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
Plan Colombia Aerial Herbicide Spraying Not Proved Safe for the Environment – Released to US Congress
For Immediate Release February 14, 2007 CONTACTS: Anna Cederstav, AIDA (510) 550-6700 [email protected] Astrid Puentes, AIDA (5255) 52120141 [email protected] PLAN COLOMBIA AERIAL HERBICIDE SPRAYING NOT PROVEN SAFE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT Critique of recent studies by international environmental NGO released to Congress today OAKLAND, CA, MÉXICO, D.F. - In December, the Colombian government violated a bilateral accord with Ecuador by spraying a mixture of herbicides intended to destroy coca crops within 10 kilometers of the Ecuadorian border. To justify the spraying, Colombia relied on studies by a team from the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD) of the Organization of American States (OAS), claiming that the spray mixture is safe. However, an independent review of CICAD’s recent studies, released to members of the U.S. Congress today, shows that the pesticide mixture being sprayed has not, in fact, been proven safe for the environment, and that Ecuador has substantial cause to oppose the spraying. According to the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the first CICAD Environmental and Human Health Assessment of the Aerial Spray Program for Coca and Poppy Control in Colombia, released in 2005, did not assess many of the greatest potential ecological and human health risks posed by the aerial eradication program in Colombia. Because of these omissions and the potential environmental risk of the spraying, the U.S. Congress requested further studies to better assess whether the mixture is truly safe for the environment. Preliminary results from the follow-up studies, released in August 2006, show that the mixture is indeed potentially harmful to the environment, and particularly to amphibians – the spray mixture killed 50 percent of the amphibians exposed in less than 96 hours. According to Earthjustice scientist and AIDA’s Program Director Anna Cederstav, “Contrary to what is argued by the government, this study shows sufficient cause for concern to suspend the sprayings due to potential environmental impacts, especially considering that Colombia has the second highest amphibian biodiversity in the world and the most threatened amphibian species.” Many other key questions about the environmental impacts of the spraying also remain unanswered, despite the U.S. Congressional mandate to conduct the studies. For example, the State Department has not provided adequate information about the location of and risk to sensitive water bodies and has done nothing to address whether other threatened species are likely to be harmed. Without these determinations, the claim by the Colombian government that it is safe to spray along the Ecuadorian border is misinformed. “Given the number of unanswered questions about the safety of the spraying, and considering the precautionary principle and the international obligation not to cause impacts to the territories of other States, the Colombian government should halt spraying immediately, and instead implement more effective and environmentally safe alternatives for coca eradication,” said Astrid Puentes, AIDA’s Legal Director.
Read moreAIDA critical of Colombian spraying in Ecuadorian border region
AIDA critical of Colombian spraying in Ecuadorian border region The Colombian government is violating a bilateral accord with Ecuador by spraying a mixture of herbicides intended to destroy coca crops within 10 kilometers of the Ecuadorian border. Colombia is relying on studies by a team from the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD) of the Organization of American States (OAS) to claim that the spray mixture is safe. AIDA’s independent review of CICAD's recent studies, however, shows that the pesticide mixture being sprayed has not, in fact, been proven safe for the environment, and that Ecuador has substantial cause to oppose the sprayings. The first CICAD Environmental and Human Health Assessment of the Aerial Spray Program for Coca and Poppy Control in Colombia, released in 2005, did not assess many of the greatest potential ecological and human health risks posed by the aerial eradication program in Colombia. The U.S. Congress requested further studies to determine whether the mixture is truly harmful to the environment. Preliminary results from the follow-up studies, released in August 2006, show that the mixture is indeed potentially harmful to the environment, and particularly to amphibians – the spray mixture killed 50 percent of the amphibians exposed within 96 hours. Additionally, the State Department has not provided adequate information about the location of and risk to sensitive water bodies and has done nothing to address whether other threatened species are likely to be harmed. Without these determinations, any claim by the Colombian government that the spray mixture is safe enough to spray along the Ecuadorian border is misinformed.
Read moreAIDA Calls for Alternative Development Programs in Colombia
AIDA Report Highlights Need for Alternative Programs in Colombia After six years of spraying herbicides over large areas of the Colombian countryside under "Plan Colombia," the aerial spraying program has failed to meet the goal of eliminating 50 percent of illicit crops in this country. Despite an investment of nearly US$1.2 billion, and the spraying of more than four times the initial area of coca crops, coca cultivation in Colombia continues, at nearly the same levels as when the program originated. Meanwhile, the spraying continues to cause severe social impacts and pose unknown environmental risk. AIDA has prepared a report analyzing some of the participatory, sustainable, alternative development programs that have proven more effective than aerial spraying. The report recommends that the U.S. and Colombian governments reevaluate the current policy and substantially increase support for such alternatives. The report highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to the problem of illegal crop cultivation, with a strategy that addresses the root-causes of the problem. The report provides detailed information and an analysis of five programs implemented by different actors, all of which can serve as models or provide lessons learned for new programs. Although improvements can still be made, alternative development programs have yielded concrete, positive results and have been far more cost-effective than the spraying program.
Read more