Search | Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA)

September 23 2014 Aida Publication

Open letter to governments, international institutions and financial mechanisms to stop considering large dams as clean energy and to implement real solutions to climate change

57 CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS AND COALITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA INSIST THAT LARGE DAMS ARE NOT CLEAN ENERGY SOURCES AND WE ASK GOVERNMENTS, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO IMPLEMENT REAL SOLUTIONS TO CLIMATE CHANGE It is time to learn from the past and to implement alternatives appropriate to our time According to the World Commission on Dams, by the year 2000, fifty thousand dams had already been built, disrupting more than 60% of Earth’s rivers.[1] In Latin America alone, 973 dams of all sizes are operating, and roughly 1,600 more are being built or planned—254 in the Amazon Basin.[2] Scientific evidence reveals that large dams: emit greenhouse gases, including methane, especially in tropical regions,[3] aggravating climate change, and making adaptation more difficult; cost almost twice their initial budget, causing economic difficulties in the communities and countries where they are implemented;[4] take a long time to become operational, making them an inefficient solution to the urgent energy crisis that they are intended to tackle;[5] may cause great and irreparable environmental damage; and may cause human rights violations and impoverishment of communities if not implemented with appropriate safeguards. Nevertheless, they continue to be promoted as clean energy sources to meet increasing energy demand.[6] Why are dams not clean energy sources and why are alternatives needed? 1. Because they contribute to climate change and make adaptation more difficult Construction and operation of large dams in tropical regions causes emission of CO2 and methane from the large amounts of flooded and retained organic matter in reservoirs. The greenhouse gas effect of methane is between 20 to 40 times more powerful than that of CO2.[7] Dams also destroy large areas of surrounding lands needed to build them. Dams are not flexible enough to endure climate change. On the contrary, they are inefficient in droughts and unsafe in floods, which aggravates the risk of disasters. Moreover, they threaten communities’ entire hydrologic system, destroying key ecosystems and fisheries, thus compromising communities’ ability to adapt to climate change. 2. Because of the cost overruns, delays and economic damage that they entail Data show that the final cost of the majority of dams that have been built is 96% greater than their initial budgets. This expense has been linked to the increase of public debt and to economic crisis in several countries.[8] 3. Because they take a long time to become operational, making them an inefficient solution to the urgent energy crisis that they are intended to tackle Construction of large dams takes approximately 8.6 years, plus time to begin operating,[9] and they operate on average only 50 years.[10] Experts have documented that eight out of every ten dams exceed their initial construction-time estimates by more than 44%.[11] Dams are not an efficient solution to growing and urgent energy demand. 4. Because they may cause great and irreparable environmental damage Large dams cause environmental damages to rivers, hydrologic basins and surrounding ecosystems, including: worsening water quality in rivers; degradation of aquatic ecosystems and disappearance of many riparian ecosystems; and serious harms to biodiversity, including the extinction of species.[12] 5. Because environmental damage may violate human rights and impoverish communities The human rights of the people affected by large dams have been systematically unrecognized. Large dams have caused forced displacement;[13] health problems; loss of food sources and traditional ways of life; community impoverishment;[14] and criminalization of social protest. Additionally, permitting processes are generally flawed; permits are issued without comprehensive environmental or social impact assessments, and without adequate public participation and consultation. TODAY there are cleaner, more efficient, less costly and faster alternatives to respond to energy demand. Therefore we DEMAND that Governments, international organizations and financial institutions immediately: Stop considering large dams as clean energy sources, given the proved negative impacts mentioned above. These impacts must be considered comprehensively. Incorporate in the planning stage for new dams: scientific evidence of greenhouse gas emissions, including methane produced by reservoirs; the instability that climate change causes in the hydrologic regime; lessons learned regarding costs and real implementation time of large dams; comprehensive evaluation of environmental and social impacts that will be caused; an integrated, realistic energy strategy through a Comprehensive Plan for Electric Sector Energy Resources; Make decisions that account for impacts on the environment, human rights and climate change. Implement real energy solutions that prove to be effective, with benefits that outweigh the harms they cause. Adopt inclusive and transparent decision-making processes, taking into account the whole spectrum of energy alternatives. Abogadas y Abogados para la Justicia y los Derechos Humanos, A.C., México Alianza de Comunidades y Usuarios en Defensa del Río Biobos-Nautla, México Alianza para la Conservación y el Desarrollo (ACD), Panamá Amazon Watch, Estados Unidos Amazónicos por la Amazonía (AMPA), Perú Amigos del Río San Rodrigo, México Asamblea Veracruzana de Iniciativas y Defensa Ambiental (LAVIDA), México Asociación Ambiente y Sociedad, Colombia Asociación Amigos de los Parques Nacionales (AAPN), Argentina Asociación Ceiba, Guatemala Asociación de Ecología Social (AESO), Costa Rica Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA), Regional Asociación Palmareña para la Recuperación del Ambiente (APRA), Costa Rica Asociación Peruana para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, Perú Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH), Perú Asociación Proyectos Alternativos para Desarrollo Social (PROAL), Costa Rica Bloque Verde, Costa Rica Centro de Desarrollo Étnico (CEDET), Perú Centro de Documentación en Derechos Humanos “Segundo Montes Mozo S.J.” (CSMM), Ecuador Centro de Estudios para la Justicia Social "Tierra Digna", Colombia Centro de Promoción y Defensa de Derechos Humanos Arequipa (CEPRODEH), Perú Centro Humboldt, Nicaragua Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental, A.C. (CEMDA), México Centro para la Sostenibilidad Ambiental de la Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia (CSA-UPCH), Perú Colectivo Defensa Verde Naturaleza para Siempre, México Comisión de Derechos Humanos de Ica, Perú Comisión Ecuménica de Derechos Humanos (CEDHU), Ecuador Comité por los Derechos en América Latina (CEDHAL), Canadá Consejo de Ejidos y Comunidades Opositores a la Presa La Parota (CECOP), México Coordinadora de Afectados por Embalses y Trasvases (COAGRET), España Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos, Perú Derechos Humanos y Medio Ambiente, Perú Ecologia E Ação (ECOA), Brasil Federación Ecologista de Costa Rica (FECON), Costa Rica Finca Amalur, Costa Rica Fiscalía del Medio Ambiente (FIMA), Chile Foro Ciudadano de Participación por la Justicia y los Derechos Humanos (FORO), Argentina Fórum Solidaridad Perú, Perú Fundación Centro de Derechos Humanos y Ambiente (CEDHA), Argentina Fundación Ecuménica para el Desarrollo y la Paz (FEDEPAZ), Perú Fundación GaiaPacha, Bolivia Fundación POPOL NA, Nicaragua Fundar, México Grupo Ecologista Cuña Pirú, Argentina Instituto Madeira Vivo (IMV), Brasil International Rivers, Estados Unidos JASS, Asociadas por lo Justo, México Justicia para la Naturaleza, Costa Rica María Esperanza Alonso, especialista de Derecho Ambiental, Argentina Movimiento Ciudadano frente al Cambio Climático (MOCICC), Perú Oilwatch Mesoamérica, Costa Rica Plataforma Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Democracia y Desarrollo (PIDHDD Regional), Ecuador Programa Chile Sustentable, Chile Pueblos Unidos de la Cuenca Antigua por los Ríos Libres, México Red Jurídica Amazónica (RAMA), Bolivia Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental (SPDA), Perú Unión Norte por la Vida, Costa Rica For more information: AIDA on dams: http://www.aida-americas.org/es/project/grandesrepresas International Rivers: http://www.internationalrivers.org/ Report: Grandes Represas en América: ¿Peor el Remedio que la Enfermedad? Blog: Desmantelando el mito de las represas, Grandes represas elefantes blancos, Hydropower Will Not Solve All Africa's Problems [1] World Commission on Dams Report. http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/attached-files/world_commission_on_dams_final_report.pdf [2] State of the World’s Rivers. http://www.internationalrivers.org/worldsrivers/ [3]2013 IPCC Supplement to the 2006 Guidelines for National GHG Inventories: Wetlands http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/wetlands/ [4]Ansar, Atif and Flyvbjerg, Bent and Budzier, Alexander and Lunn, Daniel, Should We Build More Large Dams? The Actual Costs of Hydropower Megaproject Development (March 10, 2014). Energy Policy, March 2014, pp.1-14. [5] Ibid [6] Directions for the World Bank Group’s Energy Sector. http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/SDN/energy-2013-0281-2.pdf [7] Climate and Clear Air Coalition. Short-Lived Climate Pollutants. (2011). http://www.unep.org/ccac/ShortLivedClimatePollutants/tabid/101650/Default.aspx. [8] Ansar, A et al. Furthermore, the Brazilian Federal Court of Accountability carried out a study of the energy projects developed between 2005 and 2012, and it concluded that almost 80% of dams will not comply with their schedule. http://oglobo.globo.com/economia/tcu-constata-atrasos-nas-obras-de-energia-leiloadas-pelo-governo-de-2005-2012-13822128 (Spanish) [9] Ansar, A., et al. [10] Friends of the Earth, et al. Dam Removal Success Stories. (1999). http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/fishing/dams/SuccessStoriesReport.pdf http://www.teachengineering.org/view_lesson.php?url=collection/cub_/lessons/cub_dams/cub_dams_lesson08.xml [11] Ansar, A., et al. [12] AIDA. Grandes Represas en América: ¿Peor el remedio que la enfermedad? http://www.aida-americas.org/sites/default/files/InformeAIDA_GrandesRepreseas_BajaRes_1.pdf (Spanish) [13] According to the World Commission on Dams, between 40 and 80 million people have been displaced due to big dams—approximately one out of every 100 people alive today. [14] Thayer Scudder, California Institute of Technology, promoted construction of dams for 58 years, believing that they were an option for the relief of poverty. He publicly changed his mind when he was 84 years old, declaring that they are not worth their cost and that many of the dams currently under construction will have disastrous consequences. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/opinion/sunday/large-dams-just-arent-worth-the-cost.html?emc=eta1&_r=3

September 22 2014 Blog

Brazil secures Belo Monte site, but not human rights of affected people

Time doesn’t stop and, unfortunately, nor does the construction of the Belo Monte Dam. Work is advancing at an impressive rate on the Xingu River, in the Brazilian Amazon; 65% of the dam is complete. As it grows, the ecosystem—and the lives of people living in the area—deteriorates. Construction of the gigantic dam has opened an enormous gash through the thick Amazonian vegetation. Seeing it from the air creates a feeling of helplessness. And on land, it’s frustrating to see that the situation of indigenous peoples, coastal communities, and residents of the city of Altamira worsens. Recently, AIDA lawyers, María José Veramendi Villa and Alexandre Andrade Sampaio, visited the Arara indigenous community, nestled in the Big Bend of the Xingu River. Once Belo Monte dams the river, it will reduce the river’s flow so drastically that fishing, the livelihood of the Arara, will no longer be possible. Furthermore, the Arara will lose the track that leads to their sacred sites. They await the arrival of vehicles and construction of a road and a suitable well, because the quality of drinking water is not the best. In Altamira, the deteriorating situation is similar. Veramendi and Sampaio went there too. Once dam construction began, the population of the city grew massively. This boom has overwhelmed health services and the sanitation system and, worse, led to an increase in cases of sexual violence and human trafficking. Norte Energia, the consortium of government and private enterprises building the dam, has caused pisions among the affected population by paying more for some lands than for others. Many people were forced to sell their homes at a minimum price before they were evicted. And the small cinderblock cubes built for the relocation of displaced families do not qualify as adequate housing. Relocation also involves a change in lifestyle: from fishing to farming or hauling bags of cement. "This frays the social fabric,” explained Veramendi. “We work daily, along with our colleagues in Brazil, to make clear in the country and internationally that what is happening in Belo Monte constitutes human rights violations. We are constantly working to compel the government of Brazil to comply with the precautionary measures issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights." On April 1, 2011, the Commission issued precautionary measures that Brazil should take to protect the life, health, and personal and cultural integrity of indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation; the health of other indigenous communities affected by the project; and demarcation of the ancestral lands of indigenous peoples. Our work, like the work of the human rights and environmental defenders we support in Brazil, is not easy. State security forces guard the construction site and Altamira. "We are surrounded, intimidated and harassed; there is no guarantee for our work," said Sampaio. With your help, we will continue fighting to see that the Belo Monte case progresses with the Commission, and that the Government of Brazil complies with its international human rights obligations rather than use the dam to bolster its electoral campaign at the cost of the environment and human welfare. Follow us on Twitter: @AIDAorg "Like" our page on Facebook: www.facebook.com/AIDAorg

No Image Available

September 22 2014 Press releases

Climate Marchers to Global Leaders: No dirty energy in the Green Climate Fund

Thousands of people flooded the streets of New York City yesterday demanding a financial commitment to clean energy and climate-resilient solutions.

September 22 2014 Blog

"We want the Green Climate Fund to follow the rules of procedure it has adopted"

AIDA attended the Latin American Carbon Forum 2014 in Bogotá, Colombia. There, our lawyer Andrea Rodríguez participated as a representative of civil society in a panel on the Green Climate Fund (GCF), a mechanism that will mobilize large amounts of resources to support adaptation and mitigation of climate change. Andrea answers a series of questions about the current situation and prospects of the GCF. - What are civil society’s expectations for the Fund? - We have the same expectations as the Fund. We want it to be a transparent, inclusive institution that is constant learning, as stated in Article 3 of its governing instrument. Its focus has to be driven by each country’s determination of what priorities should be funded. It must balance funding for adaptation and mitigation of climate change. We expect the Fund to promote social, environmental, economic, and development co-benefits and taking a gender sensitive approach; men and women are affected to the same degree by climate change. In short, we want the Green Climate Fund to follow the rules of procedure it has adopted. - How can a balance in funding for mitigation and adaptation be ensured? - Financing is given mostly for mitigation projects, despite the great need to fund projects for adaptation to climate change. In Bali, Indonesia, during the penultimate meeting of the Fund’s Board, it was decided that 50% of the funding will go to mitigation and 50% for adaptation. That decision was made and we must ensure that it is followed. Furthermore, in Latin America, development plans and climate change strategies that have been advanced have set adaptation financing as a priority. - How should civil society involve itself in the Fund? - We must go beyond design to implementation. The Fund's governing instrument provides in Article 71 that the Board needs to develop mechanisms to promote the participation of all stakeholders (vulnerable groups, women, civil society and indigenous groups) in the design, development and implementation of projects and programs financed by the Green Climate Fund. There is a mandate for civil society in all stages. The issue is relevant because the Fund will become operational soon and will have to create these participatory mechanisms at the national level, particularly when countries begin to name their national designated authorities (those that collateralize the projects or activities financed by the Fund). It needs to institutionalize these participatory processes. - How can one measure the effectiveness of a project to be funded? - The definition of indicators will be among the topics discussed at the next meeting of the GCF Board, but some are particularly important. In adaptation, we need to consider whether a project can help reduce the vulnerability of a community to climate change. As for mitigation, you have to measure the amount of emissions reduced. But the most important aspect is to measure co-benefits that a project or activity can generate: if it creates jobs, improves people’s quality of life, etc. This is because the Green Climate Fund aims to contribute to a paradigm shift that promotes sustainable development. Helping to improve quality of life is a change of this nature. Many times, projects that have positive climate benefits generate social, environmental, and economic problems. So it is essential that additional benefits are evident in social, environmental, and economic terms.

No Image Available

September 01 2014 Press releases Peru

People harmed by environmental contamination in La Oroya have been waiting for seven years for the State to guarantee their rights

In 2007, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) asked the Peruvian State to provide medical care and institute environmental controls. These measures have yet to be implemented fully and the health of the affected people continues to deteriorate.

August 19 2014 Blog

Pilcomayo: El río de los pájaros herido por la minería

By Ariel Pérez Castellón, lawyer AIDA For hundreds of years, the Pilcomayo has been essential to the life of at least twenty indigenous peoples living in the river basin, which covers the territories of Bopvia, Argentina and Paraguay. Among these people are the Guarani, Weenhayek, Toba and Wichi. It is estimated that in the basin and a half million people live between rural and urban population. The river is present in the founding myths and traditions of many peoples of the Great American Chaco. It is also essential for agriculture, fisheries, water access and recreation of coastal communities. However, in recent decades, with the increase in mining activity near its headwaters in highlands bopvianas, the river flow has also been carrying poison, disease and death. Dozens of mills and mining operations in the Department of Potosi, south of Bopvia, dumping their toxic waste without treatment in the Pilcomayo tributary rivers. Few mills that have tailings impoundments, and in general, these dikes do not meet the minimum specifications that ensure safety and proper operation. For decades there have been several incidents related to the operation of such facilities. One of the most disastrous was the break in 1996 tailings dam of the Porco mine , owned by former President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada. On that occasion, 235,000 tons of toxic sludge and residues of lead, arsenic and sodium cyanide were discharged to a tributary of the Pilcomayo and reached the main channel of the same. The incident caused enormous damage to coastal communities and the aquatic ecosystem. Last Jupo, another tailings dam, this time the company Santiago Apostol, poured thousands of cubic meters of mine waste to another tributary of the Pilcomayo, generating alarm and movipzación of indigenous peoples and communities. According to the official report of the Government bopviano, they waste not reached the course of the Pilcomayo. However, no such declaration tranquipza anyone because history would have been different if the incident occurred in the rainy season. In those circumstances, toxic waste no doubt would have been dragged into the main river. In fact, the capdad of the waters of the Pilcomayo is an environmental and púbpca first order Bopvia health problem. Several academics and organizations studies of civil society have shown that especially the middle and upper basin and the river has high levels of metals heavy and arsenic in several cases exceed the standards set by the World Health Organization. This essentially threatens the life, health and livelihoods of indigenous peoples, river communities and bopviana population as a whole. Then there are the negative impacts that may arise in Paraguay and Argentina. Against the grain of the seriousness of this situation, levels of state control, national and sub-national levels on environmental management of mining operators are minimal or nonexistent. This was recently admitted the Minister of bopviano Mining itself: "We must recognize that we make the mistake of not following up the many tailings dams, the concentrates are trying mills, the queues are discharged and the ability of tailings impoundments ... ". Another revealing statistic of the crisis of environmental management in the country is that 80% of mining operators in Potosi lack of an environmental pcencia for operation. Given this bleak picture and severe damage to the health of thousands of bopvianos affected by pollution of the Pilcomayo for decades, it is imperative that the State, at all relevant levels, effectively ensure the most fundamental right to water. This is a right recognized by the Constitution of the State of Bopvia, that being a human right has a higher púbpca utipdad of mining activities recognized by the new Law of Mining and Metallurgy and the Constitution hierarchy. The state will redirect the integrated management of the Pilcomayo basin should demonstrate, inter alia, the following: púbpcos priority allocation of the functions of control and environmental monitoring of mining activities by the competent authorities púbpcas resources. Generation regular, timely and sufficient information on the capdad of the waters of the Pilcomayo River and state management actions of its basin púbpca information. Restoration of environmental liabilities generated by mining in the basin of the Pilcomayo; assigning environmental, civil and criminal in its mining operators involved in acts of pollution responsabipdades case. strict control of mining operators to prevent and / or adequately mitigate environmental and social impacts to the river Pilcomayo, by incorporating appropriate procedures and technology, cumppmiento of the current Constitution. Pilcomayo word comes from the Quechua words phisqu (bird) and mayu (river). It is the river of birds. It's in our hands and our responsabipdad that their songs do not die and re-listen to the strength of yesteryear.

No Image Available

August 06 2014 Press releases

NGOs fight to defend Panama’s rivers

Panama NGOs have called on the National Environmental Authority to repeal a resolution that threatens watersheds and allows large-scale projects such as hydroelectric dams to use up to 90% of the water in rivers, lakes and other ecosystems.

July 28 2014 Blog

Raising people's needs in tackling climate change

Every day we hear a new story about a family affected by extreme changes in climate. Some suffer from severe droughts, others from serious rainfall and flooding, and still others from intense heat waves and forest fires. Local realities must be considered at the international level as governmental institutions decide how to provide finance for climate adaptation and mitigation. AIDA brings the concerns of communities most affected by this global issue to the attention of governments and financial institutions. We have the technical capacity to support governments’ decision making processes on climate change "They can rely on us to provide effective solutions based on our technical knowledge, research, work experience, and relationships with local communities. International decisions about project funding have direct impact on the national and local levels. Bad decisions will result in bad projects," explains Andrea Rodríguez, an AIDA attorney. Our commitment to protecting the interests of the most vulnerable communities has led us to follow closely development of the Green Climate Fund (GCF). This new institution is expected to channel most financial resources for climate change projects and programs in developing countries. We have participated in GCF board meetings around the world and have made local needs heard in consultations with the Secretariat. Last month we attended the annual meeting of the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) in Montego Bay, Jamaica. The CIF are multilateral climate finance funds that provide resources to 48 developing countries. We shared our experience in GCF discussions with participants and civil society observers. "It's important to share experiences of what works and what does not to ensure that civil society replicates successes and corrects failures. Civil society shares the common goal of achieving a paradigm shift in decisions that impact climate," says Rodriguez. In the first session of the CIF Stakeholder Day, Reaching into the Roots of Partnership: Experience from the Ground, panelists discussed lessons learned and next steps on effective stakeholder engagement in the CIF and other global funds. Panelist Andrea Rodriguez, Legal Advisor for the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense-Americas, reflects on the session.

July 25 2014 Aida Publication

Letter presenting Latin American civil society organizations' concerns on the dilution of the World Bank's safeguards policies

Latin American civil society organizations "strongly recommend that CODE members send the first draft back to Management. Without structural changes to the Safeguard Policy proposal, we question if the second phase of consultations and the review process will be meaningful". According to them, dilution of the current Bank Safeguards Policy is evident throughout the draft. Basic World Bank requirements to assess and manage environmental risks and impacts before approval are now relaxed by providing the unbounded deferral of appraisal of significant environmental and social risks or impacts to implementation. A second major concern is that the draft proposed Social and Environmental Policy and ESSs significantly shift responsibility for safeguards implementation to borrowers, but provides less clarity than current exists on when/how the use of borrower systems would be preferable and acceptable. It remains unclear how the proposed draft will help the Bank and Borrowers make decisions to prepare or use borrower systems to effectively implement safeguards in countries where major dilutions of national social and environmental frameworks are being proposed or recently approved. "The proposed draft misses opportunities to meet the highest international standards. The draft provides no binding language regarding international human rights standards and allows governments to "opt out" of compliance to the Indigenous Peoples Policy to protect Indigenous Peoples rights, which unequivocally undermines the international consensus regarding the specific and fundamental rights of indigenous peoples over their lands, resources and the course of their own development", the organizations argue.

July 23 2014 Blog

Giving People a Voice on Hydropower Projects

Hydropower projects are on the rise in Latin America as governments seek to feed growing economies. But at what cost? The plants may harness the energy capacity of running water, a renewable resource. But poorly planned and implemented dams, especially large ones, can bring myriad harms to the environment and communities. They affect fish and water quality, and they increase emissions of methane, a gas that contributes to global warming. Flooding displaces people from their homes and communities. This costs them their jobs as farmers, fishermen and hunters – and for ethnic and peasant communities, even their cultures and traditions. AIDA works with individuals and communities to protect them from poorly conceived and developed projects by using the law to defend their right to a healthy environment. This month AIDA and other organizations submitted a brief (in Portuguese) to Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court. The information demonstrates that congressional approval of the Belo Monte Dam in 2005 is illegal because the government didn’t guarantee the affected communities in the Amazon their right to consultation and free, prior and informed consent. Some meetings were held after approval of the project, and then with just scant and incomprehensible information in foreign languages for the communities. There was also little forewarning to attend. It was like telling you that your front yard is to become a street after the diggers have already started removing the lawn. The dam – which is to be the world’s third largest – is under construction and already displacing people without anyone giving them a chance to say no to the project in their own front yard. This is the first time that our combined efforts have reached the Supreme Court for a final decision on Belo Monte, said AIDA attorney María José Veramendi Villa. If the court rules against the legality of the project, then construction will have to stop and the harms righted for failing to consult the communities beforehand. If the opposite happens, the project will continue – and so will we. We will continue to provide assistance to the Brazilian Prosecutor’s Office as it pursues more than a dozen other cases against Belo Monte. These are cases that can also advance to the highest court with the goal of protecting communities from this and other dams in the Amazon. Our efforts to help communities fight dam projects are gaining attention. The Personería of San Carlos (the municipal ombudsperson), a town in northwestern Colombia, contacted AIDA to provide expertise in international environmental and human rights law. They want help in preventing the granting of a license for construction of the El Porvenir II Dam on the Samaná Norte, the last undammed river in the area. AIDA attorney and human rights and the environment fellow, Ana María Mondragón, went there to speak at a public environmental hearing for the project. The good news is that the dam has yet to be approved, meaning that there is still time for the communities to find out what could happen and voice their concerns. The government will have to take the community input into consideration before approving the project, with the possibility that the developer may have to amend construction plans – or abandon them altogether. El Porvenir II will affect fishing, a main source of work and food for the largely poor people in San Carlos. It will also flood an area where many Colombians are seeking to recover the lands that they were forcibly displaced from as result of an internal armed conflict that started more than five decades ago. “We have entered at an early stage, before the project has been approved,” said Mondragón. “We intervened in the hearing to show the inconsistencies in the environmental impact assessment made by the company and the harms that the Porvenir II dam would have in the community. We hope this will help the authorities in their decision-making process to not grant the license.” With your help, we can keep assisting Latin American communities free of charge to exercise their right to say what happens on their land and defend themselves with the law.