Blog
10 environmental successes from Latin America in 2018
This year was characterized by triumphs such as the creation of legal protections and the establishment of policies favorable to the environment and human rights in the region. Rarely in a single year do we see so many precedent-setting institutional advances. What follows are 10 stories we applaud from 2018: 1. For the first time, the Inter-American Court recognized a healthy environment as “fundamental” In its first time speaking on the subject, the Court concluded that a healthy environment is an autonomous right, “fundamental to the existence of humanity.” The relationship between the environment and human rights may sound obvious, but until February of this year, when the Court’s opinion was made public, there were no precedents of this magnitude recognizing the link. The opinion responds to a query made by Colombia. In it, the Court also recognizes that climate change impacts the enjoyment of human rights, especially among the most vulnerable populations. The OC-23, as it is known, established a historic precedent for the protection of human rights in the Americas and will be an important tool for environmental justice in the region. Learn more 2. Nations adopt the first regional treaty on environmental issues Over the course of the year, 16 nations have signed the Escazú Agreement. Not only is it the first treaty on environmental issues in Latin America and the Caribbean, it is also the first in the world to include provisions on human rights defenders in environmental matters. Its main objective is to guarantee the rights of access to environmental information, public participation in environmental decision-making processes, and justice in environmental matters. Learn more 3. Parrotfish receive special protection in Mexico Schools of colorful parrotfish feed on the macro algae that compete with coral for light and oxygen, helping to improve coral health. But overfishing and other factors have caused parrotfish populations to decline, placing corals at greater risk. In an effort to protect this key ally of the reefs, 10 species of parrotfish are in the process of being included in the Mexican government’s list of protected fauna. Learn more 4. Indigenous peoples recognized in climate finance Following years of work by indigenous peoples around the world, the Green Climate Fund approved an Indigenous Peoples Policy with the objective of protecting, recognizing, respecting and promoting their rights within the financing of climate projects. The decision was received with hope in a world that requires immediate actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change. This sort of policy helps to prevent climate finance from violating the rights of the most affected populations. Learn more 5. A regional plan to protect jaguars Conservation organizations teamed with 14 nations to launch Plan Jaguar 2030 with the intention of protecting corridors, or natural routes, linking populations of the largest carnivore in Latin America without natural predators. Jaguar populations extend through 18 countries, but are rapidly diminishing due to poaching, habitat fragmentation, and conflict with human activities. In El Salvador and Uruguay, they have been declared extinct. The plan provides hope for jaguar protection across borders. Learn more 6. Colombia says no to fracking pilot tests The Colombian Environmental Licensing Authority (ANLA, for its initials in Spanish) denied permission for ConocoPhillips to carry out the first hydraulic fracturing pilot tests for the extraction of hydrocarbons in San Martin and Aguachica, in the department of Cesar. ANLA argued that the information presented by the corporation was “insufficient” to understand the management and availability of water, and also questioned its environmental evaluation and contingency plan. For now, the initiative is archived. Continuing to bet on fossil fuels moves nations further away their climate goals; it is important to commit to a clean energy transition. Learn more 7. A region fight against fracking reaches the Inter-American Commission Organizations and communities from across the region ed forces to bring before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights cases of human rights violations and threats to the environment caused by fracking. After various local struggles, this was the first time that the damages documented in nations across the Americas were presented before a regional organization. The Commissioners responded with great interest to the testimonies presented. Regarding this issue, the new government of Mexico said there will be no more fracking in the nation. Learn more 8. A treaty to protect two-thirds of the ocean Following a decade of discussions, negotiations began at the United Nations for a legally binding treaty to protect biodiversity on the high seas, those marine areas outside of national jurisdictions. Negotiations will take place until 2020. Although the high seas represent 64 percent of the total surface area of the ocean, and the ocean absorbs 90 percent of the heat caused by global warming, no overarching treaty exists to protect this ecosystem, only fragmented regulations. Learn more 9. Chile closes the Pascua Lama mine In October Chilean authorities confirmed the definitive closure of Pascua Lama, a gold mining project on the border of Chile and Argentina. Barrick Gold, the company in charge of the project, was fined for 33 violations of Chilean environment regulations. Pascua Lama caused great damage to native plants and animals. Indigenous peoples of the region—who had documented the contamination of a river and impacts on glaciers, an important water source—celebrated the decision. Activists are now seeking to stop the project on the Argentina side of the border. Learn more 10. Argentina’s creation of National Parks breaks record Just before the end of the year, Argentina announced the creation of two marine protected areas: Yanganes, south of Tierra del Fuego, and Namuncurá-Burdwood Bank II, in the south Atlantic. Both are important sites for the breeding and spawning of fish with high commercial value. With this pair, the country added six natural areas declared as national parks in 2018 alone, a truly historic effort. The other parks include: Traslasierra, Aconquija, Ciervo de los Pantanos and Iguerá. Argentina has proposed the protection of 10 percent of its seas by 2020. Learn more
Read more
Why we’re working for climate justice in Latin America
“The world has many problems, but to me none seem as ubiquitous or as dangerous as climate change,” says AIDA attorney Florencia Ortúzar. “It really is the great challenge of our generation.” At AIDA we understand the magnitude of the problem. That’s why we incorporate climate justice as a key concept in all our lines of work. It’s why we advocate for sustainable development that respects the environment and the rights of vulnerable communities and, at the same time, why we work to stop climate-aggravating activities. “What motivates me to fight climate change is my awareness of the huge problem we’re facing, and my steadfast determination—I know we can’t give up,” Florencia says. She shares that motivation with AIDA’s entire team of attorneys, scientists, communicators, fundraisers and s. When she was a child, Florencia received a very special gift from her father: a badge that said “world saver.” That very day, on a beach in her native Chile, Florencia hooked the badge to her clothes and began picking up trash, cleaning the beach. That small gift jumpstarted her life’s mission. Florencia went on to study law, with the goal of working for the protection of forests, rivers, animals, and all the elements of the natural world. “Luck was with me when I found AIDA, the organization that has trained me and has enabled me to make my contribution to a better world,” she says. Florencia is part of AIDA’s Climate Change program. Our objective is to help Latin America—one of the regions most vulnerable to the climate crisis—be a leader in the type of changes required on a global level to avoid catastrophe. In partnership with allied organizations and hand-in-hand with communities, we work to stop the blind advance of fracking and large dams, mega-projects which imply significant emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas 34 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. We also work to raise awareness and educate public policy makers on the importance of controlling short-lived climate pollutants. We seek to protect terrestrial and marine ecosystems that capture carbon emissions—such as coral reefs, mangroves, wetlands and páramos—which, in turn, helps to mitigate climate change. We monitor international climate negotiations, advocate for Latin American nations to have the necessary economic resources to deal with climate change, and work to ensure that climate finance respects human rights. “Although many of the effects of climate change are inevitable, and may already be occurring, the efforts we make to stop the problem and to adapt to it will help future generations, who had nothing to do with causing the problem,” Florencia explains. She shares her message wherever she goes, encouraging others to the fight. “I refuse to be part of the last generation to enjoy the natural wonders of our planet.”
Read more
Leydy Pech, the guardian of the bees
“They’re part of my very being,” Leydy Araceli Pech Martin says of her bees. She feeds them pumpkin candy, and she identifies with them. Seeing how they organize and work together to produce honey reaffirms her confidence in collective action. In her native town of Ich Eq, a name that in Maya means “Star Eye,” families live in the same way: united and ing each other. Of all the objectives that Leydy shares with her community, perhaps the most vital is the defense of their territory and traditional ways of life—threatened now by growing deforestation and the toxic contamination of industrial agriculture. The expansion of soy cultivation in Leydy’s town—located in the municipality of Hopelchén, in the Mexican State of Campeche—is killing large areas of tropical forest and indiscriminately spreading toxic pesticides through the land and water. It is harmful to both human health and the natural environment, particularly those ecosystems that depend on bees and, thus, beekeepers. Knocking down obstacles With a sweet look and a soft voice, Leydy is an agile woman. She does many things in a day, dividing her time between beekeeping, housework, caring for her mother and uncle, and keeping an eye on her son Diego Alberto, 17. She also manages the shop of Koolel-Kab (“women who work with bees”), an organization she founded with other women from Hopelchén in 1995. Together they breed and work for the preservation of melipona beecheii, a wild bee species that has been domesticated by the Maya people for hundred of years. Using what the bees produce, the women make and sell honeys, soaps and creams in the organization’s store. For Leydy, dedicating herself to beekeeping, a trade she learned from grandfather, which in the area is done mostly by men, has not been easy. She’s had to break down barriers. “We live in a world where only men have been able to speak and make decisions,” Leydy explained. “I’ve broken with that and they’ve questioned me.” At the beginning, the community underestimated the women’s potential. “They told us we wouldn’t achieve anything,” she said. “But little by little we demonstrated our abilities. The men saw the results of our work and publically recognized that the organization is an example of struggle, and success.” The women of Koolel-Kab work for the recognition of and respect for indigenous rights in the region. Leydy says their struggle began when they realized that other people were making decisions about the territory and natural resources of their town, about job opportunities and quality of life for their youngest . Mennonites and industrial agribusiness have been cultivating genetically modified soybeans in Hopelchén, leading to mass deforestation and public health risks. The Mexican government authorized the cultivation without consulting affected communities. Although Mexico’s Supreme Court has recognized this human rights violation, the illegal planting of GMO soy has not stopped and the sowing of traditional soy has expanded. In addition, the aerial fumigation of crops is causing a harmful mixture of chemicals to reach houses, water sources, and the flowers the bees rely on. “I cannot sit idly by when I know what is happening,” explained Leydy, with the firmness that characterizes her. “It has become my responsibility. Not doing anything would be like betraying my own identity.” Leydy is motivated by the search for justice. Her organization of Maya women is part of the Collective of Maya Communities of los Chenes, which has presented national and international legal actions to stop the damages of agroindustry. AIDA, together with partner organizations, s their efforts and has taken the case, on behalf of the communities, before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The strength of unity Leydy is convinced that the strength of the Collective is its unity. Those in the Collective work for the needs of their own communities, but are also in the process of seeing themselves as one—something that applies not only to the people of Campeche, but also to those of the nearby States of Yucatan and Quintana Roo. “The Maya people are many, and everything that we’ve achieved is not for only one person, it is for all.” Leydy shares her leadership and her natural ability for teamwork. Her son, Diego Alberto, is part of that effort. “He’s happy, he understands a lot about bees and has his own projects,” she says. Like Diego Albert, other young of Leydy’s family are choosing to dedicate themselves to beekeeping. “That tells me I’m doing something right,” she says, proudly.
Read more
The first time fracking was discussed before the Inter-American Commission
We heard the news at an exceptional moment. The Latin American Alliance on Fracking had organized a conference; activists, lawyers, NGOs, community organizers, and scientists from seven Latin American countries were meeting face to face in Colombia to work against hydraulic fracturing in the region. It was there we learned that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights had accepted our request for a hearing. We erupted in collective joy! Not only would we have a new audience, but also fracking would be discussed for the first time before the Commission. Immediately, we channeled our excitement into hard work. We had just 20 days to prepare a 20-minute case that would summarize every negative impact fracking has had in the Americas. We worked day and night to prepare our case for the October 3 hearing in Boulder, Colorado. It was so little time that Gabriel Cherqui, spokesperson for Mapuche communities affected by the Vaca Muerta mega-project in Neuquén, Argentina, couldn’t obtain a visa in time to travel to the United States. Years of work, converted into minutes Perhaps the most difficult aspect of preparing our case was summarizing thousands of documents and stories into such a short amount of time. It had taken years to systematize our specialized research on fracking in the region and to have our case before the Commission—requested with more than 120 ing signatures—accepted. Another challenge was to demonstrate the solid connection between fracking and human rights violations, an argument we knew the Commission would be interested in addressing, given the scale and complexity of the problem. So we developed a strategy: Roberto Ochandio, a geographer and former petroleum engineer, presented the technical details necessary to understand how fracking works; AIDA attorney Liliana Ávila explained how the technique has violated the rights to a healthy environment, to life, health, and the informed consent of the affected communities; Alejandra Jiménez from the Mexican Alliance Against Fracking presented case studies from Mexico, where communities’ access to water had been compromised by fracking operations; Santiago Cané, from Argentina’s Environmental and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), exposed the pollution, direct harms, lack of consultation with, and persecution of the communities of Neuquén; and Doris Estela Gutiérrez, president of the Corporation for the Defense of Water, Territory, and Ecosystems (CORDATEC), spoke about the promotion of public consultations in Colombia, as well as the criminalization of and threats to environmental defenders in the country. We emphasized that betting on hydrocarbons and promoting fracking undermines the fight against climate change, since fracking emits methane and other greenhouse gases that accelerate global warming. It was a challenge, to be sure. But we wanted to ensure everyone’s voice was heard. To listen, and learn: a window of hope Based on the response of the Commissioners, it was clear that our case had opened a window of hope. The multifaceted character of fracking—including aspects of development, pollution, climate change and human rights—had captured their interest. Not only was this the first time that fracking had been discussed before of the Commission, it’s worth noting that five speakers had summarized the concerns of more than 120 petitioners, all of whom shared one common cause. What came next was a dialogue in which we responded to the Commissioners’ questions about the technique, their concerns about development in the region, water quality, harms to public health, and concerns about fracking moving nations further away from their climate goals. We requested that the Commission urge States to: adopt measures to avoid human rights violations caused by fracking; generate public, truthful and impartial information based on scientific evidence; and protect human rights protections in cases where the technique is advancing blindly. Going forward, we asked that the Commission follow up on the issue, particularly on the negative impacts fracking has on economic, social and cultural rights; on the lives of women, children and adolescents; and on the lives and territories of indigenous peoples. We requested that the Commission follow up on the attacks against human rights defenders and seek protective measures for those at risk. Of course, questions remain, and at the Alliance we’ve identified many more concerns for the region. But this moment has strengthened us. The hearing set regional precedents and made use of the arguments of Advisory Opinion 23, which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued on human rights and the environment. It is clear that this moment was a small, but vital, step forward, and that there are ears willing to listen. For our part, we will continue doing everything in our power—making use of all available international legal tools—to protect the communities of the Americas that are and could be affected by fracking.
Read more
What motivates us to preserve our freshwater sources?
The professionals of AIDA’s freshwater program defend one of Earth’s most precious resources—water. The earth provides us with water in many ways, and the ways those water sources are threatened are just as widespread—but chief among them are extractive activities like mining and fracking. At AIDA, we understand the risks and we won’t let our guard down. Learn more about what motivates us to care for our greatest life source! “WITHOUT WATER, THERE IS NO FUTURE.” Carlos Lozano Acosta, Senior Attorney “Water is a life force not just in nature, but in our societies as well. It is a distinct characteristic of our experience on the planet. Cultures, economies and ecosystems depend on water and, for that reason, there is no future for us on this planet without it.” As a child, Carlos and his family used go for hikes near his father’s farm, on the outskirts of a páramo—a unique high altitude wetland that captures moisture from the fog and sends water to lower elevations via streams. Since those early days, Carlos has understood that páramos are vital to the water supply in his native Colombia. “I GREW UP WITH THE IDEA THAT CLEAN WATER IS A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE.” Claudia Velarde, Legal Advisor “What motivates me to care for our water sources is life itself. Clean water is an indispensable resource, a common good and a basic human right; the reproduction of our life systems is not possible without it. I grew up with the idea that clean water is a right, not a privilege.” Claudia was born in Cochabamba, Bolivia, a city whose name in the indigenous Quechua language means “the plain of lakes.” Despite its name, the city has suffered from decades of drought and water scarcity. Cochabamba is infamous for the Water War of 2000, during which residents flooded the streets to defend their water from privatization. Claudia grew up in that context and, like many women from Cochabamba, she has a strong connection to water and its inherent value. “MY STRONGEST MOTIVATION IS AN AWARENESS THAT THE HEALTH OF EARTH’S ECOSYSTEMS DEPENDS ON FUNCTIONING WATER FLOWS.” Andres Angel, Scientific Advisor “My strongest motivation is an awareness that the health of Earth’s ecosystems depends in large part on functioning surface and subterranean water flows. Understanding that our economic activities have the potential to irreversibly disrupt those flows is to realize the urgent need to protect the sources and quality of water throughout the Americas.” It wasn’t easy for Andres to study geology, a career that often promotes extractivism. His principal motivation was to understand the conflicts and socio-ecological dangers caused by mining and fossil fuel exploitation in his country, Colombia. Understanding those impacts to be perpetual, Andres decided to devote his professional life to questioning the development model and providing alternatives. “TO PROTECT WATER IS TO DEFEND THE SOURCE AND MEANING OF LIFE.” Juana Hofman, Legal Coordinator for the Network for Environmental Justice in Colombia “Life is what motivates me. To protect freshwater ecosystems and the people that depend on them is to defend the source and meaning of life. I’m motivated by a deep respect for ecosystems, because I feel a part of them, and they need protection. I’m motivated by the frailejones, ancient plants that serve as water factories, and by the mountains, vast landscapes that have sheltered me since my birth. It is their strength and beauty that allow us to truly live.” Juana was born in a small town in the mountains of Colombia. When she was a child, her father taught her of the greatness of the oak trees, which for Juana came to signify strength and wisdom. Ever since, her life has been deeply linked to the mountains, rivers, and páramos of Colombia.
Read more
The IPCC climate report: science has spoken and we must act now
The international scientific community has spoken: the only thing that can save us from a climate catastrophe is a radical and immediate change. The next 11 years are the most important in the history of the planet, in of climate change. Our response to their message will determine our future. In its most recent analysis, the Intergovernmental on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations establishes the impacts that could occur if the planet’s average temperature increases by more than 2°C, and compares those with what would happen if we stop warming, or at least keep it below 1.5°C. The 2016 Paris Agreement, an international accord to curb climate change, aims to keep warming well below 2°C with respect to pre-industrial levels, and to continue global efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. The impacts of global warming The IPCC experts’ conclusions are piercing. Those extra 0.5°C would be lethal for millions of people and their ways of life. If the Earth warms 2°C or more, we would experience: more frequent and intense heat waves, droughts and floods; sea level rise of an extra 10 centimeters, implying coastal flooding and filtration of salt water into agricultural areas and freshwater sources—a matter of life and death for roughly 10 million people; double the risk of habitat loss for plants and vertebrates, and triple the risk for insects, considering more than 100 thousand species which were studied; the disappearance of more than 99% of coral reefs, while 10 to 30 percent of what remains could be saved if we were to stabilize the planet’s temperature below 1.5°C; an increase in the range of mosquitoes that transmit diseases such as malaria and dengue; and the devastation of crops and livestock, severely affecting global food security. So, how are we doing now? Not so well. The planet has already warmed 1°C since preindustrial times, and in 2017 the emissions responsible for warming increased again. The commitments nations made to comply with the Paris Agreement are insufficient. Settling on that level of ambition would take us to 3°C warming by 2030, a reality with unimaginable consequences. Changing our climate destiny Let’s talk about solutions. Ensuring that the planet’s warming doesn’t exceed 1.5°C is possible, but it will require unprecedented action. Emissions must lower by 45 percent between 2010 and 2030, and we must achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. That means not emitting more than what the world’s forests and natural carbon sinks can absorb. This will require that: the most polluting industries, particularly those producing fossil fuels, implement radical changes; renewable energy is the norm by 2050, ing for between 70 and 85 percent of total energy production; coal-fired power plants disappear; transportation runs with clean, renewable electricity; and we expand, maintain, and care for forests and other natural carbon sinks, which are responsible for removing emissions from the atmosphere. The IPCC report also recognizes a monumental opportunity: the mitigation of short-lived climate pollutants (SLs)—including black carbon or soot, methane, hydrofluorocarbons and tropospheric ozone. More climatically intense than carbon dioxide, SLs are responsible for half of global warming. Because of their short duration in the atmosphere, they could play a key role in reducing warming in the short term. In addition, the reduction of SLs brings important benefits for human well-being, including the reduction of pollution that affects public health and better yield of crops. But few countries have included the reduction of short-lived climate pollutants in their national commitments on climate change. At AIDA we’re working so that Latin American nations advance in the control of these emissions. As the region with the greatest potential for renewable energies, Latin America has the opportunity to be an example for the rest of the planet. The threats facing the region are great and avoiding them is well worth the effort. Climate change threatens to shake us from our very roots—melting Andean glaciers, increasing droughts and floods, diminishing freshwater supplies, driving species to extinction, increasing wildfires, favoring the spread of invasive species, losing corals and marine biodiversity, affecting food security, and wreaking havoc on people’s health and livelihoods. The outlook is clear: maintaining global warming below 1.5°C is not an easy task, but science holds it’s possible. We have the scientific knowledge, and the technological and financial capacity to achieve this goal. The responsibility now lies with governments, decision-makers and the private sector—together they must drive unprecedented changes. We must that implementing these changes is not just possible, it’s desirable. A world with fewer emissions is a cleaner and a fairer world for us and for future generations. What’s not to like?
Read more
Say no to large dams: 3 reasons to opt for alternative energy sources
By Florencia Ortúzar and Monti Aguirre* Hydroelectric energy has been one of the largest drivers of development in many Latin American nations, and still represents a large portion of the region’s energy matrix. But is it really the best option? In response to a blog by the Inter-American Development Bank reflecting on the future of the hydroelectric sector in Latin America, we’d like to reflect on what it means to continue betting on large dams in Latin America. What follows are three reasons why we must say no to more large dams: 1. Better alternatives to hydroelectricity exist, and should be considered in project planning Before selecting an alternative energy source, governments and companies should develop a strategic plan that analyzes energy needs and the best way of achieving them. In this analysis, all options must be considered. It’s worrysome that this doesn’t already happen. For example, in the case of the Hidroituango dam—thought to be the largest in Colombia and associated with serious socio-environmental damages—the government decided to not conduct a prior evaluation of alternatives. Although the law did not require it at the time, the evaluation was recommended and is an international standard that large financial institutions should apply when investing in projects of this type. Today, other energy sources—like wind and solar—are proven to be economically competitive, can be constructed more quickly, and do not aggravate climate change. Innovations in smart grids, power storage and batteries also solve intermittency problems and make hydroelectric plants unnecessary. Geothermal, tidal, and wave energy are alternatives, the potential of which we have not even glimpsed. The promotion of large dams only delays adoption of the truly clean energy solutions that Latin America and the planet desperately need. According to the Bank’s own studies, Latin America has the largest quantity and most varied sources of renewable energy in the world. The region's renewable resources could provide almost seven times the installed capacity worldwide, excluding hydroelectric power. Therefore, although the region still holds great potential for untapped hydroelectric power, it’s necessary to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the situation, taking into the costs and benefits as compared to other energy options. Only then can governments decide whether it’s worth continuing to invest in hydropower, or whether it’s better to opt for other types of energy—thus avoiding the social, environmental and financial impacts that come with large dams. 2. Large dams cause socio-environmental damage and are not profitable It has been demonstrated repeatedly that the socio-environmental impacts of hydroelectric plants are greater than initially considered. In addition to forced displacement and the criminalization of those who oppose them, large dams flood land, reduce river flows, and change the ecosystems of downstream wetlands, destroying habitats and contributing to species extinction. All this impacts the lives of nearby communities, limiting their ability to adapt to climate change. In economic , a study by the University of Oxford concluded that “even before ing for the negative impacts on human society and environment, the actual construction costs of large dams are too high to yield a positive return.” In it, researchers show that the budgets and timeframes of large dam projects are consistently underestimated. Brazil’s Belo Monte Dam, for example, ran two times over its original budget, making it the most expensive public works project in the Amazon region. The budget of Chile’s Alto Maipo Dam has doubled four times over since the project was approved in 2009. Recognizing that the costs far outweigh the benefits, some countries have opted for dismantling large dams. And private companies have scrapped hydroelectric projects altogether because they are neither economically viable nor profitable. The United States government has adopted a policy to refuse any loan, donation, strategy or policy ing the construction of large dams. 3. Large dams contribute to climate change Climate change must be considered when discussing the relevance of hydroelectricity. Reservoirs generate significant quantities of greenhouse gases, particularly methane, which is 30 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. Likewise, the construction of dams endangers valuable carbon sinks like rivers and forests. For that reason, a proper analysis of carbon dioxide and methane emissions should be conducted before choosing a dam project—a process that usually doesn't occur. Another aspect to consider is the vulnerability of dams to climate variations. Extreme rainfall increases sedimentation, which can cause structural problems and reduce the dam's lifespan. Droughts, now increasingly frequent, can render dams inefficient. As more dams lose efficiency, Latin America—now highly dependent on hydroelectricity—will be more vulnerable to energy shortages. Even more serious is the threat posed by large dams in extreme weather events. In a dam gave way during bad weather, erasing entire villages. In Laos earlier this year, mass evacuations were ordered after heavy rains threatened a dam collapse. In Kerala, India, torrential rains, coupled with the mismanagement of several dams, have caused unprecedented flooding. In certain countries, the risk of dams overflowing or collapsing has already been recognized as a serious problem. Over time, more hydroelectric plants will begin to deteriorate and will require large investments to safeguard the communities living downstream. As civil society representatives working for a more just and sustainable Latin America, we urge financial institutions like the Inter-American Development Bank to the change we as a region need. We call on them to stop investing in large dams, which have been demonstrated time and again to be dangerous to the environment and local communities, costly for countries, and unsuited for our rapidly changing climate. It’s time for a better energy plan. And it’s time to invest in non-conventional renewable energy based on thorough, independent and high-quality social and environmental impact assessments, the planning and implementation of which respect human rights. * Monti Aguirre is the Latin America Program Coordinator for International Rivers.
Read more
We all deserve to breathe clean air
I was born and raised in Bogota, Colombia’s bustling capital city. When I was a child, I grew accustomed to the chaos of the streets—thousands of cars and buses spewing black smoke into the air, the endless honking of horns. It was normal to see massive smokestacks and smell bad odors. I thought all cities were that way, and that nature and clean air only existed in places far from home. I was used to having health problems: headaches, rashes, eye and throat irritation, coughs and hay fever. I never questioned why my sisters and I were constantly fighting these “environmental allergies.” Pollution even prevented me from enjoying the outdoors. I couldn’t easily walk or ride my bike, for example, because my lungs struggled from the soot emitted by ing trucks and buses. There were days I had to leave my house wearing a mask, and times when we were forbidden from playing outside due to the pollution. Air pollution: a silent killer As an adult, I realized that environmental allergies are not the norm. Often, they are caused by constantly breathing in black carbon, ozone, sulfur dioxide and other pollutants that cars, buses and factories emit into the atmosphere each day. I realized that air pollution is a serious threat to quality of life and to a person’s health, especially among the most vulnerable, like our children and the elderly. According to the World Health Organization, millions of people die each year from illnesses related to air pollution. In Latin America, it is the number one environmental health risk, and causes more than 150,000 premature deaths per year. Cities like Mexico City, Monterrey (Mexico), Cochabamba (Bolivia), Santiago de Chile, Lima (Peru), Medellin (Colombia), San Salvador (El Salvador) and Bogota have the highest levels of air pollution in the region. When cities are allowed to expand without regulation, population skyrockets—and with it, so do the number of cars and trucks and factories. I worry about the future of my family in that scenario. I don’t want the air we breathe to negatively impact our health. My husband, who is not from Bogota, moved there to be with me. One year later, he was diagnosed with asthma. When my daughter was just two months old, she had a respiratory infection that put her in intensive care for several days. The cause of both their illnesses: the city’s poor air quality. Stopping the contamination The majority of the world’s population lives in cities. And while we can’t expect our cities to be pristine, natural ecosystems, they should provide people with the minimal conditions they need to lead dignified, healthy lives. That’s why AIDA works to improve air quality in Latin America, advocating for the protection of our children and other populations highly vulnerable to atmospheric contamination. We are raising awareness among policy makers about the importance of regulating short-lived climate pollutants (SLs), which stay in the atmosphere for a relatively short period of time. Unlike carbon dioxide, which can stay in the atmosphere for centuries, SLs remain in the air from a few days to a few decades. SLs include soot (also known as black carbon) and methane gas. These contaminants are major contributors to climate change, degrade air quality and have serious impacts on food security and human health. Effectively reducing them could significantly improve air quality and advance the fight against climate change in the short-term. Through our experience in international law, we’re seeking ways to regulate these short-lived pollutants across Latin America. Because having clean air to breath is one of life’s basic needs. Clean air shouldn’t be a luxury.
Read more
Yearning for better times for Nicaragua
Leaving your country behind is an act of courage, especially when you don’t have much. My grandparents were courageous—they fled Nicaragua’s armed conflict in the 1970s, arriving in Costa Rica with nothing but three children in their arms and the hope for a better future. Costa Rica treated them well, and their grandchildren have been able to lead lives of privilege and opportunity. But my grandmother has always dreamed of returning to her country one day. And although I feel proudly Costa Rican, I have learned to love Nicaragua too, especially after getting to know it. Since April, Nicaragua has been in the midst of an armed conflict that has given rise to a large-scale humanitarian crisis. As the conflict continues, the number of people trying to flee Nicaragua has grown, as have requests for asylum in Costa Rica. As of August, more than 300 people had been killed since the conflict began. Unfortunately, the crisis doesn’t seem to be coming to an end anytime soon. Given the urgency of the situation, in May the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights created a Rapid and Integrated Response Coordination Unit with the mission of paying special attention to the human rights situation in Nicaragua. That month, of the Commission visited cities at the center of the conflict: Managua, Masaya, León and Matagalpa. The resulting report presents evidence of gross human rights violations that have occurred during the country’s social protests. Among those violated were the rights to life, physical integrity, health and medical treatment, freedom of expression and of the press, and freedom of movement. The Nicaraguan State is obligated to guarantee those rights under international law. Thanks to social media, it has been possible to stay informed of what’s been happening in Nicaragua, practically in real time. You can get constant information via Facebook or Twitter by searching the hashtag #SOSNicaragua. The Commission also regularly publishes information on Facebook and Twitter. If you’d like to do something for those affected by the conflict in Nicaragua, you can donate to the Nicaraguan Association for Human Rights or the non-profit organization SOS Human Rights Nicaragua from Costa Rica, which works to Nicaraguans here in Costa Rica. My grandmother never saw a Nicaragua free of human rights violations. She has always wanted to return to the land where she grew, where her parents were born and where one of her sisters still lives. I hope that everyone who has had to flee Nicaragua during this conflict will be able to return and see their country free, while also fully enjoying their human rights. Hopefully, through democracy, peace will return to that beautiful nation.
Read more
We have to talk about the bees
When I was three years old, I threw rocks at a hive until I was attacked by an enraged swarm of bees. It was one of my first memories and, despite the pain it caused me, I harbor no resentment toward bees, wasps, or bumblebees. It was my fault, my mother told me. They were just defending themselves. She taught me about their stingers, the queen bee, and the honey the produce. She told me how they feed on pollen and flower nectar, something a three-year-old can understand. With time, I learned that plants like coffee, apples, and cotton all rely on pollination by bees to reproduce. Twenty-five years ago, the bees didn’t seem to be in any danger — they were everywhere in my small town in the state of Veracruz, Mexico. Later, I moved to Mexico City, where people “reported” bees to the Civil Protection agency, and firefighters were called in to kill them. To prevent attacks, the city made life difficult for bees: in city parks, trees and flowers were sprayed with chemicals and pesticides, and water sources were dried up. That tactic has spread to agricultural fields around the world. Today, it is rare to see bees, bumblebees, or wasps flying around those spaces. The problem with pesticides The problem with bees became visible around 2006, when beekeepers and farmers in the United States reported losing 70 percent of their bee colonies during one winter season. Until that point, keepers would lose around 15 percent of their colonies during the coldest months. But the decline of bee populations wasn’t isolated that season. Various European nations also began reporting losses in the early 2000’s. According to a European Union report published in 2014, the region loses a third of its bee population every year. Unfortunately, little data exists for Latin America and efforts to monitor bee populations have only just begun. We know that beekeepers in Mexico have reported losses of between 30 and 80 percent of their colonies. Chile reportedly loses nearly half its colonies in the winter, a percentage that was previously between 15 and 20 percent. The Abejas Vivas (Living Bees) collective has recorded the disappearance of more than 10,000 hives in Colombia, and some regions of Argentina have reported the sudden death of nearly 90 percent of their hives. Why should we care? Seventy-five percent of our food production relies on pollinators—vertebrates and invertebrates alike—including bees. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) asked countries to adopt policies and food systems that are more favorable to pollinators. “We cannot continue focusing on growing our food production with processes based on the general use of pesticides and chemical products that threaten our crops and our pollinators,” said FAO Director José Graziano da Silvo. The sudden mass death of bees—known as Colony Collapse Disorder—is caused by a number of factors: an increasingly extreme and unstable global climate, the increased use of pesticides and fungicides, parasites like the varroa destructor (a mite that attacks bee hives), and the deterioration of ecosystems that bees rely on for food. Each of these factors creates stress for the bees. According to an article in Science, “exposure to chemicals and a lack of food can endanger bees’ immune systems, making them more susceptible to parasites.” Taking steps to protect bees In April, the European Union banned three neonicotinoide insecticides, which are commonly used for producing corn, cotton, and sunflowers. These pesticides are a risk to not just honeybees, but also to wild bees, other insects, and some larger animals. Of course the ban—a decision ed down by the European Food Safety Authority—has not made pesticide companies happy, but the European Union’s objective is critical: to guarantee food production in its member nations. In the United States, despite the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency has called for the protection of pollinators, the current government reversed the ban on certain insecticides in natural protected areas, a policy enacted by the previous istration. While scientists are working to better understand Colony Collapse Disorder, bees continue to die, putting our food security at greater risk. Many studies are focused on domesticated honeybees, whose columns are the easiest to count. But there exist around 20,000 species of pollinators—including wild bees, wasps, bumblebees, other insects, and vertebrates like birds and bats. There are few studies on the impacts of pesticides, changes in soil makeup, and climate variations on wild pollinating species, but these species are also likely to be at risk. Some plants depend exclusively on certain wild pollinators—plants like orchids, cacao (chocolate), coffee, and agave (tequila). That’s why we have to talk about the bees, and the other animals that help provide us with fruits, vegetables, and grains. Losing these species endangers the livelihoods of small-scale food producers, and a drop in food production would disproportionately affect society’s most vulnerable populations. What can we do? Twenty-five years ago, my mother planted flowers and told me that they would attract bees, which would ensure there would always be more flowers. Beyond the simple but meaningful act of sowing native flowers for local pollinators, we must demand that our food production systems respect the natural environment they depend on. And finally, it’s important to note that although bee deaths are caused by a number of different factors, human activity is the one thing they all have in common.
Read more