Blog

June 24 2014

Our fight to protect the coral reefs and mangroves of Mexico goes beyond national borders

Coral reefs, the nurseries of the seas, are vital to the fisheries that provide food for millions of people. Mangrove forests also benefit people: they protect coastal communities from increasingly severe storm surges and help to mitigate climate change by absorbing huge amounts of carbon dioxide. But large infrastructure projects that ignore these benefits threaten some of these vitally important ecosystems. AIDA uses the law to protect coral reefs, mangroves and other wetlands. We have found that it’s not enough to fight at the local level, country by country. AIDA approaches defense at the ecosystem level, which is more effective. We engage in discussions with international authorities, bringing attention to the obligations that countries have to the world to preserve their marine and coastal environments. "What you get with these international legal actions is a strategy that weaves together various aspects of the case: legal, political, scientific and media. So we make the issue relevant not only to local decision makers, but also to international authorities. Public support is generated and consulting or certified experts speak out about it, "said Sandra Moguel, AIDA legal advisor. A prime example of this strategy for environmental protection is a case involving Mexico, a country rich in wetlands. In May AIDA alerted the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty for the protection of wetlands, about the possible breach of Mexico’s international obligations. Mexico’s government is considering approval of the proposed Las Cruces Dam, a hydroelectric project in Nayarit, a state in the country’s northwest. Among other damage, the project would alter the course of the San Pedro Mezquital River, which feeds Marismas Nacionales (National Wetlands), one of the most extensive mangrove systems in North America. National Wetlands are listed as wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar Convention. In 2010, diplomats from the Ramsar Convention recommended that the Mexican government advocate sustainable use of the wetland while assessing the project’s feasibility. We have alerted the Ramsar Secretariat that their recommendations would be ignored if Mexico gives a green light to a project that would irreversibly damage National Wetlands, biodiversity, and the communities that depend on that environment. By drawing the attention of international bodies, AIDA strengthens the efforts of our local partner organizations. AIDA has also employed this strategy to protect the unique Cabo Pulmo coral reef, in Baja California Sur. Since 2012, we have continually reminded the Mexican authorities that both the Ramsar Secretariat and the Unesco World Heritage Committee have asked them to consider the cumulative and indirect impacts of tourism projects proposed near the reef. Our arguments were added to those presented by our partners in Mexico to prevent authorization of Cabo Dorado, a mega-resort that would involve building a new city near the reef. This project is the third that tourism developers have attempted to build next to Cabo Pulmo. Construction would surely be fatal to the reef. In a victory that extends beyond Mexican borders, the government decided on May 29 to deny the environmental permit for Cabo Dorado. With your help, we will continue to bring the voice of local communities to international forums. We will continue to add value and support their struggle to preserve marine and coastal environments that benefit us all. Thanks!

June 24 2014

Astrid Puentes Lectures at American University

The link between protection of the environment and human rights isn’t always immediately obvious. In fact, international law didn’t begin to establish the human right to a healthy environment until the 1990s. But these are some of the things that can happen when the natural environment is harmed: We can lose our source of food. Our health can suffer. We may lose access to clean water. Our livelihoods can be destroyed if the land we farm or the sea we fish no longer supports a harvest. If a dam floods a village, people lose their homes. In some cases, these losses lead to the loss of a way of life—a culture. International law is clear: the right to food, water, work, home, personal safety, and culture are all protected human rights. That’s why AIDA uses international law to protect the human right to a healthy environment. The relationship between human rights and the environment is gaining wider understanding in the national and international environmental and legal communities. Indeed, American University’s Washington College of Law, in Washington D.C., invited AIDA Co-Executive Director Astrid Puentes Riaño to share her expertise on the subject in June. She gave a weeklong seminar on human rights and the environment in Latin America, available for students attending the summer program. Astrid also spoke on a panel, organized by the Academy of Human Rights of American University and AIDA, about how the two are linked in the specific case of the Belo Monte Dam. Belo Monte is a large hydropower dam under construction in Brazil. The dam will destroy rainforest, kill off plant and animal species, and increase the emission of greenhouse gases, worsening climate change. The human impact is dire. More than 20,000 people will be displaced (independent estimates double this number). Already communities are being stripped of their villages, their cultures, and the cemeteries of their ancestors to make way for the world’s third-largest hydropower dam. Many river dwellers have moved to cities where they find themselves alone and struggling to find new trades. “Our work is a constant David and Goliath battle. Sharing experiences with expert colleagues from the environment and human rights departments at one of the most prominent universities in the US was an honor” said Astrid Puentes Riaño, AIDA’s co-executive director. “It gives us hope that academia is recognizing this link, and is willing to study it. We look forward to continuing this kind of exchange, and to helping train more young lawyers about these issues.”

May 14 2014

Colombia must choose between gold and water: Al Gore

Colombia faces a pivotal choice for its future. It must choose between protecting its high-altitude moors as its water source for millions of people or authorizing large-scale mining in these fragile ecosystems. AIDA, together with its allied organizations, is working to convince the authorities to choose water and this cause recently won a new ally: Al Gore. The former U.S. vice president, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate for his success at raising awareness about climate change, brought up the issue of mining in the moors, known locally as páramos, in April. “Colombia must choose between the gold in the páramo and profits for a few people, or the drinking water that supplies all of its citizens,” he said at an international summit on the environment in Bucaramanga, a city in northeastern Colombia that gets its water from the Santurbán Páramo. We’ve been calling on the Colombian government to protect this moor and others around the country from mining, given that they provide 85% of the country’s water. Will this happen? By law, the government must keep mining out of the páramos. But to do this, their boundaries must first be mapped. This poses a problem. In April, the government unveiled its map showing that the Santurbán Páramo stretches over 42,000 hectares (104,000 acres). That’s more than the 11,000 hectares of previous estimates. But it’s only about half the 82,000 hectares measured by the Alexander von Humboldt Biological Resources Research Institute, an independent state research center that used a larger scale map than the government. The larger scale provides richer details that show how the moor extends further. The government has not adopted an official measurement, leaving important parts of the moor open to mining, an industry it is promoting to spur economic growth. But at what costs? Large-scale mining will cause irreversible damage to these flora-rich moors that not only supply water to millions of people but also help mitigate the effects of climate change by capturing carbon emissions. Gore was clear on what choice he recommends for Colombia or any country facing questions of economic growth versus environmental protect. “Without a planet, there is no economy that is worth anything,” he said. You can help us spread the message by making a donation and signing our petition so that we can continue the fight to save Colombia’s moors. Thank you!

April 28 2014

Frustration to hope: Finding the drive to continue from those you help

By María José Veramendi Villa, senior attorney, AIDA, @MaJoVeramendi I can get frustrated in my work as an environmental and human rights lawyer. It is frustrating to explain that the work we do on cases of human rights violations may not produce immediate results. It is frustrating to know that our work is a struggle that can take years to find justice for victims and induce change in state policies and our societies. It is frustrating to watch programs designed to protect human rights come under the influence of political interests. The dearth of resources for pursuing these cases is also frustrating. So too are the long waits for justice – or injustice. So what do we do when we get discouraged? My answer is to return to the origins, the basics and the very reason for our struggle and commitment: the victims. I relearned this lesson in March. On a trip to Washington D.C., I met two Brazilian fighters for the cause of their communities: Alaíde Silva and Josías Manhuary Munduruku. Alaíde had traveled for days from Buriticupu, a municipality in the northeastern state of Maranhão, and Josías from Jacareacanga, a municipality in the northern state of Pará, to participate in a hearing (in Spanish and Portuguese) before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. They came to present information on how Brazilian judges are continuing to use a law from the country’s 1964-85 dictatorship to violate their right to access to justice. The law is called Security Suspension. It allows the federal government to request the suspension of judicial rulings. The government has used Security Suspension to invalidate rulings that favor the rights of indigenous peoples and other communities against the development of mega-projects like the Belo Monte hydropower dam in the Amazon. The government can do this on the basis that any adverse rulings to “development” projects are threats to national security or to social and economic order. At the hearing, Josías described an imminent threat to the Munduruku indigenous community of 11,000 people in 118 villages. The Brazilian government plans to build a hydropower complex (in Spanish) on the Tapajós River and its tributaries—and has not followed a law requiring it to consult the Munduruku and to obtain their prior, free and informed consent. He said flooding from the project threatens to devastate his people’s land and the survival of their community and culture. He explained how a judge revoked a favorable court decision for his people, allowing the project to continue in open violation of their rights. “We want respect for our land, our river, our sacred sites, our cemetery. And want to be consulted!” Josías said. Alaíde spoke about a similar plight. He explained how Vale, a Brazilian mining company, is enlarging the Carajás Railroad to the detriment of 1.7 million people in 27 municipalities in Maranhão and Pará and in at least 100 indigenous, Afro-descendants, peasant and urban communities on the banks of the railway. The railroad stretches 900 kilometers from the Carajás mines in Pará to the Ponta da Madeira Maritime Terminal in Maranhão. It transports iron, manganese, copper and coal. With the expansion, Vale will duplicate 115 kilometers of the line to increase transport capacity and the flow of minerals. Alaíde said the impacts are vast. These range from the noise pollution caused by the grinding of the train wheels on the tracks and from the train horn, to the running over of people and animals, to the displacement of communities, villages and families without fair compensation. Alaíde provided details on how Vale terrorizes the population, co-opts leaders, intimidates people and spies on social movements, all in the name of meeting its own interests. As with Tapajós, Security Suspension was used to revoke a court ruling that had favored the communities. That decision had ordered Vale to suspend construction and conduct an environmental impact assessment with a detailed analysis of all the existing indigenous and Afro-descendant communities along the railroad. But with Security Suspension, this ruling was overturned with the argument that suspending the project would affect the economic interests of the state. These are just two examples of the impact of Security Suspension. There are many more instances in which the rights of communities and people have been affected by major “development” projects justified by “economic interest, public order and safety.” We hope that cases like these will expose the impact that Security Suspension has on the human rights of hundreds of people and communities, and we hope that this will drive international organizations to call on Brazil to change this legal instrument. Thanks to everyone who worked so hard to make the hearing possible. Thanks to our colleagues in Brazil without whose work and commitment Alaíde and Josías would never have been able to make the long journey. And thanks to these two Brazilian human rights fighters for a lesson that drives away the fog of frustration and allows the sun to shine again. I want to dedicate this post to my dear former colleague Joelson Cavalcante, who recently left this world to become a being of light. With him I visited the Xingu River in the Brazilian Amazon for the first time, and I will never forget his happiness and his big smile when, after a year outside his country, he could once again swim in those waters. In his memory, the fight continues.

April 10 2014 Accountability and Transparency, Climate Change

COP20: A chance to fight climate change

The world is poised for more poverty, hunger and disease as flooding, heat waves, storms and droughts increase. This is how the newest report of the the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change describes humanity´s near future. That’s why AIDA is helping Latin American policymakers to influence decisions about climate change responses at the highest levels of international law. We’re building their capacity for influence by developing recommendations and disseminating information. This year Latin America has the best opportunity yet to put its needs on the international climate change agenda. In December, Lima will host the main session of climate negotiations, the 20th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP20). The event’s mission is to advance the draft of a new binding climate agreement to be signed at the Paris climate conference in 2015. To make the most of this opportunity, AIDA is supporting policymakers – government officials, negotiators and members of international financial institutions – and civil society organizations. Our objectives are to help them participate more effectively in the climate negotiations, to educate them about options for improvements in international law, and to encourage them to create solutions and press their governments to take immediate action. In March, we took part in Climate Change: Progress and Prospects, an international forum held in the Peruvian Congress. Peru is considering creating a climate change bill, and at the event we shared our experiences in international climate finance. We highlighted the need for Latin American institutions to improve their ability to access funds for climate change adaptation and mitigation projects. We’re also advocating a commitment to long-term financing as a chief component of the new climate agreement that will be discussed at COP20. If countries know that economic resources will become and remain available, they can plan viable actions to help communities most vulnerable to climate change. In February, AIDA and our partner organizations held a webinar on the Green Climate Fund (GCF), a financial mechanism of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The GCF was founded to mobilize large amounts of public and private money to support climate change responses in developing countries. AIDA is closely monitoring the GCF to make sure that its contribution is effective. Your renewed support will help us to do even more to generate effective international actions that reduce the severity of climate change. As we actively prepare for COP20 and continue our efforts to promote sustainable energy alternatives at the regional level, we will keep you informed of our progress. Thank you!

March 24 2014

Legal ways to protect the environment in Colombia

By Héctor Herrera, AIDA legal advisor and coordinator of the Colombian Environmental Justice Network, @RJAColombia Our activities make an impact on biodiversity and the environment every day. The trouble is that our impact is getting increasingly harsher such as with climate change and the extinction of species like the Colombian Grebe (Podicepsandinus, in Spanish). In Colombia, in response to the above situation, the law has been improved to help protect the environment. The Colombian Constitution, for example, recognizes the importance of protecting the environment and the right to a healthy environment in Article 79, while national environmental laws and in other legal instruments offer more help. The following are some of the most important legal proceedings in Colombia designed to achieve and protect the right to a healthy environment. Action of "tutela" This legal remedy was created with the 1991 Constitution to provide immediate protection for fundamental rights such as the right to life. To protect the right to a healthy environment, the Constitutional Court of Colombia ruled in Sentence T-1527 in 2000: “While the right to a healthy environment is not considered a fundamental right in our constitution, it is a collective right that can be protected by popular actions. It can be protected through the exceptional mechanism of the action of tutela when actions or omissions by public authorities or private individuals threaten or violate fundamental rights, such as to life, health, physical integrity, or if it affects the public right to a healthy environment. It is thus a fundamental right by connection."[1] Compared to other legal proceedings, the action of tutela is simpler and swifter in its procedures. Popular Action This action is enshrined in Article 88 of the Colombian Constitution. It provides protections for collective interests and rights associated with public health and the environment. Article 88 was further developed in Law 472 of 1998, whose Article 4 contains a non-exhaustive list of collective rights and interests that can be protected by this legal proceeding. These include the enjoyment of a healthy environment, the existence of ecologic balance and access to public services. The goal of this popular action is to eliminate hazards, threats or violations to collective rights, and restore things to their previous state when possible. This action is preventive, restorative and compensational in nature. An emblematic case involving popular action was taken by the Corporación para el Desarrollo Sostenible del Archipiélago de San Andrés, Providencia y Santa Catalina (CORALINA) before the Dispute Tribunal of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina. CORALINA demanded protection for the right to a healthy environment, the existence of ecological balance, and the rational management and use of natural resources as well as the protection and attention to regional species and ecosystems to permit a sustainable development of the community and the environment. The tribunal ruled in favor of CORALINA in a sentence that can be consulted here (in Spansih). Group Action This action is contained in Article 88 of the Colombian Constitution and should be considered in combination with Article 79, which stipulates the right to a healthy environment. Unlike popular action, which seeks to prevent damage to a public right, group action seeks economic compensation for damages caused to a group of people with homogeneous characteristics with respect to the activity that caused the damage. A symbolic case was the group action taken by peasants and fishermen affected by an oil spill on the Trans-Andean pipeline, which is operated by Colombia’s state oil company Ecopetrol, in 2000 on the Rosario river in Nariño, a southeastern department on border with Ecuador. The oil spill caused serious environmental damage. For a detailed explanation and better understanding of this subject, you can consult the legal sources for the aforementioned proceedings. These include the Political Constitution, Law 472 of 1998, and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court (in Spanish). [1] Sentence T-1527 of 2000 MP Alfredo Beltrán Sierra.

March 18 2014

Scientists call for investigation of Gulf of California coastal development

By Carolina Herrera, Latin America specialist for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) This post was originally published in Switchboard. Twenty-seven scientists have expressed concern that the construction of large-scale tourism resorts along the coast of Mexico’s Gulf of California threatens the region’s remarkable marine ecosystems. In a letter to the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC)**, the group of marine and natural science experts from Mexico, the United States and Costa Rica called for an investigation into the approval process of tourism projects that endangered vulnerable mangroves and coral reefs, as well as the Gulf’s rich and diverse marine life. The CEC is currently evaluating a petition presented by eleven organizations from Mexico and the United States, including NRDC, which highlights a failure to uphold Mexican environmental protections during the authorization process of four large scale coastal tourism resorts. The recent letter is the latest instance of scientific and environmental experts raising concerns that mega-resorts similar to the Cabo Cortés development that was proposed near Cabo Pulmo National Park can harm critical marine habitat. The group of scientists includes leading experts on the Gulf of California from over fifteen institutions who have spent years studying the region, including oceanographer and National Geographic Society Explorer in Residence Dr. Sylvia Earle, whose initiatives have highpghted that the Gulf of California is a “hope spot” – a place that is critical to the health of the ocean. In their letter to the CCA, the scientists write that they are "concerned that the rapid expansion of massive tourism infrastructure threatens the integrity of important sites for biodiversity in Mexico."They also note that they are alarmed by projects receiving approval despite disturbing trends such as environmental impact assessments that overlook scientific information or even use erroneous data.The letter is available here. Using the best available information during the impact assessments of proposed projects is required by Mexican law. The failure to do so is just one of the problems documented in the citizen petition that NRDC and our partners joined in April 2013. The petition highpghts four cases where projects received approvals despite environmental reviews that failed to comply with existing laws and regulations.The groups who submitted the petition – now joined by the 27 scientists – want the CEC to initiate a thorough investigation into the situation and develop a factual record on the lack of enforcement of environmental protections during the approval process of four projects: Entre Mares and Paraíso del Mar, both planned on the Bay of La Paz which is considered some of the most productive waters of the Gulf of California and is a key site for nesting birds. Playa Espíritu that would impact the Marismas Nacionales reserve, the most extensive and well-preserved mangrove forest on the western coast of Mexico. Cabo Cortés, which was proposed just north of and adjacent to Cabo Pulmo National Park which shelters one of the most important coral reefs in the American Pacific and is recognized as a both a UNESCO World Heritage Site and Ramsar Wetland of International Importance. In the case of Cabo Cortés, for example, key authorizations were granted even though the environmental impact statement was woefully insufficient and reasoned that the project would not affect the park because the local water currents only flowed from south to north. This conclusion was based on pmited data and ignored years of scientific articles proving that the currents in the area in fact flowed in multiple directions, varying with the seasons. The recent scientists’ letter is not the first time that international experts weigh in on the risk that mega-resort style projects represent for Cabo Pulmo National Park and other similarly fragile regions of the Gulf of California. In November 2011, a joint mission from Ramsar, UNESCO and IUCN visited the parkto assess the potential impact of the Cabo Cortés proposal. Their final report noted that the evaluation of the project did not take into consideration all the indirect and cumulative impacts of the project and that given its scale and scope the project represented a threat under Ramsar Convention guidelines. Similarly, in September 2012, theIUCN’s World Conservation Congress issued a resolution urging Mexico to guarantee the protection of Cabo Pulmo, including from risky large-scale tourism and real-estate developments. The same resolution also called on Mexico to ensure that environmental laws are strictly appped when it comes to projects that could have a direct or indirect impact on the health of surrounding ecosystems. A chance to do the thing right in the future The Cabo Cortés proposal that threatened the ecosystem and local community of Cabo Pulmo was fortunately eventually halted by former President Feppe Calderón in June 2012. But two short months after the cancellation was announceda very similar project was temporarily proposed on the same site, indicating that interest in developing the lands near the park had not disappeared. In the event that yet another project is proposed near Cabo Pulmo, or near other ecologically fragile areas of the Gulf, it will be critical for the Mexican regulators to do their job right and ensure that the environmental impact review upholds all laws and meets the highest technical and scientific standards. The CEC has an important job to do now. By developing and making pubpc a comprehensive factual record on the past failures to effectively implement Mexico’s environmental protections in the Gulf of Capfornia, it will help shed pght on how Mexico can strengthen its review process to prevent future high impact projects from harming some of the Gulf’s most iconic areas. Join the 27 scientists who have spoken up to protect Cabo Pulmo and other natural treasures in the Gulf of California bytaking action and asking the CEC to investigate the lack of enforcement of environmental laws. **The Commission on Environmental Cooperation is an international body established under the North American Free Trade Agreement to promote cooperation among Canada, Mexico and the U.S. on environmental issues of continental concern.

March 10 2014

Las Cruces: Misleading the public on a hydropower project

By Diego Alvarez, AIDA intern Mexico’s state-owned power company, the Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE), is seeking authorization to build the Las Cruces hydroelectric plant on the San Pedro Mezquital river in Nayarit, Mexico. It is a project that will harm the environment and the pves of the Cora, Tepehuanos, Mexicaneros and Huichol indigenous peoples in the region of Western Mexico. On February 20, Mexico’s Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) held a meeting in the town of San Pedro Ixcatán to inform the pubpc about the Las Cruces hydropower project. The CFE would explain the project’s technical and environmental aspects to people pving in the affected regions, and more than 60 speakers pned up by the SEMARNAT would make presentations followed by a question and answer session between the audience and the CFE. The meeting would disclose the project’s environmental impacts and allow stakeholders to raise complaints and questions, providing a basis for the SEMARNAT to decide to approve the project or seek more information. Misinforming the indigenous The meeting didn’t pan out we’d hoped. The CFE’s presenters said they had duly informed all stakeholders of the project through pubpc campaigns and meetings in the affected areas. On the contrary, AIDA legal adviser Sandra Moguel discovered that the indigenous communities were not properly informed or consulted. Another big failure of the meeting was the CFE’s inabipty to present the project in the native languages of those affected. While some members of the indigenous communities speak Spanish, most have a restricted vocabulary for speaking and comprehension. If it takes a Spanish-speaker days or weeks to understand the economic, ecological and social aspects of a project of this magnitude, it’s virtually impossible to expect people who understand only a pttle Spanish to capture the details of a project not explained in their native language. It’s not just about translating. It is also about helping people to understand the information. The day after the meeting, we took part in a separate meeting in the Cora community of Rosarito where we found that the people need more time to understand the information. These people do not have access to the internet. Some pve more than a two-hour walk from the village. Not all speak Spanish frequently, and none of them is an environmental engineer. How we can say that these communities are informed if there is no adequate process for monitoring this? It’s not the obpgation of the affected to seek information. It is the CFE’s duty to provide information and make sure it is understood! Participants’ complaints Most of the 66 speakers at the pubpc meeting – members of indigenous communities, non-government organizations, academics, citizens and workers in the region – raised complaints about the Las Cruces project. Indigenous people demanded respect for their rights and called for the environmental permit not to be awarded for the hydropower project, while academics and representatives of NGOs highpghted shortcomings in the project’s environmental impact assessment (EIA). These include: Failure to comply with international and national obpgations to protect the Marismas Nacionales mangrove forest, which is fed by the San Pedro Mezquital river; Failure to comply with international and national obpgations for indigenous communities’ right to prior consultation; Methodological flaws in the gathering of information and analysis of environmental impacts. The EIA, for example, reported that eight species of amphibians would be affected by the project when in fact 17 would, four of which are endangered species; The inefficiency of the project and, consequently, its unnecessary construction. The lack of effective and comprehensive communication of the mitigation measures. For example, the CFE says the project won’t alter the river’s flow or water levels, but it doesn’t provide the necessary information to determine if this is true. Questions and answers? At the pubpc meeting, two hours were set aside for questions and answers. But most people didn’t get satisfactory answers. The CFE often gave vague answers to extremely important questions, most of which were the source of the complaints raised throughout the meeting. Many questions were on elements of the EIA. The responses? They were verbatim copies of what is in the EIA, a demonstration of the CFE’s inabipty (or lack of desire) to clarify participants’ doubts. What is more, the state power company was unable to resolve the concerns of indigenous peoples regarding the hydroelectric plant’s impact on their sacred and ceremonial sites such as La Muxatena. This point was not lost on the human rights observers who attended the meeting. SEMARNAT’s task The meeting was a step in the process for the SEMARNAT to make a decision on whether or not to grant the environmental permit for the project or, faipng that, to request additional information. Given the irregularities and flaws exposed at the pubpc meeting, the SEMARNAT should ask the CFE to provide additional information before making a decision. Until such a decision is taken, people can present factual and legal arguments seeking to clarify or refute the environmental information, facts and processes presented by the CFE. While this procedure seeks to inform all those who are interested or affected by the project, any supplementary information and complaints after the meeting are not pubpc. Any new information suppped by the CFE will be confidential. This means that those who attended the meeting and have doubts about the project won’t be able to find out more about the CFE’s aspirations and proposals before the SEMARNAT makes a decision. Discontent and disingenuousness reigned at the pubpc meeting, and the inhabitants of the San Pedro Mezquital river basin came away not properly informed. Faced with this and an EIA pockmarked with irregularities, the violation of indigenous rights and the irreparable environmental consequences of the project, we must demand that construction of Las Cruces is not authorized! Say no to Las Cruces!

March 06 2014 Freshwater Sources, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, Large Dams

Belo Monte: Never say never!

By María José Veramendi Villa, senior attorney, AIDA, @MaJoVeramendi We won’t give up. This is AIDA’s motto for defending the rights of local Brazilians who face forced relocation as construction of the Belo Monte mega-dam moves forward in the Amazon. The Brazilian government is building the world’s third-largest dam on the Xingu River under the guise of meeting a growing demand for energy. One of the costs, according to official estimates, is the displacement of at least 20,000 people from indigenous and river communities. Their traditional lands will be flooded and their ways of life destroyed. But the people of the Xingu won’t be drowned quietly. They have organized to stand up for their rights. The government is so determined that it has hired spies to infiltrate the opposition movement. It has deployed public security forces to patrol the construction site and break up protests. And it plans to beef up controls in June and July, when global attention will focus on Brazil for the World Cup. Now Brazil’s government wants to criminalize protests against infrastructure projects, even if the affected communities are only voicing their dismay that they’ve been denied a basic constitutional and internationally recognized right to have a say in what happens. Throw in the towel? Not us. With your donations, AIDA is working to ensure that the people of the Xingu will be assured the right to be heard, to be consulted, and to live in a healthy environment. One focus of AIDA’s strategy is to tackle a legal instrument called Suspension of Security, which Brazil established during a military dictatorship. Higher courts have used it several times to “protect the public interest” by overruling lower courts, which, in the case of Belo Monte, have halted dam construction until the government consults and provides adequate protection and compensation for affected communities. At the sessions of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva on March 10, AIDA’s attorney Alexandre Sampaio will explain how Brazil is using Suspension of Security to violate the human rights of Brazil’s indigenous peoples. Additionally, we are advocating, through the preparation and presentation of legal briefs, for the Supreme Court to reject Suspension of Security and determine that the project was illegal from the beginning. We have also asked the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to analyze the human rights implications of Suspension of Security. AIDA provides all of its work free of charge to the people we help. Your donations through Global Giving provide the critical support that allows AIDA’s attorneys to pursue this challenging and important legal work, which empowers Amazon communities to defend their rights. Please consider making another gift in support of this work, helping in our “never-say-never” fight against Belo Monte. With great appreciation, The AIDA Team

March 03 2014

Responsible fishing: Preserving our fish stocks for future generations

By Gladys Martínez, AIDA legal advisor What could be better than a plate of ceviche or fried fish and patacones (plantain chips)? OK, I must confess that I’m a sucker for seafood! And that’s why one of my favorite projects to come out of AIDA’s Marine Protection Program is the reportTools for Sustainable Fisheries and Coastal Management. Like me, over 4.2 billion people get 15% of their proteins from seafood. So you can see why it’s so important to put in place measures to encourage sustainable fishing and the conservation of marine biodiversity. After more than 10 years of research, AIDA has taken a stab at this. We have developed an 11-chapter report examining the plight of our oceans and the causes behind a crisis in the fishing industry. The report looks at what we can do to limit the impacts of the crisis, and it offers case studies drawing on comparative law and detailing the international obligations that states have to protect and conserve our oceans and their biodiversity. The report also explores the regulatory framework for marine conservation. We look at the various regulatory instruments that countries use to try to control fishing. These include programs for reducing the number of fishing boat licenses, seizing vessels, retraining industry workers and reducing long-haul fishing times, or the amount of time that this technique can be practiced at any given time. Specific mention is paid to the “bycatch” phenomenon, or when fishing methods fail to discriminate between a targeted species and others caught in the process. Recommendations are offered on how to scale back this damaging practice. We also explore the advantages of using marine protected areas (MPAs) as a conservation tool. Different MPAs are discussed, as defined by the type of protected ecosystem and their classification by international bodies like United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature. We describe MPAs in Brazil, Costa Rica and Mexico, and we offer suggestions for protecting our ocean resources with transnational MPAs. We also examine the differences between fishing reserves and protected areas where fishing is banned. As responsible fishing has so much potential to make a real impact, the report also gets into the main economic instruments that if designed and implemented effectively could promote the protection, renewal, preservation and sustainable use of our marine resources. These instruments can be divided into three categories: market- based (fish certification and eco-labeling), tax based (green taxes, rights and subsidies) and financial (creating funds and loans). The report also looks at the socio-environmental issues of the fishing industry. These issues are hugely important because a large percentage of the world population relies on fishing for jobs, food security and a potential way out of poverty. We examine how things stand in the industry and look at its problems of endemic poverty and tough working conditions. Tools for Sustainable Fisheries and Coastal Management is a study of aquaculture in the Americas, from its environmental impact to the risk to human health and the alternative methods that could be used. Examples are taken from different countries across the continent and the world to illustrate what works and what doesn’t. The report is concise. It explains the bare minimum we need to develop aquaculture while still reducing its impact. Of these essentials are the adequate zoning of projects and targeted species, the development of suitable techniques for feeding fish and disposing of waste, and ensuring that states monitor the industry properly. New techniques such as polyculture, inland saline cultivation and environmental certification are potential alternatives to mainstream fishing methods that have less impact on humans and the environment. I don’t know about you, but I want to keep eating seafood and I want my descendents to also share in this simple pleasure without feeling guilty. The future can often look bleak, but after reading AIDA’s report, I’m inclined to think that this desire of mine is a real possibility. So if you like what we do and you think you can help, please donate!