “Development at what cost? We can’t compete with the way they see development, because what they see is money. We need to ask, what do we want in our villages?” Julián reminds us all that real wealth can be found in clean air, in a river full of fish. But he also speaks of something else: poverty. While it’s true that indigenous people want to protect their land and culture, Julián admits that inaction is not an option. There are families that can’t even fulfill their children’s basic needs: health, education and a balanced diet. But he also knows that won’t be achieved by destroying the world around them. “What if we were trained to use forests sustainably?” he suggests. The representatives of the lower basin, almost all Mexicaneros, agree with him. They want to learn how to use the resources available downstream to ensure steady work. Julián mentions something else that concerns us all: instability. He himself has been the victim of threats and harassment since he began opposing the dam. During a visit to Mexico, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders pointed out that indigenous activists and environmentalists are the most criminalized defenders. Their work is often related to large-scale mining, energy and infrastructure projects. Julián understands the situation of defenders throughout the region. He says that he doesn’t feel alone in the fight to protect the rivers, and he understands that risks are everywhere. “If they kill a defender in Colombia,” he says, “it harms us too.” Women and Mother Earth If the situation is complicated for indigenous men who seek to make their voices heard, it’s even more so for women who speak out in defense of their territory. Marcelina López, a Náyeri leader, speaks softly, glances down at her hands, and shares how difficult it’s been to fight for her community. Then, with a clear and strong voice, she explains, “The authorities treat me badly because I am indigenous and a woman. Of course, we are poor and indigenous; but we are rich because of Mother Earth.” Marcelina speaks of the little they have been consulted for development projects, of the purchase of consent through municipal services, and of the constant discourse that indigenous people don’t know how to see “beyond,” to see progress. “What they don’t understand is that we choose not to exploit some things because we are afraid of contaminating, and the river always comes first,” she explains. Gila de la Cruz, also Náyeri, timidly agrees with Marcelina. She tells us that, as a woman, she’s only been consulted on issues related to children. She says she has an opinion about the river, the services in her community, and the production of food; she mentions a drainage project that she and a large portion of her community disapprove of. She asks us not to misunderstand her, but she believes things shouldn’t happen just because they’ve always been done that way. She’s worried that they haven’t explained everything. “What happens after they put the tubes in? Where does the water go, to the river? Why can’t we reuse the water?” Gila’s complaint makes sense: the river could be at risk, the authorities don’t explain what they're doing, and then they scold her for questioning them. “There are other options, I've seen them,” she says. “There are ways to be more sustainable and not contaminate the water. " Angry now, she says that her opinions have not been heard because she is a woman. Why we must listen to indigenous voices All the representatives agree on one thing: they do not want to be seen as a closed opposition, without the desire to have a better life. They’re merely asking for dialogue. Among their activities as peasants, artisans and fishermen, they’ve made time to organize themselves, to learn about their rights, to master a language that is not their own, and take their concerns to the relevant institutions. They all agree that there are sustainable ways to better their quality of life without affecting the environment. Julián hopes that, ultimately, indigenous groups and authorities can reach a mutual understanding. “Can we all work together—organizations, governments and indigenous peoples? I think so,” he says. Julián asks for training; he wants to learn about infrastructure, and about a socially responsible economy. Gila and Marcelina have dedicated themselves to seeking more sustainable options to produce their food, to build something, to be healthy. "We just need to be taught," Gila says. Humanity is going through a period in which it's become necessary to question all our schemes: our ways of consumption, of using resources, of seeking comfort. Indigenous peoples have lived for centuries in a much more sustainable way than societies constructed under the ethos of the industrial revolution. They offer us, in many ways, examples and opportunities to learn again, to change and to improve. "One day there will be a public space where there is no fear, where I can say anything," Gila says. She speaks about progress made in recent years, noting that they’ve been slowly gaining space. "They should start listening to women,” she says. “They think we should be at home, but we’re here, organizing." Marcelina adds, with satisfaction, "This is how you feel when you’re fighting for your life.”
Read more
How Brazil is threatening indigenous and environmental rights
With the new presidency, Brazil has entered an unfortunate period of changes—to legislation, governmental structure, and foreign and public policy—that will set the nation back decades on the issues of climate, the environment and human rights. The new administration has made a host of extremely questionable decisions that signal the weakening of guarantees for indigenous peoples in Brazil, the Amazon, and the environment as a whole. Some of the reforms that most stand out include: The transfer of the Ministry of the Environment’s most important functions to the Ministry of Agriculture. The weakening of governmental entities responsible for monitoring cases of environmental crimes. The transfer of responsibility for demarcating indigenous lands from the National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) to the Ministry of Agriculture. The suspension of contracts signed between state entities and civil society organizations. The weakening of the process for granting environmental permits. Continuous threats to withdraw Brazil from international agreements on the protection of the environment and indigenous peoples, including the recent threat to leave ILO Convention 169. These changes seem to be just the beginning, and the outlook could worsen at any moment. The latest move to undermine environmental protection in Brazil is the apparent opening of indigenous lands to large-scale mining projects. In March, Brazil’s Minister of Mines and Energy announced to attendees of one of the largest global mining events (the annual convention of the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada) that he would seek authorization for mining activities in indigenous and border areas. He stated that indigenous peoples would not have the autonomy to prevent the installation of mines in their territory. The State’s priority, this move implies, will be to promote irresponsible development over the protection of human rights. How mining threatens indigenous lands Last year, a government decree (Decree 9406) established drastic changes and new flexibility for mining activities, including successive extensions for permits in the event of lack of access, lack of consent or permission of the environmental agency, and the consideration that mining's foundations are the national interest and public utility. But mining itself is not in the national interest, since it implies great environmental damage and throws ecosystems out of balance. It must instead be recognized as a high-risk activity that causes destruction and contamination. Brazil has been incapable of safely regulating mining activities. We need only think of the rupture of two dams of mining waste in less than four years in the state of Minas Gerais. The first case in Mariana is considered the greatest environmental tragedy in Brazil’s history, and the second, earlier this year in Brumadinho, resulted in 197 deaths and 111 missing persons. If the government’s need for mining is undeniable, so is the need for stricter controls, the use of safer techniques, and a serious national assessment of the viability of each and every mine. Given the serious environmental damage associated with mining, its implementation on indigenous lands implies transferring those damages to a minority and vulnerable population that depends directly on the health of the environment for its physical and cultural survival. Indigenous communities have the constitutional right to be heard on projects that may affect them; some communities have even created protocols on how they want to be consulted. To build a mine against the will of a community is to violate their rights to life, to self-determination, to autonomy, to culture, to not being forcibly displaced, to benefit from their native territories, and to a healthy environment, among many others. The statements of the Minister of Mines and Energy represent a complete lack of commitment to the fundamental rights established in the Brazilian Constitution, as well as to internationally recognized human rights. They reveal a singular intention to appease investors, particularly the Canadian company behind the Belo Sun mining project, which seeks to mine indigenous lands already impacted by the construction of the Belo Monte Dam. In defense of indigenous peoples Mining on indigenous lands is not yet adequately regulated in Brazil. What the country needs is for Congress to approve a law that respects the fundamental rights of indigenous communities and protects their lands, while including communities in the process. The setbacks posed by the current administration have only strengthened the resistance of indigenous communities, and those of us who support them. Civil society organizations like AIDA are committed to defending human rights, safeguarding indigenous territory, and holding governments and corporations accountable whenever they pose a threat.
Read more
Conserving our water, drop by drop
Water is powerful. Even the idea of not having it in our daily life disturbs us. Yet we so often take it for granted. Many of us believe it will flow indefinitely, without having to do anything to guarantee its presence. As if to prove how wrong we are, reality has been hitting us harder and more frequently. In 2016, Bolivia suffered its worst drought in 25 years. Water scarcity affected five of the country’s nine departments, and a national emergency was declared. In the city of La Paz, seat of the federal government, the water cut-offs employed to confront the crisis led to some people having to subsist up to two days on only 50 liters of water. Bolivia isn’t an isolated case. Since 2010, central Chile has been experienced a mega-drought that is far from ending. And in 2018, the drought in Central America caused severe crop losses, putting the food of millions of people at risk. The causes of water shortages Water scarcity in Bolivia and other countries have common causes, problems that we must confront with urgency, such as: Climate change. Latin America is one of the world’s most vulnerable regions to climate change, which intensifies the water cycle, meaning the driest regions of the world are becoming even drier. Lack of long-term policies. Population growth has not been accompanied by policies for the more efficient use of water, or the better conservation of its sources. Inadequate water management. The management of water resources has not considered the growing demand on all sectors, the protection of natural sources, or the use of traditional and indigenous knowledge for conservation. Damages from extractive projects. An increase in mining activity in the region is contaminating rivers and using large quantities of water; fracking does as well. Large dams irreversibly damage important water basins. No culture of conservation. The growth of cities and the consequent growth of water consumption have not come accompanied with an increase in responsible citizenry. Best practices for water conservation It’s expected that the gap between water supply and demand in cities will reach 40 percent by 2030, so we must work quickly to implement good water management practices, including the following: Recycling wastewater from sewage systems, agriculture and industry. The reuse of water requires less energy than desalinization (which produces more toxic waste than water); it is also sustainable and profitable. Adopting solutions that take advantage of the natural processes that regulate the water cycle. They could be applied on a personal scale (for example, a dry toilet), at the landscape level (conservation agriculture that minimizes soil disturbance and uses crop rotation), or in urban environments (green walls and rooftop gardens). Harvesting rainwater and implementing better systems to store it would help reduce the impacts of future droughts. Applying appropriate environmental impact assessments would prevent the authorization of projects that threaten to damage natural sources of water supply. Motivating a change of mentality in key actors—those responsible for public policies, the private sector and consumers—would guarantee the availability and sustainable management of water. Humanity needs water, and for this year’s World Water Day, celebrated March 22, we join the focus on “leaving no one behind.” At AIDA we understand that water is a human right. That’s why we work to defend the ecosystems that provide our water from the damages of inadequately implemented mega-projects.
Read more
How fracking's methane leaks aggravate climate change
I’ve seen them more times than I can remember, but the shock never fades: ten-foot-high flames burning off gas at the BP processing plant in Whiting, Indiana. The facility is close to where I grew up, so we’ve had a lot of time to marvel at the flare stacks. My sister thought they were volcanoes when she was little and, in my family, the name has stuck. Converting waste methane to carbon dioxide (CO2) through flaring is common practice in oil and gas production. This makes “volcanoes” a familiar feature of drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, fields. The sight of stacks spewing CO2 directly into the air is both visually striking and enraging: a visual metaphor for a world run on extractive, dirty energy. And yet, when it comes to fracking, the volcanoes and their carbon emissions aren’t even the biggest problem. That which is most dangerous is often hardest to see—invisible, in this case. Fracking’s worst air pollution actually occurs through methane leaks. Methane is a greenhouse gas whose global warming potential is 86 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It leaks stealthily at every point in the gas supply chain into our atmosphere, undetectable without advanced equipment and frequent tests. According to NASA, the oil and gas industry is responsible for the global rise in methane emissions, beating even landfills and dairy production. Many of these emissions come from leaking pipes attached to fracked gas wells. While many of fracking’s damages—the contamination of water tables, an increase in man-made earthquakes—are well documented, fracking’s air pollution is a more difficult battle to fight. There are no convenient visuals of tap water set on fire or flattened homes. But the fact that we can’t see methane leaking into the air doesn’t make its impact any less intense: diffuse toxic particles grip the throat like so many invisible hands; methane causes nosebleeds and asthma; gas leaks squeeze the brain into dizzying headaches and seizures; toxic additives cause babies to be born prematurely with low birth weight and life-threatening defects. Leaking methane is also of particular concern when it comes to climate change. When just less than 2 percent of a pipeline’s total carried methane leaks into the air, the gas loses its supposed “cleaner” climate advantage over even coal. Recent studies show that U.S. fracking fields leak at tremendously uneven rates, some up to a whopping 12 percent. In other words, only a small number of wells are responsible for an extreme amount of contamination. But this also means that we already have part of the solution: fixing leaks at these super-polluting fields would be a huge boon for climate regulation. Leak detention and repair requires frequent and careful oversight, but it is also cost-effective, and often actually pays for itself. Gas companies can patrol their own distribution lines, looking for and repairing leaks. Pneumatic pipeline controllers can be replaced with better, low-bleed controllers. This extra care, however, is exactly what fracking’s proponents fight against: the gas industry in the United States has long denied and diminished the severity of leaking pipelines. Like the greenhouse gas pollution that causes it, climate change is a slow-paced disaster. It is a long, diffuse emergency that, in a sound-byte world, isn’t dramatic enough for short-term elections and news cycles, and usually isn’t brought up until it’s too late. Alternatives to fracking But times are changing. And the solution to a warming world isn’t just about fixing leaks. We can’t just mitigate a life-threatening system; we have to end it. Instead of perpetuating our dependence on gas, we must invest in a just transition and move into economically sustainable forms of energy, like solar and wind. Gas delivery systems and their maintenance are as expensive as they are toxic, and will soon become obsolete. We must fight for better regulation of our present system, while building up alternatives for a better tomorrow. This is particularly important in parts of the world that are only now starting to embrace fracking. While somewhat ubiquitous in the global North, fracking has only just begun in Latin America, where roughly 5,000 wells have popped up in the past few years. Frontline communities and human rights defenders from across the Americas have fought hard to win bans or restrictions on fracking. They urge that their nations not fall for fracking’s trap—harms would be amplified by lax regulation and further aggravate climate change. In October they testified before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on the harm fracking has caused to communities across Latin America. Liliana Ávila, a senior attorney at AIDA, explained that fracking-induced pollution impacts basic human rights, and that environmental defenders often face extreme violence when protecting their territories from the gas industry. Part of the battle for a global and just transition towards a sustainable, equitable energy economy is being able to recognize those harms that are harder to see—including those that are invisible at first. It’s the quiet harms that unfold over long time spans that are catching up to us now.
Read more
Putting my heart in the conservation of wetlands
Coral reefs are my favorite wetlands. They’re full of so many colors and shapes, and simply teeming with life. When I’m underwater, my heart is full of peace and excitement, as I see myself surrounded by so many forms of life, so many species living together. As a marine biologist, I’ve had the opportunity to scuba dive in a variety of countries and see many of these beautiful ecosystems up close. Of all my dives, the ones I enjoyed most were those I did—for work and for pleasure—in the Bay Islands of Honduras. As a recent college graduate and volunteer with the Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment Program, I was in charge of monitoring the countless organisms that live in or on the reefs—seaweed, sea urchins, lobsters, queen snails, and so many others. Without a doubt, my time diving in the Cayos Cochinos sparked my personal and professional journey. Since then, I’ve set out to protect these magical ecosystems, vital to all life this planet. My current role, as scientific advisor to AIDA, uses science to strengthen the legal arguments employed to protect these and other at-risk natural environments in Latin America. Wetlands, vital and at-risk In addition to coral reefs, wetlands—characterized by the presence of water—include lakes and rivers, underground aquifers, swamps and marshes, grasslands, peat bogs, estuaries and deltas, mangroves, and sea grasses. Wetlands act as the “kidneys” of the planet because they recycle water and waste, retain sediment and nutrients, reduce erosion, and absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, in turn mitigating climate change. However, it’s estimated that since 1700 we’ve lost nearly 87 percent of our wetlands at a speed three times greater than the loss of our natural forests. This has caused a drastic reduction in biodiversity, affecting 81 percent of continental species and 36 percent of marine and coastal species. Among the greatest threats to our wetlands are contamination by garbage, wastewater and industrial pollution; changes in land use; agricultural runoff, erosion and climate change. What’s more, global warming is increasing the temperature of the oceans, raising sea levels, and melting the poles. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an increase of 1.5°C in global temperature could kill almost 90 percent of the world’s coral reefs—an irreversible and heartbreaking loss. Taking action to save wetlands Given this frightening global scenario, urgent action is required to protect our planet’s wetlands. In fact, there are many ways we can begin to do so immediately, such as: Creating restoration campaigns for vital ecosystems like mangroves and coral reefs. Declaring natural protected areas, to conserve wetlands and the species that depend on them. Developing policies that allow for the rational use of wetlands, where conservation is prioritized. Prohibiting the destruction of these ecosystems in any type of project, be it tourism, development or infrastructure. Establishing water treatment plans to prevent drainage and runoff from contaminating wetlands. Every year, on February 2, we celebrate World Wetlands Day, commemorating the signing of the Ramsar Convention, the only intergovernmental treaty for the conservation and rational use of our planet’s wetlands. This year’s celebration is focused on wetlands and climate change, inviting us all to reflect on the value of our wetlands, the critical services they provide, and urgency with which we must protect them. We are not powerless in the face of climate change. Saving our wetlands may just be the first step toward saving our planet, and ourselves.
Read more