Blog
Why 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 more
Understanding 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 more
The 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 more
The 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
The flame that ignited Nicaragua’s protests
On April 3, a wildfire broke out in the Indio Maíz Biological Reserve in southeast Nicaragua. The government’s slow and inadequate response to the fire marked the beginning of a struggle that continues to this day—a struggle to uphold democracy and protect our rights. Using the hash tag #SOSIndioMaíz, hundreds of university students organized a peaceful protest to demand the government of President Daniel Ortega, in its eleventh year, act quickly to battle the blazes and save the reserve. The students gathered peacefully in the streets on April 12 and 13, but their protest was repressed by the police and para-police groups. Located along the border with Costa Rica, Indio Maíz is considered the second most important natural reserve in the country and one of the largest in Central America. According to experts, the site is vital for the maintenance of a unified block of tropical forest through which thousands of wild animals travel—it connects with Barra de Colorado National Wildlife Refuge and Tortuguero National Park, both in Costa Rica. Indio Maíz also protects several of Nicaragua’s most important water basins. Despite the reserve’s importance, the government waited three days to react to the fire. Then, it filled the area with military personnel and prevented independent media from entering. When the NGO Fundación del Río informed the people of the late response, the government threated to cancel their legal status. Costa Rica’s offer to send firefighters to help battle the blaze was rejected. What resulted was the destruction of more than 5,000 hectares of forest in the reserve’s core area, a disaster that nationally renowned scientist Jaimes Incer Barquero called “the most serious environmental problem in the history of Nicaragua.” The awakening of a nation Many of the young people who demanded the protection of Indio Maíz took to the streets again on April 18 to show their dissatisfaction with reforms to the Social Security Law, announced two days before. Environmentalists, pensioners, journalists, black and indigenous activists, and people from across the national spectrum joined them. The government’s repression was repeated and the message was clear: in Nicaragua protest was forbidden. The next day, April 19, the demonstrations grew exponentially. Thousands of people joined from every corner of the country. With the growing crowds, the government’s response intensified as well. A wave of state violence and repression has, as of May 21, left 76 people dead and 868 wounded, most in the context of the protests; five remain in critical condition. In addition, 438 people have been arrested, among them students, civilians, human rights defenders and journalists. The figures above come from the preliminary observations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which made a special visit to the country in May. Undoubtedly, as journalist Carlos Fernando Chamorro has stated, it has been “the worst bloodbath in the history of Nicaragua during peacetime.” Environmental defense in Nicaragua Over the last decade, environment struggles like that of Indio Maíz have been gaining strength across the nation. One of the most iconic has been the movement demanding the cancellation of the law that authorized the Interoceanic Grand Canal—the Antichannel Campesino Movement, led by the fearless Francisca Ramírez. The canal threatens to strip thousands of Nicaraguans of their land and put the country’s biodiversity at grave risk. In their five years of resistance, the movement has been victim to repression, threats and persecution. Another example can be found in the National Environmentalist Movement Against Industrial Mining. This year, in a public hearing for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, members denounced human rights violations and the criminalization of defenders in the context of extractive industries. These struggles have faced off against a State with corruption problems, weakened institutions, alliances with private economic interests, and little will to protect natural resources. Added to this are the criminalization of citizen protest and the persecution of people who speak out in defense of the environment and human rights. But Nicaragua has changed. The flames of Indio Maíz revived the people’s consciousness and ignited their desire for free manifestation, a right guaranteed by our Political Constitution (but denied by the current government’s reign). The peaceful protests of April and May are the result of a decade of abuses and the systematic denial of our rights. Nicaraguans are fighting today for the true democratization of our country, which I hope will come hand-in-hand with respect for our right to a healthy environment.
Read more
Did you know coral reefs produce medicine?
“How can coral reefs contribute to modern medicine?” I wondered as I spoke to a group of doctors and nurses working on liver disease in Mexico. My uncle is part of the organization (Amihigo) and has long been interested in my work as a marine attorney with AIDA. When I got back from the meeting, the information I found backed up our discussion and clarified the link between our two worlds: coral reefs are natural, underwater pharmacies. The plants and animals living in reefs have developed chemical compounds to protect themselves against predators, fight diseases, and prevent the excessive growth of competing organisms. Corals have been recognized as an important source of new drugs to treat cancer, arthritis, Alzheimer’s, bacterial infections, viruses and heart disease, among other serious illnesses, according to the US-based National Ocean Service. The pharmaceutical industry has found corals provide value in the development of new products. Certain corals, for example, stimulate the welding of broken bones. Components of a Caribbean sponge allow for the creation of Zidovudina, a medicine used to treat HIV. Despite these discoveries, the medical use of coral reefs is considered underdeveloped. As an environmental attorney, what I take away from this realization is that if coral reefs are not effectively preserved, their great potential for modern medicine will never be fully realized. It’s a real threat. Studies estimate that 30 percent of the world’s reefs are already seriously damaged, and that 60 percent could disappear by 2030 due to water pollution, destructive fishing methods, overfishing, and other unsustainable human activities. Compounding these is the growing threat of climate change. Several Latin American nations are blessed with large areas of coral reefs that provide environmental and social benefits. But many don’t do enough to protect that wealth. Mexico’s coastline extends for more than 11 thousand kilometers, featuring 5,100 square kilometers of islands, reefs and cays. Its coral reefs span six major regions: the Gulf of California and the Western Mexican Pacific Coast, the Revillagigedo Archipelago, the Marias Islands, the South Pacific Coast, the Gulf of Mexico Reef Corridor and the Campeche Bank, and the Mexican Caribbean. The loss and degradation of these rich reef systems is a growing problem across the country. Unsustainable and poorly planned urban and coastal development is causing sedimentation and pollution, resulting in the growth of microalgae that rob light and oxygen, effectively suffocating the corals. In the Veracruz Reef System, the largest in the Gulf of Mexico, the expansion of the Port of Veracruz is doing just that. To protect reefs, it’s imperative that governments act with caution when approving land use in urban development plans to avoid damaging coastal wetlands (lagoons, bays, mangroves, coastal dunes and sea grasses, among others), and that they adopt adequate measures for wastewater treatment. The protection and restoration of coral reefs and coastal wetlands should be prioritized over economic interests and short-term economic benefits. Effective reef conservation can also be supported by good regulation practices. Measures to protect key species such as the parrotfish from overfishing, for example, would go a long was to preserving the health of coral reefs. And we now know that the health of those reefs is directly tied to our own. It’s important the health industry—from doctors and patients to scientists and pharmacists—join the call to conserve our coral reefs, natural medicine banks that can help guarantee our rights to a dignified life and a healthy environment.
Read more
Defending communities from fracking’s advance in Argentina
In a country highly dependent on hydrocarbons, human rights and those of nature are often overlooked. That's why in Argentina, AIDA and our allies are supporting the efforts of communities and organizations to avoid the damages caused by fracking. In Neuquén province in Argentine Patagonia, a large metal structure rises high above the apple trees. It’s one of many fracking wells that have been installed in this rich natural area. A single well like this one requires roughly 11 million liters of water for operation, the equivalent to 18 years of water consumption for an average family. Despite being internationally recognized as an experimental, risky and contaminating process, fracking is spreading rapidly through Argentina, affecting the land and water of the Mapuche people and other local communities. Much of the nation’s exploration is taking place at Vaca Muerta, the largest unconventional gas reserve in Latin America. Roughly 30 thousand square kilometers, the site covers four Argentine provinces: Neuquén, Rio Negro, La Pampa and Mendoza. The expansion of fracking has brought with it problems like pollution and great harm to the livelihoods of local communities, including the Mapuche, who are forced to find new ways of living on their land in order to avoid migration to urban centers. Oil companies generate unstable and short-term employment. And, due to the increase in the price of land, the residents of the area must earn more money to maintain their standard of living. In a country that gets 90 percent of its energy from hydrocarbons, the government has failed to prioritize the rights of indigenous peoples, of children and of nature. Instead, it has favored the economic income of a highly unsustainable activity. That’s why the efforts of communities and civil society organizations to resist the blind advance of fracking are fundamental. “What motivates me is caring for our land and water; nature is not ours, we belong to it,” stated Santiago Cane, member of the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), an organization that is using the courts to stop fracking. FARN filed a writ of amparo to invalidate the authorizations granted for the exploitation of four fracking wells in Mendoza. The environmental authority granted the permits in July 2017, in a record time of six days, without requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment. The lawsuit, which AIDA is supporting from our experience in international environmental law, remains in process. “In Mendoza, fracking is advancing at a rapid pace,” Santiago explained. “The national and provincial governments are not taking into account the potentially irreversible pollution of water sources that serve several cities.” In fact, Mendoza is a province that has suffered from water scarcity for years, a problem aggravated by climate change. Those who promote fracking in Mendoza also overlook the fact that, by contaminating both surface and ground water supplies, the toxic chemicals used in fracking will likely reach the Llancanelo lagoon, a wetland of international importance located in the foothills of the Andes Mountains. The lagoon is a mandatory passage and rest area for more than 130 species of resident and migratory birds. Additionally, the region is home to the Mapuche people. According to international law, indigenous peoples like the Mapuche must give their free, prior and informed consent to any activity that affects their territory. That right is not being respected in this case. “I am motivated by the idea of a different economy that does not deprecate nature and that does not generate the accumulation of wealth within small groups of society,” Santiago adds. FARN, together with AIDA, is part of the Latin American Alliance on Fracking, a coalition of organizations that work to slow fracking’s advance in the region. Together we will continue our work to avoid fracking’s damages to our land and water. We are convinced that the power to stop fracking lies with the people.
Read more
The shortsighted expansion of the Port of Veracruz
The powers behind the Port of Veracruz expansion project share a trait all too common in Mexico: a vision of development as the sum of short-term gains. But achieving those often requires squashing all possible obstacles, including our natural environments and the laws that protect them. “The first stage of the expansion of the Port of Veracruz will provide oxygen to the surrounding area for 15 or 20 years,” stated Juan Ignacio Fernández Carbajal, director of the Veracruz Port Authority. By oxygen, the director means economic income and new sources of employment derived from the port’s increased capacity. But this vision of development—so clearly shortsighted— ignores the social, environmental and economic benefits that the Veracruz Reef System has long provided, and which it will continue to provide for far more than 20 years. The second most important infrastructure project in Mexico’s recent history will irreversibly damage the largest coral ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico, the Veracruz Reef System National Park. The reefs of Veracruz provide oxygen to Mexico and our planet in the most literal sense. The oceans and their ecosystems, particularly coral reefs, generate about half the oxygen we breathe and absorb almost a third of the carbon dioxide we emit. Coral reefs also produce 17 percent of all proteins consumed worldwide—a percentage that rises to 70 percent for coastal nations, according to a report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. They harbor more than 100 thousand different species of marine fauna, including thousands of commercial fish, which share their home with herbivorous fish, sea turtles and sharks. In good conditions, reefs protect coastal populations from storms, hurricanes and tsunamis—natural phenomena aggravated by climate change. They absorb up to 95 percent of the impact of waves generated by strong winds. The people of Veracruz know particularly well how the reefs have protected them. When hurricane Karl (a category four) hit the city in 2001, the Veracruz reefs provided a buffer that protected the city from the worst of the storm. Despite the fact that the reef system was designated a national protected area in 1975, and named a national park in 1992, the government decided to change the park’s boundaries in 2012 to allow for the expansion of the Port of Veracruz—effectively excluding the Punta Gorda reefs and Vergara Bay from the protected area. In purely economic terms—those clearly prioritized by the project’s promoters—by taking away the protection of those reefs, and putting their future at risk, Mexico’s oceans are losing value. The value of the environmental services provided by the now-unprotected Punta Gorda and Vergara Bay reefs is estimated around $290.5 million USD, a dramatic figure in light of the estimated value of the expanded port's activities. The port expansion project has an estimated value of $85,600 USD per square kilometer, according to an article by the University of Veracruz, a figure that pales in comparison to the estimated value of ecosystem services provided by coral reefs, which ranges between $100,000 and $600,000 USD dollars per square kilometer, according to the United Nations Environment Program. The obligations Mexico ignored to promote the port “Unfortunately, when we thought the project was about to begin, we began to have environmental problems, which delayed the project for about three and a half years,” Fernández Carbajal explained. The “problems” to which the director is referring is the existence of protected coral reefs on site. “Since the problem was a national park, the government figured they’d remove it from the area so they could build the port without facing any legal obstacles,” Leonardo Ortiz, a researcher at the University of Veracruz, explained in our documentary short Battle for the Reefs of Veracruz. According to national law, the only activities permitted within the Veracruz Reef System National Park are those related to the protection of its natural resources, the increase in flora and fauna, and the preservation of its ecosystems and their elements. Port activities are clearly in violation of this law. So rather than stop the expansion project, the government chose instead to change the park’s boundaries, effectively unprotecting the reefs that fell within the port’s proposed limits. In doing so, the government failed to conserve the natural characteristics of the nation’s ecosystems for future generations. It also violated its obligations under the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty for the protection of wetlands, under which the Veracruz Reef System is recognized as a Wetland of International Importance. What’s more, the project’s Environmental Impact Assessment was highly flawed in the following ways: The Port Authority requested a fragmented authorization of the project, which prevented an adequate and comprehensive assessment of the project’s cumulative impacts over time. By ignoring the existence of the once-protected reef located in the construction zone, the assessment failed to provide the best possible scientific data. It did not include protective measures for sea turtles that spend an important part of their life cycle in the park—particularly hawksbill turtles, a threatened species recognized by the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles. It failed to consider the impacts on the reef due to sedimentation, the dredging of the Bay of Vergara and Punta Gorda, and the increase in the quantity and size of the vessels in the new port. It ignored the fact that, by transporting an increased quantity of hydrocarbons, the port’s expansion increases the risk of spills in a region highly vulnerable to these incidents, which could seriously damage the highly biodiverse reef system in the Southeast corridor of the Gulf of Mexico. For all of the above reasons, residents of the city of Veracruz have filed a writ of amparo, denouncing the government’s blatant violations of human rights and environmental law. In the legal action—presented by the Mexico Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA) and supported by AIDA—residents attest that the port expansion project is violating their human right to a healthy environment. The question we must consider then, is this: Does the short-term economic advancement of a region matter more than the preservation of a 10,000-year-old reef system that guarantees biodiversity, sustainable tourism, food security, and enduring protection against climate change? For those of us who think of the long game, and consider the natural world to be our best ally on the path toward a sustainable future, the answer is clear. The port expansion must be stopped.
Read more
To keep corals healthy, we must protect herbivorous fish
We all know coral reefs are fragile environments, highly vulnerable to climate change and pollution. But did you know they also had to compete for light and oxygen with the tiny macro-algae that cover their surface? That’s why some of corals' best friends are herbivorous fish—species like parrotfish and surgeonfish that feed on algae, helping to keep corals healthy. But in the Caribbean, unsustainable fishing practices are causing a decline in populations of parrotfish (and other herbivorous fish), putting the health of corals at risk. That’s why, in AIDA’s marine program, we’re launching a large-scale project dedicated to the conservation of herbivorous fish throughout Latin America—focused on the nations of Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and Panama. Herbivorous fish conservation The parrotfish is one of the most important fish living in coral reefs. They spend most of the day nibbling on corals, cleaning algae from their surface. They also eat dead corals—those bits and pieces that protrude from the reef—and later excrete them as white sand. A key element to maintaining sustainable fisheries is catching only adult fish—those that have already matured and reproduced. But in the Caribbean right now, people are fishing juvenile parrotfish. Though not a commercial species, parrotfish are being captured because they’re some of the only fish left in the reef. The irresponsible nature of commercial fishing in the region has caused a drastic decline in both commercial and herbivorous fish. “A key element of maintaining a sustainable fishery is catching only adult fish, which have already matured and reproduced. But what’s happening in the Caribbean is the fishing of young parrotfish,” explained Magie Rodríguez, AIDA marine attorney. Most fishing is done with gillnets and hooks, which cause high levels of by-catch—unwanted populations of marine species caught in commercial fishing. Harpoons and traps are also used, which prevent younger, smaller fish from escaping and continuing their life cycle. Surgeonfish and damselfish are two other herbivorous fish—both small and quite beautiful—falling victim to irresponsible fishing practices. Their popularity in tropical home aquariums has led to a decline in their wild populations. Remember Dory, from Finding Nemo? She was a surgeonfish, and the movie’s popularity led to an increased demand for her species in aquariums. What the movie didn’t tell you is that the surgeonfish’s small, sharp teeth are highly adept at chewing algae, preventing the plantlife from essentially choking coral reefs of oxygen and light. Conservation strategies AIDA’s project for the conservation of herbivorous fish in the Caribbean is in its initial phases. Our objective is the implementation of diverse strategies, across the six Latin American nations, to protect these fish and, by extension, the reefs they call home. “To restore the balance of the coral ecosystem, it’s necessary to achieve the recovery not just of herbivorous fish populations, but also of commercial species,” Rodríguez said. So we’re talking not just about fishing bans, but also about the general adoption of sustainable fishing tools that take into account the tourism potential of coral reefs. The project will also contemplate adequate wastewater management strategies, consumer education, and collaboration between governments, NGOs, universities and scientists. Corals are, among other things, a source of economic income and food for coastal communities that live from fishing and tourism. Plus, they are natural barriers against storms and hurricanes. “Corals do a lot for us and we have to take care of them,” Rodríguez added. “We’ve come to find that the best thing we can do to keep corals healthy is to protect the herbivorous fish that call them home.”
Read more
Women, water and life: the vital connection
As a woman and an environmental defender, I find it necessary to commemorate the role of women in the protection of our natural heritage. I feel a special pull toward making visible the links between environmental defense, courage, and gender. Women are the first victims of environmental deterioration, but they’re also the greatest protagonists in the defense and conservation of nature. Although it may seem like women and the environment are two different topics, there are subtle—but strong—links between the two, particularly when it comes to water. Women have an important relationship with water—they are both sources of life and fundamental to existence. It’s not surprising, then, that women can often be seen leading struggles in defense of water, especially within indigenous and rural populations. Joan Martínez Alier, professor of economics at the Autonomous University of Barcelona and an expert in political ecology, explained to Agencia EFE that often, socio-environmental conflicts involving mining or the privatization of water directly affect the survival of communities and, for that reason, women act in defense of water as they would in defense of their land or their family: bravely and completely. Little is known, however, about the knowledge and experience of women in water management. In many cases, especially in the Global South, the administration of water resources, as well as the elaboration and implementation of related policies, doesn’t take into account gender roles and lacks a differentiated approach. In rural Colombia, for example, women bring water to their homes from rivers or springs, boil it for use in the kitchen, and care for it. Despite their central role, they are not consulted when decisions are made locally or nationally about the water supply. It’s necessary to bring visibility to the role women play in water management, give equal recognition to the interests of men and women, and promote equal access to decision-making spaces. Only in that way can we advance towards greater equality. It’s important to remember that Latin America is one of the most dangerous regions in the world to be an environmental defender, and more dangerous still for women. Many women, who fight silently from their communities or from their leadership roles, have suffered the violence and injustice that comes with defending what is theirs. I must take a moment now to remember and honor Berta Cáceres, the indigenous activist and leader of the Civil Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH), who dedicated her life to the defense of the Gualcarque River. Berta was murdered in March 2016, after years of threats stemming from her opposition of the Agua Zarca Dam. She may be gone, but her spirit, and her commitment to justice, is still very much alive. I’d also like to mention my colleagues, courageous friends, and allies who through their struggles are shaping a more just and equitable world. They believe, with all their hearts, that gender justice comes hand-in-hand with environmental justice. In our current reality, equality, more than a starting point, is a goal we must work towards. Concrete actions are needed to counterbalance the discrimination that affects us all. That’s why it is fundamental to incorporate the gender approach in any plan, program, project or mechanism of public administration. As the World Bank mentions in a 2002 report, the way to ensure both men and women benefit more equitably from policies is to make their needs and experiences an integral part of them. Life depends on women, as it does on water. That’s why we proudly act as stubborn defenders of not just water, but of all natural resources and of those who depend on them. Although not always visible, our struggle is as present as the water that travels in so many ways across our planet. It’s important that we come together in support of one another—in our victories and our defeats. May we continue sharing our fears and our fights and, above all else, may we never abandon the defense of our territory—because it defines us and to it we owe everything. I’ve always thought that water has the face of a woman. Every day now, I see it more clearly.
Read more