In a landmark decision, Panama’s National Environmental Authority (ANAM) temporarily suspended the construction of the Barro Blanco hydroelectric dam yesterday over non-compliance with its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
Read more
The anchoveta (Engraulis ringens), a wide-eyed fish 12 to 15 centimeters long, is prevalent in the Pacific coastal waters of Peru. When I first heard of this little fish, I had no idea how important it was for both the environment and the Peruvian population. Commercially, the anchoveta is used to produce fishmeal for animal feed and, to a lesser extent, for human consumption. But it’s also an important source of nutrition for the fish, mammals and birds of the Humboldt Current, one of the most biodiverse cold-water ocean currents in the world. Two years ago, AIDA began collaborating with the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law and Earthjustice to recommend changes to Peruvian law that would ensure sustainable management of the anchoveta fishery. We’ve recently released a report in which we stress the importance of ecosystem management. Decisions about how much anchoveta to catch, and when, should take into account both the commercial fishing industry and the health of the Humboldt Current ecosystem. Here are the five most important reasons to promote ecosystem management of the Peruvian anchoveta fishery: 1. Species of mammals, fish and birds depend on the anchoveta for nourishment. Most marine predators of the Humboldt Current depend, to some extent, on the anchoveta. The small fish is food to Humboldt Penguins and other birds, marine mammals like sea lions, and other commercial fish, such as hake, horse mackerel and mackerel. Fishery management that considers the ecosystem as a whole will help to save not just the anchoveta, but the many species that depend on it as well. 2. The anchoveta population is at risk. The Peruvian anchoveta fishery has been on the verge of collapse. It has had to be closed twice: once in the early-1970s and once in the late-1990s. The lack of an adequate ecosystem management plan creates fluctuations in the anchoveta population. Continuing this way in a year with reduced populations could mean the collapse of the fishery. 3. More and better controls over what can be fished are needed. The demand for fish implies, increasingly, that more juvenile anchoveta are being captured before they have reached the age of reproduction. As a result, the anchoveta cannot replenish its population fast enough to keep up with harvests. 4. Comprehensive fisheries management plans do not exist. The laws that regulate the anchoveta fishery differ depending on whether the fish is for human consumption or will be used to produce by-products such as fishmeal and fish oils. A management plan that integrates both uses must be established to create a truly sustainable fishery that also takes into account the anchoveta’s relationship with other species. 5. Ecosystem management of the Peruvian anchoveta would set an example for other countries. The Peruvian anchoveta fishery is the largest in the world. Implementing institutional and regulatory reform to promote ecosystem management of the species would set a precedent for other countries in the region to improve their standards. Learn more I invite you to review the report (in Spanish). Now is the time to care for the little species that do a big job in our seas! The ocean knows no bounds and its relationships are complex. Ecosystem management of the anchoveta fishery will ensure that there will be enough fish to feed the needs of industry and maintain the ecological balance of the Humboldt Current.
Read more
On the occasion of World Wetlands Day, the President of Panama will approve a national law that bestows protected-area status on Panama Bay Wetland Wildlife Refuge.
Read moreObserving the UN Climate Negotiations is like entering another world. Governments, organizations and individuals advance their agendas, and all are discussed simultaneously: mitigation, adaptation, financing, Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), loss and damages, common but differentiated responsibilities, and many other matters. The common objective is making binding commitments to tackle climate change. As a member of AIDA’s team, together with my colleagues Andrea Rodríguez and Víctor Quintanilla, I participated last December in the 20th session of the Conference of Parties of the United Nationals Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 20) in Lima, Peru. Being there was an incredible learning experience. The Conference was two weeks of intense negotiations, even more so in the final days, intended to pave the way for the new binding climate agreement that will be adopted at the UN Climate Conference in Paris later this year. The result was the Lima Call for Climate Action, a document approved in overtime hours as an emergency measure so that the meeting did not conclude without an agreement. The document has been much written about, touted by some as a great success and by others as a failure. I would simply like to point out that a key point is missing from the Lima appeal: the recognition that climate change interferes with the enjoyment of human rights. Not for lack of trying. Mary Robinson, the former United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, who is now the Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, warned that climate change is "the greatest human rights issue of the 21st Century." Photo: Máximo Ba Tiul presents the case of the Santa Rita hydroelectric project in an event during the COP20. Credit: AIDA. Experts and UN rapporteurs have asked States that are part of the Framework Convention to include in the coming agreement specific language stating that all parties must, in all climate change related actions, promote, protect, respect and fulfill with the human rights of all people. These are the words written by 28 experts and special rapporteurs to the UN in an open letter sent on October 17, 2014. Also, more than 70 independent experts and UN special rapporteurs also called for this recognition on December 10, International Human Rights Day. AIDA and colleague organizations have been insisting not only that the new climate agreement should incorporate comprehensive and operative language on human rights, but also that the actions taken to mitigate climate change respect human rights. Amidst the technicalities and the negotiations, I saw the human face of climate change. During the Lima Conference, I met Máximo Ba Tiul, an indigenous Maya Poqomchi from Guatemala and the representative of the Tezulutlán Peoples Council. Máximo participated in a variety of activities during the Conference, carrying with him the message of the indigenous peoples affected by the Santa Rita dam, a project registered under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Convention. Through the Mechanism, industrialized countries may obtain carbon credits by implementing emission-reduction projects in developing countries. The problem is that many of these projects have caused human rights violations. For example, the Guatemalan government neither consulted with nor obtained the free, prior, and informed consent of the affected indigenous communities before authorizing Santa Rita. Furthermore, security forces have harassed communities that oppose the dam and charged opposition leaders as criminals. Violence and repression have escalated: a worker from the company murdered two children, David, 11, and Ageo, 13, in August 2013. In August 2014, the violence flared. More than a thousand state agents raided the area and attacked community members, among them pregnant women, the elderly, and children, who were all forced to flee. Photo: Machinery beginning the dredging of the Dolores River for the construction of the Santa Rita Dam at the end of 2011. Credit: Community Archive. The Santa Rita hydroelectric project has clearly led to human rights violations, which continue to this day. Crime, violence, and harassment remain unpunished. The project continues to hold its certification from the Clean Development Mechanism. Going public at one of the Conference events, Máximo asked: Why do you have to violate human rights to mitigate the effects of climate change? The only response: silence. Cases like Guatemala’s Santa Rita dam, emblematic of many projects registered under the Clean Development Mechanism, remind us of the urgent need to incorporate human rights protection into all climate actions. Human rights protection must be binding in the new climate agreement to be approved in Paris. Otherwise, the defense of communities’ rights will be another fight lost in the fight against climate change. The time is NOW. Tomorrow will be too late!
Read more
In the Gulf of Mexico, 27 coral reefs form a submarine mountain range that runs between six islands in an area stretching for miles. Hundreds of colorful fish species, sea urchins, starfish, and sea grasses share the reef with an abundance of other life forms. This is the magnificent Veracruz Reef, the largest coral ecosystem in the Gulf. Unfortunately, planned expansion of the Port of Veracruz, recently approved by the Mexican government, will damage the reef and harm the creatures that depend on it for survival. The project will also harm the nearby Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve, a jewel of Mexico’s Emerald Coast, because developers will mine it for rock to use in port construction. The environmental authority approved the port development in 2013, even though Mexico declared the Veracruz Reef System a National Protected Area in 1992. What’s more, Mexico is a party to the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty for the protection of wetlands of international importance—which includes the Veracruz Reef. Despite the reef’s recognized significance, the government has officially reduced the size of the protected area to make way for the larger port. "Now is a good time to call the attention of world leaders and diplomats to Mexico’s unsustainable actions," said AIDA legal advisor Sandra Moguel. Mexico is preparing to host the December 2016 Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, an international treaty to sustain the rich diversity of life on Earth. AIDA and the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA), representing 13 organizations and individuals, have sent a letter (in Spanish) to the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (The Secretariat is a neutral organization staffed by international civil servants, accountable to the Conference of Parties and its subsidiary bodies, and linked to the United Nations Environment Program.) The letter requests two things of the Secretariat: assess the harms that the expansion will cause, and ask Mexico to revoke project authorization because of the serious impact it will have on the diversity of life on the reef. "The manner in which the government has authorized this development project worries us," Moguel said. "Mexico has breached their international commitment to protect the rich biodiversity within its borders, particularly when it falls within natural protected areas." AIDA’s marine team has been working on similar cases in Mexico and throughout the region, gaining expertise in national and international laws that enable the protection of coral reefs. They have produced a report that synthesizes knowledge gained through years of such work, The Protection of Coral Reefs in Mexico: Rescuing Biodiversity and its Benefits to Mankind (in Spanish). "We want to interest and inform people working in wetlands protection," Moguel said. "There is a diverse array of legal tools at their disposal, which they may not be aware of," Moguel said. "In addition to describing our own legal work on this issue, we discuss the power of international treaties and commitments that nations must abide by." The report outlines the importance of coral reefs in the world—in Mexico in particular—explores case studies, outlines relevant international treaties and obligations, and looks to best practices from nations around the region for inspiration. AIDA Marine Senior Attorney Gladys Martínez said that reports such as these are intended to raise awareness of the legal means available to protect wetlands and to highlight the different methods that decision-makers can use. "AIDA selects emblematic cases like these of Mexico, to illustrate environmental problems that recur throughout the hemisphere," said Gladys Martínez. "The threats to the Veracruz Reef System are a sign of the urgent need for nations to take effective measures to protect coral reefs and comply with their international obligations." AIDA has launched a campaign to fund the marine program’s continued efforts to protect corals in the region. Our work will provide advocates and decision-makers with the practical resources, recommendations, and tools needed to improve coral reef protection. Your donation will directly support this work, and provide a brighter future for the brilliant array of life on the coral reefs of Latin America.
Read moreHydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is an unconventional form of extracting oil and gas. The technique requires drilling first vertically and then horizontally, and injecting a high-pressure mix of water, sand, and toxic chemicals. The injection fractures subsurface layers of shale, releasing the oil and gas contained within. Fracking has severe impacts on both the environment and human health: it contaminates surface and ground water sources, causes earthquakes and air pollution, and releases greenhouse gases, among other things. These effects have been documented in studies by the German Ministry of Environment, the US Government Accountability Office, the Canadian Council of Academies, and Anthony Ingraffea, a professor at Cornell University. On December 17, 2014 the Governor of New York announced the prohibition of fracking in the State because of the "significant health risks" posed by the practice.This argument stems from a two-year study conducted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which analyzed the impacts of fracking on human health and on air and water quality in communities throughout the state. The decision has been celebrated by environmental advocates and criticized by some investors who claim that it is denying the State economic benefits from the extractive industry. The debate over whether or not to permit fracking has been going on in other latitudes as well. In France, fracking was banned in 2011 by national law. After an oil company sued the government, the Constitutional Court upheld the ban in 2013. Bulgaria banned fracking in 2012, and Germany maintains a moratorium on the technique. Bans or moratoriums have also been issued by municipalities in the United States, Canada, Spain, Argentina, Switzerland, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Australia. Despite this international precedent, the Colombian government has promoted fracking. In 2008, the National Hydrocarbons Agency issued a study to identify the potential in unconventional hydrocarbons in the country. In 2012, the National Environmental Licensing Authority authorized a hydraulic fracturing project in Boyacá. That year, the Comptroller General of the Republic issued just one warning recommending that companies "take into account the precautionary principle regarding the latent risk hydraulic fracturing poses to environmental heritage through the possible contamination of groundwater and surface water sources, geological risk, and the risk to public health and nearby urban centers." In January 2015, in a special performance-monitoring warning, the Comptroller found that the State had not adopted the necessary measures. By the end of 2012, the Colombian government began creating a regulatory framework for fracking in Colombia. They contracted international experts to regulate and identify the impacts of the technique. An investigation by independent news site La Silla Vacía has found that several of these experts are linked to the oil industry. The Ministry of Mines and the National Hydrocarbons Agency then issued legal instruments that would serve as the framework for the start of fracking in the country. Francisco José Lloreda, president of the Colombian Petroleum Association, publicly stated that without fracking “we would have a fiscal catastrophe” within six or seven years. And the Minister of Mines, Tomás González, said that fracking is needed to finance the country’s peace process. Even before fracking began in Colombia, various sectors issued warnings. In August 2014, AIDA publicly urged (in Spanish) the government to apply the precautionary principle and prevent the serious and irreversible consequences of fracking. Later, in September, the National Environmental Forum and other organizations requested a conditional moratorium on fracking in Colombia. Additionally, Housing Minister Luis Felipe Henao voiced concern about the effect fracking would have on the water supply. He said, "To me, as Minister of Water, fracking scares me.… When you see what is happening in Santa Marta, you realize that one can invest a lot in pipes, but if you don’t have clean water supplies, you won’t do much more than carry air through them." From all these arguments, the obvious question arises: Why is fracking – which has been prohibited or restricted in various countries and municipalities – being promoted by the Colombian government? The most apparent response is that it will increase extraction of hydrocarbons and, as a consequence, the revenues of government and private industry. What government and industry do not see is that no amount of revenue is great enough to offset the social and environmental impacts of fracking, or of the possible new conflicts that may arise because of its effects on water resources. We have seen nationally (Guajira and Arauca) and internationally (Los Angeles and San Paulo) that without drinkable water, a successful economy,and even life itself are not feasible.
Read more
The report contains recommendations for the legal and institutional reforms needed to manage the fishery while caring for the needs of the ecosystem as a whole.
Read more
A guide detailing the comprehensive analysis that must be completed for any Environmental Impact Assessment of a proposed mining project.
Read moreThe 20th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP20) was held this month in Lima, Peru, with the goal of drafting a new climate agreement, to be signed in Paris in 2015. The conference, however, concluded with an unimpressive draft agreement that failed in two key tasks: providing certainty about funding to combat climate change, and including human rights protections in climate actions. For AIDA and other civil society organizations, it was important that the Lima agreement lay out a roadmap for how and when governments will fulfill their commitment to provide 100 billion dollars per year by 2020 to finance mitigation activities and adaptation to climate change. "Developing countries need to know with certainty how much money they have and what the source of it will be, so they can plan their fight against climate change," said Andrea Rodriguez, a senior attorney for AIDA. The Conference provided no such certainty. This is evidenced by the decision made on the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), which left out finance and adaptation—key aspects to the countries most vulnerable to extreme changes in climate. The INDCs decision was meant to contain specific information on the scope, format, timeframe and assessment. Instead it included only contributions for mitigation, without stating whether or not they will be compulsory. During the conference, AIDA and global allied organizations encouraged State Parties to ensure the draft of the new agreement include specific language on the protection, promotion, respect for, and observance of human rights in all climate actions. As a result of the collective effort, the Philippines, Mexico, and Ghana made specific calls for the draft and final agreements to include such references. "There is no doubt that climate change interferes with the enjoyment of human rights. The agreement in Lima includes no reference to human rights, but we will work hard to ensure their full inclusion in the Paris agreement, not only in words, but also in deed," said María José Veramendi Villa, an AIDA senior attorney. Yet it was not all bad. AIDA drew attention to the new pledges that had arrived to the Green Climate Fund, which brought its total funding to 10.2 billion dollars. We highlighted the momentum in Latin America that contributed to that achievement, with countries such as Peru, Colombia, Mexico and Panama making the effort to contribute, despite their status as developing countries. "Although all contributions are welcome, it is important to emphasize that the amount collected so far does not yet cover the financing needs of developing countries," Rodriguez stated. The conference also made public the climate finance actions of governmental and nongovernmental actors in the region. The Climate Finance Day organized by AIDA and allied organizations facilitated a dialogue on regional progress in preparing for accessing resources, the increasing involvement of the private sector in fighting climate change, and the conditions that such support requires—legal certainty being one of them. Also that day, civil society shared their experiences with transparency and accountability, which are essential not only to obtain greater resources, but also to ensure their effective use. AIDA reported on the opportunity the Green Climate Fund provides for countries of the continent to improve public participation in the design, development, and implementation of policies and climate projects. Much remains to be done to find effective solutions to climate change. We will continue contributing to the achievement of this goal!
Read more