Blog
Belo Monte: Hope remains, despite failed promises
When the Belo Monte Dam builders came to this corner of the Brazilian Amazon, they came with the promise of sustainable development, particularly for Altamira, the city closest to the dam. On a recent visit to that city, it was clear to me that—six years after construction began and one year after beginning operations—Belo Monte has brought anything but. Last June, Brazil’s Institute of Applied Economics classified Altamira as the most dangerous city in Brazil. According to the study, Altamira’s rapid and disorderly growth over the last six years has had serious implications for crime in the city. In 2000, according to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, Altamira had about 77 thousand residents. With dam construction, that figure soared to 110 thousand last year. The result: Altamira registered the country’s highest homicide rate in 2015, with 105.2 murders per 100 thousand people. A troubling context frames these numbers: Brazil is the most dangerous country in the world for environmental defenders, according to Global Witness. That’s especially true for those who dedicate their lives to defending the Amazon—16 of Brazil’s 49 murders in 2016 were related to protection of the Amazon rainforest. Unsanitary conditions In addition to generalized violence, the other big worry in Altamira is basic sanitation, which involves sources and systems of clean water, as well as waste management. During the last six years, when the dam completely altered the urban and social dynamic of the city, no one bothered to provide an adequate, basic sanitation system. And that’s despite the fact that dam construction and operation were approved on condition of building such a system. The only thing built in Altamira at that time was the massive hydroelectric dam. In April of this year, a Brazilian court ordered the dam’s operations suspended until basic sanitation is adequately provided to the resettlement districts of Altamira. But the company in charge of the dam has refused to comply with the ruling, arguing that it has permission to operate. This clearly demonstrates the government’s inability to avoid the abuses caused by this mega-project and its operating company. Questionable investment The current reality of Belo Monte is aggravated by the fact that a Chinese state-owned company, Grid Brazil Holding, won the auction to take over the second power transmission system to be fed by the dam. The company offered 988 million reales (roughly $300 million USD), which makes me question the previous statements of the Brazilian government that hydroelectric energy is cheap, as well as clean. This investment is worrying because the company has already been fined several times for failing to meet deadlines related to the first power transmission system. Worse still, Chinese companies are known for failing to protect human rights and the environment, which is why the situation in Altamira is likely to become even more complicated. Hope remains Despite this discouraging panorama, the urban population, as well as the indigenous and riverside communities, still have hope that Altamira will one day be a quiet and beautiful city again. I heard many people speak of their desire to return to the days of sitting on chairs in the street talking with neighbors, and bathing in the waters of the Xingu river; the days of collective fishing and parties in the parks. Those people have shown me that we should not be afraid or lose hope. There are many who believe in my work as a defender of the Amazon. It is for them that I will keep fighting. I will work so that institutions, like the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, before which our case is pending, hold Brazil accountable for the human rights violations that have occurred from the construction and operation of Belo Monte. And I will ensure that the people affected by Belo Monte get justice and reparations.
Read more
As killings increase, how can we defend the defenders?
Of the 87 human rights defenders murdered in Latin America in 2016, 60 were defending rights linked to environmental destruction. That’s according to a new report from Global Witness. Worldwide, at least 200 environmental defenders were killed in 2016, making it the most dangerous year for environmentalists on record. And 60 percent of these murders occurred in Latin America. Disturbingly, these statistics likely underrepresent the problem, as many killings of defenders and activists around the world go unreported. Environmental defenders are also frequently subjected to harassment, intimidation, death threats, arrests, sexual assault, kidnapping, and lawsuits intended to silence them. “The battle to protect the planet is rapidly intensifying and the cost can be counted in human lives,” Global Witness campaigner Ben Leather said. “More people in more countries are being left with no option but to take a stand against the theft of their land or the trashing of their environment. Too often they are brutally silenced by political and business elites, while the investors that bankroll them do nothing.” The roots of the problem Why are so many activists under threat, simply for speaking out and raising awareness about environmentally destructive projects? Governments argue that mining, oil and gas extraction, logging, and dams will boost their countries’ economy. But corporations typically hire outside contractors, creating few if any local jobs. And in many situations, development projects pollute the environment, displace entire communities, and infringe human rights. Some projects, like large hydroelectric dams, also hurt biodiversity and contribute to climate change. Furthermore, governments must often rely on transnational corporations or foreign investment to fund these projects. As a result, profits from mining, oil and gas, or large dams often benefit international corporations or a country’s most-wealthy businessmen, but are not always invested into local communities. This situation produces extreme rates of economic inequality. Honduras, for example, is one of the most unequal countries in Latin America and has had the highest per capita rate of killings of environmental defenders over the last decade. Twenty percent of the wealthiest people in Honduras reap 60 percent of the national income, leaving almost two-thirds of Hondurans to live in poverty or extreme poverty, according to the Organization of American States. When activists—many of them indigenous—speak out against these environmental and economic injustices, they’re often denounced as enemies of progress. Working together, governments and corporations try to silence outspoken defenders. When censorship is not enough, the military, police, and mercenaries are called to silence the opposition with escalating threats and violence. How to defend the defenders Each year, as the problem intensifies, we’re reminded of our duty to stand up for environmental and human rights defenders, and of the need to institute adequate policies for their protection. Here are several ways governments and citizens alike can protect defenders around the world: International Law. Governments around the world are party to international treaties and conventions that obligate them to uphold certain human rights standards. When these basic rights aren’t respected, it’s up to the international community to step in and protect activists under threat by pressuring governments to enforce the law. AIDA works in this way to hold governments accountable and encourage the immediate adoption of measures to guarantee the life and integrity of at-risk activists. “States must guarantee a favorable environment in which people can safely perform their work to protect the natural world,” AIDA attorney Astrid Puentes Riaño said. “States should also investigate these instances of violence. The murders of those who bravely defend the environment must not go unpunished.” Domestic Legislation. When international pressure doesn’t work, domestic laws can help pressure States into protecting activists who speak out. In the United States, for example, legislation has been proposed that would suspend US military and police aid to Honduras until the Honduran government investigates human rights violations in the country. The bill could help protect activists there and serve as an example for other countries that would like to follow suit. Emergency Measures. Emergency visa measures or diplomatic protections to remove endangered activists from harm can be useful in relocating activists across borders or protecting them in another way. Global Solidarity Campaigns. Solidarity campaigns organized by coalitions of human rights organizations and supported by the media hold great potential. If these outlets simultaneously, consistently, and reliably raised the alarm of an activist under threat, governments and corporations might think twice before trying to silence the person at risk. This, of course, involves you too. There’s no substitution for the mobilization of community support—in the streets, on social media, in your daily life. Standing up, speaking out and raising awareness is the first step toward building a more just future. These are just some of the solutions to this growing problem, and their success depends on all of us. Showing we’re not afraid to fight for environmental justice and a future that respects everyone’s human rights is not just a good idea, it’s necessary for our survival.
Read more
Shark conservation is at risk in Costa Rica
In Costa Rica, it’s now up to the government to decide the future of endangered hammerhead sharks. If the government halted the export of all hammerhead shark products in the next year, it could stave off extinction of these amazing creatures. That’s the recommendation of Costa Rica’s Scientific Advisory Council for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The Convention is an international agreement to prevent trade from threatening the survival of wild animals and plants. Of the nearly 100 species of sharks and rays in Costa Rica, 15% are in danger of extinction due to overfishing and environmental destruction or degradation. Hammerhead sharks were listed as an endangered species in 2014 and have lost up to 90% of their population. In response, the Scientific Advisory Council recommended in April 2017 that Costa Rica should prohibit export of hammerhead products for at least one year, or until the country reduces hammerhead fishing and the health of the species improves. The role of the fishing industry Shortly after the Scientific Advisory Council made its recommendation, the Costa Rican government issued an executive decree. The Costa Rican Institute of Fishing and Aquaculture (Incopesca) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock were given authority over the export of products made from threatened or endangered sharks. However, both government agencies favor the fishing industry over marine conservation, according to Mario Espinoza Mendieta, researcher from the University of Costa Rica and member of the Convention’s scientific council. “This dynamic tips the balance in favor of the production sector,” Espinoza said. Incopesca’s Board of Directors represent various fishing interests across the country—a position that does not always align with the protection and sustainable use of marine resources, according to Espinoza. Recently, Incopesca was questioned because it failed to prosecute shrimping boats that were illegally fishing in protected waters. Shark commerce While exporting shark products is permitted within the regulations established by the Convention, shark finning—the practice of cutting fins and throwing the shark back into the ocean—is illegal in Costa Rica. Considered a delicacy in some Asian countries, shark fins are often valued at upwards of $100 per kilo. Last February, a Costa Rican court issued the first felony criminal sentence for shark finning against a Taiwanese businesswoman who was found in a port with illegally harvested shark fins. Using international law, AIDA and Conservation International worked with Costa Rica’s Public Prosecutor to help resolve the case. A responsible decision The governments of Colombia and Ecuador have developed campaigns to protect hammerhead sharks. But in Costa Rica, Incopesca is responsible for the future of the species and will hopefully take the Scientific Advisory Council’s recommendations into account. Because the hammerhead’s numbers are so low, it may only take one bad decision to cause their extinction. Other species, including the gray shark, are also at risk from the fishing industry. If Costa Rica wants to preserve its natural wealth for the future, it should set an example of preservation by putting principles of sustainability over economic gain.
Read more
Chilean chum: How eating salmon in the US hurts Patagonia’s coastal wildlife
After two years of vegetarianism, the Texan in me decided that an entirely plant-based diet was not going to work. The experience, however, taught me to consume meat ethically. Wherever possible, I now choose organic and sustainable “farm to table” meat and poultry. But when it comes to my favorite seafood—salmon— “farm to table” can take on a whole new meaning. Salmon is one of the most popular seafoods in the United States, and over a third of all salmon in the U.S. comes from Chilean salmon farms, which raise the carnivorous fish in off-shore enclosures along the Patagonian coast. Although salmon is healthy—it’s loaded with omega-3 fatty acids and B-vitamins—increased U.S. demand for salmon is having an unhealthy impact on Chile’s environment. These farms endanger delicate coastal ecosystems, contribute to oceanic pollution, and threaten marine life along the pristine Magallanes shoreline. Chile is the second largest global exporter of the fish, and salmon farming is one of the country’s largest industries. Today, that industry is growing. There are already over 100 salmon farms operating in the Magallanes and, as of March 2017, plans for 342 more were in the works. Driving this expansion is a booming worldwide salmon market. But even though the U.S. boasts a salmon industry of its own and wild-caught Alaskan salmon is considered some of the best in the world, U.S. consumers ate over 144,000 tons of farmed Chilean salmon in 2016, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. A fishy situation While fish farms are one solution to the many problems associated with overfishing, Chile’s unregulated salmon industry has serious environmental side-effects. These salmon farms disrupt their environments because overpopulated waterways create anaerobic conditions that deprive the local wildlife of oxygen. Often treated with excessive amounts antibiotics and pesticides, uneaten salmon feed and salmon feces also pollute coastal seafloors and introduce chemicals into the environment. Because they are not native to the southern hemisphere, salmon that escape their pens can disrupt local food chains. Salmon also frequently die in their enclosures, and the decomposing fish raise levels of ammonia in the water. Although research is still underway, scientists speculate that higher concentrations of ammonia, along with El Niño weather patterns and warming oceans caused by climate change, may be responsible for Chile’s recent “red tides.” These toxic red algae blooms kill coastal wildlife by the millions, inundating Chilean shores with dead fish (including salmon), birds, and whales. To fight back against this destructive industry and the harmful impacts of globalized seafood trade, AIDA filed a claim with the Chilean government expressing concern that salmon farms are harming local ecosystems. “We want to improve the way things are being done by aiming for sustainable development that will not ruin the fragile ecological balance of the Patagonian seas,” AIDA attorney Florencia Ortúzar said. AIDA also recently began a petition asking that Chile investigate the damage caused by salmon farming in the Magallanes and sanction those responsible. You can sign the petition here. New migration routes Today, the U.S. salmon industry practices catch and release: it is known for producing high quality fish, yet 80 percent of Alaskan wild salmon is traded away. So why does the U.S. produce some of the world’s best salmon, but consume some of the world’s most environmentally harmful fish? The answer, in short, is globalization. Filleting and de-boning salmon is a process too delicate to mechanize as in other meat industries. Because labor is cheaper in Asia, U.S. salmon is shipped to processing plants in China, which then re-distribute the processed fish across the region. While some of that salmon makes it back across the Pacific, the U.S. market is flooded with cheaper farmed salmon from around the world. Now, Chile’s industry “is facing competition from Canada and Norway,” according to trade analysis group Datamyne. After expressing concerns over high levels of antibiotics in Chilean fish, U.S. retail giant Costco decided in 2015 to stock Norwegian salmon instead, further muddying the waters in the U.S. salmon trade. To make matters worse, a study by conservation nonprofit Oceana concluded that nearly 43% of “wild” salmon sold in the United States was misidentified. While it is difficult to tell whether farmed salmon is mislabeled as “wild” during trade or once it shows up on the menu, lax labeling laws in the U.S. make it difficult to tell exactly where that salmon steak came from. So for seafood lovers like me, there may be few good options for eating salmon sustainably, besides taking up fly fishing. But for the sake of protecting Chile’s coastal wildlife, maybe it’s time U.S. consumers make their voice heard. If we’re going to import salmon from Chile, we should at least demand the country regulate its farms to be more environmentally friendly. Maybe it’s also time the U.S. salmon industry started keeping its catch in its own boat. Sign the petition to protect Patagonia’s Magallanes coastline here.
Read more
Spending climate dollars on large dams – a bad idea
During its last board meeting, the Green Climate Fund—charged with financing developing nations’ fight against climate change—approved two projects related to large dams. That means $136 million will finance large-scale hydropower, contradicting the Fund’s goal of stimulating a low-emission and climate-resilient future. We’ve said it before: large dams are not part of the paradigm shift we need. They worsen climate change and are highly vulnerable to its impacts. They also cause grave economic and socio-environmental problems that make it impossible to label them as sustainable development. dam Projects before the gcf While the two projects will exacerbate climate change, they aren’t the most destructive we’ve seen. The first is expected to generate 15 MW of electricity in the Solomon Islands, an impoverished Pacific archipelago highly vulnerable to climate change. Planned for the Tina River, the dam will be the country’s first major infrastructure project. Today, the Solomon Islands rely almost entirely on imported diesel to produce energy. It is an unreliable, highly polluting energy source for which residents must pay one of the highest rates in the region. We would have liked to see the Solomon Islands leapfrog toward a more sustainable alternative, avoiding the era of large dams altogether. But we were pleased to see the World Bank’s consultation and engagement processes with local communities, which lend legitimacy to the project. The second project will rehabilitate a dam built in the 1950’s in Tajikistan. The repairs will make the dam more resilient to weather and less subject to accidents. Since it is focused on rehabilitation, the project will not generate the socio-environmental impacts typical of ground-up dam construction. Tajikistan already gets 98 percent of its energy from hydropower, an increasingly unreliable energy source. In fact, during colder months, when more energy is needed, more than 70 percent of the population suffers cutbacks due to the malfunctioning of dams. It’s unreasonable to use climate finance to deepen a country’s energy dependency instead of diversifying its matrix and increasing its climate resiliency. Our Campaign against large dams When we learned that large dam proposals would come before the Fund, just before the 14th meeting of the Board of Directors, we drafted a letter explaining why large dams are ineligible for climate funding. Then, in anticipation of the 16th meeting, during which the projects would be discussed, we sent Board Members an informational letter on each of the projects, signed by our closest allies. Finally, during the board meeting, we circulated a statement signed by a coalition of 282 organizations, further strengthening our position against the funding of large dams. We obtained official replies from several members of the Board, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (in charge of the project in Tajikistan), and the Designated National Authority of the Solomon Islands. Delegates from Canada and France requested further discussion of the issue. The problems with large dams received international media attention through articles published in The Guardian and Climate Home. Advancing with Optimism Although financing was ultimately granted to both of the projects, we managed to draw international attention to the contradiction inherent in funding large dams with money designated to combat climate change. Several members of the Green Climate Fund expressed doubts about further promoting large hydropower initiatives. We’re confident they’ll raise their voices when faced with projects far more damaging than those recently approved. Cheaper, more effective, and more environmentally friendly alternatives need the support and momentum the Green Climate Fund can provide. Both solar and wind power, for example, have proved to be more efficient and less costly than large-scale hydropower. Other less-developed technologies, such as geothermal, have largely unexplored potential. As part of a coalition of civil society organizations monitoring the Fund’s decisions, AIDA will continue working to ensure that the recent decision to fund large dams does not become a precedent.
Read more
In search of legal protection for Mexico’s reefs
From the coasts of Baja California to the shallows of the Caribbean, Mexico is home to an incredible array of reefs. The coral and rocky reefs found throughout the country are sources of food and potentially life-saving genetic material. They protect people on the coasts from the impacts of storms and hurricanes, stimulate tourism, and provide shelter for a wide variety of plants and animals. Despite their inherent value, Mexico does not yet have an overarching law for reef protection. This vital task is instead governed by a variety of legislation and by international treaties that establish the country’s obligations to preserve these valuable ecosystems. Climate change is one of the most serious threats to reefs. Oceans are becoming warmer and more acidic, conditions that reduce reefs’ capacity to grow and repair themselves. In addition, warmer water disperses the algae that corals feed on, leaving the corals weakened and at risk of death. This month, the Mexican Senate’s Special Climate Change Commission decided to do something about the threats facing corals. They convened a series of meetings to promote the creation of a legislative instrument aimed exclusively at protecting the nation’s many reefs. I participated in these meetings as a representative of AIDA, alongside our colleagues from Wildcoast and scientists, academics, and community members who benefit from the services reefs provide. We drew the Senate’s attention to the serious threats facing reefs, and to the urgency of applying the precautionary principle to guarantee the human right to a healthy environment, which is at risk due to the lack of adequate regulations for reef conservation. To guarantee this right and to protect the oceans against climate change, Mexico has signed international treaties including the American Convention on Human Rights, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles. The Veracruz Reef, an emblematic case Reefs around the country are also being threatened by inadequately planned coastal infrastructure and insufficient environmental impact assessments. This is the case with the expansion of the port of Veracruz, a project that endangers the Veracruz Reef System, the largest coral ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico. The site was declared a Natural Protected Area in 1992, a priority region for the National Commission for the Knowledge and use of Biodiversity in 2000, a UNESCO biosphere reserve in 2006, and a Ramsar site. Even so, the government reduced the size of that area in 2013 to make way for the port project, violating international conventions such as the Ramsar Convention, under which the Veracruz reef is recognized as a Wetland of International Importance. Learn more about the case in the following video: Hope for Mexico's Marine Heritage We are confident that the Senate initiative will bear fruit and that Mexico will develop a law for the protection of its reefs, and that it will be born from a transparent and participatory process to which we will continue to contribute. To learn more about the topic, see our report The Protection of Coral Reefs in Mexico: Rescuing Marine Biodiversity and its Benefits for Humanity.
Read more
Remembering Robert Moran
It is with great sadness that we share news about the passing of Dr. Robert E. Moran, a distinguished hydrogeologist who was an immense resource in furthering environmental protection globally and a dedicated partner to AIDA. He died May 15 in a car accident while vacationing in Ireland. With over 45 years of experience in water quality monitoring, geochemical, and hydrological work, Dr. Moran was invaluable in the fight for clean water and responsible mining worldwide. His work as an expert on the environmental impacts of mining led him to collaborate with a wide range of actors, from non-governmental organizations and indigenous communities, to private sector and government clients. He was an admirable scientist and a strong defender of environmental rights. Some of Dr. Moran's recent projects in Latin America included: a review of technical issues at the Veladero gold mine in Argentina following a toxic cyanide spill; providing assistance and training to Colombian government officials on coal mine inspection and water quality monitoring; and preparing reports evaluating the environmental impact statements of the Minero Progreso Derivada II project in La Puya, Guatemala. Dr. Moran also conducted reviews of mining operations and their impacts in Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, and Honduras, as well as in Africa, Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East, and the United States. He dedicated his life to helping others understand and better evaluate the true costs of mining activities. Dr. Moran will be sorely missed by many in the environmental movement and people everywhere whom his life touched. We honor and thank him for all of his magnificent work to defend our planet.
Read more
Love for my daughter and the planet
Before I became a mother, I heard the question a thousand times: “Is it a good idea to bring more human beings into the world?” I often asked it myself. Thinking logically, the most obvious answer is no. The news shows us that we live on an overpopulated planet—one with water shortages, species extinction, alarming pollution and environmental degradation. It seems to be getting ever worse. That´s why, while being a mom is always difficult, being an environmentalist as well makes it even more so. Being an environmentalist is like fighting a million-headed monster: when one problem is solved, another 10 pop up. It means learning daily of the perilous situation facing our planet: the threats, the battles lost, the people and species suffering. Faced with such news, it’s impossible to turn a blind eye. Ignorance can no longer be an excuse for our actions. “What kind of world do you want to leave your children?” This is the question I’m faced with now. Yet it seems almost obsolete. It’s more important to think about what kind of world we want our kids to live in right now. To address this, parents like me are faced with an endless array of factors to consider before deciding something as simple as what to feed our children. It’s no longer enough that the food be balanced and nutritious. Now we must know if the food is pesticide-free, non-GMO, made with only natural ingredients… the list is endless. In Mexico, where I live, few children have the privilege of playing in a river or forest, on a beach or mountainside, or simply in the greenery of a park. In addition to keeping them safe from violence and human trafficking, we must also prevent our children from being exposed to high levels of air pollution. So if the world is so bad, why do we keep having children? They say that frogs do not breed unless they know there will be rain because, without rain, they know their offspring will be in danger. In the animal world, countless species regulate their reproduction based on their close relationship with nature. If conditions are not conducive, they do not reproduce. Are we human beings, then, the only species that reproduces at all costs, regardless of environmental threats? Humans are different from other species because of our awareness, and our ability to see beyond basic survival to things like art, love, empathy, and the search for meaning. Helping to make a difference is what brings meaning to my life. As part of the AIDA team, I work alongside professionals who dedicate their lives to saving rivers, defending human rights, protecting forests, supporting environmental defenders, empowering vulnerable communities, and giving a voice to the voiceless. It’s true that the news bombards us daily with worrisome stories about our planet. But it’s what the news rarely reports that shapes my vision of the future. Every day, I see a growing number of people who are prepared, engaged, and working to build a better world. They are mothers, fathers, children, students, teachers, professionals, and volunteers; they come from every imaginable country and culture; and they are willing to do whatever is necessary to help others. Above all, I see a critical mass of people that believe we can. We can change course, generate alternative energies, lessen our footprint; we can rectify wrongdoings, empower the vulnerable, combat xenophobia and greed; we can spend our money more wisely, and find more democratic ways of doing business. I have the privilege of working alongside a diverse group of people who have committed to fighting the good fight, and who won’t let go of the divine connection to the land that has given us life. These are the people who make me think that having children today is not only feasible, but also desirable. Because we can instill our children with generosity, compassion and respect—not just for themselves and the people around them, but also for the trees, the rivers, the animals, and all living things. Still, I often wonder whether we’ll ever get it right. I wonder if my five-year-old daughter will become an adult in a world where fresh water and clean air are seen as basic human rights; or if they will be commodities within reach of only the privileged few. Though I’ve never questioned whether or not my decision to have my daughter was the right one, I do still return to the question of whether or not the world needs more people. And then I look at my daughter’s shining eyes, at her gentle hands, at her dancing legs, at her infectious smile and her tireless curiosity. In her soft embrace, I feel her generosity, her compassion, and her boundless hope. Her laughter is so deep it could wake the flowers in spring; her spirit so generous it can shine love out on all living things; and her potential so huge she just may be the one to help push our planet towards a brighter future. There is no answer, then, but YES. For my daughter, and all children who carry within the potential for a better world, we will continue working to defend our beautiful planet. Join us! AIDA is an international nonprofit organization that uses the law to protect the environment, primarily in Latin America.
Read more
In times of climate change, we must respect nature
(Column originally published in El País) We are living now with the realities of climate change; to act otherwise would be ignorant and irresponsible. But, in case we forget, nature will surely remind us. Over the last months, severe landslides have devastated communities in Peru and Colombia. Together, they left more than 500 people dead, dozens missing, and more than 100,000 victims. Tragedies like these have some things in common: they occurred in cities and regions with high rates of deforestation and changes in land use; in both areas there was evidence of poor planning and regulation. Effectively, these disasters were foreshadowed. They make clear once again the vital need to care for our forests and riverbanks, and to avoid deforestation and erosion. Climate change means hard rains, fires, and hurricanes will become increasingly frequent and more intense. In Mocoa, Colombia, the equivalent of 10 days of rain fell in just one night, causing flash flooding that devastated much of the small town. In many cases, nature is only taken into account after tragedy strikes. But nature, when well cared for, can literally save lives. In Mocoa, a native forest helped protect one neighborhood from being washed away. That’s why environmental protection must be taken seriously, and any exploitation of natural resources must be well planned and sensible. Yet in Latin America, there remains a regional tendency towards unregulated extractivism. Over the last few years, governments across the region have been weakening environmental regulations in the name of development. Meanwhile, year after year, hundreds of people in Latin America and the Caribbean—especially children and others in vulnerable situations—die from events associated with droughts and floods. Activists, movements, mayors, and others seeking to protect land and water from extractive activities are frequently criticized, even criminalized and attacked. In the small Andean town of Cajamarca, Colombia, 98 percent of voters recently chose to ban all mining in their territory. It’s a decision that has sparked national controversy. Critics of the referendum have questioned whether the results are mandatory, despite the fact that Colombian law clearly states, “the decision of the people is mandatory.” Through their popular vote, the people of Cajamarca reminded their government of its commitment to protect their water and natural resources. Communities in Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Peru, and El Salvador have done the same. While some extraction is necessary in modern society, there must be a healthy balance. Not every project is safe, and alternative development models must be embraced and explored. It’s time to incorporate the environment into public policy and development, once and for all. Two Latin American nations have shown what is possible. In 2011, Costa Rica banned all open-pit metal mining. In March, El Salvador did the same. In both cases it’s a big yet viable change, because alternatives exist and it’s understood that protecting land and water is necessary to secure a healthy future. El Salvador has the second-highest rates of deforestation and environmental degradation, which has led to severe water scarcity. This is why the ban on metal mining passed there. It was no favor to environmentalists; it was based on years of sound analysis. Social and economic studies of the proposal concluded that the best thing for the country was to care for and restore its remaining forests and water sources. The decision prioritized environmental restoration—particularly its social and economic benefits—above the perceived benefits of mining. Environmental degradation is not a problem that exists in a vacuum. That’s why States have signed treaties and other international instruments that recognize their obligation to protect the environment. The Paris Agreement on Climate Change, signed by 34 of 35 States on the American continent, is the most recent. Now, more than ever, these commitments must be honored and fulfilled. Not all extractive projects are viable. Determining their worth must involve sound planning, coupled with policies and legal frameworks that are strong and effective. Environmental Impact Studies must be done carefully, objectively, and independently. Decisions should consider short- and long-term impacts on both local and national levels. We are living now with the realities of climate change; to act otherwise would be ignorant and irresponsible. But, in case we forget, nature will surely remind us.
Read more
The ocean needs more from us
For decades, the ocean has protected us from the impacts of climate change, absorbing 90 percent of the excess heat produced by global warming. It’s given us food and the genetic resources we use to produce life-saving drugs. As if that weren’t enough, it’s enabled millions of families to thrive in an economy based on its bounty. Despite its importance, the ocean remains unprotected in large part; no country governs the high seas, international waters that comprise 64 percent of the ocean’s total surface area. Management measures have given rise to a patchwork of uncoordinated protections. But efforts to care more for our ocean are gaining steam. Negotiations are underway for an international legally binding treaty that seeks to protect life in the high seas. I’ve been involved in the negotiations since they began. AIDA is a member of the High Seas Alliance, which is actively participating in the process; we are also the only Latin American organization represented at the meetings. Last month I participated in the third meeting of the United Nations Preparatory Committee, which is developing elements of a draft text for a treaty under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. During that meeting, government representatives from throughout the region actively expressed the need for a strong treaty. The next meeting, July 10-21, is expected to develop recommendations that will hopefully lead to an Intergovernmental Conference to negotiate the treaty’s content. Among other things, the treaty will support the creation and management of Marine Protected Areas, regions of the high seas that will be conserved to help protect the rich biodiversity of our oceans. Protection at a high cost In addition to absorbing a large part of the planet’s excess heat, the ocean absorbs nearly 30 percent of all greenhouse gases. But this protective role comes with serious consequences. By interacting with and absorbing pollutants such as carbon dioxide, the ocean suffers from acidification—a phenomenon that reduces levels of calcium, an element necessary for the formation of shells—and loss of oxygen, essential for life under the sea. These impacts consequently affect the food supply and employment in the fishing and tourism industries. In light of the Paris Climate Agreement, and of the negotiation of this new treaty for the high seas, governments around the world can and must do more to protect marine ecosystems from the impacts of climate change. Marine Protected Areas The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has called on governments to protect 30 percent of the ocean through such conservation measures as the establishment of Marine Protected Areas. Two years ago, one of the smallest countries on the planet, Palau, took a big step toward realizing this goal. Recognizing the benefits of a fully protected marine reserve, the North Pacific island nation designated 80 percent of its marine territory (an area the size of Spain) as a reserve in which trawling, mining, and other harmful extractive activities are forbidden. Palau’s decision protects the nearly 1,300 marine species and 700 varieties of coral that call this small corner of the world home. In Latin America, countries such as Chile, Ecuador, and Costa Rica have followed Palau’s example by safeguarding waters within their national territories. While their intentions are noble, they should also include the high seas. Building on the momentum of marine conservation around the world, the high seas treaty must be developed, and our oceans better protected. In the ten-plus years I’ve worked as an environmental attorney, I have learned a valuable lesson: all of the life that surrounds us comes from the ocean. It’s time to care for it as well as it cares for us.
Read more