Blog

Photo: Brazil's Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota speaks during the assembly. Credit: Astrid Puentes

July 05 2013

An evaluation of the OAS General Assembly and its relationship to the environment

By Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-executive director, AIDA, @astridpuentes The first week of June every year, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) – made up of the foreign affairs ministers of its 34 member states – meets to discuss and address the hemisphere’s priority issues. For 2013, the central theme was: “For a comprehensive policy against the world drug problem in the Americas.” The city of Antigua, Guatemala hosted the June 4-6 event. In addition to the central theme, relevant administrative issues were addressed such as the election of commissioners to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the approval of two conventions against discrimination and in favor of tolerance. This year, as in 2012, I had the honor of attending the assembly as a civil society observer. My objectives this year were: 1) to monitor the process of “strengthening” the Inter-American System of Human Rights (IASHR) which ended at the extraordinary assembly last March, and 2) to participate in the process of including an environmental focus in the debate on drug policy by contributing AIDA’s experience in monitoring the programs to eradicate coca and opium poppies in Colombia (1999-2007). These are my conclusions on the event from four different angles: What turned out well J The Assembly Declaration on the need to evaluate the so far failed drug policy: The states recognized the policy’s negative impacts on both the environment and human rights as well as the importance of taking them into consideration in future solution initiatives. The "Inter-American Convention against Racism, Racial Discrimination, and Related Forms of Intolerance" and "Inter-American Convention against All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance" were adopted and opened for signature. We hope both conventions are ratified, upheld and implemented by all of the states in order to eradicate actions that threaten the dignity and life of any person. The culmination of the process of “strengthening” the IASHR that started in 2011: As regards this issue, I will limit my comments to recalling that far from strengthening the system, the proposals from certain states threatened to weaken it (please see my previous post). In March, important reforms to the IACHR were agreed on and will be applied beginning in August. Although those changes were not in force, certain states sought additional ones. Given that a state of constant reforms is destined for failure, it was positive that for the moment the states did not agree to make new revisions to the IACHR or to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Another positive element was the frank and open dialogue (though at times difficult) held by the states, IACHR, the Inter-American Court, civil society and other system users. There were many issues that remained outstanding, but the important thing is to strengthen dialogue in which the users of the IASHR and interested parties can participate effectively, and in which the real protection of human rights is the only guide. With regard to the election of the IACHR commissioners, the six candidates presented their proposals on May 1 in a forum held by the Permanent Council. Despite the inappropriateness of the chosen date – the hemisphere (excepting the northern part) was celebrating International Workers’ Day (also known as May Day), we listened to the candidates (all men this time) and learned about their perspectives regarding the IACHR. This should be a systematic practice in all OAS elections. What I did not like The lack of clarity and interruptions in spaces assigned to civil society: I recognize that progress has been made toward the greater and more significant participation of this sector in the OAS even though the mechanisms are still far from being perfect. Two examples in the assembly in Antigua, which we hope do not recur in the future, illustrate this: 1. During the civil society dialogue with Mr. José Miguel Insulza, secretary-general of the OAS, one state representative took the floor. Regardless of the subject of this intervention, this goes against the definition of the space, which is open only to the OAS secretary and civil society delegates. This is a point that requires immediate improvement. 2. In the dialogue between civil society and the foreign secretaries, the situation became complex. It is customary that, due to the short amount of time available for interventions (a total of 20 minutes this time), the organizations decide beforehand the issues and speakers. On this occasion, a group of organizations insisted on taking the floor even though their issue had not been chosen. Despite this, one additional person was given the floor without previous coordination or agreement. Although this was an attempt to air the perspectives of a diverse group, as is civil society, it opened the possibility of delegitimizing the efforts of hundreds of organizations to organize ourselves, if you’ll pardon the repetition. In addition, this incident brings with it the risk that organizations or individuals whose issues have not been selected by the rest but who are close to the foreign ministries may participate more than others. What was left pending… Obtaining greater participation from other sectors of civil society such as indigenous peoples, campesinos and Afro-Descendants. Nevertheless, in contrast to the past, this time there was a greater presence of the latter group, which represents a positive step. Providing continuity to the urgency of getting the states to renew and demonstrate their will to comply with IASHR decisions. This issue, I feel, is the white elephant in the room. Although that is a part of the recommendations of the Working Group that the states themselves developed in order to “strengthen” the System, none of them have mentioned the matter again and it is not included in the resolution that put an end to the process even though it is fundamental for truly strengthening the System. This assembly unfortunately demonstrated yet again the lack of transparency in the selection of the commissioners. Despite the redeemable elements of the forum mentioned above, each country’s participatory and transparent selection processes were absent. During the assembly, the traditional mechanism was once again applied in which each state nominates and campaigns for its own candidate. This lends itself to the diplomatic negotiation of votes that in the end are secret, thereby reducing the accountability to which we all have a right to with regard to those who govern us. The best part ☼ Without a doubt, the venue: Antigua. The people are incredibly friendly. It is a very pretty city that with great reason was declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO. It is full of gorgeous little corners, colonial architecture and houses with balconies and gardens. Imposing mountains surround it – among them, Volcán de Agua [Water Volcano], at only 3½ kilometers from the city. I was able to enjoy a perfect and inspirational view on the mornings when I ran very early to clear my mind and stay abreast of the important, though a bit slow for my taste, discussions. The opportunity to share closely with respected individuals such as María José, my colleague at AIDA, and colleagues from organizations from throughout the region with whom it was a pleasure to meet again. The foregoing is my view of the recent OAS General Assembly. I would enjoy hearing your comments in agreement or disagreement with what I have said.

February 25 2013

What’s the latest on the reform of the Inter-American System of Human Rights?

By Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-director, AIDA,@astridpuentes In June, I wrote about how some OAS member states had begun a process to introduce tough reforms on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Inter-American Human Rights System that would weaken their ability to operate and protect our human rights. I want to bring you up to date on how the discussions are faring. More importantly, though, I want to ask you to get involved by signing thepetitionto ask the member states to strengthen –not weaken– the Inter-American System. More than 3,000 people have already signed! You can sign too! Watch our video message to the Permanent Council of the OAS (Spanish only) The outlook last June was pretty thorny. Seldom has an OAS General Assembly been as tense as the last two, particularly the most recent one when the Inter-American System came under fierce attack and several member states even sought to re-establish it. The Assembly ended with a call to reform the statute at an Extraordinary Assembly, something that’s never happened in the history of the IACHR. The good news is that the member states appear to have somewhat cooled their clamoring. There are more signs of a willingness to talk. The Representative of Brazil made reference to this change during the Permanent Council’s extraordinary session with civil society representatives, saying the confidence and opportunities for negotiations have improved. He said this process should lead to an outcome in which the underlying question of human rights takes precedence over procedural matters. Watch our video message to the Permanent Council of the OAS (Spanish only) It’s an honor that the representative quoted us. Now we have to see if this good message gets translated into action by, for example, addressing the IACHR’s requests on Brazil including those regarding the contentious Belo Monte dam. The Brazilian government must respond and give its perspective on the case. The not so good news is that the process is not yet complete. We’re still waiting for a definition on what the reforms will be and how they will be implemented. For example, part of the reform package proposed by some states is that if the Inter-American Court rejects a request for precautionary measures then the IACHR has to do so too. That, as we have said, fails to recognize the natural differences of the Court and the IACHR and puts them at risk. The IACHR has committed to producing various reports, which will eat up a lot of its resources and thus could affect its duty to protect, its duty to proceed with cases of human rights violations affecting millions of people in the hemisphere. It is understood that neither the Inter-American System nor any of those involved are perfect. There is still a lot to improve. But it is essential that this process concludes with recommendations to make the System more effective. That means that AIDA and our colleagues in the hemisphere will continue to lobby the member states, the OAS and the IACHR itself. We will continue to offer our opinions. We will continue to share our experiences as users of the System. We will continue to fight to prevent any weakening of the System. That is why we ask you to sign TODAY and help us defend the IASHR and, in the process, our human rights. If you as an inpidual or community member believe that you could use one of the IACHR’s decisions in cases involving dams, mining projects, tourism developments, free speech, the protection of women or anything else, then speak out and sign up now! If not you, if not us, then who? Full video of the session In this recording you can hear the Representative of Brazil cite AIDA (last 5 minutes)

June 04 2012

Who can protect us if the Inter-American System of Human Rights is weakened?

By Astrid Puentes, co-director of AIDA, @astridpuentes I’m writing from Cochabamba, where I’m attending the 42nd General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS). This is the first time I have come to Bolivia and to a General Assembly. I am here to support our efforts to truly “strengthen the Inter-American System” and to stand against proposals from OAS member states that could limit the independence and effectiveness of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). Our goal is to preserve the autonomy and role of the IACHR, and, thus, to guarantee human rights in the region: To protect our rights, yours and mine. Here’s a summary of what is a complex story. A number of member states launched an effort to strengthen the Inter-American System of the Protection of Human Rights in 2011, two years after the IACHR and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights modified their rules of procedure. This effort is a direct response from several member states after the IACHR brought up concerns about human rights in their countries. A working group was then created last year to evaluate how the Inter-American System of Human Rights could be “strengthened.” The group produced a report that the Commission has responded to and that NGOs like ours will also comment on. A few days ago, the Secretary General of the OAS, José Miguel Insulza, published a report on the subject. Personally, I think it is inadequate because several of his recommendations will actually weaken, and not strengthen, the system. For example, he says there is “a loophole in the statute of the commission on the figure of the precautionary measures that could be filled by... the General Assembly of the OAS.” It is worth mentioning that it is the IACHR that determines its own rules, a way to ensure its independence. Insulza’s report left out issues he’d been asked to address, such as options for improving the financing for the Inter-American System. Based on his recommendations, the result would be contrary to the same objective that Insulza and member states have set as their main goal. Fortunately, Insulza in his declarations during the General Assembly dismissed some of the recommendations that could have drained the strength of the Inter-American Human Rights System. The important points of the “strengthening” process that will be discussed at the General Assembly in Cochabamba – and no doubt afterwards – include: Financing the Inter-American Human Rights System. This is essential, as you can’t ask the IACHR to operate efficiently on a meager budget. “Unify in a constructive manner” what the member states and the IACHR understand as the precautionary measures. This is an issue presented by some member states and brought up by Secretary Insulza. It was frankly a surprise that this point came from the very report of the secretary for two reasons: a) abiding by what the system dictates is part of what member states already agreed to in creating the System, and b) because the Inter-American Court has been very clear in determining that the measures are obligatory. What can we expect of member states? I mean, who likes to get their dirty laundry published in the media? This is not to say that they are acting irrationally. Whether the IACHR should have a greater role in promoting human rights than protecting them. That is to say, whether it should provide more advice to the member states on how to respect human rights, or rather review complaints of human rights violations that come its way. Pulling Ears To understand this process it is important to know the motivations that have prompted member states to push for these changes. Coincidentally, states like Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuelawant “to strengthen” the system precisely when the IACHR has handed down important decisions against them, namely: 1. It has called on Brazil to suspend construction of the Belo Monte dam in Brazil for violating indigenous rights and threatening the environment, 2. The Report on Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela exposed serious violations, 3. The severe human rights violations in Colombia have been included a number of times in Chapter IV of the commission’s annual report, 4. Ecuador has been questioned multiple times by the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, among other examples. A Conflict of Interests If we put this differently and speak instead of member states but of a director whose organization is about to hire a close relative, there would be no doubt that this would be declared incompatible because of a conflict of interests. Or, put even more plainly, if a referee was assigned to the final of the World Cup of Soccer and he had the same nationality as one of the teams, then obviously there would be protests from the other team. These impediments don’t exist in the OAS. The same member states against whom the complaints are made by the IACHR can modify its functions through the General Assembly. It is exactly for this reason that restraint is required even when they don’t agree with the System’s decisions. It is vital that the states respect the independence of the Inter-American System in discourse and practice. They must reiterate their compromise with the agreements dating back more than 60 years and support the bodies that were created for the very purpose of guaranteeing justice in cases of human rights violations. (This text in Spanish)

May 07 2012

Prior consultation: An opportunity for life, respect and diversity

By Héctor Herrera, legal advisor, AIDA, @RJAColombia Colombia’s ethnic groups have decrees and laws that protect their cultural persity, that defend the individual and collective livelihood of these native and traditional peoples and communities. Article 6 of Convention No. 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) stipulates that indigenous peoples have the right to prior consultation. That means that they should participate in defining the measures that could have a direct impact on them, whether legislative (such as laws or decrees) or administrative (environmental permits for highways, dams, mines, oil wells, and the like). The negotiations should be carried out in good faith and with the goal of reaching agreements on all sides. This has become very important in Colombia, a multiethnic, multicultural, and diverse country. According to the Luis Ángel Arango Library, 65 indigenous languages in 12 language families are spoken in Colombia, of which 34 have less than one thousand speakers. Traditional Afro groups speak two different Creole languages. Yet all of these languages are in danger. Colombia also is extremely diverse in biological species globally, ranking first in birds, second in amphibians and butterflies, third in reptiles, and fourth in mammals, according to the Humboldt Institute. Colombian newspaper El Espectador reported 2011 data showing that 10% of all biodiversity is found on 1% of the planet’s surface. In Columbia, 29.8% of this is collective indigenous territory and 5% is collective traditional Afro territory. Understanding this, prior consultation emerges as an opportunity to protect the cultural and ethnic persity of Colombia and defend the inpidual and collective livelihood of the many native and traditional peoples and communities. It is, too, an opportunity to protect the ecosystems that these ethnic groups inhabit as well as to protect life in all its forms. This does not mean forcing anybody to adopt a conservation, extractive, or development model. It simply means making sure that an effective space is provided for clear, honest, and intercultural dialogue with ethnic groups on measures that could affect them, whether legislative or administrative measures or national laws or extractive mining projects. This is completely in line with the stipulations of Article 6 of Convention No. 169 of the ILO . This right has also been recognized in numerous national and international legal documents. On the international level, we have the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted in 2007 (PDF file). In Colombia, we have the Political Constitution, which protects the rights of ethnic groups to their collective territory and the rights of all of society to a healthy environment. With the backing of international legal documents and the Political Constitution, the Constitutional Court of Colombia upheld the right to prior consultation for the “Embera indigenous people” in relation to the construction of the Urrá dam in 1998 and for Amazon indigenous peoples on the fumigation of illegal crops in 2003. In other cases, the High Court declared unconstitutional the National Development Plan of 2006-2010, the forestry law of 2006 and the mining code reform of 2010 because the proponents had not consulted with ethnic groups. There are yet more cases outside Colombia, such as Bolivia with the Multinational Constitution of 2009 and Ecuador with the Intercultural and Multinational Constitution of 1998, both of which recognize the right to prior consultation. So too Peru, where a law on this right was just passed this year. Culture, language and a view of the world – all of these can live on through time if we respect them and guarantee people’s rights, including the right to prior consultation. The protection of this right could also contribute to the protection of important ecosystems and of biological persity, both of which are vital issues as we face unprecedented climate change and environmental degradation.

March 26 2012

Environmental law and women

By Natalia Jiménez, legal advisor, AIDA The role of environmental law is weak on gender. This can be seen in Latin America where there is constant approval of economic and development plans affecting the female view of the world, and that could lead to new ways of violating our rights. Just like with ethnic communities, there are social groups with unique values of environmental protection, and to protect these ways of thinking is to protect the environment. Women play a decisive role in the protection of the environment in a distinct and particular way. While not the same for all and while many women may not feel the need for this recognition, the way of understanding nature or creation on the one side and environmental damage on the other is different between men and women. This is a reason why we promote a variety of proposals for environmental management. There are a lot of good books on this in Spanish. Here are three: a) “Abrazar la vida. Mujer, ecología y desarrollo,” by Vandana Shiva, published in Uruguay, b) “Desarrollo y feminización de la pobreza” and “Ecofeminismo: hacia una redefinición filosófico-política de ‘Naturaleza’ y ‘Ser humano,’” both by Alicia Puleo and published in Spain. >The experience of Ecuador in protecting the moor ecosystems> is >a beautiful and inspiring example of a female environmental fight in Latin America. It also is proof of what has been said, such as that >women are the best defenders in negotiations on climate change> and that >their ideas are even more effective and sustainable when it comes to fighting hunger and poverty>. But while ethnic groups have gained a good degree of legal defense through prior consent, numerous social groups are still waiting for creative lawyers with the capacity to defend their visions in the courts. Prior consent allows ethnic groups to make decisions about plans or legislative initiatives that affect their territories in order to protect their cultural, social, and economic integrity. It is a right that has been >recognized> in countries like Colombia. In Latin America, the social aspect that comes up most in big legal battles for environmental protection is the right of ethnic groups to prior consent over a development project that could damage their existence and culture. But little to nothing has been said in the courts on the illegality and social inconvenience of such a project violating women’s rights and their vision of the world. We need legal tools as jurisprudential precedents to make it possible to litigate and determine, for example, that a development plan is or could represent discriminatory action against women. I am not talking about multiplying the number of existing mechanisms for participation in decision-making or the number of women involved or making decisions. We need laws that set precedents to protect the environment based on the female view of the world. We need more creative legal tools that, like prior consent, can incorporate the environmental values of women into local and global environmental practices in a real and efficient way.

March 21 2012

Coral reefs in Latin America: A natural spectacle at risk

Gladys Martínez de Lemos, legal advisor, AIDA Twenty five percent of all marine species have lived at some stage in coral reefs. In Costa Rica, these reefs are under threat from deforestation and other human activities. Coral reefs help maintain balance in the marine environment. They are home to many marine species for human consumption, they protect coasts from erosion and hurricanes, and they offer coastal communities a source of income from diving tourism. But a lack of clear policies and regulations is threatening their survival. These natural wonders help balance the ecosystem by providing a source of food to superior organisms, thus forming vital food webs. Their environmental value is so significant that economists have estimated that a hectare of reef is worth over one million dollars per year. Even though coral reefs cover about a tenth of the ocean floor, current estimates suggest that 25% of all marine species have lived in coral reefs at some stage of their life cycle. Despite this, coral reefs are under threat in Costa Rica and elsewhere from ocean acidification, destructive fishing practices, unsustainable coastal development, and pollution, among other factors. According to the Costa Rica's 15th State of the Nation Report, the loss of 75% of live corals in the Cahuita Reef is mostly due to sedimentation caused by basin deforestation and other human actions. Governmental inaction It's evident that coral reefs are endangered. There are no clear and widespread policies and regulations to deal with this issue; there are no mechanisms for the control, monitoring or even protection to preserve coral reefs. Even current international obligations on coral reef protection are overlooked. This can no longer be. Marine biodiversity and ecosystems must be preserved for future generations to see the beauty and diversity of coral reefs. We all have a son, nephew or cousin who we want to have the opportunity to enjoy the richness of the coral reefs, or the chance to savor fish and their valuable protein. Most Latin American countries and their decision makers have not yet created special laws to protect the coral reefs. They face a huge challenge -- and responsibility -- to protect the reefs.

March 07 2012

Protection of Sinaloa’s mangrove swamps put off

By Sandra Moguel, legal advisor, AIDA, @sandra_moguel Marismas Nacionales, the largest wetland in Mexico, is still at risk almost four years since the announcement of a proposed decree to protect it from threats such as major tourist developments. Mexico is the country with the largest number of sites designated as wetlands of international importance in Latin America and yet, surprisingly, these sites have not been looked after. By signing up to the Ramsar Convention[i], the Mexican government made a commitment to draw up plans for, defend and promote the wise useof these ecosystems, as well as to expand its system of protected areas[ii]. Marismas Nacionales is the largest wetland in Mexico, located between the states of Sinaloa and Nayarit. It has been a Ramsar site since 22 June 1995, which means it belongs to the international system for the protection and regulation of wetlands of international importance. The Recommendations of the Ramsar Advisory Mission from 2010 point out that although politically the ecosystem is pided into two different regions, ecologically the two sections of wetland have many things in common and therefore their management should be tackled as a whole. The federal government has already protected the Nayarit portion of the wetland, but four years since the publication of an official Announcement of Decree on the Sinaloa Marismas Nacionales Biosphere Reserve, the procedures for the creation of this Protected Natural Area, which would cover 47,556 hectares of mangrove forest, are yet to be completed. Meanwhile, the construction of massive infrastructure remains a threat to Marismas. The Pacific Coast Integrally Planned Centre – now known as Playa Espíritu (Spirit Beach) – and the Isla de Palma Development are both projects which put this site in jeopardy. The first of these projects has obtained environmental permission to build a 10,000-room resort (although the official proposal involved 44,000 rooms), while the second includes plans to construct accommodation for 200 guests, located in a nuclear zone according to the Sinaloa Marismas Nacionales Biosphere Reserve. The Mexican Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) justified its authorisation of the Integrally Planned Centre project explaining that the site had not been designated as a Protected Natural Area (or ANP by its Spanish acronym). It is currently studying the environmental impact study on the Isla de Palma development, but it is entirely possible that the argument of the effect it will have on a mangrove area and the habitat of highly migratory birds will not be enough to reject the application for environmental permission. In its Sectoral Program for the Environment and Natural Resources 2007-2012, the federal government promised to increase the total area of land designated as belonging to Protected Natural Areas from 22 million hectares in 2007 to 25.6 million in 2012. But how can this conservation objective be realised if the sites which are expected to be declared Protected Areas at the end of the six-year program have not been “protected”? The declaration of the Sinaloa Marismas Nacionales Biosphere Reserve is not the only decree of its kind to have been delayed: it is much the same story for La Sierra La Laguna and Balandra in Baja California Sur, Santuario Madera in Chihuahua and Ejido el Palmito in Sinaloa, to name but a few. The lack of coordination amongst administrative entities and the disparate organs which make up the environmental sector, combined with insufficient planning instruments such as ANP decrees, prevent decision-making which would favour conservation. Putting off these decrees is unjustifiable regardless of the fact that SEMARNAT’s legal department is swamped with ANP justification studies needing to be examined, or that there may be political reasons for delaying their approval. Issuing a decree on Sinaloa Marismas Nacionales is one way of guaranteeing the constitutional right to a healthy environment, as well as fulfilling international obligations such as Ramsar. It also protects the economic activities of the communities which depend on this ecosystem. [i] Ratified by Mexico on 20 December 1984 and published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on 24 January 1985. [ii] Resolution IX. 22 of the Ramsar Secretariat on wetlands and systems of protected areas, 9th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties, Uganda, 8-15 November 2005.

July 07 2011 Human Rights

Mexican Constitution protects human rights

On June 9, 2011, Mexico rewrote history. The Mexican Congress approved revisions that expressly recognize human rights in the national constitution for the first time. The new language requires all authorities to adhere to international human rights treaties Mexico is a signatory to when those treaties are more expansive than the "individual guarantees" currently on the books. As modified, Article 1 of the constitution now recognizes human rights in general and incorporates international law. This means groups such as AIDA and communities in Mexico will have better legal tools for defending the right to a healthy environment or clean drinking water. Or, for example, because indigenous communities’ right to free, prior, and informed consent is granted in international law, Mexico will now have to recognize this right. Moreover, although the Mexican constitution already recognized some rights, enforcement has been difficult. The revision provides additional legal tools and thus raises hopes for enhanced protection of those rights. These constitutional changes came after a four-year process initiated by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Mexico, and involving academics, nongovernmental organization, and independent experts. AIDA contributed by evaluating existing legal tools for protecting human rights as well as international legal obligations. In 2008, the Mexican Congress started considering the human-rights-related constitutional revision, which was finally partially approved in June, 2011. While the Mexican Congress and government should be applauded for its vision, the constitutional change’s effectiveness remains to be seen. Recognizing human rights is only the first step, and the new commitment will mean little without compliance. In coordination with our allies in the country, AIDA will monitor Mexican cases to ensure enforcement of this profound advancement and improved protection of the right to a healthy environment.

July 06 2011

Resort endangers Mexican mangroves and wetlands

A proposed resort three times the size of Cancun is bad news for Mexico’s fragile coastal mangrove ecosystems. Costa del Pacifico (CIP), a mega-resort that the Mexican government is planning to build near Mazatlan, is expected to attract three million visitors by the year 2025. If this project proceeds as planned, it will imperil nearby wetlands that safeguard Mexico’s last remaining mangrove forests and 60 endangered species. AIDA is working to protect these treasured ecosystems. There is still hope for the mangroves because Mexican authorities specified in May 2011 that CIP will be built in stages that require completion of environmental studies and permits. In June 2009, we submitted a petition to the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention (SRC), an international treaty aimed at wetlands conservation. In this petition, AIDA and five co-signing environmental organizations called upon the SRC to encourage and support the Mexican government in conducting a comprehensive environmental review of the CIP project, as required by national and international laws. The proposed CIP resort is located at the edge of Marismas Nacionales and in close proximity to Laguna Huizache-Caimanero, both of which are classified as “wetlands of international importance". These biopersity hot spots support an astonishing array of wetlands wildlife including birds, fishes, mammals, reptiles and plants. Many are already threatened or endangered, such as the puma, jaguar, river otter, collared peccary, white-tailed deer, American Crocodile, Boa constrictor and Mexican Beaded Lizard. To provide water and electricity to resort guests, the Mexican government proposes building a hydroelectric dam in the San Pedro River. This dam would sharply reduce water flow to the Marismas wetlands, directly harming plant and animal populations and disrupting movement and migration patterns critical to many species’ survival. The government also plans to pert substantial amounts of water from the Presidio River for irrigation, an action likely to harm the Laguna Huizache-Caimanero wetlands as well. As with most golf courses, substantial amounts of chemical pesticides and fertilizers will likely be applied to the resort’s four courses and extensive landscaping. Toxic runoff from these areas would contaminate the wetlands, potentially poisoning many animal species and causing algae blooms that create oxygen-starved dead zones. All these different impacts combined would likely cause extensive damage to the forest of mangrove trees that dominate the wetlands. Mangroves are barrier ecosystems that shelter coastlines from the damaging impact of storms. Mangrove ecosystems are also thriving nurseries for breeding fish and migratory birds. Marismas Nacionales, for example, harbors more than 100 species of migratory birds. In addition, mangroves act as powerful carbon sinks that help buffer the effects of climate change. The trees actively remove excess carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere (up to 50 times more efficiently than tropical rainforests), and the peat sediment that nurtures the trees acts as a reservoir for large quantities of CO2. Consequently, when mangroves are destroyed, we lose both their ability to absorb excess CO2 and we introduce new carbon dioxide that was previously locked up in the sediment. At AIDA’s request, a SRC technical mission toured the area in June 2010 to gather information. The following August the SRC mission issued a report which recommended that the government carry out a strategic environmental evaluation to determine the cumulative effects of multiple mega-projects on these wetlands, take account of the multiple environmental goods and services provided by these wetlands, and document the inter-connected nature of the Huizache Caimanero-Marismas Nacionales ecosystems. The report further recommended that the relevant water, fishing, and environmental protection authorities be incorporated into the National Committee for Wetlands. The SRC mission noted that massive tourist developments should not be constructed in Ramsar protected wetlands, given the importance of these areas for Mexico and the international community. It also recommended that the Marismas Nacionales and Huizache Caimanero wetlands be added to the Register of Montreux, which contains a list of all Ramsar wetland sites that are gravely threatened. This is an important example of how civil society participation can help in the conservation of protected wetlands. AIDA will continue to play a role in the protection of Mexican wetlands by urging full compliance with the Ramsar Mission's recommendations.

October 17 2010 Climate Change, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, Large Dams

Large dams in the Americas: Is the cure worse than the disease?

Large dams consistently cause severe, and often irreversible, environmental and social damage. Their construction is also often associated with violations of international human rights and environmental laws. AIDA’s report Large Dams in the Americas: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease? explores these grave impacts and explains the existing international standards that should be applied to protect the environment and human rights. The report also exposes the dangers of using large hydroelectric dams to meet increasing energy demands in Latin America. To promote greater protection of human rights, AIDA gave testimony based on this dams report to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) at a general hearing on November 2, 2009. AIDA has also shared the report’s findings with international experts, policymakers, non-governmental organizations, affected local communities, and international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. Furthermore, AIDA staff presented legal strategy workshops at "Rivers for Life 3", an international meeting of dam-affected communities in Temacapulín, Mexico, October 1-7, 2010. The previous month, AIDA staff represented Latin America on a panel of water experts at World Water Week in Stockholm. In Large Dams in the Americas, AIDA examines five large hydroelectric dams in violation of a range of environmental and human rights laws: Yacyretá in Argentina and Paraguay, Río Madeira in Bolivia and Brazil, Baba in Ecuador, Chan-75 in Panama, and La Parota in Mexico. Through these case studies, AIDA illustrates how governments generally disregard important international obligations and standards, such as the need to conduct proper environmental and social impact assessments. In the report, we also explain the significant social and environmental impacts caused by large dams. We discuss how families suffer when they are displaced or forcefully evicted by dams and lose valuable farmland, water sources, or traditional fishing areas. We document how the people most harmed by large dams are those from vulnerable populations, including indigenous, afro-descendent and poor farming communities. We also describe how large dams typically harm the environment by flooding valuable ecosystems, dramatically altering natural flows of water, disrupting wildlife habitat, and obstructing the migratory paths of perse species, among other impacts. In addition, Large Dams in the Americas dispels the myth that dams are a source of "green energy". Even though dams do not rely on fossil fuels to generate electricity, they still contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Hydroelectric dams create enormous reservoirs of river water that submerge valleys and lead to the decomposition of vast amounts of organic matter. As the trees and other biomasses break down, they release carbon dioxide and methane, the same greenhouse gases that are created by "dirty" technologies like coal-fired electricity plants. Turbines also liberate methane trapped in deep water and emit carbon dioxide as they release pressure from the reservoir. In tropical regions, dams can emit as much as eleven times the amount of greenhouse gases that a conventional power plant of equivalent size would emit. Given the negative impacts of large dams, AIDA's report recommends that policymakers seriously consider alternatives that protect human rights and our natural ecosystems, save energy, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Suggested alternatives include: improving energy efficiency, reducing demand, making better use of sustainable energy sources, investing in energy-efficient technologies and infrastructure, and removing barriers that hinder technology exchange between nations. AIDA wrote this report in collaboration with our participating organizations, CEMDA, CEDHA, ECOLEX and Earthjustice, as well as International Rivers, Sobrevivencia, and the Association for Conservation and Development (ACD). By educating governments, policymakers, communities, and other key players about large dams, we seek to encourage authorities to investigate the matter and apply our recommendations on how to implement dam projects in compliance with international laws. Spanish-Language Report Available Here