Project
Photo: Maíra Irigaray / Amazon WatchHolding Brazil accountable for the Belo Monte Dam
When fully operational, Belo Monte will be the third-largest dam in the world, constructed in one of the most important ecosystems on the planet: the Amazon rainforest. It sits on the Xingu River in Pará, a state in northern Brazil. The reservoir will cover 500 square kilometers of forest and farmland—an area the size of Chicago.
For the people of the Xingu, construction of Belo Monte has meant loss of access to water, food, housing, work and transportation. At least 20,000 people have been displaced.
The government and construction consortium began to construct the dam without first consulting the people of the region, many of whom are indigenous. They flouted international human rights law, which requires the free, prior and informed consent of affected indigenous communities. Brazil also failed to comply with precautionary measures issued by the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, which were intended to protect the life, health, and integrity of local communities.
Though Belo Monte began operations in May 2016, it is not yet operating at full capacity. In April 2016, a federal court suspended the dam's operating license because the consortium in charge did not complete basic sanitation works in Altamira, the city nearest to and most affected by the dam.
Partners:
Related projects
Independent report finds Dutch and German Development Banks failed to comply with environmental and human rights standards in financing the Barro Blanco Dam in Panama
Indigenous communities and civil society shocked by the banks’ inadequate response to the findings. Kiad, Panama/Amsterdam/Bogota – Last Friday, a long-awaited report by an independent panel found that FMO and DEG, the Dutch and German development banks, violated their own policies by failing to adequately assess the risks to indigenous rights and the environment before approving a US$50 million loan to GENISA, the developer of the Barro Blanco hydroelectric project in Panama. FMO and DEG’s response to the findings, while acknowledging some deficiencies in their assessment, does not commit to any measures to address the outstanding policy violations. Even while the report concludes that “the lenders have not taken the resistance of the affected communities seriously enough,” it appears that FMO and DEG continue to do so. In May 2014, the Movimiento 10 de Abril (M-10), representing indigenous peoples directly affected by the project, with the support of Both ENDS and SOMO, filed the first complaint to the Independent Complaints Mechanism (ICM) of the FMO and DEG. The complaint alleges that the Barro Blanco dam will affect part of the Ngöbe-Buglé indigenous territory, flooding their homes, schools, and religious, archaeological, and cultural sites. Despite national and international human rights obligations, the Panamanian government, GENISA and the banks failed to obtain the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of the Ngöbe-Buglé before the project was approved. The ICM found that the “lenders should have sought greater clarity on whether there was consent to the project from the appropriate indigenous authorities prior to project approval.” “We did not give our consent to this project before it was approved, and it does not have our consent today,” said Manolo Miranda, a representative of the M-10. “We demand that the government, GENISA, and the banks respect our rights and stop this project.” The ICM found that “while the [loan] agreement was reached prior to significant construction, significant issues related to social and environmental impact and, in particular, issues related to the rights of indigenous peoples were not completely assessed prior to the [loan] agreement.” The banks’ failure to identify the potential impacts of the project led to a subsequent failure to require their client to take any action to mitigate those impacts. The environmental and social action plan (ESAP) appended to the loan agreement “contains no provision on land acquisition and resettlement and nothing on biodiversity and natural resources management. Neither does it contain any reference to issues related to cultural heritage.” “This failure constitutes a violation of international standards regarding the obligation to elaborate adequate and comprehensive Environmental and Social Impact Assessments before implementing any development project, in order to guarantee the right to free, prior and informed consent, information and effective participation of the potentially affected community”, explained Ana María Mondragón, lawyer at the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). While FMO and DEG acknowledged in their official response to the ICM’s report that they “were not fully appraised at credit approval,” they made no further concrete commitments to ensure that the rights of those affected by the dam will be respected. The banks claim that they are “facing limitations in their influence” over government processes to come to a satisfactory agreement with all stakeholders involved. Their actions, however, reveal a different story. In February, the Panamanian government provisionally suspended construction of the Barro Blanco dam. Subsequent to the suspension, the government convened a dialogue table with the Ngöbe-Buglé, with the facilitation of the United Nations, to discuss the future of the project. Rather than supporting the Government of Panama to respect the rights of the Ngöbe-Buglé, FMO and DEG have requested that Panama’s environmental authority reconsider the suspension and allow their client to resume construction. In February, they sent a letter to the Vice President of Panama, expressing their “great concern and consternation” about the suspension and noting that it “may weigh upon future investment decisions, and harm the flow of long-term investments into Panama.” While the banks asserted that their consultants found nothing that would warrant the suspension of the project, they failed to mention that their own independent accountability mechanism was undertaking an investigation of the project. Indeed, by that time, the banks had already seen a draft of the ICM’s report with findings that the project was not in compliance with its own policies. “We were surprised to find out about the role of the banks in influencing the national process, as this is in contradiction to their assertions that they are not in a position to intervene in national decision-making.” said Anouk Franck, senior policy advisor at Both ENDS, based in Amsterdam. “They should now show their commitment in coming to a solution and start taking FPIC seriously, in the case of Barro Blanco, where due to delays in tackling the issue, the banks might need to accept losses on their loan. And they need to find ways to assure themselves FPIC is obtained where relevant, for example through human rights impact assessments.” The handling of the complaint was a lengthy and at times frustrating process. GENISA refused to cooperate with the ICM and provide them with access to project documents, leading the banks to conclude a secret side agreement with GENISA. The secret side agreement superseded the publicly available procedures of the ICM and allowed GENISA to review the draft and final investigation reports before they were shared with complainants. “FMO and DEG are more concerned with protecting the interests of their client than they are with protecting the rights of those affected by the projects they finance,” said Kris Genovese, senior researcher at the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO). “It’s a tragic irony that banks asked the consent of the company to publish the ICM’s investigation report, but didn't ask consent of Ngöbe-Buglé for the project.” The Barro Blanco project was registered under the Clean Development Mechanism, a system under the Kyoto Protocol that allows the crediting of emission reductions from greenhouse gas abatement projects in developing countries. “As climate finance flows are expected to flow through various channels in the future, the lessons of Barro Blanco must be taken very seriously. To prevent that future climate mitigation projects have negative impacts, a strong institutional safeguard system that respects all human rights is required,” said Pierre-Jean Brasier, network coordinator at Carbon Market Watch. “The opportunity to establish such a necessary safeguards system is now, ahead of the Paris agreement, to put the respect of human rights on top of the UNFCCC agenda.” The ICM will monitor the banks’ implementation of corrective actions and recommendations. Meanwhile, the M10 expect FMO and DEG to withdrawal their investment from the project and ask that the Dutch and German governments show a public commitment to ensuring the rights of the affected Ngöbe-Buglé. At the same time, the banks should refrain from putting pressure on the Panamanian government.
Read more
AIDA Attends Ramsar COP for Wetlands Conservation
In regions across the Americas, water is becoming an increasingly scarce resource. Baja California and other parts of Mexico are experiencing water shortages. Washington, Oregon and California are confronting the worst drought in history. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization says that, by 2025, at least 1.9 billion people will live in countries or regions facing an absolute shortage of water. In this situation, it is urgent to preserve wetlands – the natural ecosystems that provide fresh water, help to replenish groundwater aquifers, and nurture aquatic wildlife. Wetlands include páramos, mangroves, rivers, lakes and coral reefs. At AIDA, we’re committed to protecting these unique ecosystems. We work to strengthen the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty that mandates the conservation and wise use of wetlands worldwide. The Convention’s member nations are obligated to ensure that wetlands in their territories conserve important ecological characteristics, which provide clean water and myriad benefits for humanity. To ensure compliance with the Convention’s obligations, nations convene every three years at the Conference of Parties (COP), the Convention’s primary organ. The twelfth conference (COP12) – focusing on “Wetlands for Our Future” – will take place June 1-9 in Punta de Este, Uruguay. One of the functions of the COP is to consider information presented by organizations like AIDA to improve each country’s compliance with the Convention. AIDA is participating in COP12 as an observing civil society organization, presenting comments on draft resolutions to be discussed at the conference. These resolutions provide solutions to the challenges nations encounter when implementing the treaty, and ensure that governments make clear commitments to conserve important ecosystems. We will submit comments on three of the most important draft resolutions: The Philippines calls on the Convention to propose economic tools to reduce the risk of natural disasters. Thailand proposes to analyze the effectiveness of mechanisms used to evaluate the management and conservation of sites the Convention considers Wetlands of International Importance. Mexico proposes that countries identify the possible negative impacts that infrastructure projects have on water, biodiversity and wetland services. AIDA will also make specific recommendations to protect wetlands in Colombia, Mexico and Panama. We will advocate the inclusion of two sites on the Montreux Record, a list of wetlands that receive international priority, and for which a country may obtain technical assistance and financial resources for conservation. The sites AIDA proposes to add are the Bay of Panama Wetlands, threatened by the construction of tourism infrastructure, and the Veracruz Reef System National Park, endangered by the expansion of the Port of Veracruz in Mexico. Finally, we will ask the Secretariat of the Convention to make advisory visits to Colombia to learn about the situation of the country’s páramos, at risk from large-scale mining projects, and of Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta, an important site affected by unsustainable agriculture. Following these visits, the Secretariat may make recommendations for Colombia to improve management of these sites. We invite you to follow our work during the COP12 of the Ramsar Convention on our website, Facebook and Twitter!
Read more
The Nicaragua Canal: Resistance to Dispossession
“How do I explain do my son that to be a landowner will soon mean to be an employee?” asked a woman who may soon lose her land because of the proposed Nicaraguan Interoceanic Grand Canal. Her question resounds in my head each time I hear news of the canal’s construction. There is nothing more valuable than a piece of land to cultivate, land you’ve dreamed of your whole life, land that your children will some day inherit, land that makes the early mornings and long days working under the hot sun worth it. People throughout Nicaragua have said “no” to the proposed canal. They have decided to fight because they’re not willing to lose their dreams for nothing more than the promise of a job. A Controversial Canal The proposed canal will cross Lake Nicaragua, or Cocibolca, the second largest lake in Latin America. It will cut the country in two to connect the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean with the Pacific. At 278 kilometers, it will be three times larger than the Panama Canal. The project’s estimated cost is 50 billion dollars. More than just the canal, it will include other megaprojects: an airport, highways, a free trade zone, resorts and two ports – one on the Pacific and the other on the Caribbean. The magnitude of the project will be reflected in the negative impacts it will cause. Canal construction will directly affect 119,000 people in 13 municipalities, according to Mónica López Baltodano of Fundación Popol Na. She presented this information at a special hearing on March 16, 2015 before the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights. The hearing was requested by 10 organizations from Nicaragua and the multi-national Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL). “Our greatest worry is that the exact number of citizens who will undergo a process of expropriation (those who will be displaced from their land) remains a State secret, and there are no plans for relocation or the restoration of living conditions,” Lopez explained. Azahelea Solís of the Citizens’ Union for Democracy (UCD) added that granting licenses for the project “violates the Constitution of the Republic, various national laws, and more than 10 international environmental treaties signed by Nicaragua.” In addition, the canal was approved in the absence of an environmental impact assessment. The concession was granted to a single company: the Chinese consortium HKND. In the hearing, Louis Carlos Buob of CEJIL explained that the consortium has exclusive rights to “development” and “operation” of the canal, potentially for at least 116 years. The concession gives them “unrestricted rights over natural resources like land, forests, islands, air, surface and groundwater, maritime space and additional resources that could be considered relevant anywhere in the country.” The damage to these natural resources is precisely the most worrying thing about the canal. Its construction will impact Lake Cocibolca, the most important fresh water source in Central America. It also “threatens sensitive marine ecosystems in the Caribbean Sea belonging to Colombia and divides in two the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, a loose network of reserves and other land that stretches from the south of Mexico to Panama, which animals such as the jaguar use to cross Central America.” Community Resistance Those affected by the expropriations have formed the National Council for the Defense of our Lands, Lake and National Sovereignty. Through this united front they have expressed their total opposition to the project and have stated that they will not sell their lands for the canal’s construction. According to the page Nicaragua sin heridas, a citizen’s initiative to disclose information on the project, there have been 41 protests against the project, in which 113,500 people have mobilized across 25 territories in just five months. The community of El Tule, in the department of Rio San Juan, has become an emblem of the anti-canal fight. The citizens there who will be affected by the project have held marches and rallies. On December 24, they were victims of repression at the hands of the National Police – the crowd was beaten and 33 people, including leaders of the movement, were imprisoned for their protest. In Tule there was no Holy Night, and no Merry Christmas. A Disastrous Trend Sadly, the Nicaragua Canal is just one of many projects that gravely affect human rights and the environment in Latin America. In the last 20 years, more than 250 million people have been displaced in the name of “development” for megaprojects, such as dams, or extractive activities, such as mining. In October 2014, alongside partner organizations, AIDA called Inter-American Human Rights Commission’s attention to forced displacement caused by the inadequate implementation of mining and energy projects in Colombia. On that occasion, we asked the Commission to develop standards on displacement by megaprojects and urged the Colombian government to properly care for the victims. Megaprojects not only cause forced displacement, but also violate other human rights ranging from the loss of ways of life to the criminalization of social protest, as occurred in El Tule. In Mexico, the Miguel Augustín Pro Juárez Center for Human Rights published the report Han Destruido la Vida en Este Lugar (They’ve Destroyed Life in This Place, 2010), which documents the damage caused by megaprojects and by the exploitation of natural resources. According to the report, in addition to forced displacement, these projects cause harm to ways of life and broken cultural ties. I would add that displacements break community social networks, vital to the exercise of rights. Left with Questions What will happen to those whose land is expropriated by the Nicaragua Canal? Are they condemned to be displaced and see their dream of landownership destroyed? Who will guarantee respect for their human rights? In what way can Nicaraguan civil society and those unaffected by the project help them? Today the canal threatens to become a reality for one of the poorest countries in Latin America, with a recent history of dictatorship and civil war, that is each day more vulnerable to climate change and natural disasters. How do I explain do my son that to be a landowner will soon mean to be an employee? I still have no answer.
Read more