Press Center
Colombian court bans oil, gas and mining operations in paramos
Colombia’s Constitutional Court has ruled against a controversial legal loophole permitting oil, gas and mining operations in the country’s paramos - high altitude eco-systems. Colombia’s paramos are the most extensive on earth and supply more than 70% of the country’s population with water, according to the Bogota-based Alexander von Humboldt Institute. The loophole is in a June 2015 law implementing Colombia’s “National Development Plan 2014-2018.” The law prohibits “agricultural activities” and the “exploration for or exploitation of non-renewable natural resources”, as well as the “construction of oil and gas refineries”, in paramos, but then states that mining operations which have contracts and environmental licenses dating to before 9 February 2010, or oil and gas operations with contracts and licenses dating to before 16 June 2011, are exempted. This was challenged by four congressmen, three lawyers and 12 representatives from a coalition called the Cumbre Agraria, Campesina, Étnica y Popular, who argued that the loophole violates rights to the environment, water and Colombia’s patrimony because of the impacts oil, gas and mining operations would have on the paramos’ vegetation, soil, sub-soil and water. On 8 February the court’s ruling, which was made public on Thursday, deemed three paragraphs relating to the loophole in the June 2015 law “unconstitutional” - or “inexequible” in Colombian Spanish. “Paramo eco-systems exist in very few places in the world and Colombia is privileged to be the country that has the highest number of paramos globally,” senator Alberto Castillo, one of the plaintiffs, told the Guardian.“Because of this, we believe that the absolute ban on natural resource extraction that we now have in Colombia is of great magnitude and should delight the world.” “It’s a ruling that will make history,” says senator Iván Cepeda, another plaintiff. “The court went further than we hoped, without a doubt. [Mining and oil and gas operations in the paramos] is a serious abuse against natural resources, especially the fundamental right to water.” “The court’s ruling is a major advance in environmental matters,” Viviana Tacha, another plaintiff and an adviser to senator Castillo, told the Guardian. “No doubt about it, it’s a victory for the entire country and for the communities resisting the imposition of a development model based on natural resource extraction which fails to take into account the environment and local people. Given global concern about climate change, the protection of the paramos by the court is one of the most important recent decisions on environmental matters.” According to a communiqué by the court issued on 8 February, the offending three paragraphs “ignore the constitutional duty to protect areas of special ecological importance [and] put at risk the fundamental rights of the entire population to access good quality water.” The communiqué says the court arrived at its decision after “analyzing the state’s power to intervene in the economy and its duty to protect areas of special ecological importance, weighing them up against economic freedom and the rights of individuals to exploit the state’s resources.” It concluded that, in this case, the former overrides the latter for three reasons: 1) the current lack of protection of paramos; 2) the “fundamental role” played by paramos in regulating the country’s drinking water cycle and providing cheap, high-quality water to 70% of the population; and 3) the particular vulnerability of paramos due to their “relative isolation”, low temperatures and low oxygen levels. Carlos Lozano-Acosta, from the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), told the Guardian the court’s decision is “historic” and sets an example to other countries in the Andean region where there are paramos. “The paramos [in Colombia] are vital because they’re a source of drinking water for 70% of Colombians, strategic reserves of biodiversity, and carbon sequesters,” he says. “The court acknowledged all that in the sentence.” An ‘amicus brief’ sent to the court and written by Lozano-Acosta together with the Bogota-based NGO Asociación Ambiente y Sociedad (AAS) argued that the loophole contradicts Colombia’s constitution, international environmental law, and international treaties signed by Colombia, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Ramsar Convention. NGO Dejusticia, also based in Bogota, is another civil society organisation which sent an ‘amicus brief’ to the court, calling the crucial three paragraphs an “unjustified regression” because mining, oil and gas operations in paramos had already been banned back in 2010 and 2011. “Before [the June 2015] law, such activities were prohibited,” the NGO stated in an interview in Colombian newspaper El Espectador. “This means that the current National Development Plan is a step backwards in protecting the paramos.” That “regression” was acknowledged by the court in its ruling, which described the offending paragraphs as “reestablishing the possibility” of oil, gas and mining operations in paramos despite them being “prohibited by Laws 1382 in 2010 and 1450 in 2011.” “The paramos are key ecosystems and water sources which are insufficiently protected,” Dejusticia’s Diana Rodriguez told the Guardian. “We’re thrilled the court has taken a stand for their immediate protection and sent a message that economic development cannot sacrifice respect for the environment.” Just how big an impact the court’s ruling could or will have isn’t immediately clear. How many oil, gas or mining operations stand to be affected? In its interview with El Espectador, Dejusticia stated that the National Mining Agency (NMA) believes approximately 500 mining titles covering over 140,000 hectares of the paramos have been issued, while senator Castillo told the Guardian the NMA states there are currently 448 mining titles in paramos - 347 of which have environmental licences. “Taking into account that this is official information, which the court itself recognized, other sources have no basis in speaking of lower numbers,” Castillo says. “The three companies who have most mining titles in the paramos are AngloGold Ashanti Colombia S.A., Eco Oro Minerales Corp and Leytah Colombia.” Senator Cepeda told the Guardian the 448 mining titles include 26 of Colombia’s 32 paramos and extend for more than 118,000 hectares, “more than 11,000 of which are [also] affected by four oil and gas projects.” According to one media report, Environment Minister Gabriel Vallejo has said he will request a clarification from the court and believes that “other sources” say up to 522 titles could be affected. “There are very different estimates about the number of titles and even more confusion related to how many have environmental licenses,” says Dejusticia’s Rodriguez. “Indeed, some mining companies didn’t wait for the [court’s] full ruling [and] already announced that they will forego their mining concessions in the paramos.” Another question is how far Colombia’s paramos extend. Although the court’s ruling cites a 2011 Humboldt Institute publication stating there are 1.9 million hectares in Colombia, Humboldt’s Carlos Sarmiento told the Guardian their current estimate is 2.9 million hectares - 2.5% of national territory. That 2.9 million figure is also used by the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development. But what if the government disagrees that certain areas really are paramos, and permits oil, gas or mining operations to take place there anyway? As the court’s ruling acknowledges, the paragraph immediately preceding the three offending paragraphs in the June 2015 law states that ultimately it is the Environment Ministry which, according to its own “technical, environmental, social and economic criteria”, is responsible for “delimiting” paramos. And that paragraph wasn’t challenged by the plaintiffs. “The court’s decision could result ineffective given that that part of Article 174 wasn’t part of the lawsuit and Congress has given the Environment Ministry the function of delimiting paramos, and in doing that the Ministry isn’t subject to the scientific criteria established by the Alexander von Humboldt Institute,” the court ruled. “It would be possible for the Ministry to not delimit paramos, or exclude from delimitation, certain areas where mining or hydrocarbon operations are happening or are going to happen. That would nullify [our] decision because such operations could take place in areas that have been scientifically classified as paramos, but the Ministry has excluded.” AIDA’s Lozano-Acosta says that risk exists “without a doubt.” “But the court also said that the government mustn’t ignore the Humboldt Institute’s technical recommendations,” he told the Guardian. For senator Castillo, that risk only exists “if the Ministry doesn’t closely read the court’s sentence or doesn’t want to comply with it.” “In the court’s words, delimitation must ensure the maximum degree of protection,” Castillo says. “This is absolutely crucial given that what the government wants to do is reduce to the utmost the extent of the paramos via a very restricted delimitation process and thereby pave the way for exploitation. Dispute will continue in the delimitation of each paramo, but we will continue in their defence and the court’s sentence gives us many tools to do so.” According to senator Cepeda, the court’s ruling will lead to a “profound discussion about how paramos are delimited.” He told the Guardian that the plaintiffs, together with environmental organisations and others, intend to ensure the government abides by the court’s ruling and “will seek the suspension of more than 400 mining titles.” AAS’s Margarita Florez says the court’s ruling cannot be appealed. “The decision is a constitutional sentence and therefore it is binding on the government and must be complied with,” she told the Guardian. “There is no way to appeal it.” The court’s ruling cites various definitions of paramos, including “the highest and most exposed regions of tropical Andean mountain ranges” and “neotropical mountains between the upper limit of forest vegetation (3,200-3,800 ms above sea level) and the lower limit of perpetual snows (4,400-4,700 ms) in Andean systems.” It quotes the Humboldt Institute describing them as “key sites that “harvest” rainfall and snow water stored in glacial lakes, bogs, marshes and peat soils” that are “held for a relatively long period of time and released constantly and slowly.”
Read moreBrazil mega-dam ‘disaster’ for tribes as it nears completion
Belo Monte hydroelectric plant is flouting agreements to protect indigenous communities as its builder seeks approval to start generating power, environmental lawyers have warned. The US$11 billion dam on an Amazonian tributary – set to be the third-largest producer of hydropower globally – has met just 30% of the social and environmental conditions set by government, said AIDA Americas. “It is clear that the conditions necessary for Norte Energia, the consortium in charge of the project, to receive the licence are not in place,” said a statement on Monday. The dam is 70% built. Brazil’s largest infrastructure work will divert the Xingu River, forcing the relocation of 2,000 families as pristine rainforest is flooded. Federal prosecutors have recommended the relocation be suspended. Environmental groups have petitioned the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to oppose the government’s granting of a license, on the basis it could destroy tribes’ means of survival. “Giving free rein of operation to the dam at this time would mean completely shutting down the options available to avoid major social and humanitarian disasters in the region,” said Sandy Faidherb of SDDH, a local activist group which filed on behalf of the affected communities. The government has said Belo Monte will supply Brazilians with clean energy and develop the country’s economy. The dam has been designed to minimise damage, and will flood less than half – 478 sq km in 28-mini reservoirs – of the area affected by the Brazil’s largest Itaipu hydroplant, the Guardian reported. That comes at a cost to power output, as not shutting off entirely the river means the plant will work on average at barely 40% of its 11,200 MW capacity. The Xingu River basin in Para state is a “living symbol of Brazil’s cultural and biological diversity,” home to 25,000 indigenous people from 40 ethnic groups,according to Amazon Watch. Wildlife populations have drastically declined at another dam, Balbina, built in the 1980s, after a 3,500-island archipelago slashed habitat to roam and exposed the likes of tortoises and gamebirds to wind and wildfires.
Read more
Organizations condemn Eco Oro’ threat to sue Colombia over efforts to protect páramos
The Canadian company developing the Angostura gold mine in the high-altitude wetlands, or páramo, of Santurbán, has announced that it could file an international arbitration suit against Colombia over measures to protect the páramo, which is an important source of water in the country. Washington/Ottawa/Bogotá/Bucaramanga/Ámsterdam – Civil society organizations condemn Eco Oro Minerals’ announcement that it will initiate international arbitration against the Colombian state. Eco Oro has stated its intention to sue Colombia under the investment chapter of the Canada Colombia Free Trade Agreement over measures that the Andean state has taken to protect the Santurbán páramo and páramos around the country from harmful activities such as large-scale mining. Eco Oro Minerals’ Angostura proposed gold mine in Santurbán has financial backing from the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation. The company argues that it will lose money because of the demarcation of the páramo and the recent decision from the Constitutional Court of Colombia reaffirming the prohibition against mining in all Colombian páramos. The company stated in a news release that it could bring the dispute to international arbitration and seek “monetary compensation for the damages suffered.” “Since the Angostura project got underway, it has been clear that páramos are constitutionally and legally protected and that this project could affect Santurbán, such that it might not be authorized. States should not be sanctioned for protecting their water sources, given that they are doing so in accordance with national and internacional obligations,” remarked Carlos Lozano Acosta from the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). The páramos are the source of 70% of the fresh water that is consumed in Colombia and are essential for mitigating climate change. The proposed gold mine was already the subject of a complaint to the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman of the International Finance Corporation (IFC). The Committee in Defense of the Water and Páramo of Santurbán filed the complaint in 2012. The IFC is the part of the World Bank Group exclusively focused on the private sector. A report based on this investigation is expected in the coming months. “The implication and the irony of Eco Oro’s statement is that the IFC’s investment in the company could be used to litigate against member states of the World Bank. It’s time for the IFC to withdraw its investment from this company,” stated Carla García Zendejas from CIEL. “In 2011, the Colombian Ministry of the Environment denied an environmental permit for the Angostura project, demonstrating its inviability. The Constitutional Court’s decision reaffirmed this, finding that the right to water and the protection of the páramos takes precedent over the economic interests of companies trying to develop mining projects in these ecosystems,” commented Miguel Ramos from the Santurbán Committee. “Just as has we have seen in El Salvador, where the state is being sued for US$250 million for not having granted a Canadian company a mining permit when the company did not even fulfill local regulations, the international arbitration system enshrined in neoliberal investment agreements is a real threat to the sovereignty of states and peoples to decide over highly important issues, such as water,” said Jen Moore from MiningWatch Canada. The organizations call on the company to abstain from arbitration against the Colombian state and note the risk that other companies with projects in the Santurbán páramo could follow Eco Oro’s example. Find additional information here.
Read more
Indigenous groups ask Pope Francis to help stop Las Cruces Dam
In a letter delivered to Vatican representatives, indigenous and riverine communities affected by the construction of a dam on Río San Pedro Mezquital asked that the Pope intercede on their behalf before the Mexican government during his visit to the country. They explained that the hydroelectric project would cause serious harm to the environment and human rights. Mexico City, Mexico. On the occasion of Pope Francis’ visit to Mexico, indigenous and riverine communities from Nayarit state wrote a letter asking the Pope to intercede on their behalf before the Mexican government, in hopes of putting a stop to the Las Cruces Dam project on Río San Pedro Mezquital. The project, they explain, puts at risk their culture and way of life, and also threatens Marismas Nacionales, one of the country’s most important wetlands. The letter was delivered to the local headquarters of the Apostolic Nunciature, a diplomatic mission of the Vatican. It reads: … We respectfully solicit that you, Your Holiness, during your visit to our country, intercede on our behalf before President Enrique Peña Nieto, so that his Government stops the human rights violations of all indigenous communities in the name of development, and that it abandon further advancement of the Las Cruces hydroelectric dam because of the human and environmental impacts it will cause. Mexico’s Secretary of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) has granted environmental permits and water rights for the construction and operation of the dam. “They did so without having guaranteed the right to prior consultation of the indigenous communities affected by the project, which include the Náyeri, Wixárica, Mexicanero and Tepehuano peoples,” explained Sandra Moguel, AIDA attorney. “SEMARNAT authorized the project with the condition that the Secretariat of Energy realize a process of consultation with the indigenous communities, which should have been done before issuing the authorizations.” In their letter, the indigenous communities honor and celebrate Pope Francis’ encyclical, Laudato Sí, in which he recognizes the important contribution indigenous communities can make towards the promotion and protection of culture and natural resources. “The Río San Pedro is not simply part of our lives, but also fundamental to our spirituality,” explained Julián López Cánare, member of the Náyeri Indigenous Council, who delivered the letter. “All of its territory, from its headwaters to its mouth, is a sacred space where we strengthen our identity and values.” This river also feeds Marismas Nacionales, one of Mexico’s most important wetlands. The area is recognized as a Biosphere Reserve and a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty for the protection of wetland ecosystems. Finally, the indigenous communities explained in their letter that the pressure put on them to agree to the project has escalated to include harassment and illegal detentions by the government. They also cite instances of acts simulating consultation, which would not be valid considering the project has already been authorized. Citing the visions for the future they share with Pope Francis, the letter finished: Your Holiness, hopeful in the power of your intercession, we part here with the passionate hope that your encyclical letter, Laudato Si’, inspires and propels profound changes in politics, practices, and beliefs of governments, businesses, civil society, and the mentality of our fellow man, with hopes of constructing a more just, more humane, and truly sustainable world.
Read more
AIDA celebrates Court decision to protect Colombia's páramos
Colombia’s Constitutional Court on Monday declared unconstitutional an aspect of the country’s National Development Plan that permitted mining in páramos. Bogota, Colombia. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) celebrates the decision of Colombia’s Constitutional Court to ban mining in the country’s páramos. The ruling—which nullified an article of the 2014-2018 National Development Plan protecting previously granted mining licenses—is vital to the preservation of Colombia’s freshwater resources, and should serve as an example for other countries in the region. AIDA and partner organizations presented an amicus brief in support of the corresponding lawsuit, filed by the Cumbre Agraria, Campesina, Étnica y Popular. The court’s ruling brings justice to these important freshwater ecosystems and the many people that depend upon them. Although they occupy just 1.7 percent of the national territory, Colombia’s páramos provide 70 percent of its fresh water. The sensitive ecosystems are also strategic reserves of biodiversity, and act as carbon sinks essential to the mitigation of climate change. The high court’s decision is key to the protection of the Santurbán páramo, on which hundreds of thousands of people in the Bucaramanga metropolitan area depend. AIDA has long been working to defend Santurbán from large-scale mining and to provide support to affected communities. AIDA urges the Ministry of the Environment to promptly enact the court’s ruling and protect all the country's páramos from the impacts of large-scale mining operations.
Read more
Brazilian Court overturns suspension of Belo Monte’s operating license
Brasilia, Brazil. The Federal Regional Court of the First Region (TRF1) overturned the preliminary decision suspending the operating license of the Belo Monte Dam. On January 11, the Federal Justice of Altamira decided to suspend the license until the federal government and Norte Energia, the company in charge of the dam’s construction, complied with their obligation to restructure the National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) of Altamira. However, a federal judge from TRF1 decided today that this decision disproportionately “affects the public interest, causing grave repercussions on the economy and public order.” Another argument presented was that the suspension would prevent the implementation of various plans designed to benefit indigenous peoples. “This is yet another attack on the rights of the affected indigenous communities. The decision manipulates the arguments of public interest, order, security and the economy, and then uses the plans – which should have been implemented when the previous license was granted in 2010 – to justify why it is not possible to suspend the operating license. The bottom line is that the operating license never should have been granted in the first place without the fulfillment of those plans,” said María José Veramendi, AIDA attorney. For more information, please consult the factual record of the case and the latest news about our case before the IACHR.
Read more
IACHR opens case against Brazil for human rights violations related to Belo Monte Dam
Para português, clique aqui Four years after civil society organizations filed their original petition, the Commission opens the case, asking the Brazilian government to respond to allegations of human rights violations stemming from the hydroelectric project under construction in the Brazilian Amazon. Washington D.C., United States. As the first reservoirs of the Belo Monte Dam are being filled, the Brazilian government is coming under fire from international organizations. On December 21, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) opened a case against Brazil, which was challenged by affected communities represented by the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), Justiça Global and the Sociedade Paraense de Defesa de Direitos Humanos (SDDH). After an initial review lasting four years, and several requests for fast tracking the case by the petitioners, the Commission finally determined that the petition contains sufficient grounds to open the case, which means that Brazil must respond to the claims of human rights violations caused by Belo Monte. “We hope and believe that now is the time for Brazil to respond comprehensively to our claims about: the absence of consultation and free, prior and informed consent of affected indigenous communities; the lack of participation and adequate assessment of environmental impact; and the forced displacement and violations of the rights to life, health, integrity and justice of indigenous peoples, riverine communities, and residents of the city of Altamira,” said María José Veramendi Villa, AIDA attorney. Based on Brazil’s response, the Commission will then determine if requirements have been met to have the case admitted and, if so, to establish whether or not the project caused the alleged human rights violations. “The opening of the case is, above all, a victory for the affected communities and local social movements, who have endured for all these years, and remain strong and determined in their search for justice and reparation,” said Raphaela Lopes of Justiça Global. This past November, the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Resources (IBAMA) authorized Belo Monte’s operating license, which allowed the dam’s reservoirs to be filled. IBAMA did so despite the fact that Norte Energía, the company in charge of the project, failed to comply with the conditions necessary (potable water and sanitation, among others) to guarantee the life, health and integrity of affected populations. By opening the case for processing, the Commission is using all available tools to monitor the situation surrounding Belo Monte. Indigenous communities affected by the dam have been protected by precautionary measures that the Commission authorized in 2011, which Brazil has yet to meet. In early December, the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights visited Altamira, the city closest to the Belo Monte project and one of the areas most affected by displacement and socio-environmental conflicts caused by the dam’s construction. There, they met with affected groups, among them members of indigenous and riverine communities, listening to their complaints. After their visit, the Working Group issued a statement that, among other things, urged the Brazilian government to respect human rights, not sacrifice them for economic development. The Working Group is expected to present the final report of their visit to the Human Rights Council in June 2016. It is our hope that they conduct an adequate follow-up to their visit, and that the report they produce is explicit regarding both the human rights violations surrounding Belo Monte, and the actions of the Brazilian government and the companies involved. As organizations representing the victims of Belo Monte, we will continue to press Brazil to respond to the human rights violations directly caused by the dam’s construction.
Read more
To cool the planet, fracking must be prohibited, organizations say
In the framework of COP21, a coalition of Latin American civil society organizations is urging world leaders meeting in Paris to ban fracking in their countries. By emitting large quantities of greenhouse gases, the process itself goes against the central objective of the climate negotiations: stopping global warming. Paris, France. In a public statement directed at Member States of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, organizations and allies of the Latin American Alliance On Fracking asked that all fracking activities be banned due to the fact that, among other impacts, hydraulic fracturing emits greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. During the cycle of extracting, processing, storing, transferring, and distributing unconventional hydrocarbons using fracking, methane gas is released into the atmosphere. Methane is 87 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as an agent of global warming, the group explained in their statement. The document will be presented this Friday December 11 at 10 a.m. (local time) at the Climate Action Zone by: Alianza Mexicana contra el Fracking; Asociación Ambiente y Sociedad; the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA); Food & Water Watch; Freshwater Action Network Mexico; the Heinrich Böll Foundation – Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean; Instituto Brasileiro de Analises Socias e Economicas (IBASE); and Observatorio Petrolero Sur (OpSur). The organizations discuss the current state of hydraulic fracturing in Latin America. Although the use of the experimental technique is contrary to national and international commitments to reduce emissions, several countries in the region – among them Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Chile and Bolivia – have begun exploration or exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons through fracking. “Fracking is advancing blindly in Latin America, with no comprehensive long-term studies on the risks and serious damage that it could cause to the health of people and the environment,” said Ariel Pérez Castellón, attorney at AIDA. “Operations of this kind in the region have failed to respect fundamental human rights, including the right to consultation and free, prior and informed consent; the right to participation and social control; and the right to information,” added Milena Bernal, attorney with the Asociación Ambiente y Sociedad. According to the organizations, fracking is advancing quickly into indigenous and rural communities, urban neighborhoods, and even Natural Protected Areas. It has caused the displacement both of people and of productive activities such as farming and agriculture, because their coexistence with this technique is impossible. Rejection of fracking has grown in parallel with its spread in operations. “The proof of this resistance are the national and international networks opposing this technique, including more than 50 municipalities that have banned it in Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay,” said Diego di Risio, researcher at Observatorio Petrolero Sur. “As part of our statement, we urge the Member Parties of the Convention to: sign a binding agreement that quickly and effectively reduces greenhouse gases and incorporates human rights into the legal text; apply the precautionary principle to ban fracking; and promote renewable energies and disincentivize the extraction of fossil fuels,” stated Claudia Campero Arena, researcher at Food & Water Watch, and Moema Miranda, director of Ibase. Read the full statement from the Latin American Alliance on Fracking here. Event “The fight against fracking in Latin America: experiences in Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Brazil and Mexico” Simultaneous translation in English and French Friday December 11, 2015 Climate Action Zone Centquatre, 5 rue Curial, Paris (Métro Riquet)
Read more
Climate initiatives must not include large hydropower projects – NGOs
In a global manifesto released today, a coalition of more than 300 civil society organizations[i] from 53 countries called on governments and financiers at the Paris climate talks to keep large hydropower projects out of climate initiatives such as the Clean Development Mechanism, the World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds, and green bonds. Large hydropower projects emit massive amounts of methane, make water and energy systems more vulnerable to climate change, and cause severe damage to critical ecosystems and local communities. Including them in climate initiatives crowds out support for true climate solutions such as wind and solar power which have become readily available, can be built more quickly than large dams and have a smaller social and environmental footprint. “Particularly in tropical regions, hydropower reservoirs emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases, comparable to the climate impact of the aviation sector”, said Peter Bosshard, interim Executive Director of International Rivers. “For environmental, social and economic reasons, large hydropower projects are a false solution to climate change.” “Large hydropower projects have serious impacts on local communities and often violate the rights of indigenous peoples to their lands, cultural integrity and free, prior informed consent”, said Joan Carling, Secretary General of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP). “The resistance of dam-affected communities has often been met with egregious human rights violations.” “Hydropower dams make water and energy systems more vulnerable to climate change,” said Himanshu Thakkar, the founder of the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP). “Dam building has exacerbated flood disasters in fragile mountain areas. At the same time more extreme droughts increase the economic risks of hydropower, and have greatly affected countries that depend on hydropower dams for most of their electricity.” “Wind and solar power have become readily available and financially competitive, and have overtaken large hydropower in the addition of new capacity,” said Astrid Puentes, co-Executive Director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “The countries of the global South should leapfrog obsolete dam projects and promote energy solutions that are gentle to our climate, our environment and the people that depend on it.” Background Large hydropower projects are often propagated as a “clean and green” source of electricity by international financial institutions, national governments and other actors. They greatly benefit from instruments meant to address climate change, including carbon credits under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), credits from the World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds, and special financial terms from export credit agencies and green bonds. The dam industry advocates that large hydropower projects be funded by the Green Climate Fund, and many governments boost them as a response to climate change through national initiatives. For example, at least twelve governments with major hydropower sectors have included an expansion of hydropower generation in their reports on Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). Support from climate initiatives is one of the main reasons why more than 3,700 hydropower dams are currently planned and under construction around the world. Further information The civil society manifesto, Ten Reasons Why Climate Initiatives Should Not Include Large Hydropower Projects, is available here. The new video, A Wrong Climate for Damming Rivers, is available at https://youtu.be/UnG_b6egjFk. The following launch events for the manifesto and video will be held in Paris this week: Saturday, December 5th, 12 pm: Press Conference with indigenous leaders and human rights defenders at the International Rights of Nature Tribunal (Maison des Métallos, 94 Rue Jean-Pierre Timbaud, 75011). December 5th, 6 pm - The manifesto and video will be presented at event hosted by the Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation (Galerie Thaddaeus Ropac Paris Pantin, Salzburg, 69, Avenue Du Géneral Lecler, 93500, Pantin). Journalists interested in attending should send a request via e-mail by end-of-day December 3rd to: [email protected]. [i] Sponsors: Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente, Amazon Watch, Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation, Carbon Market Watch, France Liberte, International Rivers, Jeunes Volontaires pour l'Environnement International, Oxfam International, REDLAR, Ríos Vivos, Rivers Without Boundaries; South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People and Urgewald.
Read moreIf we want to cool the planet, fracking must be banned
Statement from the Latin American Alliance On Fracking at COP21: The goal of the 21st Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is to reach an effective agreement that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level consistent with both the rights and opportunities of present and future generations, and the conservation of the environment. This requires national policies and actions consistent with international commitments on climate change and human rights, and which respect the Sustainable Development Goals. Fracking to extract unconventional hydrocarbons is contrary to all of the above commitments, and will actually increase the impacts of climate change – which is why the controversial practice must be banned. During the cycle of extracting, processing, storing, transferring and distributing unconventional hydrocarbons, methane gas – 87 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as an agent of global warming – is released in the atmosphere. The release of methane contributes to global warming at a time when we should be taking any measures necessary to stop it: “within a period of 20 years, the footprint of natural gas released from shale deposits is worse than that of carbon or oil.”[1] If we continue with the concept of development based on the exploitation of fossil fuels, without first taking into account the rights and needs of communities, it will be impossible to conserve a planet that upholds the well being of present and future generations. The unconventional hydrocarbons extracted from the earth by fracking should not be considered transition or clean energies, since both greenhouse gas emissions, and the risks and damages posed to the environment and public health, are very high.[2] Fracking in Latin America We believe that the experience of fracking in Latin America should stimulate global discussion. Despite the particularities with which fracking has advanced on the continent, many similarities have emerged between cases in Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Bolivia and Argentina. Fracking is advancing blindly in Latin America. The basic human rights of affected communities are being ignored, including: the right to consultation and free, prior and informed consent; the right to participation and social control; and the right to information.[3] Governments of the region have failed to apply the precautionary principle, which should be applied considering the serious risks fracking creates for the health of people and the environment, and the uncertainty surrounding the scope and extent of damage it can cause. National laws have been modified based on corporate demands to open the door to the exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons through fracking. The Mexican energy reform (2013) and the new law on hydrocarbons in Argentina (2014) are clear examples of this. Fracking in the region has developed without any comprehensive, long-term studies on the risks and damages it causes to the health of people and the environment. With the exception of Mexico, the countries of the region lack their own studies of unconventional hydrocarbon reserves that could verify the figures estimated by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Across the continent, fracking has advanced on indigenous and rural communities, urban neighborhoods and even Natural Protected Areas. It has resulted in the displacement of people and productive activities such a livestock and agriculture, whose coexistence with the technique is impossible.[4] In parallel, complaints and damages have multiplied in response to fires, spills, and explosions; the toxic pollution of water, air and soil; the loss of radioactive substances into wells; and the mismanagement of water.[5] Throughout Latin America, the rejection of fracking has grown. Proof lies in the national and international networks of opposition; the more than 50 communities and municipalities that have banned fracking within their territories in Argentina, Mexico, Brazil and Uruguay;[6] and the suspension of fracking operations through judicial actions in Brazil and Argentina. States should make commitments against fracking In the framework of the Paris Climate Talks, we urge Member States of the Convention to: Sign a binding agreement that efficiently and effectively reduces greenhouse gases to levels compatible with the rights and opportunities of present and future generations, and conservation of the environment. Apply the precautionary principle as a legal and ethical imperative of action to address high-risk situations in a context of scientific uncertainty, in this case banning fracking in countries where it has been initiated or interest in it shown. Conduct objective and independent scientific studies about the risks and impacts of fracking on health, the environment and productive processes, with a long-term goal of ensuring the rights of present and future generations. Where impacts have been confirmed, States should guarantee that companies take responsibility for the damages done and, primarily, for the restoration of the affected environment, even in cases where their contract has ended. Strengthen a policy of energy diversification and the reduced rationalization of energy consumption, which includes the promotion of renewable energies and discourages the extraction of fossil fuels, consistent with principles and rights related to transparency, participation and free, prior and informed consent. On behalf of the Latin American Alliance On Fracking, we warn of the risks and severe damage that the exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons can cause to the people and environment of our countries. Fracking is an experimental technique and neither governments nor companies should conduct experiments at such a high risk to the life and health of people and the environment. [1] Food and Water Watch, “The Urgent Case for a Ban on Fracking,” February 2015, http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/sites/default/files/urgent_case_for_ban_on_fracking.pdf and Robert Howarth and Anthony Ingraffea, “Should fracking stop?” in: Nature, September 15, 2011, vol. 477, p. 272. http://www2.cce.cornell.edu/naturalgasdev/documents/pdfs/howarth%20nature.pdf [2] Robert Howarth “A bridge to nowhere: methane emissions and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas,” April 2014, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.35/pdf [3]Alianza Latinoamericana frente al Fracking, “Avance ciego del fracking en América Latina” (infographic), September 2015, http://www.opsur.org.ar/blog/2015/09/04/mapa-del-fracking-en-america-latina-2/ [4] OPSur “Alto Valle Perforado” (Ed. Jinete Insomne, 2015) [5] Pablo Bertinat et al; “20 Mitos y Realidades del Fracking,” 2014, http://www.rosalux.org.ec/attachments/article/819/20_Mitos_LIBRO_FRL_PRINT.pdf [6] Alianza Latinoamericana frente al Fracking, “Avance ciego del fracking en América Latina” (infographic), September 2015, http://www.opsur.org.ar/blog/2015/09/04/mapa-del-fracking-en-america-latina-2/
Read more