Project
Victory: Court ends the “lawful” killing of endangered green sea turtles
In February of 1999, the Constitutional Court in Costa Rica declared an end to the "lawful" killing of endangered green sea turtles. The ruling is an important victory for the green sea turtle and potentially other species left vulnerable by their host countries.
Costa Rica has the privilege and responsibility of being a haven for one of the largest remaining populations of this endangered species of marine turtle in the Atlantic Ocean. Every two or three years, female green sea turtles, many of which are decades old, slowly plod from their ocean homes to nest on a 35 kilometer long beach between the Tortuguero and Parismina River.
Costa Rica, rather than fully protecting these ancient guests, previously had a law allowing for the capture and slaughter of almost two thousand green sea turtles annually. Unfortunately, poachers exploited the law to kill many more than the legal limit, with the survival of the sea turtles jeopardized.
In response to inaction by the Costa Rican government, and to safeguard the survival of the green sea turtle, AIDA worked through its partner organization CEDARENA to file suit and challenge the law.
In the law suit, AIDA and CEDARENA argued that the law violated the Costa Rican constitutional guarantee of an environment that is healthy and “in ecological equilibrium.” We presented hard evidence of the hidden impact of the law on the sea turtles. The Court ruled in our favor, and annulled the law.
The ruling itself does not end the threat to green sea turtles. It may however, provide some breathing room for conservationists to concentrate on stopping illegal poaching. Hopefully, they will succeed.
Related projects
Contamination and COVID-19: Why didn't air quality Improve in the Valley of Mexico?
Measures adopted to deal with the global health pandemic caused by COVID-19 have led to a reduction in some atmospheric pollutants, which has considerably improved air quality in various cities around the world. Yet in the metropolitan area of the Valley of Mexico (MCMA)—which includes Mexico City and surrounding towns—air quality has not improved despite the suspension of activities associated with sources of pollution like traffic and industry. Months before the health emergency was declared in late March 2020, the air quality reported by the Valley’s Atmospheric Monitoring System was in the range of "regular" to "bad," due primarily to vehicle congestion. With restrictions on mobility established due to the pandemic, vehicle traffic decreased by up to 70% and, with it, so did some of the air pollution. According to official information, distancing measures caused a reduction in carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides—of 58 and 32 percent, respectively. However, tropospheric ozone (O3), one of the most damaging pollutants to air quality and human health, did not decrease significantly (only 3 or 4 percent, according to official data). That’s why, in May, two months after measures were adopted to address the health crisis, air quality in the Valley of Mexico remained at the same parameters as the beginning of the year—that is, ranging from "regular" to "bad," according to the Atmospheric Monitoring System. The question that arises, then, is WHY? What causes air pollution? Various gases and compounds contaminate the air. Primary pollutants—like carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)—are directly discharged into the atmosphere. Secondary pollutants, like tropospheric ozone (O3), form in the atmosphere as a result of the chemical transformation of those primary pollutants. Tropospheric ozone is formed from the interaction of sunlight with "precursor gases," including volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides. Now, there are three factors that actually affect air quality: weather conditions, topography, and concentrations of one or more pollutants at levels that can harm the environment and human health. These concentrations are measured by official monitoring systems, like the MCMA Atmospheric Monitoring System. The World Health Organization establishes concentration levels of pollutants that should not be exceeded over a specific period. For tropospheric ozone, the recommended value is 50 parts per billion (ppb) over an eight-hour average. But Mexican regulations are more lax and establish a lower limit for this compound: a concentration less than or equal to 95 ppb on an hourly average (that is, in a 60-minute time interval). In addition, to activate an environmental contingency for ozone, concentrations must be greater than 154 ppb (hourly average). This standard implies less protection for the population's health. At the beginning of this year, the hourly ozone concentration in the Valley of Mexico averaged only 23 ppb, but it has risen since then. Despite the restrictions resulting from the health crisis, the average hourly concentration of ozone was 41 ppb in April and 45 ppb in May. Also, from January to May, 99 days were recorded in which ozone concentrations exceeded the 95 ppb limit. Why did concentrations of ozone increase? The restriction on mobility during the health contingency was not adequate to decrease concentrations of ozone in the atmosphere for two reasons: first, the sources of this compound are not limited to the use of vehicles; and second, the period of social isolation coincided with the so-called ozone season, a time of the year when the concentrations rise due to the increase of solar radiation and the decrease of rain and wind. As previously mentioned, tropospheric ozone is formed by the interaction of sunlight with precursor gases. Among these gases are nitrogen oxides—mainly generated by the combustion processes of automobiles, especially diesel engines—and volatile organic compounds, which arise from more diverse sources: the use of solvents, leaks of liquefied petroleum gas in heaters and stoves, cosmetic and cleaning products, and evaporated fuel in gas stations and automobiles without evaporative emissions control. According to official data, during social isolation, volatile organic compounds were only reduced by 15 percent, including all their emission sources. On the other hand are forest fires, a major source of ozone precursor gases. From January 1 to May 3 of this year, in Mexico City alone there were 644 forest fires— lower in number compared to the same period in 2019, but equally as intense. As for the ozone season, which begins the last week of February and ends with the first rains in June, the average temperature in the Valley of Mexico was higher this year. In April, it was 2°C higher than the average recorded in the same month between 1981 and 2010—the hottest April in recorded history. Because the temperature is directly related to solar radiation and lack of wind, its increase explains the higher ozone concentrations. The sum of these factors contributed to the fact that ozone concentrations actually increased despite the restrictions established by the pandemic. This, in turn, led to the residents of the Valley of Mexico continuing to experience poor air quality and suffering its negative health impacts. Why reducing ozone is good for public health and the climate Ozone not only affects air quality and thus public health. It also has the ability to absorb sunlight and heat the atmosphere, meaning it is a short-lived climate pollutant (SLCP). Because its emissions aggravate the climate crisis, more than 11,000 scientists from around the world have highlighted the need to reduce SLCPs in order to rapidly combat global warming. The intensity of the forest fires and the particularly high temperatures of this year's “ozone season” demonstrate the effects of the climate crisis that we are failing to adequately confront. That’s why it’s imperative that the government implement actions to reduce emissions of precursors gases—not only during the health emergency, but also when we get through it, when motorized transportation (a source of nitrogen oxides) is reactivated. Improved controls on the type of cars on the road, based on their polluting potential, and personal choices like biking, also recommended to reduce the risks of contagion, would help to achieve this objective, reduce global warming, and improve the health of those living in the Valley of Mexico. In addition, society must commit to measures of regulation, communication and education that curb consumer habits and improve on the production and distribution of goods and services that continue to emit volatile organic compounds (another ozone precursor) on a daily basis. Restricting the production and use of aerosol products, as well as repairing and preventing leaks of liquefied petroleum gas, would help to reduce these emissions. Finally, it’s necessary to strengthen the country's weak environmental policy and combat non-compliance with environmental health standards, which has resulted in an insufficient reduction in air pollution. Mexican air quality standards must be updated to set stricter limits that are compatible with international standards and the protection of the human right to health. The above are just some examples of actions that authorities and society can take to show that we have learned a lesson and will do what is necessary to improve air quality and face possible new health crises, as well as to combat the climate crisis that threatens to end the world as we know it today.
Read more
Protecting environmental defenders, a State duty that mustn’t be deferred
Every day men and women around the world dedicate their lives to protecting the ecosystems upon which entire communities and other living things depend. This work, essential for the protection of our planet, is carried out in legal, social, and political spheres. Unfortunately, those who defend the environment are victims of threats and assassinations. For many years now, Latin America has been the most dangerous region in the world to be an environmental defender, accounting for nearly 60 percent of these crimes. This, despite the fact that national and regional governments recognize human rights like free speech and a healthy environment, as well as the rights of nature. In 2019, Global Witness reported on the murder of 164 environmental defenders, many from Latin American nations—Colombia (24); Brazil (20); Guatemala (16) and Mexico (14). The report explained, “mining was the worst sector, causing 43 deaths, though deaths related to conflicts over water sources also surged. Attacks driven by agribusiness, logging and hydropower continued too.” In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the grave risk facing environmental defenders has not ceased. Despite social distancing and other measures adopted to slow the spread of the virus, violence aimed at defenders has continued. It is important to consider that the pandemic strains the networks of protections that exist to respond to emergencies, putting environmental defenders at increased risk. This, combined with the lack of will or ability for institutions to respond to any problems other than the current health crisis, makes for a complicated security situation. In effect, States must respect and guarantee human rights at all times. These are obligations that cannot be deferred, even in emergency situations, and must be emphasized and strengthened for those at risk, like environmental defenders. stATE’s Role as Protector The work of environmental defenders has been recognized within the international system of human rights as essential, in a democratic society, for strengthening the respect and enjoyment of other rights. The reality of the dangers with which these defenders live has been accompanied by a judicial evolution, as evidenced by international legal instruments such as the Escazu Agreement, which for the first time included environmental defenders as people subject to special protection. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights said that this type of protection is especially necessary due to the threats and intimidation defenders face. States have the obligation to: Avoid violating human rights and prevent others from doing so, something that applies to all people. Ensure a safe and conducive environment for environmental defenders to freely carry out their work, and therefore take special action to protect them when they are threatened; refrain from imposing obstacles that hinder the performance of their work; and seriously and effectively investigate violations committed against them. Ensure compliance with procedural rights in environmental matters, i.e. the right to information, public participation and access to justice. Refrain from acting in any way that encourages, stimulates, favors or deepens the vulnerability of these persons; and take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or protect the rights of those who are in such a situation. This is relevant in the face of the increasing criminalization of human rights defenders by governments, who accuse them of "going against development" in a discourse that has wide reach. Conduct a prompt, serious, impartial and effective investigation into cases of violent death. Always include the perspective of women, since women defenders are exposed to higher levels of violence due to the context of pre-existing inequality. Finally, it’s important to highlight the need for all measures taken by States to clearly respect human rights and, at the same time, assure the life and integrity of environmental defenders as an indispensable element for climate justice and environmental democracy.
Read more
Expert report: proposed gold mine in Brazilian Amazon presents unacceptable risk
Altamira, Brazil. An expert study released today reveals serious deficiencies in the environmental impact assessment submitted to Brazilian authorities by Canadian mining company Belo Sun. The analysis exposes an unacceptable degree of risk that the tailings dam at the proposed Volta Grande gold mine will fail, contaminating the Xingu River and harming nearby indigenous and other communities. The report’s author, Dr. Steven Emerman, explains that despite the presence of geological faults at the mine site, the company has not produced any seismicity studies. Nor has the dam been designed with seismic safety in mind, in violation of Brazilian tailings dam regulations. Dr. Emerman also raises concern about the company’s use of its tailings reservoir to capture water. Industry best practice is to prevent the flow of surface runoff into tailings ponds in order to minimize the risk of dam failure. Moreover, the report reveals that Belo Sun has provided contradictory information regarding its tailings storage plan to investors and Brazilian regulatory authorities. Dr. Emerman recommends that the project’s licence be revoked. Brazilian courts suspended Belo Sun’s installation licence in 2017 because the company failed to study the project’s impact on indigenous and other traditional communities, or to consult these populations. Belo Sun has been criticized for publishing misleading statements to bolster sagging interest in the project among potential investors, amidst growing evidence of social, environmental, financial and reputational risks. Last week local movements Rede Xingu+ and Xingo Vivo para Sempre submitted Dr. Emerman’s report to government agencies responsible for project licensing. These organizations demand that additional studies be undertaken, which they argue are “indispensable to assess the social and environmental viability of Belo Sun’s mining project considering the grave risk to indigenous and other river-dwelling communities located next to the project and its tailings dam.” FAILURES, INSECURITY AND CONFLICTING INFORMATION From conflicting information to the absence of seismic safety criteria, Dr. Emerman's opinion highlights eight main points that support the recommendation to reject the Volta Grande project: The tailings dam was not designed under any seismic safety criteria, violating Brazilian regulations in this regard. Any tailings dam should be designed to withstand events such as floods and earthquakes. Contrary to the Brazilian standard, the company did not include in its studies an analysis of local seismicity nor did it simulate the response of the structure to a hypothetical seismic acceleration. Although geological faults have been mapped at the tailings dam site, no local seismicity studies have been done, which also violates Brazilian tailings dam regulations. Seismic activity is responsible for causing the dissolution of saturated debris into water, one of the most common causes of tailings dam failures. In Brazil, in 2019 alone, there were three dam failures, including the rupture of the Vale dam in Brumadinho (Minas Gerais), which caused at least 250 deaths. Cases like these demonstrate the need for and importance of local seismicity studies and are indispensable for the proper assessment of the risk of failure of a tailings dam. No risk analysis has been made of the geological faults mapped in the vicinity of the project site. Three of these faults, which are structures present in rocks and which can promote seismic movements, intersect at the exact site of the proposed tailings dam. The official simulation of the rupture assumes, without justification, that the flow of the waste would be interrupted when it reaches the Xingu River, ignoring the capacity of the toxic elements to travel tens of kilometers along the Volta Grande. The conclusions of the EIA also support the hypothesis that the tailings flow would take 97 minutes to reach the Xingu, but without mentioning the details of the calculation used. According to the modelling presented in the opinion, considering the volume of tailings stored on the order of 35 million cubic metres and assuming a spill of approximately 25%, under a conservative scenario the flood would cover an initial distance of up to 41 kilometres along the river. At a speed of 20 km/h, the flooding of Belo Sun's dam would reach the Xingu in only seven minutes, covering the distance of 41 km in only two hours, reaching the Volta Grande Indigenous Land. After the rupture of the Vale Dam in Brumadinho, the tailings flow reached 120 km/hr, 100 km/hr more than the more conservative scenario proposed in the report. In the worst case, with the release of 100% of the stored tailings, the initial flow would cover 98 kilometers along the Xingu River and could reach the Amazon River and the Atlantic Ocean. There is a high risk of toxic water spillage into the Xingu. The project provides for the recycling of cyanide leachate, a substance used to separate gold, which can result in waste water that is highly enriched with toxic elements such as arsenic and mercury. The result, whose analysis is absent from official documents, could be the spillage of a waste-water mixture that is highly toxic to aquatic organisms into the Xingu River in the event of a dam failure or spill. There is no plan in the EIA to close the mine or tailings dam, a key issue for the social and environmental viability of the mining project. The document contains a promise by the business group to find out, after the event, how to permanently stabilize the tailings dam. The waste storage system adopted at the time is not viable and runs counter to good mining practice. Part of the solution to reduce the probability of tailings dam failure is to reduce the water content in the tailings tank. But the Belo Sun project envisages that all the waste will be saturated and under seven metres of free water, above the surface of the solid waste. Aware of the issue raised in the previous point, the company seems to have decided that the current plan to flood the waste is not feasible. The Chief Executive Officer of Belo Sun Mining stated o MiningWatch Canada that he would abandon the current plan for a filtered tailings storage facility, which should have a significantly lower water content. However, the company provided conflicting information to Brazilian organizations and regulatory authorities: in a presentation to FUNAI in October 2019, the company described the same wet waste storage plan as the EIA. "The provision of contradictory information to different audiences by Belo Sun Mining and its Brazilian subsidiary is very serious in terms of the reliability of the information provided in the administrative processes," the opinion reiterates. Rede Xingu+ is an articulation of indigenous, riverine and partner organizations that work in the Xingu River basin. Movimento Xingu Vivo para Sempre is a collective formed in 2008 by local, national and international civil society organizations; threatened indigenous and non-indigenous communities; and social, human rights and environmental movements that oppose the construction of hydroelectric dams on the Xingu River and that fight in defence of the rights of local people. Contacts Dr. Steven Emerman, Malach Consulting, +1-801-921-1228 (Utah, USA) Brent Milikan, Amazon Program Director, International Rivers, +55-61-98153-7009 (Brasilia, Brazil). Mr. Milikan can connect journalists to representatives of Rede Xingu+ and Movimento Xingu Vivo para Sempre. Karyn Keenan, Director, Above Ground, +1-613-791-7532 (Ottawa, Canada)
Read more