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
Revealing the Impact of Development on Human Rights and the Environment
"There we were – men and women, boys and girls, elders and community leaders – who dared to reject the burning of our homes on the river’s edge, the theft and loss of our things, the mistreatment, the insults, the humiliation from the police, the Army and public companies of Medellín, who forcibly emptied the river banks to make way for development." With these words, Isabel Cristina Zuleta gave testimony before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights last month, describing the situation that she and thousands of Colombians have been suffering through. Zuleta, the leader of Movimiento Rios Vivos (Living Rivers Movement), is a victim of forced displacement – caused by the Hidroituango hydroelectric project in Colombia – and she is not alone. AIDA’s Co-Executive Director Astrid Puentes participated in the hearing alongside Rios Vivos, Tierra Digna, Asoquimbo, Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz, Corporación Jurídica Libertad, and other partner organizations from Colombia. She argued before the Commission that, in Colombia, forced displacement caused by development projects, such as mines and dams, is not recognized as a human rights violation by the State, which leaves affected communities unprotected. During the hearing Puentes introduced the three primary causes of forced displacement from these projects: the close relationship between armed conflict and major development projects; the flexibility and violation of rules in their authorization and implementation; and the direct impacts of their operation. She asked the Commission to urge the Colombian State to guarantee rights to the victims, repair damages, and take appropriate measures to prevent displacement in the future. Puentes described human rights violations caused by specific projects, such as El Quimbo dam, which displaced hundreds of families in Huila Department, and coal mines in La Jagua de Ibirico, in Cesar Department, where air pollution displaced entire communities. The inadequate implementation of development projects in Colombia, and in the region, also violates Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR), especially the right to a healthy environment. In this regard, AIDA and organizations from the region participated in a hearing called by the Commission to analyze the situation of ESCR on the continent. In it, Maria José Veramendi Villa, a senior AIDA attorney, noted that States mainly fail to protect the right to a healthy environment by implementing mining, energy, and infrastructure projects. The problem has only worsened in recent years. "The Commission has found different manifestations of this problem over the course of at least 40 hearings, conducted over the last decade, which have illustrated the serious territorial, cultural, and environmental conflicts created by the violations of ESCR," said Veramendi during the hearing. We need an Inter-American Human Rights Commission that is firm and decided in its position towards development projects that violate human rights and that brings justice to those who cannot find it in their countries.
Read more
Mexico has an opportunity to protect its environment
By Sandra Moguel, AIDA attorney, @sandra_moguel The pirinola is a traditional Mexican die with six flat sides, each of which carries an instruction, used in various countries in Latin America to play games and make bets. After being spun, the pirinola stops on one of its sides and shows the player what he must do with the chips he has: GIVE 1, GIVE 2, TAKE 1, TAKE 2, GIVE ALL, TAKE ALL. As a country, Mexico goes through moments of collective despondency, when all seems lost. But it isn't. As in a game with the pirinola, there is always hope with another spin. In terms of the protection of its environment, Mexico still has an opportunity to correctly decide the fate of their natural heritage and to pursue sustainable development. GIVE ALL: The Uncomfortable Story of Paraíso del Mar Paraíso del Mar is a tourism project on the barrier sand bar known as El Mogote, in the Bay of La Paz, Baja California Sur. Project developers have proposed construction of a major resort with 2,050 hotel rooms, 4,000 homes, golf courses, and a marina. In early 2013, a Mexican court ruled definitively that the environmental permit the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) had authorized for the project was illegal. The ruling held that SEMARNAT did not enforce environmental laws requiring evaluation of the environmental impact of Paraíso del Mar. However, before the ruling, some parts of the project had already been constructed. As a result, mangroves in the area have disappeared almost entirely, and the scenery and coastline have been modified. With an authorization of environmental impact that is both irresponsible and illegal, everyone loses: Just think of the destruction that happened when Hurricane Odile hit Los Cabos last year. Aspects of climate change and extreme weather events should also be considered when evaluating tourism projects in this region. In this case, they were not. Who will compensate the businesses that have invested in the project? Who will repair the damages? Who will restore the landscape? Society as a whole has been affected. An Environmental Impact Assessment reviews the effects of human activities on the environment. Its objective is to identify whether the effects on ecosystems can be mitigated or compensated for. Unfortunately, the laws that regulate the manner in which the environmental authority performs these assessments seem like a pretense, and assessment becomes a mere formality, which ends up harming both society and the biodiversity zones. TAKE 1: Contributing to a Solution The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and our partner organization Earthjustice, representing organizations from civil society, have presented a citizen submission to the Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC). The Commission is an international organization created under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, formed between Mexico, Canada, and the United States. Our petition asks the Commission to open an investigation into the authorizations of Paraíso del Mar and other similar projects in the Gulf of California. The petition states that the Mexican government failed to enforce its environmental laws when it didn’t assess the environmental impact of projects in coastal wetlands of the Gulf. The CEC Secretariat recommended the development of a factual record (a detailed investigation) last September. GIVE 2: The Decision Depends on at Least Two Governments In the coming days, at least two of the three environment ministers of the United States, Canada, and Mexico must vote in favor of carrying out such an investigation. This vote is an opportunity to promote transparency and public participation in environmental issues. It’s the perfect occasion for the Mexican government to establish credibility, trust, and the opportunity for dialogue that citizens are clamoring for. A factual record does not contain a rating on the arguments of the petitioners, nor does it contain recommendations from the Commission to resolve the problem. It is, rather, a detailed examination that becomes a source of feedback for SEMARNAT about the concerns of civil society. It is noteworthy that of the 41 citizen petitions that have been filed against Mexico with the Commission, 19 have to do with the Environmental Impact Assessment. This means that citizens are questioning the discretion with which this tool is used, and how the environmental impacts of these projects are being determined. TAKE ALL: What Can We Conclude? Echoing the observation of Paola Zavala, social movements must be accompanied by an agenda of specific needs that are shared by members of civil society. More than a chance to scream and let off steam in the streets, such movements are forums for constructive citizen participation. In the case of the Gulf of California, the petitioners, supported by civil society organizations and academics, demand that SEMARNAT implement environmental laws. It should approve projects based on the best available descriptions of work to be completed, which outline the total cumulative and residual impacts of the project. Such projects should in no way violate international treaties or norms on threatened species or on the protection of the mangroves. The factual record is not a panacea for Mexico’s environmental woes. But if it generates awareness and an agenda for dialogue between public officials, business people, and civil society about the importance of the Environmental Impact Assessment, it will be a major step on the road to decision-making that guarantees sustainable development in Mexico.
Read more
CONSISTENCY: The Most Urgent Action Against Climate Change
By Astrid Puentes Riaño, Co-Executive Director, AIDA, @astridpuentes This post is also pubpshed at IntLawGrrls During the first two weeks of December, world leaders will lay the foundation for a new global agreement on cpmate change at the 20th Conference of the Parties (COP20) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Cpmate Change in pma, Peru. Its focus will be creating a draft agreement that, at next year’s COP in Paris, will replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. This time, as stated by Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, Peru’s Environment Minister and next President of the Conference, "the world will not accept another failure." Not without reason. Each year we are both witnesses to and victims of the worsening impacts of cpmate change. And our role in the problem is conspicuous: "Human influence on the cpmate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history," the Intergovernmental Panel on Cpmate Change concluded in their fifth report. With COP20 nearing and recognition of the problem growing, world leaders are increasingly giving speeches, promising action and making hopeful commitments. One recent example is the unprecedented agreement between China and the United States, which estabpshed pmits and objectives for the reduction of emissions. In Latin America we, too, have taken effective steps to confront the greatest threat to the human race. Despite this progress, however, there remain in practice many popcies that both created the problem and make it worse. In particular, the repance of our economies on fossil fuels, which generate 57 percent of the global emissions of carbon dioxide. In the search for alternatives, we have boosted hydroelectric power from large dams. But dams are not clean energy. They generate significant amounts of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, particularly in tropical regions. These and the other negative impacts of dams are often ignored, resulting in rudimentary solutions to cpmate change. Consistency, then, becomes critical. What follows are examples of the lack of it in our own countries. Let’s take them into account as an effort to make adjustments, apgn objectives, and not erase with one hand what was written by the other: Brazil is a key player in the region, and has demonstrated its will to achieve positive results on cpmate change. Proof of this is the historic decpne of deforestation in the country, 79 percent in the last decade, as announced by Brazil’s President at the Cpmate Summit. However, Brazil continues to focus its development on fossil fuels, mining and large dams, particularly in the Amazon Basin. Under the influence of Brazil, 254 new dams are either under construction or in planning phases in the Amazon Basin, including the massive Belo Monte Dam on the Xingú River. Chile has made positive signs by deciding, for example, that it would not allow the HidroAysén dams in Patagonia. The country recently presented its Mitigation Action Plans & Scenarios (MAPS Chile) to combat cpmate change, with an emphasis on energy efficiency in high-emitter sectors such as mining. However, it also estabpshed as a priority the implementation of large dams, actually the same dams in Aysen, and the import or exploitation of shale gas in the Magallanes basin. The extraction of shale gas is done by fracking, a major source of CO2 and methane. Ecuador recognized the Rights of Nature in its Constitution in 2008 and created the Ministry of Good pving in 2013, promoting the “respect of all beings of Nature” and sustainable development. At the same time, the country continued to base its economy on the exploitation of fossil fuels without considering low-carbon alternatives, in the short or long term. The decision to start extracting oil in Yasuni National Park, where indigenous communities pve in voluntary isolation, is inconsistent with the Constitution, and with cpmate change required actions. Mexico has been a leader in global negotiations on cpmate change. The country has shown a wilpngness to implement adequate popcy measures, legal frameworks and financial instruments. Earper this year Mexico was a pioneer in committing financial contributions to the Green Cpmate Fund, setting an example for the many countries with greater cpmate responsibipties that have not yet announced their commitments. However, Mexico is also pushing energy reform that prioritizes hydrocarbon extraction, undermining progress on cpmate popcy. This "reform" is locking the country into continued dependence on fossil fuels. Peru, host of COP20, also must resolve huge popcy inconsistencies. The country’s leadership in cpmate negotiations has been remarkable, as have its internal efforts to promote adaptation to cpmate change by incorporating traditional knowledge. But still, lack of consistency between talk and action has resulted in widespread promotion of mining and hydroelectric activities. These decisions have been made without considering environmental impacts or clean alternatives. Bopvia, Colombia, Guatemala, Panama, Argentina and the rest of the countries of the region are not exempt from the massive inconsistencies that compromise the effectiveness of the cpmate actions they champion. It’s worth noting that the development of mining, hydropower and fracking on the continent contribute gravely to the effects of cpmate change. The need for development in the region, and a single country’s relatively smaller contribution to global emissions, are not excuses. There exist opportunities for economic development and energy production that could be more efficient than continued dependence on fossil fuels. Cpmate change is a global issue that can’t be solved with patches here and there. Cpmate change affects the planet, and Latin America is one of the most vulnerable regions. But as long as the popcies and actions of the States do not consider cpmate change a central issue, we will continue moving forward one step and backwards three. It is our responsibipty and in our interest to act consistently. We must apgn our talk with our actions to accomppsh quick and effective steps to combat cpmate change. The time is NOW!
Read more