Press Release

Human Rights, Fracking

Civil society warns Inter-American Commission of human rights violations caused by fracking in Latin America

Boulder, Colorado. Representatives of communities and organizations from across Latin America testified before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights this week on the impacts that hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has on human rights and the environment. The hearing—responding to a petition signed by more than 126 organizations from 11 countries of the Americas—was held in Boulder, Colorado this week as part of the Commission’s 169th period of sessions. The principal requests to the Commission, and the Rapporteurs from various countries, were to urge the States to adopt efficient and opportune measures to prevent human rights violations resulting from the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons, and to apply the precautionary principal in the face of fracking’s environmental damages. “In Latin America, fracking been carried out without informing or adequately consulting the affected populations, thereby violating their right to information, participation, prior consultation and consent,” explained Liliana Ávila, Senior Attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “Fracking’s demand for water competes with the use of water for human consumption, and the contamination it causes in the water, soil and air seriously impacts the right to a healthy environment and compromises the effective enjoyment of other rights—including a dignified life, personal integrity, health, food, water and adequate housing.” At the hearing, it was emphasized that women disproportionately suffer the impacts of fracking due to potential harm to their reproductive health, and since women are traditionally responsible for collecting water for use in their homes.   Referring to the experience of the Mapuche communities of Argentina, Santiago Cané of the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN) stressed, “Fracking produces acts of violence against those who defend the environment and their rights.” “Institutionally, we can talk about the criminalization of social protest as one form of intimidation to eliminate the resistance to fracking projects,” he explained. “The prosecution of criminal cases against communities leaders that oppose the development of fracking has become an institutional media campaign that seeks to promote the idea that Mapuche communities are part of a terrorist group.” In Mexico, “specifically in the municipality of Papantla, Veracruz—which according to freedom of information requests is the city with the greatest number of fracking pools in the country—where the population is primarily the Totonac people, this exploitation technique has led to the diversion of springs and the drying up of artisanal wells. Many communities have lost their natural sources of water and have seen their health compromised and their living conditions deteriorate,” explained Alejandra Jiménez of the Mexican Alliance Against Fracking. Dorys Gutiérrez, of the Colombian organization Corporation for the Defense of Water, Territory and Ecosystems, noted that: “In Europe, 18 nations have applied the precautionary principle to prohibit or restrict this practice and in Australia, four of the eight territories have bans or moratoria in place. If fracking is so beneficial, why has it been so widely rejected in so many places?” According to data compiled by the Latin American Alliance on Fracking, roughly 5,000 fracking wells exist across the region. About 2,000 of those wells are found in Argentina; more than 3,350 are found in Mexico; and in Chile, according to official data, 182 wells have been approved, primarily for the island of Tierra del Fuego. Despite the technique’s expansion across the region, there has also been progress in banning or imposing restrictions on fracking in three states of the United States, in Uruguay, in the Argentine province of Entre Ríos, and in more than 300 municipalities in Brazil. Fracking’s advance is harmful to human rights, and represents a threat to the consolidation of the legal framework promoted by the Inter-American Human Rights System, which includes the obligations of States and the international protection of human rights and the environment. PRESS CONTACTS: Victor Quintanilla (MExico), AIDA, [email protected], +521 5570522107 Arturo Contreras (in Boulder, Colorado), +521 5533320505  

Read more
Fracking, Human Rights

Inter-American Commission to analyze fracking’s impacts on human rights

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will hold an informative hearing on October 3, 2018 to better understand the situation of fracking in the Americas and the human rights violations it’s causing. The hearing is being held in response to a request brought forth by 126 Latin American organizations, united in the Latin American Alliance on Fracking. The hearing will take place in Boulder, Colorado during the Commission’s 169th period of sessions. In it, human rights defenders and representatives of affected communities will present detailed information on the documented human rights impacts, as well as the potential risks, of fracking in Latin America. The Alliance seeks to propose a series of recommendations to the Commission and governments of the region in order to guarantee human rights when faced with the exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbon reserves. According to the hearing request, there are approximately 5,000 fracking wells throughout Latin America. In Argentina, there are roughly 2,000 wells. In Chile, according to official data, 182 wells have been approved, the large majority in Tierra del Fuego. In Mexico, there are more than 3,350 fracking wells, although the signatory organizations indicated there are challenges in terms of access to this information. In Brazil and Colombia, contracts have been signed that allow for exploration and exploitation. In Bolivia, prospecting and sample studies of unconventional deposits have begun. Organizations from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay signed the request for a hearing before the Commission in July. “Fracking’s advance in Latin America is being carried out blindly because neither the chemicals used, nor their synergistic effects, nor the actual and potential risks, nor the effectiveness of mitigation measures are known with any certainty,” explained Claudia Velarde, attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “What is known is the damage fracking causes to the environment, the quantity and quality of water, and the impacts it has on health and human rights.” While fracking is promoted across Latin America, various nations, states and provinces of Europe, the Americas and Oceania have banned the technique due to the negative impacts it has had on the environment and public health. The request to the Commission emphasizes, “none of the nations where fracking has been implemented have a comprehensive knowledge of the irreversible damage it causes to the environment and the lives of individuals and communities. However, abundant scientific evidence exists on fracking’s negative impacts due to the extensive use of the technique in the United States.” Follow news from the hearing with the hashtag #AméricaSinFracking PRESS CONTACT Victor Quintanilla, AIDA (Mexico), [email protected], +521 5570522107  

Read more
Oceans, Toxic Pollution

Calling on Chile to stop salmon industry’s impact on Patagonia

AIDA alerted six international treaties to the damages the salmon industry is causing to Chilean Patagonia, and requested that they visit the Magallanes region to investigate the impacts and urge the Chilean government to protect the region. Santiago, Chile. In an Urgent Alert to international authorities, the Interamerican Association of Environmental Defense (AIDA) requested that experts visit the Magallanes region of Chilean Patagonia—where the expansion of the salmon industry is causing serious environmental damage—and asked them to urge the government to adopt appropriate measures to address them. “These six treaties were signed and ratified by Chile to protect its natural wealth, including the endemic species of the Magallanes region,” said Florencia Ortuzar, AIDA attorney. “The government is violating these agreements by failing to prevent the salmon industry from damaging the country’s marine environments.” The document details the principal damages caused by the salmon farms in Magallanes, among them: contamination of the seabed from large amounts of fish feces, excess chemical waste, and the over-saturation of waters with fish, all of which create oxygen-free dead zones where marine life cannot survive. The alert was sent to authorities in charge of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, the International Whaling Commission, the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the Antarctic Treaty. The situation was also reported to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization. The Magallanes region is home to many protected species, including the blue whale, the sperm whale, the Magellanic penguin, the elephant seal, the leatherback turtle, the Southern dolphin and the Chilean dolphin. A remote and pristine area, Magallanes is poorly studied and it is thus virtually impossible to understand the consequences of the industry’s current and potential impacts. “More than half the farms operating in Magallanes are causing a total or partial lack of oxygen in the waters,” explained Ortuzar. “This demonstrates that the salmon concessions are being granted without the scientific support needed to guarantee they won’t cause environmental damage.” Another problem raised in the alert is the excessive use of antibiotics in Chilean salmon farms—higher than that of any other salmon-producing nation. This excessive use provokes antimicrobial resistance in humans, a problem that has been recognized by the World Health Organization as a serious threat to global public health. In the alert, AIDA requested the international authorities: support the Chilean State in the investigation of the salmon industry’s real and potential impacts on Patagonia; remind Chile of its obligations under the treaties; investigate the damage described; and, when needed, request the application of sanctions and the suspension or cancellation of concessions in Magallanes. Consult the Urgent Alert. Find more information on the case here.             press contact Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +521 5570522107  

Read more
Large Dams, Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources

In Xingu management plan, Brazil leaves communities without water

The proposed Xingu River management plan puts at risk the people, plants and animals of the Amazon region. AIDA requested that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights urge Brazil to stop the plan and establish a socially and environmentally appropriate alternative. Washington, D.C. and Altamira, Brazil. By authorizing the construction of the Belo Monte Dam in the heart of the Amazon, the Brazilian government endorsed a management plan for the flow of the Xingu River that would leave the indigenous and riverine communities of the area without the water they need to survive. The plan is in a testing phase but is expected to be implemented next year, once all the turbines of the hydroelectric plant are installed. The Interamerican Association of Environment Defense (AIDA) sent a report to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights detailing the serious socio-environmental risks of the plan. In it, we requested that the Commission urge Brazil to stop the plan’s implementation and create an alternative plan that guarantees biodiversity and protects the communities’ ways of life. “The authorized plan for the management of the river’s flow threatens the existence of indigenous and riverine communities, and places at risk of extinction the fish and the forests—natural resources on which the physical and cultural lives of the communities depend,” said Liliana Ávila, Senior AIDA Attorney. The plan, called a consensual hydrogram, establishes the volume of water that will pass through a specific part of the river, called the Vuelta Grande, and the part that will be diverted for energy production. It is intended to artificially reproduce the natural flow of the river in times of flood and drought. Norte Energía, the consortium in charge of the dam, proposes an average minimum flow rate of 4,000 cubic meters per second over the course of a year, and 8,000 cubic meters per second for the following year, beginning in 2019. It proposes a minimum flow rate of 700 cubic meters per second for the dry season. The report sent to the Commission, however, details scientific and social evidence that demonstrates that these water levels are significantly lower than the historical river flow and do not guarantee that fish and alluvial forests can survive the proposed reduction in the short- and medium-term. The evidence—which includes information from both the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources and community monitoring—also shows that some aquatic species, such as chelonians, can only feed and reproduce with minimum flows of 13,000 cubic meters per second in times of flooding, and that the volume proposed for the dry season could make the river unnavigable. “The management plan did not take into account the monitoring done by the Juruna people in collaboration with the Federal University of the State of Pará and the Socio-environmental Institute (ISA),” said AIDA attorney Marcella Ribeiro. “In 2016, with water levels higher than those proposed, communities were already reporting the mass die-off of fish.” AIDA sent the report to the Commission as part of a formal complaint against the Brazilian State for the human rights violations caused by the dam’s construction. In May, together with partner organizations, we presented our final arguments in the case, evidencing damages already caused, including the forced displacement of indigenous and riverine communities, the massive death of fish, differentiated damages to men and women, and threats to the survival of the communities. Find more information on the case here. press contacts Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +521 5570522107 Isabel Harari (Brazil), ISA, [email protected], +5561998261213  

Read more
Fracking, Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources

Argentina’s approval of fracking wells violates international obligations

The authorization of four fracking wells within the Vaca Muerta shale deposit poses a risk to vital water sources and violates the rights of Mapuche communities. In support of an amparo filed to invalidate the project’s approval, AIDA presented evidence detailing Argentina’s failure to comply with international environmental and human rights obligations. Mendoza, Argentina. Argentina violated international environmental and human rights obligations when it authorized the development of four fracking wells in indigenous territory.  The wells would damage vital water sources and violate the rights of Mapuche communities, AIDA explained in an amicus brief presented before the Supreme Court of Mendoza Province. The brief supports an amparo seeking to invalidate the project’s approval, filed by the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN, for its initials in Spanish). “Fracking was authorized in Mendoza without any environmental impact assessment,” explained AIDA Attorney Claudia Velarde. “In fact, the project was presented for authorization as ‘infrastructure adaptation’ and the environmental authority granted the permits in a record time of just six days.” The wells are located within Vaca Muerta, the largest non-conventional deposit of shale gas in Latin America.  Mapuche indigenous communities—recognized by the National Institute of Indigenous Affairs—live in the project area and, as such, have the right to prior consultation; operators must receive their free, prior and informed consent for any activity affecting their territory. The energy company El Trebol S.A. failed to recognize that right when assessing the project. As a result, the project’s authorization violates Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People—all international standards recognized by Argentina. “The chemicals used in fracking can contaminate both surface and groundwater, including, in this case, those of the Llancanelo lagoon, a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention, a treaty ratified by the government of Argentina,” said Velarde. “The site is a zone of passage and rest for more than 130 species of resident and migratory birds.” In addition, fracking activities require large amounts of water, while Mendoza has for years suffered from drought, a problem only aggravated by climate change. Finally, the brief emphasizes that there is neither detailed geological data of the zone nor quality information on the dynamics of the groundwater. “Faced with this scientific uncertainty, authorities have an obligation to apply the precautionary principle,” Velarde explained. “An activity as potentially harmful as fracking must be rejected unless those seeking to implement it can prove that it will not cause serious and irreversible damage to the environment.” Press contact: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107  

Read more
Oceans

World’s first legally binding treaty to protect the high seas: Landmark UN negotiations open

New York. Treaty negotiations to conserve and protect nearly two thirds of the ocean open today at the United Nations (UN) in what is widely regarded as the greatest opportunity in a generation to turn the tide on ocean degradation and biodiversity loss. Following over a decade of discussions at the UN, the two-week Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) is the first of a series of four negotiating sessions through 2020 for a new legally-binding treaty to protect marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction*, commonly known as the high seas. The ocean beyond 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres) from a country’s shorelines is considered international waters – “the high seas” - and is globally shared. There is no overarching law in place to safeguard its biodiversity or its vital role in provisioning services – such as generating oxygen and regulating the climate. “The high seas cover half our planet and are vital to the functioning of the whole ocean and all life on Earth. The current high seas governance system is weak, fragmented and unfit to address the threats we now face in the 21st century from climate change, illegal and overfishing, plastics pollution and habitat loss. This is an historic opportunity to protect the biodiversity and functions of the high seas through legally binding commitments” said Peggy Kalas, Coordinator of the High Seas Alliance, a partnership of 40+ non-governmental organisations and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).  The ocean’s key role in mitigating climate change, which includes absorbing 90% of the extra heat and 26% of the excess carbon dioxide created by human sources, has had a devastating effect on the ocean itself. Managing the multitude of other anthropogenic stressors exerted on it will increase its resilience to climate change and ocean acidification and protect unique marine ecosystems, many of which are still unexplored and undiscovered.  Because these are international waters, the conservation measures needed can only be put into place via a global treaty.  Professor Alex Rogers of Oxford University who has provided evidence to inform the UN process towards a treaty said: “The half of our planet which is high seas is protecting terrestrial life from the worst impacts of climate change. Yet we do too little to safeguard that or to protect the life within the ocean which is intrinsic to our collective survival. Protecting the biodiversity of the high seas by bringing good governance and law to the whole ocean is the single most important thing we can do to turn the tide for the blue heart of our planet.” Through the UN, states will discuss how to protect and conserve the high seas by establishing: Marine Protected Areas (MPAs): MPAs are widely acknowledged as essential for building ocean resilience, but without a treaty there is no mechanism to enable their creation on the high seas. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs): Although some activities are partially regulated in some areas of the high seas, there is no legal framework for conducting EIAs to guard against potential environmental harm. Benefit sharing and technological transfer: Many countries are concerned that they will not benefit from research into high seas species and will lose out on potentially vast new ocean genetic resources, such as discoveries of marine genetic resources (MGRs) that could provide new pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals and other uses. The negotiations will also aim at improving mechanisms to build capacity and transfer technology in developing countries relating to the high seas. Gladys Martínez, senior attorney of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA)’s Marine Program, said: “We’re hopeful that this intergovernmental conference will achieve important advances toward the creation of a treaty for the conservation and sustainable use of high seas biodiversity. We’re particularly pleased to see the commitment with which Latin American nations are approaching this important negotiation.”   Notes to editors: * ‘Areas beyond national jurisdiction’ means the areas of ocean outside the EEZs and continental shelves of individual states i.e. in most cases beyond 200 nautical miles offshore. It includes, as well as the high seas, the deep sea Area as defined in Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (known as UNCLOS), which is the deep seabed beyond the continental shelves of coastal States. For more information see http://highseasalliance.org The process so far: Treaty timeline Press contacts Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), [email protected], +521 5570522107 Mirella von Lindenfels (at the UN during the negotiations), + 44 7717 844 352  

Read more
Large Dams, Indigenous Rights

Guatemalan indigenous communities file complaint for dams’ damages

Affected communities have called on the Inter-American Development Bank to withdraw funding for the Pojom II and San Andrés dams for failure to comply with its operational policies. The mega-projects have damaged water sources and harmed the livelihoods of local indigenous people, particularly women. Washington, D.C.  Indigenous communities affected by Guatemala’s Pojom II and San Andrés dams have called on the Inter-American Development Bank to withdraw its investment in the mega-projects. A complaint filed before the Bank’s independent accountability mechanism explains how the serious social and environmental damages caused by the planning and construction of the dams resulted from the projects’ failure to comply with the Bank’s operational policies. The communities are represented by the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the International Platform Against Impunity, and the Plurinational Ancestral Government of Q’anjob’al, Popti, Chuj and Akateko. “The damages caused by the projects’ implementation are the result of non-compliance with the Bank’s operational policies, particularly its policies on environment and sustainability, indigenous people, gender, and information disclosure,” explained Liliana Ávila, AIDA attorney. The complaint details how the dams were authorized without adequate community consultation, and how those affected did not receive sufficient information on the risks. In addition, community members who have peacefully resisted the projects have suffered attacks, threats, and harassment; in 2017, they reported the murder of one local resident, which has yet to be resolved. The construction of the dams has also caused severe environmental damage, including water scarcity and pollution, which have affected local people’s ability to fish, grow food, and maintain their tradition lifestyle. The affected people of the microregion of Ixquisis, in the department of Huehuetenango, are primarily indigenous Mayans including the Chu, Q’anjob’al and Akateko ethnic groups. “The damages from the dams are differentially suffered by women, since they are the primary managers of water use in their homes,” said Anabella Sibrián from the International Platform Against Impunity. “The women of Ixquisis face stigmatization and live in fear of retaliation for their peaceful opposition to the projects.” The Pojom II hydroelectric plant is operated by Generadora San Mateo S.A, while San Andrés is run by Generadora San Andrés S.A. Both are subsidiaries of Promoción y Desarrollos Hídricos S.A., a Guatemalan company.  In 2013, IDB Invest, a private arm of the Inter-American Development Bank, approved loans of up to $9 million USD for the construction of Pojom II and up to $6 million USD for the San Andrés project. “We our hope that the Bank’s accountability mechanism confirms the projects have violated internal policies and thus recommends that IDB Invest withdraw its investment from these harmful mega-dams,” Ávila said. The Ixquisis communities were recently awarded the 2018 Front Line Defenders award for Human Rights Defenders at Risk for their valiant, peaceful struggle to defend their water and their territory. Find more information on the case here. Press Contact Victor Quintanilla (México), AIDA, [email protected], +521 5570522107  

Read more
Large Dams, Human Rights

Communities affected by Hidroituango dam in Colombia file complaint at IDB

In the midst of the humanitarian crisis caused by the Hidroituango dam project in the Cauca river basin, local communities request that the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)’s accountability mechanism investigate whether the financial entity violated its environmental and social standards when investing in the project. Washington, D.C. Communities affected by the construction of the Hidroituango dam in Antioquia, Colombia, filed a complaint with the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) at its Washington, DC headquarters today. The complaint requests that this accountability office investigate whether the IDB, through both its public and private lending arms, violated its own social and environmental standards when it invested in the project. Through the complaint, the affected communities, represented by Movimiento Ríos Vivos Antioquia, highlight that the bank did not follow its policies that investment projects must be sustainable, participatory and respectful of national legislation in the case of HidroItuango. There was no adequate environmental impact assessment, communities did not have access to participation or information, and the project occurs in a context of human rights violations and disproportionate use of force. It has also endangered the lives of thousands of people, who have had to be evacuated ad hoc due to the dam crisis. This contradicts the social and environmental standards required of IDB investments. The hydroelectric plant will be the largest in Colombia, with a 49 mile (79 km) reservoir that will flood a surface of 11,120 acres (4,500 hectares). The IDB Group has financed the project through various types of investment. In 2012, it approved a $2 million in technical cooperation for the Colombian State and in 2016, $550 million in direct investments to the company in charge of the project, Empresas Públicas de Medellín (EPM). In addition, the IDB manages a $1 billion loan package for the project, with funds from multiple institutional investors, including banks in Europe (KfW IPEX (Germany), BNP Paribas (France), BBVA y Banco Santander (Spain)), Asia (ICBC (China), Sumitomo Mitsui (Japan)), and Canada (CDPQ). The MICI responds to complaints from individuals and communities affected by IDB-financed development projects. The communities settled in the Cauca river basin and its tributaries that are affected by Hidroituango, are accompanied in the complaint process by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and International Accountability Project (IAP). The claim comes amid a humanitarian crisis in the dam construction area and a wave of increasing violence against people who are defending their territory and water and oppose the project. What began on April 28 with the obstruction of one of the dam's tunnels has resulted in landslides, floods, and thousands of people displaced from their homes. All this has exposed the inadequate evaluation of project impacts and the poor environmental regulation under which the project was authorized on every front. The state of emergency in the area is still in effect, and neither the Colombian government or the company has ruled out the risk of the dam collapsing. The members of Movimiento Ríos Vivos have suffered multiple threats, intimidations, and rights violations. Between May 2 and 8, two of its members were killed. In addition, the region where the dam is located has been affected by historical violence and armed conflict. press contacts Isabel Zuleta, Movimiento Ríos Vivos Antioquia, +57 3217347264, [email protected] Carla García, Center for International Environmental Law, [email protected] Astrid Puentes, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, [email protected]             Carlos Lozano, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, [email protected] Alexandre Sampaio, International Accountability Project, [email protected]  

Read more
Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, Large Dams

Brazil must respond to human rights violations caused by the Belo Monte Dam

In representation of communities affected by the Belo Monte Dam, we have submitted final arguments in the case against Brazil before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The report presents scientific evidence of the forced displacement of indigenous and traditional communities, the mass die-off of fish, differentiated harms to men and women, and threats to the survival of local communities in the Brazilian Amazon. Washington, DC, United States and Altamira, Brazil. Furthering the formal complaint against the State of Brazil for human rights violations caused by the construction of the Belo Monte Dam, organizations representing affected communities presented their final arguments before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. They demonstrate the damages Belo Monte has caused to indigenous and traditional communities, and residents of Altamira, the city closest to the dam. “Human rights violations are a daily occurence for those affected by the dam, so it’s urgent that our petition before the Commission advance to sanction the government and guarantee our rights,” proclaimed Antônia Melo, coordinator of the Movimiento Xingu Vivo para Siempre, a citizens’ collective formed in the face of the dam’s implementation. The report presented before the Commission shows that the damages resulted from a severe lack of foresight and inadequate evaluation, as well as from failure to comply with the conditions for operation established by the government. The many risks denounced prior to the dam’s construction have since become long-term damages—many of which have affected men and women, and youth and the elderly, in different ways. “This report is a vital step forward for the people of the Xingu River basin, who are now closer than ever to achieving justice, forcing Brazil to respond to the violations committed, and ensuring that what happened on the Xingu never happens again,” said Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-director of the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). Together with the Paraense Society for Human Rights (SDDH) and Justiça Global, AIDA represents the affected communities before the Commission. The report also documents the displacement of indigenous and traditional communities forced to leave their territories without adequate alternatives, placing their cultural survival at risk. Among the affected populations are communities dedicated to fishing, who have not yet been compensated for the loss of livelihood. The dam has caused mass die-offs of fish and, although authorities have imposed millions in fines, the report demonstrates that the underlying problem has not been resolved. Local communities now have limited use of the Xingu River as a source of food, sustenance, transportation and entertainment. The report also documents—among other serious harms—the disappearance of traditional trades, such as brickmakers and cart drivers, and of traditional cultural practices. Women, for example, have stopped giving birth in their homes and must now go to a hospital, a reality that has drastically worsened due to the oversaturation of health and education services in Altamira caused by the recent population surge. The complaint against Brazil was presented before the Commission in 2011, the year the international organism granted protective measures to indigenous people affected by the dam’s construction. The case against Brazil officially opened in December 2015. Then, last October, in a rare move designed to speed up the processing of the case, the Commission decided to unite two stages that, as a rule, are normally processed separately. Under this framework, the organizations and the State are required to present their final arguments, after which the Commission will make a decision. “We hope the Commission refers the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights as soon as possible, and that it recommends Brazil adopt the measures necessary to protect the life, integrity, and right to property of the indigenous and traditional communities affected by the dam,” said Raphaela Lopes, attorney at Justiça Global. “After being subject to all forms of rights violations, starting from the very beginning of this project, these communities need integral reparation; their right to free, prior and informed consent was not honored.” The Commission must now prepare a report to conclude whether or not human rights violations occurred as a result of the Belo Monte Dam, in which it may issue recommendations for remediation. If those recommendations are unfulfilled, the case may be referred to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, which has the power to issue a ruling condemning Brazil. Belo Monte has been in operation since early 2015, though a series of judicial suspensions resulting from non-compliance with its permits means that construction has yet to be completed. Although Belo Monte has caused great harm to the people of the Xingu, Brazil now has an opportunity to avoid inflicting more damage and begin making efforts to better their quality of life. For that to happen, a prompt decision by the Commission is vital. Find more information about the case here. Press contacts: Víctor Quintanilla (México), AIDA, [email protected], +521 5570522107 Raphaela Lopes (Brasil), Justiça Global, [email protected], + 55 21 99592-7017  

Read more
Freshwater Sources, Indigenous Rights, Large Dams

Supporting Mexico’s indigenous communities in their fight against Las Cruces Dam

AIDA filed an amicus brief demonstrating the international environmental and human rights obligations the Mexican government violated by authorizing the controversial hydroelectric project. It was written in support of a lawsuit filed by the Wixárika people of Nayarit, Mexico, whose land and sacred sites would be affected by the dam. Nayarit, Mexico. The Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) presented an amicus brief before the First District Court of Nayarit, demonstrating the international environmental and human rights obligations the Mexican government violated by authorizing the Las Cruces hydroelectric project. The brief supports the writ of amparo filed against the project by members of the Wixárika indigenous community. "When analyzing the project, Mexican authorities failed to adequately consult affected communities and obtain their free, prior, and informed consent. Above all, they failed to respect their rights to self-determination, autonomy, territory and cultural identity, and to a healthy environment," explained AIDA attorney Camilo Thompson. "In addition, authorities overlooked the risks of damage to the San Pedro Mezquital river basin and the ecosystem it feeds: the mangrove forests of Marismas Nacionales, an internationally protected site." The hydroelectric plant, promoted by the Federal Electricity Commission, threatens ceremonial sites on which the spiritual life of the Wixárika, Náyeris-Cora, Tepehuano and Mexicanero people depend. Members of the Wixárika tribe presented the demand for protection (amparo) in mid-2017 against the authorities that endorsed the project—the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources and the National Water Commission. AIDA’s supporting brief, presented in March, details the international obligations Mexico breached by approving the dam—those contained in the American Convention on Human Rights, the Protocol of San Salvador, Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization on indigenous and tribal peoples in independent countries, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. After the request for protection was filed, the court ordered the suspension of project permits until the legal process has concluded and a decision has been made as to whether those permits are valid. Government authorities have argued that the project must continue because it is in the public interest, and that indigenous peoples can "re-organize their spiritual life in a context modified by the project’s construction." This position ignores the rights of communities, due process, and the environmental threats affecting the public interest. In order to safeguard the rights of affected communities, the court must now continue the legal process, confirm the project’s suspension, and issue the cancellation of all related permits. “The government must maintain the balance between the protection of human rights and the environment, thereby canceling the permits granted to the Las Cruces project and protecting the rights of the affected communities," Thompson said. "In this instance, Mexico has the opportunity to strengthen the global trend towards truly sustainable energy, moving away from large dam projects that emit greenhouse gases and aggravate climate change." Learn more about the case here. Press contact: Camilo Thompson, AIDA attorney, +521 9671302346, [email protected]  

Read more