Project
Foto: Andrés ÁngelStopping the spread of fracking in Latin America
“Fracking” is short for hydraulic fracturing, a process used to extract oil and natural gas from historically inaccessible reservoirs.
Fracking is already widespread in the global North, but in Latin America, it is just beginning. Governments are opening their doors to fracking without understanding its impacts and risks, and without consulting affected communities. Many communities are organizing to prevent or stop the impacts of fracking, which affect their fundamental human rights. But in many cases they require legal and technical support.
What exactly is fracking, and what are its impacts?
A straight hole is drilled deep into the earth. Then the drill curves and bores horizontally, making an L-shaped hole. Fracking fluid—a mixture of water, chemicals, and sand—is pumped into the hole at high pressure, fracturing layers of shale rock above and below the hole. Gas or oil trapped in the rock rises to the surface along with the fracking fluid.
The chemical soup—now also contaminated with heavy metals and even radioactive elements from underground—is frequently dumped into unlined ponds. It may seep into aquifers and overflow into streams, poisoning water sources for people, agriculture, and livestock. Gas may also seep from fractured rock or from the well into aquifers; as a result, water flowing from household taps can be lit on fire. Other documented harms include exhausted freshwater supplies (for all that fracking fluid), air pollution from drill and pump rigs, large methane emissions that aggravate global warming, earthquakes, and health harms including cancer and birth defects.
AIDA’s report on fracking (available in Spanish) analyzes the viability of applying the precautionary principle as an institutional tool to prevent, avoid or stop hydraulic fracturing operations in Latin America.
Partners:
Related projects
Mandela: lessons in tribal leadership to effectively protect the environment
“It always seems impossible until it becomes reality.” —Nelson Mandela Nelson Mandela died one month ago. Much has been written about him since then, and he has been globally honored like none other. Despite possible year-end amnesia and at the risk of sounding cliché, I am writing this post in his honor. I’m particularly interested in highlighting four leadership qualities Mandela possessed, and pointing out how those same qualities can help us be more effective environment defenders. Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela was born in Qunu, a Xhosa community in the state of Transkei, in the southeastern part of South Africa. Mandela’s birth name Rolihlahla means “troublemaker,” in the Xhosa language. But a schoolteacher began calling him Nelson, according to the custom of calling children by their English, rather than African, names. Another of Mandela’s names—Dalibunga (or founder of the bunga)—was given to him during a traditional initiation ceremony at the age of 16. He was also called Madiba, a name given by his tribe in honor of a Tembu chief who ruled during the 18th Century. According to tradition, Mandela was destined to be an advisor to the Tembu king. But he ended up being a leader far beyond the borders of the Transkei region, and changed the world even beyond South Africa. He was a leader of reconciliation and compromise. He had an enormous capacity for forgiveness and an ability work peacefully with, rather than seek revenge against, those who oppressed his people for centuries, and imprisoned him for 27 years. In what follows, I’d like to discuss four characteristics that Mandela exemplified. If we emulate these qualities, we can, like Mandela, help make the world a freer and more just place. 1. Values and a common cause as an absolute guide to decisions “There is no easy walk to freedom anywhere, and many of us will have to pass through the valley of the shadow of death again and again before we reach the mountaintop of our desires.” Mandela lived according to his values. He had the goal of ending apartheid and securing freedom for himself and his people. His desire for freedom guided each of his actions, including after he succeeded in ending apartheid in his country. Over the decades of his struggle, including more than a quarter century in prison, there were undoubtedly moments of despair and fear in which other people would have given up hope. Mandela and his colleagues, however, persisted. The cause that united them was greater than their individual will, and stronger than even Mandela himself. Although we cannot compare our work to the struggle against apartheid, we have indeed made important progress by rallying behind a common cause. One recent victory, in 2011, was a change in the Mexican Constitution in favor human rights. It would not have been possible without the joint work of our partner organizations, academia, and the Office of the High Commissioner of Mexico. 2. Conscientious, disciplined, committed and coherent “Running taught me valuable lessons. In cross-country competitions, training counted more than intrinsic ability, and I could compensate for a lack of natural aptitude with diligence and discipline. I applied this in everything I did.” Persistence and discipline were qualities that made a big difference for Mandela in reaching his goals. His commitment to every challenge, his clarity, and even his limitless stubbornness still manage to surprise us. His success was not achieved through supernatural powers, nor was there a single moment in which everything magically changed. On the contrary, Mandela’s achievements were a consequence of a life dedicated to study, work, and learning. He was constantly listening to others, building strategies, and rethinking them in order to achieve his goals. He made mistakes and bad decisions, but also had successes that collectively helped achieve his dream of freedom. Sometimes we feel that the results are impossible. In fact, they are, if we’re trying to reach them immediately. At AIDA, we have learned this in the case of La Oroya, in which we have had to be persistent and disciplined in order to achieve lasting results. With the people of La Oroya we have worked for change for 15 years, and we will continue until we achieve it. 3. All on the same side — there is no good vs. bad “If you want to make peace with your enemy, you should work with your enemy. Then he will become your partner.” I often wonder where South Africa would be if Mandela and his colleagues had not reached small agreements, if they had not overcome their many differences and moved forward. Moreover, what would have happened in that country if they had not been able to transcend hatred toward their oppressors in order to find peaceful and coordinated solutions? Surely, the outcome would have been a civil war with unimaginable consequences. One element that avoided such a catastrophe was Mandela’s constant ability to find solutions, reach agreements, maintain dialogue, and demand concrete results toward real change. No doubt, the process was not easy, quick, or smooth. But perseverance, clear goals, a desire to reach consensus, and the ability to find interlocutors made even the most complicated situations possible. When I think of our job of protecting the environment, I realize how much we lack and the great opportunity that lies before us. For example, instead of competing with colleagues at other organizations, or trying to defeat governments or corporations, we should remember that we are all working toward solutions to a common goal. The lure of “winning” and seeing others lose is powerful. But, surely, we will gain more if we work with our “enemies” and become partners instead. 4. A step back in celebration, a step forward in times of peril “It is better to lead from behind, and put others to the front, especially in celebration when good things occur. You step forward when there is danger. Then, people will appreciate your leadership.” Leadership is very different from being a dictator or a strongman. A person who is a true leader allows and encourages others to grow, develop and evolve in order to reach a common goal, even if they shine more than their bosses. Mandela was conscious of being a symbol so that everyone in South Africa could be free and treated as equals. Many times, he put that role above his own self-interest. On more than one occasion, Mandela had the possibility of improving his prison conditions or of obtaining early release. Instead, he chose to stay imprisoned because he believed that the conditions to dismantle apartheid were not met, and that the unjust system would not change if he were released. “Real leaders must be ready to sacrifice everything for the freedom of their people.” Sadly, contrary to what Mandela said, many “leaders” jump at the chance to receive medals, but have difficulty taking responsibility for the mistakes or shortcomings of their team. We must remember that the type of leadership that Mandela embodied can accomplish miracles. It translates into actions that allow changes no one would have thought possible—the fall of apartheid, for example, or a simple handshake between President Obama and Raul Castro, a symbol of reconciliation that took place at Mandela’s funeral. So, dear leaders, have a happy 2014! I invite you to consider these leadership skills and put them into practice. For your success, and for the survival of our planet!
Read moreMexican government breaches international commitments to put Veracruz Reef System at risk
Organizations denounce the incident to the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty for the protection of wetlands. By modifying the boundaries of the coral reef national park, the federal government is seeking to expand the Port of Veracruz. Mexico City, Mexico. Civil society organizations have denounced to international bodies that Mexico’s government intends to modify the boundaries of the Veracruz Coral Reef System National Park, known as PNSAV in its Spanish acronym, in order to expand the Port of Veracruz. This violates the government’s commitment to preserve and protect a wetland of global importance. Mexico’s Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) authorized the port expansion project on December 19, 2013. In response, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA) – with support from the Veracruz Assembly of Environmental Initiatives and Defense (LAVIDA), Pobladores A.C., Paths and Meetings for Sustainable Development (SENDAS), Litiga OLE, Pronatura Veracruz and the doctor and researcher Leonardo Ortíz Lozano – filed with the Ramsar Secretariat a report on the federal government’s failure to comply with that international treaty. The Veracruz Reef System was declared a Protected Natural Area (PNA) in 1992 with the aim of protecting the human right to a healthy environment. In 2004, it was registered as a wetland of international importance on the Ramsar List. While Mexico can modify the boundaries of sites on the Ramsar List, this must be done in accordance with the grounds and procedures identified in the Ramsar Convention. However, the federal government intends to modify the area of the PNSAV, contradicting to its own actions and acting in breach of the principle of law. [1] According to public information secured from the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas (Conanp) [2], the Mexican government based its decision to amend the boundaries of the PNSAV on a so-called error clause contained in Resolution VIII.22. This clause can only be invoked when there are changes in the ecological characteristics stemming from the degradation of part of a wetland. The federal government has yet to scientifically prove that there have been any ecological changes to the detriment of the wetland. Of note, it is questionable that the Conanp decided to notify the Ramsar Convention Secretariat of the alleged error on the eve of the Semarnat’s authorization of the Port of Veracruz expansion. Another legal way to change the boundaries of Ramsar sites is if there is "urgent national interest," as contained in Resolution VIII.20. This requires a prior environmental assessment and a consultation with all stakeholders, something that has not yet happened. "The federal government is determined to illegally change the polygonal of the PNSAV every time that it is not legally possible to proceed according to the procedures established by the Ramsar Convention," said Sandra Moguel, an AIDA legal adviser. "The polygonal change and the environmental impact authorization of the proposed expansion of the Port of Veracruz are unilateral decisions by the federal government in which the arguments of the affected peoples were not taken into account," she added. The Mexican government is violating the Ramsar Convention, and hence its international obligations on the conservation of a wetland of international importance. If the amendment to the PNSAV goes through, the government will hurt the right of Mexicans – and the people of Veracruz, in particular – to a healthy environment. Because of this, AIDA and the other civil society organizations requested the Ramsar Convention Secretariat to consider as unacceptable the proposed reduction of the PNSAV’s boundaries. We also requested that these proposed changes be discussed at Ramsar’s next Conference of the Contracting Parties to be held in Uruguay in 2015. Editor's notes: 1. According to this general principle of law, the authority can only do what is expressly mandated by law. 2. Information request 1615100033713.
Read more
Environmental Impact Assessments Necessary for Informed Consent
In January 2009, Muriel Mining Corporation moved into the department of Chocó, Colombia to launch Mandé Norte, a project for the exploration and development of copper, gold, molybdenum and other minerals. The US-based company began the project without proper consultation, and without the free, prior and informed consent of the local ethnic groups that would be directly affected by the mines. Consultation with the affected communities did not begin until 2006, a year after the company was awarded the mining contract. What's more, several of the affected communities were not invited to participate in the consultation process, and those that participated were not represented by traditional authorities. Then, despite serious objections raised by Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities, the consultation process was concluded in August 2008. This project took place during a difficult period of Colombia’s armed conflict.The Inter-Church Commission for Justice and Peace, a Colombian human rights group, filed a legal action for protection against the mining project. AIDA contributed to the action by submitting an argument (in Spanish) demonstrating that without an adequate environmental impact assessment to analyze the project's social and environmental impacts, the affected communities would have no basis to give or deny consent, as required by international law. The Colombian Constitutional Court ruled on the case in the T-769 Sentence of 2009 (in Spanish), ordering the suspension of exploration and production activities and the awarding of licenses for the project. It also ordered a new consultation to meet both national and international standards, and required the completion of accurate environmental impact studies. AIDA has prepared a summary sheet (in Spanish) to make it easier to understand the sentence. The ruling in this case set a key precedent by incorporating and recognizing, for the first time, the right of ethnic groups to free, prior and informed consent. It was a breakthrough in the recognition of the rights of ethnic groups in Colombia. Both the Ministry of the Interior and the mining company sought an annulment of the constitutional sentence. But AIDA intervened (in Spanish) to defend the sentence against the annulment requests, as did the Colombian Commission of Jurists (in Spanish), Dejusticia (in Spanish), Harvard and Diego Portales (in Spanish). These efforts paid off. On March 12, 2012, the Constitutional Court upheld its decision (in Spanish) on Mandé Norte. Without this ruling, the mining project would have had serious social and environmental impacts on the biodiverse region of Chocó, damaging crop animals, rivers and the mountain of Caraperro, long considered by indigenous peoples to be a sacred site. The project would have both physically and culturally harmed the local indigenous peoples, and would have caused the deterioration of traditional economies. At AIDA, we work to defend the right to a healthy environment and the protect human rights of communities and ethnic groups against powerful interests. Follow us on Twitter: @AIDAorg "Like" our page on Facebook: www.facebook.com/AIDAorg
Read more