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
Mexican environmental authority violates Mexico’s highest court and international obligations when reissuing a permit for a port expansion that threatens the Veracruz Reef System
In a legal brief, AIDA and Earthjustice argue the Secretary of the Environment failed to properly evaluate the environmental impact of the project to the reef, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, as required by Mexico’s highest court. Mexico City, Mexico – Today, AIDA (Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense) and Earthjustice filed a brief with the Fifth District Court of Veracruz to help protect the Veracruz Reef System from the Veracruz port expansion project. When reauthorizing the project, the Secretary of the Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) not only failed to comply with a ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, but also ignored Mexico’s international obligations regarding environmental protection and human rights, including the human right to a healthy environment guaranteed in the Mexican Constitution. This was demonstrated by AIDA and Earthjustice in a legal brief (Amicus Curiae or "Friend of the Court") filed before the Fifth District Court of Veracruz. In it they request that the court -- which is in charge of determining whether the Supreme Court’s ruling was complied with or not -- establish contempt and force Semarnat to re-examine the project based on the environmental impact assessment procedure required by the high court. "The authorities must comply with the Supreme Court ruling and protect this internationally-recognized natural treasure of Mexico. The human right to a healthy environment cannot be ignored," said Guillermo Zúñiga, a Veracruz native and Earthjustice attorney. "The reef not only hosts the greatest biodiversity of species in the central region of the Gulf of Mexico, but also helps mitigate the impact of storm surges and hurricanes. The people who grew up here, as I did, and who live here now, know the value of this sanctuary where land and sea harmonize in unity." On February 9, 2022, residents of Veracruz won a victory before the Supreme Court in an amparo action filed to defend the Veracruz Reef System -- the largest reef in the Gulf of Mexico -- and its environmental services against the Veracruz port expansion project. The Supreme Court ordered the revocation of the permits by determining that Semarnat, by approving the project, violated the right to a healthy environment of the people of Veracruz. Despite the ecological, cultural, and economic importance of the Veracruz Reef System, the environmental authority had authorized the port expansion in a fragmented way, dividing the project into 15 permits and diluting its true impact. In addition, it completely excluded from its analysis a non-emerging reef ("La Loma") located in the area of the Veracruz Reef System National Park. In its ruling, the Supreme Court ordered the environmental authority to reevaluate the project in an integral, holistic and complete manner. In addition, it ordered that the new evaluation be made in accordance with the elements that make up the right to a healthy environment, as well as the principles of prevention and precaution, enshrined in international law. It also requested the support of the National Council of Natural Protected Areas and the International Wetlands Committee of the Ramsar Convention to design a protection scheme for the Veracruz Reef System. "Right now, the court has the opportunity to confirm the transformative effect of the Supreme Court's ruling and set a valuable precedent for the real protection, not just on paper, of Veracruz's reefs and the universal right to a healthy environment," said Sandra Moguel, an attorney with AIDA's Ecosystems Program. "Including the international authorities of the Ramsar Convention would mean strengthening the project's environmental impact assessment with technical knowledge and transparency." As demonstrated in the brief, by granting a second permit to the project -- on December 30, 2022 -- Semarnat failed to comply with the Court's ruling and the Mexican State's obligations because: It did not require a new environmental impact study -- mandatory for projects of this size under international law and national legislation -- to analyze the cumulative impacts of all segments of the original project. On the contrary, the environmental authority based its assessment on the original deficient statements. Even so, it left three of the original segments out of its analysis. It failed to submit its new assessment to a public consultation nor did publish new information on the impacts of the project before authorizing it again. In this way, it ignored the rights of the people of Veracruz to public participation and access to information in environmental decision-making. Semarnat has not yet requested the support of the National Council of Natural Protected Areas or the International Wetlands Committee. The participation of this committee is of particular importance due to its experience and technical knowledge in the protection of protected areas and wetlands. The Veracruz Reef System is a Natural Protected Area designated under national legislation, a wetland of international importance under the international Ramsar Convention, and a UNESCO World Heritage Site. AIDA is an international non-profit organization that has been protecting the human right to a healthy environment in the Americas for 25 years. Earthjustice is the premier nonprofit public interest environmental law organization in the United States. We wield the power of law and the strength of partnership to protect people's health, to preserve magnificent places and wildlife, to advance clean energy, and to combat climate change. press contacts Sandra Moguel, AIDA, [email protected] (Spanish and English) Kathryn McGrath, Earthjustice, [email protected] (English) Guillermo Zúñiga, Earthjustice, [email protected] (Spanish)
Read more
A healthy environment: what is this universal right?
The triple crisis facing the world highlights the importance of guaranteeing the right of all people to live in a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. Climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution are among the greatest threats to humanity today, seriously affecting the exercise and enjoyment of human rights. It’s enough to mention just a few examples: Air pollution is one of the main environmental threats to health, causing seven million premature deaths each year. In 2021, more than 38 million people were displaced from their homes due to climate-related disasters. These and other impacts disproportionately affect individuals, groups and communities who are already in a situation of vulnerability. For women, for example, environmental degradation means the reinforcement of pre-existing inequalities and situations of discrimination in matters such as access to and tenure of land and natural resources. Children, for their part, suffer more intense impacts due to their less developed physiology and immune systems. And for indigenous and traditional peoples, the defense of their territories and livelihoods in the face of environmental damage represents serious threats, even to their lives. But what is the right to a healthy environment? Components of the right to a healthy environment The right to a healthy environment is increasingly included in constitutions, laws and regional justice systems. Although the definitions vary, the essence is the same. The general understanding is that to make it a reality requires two basic types of elements: Substantive elements Clean air. A safe and stable climate. Access to clean water and adequate sanitation. Healthy and sustainably produced food. Non-toxic environments in which to live, work, study and play. Biodiversity and healthy ecosystems. Procedural elements Access to information. Public participation in decision-making. Access to justice and effective remedy. The realization of this right also requires international cooperation, solidarity and equity in environmental actions (including the mobilization of resources), as well as the recognition of extraterritorial jurisdiction in damages to human rights caused by environmental degradation. Dimensions and qualities The right to a healthy environment has both a collective and an individual dimension. Under the former, it constitutes a universal interest owed to both present and future generations. The individual dimension implies that violating this right can have direct and indirect repercussions on individuals due to its indivisible and interdependent relationship with other rights, such as the right to health, personal integrity or life, among others. As the Inter-American Court of Human Rights concluded, given that environmental degradation can cause irreparable harm to people, a healthy environment "is a fundamental right for the existence of humanity.” It is also an autonomous right that protects the components of the environment (forests, rivers, seas and others) as legal interests in themselves, even in the absence of certainty or evidence of risk to people. The autonomous nature of this right and its interconnection with other rights entails a series of obligations for the States, which include to: Prevent significant environmental damage; which implies regulating, supervising and overseeing activities that may generate risk or cause damage to the environment. Carry out environmental impact studies, establish contingency plans and mitigate damages. Act in accordance with the precautionary principle in the face of possible serious or irreversible damage to the environment, affecting the rights to life and personal integrity, even in the absence of scientific certainty. Cooperate with other States in good faith for protection against significant environmental damage. Guarantee access to information on possible environmental impacts. Guarantee the right to public participation in scenarios that may affect the environment and guarantee access to justice. Given the urgent need for new and better ways to protect the environment, the United Nations’ recognition of a healthy environment as a universal human right on July 28, 2022 marked a historic step forward in the long and complex process of guaranteeing this right in practice, which has been part of AIDA's history since its inception. At AIDA, we’ve long worked to highlight the link between a healthy environment and other human rights. And we’re committed to fulfilling our mission: to strengthen the capacity of the people in Latin America to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment.
Read more
When the energy transition isn’t just: The case of Quintero and Puchuncaví in Chile
By Cristina Lux and Florencia Ortúzar * The energy transition in Chile will inevitably occur. In fact, it is already underway. The country doesn’t have large deposits of fossil fuels, but it does have abundant renewable energy resources. It only makes sense, then, that prior dependence on coal should naturally shift to the sun, wind and other renewable sources. Today, after decades of struggle by local communities, the closure of Chile’s original 28 coal-fired thermoelectric power plants is underway as part of the Decarbonization Plan promoted by the government in 2019. Eight have closed, six others have a future closure date, six more are in the process of establishing one, and eight do not yet have a closure plan. If the government and private actors deliver as promised, the thermoelectric plants as a whole should close before 2040, freeing Chile from the energy derived from burning coal. But the history of coal dependence will undoubtedly leave a deep mark. For many years, Chile obtained more than 50 percent of its energy from thermoelectric plants, all located in just five locations, known as "sacrifice zones." The people who live in those areas have long suffered at the expense of generating electricity for the rest of the country. The story of one of the most emblematic of Chile’s sacrifice zones, the bay of Quintero and Puchuncaví, demonstrates why the transition not only must occur, but why it has to be just. A beautiful seaside resort battered by pollution With a little more than 40 thousand inhabitants, the bay of Quintero and Puchuncaví is located two hours by road from the country's capital. The families there have historically lived from agriculture, artisanal fishing and tourism, ways of life that have been extinguished by the relentless advance of intensive industrial activity. Photo: Claudia Pool / @claudiapool_foto / www.claudiapool.com Today, the site is home to more than 30 different companies: a coal-fired thermoelectric complex, gas-fired thermoelectric plants, a copper refinery and a petroleum refinery, a regasification port, a cement plant, ports that receive coal and other fuels, as well as coal and ash storage centers, among others. Public information regarding the emissions of this mix of companies is deficient and the lack of regulations governing them is abysmal. In fact, only a few pollutants are regulated. The rest are not even measured, despite the fact that several are dangerous to human health. And so, paradoxically, the monitoring stations show normal levels as people are being intoxicated in the streets and schools. In the bay there are often mass poisonings of adults and youth, many of whom end up in the hospital. In these cases, schools are closed, but businesses are not, and the wind is monitored to activate protocols in case of poor ventilation. The blame is placed on the lack of wind instead of on those responsible for the pollution. It’s also common to see coal deposits on the beaches, which stain the sands. In 2022 alone, more than 100 episodes were recorded. It’s alarming how the situation affects local children, who are particularly vulnerable to pollution due to its effects on human development. The impact on women is also disproportionate, as they are the first to be forced to leave their jobs to care for sick family members since they bear the brunt of the care work. Things have not been done well in this beautiful coastal area. Today, new projects and the expansion of industrial operations continue to be approved. But the community is rising up, demanding a truce for this area. It is time to move towards ecological restoration in Quintero and Puchuncaví. Signs of hope Some recent events are giving hope that things could improve in the bay and that this area, which for years has been sacrificed in favor of the rest of the country, could once again show its beautiful beaches and wonderful fishing and agricultural resources to Chile and the world. Although the situation is not yet cause for celebration, some things seem to be moving in the right direction. One important step was the environmental damages lawsuit filed in 2016 by local communities against the government and all the companies in the industrial corridor. The process has been long, but a final judgment is expected soon. Meanwhile, in 2019, the Supreme Court resolved several appeals for protection for episodes of mass intoxications, giving reason to the communities and issuing a landmark ruling, perhaps the most important on environmental matters in Chile. The ruling orders the State to comply with 15 measures to identify the sources of contamination and repair the environmental situation in the area. Sadly, this ruling has not yet been properly implemented. Moving forward, the Supreme Court recently issued three rulings that refer to non-compliance with the 2019 ruling and provide tools to enforce compliance. Also, two of the four thermoelectric plants of the U.S.-owned AES Andes have closed operations in the bay. Two remain. Finally, in May, after 58 years of operation, the furnaces and boiler of the Ventanas Smelter were finally shut down. Thus, the icon of pollution in the area—a 158-meter chimney that consistently expelled pollutants—ceased to operate. The search for justice is far from over Despite the good signs, there is still no secure future for the people of Quintero and Puchuncaví. That’s why we must continue to demand justice and a transition that protects the most vulnerable people. Photo: Claudia Pool / @claudiapool_foto / www.claudiapool.com Although two of the four AES Andes thermoelectric plants operating in the bay have closed, the companies that owned them have been granted "strategic reserve status," whereby they are paid to remain available to operate again if required. On the other hand, although the copper smelter of the state-owned Corporación Nacional del Cobre closed, the refinery continues to operate in the area. There was a relocation plan for the workers, but no remediation plan for the communities that for almost six decades breathed the toxic waste of that industry. In addition, projects continue to be approved without the participation of the communities. This is the case of the Aconcagua desalination plant, which intends to desalinate water to transport it through subway pipes over 100 km to supply the Angloamerican mining company. Last but not least, decarbonization in Chile seems to bring an increase in the use of gas, which has been falsely labeled as a "transition fuel." It’s expected that gas activity in the area—which hosts one of the country's two LNG (liquefied natural gas) regasification ports—could intensify and, with it, so could its environmental impacts. Chile has the opportunity to set an example of just transition Chile, located at the end of the continent, has the opportunity to do things right. There are indications they’re moving in the right direction; the only thing missing is the political will to change course. The region of Quintero and Puchuncaví deserves the opportunity to shine again and to reach its full potential as a colorful coastal town and seaside resort with an identity rooted in agriculture, tourism and artisanal fishing. In this case, a truly just transition must include the closure of polluting companies that are making people sick. But it must also involve the participation of those people affected, putting the respect of their human rights at the forefront—a respect that was so diminished over the last six decades. The injustice that has weighed on the territory and its inhabitants must be recognized—establishing reparation mechanisms, ensuring non-repetition, and involving the people themselves in the environmental recovery of the area. Only in this way will the communities recover their capacity for agency—that power to decide and to be part of the decisions that affect them—which was taken away from them so many years ago. *Cristina Lux is an attorney with AIDA's Climate Program and Florencia Ortúzar is a senior attorney with AIDA.
Read more