Blog

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!

February 25 2014 Climate Change, Freshwater Sources

Mexico takes action to protect its wetlands from unsustainable development

AIDA and the members of the National Wetlands Committee have won a big victory after years of legal work to protect Mexico’s estuaries, coral reefs, mangroves and other wetlands. On February 4, 2014, Mexico’s Natural Protected Areas Commission (CONANP) announced a national wetlands policy, a legal framework we had been calling for since 2009. “It’s not a panacea, but it’s a good start,” says Sandra Moguel, an AIDA attorney who participated on the National Wetlands Committee, a CONANP -led group that helped develop the policy. Mexico is rich in wetlands. The country ranks second after the U.K. in the number of protected wetland areas under the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty for the conservation and sustainable use of these ecosystems. Centuries-old coral reefs serve as breeding pens for fish that feed the populace and delight divers. Mangrove forests house endangered species and perform increasingly important ecosystem services: they absorb carbon emissions and buffer the coastline against storms made harsher by a warmer climate. But many coral reefs, mangroves, estuaries, and rivers have suffered from poorly planned development. On the Sea of Cortez, for example, plans for mega-resorts have kept us busy defending Cabo Pulmo’s coral reefs, and now a proposed port expansion is threatening reefs in Veracruz. To protect these and other wetlands, we have had to draw on a jumble of laws and policies. Not any more. Now we have a specific instrument that is in line with the laws and policies for the protection of wetlands. The new policy sets actions, goals and priorities for the management and protection of wetlands. It is a vast improvement. And while a national wetlands policy is a Ramsar requirement, Mexico’s policy stands out from many others in the world for creating not just principles and guidelines, but also an action plan to make them happen. For example, the government will soon set and sustain minimum water levels to preserve mangroves. Other actions will guarantee the reasonable use of wetlands. Fishing, tourism, and other activities that rely on wetlands must be carried out sustainably. If damages occur, the state must ensure ecosystem restoration. A key element that AIDA pushed for is the principle of environmental progress. The new policy stops the government from continuing to modify and reduce natural protected areas to make way for large infrastructure projects or to benefit private interests. Now the authorities must preserve and promote environmental progress by respecting protected-area status and by improving safeguards. We are thrilled. This principle could help AIDA in our legal battle to stop construction of the Las Cruces hydropower project on the San Pedro Mezquital river. The dam would reduce water flows and sediments needed to feed and sustain mangroves in Marismas Nacionales, a protected wetlands area on the Sea of Cortez. Construction of the dam would clearly reverse environmental progress. The new policy has its weak spots—for example, it doesn’t set dates for reviewing the progress of the action plan, and the actions could be supplemented for more effect—but comparatively, it is at the forefront of wetlands policies in Latin America. “Mexico is setting an example,” Moguel says. “Let’s hope that this encourages other countries to follow suit.” Your contributions helped us press for and contribute to the development of the new policy, and with your continued help we will be able to aid Mexico in its efforts to protect its vital wetlands.

January 27 2014

Air pollution in Latin America and its effect on our health and climate

By Héctor Herrera, AIDA legal advisor and coordinator of the Network for Environmental Justice in Colombia, @RJAColombia According to the latest report from the Clean Air Institute, Monterrey, Guadalajara and Mexico City (Mexico), Cochabamba (Bolivia), Santiago (Chile), Lima (Peru), Bogota and Medellin (Colombia), Montevideo (Uruguay) and San Salvador (El Salvador) are 10 most polluted cities in Latin America. In all of them, the level of air pollution exceeds World Health Organization recommendations. The scene is similar in big cities across the region: buses and trucks spew out black smoke as people walk under grey skies. This is the backdrop in The Sound of Things Falling, an award-winning novel by Colombia’s Juan Gabriel Vásquez in which descriptions like this abound: “On the corner of Carrera Cuarta, the heavy afternoon traffic was moving slowly, in single file, toward the exit on to Avenida Jiménez. I found the gap in the traffic I needed to cross in front of a small bus whose recently illuminated headlights were catching the dust from the street, the smoke from exhaust pipes and the beginnings of a light drizzle.” Vásquez is writing about Bogota. But he could just as easily have been describing Monterrey or San Salvador. Residents of Latin America’s big cities live enveloped in smog. They breathe in the microparticles of black carbon, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide that comes with the air polluted by urban transport, industry and power plants. We can get riled up when a passing truck spits a cloud of smoke in our face. But our outrage fades almost as soon when we think that making these vehicles more environmentally friendly is not our responsibility. Those decisions lie out of our reach in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats. Even so, we must understand that air pollution is a problem that affects all of us and so it is important to be aware of the associated health risks. THE Clean Air Institute's report explains how breathing in air containing a high concentration of pollutants can reduce our quality of life and lead to illness or premature death. Thankfully, the report also makes recommendations on how to avoid this. Worryingly, public health is not the only casualty of air pollution. Another is a faster pace of climate change Black carbon and ozone are short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) that remain in the atmosphere from days to decades. While that is nothing compared with carbon dioxide, which remains in the atmosphere for more than a century, SLCPs contribute more to climate change than carbon dioxide. This means that if we were to significantly reduce SLCP emissions, we would get quick results in slowing climate change. You can find more information on AIDA’s page on SLCPs, including descriptions of the main pollutants and the steps being taken to encourage a reduction in their emission. All of what has been said here becomes particularly pertinent when you consider that the population and number of vehicles in Latin America is growing steadily, which unfortunately is not the case for the number of measures being introduced to reduce the level of air pollutants. Whatever our motives – whether this is to improve public health, slow climate change, protect our lungs or those of future generations, or even to simply enjoy a picturesque sunset without a wall of harmful gases blocking our view of the sea or the mountains, one thing is imperative. We must work so that the air in our cities across the Americas is clean and fresh.

January 27 2014

Mexico Threatens to Dam a River of Life

Every June 24, the Cora indigenous community celebrates the Day of San Juan. Gathering on the banks of a full-flowing river in western Mexico, they swap figures of the saint and offer him flowers in exchange for food, health, work and other favors. They also pay respect to San Pedro Mezquital, a river that is critical to their culture, livelihoods and spirituality. San Pedro Mezquital is the only dam-free river left in the Sierra Madre Occidental mountains where the Cora live. Starting in Durango, the river flows freely to the Pacific Ocean, where it feeds the Marismas Nacionales, a wetland of international importance and home to 20% of Mexico’s mangroves. But the river could be destroyed. Mexico’s state power company, the Comision Federal de Electricidad (CFE), wants to dam the San Pedro Mezquital to produce electricity, a project that would harm the environment and the human rights of indigenous people in the area, including the Cora. AIDA wants to stop this. We are working with local organizations and scientists to prepare a legal case based on environmental and human rights arguments. The aim is to deter the Mexican government from approving the environmental impact assessment (EIA) that would allow the CFE to start building the Las Cruces hydropower project. We have also launched a national campaign to raise awareness on why Las Cruces should never be built, with a website (in Spanish) focused exclusively on the issue. Arguments Against Las Cruces Dam Here are a few of the arguments against Las Cruces: Blocking the natural flow of the river will increase sedimentation and damage the mangroves of Marismas Nacionales. The project’s EIA fails to evaluate the cumulative environmental impacts and doesn’t use the best available scientific information. Construction of the dam will forcibly displace people and communities, possibly without compensation. The latter is not mentioned in the EIA. Indigenous peoples were not consulted on the feasibility studies of the project or its construction. Reduced river flow will affect the daily activities (agriculture, livestock, fishing, oysters, etc.) that provide food and work for the surrounding communities. Ceremonial locations will be flooded, destroying significant aspects of the spiritual life and ancient cultures of the natives in the area. On any given day, Coras and other local people jump into the San Pedro Mezquital for a swim in waters that provide a refreshing break – and their livelihoods. With your help, we can keep this and other rivers from getting destroyed by large dams like Las Cruces! Thank you!

January 13 2014

Mandela: lessons in tribal leadership to effectively protect the environment

“It always seems impossible until it becomes reality.” —Nelson Mandela Nelson Mandela died one month ago. Much has been written about him since then, and he has been globally honored like none other. Despite possible year-end amnesia and at the risk of sounding cliché, I am writing this post in his honor. I’m particularly interested in highlighting four leadership qualities Mandela possessed, and pointing out how those same qualities can help us be more effective environment defenders. Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela was born in Qunu, a Xhosa community in the state of Transkei, in the southeastern part of South Africa. Mandela’s birth name Rolihlahla means “troublemaker,” in the Xhosa language. But a schoolteacher began calling him Nelson, according to the custom of calling children by their English, rather than African, names. Another of Mandela’s names—Dalibunga (or founder of the bunga)—was given to him during a traditional initiation ceremony at the age of 16. He was also called Madiba, a name given by his tribe in honor of a Tembu chief who ruled during the 18th Century. According to tradition, Mandela was destined to be an advisor to the Tembu king. But he ended up being a leader far beyond the borders of the Transkei region, and changed the world even beyond South Africa. He was a leader of reconciliation and compromise. He had an enormous capacity for forgiveness and an ability work peacefully with, rather than seek revenge against, those who oppressed his people for centuries, and imprisoned him for 27 years. In what follows, I’d like to discuss four characteristics that Mandela exemplified. If we emulate these qualities, we can, like Mandela, help make the world a freer and more just place. 1. Values and a common cause as an absolute guide to decisions “There is no easy walk to freedom anywhere, and many of us will have to pass through the valley of the shadow of death again and again before we reach the mountaintop of our desires.” Mandela lived according to his values. He had the goal of ending apartheid and securing freedom for himself and his people. His desire for freedom guided each of his actions, including after he succeeded in ending apartheid in his country. Over the decades of his struggle, including more than a quarter century in prison, there were undoubtedly moments of despair and fear in which other people would have given up hope. Mandela and his colleagues, however, persisted. The cause that united them was greater than their individual will, and stronger than even Mandela himself. Although we cannot compare our work to the struggle against apartheid, we have indeed made important progress by rallying behind a common cause. One recent victory, in 2011, was a change in the Mexican Constitution in favor human rights. It would not have been possible without the joint work of our partner organizations, academia, and the Office of the High Commissioner of Mexico. 2. Conscientious, disciplined, committed and coherent “Running taught me valuable lessons. In cross-country competitions, training counted more than intrinsic ability, and I could compensate for a lack of natural aptitude with diligence and discipline. I applied this in everything I did.” Persistence and discipline were qualities that made a big difference for Mandela in reaching his goals. His commitment to every challenge, his clarity, and even his limitless stubbornness still manage to surprise us. His success was not achieved through supernatural powers, nor was there a single moment in which everything magically changed. On the contrary, Mandela’s achievements were a consequence of a life dedicated to study, work, and learning. He was constantly listening to others, building strategies, and rethinking them in order to achieve his goals. He made mistakes and bad decisions, but also had successes that collectively helped achieve his dream of freedom. Sometimes we feel that the results are impossible. In fact, they are, if we’re trying to reach them immediately. At AIDA, we have learned this in the case of La Oroya, in which we have had to be persistent and disciplined in order to achieve lasting results. With the people of La Oroya we have worked for change for 15 years, and we will continue until we achieve it. 3. All on the same side — there is no good vs. bad “If you want to make peace with your enemy, you should work with your enemy. Then he will become your partner.” I often wonder where South Africa would be if Mandela and his colleagues had not reached small agreements, if they had not overcome their many differences and moved forward. Moreover, what would have happened in that country if they had not been able to transcend hatred toward their oppressors in order to find peaceful and coordinated solutions? Surely, the outcome would have been a civil war with unimaginable consequences. One element that avoided such a catastrophe was Mandela’s constant ability to find solutions, reach agreements, maintain dialogue, and demand concrete results toward real change. No doubt, the process was not easy, quick, or smooth. But perseverance, clear goals, a desire to reach consensus, and the ability to find interlocutors made even the most complicated situations possible. When I think of our job of protecting the environment, I realize how much we lack and the great opportunity that lies before us. For example, instead of competing with colleagues at other organizations, or trying to defeat governments or corporations, we should remember that we are all working toward solutions to a common goal. The lure of “winning” and seeing others lose is powerful. But, surely, we will gain more if we work with our “enemies” and become partners instead. 4. A step back in celebration, a step forward in times of peril “It is better to lead from behind, and put others to the front, especially in celebration when good things occur. You step forward when there is danger. Then, people will appreciate your leadership.” Leadership is very different from being a dictator or a strongman. A person who is a true leader allows and encourages others to grow, develop and evolve in order to reach a common goal, even if they shine more than their bosses. Mandela was conscious of being a symbol so that everyone in South Africa could be free and treated as equals. Many times, he put that role above his own self-interest. On more than one occasion, Mandela had the possibility of improving his prison conditions or of obtaining early release. Instead, he chose to stay imprisoned because he believed that the conditions to dismantle apartheid were not met, and that the unjust system would not change if he were released. “Real leaders must be ready to sacrifice everything for the freedom of their people.” Sadly, contrary to what Mandela said, many “leaders” jump at the chance to receive medals, but have difficulty taking responsibility for the mistakes or shortcomings of their team. We must remember that the type of leadership that Mandela embodied can accomplish miracles. It translates into actions that allow changes no one would have thought possible—the fall of apartheid, for example, or a simple handshake between President Obama and Raul Castro, a symbol of reconciliation that took place at Mandela’s funeral. So, dear leaders, have a happy 2014! I invite you to consider these leadership skills and put them into practice. For your success, and for the survival of our planet!

December 09 2013

Environmental Impact Assessments Necessary for Informed Consent

In January 2009, Muriel Mining Corporation moved into the department of Chocó, Colombia to launch Mandé Norte, a project for the exploration and development of copper, gold, molybdenum and other minerals. The US-based company began the project without proper consultation, and without the free, prior and informed consent of the local ethnic groups that would be directly affected by the mines. Consultation with the affected communities did not begin until 2006, a year after the company was awarded the mining contract. What's more, several of the affected communities were not invited to participate in the consultation process, and those that participated were not represented by traditional authorities. Then, despite serious objections raised by Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities, the consultation process was concluded in August 2008. This project took place during a difficult period of Colombia’s armed conflict.The Inter-Church Commission for Justice and Peace, a Colombian human rights group, filed a legal action for protection against the mining project. AIDA contributed to the action by submitting an argument (in Spanish) demonstrating that without an adequate environmental impact assessment to analyze the project's social and environmental impacts, the affected communities would have no basis to give or deny consent, as required by international law. The Colombian Constitutional Court ruled on the case in the T-769 Sentence of 2009 (in Spanish), ordering the suspension of exploration and production activities and the awarding of licenses for the project. It also ordered a new consultation to meet both national and international standards, and required the completion of accurate environmental impact studies. AIDA has prepared a summary sheet (in Spanish) to make it easier to understand the sentence. The ruling in this case set a key precedent by incorporating and recognizing, for the first time, the right of ethnic groups to free, prior and informed consent. It was a breakthrough in the recognition of the rights of ethnic groups in Colombia. Both the Ministry of the Interior and the mining company sought an annulment of the constitutional sentence. But AIDA intervened (in Spanish) to defend the sentence against the annulment requests, as did the Colombian Commission of Jurists (in Spanish), Dejusticia (in Spanish), Harvard and Diego Portales (in Spanish). These efforts paid off. On March 12, 2012, the Constitutional Court upheld its decision (in Spanish) on Mandé Norte. Without this ruling, the mining project would have had serious social and environmental impacts on the biodiverse region of Chocó, damaging crop animals, rivers and the mountain of Caraperro, long considered by indigenous peoples to be a sacred site. The project would have both physically and culturally harmed the local indigenous peoples, and would have caused the deterioration of traditional economies. At AIDA, we work to defend the right to a healthy environment and the protect human rights of communities and ethnic groups against powerful interests. Follow us on Twitter: @AIDAorg "Like" our page on Facebook: www.facebook.com/AIDAorg

December 09 2013 Freshwater Sources, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, Large Dams

Lives of no return: Stories behind the construction of Belo Monte

By María José Veramendi Villa, senior attorney, AIDA, @MaJoVeramendi When you start the descent by plane to the city of Altamira in Pará, Brazil, the darkness of the night is interrupted by the bright lights of worksites a few kilometers outside the city where construction of the Belo Monte dam is underway. That’s when things turn bleak. On a recent trip to the area I was able to see how the situation of thousands of residents – the indigenous, riverine and city dwellers of Altamira - continues to deteriorate. Their communities and livelihoods are being irreversibly affected and their human rights systematically violated by the construction of the hydropower plant. When night becomes day From the plane, the lights from the worksites are just momentary flashes. But for the indigenous and riverine communities closest to them, those lights have brought a radical change to their lifestyles. José Alexandre lives with his family in Arroz Cru, a waterfront community located on the left bank of the Volta Grande, or Big Bend, of the Xingu River in the municipality of Vitória do Xingu. The community is in front of the Pimental worksite. His entire life has been spent in the area, where hunting and fishing are major activities. But everything changed when construction of the dam started.