Blog
We all deserve to breathe clean air
I was born and raised in Bogota, Colombia’s bustling capital city. When I was a child, I grew accustomed to the chaos of the streets—thousands of cars and buses spewing black smoke into the air, the endless honking of horns. It was normal to see massive smokestacks and smell bad odors. I thought all cities were that way, and that nature and clean air only existed in places far from home. I was used to having health problems: headaches, rashes, eye and throat irritation, coughs and hay fever. I never questioned why my sisters and I were constantly fighting these “environmental allergies.” Pollution even prevented me from enjoying the outdoors. I couldn’t easily walk or ride my bike, for example, because my lungs struggled from the soot emitted by passing trucks and buses. There were days I had to leave my house wearing a mask, and times when we were forbidden from playing outside due to the pollution. Air pollution: a silent killer As an adult, I realized that environmental allergies are not the norm. Often, they are caused by constantly breathing in black carbon, ozone, sulfur dioxide and other pollutants that cars, buses and factories emit into the atmosphere each day. I realized that air pollution is a serious threat to quality of life and to a person’s health, especially among the most vulnerable, like our children and the elderly. According to the World Health Organization, millions of people die each year from illnesses related to air pollution. In Latin America, it is the number one environmental health risk, and causes more than 150,000 premature deaths per year. Cities like Mexico City, Monterrey (Mexico), Cochabamba (Bolivia), Santiago de Chile, Lima (Peru), Medellin (Colombia), San Salvador (El Salvador) and Bogota have the highest levels of air pollution in the region. When cities are allowed to expand without regulation, population skyrockets—and with it, so do the number of cars and trucks and factories. I worry about the future of my family in that scenario. I don’t want the air we breathe to negatively impact our health. My husband, who is not from Bogota, moved there to be with me. One year later, he was diagnosed with asthma. When my daughter was just two months old, she had a respiratory infection that put her in intensive care for several days. The cause of both their illnesses: the city’s poor air quality. Stopping the contamination The majority of the world’s population lives in cities. And while we can’t expect our cities to be pristine, natural ecosystems, they should provide people with the minimal conditions they need to lead dignified, healthy lives. That’s why AIDA works to improve air quality in Latin America, advocating for the protection of our children and other populations highly vulnerable to atmospheric contamination. We are raising awareness among policy makers about the importance of regulating short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), which stay in the atmosphere for a relatively short period of time. Unlike carbon dioxide, which can stay in the atmosphere for centuries, SLCPs remain in the air from a few days to a few decades. SLCPs include soot (also known as black carbon) and methane gas. These contaminants are major contributors to climate change, degrade air quality and have serious impacts on food security and human health. Effectively reducing them could significantly improve air quality and advance the fight against climate change in the short-term. Through our experience in international law, we’re seeking ways to regulate these short-lived pollutants across Latin America. Because having clean air to breath is one of life’s basic needs. Clean air shouldn’t be a luxury.
Read moreYearning for better times for Nicaragua
Leaving your country behind is an act of courage, especially when you don’t have much. My grandparents were courageous—they fled Nicaragua’s armed conflict in the 1970s, arriving in Costa Rica with nothing but three children in their arms and the hope for a better future. Costa Rica treated them well, and their grandchildren have been able to lead lives of privilege and opportunity. But my grandmother has always dreamed of returning to her country one day. And although I feel proudly Costa Rican, I have learned to love Nicaragua too, especially after getting to know it. Since April, Nicaragua has been in the midst of an armed conflict that has given rise to a large-scale humanitarian crisis. As the conflict continues, the number of people trying to flee Nicaragua has grown, as have requests for asylum in Costa Rica. As of August, more than 300 people had been killed since the conflict began. Unfortunately, the crisis doesn’t seem to be coming to an end anytime soon. Given the urgency of the situation, in May the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights created a Rapid and Integrated Response Coordination Unit with the mission of paying special attention to the human rights situation in Nicaragua. That month, members of the Commission visited cities at the center of the conflict: Managua, Masaya, León and Matagalpa. The resulting report presents evidence of gross human rights violations that have occurred during the country’s social protests. Among those violated were the rights to life, physical integrity, health and medical treatment, freedom of expression and of the press, and freedom of movement. The Nicaraguan State is obligated to guarantee those rights under international law. Thanks to social media, it has been possible to stay informed of what’s been happening in Nicaragua, practically in real time. You can get constant information via Facebook or Twitter by searching the hashtag #SOSNicaragua. The Commission also regularly publishes information on Facebook and Twitter. If you’d like to do something for those affected by the conflict in Nicaragua, you can donate to the Nicaraguan Association for Human Rights or the non-profit organization SOS Human Rights Nicaragua from Costa Rica, which works to support Nicaraguans here in Costa Rica. My grandmother never saw a Nicaragua free of human rights violations. She has always wanted to return to the land where she grew, where her parents were born and where one of her sisters still lives. I hope that everyone who has had to flee Nicaragua during this conflict will be able to return and see their country free, while also fully enjoying their human rights. Hopefully, through democracy, peace will return to that beautiful nation.
Read moreWe have to talk about the bees
When I was three years old, I threw rocks at a hive until I was attacked by an enraged swarm of bees. It was one of my first memories and, despite the pain it caused me, I harbor no resentment toward bees, wasps, or bumblebees. It was my fault, my mother told me. They were just defending themselves. She taught me about their stingers, the queen bee, and the honey the produce. She told me how they feed on pollen and flower nectar, something a three-year-old can understand. With time, I learned that plants like coffee, apples, and cotton all rely on pollination by bees to reproduce. Twenty-five years ago, the bees didn’t seem to be in any danger — they were everywhere in my small town in the state of Veracruz, Mexico. Later, I moved to Mexico City, where people “reported” bees to the Civil Protection agency, and firefighters were called in to kill them. To prevent attacks, the city made life difficult for bees: in city parks, trees and flowers were sprayed with chemicals and pesticides, and water sources were dried up. That tactic has spread to agricultural fields around the world. Today, it is rare to see bees, bumblebees, or wasps flying around those spaces. The problem with pesticides The problem with bees became visible around 2006, when beekeepers and farmers in the United States reported losing 70 percent of their bee colonies during one winter season. Until that point, keepers would lose around 15 percent of their colonies during the coldest months. But the decline of bee populations wasn’t isolated that season. Various European nations also began reporting losses in the early 2000’s. According to a European Union report published in 2014, the region loses a third of its bee population every year. Unfortunately, little data exists for Latin America and efforts to monitor bee populations have only just begun. We know that beekeepers in Mexico have reported losses of between 30 and 80 percent of their colonies. Chile reportedly loses nearly half its colonies in the winter, a percentage that was previously between 15 and 20 percent. The Abejas Vivas (Living Bees) collective has recorded the disappearance of more than 10,000 hives in Colombia, and some regions of Argentina have reported the sudden death of nearly 90 percent of their hives. Why should we care? Seventy-five percent of our food production relies on pollinators—vertebrates and invertebrates alike—including bees. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) asked countries to adopt policies and food systems that are more favorable to pollinators. “We cannot continue focusing on growing our food production with processes based on the general use of pesticides and chemical products that threaten our crops and our pollinators,” said FAO Director José Graziano da Silvo. The sudden mass death of bees—known as Colony Collapse Disorder—is caused by a number of factors: an increasingly extreme and unstable global climate, the increased use of pesticides and fungicides, parasites like the varroa destructor (a mite that attacks bee hives), and the deterioration of ecosystems that bees rely on for food. Each of these factors creates stress for the bees. According to an article in Science, “exposure to chemicals and a lack of food can endanger bees’ immune systems, making them more susceptible to parasites.” Taking steps to protect bees In April, the European Union banned three neonicotinoide insecticides, which are commonly used for producing corn, cotton, and sunflowers. These pesticides are a risk to not just honeybees, but also to wild bees, other insects, and some larger animals. Of course the ban—a decision passed down by the European Food Safety Authority—has not made pesticide companies happy, but the European Union’s objective is critical: to guarantee food production in its member nations. In the United States, despite the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency has called for the protection of pollinators, the current government reversed the ban on certain insecticides in natural protected areas, a policy enacted by the previous administration. While scientists are working to better understand Colony Collapse Disorder, bees continue to die, putting our food security at greater risk. Many studies are focused on domesticated honeybees, whose columns are the easiest to count. But there exist around 20,000 species of pollinators—including wild bees, wasps, bumblebees, other insects, and vertebrates like birds and bats. There are few studies on the impacts of pesticides, changes in soil makeup, and climate variations on wild pollinating species, but these species are also likely to be at risk. Some plants depend exclusively on certain wild pollinators—plants like orchids, cacao (chocolate), coffee, and agave (tequila). That’s why we have to talk about the bees, and the other animals that help provide us with fruits, vegetables, and grains. Losing these species endangers the livelihoods of small-scale food producers, and a drop in food production would disproportionately affect society’s most vulnerable populations. What can we do? Twenty-five years ago, my mother planted flowers and told me that they would attract bees, which would ensure there would always be more flowers. Beyond the simple but meaningful act of sowing native flowers for local pollinators, we must demand that our food production systems respect the natural environment they depend on. And finally, it’s important to note that although bee deaths are caused by a number of different factors, human activity is the one thing they all have in common.
Read moreOpening our eyes to the dangers of salmon farming in Chile
Recently, I went to dinner with some friends. Two of them ordered salmon. The dish was expensive because, although Chile is the world’s second largest producer, salmon is a non-native species and one of the most popular fish in the country. I respectfully asked my friends if they were aware of the toll commercial salmon production takes on our oceans. Their response was glib: “That’s an exaggeration,” they said. “I don’t think it’s that bad.” Unfortunately, I expected that response. The environmental dangers of salmon farming in Chile are largely hidden, but that doesn’t make them any less serious. An unsustainable industry On July 5, nearly 700,000 salmon escaped from their pens at a farm off of Huar Island in Patagonia’s Los Lagos region. The escape has revived public debate on the dangers of Chile’s salmon industry. Caused by damage the pens sustained during a storm, the escape could represent one of the largest environmental catastrophes since salmon farming began in Chile in the 1980’s. But what’s the bigger problem? As it turns out, it’s not just one problem — it’s many. The problems of salmon farming first became visible in 2007 when scientists recorded the first case of infectious salmon anemia, a lethal illness for the fish. Although the industry adopted new infrastructure and sanitary standards, the root of the problem remained unaddressed—the overpopulation of marine habitats, packed with more fish than they could support, was causing oxygen depletion and, eventually, oceanic dead zones. Those poor farming practices also led to the excessive use of antibiotics to treat illnesses and infections. Eventually, other problems arose—algae blooms, and the so-called red tides that have devastated the area’s marine life. The recent massive salmon escape has posed serious public health risks because the fish had been treated with excessive amounts of antibiotics, making them inapt for consumption by humans or other animals. But, despite warnings from the authorities in the days following the escape, fishermen in the area began capturing salmon and selling them at extremely low prices. As an invasive predator, the salmon also posted a threat to the ecosystem, since they are aggressive fish prone to devastating anything in their path, including native species. Greenpeace said the escape was equivalent to a plague of 140 million rats eating anything in their path. Although the company was required to re-capture at least 10 percent of the salmon, they failed to reach that goal, despite offering up to $11 per fish. The work was further complicated since salmon are prey to sea lions and other predators. All this has revealed a clear structural problem—the lack of government control and regulation of an unsustainable industry. The most recent escape, from a farm owned by Marine Harvest Company, is yet another example of how the entire industry is failing to comply with environmental standards. According to Chile’s National Fish Service, some 3.3 million salmon have escaped from different fisheries in the Los Lagos, Aysén and Magallanes regions in the last eight years. Urgent Measures If this malpractice continues, salmon farming could destroy Chile’s marine biodiversity. Other countries have taken drastic actions in response to cases similar to the one on Huar Island. In the United States, for example, Washington State decided to gradually eliminate salmon farms after 300 salmon escape from a hatchery there. At AIDA, we are working to protect Chilean Patagonia, the country’s most pristine region, into which the salmon industry continues to expand. In May 2017, we filed a complaint with the Chile’s Superintendent of the Environment asking they investigate the damages salmon farms are causing to the Magallanes region, and sanction the companies responsible. We also commissioned a scientific report demonstrating how susceptible the region is to the risks of salmon farming. Hopefully my compatriots will realize that we share a common interest in protecting our most pristine waters from the damages of salmon farming. Because at the end of the day, that bite of salmon may be more expensive than they think.
Read moreWhy we work to protect human rights in Latin America
The attorneys who make up AIDA’s Human Rights and the Environment Program work to protect people and communities whose rights have been violated or are at risk from the degradation of their natural environment. They know that there is an undeniable connection between the full enjoyment of human rights and a healthy environment. Here’s why they do what they do: “I DO IT BECAUSE IT’S IN MY BLOOD.” Astrid Puentes, AIDA Co-Director “I work in defense of the environment and human rights because they are essential aspects of life, and they are linked. I do it because it’s in my blood: my father was a farmer, my grandparents and great-grandparents too. Part of my connection with nature comes from my family; it’s my inheritance. I’ve always wanted to contribute to making the world better, particularly in my home country of Colombia, which has so many natural resources but also so much social injustice. I dedicated my career as an attorney to helping make my country a better place. When I became a mother, that motivation only grew, and now I feel a great responsibility to do everything I can so that my children will have a better planet.” Early in her career, Astrid helped stop a proposal by the Colombian and United States governments to spray a transgenic fungus on the Amazon, which would have seriously damaged a vital ecosystem that many people depend on. It was the first successful case in which Astrid was directly involved. “I DEFEND HUMAN RIGHTS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT DIGNITY AND EQUALITY ARE INALIENABLE RIGHTS.” Liliana Ávila, Senior Attorney “I defend human rights because I believe that dignity and equality are inalienable rights. I believe in the value of differences and in the struggles of those who have not known their rights. These convictions have made me feel indignation, shame, and rage for the way rights human rights have been infringed upon in my country — Colombia — as well as in Latin America and the world at large. I defend human rights because, for me, they are the realization of the human aspiration to build a more just world.” Last May, Liliana was moved by the story of an indigenous woman in Guatemala whose community depended on a nearby river, which was suffering water shortages due to the construction of a dam. With the water from that river, the woman watered flowers in her garden, which brought her happiness when life made her sad. That story filled Liliana with hope because she knew that, though her work, she could help keep those flowers blooming. “MY GREATEST MOTIVATION COMES FROM MY AWARENESS OF INEQUALITY AND INJUSTICE.” Daniel Iglesias, Fellow “My greatest motivation comes from my awareness of the inequality and injustice that characterize the modern world, in large part due to the effects of global capitalism. It is our responsibility to fight to eliminate those inequalities. Defending human rights through solidarity and by denouncing injustice is a fundamental way to achieve that goal.” As a human rights attorney, Daniel come face-to-face with injustices such as indigenous communities being stripped of their land, people deprived of their freedom of expression, and those who have been affected by the damages caused by extractive industries. Those experiences inform Daniel’s work with AIDA in Mexico, and feed his desire to continue working for social and environmental justice in the region. “I GREW UP knowing I HAD RIGHTS.” Marcella Ribeiro, Legal Advisor “I grew up knowing I had rights. I knew I would never lack food or water and that the beach in front of my house in Brazil would never be polluted because I had the right to a healthy environment. But when I learned that people living in favelas and those affected by droughts didn’t know they had rights, and didn’t organize to claim them, I decided to devote myself to fighting so their voices are heard and their humanity is recognized.” Marcela worked in Brazil’s favelas educating residents about their human rights. Since then, she has understood that social justice will always be possible as long as people are allowed to enjoy their social, cultural, economic and environmental rights.
Read moreThe Colombian town that’s taking on coal mining
“To leave for good is painful,” Flower Aria Rivera, 58, said with nostalgia. He doesn’t want to leave his land, his home. Doing so would mean leaving behind his identity, his story. Flower is from Boquerón, Colombia, a town of nearly 900 residents in the northwest department of Cesar. His ancestors, directly descended from Africans, were among the first inhabitants of his small town and many others in the region. They lived from raising cattle and growing rice. But that simple life is no more. The once-fertile soils of Boquerón have for more than 30 years been overtaken by large-scale coal mining operations. Since the corporations arrived, the town has been absorbed by coal and the many damages it leaves behind—like unhealthy levels of air pollution, and the depletion of water from rivers and other natural sources. The contamination had gotten so bad that, in 2010, the government ordered the mining company to relocate Boquerón’s residents. Eight years later, and that still hasn’t happened. On the contrary, new families have been arriving to Boquerón in search of the compensation that will surely be distributed when relocation finally does occur. “We want the mines to move, we want them to stop polluting our town,” said Flower, one of the most respected of the community, which has peacefully resisted despite the outbreak of skin and respiratory diseases. Flower is not a conventional leader. He speaks softly, while smiling. His deep black skin contrasts with his pure white hair. He’s sweet and calm and, above all, full of faith and hope. I met him two months ago when he participated with other leaders in a public forum co-organized by AIDA, Tierra Digna, CENSAT Agua Viva, University of Magdalena, the Environmental Justice Network of Colombia, and the Rosa Luxembourg Foundation. There, participants discussed what’s needed to enable Colombia to move its economy away from coal exploitation and toward alternative energies—those that respect the both climate and communities. “Coal has left us with nothing, only sadness,” Flower lamented. Colombia is the fourth largest coal exporter in the world. As such, the government has the ethical and moral obligation to reduce its carbon emissions, which have contributed to exacerbating the climate crisis. At AIDA, we believe in a clean energy future, and our work will continue to support the move towards a coal-free Latin America. To close, I’d like to share a poem Flower wrote. In it, he expresses longing and love for his land, and his fear of the “damned black stone.” A mi Boquerón Boquerón del alma mía Terruño de mis entrañas Estoy perdiendo mi alegría Mis costumbres y mis esperanzas Camino lento y con tristeza Con solo pensar en tu partida Historia mía, historia tuya Es como un llanto en noche buena Quisiera morirme en tus recuerdos Donde viví muchas nostalgias De amores y vivencias de este mundo Cómo te llevo Boquerón en el alma Voces de recuerdos se escuchan a lo lejos De un niño y un viejo Como añorando el pasado De Boquerón y sus hermosos tiempos Partir sin regreso es doloroso Y un diciembre sin ti es morir Como regresar después a pajuil Cuando mis zapatos se han roto Ya inerme camina un boqueronero Y la historia del tucuy, el manantial y la lomita está muriendo Hoy hasta el mismo cielo está llorando En gotas de agua convertidas en desespero Quisiera regresar a las faldas de mi madre Como cuando niño me escondía debajo de ella Escucho a lo lejos la voz del patriarca Rivera Ángel Que desde su tumba como deseando una esperanza Adiós diablito caño, palma y paralú donde di mi grito de libertad y olvidé mi esclavitud de mi raza palenquera y también de chambacú y olvidé por mis ancestros lo juro por ese cielo azul Maldita piedra negra Que hizo cambiar mi historia Un humilde pueblo llora La funesta partida de toda una vida
Read moreWhy Brazil must respond for Belo Monte's human rights violations
We did it! We’re proud to say we recently submitted the final arguments in our case against Brazil before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In them, we demonstrate the damages Belo Monte has caused to indigenous and traditional communities, and residents of Altamira, the city closest to the dam. We’re working for them—to bring the government of Brazil to justice. “Human rights violations are a daily occurrence for those of us affected by the dam,” explained Antônia Melo, coordinator of the Movimento Xingu Vivo para Sempre, a citizens’ collective formed in the face of the dam’s implementation. “It’s urgent that our petition before the Commission advance to sanction the government and guarantee our rights.” We argue that the damages to local communities resulted from a severe lack of foresight and inadequate evaluation, as well as from failure to comply with the conditions for operation established by the government. The many risks denounced prior to the dam’s construction have since become long-term damages—many of which have affected men and women, and youth and the elderly, in different ways. Our report documents the displacement of indigenous and traditional communities forced to leave their territories without adequate alternatives, placing their cultural survival at risk. Among the affected populations are communities dedicated to fishing, who have not yet been compensated for the loss of livelihood. The dam has caused mass die-offs of fish and, although authorities have imposed millions in fines, the report demonstrates that the underlying problem has not been resolved. Local communities now have limited use of the Xingu River as a source of food, sustenance, transportation and entertainment. We have also noted—among other serious harms—the disappearance of traditional trades, such as brickmakers and cart drivers, and of traditional cultural practices. Women, for example, have stopped giving birth in their homes and must now go to a hospital, a reality that has drastically worsened due to the oversaturation of health and education services in Altamira caused by the recent population surge. Our case is now in the hands of the Commission. They will prepare their own report, concluding whether or not human rights violations occurred as a result of the Belo Monte Dam. If violations did occur, they may issue recommendations for remediation. If Brazil fails to respond, the case may be referred to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, which has the power to issue a ruling condemning Brazil. The completion of this report brings us—and, more importantly, the communities we represent—one big step closer to achieving justice for the many wrongs committed in the name of the Belo Monte Dam, and energy development in the Amazon.
Read moreUnderstanding the true costs of mining in Latin America
Would you accept a business deal that offered you limited profits and infinite expenses? In Latin America, mining is strongly promoted as a source economic advancement. Governments tout extraction as a source of employment and funding for new hospitals, schools, roads and other infrastructure. Up to that point, it sounds like good business. But that’s only half of the story. What they don’t tell you about—in press releases or Environmental Impact Studies—is all of mining’s downsides, including impacts in perpetuity, environmental damage that persists for centuries or even millennia. Among mining’s many damages—rarely mentioned to the communities living alongside the projects—two stand out: Severe landscape modifications: for example, the excavation of an open-pit mine on a mountain or the filling of a valley with mining waste. Contamination of water sources: for example, acid generation and the release of toxic metals into reach rivers, streams and other water sources; or the increase of nitrates and ammonia derived from explosives. In countries like the United States, damages are discussed in environmental assessment processes and legislation exists on both assessment and mitigation mechanisms. In Latin America, promoters of large mining projects often fail to understand that the long-term costs of these mega-projects far outweigh their benefits, and extend far beyond the mine’s active life cycle. After their closure and abandonment, open-pit mines need constant maintenance to minimize the risk of collapse (which never disappears). Water sources must be continuously monitored and treated to avoid toxic contamination. Who will pay for mining’s damages? It’s often difficult to know who must assume mining’s costs because it depends on several different elements: legal frameworks, institutional strength, and social factors. In many countries, governments require mining companies to build and install monitoring and remediation systems (wells, water treatment plants and drains, for example). In other cases, they are asked to pay for the operating costs of these systems for a period of time. The most demanding countries request remediation insurance (i.e. Reclamation Bonds), as well as a contribution to financial funds whose yields will be destined for such measures. This is the case of the Superfund, which manages the remediation of approximately 1,341 industrial sites across the United States. But even so, these policies often underestimate long-term costs, leaving tax papers to cover the rest of the expense. According to the Center for Science in Public Participation, the government would have to pay between $3.8 and $20 billion dollars to remediate the damages of metal mines in the western United States. In other countries, environmental waste from mining doesn’t receive much attention. In Canada—often cited as an example to follow by governments of the region—the Tulsequah Chief mine in British Columbia has been releasing untreated acidic waters since 1957. Mining in Latin America Although many Latin American nations have regulations related to mining, most lack specific laws establishing standardized procedures for monitoring and repairing its damages. Some nations, like Bolivia and Colombia, even lack a legal definition for Mining Environmental Liability or debt for environmental damage. Faced with weak regulation, the closure of a mine is accompanied by isolated and ineffective actions—like simply planting greenery in the affected area. Since it’s not clear who should be held responsible, the few monitoring and remediation actions that exist often end up being abandoned. Another important factor in the region is that environmental damage comes not just from legal mining, but also from illegal and—in the case of Colombia, where mining’s profits are being used to fuel conflict—even criminal mining activities. In Chile, environmental deterioration is largely the product of legal metal mines that have been abandoned. In Bolivia it is most often the result of artisanal mining and cooperatives. In Colombia, illegal and small-scale mining spills mercury into the rivers. In Peru, gold mining causes serious damage to human health and the environment. Throughout Latin America, mining’s historical damages can be found in mineral deposits that date from the colonial age… yet our resources continue to be exploited. Why prevention is key The permanent scars mining leaves behind require constant attention and a level of financing that is impossible to guarantee over time. And given their severity, it’s only possible to partially mitigate, not completely remediate, the most serious damages. That’s why we’re promoting prevention, rather than remediation. Hand-in-hand with local organizations and communities, we’re working to ensure that mining projects are subject to adequate evaluation processes before they’re authorized, and that the risks they imply for communities and the environment are well understood. We advocate for evaluation based on the best available scientific information; we ask that it contemplate alternatives and be carried out independently to guarantee objective results. If the analysis finds that a project will generate perpetual damages that cannot be adequately managed, it must be rejected. We want decision-makers to understand: hard rock mining is not always good business and it always causes environmental harm. We’ll continue working to ensure governments across Latin America understand that fact.
Read moreThe women defending Guatemala’s rivers from large dams
When Maria gets up each morning, the first thing she does is open the tap in her house to see if there’s any water. If there is, she prepares coffee and, within a few hours, food for her family. Her house is alive with plants and animals. Dogs, cats and chickens surround her as she lights the wood stove, carrying her young son on her back. Maria lives in Ixquisis, a region of northwestern Guatemala near the Mexican border, in the department of Huehuetenango. There, water springs from the earth and large rivers like the Pojom and the Negro flow through the mountains. For Maria, the river is a special place. There, she meets with other women and washes clothes, a traditional activity for women in her community, most of whom are indigenous. Each afternoon, as the water flows steadily downstream, they talk about their families, their to-do lists, their joys and their worries. Last month, Maria joined with the other women of Ixquisis to speak about the threats the dams pose to their way of life. They were part of a workshop AIDA organized in collaboration with Protection International and the International Platform Against Impunity. Maria’s life has changed a lot since they started building the Pojom II and San Andrés dams, and she’s been losing sleep. Before the construction of the dams began, Maria used to fish. By submerging a basket in the river, she gathered—as if by magic—snails, shrimp and small fish. These are riches the river no longer provides. Instead, the once pristine river has become filled with garbage, rubble and other debris. The workers use its water to wash cars and machinery. “One day we will run out of water and we won’t be able to live,” Maria said, echoing the primary fear of the women of Ixquisis. “Our children will suffer.” Their fear is well founded. Many families like Maria’s already suffer from stomach and skin diseases that they associate with water pollution. Before the workshop, the women of Ixquisis hadn’t had the opportunity to speak publicly about the importance of water and the rivers in their lives. They hadn’t been able to explain how their rivers had changed since the dams’ construction began. They had also never been provided with information about the projects. But even without knowing the details of the dams, Maria and her neighbors understood that the water in their homes no longer arrived as cleanly or as regularly as before. Time and again, they have peacefully expressed their opposition to the dams. But their voices have been stigmatized and shaken by fear of reprisal. Before Maria walked calmly through her community, even at night. She now leaves the house in fear. But the people of Ixquisis have the support of people and organizations that work to protect the environment and human rights. The international organization Front Line Defenders, for example, recently awarded them the 2018 Award for Human Rights Defenders at Risk. One day after the women’s workshop, we organized a second meeting attended by the men of the region. The lack of water has affected their main subsistence activity: the cultivation of bananas, cardamom, vegetables and other products they take to market. Because their harvests have decreased, they must now work more hours to obtain the same profit. I learned a lot from Maria. Her strength, as well as that of all the residents of Ixquisis, comes from her respect for nature and all it offers them. I share that feeling and channel it into my work as an AIDA attorney, legally advising the men and women of Ixquisis on how to defend their territory. I work so that water will continue to flow from their taps, and so that they can one day walk again without fear, in search of a healthier future for their children.
Read moreThe many reasons we care for our oceans
At AIDA, we work to protect our oceans. It’s not an easy task, especially considering the serious threats facing our vast seas—from warming waters to tons of plastic waste. But the members of our marine team believe it’s a valuable one. And they’re committed to conserving our region’s marine ecosystems, no matter what. Learn what motivates them. "Any effort I make to protect the oceans will benefit my children." Gladys Martinez, Senior Attorney "My greatest motivation is the thought that any work I do to protect the oceans will benefit my children and the other boys and girls on our planet, both present and future generations. To care for our oceans is to guarantee life, because our oceans truly are the lungs of our planet.” Playing in the sand, swimming, searching for fish among the rocks or walking on the beach at sunset… in all the most beautiful memories of Gladys' childhood, there is the sea. "It motivates me to know that we have the opportunity to change." Camilo Thompson, Legal Advisor "It motivates me to know that we have the opportunity to change, that respecting nature and caring for our ocean will bring a smile to our faces. The ocean brings us equilibrium. We cannot continue to destroy our corals, overexploit fish stocks or damage the coastal environments so closely linked to the sea. The opportunity for change is here and now. " Camilo currently lives very close to the sea, in La Paz, a coastal city of Baja California Sur, Mexico. He enjoys it very much. “I like to think I can help us understand all that our oceans provide us, and help to conserve the life within.” Magie Rodríguez, Legal Assistant “I’ve always been intrigued by the immensity of the oceans, and the relatively little we know about them. I like to think I can help us understand all that our oceans provide us, and help to conserve the life within. Although they make up the majority of our planet, for years we have neglected them, filling them with garbage and stripping them of their resources. Many fight to protect our terrestrial treasures, but few have turned their eyes to the seas.” When she was in grade school, Magie visited the beach where the Tarcoles River meets the sea. There she saw all that the most contaminated river in Central America carried to the sea. It was rght then she decided she had to do something to protect her country’s beaches from pollution and degradation. “I want future generations to enjoy the majesty of the oceans.” Maria José Gonzalez-Bernat, Scientific Advisor “I want future generations to enjoy the majesty of the oceans. It’s my greatest motivation. The oceans are one of the primary reserves of biodiversity on our planet, essential to maintaining its health. They’re a source of food and income for millions of people. Their social, environmental and economic importance motivates me to continue researching the oceans and finding new ways to promote their conservation and sustainable use. I will continue this work with governments, organizations and fishing communities alike.” One of Maria José’s most treasured memories is her first scuba diving trip. She can still see the different shades of blue and the many-hued plants and animals she visited below the surface.
Read more