Blog
Why I’m joining the fight for justice for Belo Monte’s victims
On April 1, 2011, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights granted protective measures to the indigenous communities affected by a large dam in the heart of the Brazilian Amazon. It was then I first heard of Belo Monte. I was working as a human rights defender in my native country of Colombia. The Commission ordered the suspension of all permits and work related to the dam until the protection of indigenous rights was guaranteed. I remember clearly the excitement generated by the decision, followed swiftly by Brazil’s rejection of it and the imposition of their diplomatic power. Other governments of the region supported Brazil’s position with unusual solidarity, questioning the competence of the international organization to grant such measures in relation to “development” projects. Due to the overwhelming pressure, the Commission, for the first time in its history, modified its decision: it said Brazil must guarantee the life and integrity of affected populations, but that construction could continue. I’ve never understood the governments’ reaction in this case. The Commission had simply fulfilled its mandate: to avoid irreparable harm to the rights of a group of people. The project had not consulted affected indigenous communities, and lacked adequate social and environmental impact studies. It has gone on, as predicted, to cause serious damage to both the environment and human health and wellbeing. The indigenous and riverside communities, which have for generations cared for the Xingu River, have been left to deal with the impacts of a project that interrupted the flow of the river, irreversibly altering their way of life and means of subsistence. The hope continues More than six years have passed since the case was taken before the Commission, which, as an organ of the Organization of American States, is called to protect human rights on the continent. Over this time, Belo Monte has progressed as planned and the threats of social and ecological harm have become a reality. The dam has: caused the forced displacement of more than 40 thousand people, aggravating poverty and social conflict in the area; saturated the health, education, and public safety systems in Altamira, the nearest city; violated the right to adequate housing for thousands of families; and increased violence against human rights defenders. It caused and continues to cause damage to the Amazon rainforest, worsening climate change and its impacts. Despite the setbacks, the hope of achieving justice for affected people has grown over time as well. In September, I became the Senior Attorney for AIDA’s Human Rights and Environment Program. As such, I’m involved with our case before the Commission. I’m honored to have joined an organization that, in alliance with local organizations, has dedicated years to ensuring that the people of the Xingu get reparation for the damages they’ve suffered, and is working to create new standards for environmental and human rights protections in the region. In 2010, AIDA and our allies requested precautionary measures from the Commission. One year later, we filed a formal complaint against Brazil regarding the human rights violations related to Belo Monte. In December 2015, the Commission opened the case for processing. On October 31 of this year, the Commission gave new impetus to the litigation process against Brazil: it decided to unite two stages that, as a rule, are processed separately. In the first, the necessary aspects regarding admissibility of the case are verified. In the second, a fundamental decision is made that analyzes whether a State failed to comply with the international obligations it undertook when signing the American Convention on Human Rights. The petitioners must present the allegations of human rights violations, and the State their responses to them. The Commission will then issue a decision on the case’s admissibility as well as its merit. Their recent exception will expedite the process of reaching that decision. We’re working for the Commission to issue recommendations to Brazil to repair the violations committed. If those recommendations are unfulfilled, the case may be referred to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which has the power to issue a ruling condemning Brazil and recommending reparation measures. Valuable lessons Belo Monte is, without a doubt, a lesson for the continent. The case shows that projects of this type are environmentally unviable and generate irreparable damage to human rights. Belo Monte also shows that States must rethink their energy models and turn their efforts toward promoting truly clean and sustainable energy. It’s a warning sign for financial institutions to avoid investing in projects with negative socio-environmental impacts. Finally, it’s an opportunity for the Inter-American Human Rights System to establish a valuable precedent that will hopefully help avoid a similar situation from happening again. On behalf of AIDA, I’m proud to be contributing to the fight for a healthy environment in this and many other cases. Our journey is just beginning.
Read more
When nature is your best client
AIDA’s attorneys both hail from and live in Latin America, fostering a profound respect for the region’s natural environment and those who depend so intimately on it. They’re turning their knowledge into action, and working to protect communities and ecosystems vital to their national heritage. Uniting the environmental community in Bolivia Claudia believes in environmental justice. “If people are not guaranteed quality of life and an adequate natural environment, their basic human rights are being violated,” she said. This belief led her first to study law and then to work on behalf of civil society to promote the production of healthy, pesticide-free food. Small-scale agriculture, with less environmental impact and more community benefits, is what Claudia remembers best when she thinks of her childhood in Cochabamba, Bolivia. There were gardens behind every house. From a very young age, she grew berries and always had apples, figs, guava, and other fresh fruit on hand. But with urbanization, the valley where she grew up became a city, and buildings replaced the lush green landscape. “It was a complete shock to see these changes made in the name of progress.” Claudia knows that her contribution to a better world will come from environmental law, and that she will have a greater impact by reaching more people. That’s why she joined AIDA’s Freshwater Program, where she offers free legal support to governments, communities, and local organizations. One of Claudia’s greatest achievements has been to successfully unite isolated efforts across Bolivia to confront common environmental problems. This year Claudia oversaw the formation of the Environmental Justice Network of Bolivia, a space for organizations and individuals to develop joint strategies for environmental protection. As their first big event, the Network organized a two-day forum on how to achieve justice for damages caused by mining operations. “I’ve seen the ways that Bolivia’s indigenous peoples understand the world, and how they relate with Mother Earth. In cities, nature is seen as an object; for the indigenous, it’s the common house we must care for because it provides us with everything we have. I’ve made this vision my own.” Protecting coral reefs in Mexico Camilo’s first interaction with the ocean took place in Boca del Cielo, a remote beach on the coast of Chiapas, Mexico where a stream meets the sea. There, he played in the waves and ate seafood, saw his first sea turtle, and watched the monkeys and birds play in the tall mangroves. During his childhood in San Cristobal de la Casas, his father taught him to swim against the current in the Cascadas de Agua Azul, an important natural reserve. “My father loves nature and has always transmitted that feeling to my brothers and me,” said Camilo, who now lives with his son Emiliano en La Paz, Baja California Sur. Living in a coastal city has given him a newfound appreciation for the ocean and its vital connection to our land. Camilo applies this understanding to his work as an attorney with AIDA’s Marine and Coastal Protection Program. He is working, for example, to save the Veracruz Reef System, the largest coral ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico, which serves as a natural barrier against storms and hurricanes and is a source of livelihood for fishing communities. The site is seriously threatened by the expansion of the Port of Veracruz. Camilo is working so that the Mexican government respects the international treaties it has signed, which obligate the preservation of the site and the biodiversity found within. Camilo remembers, when he studied law in Chiapas, exploring caves in his free time, to which local farmers guided him. “Being in touch with nature often leads you to small communities who care for and revere their connection with the natural world, values you quickly come to understand and share.” Seeking the rain in Brazil If anyone knows the value of the rain, it’s the people of Paraíba State in northeast Brazil, who have for years been hit by an extreme drought. There, according to official information, the number of cities without water nearly doubled between 2016 and 2017. “The drought has shaped our customs, our eating habits, and our culture,” says Marcella, who was born in the State’s capital city of João Pessoa. Now living in Recife, she is a fellow with AIDA’s Human Rights and the Environment Program. Through her role as an environmental and human rights attorney, Marcella seeks to soften the effects of the drought in Paraíba. The way she sees it, she’s helping to do so through her work on the case of the Belo Monte Dam. “Large dams are dirty energy, and they’re damaging the Amazon rainforest, a key ecosystem that regulates climate and helps ensure it rains not just in Brazil but around the world. By working on this case, I’m fighting for the existence of rain in my State,” she explained. Last June, Marcella paid her first visit to Altamira, the city closest to Belo Monte. She spoke with people whose way of life had been destroyed by the dam. “I met someone who used to fish, grow his own food, and sell what was left in the city; because of the dam, his island was flooded and he lost everything.” For Marcella, there is no better way to understand the severity of the impacts of these inadequately implemented projects than to listen to those affected by them. “It gives me a notion of reality. Helping to get justice for these people is an obligation for me. It’s the best I can do, using the tool I know best: the law.”
Read more
The hidden mine that threatens Colombia’s water
For me, a living thing like water can never be replaced by a non-living thing like gold. Gold should never be worth more than the water that gives us life. While those who defend mining often argue for it by saying that all human activity causes impacts, that line of thinking fails to address the underlying problem. When will we start recycling instead of extracting new resources? When will we stop assigning value to something as scarce but futile as gold? When will we treat the natural environments on which we depend with the respect they deserve? Taking these questions into account is critical not just for Colombia, my home, but also for all Latin American nations. In September I learned of the latest threat to one of our most important natural ecosystems, the Santurbán páramo. For centuries it has stood high in the Andes, keeping watch over the water of millions of us Colombians. For the last decade, mining companies have overlooked its ecological importance and angled to exploit the páramo’s lands for mineral wealth. For years, we’ve worked successfully to stop them. Now an international corporation has submitted the Environmental Impact Assessment for a new underground mining venture there. Located in the municipalities of Suratá and California, in northern Colombia, the mine would involve an intricate system of tunnels at least 2,000 meters long, 900 meters wide and 780 meters deep (only slightly shorter than the tallest building in the world, in Dubai). It would be built in two sections—traversing two river basins and two different municipalities—united by two immense 5,800-meter tunnels (nearly the expanse of the Colombian city of Bucaramanga from north to south). Previous attempts at mining near Santurbán have been rejected due to the potential damage they would cause to this unique natural environment, which serves as a key water source, a carbon sink, and shelters many endemic species of plants and animals. The risks of the project, examined The Company claims the new project will be different—no permanent accumulation of debris, no hazardous substances, no toxic sludge, and no mass infrastructure development. If this sounds too good to be true, that’s because it probably is. Could their venture really be different than the mega-mines that came before, or is it just dressed up that way? Let’s see: The company says the project’s only dump will be located near the mine and the waste will be dry. But dry waste in one site would require perpetual maintenance of the drainage network and other factors that, after the mine closes, it’s likely neither the company nor the State will be able to control. They say the project’s design would involve retro-filling all mining tunnels. But the impacts of drilling on the direction and volume of groundwater are unpredictable. It would be impossible to guarantee that the quality and quantity of water in the subsoil is conserved. They say that because the mine is technically outside the Santurbán páramo, it won’t affect the sensitive ecosystem. But technicalities aside, the mine would be only tens of meters below the páramo. Because it is an underground mine located in crystalline rocks, drilling could cross the multiple fractures through which water is transported to rivers, ravines and soils. They say the project will not use mercury or cyanide to obtain gold and other metals. By selling and exporting those metals to other companies in the form of ready-to-process concentrates, the company hopes to lessen the socio-ecological cost of the activity. But while it’s true Colombia may be spared the negative effects of toxic chemicals, that cost might be transferred to other countries, where the processing will take place. As Colombians we must begin to acknowledge the external impacts of our extractive industries, and stop ignoring our nation’s ecological footprint. The responsibility for the damages caused outside our borders by the mining that is done in Colombia is not only that of the buyer, but also of the Colombian State. Large-scale damages It’s important to understand that a hidden mine is not necessarily a better mine. What is done under the ground, especially on such a large scale, can do extensive damage to a much wider area. It’s a reality we must be keenly aware of in one of the most biodiverse countries in the world. We must think about the impact the mine would have on the quality and quantity of groundwater in the area, and the risks we’re taking by not having an adequate buffer zone for the páramo. Hiding the trash under the carpet does not mean you’ve cleaned, not in terms of the economy and certainly not in terms of mining. The protection of Santurbán, and that of other freshwater sources in Latin America, is one of the pillars of AIDA’s work. We’re proud to continue standing alongside our allies in Colombia and fighting to maintain the health of Santurbán.
Read more
5 ways our governments can confront climate change
As individuals, we know about the small actions we can take to help reduce the emissions that cause climate change. But what can and should our governments do, seeing as their large-scale actions are fundamental to the welfare of their people? Earth, we have a problem: we’re essentially melting. High rates of greenhouse gas emissions, paired with environmental degradation and the overexploitation of natural resources, have us in a race against time. Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree that climate change is a result of human activities. And if we fail to stop global warming soon, the changes will be catastrophic. Each year, at the United Nations climate conference, global leaders meet to discuss actions we can take to help prevent, and be better prepared for, climate change. At COP21 the first binding global climate accord, the Paris Agreement, was born. This year, during COP23, delegates seek to establish rules to allow for its proper implementation. As individuals, most of us understand what we can do to reduce emissions: save energy, use the car less, recycle more, make better consumption choices, and engage in family planning. But what can our governments do? To discuss their contribution is to talk about large-scale measures that are vital to ensuring a better future for all. 1. Protect and restore key ecosystems Respect for nature is fundamental. Governments must protect ecosystems key to the fight against climate change: rivers, wetlands, oceans, forests and mangroves absorb large quantities of carbon, slowing warming. Mangroves also serve as a barrier against tropical storms, and wetlands absorb excess water from floods, both extreme weather events exacerbated by climate change. “Healing the natural system is the most feasible, realistic and fair option, since it would benefit humanity and all species,” said Florencia Ortúzar, an attorney with AIDA’s Climate Change Program. “In terms of conservation and restoration, we’re in a race against time, and we’re already beginning to witness alarming natural phenomena, like forests so degraded they’re losing their ability to absorb carbon.” 2. Support small agricultural producers According to the FAO, the meat industry is responsible for 15 to 18 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, exceeding even those of the transportation sector. In addition, it is the most significant source of water use and contamination in the world. Today, 80 percent of all agricultural production goes toward feeding animals not people. The expansion of land for livestock, and the crops to feed them, is the most significant cause of deforestation in the Amazon. Governments can make a difference by supporting small local producers who, unlike large factory farms, employ sustainable practices, care about land restoration, benefit nearby communities, and make animals and crops more resilient to climate change. It’s less about everybody becoming vegetarians, but more about supporting those who produce our food with a respect for nature. 3. Promote green energy Thirty-five percent of all global emissions come from energy production. But as countries bet on more development, they’re also betting on more energy production. But as countries bet on more development, they’re also betting on more energy. While thermoelectric and hydroelectric energies were long considered the cheapest options, technological developments have allowed us to find better, cheaper, more efficient alternatives. With proper long-term planning, nations can avoid old climate-aggravating energy sources (hydropower is not green) and opt for small wind, solar, geothermal, oceanic and other projects that adapt to a place’s unique characteristics. “When thinking about energy, it’s best to bet on a diversified matrix, prioritizing projects that are close to places where people need energy, saving on losses and infrastructure,” Ortúzar explained. “We must give absolute priority to the protection of nature. Every action, public policy, or strategy should be analyzed with nature in mind, and the production of energy is a good starting point.” 4. Combat short-lived climate pollutants Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most infamous greenhouse gas. Since it remains in the atmosphere for centuries (even millennia), even if we stopped all its emissions sources today, the effects of climate change would continue. The good news is that other contaminants exist that contribute to climate change and only last a few days or years in the atmosphere. They’re known as short-lived climate pollutants, and they’re responsible for 30 to 45 percent of the emissions that cause global warming. These pollutants include black carbon (soot), methane, ozone, and the hydro fluorocarbons found in refrigerants. Their effective control, through national policies and regulations, could accelerate the fight against climate change in the short term. In addition, because they cause serious air pollution, measures to mitigate them would directly benefit human health. 5. Bet on adaptation, not just mitigation In the fight against climate change, work aimed at reducing emissions, stopping their effects and diminishing future consequences is known as mitigation. It is important. However, some communities are already experiencing tragic consequences due to changes in climate over a short period of time. So we also must act to prevent catastrophes, increase resilience, and reduce vulnerability, which is known as adaptation. Projects to mitigate emissions are more attractive financially than those designed for adaptation, which are generally focused on the most vulnerable communities. But it is important to give adaptation the significance it deserves in recognition of the fact that the impacts of climate change are already a grave reality for many. At this year’s COP, representatives are discussing a “loss and damage” mechanism, referring to the compensation that developed countries – the main causes of climate change – must make to developing countries, which suffer significant losses due to adverse climate effects, Ortúzar explained. Our governments must support these discussions and commit to the effective use of resources, so all the world’s people can be better prepared for, and help to prevent, greater changes to our climate.
Read more
Honoring the indigenous connection to the San Pedro Mezquital River
In Northwest Mexico, the Western Sierra Madre Mountains rise like giants from the coastal wetlands of the Gulf of California to the Central Mexican Plateau. Indigenous communities have long found shelter in these isolated lands, and the space to maintain their culture and way of life. The region’s last free-flowing river cuts smoothly through the mountains, carving out fertile valleys, carrying fresh water and life downstream to the wetlands of Marismas Nacionales. The Nayeri and Wixárika people venerate the San Pedro Mezquital River. It brings life to their lands, and many of their sacred sites are dotted along its winding path. Despite its importance, the river—and with it the rights of more than 15,000 indigenous peoples—are at risk from the proposed Las Cruces hydroelectric dam. The dam’s reservoir would flood 14 sacred ceremonial sites, and threaten their culture and way of life. I was honored to walk alongside the Nayeri and Wixárika people last May, and participate in a joint ceremony intended to show their commitment to defending their rights in the face of this government-sponsored megaproject. It’s a commitment that was recently and formally manifested again, when representatives presented their case before the United Nation’s Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples. The images I captured of that pilgrimage are a testament to the beauty and strength of the living indigenous cultures of the Western Sierra Madre. We left from the town of Rosamorada in Nayarit State on a pilgrimage to Keiyatsita, a ceremonial site along the San Pedro Mezquital River. We walked single file, winding up into the mountains and then down, again, to the river’s edge. When we arrived to the river, we performed a ritual, and were marked with ashes and creole corn flour to protect us on the journey. Walking beside so many indigenous people, of all ages—mothers and fathers, children and elders—was an enriching and inspiring experience. This particular pilgrimage was historic, as it brought together two different indigenous communities—the Náyeri and the Wixárika—to honor the sacred spaces they share. In a joint declaration, they wrote that, beyond the spiritual reasons for the ceremony, they came together: "to unite against the hydroelectric project Las Cruces and thus show the Mexican government that we are not alone and we are not isolated… After this historic ceremony, both indigenous groups will further strengthen our cultural, spiritual, political and legal struggle and defense against the aforementioned dam, as well as strengthen our ties with other indigenous peoples of Mexico and the world.” They walked to honor the river, to nurture the earth, and to demonstrate their commitment to protecting their sacred spaces. Both indigenous groups see themselves as the guardians of these sites—places like Keiyatsita that provide them with the knowledge and wisdom of how to care for their mother earth. These sites are vital not just to their historical memory, but to their culture and identity. The ceremony at Keiyatsita began in the afternoon. Through prayer, song and dance they expressed their devotion to their native corn gods, Tatei Niwetsika, or mother Maíz, in her five colors—yellow, blue, pink, white and red. In the middle of the night, the animals that walked beside us through the mountains were offered up to the gods amidst the river’s running water. The prayers, songs and ceremony lasted all through the night. These sacred sites along the San Pedro Mezquital river are living spaces, and part of what makes Mexico so rich. They are a reflection of the indigenous cultures and traditions that remain very much alive in the Western Sierra Madre Mountains. They are places that, because of their cultural and spiritual importance, must be honored and protected as part of our international heritage. Indigenous peoples are the best guardians of our planet. And now, they are called on again to protect this unique and precious place—the last free-flowing river in Northwest Mexico and the lands it travels through, from the peaks of Durango to the mangroves of Nayarit along the Gulf of California. Representatives of the indigenous communities of Nayarit stood this week before Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, the United Nationals Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, and voiced their opposition to the dam that threatens their territory and way of life. They explained that they have not given, and will not give, their consent for the advancement of a project that would destroy their sacred sites and the river that provides them with life. Learn more about our fight to protect the San Pedro Mezquital
Read more
After the Mexico City earthquake, a call to create a better city
About a month ago, on September 19, a 7.1 magnitude earthquake struck near the heart of Mexico City. In the quake’s aftermath, on top of all the tears and fear and aguish, I was overcome with solidarity and love, by the signs of an awakened and united citizenry. I’ve been living here for more than 13 years, and never before have I felt so proud to call this place home. Everyone who could went out to the streets to help. It was impressive to see how we employed our professions, our skills, and our pastimes in the service of others: medicine, engineering, architecture, cooking, masonry, carpentry, psychology, therapy, advocacy, education, communications, acting, and art. Every bit of knowledge was useful in a million different ways. The support of neighbors and local businesses was essential. Restaurants and cafes provided food, drinks, and bathrooms to anyone in need. Internet networks and electricity were offered up free of charge. Thousands of people set to work in the wreckage of collapsed buildings, in collection and aid-distribution centers. We became a real, alive, awakened, tireless, connected and supportive city. With all that has happened over the last month, it is this spirit of citizenship and support that has remained with me. Friends and strangers alike were inspired to help and to share; they were proud of their actions but not seeking any spotlight. I hope we can keep this spirit alive in the months and years to come. Instead of going back to being anonymous, disconnected residents of this monstrous city, people skeptical of the unknown and afraid of the shadows, we can be more. We can reinvent ourselves, remain active and involved citizens; we can be better. It’s the least we can do to honor the people who died, and those who lost their homes and their ways of life. Only then will all this pain be for something greater. If we maintained these habits of generosity, we could drastically improve the quality of life in our city. Perhaps we would be removed from The Economist’s list of the worst cities to live in Latin America. And, most importantly, perhaps we could all live safer, more peaceful and happier lives. What if, in the face of corruption, instead of just complaining, we formed a human chain to denounce it, find solutions, and implement them? Can you imagine the difference we would make? What if, in the face of environmental pollution, we sought to better understand the causes and solutions, and demanded effective action from both the government and those responsible for the damage? What if, in the face of the irregularities of urban development—made evident by the earthquake—we supported citizen-oversight initiatives to ensure that complaints are followed up, and codes and norms are complied with? What if, in the face of inequality, we formed another human chain for the more balanced distribution of resources, to ensure they get where they’re most needed? We’ve seen what we can achieve together, and we know that we can all give more than we normally do. We know now that when there is trust and time, the greatest gift we can give is ourselves. So, a month after the earthquake, I invite you to continue being part of our human chain—for our city, our country, our region, and our planet. By becoming protagonists and finding solutions, instead of being victims and complaining, we can truly make a difference. We’ve seen that the government doesn’t cut it, and that we can do more with our own hands. For my part, I will continue my work as an environmental attorney with AIDA. But I will also commit to remaining connected to my neighbors and community, and to contributing to the reconstruction of our city. And what about you? What human chain did you join the day of the earthquake, and what connections will you choose to form and strengthen now?
Read more
How to fight fracking with the law
Fracking is spreading rapidly through Latin America. If left to develop blindly, it could cause irreparable harm not just to the environment but also to public health. Claudia Velarde, a Bolivian environmental attorney, believes humanity and Mother Earth should not be seen as different or isolated beings. “The activities that affect the conservation of nature will have repercussions in our lives as well,” she said. This conviction led her to join AIDA’s team of attorneys earlier in 2017, to be part of our efforts to protect the environment from extractive activities like fracking and large-scale mining. For our Freshwater Protection Program, Claudia helps coordinate the work of the Latin American Alliance on Fracking, a coalition that promotes public debate, awareness, and education among civil society groups. The Alliance also supports resistance efforts by communities throughout the region. Confirmed risks The extraction of gas and oil through fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, could have a “nefarious effect” on the quality and availability of potable water. This was the conclusion of the most exhaustive study yet completed by the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States, the nation that pioneered this controversial technique. Oil and gas companies inject fracking wells with large amounts of water mixed with highly concentrated chemicals. The toxic solution fractures rocks to release trapped oil and/or gas. According to the study, the poisonous fluids leach through soil and contaminate groundwater. By contaminating water sources, fracking also affects the lives of the people, animals, plants, and entire ecosystems that depend on them. Ignoring the danger “Dependence on fossil fuels is leading us to an unprecedented environmental and climate crisis,” Claudia explained. “Fracking has serious impacts, so it’s important that people have real and complete information on the policies and procedures related to it.” One procedure that should be followed before any fracking operation is authorized is the preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment. A proper assessment includes evaluation of possible environmental damages and identification of measures to mitigate the harms. In Latin America, corporations—rather than the governments that regulate them—prepare Environmental Impact Assessments. But often, governments of the region allow companies to skirt this procedure. In Argentina, the environmental authority granted a permit for Petrolera El Trebol to explore and exploit four oil wells conventionally (without using fracking) near Llancanelo Lagoon, a wetland of international importance. Months later, the company decided to frack the wells. Through an abbreviated process, the government authorized the change without requiring a new Environmental Impact Assessment. Faced with this dangerous reality, Argentina’s Foundation for the Environment and Natural Resources (FARN) filed a civil suit, requesting an injunction until the government’s prior authorization is invalidated. The suit argues that, in addition to violating the obligation to require a new Environmental Impact Assessment, the government also failed to respect the affected communities’ right to give their free, prior and informed consent to the project. “We’re appealing to justice to put a stop to this outrage, so the people have an opportunity to discuss, with adequate information, whether or not they approve of these types of activities that cause irremediable environmental damage,” explained Santiago Cané of FARN. “If they do accept fracking, it must be done with the utmost care, using the measures and regulations designed to avoid or mitigate damages.” AIDA is supporting FARN’s legal work with arguments based on international law. The most important is the precautionary principle, which holds that where any uncertainty exists about the risk of serious harm to the environment and human health, the most stringent precautions should be applied. “Given that there is no study with enough technical information on the possible damages of fracking, this principle should be applied to avoid the consolidation of impacts in these and other cases,” Claudia explained. Despite scientific evidence demonstrating many harmful consequences of fracking, the use of the technique is expanding throughout Latin America. Faced with this worrying trend, AIDA will continue working with our partners to find legal solutions with widespread impacts throughout the region.
Read more
Turtles, sharks and tuna: why we’re working to protect our ocean
About a third of the world’s fisheries have crashed, and the rest are in bad shape. It’s a stark reality that affects not just our own food security, but the health and future of the many creatures that travel through the farthest reachs of our ocean. Out in the high seas, far beyond view of our coasts, sharks and whales glide through the deep blue water; a lone sea turtle pops her head up for air, catching a glimpse of the birds soaring overhead. Far from national boundaries, and protected by no country, these deep waters are rich in biodiversity—sustaining everything from corals to mammals to the fish we eat. Despite their importance, these international waters—and the life within them—are at risk. A lack of coordinated oversight has led to overfishing, illegal fishing, pollution, and habitat destruction. Marine life struggles with all these stressors—and a warming climate. A unique refuge Through their interactions with Latin America’s coasts, the high seas form rich environments called outcropping systems. Near Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, Panama and Brazil, these nutrient-rich waters feed species of great ecological and commercial importance. Within them live the mahi mahi, yellowfin and bluefin tuna, sailfish, swordfish, and others on which the fishing industry—and therefore much of the region’s economy—depends. In fact, deep-sea fishing for tuna and similar species in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans generates more than $1.2 billion in revenue a year, according to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. In the Eastern Tropical Pacific, it’s estimated that a single hammerhead shark generates as much as $1.6 million dollars in tourism throughout its 35-year lifespan, according to a study by the University of Costa Rica. Beyond the economic value they provide to humans, the high seas also hold tremendous value for the species that depend on them. Five species of sea turtle, most of which are threatened, migrate through these waters to lay their eggs on coastal beaches. The outcropping systems also provide essential breeding grounds for blue and humpback whales. Nobody governs the high seas According to a 2014 Global Ocean Commission report, the degradation of these important ecosystems is driving the entire ocean to the point of collapse. In fact, 12 percent of the species living in the Eastern Tropical Pacific are in danger of extinction, according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Current international legislation has gaps that leave these offshore waters unprotected, further endangering the marine life that lives in them, explains Gladys Martínez, AIDA’s Senior Marine Attorney. The greatest current need is to create marine protected areas, off-limits to commercial activity. We also need an authority that mandates environmental impact assessments for activities on the high seas—something that was not contemplated when the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the most sweeping agreement governing world oceans, was created. Our hope is that a new international treaty convened by the United Nations General Assembly will soon fill these gaps. Representatives from governments around the world have already had several successful meetings to pave the way for its negotiation. We’re working as part of the High Seas Alliance—a coalition of 32 NGOs—to ensure the voice of Latin American civil society is heard in the creation of this new treaty, which will protect the deepest reaches of our ocean far into the future.
Read more
Lessons in Strength and Solidarity from the Mexico City Earthquake
Seconds before 1:15 p.m. on September 19, the Earth reminded us just how fragile life is. As soon as we felt the first movement, and the seismic alert confirmed what was happening, our Mexico City team suspended a call with team members in five countries and took to the streets. Words can’t describe the emotions that engulfed us during the next hours and days. Fear and joy, anxiety and solidarity, nervousness and hope. Just two hours before, we had participated in a simulation in honor of the victims of the devastating earthquake exactly 32 years before. While for some residents of Mexico City these exercises are a repetitive protocol, we in AIDA always follow them because our team consists of professionals from across Latin America, some who don’t have experience with earthquakes. So luckily our team knew what to do. We met at the rendezvous point, as best we could. We were relieved to learn the teams of AIDA and CEMDA—with whom we share offices—were all safe and accounted for. But the calm was short-lived, as reports came in from nearby streets: building collapses, gas leaks, the loss of power and communication. The city suspended all activities. Those who were able showed up to help. Damaged streets were flooded with volunteers. Astrid Puentes, co-director of AIDA, gave shelter to our team in her nearby home. Those who could returned to their homes at the end of the day. Unfortunately, the house where one of our interns was staying was left uninhabitable. These have been difficult days. Work was put on hold as our team joined the relief efforts. We have seen so many signs of solidarity. Despite the tragedy, the humility and confidence of the Mexican people has awakened in us a new sense of hope. Everyone could help in some way. We’ve seen therapists, lawyers, motorcyclists, cooks, blacksmiths, architects, masons, journalists, and clowns offering their knowledge and experience to one cause: helping the victims, whether they knew them or not. We won’t emerge from this situation unscathed. While AIDA’s office remains in good condition, the news of friends who have lost loved ones or their homes continues to arrive. But we’ve seen the spectacular strength and resilience of Mexico’s people; they work with their hands as well as their hearts. We know now that the reconstruction that awaits us will have its foundation in solidarity and empathy. We’re confident that the millions of people who have been awakened, who are acting as conscious and involved citizens, will continue working for our city and our country. And we return to our work this week conscious that thousands of people still need help, not just in Mexico City, but also in the states of Morelos, Puebla, Oaxaca, Veracruz, Tabasco, and Chiapas. We will work for them and for the whole continent. We will work for the Earth, which has reminded us that life is but an instant, and that it’s always worth fighting for. -- In solidarity, AIDA’s team from Mexico City: Astrid, Ava, Cecilia, Laura, Paulina, Rodrigo, and Victor. ¡#FuerzaMéxico!
Read more
Why damming rivers, like blocking veins, risks our health
Some of my most treasured childhood memories happened in or near a river. I can still feel the cold water on my feet, and the current that pulled me smoothly past rocks and branches. I remember vacations with my cousins, throwing ourselves into the river near my aunt and uncle’s country house, leaping from the tops of rocks or swinging from the branches of a tree. I remember summer road trips, driving down seemingly endless bridges over the great rivers of southern Mexico. I’ve always thought of rivers as the veins of our planet. In their waters, the rivers and their tributaries carry nutrients to wetlands, lakes, and the sea. They carry oxygen and host thousands of species. They supply drinking water to millions of people in small towns and big cities. They give us food, entertainment, transportation, and life. Recent natural disasters have reminded us that—despite our best attempts—there are no limits, dams, dikes or pipelines that can control the water. It’s true that, properly implemented, dams can have benefits; but in many cases, particularly those of large-scale development, the damages dams do far outweigh any benefits. There are currently more than 300 large dam projects planned or in construction throughout Latin America. Many of them are underway without adequate social and environmental impacts assessments. The results are displaced communities, destroyed forests, and rivers with no fish. Blocking our veins The water flowing down our rivers is vital to the natural equilibrium of the planet and its climate. It’s like the blood circulating through your body. If your bloodflow were blocked, you’d get cardiovascular disease, maybe even a heart attack. Well, damming rivers is like intentionally blocking your veins and expecting no problems. Only one third of the world’s great rivers remain free-flowing, without dams or canals. Now I’m not a doctor, or a biologist, but I often wonder: are we heading for the collapse of our natural system by blocking, tubing, manipulating, and contaminating the veins of the Earth (which, like us, is a living organism)? And because rotting vegetation in dam reservoirs releases lots of methane (a super-potent greenhouse gas), isn’t the current climate crisis, in part, a response to the blockages in Earth’s circulatory system? A slow death The mouth of the Colorado River opens to the Sea of Cortes, in northeast Mexico. It’s an area historically rich in sea life from the Gulf of California. For eons, the flow of the Colorado brought nutrient-rich sediment to the Sea of Cortes. It kept the coastal estuary rich and healthy, along with the animals that sought shelter there. But that’s not happening anymore. The vaquita, now the world’s rarest marine mammal, teeters on the edge of extinction. Between the Colorado River’s mountain headwaters and the end of its main channel, more than 10 large dams and 80 water diversions have squeezed the river dry. Now the Gulf no longer receives the river’s nutrient-rich waters, harming not just marine life like the vaquita, but also the area’s fishermen. No one mentions that the near disappearance of the vaquita has been caused by habitat destruction due to the upstream dams on the Colorado River. Mexico’s last free-flowing river The San Pedro Mezquital River is the last undammed river in the western Sierra Madre Mountains. The river links the region’s indigenous people. It’s a source of their culture and identity. The river channel, more than 500 kilometers long, connects the forests of the highlands with the wetlands of the coast, opening into Marismas Nacionales, the largest mangrove forest in the Mexican Pacific. Marismas Nacionales, declared a wetland of international importance, is home to more than 12,000 families engaged in fishing, agriculture, and tourism. But this national treasure is at risk due to the government’s plan to build a hydroelectric dam on the San Pedro Mezquital. If the river were blocked, its contribution of nutrients downstream would be drastically reduced. The health of Marismas Nacionales, its rich biodiversity, and the region’s sustainable local economy would all be slowly starved. The reservoir would also destroy at least 14 sites sacred to local indigenous communities. But we’ve still got time to stop this plan and others like it. We can avoid the collapse of the natural world that surrounds us, on our one and only planet. By supporting AIDA, you can help keep Earth’s veins flowing free.
Read more